RSS
Drilling Democrats on Oil
Americans didn't care that environmentalists and Democrats prevented oil drilling when gas was below $2.00 a gallon.
Now that it is $4 and climbing, they do. Voters want oil companies to be able to explore for oil in Alaska and elsewhere. They understand the greater the supply the better chance of oil prices holding steady or coming back to earth.
Republicans are starting to exploit the Democrats' kowtow to the environmental lobby.
Too bad for them, their presidential candidate has been on the wrong side of the issue from the get go. Too bad for him too. How about a flip flop, Mr. Maverick?
In the meantime, Jay Leno had it exactly right.
Now that it is $4 and climbing, they do. Voters want oil companies to be able to explore for oil in Alaska and elsewhere. They understand the greater the supply the better chance of oil prices holding steady or coming back to earth.
Republicans are starting to exploit the Democrats' kowtow to the environmental lobby.
Too bad for them, their presidential candidate has been on the wrong side of the issue from the get go. Too bad for him too. How about a flip flop, Mr. Maverick?
In the meantime, Jay Leno had it exactly right.
posted by Spencerblog at
7:17 AM
69 Comments:
Great clip from Leno. This issue of oil exploration has to be hammered home every day. We can't complain about gas prices when we will not allow oil companies to drill for more oil based upon a concern over Caribu not being able to mate two weeks out of the year.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pooh-pooh. We would expect nothing less of you, Dishonest Dave …while offering no alternative Lib solutions.
Drill away, baby. World demand has exceeded supply, new technologies are not ready, this is common sense.
See what happens when Liberals plan long term? We get F&*#ed big time.
Why does anyone still listen to the nutty blind zealots of the Environmental Lobby? Those obstructionist kooks have too much power with LibDems and we’re seeing what problems heeding them has caused while offering nothing in the way of alternative solutions. It isn’t all just touchy-feely Lib do-gooding. Such shortsighted and backwards –emotion-based policy making- Libism causes very real harm to our country and society.
For all the blather about eliminating lobbyists from politics and policy making, funny how we never hear any talk about eliminating these wacko Lib lobby groups. When the Dems took control of Congress every nutty fringe Lib activist group came out of the woodwork looking to get their agendas and pet causes implemented by a receptive LibDem Congress. And the LibDems, beholden to the radical Lib likes of MoveOn.org, didn’t disappoint.
Randal, while we're at it, let's solely blame bush for this oil problem. Spans years before his two terms but whatever...
Let's also open up the national reserve for relief. Sure, we'll blow our load for a couple days, but then it will be Bush's fault if some emergency situation comes about and we have no barrels in waiting...
Ooh, I forgot, we could be saved by a windfall profit tax by Barry Obama!! Oh, wait, the oil companies would turn those fees around into higher gas prices...
DRILL.
Diano -
can you PLEASE start doing your OWN research and stop using Wikipedia? I'm sure you think Warren G Harding's middle name was "Gangsta" as previously posted on wikipedia.
Then again it shows your ignorance as you don't read the entire article. Crude oil is traded (and also reported) in "barrels." Crude oil IS NOT milk Diano. Thus, it is not reported in gallons as you say. Gas, which is refined crude oil, is sold in gallons. Just thought I'd go over that very basic oil industry concept with you since you are so knowledgeable.
Then again 200 billion gallons compared to 4.3 billion barrels would be a pretty close estimate, which would prove your whole point incorrect and make you look dumb again.
The Wikipedia article you quote (please search Bakken Formation), states those 200 billion CAN be extracted, just not all with "today's" technology. Now why can ethanol technology develop in "leaps and bounds" as you have previously argued, but oil extracting technologies cannot? Is there someone smarter working on the ethanol technology and cancer researchers working for oil companies? If so, lets move that ethanol researcher over to the oil industry!
Then again, offshore drilling was never a thought previously and is now the wave of the future. Guess that oil technology does grow exponentially.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I love this Jonas guy! He really exposes Dishonest Dave to be the petty moron he is! LOL!...
You should really hope that none of your clients read here, DD.
And see how dopey obstructionist Libs pooh-pooh everything while offering NOTHING in the way of viable solutions. Not much for progress, are they? That’s not very “progressive”.
umm, for the record, once again, I dig dudes.
We know, Dave, we know...
David,
I can't believe writing gallons instead of barrels is a typo. The 3rd and 4th letters of each word are basically across the keyboard from each other. NOBODY who knows ANYTHING about the oil industry would type that typo. That's like me going to Swiss Farms and asking for a barrel of 2% milk. I may say pint when I mean gallon because milk is sold in pints. Crude isn't sold in gallons. Sorry Charlie.
I can do the math David, remember, I'm the one with the higher education here. ;)
So stating the oil industry is a monopoly, and also that oil is traded in gallons are both "typos?" On that basis, I'm sure Obama had a "typo" when he campaigned in 58 states, right? Then again, under that same terminology, Bush is never an idiot because all his idiotic comments are "typos."
Diminishing returns? Sure, I'll give you that. What factor do we use? The oil fields where it was 60% or the even larger oil fields which were less than 1%? I'm sure you'll cherry pick the largest percentage. Then again, if nothing is drilled so far, how can any return be diminishing? It can't. You won't know the diminishing return until you actually drill. Then again, since oil is a natural resource, all original returns would be diminishing in the end. Good straw theory Dave! Hey look, I used punctuation.
And no, the factor of improvement to get that crude isn't 100. Good try picking a large number and hoping it fools people to believing you. You don't know what crude is traded in, yet you know the technology factors enough to estimate the improvement needed to pull crude from the earth? I don't think anyone is buying it. And please, don't show me another wikipedia quote. Go to a library. I'm sure Cornell/Colgate has one for your use.
Oil drilling is a mature technology? Based on what? Because we've been doing it for years? In that case, computer technology is mature. Who cares about a dual-core processor; it's "old." When did we start offshore drilling? Offshore drilling is actually one of the greatest technological breakthroughs in the past few decades. You'll find many engineers who fully agree with that. In the early 90s drilling was done around depths of 600ft and today hydrocarbons are being found deeper than 5000ft. So an increase of almost 1000% in roughly 15 years is outdated and not moving forward?
