Guess we don't really need to Drill Here, Drill Now, huh?

Do know that the Chevron Refinery here in SoCal has begun the layoffs.

Well, Ted , using your logic, we don't need to go green, either, do we?

Okay. Go ahead and trade in your Prius.

While you're at it, Am1, go ahead and read the article.

It might help.

I hope all those pants pissers that scream Drill Baby Drill at the top of their lungs and the oil company shills that brainwashed them are reading this.

What a bunch of goddamned idiots!!! Hey Sarah Moosefart and Grandpa PoopyPants, suck on THIS!!!

You people will believe anything.

Since I actually work in the industry that designs and builds refineries, let me tell you what is really happening. The oil companies are reducing oil refining capacity...IN THE US ONLY! And yes, the object here is to raise the price of fuel. Go back and find the place on the DR where I told you guys that gasoline is going to be $8/gallon in 5 years

The real profit from oil comes from refining it, because that gunk that comes out of the ground is worthless until it is refined. Since so much oil and oil extraction techniques have been found recently, the supply will need to be reduced at the refinery instead of at the ground.

Wait till you hear about a refinery/chemical plant that is to be built in Saudi Arabia in conjunction with some american companies. I don't have the details but it is going to be one of the largest ever built.

If you don't learn anything else, learn this; Oil Companies (and other multi-nationals) know no borders or political alliances, recognize no governments, and do whatever the hell they want to, regardless of how you feel about it. (I actually like it because it feeds my family)

If you don't like it, stop using oil products.

Since so much oil and oil extraction techniques have been found recently, the supply will need to be reduced at the refinery instead of at the ground . . . a refinery/chemical plant that is to be built in Saudi Arabia in conjunction with some american companies

#6 | Posted by Lipzoidial

b) sooo, USA refined product prices WILL KEEP RISING?

c) sooo, the largest natural gas reserves in the world are in N America?

d) aaand, Russia will build 16 nuke power plants for India?

exactly WHO fck is in charge of our US energy policy . . . AND whose fck'n side are they on? (rhetorical question)

You figure the greenies would applaud this. In fact, the supposedly evil, profit mad oil companies are doing exactly what fuel taxes would be meant to do: drive up prices and thus lower demand. Greenies always support more fuel taxes.
When will the anti-business left loons ever stop being schizo in their logic?

"I hope all those pants pissers that scream Drill Baby Drill at the top of their lungs and the oil company shills that brainwashed them are reading this." - homophobe.

I suppose you don't mind outsourcing either? Are you a fan of exporting jobs, dollars etal.?

Or are you just one of the zero-summers?

The idea of energy independence while it might be a dream, at least moving that direction would help alot when things get tight, like they are today, and as Lipozoid points out in the future.

Mack's ASS,

You really need a reading comprehension refresher, don't you?

Mack's ASS,
You really need a reading comprehension refresher, don't you?

#10 | Posted by axe

Oil companies are as bad for freedom as insurance companies.

So demand has gone down because of high prices, and the solution as big oil sees it is to reduce supply, raise prices, and further lower demand? Something doesn't add up.

"Something doesn't add up."

Peak production has passed.
There won't be more oil to refine.
Do the math.

Okay. Go ahead and trade in your Prius.

#3 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2010-03-13 11:43 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

While you're at it, Am1, go ahead and read the article.

It might help.

#4 | Posted by TedBaxter

I was being facetious, Ted. Kinda like you were in your #1 post. I'm all for technology to derive more from less, but we're still going to have to have oil, no matter what anyone says or does. Until the very last drop is pumped from the ground, we will be using it.

The oil companies will get higher gas prices .. by hook or by crook.

Mostly crook.

How many times have we heard it said by oil companies: "Prices are high because we don't have refining capacity. If ONLY we could build more refineries... blah blah blah"? They just showed us where they really stand. On the side of higher prices by any means necessary.

How much domestic oil production goes on supertankers bound for somewhere else. Anyone know?

They're in business to make money, and the more they make, the more they can pay their shareholders. Buy Exxon.

Since the seventies Big Oil has been complaining bitterly that excess refining capacity has kept oil prices artificially low. Meanwhile, rightie tighties have blamed environmentalists for no additional capacity ever going on line, even though the largest refinery in North America was built on the Virgin Islands explicitly to process Venezuelan Oil vaste reserves.

