Can't wait for $5-6 gas, Geithner calling out Oil and Gas industry

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN0454844120090304

Unreal.

[Bartleby]

Federal subsidies to the oil companies didn't keep the price from hitting nearly $5 last summer. What makes you so sure we wouldn't be seeing $5-6 gas within the next couple of years anyway?

[clambake]

if you didn't think it would happen, then your unattached.

[Winehole23]

It's a little weird that Geithner would speak to energy policy, but after all Treasury gets the taxes. I wonder what he really thinks.

[ChumpDumper]

So are we supposed to be in favor of federal subsidies for gas and oil companies?

[SnakeBoy]

What makes you so sure we wouldn't be seeing $5-6 gas within the next couple of years anyway?

Irrelevant question. Gas prices and everything else in the world are the responsibility and direct result of whomever occupies the WH. Are you new to American politics?

[MannyIsGod]

So are we supposed to be in favor of federal subsidies for gas and oil companies?

Only when its politically convenient for AHF.

[jack sommerset]

Drill baby drill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!

[boutons_]

oil owns Cornyn, what a transparent shill.

[boutons_]

$6 gas would be great for the USA, either pushed by oil price or federal taxes.

[ducks]

why?

[ducks]

So are we supposed to be in favor of federal subsidies for gas and oil companies?

so you want to put more tax on the gas and make everyone bankrupt?

[ducks]

This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Companies already paying royalties would get a tax credit.

Obama's budget would also place a $4 per acre annual fee on energy leases in the Gulf that are designated as nonproducing. The budget proposal projects the fee would generate $1.2 billion from 2010 to 2019.

Senator John Cornyn of Texas criticized the tax increases, saying they would hurt independent energy companies that provide a large share of U.S. oil and gas supplies.

"My view is that higher taxes on small and independent producers here in America will make us more dependent on imported oil and gas while we transition to cleaner energy alternatives, a goal we all share," said Cornyn. "And it will also hurt job retention and job creation in the energy sector, which provides an awful lot of jobs in this country.


so raising taxes is not subsidie companies it is actually hurting them

[LockBeard]

tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax taxtax tax tax tax tax tax tax

[TDMVPDPOY]

those oil companys rort the system man

they get subsidies, but they never pass the savings onto the motorists....they are like a fkn cartel where prices are set by them, even the independent sellers are forced to comply also......

and when the govt comes in to set a fine for these clowns, its not even worth makn a fuss about it cause you and me know they going to pass that onto the motorists to make up the fines imposed.

[boutons_]

"why?"

because it would, as shown for decades in Europe, force down consumption, even fairly rapidly, while driving up research into althernative fuels like cellulosic ethanol or other renewabl plant-derived fuel, and into greater mileage.

It's pretty clear the US is puerile, stupid, and incapable of mature, responsible decisions while pursing unfettered, greedy, short-term "gimme gimme gimme" consumerism.

The first, basic principle that the US understands is money and materialism. Nothing else matters. High fuel prices would force US into lower fuel consumption, since the US refuses to lower fuel consumption voluntarily, like an adult.

[boutons_]

The Repugs and conservatives don't give a shit about "free markets". They are all for subsidizing/socialism for all energy companies because they know those companies will pay them back personally.

Similarly, their bitching about the bailout funds is all for show, since they knew they couldn't stop it, and knew the bailout funds would come back to them as back-scratching grease from the financial sector. So they take a stand on "principle" (being: I'll get my share of the funds, too). The financial sector knew the lying, hypocritical game the Repugs were playing and so won't punish Repugs who voted against the bailout.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

So are we supposed to be in favor of federal subsidies for gas and oil companies?

I'm not a fan of the subsidies, but I'm also not a fan of anyone in the administration declaring war on these industries. It's idiotic, but what I expect from Team Obama.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

"why?"

because it would, as shown for decades in Europe, force down consumption, even fairly rapidly, while driving up research into althernative fuels like cellulosic ethanol or other renewabl plant-derived fuel, and into greater mileage.

It's pretty clear the US is puerile, stupid, and incapable of mature, responsible decisions while pursing unfettered, greedy, short-term "gimme gimme gimme" consumerism.

