# Drill? Or go green?  I say do both.



## IndependentBear (Aug 27, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 27, 2010)

The so-called "Drill Baby Drill" people do in fact believe in a balanced approach to energy policy. The petroleum industry recognises the importance in contributions of renewable and sustainable energy sources. The argument however is for access to drilling acreage and for an economic climate that will allow for much needed capital infusion.


----------



## konradv (Aug 27, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> The so-called "Drill Baby Drill" people do in fact believe in a balanced approach to energy policy. The petroleum industry recognises the importance in contributions of renewable and sustainable energy sources. The argument however is for access to drilling acreage and for an economic climate that will allow for much needed capital infusion.



Too much emphasis on drilling is like a junkie looking for different suppliers so he'll never run out.  We need to get away from 19th(petroleum) and 20th(nuclear) century technologies and focus mopre of out resources on making fusion power a reality.  Keep emphasizing the drilling and spending money to find more and we'll never get over our addiction, until it's too late.

ITER - the way to new energy

Department of Energy - Fusion


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > The so-called "Drill Baby Drill" people do in fact believe in a balanced approach to energy policy. The petroleum industry recognises the importance in contributions of renewable and sustainable energy sources. The argument however is for access to drilling acreage and for an economic climate that will allow for much needed capital infusion.
> ...



There's NOT ENOUGH emphasis on drilling in this country. Congress (and the public) goes out of its way to stifle exploration and production, while other countries encourage it. The result- decreased domestic production, loss of jobs, and ever-increasing imports. 

The fact is that hydrocarbon energy will be the predominant fuel well into the future. You can not transition to other fuel sources by shooting yourself in the foot in the name of all that is "green".


----------



## konradv (Aug 27, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



That's what all the addicts say.  We can't help ourselves.


----------



## johnrocks (Aug 27, 2010)

I support markets dictating, at the same time I want a clean environment, at the same time yet again, I don't mind seeing other countries resources depleted before we drain our own.  Decisions, decisions.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 27, 2010)

konradv said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



IF we can reduce consumption and demand, then the next step should be reducing IMPORTS of oil and natural gas. NOT domestic production.

But this country has it ass-backwards: the intent is to reduce domestic production and then hope that we can reduce demand by artificially creating markets for green technologies.


----------



## lizzie (Aug 27, 2010)

I say both as well. We cannot afford to get off oil without an affordable efficient replacement. Our drilling technology and environmental standards (on land) have improved alot, so there's no reason not to for now.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 27, 2010)

> Drill? Or go green? I say do both.


Define "go green".

If by that you mean windmills, solar panels and the usual environmentalist babe-in-the-woods "solutions", I'd like to remind you that none of those "new" technologies are anywhere as "green" as their proponents hold them up to be.

Takes lots of mining, smelting and refining of metals, and lots of industrial lubricants to build and maintain windmills....Ditto solar panels.

Batteries need cadmium, lithium and other heavy metals that aren't exactly environmentally friendly, to mine, refine and turn into battery plates.

So, let's have it...Just how green is "green"?


----------



## Roamk (Aug 28, 2010)

Oddball said:


> > Drill? Or go green? I say do both.
> 
> 
> Define "go green".
> ...



Oh what ever, you can just go down to the store and buy all this stuff. 

Heck, you don't even have to leave home to get these things with this magic thing called "the interent" to get them.


----------



## camcooh2 (Aug 29, 2010)

Green energy is a joke. It ALWAYS costs more than you think it will. I work for a solar panel equipment manufacturer. They can't give the damn product away even after discounting it 30% over the past year. Fossil fuel is what runs the world for the foreseeable future. And all the legislation in the world won't change that. You can't legislate scientific breakthoughs, despite our trip to the moon. Enviro-wackos wish for technology that doesn't currently exist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



What a crock. We give the fossil fuel industry far too many subsidies. 

Simple fact, we use 25% of the petroleum produces worldwide. We have 3% of the known reserves. And the Hubert Curve is still valid. 

Oil shale? Whose water are you going to take? Oil products from coal? How much can the average American pay for oil and fuel, when his income is shrinking? And the price of food is going up because of the effects of AGW?

42% of the new installed electrical production in the US in 2008 was wind. It was probably higher for 2009. And will probably be even higher for 2010. And Solar is starting to come into play as many companies are now producing panels for less than a $1 a watt. Geo-thermal has not become a big player yet, however, the people at MIT seem to think that they can produce power with it far cheaper than dirty coal.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

camcooh2 said:


> Green energy is a joke. It ALWAYS costs more than you think it will. I work for a solar panel equipment manufacturer. They can't give the damn product away even after discounting it 30% over the past year. Fossil fuel is what runs the world for the foreseeable future. And all the legislation in the world won't change that. You can't legislate scientific breakthoughs, despite our trip to the moon. Enviro-wackos wish for technology that doesn't currently exist.



