digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Uncle Sam And Oil

forbes.com — The U.S. Interior Department's royalty rate for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is 18.75%-up from 12.5% two years ago.This move helped the government take in $7 billion in offshore royalties, rents and bonuses from oil companies drilling in U.S. waters last year.The government's take would undoubtedly increase......

show profanity settings
expand all
  • faizal5k, on 06/19/2008, -13/+10Man it's amazing how we are so dependent on oil these days...kind of scary if you think about it. Oh well, it's not like it will ever run out right?

    ...o wait
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2No. It won't run out. At least not for the reasons we've been told.

      Ever wonder how the Russians can drill down 40,000 feet through solid rock, and extract oil from a place that no known dinosaur ever existed?

      How did oil form from the fossils of dinosaurs 40,000 feet down through solid rock?

      I guess dinosaurs had a very strict burial ritual that required very deep burials?

      Or maybe oil is the result of geological processes, just like diamonds.
      • sgiffy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Oil didn't (just) form from dinosaurs, it formed from any biomass. So sure it reforms, just really really slowly as there is not that much biomass that gets trapped in the right way.
        • PhilLesh69, on 06/21/2008, -0/+2How does biomass find its way to 40,000 feet below the earth's surface, under solid bedrock?

          The only source that could possibly exist at that depth is elemental carbon and other elements and products of geothermal, seismic, and volcanic activity.

          What is natural gas made from? Methane is CH4, Ethane is C2H6, Propane is C3H8, Butane is C4H10.

          These are not complex chemicals, they are simple bonds of hydrogen and carbon, both very plentiful inside the earth, and not requiring very much complex activity to create.

          Even Diamonds are quite simple. Some carbon molecules subjected to intense heat and pressure for long periods of time.

          Why is oil any different? Just because some scientist in the late 1800's detected biomass in the mixture of oil from very shallow wells? Because, like Diamonds, its value is based on artificial scarcity (even today, most of the artificial scarcity is due to production quotas, limited refinery capacity, etc.)? Because nobody could get rich selling something that was as plentiful as dirt at the time?

          Look up abiotic oil. There is a lot of scientific information pointing to oil being of geological origin. Of course, your point about it forming slowly may end up proving right, even when people eventually realize it is abiotic and not biotic in origin. I don't think anyone knows how much the planet creates in any given time period compared to how fast we consume (and consumed) it.
  • Badandy127, on 06/19/2008, -6/+15Does this mean that the government can take the revenue made from all of those evil corporations and use that revenue to do some good, like paying off our debt or investing in education and alternative energy?


    No way, I don't believe it. The oil industry is pure evil, nothing good can come out of it!
    • Naieve, on 06/19/2008, -3/+16They won't use it to pay off debt.

      They will use it however best wins them the next election.

      If its billions in farm subsidies or tax cuts to the rich, they will find a way to waste our money.
    • PopcornDave, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7P.J.O'Rourke said it best ( and I'm paraphrasing here ) when he said that giving politicians money is like giving your 16 year old a bottle of Jack Daniels, a .357 Magnum and the keys to your Jaguar.

      The federal government is like the blob from the old Steve McQueen movie. The more it ate, the bigger it got and the more it needed to sustain itself. If you give the government more revenue, they're going to assume, more than likely wrongly, that they're going to have the same amount of money to play with every year, but every year they're going to want just a little more than the last year.

      What they don't understand is that if they don't have the revenue stream, they won't have the money. So when those royalties dry up, they're going to be scrambling to replace that money.

      Best not to give them any at all.
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -5/+3Government isn't the problem. Bad government is the problem.

        The right wing has given us bad government. Vote left or it won't change.
        • Laughsatyou, on 06/20/2008, -0/+5another mind numbing comment from a partisan dip *****. both parties are the same.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1"both parties are the same."

          I agree. That's why we should vote left. The same two right wing parties have no reason to stop screwing us as long as we put them back in power.

          Did you think I meant Democrats when I said "left?"
        • mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+4Well, with that said, I would think communism.

          I could think of Cuba, which recently gave people the ability to rent hotel rooms, have computers and cell phones. And jailed political dissidents.

