Category Archives: burning behavior

Big Oil And The Gasoline Refiners Don’t Make Excess Profits? What a load of crap

Posted on by
1

Finally Dave Sykuta and the Illinois Petroleum Council have the nerve to tell us that they are making themselves rich at our expense. The Saudia’s, the Russian’s and the Venezuela’s are making billions, and the Oil Refiners are making 100s of millions of $$$ and he shuffles out the old “percentage of profit” arguement. Which any rich person does to make it look like they ain’t ripping you.

 ** The final factor in gasoline prices are earnings.  Major oil companies earned a little above the U.S. industrial average, 8.3 percent, on gasoline for 2007. No doubt, 8 percent earnings represent billions in profit. However, consider that oil companies are large due to their financial commitments, such as alternate fuels ($100 billion since 2000) and clean fuel technology ($65 billion since 1999). Moreover, between 33 percent and 37 percent of gross industry revenues are paid back to government in taxes. And while conspiracy theorists love to think dark thoughts about 8 percent earnings, the reality is that over 65 percent of oil industry assets are held by pension plans, IRAs and 401(k)s.  Industry executives hold less than 2 percent. When the “Who owns Big Oil?” question is raised, the answer is usually “You do!”

:}

When in fact the Oil Companies themselves were saying something different:

:}

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/17/business/rnrgoilcos.php

Despite record profits, oil companies find little comfort in high prices

By Christopher Knight

Published: February 17, 2008

PARIS: As crude oil prices topped $100 a barrel in January, some of the world’s major oil companies rang up annual profits that beat the bottom lines of any other company, in any other line of business. Yet, despite appearances, industry analysts are not rushing to pat the majors on the back.

Exxon Mobil, the largest oil company, reported at the start of this month a record 2007 profit of $40.6 billion, earnings that trounced any other company. Royal Dutch Shell reported the largest earnings of any company in Britain, at about $31 billion.

But amid rising consumer resistance to high prices of gasoline and other refined products, analysts and even some oil company executives have a hard time putting a positive spin on the future.

“As far as the outlook, it is pretty horrible,” said Peter Hitchens, an oil analyst at Seymour Pierce in London.

 :}

So why is Dave using the figure 8.2 %. Well because he knows that NO small business could get by on that. Heck not even a multi-state or a medium sized business could make it for long. So he knows that business men and women will cringe. But a for a world-wide international Corporation the size of Chevron or BP that is incredibly wrong. They made so much money that they don’t know what to do with it and it’s all coming out of MA and PA America. 

Then he has the gall to say that they pay taxes, when what he is actually counting are Taxes that you pay at the pump as their taxes. 

Finally he ends by claiming that WE the American People own the oil companies. While some long standing pension funds have oil stock. The price of Big OIL stocks has been out of the range of the middle class and modest investor for years. Only the supper rich trade those stocks now. For instance: 

query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0712FC3F5F13738DDDA90B94D1405B868DF1D3

  ROCKEFELLER GAINS $8,000,000 MORE; Yesterday’s Advance in Standard Oil Stocks Shows an Increase of $32,000,000. THEIR VALUE $2,027,516,000 Market Worth of All Subsidiaries at Close of Day Is Double the Debt of the United States. ROCKEFELLER GETS $8,028,000 IN DAY 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/24347-oil-vs-energy-stock-prices-something-s-gotta-give

  The charts below show the ratio between the price of the S&P 500 Energy stock sector and the price of crude oil per barrel. The ratio is clearly at its highest level in the past three years, meaning that oil stocks have not fallen as fast as the price of the actual commodity during the current decline. So either the stocks are due to play catch up, or the decline of oil is a bit overdone.  oilvsoilstocks.jpg

:}

:}

Big Oil Charges Us To Maintain Their Gas Stations – And blame Walmart and other retailers for the volitility

Posted on by
Reply

Who really believes this? Normally profits are used for maintaining merchandising outlets. These guys are so greedy that they don’t even do that. And note he admits (and kinda seems proud of the fact) that some gas station’s margins are so thin that they make more money off everything but gas. In other words, the Big Oil people have taken the profits for themselves and left independent gas station owners to get by on the sale of snacks. These guys remind me of profit vacuum cleaners. They suck up every penny they can get. Maybe we should put a plug in it.

 ** The fourth-biggest factor in prices is the cost to establish and maintain the retail outlet. There are more than 5,000 service stations in Illinois and most experts believe gasoline sales are often a “loss leader.” Springfield is increasingly affected by large general retail chains selling gasoline.  Most experts conclude these “new era” marketers sometimes offer lower prices, but cause significant price volatility. My experience tells me many consumers are more upset about volatility than the actual price. Unfortunately, I don’t see price volatility going away.

www.ethosnw.com

gas1.jpg

smartmortgageadvice.wordpress.com

gas2.jpg

www.flickr.com

gas3.jpg

www.flumesday.com

gas5.jpg

:}

You pays your money and youse take your chances.

:}

The Oil Markets ARE Being Manipulated – The only question is by whom and by how much

Posted on by
1

Since gasoline prices world wide range from 12$$ in Oslo to .36$$ in Venezuala then obviously the oil markets are being manipulated. For one thing oil sales prices are never ever challenged. Producers get to charge what ever they want to. But so do shippers and refiners. In one of the weirdest markets on the planet, liquid fuel markets in general get to charge more than the market can actually bear or is that bare. Geniuses like Dave Sykuta at the Illinois Petroleum Council try to turn this into a negative.

http://www.sj-r.com  April 17

** The third factor in gas prices is about making the fuel. Price-wise, Springfield is fortunate not to have to sell special low-polluting fuels as Chicago and St. Louis do. They’re the world’s cleanest fuels but much more expensive. We have too many special fuel requirements, a gridlocking 45 or so required nationwide in the summer.
Since the 1990s, the oil industry has increased refinery capacity about 15 percent. Numerous Illinois expansions are planned but move slowly through a rocky political process where the same politicians and others who demand infrastructure expansions on Monday and Tuesday, oppose them on Wednesday and Thursday. NIMBY and lately BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) are factors in higher prices and uncertain supply. They’re self-imposed problems that reasonable people should be able to solve.


:}

And they have been shoveling this hoo haw for the past 20 years when in fact the Oil Companies have constrained capacity by at least 15% to increase profits. This naked price manipulation has never been challenged by regulators. Instead for the same 20 years politicians have consistently dragged Big Rich Oil Executives before a congressional committee as they did today and to DEMAND that prices come down. Heck they don’t even swear them in any more because they know they are lieing. This from 2001:

http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/wyden_oil_report.pdf

The Oil Industry, Gas Supply and Refinery Capacity: More Than Meets the Eye

An investigative report presented

by Senator Ron Wyden

June 14, 2001

“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity.  The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline. “

Internal Texaco document, March 7, 1996

“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn ‘t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low. “

Internal Chevron document, November 30, 1995

America is indeed facing an energy crunch. For much of the year, gas prices have soared and supply has trailed demand.

During the course of my ongoing investigation into potential anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices by the oil industry, I have obtained documents that raise serious questions about the circumstances leading to limited gas supply and high prices.

The oil industry and its allies would have the public believe that insufficient refining capacity, restrictive environmental standards, growing gasoline demand and OPEC production cutbacks are the primary reasons for the current oil and gas supply problem.

However, the record shows – supported by documents I have obtained – that there is more to the story. Specifically, the documents suggest that major oil companies pursued efforts to curtail refinery capacity as a strategy for improving profit margins; that competing oil companies worked together to subvert supply; that refinery closures inhibited supply; and that oil companies are reaping record profits, yet may benefit from a proposed national energy policy that would offer financial incentives to expand refinery capacity.

:}

If you think this is just liberal ideology blowing environmental smoke, read this from the National (frickin) Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/taylor_van_doren200506030857.asp

June 03, 2005, 8:57 a.m.
High Pump-Price Fairy Tales
Blame global supply-and-demand realities — not the enviro-whackos.

By Jerry Taylor & Peter Van Doren

So what’s driving these high gasoline prices, which now average $2.22 across the country? Conservatives think it’s largely a function of the chickens coming home to roost. In short, bureaucratic red tape, anti-growth environmental extremists, and “not-in-my-back-yard” community activists have long prevented new oil refineries from coming online. This in turn has starved the market of the gasoline and — voila! — record prices are the logical result.

It’s a convenient story line for the Right. Unfortunately, the narrative is wrong.

How can that be, you might ask, when we’re constantly beaten around the head with the fact that no new oil-refining plants have been built in the U.S. since 1976? The reason that no new facilities have been built is partly because it costs far less to expand production capacity at existing plants than it does to expand capacity by building new plants. And because existing refineries are ideally situated near oil terminals and pipelines, it’s more convenient to increase capacity in those locations than to do so elsewhere.