Then you company needs to die. For First Solar and many others are going gang busters. Perhaps not having an inferior product at a high price would be the way to go.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Oddball said:


> > Drill? Or go green? I say do both.
> 
> 
> Define "go green".
> ...



Now Oddie, take a look at the table of elements. Do you see where Lithium is? 

Let's consider your other dumb ass statements. You mean to tell me it does not take a buttload of mining, smelting, and refining of metals to create coal burning plants and oil refineries? Real stupid statement on your part.

And the coal burning plants, and refineries just continue to put out poisons for the rest of their existance.

Perhaps starting your re-education at about the third grade would bring you up to speed?


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

lizzie said:


> I say both as well. We cannot afford to get off oil without an affordable efficient replacement. Our drilling technology and environmental standards (on land) have improved alot, so there's no reason not to for now.



You might consult some people that live in the areas where they are drilling. Something about water?


----------



## camcooh2 (Aug 29, 2010)

Ever hear of Evergreen Solar? That's not the company I work for but I know a lot of their former employees. State of Massachusetts gave them $78 million in tax breaks/subsidies... THEY STILL COULDN'T MAKE IT. They're sending the work to China now, huge factory closing. Do you not understand nobody wants this crap? Even the solar companies have given up on the idea of putting solar panels on individual homes, now they want huge expansive acres of areas of panels. It's over, get it? Not going to work.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Texas-Sized Solar: Austin Approves Plan For Largest US Solar Installation

Austin, Texas, is getting closer to its self-imposed goal of using more renewable energy, and creating jobs in the bargain. The Texas-sized solar plant being planned would be the largest in the Unite States, according to Austin Energy. 

The Council approved an agreement under which the City's municipally-owned electric utility, Austin Energy, will purchase all of the electricity produced over a 25-year term by a 30 megawatt (MW) solar project to be built on city-owned property located about 20 miles from downtown Austin.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 29, 2010)

Manufacturers are producing solar modules as fast as they can, but not fast enough to meet demand.

Manufacturers and solar installers say demand for modules is increasing because of low prices, new feed-in tariff programs and greater public awareness. Now, some people are predicting that a module supply shortage could be on the horizon.

&#8220;We are starting to see signs that the pendulum is shifting in the direction of less product,&#8221; said Andy Noel, Northwest regional manager for REC Solar, which has an office in Portland. &#8220;I am not suggesting that (solar module) prices will be going through the roof. But with more demand and less product, prices could go back up.&#8221;

*Well, Cam, looks like you haven't the faintest idea of what you are talking about.*

Solar manufacturers struggle to meet demand  Daily Journal of Commerce ? Building and Construction News in Portland, Oregon and the Pacific Northwest

In Oregon, the modules that SolarWorld makes at its Hillsboro facility for large, commercial projects are backlogged until November or December, company spokesman Ben Santarris said.

Sanyo North America Corp., which operates a wafer production plant in Salem, has been back-ordering its product for the past several years, according to Sanyo spokesman Aaron Fowles.


----------



## camcooh2 (Aug 29, 2010)

Yeah, you're right. You know all about it. We've had 3 layoffs where I work and I'm expecting a fourth any day now. And that's just in the lousy 2 and half years I've been employed there. Business sucks. That's the fact despite any enviro-wacko propaganda.


----------



## Mr. H. (Aug 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yes, I recall your example of "subsidies" from another thread. Something about offshore bank accounts or shadily flagged tankers? 

The petroleum industry is afforded tax treatments similar to any other industry. Many  provisions have been a part of the tax code since the 1920's. Throughout our economy they are meant to foster investment and growth. To single out hydrocarbons for "punishment" is counterproductive. 

You've put forth some fascinating developments in solar technology, all of which I think play an important role - and none of which I would label as a "crock". I was promoting the use of solar as far back as the early 80's. But I was also deeply involved in the petroleum industry as I am today. 

Can't you let is stand on it's own merit without browbeating a 175 year old industry?


----------



## Oddball (Aug 29, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > > Drill? Or go green? I say do both.
> ...


So, how do you mine and refine iron ore, copper, cadmium, lithium, etcetera with "green" technology, hmmmmm?

How do you produce coke (an essential ingredient in steel) without burning coal?