          Or perhaps I should think of China. While it has certainly seen minor reforms, it is also the same government that chooses to "donate" organs of its jailed citizenry, prosecutes political dissidents and brings back memories of people being run over by tanks.

          Or maybe I should think of the former Soviet Union. While that country gave us good hockey teams, they also gave us terms like Gulag. You certainly didn't want to be against the communist party there.

          It is all fine and good, so long as you are towing the line and a good party member.
        • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -2/+1Or maybe you should think of the majority of highly ranked developed nations...

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Ind ...

          That's some pretty funny stuff where you complain about the Soviets gulag system. Because we Americans really have the moral high ground when it comes to illegal imprisonment and torture, right?

          BTW, it's "toeing" the line. As in getting in a line. Damn, dude.
        • Badandy127, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Sorry, communism and socialism suck. I'd rather have control over what I want to do, how much I charge, and how I lead my life rather than having my profession handed down from government mandates.

          And yes, we do have the moral high ground. Sorry Guantanamo Bay completely ruined your opinion of the U.S., but our judicial system is incredibly advanced. Bring up incidents all you want, but on the whole, we do a pretty damn good job.

          Ship yourself off to Canada.
    • userperson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2"Does this mean that the government can take the revenue made from all of those evil corporations and use that revenue to do some good [?]"

      Ow! my sides hurt.
      I think perhaps you're confused about your ethics and your enemy (or I'm not picking up on your clever sarcasm).

      The "evil" corporations derive most of their evil powers from politics i.e. the government.

      Businesses can be bad all on their own, but generally those lose customers and go out of business (or would)... yes if you suspend gravity on mars the evil businesses take over and ruin our lives, blah blah blah.

      However when businesses are allowed to push legislation, they have the power of force by proxy of government. They can play dirty then, and only government sanctioned businesses survive. This mean less competition for them, and higher prices/worse deals for you.
      • Badandy127, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1But the fact is, these big oil companies really don't make a high profit margin. There are sure to be hundreds of products in your own home or apartment that were made by companies making more profit per dollar of sales than big oil makes. The reason that "big oil" is so vilified is that the quantity they sell is huge. That quantity gives them a profit of $11 billion per quarter, but the prices you are seeing is a direct result of OPEC (a cartel which would be illegal under U.S. law if it were based here) and the weakening dollar due to the government's inability to control spending.

        Let's vote in a government who will bring in more than they spend. Unfortunately, neither of the two major parties offer that, so we're pretty stuck.

        On one side you have a Republican who wants there to be tax cuts but doesn't have any feasible suggestions for reducing government spending, and on the other side you have a Democrat who simply wants to punish/tax the rich simply because they have money. I hate both.


  • jcs79, on 06/19/2008, -9/+8Thank goodness for oil, which powers the comfortable life I lead.
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Just imagine if our government stopped the usury taxation on labor and only made money from sales of natural resources (not just taxing private industry for their free access to national resources, but sales of it) and excise taxes, tariffs and usage taxes.

      You would have a much more comfortable life. A life much closer in standard to the Saudis, who get enormous government paychecks from oil production.
  • Pateep, on 06/19/2008, -6/+1And a giant octopus? Oh yeah, but the ceiling and lava. Two times!
  • HuskyPuzzle, on 06/19/2008, -7/+2Shady! These people have no shame.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1That's what I thought. They are robbing the oil companies blind. Let them keep their damn money, they work for it, what the hell do the politicians due?
  • Stallionism, on 06/19/2008, -6/+19Just look at how the government steals from good business. You provide the greatest quality product the world has ever known at extremely cheap rates and people hate you for it. I wonder what would happen if the oil companies said "***** you" to assholes that complained.
    • obdurate, on 06/19/2008, -1/+9Well, look at companies like McDonalds. They're regularly vilified by self-appointed health police for selling a large quantity of food at a low price to people who want to buy it. Those bastards!
      • Stallionism, on 06/20/2008, -3/+8You have to remember, there are a lot of narcissistic liberals out there that think they know what is best for people's personal lives. It must feel good "beating off" thinking about how "good" they are at telling other people how to live their personal lives because they're "obviously" smarter than everyone else. They have art degrees lol.

      • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Companies like McDonald's don't just sell a large quantity of food at a low price. They sell a large quantity of scientifically proven unhealthy food, filled with hydrogenated oils (proven to cause heart disease and increased cholesterol levels), for a cheap price because they do not want to use better quality ingredients that could actually promote good health.

        A slightly more expensive burger, cooked to just rare or even medium rare, and if grass fed, can actually be as healthy as eating wild salmon. Fries cooked in Grapeseed oil or Coconut oil will promote heart healthy cholesterol levels, while the much cheaper hydrogenated cottonseed oil, corn oil, or canola (rapeseed) oil, with their much lower burn temperatures are shown to promote heart and cardiovascular problems when brought to higher temperatures.

        Studies have proven that the people who eat cheaper foods tend to have the predominantly poverty-driven diseases, like obesity, diabetes, heart disease. Those that eat better quality foods tend to be much healthier, and have a slightly higher life expectancy.

        If you don't believe me, just eat at McDonald's, exclusively, from now on, and find out for yourself how long your lifespan really is. You won't make it beyond 5 years of eating that crap.

        (you can eat at McDonald's occassionaly, maybe 3 or 4 times a year, maybe even once a month, and probably won't have any negative health effect. Moderation with anything is always okay.)

        • userperson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2McDonald's isn't healthfood?!?!
          Why didn't someone tell me about this? /S
        • obdurate, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1McDonalds sells a variety of foods, some healthy, some not; the nutritional content of the items is readily available. People buy what they want; that's their own business. As P. J. O'Rourke summarized, in life there is one right and one duty. The right to do as you damned well please and the duty to take the consequences.
    • userperson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1 I agree somewhat (enough to digg you up),
      but I don't think businesses are 100% innocent; I wouldn't call them 'good business', They use government to hurt competition, to stop things that would lower their profits and help competition. They do not use force though; they are not the main villains.
      • Stallionism, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3A business competes to win. If the government didn't offer it, no one would get it. Seems simple right? If a business turns it down out of ethical reasons, the competition will come in and take it.

        If the government butted out of the market place completely, innocent or not, they'd be forced to compete evenly.
        • dildobaggins, on 06/20/2008, -1/+0Actually, do you have any idea the amount of innovation that has been suppressed over the years by Big Oil, The Auto Industry, and Rubber Manufacturers?
          For starters, read up on the national trolley networks and the antitrust lawsuits. Then move along and research all the other neat things they've killed over the years.

          *****, if it wasn't for them, I'd probably have an all electric flying car by now.
        • mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3Is this another, "Don't invent the 100 mpg carburetor because the oil cartel will come out to kill you" conspiracy?
        • userperson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1@dildobaggins

          HYDE: "There is no gas shortage man! It's all fake. The oil companies control everything! Like there's this guy who invented this car that runs on water man! It's got fiber glass air cooled engine and it runs on water!"
          FEZ: "So it is a boat."
          HYDE: "No, it's a car. Only you put water in the gas tank instead of gas. And it runs on water man!"
          KELSO: "I never heard of this car. Hey, Jackie's good for gas money!"
    • PhilLesh69, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1They already did.

      Wasn't your last fill-up a $78 fill-up?
  • Realnemesis, on 06/19/2008, -4/+7Which reminds me... I need to take out a loan to put some more gas in my car.
  • kookbutt, on 06/19/2008, -5/+8Uncle Sam has gone money hungry. What we need is a smaller leaner government that doesn't give large corporations large bail outs funded by taxpayer dollars.
    • mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Or farm subsidies.

      Or energy subsidies.

      Or taking money from the citizens of the states to give it back, minus a small handling fee, with strings attached.
  • zacharytelschow, on 06/19/2008, -7/+10If the Dems can't stop it, they'll just make sure we tax the hell out of it. Business as usual.
    • Tenlow, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3You might not know this, but taxes are how the government gets money.
      • t0x2c, on 06/20/2008, -2/+3It's also how they curb smoking, motivate people to go green, and benefit from overseas oil companies.
      • twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -3/+5Taxing the living hell out everybody eventually leads to lower tax revenue.
        • Laughsatyou, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3lol that you are being dugg down. i guess some people really like being taxed.
        • mcquitty, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2I guess somebody (or a couple people) don't know about the Laffer Curve.