Then again, the Bakken can be drilled now due to the birth of horizontal drilling. Old technology right Dave? Just new things coming out every few years that revolutionize it.
Could you explain what moving forward is then? Specifically, what % is needed in what time frame?
You argue my arguments are straw man, yet you can't prove your theories of ethanol growth versus oil growth. Ethanol technology hasn't moved at the % forward of offshore drilling (still takes more energy to create ethanol than it produces). That's the basis of straw man arguments. Under your theory we would have solved AIDS, cancer, STDs, and the like by now. It's a fine theory, but it has to be backed by facts and you can't provide them.
Your theory is also based on the fact that the new "technology" is the future of that industry and thus is pursued by all parties involved in this "new" industry. In case you haven't noticed, ethanol isn't the future of vehicles. As such, most of the vehicle technology is being thrown at other types of vehicles. That alone debunks your whole theory as greater growth will be seen in these other "technologies" for vehicles.
So again Dave, where are your facts? Please show me where we haven't obtained oil from deeper under sea in recent years than prior. Remember, it's an old technology (per you), so this should be the case.
Where does the 100 times factor come from?
Now why did the USGS (your source) say in 1995 only 151 million barrels of crude could be extracted in the US, and now it is almost 4 billion? How can there be that massive increase but there is no technological growth (that report includes the Bakken)?
It'd be nice to see any fact from you other than the thought that a new technology will grow greater than an old because there is only room for growth.
For me to believe you know ANYTHING about the industry, please tell me the main calculation used by oil companies to calculate their profit? There is one thing that they always go back to and you will know this if you know anything about the industry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's like me going to Swiss Farms and asking for a barrel of 2% milk.
LMAO!
David,
50% recoverability of 200 billion is 100 billion, not the 4 billion you proposed. That's roughly 25 times MORE than you stated was viably extractable in your first argument. Again, since you can't show any of your own facts outside of Wikipedia, you have to use Wikipedia's article to show your points; which in effect, prove your original argument wrong.
The 1995 sample compared to the recent sample used very little gains in new crude fields (supplies) for the sample to go up that much. The main gain was due to extracting more crude from the Bakken. Or we could make the argument, the original estimate was completely wrong. If so, how can we use the second argument as correct then if the first was wrong? We can't. Therefore your "limited" crude extraction argument is based on your own personal thoughts and not facts.
And Dave, everyone knows how to calculate Net Income or Profit Margin. You learn that in accounting 101. Oil companies project profits off of a "crack spread" that each company calculates each quarter based on the price of crude and the by-products. The fact you didn't know this simple fact shows you know NOTHING about the industry. Even people at the credit department of oil companies know what a crack spread is. It's the most used oil industry term. ANYBODY who has dealt with, learned about, or been involved in the oil industry knows this simple fact.
So your factor of 100 was in percentage points? Drilling at 600 feet to 6000 feet now is your 100 multiplied by 10. I just proved your number wrong (by a factor of 10) with technology gains seen in 10 years. So I guess your factor is correct every year (on avg). 100% gains a year isn't too bad for an "outdated" technology is it? Or is it just really not "outdated?"
In the short term, nothing will help the price of gas at the pump. You won't cease inflation in a month. Especially when there's been push for years to transfer crude to the Euro. That alone causes a pricing issue. You want price of crude to drop tomorrow, take the speculators and hedge funds out of the equation.
You seem like Obama with capital gains taxes. Even though EVERY time they've been dropped, investing/spending has increased you apparently don't believe it will happen ever again. Raising capital gains taxes won't do anything for gas prices anytime soon.
So why should we have a windfall profits tax if the price is due to inflation which no oil company has control over? We should excessive tax oil companies because our Fed and government are idiots?
And your whole claim to inflation being the short term fix is pretty overrated. The dollar gained ground on the Euro this past month. What happened to the price of crude or gas at the pump after that news? Absolutely nothing.
I will agree, we work on inflation and the price of crude will drop. But it isn't a short term fix. There really is no ST fix. The only ST "patch" would be to take the gas taxes off so that Americans can pay a cheaper price today (I'm not saying this is a sound policy for the future or endorsing this policy). But if you are concerned with how Americans will pay less in the next 2 weeks at the pump, taking that tax off will do that. OR we could use the same gas this summer as we use in the fall and that will drop prices right away also.
So I'd also go on a limb and say you aren't for electric or hybrid cars also as they aren't carbon neutral or environmentally friendly?
Could you explain how we go away from crude to a renewable/carbon-free car and don't keep polluting the Earth in future years with new roads? Concrete/cement isn't renewable and paving a road DEF isn't carbon-free.
And since we are going completely away from buying oil, how do we produce any/all products that are byproducts of crude? Like toothpaste, toothbrushes, telephones, carpets, hearing aids, drinking cups, unbreakable dishes, etc.
jonas, what's your opinion on offshore drilling? I'm not going to claim to know much about the opportunities, just keep hearing about how China is doing it.
Wait, let me look up Wikipedia...
Where’s Dave?
He must be embarrassed, off licking his wounds that Jonas inflicted with his ass woopin he dealt him. Lol…
Hey, don't you ever feel bad for humiliating Lib Dave like that, Jonas?
Nah, me neither. Lol...
This comment has been removed by the author.
diano, we can't wait any further for these technologies. They're not ready. Back to fossil fuels until they are...
“DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.”
Go here: http://www.americansolutions.com/
Sign the petition, make a donation, get the free bumper sticker.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave, depending on foreign oil for decades without a worry as to what could happen in the future (Developing Nations like China & India and their increased demand) is what screwed us.
Second, how do you increase fuel efficiency standards without inadvertently taking the US automakers out of competition? Let's be honest, Ford and GM are bragging if a vehicle gets in the high 20s's MPG. Toyota seems to have the 30s as a standard (kudos to them, bad for GM/Ford). You might as well let them go bankrupt if minimum standards are set.