C'mon...Dazzle us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 30, 2010)

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

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

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


----------



## CountofTuscany (Aug 30, 2010)

IndependentBear said:


> If there is one thing we have learned from the Gulf oil spill, it is this:  we have oil.  If only we could have found that out another way.  The disaster was caused because safety procedures were not followed.
> 
> I find it strange that we have two factions on the issue of energy.  First we have the "Drill Baby Drill" people that say that drilling for oil is the only answer to our energy needs.  Then we have those at the other extreme that say we should stop all drilling today, right now, and go exclusively to solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.
> 
> I say both sides are partially wrong.  My position is that America needs to use whatever sources it can from inside our borders.  That means drill for oil AND use solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.  There is no reason it can't be done.  This would keep about $800 billion a year in America for American jobs and put a major dent in the wallets of terrorists that hate what this country stands for.


I feel we need to minimize our dependence on foriegn oil at any cost. If that means drilling our own resources until we perfect other alternatives, then we should. Our area, as well as most of the north east, are powered by hyro electric from dams. Wind is making a huge presence right now. Solar is a fantastic alternative but is to costly and incentives are not available in NY.


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 30, 2010)

The oil is coming out of the ground whether we take it or someone else does. We might just as well take it.


----------



## Oddball (Aug 30, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.
> 
> How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.
> 
> Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.


So what?

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

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

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


----------



## IndependentBear (Sep 1, 2010)

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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

camcooh2 said:


> Green energy is a joke. It ALWAYS costs more than you think it will. I work for a solar panel equipment manufacturer. They can't give the damn product away even after discounting it 30% over the past year. Fossil fuel is what runs the world for the foreseeable future. And all the legislation in the world won't change that. You can't legislate scientific breakthoughs, despite our trip to the moon. Enviro-wackos wish for technology that doesn't currently exist.



Oh really? Did anyone see the 60 Minutes segment on "The Bloom Box" last Sunday? What was surprising to me are the number of BIG corporations already employing this technology which bypasses the electric grid entirely (that being 90% of the problem with other alternative energy sources, like wind).

Alternative Energy: The Bloom Box - 60 Minutes - CBS News


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2010)

Just make sure all our drilling rigs are Energy Star compliant.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

camcooh2 said:


> Ever hear of Evergreen Solar? That's not the company I work for but I know a lot of their former employees. State of Massachusetts gave them $78 million in tax breaks/subsidies... THEY STILL COULDN'T MAKE IT. They're sending the work to China now, huge factory closing. Do you not understand nobody wants this crap? Even the solar companies have given up on the idea of putting solar panels on individual homes, now they want huge expansive acres of areas of panels. It's over, get it? Not going to work.



Well since oil exploration in the United States is equally opposed (yes, it *IS*), what do you suggest we do if there is another oil embargo by OPEC (like in the 70's), or if Iran decides to close off the Strait of Hormuz to oil tanker traffic to and from the region, or if (even in this country), more wells (and refineries) start blowing up due to lack of maintenance?


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

camcooh2 said:


> Yeah, you're right. You know all about it. We've had 3 layoffs where I work and I'm expecting a fourth any day now. And that's just in the lousy 2 and half years I've been employed there. Business sucks. That's the fact despite any enviro-wacko propaganda.



Sorry about your personal situation, but things aren't always all about YOU.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The steel mill where I work, when we had a melt division, used scrap, and never used an ounce of coke, it was all electric.
> 
> How do you mine any of those things, with the exception of lithium and zinc, for any use what so ever? Now we are mining zinc and lithium from geothermal brines used to power geothermal plants in California.
> 
> Your objections to the use of mining for the raw materials for alternative power is an exercise in stupidity. We would mine those materials in any case, and use them for methods of generating the needed power that would continue to pollute the atmosphere and water. The alternatives do not pollute the atmosphere and water. Nor do they create GHGs.



Thanks for a dazzling reply!


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> The oil is coming out of the ground whether we take it or someone else does. We might just as well take it.



It would be fine if there was a 100% assurance that there was indeed oil where the drills are placed. How often have you driven across vast expanses of western territory and seen those bobbing rigs dotting the entire landscape? Are they all pumping oil? No. I don't particularly want them in my back yard in the northeast when the west is finally poked full of holes. Not when there are other viable choices.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


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



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


----------



## Douger (Sep 1, 2010)

Do both.
Smoke "orgainic" cigarettes while you do.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

The U.S. will no longer lead the way in what will become the biggest global investment opportunity. That will be a first. It's really sad that Americans no longer have the mojo to be the world's leader, as we did with space exploration. Now it's China.

The Breakthrough Institute: China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



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


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 1, 2010)

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

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


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


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



Well, by the logic that you are using, the automotive industry, and railroads should never have come into being, because we used horses in the early days of both technologies to deliver the supplies to build those technologies.

