|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 6:09:27 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sophie11
I just don't think that we should bankrupt ourselves in the process of trying to get cheaper energy. That does not help. As far as the oil subsidies go, IF there is someone who will truly try do develop another source of energy, then fine give them the subsidies. But I guarantee the government is not the one to look to in this issue, efficient isn't even in their vocabulary. Anyway, oil may be a finite source but in the meantime there ARE still many areas where it is known or suspected to be that have not even been tapped into yet. I don't think oil is going to be running out anytime in the next 20 or 30 years minimum so that does give time to develop other energy sources and get them on the market without ruining the economy in the process.
Well, there are a lot of areas we suspect oil might be, but I don't think we plan on discovering anything that could replace Ghawar in Saudi Arabia or even Cantarell in Mexico. There *might* be one field on the scale of maybe 1/4-1/2 the size of Ghawar in the Arctic Circle or Antarctica, but we likely won't be able to access it until after Amsterdam goes underwater. (Or maybe global warming is a liberal hoax dreamed up by a bunch of scientists who don't want their research funded anymore- I really don't know.)
It's true that we have 30 years worth of oil discoveries that we can make it on. But a bigger question is whether oil can meet the needs of 6 billion people living in developed countries enjoying lifestyles not unlike that of the US or Europe in the next ten to fifteen years. And I don't think that we can do it without switching to wind and nuclear via hydrogen.
A single oil derrick in Texas might take up 20 acres of land and produce 4 barrels of oil per day. A wind turbine in North Dakota might take up 100 acres of land (that you could still farm around) and produce only 8 boe, but you can't build useful oil derricks in ND. The best news about wind is that once we build the turbine, we never have to find a new field again.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 6:37:23 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2524
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: online
|
quote:
The best news about wind is that once we build the turbine, we never have to find a new field again.
Again, how is wind going to power a motor vehicle. How is wind going to pave roads? How are we going to move from an oil-based market to a green market w/o going into a severe recession or depsression? Drill here, Drill now, Save Less.
And global warming is a hoax. Thirty years ago these "experts" were predicting a global ice age. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. The only thing they are interested is found in this quote:
"Kyoto is the first component of global governance"
Jacques Chirac
Opening Remarks
Sixth Conference of Parties to Kyoto
The Hauge, November 2000
quote:
but I don't think we plan on discovering anything that could replace Ghawar in Saudi Arabia or even Cantarell in Mexico
Read the articles The finds in ND and MT could be as large as Saudi. The greenies want NO drilling at all. We need oil run the country.
Yes, there needs to be research into alternatives but not at the economic cost that is currently taking place.
< Message edited by colliefan -- 6/14/2008 6:43:31 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 6:41:06 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 720
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
Again, how is wind going to power a motor vehicle. How is wind going to pave roads? How are we going to move from an oil-based market to a green market w/o going into a severe recession or depsression? Drill here, Drill now, Save Less.
Right!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 6:44:56 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2524
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: online
|
global ice age
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 7:12:43 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 720
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Well now colliefan, those scientists were obviously conservative scientists who foresaw that some day in the future their report could be used to aggravate the left. They didn't really mean what they said, you know. 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 7:20:00 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
Read the articles The finds in ND and MT could be as large as Saudi. The greenies want NO drilling at all. We need oil run the country.
Yes, there needs to be research into alternatives but not at the economic cost that is currently taking place.
Last I checked, they were about half the size of Prudhoe Bay. And that's great- we should drill it- but it doesn't reduce the need to switch to new forms of energy. It just buys us maybe an extra nine months or so.
quote:
Again, how is wind going to power a motor vehicle. How is wind going to pave roads?
I've repeated myself about 15 times:
1.) Wind->wind turbine turns->generator turns->electricity generated->goes into your wall-outlet->recharges your plug-in hybrid, reducing your gasoline consumption.
OR
Wind->wind turbine turns->generator turns->electricity generated->ammonia generated->carried to gas stations->put in your car.
quote:
How are we going to move from an oil-based market to a green market w/o going into a severe recession or depsression?
Do you think that the situation we're currently in- with $135/barrel oil and with us quickly being driven into a recession- is the result of alternative energy? It may be the cause, but certainly not the result.
FYI, ANWR would provide 500kbpd at the very most. This might reduce oil prices by $5-10/barrel, but certainly not by the $25-$50 we'd need to encourage growth.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/14/2008 7:35:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 8:16:35 PM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 953
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
FYI, ANWR would provide 500kbpd at the very most. and for how long? Are there any reliable projections? 500Kbpd isn't much.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/14/2008 9:05:36 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HighPlainsDrifter
Insanity...the Chinese are drilling right now in these waters. This is almost to the point of being self-sabotage by domestic enemies.
No, they aren't. George Will wrote that in a column; Cheney cited him; they were both wrong.
Cheney's Fals Comment on Oil Drilling Attacked
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/15/2008 7:44:28 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 142
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: colliefan
Read the articles The finds in ND and MT could be as large as Saudi. The greenies want NO drilling at all. We need oil run the country.