But if that’s so, how do we explain the facility shutdowns that have characterized the industry? After all, there were 325 oil refineries in the U.S. in 1981, but only 149 remain today. The explanation resides in the fact that we had a lot of refineries back in 1981 not because of market forces or the lack of environmental regulations, but because the government subsidized the existence of small, inefficient refineries.

Here’s how it worked. Under the Mandatory Oil Import Quota Program (which was in effect from 1959 to 1973), low-cost crude oil imports were restricted to support the domestic crude price. Refineries got disproportionately more rights to import if they were small. The subsidies to small refineries continued under the price-control programs in place from 1973 through 1980. When the subsidies ended, a large number of inefficient small refineries bit the dust.

That helps explain why domestic refining capacity dropped from 18.6 million barrels of oil a day in 1976 to 16.8 million barrels of oil today. Dramatic improvements in the operational efficiency of oil refineries also contributed to that decline. Refineries now operate much closer to their capacity than 20 years ago. Accordingly, less “nameplate capacity” is necessary to meet demand.

The upshot is that even though domestic refineries have been shutting down and total refining capacity has been declining, domestic gasoline production has actually increased by 20 percent since the last oil refinery was built in 1976.

But even that figure only tells part of the story. Gasoline markets today are increasingly global rather than regional in nature. For example, European governments tax diesel fuels less than gasoline and European motorists have responded by using diesel. Accordingly, European refineries make more gasoline than they can use and it’s cheaper for us to import that gasoline than to produce it here at home.

The increase in gasoline imports since 1976 (from 2 percent of the market then, to 5.8 percent now) is often cited as evidence that “we have a problem.” Nonsense. International trade is a good thing. The more globalized the market, the more diversified our supply and the less vulnerable the U.S. market is to disruption. Moreover, the more global the market, the greater the competition. How much domestic refining capability we have is increasingly less important than the amount of international refining capacity we can access.

It is true that there is a little slack in production capacity at the moment. Why don’t we have more production capacity? Because profit margins in the refining business have traditionally been rather meager. The gasoline refining market is about as close to the model of “perfect competition” as you’re going to find outside of an economics textbook. Rents are competed away and little profit is left for producers, especially when compared to the profits available from investment in oil production.

Conservatives believe that environmental regulations have a lot to do with those low profits. They’re wrong. A large oil refinery costs $4 billion to $6 billion to build. The installation of “best available control technology” is a very small part of that figure.

Accordingly, President Bush’s proposals to provide low-cost real estate in the boonies and to somewhat reduce plant costs through regulatory improvements simply won’t result in any new refining capacity. We’d love to blame big government and enviro-whackos for today’s high gasoline prices (we do, after all, work for the Cato Institute). But telling fairy tales about the market does no one any favors. Prices are high because of global supply-and-demand factors, and Congress can do little about it.

— Jerry Taylor is director of natural-resource studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. Peter Van Doren is editor of Cato’s Regulation magazine.

:}

So why did the State Journal Register give this guy a Guest OP ED Piece. Lack of investigative reporting maybe?

Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

Posted on by
Reply

As CES’ continues to dissect the State Journal Register’s “guest” OP-ED piece by Dave Sykuta bear in mind that he is just one of at least 50 industry flacks that have probably published the SAME piece in one of their state’s newspapers probably in or near a state Capital near you. These guys coordinate their efforts and if you don’t think there is a global oil conspiracy…THINK again.

** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

:}

Well guess who else doesn’t like to talk about taxes:

http://zfacts.com/p/348.html

Oil Company Subisdies: $7 billion + 2.6 billion + …
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
By Edmund L. Andrews, NY Times, March 27, 2006

But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it expected the government to waive about $7 billion in royalties over the next five years, even though the industry incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than $28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of the program’s remaining restrictions proves successful.

”The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn’t cost anything,” said Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last July. ”Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies to oil companies to produce oil — it’s like subsidizing a fish to swim.”

But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ”royalty relief” program.

  
  Oil-Company Profits The price-at-the pump is the sum of all the input costs plus, perhaps, some additional markup because of market power. We can tell if there’s market power by checking the price increases.Because there are 42 gallons / barrel, when the price of oil goes up by $10, say from $55 to $65, the price of gas should go up by $10/42 = 24¢ (popNote). It’s actually gone up faster than this, so we know oil companies are exercising some market power and passing through a “markup,” not just their actual costs.