Economic loser? 42% of the new generation capacity for electrical power in the US in 2008 was wind. Solar has come down so far in price that if you watch the sales, you can get it as an individual for less than a $1 a watt. In fact, one of the solar wholesale houses that sells to individuals had a 4.6 kw kit, panels, inverter, AC and DC disconects, and wiring, for under $8000. Major battery companies are working on batteries, or capacitors that will beat the present density of the lithium batteries by a factor of 3. In other words, the Volt would have a range of 120 miles on battery only with those batteries, the Tesla would have a range of 750 miles. And the zinc-air batteries are far cheaper than the lithium batteries. Both are completely recyclable.

A 5 kw solar installation would give the average homeowner not only power for the home, but also fuel for his vehicle. So you find the idea of the average homeowner having more economic indepence objectionable?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> China win the clean energy race?
> Actually their polloution is so bad it is a matter of survival for them.
> 
> China is currently the dreamland for the right.  NO stinkin EPA or FDA, EEOC, etc.



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


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 1, 2010)

IndependentBear said:


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



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


----------



## IndependentBear (Sep 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



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


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

uscitizen said:


> China win the clean energy race?
> Actually their polloution is so bad it is a matter of survival for them.
> 
> China is currently the dreamland for the right.  NO stinkin EPA or FDA, EEOC, etc.



But they'll have the technology.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

IndependentBear said:


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



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 1, 2010)

Oddball said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



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


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


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

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

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


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


----------



## Oddball (Sep 1, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


You can't be serious.


----------



## Defiant1 (Sep 1, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


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



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

Sounds pretty "Green" to me.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 2, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



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

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

API Ads


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 2, 2010)

Oddball said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



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

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


> Costs
> The initial construction of the Interstate, as proposed in 1956, was completed in September of 1991 and at the time had a total length of approximately 40,000 miles.
> 
> *Actual Cost to build the Interstate Highway System was $114 Billion over 35 years ago, and $500 billion in 2008 dollars.*
> ...


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 2, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



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

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

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

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

The story references other related topics too. 

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

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

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

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

Anyway- hope this helps.


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 2, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 2, 2010)

Mr. H. said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



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

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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 2, 2010)

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


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 2, 2010)

IndependentBear said:


> If there is one thing we have learned from the Gulf oil spill, it is this:  we have oil.  If only we could have found that out another way.  The disaster was caused because safety procedures were not followed.
> 
> I find it strange that we have two factions on the issue of energy.  First we have the "Drill Baby Drill" people that say that drilling for oil is the only answer to our energy needs.  Then we have those at the other extreme that say we should stop all drilling today, right now, and go exclusively to solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.
> 
> I say both sides are partially wrong.  My position is that America needs to use whatever sources it can from inside our borders.  That means drill for oil AND use solar, wind, nuclear, and coal.  There is no reason it can't be done.  This would keep about $800 billion a year in America for American jobs and put a major dent in the wallets of terrorists that hate what this country stands for.



Of course we should do Both.

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

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

and on and on 

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


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 2, 2010)

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


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 2, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...



Here's the link re: accounting practices:

Accounting For Differences In Oil And Gas Accounting

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

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

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


----------



## MaggieMae (Sep 3, 2010)

Mr. H. said:
			
		

> Yup the IPAA is like the Farm Bureau. But who would better know about industry and the effects of particular tax measures? They maintain offices and a full time staff in D.C. and have board members all around the country.
> 
> It's not that O&G "relies" heavily on so called subsidies, but rather it's a very complex industry with unique cost centers that require just as unique tax treatment. It's not a question of "how little will we tax an industry", but "how much of your revenue will we let you keep?".
> 
> Generating revenue requires expensive practices and expensive materials. Shouldn't these costs be deducted from revenues and taxes assessed on net revenues? Over the years, more and more of these costs have been disallowed, some retained, and some regained. The notion of "subsidies" arose when an industry successfully argued for the retention of cost deductions.



It looks like oil and gas is one major industry that would not benefit if any other method of taxation were ever instituted. If they had to dip into just profits for all that maintenance, including tax on every step in the process under a fair tax system, prices at the retail level would be out of sight, and the consumer would pay an enormous tax for the end product. I confess seriously that I have no idea how all that would actually come down as far as accounting practices, but it sure appears on its face that it would be a lose-lose situation.


----------



## Mr. H. (Sep 3, 2010)

MaggieMae said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



With respect to the tax provisions outlined at the IPAA website, the focus is of course on the independent producer- the small companies that take oil and natural gas out of the ground. These businesses have absolutely no control over the price of their product and therefor are referred to _price takers_, not price makers. 

Over time, costs of operating such businesses goes up (as does most everything LOL), but markets for crude oil and natural gas continually change. It's nearly impossible to do any forcasting or to assemble business models when you don't know for sure what the price for product will be next month let alone 5 years from now. 

To that end, the tax provisions are critical to keeping these companies in business.

Independents drill 90% of the wells in the U.S. If they go out of business or scale back operations then domestic production would fall and imports would increase.


----------