Yes, there needs to be research into alternatives but not at the economic cost that is currently taking place.
Last I checked, they were about half the size of Prudhoe Bay. And that's great- we should drill it- but it doesn't reduce the need to switch to new forms of energy. It just buys us maybe an extra nine months or so.
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"
413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/15/2008 9:06:12 AM
|
|
|
SonInMe1
Posts: 3570
Joined: 4/16/2005
From: my mom by God
Status: offline
|
quote:
Oh, yes the evil drug companies along with the evil big retail, but nothing is evil about big government.
Amen and amen.
Since money is evil and the gathering of money even more evil...why does the left love to collect taxes? If money is evil, it sure would be logical that the solutiions to problems cannot be more money...eh?
Lets put our money into something worth while...like fusion. There is no doubt that water fueling our cars would be the most efficient eenergy source since our world is mostly water.....but I can see the uproar over rising water prices next...the cost to the enviroment.
Ya just can't make some people happy.
_____________________________
You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.
James 4:4
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/15/2008 1:48:56 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"
413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.
There might be 413 billion barrels of oil shale, but there aren't 413 barrels of oil. If there were a remote chance of these 413 billion barrels getting produced, it would be reflected in the spot markets.
However, the spot markets are indicating that oil supplies might decrease. So a bunch of people who've made careers out of predicting oil supply disagree with the journalist you're citing.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/15/2008 10:31:13 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 142
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"
413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.
There might be 413 billion barrels of oil shale, but there aren't 413 barrels of oil. If there were a remote chance of these 413 billion barrels getting produced, it would be reflected in the spot markets.
However, the spot markets are indicating that oil supplies might decrease. So a bunch of people who've made careers out of predicting oil supply disagree with the journalist you're citing.
First off please go actually read the articles, i have read them in industry publications and the predictions are that there are 413 billion barrels of recoverable oil. These are not oil shale deposits, this is a deposit trapped in dolomite. It is a thin layer that they have to hit and will take skill to hit but it is already being tapped.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/15/2008 11:20:29 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
From the article on the ND fields
"The U.S. Geological Survey's Leigh Price, a Denver geochemist who died in 2000, estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
"
413 billion barrels is alot more than 9 months worth.
There might be 413 billion barrels of oil shale, but there aren't 413 barrels of oil. If there were a remote chance of these 413 billion barrels getting produced, it would be reflected in the spot markets.
However, the spot markets are indicating that oil supplies might decrease. So a bunch of people who've made careers out of predicting oil supply disagree with the journalist you're citing.
First off please go actually read the articles, i have read them in industry publications and the predictions are that there are 413 billion barrels of recoverable oil. These are not oil shale deposits, this is a deposit trapped in dolomite. It is a thin layer that they have to hit and will take skill to hit but it is already being tapped.
Here is an article from a more trustworthy source (the WSJ):
quote:
XTO Energy Inc. agreed to pay $1.85 billion for drilling rights in an oil-producing area near the U.S.-Canadian border, highlighting the once-obscure field's growing importance. The move also reflects rising confidence by energy companies that oil will stay above $100 a barrel.
The Fort Worth, Texas, oil and natural-gas producer said it will buy rights to 352,000 acres in the Bakken Shale, which stretches across Montana, North Dakota and ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121202919175028377.html
The Bakken Field is a shale field, not an oil field. There's a huge difference in how the stuff is recovered, and perhaps more importantly, the land use implications and impact of oil shale.
You might be able to farm around a working oil field. You certainly can't farm around a working oil shale mine, and I certainly wouldn't want to eat any food that came from the site of the mine after the mining has completed. One of the problems of leeching out oil shale is that it leaves a highly basic (caustic) residue that actually takes up more volume than the shale you got the oil from. How are we going to dispose of this?
We tried oil shale on a limited scale back in the '80s, and it left a big mess. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.
In any case, the Bakken Field is not an oil field. It is an oil shale deposit. Most oil fields cost about $40/barrel to recover oil. Oil shale costs closer to $100, before you factor in the environmental costs. At that price renewables look cheaper.
< Message edited by blessedinnyc -- 6/15/2008 11:33:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/16/2008 6:21:34 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 142
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
The Bakken Field is a shale field, not an oil field. There's a huge difference in how the stuff is recovered, and perhaps more importantly, the land use implications and impact of oil shale.
You might be able to farm around a working oil field. You certainly can't farm around a working oil shale mine, and I certainly wouldn't want to eat any food that came from the site of the mine after the mining has completed. One of the problems of leeching out oil shale is that it leaves a highly basic (caustic) residue that actually takes up more volume than the shale you got the oil from. How are we going to dispose of this?
We tried oil shale on a limited scale back in the '80s, and it left a big mess. Let's hope it doesn't happen again.
In any case, the Bakken Field is not an oil field. It is an oil shale deposit. Most oil fields cost about $40/barrel to recover oil. Oil shale costs closer to $100, before you factor in the environmental costs. At that price renewables look cheaper.
