• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Cheaper Gas & Oil -or- Pristine Wildlife Preserve

OregonAlex said:
Is finding more oil really gonna help motivate the oil consumption industry to sticking to alternate energy. Nevermind what the drilling is going to do to Alaska. What is the continued use of oil going to do to our planet?


Anyone happen to know what the cost of a gallon of gas is in Norway? The world's third largest export of oil... I should add. I will tell you $6/gal. Most all of it is from taxes. All the taxes are going to the research and development of alternate energy. Bullshit you say?? Well Norway is also the cleanest energy nation in Europe.

This is putting your money where you mouth is. We don't have the balls to do anything like this in this country. Sin tax on alchool and cigarettes.. sure.. gas?? are you nuts?

The department of energy is taking notice. Not sure if anything will happen out of it.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/norenv.html

Alex, seems to me we have a couple issues converging at this point.

Do I want cheap (in a relative sense) fuel? Absolutely. Therefore I am in favor of drilling at ANWR.

Do I want a clean state/region/country/world? Absolutely. But while I would like to see movement on hydrogen, fuel cell, battery, solar, and wind technology, I don't want to cripple our economy in the short run and I don't want $3.00 of tax added to every gallon of fuel to fund the research. But if I want things to be clean, then maybe we need to put 'waste' tax on fast food wrappers, beer cans, all the other assorted things people throw out their car windows. . . in addition to making sure factories & cars are as clean as possible with their emissions.

I have no problem with taxes added research, but I don't think we have to choke ourselves economically to achieve the goals. Simply adding 10-cents a gallon, applied nationally, to all fuels used in the US would very likely produce more research money than the $3.00+ per gallon tax that is levied in Norway.

With regards to Exxon's corporate policy, that is a private business that has had some wild profit cycles and some very bad years (relative to the size of the company) and some very good years too. I find it hard to regulate the amount of profit a company can make when we have baseball players making $10,000,000+ deals, actors making $20,000,000 for 4 to 6 months work on a movie, etc. In the scale of things, Exxon is making far less than Tiger Woods, Julia Roberts or anchorman Mike Wallace. Personally I think Exxon is taking a short term strategy, but it is likely a good one for their stockholders.



EDIT: just an update!


SENATE REJECTS ANWR, DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL


In a 56-44 vote on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate rejected a defense appropriations bill that would have opened ANWR for oil production and would have boosted 2006 Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funding by $2 Billion. As Weekly Review goes to press, senators are weighing options for reconsideration of the appropriations bill.

Senators Lincoln Chafee (R- RI) and Michael DeWine (R-OH) were instrumental in blocking the legislation by deciding to vote with 40 Democrats. Four Democrats supported the legislation, Landrieu (D-LA), Nelson (D-NE), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI)

Once it was clear that 60 votes could not be reached to overcome a filibuster, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) voted "no" so that procedural options remain open. It is believed that a less costly defense bill absent ANWR will now be negotiated with the House.

LIHEAP did get a boost on Wednesday, when Vice President Cheney cast a tie breaking vote on a budget bill that trims $40 billion in federal spending over the next five years. The budget bill provides for a $1 billion increase in LIHEAP spending in 2007. This important provision clears the way for appropriators to increase LIHEAP appropriations for 2007. The bill is now headed back to the House for final action.

 
Last edited:
B_Skurka said:
I find it hard to regulate the amount of profit a company can make when we have baseball players making $10,000,000+ deals, actors making $20,000,000 for 4 to 6 months work on a movie, etc. In the scale of things, Exxon is making far less than Tiger Woods, Julia Roberts or anchorman Mike Wallace. Personally I think Exxon is taking a short term strategy, but it is likely a good one for their stockholders.