The first, basic principle that the US understands is money and materialism. Nothing else matters. High fuel prices would force US into lower fuel consumption, since the US refuses to lower fuel consumption voluntarily, like an adult.


$6 gas would be great for the USA, either pushed by oil price or federal taxes.

Look, I know you're an idiot but...

Do you understand why Europe can handle high priced gasoline? Because they have an awesome mass transit system. They'd take one look at shit like Via, the Dallas DART system, etc. and laugh. Their cities are their high density population centers, they aren't structured around the suburb like here in America.

Of course I'm sure your next response will be 'well we should just build out mass transit'. I'm all for mass transit, but we're talking tens of trillions of dollars to build a transit system anything like what they have in Europe, and then we're back to where the money comes from.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're in a recession, teetering on the edge of a depression. At times like this, everyone, from you and me to the assholes in D.C. should be scaling back spending, not piling on debt on top of our mountain of debt.

When things recover, then we can start talking more about mass transit, but it's suicidal right now to be talking about massive transit systems, let alone piling on higher gasoline costs onto American consumers who are already feeling the pinch in their wallet.

But you're such an ignorant shill, you think this is all about Republicans just caring about oil companies. That couldn't be further from the truth, but fools like you seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that all these new taxes and costs Obama and co. are trumpeting to stick it to big business on behalf of the little guy are just going to be passed on to the American consumer anyway in the form of higher costs. And that's not even getting into the coming hyperinflation that's going to hit with all this printing of dollars by Geithner, Obama, and co.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The Repugs and conservatives don't give a shit about "free markets". They are all for subsidizing/socialism for all energy companies because they know those companies will pay them back personally.

Similarly, their bitching about the bailout funds is all for show, since they knew they couldn't stop it, and knew the bailout funds would come back to them as back-scratching grease from the financial sector. So they take a stand on "principle" (being: I'll get my share of the funds, too). The financial sector knew the lying, hypocritical game the Repugs were playing and so won't punish Repugs who voted against the bailout.

Whiff, and whiff again. Look, I'm all for ending subsidies for oil cos., but right now is some pretty crappy timing in my book.

As to the bailout, it was horrible idea, and true Republicans were against it. You seem to forget it was a Democratically controlled Congress that pushed that sucker through. And you seem to confuse RINOs in the Republican party like Bush, Kay Bailey, etc. as true fiscally conservative Republicans, which couldn't be a worse categorization if you tried.

[Winehole23]

And that's not even getting into the coming hyperinflation that's going to hit with all this printing of dollars by Geithner, Obama, and co.The printing started in September of last year.


http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/BOGAMBNS_Max_630_378.png (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/fredgraph?s%5B1%5D%5Bid%5D=BOGAMBNS)

[MannyIsGod]

Please do not bring facts into here. Unless you have wonderful internet meme's like Obama declaring war on <fill in blank>, then you are not welcome Winehole.

Of course they're going to print money. The bond rate is on the floor so how the hell are they going to borrow enough? I know I shouldn't be suprised when people like AHF still don't have a clue whats going on but I am.

[RandomGuy]

Because as we all know, cutting subsidies that contribute less than 1% to oil and gas revenues for US companies only, and adding a 13 percent excise tax on less than 1% of world production would cause the price of gasoline to more than triple.

That just makes so much sense.

How could we have not seen that before? oh the folly of our ways...

[RandomGuy]

... and as we all know that if oil or natural gas gets more expensive, no jobs will be created when other forms of energy like renewables pick up the slack.

To think that competing forms of non-imported energy might actually create jobs in the US is just socialist fantasy.

[ducks]

"why?"

because it would, as shown for decades in Europe, force down consumption, even fairly rapidly, while driving up research into althernative fuels like cellulosic ethanol or other renewabl plant-derived fuel, and into greater mileage.

It's pretty clear the US is puerile, stupid, and incapable of mature, responsible decisions while pursing unfettered, greedy, short-term "gimme gimme gimme" consumerism.

