Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Truth about Oil
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | May 08, 2008 | Vasko Kohlmayer

Posted on 05/08/2008 6:31:14 AM PDT by K-oneTexas

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last
To: nuke rocketeer

Some residents of Fairbanks actually headed out into the bush rather than stay in town because they had a feeling the Japanese would be showing up very soon. Would have been next to impossible to defend Alaska had Japan not lost at Midway. That was the beginning of the end for them and they knew it and pulled out of Alaska.


101 posted on 05/08/2008 1:03:18 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's still unclear what impact global warming will have on vertical wind shear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

*


102 posted on 05/08/2008 1:19:00 PM PDT by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT
"incentives to crank up production"

That's like a snake eating it's tail. "Incentives" is another word for massive amounts of taxpayer money, being given to an industry to try and coax them into increasing their production beyond current market capacity that would only result in a surplus scenario, and thus drop the price that they are charging and thus shrink their profit margins. The "incentive" would have to be equal to their loss of revenue for it to be even close to palatable. So either I give it up at the pump or I give it up at the office. Either way it comes out of my pocket.

103 posted on 05/08/2008 1:19:25 PM PDT by rednesss (Fred Thompson - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68; All
And the other 30% think there’s an unending supply? We will run out of oil some day...but I’d prefer to keep exploring until we’ve found a viable alternative (not ethanol).

Although you may not like ethanol, in the name of energy independence, I'm keeping an eye on the following development in non-corn ethanol production.

Non-corn ethanol

104 posted on 05/08/2008 1:28:50 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Sorry, I did mean corn based ethanol as NOT being a good solution. Certainly, other makes would be preferable such as the one you referenced.


105 posted on 05/08/2008 1:36:13 PM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: rednesss
"Incentives" is another word for massive amounts of taxpayer money, being given to an industry to try and coax them into increasing their production....

Not necessarily - how about letting them keep some of THEIR money to allow for investment? What a concept!

106 posted on 05/08/2008 1:36:48 PM PDT by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Slapshot68

Thanks for clarification. :^)


107 posted on 05/08/2008 1:38:21 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

Washington D.C. has gotten very used to spending the $$$$Billions that they are making off of the oil companies. If that money stops coming in, you know they aren’t going to cut spending, so that extra money has to come from somewhere..... time for a tax increase to pick up the slack.


108 posted on 05/08/2008 1:52:22 PM PDT by rednesss (Fred Thompson - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

Not correct.

When production goes up, volume will go up. Tax income will go up.

That has been demonstrated over and over but the libs still don’t get it.

Not only will revenue from oil and gas increase, but revenue will increase from all industry that use oil, depend on transportation of their good, and personal spending.

Tourist industries will benefit. On and on.

By the way, a hotel man told me today that the east coast tourist industry is already hurting and expects much worse.

A major source of tax revenue for NC, SC and FL as well as national tax.


109 posted on 05/08/2008 3:13:05 PM PDT by woodbutcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

The Japanese were wiped out on Attu island in May 1943, almost a year after Midway. They had every intention of maintaining their occupation until the US forced them off or gave up trying. The battle of Kommandorski Islands in March 1943 forced the Japanese navy to give up surface re-supply and rely on subs, which could not do very much.

Then they abandoned Kiska Island 2 weeks before US forces invaded it. Their main intention in occupying both was to deny the US an invasion path to Japan by way of the Aleutians. Those residents who headed for the bush were those types who panic too quickly in any wartime situation. There were a lot of them in the lower 48 too in 1941 and early 1942. Any Japanese plans to invade the Alaskan mainland, if any, were long range and hypothetical. Even the Army fanatics were well aware they could not win a long war with the US and an invasion of the North American mainland was nowhere in their war planning.


110 posted on 05/08/2008 3:40:02 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

Still an energy loser.


111 posted on 05/08/2008 3:40:53 PM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer

The Japanese would have been fools to try to come up to Fairbanks with those three AA guns ready and waiting for them even at 60 below.


112 posted on 05/08/2008 4:05:31 PM PDT by RightWhale (It's still unclear what impact global warming will have on vertical wind shear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer; All
Still an energy loser.

I disagree that ethanol is an energy loser because of the following research.

Gas/ethanol mixture more economical

113 posted on 05/08/2008 4:06:41 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: woodbutcher

Exxon/Mobil et al aren’t taxed on how many gallons they sell. They are taxed like any other corporation on their profits. If the amount of their profits go down, so too does the amount of tax revenue collected from them.


114 posted on 05/08/2008 4:37:37 PM PDT by rednesss (Fred Thompson - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: rednesss
My last was written in haste and was possibly not as clear as I would like, so here goes again.

When you buy a gallon of gas for your car, you pay so much tax to the federal government and so much to the state.

Each company in the chain, the station, the wholesaler, the manufacturer and the drilling company makes a profit.

It has been proved over the years that lowering taxes on the corporations results in a great increase in business activity and therefore increased profits.

OK, now they are making profit on volume, not on scarcity, so you buy more gas because either it has gone down in price because of the larger supply or it remains the same price even though the general cost of living continues to climb due to inflation...so its real value is less.

Now because it is easier to pay for, you use more. You go to the beach, you go three states over to see aunt Jane, you ride around on Sunday taking the kids to see the mountains.

Guess what? The filling stations send more tax money to the feds and to the state.

So does the motel and the places you stop for refreshments.

OK, now the truckers can make a living without getting an arm and a leg to haul goods to the grocery store... so the store benefits, the trucker benefits, and they all pay taxes.

Think it through. That is what happened in the Reagan tax cuts, it is what happened in the Bush tax cuts and it will happen again if we cut taxes again.

So the government does realize increased revenue and does not have to have a general tax increase.

Especially, we need to take the restrictions off so the oil companies can drill wherever oil can be found, and the various restrictions that keep the refineries from building new plants.

I read somewhere that it takes 5 years of paperwork to get a new refinery approved even if the chosen community will allow it.

I would expect that the onerous government regulations are more burdensome to the oil industry than are the federal taxes, but reducing both would definitely increase the supply of fuel oil and gasoline.

115 posted on 05/08/2008 5:35:54 PM PDT by woodbutcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

ADM propaganda, ethanol production is still an energy loser. Lower BTU content, high energy inputs to produce the alchohol, and other studies indicate no emissions reductions.


116 posted on 05/09/2008 5:09:14 AM PDT by nuke rocketeer (File CONGRESS.SYS corrupted: Re-boot Washington D.C (Y/N)?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

bump


117 posted on 05/09/2008 7:11:25 AM PDT by gibsosa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuke rocketeer; All

Hard data is not propaganda.


118 posted on 05/09/2008 9:12:58 AM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson