The TRUTH About Oil And Gas Prices! - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Bill8 · 05-13-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

So?
"Crazy Liberal" gets: About 20,100,000 results (0.19 seconds)

"crazy liberal" is actually an excellent example of the point I was making, because it is a commonly seen term in popular culture, and reflects, just as "oil welfare" does, popular use and understanding.

you just demonstrated the validity of my example & demonstration as support for my rhetorical point.

what's funny is you didn't realize that's what you were doing.

I don't follow Michael Moore personally, so I hadn't heard he's said anything about oil welfare. You got a cite?

let's see - a search for oil welfare in google news produces 1330 results -so, media sorted thru the google news filter, which chops out the smaller stuff and only shows a limited date range - finds the words oil and welfare close in a fair number of pages.

here's an example - the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act legislation proposed by some delaware congressman - http://www.wgmd.com/?p=23717&cpage=1

Quote:

Cong. Carney introduces Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act

Delaware Congressman John Carney has introduced the Big Oil Welfare Repeal Act. The measure would repeal billions in Big Oil subsidies and help reduce the federal deficit by nearly $13 billion. This would remove a tax deduction for the Big Five oil companies ? who continue to receive taxpayer-funded subsidies ? while crude and gas prices continue to rise. Carney says incurring additional debt to subsidize big oil companies which already have an incentive to produce oil is foolish and irresponsible.

will76 · 05-13-2011, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

OK, I'll do all the whining for you in order to get it over with!

"Lies!"

"Spin!"

"I don't beleive ANYTHING from FOXNEWS!"

"More Repug LIES!"

There.

Feel better?

Now, read it and weep as some of your most cherished half-witted "truths" get staked to anthills!

I challenge any of you to prove anything in this editorial to be incorrect, falsified or just plain wrong!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...-gas-industry/

3 Myths About the Oil and Gas Industry

By Bob Beauprez

Published May 12, 2011 | FoxNews.com

As voters around the country wince at rising gas prices, panicked Democrats, in a rush to cover the failure of their all-or-nothing bet on the alternative energy industry have started singing a familiar tune ? blame the oil and gas industry. Instead of facing the reality of his owned failed policies, President Obama is calling for an end to the "tax giveaways" he claims amount to $4 billion in ?subsidies? to the energy industry.

This tactic isn?t surprising given the effect that rising gas prices have on the president?s approval ratings and his obsession with re-election. But, less-than-truthful innuendos and political spin hardly helps America's working families who are getting hammered at the pump.

If our leaders are going to have an honest discussion about energy, it's important to clear up a few rumors, misconceptions and outright falsehoods being perpetrated about the oil and gas industry. Let's begin with three of the more common ones:

1. The industry doesn?t receive any taxpayer funded subsides. None.
2. Rampant speculation and Wall Street tricks aren?t driving up gas prices.
3. The oil and gas industry is not dodging the taxes they owe and withholding ?their fair share.?

I'll say it again; contrary to popular opinion and the president's spin, the oil and gas industries do not receive any taxpayer funded subsidies. The tax code does allow them to claim certain tax credits and deductions to encourage continued investment in an industry that is heavily front-end loaded with capital expense.

These are the same kind of incentives available to Coca-Cola, General Electric, Ford, and Microsoft and other companies doing business in the U.S. Or, for that matter, like the deduction for mortgage interest payments enjoyed by homeowners. But, importantly these are tax credits, and markedly different from direct taxpayer cash subsidies like the 45 cent per gallon payment blenders get to put ethanol in fuel mixes.

When businesses invest in America, we all benefit. The oil and gas industry plows about $300 billion into domestic projects per year ? that's 75 times more than Obama's phantom "taxpayer giveaways" amount -- and employees over 9 million people. Those are real numbers; not Washington spin, and if government would allow and encourage even more domestic production there would be more jobs and more investment ? and more total taxes paid, too.