The first, basic principle that the US understands is money and materialism. Nothing else matters. High fuel prices would force US into lower fuel consumption, since the US refuses to lower fuel consumption voluntarily, like an adult.

so it is greedy to drive to work
go to fix computers at peoples houses
what is wrong with high fule consumption?
oil is not going to run out if it was it would have already

[ducks]

I know people are stupid
6 million more people voted for the person in office then mccain

[johnsmith]

so it is greedy to drive to work
go to fix computers at peoples houses
what is wrong with high fule consumption?
oil is not going to run out if it was it would have already


I know people are stupid
6 million more people voted for the person in office then mccain

By posting on this website, speaking in public, and really just existing, you're hurting the conservative cause more then helping it.

[RandomGuy]

oil is not going to run out if it was it would have already

That is so... wrong on many levels.

Oil will not really run out in my lifetime, but it will get astronomically more expensive as demand outstrips a deminishing supply.

Most of the big, easily tapped sources are running out, leaving a lot of more marginal, quickly used up, oil fields.

Meaning that to maintain current levels of production, we have to spend more effort (i.e. energy) in the first place to make more wells in more hard to get to places.

Sure, they occasionally find a big, easy to tap/exploit field now and then, but those finds are happening at a rate far less than the big, easy to tap fields are becoming depleted.

Anybody who makes a straight-line assumption that the future of oil/gas/coal will be the same as the past does not fully comprehend that things are changing and the pace of that change will accelerate.

Personally, I would like to have some money spent now on research while energy is fairly cheap to get ahead of the curve a bit, than to really wait until gas is $5-$10 per gallon and get caught with our pants down.

We don't have to replace oil/gas/coal by next year, but putting some money into research will allow us to have some data and ready-made ideas so we don't have to scramble in what will be a crisis for things that might work.

I would rather lay the groundwork and do some practical experiments that provide us with some reasonable solutions for that time.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you really trying to argue with ducks? I mean, really?

[AntiChrist]

An economic crisis is the perfect time to enact my ill-advised global warming policies.

[MannyIsGod]

... and as we all know that if oil or natural gas gets more expensive, no jobs will be created when other forms of energy like renewables pick up the slack.

To think that competing forms of non-imported energy might actually create jobs in the US is just socialist fantasy.


An economic crisis is the perfect time to enact my ill-advised global warming policies.

[cool hand]

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/shinkansen/images/shink11.jpg

[Winehole23]

An economic crisis is the perfect time to enact my ill-advised global warming policies.Perhaps, but economic crisis is the context of all of your lordship's policies. Just saying.

[RandomGuy]

Are you really trying to argue with ducks? I mean, really?

Heavens no. I put that together and realized it was probably one of the best, most succinct summaries of what will happen with oil that my overly verbose ass has ever typed.

I didn't have the hear to delete it.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not a fan of the subsidies, but I'm also not a fan of anyone in the administration declaring war on these industries. It's idiotic, but what I expect from Team Obama.I'm not a fan hyperbole, but it's what I expect from posters on this board.

[Blake]

It's idiotic, but what I expect from Team Obama.

I wonder if Team Obama is taking a look at signing Pops now that the Spurs cut him.

[ChumpDumper]

The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019.

This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Companies already paying royalties would get a tax credit.

Obama's budget would also place a $4 per acre annual fee on energy leases in the Gulf that are designated as nonproducing. The budget proposal projects the fee would generate $1.2 billion from 2010 to 2019.This is hardly a war declaration.

[RandomGuy]

That is so... wrong on many levels.

Oil will not really run out in my lifetime, but it will get astronomically more expensive as demand outstrips a deminishing supply.

Most of the big, easily tapped sources are running out, leaving a lot of more marginal, quickly used up, oil fields.

Meaning that to maintain current levels of production, we have to spend more effort (i.e. energy) in the first place to make more wells in more hard to get to places.

Sure, they occasionally find a big, easy to tap/exploit field now and then, but those finds are happening at a rate far less than the big, easy to tap fields are becoming depleted.

Anybody who makes a straight-line assumption that the future of oil/gas/coal will be the same as the past does not fully comprehend that things are changing and the pace of that change will accelerate.

Personally, I would like to have some money spent now on research while energy is fairly cheap to get ahead of the curve a bit, than to really wait until gas is $5-$10 per gallon and get caught with our pants down.

