Drill? Or go green? I say do both.

[Old Rocks]

China win the clean energy race?
Actually their polloution is so bad it is a matter of survival for them.

China is currently the dreamland for the right. NO stinkin EPA or FDA, EEOC, etc.

Major political fights going on there over this right now. And they are investing far more of their GDP in alternatives, and the R & D funding is far greater there than here.

 

[Old Rocks]

My whole point is that I favor any form of energy that will get us off of foreign oil (notice I said foreign). And could someone please enlighten me on where the term "fossil fuel" came from?

Fossil fuels are fuels from carbon sequestered by the action of living organisms and geology. An example is coal that is created from plants growing on top of dead plants, being buried deep in strata, where the heat and pressure drives out the volatiles, leaving nearly pure carbon for anthracite coal. A similiar process works for the organics that settle on the bottom of the ocean, with burial in the right environment creating oil. In other words, these fuels are actually fossil relics of once living organisms.

 

[IndependentBear]

Fossil fuels are fuels from carbon sequestered by the action of living organisms and geology. An example is coal that is created from plants growing on top of dead plants, being buried deep in strata, where the heat and pressure drives out the volatiles, leaving nearly pure carbon for anthracite coal. A similiar process works for the organics that settle on the bottom of the ocean, with burial in the right environment creating oil. In other words, these fuels are actually fossil relics of once living organisms.

Thanks for the information. Usually when I hear that term used it is by some environmental extremist who demands that we stop all use of all oil tomorrow because it is supposedly a 19th century fuel, as shown in another post. Like it or not, oil still powers much of the economy of the 21st century and probably will be in heavy demand well into the 22nd. Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

[Oddball]

The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.

How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.

Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.

So what?

There are numerous other mills that use fossil fuels and you still need coke to make steel from iron ore.

I have no objection to mining minerals. My point is that the creation of so-called "green technologies" relies upon a whole heap of old fashioned digging into the ground, and all the attendant usage of traditional fuels that entails. Moreover, there are transportation, assembly and maintenance issues (at least) which also rely upon good ole American trucking and manufacture techniques.

When all is said and done, your venerated "green technology" is an environmental wash, at best, to go along with being an economic loser.

Such endeavors would mean JOBS JOBS and more JOBS. Nothing wrong with that.

There's everything wrong with it, when the jobs are in money losing businesses that need to be propped up with taxpayer dollars.

 

[MaggieMae]

China win the clean energy race?
Actually their polloution is so bad it is a matter of survival for them.

China is currently the dreamland for the right. NO stinkin EPA or FDA, EEOC, etc.

But they'll have the technology.

 

[MaggieMae]

My whole point is that I favor any form of energy that will get us off of foreign oil (notice I said foreign). And could someone please enlighten me on where the term "fossil fuel" came from?

Fossil fuels are fuels from carbon sequestered by the action of living organisms and geology. An example is coal that is created from plants growing on top of dead plants, being buried deep in strata, where the heat and pressure drives out the volatiles, leaving nearly pure carbon for anthracite coal. A similiar process works for the organics that settle on the bottom of the ocean, with burial in the right environment creating oil. In other words, these fuels are actually fossil relics of once living organisms.

At the LaBrea tarpits in Los Angeles, you can stand on the bridge on Wilshire Boulevard and look directly down at the oil from fossils bubbling right up through the ground. It's fascinating.

 

[MaggieMae]

Fossil fuels are fuels from carbon sequestered by the action of living organisms and geology. An example is coal that is created from plants growing on top of dead plants, being buried deep in strata, where the heat and pressure drives out the volatiles, leaving nearly pure carbon for anthracite coal. A similiar process works for the organics that settle on the bottom of the ocean, with burial in the right environment creating oil. In other words, these fuels are actually fossil relics of once living organisms.

