Republicans rescue Big Oil

I lay the majority of blame for the rising costs of fuel on the shoulders of the entire Congress. Thank Congress for caving in to the environmental lobbyists. Between Alaska and the oil shales (along with exploration of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as well as resuming drilling in the Gulf) this country has the capacity to produce enough of its own oil to tell the foreign oil companies to shove it. We haven't had a new refinery built in almost three decades. The ones we have left aren't even running close to full capacity. The oil companies don't want more refineries built because that cuts into their profits. Congress, while caving to the environmental lobbyists, also cave in to the oil lobby. A great many Democrats and Republicans (including Clinton, McCain and Obama who have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from "big oil") have received money from the oil companies. I don't see anything changing to benefit the country as a whole. We need to end our dependency on foreign oil while at the same moving to increase the production of renewable sources of fuel (not corn) and to find a way to make solar energy and the collection of it more efficient for large scale use. While I'm at it I'd also like to see a greater push for nuclear energy instead of the continued use of coal for power plants.

And who do you think would actually pay for these "windfall taxes" that the Dems wanted? You and me...at the pump.

Profit projections in business are not based on a specific amount of dollars. It is based on a percentage. Most all business economics are based on percentages. Yes, the sheer numbers sound horrid to us peons who can't even imagine $9 billion. But these aren't record breaking profits for the oil companies.

What we need are not more taxes on the oil companies that WILL be passed on to all consumers. We NEED alternate fuels. We NEED the ability to use those alternate fuels. We NEED to get rid of the NIMBY attitude (Not In My Back Yard) and get more refineries built (that's where a lot of the money we pay for gas is going - basic supply and demand; the old refineries can't meet current demand so prices go up, and they won't let any new ones get built), and/or other ways of producing energy (i.e. nuclear, or refine wind/solar power so that it can be cost effective on a large scale). Lawmakers aren't allowing a lot of this to happen, let alone encouraging it to happen.

Since the oil companies want nothing to do with increasing refining capacity, I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I'd be fine with a handful of government owned refineries run at 100% manufacturing capacity. That will never happen either because the legislators are getting a ton of money from the oil companies.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/bu...icle917808.ece

http://www.slate.com/id/2108873/

Norway is a sensible intelligent country whose citizens still control their government. The government is run for the benefit of it's people and not its corporations. Read how they've handled their own oil reserves to that aim.

In order to survive the lean years of the 1990s when we were guzzling cheap oil, a lot of smaller companies merged into larger companies which mean larger dollars in absolute terms. But they still have a lot of expenses and they need to constantly invest in new, risky sources of oil as witnessed when several South American countries nationalized their oil industry after the privates did all of the investing.

Compared to many other industries, their profits are on the slim side. Oil Profit Margins vs Other industries

And those profits are being used to invest in new technologies. Otherwise, these companies won't be viable in a few decades.

Absolutely. The Democrats are showing their absolute ignorance of how business works. Tax the oil companies for "windfall" profits? PUNISH them for making TOO MUCH MONEY? Ya, right. That's going to get them to produce more gasoline, for sure.

Let's face it. I really DON'T think the Democrats are idiots. What I do think is that they're making hay with the general public's very intense displeasure with high gas prices by pointing fingers at a convenient scapegoat. This gets them the approval of John Q. Public and directs Mr. Public's wrath away from where it should be pointed: directly at Congress. So I DO think the Democrats (as well as their Republican brethren, BTW) are cynical power-mongers.

The government has the lion's share of this energy situation. Punishing the oil companies is only going to make it worse. Meanwhile, it plays well in an election year.

Big Oil has made record profits under this President.

The Dems are not showing ignorance they are using this as a political tool to sink McCain. This vote will be remembered for the headline. Not the particulars. Democrats get to say,"See the Republicans are on the side of corporations not you the consumer."

The Norwegian government and people have their act together. The US would be smart to look at their model and take what we can from it. It will never happen, though. Our politicians are too busy catering to the oil lobby. We no longer have a government that is for the people. For a long, long time we've had government by the government for the government.

While it would be ideal to move away from fossil fuels it's a change that has to happen slowly. We don't have the resources or capability for the time being to produce fuels out of switchgrass and other renewable sources in a mass quantity (as your future emperor this will be a priority while I rule ). At the same we should be sticking the virtual middle finger up at foreign oil and drilling our own. The resources are there it's just a matter of having the will to get it and refine it. Congress lacks the will to do the right thing for the country and the economy.

