Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

The GOP just can't give enough to Big Oil

madison.com — With $4-a-gallon gas and the prospect of continuing price rises to $5 and above before the end of the summer, politicians are having a tougher job duping us into supporting more financial giveaways to the oil companies. Amazingly, though, Republicans still keep trying.

Bury

zaibatsu 63 days ago, made popular 61 days ago

1130 diggs
digg it

229 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

Rotzooi, on 07/05/2008, -19/+119This is not the GOP from a few decades ago. That was a normal political party, always worth considering when casting a vote - because they did have reasonable arguments for their stances. This current GOP however, is a criminal organization and they need to be stopped.
- ReidFleming, on 07/06/2008, -1/+42I may be a Democrat but I don't blindly follow the party. There are quiet a few pieces of the GOP platform that I support. The GOP is now infiltrated by people that call themselves Republicans while not behaving like them in any substantial way. (That is, except for the single-issue types. Abortion = bad, Christianity = good.) The two party system has its flaws but we currently don't even have that with these neo-cons wearing their sheep's clothing.
  
  I might start calling myself Tiger Woods but that doesn't give me a wicked flop shot.
- KazamaSmokers, on 07/07/2008, -3/+20Here's a handy guide: if they are Republicans from the Northeast, they are sane, conservative bottom-line businessmen who are old-school keep-taxes-low-and-mind-your-own business Republicans. (The exception is Peter King, who's a total hosebag.) If they are from anywhere else they are the new breed ***** insane Republicans who should be avoided at all costs.
  - Malacandra95, on 07/07/2008, -1/+16Too bad those sane "conservatives" have been lock-step foot soldiers and enablers of the ***** insane ones who have set the agenda.
    
    They never cross the line in the House and Senate.
    
    Never.
  - reaper527, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2apparently i'm considered sane, as a massachusetts republican. i wouldn't put the rest of the party in the neocon category you have though
  - psion01, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Isn't Ron Paul a Republican from Texas?
  - earnjam, on 07/07/2008, -2/+0So I guess I'm just new breed ***** then?
    
    Wow, that kinda puts a damper on my afternoon...
- Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -2/+11You say GOP like there's any tangible political divisions. Has Congress suddenly begun making better decisions since the Democrats took it over? Surely the FISA bill should tell you that it hasn't. The problem is Congress and the big government mentality that pervades Washington. We should be asking "what does the government do that it shouldn't be doing, instead of asking what else can we get it to do?"
  - cleric04, on 07/07/2008, -1/+6Democrats don't have a 2/3 majority unfortunately.
- swrostmore, on 07/07/2008, -5/+19The GOP from two decades ago? You mean the guys who were convicted of illegally selling weapons to Iran in order to fund death squads in South America?
  Those guys sure were a "reasonable, normal political party" and not at all "criminal."
  - psion01, on 07/07/2008, -4/+4Was that the whole party, swrostmore?
  - swrostmore, on 07/07/2008, -2/+7Considering convicted Iran-contra criminals were pardoned by a Republican President and rewarded with high-level positions in Republican cabinets, IMO it's safe to say they are representative of the Party as a whole,
    psion01.
  - ReidFleming, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1@swrostmore: "The GOP from two decades ago?"
    
    No, he wrote, "a few decades ago" so call it at least the 1970's and earlier.
  - comedianX, on 07/07/2008, -1/+7Oh, then Nixon then. That's much better. Face it, your idealistic view of the Republican Party hasn't existed at the Federal level in maybe 80 years. Maybe if you go back to Hoover you'll have the TRUE REPUBLICAN that you all think existed at one time.
  - Cuchanu, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4The only good republican was Lincoln. Take that!
    
    swrostmore they're still doing it but the lessons of Iran-Contra have helped them not get caught.
  - Xihix, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Coolidge was a badass...
  - wojtyk, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Gerald Ford was the last true Republican. 30 years ago.
- savagesteve13, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1The GOP was infilatrated by communists back during the Reagan Revolution. they're known as "Neocons" but their idealogy comes straight from Trotsky. Its no secret the father of the neoconservative movement, irving kristol was a follower of communism.
eltrev, on 07/06/2008, -32/+49bu..but...We're in an energy crisis, and the only the solution is to drill our own vast resources! ("Vast" is the new republitard word for a 4 year supply, delivered 8 years from now.)
- thechr0nic, on 07/06/2008, -5/+28This crisis will take a multi-faceted approach. Some of those solutions will take years to apply and possibly years after that to actually have an effect.
  
  some of the problems that have caused this crisis in the first place, have been in place for decades, and are just now starting to show their effects at the gas pump.
  
  Major reasons for the high price of oil
  - Inflation: this is one of the biggest reasons, as all oil is traded in US dollars, so inflation will be felt almost directly at the pump. there are hundreds of individual reasons for inflation, large among those are out of control spending, heavy borrowing from foreign countries and outright printing of new cash. (there are more, those are just the major reasons)
  - Speculation: a lot of this, is simply a symptom of inflation. Traders on Walstreet are hedging their bets by switching to the energy markets, because their ability to make profits on trading dollars has vastly decreased due to a weak dollar.
  - Refinery potential: We have not built a new refinery since 1973, largely due to restrictive regulations. Those refineries are taking a hit in their profits, because the price of crude has more than doubled in the last year or so, while the price at the pump has not come in at the same rate, so they are taking a hit in their profits. This causes them to refine products with higher profit margins - not gasoline.
  
  Raising the supply of crude oil, either through buying more from foreign markets or by increasing our exploration potential by drilling in previously prohibited areas; would be a temporary solution, that would probably take several years to actually see dividends from. But in any case, it will be a multi-faceted solution that will require us to actually address the real causes of our high cost of energy. I can only hope that we stop attempting to find an easy scapegoat (evil oilmen) and actually start analyzing the reasons for the price of oil.
  - macweirdo42, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6We haven't built any new refineries because we don't need 'em. Advances in technology allow the old refineries to be upgraded to increase their capacity every year. We are not running at capacity, we're not even close. In fact, plans for a major overhaul of the nation's refineries were scrapped because with rising gas prices, the demand is going down and so it's just not worth the investment.
  - macweirdo42, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1.
  - devophl, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2I don't buy the falling dollar issue. A year ago, crude was $69/barrel and gas was $2.93/gal. Today, crude is $140 and gas is $4.05. If you factor in the falling dollar and price oil in Euros, a barrel of oil has gone from 51 to 87 Euros. That's a 70% increase against a stable currency.
    
    The increase in oil is almost all speculation right now. Supply is meeting demand or we would have shortages and lines at the pumps. But I see 4 reason, oil and gas prices are higher:
    
    1) the 85 rule - This states that you maximize profit by pricing something where demand is 85% of maximum. What this really says is that as long as demand doesn't go down, the oil companies will continue to increase prices because they know the market is there at the pump to buy the higher priced gas. As long as we keep buying it, they'll keep raising the price.
    
    2) forecasts of much higher demand and much lower supply - I've seen forecasts that oil consumption thanks to China and India could be 30% higher in 2 years. At the same time supplies out of countries like Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela are going down. But if you look at emerging markets, they're getting hit worse than we are and demand will likely stay flat. Also, there is enough oil production out there to counter any shortfalls from other countries. But the analysts are forecasting this.
    
    3) world turmoil - The markets are betting on more uprisings in Nigeria and a US attack on Iran that will disrupt future oil supplies. Of course the Israeli and Bush saber rattling isn't helping this any.
    
    4) buy, buy, buy - As with any speculative bubble, when the prices continue to go up, the analysts keep yelling buy, buy, buy! You heard this in 1999 when they thought the dot com bubble would fuel the Dow to 20,000 and beyond. You heard this from real estate agents and mortgage banks that said housing prices would continue to skyrocket for at least 10 more years. Now, you here the commodities analysts saying oil is going to $200/barrel before the end of the year. Buy! Buy! Buy!
    