The bakken field is not a shale field. It is an oil field where shale has bled oil into a layer of dolomite. They are pumping light sweet crude out of bakken which is NOT oil shale. It is a high quality, easy to refine crude which could produce much more useable fuel per barrell than alot of what we are pumping out of the ground now.
Had you actually read what was posted you might have read this.
quote:
His new wealth springs from the Bakken formation, a sprawling deposit of high-quality crude beneath the durum-wheat fields of North Dakota, Montana and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The Bakken may give the U.S. — the world's biggest importer of oil — a new domestic energy source.
Unlike the tar from Canada's oil sands, Bakken crude needs little refining. Swirl some of it in a Mason jar and it leaves a thin, honey-colored film along the sides. It's light — almost like gasoline — and sweet, meaning it's low in sulfur.
Best of all, the Bakken could be huge. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that the Bakken might hold 413 billion barrels. If so, it would dwarf Saudi Arabia's Ghawar, the world's biggest field, which has produced about 55 billion barrels.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/19/2008 10:03:40 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 142
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
While we are on the subject of taxing oil companies lets take just one to see just what they pay in taxes already.
Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
(BOLDED COMMENTS MINE)
And in the first quarter of 2008 when we hold their record profits against them.
quote:
Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, ...
Revenue hit $116.85 billion, ... (so less than 10% profits)
Exxon said it spent $5.5 billion on finding and developing new sources of oil and gas, up 30% from a year ago.
...
The company also paid $9.3 billion in income taxes, $8.4 billion in sales taxes, and $11.6 billion in royalties. (looks like exxon paid more than 7 billion dollars more in taxes than they received in profits)
Yet another
quote:
Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. ...
Blogger and economist Mark Perry generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. In Exxon's defense, a commenter IDed as "Buy It Cheap" wrote, "These are relatively small profit margins. One should note that the federal and state governments that tack on their percentage 'profited' the most from every gallon of gas sold all the way along the value chain, without a modicum of risk."
From 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89%, while income taxes grew by 170%.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/19/2008 10:10:03 AM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1672
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
While we are on the subject of taxing oil companies lets take just one to see just what they pay in taxes already.
Exxon's 2007 Tax Bill: $30 Billion
(BOLDED COMMENTS MINE)
And in the first quarter of 2008 when we hold their record profits against them.
quote:
Record oil prices netted Exxon Mobil a $10.89 billion profit in the first three months of the year, ...
Revenue hit $116.85 billion, ... (so less than 10% profits)
Exxon said it spent $5.5 billion on finding and developing new sources of oil and gas, up 30% from a year ago.
...
The company also paid $9.3 billion in income taxes, $8.4 billion in sales taxes, and $11.6 billion in royalties. (looks like exxon paid more than 7 billion dollars more in taxes than they received in profits)
Yet another
quote:
Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion. ...
Blogger and economist Mark Perry generated a lively discussion when he pointed to Exxon's "all-time high" income-tax figure, noting it was a small portion of the company's overall $29.3 billion total tax payments in the quarter. In Exxon's defense, a commenter IDed as "Buy It Cheap" wrote, "These are relatively small profit margins. One should note that the federal and state governments that tack on their percentage 'profited' the most from every gallon of gas sold all the way along the value chain, without a modicum of risk."
From 2003 to 2007, Exxon's earnings grew by 89%, while income taxes grew by 170%.
That's because they were producing oil from government property.
Personally, the notion of producing oil on somebody else's reserves and getting to keep about half of the profits seems like a pretty good deal.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/19/2008 10:20:15 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 720
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
That's because they were producing oil from government property.
Personally, the notion of producing oil on somebody else's reserves and getting to keep about half of the profits seems like a pretty good deal.
Yeah, and the notion of the government getting half of the profit on oil that they would otherwise not have seen a dime on and then accusing the company that enabled them to get that 50% profit of raping the country to get their half of the profit is a bit insane, don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Taxing oil companies - 6/19/2008 10:42:12 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 142
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
That's because they were producing oil from government property.
Personally, the notion of producing oil on somebody else's reserves and getting to keep about half of the profits seems like a pretty good deal.
Actually the use of the government land is paid for in royalties of which exxon paid out $11.6billion . So for a ten billion dollar profit exxon returned many, many more billions of dollars into the government coffers in taxes and royalties and even many more billions back into the overall economy in wages, exploration, and investments. The fact is that exxon doesn't get to keep even half the profits if you take into account everything that the government gets out of their efforts to produce oil. If exxon had not existed in the first quarter of 2008 the government would have been short about three times the amount that exxon profitted over that same time and that doesn't even take into account the gouging we get at the pump by taxes. The government has more at stake if oil profits drop than the oil companies do. Oil companies are among the highest taxed corporations out there so for them to make a profit off of their more than 100 billion dollars in revenues doesn't bother me one bit. We are gouged by the government much more than oil companies when we stop for gas.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