Thanks for the information. Usually when I hear that term used it is by some environmental extremist who demands that we stop all use of all oil tomorrow because it is supposedly a 19th century fuel, as shown in another post. Like it or not, oil still powers much of the economy of the 21st century and probably will be in heavy demand well into the 22nd. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Just about every product in our homes and businesses is oil-based at least in part. There will always be a need for oil. Just not exclusively for fuel or power.

 

[MaggieMae]

So what?

There are numerous other mills that use fossil fuels and you still need coke to make steel from iron ore.

I have no objection to mining minerals. My point is that the creation of so-called "green technologies" relies upon a whole heap of old fashioned digging into the ground, and all the attendant usage of traditional fuels that entails. Moreover, there are transportation, assembly and maintenance issues (at least) which also rely upon good ole American trucking and manufacture techniques.

When all is said and done, your venerated "green technology" is an environmental wash, at best, to go along with being an economic loser.

Such endeavors would mean JOBS JOBS and more JOBS. Nothing wrong with that.

There's everything wrong with it, when the jobs are in money losing businesses that need to be propped up with taxpayer dollars.

Yeah sure. Who paid for the Interstate highway system? Could we survive without it now?

 

[Mr. H.]

I'd just like an accounting of what they DO with all those subsidies, since Big Oil has shown the highest profits in history in the last couple of years. One would think that if they are reinvesting into their own R&D for alternative energy (which is what the subsidies are for), the Petroleum Lobby wouldn't have an ad up on television admonishing removal of said subsidies (which they call a "tax" on the industry in the ad).

Subsidy is a misnomer. The bottom line is that it results in less taxes on investment. Removal of "subsidies" is the same as raising taxes.

I thought that was my point. Care to address the rest of what I said?

Your post doesn't have a point. I don't think you are aware of the issues related to subsidies or incentives or the tax code in general.

And where do you get the connection between "Big Oil" and R&D in alternative energy?

The oil and gas industries are very capital intensive and more unsuccesful at finding reserves than you might think. The more capital that is taxed away, the less attractive the investment. It's the same for drilling a well or opening a McDonalds.


BTW I'm not aware of the TV ad you mention. Can you describe it - maybe it's on Youtube.

 

[Oddball]

Such endeavors would mean JOBS JOBS and more JOBS. Nothing wrong with that.

There's everything wrong with it, when the jobs are in money losing businesses that need to be propped up with taxpayer dollars.

Yeah sure. Who paid for the Interstate highway system? Could we survive without it now?

You can't be serious.

 

[Defiant1]

My whole point is that I favor any form of energy that will get us off of foreign oil (notice I said foreign). And could someone please enlighten me on where the term "fossil fuel" came from?

Fossil fuels are fuels from carbon sequestered by the action of living organisms and geology. An example is coal that is created from plants growing on top of dead plants, being buried deep in strata, where the heat and pressure drives out the volatiles, leaving nearly pure carbon for anthracite coal. A similiar process works for the organics that settle on the bottom of the ocean, with burial in the right environment creating oil. In other words, these fuels are actually fossil relics of once living organisms.

In other words fuels formed by "Mother Earth" herself.

Sounds pretty "Green" to me.

 

[MaggieMae]

Subsidy is a misnomer. The bottom line is that it results in less taxes on investment. Removal of "subsidies" is the same as raising taxes.

I thought that was my point. Care to address the rest of what I said?

Your post doesn't have a point. I don't think you are aware of the issues related to subsidies or incentives or the tax code in general.

And where do you get the connection between "Big Oil" and R&D in alternative energy?

The oil and gas industries are very capital intensive and more unsuccesful at finding reserves than you might think. The more capital that is taxed away, the less attractive the investment. It's the same for drilling a well or opening a McDonalds.


BTW I'm not aware of the TV ad you mention. Can you describe it - maybe it's on Youtube.