    The only way to stop this is to create a market where these speculators can't sell their high priced oil. In other words, CONSERVE!!! If people slow down consumption, then these guys will have to start dumping their high priced oil at a discount to get rid of it. Then you'll see the prices tank.
  - cybrguy, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2The falling dollar is a contributor. your analysis means crap unless you do the same analysis against the American dollar. And guess what, during the same time period oil had more than a 70% increase against our currency.
    
    Its a compounded problem and the solution also needs to address the issue from many angles.
- macweirdo42, on 07/07/2008, -3/+9The great part about that is, you can say you're trying to do something without actually fixing the problem. Republicans don't actually want to tap that supply, because then people would see that it doesn't actually fix anything. However, as long as they can say the Democrats are blocking them, they look like the good guys - people are dumb enough and gullible enough to not put two and two together.
  - tkstock, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1So what your saying is that if Democrats suddenly caved on offshore drilling, then Republicans would be against it?
    
    Haha. It's funny that you say Republicans are only trying to do things for appearances. The Dems have been in control for 2 years now and haven't done squat.
    
    Even a mediocre businessman understands the concept of supply diversity. If you don't have it, you put your energy supply and pricing at risk. The way to create diversity is alternative energy in combination with increasing the domestic supply of our largest energy need: oil. We will still be driving gas cars for years to come, and we will still be beholden to OPEC until we can supply more of our own oil. A combination of new technology and conservation would decrease our dependency on oil over time until it can be mostly eliminated in the future.
  - macweirdo42, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I never said the Dems were any better. But this particular policy is a Republican one. I understand we need to reduce our dependency on OPEC. However, you have to recognize that this whole business is just political posturing, and nothing more. It's like Democrats and health care - do you really think there's ever actually going to be a national health care system? No, it's absurd, but hey, as long as the Democrats keep touting it, they'll keep getting votes.
    
    And yes, I'm almost certain if the Dems caved, the Republicans would suddenly back down.
  - devophl, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Exactly... And there is no guarantee that by offering the oil companies all these new leases to drill for oil off Florida, California and Louisiana that they'll actually start drilling. There are a ton of older leases that have yet to be drilled and adding new leases doesn't change that.
    
    Clearly, the oil companies want to keep supply down in order to pump up the price and their profits. But at the same time, giving more land/leases to the oil companies means those won't be available in the future and if these guys won't drill today, those sites will remain unused in 50 years. Its all about control!! The more you control, the more you control the price and therefore your profits.
  - tkstock, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1macweirdo, and I'm sure you're wrong. The majority of the right wing (and the majority of the public at large) favor drilling - the Republicans would be foolish to squander that stance if the Dems cave in.
    
    The whole thing about the oil companies is they want to make money. The leases that are left are mostly in deeper waters which are more expensive to develop and take longer - and they're actually developing a lot of them. But it will take some time for them to come online. It didn't make financial sense when oil was $30 / barrel, but it does now. That being said, they want to open up the new areas closer to shore that are less expensive to develop - thus they can drill more wells and get more oil out for less money.
    
    If it costs Exxon $30 / barrel to develop off the coast of CA, $40 / barrel to develop in the deep gulf, or $135 to buy from OPEC, where do you think they're going to get their oil?
- obamayomama, on 07/07/2008, -8/+14As opposed to the Democratic plan... fit a sail to your car.
  - geoken, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3Actually their plans are pretty clear;
    
    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/#invest-i ...
    
    If the bullet point list is to complex for you I can read it out and send you an Mp3.
  - badenglishihave, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Obama's plan is all "investing" and conjecture. The point of drilling for oil is that because of the increased competition (even if it is only for a short while), oil drillers will be forced to drop their prices while different energy sources are researched.
    
    Oh and btw you're an obnoxious jerk. Try to get your point across politely next time or you'll just end up coming across as an idiot.
  - obamayomama, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Well geoken, I don't think it's "too" complex for me. Note that unlike you, I've used the word "too" correctly, so next time you try and insult my intelligence, at least have enough of your own to phrase it correctly. TO your point, though, these are nice wishful solutions that Mr. Obama has laid out but unfortunately my cars, like most others in this country, run on gas.
  - Jethris, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4Not to mention that even if we had a new technology right now, it would take 20-30 years to move cars from gas to the new thing. Ethanol isn't it, as it's driving up all fuel prices and destroying rainforests. Hydrogen could, but right now it takes more energy to create hydrogen than hydrogen uses. Fuel Cells? That won't fly on 100-140 mile max range on 8 hours of charge. How long is it going to take to drive a few states away?
    
    I'm an conservative environmentalist. I don't like offshore drilling, or ANWAR drilling, but something has to be done, or we (Americans, followed by the rest of the world), will be entering a new Dark Age.
    
    We need a short term, mid term, and long term solution.
    Short Term- Announce drilling in ANWAR, Off Shore, and Oil Shale. This will cause speculators to realize that supply is going up, lowering prices now. Implement conservation plans (telecommuting, increased mass transit plans).
    
    Mid-Term, Release new oil from those areas. Continue research into several potentially viable solutions.
    
    Long Term - Get off oil based econmies.
- gandhi2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11I just don't understand the logic sometimes....
  
  Would you rather a) have people around the third-world starve and lower quality of living for all in developed countries, b) be at the mercy of foreign powers who control our economies life blood and continue to muck around in other nations' affairs/wars, c) adopt a temporary solution which can focus energy policy onto REAL solutions for truly renewable, natural resources.
  
  We are *****. We were ***** in the 70s the first time this happened. We will be ***** in the future, UNLESS we can actually resolve the core problems(listed by priority):
  
  Reliance on foreign powers for energy
  Reliance on a limited resource for energy
  Active support of unhealthy energy policies
  Cost efficiency of alternative energy policies
  Initial cost of alternative energy policies
  Public support for alternative energy policies
  
  I don't understand why you would want to do this backwards. Why isn't everybody following the magical rainbow propaganda? Because some people realize that the initial cost is currently too drastic, or that current methods are not nearly as efficient as they need to be in order to be introduced on a national scale. We cannot really focus on change if we are entrenched in a economic system wherein the majority of our long-term savings, investment, retirement, etc, is tied to oil. There is a reason that the mid-east is a political hotbed, and it's all about the Benjamins. I am no fan of subsidies, but get over this *****-where-we-eat mentality, for God's sake. We've been doing the dirty work overseas, and now those people who feel those effects are bringing them back to roost. There are resources available here, some of which are not nearly as drastic as offshore drilling, but they are stymied by red tape. I live in Utah, which has some of the largest shale deposits of the country, and I'd much rather have a shale mine disrupt the beautiful landscape than continue down a dreary road of war for the rest of lifetime.
  
  Let's first get on our feet, then we can examine solutions. Ethanol is not it. That is a goose we can't afford to chase, not with more and more innocent people in third-world countries starving as a result, and not with food costs continuing to rise at home. But at this point, people are getting desperate enough that they can't see anything clearly, and will grip at anything as an acceptable alternative.
- Mutt76, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5That 4 year supply would be awfully nice now had we started drilling 8 years ago.
  
  Why not take advantage of the resources we do have, who cares how long it'll take to get them.
  - gandhi2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Shale oil could be feasible in less than 5 yrs, there are so many companies chomping at the bit to "environmentally devastate" the glorious motherland. I speculate that if Congress cut back on regulations, they be ripping up the planet within a few years, and we'd have the energy, reasonable food costs, and a survivable quality of life, that surely cannot co-exist with sound ecological policy. But that's just my opinion.
    I'm sure that so long as we all go out and get the smoke-bellowing auto manufacturers to produce a brand new line of electric hybrid cars for the world's population, the egg-fragile terra ferma will be safe from the vile and capitalist captains of industry.
  - cybrguy, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3Right off the ANWR site.
    
    Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.
    
    Petroleum development at Prudhoe Bay has not negatively affected wildlife. For instance, the Central Arctic caribou herd is at home with pipeline facilities and has grown from 3,000 to as high as 27,100 in the last 20 years. Drilling activity in ANWR would be limited to winter months when wildlife does not frequent the coastal plain.
- cybrguy, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4Where did you get your info? According to anwr.org there is a lot more than 4 years of supply.
  