The bullshit never stops. There is no free market. The last speculative spike was designed to make us complacent as prices creep back up. Sheeple management in a rigged market, in oil & other commodities, in stocks & bonds, and of course Real Estate. Lets call it socialism and blame liberals.

it must be the speculators.

people are fucking dumb -- george carlin

Domestic oil production peaked in 1970.
That's when we should have gone nuke, passive and serious conservation; But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Jimmy Carter was right

oh wait, but conservatives in California have argued for years that gas prices are high because there are not enough refineries.
yet California refineries have been operating under capacity for a couple years now.

thank god we didnt follow their sage advice and reduce environmental regs and give tax breaks so companies could build refineries we didnt even need

And most of you think the insurance companies have us by the nuts?

Black gold my friend, is what drives the economy, like it or not.

He who controls the gold, makes the rules.

The oil companies are reducing oil refining capacity...IN THE US ONLY! And yes, the object here is to raise the price of fuel. Go back and find the place on the DR where I told you guys that gasoline is going to be $8/gallon in 5 years

But unlike Europe, that's not mostly taxes.

Americans will be fine paying $8/gal, just so long as the profits go to XOM, and not some public benefit.

Domestic oil production peaked in 1970.
That's when we should have gone nuke, passive and serious conservation; But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Capitalism demands endless growth.

The fact that continuous growth on a planet of finite resources is mathematically impossible doesn't seem to have any impact on people's willingness to adhere to their capitalist mythology.

Simply put, people are extremely bad at math.

Jimmy Carter was right

#22 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY

Bingo!

Domestic oil production peaked in 1970.
That's when we should have gone nuke, passive and serious conservation; But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Yep.

Then we got Reagan. We deserve what we get.

At this point I'm of the opinion fusion is our only way out. I'd even settle for fission as a stop-gap measure.

Our caveman approach can be summed up as "hey, our fire isn't big enough. Let's throw more shit on it."

Eventually that won't work any more. Even if it could work for a thousand more years, we really need to find a more high-tech method of producing energy than combustion.

So Big Oil isn't happy with the price of a gallon of gas. Have they been to Burbank, CA lately? And the gas stations listed below are from a website for the CHEAPEST gas prices in Burbank -- just to give you an idea. At one point last year when the price of a gallon of gas was skyrocketing, I paid almost $4.00 a gallon.

How much do the rest of you guys pay for a gallon of gas in your neck of the woods?

Lowest Gas Prices in Burbank as of 3/13/2010/b>

Regular - Plus - Premium - Diesel Date rates

World Oil #25
2417 N San Fernando Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91504
$3.059 $3.159 N/A $3.059

Shawki Helo
439 W Alameda Ave
Burbank, CA, 91506
$3.099 $3.199 $3.299...

Orange Grove S
3020 W Olive Ave
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.229 $3.329 $3.429 $3.199

Chevron 0092860
3701 W Riverside Dr
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.079 $3.279 $3.379 $3.259

Chevron 0093049
100 S Glenoaks Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91502
$3.099 $3.199 $3.299 $3.159

Chevron 0205574
140 E Alameda Ave
Burbank, CA, 91502
$3.059 $3.159 $3.259 N/A

United Oil-Rapid 14
2500 W Magnolia Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.039 $3.139 $3.239 N/A

Chevron
2501 W Olive Ave
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.059 $3.159 $3.259 N/A

Union 76
2421 W Victory Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91506
$3.059 $3.159 N/A $3.059

Unocal
200 N Hollywood Way
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.159 $3.359 $3.459 $3.299

Unocal
901 N San Fernando Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91504
$3.079 $3.179 $3.279 N/A

United Oil-Rapid #10
280 Alameda Ave
Burbank, CA, 91502
$3.039 $3.139 $3.239 $3.059

Shell
7710 N Hollywood Way
Burbank, CA, 91505
$3.059 $3.159 N/A $3.099

Shell
400 N Victory Blvd
Burbank, CA, 91502
$3.069 $3.159 $3.269 $3.109

sorry, didn't mean to use bold

Go to Citgo if you can. I try to buy just to support Chavez.