We don't have to replace oil/gas/coal by next year, but putting some money into research will allow us to have some data and ready-made ideas so we don't have to scramble in what will be a crisis for things that might work.

I would rather lay the groundwork and do some practical experiments that provide us with some reasonable solutions for that time.

I hate to toot my own horn, but I have got to save this bit, it is just too good of a summary, spelling aside.

[Wild Cobra]

Federal subsidies to the oil companies didn't keep the price from hitting nearly $5 last summer. What makes you so sure we wouldn't be seeing $5-6 gas within the next couple of years anyway?
So are we supposed to be in favor of federal subsidies for gas and oil companies?
You two need to bug a clue. A tax break IS NOT a subsidy. Repeating what other people say is rather foolish.



This new 13 percent tax on all oil and gas production in the Gulf would only affect those companies enjoying a loophole that allows them to avoid paying royalties on the energy supplies they drill. Companies already paying royalties would get a tax credit.

More taxes on top of oil companies already paying at a 40% + rate...



Obama's budget would also place a $4 per acre annual fee on energy leases in the Gulf that are designated as nonproducing. The budget proposal projects the fee would generate $1.2 billion from 2010 to 2019.

Hmmm... How big is an oil field, and how many years (decades?) does it take to explore it, and make it ready for production IF it's deemed to have oil?

Think of a small square plot, 100 miles on each side. 100 x 100 x 640 acres per mile x $4.00 = $25.6 million.

Am I wrong, or is 10,000 miles a small plot of the continental shelf?



Senator John Cornyn of Texas criticized the tax increases, saying they would hurt independent energy companies that provide a large share of U.S. oil and gas supplies.

I would say that is a fair assessment, assuming there are smaller companies that drill offshore. This would likely limit the ability to drill to only larger companies rather than start-up companies that tend to be where most new jobs come from.



so raising taxes is not subsidie companies it is actually hurting them

Leave it to the liberals to lie about the meaning of words.

They act as if oil companies don't pay enough already. These "evil" oil companies rake us over the coals in oil profits, when the truth of the matter is between the direct taxes they pay, and the 18.4 cent per gallon federal road tax, the government already makes so much more taxes than the oil companies in profit.

Liberals like to name the "evil" Exxon for ungodly profits. Last reported quarter ending 9/30/08, in millions:

$137,737 Total Revenue
$054,158 Gross Profit
$027,011 Operational Income
$011,327 Income Taxes
$014,830 Net Income

10.77% Profit Margin
41.93% Tax Rate on Net Income

Looks like to me that the government is directly making about 4 times as much money as the share holders profit. I heard the current profit amounts to about 4 cents per gallon on gas. I also heard 8 cents. I really don't know, but that ridiculous to blame the oil companies for high prices when the government take 18.4 cents per gallon in road taxes after the feds and states take over 41%. Calender year 2007 Exxon paid $29,864 million in taxes, net income of $40,610 million, profit margin on 10.04%, and taxes at 41.55%.

Want to reduce gas prices? Reduce the taxes. Don't increase them!

Now on top of that, Exxon has lost about 23% in stock value since January... Keep it up democrats. You just might destroy this once great nation!

[ChumpDumper]

You two need to bug a clue. A tax break IS NOT a subsidy. Repeating what other people say is rather foolish.Same effect as a direct subsidy payment, so it's not foolish at all. No need to enter a useless semantic argument.

Why give them tax breaks?

Are they hurting for money?

And really, this "destroy America" talk is really tired.

[Wild Cobra]

Same effect as a direct subsidy payment, so it's not foolish at all. No need to enter a useless semantic argument.

Why give them tax breaks?

Are they hurting for money?

And really, this "destroy America" talk is really tired.
Why do we tax production?

That's counter productive to a great economy.

[ChumpDumper]

Are they hurting for money?

Are folks not going to buy gas if the oil companies don't get tax breaks?

I'll answer for you since you won't.

No and no.

[RandomGuy]

Liberals like to name the "evil" Exxon for ungodly profits. Last reported quarter ending 9/30/08, in millions:

$137,737 Total Revenue
$054,158 Gross Profit
$027,011 Operational Income
$011,327 Income Taxes
$014,830 Net Income

10.77% Profit Margin
41.93% Tax Rate on Net Income

Looks like to me that the government is directly making about 4 times as much money as the share holders profit.