you read Exxon PROFIT as billion, in a quarter (3 months), with a capital B. right? Funny how they complain that in lean years they only made 1 billion, with a capital B, in profit in a single year. Profit .. not Revenue.
Only a Billion Profit? Yes.. I can see that being tough to swallow.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.. as long as you don't lose sight of what the long term cost is to humanity. I see no harm in investing say 5% of your Profit towards R&D so you can produce a sustainable enegry source in the future and will allow you to continue make even more money. Mind you that this is the same company that spilled oil just of the coast of Alaska because the pilot was reckless. You would think they would how people that they care about the environment about that huge fiasco. Saying we put 0% effort into the R&D development of environmentally friendly energy sources, is saying to opposite to me. Think about it the next time you fill up. When gas is the same at the Exxon/Mobil gas station as the Shell gas station across the street.. is it better to fill up at Shell or Exxon/Mobil? You know when one I will fill up at. Recall that article states that Shell actually puts a portion of their profits back into R&D of alternate energy.

The purpose of that reference to Exxon was to demonstrate that some companies have no intention to developed alternate energy in the background while they drill for oil in Alaska. Unlike Shell Oil. Perhaps Alaska could be a bargaining chip.. You want to drill there?? ok.. then 50% of your profits from the Alaska Oil goes towards R&D of alternate energy technology. I think this type of thinking will lead into something productive for both sides of the table. No one will walk about from the table completely thrilled but at least it is productive.
 
Last edited:
OregonAlex said:
you read Exxon PROFIT as billion, in a quarter (3 months), with a capital B. right? Funny how to complain that in lean years they only made 1 billion, with a capital B, in profit in a single year. Profit .. not Revenue.
Only a Billion Profit? Yes.. I can see that being tough to swallow.

You and I have to agree to disagree on this point. But I will say that when a company has TENS OF THOUSANDS of employees, and MANY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars invested in capital, annual expenses, fixed overhead and probably a million stockholders to answer to, then a BILLION in profits for a company that size is not that much. For a company my size, a MILLION is huge, but for a mega-sized multinational corporation, it is actually reasonable. This is a matter of scale. They are huge, so they better have huge numbers in sales both the sales and profit categories. Profit per share (or per employee, or per capital $ invested, etc) however, is not out of line with many other industries.

OregonAlex said:
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money.. as long as you don't lose sight of what the long term cost is to humanity. I see now harm in investing say 5% of your Profit towards R&D so you can produce a sustainable enegry source in the future and will allow you to continue make even more money.

I do not manage that company and presume you do not. However, you are discussing a management decision. We are talking about an oil company. It is their choice not to invest in solar, wind, hydro, etc. They choose to invest in oil because their business is oil. They choose not to accelerate their demise by investing in technology that will put them out of business sooner than necessary. That actually seems reasonable, at least to their board of directors & stockholders.

OregonAlex said:
The purpose of that reference to Exxon was to demonstrate that some companies have no intention to developed alternate energy in the background while they drill for oil in Alaska. Perhaps Alaska could be a bargaining chip.. You want to drill there?? ok.. then 50% of your profits from the Alaska Oil goes towards R&D of alternate energy technology.

As I stated, Exxon is an oil company, that is what they think their job is. Now to suggest that 50% of their profits from the Alaska Oil goes to R&D seems to me to be a huge waste. They may choose to research alternate energies that will not work, simply to comply with the law. Or they may suggest that the risk/reward is simply not enough to drill given that they could logically reason that a 50% tax has been imposed on them in the form of mandated R&D spending.


If you want alternative energy research then you might want to suggest incentives for companies to do it and incentives for consumers to use it. JMHO. But I looked at putting a solar roof on my garage. The cost was so overwhelming that it never would have been paid back given the cost difference of using my local utility company. Now if you want to suggest public policy, increase the taxes on my electric bill and my natural gas bill, and offer tax breaks on solar/wind/etc so that it actually becomes attractive for me to consider an alternative. Then me, and all the consumers like me, will have incentive to buy the goods and the companies that produce them will benefit from economies of scale that they currenty cannot benefit from because there is virutally no market for their goods. That is what Norway has done. They provide dis-incentive with taxes on some goods and incentives with tax breaks on other goods.
 