How Big Oil uses its profits and subsidies is pretty much unknown, actually. I go by the statements by their CEOs who have appeared on Capital Hill several times since 2005 to explain, and there never has been an adequate response. The best they can come up with has always been that, yes, it is making billions of dollars but that it is also spending billions and billions of dollars to bring oil to the gas pump and to invest in finding new sources. I took that to mean ALL "new sources" not just more oil sources. But I'm probably wrong.

Here's a list of the Petroleum Industry lobby's TV ads. The first four are combined into one ad currently running. Of course the ads (all of them) carefully avoid the word "subsidize" which is the "tax" they refer to. It gives the impression that a NEW tax is about to be imposed, when in fact, it's the elimination of the subsidies which WOULD actually be used for alternative energy research and development of projects instead.

API Ads

 

[MaggieMae]

There's everything wrong with it, when the jobs are in money losing businesses that need to be propped up with taxpayer dollars.

Yeah sure. Who paid for the Interstate highway system? Could we survive without it now?

You can't be serious.

Uh, yes, genius. What do your revisionist history notes tell you?

Interstate Highway History - Cost To Build The Interstate Highway System | What It Costs

Costs
The initial construction of the Interstate, as proposed in 1956, was completed in September of 1991 and at the time had a total length of approximately 40,000 miles.

Actual Cost to build the Interstate Highway System was $114 Billion over 35 years ago, and $500 billion in 2008 dollars.

Today, more than half of the costs for construction and maintenance of Interstate Highways comes primarily from gasoline taxes and tolls; the balance being paid by the federal government. However, as the cost of maintaining the present Interstates as well as constructing new ones has grown significantly, it is highly likely that many primary Interstate Highways will be converted into turnpikes (toll roads) to help defray this growing expense.

Benefits

Whatever the costs, however, the Interstate Highway System has proven to be instrumental in transforming the country, its economy, and American society. It has grown in proportion to our dependency on being mobile by providing us all with the means to travel longer distances quickly and inexpensively. Also, to take advantage of this greater mobility the Interstate Highway System made it possible for a whole range of markets, carriers, and industries to emerge. And finally, as the number of industries grew so did the number of auxiliary Interstate Highways which in turn instigated the suburbanization of our major cities.

 

[Mr. H.]

I thought that was my point. Care to address the rest of what I said?

Your post doesn't have a point. I don't think you are aware of the issues related to subsidies or incentives or the tax code in general.

And where do you get the connection between "Big Oil" and R&D in alternative energy?

The oil and gas industries are very capital intensive and more unsuccesful at finding reserves than you might think. The more capital that is taxed away, the less attractive the investment. It's the same for drilling a well or opening a McDonalds.


BTW I'm not aware of the TV ad you mention. Can you describe it - maybe it's on Youtube.

How Big Oil uses its profits and subsidies is pretty much unknown, actually. I go by the statements by their CEOs who have appeared on Capital Hill several times since 2005 to explain, and there never has been an adequate response. The best they can come up with has always been that, yes, it is making billions of dollars but that it is also spending billions and billions of dollars to bring oil to the gas pump and to invest in finding new sources. I took that to mean ALL "new sources" not just more oil sources. But I'm probably wrong.

Here's a list of the Petroleum Industry lobby's TV ads. The first four are combined into one ad currently running. Of course the ads (all of them) carefully avoid the word "subsidize" which is the "tax" they refer to. It gives the impression that a NEW tax is about to be imposed, when in fact, it's the elimination of the subsidies which WOULD actually be used for alternative energy research and development of projects instead.

API Ads

Thanks for that. Yeah I just saw one of the commercials on TV.

There are a host of tax provisions that are under the microscope. Again, these provisions are similar to ones that are afforded many other industries. It makes no sense to me that oil and gas is being singled out - other than the fact that it's the usual "anti-oil" sentiment that has permeated Washington for decades. Sure, profits have been at record levels lately but then oil and gas prices have been high too. If you look at revenues over the past few decades, returns are not much better than other industries such as manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, etc.