  Studies of the ANWR coastal plain indicate it may contain between 6 and 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil (between 11.6 and 31.5 billion barrels in-place). With enhanced recovery technology, ANWR oil could provide an additional 30 to 50 years of reliable supply. Natural gas, produced with the oil, could be reinjected or added to a new gas pipeline originating in Prudhoe Bay.
  - bjornski, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3How much do you get paid for posting that? I could use some cash.
  - yellowcakewalk, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4http://www.anwr.org is a web site run, funded by and provided content by a Political Action Committee - a lobby group with one single goal.
    
    "Arctic Power is a grassroots, non-profit citizen's organization with 10,000 members founded in April of 1992 to expedite congressional and presidential approval of oil exploration and production within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Arctic Power is based in Anchorage, AK. …The organization is committed to securing congressional and presidential approval of legislation opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to responsible oil development"
    
    Their membership list includes the likes of the Alaska Trucking Association, the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, and the Alaska Oil & Gas Association. Why does this sound like someone from Hostess telling me twinkies are good for me, or a case of letting the wolf guard the chickens??
    
    Flawed data all of it — data presented with an agenda, and not worthy of being used in any intellectual argument regarding ANWR. Find another source, munchkins, like an unbaised non-partisan source. You cannot pick and choose your sources based on whether or not they support your opinion, and both sides do it, over and over again.
    
    http://www.village-idiot.org/archives/2008/06/21/p ...
  - tkstock, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1How about the EIA: "...cumulative additional oil production is 2.6 billion barrels for the mean oil resource case, while the low and high resource cases project a cumulative additional oil production of 1.9 and 4.3 billion barrels, respectively"
    
    And that's just from area 1002.
mrg14x, on 07/06/2008, -27/+5better than these mental giants who are determined to bring down the US economy after they finish their state economies

http://www.ydito.com/showchannelimages/?PicNumber= ...

we dont need to increase oil supply? Ask the auto manufacturers and las vegas tourism if we need to increase supply.
- thechr0nic, on 07/06/2008, -1/+15since the US supply of oil has not decreased in the last 10 years, why do you really suspect the price of oil has skyrocketed? this is not a supply side problem. Also keep in mind, our nationwide demand has actually softened due to the high price of petroleum.
  
  increasing the oil supply would only be a temporary band aid to a much more devious fundamental problem of inflation. All petroleum is traded in US dollars, so any inflation, is felt directly at the gas pump. The question you NEED to be asking, is why is our inflation to high lately.
- KazamaSmokers, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4In what possible way is this a supply problem?
- vinod1978, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Though India & China has increased their demand for oil, Americans have not. Actually our needs have actually decreased, but the increased price in oil has other reasons besides supply.
  
  1. All oil trade is done in Dollars (thank our Gov't) - and because the dollar is worth peanuts, an estimated 20-25% of the high price of oil is attributed to this fact.
  
  2. Deregulation for commodity trading. Because of this deregulation oil speculators have increased the price of oil an estimated 25-30% of the high price of oil is attributed to this fact.
  
  50% of the higher cost of oil could be fixed with government regulation, however Bush & McCain continually ignore the problems that could be fixed easily and instead continually pander to Americans pushing for more supply. Why? Because they believe that they will be seen as doing something about high prices of oil - when in reality it would do NOTHING.
FaithclubDotNet, on 07/06/2008, -14/+29I like both the candidates, but I don't buy one of McCain's arguments. He says that if we raise the supply of oil that the price will go down. This is not true because the oil industry is really just one big colluding monopoly that sets its own prices. They could have an infinite supply oil, but they'd make sure they maximize the profit.
- relic180, on 07/07/2008, -5/+9They do, and they do.
- Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3It *would* go down if the world demand went down. Unfortunately for us, even if the U.S. somehow increased the supply, we still have to contend with increased demand in faster growing parts of the world.
  - donte, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Increasing US supply is completely separate from international demand. International demand is a problem because when we buy foreign oil, we're competing price-wise with the other countries that want the oil (e.g. China and India). If we had a higher output of domestic oil then our need to engage in such a bidding war becomes less and less. Domestic oil used for domestic consumption is not at all affected by anyone else's demand for oil, so yes -- prices would drop. It's the foreign oil that's expensive, not domestic.
  - earnjam, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0If we're increasing the supply here (by drilling Alaska, etc.) and not selling that oil to anyone else, that is less that we have to buy from other countries. Which means the demands of the rest of the world would have less of an effect on us. (at least in the short term)
  - Jethris, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1earnjam:
    
    Wrong. Oil is a global commodity. Unless you pass laws restricting the exportation of domestic oil (and refined gasoline), the only thing adding more oil to the mix would be to globally lower prices a touch.
  - bjornski, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1@earjam
    
    That oil would be sold on the global commodities market and you know it.
    
    There would be a negligible effect here.
- Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2If they were all thinking longterm, perhaps, but isn't that always the criticism of publicly traded companies, that they're more worried about shorter term returns than long term value? The goal of the publically traded oil companies is to ensure they have an ever growing piece of that pie, and the only way to do that is to secure and develop new resources. All of my Canadian oil trusts have spent the last 4 or 5 years increasing their reserve life and their ability to pump more.
- salinemist, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2"He says that if we raise the supply of oil that the price will go down."
  
  He's right.
  - pintomp3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4he would be right if it were a supply and demand issue, but it's not. the biggest factor in the recent rise is speculation. the speculators jumped from the tech market to the housing market and now to the oil and futures markets.
  - JohnGalt750, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0And what do you think that oil speculation is? A bunch of people betting that demand will stay high and supply will stay low. This is precisely why it won't take 10 years to have an effect. The second the drills start turning those speculators are going to re-think their long positions.
- SpartanErik, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1The oil industry isn't the monopoly, it's OPEC if anything.
  
  Not to mention speculation, costs of refining, and the slim profit margin oil companies charge. The massive profits the oil companies are making aren't lining the coffers of the CEOs (well I imagine they line some but not all); a large chunk of it goes to future development/discovery of oil and oil technologies.
- jmichaelg, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4Faithdotnet: Your post is so far from being correct it's absurd. Must be faith-based or something.
  
  This is the third time oil prices have spiked as they have. The first was in 73, the second in 81 and now. Between 81 and now, demand for oil tapered off as people started conserving. As demand went down, so did the price. Basic econ 101.
  
  There was a second force in play as well. Reagan convinced the Saudis to open their spigot as much as they could to harm the Soviet Union. That drove prices down even more due to increased supply and as Reagan had hoped, the Soviet Union went down as well.
  
  As to your "the oil industry is one big colluding monopoly" you would be very hard pressed to prove that. Drive around parts of Texas or Los Angeles and you'll see oil derricks pumping crude. Some of those derricks are owned by the large oil companies but there so many that are owned by independents that there's no way to control the price. Oil producers are among the orneriest and independent-minded individuals you're likely to meet - they have to be to find oil where no one else did.
  - ASeventhSign, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Didn't many other countries from all over the world start producing much more oil during that '81 till now span? Isn't it true that all of this oil available to the market had a more pronounced impact on price than conservation?
- NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2maximize all 5-11% of their profit.... evil!!! If my financial advisor averged below 7% return on my invesments, I'd fire them. Admit it, you have no clue how much profit an oil company makes off selling a gallon of gas, it is not that much, far far less than what the government takes in taxes on a gallon of gas.
  
  Where's all the money going? Into some of the strangest most elaborate most complicated human built structures ever seen.... in the middle east. On top of a lot of foreign investment by the middle east, who will probably eventually end up owning the company I work for and the appartment I rent.
dupswapdrop, on 07/07/2008, -7/+8Well if we don't give in to the oil companies they with just start charging us like $4 a gallon for gas to makeup the difference. After all they need the tax breaks to pay off all them republicans!
gobbstopp, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6"oily guys"

surprisingly, never heard that one - love it
stonebone4, on 07/07/2008, -8/+12You can't spell 'neo-con' without 'con.'
- Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -1/+13You can't spell Congress without "Con" either, and thats with a capital c, so its even worse!
- reaper527, on 07/07/2008, -5/+10you can't spell 'democrat' without 'rat'
- pathouston22, on 07/07/2008, -5/+6You can't spell 'stupid' without the letter 't' which also starts off the two words 'this thread'.
- CraigKostelecky, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9I like this quote better, "If the opposite of pro is con, what's the opposite of progress?"
MrFurious2k, on 07/07/2008, -20/+16Wow, it never gets old to hear conspiracy theories.
- oldgal, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3I bet that's what you said about the Enron debacle.
Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -12/+29You all want to see what happens to the price of gasoline when you impose a profit windfall tax on an oil company that is only making an 8%-10% profit margin?