Sure. Let the free market bear it out due to high gas prices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The government is a big enough purchaser that they can use our tax dollars to push the industry in the right direction or buy foreign cars until Detroit decides to step up.
Sure! Free market! Better than oppressive overreaching legislation. But this seems in conflict with this idiocy Libism:
The government at the federal, state and local level should have been mandating…
Libs love for the government to “mandate” (coerce) everything. And most folks are sick of big government doing that.
Steve,
I think offshore drilling is the future of oil. I'm not saying we should keep using oil 30 years down the road (who knows when it will run out). BUT, we use oil based products in EVERYDAY life. If we didn't have crude, half your kitchen wouldn't be there. We need some sort of crude access for the next 40 years until we figure out how to make all the products we do without crude in the process.
I think the key point missing with offshore drilling is that it will help (I didn't say fix) gas prices. The more supply we have (even if we let Exxon do it and not sell the crude and keep it themselves; hence no purchase of oil for $140/barrel), the more stabilized the price will be. If we started drilling 2 years ago, you may have seen prices stop rising at $3.25 or $3.50 a gallon. NOTHING special (I fully admit this), BUT it is a "help" to the average consumer.
We have the top offshore drilling technology. Countries like Norway laugh at us because they use our technology offshore and thus extract more crude per year than we do as a country per year.
All even agree, there's always that "chance" of an oil spill or mess. But oil freighters are on the water year round and we've had 1 major spill (maybe 2, I'm not 100% -thinking of Valdez-) in that time period. The odds of another are slimmer than your plane crashing while flying to Las Vegas. It can always happen, but very unlikely.
I just don't see the harm in drilling. People visit the Grand Canyon, isn't that just a big hole? Why not make some more?
Obama and Hillary have no plans. Hillary wants to allow citizens to sue OPEC. I guess she didn't get the memo where OPEC doesn't set the price. Then again, off of Dave's comments, if the US can't sue Exxon because it is too big; how will US individuals sue an organization larger than Exxon?
And what's Obama going to do? Doesn't he realize that most (75-90%) "alternative energy" companies in Europe went under after the tax subsidies were pulled by the government? So we are going to subsidize this industry for life, pay roughly the same amount in health care as we do for the war in Iraq (numbers taken from the cost of Canada and calc'ing it for US pop), and everything else he wants with what money? There's not enough money from the rich to tax to make it a surplus. Fiscally impossible.
Dave,
I wasn't talking about the carbon from a toothbrush or plate. Toothbrushes and plates are made from byproducts of crude oil. No crude oil = no product. That's like taking hydrogen out of the equation for water. You no longer have water without the hydrogen dipshit.
Did you miss my whole point about the roads? You obviously don't listen. Your point was that there would be no "carbon producing" activities for global warming. How do we lay down cement or concrete (what is used for roads these days) without producing carbon? We use electric tampers. Well, electricity causes more "global warming" pollution yearly than oil companies. So I guess we can't use that. So we hire everyone over 250 pounds to tamp down the surface? You can't build a road without causes carbon is my whole point. Therefore even if we go carbon free in vehicles, the fact our vehicles use roads means we will keep producing carbon! We aren't going to just stop fixing or building roads! You've made our weak infrastructure a major point in other arguments, and no its perfectly fine? Stop lying to yourself.
Now you want to talk shale oil. Good point. Projected shale oil reserves are larger than crude oil reserves. And guess what!?!?!?!? The US accounts for 60% of those reserves!!!! So you're technically saying we have the majority of shale oil (of which more is available than crude) than the rest of the world, and we should let it sit?
And while you bring up the estimate; I've proven your USGS estimate wrong, so now I'll use your other source, Leigh Price. Price estimates the reserves to be 271 to 503 billion barrels (mean of 413 barrels) (per your wiki page)! Now you can't NOT use her estimate because you used her as a reliable source in previous discussions. So 271 to 503 versus the 4. Hmmmm, something is wrong there. I've proven USGS wrong, so I think the best source to use would be yours, Leigh Page. So now that means 271 to 503 barrels possible with an extraction rate of 50% (your number from your source). That means at a minimal (with your sources), of 135 billion barrels (206 using the mean). That's 30 times your estimated 4 billion with YOUR SOURCE FACTS!
Now somehow your 4 is factual and not disputable. I just disputed it fully with your own source!
Now from your own source (USGS report):
"New geologic models applied to the Bakken Formation, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries have resulted in these substantially larger technically recoverable oil volumes. About 105 million barrels of oil were produced from the Bakken Formation by the end of 2007."
So it wasn't just new resources like you stated, there were "advances in drilling and production technologies" also. Can you cherry pick your arguments anymore Mr. Straw Man?
From your source again:
"Technically recoverable oil resources are those producible using currently available technology and industry practices."
Did you see the key words??? "CURRENTLY AVAILABLE." I've proven (as has your source) that the technology has grown and will continue to. That means your own source will up its estimate in the coming years. No where do they say it's impossible to get the rest. You "think" it's impossible because it doesn't align with your political viewpoints, and not factual basis. Ok, Mr. Straw Man?
David, again, did I say the gas tax was a positive? Can you re-read what I posted. I made it VERY clear I didn't support nor think it was a good thing (then again you say it's a neo-con thought when Hillary was for it too. She's a conservative now too?) What I was saying was if you want to lower the price tomorrow, pulling the tax out of the price automatically lowers the price. That would be the quickest fix for pricing. That's all I said. You can't refute it because it's true so you make it a political argument and bring in Bush's tax cuts (which weren't just for the wealthy).
Then again since our roads are "fine" by you (since we won't need to build them), what's wrong with taking out a tax that's main purpose is to build roads? If we aren't building, we won't use that money, therefore it's a purposeless tax. That alone shows how one of your arguments is factually inaccurate yet again Mr. Straw.