          Shame, really.
  • andy314159pi, on 06/19/2008, -1/+2High gas prices are part of of a process of renegotiation of terms with those who hold the mineral rights and those with the capital to do the exploration and refining. Basically they have said that a good deal of the activity that people power with petroleum is worth less than the value of the petroleum itself. The reason that this is happening is that our economic activity has little value to those who own the oil, probably with the exception of agricultural products. What productivity do we have in the US that would be of interest to anyone outside of this country? Manufacturing of exportable goods has all been outsourced; our dollar is tanking and the price of oil is rising because we don't have much to offer anyone abroad who holds the oil rights. Until we figure out how to again produce goods that would be reasonable to exchange for a precious commodity like petroleum, it will be expensive.
    • twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1We have become more of a service and engineering economy in recent history.
      That being said, we are still by far the largest manufacturer in the world (yes, we crush China) and are currently manufacturing at our highest levels since WWII. We manufacture 25% of the worlds goods.
      • andy314159pi, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2No we don't. Most manufacturing has gone overseas. No one can afford to manufacture because the competitors move abroad and take advantage of the unbalanced exchange rate. Bulk chemicals have moved abroad in the past 3 or 4 years. The only things manufactured in the U.S. are goods that cost more to ship that are going to be consumed or used in the US. And FYI, drug development and other "knowledge sector" activities have also moved abroad. I'm sure you can pick out some notable exceptions, but the economic activity in the U.S. is very low quality "builder bob" sort of activity. That's why everyone is ditching our currency and we can't afford gasoline anymore.
        • twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Yes we do.

          http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/dnllist.asp
          http://management.curiouscatblog.net/2007/01/28/to ...

          sorry, the data is based on old 2005 UN data. I've read about the most recent data in print but don't have the energy to do anything more than a quick google search. Either way, its clear we are THE manufacturing powerhouse of the world.
        • andy314159pi, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1With regard to that UN page: GNI and GDP are totally unrelated to the amount of actual industrial activity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe that you think that because we have a high GDP that we have a high industrial output!!!!!!!

          And I didn't check the "curious cat blog."
        • twomeyw23334, on 06/20/2008, -0/+0You should have checked the curious cat blog, it ranked countries by "manufacturing output" which I would say is a good indicator of manufacturing output (I'm assuming you did check it, you're just trying to wave your dick on digg by wrongly implying I'm trying to equate our total GDP with manufacturing). The U.N. page I linked has an excel file you can download (GDP and its breakdown at current prices in National currency) which breaks down the GDP, one of the categories is manufacturing (this obviously may be a bit too complicated for you to read, which is why I provided a blog). I've read about the most recent manufacturing data (by country) in a print publication which is a very reliable source, everything I've stated is true.

          I don't just make up ***** and post it on digg like you obviously do and then proceed to use a crap load of explanation marks (as if that will make your garbage any more true). If you are so right why don't you post back with a more reliable source showing the world's manufacturing output and how the U.S is getting crushed by China and the likes?
    • altgeeky1, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3Dude, you sound too patriotic... rebuilding USA manufacturing?? Just do what the conservatives do... buy yourself a condo in Bermuda or Dubai, and skip paying taxes. Or if you stay here, you should be gleeful at the paper economy... pick yourself up some rental properties... this economy is like an unguarded candy store!
  • WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -6/+8What is really funny is the number of know-nothings that believe the oil companies are *subsidized* by the government. Their delusions demonstrate a mindset that makes the assumption that all wealth and productivity is the state's by default and anything that we are allowed to keep is a generous gift bestowed upon us by our betters.
    • Stallionism, on 06/20/2008, -3/+2Yeah, people that believe oil companies are subsidized are morons. I hear people say that lower taxes is a form of subsidy lol.

      Exxon pays the same amount of tax in a year as the 50% of the lowest tax payers.

      Must be nice to for some people to feel that they "owe" more.
      • WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2You prove my point. You seem to genuinely believe that the purpose of taxation is to curb the wealth of those you don't approve of having wealth. And you really do think that money that is *not* taken is somehow a subsidy. In other words, you believe that there is some holy "correct* amount of taxation and anything below that is a gift.