I didn't think so.
- rationalbeats, on 07/07/2008, -19/+4Hey it's a GOP plant.
  
  Hey buddy, ***** You.
  - Badandy127, on 07/07/2008, -2/+9GOP plant? I'm a Democrat you retard.
    
    You can cuss at me all you want, but what you all don't seem to get is that big oil makes an 8-10 percent profit. That's. Not. Gouging.
    
    And are you even disputing what I said, or just calling me names? Because if you think raising the tax burden on a company will cause the price to go down or stay the same, continue to dream. Better yet, take an economics course.
  - PolishLogic, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Anything but rational.
  - Iphis, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3Yeah but 8 - 10 % on inflated prices.
  - rationalbeats, on 07/07/2008, -4/+28 to 10% of a trillion dollars is allot buddy.
    
    I really don't give a ***** about taxing them anyways.
    
    We should just invest more in other forms of energy to power our vehicles, and use the money that we invest in fighting wars in the middle east for oil, to pay off the oil lobbyist.
    
    You're still an *****.
  - PolishLogic, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2"I really don't give a ***** about taxing them anyways."
    
    Nicely trolled.
- brickbat, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5I used to work in the finance dept of Exxon. There are a few reasons the profit APPEARS to be only 8-10% when its really closer to 30 or 40%.
  
  1. Transfer pricing. This is the fixing of the amount that related companies charge each other. It works on a number of levels. Firstly, it is fixed to minimize tax between jurisdictions - typically countries. It allows you to shift balances onto high taxing countries so that it looks like you are not making much money. Another level of transfer pricing is between divisions. You can shift profit from petrol and kerosene to solvents or paramins for example. This allows you to maximize benefits arising from petrol production concession contracts. A third level is between stages of production. (Upstream/Downstream). This is typically for tax minimization and also sucking money out of government joint venture exploration and/or refining agreements. Transfer pricing management is very complicated, but very fruitful and should be a lot more illegal than it is. Exxon does it fantastically well. I learned how to do it there and then got paid really good money for doing it at other global companies.
  
  2. Inventory treatment. Cost of Sales is Opening Inventory + Purchases - Closing Inventory. By making "adjustments" to closing Inventory and the valuation methods, you can shift a lot of your profit into the balance sheet instead of the P&L statement. If a particular entity becomes inventory heavy, you can offshore it to a tax haven and start the process all over again with a new local entity.
  
  3. Tax concession. By lobbying to government directly and often touting investments you needed to make anyway, you can get tax and other concessions from state and federal governments.
  
  I worked there for about 6 years with some of the smartest people I ever met before or since. One day I went into the office feeling fantastic because I thought of an idea that I would sure would get me a promotion. I thought I had thought of a way to save 6 million bucks.
  
  I told my boss about it. He pulls out a file and shows me a manual with the exact process I had just described to him but with diagrams and definitions. It had a list of dates on it that showed when the manual had first been produced and then modified. The first date was 30 years before I had come up with the idea.
  
  These companies hire the smartest and toughest business people in the world. They pay fantastic salaries and provide the best benefits. One of the reasons they do that is so that people like you will look at their accounts and think it is perfectly reasonably that they are making only 8-10% profit.
  - BurningSand, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1From the horse's mouth folks...or should I say brickbat's...?
idc5, on 07/07/2008, -11/+19I just picked up Ron Paul's, "The Revolution: A Manifesto."
- stonerider, on 07/07/2008, -7/+0If you just picked it up, then drop it right now. Ron Paul's a loser, a perennial loser. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote wasted. Please vote responsibly. Vote for the real change agent: Obama.
- cybrguy, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Good book, it has a lot of wisdom that is backed up by historical precedence.
KazamaSmokers, on 07/07/2008, -4/+16The biggest consumer of oil in the US? The US Military. And because of the Iraq War they are using much, MUCH more than their usual amount.
Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -11/+26Since when is allowing them to drill for oil someplace "giving" them anything? They pay taxes, royalties, leases, and all sorts of other fees for developing these resources. Then lefty goofs like McNally whine about their record profits, yet can't seem to understand that although the actual profit numbers are the biggest of any company, the actual return on investment is less than 10%. Its simple, if you want cheaper gas, let them pump more oil. They want to, the government is stopping them, who do you think is to blame?
- pintomp3, on 07/07/2008, -6/+8they already have land they are not drilling on. even if they are given access to more land, it would be 5-10 years before we see any savings, and it would only be about 3-5 pennies per gallon. if you want more immediate and substantial drop in gas prices, close the enron loophole.
  - zacharytelschow, on 07/07/2008, -4/+5"they already have land they are not drilling on."
    
    Buried. Incorrect. They have the right to land for exploration. No domestic drilling is allowed, how could they drill on it?
  - pintomp3, on 07/07/2008, -3/+4The fact is, however, oil and gas companies are choosing to drill on only about a quarter of the 68 million acres (bigger than the size of Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia combined) already leased to them by the federal government.
    
    Even though these companies have 81 percent of all the known reserves in the United States, they refuse to extract the oil and natural gas they already control.
    
    http://www.kentucky.com/589/story/443005.html
  - cybrguy, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2If the companies have leases for oil land and aren't drilling on it then so what? They are paying the government to lease it, if they don't drill its only costing them money. The environmental impact is negligible to anyone willing to be reasonable.(keep in mind that if you exclude historical precedence of similar projects in your "impact" statement than your impact statement is worthless) All the anti-drilling "environmental studies" have refused to look at appropriate historical precedence because it indicates that their massive bitch fest is unfounded.
    
    So why not let them? More money for the government, more money for Alaska and its people. More money for the US economy. Where is the REAL downside?
- harlowsmonkeys, on 07/07/2008, -5/+6What makes you think pumping more oil would lower the price? And don't say "supply and demand", because there has been no drop in supply between the days of $2/gallon gas and now, and demand is about the same, too, so it isn't supply and demand changes that drove up the price.
  - zacharytelschow, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5"What makes you think pumping more oil would lower the price?"
    
    Not being an idiot.
  - Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4The International Energy Agency disagrees with you. Demand has been increasing faster than supply and in 2007 daily demand outstripped supply. omrpublic.iea.org/world/table1.xls
    Supply (million barrels per day):
    83.4 in 2004
    84.6 in 2005
    85.4 in 2006
    85.5 in 2007
    Demand (million barrels per day)
    82.5 in 2004
    83.8 in 2005
    84.9 in 2006
    86.0 in 2007
    