OregonAlex said:
I have asked the moderator to delete my last two posts in this discussion. After getting it out of my system and reading them back to myself I have realized that I am way out of line and a bit offensive. Sorry about that..

This is regrettable.. should have never have posted them.
If you read it before it is deleted, sorry about that..

-Alex

Alex, Don't worry about it, I won't bore you with some of the things I said when I was 33!!

I look forward to discussing other things with you!:thumb:

Dean,
 
ANWR is not the "pristine" wildlife preserve the news media would lead us to believe. It more closely resembles a frozen Walmart parking lot in North Dakota. Most of the video footage shown by the media represented as ANWR is not even in ANWR. There is a lot of media misrepresentation and catering to the environmental wacko's, many of whom are actually anti-capitalist's parading as environmentalists. It is beyond all economic logic not to drill in ANWR.

Lets drill it and use it while we are exploring alternative fuels. Why let it sit in the ground doing no one any good?
 
B_Skurka said:
You and I have to agree to disagree on this point.

I understand everything you have stated and all of your points are reasonable and true. You are 100% correct about what you said about how a business operates and they are allowed to make decisions which they believe are best.
I have never argued this.

But using Shell Oil as an example, it is not unreasonable to believe that some companies belieave there is a more long term benefit into investing their profits into R&D of alternate energy. Exxon/Mobile is not one of them. Unfortunately, back to my original arguement.. I don't think it is enough funding for activites like this to bring about success in a timely manner. Even with Shell efforts to put back some of its proftis into R&D it is a much smaller portion then I would like to see.

Anyhow, next time you are filling up your tank you might want to consider this if you are truely wanted to see development of alternate energy in the "background". I can see some people out of spite filling up at Exxon/Mobile instead of Shell. I can't prevent them from doing so if they are no longer ignorant about the facts.
 
Archdean said:
Alex, Don't worry about it, I won't bore you with some of the things I said when I was 33!!

I look forward to discussing other things with you!:thumb:

Dean,
Some people realize that they are being jerks early in life others never seem to. I guess mine is at at 33 and am trying to take action to prevent myself from sounding like one.
 
Alex, to be honest I don't know where the gas or diesel comes from that I buy. Most of it comes from the Meijer Supermarket or the local un-branded Witham's Gas Station. I'm guessing both buy from wholesalers who bid out the price? Both offer cheaper gas/diesel than the other stores near me so that is where I buy.

As for wanting companies to be more long term/responsible, I think many will agree with you. Certainly I do. But wishing for things does not always make them come true.

I got to thinking about your emphasis on "BILLIONS" and found that a small group of drug companies makes far more in profits than the oil companies on lower sales. I even dug up companies that made $500 million to $1 BILLION just to do a size comparision and found out that little Mazda Car company (a far smaller company than Exxon), last year, returned close to 3/4ths of a Billion in PROFIT, and they are just a division of Ford, and Ford is in a multi-year slup losing billions.


OregonAlex said:
Some people realize that they are being jerks early in life others never seem to. I guess mine is at at 33 and am trying to take action to prevent myself from sounding like one.

As for this reply, and the original comment that spawned it, I think we all need to remain civil and discuss these things on an objective level. Making things personal doesn't do anything other than create hard feelings. We can all be friends.
 
BIMP old thread, current topic . . .

Just curious, but is not a good time to open up ANWR to drilling for oil?

Information on ANWR, petition, send letters to your local newspaper, send letters to your congressmen, etc. http://action.anwr.org/

Seriously at what point do we say that enough is enough and we have to have at least a little bit of control over or destiny/security/economy? ANWR is not the solution but it is a small part of a larger one and it gives us some stability and buys us some time.