        You ass.
  • chrishavel, on 06/20/2008, -2/+8"The U.S. Interior Department's royalty rate for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is 18.75%--up from 12.5% two years ago. This move helped the government take in $7 billion in offshore royalties, rents and bonuses from oil companies drilling in U.S. waters last year."

    By law, this money goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is used to buy and develop land for natural resource protection and recreation. So money is piling up in this fund at a record rate. Too bad the Bush administration and Congress refuse to spend it for the purpose it was intended.

    Why aren't they spending it? To save money, they say. Here's all this cash from royalties that used to get shared with the states so they could make grants to communities when they want to buy new park lands or protect a watershed, just piling up in an account. Here's the trick: the administration and Repubs oppose spending money on natural resource land and recreation, so they cut off the funding. They spend less as a result, and count this lower level of spending as a "savings," even though it's nothing of the sort, because the money is collected regardless and ready to go.

    Shameful.
    • WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -3/+3What is shameful is to collect tax monies for purposes NOT PERMITTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. None of congress's enumerated powers permits it to make those grants.
      • chrishavel, on 06/20/2008, -0/+7You're absolutely right. Any corporation that wishes to extract oil, minerals, timber and grass from public lands can do so without compensating the American public who own those resources. The benefits of conserved watersheds and public recreation land, provided by those dollars, to your health and well-being are utterly useless. Brilliant idea. You should run for Congress. You clearly have our best interests at heart.
        • WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Would you care to address what I actually said? Congress does not have the authority to use funds in collects for these grants. Can you present an argument that it does have such power of are you solely concerned with manipulating the economy through fiscal policy at the expense of the integrity of the constitution?
        • chrishavel, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1Oh, I read what you said, but I decided yesterday not to be baited. Section 8 of Article 1 ... laying upon the federal government a duty to provide for the general welfare of its people ... is broad for a reason. If you wish to argue that Art. 1 Sec. 8 does not specifically enumerate natural resource protection as being essential to the welfare of the country, you will have to abolish all expenditures on agriculture, fish and wildlife, national forests, national parks, and the environmental protection agency. And if you wish to equate any tax collection with economic manipulation (for if collecting a royalty is manipulative, all tax collection must be treated in like fashion), I'm afraid all you've done is argued that the federal government should only concern itself with foreign affairs. The Libertarian Party is a vanishingly small group. Wonder why?
      • chicofaraby, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2Are you sure?

        Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

        http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti ...
        • WhiteRaven, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Read what I wrote very carefully. I said congress can not disburse *grants*. I didn't say anything about taxation or the levying of fees.

          It's very simple... congress has broad powers and discretion in how it *raises* money. It is tightly limited in what it can spend money on.
    • skratchnerd, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1how does the US Interior Dept tax oil that is drilled in Mexico?
  • PontifexMaximus, on 06/20/2008, -4/+5Yes. Taxing oil companies will clearly lower prices- yes that's a great idea.
    • userperson, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1sarcasm? I looked at your comment history to try and get an indication and well ... (this account's first comment)
      You might think this is funny, but I'm sure there's someone who actual believes this.
      • Laughsatyou, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3yes any obama supporter is guilty of believing this.

        yay for windfall taxes obama!
  • DaDrake, on 06/20/2008, -2/+4Well since China is doing it... I don't see why the US should be restricted from doing it also. Furthermore, I am positive the US can extract the oil with less of an environmental impact than China.
    • dreicher, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1Nice. We're now setting the bar at "since China is doing it"?

      That said, I'm all for drilling. Why are we even discussing ANWR? It's the size of South Carolina and less than 1500 people go there in a year. I'd definitely tap that.
  • AlienMushroom, on 06/20/2008, -3/+6Again, we are NOT short of supply of oil, but in excess of speculations.
    • altgeeky1, on 06/20/2008, -0/+2For the moment, you're 100% correct.
      But the big question is, why are we suddenly so vulnerable to speculators.

      I'm all for bitch slapping oil funds that basically repeat the Enron buy-withhold-sell strategy... but this stuff is occurring overseas also, outside of US jurisdiction.