    So on average in 2007 we were using 500,000 barrels more per day than we were supplying and you're trying to tell me that isn't going to impact price anyway? Sorry, when your assessment contradicts basic microeconomic theory, either your data is faulty or your assessment is.
  - Warbick, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3The oil would be coming from us, and not from overseas.
- jaxcs, on 07/07/2008, -1/+4I blame people so in love with an ideology that they will refuse to help themselves like you. Of course, we do give them plenty of things like tax breaks and subsidies.
  - Barackalypse, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1I have zero incentive to change anything, my Canadian oil stocks have been paying me 14% yearly cash dividends for the last 5 years, and since since 2001 I have either lived downtown within 6 blocks of work or worked from home. I don't own a car.
- bxblox, on 07/07/2008, -2/+6They're just going to get leases for a ridiculously long time on the sites and do nothing with them. They have a ton of leases that they dont do anything with and have no plans to. Just holding on to them to make sure no competition shows up and tries to get into the game.
  - zacharytelschow, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Competition to explore the land? We can't drill domestically, so what would "competition" do if it "shows up?"
- egoideal, on 07/07/2008, -2/+5So your argument is that record profits does not mean record profits? That 10 years (at least) before we see any difference at the pumps means gas will go back to $2 a gallon as soon as we give them the land? That a change of just a few pennies per gallon actually means the gas will eventually get so cheap they'll be paying us to take it? I'm trying really hard to respect your opinion but just because you say things are so doesn't change the fact that they aren't.
BlackJackJester, on 07/07/2008, -2/+20You don't like how policy is being made? Then stop voting assclowns into congress.
- hashinclude, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7Unfortunately, when the choice you have (as South Park so eloquently put it) is between a doucebag and a turd sandwich, it is a tad difficult to choose ...
- TheFederalist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2Democrats have had the majority since 2006. I agree with the assclowns statement.
TsuruchiBrian, on 07/07/2008, -1/+11This article makes it seem like Democrats aren't just doing whatever neocons want them to.
- Jlaugh, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Democrats are doing that a lot these days.
JK1150, on 07/07/2008, -12/+11we need to start drilling in our own country. even obama admits that will help, just not in the short term (way to look out for future generations barack...)
- Rev3rend, on 07/07/2008, -4/+3not to mention, it will help in the short term. Part of the huge hike in prices is due to speculation...If people see us making an effort to drill for our own oil. they would most likely "speculate" that there will be a higher supply, therefore lowering the immediate prices of oil.
  
  this is not a short term fix. the ammount of oil in the US is larger that saudi arabia has
- egoideal, on 07/07/2008, -3/+3I think you need to do some, any, research before you decide to make a fool out of yourself.
pintomp3, on 07/07/2008, -1/+9it's not just republicans. big lobbies like the oil industry spread their campaign contributions across both sides of the isle. that way they get favorable legislation no matter which party is in power. there will be no solution to this or any of our problems until elected officials answer to the public instead of lobbyists. it's funny how the lobbies claim that campaign reform is a violation of free speech, as if bribery were a form of speech.
skellener, on 07/07/2008, -0/+13It's pretty much $5 here in L.A. already.
- salinemist, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3Due to taxes.
ericjohnson0, on 07/07/2008, -9/+15I think we're missing the OTHER half of the story here:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=2 ...

America was saved Tuesday from a Democratic Congress determined to do more damage to our economy and raise oil prices still higher. Energy taxes and eco-extremism make Democrats the real oil gougers.

The most absurd provision in the thoroughly ridiculous energy package offered by Senate Democrats this week was to make price gouging on oil and gas a federal crime, punishable by a fine of $5 million if an energy emergency has been declared by the president at the time of such price fixing.
- Jlaugh, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3Making gouging a crime seems like a good thing, since 60% of the price is do to speculation in oil futures.
- jaxcs, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6Why is a price gouging law ridiculous? If anything it's too lax a proposal.
  - merlin5, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4OK Jimmy Carter. If you fix the prices you hazard supply shortages. Price fixing by any other name is still price fixing.
  - Warbick, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Because they are focusing on something that isn't proven to have even happened, when they should be focusing on actually doing something about bringing the price down. Read the rest of the article.
  - jaxcs, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@merlin5
    You sound like an ideologue. Price gouging has nothing to do with making money or endangering supply lines. You can charge market rates, you just can't charge well above market rates. You could argue that things aren't well defined and would like more information, but instead you oppose it on principle. I think gas stations that raised prices by a dollar on the very first day of the Iraq war, when no impact was felt on the distribution line are wrong, you don't. Not much I can say.
    
    @warbick
    Would you mind telling me what part of the article is relevant that I am missing?
- egoideal, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1"How weak they must consider us when nearly a half dozen Republican senators, including John Warner of Virginia and Charles Grassley of Iowa, vote to treat those who provide our economy's lifeblood as if they were evil."
  "Killing the geese that provide our economy with black gold is no answer to high energy prices. Developing more of our own energy is vital not just for relief at the pump, but for our national security in the global war on terror."
  
  Typical republicans, kiss the oil companies big fat ass the entire article. Don't forget to insinuate that you're a traitor if you don't agree! And last time I checked, the world was laughing at the pathetic attempts of "leadership" by a republican president and his cohorts. You can try the whole smoke and mirror ***** all day, but the last time this country was economically stable, flourishing even, a democrat was in charge.
MarshalBanana, on 07/07/2008, -1/+5I'd love to be paying 4 dollars a gallon for gas compared to what I'm paying now in BC...1.52 a liter. That's about 5.75 a gallon.
- sb66, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5That's cause your moronic government passed that carbon tax. You guys are cool and all out there; but way too much california loonie stuff is going on.
Tehrab, on 07/07/2008, -5/+6When you go to work, you do what your boss says, right? Well, so does Congress, both GOP and Dems alike.
- muckemuck, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3yep, and unfortunately their "boss" isn't the people - it's the military corporations, the pharmaceutical corporations, etc..
diggjcarp, on 07/07/2008, -8/+8Really, the GOP should be dismantled in its present form. I wish we had 3 equally potential parties: Democrats, Independents and maybe something like the 'Green Party'. Each more or less centrist with different ideas in certain areas. The issues Democrats embrace are largely centrist in most other parts of the world. What is not are issues the GOP represents. If you could bullet point each issue the GOP embraces from socially backwards causes (gun control, religion) to foreign affairs diasters (Iraq anyone?) and financial irresponsibility (this article), you have an extreme party that most of the world despises, with reason.
- JBrown99, on 07/07/2008, -5/+3Wow, you're an idiot. Socially backwards causes? How is owning a gun backwards? Or having a faith? Almost everyone in Switzerland has a gun that the government has given them - are they backwards? And every country has leaders that believe in a religion of some sort. If you believe in something, don't you think you would try and pass legislation that aligns with your beliefs?
  
  People like you piss me off. Way to be open to other people's ideas.
- executorzz, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2And if you finally broke out of the democrat mind control you would see that the other side has legitimite reasons for supporting their views not just because they are greedy or selfish.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2I would still vote libertarian because it's the only party that makes sense.
- Matricul8tr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1you solved half the problem, now delete democrat, add libertarian and you're there
- Jethris, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1"Anything that I disagree with should be outlawed"
  
  I couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks. The two party system has worked very well for the last 100 years. As more and more of the population moves to the middle, then either the GOP or Dems will move with it to retain the votes.
  
  Truely you are without intelligence.
- ASeventhSign, on 07/07/2008, -2/+0Typical Democrat trying to cobble together a coherent thought from the cloud of political satire swirling around the empty space between his ears...
merlin5, on 07/07/2008, -15/+9Big oil is only one of USAs major industries. Demonizing them is a socialist strategy to play the mobs anti-wealth, anti-class prejudices for votes. The true criminals are the lefty politicians who use this propaganda to gain power. The anti-Bush stuff is making no sense either. If any of the Bush hate were true he'd either be the smartest idiot, or dumbest genius that ever lived.
gazaa, on 07/07/2008, -7/+8this columnist demonstrates an understanding of economics that is charitably described as "casual." all of the "big oil is evil because it is so profitable" kids should check what the oil industry's profit margins actually are--even in boom years--and compare them to any other sector of american industry. vitriol like this article just polarizes; criticism is deserved and needed but this is not criticism, its just invective from some ***** who's peripherally aware of what's going on.
- jaxcs, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1profit margin is low. But dollars earned is high. what about this is so hard to understand? Would you rather sell 100 sandwiches a day with a profit of 1 dollar each or sell 1000 sodas a day with a profit of 50 cents each?
  - gazaa, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1nothing is difficult to understand about a comparison as oversimplified as yours. unfortunately, it irrelevant in this discussion. you cannot simply adjust the scale of units sold; really we should be comparing 100 sandwiches sold with a profit of 1 dollar each verses 100 sandwiches sold with a profit of 50 cents each.
    
    the costs the oil industry incurs are enormous; the market it supplies is massive. so yes, the dollars earned are high. i'm glad we all appreciate that large numbers are greater than small numbers.
  - jaxcs, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1There is nothing oversimplified about that example. You want to talk about low margins in comparison to other industries as sufficient reason to give oil as pass. Of course you are going to bring up google or pharma or other high margin industries. But oil is a commodity and should be compared to other commodities. Alcola made a net profit of 9.55 % for 2007. This is lower than oil.
    
