• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Food & fuel

RobertMac

Well-known member
Consumers pay ALL TAXES!!!!! The only solution is to increase supply of crude and build more refinery capacity while we continue to develop alternative energy sources...like nuclear power! What we have now is the results of 25 years of Sierra Club energy policy from Congress...they should all be fired!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
Consumers pay ALL TAXES!!!!! The only solution is to increase supply of crude and build more refinery capacity while we continue to develop alternative energy sources...like nuclear power! What we have now is the results of 25 years of Sierra Club energy policy from Congress...they should all be fired!!!

Yep- but since the Oil Companies are not going to take the responsibilty for doing anything to ease the profiteering they have going- or the energy problem/costs - we should remove the $15-18 Billion they are presently getting in tax subsidies and award it to those companies that will utilize it for energy research and development- be it new refineries, new cleaner coal electricity and gasification plants, nuclear, ethanol, biofuels, etc. etc....

Oil companies shouldn't be rewarded for record profits- at a cost to the American people....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
You may not need to build nuclear or more refineries, in the US. Alberta has plans on the drawing board for both, a little closer to the US owned oilsands, in Fort McMurray!

There's water there and they need a little more hydro to keep up with all the expansion. It takes huge amounts of water to run both a nuclear plant and a refinery. Come to think of it, it takes a lot of petroleum products to build both also.

How long does it take to build a nuclear plant?

One of the quickest ways to develop the alternative energy sources, would be to tax oil to the point to reduce demand. That oil that is not used for gasoline, could be used to produce the alternative energy.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
One of the quickest ways to develop the alternative energy sources, would be to tax oil to the point to reduce demand.

hypocritexposer, you need to come back to the "real world"....fuel cost have doubled, how much has that effected demand????? You can't reduce demand for oil until there are viable alternatives. The problem is that the alternatives require oil to be produced...what is the net gain??????? There is not a shortage of oil driving up prices...there is controlled supply and speculators pushing the price of crude up. The quickest way to bring down the prices is to open domestic sources in ANWR and off shore, then start building nuclear plants(which take about ten years to get on line).

OT, much of the problem for oil companies is environmental wackos(particularly those in Congress and EPA) have put a stop to domestic oil exploration and the building of new refineries. Over the past 25 years, domestic oil production has dropped by 40% while use has doubled! Our "friends???" in the middle east are no longer bailing out our Sierra Club energy policy. You can't do NOTHING for 25 years and it not eventually catch up with us!!!!! Taxing oil companies or taking away tax incentives aren't going to accomplish anything because this Congress will simply mis-spend it and not change anything.

Give tax incentives for developing more domestic energy sources.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
RobertMac said:
Consumers pay ALL TAXES!!!!! The only solution is to increase supply of crude and build more refinery capacity while we continue to develop alternative energy sources...like nuclear power! What we have now is the results of 25 years of Sierra Club energy policy from Congress...they should all be fired!!!

Yep- but since the Oil Companies are not going to take the responsibilty for doing anything to ease the profiteering they have going- or the energy problem/costs - we should remove the $15-18 Billion they are presently getting in tax subsidies and award it to those companies that will utilize it for energy research and development- be it new refineries, new cleaner coal electricity and gasification plants, nuclear, ethanol, biofuels, etc. etc....

Oil companies shouldn't be rewarded for record profits- at a cost to the American people....

3/6/2006
Exxon Mobil will spend as much as $30 billion on capital and exploration projects annually between 2008 and 2012, up 43% from its 2007 budget, according to the Toronto Star.

That $210 billion investment dwarfs the spending of the U.S. government on renewable and clean energy projects, and would outspend – by far – even the ambitious and revolutionary energy policies proposed by Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has proposed a $50 billion strategic energy fund that would come from royalties paid for drilling on public lands, eliminating oil company subsidies and requiring energy companies to either invest in renewable energy research and development, or pay into the national fund.

Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over 10 years on renewable and alternative energy research and development.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
You may not need to build nuclear or more refineries, in the US. Alberta has plans on the drawing board for both, a little closer to the US owned oilsands, in Fort McMurray!

There's water there and they need a little more hydro to keep up with all the expansion. It takes huge amounts of water to run both a nuclear plant and a refinery. Come to think of it, it takes a lot of petroleum products to build both also.

How long does it take to build a nuclear plant?

One of the quickest ways to develop the alternative energy sources, would be to tax oil to the point to reduce demand. That oil that is not used for gasoline, could be used to produce the alternative energy.

California's East Bay Municipal Utility District is set to vote today on a proposal to ration water to customers near San Francisco, including two oil refiners, because of a drought.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aAjrry6PvMEs&refer=energy
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Oil prices spike to record near $128 a barrel, as retail gas and diesel hit new highs


NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices shot to new highs again Friday as traders, unimpressed by U.S. and Saudi efforts to boost supply, kept buying on the belief that prices had more room to rise.
Light, sweet crude for June delivery jumped $2.17 to settle at record close of $126.29 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the session, prices surged to $127.82 a barrel, also a new high. It was the eighth time in the past 10 sessions traders rewrote the record books, and the first time prices topped $127 a barrel.


Diesel going past $5.00 per gallon with this news.
 

PORKER

Well-known member
Comments from the Corn Industry;

Corn at $7.50 is undervalued as an energy source. Corn at $11 breaks even against heating oil in a stove today.
Ten years ago today, corn in a stove broke even at 75 CENTS per bushel.
The normal spread relationship of corn/crude is that one BTU of corn buys 2 BTU of crude.
Currently the corn farmer is delivering a cheaper BTU to the marketplace than the petro industry. This is inverse/perverse. Perhaps you folks think it works to sell corn for less than its BTU equivelant, but not this cowboy.

No way will folks be able to raise corn for sub-energy equiv basis, espec going forward.
 

mrj

Well-known member
There has long been a 'rule' or at least an effect that raising taxes creates less of that which is taxed; and lowering taxes creates more of that which is taxed.

When did that 'rule' or effect change????

Do corporations actually pay taxes, or do they simply raise their prices in order to take the tax money from people who must purchase their commodity????

mrj
 

Latest posts

Top