      The real solutions to our current vulnerability are better CAFE standards, allow imports of ethanol (currently taxed the hell out of, because Brazil's sugar alcohol profitably sells for less than the cost of fertilizer to grow corn alcohol... a scam, that outfit), and (not that it will make much difference in prices) allowing drilling off Florida. It's funny how Bush was 100% against drilling Florida when his brother ran the state. These things all TOGETHER, because the keep-drilling-no-conservation supply side folks are more interested in profits than their home country's economic health.
    • mrswirl, on 06/20/2008, -0/+3This is a speculative bubble - just like the dot.coms and subprime mortgage and housing bubbles before it.

      The supply of oil has remained relatively constant as has the demand side - at least in the US. Yes, there is growing demand in foreign markets but at nowhere near the same dramatic rates as the recent spike in oil futures markets would indicate.

      Yes, there is also a real danger of the supply eventually tapering off to a point that will make today's prices seem quaint in comparison but the reality is that we are many, many decades away from that happening. If there really were actual supply shortages, we would all see lines at gas stations across the country the way we did back in the 70's. Refining capacity is currently high enough to meet demand barring the occassional hurricane or pipeline disruption.

      Think about it - when was the last time you went to the filling station only to find that they were physically out of gas? I suspect that the answer is 'Never'. High gas prices are a direct result of the bubble forming around crude prices.

      Bubbles form because of fear in the herd and an oversupply of capital chasing fewer investment opportunies. It is a virtuous/vicious cycle. High market prices attract investors looking to make a buck which further drives up prices which attracts even more investors, etc, etc. In the case of crude futures, nothing is actually exchanging hands except for money and paper (unlike housing which involves physical assets).

      Bubbles burst when they can no longer sustain themselves and some kind of 'tipping point' is reached which causes the cycle to reverse itself. It is only a matter of time before this happens and the investment herd moves on to form the next bubble. Problem is that we all suffer until then.
    • kippenberger, on 06/24/2008, -0/+0Speculators are scapegoats. If speculation were the prime driver, we would be seeing increases in oil inventories; we aren't seeing that. You should read Krugman's column in today's NY Times for more.
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 06/20/2008, -1/+3I hate my uncle sam. He's just a mean ol bastard.
  • MadOgre, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1This is why McCain is okay with tapping the Gulf, but not Alaska. Makes sense.
    • Laughsatyou, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1he is ok with tapping alaska. and the only people that should have a say in whether or not to tap alaska is the alaskans.
      • MadOgre, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1No, McCain has said he is against drilling in ANWAR...
        And the Alaskans - Everyone i know from Alaska - WANTS drilling in ANWAR.
  • LibertyVista, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2We pay for this royalty rate, it is included in the price of every gallon of gas that we pump.
  • charlietuna, on 06/20/2008, -1/+2$7 billion... hmm that's 36 days in iraq (at 5.8 billion per month).
  • xobarbarian, on 06/20/2008, -1/+1The government wants more $ so that it can continue the war against the middle class. The windfall from the royalties will be wasted on government contractors via war, "national security", and other cons!
  • sgiffy, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1Well the public owns these lands. I suppose we they could just give it away for free. But then anyone with a drill is going to want a piece. You either play favorites or come up with some way to limit demand, maybe by raising prices. That's what we do now.

    The other option is to sell the land. Given that their chock full of oil that price is going to be really, really ,reall high.
  • McShr3dd3r, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1More money for the Iraq War (or Iraq conflict or whatever its called these days).

    Drill wherever we can so we can pay to drill more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    w00t!
  • bincoder, on 06/20/2008, -0/+1I used to live in Texas which was funded by revenue from oil production.
    It was nice to have the benefits of the government with No personal income tax, and a never ending budget balance in the black.
    Unlike most others that bleed you on taxes and still provide nothing but a deficit and a bigger police state which they wrongly think will solve their budget crises and whos every decision is (trust us) in your best interest.
  • BillE3, on 06/21/2008, -0/+1The royalties are a TAX on the offshore businesses. They pass that cost on to you. This TAX is supposed to be a fund for the recovery of any potential environmental accident.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.