    Your claim that I am making a improper comparison is offbase. Oil, like Coke Cola sells thousands if not millions of units a year. Their net profit is not dependant on a few 1000 or 100,000 units. It is their business model to have low margins and to make money through large volume sales. In contrast, industries like car manufacturing, make larger profits per unit because far fewer units are expected to be sold per year. Since you miss it, let me make it clear. There is absolutely no reason to give a company a pass solely based on their business model.
    
    BTW, cans of soda, single sandwiches, and gallons of oil are just convenient units to use because that is how they are sold. Since we are talking about consumption over the course of a year, we can technically talk about gallons or even barrels of soda consumed or sold in a year but few people are prepared to understand this unusual scale.
  - gazaa, on 07/08/2008, -1/+0I am not entirely sure I understand what you are saying, probably because your post did not conform to basic rules of English grammar. I apologize if I sound hostile or if English is not your native tongue.
  - jaxcs, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1While there are sentences that could have been reworked for greater clarity, for you to say that my entire post was incomprehensible due to poor grammar is laughable. You are either exceedingly stupid, suffer a mild retardation, or are shining me on. Playing the grammar card is idiotic since your own posts break with standard English rules and fails to fully develop ideas. I apologize if I sound hostile because you are in fact exceedingly stupid or suffer a mild retardation.
- merlin5, on 07/07/2008, -3/+1As opposed to this columnist who believes made up statistics and perpetuates hysteria. Look you commie, there is nothing wrong with profit and success. It is the foundation of what makes America great.
  Big oil is actually much less profitable than many other industries.
  Just because my opinion differs from yours doesn't make me an *****, but you calling me one makes you a *****.
  - gazaa, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0whoa....? is this response to my comment? that is how its nested.
    
    i think you have misunderstood my post entirely. i agree that big oil is less profitable than many other industries; i actually said so (not literally, but the implication seems pretty clear). i'm not sure where i espoused communism, attacked capitalism, or called you an *****, but if i did i apologize. i think you probably need to check how your comment is nested or possibly work on reading comprehension.
Number23, on 07/07/2008, -4/+12Pelosi said she'd lower gas prices, what happed digg-tards?
- amightywind, on 07/07/2008, -2/+3You assume much of the average digg-tard, like simple memory. Nancy called recent efforts to drill the OCS and ANWR a 'scam'. But who cares? She can pay attention now or get hammered with it on election day.
Iztikeit, on 07/07/2008, -3/+2...as the Democrats struggle mercilessly to stop it....

Get over it, the GOP and the Democrats are identical and they themselves know it. The thinly veiled difference is keeping MY country from being what it could be. When the only two parties who can support an electable presidential candidate are, for all intents and purposes, identical what good can come out of that?

If everyone were to instantly wake up and notice the trivial differences maybe we could actually bring America back for the good guys.

You know it's a problem when Bill O' Reilly is agreeing with the populace on this issue.
- stonebone4, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1...but, but, they have differing views on abortion! They CAN'T be identical!
  
  (/sarcasm)
  - Iztikeit, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1I wish I could muster a laugh, but it's too pathetic.
- Matricul8tr, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1i dug this and find it sitting at 0...tsk, shows that the mindless partisans are out in force...we're doomed. The sound in the background is Nero's violin.
bleh19799791, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7I was poised to post something snarky about politics, but really what hasn't been said before about the doucheness of politics? Politicians are rich bastards in charge, taking fat paychecks. The leadership of your nation depends on voting door #1 and door #2, with both doors leading to an American Gladiator with fake ***** that hits you with a Styrofoam baton.
gotrootdude, on 07/07/2008, -3/+7 The Iraq war was the only war in US history that was not supported through a tax increase. This is significant because of where the funding for the war came from. Out of the $600 billion, China paid 25%, Japan paid another 26%.

Obviously, China and Japan have vested interest in both the U.S., which represents their largest customer and drive their own economy, and access to oil without worry of political constraints. Also of note, was the amount the U.S. owed both countries pre-war, which could be used to pressure U.S. politics.

Now, it may be just me, and I may be looking for something that doesn't exist, but the whole war funding from China and Japan along with the increased business competition makes it look very fishy, almost like the country is being sold out to other countries by republicans who pretend patriotism.
- muckemuck, on 07/07/2008, -2/+1and Bill Clinton didn't snuggle right up to the Chinese, nope. Ha. It's not just the neo-con "Republicans" who have run this country into the ground. Pelosi and her cohorts are just as much to blame.
  - gotrootdude, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1 Your right to an extent. I didn't like Bill Clinton's policies either.
    
    Especially since Hillary was a chairman for the French Royal Chemical company that sold chemicals used for weapons both to Iran and Iraq.
- synthpop, on 07/07/2008, -2/+2it's not like they gave us the money, it's a loan and they expect to be paid back with interest
- Jethris, on 07/07/2008, -1/+1Source?
mouthbreether, on 07/07/2008, -6/+8What's so hard to understand that drilling for oil on American soil can and will ease the pain of skyrocketing costs of imported oil until an efficient form of alternative energy can be found? Who else to do it than the oil companies? The market is ripe for alternative energy and it will arrive with our without the help of government mandates and funding. Until then, I'd rather not spend my life savings just trying to drive to work and back.
- Iphis, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Doesn't work like that. If exon only sold to the US, then it would effect our prices. But BP and the rest will just put the extra oil on the world market (which won;t be that much and 10 years from now). Might effect things a few cents (a decade from now). But there's no telling OPEC wouldn't drop production just enough to bring prices right back up. Domestic drilling at the expense of our environment can only be construed as worthwhile if our oil reserves were nationalized. Otherwise, that oil from the gulf might be powering chinese cars and russian jets.
  - JohnGalt750, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0Your correct that oil is a world market as is just about everything else. That is another reason we should drill. Global demand will mean that prices are likely to stay high. If this were any other commodity it would be a no brainer. There is a global market/demand for copper. Does that mean would shouldn't mine copper, because it might not be used here? Should we not grow corn because it will go to feed a non-american?
    
    As far as prices are concerned. The second the drilling starts, it will drive a some of the speculation out of the market. Before a single barrel of oil is extracted...
  - Iphis, on 08/30/2008, -0/+1Nice try. You're still talking pennies on the gallon and thinking very short term.
    
    Oil is fundamentally different in many ways than food and metals. It is one commodity that cannot be replaced with another. I can't fill my car with natural gas (yet). I can eat cabbage if the corn growers go on strike and they can spike my mountain dew with beet juice to replace the high fructose corn syrup. I don't believe copper releases any toxins in its use although I would be interested to hear about it.
    
    Oil is bad coming out, is bad going back, and can't be grown anywhere. Any study of the life cycle of carbon will tell you that this is bad mojo. It has the hazard of destroying huge tracks of land and coastline coming out, and releases CO2 when used. Eating cabbage poses little risk coming out (fertilizer and farts excluded) and going back (provided there is some sort of sewage management). I can't remember the last superpower war that was fought over crops (Oh, wait, cotton, maybe sugar cane, arguably beets in Poland for their sugar). Copper can be replaced with, I admit, inferior metals, but can be replaced. Of course we could always get our oil by processing coal. Wow, that would be a great boon to our economy. Look at all the mountains with their tops blown off mommy.
    
    The only thing I can think of that is akin to oil is nuclear power. The fundamental difference is the waste byproduct. Because plutonium is containable, it is considered harmful and no one wants it buried near them. But CO2, screw it, dump it into the clouds. Since I can't see it, it won't hurt me. Viruses kill, we can't see them. And were all so worried about getting robbed.
    
    The only solution to this problem are other fuels. Wars are being fought over oil now. According you your argument, we should also be fighting over wheat and titanium. That will happen when the droughts come caused by all the damned CO2 in the atmosphere. And if your counter argument is that it will take too long or there's no other possible fuels, save it. There have been some highly regarded gentlemen in the past who said technology has reached its zenith. It hasn't.
    