Didn't you guys read the news a couple years ago.

The North Slope is due to run dry by 2025 and the Trans-Alaska pipeline will be running at half capacity by 2012. In face, the big push for drilling in ANWR (Drill Baby, Drill)was to replace the dried up North Slope.

Of course, it was mainly to keep the profits flowing for BP, Exxon/Mobil, Hess, Phillips and Unocal who own the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

I did a little checking at the time and found out that only about 11% of the oil flowing from the North Slope ever made it to the U.S. refineries. The rest was slipped to overseas refineries and put on the world market.

So . . . if the pipeline is running below capacity and only a bucketfull of that ever makes it to U.S. refineries, who do you think will take the hit first?

It WON'T be the refineries in Japan, we can bet on that!

"exactly WHO fck is in charge of our US energy policy . . . AND whose fck'n side are they on?"

That would be the Department of Energy, created by ...... guess who?

Jimmy Carter

"I did a little checking at the time and found out that only about 11% of the oil flowing from the North Slope ever made it to the U.S. refineries. The rest was slipped to overseas refineries and put on the world market."

You're close.

Most Alaska oil goes to Japan, and you can understand it if you look at a globe.

Japan is closer to Alaska than is Seattle. It's more efficient to send Alaska oil to Japan, and then to import Mexican oil that otherwise would go to Japan.

The Japanese use all of it; it does not go on the world market. But what if it did? Oil is fungible. A barrel in Texas offsets a barrel in Kuwait.

Check this site if you need to see the gasoline prices in your state:

STATE BY STATE

VERNON

I'm not convinced that all of the oil shipped to Japanese refineries is used by the Japanese. I think it all goes on the world market and the Japanese use more than their market share. But I can't absolutely refute you because I don't really know.

I was mainly addressing why I think U.S. refineries are cutting their operations. I don't think it has anything to do with America's driving habits or MPG mandated by Washington DC.

The oil companies who own the Trans-Alaska pipeline are looking toward a day when it is no longer proitable to keep the pipeline in operation. Without ANWR, the pipeline will be pretty much out of business by 2025 and so will U.S. refineries insofar as oil from the North Slope is concerned.

"exactly WHO fck is in charge of our U.S. Energy Policy"

Well, as you already know, between 2000 and 2008 it was Dick Cheney.

I know you won't read this link, VERNON. Pity, too, because I've saved it all these years just to answer that one single question someday.

THE FINAL WAR FOR RESOURCES, published in 2005 by InvestorsOnLine. It won't fit into your midset but it's a page turner nonetheless and there's a slight chance you'll do me the favor.

This article as often been called "Crush Opec." Give it a looksee . . . OK? . . .for me . . . pretty please?

"Oil Refinery Cutbacks May Raise Gas Prices"

Eh?

MAY raise prices???

What a riot, how would the dr left do it??????

The lack of knowledge of ALL THINGS ECONOMIC for the dr left is proven here daily!

I know why doesn't your state/country take over some closed refiniers and show us how to do it????

No, Dave.

The amusing part here is that you wanted more drilling, more refineries, and all that dirt cheap Iraqi oil.

And the oil companies didn't agree with you.

The amusing part here is that you wanted more drilling, more refineries, and all that dirt cheap Iraqi oil.

And the oil companies didn't agree with you.

I am reminded of all the war apologists who proffered "Well, at least if we invade Iraq, gas prices will go down."

Not to worry libbies, GM (Government Motors) has some great electric cars for you on the drawing board. They will get a million miles per gallon and fly too.

Hmm.

Can you say collusion?

Here's the deal, for all of you who have taken an economics class, you know that oil is a highly commoditized, highly inelastic product. What that means is that the oil company that sells the cheapest gas will capture virtually the entire market, since there is little no no brand loyalty.

Think about it this way. There is a finite amount of gas that will be sold in the US. Lowering or raising the cost is not going to affect the total amount sold, or not by very much at least. if company "A" elected to charge $2.00 a gallon, and company "B" decided to charge $1.99 a gallon. Consumers would stop buying from company "A" altogether. Which would increase the demand for company "B's" gas, driving them to increase output. probably by contracting out through company "A".