My son actually bought a house, went back to school and sold the house within 2 years. He paid less on his capital gains due to Bush's tax cuts. Now is his single income of $40,000 rich? Far from it. Yet the tax cut helped him. How were the tax cuts for the rich only again?
Now that you brought up the rich (which isn't the point of this argument, which you tried to knock me for in your response -hypocrite-), please research this topic. It's a known FACT the rich have paid more in taxes with Bush's tax cuts than they would have with the old tax policy since the cuts took place. So under Bush's policy, the rich paid more than Clinton's policy (if it was still intact). So how did that help the rich pay less again?
How is global warming Exxon's problem? They are a company. Companies are supposed to bring the best return to their shareholders (just like a public school is to bring the best education to their students as possible).
Now lets say Obama shuts down ALL oil companies. We stop our portion of global warming from oil. We still contribute the greatest amount of global warming from our electric companies though (who cares about them right? this is a political debate, not one of facts). How do we get around now Dave? Walk and bike everywhere? Great idea!
While we are cutting out activities that cause global warming, electric companies must be shut down along with farms. So David, you are out of a job because the internet no longer exists. We all become vegetarians and live by candlelight. That seems like a reasonable argument to make now doesn't it Mr. Straw Man?
R,
This discussion is fun. It's like whack-a-mole. Dave throws out a lie, I shoot it down. He has to throw out 2 more to save face, I know them down again! I'm just an American badass in Dave's eyes because he can't fool me with his lies.
Maybe he should have went to Wharton with me. Then we could stand on the same intellectual ground for discussions and his arguments would cause me to think before responding.
Instead I just knock him to his knees (albeit, not as fast as his wife drops to her knees for me).
Whack-a-Lib! LOL!
You make good words, J. You really do slap the living Lib out Dishonest Dave every time. Love it. But in all fairness, he is kind of an easy target. Lol…
We don’t need more bullying legislation to increase automobile fuel mileage; we need more free market industry competition spurred by high gas prices.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If the war is so important to the Bush neo-con drones, why don't they want to contribute more tax revenue to fund it? How about removing the Iraq costs from our income taxes and making its cost a separate voluntary tax contribution?
If the system suckers are so important to the Obama Lib weepers, why don't they want to contribute more tax revenue to fund them? How about removing the Welfare costs from our income taxes and making its cost a separate voluntary tax contribution?
Teehehe…
Do you have any idea how much time/idling the Blue Route saves over all the driving on side roads we had before?
The savings would have been much greater had shortsighted Libs not insisted that highway reduce to two lanes going through their towns.
David,
Now you've just become a liar.
You state, "That you would base your argument on the complete misread of my obvious dismissal (rather than acceptance) of Price's conclusion shows how truly incompetent you are. The phrase "... as a bag of hammers" comes to mind."
You did the same thing with me and the comments on the gas tax. Here's my comment, "The only ST "patch" would be to take the gas taxes off so that Americans can pay a cheaper price today (I'm not saying this is a sound policy for the future or endorsing this policy). But if you are concerned with how Americans will pay less in the next 2 weeks at the pump, taking that tax off will do that."
And here's your response, "As for the gas tax, that money goes to roads, bridges, infrastructure, repair, etc. If you take it away at the pump, you'd still have to get it somewhere down the line. Shifting the tax burden to the future is a favorite neo-con con-job as though the taxes magically disappear somehow. Bush and the GOP have burdened the next two generations with debt (plus interest) because he cut taxes on the top earners AND started an unfunded war (double hit to the national debt)."
Where did I ever state it would be good like you said? I never did. Thus, based on YOUR facts, "That you would base your argument on the complete misread of my obvious dismissal (rather than acceptance) of the gas tax conclusion shows how truly incompetent you are. The phrase "... as a bag of hammers" comes to mind." So you're a "bag of hammers" and incompetent based on your own logic.
Good thing I gave you that headfake to prove yourself an idiot. Maybe it'll sink in now. Or maybe the fact that your only source showing 4 billion (instead of the 200 billion) increased their amount by 25 in 10 years. So by 2018, at that rate, we'd be at 40 billion. What's wrong with that?
And Dave, it is 100 BILLION. Read your source again. The only "million" discussed are the 229% increase in Bakken estimates in 2007. (No gains in oil drilling technology right Dave?)
And hey dipshit, just an fyi, capital gains on the sale of a home within a 2 year period (I'm not sure if that's correct) is for EVERYONE. You could make 5k a year and pay that tax dipshit. Go read the capital gains tax code before you go making yourself look like an idiot again. So if my sons income (40k) is rich, then the rich pay over 90% of our national taxes already. If there's "sooooooooo many" middle/poor class people, then how are they overtaxed when in total they pay less than 10% of our national taxes?
And please don't start on the mortgage crisis. There were just as many people making 75k with 2 kids in this problem and people making 30k with 1 kid. What about the people making 200k that invested in condos pre-construction to make money and subsequently got stuck with the property? Do we bail them out? How many of them are in this "crisis" Dave? Nobody knows. Not everybody in the mortgage crisis is "poor" dumbass.
And getting the rich to pay a more fair share. What's a fair share Dave? The top 10% already pay over 50% of our taxes. That's nor fair in any sense?
Dave, when you say the tax breaks are just neo-con economies, Hillary's views DO matter as she was right next to Obama for a very long time in the primaries. You can't say the second best Democrat for president view doesn't matter now. If that's the truth, then nothing Bush did will matter once he steps out of office. He'll have less to do with politics than Hillary (she's still one of your top senators in Congress). Remember though, her viewpoints don't count as a Democratic viewpoint (caugh *BS* caugh).
Good call on solar and wind power. They haven't been proven to consistently power anything. What happens if we don't have wind for a month? No power? Then again, aren't we going off of, as you say, "the "advanced/magic" technology." Apparently ethanol, solar, wind, thermal is ALL going to happen "within the next few years" without a doubt, but oil drilling technology is a space cadet theory. Can you show this Dave? Prove to me with facts where oil drilling technology HASN'T improved greatly? Remember, I've shown you its 100% increase per year with facts. You haven't shown anything other than your "thoughts" on what will increase faster. Good theories Dave! Key word, "theories," not facts.