Another argument that often circulates when gas prices go up is that a phantom class of ?Wall Street speculators? is to blame for the increase of prices. In 2008 this school of thought was so persuasive that President Bush commissioned an exhaustive review, via the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, looking into the effect that speculators had on market prices. Their conclusion was surprising, according to The Wall Street Journal, ?The agency concluded that speculators?otherwise known as traders?were putting downward pressure on prices. The liquidity they provide helps to smooth volatility.?

Not satisfied with the 2008 study, President Obama recently resurrected this school of thought, even tapping Attorney General Eric Holder to police perceived illegal activity and price gouging. Yet within the presidents? own administration, the Federal Trade Commission found that the recent spike in oil prices is due primarily to normal market forces, including booming demand from developing economies in India and China and not because of any questionable behavior from Wall Street.

The third popular attack is that somehow oil and gas industry isn?t paying its fair share in taxes. Democratic Party mythology aside, the oil and gas industry pays a much heftier percentage of net income in taxes (41.1%) than the average of all other S&P Industrials (26.5%). Every single day, the industry is sending more than $85 million to the U.S. Treasury for taxes and royalty payments.

Yes, the energy companies are profitable, but their profit margins are right in line with manufacturing, aerospace, and the food industries, while computer, pharmaceutical, and the beverage companies have triple the net income margins of traditional energy.

I don't like subsidies and I don't like Congress or the IRS deciding what is good economic behavior and what is bad. But, I do understand that you get more of what gets incentivized, and less of what is penalized. And, there is a huge difference in "redistributing the wealth" through direct subsidy payments, and a tax credit that encourages investment in much needed production that creates jobs and taxable income.

If congress is serious about creating jobs and jump starting the economy, they should lower the corporate tax rate, which is the highest among the 34 OECD nations, rather than increase the tax burden on energy or any industry.

Capital is fungible, and energy production is the prototypical global industry. Plenty of nations around the world are providing a far more welcoming business environment for energy production than the U.S. already with a less onerous tax code and far less regulatory burden.

If increasing our domestic supply is really a national objective, then this might not be the best time to send exactly the opposite message to the people that provide the capital to drill the wells.

Bob Beauprez is a former member of Congress from Colorado with successful careers as a dairy farmer, community banker, and real estate development. He has published his first book, publishes a public policy website, A Line of Sight.com, and operates a buffalo breeding ranch in the Colorado mountains.

Bill8 · 05-14-2011, 03:44 PM

well, now I guess we get to see what giving the oil companies access to formerly preserved oil leases accomplishes.

for some long time I have been regarded the preserved oil as our last ditch military backup in the event of world war 3 - we shall see how much of that military reserve is extracted and sold in the world market. and what effect it has, what time scale it takes, and wether or not it benefits americans.

it was inevitable that every last possible site will be drilled. it seems a shame to do it now, when things will be so much worse in the future, and the oil worth so much more.

the cynicism and lack of principles of obama never ceases to repel me.

Bill8 · 05-14-2011, 04:42 PM

people reading this thread will recall earlier posts about speculators adding so much to the price of oil - yet nobody seems to have any answers as to what to do about those evil ole speculators.

so what do you figure the republicans will allow to be done about those meanie speculators and their evil free market speculations?

browsing google news about oil today brings up this article that has some interesting factoids.

http://blogs.forbes.com/robertlenzne...0-70-a-barrel/

Quote:

ExxonMobil CEO Says Oil Price Should Be $60 To $70 A Barrel
May. 14 2011 - 10:29 am | 3,720 views | 0 recommendations | 4 comments
By ROBERT LENZNER

Rex Tillerson, the boss of ExxonMobil admitted last week that the price of oil?based purely on supply and demand- should be in the $60 to $70 a barrel range. The reason it?s above $100 a barrel, Tillerson explained, is due to the oil majors using futures contracts to lock in current high prices, and speculation that is engineered by the high-frequency trading of quantitative hedge funds.

That was just one of the stunning revelations made during the Senate hearing on tax subsidies to the oil industry? which featured the 6 most powerful CEOs? BP, Shell, Chevron, Conoco-Phillips and Exxon-Mobil? all sitting like ducks in a row giving t he stiff-arm to pressing unfriendly inquiries from a host of Democratic Senators.