Because of its commoditization, the oil market is a very difficult one to compete in. OPEC has tried for years to maintain the integrity of their cartel, but there is usually one or two members (usually Nigeria) trying to sell oil at less than the established rate, simply because they know they can sell a lot of it. I hope the same thing happens here.

So US producers are following OPEC's example. I still don't understand why we don't end all O&G subsidization provided in the tax code. Of course prices will rise, but that will just enhance the "green" economy.

good reference 2-pac,

Affirming the complete stupidity of neocons and their failed plans. But one thing is totally wrong in the article. No one in the oil business wants lower prices.

Sort of blows the whole righty oil would be cheap if only the environmentalists let companies build more refineries right out of the water, doesn't it?

kinda wonder why we spent trillions in iraq only to see the premium oil leases go to china. we the people have already been sold out. the dismantling of our country continues to roll along.

NUTCASE

"Affirming the stupidity of the neocons and their failed plans."

The Bush administration had more failed plans than they had successes. Here's another one, more spectacular than their plans to flood the market with cheap Iraqi oil and crush OPEC's strict control of production and prices.

It's titled "Baghdad Year Zero" and was published by Harpers in 2004.

It's another page turner which should shock and awe anybody who believed in that WMD story or the "Spreading Democracy" line.

"Starving the Beast" was their objective in both Iraq AND the United States.

Here you go . . . BAGHDAD YEAR ZERO

Read it and weep for the soldiers who thought they were keeping America safe.

Domestic oil production peaked in 1970.
That's when we should have gone nuke, passive and serious conservation; But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

#21 | Posted by Zatoichi

While I favor the obvious strengths of nuclear power, this article is talking about oil, not coal. Nuke competes with coal and while it does so pretty well (it nips at the heels in terms of true, overall competitiveness - it makes a laughingstock of the so-called 'competition' that oil deals with) it STILL isn't as effective overall.

No one in the oil business wants lower prices.

As a means of squelching competition of course they do. A perfunctory view of econ101 will make this truth evident.

The last speculative spike was designed to make us complacent as prices creep back up. Sheeple management in a rigged market, in oil & other commodities, in stocks & bonds, and of course Real Estate. Lets call it socialism and blame liberals.

#19 | Posted by nutcase

Uh huh.

Please articulate why "competitors" of evil oil can't compete without massive tax-payer subsidies AND governmental mandates.

Please, shed some light - WHY does oil so-dominate, if it's such a shitty commodity?

still don't understand why we don't end all O&G subsidization provided in the tax code.

Our government (at all levels) taxes the shit out of oil consumption. While I tend to abhor subsidies at just about all levels - is this a net-loss or a net-gain for the oil industry - do the taxes exceed the subsidies?

Of course prices will rise, but that will just enhance the "green" economy.

If "green energy" is desired then truly level the playing-field - the exact same subsidies, incentives and tax-breaks - across-the-board. If 'green energy' is so great is should easily kick-ass on a level field...right?

Our government (at all levels) taxes the shit out of oil consumption.

For example?

I can't believe you are so stupid at to believe that oil production and consumption is not heavily subsidized. It's really difficult to have a conversation about energy policy with someone whose "facts" are about as real as Iraq's nuclear program and biological drone weapons.

re: If "green energy" is desired then truly level the playing-field - the exact same subsidies, incentives and tax-breaks - across-the-board. If 'green energy' is so great is should easily kick-ass on a level field...right?

#53 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-15 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you, being a rational being, think that green energy should be subsidized at the same level that oil/gas/coal are? That places you in one of two categories:

1. A complete fucking idiot ignorant of the world around him
2. A radical environmentalist

As a means of squelching competition of course they do. A perfunctory view of econ101 will make this truth evident.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-15 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

No offense, jeff...but big oil has proven itself to be outside the laws of normal supply and demand. A price raise excuse given a couple years ago was "not enough people are buying gasoline" Hmm, that should lower the price, shouldn't it?

Jeff- forget it, man. We'll discuss this later.

I see you and betel are about to get ugly, so I exit stage left.

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-15 12:39 PM | Reply | Flag: likes breathing mercury and increasing CO2 levels

Coal is nasty.

For example?

Visit a gas pump - do you honestly believe ALL of that money goes directly to evil oil; that federal-government doesn't get a substantial cut?

can't believe you are so stupid at to believe that oil production and consumption is not heavily subsidized.

