Posted on 05/13/2008 2:09:52 PM PDT by kellynla
With gas prices topping four dollars a gallon in some regions of the country, now may not be the best time to say something positive about "big oil," but here goes anyway.
Where is it written that the cost for a product or service should be frozen in place and in time, never to rise again, or to rise at a pace commensurate with our incomes? People who think this way know little to nothing about supply and demand and less than nothing about the profit motive. That's because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.
Senate Democrats last week sought to ingratiate themselves with voters, while doing nothing to produce more energy, with a familiar attack on "big oil." They want to repeal $17 billion in tax breaks for the oil companies over 10 years and on top of that impose a windfall profit tax on companies that don't invest in new energy sources. This is political expediency at its worst.
Peter Robertson, vice chairman of Chevron, told me it's a myth that oil companies are not investing in new energy sources. He says last year alone, Chevron spent $20 billion exploring new sources of energy.
Robertson said President Bush's trip this week to Saudi Arabia is "highly embarrassing" because he is "calling on the Saudis to produce more oil when we are not doing it ourselves." The last refinery built in America was in 1976. Tighter government regulations are the main reason. That's how unserious we are about our energy "crisis."
Robertson said there would be plenty of oil available to the United States if the oil companies were allowed to get it: "Eighty-five percent of offshore oil is off-limits." Responding to objections to offshore drilling by environmentalists and their allies in Congress, Robertson noted that some of the strongest pro-environment nations in Europe - he mentions Denmark, Norway, the United Kingdom - lease offshore locations for oil exploration. The technology has become so good, he said, that during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, "one thousand offshore wells were destroyed (in the Gulf of Mexico), but not one leaked." Australia, he said, has allowed offshore drilling for 40 years without any environmental damage.
In addition to the sinking value of the dollar, here is the main problem: According to the Department of Energy, U.S. oil production has fallen approximately 40 percent since 1985, while the consumption of oil has grown by more than 30 percent.
According to government estimates, there is enough oil in areas accessible to America - 112 billion barrels - to power more than 60 million cars for 60 years. The Outer Continental Shelf alone contains an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Had President Clinton not vetoed exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in 1995, when oil was $19 a barrel, America would currently be receiving more than 1 million barrels a day domestically, all of it taken by better technology than existed more than 30 years ago. That was when the Alaskan pipeline was built despite protests from environmentalists who claimed it would destroy the caribou. It didn't, but the environmentalists are back with the same discredited arguments. Because most of the oil remains "off-limits," we are becoming more dependent on foreign oil.
No, we can't "drill our way out" of our addiction to oil, but we can make the transition to other energy sources easier while lessening our dependence on foreign oil and propping up dictators who use our money to subsidize terrorists. A slow transition will also give us time to consider more fuel-efficient cars and greater use of public transportation, even bicycles for short trips. Bikes would help more of us lose weight and get in shape. A friend bikes to work every day, saving gas, car payments, insurance and repair costs.
The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don't allow women to drive cars.
You summed it up quite nicely.
The first important event of the siege was the death of Sir Henry Lawrence. He died due to wounds received from an 8 inch shell on 4th July. Major Banks succeeded him as Chief Commissioner and Colonel Inglis of 32nd Foot assumed the military command.
However, Inglis became both civil as well as military commander after Major Banks was killed by a Musket shot on 21st July.
Another interesting aspect of the siege were the Sepoy sharpshooters most famous of whom was one African from Oudh's kings disbanded Army named by the Britishers as Bob the Nailer (because he used to put nails in his musket shots).
A special mine was dug by British to destroy the House which this marksman used as his post as a result of which he was killed on 21st August, Dr. Brydon the only survivor of the Kabul Brigade of First Afghan war to reach Jalalabad was also one of the Residency Garrison members 396!
Ping
The free market always fixes everything. In this case, government is artificially limiting supply by declaring most of the US off limits for drilling.
Relaxing those restrictions would certainly help. But even if they don’t, the free market will come up with alternative sources of energy. The government is screwing with that, too, with its mandates and subsidies.
They should just butt out. Industry will provide the energy if they’re not handcuffed.
And build more nukes.
You didn’t indicate which aspect of ethanol that you didn’t like. As my post indicated, putting out ethanol fires are a problem that needs to be tackled. But thank you for your opinion.
Halliburton moved it's headquarters to Dubai last year. The major oil companies have to do all their drilling over seas, and if new refineries don't start getting built, they will be doing all their refining over seas. Hillary wants to put a windfall profit tax on the oil companies. Both China and India are developing economies with a phenomenal up side. The US is not the only game on the planet any more. At some point in time, these evil old oil companies, who now have to do around $250,000 in environmental studies before breaking ground to open a gas station in California, may decide that they don't need their headquarters here and can sell all the oil they want in other countries.
If we don't get our heads out of our butts, we're about to see Atlas shrug.
Dirty little secret time. DO everything the Democrats are purposing right now on Energy policy and gas prices will go UP because we will be producing less domestically forcing us to buy more internationally.
Past time people stop falling for the Democrats reckless demagoguery about “Big Oil” and learn the facts. The Democrat's plan is to turn the Energy clock back to 1978.
Only problem is the Govt is seriously interfering with the Market by placing most of the US off limites to oil production AND with it’s absurd regulatory polices.