The problem with having the government take over the industry is that governments find a use for the money received for things other than reinvesting it into oil production and refining. This is a contributing factor to the mediocre supplies from Venezuela and Russia.

And there are a lot of contributing factors to the high oil prices. The weak dollar is one of them. The lack of refinery capacity is another. The only way to fix that one is to build new ones, but who is going to approve one in their neighborhoods.

This is a political move only. It won't help bring down the price of oil as the global demand is something these companies cannot control. Though I would like an evaluation of the subsidies we are giving the companies.

As to the Norway oil fund, realize that the sheer size of the US economy and understand that power this fund would have to influence the stock market. I don't think I want the government to have that ability. One misguided move could do a lot of damage to the economy.

You're right. I meant ignorance about business. They're very smart about politics. And this is all about politics. If most of the posters here can see that, why can't the American public in general? But.....maybe they do see this? Maybe they're not as dumb as we make them out to be? Could be that this might not be a very smart political move after all. I dunno. We'll have to see. In the meantime, the Republicans aren't rescuing big oil, they're rescuing common sense.

In Sept 2006, two US Companies announced that the Jack No. 2 weel in the Gulf 270 miles SW of New Orlenas had tapped a field with perhaps 15 billion barrels of oil, which would increase our proven reserves by 50%. This expedition cost over $100 million dollars. SO sure, let's reward these companies by adding tax burdens. See how long they keep drilling.

Drilling is underway 60 miles off the Florida. By China. How many environmentalists have you seen protesting this??? And does anyone remember that China's oil interest in the Sudan is quite possibly a factor in the genocides being commited in Darfur today??? Yeah, let's let them drill off our coast but not allow our own Companies to do so.

I know this may be dismissed out of hand for being Fox commentators, but these guys really do make a lot of sense. Just for a minute, forget who wrote it, and look at the idea behind the column:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364982,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365483,00.html

Great articles, both of them.

If Congress had any brains they would be dangerous.

That's pretty funny. Unfortunately, a few of them DO have brains, and yes, they ARE dangerous.

Which is sad because how many voters will actually look past the surface and take a long, hard look at the particulars?

If there is any blame to be laid Congress deserves just as much as Bush. It's easy to point the finger at Bush all the while the Democrats in Congress lead the charge against more drilling and exploration of resources. To add insult to injury, the push for more drilling and exploration couldn't even be passed when Congress was under a Republican majority. People, including the folks in D.C. want to to complain about the high costs of gas and diesel but they don't want to do the obvious and tap our own resources.

Back to what I said about being fine with a few government run refineries: There would have to strict guidelines put into place. The money made by the refineries must be reinvested back into oil production and refining.

The enviromentalist whacko's keep us from drilling for oil while OPEC laughs all the way to the bank.

Ain't America grand?

Well, I'm pro-environment, but if there's going to be drilling off the coast, we'd be best off doing it ourselves rather than allowing the Chinese to do it. I doubt the Chinese are going to be too terribly concerned about protecting U.S. coastlines from oil spills.

I would rather not see us drill in Alaska for more oil. What this country needs to do, is start building all electric cars right here in this country. Now, I am sure many here will say, this can't be done, but that is a lie that has been told to you by people with interest in oil and the big money generated from oil. The excuses I have heard about electric cars are down right stupid. Has anyone heard of the Tesla and Tesla motors? The Tesla is an awesome looking roadster sporst car. It is faster than most if not all gasoline powered cars on the road, except for race cars. The Tesla has a 200+ horse power electric motor that can move that car from 0-60 mph in 3.9 seconds!! It can go over 200 miles on a single charge. Now, the car is very expensive, but put into mass production would bring the price down. You could even build an electric car that would not need to be charged. It's sad, that we drive in machines that are very old out dated technology. The internal combustion engine today, is not much different than when it was first invented. When you look at how far electronics have advanced compared to the internal combustion engine. We put the space station out in space, where does that get it's power? Electricity generated by solar energy. The technology is out there, but while there is still big money to be made with oil, you will not see electric cars go into mass production. Lets face it, oil will not last forever. We need to stop using oil as much as possible for our transportation. Transportation uses over 60% of the oil in the USA. If we stopped using oil to run our cars, we can greatly increase how long the oil supply will last. Imagine if the USA started to produce all electric cars. We can handle three issues at once. Cut our dependency on foreign oil, help our own economy by producing electric vehicles here and help cut CO2 emissions and other pollutants generated by gasoline powered vehicles.

There are more considerations than the environmentalists. Many people do not want another refinery built in their neighborhood. Are you willing to have one built in your town?