I never said that. My point was that oil and coal are far-LESS-subsidized than their competitors. Are you actually challenging this truth? The playing field is tilted in-favor of non-carbon energy.

but big oil has proven itself to be outside the laws of normal supply and demand.

It's one of the most regulated and commoditized products in the world, Alex. It is one of the most least-immune commodities resistant to market-forces relative to its competition in the world. Level the playing-field and please name for me a currently-viable energy-source that competes with oil and/or coal for the next 5 decades.

Coal is nasty.

#58 | Posted by Zatoichi

Yes, it is.

You are one of the only persons on this blog to articulate the virtues of nuclear power on a broad-sense. If this country converted 100% to nuclear for our grids, our prices would creep a bit, but not dramatically; AND we'd reap some arguable benefits as a result of our increased monies spent.

Nuclear energy is viable in the market, when all things are considered.

Know nukes.
They're safer than fossils.

One thing the French got right.

And.. there is no such thing as "Clean Coal".

-One thing the French got right.

"That myth was shaken last week by a documentary broadcast on Arte entitled "Dchets le cauchemar du nuclaire" (Waste: the nuclear nightmare) which showed that EDF, which is France's main electricity provider, sends nuclear waste to Siberia where most of it is not recycled, but instead is laid to rest in the atomic security complex of Tomsk-7, Siberia."

above link

Know nukes.
They're safer than fossils.

One thing the French got right.

#61 | Posted by Zatoichi

France supplies Italy with a vast-maority of its electrical-power vis a vis France's nuclear plants.

You raise a good point.

It is one of the most least-immune commodities resistant to market-forces relative to its competition in the world. Level the playing-field and please name for me a currently-viable energy-source that competes with oil and/or coal for the next 5 decades.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-15 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Level the playing field"? Are you really as stupid as you pretend to be?

Seriously, Jeff. I cannot even fathom the depths of the stupidity and ignorance required to state that the oil and gas industry is, or has been, slighted over the last fucking century and today.

It's as if you seriously maintained than up was down, and did it with not a SMIRK OR HINT OF IRONY.

Truly the work of a clueless imbecile or part-time hack.

Where do you get off, Jeff?

At a certain point, bullshit extends beyond excusable ignorance and well into the criminal, a boundary you passed long ago.

why haven't oil subsidies stopped then?

most of it was for exploration anyway. They were put into place when oil was trading at $16/barrel. At that price, the govt needed to step in and subsidize exploration.

Geez Boyd.

when are you going to stop asking questions of Jeff?

I'm sure he isn't ignoring you. He just isn't available.

Didn't have time to read all comments, but last EIA report I saw we were still importing quite a bit of gasoline from euroland.

Just seems odd.

At that price, the govt needed to step in and subsidize exploration.

Socialism. If the free market couldn't justify oil exploration, the oil companies should have gone bankrupt like Dubya's did.

Oil companies got subsidies cause they bought politicians like Cheney and Tom DeLie.

Do you guys remember when Mr. Bush stated the Iraqi Oil belonged to the "Iraqi People". Then why doesn't that same principle apply to the American people. The people own most of the land that oil reserves are located on, why should oil companies get all the profits from our oil. They should be paying us taxpayers a sudsidy instead or vice versa.

Why is it that the Leftnuts jizz in their pants over taxing the shit out of energy and are more than happy to see fuel prices rise because of it but when fuel prices rise for any other reason they have a hissy fit over it.

NO BUSH is responsible - He and Cheney..they are both in the Oil business and they have colluded with thier friends to raise oil prices. That is why we went into Iraq and are still there...to steal their Oil for Bush and Cheney! It is all done to prop up Halliburton!

OHHHH>>>Bush is no longer President and Cheney is not VP? A Democrat is President? It is an Oil Refining issue? ..oh..ok....nothing happening here...move along

Can we please see the energy plan of 2001?

Oh, that's right, it's 'secret' and the American public never got to see it.

So, let's see, if all the American oil refineries cutback, we could get the price of gas to between 7 and 10.00 a gallon to pay for the obamaclustercare.
This was some shrewd planning, how to pay for the bros and illegals healthcare without raising a dime of taxes, we'll just jack the price of gas threw the roof, and blame it on the oil refineries.