Um, no.

Your statement that somehow the government is making four times as much money as the shareholders shows that you calculated that by dividing 41.93% by 10.77%.

This mis-represents what those numbers actually are.

Profit margin is calculated on gross revenue. Namely net income (revenues minus expenses) divided by total revenues.

Tax rates are calculated on net income, not total revenues. That 47% represents a fraction of the 10.77%, not 47% of total revenues as your statement would imply.

Tax rate on net income is (net income percentage * tax rate) .1077*.4193= 4.5% of revenues.

Or put another way, 58.07% of the profit would be available to distribute to shareholders (most companies don't distribute 100% of the profit, but use a good chunk to re-invest)

Shareholders got roughly 150% of what the government did, not 25%.

[balli]

ouch.

[RandomGuy]

You two need to bug a clue. A tax break IS NOT a subsidy. Repeating what other people say is rather foolish.

Not understanding economics and making definitive statements based on a misunderstanding of economics is foolish.

A tax break is the definition of a subsidy.

You have repeated this mistake before.

I will ask simply:

If the tax break was eliminated, the company paid the tax, and the government made a payment to the company equal to the tax break, would the economic standing of the company be effected?

If the answer is "no" then a tax break has the exact same economic effect as a subsidy, even though no cash actually changed hands.

It is related to the concept of opportunity costs.

To summarize:

A tax break, being a preferential tax treatment, has the exact same economic effect as a subsidy, and can be thought of as fully interchangible.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm... How big is an oil field, and how many years (decades?) does it take to explore it, and make it ready for production IF it's deemed to have oil?

Oil fields vary greatly from both quality of the oil, quantity, and ease of drilling.

Rate of depletion simply depends on how fast you use it up.

There are no fixed answers for any of these variables.

[RandomGuy]

Why do we tax production?

That's counter productive to a great economy.

That depends.

Goverment provides a framework of stability from which businesses can plan and allocate capital.

Contracts need to be enforced, disputes settled, and a host of other things needed for a functioning economy.

At some point you will tax too little, starve government, and create instability and that would actually be detriment to an economy.

Wherein lies the balance?

[RandomGuy]

As for oil companies paying too much or not enough:

Meh.

Oil is going to run out, and the more expensive it is overall, the less we will use, and the longer supplies will last, and we might have a chance to really figure out how to replace it.

I am a bit sanguine about it, but really don't feel we need "windfall" profit taxes. That is just stupid.

I just don't feel we should spend a cent on subsidies of any kind for oil production.

[coyotes_geek]

Gotta keep in mind that income taxes aren't the only taxes oil companies are paying.

From Exxon's 10-k.

Net Income: $45.200 billion

Income taxes: $36.530 billion
Sales based taxes: $34.508 billion
Other taxes & duties: $41.719 billion

All that being said, they don't need tax subsidies.

[ducks]

As for oil companies paying too much or not enough:

Meh.

Oil is going to run out, and the more expensive it is overall, the less we will use, and the longer supplies will last, and we might have a chance to really figure out how to replace it.

I am a bit sanguine about it, but really don't feel we need "windfall" profit taxes. That is just stupid.

I just don't feel we should spend a cent on subsidies of any kind for oil production.
prove it oil will run out

[ducks]

what they need is to make more oil refianiers
ouch that hurts the climate
TOUGH
so does building a transit public system for everyone one in the usa

[mogrovejo]

Subsidies are better than selective tax breaks. The rationale provided to this decision is pretty pathetic though. And the situation will remain cloudy, with some companies paying royalties and getting tax credits...

Anyway, this is a tax on the consumer. Oil companies will only be a proxy. The most ridiculous thing is that ethanol producers are still receiving millions in subsidies and they aren't doing anything. Pretty bizarre.


Most European transit public systems are a disgrace. A good rule of thumb is that if it has to be the government to promote and pay for a mass transit system, then it's a bad decision and it's not needed.

This administration is nuts. They're increasing government revenue and spending when they should be doing the exact opposite and as soon as possible. History won't be nice to these guys.