Then again, lets switch to solar power tomorrow. How do we make sunglasses, glasses, toothbrushes, plates, etc since we don't have oil? Oh wait, that technology will develop right away too. How could I forget? It's like that magic the Dems have. Whatever we think will work best, that technology in the next few years is a given. Anything we disagree with, that technology is old and outdated.
You haven't shown jack shit on the future of any of these technologies yet Dave. It's because your argument is baseless and fact less.
Then again your whole point about pricing and inflation can be argued. When the results came out that the US saw the largest inflation in a year this past Friday, crude prices subsequently dropped. So inflation rises, price of crude rises. I guess this one time was a fluke? Must be like the capital gains flukes.
On top of that, you've argued the validity of Wikipedia before being better than an encyclopedia. So how is it that all of a sudden, from the same page you quote for facts, there are multiple paragraphs of falsities about the Bakken Formation? In effect, you are admitting Wikipedia is a horrible source to use, which then again puts into question the accuracy of any argument you've made in this debate!
And David, if you want to make the argument carbon causes global warming, then there is no cutoff of what is and what isn't carbon effects causing global warming. I'll give you the less we use the better. But you can't say, "well 1 trillion carbon particles doesn't cause global warming but 1 trillion and ONE carbon particles DO cause global warming" as your argument makes.
One last point, since you want to make paying taxes based on where the money goes voluntary, I think EVERY rich person would fully agree. I'm not paying social security or medicare/medicaid taxes (don't need them). I'm not paying property taxes cause my kids going to private school. Guess what, I'm not paying taxes on my stock options either as they've been taxed at the 35% corporate tax level already. Works great for me, I'll pay my payroll taxes and that's a bout it.
And here's the kicker: none of us will pay for national healthcare as we don't believe in it. How will you now fund this program? In effect, with your argument, you just killed the only chance of illegal immigrants and the poor to have health insurance. Good job Dave! Then again, without the rich's contributions to social security, there would be no social security for anybody.
So technically, by your own beliefs (and I FULLY AGREE with them), you've just cut out social security and insurance for any future American that can't afford their own (the rich). I love the way you think boy.
Then again, I don't have to come down to your level Dave as you have insinuated. Your company grosses less than 100k a year in revenue. I bill out at over 500k in revenue for my services alone in a year. That's not a fluke. Fortune 100 companies wouldn't pay for my services if I didn't produce results. Stop being jealous of my degrees (earned and honorary) because you have very little with your life.
Dave,
"Obama's not going to shut down ANY oil companies. (Straw man on your part.) However, he is going to close their tax loopholes, offshore tax havens, and reduce their government subsidies. If they are making $40 billion in profit, they don't need subsidies. The tax payers are NOT responsible to maximize the returns for Exxon's shareholders."
I never said Obama would close them down. Again, proved yourself a "bag of hammers" by your own arguments.
Tax loopholes? Find me a Fortune 100 company that paid a higher effective tax rate than Exxon. Remember, effective tax rate is the actually tax the company pays on earning.
The taxpayers actually don't do much for Exxon. Exxon's effective tax rate is 35% (right at the corporate tax level). Take all the subsidies away. You'll just see a higher price at the pump and the same tax rate! Woop di do, what did you fix? Jack shit. Good point Dave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
fun arguements. jonas, did you know that I can fly, I make a few million a day as I inventged the internet and dumped Jessica Simpson before she went down a notch for Tony Romo? Summary, I could care less about anyone's accomplishments who posts on a blog for a small county newspaper surrounding a major city. I can say anything about my background; it could be the truth or it could be a lie and it doesn't matter on these boards.
However, I will say that Jonas clearly understands the oil market better than any of us. With study (if I had time - could have done a grad school thesis on this), I'm sure I could come close or match, but I'm claiming nothing more than basic knowledge of the industry for now.
The problem is clearly with the lack of supply in the world market. Don't give me evil oil corporations; while we hear about the profits, we're dismissing that they're purchasing from others. Don't give me other technologies; while I'd love to see them implemented; they're still not ready, and truth be told, they're not producing the output that oil does. The 'tax holiday' looks like a dead deal anyway, not worth discussing.
Once again, until we have advanced technologoes and sources implemented AND affordable, we need to reclaim our independence, take a FUBU stance on this oil situation. (For Us, By Us). It's time to utilize our own resources. Drill domestically, drill offshore. I'm convinced that the modern drilling & containment technologies are much safer and responsible. And if we must disturb areas like ANWR, reclaim another area like the wetlands around New Orleans as an offset. Hell, if Al Gore can drive go carts through his mansion and pay "carbon credits" to offset the costs, what's the difference?
Diano, I'll be more than happy to convery to an alternate technology when one is readily available and mass produced (I'd convery my car to electrical, but my electrical engineering classes stopped at the intro for Civils like me). Until then, we need a short term solution. Our resources are there for us, USE THEM.
My name is Steve McDonald and I'm sure I've mis-spelled multiple times above. I really don't care.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David,
How stupid are you? You made a case for Short term gas price decreases. You never set a limit on the minimal savings to be considered in your theory. So technically, every penny saved would fulfill your theory. Nobody said it was a fiscally sound nor a positive idea, but the ONLY short term strategy to fulfull your opinion would be to drop the gas tax.
How was my 2 week comment false? I said, "But if you are concerned with how Americans will pay less in the next 2 weeks at the pump, taking that tax off will do that."
Now you just proved in your own calc that there would be an 18.4 cent decrease in price/gallon. So how isn't there a price decrease? 18 cents of 4 dollars is 4.5% percent decrease using correct math.
Then again, you cherry picked your facts again and ONLY showed the federal tax. The national average of tax per gallon of fuel is 62 cents per gallon. Now that we have the CORRECT savings (on avg) we can properly calc the savings per week. So on your 16 gallon a week usage rate, that's a saving of approx $10 a week or $40 a month. Now that gas is $3.60 instead of $4.20, that would account for almost an extra tank of gas per month savings for the consumer.