Ethanol is expensive, especially when you count how much of your tax money is being used to subsidize it. It converts food to fuel. There are now food riots in Egypt.
You’re paying more for food as well.
It reduces gas mileage, so you’re paying more to drive less.
It can’t be transported by pipeline, which adds even more to the expense.
It does nothing to combat global warming. Most estimates are that it increase carbon emissions.
I’m not sure what there is to like.
“The specter of a president of the United States going hat-in-hand to Saudi Arabia to plead for more (and more expensive) oil from the dictatorship that underwrites an extreme form of Islam that is out to kill us is obscene. President Bush ought to be rallying Americans, not embracing people who don’t allow women to drive cars.”
Actually, this is his second attempt to persuade the Saudis to produce more crude. He did the same on a trip to the Middle East several months back. I can’t believe he’s asking again unless some degree of a positive response has been pre-arranged.
“That’s because at least three generations have been raised on the notion of entitlement, and when one feels entitled to something, one believes someone else should pay.”
BOL re the sense of entitlement.
My trophy wife and recovering liberal son have had it up to their eyeballs with people in the work force, working with/for them and customers pushing this entitlement bs. Even our DIL is very fed up with the entitled ones in her area.
My older son, who is about 10 degrees to the right of me, and I sat and grinned while these 3 loved ones ranted and dissed the left wing and pseudo conservative entitled ones this past Mother’s Day.
Everything you said is true. The solution from where I sit with respect to the problems with energy in this country is 1)increasing nuclear powerplants, 2) drilling our own oil reserves, 3) increasing our capacity to refine oil, 4) providing energy companies with incentives to research and develop alternative forms of energy, and 5) people in this country have to start conserving our energy resources right now and until these other plans become reality (or, rather if they do). There might be other suggestions that are feasible as well.
Could it be that the dimocRATS are well aware of these facts and that’s what they desire?
The Dems NEED big oil here. They need the money. If the multinationals move off shore, they won’t get the tax dollars. It’s like the trust fund anarchists. They may hate the big banks, but they need their trust funds to fly to the green protests.
The heck with "Big Oil" - what about "Big Tax"?
I kept hearing about how Evil Exxon made $40 billion last year, and I began to wonder how much they paid in taxes on their business in the same time frame.
Turns out that it's REAL easy to find out how much Exxon made (if you Google "Exxon "40 billion"", you get upwards of 2000 hits), but well-nigh impossible to find out how much Congress made on Exxon.
Turns out there's three or four lonely ol' web pages that have the figure (One of which is Exxon's page itself):
$105 billion.
2007 2006 Income taxes 29,864 27,902 Sales-based taxes 31,728 30,381 All other taxes 44,091 42,393 Total taxes 105,683 100,676 ======================================================= Net Income 40,610 39,500
Guess our politicians need that $105 billion for parties, hookers and their various slush funds - and it still ain't enough. They want more.
Translation: we'll pay the more that they want "from" Big Oil.
"Big Tax" - we'll get you in the end...
True but this is not one of them. There is no reason other then bad Govt policy for the USA to be dependent on anyone but itself for energy. For 30 years, since the Dept of Energy was formed, we have followed the same Leftist dogma of "Conservation, not Consumption". The Leftists were smart, they have completely taken over the Regulatory machinery and have used it to impose their dogmas. We have insanely stupid irrational EPA regulations being promligated at both the State and Federal levels. We have a political class that simply has refused to take a serious look at the issue and rationalize our regulatory system in regards to Energy because the "Green Lobby" clings with mindless fanacism to their magic bullet notions of some sort of mythical technological solution to the evils of Oil use right around the corner. Well it 30 years later, and trillions of dollars, where are all the wonders the Left promised us would be created by this Department of Energy? So rather then cling to dogma about "Hating Big Oil" it pass time the Boomers sober up, quit dreaming of the day these magic "Fixes" are going to arive and deal with the reality.
The reality is we have a Supply and Demand problem in Oil. The solution is 2 parts. One, develop domestic US resources to lessen our dependence on Imported Oil and Gas. Do everything we can to shift any energy consumption off of oil on to alternatives. Rathern then cling to this failed agenda of "Conservation not Consumption" we need focus on meeting the expanding need of the consumers.
Here, off the top of my head, I can outline some things we should be doing but will not because the Green Lobby wholly ownes the Democart Party.
Drill for oil everywhere, use the purchasing power of the US Govt (i.e the Post office) to buy alternative fueled vehicles to fund the development of the infrastructure and technology to make alternative fueled vehicles cost effective for average Americans. Build Nuke Plants. Build Coal Gasification plants, give tax breaks to companies that move their facilities to alternative fuels, slap a $50 a barrel tariff on imported oil etc etc etc
All the sorts of things we could be doing while the political class repeats the same lame brained useless nonsense they have been spewing for the last 30 years "Investigate the Oil companies" "Windfall profit taxes", turn down the thermostat, wear a sweater, ride the bus"
That's exactly the point I was making. When Hillary was running around last year cackling that she'd do great things if she could only get that $40 Billion profit. The big shots in Michigan, New Jersey and California are finding out what happens when you run off all the people that generate jobs and revenue. Unfortunately, they won't learn from their mistakes.
Superb Post.
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.