Perhaps we could get some DIESEL cars here in the US that have decent fuel mileage? If the EPA would allow us to use the same engines as are used in Europe, we'd have some great diesel autos here in the US.

We may also want to have a national policy to provide tax/investment incentives to develop biofuels to encourage more E-85 and Biodiesel fuels. Here are a couple things to consider:
0
www.agriculture.com

shim.gif
shim.gif
Biodiesel boom changing dynamics of global vegetable oil industry Demand for vegetable oil at historic levels, income gains to remain strong

8/07/2006, 12:04 AM CDT

The increasing global appetite for biodiesel and other biofuels is driving demand for vegetable oils to historic levels in world markets, leading to higher prices for vegetable oil relative to meal and causing soybean crushers to reevaluate their business models.

The confluence of environmental concerns, high energy prices and government incentives that is fueling demand growth is also driving expansion on the supply side, leading to significant increases in oilseed processing capacity.
Speaking at a recent conference on biodiesel and canola in Alberta, Canada, Alejandro Reca, Ph.D, Executive Director of Rabobank's Food and Agribusiness Research group in the Americas, discussed the dynamics driving the strong demand for biodiesel and predicted that the recent income gains in the global vegetable oil sector would be sustained over the long term.

Worldwide use of vegetable oils is expected to post growth of approximately 5.5% CAGR between 2005 and 2010, a significant departure from historical rates, reflecting the newly expanded biodiesel application.

"Biodiesel is proving to be a significant demand shifter in the overall vegetable oil industry," Reca said, "but the canola and palm sectors will benefit more proportionally from this growth, thanks to their high oil content and the oils' multiple uses as food and foodstock."

Reca also predicted that recent income gains in the global vegetable oil industry would remain strong, since food consumption of vegetable oils should mitigate any potential decline in non-food uses of vegetable oil.
He noted, however, the variance between lower prices for vegetable meals and higher prices for vegetable oils, as well as the increasing competition from distillers grains, was causing many soybean crushers to rethink their traditional business models.

"The tremendous opportunities presented by biodiesel today are attracting non-traditional investors to the agribusiness sector, such as financial institutions and private equity firms, as well as traditional energy and agribusiness players," Reca said. "The result is that our energy and agricultural markets are becoming increasingly interrelated."

grey.gif


© Copyright 2006, Meredith Corporation, All Rights Reserved





TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR

1. Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That¹s less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

2. Revenues to the State and Federal Treasury Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes. Estimates on bonus bids for ANWR by the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Interior for the first 5 years after Congressional approval are 4.2 billion dollars.

3. Jobs To Be Created Between 250,000 and 735,000 ANWR jobs are estimated to be created by development of the Coastal Plain.

4. Economic Impact Between 1977 and 2004, North Slope oil field development and production activity contributed over $50 billion to the nations economy, directly impacting each state in the union.

5. America's Best Chance for a Major Discovery The Coastal Plain of ANWR is America's best possibility for the discovery of another giant "Prudhoe Bay-sized" oil and gas discovery in North America. U.S. Department of Interior estimates range from 9 to 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

6. North Slope Production in Decline The North Slope oil fields currently provide the U.S. with nearly 16% of it's domestic production and since 1988 this production has been on the decline. Peak production was reached in 1980 of two million barrels a day, but has been declining to a current level of 943,000 barrels a day.

7. Imported Oil Too Costly In 2004 the US imported an average of 58% of its oil and during certain months up to 64%. That equates to over $150 billion in oil imports and over $170 billion including refined petroleum products. That¹s $19.9 million dollars an hour! Including defence costs the number would be nearly a trillion dollars.

8. No Negative Impact on Animals
Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

9. Arctic Technology Advanced technology has greatly reduced the 'footprint" of arctic oil development. If Prudhoe Bay were built today, the footprint would be 1,526 acres, 64% smaller.

10. Alaskans Support More than 75% of Alaskans favor exploration and production in ANWR. The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain.

 
Last edited:
Top