[RandomGuy]

prove it oil will run out

It would be more accurate to say that cheap oil will run out within about 20 years.

And by cheap I mean less than $200 for a barrel of oil, inflation adjusted to todays dollars.

I have a strong gut feeling that we will see $200 barrels of oil within 10 years, but will be more conservative in my estimate and put that out to the 10-20 year range.

As for why, I have already explained why.

[RandomGuy]

Most European transit public systems are a disgrace.

Link?

Elaborate?

Europeans tend to be quite happy with their mass transit.

I think on a per capita basis they probably spend MUCH less on transportation expense as a result.

The reason we don't do mass transit in the US is that our cities are much less dense because of cheap gasoline and cars.

Take away cheap gasoline, as is certain to happen, and you will see US cities become more dense, and therefore mass transit become MUCH more cost competitive.

[RandomGuy]

Bump.

Just cause.

[Wild Cobra]

[/QUOTE]



Um, no.

Your statement that somehow the government is making four times as much money as the shareholders shows that you calculated that by dividing 41.93% by 10.77%.

No, I was taking the percentages for different places. the governments do make more than shareholders because of gasoline taxes as well. Why are you reading in what I didn't say?



This mis-represents what those numbers actually are.

Profit margin is calculated on gross revenue. Namely net income (revenues minus expenses) divided by total revenues.

Tax rates are calculated on net income, not total revenues. That 47% represents a fraction of the 10.77%, not 47% of total revenues as your statement would imply.

Tax rate on net income is (net income percentage * tax rate) .1077*.4193= 4.5% of revenues.

Or put another way, 58.07% of the profit would be available to distribute to shareholders (most companies don't distribute 100% of the profit, but use a good chunk to re-invest)

Shareholders got roughly 150% of what the government did, not 25%.
Go look at the balance sheet yourself instead of misapplying what you say I don't understand. I specified which category I used for what. Maybe it is inaccurate terminology as I applied it, but the numbers as I presented them are real.

I never said or implied about 25% from the book numbers. I specifically mention the 4 to 8 cents profit per gallon vs. the 18.4 cents federal road tax. then there is a state per gallon tax also. The feds and states not only take income taxes, but per gallon taxes too. With that in mind, tell me that the oil companies make more per gallon in profit than the government does.

Sorry if what I said is confusing.

[xrayzebra]

"why?"

because it would, as shown for decades in Europe, force down consumption, even fairly rapidly, while driving up research into althernative fuels like cellulosic ethanol or other renewabl plant-derived fuel, and into greater mileage.

It's pretty clear the US is puerile, stupid, and incapable of mature, responsible decisions while pursing unfettered, greedy, short-term "gimme gimme gimme" consumerism.

The first, basic principle that the US understands is money and materialism. Nothing else matters. High fuel prices would force US into lower fuel consumption, since the US refuses to lower fuel consumption voluntarily, like an adult.

Boutons, you are obviously the most ignorant posters on this board.
When is the last time you were in Europe? The last time I was there,
there was no leveling off in consumption.

You have to pay a daily/monthly fee to drive in downtown London and
you cant hardly get down side streets for the cars.

Also, how much research is Europe doing on all these alternative
fuels? Let me see. They have had sky high fuel prices for longer than
you have been alive and no alternatives have been even gotten close
to.

Were you around during WWII? They used alternative fuels, not very
good ones, but it got them around. Funny thing happen when
oil came back, they went back to it. Wonder why. By the way that
was over 60 years ago.

[xrayzebra]

That is so... wrong on many levels.

Oil will not really run out in my lifetime, but it will get astronomically more expensive as demand outstrips a deminishing supply.

Most of the big, easily tapped sources are running out, leaving a lot of more marginal, quickly used up, oil fields.

Meaning that to maintain current levels of production, we have to spend more effort (i.e. energy) in the first place to make more wells in more hard to get to places.

Sure, they occasionally find a big, easy to tap/exploit field now and then, but those finds are happening at a rate far less than the big, easy to tap fields are becoming depleted.

Anybody who makes a straight-line assumption that the future of oil/gas/coal will be the same as the past does not fully comprehend that things are changing and the pace of that change will accelerate.