WrongBall,

You really are a lying sack of Republican Base, aren't you.

You stupid fucks are already paying for the illegals and the poor folks health care in the Emergency Rooms. You are only screwing the working people that don't make enough for good insurance.

Typical lying Republican scum. Do you enjoy shilling for the insurance companies, WHORE?

Do you guys remember when Mr. Bush stated the Iraqi Oil belonged to the "Iraqi People". Then why doesn't that same principle apply to the American people. The people own most of the land that oil reserves are located on, why should oil companies get all the profits from our oil. They should be paying us taxpayers a sudsidy instead or vice versa.

I believe Alaskans get just that. Their dividend was pretty huge a couple years ago when oil prices spiked. Something like $2,000 for every Alaskan as I recall.

"The people own most of the land that oil reserves are located on, why should oil companies get all the profits from our oil. They should be paying us taxpayers a sudsidy instead or vice versa."

If that were the case, they would simply charge consumers more money, so they could pay it back to the consumers as a dividend on the use of minerals. It's not the land that's valuable, it's what's underneath, and getting underneath is generally pretty expensive.

That's one of the things Chavez doesn't understand. That owning it and being able to access it are two entirely different things. Venzuela may own the oil, but they are going to have to pay someone else to find it and bring it to the surface, where it can be turned into something that consumers can buy and use.

So, while you are correct, the oil companies aren't going to work for free. In fact, they're unlikely to work for anything less than 7%-8%. It's really not that bad, considering that since oil exhibits very low price elasticity, they could be charging far more. in much of Europe fuel costs about $8 a gallon.

"Socialism. If the free market couldn't justify oil exploration, the oil companies should have gone bankrupt like Dubya's did."

It does and it will. Again, americans will pay $8 a gallon for gas, just like the Europeans do. The only question is whether it is due to changing market conditions, price gouging by the producers, or taxation by the government.

MadB,

The Europeans pay $8.00/gallon because of high TAXES. Regardless of who is in charge, the voters here would never stand for that much tax on energy.

The biggest thing this story exposes is the hypocrisy of the Republicans with their Drill Baby Drill lies. Grampa Poopy Pants was telling us that drilling everywhere would make gasoline cheaper at the pump.

All his idiot comrades including the Moosefart are still screaming it every chance they get. The clowns on Clusterfox can't go an hour without repeating the lie.

Now who can believe ANYTHING a Republican tells you about oil?

Boyd,

What part of this did you not understand:

My point was that oil and coal are far-LESS-subsidized than their competitors.

Are you honestly going to try and make the argument that ethanol is even remotely competitive with petrol; or that wind and solar are remotely competitive with coal?

If you are going to be condescending, at least have a modicum of a grasp of reality.

Nuclear is close, but all other energy sources can not match carbon-based sources in a BTU-to-cost ratio. Not by a longshot.

"Nuclear is close, but all other energy sources can not match carbon-based sources in a BTU-to-cost ratio"

Do you have a list of subsides by industry? How about a total of subsidies given to various energy industries over the last two centuries? That would be interesting.

p.s. And by subsidies I also mean tax breaks like the oil depletion allowance.

Do you have a list of subsides by industry?

My father-in-law is currently in possession of my book that breaks it all down. And yes, the numbers are interesting, to say the least.

Again, americans will pay $8 a gallon for gas, just like the Europeans do. The only question is whether it is due to changing market conditions, price gouging by the producers, or taxation by the government.

If you really have to ask yourself which one it will be, you haven't lived in America much.

My state rejected a 7c per gallon gas tax to fund transportation infrastructure improvements on the argument that the tax would be devastating to our economy. Then the price of gas went up two dollars.

Americans adhere to a mythology in which wealth is better off concentrated in the hands of the few than redistributed for the good of all Americans.

This mythology is particularly prevalent among Americans who have never experienced life outside America, and paradoxically espoused by many elderly Americans who rely on wealth redistribution in the forms of Medicare and Social Security.

The paradox extends to the military, where many whose lives and careers are funded by taxpayer outlays seem to be opposed to the very mechanism (redistribution of wealth) that enables our military to exist.