    We are capable of what our leaders let us think we are capable of. I suggest you go find a leader, a leader with a bit more hope and a bit more intelligence.
PolishLogic, on 07/07/2008, -10/+14This article was one gigantic piece of dog *****.

I look forward to Joel McNally's next article about how oil companies should not be allowed to make $1 in profit, its employees should get paid in hugs, and their oil should be made available out of the goodness of their hearts.
zacharytelschow, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6"Alternately, Republicans argued we shouldn't pass a windfall profits tax on the oil companies because the oil companies were run by such big crooks they would just illegally pass the tax on to consumers."

Illegally pass the tax on to consumers? Since when is that illegal, and what else would you expect them to do?

Article buried for such unsound economic and policy statements I couldn't even bear reading the rest of this drivel.
amightywind, on 07/07/2008, -8/+3Some might call those 'giveaways', supply stimulus. Joe Sixpack sure didn't complain about *his* federal stimulus check. I love big oil. Their stock has made me thousands of dollars this year, more than I will spend on gas.
- Temo1, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3Exxon Mobil stock has increased 5.33% in the past year, and the dividend returned $1.45 per share over the year. So you would have made about 7.06% return on your year's investment in Exxon stock. Not including any transaction costs.
  
  Which is nice, especially in a Bear market... no doubt about that. But consider that over that same year, Apple would have made you 32.4% on your money. Berkshire Hathaway would have made you 6.22% on stock price alone (too lazy to look up their dividend, but I'm sure it would put you over the 7.06%).
  - amightywind, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Berkshire Hathaway famously does *not* pay a dividend.
    http://www.focusinvestor.com/brkfaq.htm#Q7
dizilbdog, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6You know by next year or later this year, we'll be talking about.

Hey man remember the days gas was 4.00 a gallon hahaha

Yeah man I just saw a deal for 10.00 what a bargain.

Welcome to the New World Order. Still think the Government works for you..
SpartanErik, on 07/07/2008, -3/+4Without the GOP giving to oil companies, imagine how high prices would be then!

Either way you cut it folks, we're going to have to bite the bullet.
Iphis, on 07/07/2008, -3/+6I suspect we the American People wouldn't be so pissed off that oil is so expensive if we weren't also embroiled in a war in Iraq. Perhaps the two oilmen who run this country (B and C) pushed for war in Iraq to open up the oil fields to the oil companies later on down the line at a cost of trillions to the American people. Regardless of whether it is true, this is the perception. If I were in a family that made millions off coffee, became president with a vp who also made millions off coffee, then invaded Colombia on some trumped up allegations and then gave coffee rights to a bunch of instant coffee companies and starbucks whom my family are in bed with, there would be some suspicions there. Conspiracy theory, damn right. Don't make me spend my money, give my son and daughter, forgo really cool things like infrastructure and education, and then stick it to me at the gas pump. We did all the work and now they are telling us to go screw ourselves.
- Kanele, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2socializing the loss, privatizing the gain
m4ttGT, on 07/07/2008, -2/+9OPEC is a monopoly, and such a monopoly would be illegal in the United States. However, since OPEC is over in the Middle East, they are not subject to the anti-trust laws of the U.S.

Increased supply and refinery capacity would lower the price of oil. Thats economics 101. However, if demand also increases at the same rate as supply, then the price will stay the same.

Another thing many people dont understand is the difference between a profit and a profit margin. Simple profit is revenues minus costs. So most people will point to oil company's billions of dollars in profits as reason to "reign them in." However, a profit margin measures how much a company earns on every dollar of revenue. The average profit margin for an oil company is 5.5%, a decent investment. However, when you compare the oil industry with, say, tv broadcasting, they have (on average) a 9.5% profit margin. An even better industry, periodicals, has (on average) a %19.1 percent profit margin.

So while oil companies like Exxon may have a large AMOUNT of profit, that doesn't mean they make more money on their business than other industries...
- Kanele, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0yes it does, because they are WAY WAY larger AMOUNT of profit
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2and they spend a WAY WAY WAY larger AMOUNT of money to make that profit. 36 billion profit on 400 billion dollars of expenditure....
    
    I think any investments you make that gain over 6% return should be taken by the government.
DealCracker, on 07/07/2008, -3/+5I honestly don't know whether the Democrats or the Republicans deserve to wear the dunce cap more. None of them seem to have ever set foot in Economics 101 let alone understand the dire circumstances that we face in the coming years. We are on the edge of a full blown energy crisis and these dumb butts are too busy fighting each other to even notice. The electric utilities have given up on being able to supply enough power in the coming years. They already know that they couldn't build enough new generating capacity if they were allowed to start today. Rolling blackouts or other more extreme rationing is expected in most parts of the US by 2015.

The high cost of gasoline has more to do with the low value of US dollars than the world demand for oil. What is the congress doing to prop up the dollar? A 25% increase in the dollar would lower the cost of gasoline be an equal amount. In fact, if the dollar had stay at the level it was 2 years ago we would be paying $2.75 / gallon for gas. How much of a change is pumping more oil, or even worse forced conservation (aka rationing) and windfall profits taxes going to make?
- Kanele, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Long gone the time when being a good president and leaving a good mark in history mattered. It is now about racking up the biggest amount of cash possible by pleasing the rich friends.
NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/07/2008, -4/+5I think ipods should be cheaper, as Apple makes more profit than big oil does by several percentage points.
- DealCracker, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Cheaper? Are you kidding? What we need to do is tax Apple for their unreasonable ipod profits. The tax revenue would then be used by the government to research and develop better MP3 player technology. We all know that "Big MP3" has no interest in improving products or lowering the cost.
  - NonLeftistDiggr, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1great idea!
tumbler360, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3"And just last week, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP got their biggest payoffs from the Bush administration as they entered into final negotiations for their no-bid contracts to run Iraq's oil industry."

Hmmm, this isn't going to cause MASSIVE instability in that region... Why would those countries want to run their own oil industries when they can let American countries do it for them and take all the profits?!

I'm sure Saudi Arabia and Iran are standing in line to get those companies to run their oil industries!
merlin5, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Apology waffled in dripping sarcasm. How typical of your ilk. Read your own post..."its just invective from some ***** who's peripherally aware of what's going on" You need to either stop taking drugs or start taking medication. I mis-clicked a link. You, apparently, were just born funny.
Treoinmypocket, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3So many rants....so few solutions.

There isn't one single solution out there from any energy pundit that will reduce the price of oil (and therefore gas at the pump) anytime soon.

So what do we do besides engage in these meaningless and unproductive rants?

How about some serious evaluation of several realities including economics, availability and long term solutions?

How about that people?

If anyone thinks that politicians are trying to help YOU, you are mistaken. Politics in this country has long ceased to be about us...it is about THEM and their power and their ability to con you into believing they even KNOW what they are talking about.

The reality is that we need some short term solutions (so our econmoy doens't REALLY go down the drain) that will buy us the time to enact the longer term solutions we should have been working towards all along.

T
- Treoinmypocket, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1lol - messed up my post and I was on a roll too. Here's the rest:
  
  So many rants....so few solutions.
  
  There isn't one single solution out there from any energy pundit that will reduce the price of oil (and therefore gas at the pump) anytime soon.
  
  So what do we do besides engage in these meaningless and unproductive rants?
  
  How about some serious evaluation of several realities including economics, availability and long term solutions?
  
  How about that people?
  
  If anyone thinks that politicians are trying to help YOU, you are mistaken. Politics in this country has long ceased to be about us...it is about THEM and their power and their ability to con you into believing they even KNOW what they are talking about.
  
  The reality is that we need some short term solutions (so our economy doesn't REALLY go down the drain) that will buy us the time to enact the longer term solutions we should have been working towards all along.
  
  There is oil that can be brought into production in 2 to 3 years but the talking heads keep talking about ANWAR (which can't be brought online for 10 years). We need to get serious about getting at that because that will reduce the speculation and drive costs down - how much? I don't know.
  