Here's a discussion on oil and gas accounting practices. It's a laborious read but w/give an idea of how and why income and expenses are reported as they are:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/mutts-164.gif

The story references other related topics too.

With respect to the TV ad: it looks to me that the focus is on independent domestic oil and gas companies and not major international concerns (i.e. BP). Remember that there are nearly 500,000 onshore oil and gas wells in this country. The vast majority are owned by independents - often family owned concerns that have been in business for generations. These "subsidies" (or lack of additional taxes) have made the difference between success and failure over the decades. And even tho the cumulitave production from these half-million wells may seem negligable, it is a crucial component to our total production. And as the TV commerial points out, the industry employs about 9 million people nationwide.

As for alternatives, BP is one of the largest non-governmental entities that invests in such technologies. The independent companies do not have the capital or resources to do this and they do not own any upstream or downstream operations such as refining or retailing.

Back to the "subsidies" - here's a link that explains exactly which provisions are at stake:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Anyway- hope this helps.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your post doesn't have a point. I don't think you are aware of the issues related to subsidies or incentives or the tax code in general.

And where do you get the connection between "Big Oil" and R&D in alternative energy?

The oil and gas industries are very capital intensive and more unsuccesful at finding reserves than you might think. The more capital that is taxed away, the less attractive the investment. It's the same for drilling a well or opening a McDonalds.


BTW I'm not aware of the TV ad you mention. Can you describe it - maybe it's on Youtube.

How Big Oil uses its profits and subsidies is pretty much unknown, actually. I go by the statements by their CEOs who have appeared on Capital Hill several times since 2005 to explain, and there never has been an adequate response. The best they can come up with has always been that, yes, it is making billions of dollars but that it is also spending billions and billions of dollars to bring oil to the gas pump and to invest in finding new sources. I took that to mean ALL "new sources" not just more oil sources. But I'm probably wrong.

Here's a list of the Petroleum Industry lobby's TV ads. The first four are combined into one ad currently running. Of course the ads (all of them) carefully avoid the word "subsidize" which is the "tax" they refer to. It gives the impression that a NEW tax is about to be imposed, when in fact, it's the elimination of the subsidies which WOULD actually be used for alternative energy research and development of projects instead.

API Ads

Thanks for that. Yeah I just saw one of the commercials on TV.

There are a host of tax provisions that are under the microscope. Again, these provisions are similar to ones that are afforded many other industries. It makes no sense to me that oil and gas is being singled out - other than the fact that it's the usual "anti-oil" sentiment that has permeated Washington for decades. Sure, profits have been at record levels lately but then oil and gas prices have been high too. If you look at revenues over the past few decades, returns are not much better than other industries such as manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, etc.

Here's a discussion on oil and gas accounting practices. It's a laborious read but w/give an idea of how and why income and expenses are reported as they are:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/mutts-164.gif

The story references other related topics too.

With respect to the TV ad: it looks to me that the focus is on independent domestic oil and gas companies and not major international concerns (i.e. BP). Remember that there are nearly 500,000 onshore oil and gas wells in this country. The vast majority are owned by independents - often family owned concerns that have been in business for generations. These "subsidies" (or lack of additional taxes) have made the difference between success and failure over the decades. And even tho the cumulitave production from these half-million wells may seem negligable, it is a crucial component to our total production. And as the TV commerial points out, the industry employs about 9 million people nationwide.

As for alternatives, BP is one of the largest non-governmental entities that invests in such technologies. The independent companies do not have the capital or resources to do this and they do not own any upstream or downstream operations such as refining or retailing.

Back to the "subsidies" - here's a link that explains exactly which provisions are at stake:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Anyway- hope this helps.

I don't have time to read all of that right now, but will get to it later this afternoon. In the meantime, I'll just say that it wouldn't matter so much (to me) that the government subsidizes the oil companies IF there wasn't so much noisy opposition to subsidizing alternative energy entrepreneurs, who also are small independent companies simply trying to compete.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your post doesn't have a point. I don't think you are aware of the issues related to subsidies or incentives or the tax code in general.