"Nuclear is close, but all other energy sources can not match carbon-based sources in a BTU-to-cost ratio"

Sure, when the costs of anthropogenic CO2 emissions are ignored. :)

Nuclear is by far cheapest of all... if you overlook the cost of building the plant.

Fossil fuels are so cheap because the cost analysis places the cost of, say, invading Iraq on somebody else's balance sheet.

Snoopy,

Europe is so drunk on their narcissistic socialism that they can't even bother to procreate at levels even remotely necessary to maintain longevity and that is in spite of some of the most pro-family laws anywhere in the world.

Their declining birthrates are on a trajectory for a massive implosion, and they are genuinely concerned about it.

Nuclear is by far cheapest of all

On a BTU-per-cost ratio, coal is more efficient, but not by much.

Remember, the energy we use to power our grids is usually different from what powers our transportation. We have a shit-ton of coal on our own soil - no foreign imperialism is necessary.

Europe is so drunk on their narcissistic socialism that they can't even bother to procreate at levels even remotely necessary to maintain longevity and that is in spite of some of the most pro-family laws anywhere in the world.

Their declining birthrates are on a trajectory for a massive implosion, and they are genuinely concerned about it.

America's population would be declining too, were it not for immigration.

Your point?

America's population would be declining too, were it not for immigration.

Indiginous Americans are procreating at a significantly higher rate than Euopeans.

Also, Europe is importing hordes of muslims who aren't assimilating and certainly don't share their values. Western Europe is on a trajectory to be majority Muslim in less than 50 years. Will their immigrant Muslims assimilate by then? Who knows - but they are much further apart culturally and from a value standpoint than the immigrants coming into the US. In short, they have much longer odds than we do.

If they can't raise the price with layoffs--they will close the refinery for maintenance repairs.

Anyway they go they will raise prices for the summer and upset the populace.

Obama will get the blame--just like Bush.

And with the elections in November--it will get uglier..

What's any of that got to do with price manipulation by oil companies, JeffJ?

"If you really have to ask yourself which one it will be, you haven't lived in America much."

35 years now.

"My state rejected a 7c per gallon gas tax to fund transportation infrastructure improvements on the argument that the tax would be devastating to our economy. Then the price of gas went up two dollars."

When was this? recently?

Here's what I know, the profit margins of the oil companies have stayed stable at 10% or less. In 2009, Exxon Mobile Posted profits of 6.2%, in 2008, 9.4%, in 2007, 10.0%. BP had slightly smaller numbers falling along a similar trend curve. So if your point was that companies were gouging consumers, it's not the case. Never has been. Oil companies could charge twice what they currently do and people would have no choice but to pay it or do without.

"Americans adhere to a mythology in which wealth is better off concentrated in the hands of the few than redistributed for the good of all Americans."

No, Americans adhere to a philosophy which allows them to make their lives better. Making someone else rich is simply a side effect. Consider Bill Gates. Up until recently he was the richest man in the world, in whose hands massive amounts of wealth had become concentrated. This didn't happen because Bill Gates was stealing money from the huddling masses, they gave up their money voluntarily. Because the great unwashed masses don't care if Bill Gates gets rich, if the alternative was to not have X Boxes and Microsoft products. They don't care if Steve jobs gets rich, if the alternative was not being able to buy an ipod or an iphone. I would guess that even you, stumbling around in your post-Marxist delirium, would fail to give up those creature comforts and luxuries that have made someone else rich. Lemme guess, right now, you are using a computer with a chip made by intel, running a windows based program, and connecting to the internet via a router produced by Cisco systems. Am I close?

You apparently didn't have any problem making these companies any richer. maybe when you are willing to make sacrifices, you can lecture others on how they should.

Also, Europe is importing hordes of muslims who aren't assimilating and certainly don't share their values. Western Europe is on a trajectory to be majority Muslim in less than 50 years. Will their immigrant Muslims assimilate by then? Who knows - but they are much further apart culturally and from a value standpoint than the immigrants coming into the US. In short, they have much longer odds than we do.

#91 | Posted by JeffJ at 2010-03-15 08:59 PM

It is the fastest growing religion in the world. I predict xtians and muslims will square off in the war to end all wars. Who will win?? Nobody knows.