Again, what was my 2 week comment about? Short term gas price savings. How isn't there a savings? I never put a savings amount on like you are trying to claim. All I said was savings, that can be 1 or 10 cents a gallon. Stop trying to sping things David, remember, people who spin things are "bags of hammers" and incompetent (per your own wording).
What is so complicated about that? You can't understand what I'm saying or can't you pull the correct data?
How many times are you going to pull the wrong data and keep saying "it's a typo" before your mistakes are just flat out lies that I've proven wrong.
Your incorrect comments so far:
1. oil industry is a monopoly
2. crude is sold in gallons
3. America can tax Exxon's 40 billion in revenue
4. USGS report being factually correct
5. disregarding Leigh Price's calc's while admitting noobody has seen the work because Leigh died (how can something be proven wrong if you've never seen it?)
6. capital gains tax only helps the rich
7. the rich have paid less in taxes since Bush's tax cuts (you can google this and see the comparisons of the taxes paid by the "rich" per Clinton versus Bush taxes and see for yourself the truth)
8. the fact any instability in Iraq has an effect on the US crude price (read up on crudes available, the US doesn't use crude from Iraq as it can't be handled by our refineries)
9. inflation will solve crude prices
That's just a general list that I've proven wrong with FACTS. Now you say I have straw man arguments, but you have yet to prove more than 1-2 things I've said wrong. I've proven 9 wrong in the above listing and there are many more I missed.
David,
How is this correct at all, "Unfortunately, if we always go for the low-hanging fruit/solution of drilling, we are going to keep delaying progress/implementation of better fuel technologies."
So now our major source of other technologies is Exxon, BP, Chevron, etc? They aren't in that industry, sorry. How is Exxon drilling in ANWR stopping some guy from Idaho figuring out how to make ethanol power a vehicle? It doesn't at all.
Other fuel sources will come to the public when the pricing is close to that of a gallon of gas. Since gas is above $4.00 now and there's no alternative on the market, it's pretty obvious that there's no other technology out there cheaper. Gas could go to $20.00 a gallon and nothing would appear.
And David, if you have yet to notice, I've only brought out my accomplishments upon you calling me stupid, ignorant, dumber than you, or inferior to you. I have every right to defend that position. I also have every right to read my local papers blog after I get home from work and comment on it. Look at the majority of my posts, done after 10pm on weeknights or weekends as I work during the day and don't go online (except for today, I'm on PTO. Don't try to argue that now Dave, it's pretty black and white).
David: why can you call me inferior to you and dumber than you but I cannot defend myself? If anything, you are starting the whole argument which you call stupid. So stop being stupid by your own comments.
All I've done is show that you aren't smarter / more successful than me when you've made comments that you are. It's not my fault you brought up your "success" and "intelligence" in trying to make yourself look better than me. And in a discussion, the intelligence of the presenter does go a far way. So allowing you to portray yourself as smarter would only hinder my comments upon being read by a 3rd party as they would observe you as more intelligent than me on the topic. That would be a false assumption by the 3rd party and I've done my part to stop that.
I wouldn't say there is a trader "loophole" per say, but as crude is a commodity, many traders/hedge funds have basically bought futures that the price will increase and that in itself drives the price up. With the pricing we have now, it should be looked into. It causes issues all over the market. There's talk hedge funds all shorted Bear Stearns right before it went down.
And I've stated, I fully agree with you that solidfying the dollar will bring crude prices down. I just don't agree it's a short term fix. Give it a year or 2 to work and I'll be right along with you in that. When you went to short term discussion and talked about inflation, I just have to disagree. And I feel that on Friday when the US showed the highest inflation rates in a year and prices of crude went down goes with that argument. It probably is an anomoly, but the global markets these days can be anomolies at any point. That's why I say the only short term fix for prices (not saying it saves people hundreds of dollars, it doesn't (I may have been misleading with this previously)), would be to kick out the gas taxes. But I'll also admit that brings another 1,000 issues up for tomorrow and two years down the road.
The issue is there really is no short term fix that is a sound idea.
My feelings are that we should drill here to stabilize the price where it is now. Hope inflationary issues cause the price to drop to low $3 in the coming 2-3 years. And then keep the price around $3 -$3.50 until we can have hyrdogen, solar, etc (basically anything else) car that can be run for a comprable of $3.5 or less a gallon (not really sure the product would be sold in gallons). Then we can slowly go to that product as the poor/middle class can afford to get a new vehicle. So at some point 20-30 (whatever) years down the road we are all driving a vehicle propelled by something else.
This comment has been removed by the author.
David,
Now you've just become a liar.
Indeed he is. And this is how he earned his nickname Dishonest Dave.
So much for "honest debate" from the Left...
David,
When an industry is run by "a few players" it is called an "oligopoly" and not a mono-poly.
Look it up. I'm sure wikipedia will even agree with me.
Okay, I just found it.
Right from your favorite site:
"An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived from the Greek for a few over many. Because there are few participants in this type of market, each oligopolist is aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists always involves taking into account the likely responses of the other market participants."
So how were you correct again? And how was I incorrect again?
David, no intent of insulting jonas, I just like to let it known that I'm not reading/posting here for someone's accomplishments or background, that's all. And I fly by simply extending my left arm out straight with a dignified look on my face. Did I mention that I can also walk on water?
Yes, cruise control is an economic option, however, I'd like to know where and how you accomplish this feat. Unless your'e riding the AC expressway at 6:30am, I know of few major roads where you can cruise without constantly adjusting speed with the barbaric conditions on our dear Blue Route, I-76 and I-95.
Come on Dave, environmental offsrts, if Al Gore can do it with Carbon offsets, we can do so by remediating another area! Drill in ANWR, replentish the wetlands of New Orleans! Cut down a tree, replace a tree...
i also have to agree with jonas: if the winning format of the next technology implements and becomes affordable, it's a guarantee that the market will gravitate in its direction. An industry will form around it when its ready. Just need the right tech to do so...