Right now, Shell oil is buying acres of water rights in possible development of oil shale. Are the people of Colorado, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and California willing to cut their water use in half to support this? Are they willing to put up with the remainder being polluted?

There are people now who are having to live with oil drilling 200 feet from their homes. Have you ever heard an oil compressor? Would you object if one was put near your property?

We need more nuclear power plants, more refinery's, solar power, wind power and we need to start drilling in ANWR right NOW.

You start drilling and I guarantee oil prices will drop.

We are being held hostage by OPEC and the environmentalist whacko's.

Our government hasn't helped either, Not Republican, not democrat.
Clinton didn't do anything for 8 years just like Bush didn't.

So are you volunteering your town for the construction of these places? If not, you want someone else to put up with the problems of it.

Actually I have. The State of Oklahoma has strict guidelines on when the pumper can run. It tends to run more often immediately after completion of the well and slows dramatically with a drop in production. We had one behind my children's grade school - a block from my house. My s-i-l has one on the other her backyard fence. I seriously doubt you would know it is there.
My husband and I have also invested money in wells over the years - to the tune of several hundred thousand. Not all wells come in, make back their cost or even break even. This is true for small companies and the majors.
Windfall profit taxes have done more harm than good to the US energy program. They would have been better off having the oil companies use the WFP tax to pursue alternate sources of energy.

No, we do NOT need to drill in the Alaskan wildlife reserve. Are you willing to spoil the last pristine wildlife area just to bring down the price of oil/gas?? I am not!! Guess what, drilling in the ANWR will NOT lower the price of oil. The cost to drill there will be so high, that the cost will be passed on to the consumer. Besides, it would take years before that oil, if any, would start becoming available. From what I understand, there is not enough oil there to make it worth it. The only way to lower the cost of oil, is to cut our demand. If the USA increased the MPG rating of all cars and stopped making large gas consuming vehicles like SUV's, the demand would lower and the price could drop. As I stated, in the USA, 60-65% of the oil we use goes to run our cars. If we reduced that, the price would drop. There is NOT enough oil in the ANWR to make that huge of an impact. Like I said, the time is now to build electric cars and cut our demand for oil. Trying to find more oil is just a temporary fix. We need to cut our use of oil now. America consumes the vast majority of the oil just to fuel our gas guzzling SUV's and large pickup trucks. I understand that some people need a truck for their work and that is fine. But when I sit in rush hour traffic and see one person sitting in their large SUV to go to their office job, I shake my head and think, no wonder why gas is so high. You have to sit and think, do the majority of people who drive these very large vehicles really need it?? Or do we really need cars with 300+ horse power?? I hate the high price of gas too, but drilling for more oil will not help a whole lot. Sure, there will be more oil, but as long as the demand keeps escalating, so will the price.
I do agree, that we need to start using wind and solar power. That would also greatly reduce our carbon emissions, but I do not like the idea of nuclear. With nuclear, there are to many risks and it always seems these plants are always shutting down for some reason or another. I think nuclear power is a disaster waiting to happen.

Exactly. I know President Carter had a lot of problems and there are plenty of things about him I don't agree with but he was right about looking for alternative sources of energy.
Plus I consider myself an environmentalist in so much as I love the beauty of this country and would want my grandchildren to experience it too. I want to breathe clean air, drink clean water and have land where animals can roam free.

I'm going to miss the sound of a big V-8 with dual pipes. But I also think electric cars are a good idea.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/

I'm glad you see the Norwegian Fund as making a lot of sense. I can't agree that our government is run for its own benefit, though. I see it as run for the benefit of the people hiring our representatives; global big business.

'Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no aqllegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible governmeent, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics, is the first task of the statesmansip of the day.' Theodore roosevelt April 1906

I don't see anything wrong with using the profits for purposes other than oil production and refining. Alternate energy development, education and health care come immediately to mind.

Why isn't Congress investgating the subsidies and tax benefits?

Is it really better to leave "influencing the stock market" to the people most inclined to benefit from it -- like big oil?

I guess -- with good reason -- we just don't trust our own government to act with our best interests in mind. That is the tragedy.

Oil producers and refiners don't get any subsidies. They do however, have tax incentives (ie special deductions and exemptions just for their industry) but I'm not sure we want to take those away right now. Isn't the point that they need to be producing more? While I'm generally not in favor of tax incentives for any industry, I think we need to be careful about changes that would adversely affect their decisions on producing more and expanding capacity.

I would be fine with some of the money going towards the creating of alternate energy sources but not with it being spent on things that our tax dollars are already being used for.