You apparently didn't have any problem making these companies any richer. maybe when you are willing to make sacrifices, you can lecture others on how they should.

Huh? According to you I was quite willing to sacrifice my wealth to buy a computer.

So, ready for that lecture?

"Huh? According to you I was quite willing to sacrifice my wealth to buy a computer."

Have you ever taken an econ course. You didn't sacrifice anything. What you did was trade your less valuable money for a more valuable computer. We know this to be true because, had your money been of more value to you than a new computer, you would have kept your money and not bought said computer. In buying the computer, you engaged in a free exchange that made both you and the seller better off. He wanted your money-you wanted his computer.

Your problem seems be that, while you should not have to go without a computer, the guy who sold it to you should not be able to benefit. Which is why you are coming off as a selfish prick. If you don't want him or her to get rich, just don't buy stuff from them.

Some of the nation's biggest oil companies are looking at permanently reducing how much gasoline and diesel fuel they make, a move that analysts say would almost certainly trigger higher prices for drivers.

This is good news for the Republicans! Big corporations sodomizing the American worker.

Americans continue to pay very little for gasoline compared to the rest of the western world.

Regardless of whether the speculation in this story pans out or not increased oil consumption in India, Pakistan and, especially, China will drive global oil prices up dramatically over the coming decades anyways.

Higher gas prices will make alternative energy projects far more feasible and attractive so it's not necessarily a lose/lose proposition here.

Be Well.

"Higher gas prices will make alternative energy projects far more feasible and attractive so it's not necessarily a lose/lose proposition here."

you're a Canadian, right? I'm a North Dakotan, which means I'm pretty much a close cousin, and if you are anywhere west of Winnipeg, you have probably seen the effects of increased oil prospecting. As demand for oil increases, more difficult recovery schemes will be introduced, opening up the Bakken reserve that sits under much of ND, SD, MT, and SK; and estimated 500-700 billion barrels.

Personally, I think that those countries that prosper in the upcoming decade will be those with favorable energy policies, that lead to favorable business policies. Those that choose to pursue plans that involve increasing energy costs will fall further and further behind unless some breakthrough is able to alter the paradigm.

You didn't sacrifice anything. What you did was trade your less valuable money for a more valuable computer.

Well, if that's the case, I thank for your economics lecture, but I'm curious what sacrifices you made to earn the right to lecture little old me?

"but I'm curious what sacrifices you made to earn the right to lecture little old me?"

None. And god willing I won't have to. That's the whole point. Your position in 86 was that:

"Americans adhere to a mythology in which wealth is better off concentrated in the hands of the few than redistributed for the good of all Americans."

There are two ways that this phenomenon could be corrected for. The first would be that the people volutarily choose not to buy products that would end up making someone else rich, the likely outcome being that no one would have anything. The other option is that government would take the money that has been freely given to the rich by the rest of society in return for services rendered, for no other reason than your belief that these people are not entitled to the money that they have earned.

That's not any different from demanding that the highly productive workers that have become wealthy off their labor offer their services for free.

It is you who expect people to make sacrifices in order to see your ideological goals realized. It's not society, who could correct the problem on their own (except for the fact that it would cause them a level of suffering not currently realized). It's just you. What right do you have to demand that people go without just so that you can go to sleep at night knowing that people are less rich that they otherwise would have been.

"Prices are high because we don't have refining capacity. If ONLY we could build more refineries... blah blah blah"?

Lil Bush offered them old AFB's for free and they turned him down. Just proved what boatload of bullshit that really was.

All that for you to say taxes = stealing?

My comment about mythology was just a restatement that Americans erroneously believe in trickle-down economics, in spite of the evidence that wealth doesn't do that.

one Bill Gates at a time.

There's another myth. Bill Gates did the foundation to avoid 55% taxation. Same with warren buffett.

There's another myth. Bill Gates did the foundation to avoid 55% taxation. Same with warren buffett.

I realize that but Bill Gates is in fact giving fuck tons of money out these days. That he only started giving after the courts noticed his riches and his monopoly power is not lost on me. Better late than never.

#33 | Posted by Twinpac

Recall that at the time the pipeline was under consideration all those oil companies were talking about how this would help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As you saliently point out, as soon as the spigots were turned on most of that oil left the U.S.