And where do you get the connection between "Big Oil" and R&D in alternative energy?

The oil and gas industries are very capital intensive and more unsuccesful at finding reserves than you might think. The more capital that is taxed away, the less attractive the investment. It's the same for drilling a well or opening a McDonalds.


BTW I'm not aware of the TV ad you mention. Can you describe it - maybe it's on Youtube.

How Big Oil uses its profits and subsidies is pretty much unknown, actually. I go by the statements by their CEOs who have appeared on Capital Hill several times since 2005 to explain, and there never has been an adequate response. The best they can come up with has always been that, yes, it is making billions of dollars but that it is also spending billions and billions of dollars to bring oil to the gas pump and to invest in finding new sources. I took that to mean ALL "new sources" not just more oil sources. But I'm probably wrong.

Here's a list of the Petroleum Industry lobby's TV ads. The first four are combined into one ad currently running. Of course the ads (all of them) carefully avoid the word "subsidize" which is the "tax" they refer to. It gives the impression that a NEW tax is about to be imposed, when in fact, it's the elimination of the subsidies which WOULD actually be used for alternative energy research and development of projects instead.

API Ads

Thanks for that. Yeah I just saw one of the commercials on TV.

There are a host of tax provisions that are under the microscope. Again, these provisions are similar to ones that are afforded many other industries. It makes no sense to me that oil and gas is being singled out - other than the fact that it's the usual "anti-oil" sentiment that has permeated Washington for decades. Sure, profits have been at record levels lately but then oil and gas prices have been high too. If you look at revenues over the past few decades, returns are not much better than other industries such as manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, etc.

Here's a discussion on oil and gas accounting practices. It's a laborious read but w/give an idea of how and why income and expenses are reported as they are:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/mutts-164.gif

The story references other related topics too.

With respect to the TV ad: it looks to me that the focus is on independent domestic oil and gas companies and not major international concerns (i.e. BP). Remember that there are nearly 500,000 onshore oil and gas wells in this country. The vast majority are owned by independents - often family owned concerns that have been in business for generations. These "subsidies" (or lack of additional taxes) have made the difference between success and failure over the decades. And even tho the cumulitave production from these half-million wells may seem negligable, it is a crucial component to our total production. And as the TV commerial points out, the industry employs about 9 million people nationwide.

As for alternatives, BP is one of the largest non-governmental entities that invests in such technologies. The independent companies do not have the capital or resources to do this and they do not own any upstream or downstream operations such as refining or retailing.

Back to the "subsidies" - here's a link that explains exactly which provisions are at stake:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Anyway- hope this helps.

The IPAA report favors the industry because it's a trade organization (lobbyist) for the industry. Interesting, however, that upon reading the information (and I'm not dismissing any of it as invalid or embellished in any way), it appears that the oil and gas industry relies much more heavily on government subsidies than even I imagined.

So for those who believe there should be NO government interference (subsidies, regulations, taxes, whatever), what would that do to the oil and gas industry?

 

[MaggieMae]

The cartoon was cute, Mr. H. That's the whole storyline behind the old TV show, The Beverly Hillbillies, too.

 

[Charles_Main]

If there is one thing we have learned from the Gulf oil spill, it is this: we have oil. If only we could have found that out another way. The disaster was caused because safety procedures were not followed.

I find it strange that we have two factions on the issue of energy. First we have the "Drill Baby Drill" people that say that drilling for oil is the only answer to our energy needs. Then we have those at the other extreme that say we should stop all drilling today, right now, and go exclusively to solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.

I say both sides are partially wrong. My position is that America needs to use whatever sources it can from inside our borders. That means drill for oil AND use solar, wind, nuclear, and coal. There is no reason it can't be done. This would keep about $800 billion a year in America for American jobs and put a major dent in the wallets of terrorists that hate what this country stands for.