The formal showdown between Big Oil and Big Politics was enormously revealing theater about just how selfish and narrow-minded cash-rich industry can be when called upon to do their patriotic duty in balancing the budget. Ouch!!!

Here are some other juicy disclosures from the hearing:

?The average cost of producing 1 barrel of oil was $11; the average price of the oil in the marketplace?$72? some 6.5 times the cost of getting tghe oil out of the ground.

?The profits for the big 6 oil companies was $36 billion in the year?s first quarter. A large part of the $36 billion was used to buyback shares or pay dividends to shareholders.

?These giant US companies have only 1.4% of global oil reserves; the national companies of OPEC have 68% of the reserves. Therefore, argue the CEOs best not to take away tax adanatages, ie what the Senators call ?subsidies.?

? If those nasty Senators take away the tax advantages, exploration for oil in the US will dry up? and move abroad where t he tax advantages are splendid. This is called waving t he red flag- and threatening to put the nation?s oil deficit in even more dollar-bashing trouble.

?If Obama doesn?t loosen restrictions on drilling in Alaska and offshore US? we will become even more horribly dependent on importing foreign oil.

?There is NO energy plan for the US? and warns Sen. Max Baucus of Montana- ?we will require the good faith on everyone?s part? which is going to be enormously difficult.? This is an understatement when one sees the way the oil executives and the Senators agree on almost nothing. No CEO would admit the tax advantages were subsidies.

?The deduction for intangible drilling expenses was given the oil industry in 1960 when a barrel was worth about $15-17. So, why do they need this favor when oil is $100 a barrel? Good bloody question , I thought. The oil execs looked horrified and warned that all exploration in the US would cease and desist.

SallyRand · 05-14-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will76

And yet even though I have asked for specific citations which allude to or identify exclusive examples of "oil welfare", nothing like any sort of answer or ink to such things have been posted. Only search links which point primarily to discussions of the afrementioned elusive "welfare" matters.

Seem that the haters can only find references to complete bullshit and links to the same sort of tax eductions which are avaiable to other kinds of businesses.

Wonder why?

"Why?" is because there is no such thing as "oil welfare".

There is only the Tax Code.

If you don't like the Tax Code, write your Congress people and get it changed.

And convert your cars to pedal power.

I support "renewable" energy sources but am realistic enough to know that solar and wind will not replace fossil, hydroelectric or nuclear.

The Sun only shines in the daytime and storage on a large scale is virtually impossible. Battery banks of meaningful size would be incredibly expensive, not to mention the cost and environmental impact of inveters to make the stored power useful.

Much of the wind power equipment (Virtually all!) comes from offshore, which does little to reduce our dependence on offshore energy sources. Wind power stations also kill birds by the thousands and in some very new ways negatively affect the surrounding environment.Coal (Fossil) powered plants are the best go right now but fraught with problems. Clean Coal is not a myth but more work needs to be done. Ethanol production only raises food prices and is inefficient as Hell.

Instead of investing time, labor and effort in pipe-dream energy systems, I think we are much better off trying to cut down on useage, drive like sane people to get better fuel economy and work towards fusion power.

Conservation is the thing.

TRUE conservatives conserve, reuse and seek efficiency and safety in all matters related to the environment and energy production.

And don't drill in ANWR and stop sending money to Brazil to finance THEIR offshore drilling as has done H.Obama. The USA needs to start taking care of itself and start now. We should not ruin our environment in order to save it.

And before I forget............................................ ...................

What about all that "oil welfare" anyway?

AND WE SHOULD STOP FIGHTING WARS OVER OIL!

THERE IS NO AMOUNT OF OIL WORTH ONE AMERICAN LIFE!

Bill8 · 05-14-2011, 05:35 PM

you tend to rant instead of argue, and seem incapable of assessing other peoples arguments.

this is the failing of relying on emotionalism and rhetorical fallacies.

but the "true conservatism" is a good angle, and if you work out your supporting arguments and proposals related to it you might have something worth standing on.

of course, your fellow republicans will attack you for it. but, there's a price to be paid for actually thinking about solutions rather than team loyalty.

a shame your kind didn't start talking about "no war for oil" years ago.