  Fuel Taxes? Get rid of them, despite Obama's "gimmick" rhetoric cutting 18 or 20 cents from each gallon will help in the short term. Let the government tighten ITS belt for once instead of forcing us to do so. The government wastes more money in a single day than the cost of this crisis so get real.
  
  Alternative energy? Corn sucks and anyone whose done any research realizes that. There are other flex fuels that have better potential so let get to the testing and figure it out.
  
  Nuclear? Unless someone is putting a MR. FUSION in my car this serves no purpose on the short list but has to be explored for the longer term . People are so fond of telling us what "other nations" do on this or that but they all shut their mouths regarding nuclear don't they? The truth is that nuclear works and has been for a long time in Europe. We need to get there too.
  
  Batteries, hydrogen, chicken *****?
  
  All these ideas are FAR away but also need to have the viability of their efficiency and distribution put to the test.
  
  Last, windfall profits tax. This is the REAL "Gimmick". We've tried this before The windfall profits tax, known as the "crude oil windfall profit tax" was enacted in 1980 and was repealed in 1988. The result was that:
  1) domestic oil production fell to its lowest level in 20 years.
  2) domestic producers had fallen behind in the search for new oil reserves.
  3) the United States increased its reliance on foreign oil supplies from 32 % in 1983 to 38% in 1986.
  
  This tax would make things worse and besides - do you REALLY think the government is going to give that money back to the people or even use it wisely for funding alternative fuels research? If you do, then I suggest you look at that Social Security Lockbox politicians always talk about. Its empty...because Congress raids it every single year without fail to pay for something else.
  
  We CAN overcome this challenge - but only if we get the politics out of it. That is where OUR power lies.
TheFederalist, on 07/07/2008, -2/+4You've GOT TO BE KIDDING ME.

"[Bush and McCain] are trying to use high gas prices to justify allowing the oil companies to threaten our coastlines with environmental devastation to boost oil profits even more."

This sentence (and article) is so insanely twisted and ignorant. When GLOBAL DEMAND goes up and our dollar goes down, we see much higher prices. So do we sit and complain about OPEC not giving us enough oil, or do we use OUR OWN resources to provide for ourselves? It's a very sensible argument. And very nice how you throw "environmental devastation" in there... without mentioning how infrequently major damage occurs and how U.S. legislation has forced most all oil tankers to be double-hulled, making an oil spill on our shores a near impossibility. All windfall taxes will do is force oil companies to jack up the selling price - thereby screwing over the PEOPLE even more.

I have to side with the republicans.... invest in alt. energies for the future, but drill here and now for immediate independence.
- Kanele, on 07/07/2008, -2/+0Sure side with them.... until you realize they will sell this oil at market price. Why bother lowering prices for americans and waste this source of income really (Hell they even kill Americans now for their oil, see Iraq).
  This will end in Coastlines slaughtering, and no price drop (and I wouldn't be suprised by exploitation taxes reduction beforehand to "ease the process of lowering oil prices" for Americans, they might even spend public money to make it happen, that's how crazy they are)
- rottencod, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1How about we stop complaining about the lack of off-shore facilities when the oil companies have started developing the millions of acres that are ALREADY open -- ON LAND -- to oil production but haven't been touched?
Matricul8tr, on 07/07/2008, -4/+1you guys might go check the archive footage of Bush's reponse to the first time congress vetoed ANWAR drilling....he wasn't upset, had that evil smirk on his face...Guess we know what Chaney's secret energy CEO meetings were about now huh....I used to work offshore in the oilfields of La., in 1998 there were 10,000 capped oilwells between Gulf Port, Mississippi and Galveston TX.... we would go out and drill a block just before its lease expired, then cap it and move to the next one. Bet those wells are still untapped. And now that we're on the subject what ever happened to the deepwater field in the gulf...at the time Chevron reported it in the Tribune as being larger than all other fields combined ...thats africa north sea ....etc....thats right we gave mexico 70% of that by treaty
- Temo1, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Congress can veto stuff now?
  - Matricul8tr, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1good point....should have said "failed to pass"
giveupsin, on 07/07/2008, -6/+1Uh...it was Al Gore and his friends who were worshiping the earth to get gas up to $5, not OPEC or the oil companies. Why would anyone care about oil as long as it was refined into gasoline for $1.25 a gallon back when 90% of America thought Al was an id10t error. You win votes with politics like this. Rig the system to get people motivated. Think of sheep. If the herder beats with a stick, they move. And when they get to market, some are sheered, others are turned into lamb chops, and those lucky few are sacrificed. Big oil isn't so big. Just one piece on the board, and the queen has yet to be moved. Life is only just now getting interesting. Real question is do you have a back seat ticket, or a back stage pass. Or maybe you think it is better to not be on the train, only to realize the lions are on the ground around you too.
Matricul8tr, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Never thought I would ever say something like this but,
Wanna see oil drop?....Threaten to nationalize the American petroleum industry. Be back to $18/bbl and $1 at the pump by Thursday lol
- sa9e, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2What do you suppose all the foreign governments - the ones who allow US companies to extract and refine their oil assets - would say?
- Matricul8tr, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0We don't have to do it...the threat is enough. Besides they already have nationalized their oil deposits or are in the process IE Russia, Mideastern countries, Venezuela...yea we are in negotiations to take Iraqi oil (and Libyans want us in)only places left are euro controlled north sea, Canada US and Nigeria for now...even Mexico is state owned
trollick, on 07/07/2008, -0/+7If only there was some kind of a process through which we the people could control who gets elected into offices...
Matricul8tr, on 07/07/2008, -1/+0Quiet now...trying to listen to Lou Dobbs
sa9e, on 07/07/2008, -0/+3We now have cleaner and more efficient toolsets for both acquiring and consuming petroleum. If the currently available "clean" technologies are employed in the near term, they will be incrementally improved upon in the middle term, and then they will be near-perfected (to some asymptotic limit) in the long term. Digg users older than 12 should know this like they know Moore's Law.

So, why should we leave any oil in the ground?
- 140Suffolk, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Because the libs and lefties would actually prefer that we live more limited lives. When the oil is used for something they don't approve of, then folks are "wasting" it. Running a Jetski is "wasting" our oil.
  But using oil to air condition an art exhibit that has to be subsidized cause no one is interested....not THAT is a good use of fuel!
  
  In my local lib paper, there's a woman who writes about "green" issues. Now she says that no one should eat food that has to be shipped more than 100 miles. Huh. Well, that would mean no oranges. Ever. No bananas. Ever.
  And that would mean I'd only have fresh fruit in the late summer and fall. But they think that's a good idea.
  - sa9e, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1They should lead by example. If all the eco-lefties abandoned the entrapments of post-industrial-era technology (i.e. transportation, mass production), they wouldn't be blatant hypocrites.
yellowcakewalk, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2Someone cited anwr.org?

http://www.anwr.org is a web site run, funded by and provided content by a Political Action Committee - a lobby group with one single goal.

"Arctic Power is a grassroots, non-profit citizen's organization with 10,000 members founded in April of 1992 to expedite congressional and presidential approval of oil exploration and production within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Arctic Power is based in Anchorage, AK. …The organization is committed to securing congressional and presidential approval of legislation opening the Coastal Plain of ANWR to responsible oil development"

Their membership list includes the likes of the Alaska Trucking Association, the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, and the Alaska Oil & Gas Association. Why does this sound like someone from Hostess telling me twinkies are good for me, or a case of letting the wolf guard the chickens??

Flawed data all of it — data presented with an agenda, and not worthy of being used in any intellectual argument regarding ANWR. Find another source, munchkins, like an unbaised non-partisan source. You cannot pick and choose your sources based on whether or not they support your opinion, and both sides do it, over and over again.
JohnGalt750, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0It's good to know about this article. I will print out copies for my car that runs on refined vitriol.
Roger_Ramjet, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Or, since Congress has been largely in charge by the Democrats, you can say that the DNC just can't give enough to the environmental lobby, who cares if we can't drive to work!
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
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.

The GOP just can't give enough to Big Oil

Login or register to add a comment