Personally, I would like to have some money spent now on research while energy is fairly cheap to get ahead of the curve a bit, than to really wait until gas is $5-$10 per gallon and get caught with our pants down.

We don't have to replace oil/gas/coal by next year, but putting some money into research will allow us to have some data and ready-made ideas so we don't have to scramble in what will be a crisis for things that might work.

I would rather lay the groundwork and do some practical experiments that provide us with some reasonable solutions for that time.

RG, much research is going on, at taxpayers expense, now. I am sure
oil companies will be quite happy, and you know it, to invest how ever
much it takes to develop a new source of energy when someone
comes up with a idea that REALLY works.

I personally think the fuel cell, somewhere down the line, may be
the answer. But the dumb-ass idea of a plug in car is a long, long
way for reality. Alternate fuels, right now, do not exist.

Anyhow, where do people think the power comes from for these plugins?
Mother goose. Carbon based fuels.

[xrayzebra]

Link?

Elaborate?

Europeans tend to be quite happy with their mass transit.

I think on a per capita basis they probably spend MUCH less on transportation expense as a result.

The reason we don't do mass transit in the US is that our cities are much less dense because of cheap gasoline and cars.

Take away cheap gasoline, as is certain to happen, and you will see US cities become more dense, and therefore mass transit become MUCH more cost competitive.


The underground in London, only one I am well acquainted with, is
decent. Especially in winter time, warm. But their bus system
sucks, unless you want to spend hours riding at 10 MPH and stopping
every block or two and freezing your butt off in wintertime.

[xrayzebra]

On taxing the Oil or any other corporation. Ha-ha-ha. Enties do not pay taxes.
People do. Prices just go up to cover the taxes. A good article on what I am saying
is below. By Dr. Walter Williams.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/03/18/prosperity_lost

[clambake]

how ya doin, ray?

[xrayzebra]

how ya doin, ray?

Great since Obama got elected. Have you noticed how the
economy has picked up. Lots of bonuses out there for everyone.:toast

Just think how much good he going to do for the health and education
in country.........:lmao

[clambake]

Great since Obama got elected. Have you noticed how the
economy has picked up. Lots of bonuses out there for everyone.:toast

Just think how much good he going to do for the health and education
in country.........:lmao

how much good he going to do?

[RandomGuy]

No, I was taking the percentages for different places. the governments do make more than shareholders because of gasoline taxes as well. Why are you reading in what I didn't say?


Go look at the balance sheet yourself instead of misapplying what you say I don't understand. I specified which category I used for what. Maybe it is inaccurate terminology as I applied it, but the numbers as I presented them are real.

I never said or implied about 25% from the book numbers. I specifically mention the 4 to 8 cents profit per gallon vs. the 18.4 cents federal road tax. then there is a state per gallon tax also. The feds and states not only take income taxes, but per gallon taxes too. With that in mind, tell me that the oil companies make more per gallon in profit than the government does.

Sorry if what I said is confusing.


Looks like to me that the government is directly making about 4 times as much money as the share holders profit.

I have no clue on what you are basing this statement.

It seemed like you were basing the statement on the fact that their profit margin was 10% and the corporate tax rate was 40%

40 is 4 times 10, so I assumed that was what you meant.

Is it?

[RandomGuy]

Pharmacuetical companies spend a lot on R & D so they can have a new drug in the pipeline to replace the old drugs whose patents expire, and keep making money.

We are going to run out of cheap oil, and as a nation should tax oil for R & D efforts aimed at figuring out what to do after we run out of oil. I want that solution in the pipeline, and I want it started while energy is still fairly cheap.

Otherwise we will collectively get caught with our pants around our ankles when oil shoots into the stratosphere.

[boutons_]

"Pharmacuetical companies spend a lot on R & D"

About $30B/year, but they spend more where it really brings in the $Bs, and that's on marketing, about $60B/year.

Their new drugs fail, they suppress the BigPharma-run tests, and sell the new drugs as more effective, and much more expensive, than the old drugs, but they aren't better.

BigPharma is just another corporate criminal scam, vacuuming 100s of $Bs out of Americans' pockets.