Tempest · 05-14-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

Seem that the haters can only find references to complete bullshit and links to the same sort of tax eductions which are avaiable to other kinds of businesses.

Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, by Asset Type

Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures - 9.2%

As compared to things like:

Manufacturing Buildings - 32.2%
Commercial Buildings - 30.4%
Farm Tractors - 22.7%
Farm Structures - 20.8%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf

So yeah.. If I had the time I could find more info for ya.

SallyRand · 05-14-2011, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Effective Tax Rates on Capital Income of C Corporations, by Asset Type

Petroleum and Natural-Gas Structures - 9.2%

As compared to things like:

Manufacturing Buildings - 32.2%
Commercial Buildings - 30.4%
Farm Tractors - 22.7%
Farm Structures - 20.8%

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6792/10-18-Tax.pdf

So yeah.. If I had the time I could find more info for ya.

Thanks for the .pdf from 2005!

And all of its many, many pages.

In no way do such rates constitute "oil welfare".

The term "oil welfare" implies that oil companies are simply being givenmoney without making any kind of return to the public, which is clearly not the case.

Now............................................... .................................................. .....

Let's raise tax rates for oil companies........................................

Increased tax rates are considered to be "costs".

"costs" are passed along to the end user, the ultimate consumer.

You.

How much are YOU will ing to pay? We already got fucking $4.00 per gallon gas (Well, not quite.) My fill up today was ONLY $3.82 per gallon and the oil companies make exactly the same amount at $3.82 as they do at $1.50 per gallon. About 9 FUCKING CENTS!)

Would you rather conserve, recycle and resuse or kill more Americans in OIL WARS?

And by the way, I have opposed oil wars forever.

AND............................................... .................................................. .

I AM A REGISTERED INDEPENDENT, so you all take that "Repug", etc., nonsense and shove it up your collective ass!

Tempest · 05-14-2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SallyRand

blah blah blah

Although from 2005, it's still pretty accurate. And it's a government document. You wanted non bullshit info and links.. I provided it for ya.

You asked about tax deductions.. I'm sure that in the document, or found elsewhere, would be the deductions those companies get so that they pay the lowest tax rate for those items than any other industry.

No, they're not getting taxpayer money directly from the government, but it's still a subsidy that only applies to them. I love how that article talked about the Obama "spin" and yet did the same thing by slipping in the words "taxpayer funded" so they could write a nice little spin article against Obama while still being technically accurate. Just another way to misinform the less intelligent public.

Anyway.. Carry on with your rant etc...

By the way.. What drugs are you on?

Vendzilla · 05-14-2011, 06:37 PM

40 billion over 5 years, that's 8 billion a year in savings over this.

The oil companies would just recoup the money in the end with higher prices and the 2010 budget is 1.3 trillion in deficit.

Is this the only thing the government can do to work on the high price of oil?

Still paying over $4 a gallon for gas

Tempest · 05-14-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Is this the only thing the government can do to work on the high price of oil?

I thought most people in the US didn't want the government messing with their capitalistic pseudo free market economy?

Vendzilla · 05-14-2011, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

I thought most people in the US didn't want the government messing with their capitalistic pseudo free market economy?

Changing the subject?

Bill8 · 05-17-2011, 05:00 PM

I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill8

personally I doubt our pro-multinational congress will touch oil welfare. they'll yak yak yak and do something symbolic maybe, but write in loopholes that takes any oversight and muscle out of the final bill.

and I was right:

from US news and World Report (selected out of 152 articles because US News used to be big in the buisiness sector):

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...le-republicans

Quote:

It's been "Big Oil" time on Capitol Hill recently. Last week, the House spent much of its floor time debating pro-drilling bills, and top industry executives were called before a Senate committee to make their case for high gas prices and their companies' high profits. Today, the Big Oil show continues, as Democrats in the Senate try to advance a bill that would undo a number of tax breaks for the five top-producing American oil companies. [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on gas prices.]