This comment has been removed by the author.
I think jonas has a good knowledge about the industry. I believe he has a stake somehow that isn't full shared here(see my past harassments) but we're beyond that now.
My point Dave is that you're too far on the left on this one. Where once our macroeconomic structure failed to factor in affects of pullution, we now have our structure halted by the environment. I'm not saying to screw Mother Nature over, I'm saying that for the good of the PEOPLE and our INDEPENDENCE from an imported commodity that can clearly cripple OUR daily way of life, we need our OWN resources to keep us afloat. And, unless gas prices somehow magically strabilize to $1.20/gal (Don't bet on it), the transportation industry will shift when the time's right and the technology's there. How so? The push for gasoline independence has been on since the beginning of the decande. Japan is ahead and our domestic products are making similar pushes (e.g. "From gas Friendly to Gas Free"). When the next wave becomes affordable, there will be a transition.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave,
There's three ways to disprove your arguments on a monopoly:
1.
How's is this a political discussion from my end? All I've thrown out are arguments that are factual based by research and the gains in the oil industry.
It just shows how lame your argument is that the "next technology" for us to use is a political argument not based on what is factual best for our country or world.
Then again, it proves every source you've provided is quesitonable as to the correctness of the information provided which then completely shows my superior argument to yours as my facts haven't been called into question.
Then again, wikipedia calls politics, "consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit, [2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy."
So basically you are agreeing that your whole basis on the oil industry (and what should be done in the future) isn't based off of facts or what is best, but by "methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy."
Can you now apologize for questioning my intelligence as you've agreed that you haven't brought to the table a truthful and factually based argument for your points?
Everyone knows it's tougher to formulate an argument with facts than an argument based on what you feel like saying and whatever slander you can use.
NOW PT 2:
2. I could also bring the definition, "Likewise, a monopoly should be distinguished from a cartel (a form of oligopoly), in which several providers act together to coordinate services, prices or sale of goods."
Since gas prices by Exxon aren't greater than BP, Chevron, Luk Oil, etc. the pricing gouging you refer to by the industry, would be a cartel effect. Which would then prove my point again that it is an oligopoly.
So in effect, by you saying the industry gouges, you are saying there is a cartel which proves it is an oligopoly.
But if you want to argue that, then you are going back to a monopoly argument which then brings about the fact (your source agrees) that nothing you've provided is factually based as it is done for political gains.
PT 3:
Your def from wikipedia states, "in criticism of firms with large market share or lack of what is perceived as "fair" competition." What oil company is arguing there isn't fair competition? So where's the unfair competition? With the way people like you (and millions in the US) despise the oil companies, if ANYONE had an alternative that was almost the same price, you (and them) would switch to the competitor. You haven't because nobody has been able to make a product to compete. That's not the oil companies faults. Maybe someone could take your hint and use the engineers and scientists of the ethanol industry because that's exploding so fast these days (oh wait, no it's not - but that's just the facts of the industry, so you wouldn't include that in your argument).
EITHER WAY, it proves my point you haven't presented factual facts in this argument from the start. I showed this in my listing of falsities written by you, and you have no offically proven and agreed with it through your own sources.
And Dave, you also show your reading comprehension with, "Also, from the oligopoly section of Wikipedia, "In some situations, the firms may collude to raise prices and restrict production in the same way as a monopoly."
How does that prove your monopoly point at all? All it proves is a monopoly is just like an oligopoly but with 1 main company in the industry and not a couple. All that proves is your misunderstanding of the word monopoly more.
And yes Dave, I'm an apologist for Fortune 100 companies. I do believe the companies that provide good pay and benefits for their employees are good for the US and its citizens. Somehow that is now an apologist?
On the same argument, aren't you an apologist for global warming and anti-oil? The only difference is you can't prove anything you say.
So basically everything you've called me so far in this discussion, I've shown you to be the same. Really good arguments Dave!
And see Dave, you again go for the low-blow because you can't defeat me with facts. That's usually the last ditch effort of the loser.
But then again, Exxon's CEO isn't in the top 10 pay of the US CEO's. Where your "political" argument for that?
Dave,
Profits exceeding fines? What really has any oil company been fined for recently other than doing what the government has mandated them to do (MTBEin county lawsuits)?
Again Dave, how much of Exxons 40 billion profit is taxable by the US? That runs into the same politics as does Obama saying there are 47 million American's without health insurance.
What are you going to do, tax Exxon's profits all around the world? Why would they stay on the NYSE and not move its headquarters to Londo or Tokyo?
dave, bottom line, we're not bending over and taking one for the team for another decade or so.
Dishonest Dave has no room to talk about others credentials or motives.
Notice how whenever DD is losing an argument he tries to distract from this by turning it personal by attacking his opponent and questioning their motives. He pulls this dishonest Lib trick in virtually every conversation.
Here, in this conversation, it does not matter one bit how or why Jonas knows so much about the oil industry. His name could be Mr. Exxon Mobil Sunoco and this would not change the truth of his words. …or the fact that he has slapped DD around here like his little bitch. Lol…
My feelings are that we should drill here to stabilize the price where it is now. Hope inflationary issues cause the price to drop to low $3 in the coming 2-3 years. And then keep the price around $3 -$3.50 until we can have hyrdogen, solar, etc (basically anything else) car that can be run for a comprable of $3.5 or less a gallon (not really sure the product would be sold in gallons). Then we can slowly go to that product as the poor/middle class can afford to get a new vehicle. So at some point 20-30 (whatever) years down the road we are all driving a vehicle propelled by something else.
I must have missed this line in the arguements in this discussion. i knew I wasn't the only one thinking clearly!
There's three legs to this table: Energy Independence, Environmental Responsibility, and Economic Stability. We can't go in one path without affecting the others!
Three legged tables don’t rock but they can tilt.