Of course we should do Both.

We should do it all. Anything that will work to get us off Forign Oil we should do.

Domestic drilling
Nuclear power.
green alternatives
Clean Coal Tech
Shale Oil

and on and on

What ever works. the Goal should be energy independence period.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oops! I didn't mean to post that comic LOL. I'll find the correct link.

 

[Mr. H.]

How Big Oil uses its profits and subsidies is pretty much unknown, actually. I go by the statements by their CEOs who have appeared on Capital Hill several times since 2005 to explain, and there never has been an adequate response. The best they can come up with has always been that, yes, it is making billions of dollars but that it is also spending billions and billions of dollars to bring oil to the gas pump and to invest in finding new sources. I took that to mean ALL "new sources" not just more oil sources. But I'm probably wrong.

Here's a list of the Petroleum Industry lobby's TV ads. The first four are combined into one ad currently running. Of course the ads (all of them) carefully avoid the word "subsidize" which is the "tax" they refer to. It gives the impression that a NEW tax is about to be imposed, when in fact, it's the elimination of the subsidies which WOULD actually be used for alternative energy research and development of projects instead.

API Ads

Thanks for that. Yeah I just saw one of the commercials on TV.

There are a host of tax provisions that are under the microscope. Again, these provisions are similar to ones that are afforded many other industries. It makes no sense to me that oil and gas is being singled out - other than the fact that it's the usual "anti-oil" sentiment that has permeated Washington for decades. Sure, profits have been at record levels lately but then oil and gas prices have been high too. If you look at revenues over the past few decades, returns are not much better than other industries such as manufacturing, pharmeceuticals, etc.

Here's a discussion on oil and gas accounting practices. It's a laborious read but w/give an idea of how and why income and expenses are reported as they are:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/yesyadda/mutts-164.gif

The story references other related topics too.

With respect to the TV ad: it looks to me that the focus is on independent domestic oil and gas companies and not major international concerns (i.e. BP). Remember that there are nearly 500,000 onshore oil and gas wells in this country. The vast majority are owned by independents - often family owned concerns that have been in business for generations. These "subsidies" (or lack of additional taxes) have made the difference between success and failure over the decades. And even tho the cumulitave production from these half-million wells may seem negligable, it is a crucial component to our total production. And as the TV commerial points out, the industry employs about 9 million people nationwide.

As for alternatives, BP is one of the largest non-governmental entities that invests in such technologies. The independent companies do not have the capital or resources to do this and they do not own any upstream or downstream operations such as refining or retailing.

Back to the "subsidies" - here's a link that explains exactly which provisions are at stake:

http://www.ipaa.org/news/docs/2009TaxandBudgetOverview.pdf

Anyway- hope this helps.

The IPAA report favors the industry because it's a trade organization (lobbyist) for the industry. Interesting, however, that upon reading the information (and I'm not dismissing any of it as invalid or embellished in any way), it appears that the oil and gas industry relies much more heavily on government subsidies than even I imagined.

So for those who believe there should be NO government interference (subsidies, regulations, taxes, whatever), what would that do to the oil and gas industry?

Here's the link re: accounting practices:

Accounting For Differences In Oil And Gas Accounting

Yup the IPAA is like the Farm Bureau. But who would better know about industry and the effects of particular tax measures? They maintain offices and a full time staff in D.C. and have board members all around the country.

It's not that O&G "relies" heavily on so called subsidies, but rather it's a very complex industry with unique cost centers that require just as unique tax treatment. It's not a question of "how little will we tax an industry", but "how much of your revenue will we let you keep?".

Generating revenue requires expensive practices and expensive materials. Shouldn't these costs be deducted from revenues and taxes assessed on net revenues? Over the years, more and more of these costs have been disallowed, some retained, and some regained. The notion of "subsidies" arose when an industry successfully argued for the retention of cost deductions.