The vote this evening on the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act appears to be purely a test vote. With Republicans and oil-state Democrats, like Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu in opposition, it's not expected to get the 60 votes needed to proceed. Even if it did pass the Senate and go to the House, the Republican majority there would probably guarantee its death on arrival.

However, Democrats aren't missing an opportunity to use the vote to put Republicans up for election in 2012 in the hot seat. The revenue from the bill, which would eliminate a handful of corporate tax deductions for only the top five oil companies, would be used to reduce the deficit. So while adopting the now familiar cry of deficit hawks on the right, Democrats have turned the tables by framing a vote against this bill as a vote against deficit reduction. Not to mention, since opponents of this bill are essentially coming to the defense of majors in the oil industry, Democrats could the vote as a chance to tie vulnerable lawmakers to the publicly maligned industry.

I don't usually go so far back in the results to post in an older thread, but, I thought then that congress wouldn't dare act against the oil corps, and that especially the republicans would demonstrate their deficit and money saving talk was all a cynical game to exploit the teabaggers, and that they have no intention of cutting any of the benefits and subsidies corporations get.

and that's what they did.

so far, they haven't repealed the affordable care act either, and I predict they wont, because it funnels money to the health care and health insurance corporations.

or if they pretend to, they will do it in such a way that the loopholes benefit corporate profits and somehow funnel more taxpayer money to the corps.

marlboroack · 05-17-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

What in the fuck is this?

SallyRand · 05-17-2011, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marlboroack

What in the fuck is this?

Phoenix is nothng but a useful idiot; a tool for the socialists.

uno · 05-18-2011, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I have no idea how OPEC came into being. If I was forced to guess, I would say it had something to do with the close of WWII, in which oil played a huge part - Countries couldn't fight if they didn't have oil.

In 1973 they brought us to our knees with their gas embargo because of our support of Israel. I don't remember this, I was too young; But I know about it because of the history of the automotive industry and how cars changed drastically over night. They can do it again too.

What to do about it? Simple. Go to Mexico and Canada and tell them they need to leave OPEC or we won't buy any oil from them. I'm guessing Mexico and Canada would rather deal with us directly. Venezuela? They'll fold too. Why? Simple. If oil is $100 a barrel but they have to ship it to Europe it's going to cost them four times as much to get it there.

If we fuck OPEC they'll probably choose a new currency to trade in and then we are totally fucked.

2MuchMark · 05-18-2011, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

What I fail to understand is.. OPEC. Why the fuck does a Middle East organization control the world wide price of oil when the bulk of the oil imported from the US comes from Canada and Mexico?

Opec doesn't control the world wide price of oil. Opec member countries produce 42% of the world's oil + 18% of the world's natural gas. Opec represents 58% of the crude oil traded around the world there they can have a strong influence on the market but not control it.

05-14-2011, 06:37 PM	#60
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,200	40 billion over 5 years, that's 8 billion a year in savings over this. The oil companies would just recoup the money in the end with higher prices and the 2010 budget is 1.3 trillion in deficit. Is this the only thing the government can do to work on the high price of oil? Still paying over $4 a gallon for gas __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

05-14-2011, 03:44 PM	#53
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	well, now I guess we get to see what giving the oil companies access to formerly preserved oil leases accomplishes. for some long time I have been regarded the preserved oil as our last ditch military backup in the event of world war 3 - we shall see how much of that military reserve is extracted and sold in the world market. and what effect it has, what time scale it takes, and wether or not it benefits americans. it was inevitable that every last possible site will be drilled. it seems a shame to do it now, when things will be so much worse in the future, and the oil worth so much more. the cynicism and lack of principles of obama never ceases to repel me.

05-14-2011, 05:35 PM	#56
Bill8 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 1,901	you tend to rant instead of argue, and seem incapable of assessing other peoples arguments. this is the failing of relying on emotionalism and rhetorical fallacies. but the "true conservatism" is a good angle, and if you work out your supporting arguments and proposals related to it you might have something worth standing on. of course, your fellow republicans will attack you for it. but, there's a price to be paid for actually thinking about solutions rather than team loyalty. a shame your kind didn't start talking about "no war for oil" years ago.