You should move the environmental concerns to last place on your list, S. For too long they have been calling the shots. And we now see where appeasing their weeping has led us. It’s time to tell them obstructionist anti-progress “progressives” to STFU.
The mooses and polar bears, fish and birds, turtles and frogs will be fine. And certainly they should not be permitted to stop progress.
Steve,
I fully agree with you on the future of vehicles. No where have I stated oil is the way of the future, just a way to subsidize us until we have the future technology (which to me, isn't available until I can walk/drive somewhere and buy the machine).
R,
Thank you for calling out David's low tactics. He calls into question your sexuality, ball size, and motives, then when you do the same you are a low-life or loser. It's like he almost feels as if he can call anyone anything and they aren't allowed to reply to his comment. I guess that's how he wins most of his discussions, say something and never let anyone respond.
Remember though, this is all a political argument. So Exxon making 40 billions in profits really doesn't prove they gouge. It just proves that certain people feel that is too much to make during a span of time. I personally feel David's line of work is worthless and him making over 15k is insane. Therefore, we should windfall profit tax him on all earnings over 15k. I don't have to prove this in any way, it's political!
Then again, David forgot capital gains taxes on the sale of a house don't account for ones income level. Shows you he probably uses HR Block or Turbo Tax to do his taxes but thinks he's a master of the tax code.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave,
Here's another example of your "politicking" and not presenting facts:
9) I said crude prices were driving up inflation (not the other way around). Your observation: "And I feel that on Friday when the US showed the highest inflation rates in a year and prices of crude went down goes with that argument." is unlikely to be a correlation unless increased inflation is dropping demand by slowing the economy.
You first stated, "The quickest way to lower the gas prices (not alter supply/demand/production of oil/gas, just the PRICES at the pump) is to strengthen the dollar with sound fiscal policy."
Now your first comment is saying that strengthening the dollar (also known as decreasing inflation) will drive the price down at the pump.
Those are completely two different arguments. You can't back up your first statement with what you said in your rebut.
Also, my comment about prices and inflation does prove you incorrect. Your rebut says increase crude $ = increased inflation. I showed a situation where increased inflation = decreased crude $. The exact opposite of what you say will happen. How am I dumb again? It's not my fault you can't comprehend your own arguments, and as such, you can't comprehend mine.
And btw, my argument was to show that in the short term, inflation of the dollar and the price of crude don't show a correlation. Therefore your argument that inflation was the short term fix was false. There's no proven correlation. And if there was, then there's nothing we can do to fix it as we don't control the price of crude.
Man, I keep proving you wrong left and right. Bop-a-Lib.
I personally feel David's line of work is worthless and him making over 15k is insane. Therefore, we should windfall profit tax him on all earnings over 15k.
LMAO! Great comparative!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diano, we're already getting railroaded...
And how on earth do you expect a windfall tax on 10% profits to benefit us in relieving gas prices? They'll be passed on to us as we figure out how to get our heads out of our asses. Let's fix the prices by going backwards. I hear Coca Cola has a higher margin than these companies, should be extend this tax to other industries?
Sure, strengthen the dollar, but also, increase the supply. Why you blinded liberals can't come to the table for common sense I'll never figure out...
I'm thrilled the President is going to speak on off-shore drilling today. WELL OVERDUE.
Steve,
You are correct. The profit margin by Coca Cola and Pepsi are both higher than Exxon, BP, Chevron, etc. That's not the argument though to the anti-oil people. The argument is Exxon has become "too large" of a company and therefore should pay the price.
The price for hiring all American citizens (unlike our farmers we alwasy jump to help) and giving them great benefits along with above average industry raises is you should be taxed more!
This comment has been removed by the author.
does this mean your bugs are polluting our environment? is their excrement killing off Caribou in the ANWR providence? Do the bugs have many rich Saudi Princes? is this a conspiracy by the far right to slowly pollute our environment? Should we tax the bigs handlers a windfall tax profit on droppings? To make any headway in our oil battles, I hope these bugs are dropping elephant-sized loafs...
This comment has been removed by the author.
If I recall correctly, Dave once advocated here the murdering of Oil executives because he felt their product was harmful and they were forsaking people’s health for profit. Or something like this.
This is the sort of Lib dope you boys are arguing with. Lol…
This comment has been removed by the author.
poor diano, can't laugh. I'm guessing you lost your most recent inflatable friend. Here's a link for a possible replacement
Sure, most of those comments were in joking fashion, although the elephant-comment was more sarcasm. The (micro) bugs may be a feel good option, but I don't see millions of barrels coming our way from harvesting them.
I advocated for the death penalty and executions of Big Tobacco executives
Oh, that’s right. Cigs… guns… oil… I knew it was onea them. My bad. Lol…
Gee, it's funny how when I call for government run executions of these unrepentant, still-at-large mass-murders, Randal calls it "murder", but when it's people he doesn't like, it's "for security/safety".
Uh, yeah. That would be because you want to murder innocent people just because you personally don’t like their legal product. While uncivilized violent street thug animals that prey on innocent others should be permanently removed from our society and extinguished to protect the innocent and law abiding. And the vast majority of Americans agree with me, not the shrill dopey likes of Capitalism-hating and criminal-sympathizing you.
Are you seriously suggesting that we as a country start dealing the death penalty to folks who we just don’t like due to the product they sell? Really? Well, in that case… I have a strong dislike for the harmful Liberalism product you’re always trying to push on others. Hehehe…
And, let us not forget that much like military service is volunteer, so too is it one’s personal choice to smoke.
It is such displays that cause the rest of us to disregard your moronic views on any number of topics. Ya do it to yourself, DD!
[If any of Dishonest Dopey Dave Diano’s clients read here, I’d like to hear from them!]
Don’t listen to that dopey dullard Dave, S. The rest of us enjoy your posts. ;)
Hey! That’s a extremely nice post. I’m very certain I'll recommend it to my co-workers.When you publish extra posts please e mail them to me.
My webpage ... why am i not getting pregnant
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home