:}

And if you don’t think that BIG Evil Oil doesn’t coordinate their efforts everyday, then go to this website and see for yourself:

 http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/energy/afarg5.html

Does that sound like the editorial Sykuta “wrote” or should we say plagerized?

 Here are some of the programs you pay for:

http://media.cleantech.com/node/554

Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

  • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
  • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
  • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company’s stead
  • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
  • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
  • Sales tax breaks – taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
  • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
  • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
  • Construction and protection of the nation’s highway system
  • Allowing the industry to pollute – what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people’s lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
  • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

It’s easy to get bent out of shape that the petroleum industry “probably has larger tax incentives relative to its size than any other industry in the country”, according to Donald Lubick, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s former Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy.

:}

So remember, when the Politico’s says that your tax money is going to bridges and roads, think again! It’s really going to the Oil and Gas Companies.

:}

Why The Petroleum Industry Continues To Lie To The Public

Posted on by
Reply

I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything! Bart Simpson 

Spokesmen like Sykuta want to act like they are the experts and they know it all. So when they shovel a bunch of BS the public is supposed to go, “OH ok”.  Accepting the BS as if it were the truth. Notice he is not talking about oil prices, he is talking about gasoline prices. The real shocker in this piece is how quickly tosses oil off.

** The biggest factor in gasoline prices, almost 58 percent, is the cost of crude oil. Crude oil prices are skyrocketing, but only recently at inflation adjusted highs. There are several reasons:

—  Domestic demand, especially for diesel.
—  Red-hot worldwide demand, especially in China and India.
—  The historically low value of the U.S. dollar.
—  Civil/political strife in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran.

These factors have tightened worldwide supply significantly. Continued economic growth, which is directly tied to increased energy use, exerts further upward pressure on crude oil prices. Like it or not, local prices are directly tied to the world market and can’t be controlled by U.S. companies.  Exxon controls a miniscule .62 percent of worldwide reserves, and BP accounts for only 3.42 percent of oil production.

:}

So the first thing to say is he is going to make the falacious arguement that oil is only a small part of the gasoline prices, but then sites gasoline usage as a part of the problem…eg. increased domestic diesel usage what isn’t diesel gasoline? GOD

His second arguement is that The Petroleum Companies don’t own the oil we just buy it. Yah and you pay WHATEVER the sellers ask, no matter what and then pass the costs to us. What would happen to the oil market if one time just one time you guys said, “Thats too much. Sell it to someone else.” Instead they are clamboring for more 130$$ oil to be pumped into the ground in a salt dome in Louisiana (better know as the Strategic Reserve).

However his arguement essentially is if wasn’t for all the things that happen after we get a barrel of oil then prices would be cheaper. If you buy his original premise that oil is only 58% of the price of gas…then gas should go for under 2$$ a gallon. Think about how silly that is. Let’s see, when oil was 60$$ a barrel gas prices were 2$$ a gallon and now that oil is at 128$$ a barrel it’s 4$$. But the huge increase in oil prices which is largely due to speculaters in the Futures Market (or if you believe Peak Oil – because we are running out of oil) has nothing to do with it. Get real.

Ok, so what about increase in demand for domestic diesel. Everyone know that increases in price decreases consumption. This is true of truck drivers as well. They are slowing down and taking more direct routes. So we have to mark this one as UNTRUE.

 The “red hot” India and China Markets? Look, when a 1/4 of the world’s oil is tied up in the futures market everyone is fighting over oil but it has no direct relationship to India’s or China’s increase in imports. Even the Saudia’s who are known liars have said repeatedly that there is enough oil on the market. That oil isn’t making being made into gasoline. Add to that the fact that the refineries are reportedly running at 85% capacity. So we mark this one as UNTRUE. 

Next up the Weakened Dollar. Well well well, and who is responsible for that? Dare we say the Geniuses on Wall Street many of whom are oil company Executives. So much so that, again the Saudies and Dubai had to step in and supply billions of dollars in liquidity. And it still wasn’t enough. Top that off with the debt from a war started by an Oilman over Oil and  what exactly do they expect? Mark this one as UNTRUE.

Finally there is the world famous “unstable producers”. Whose fault is that? Oil companies cut deals with Dictators to get oil and they are suprised when “instabilities” occur. NO WAY.

More later:
:}

Why Gasoline Prices Are So High – The oil industries pathetic response.

Posted on by
Reply

This is so bogus…

In My View: Gas prices

:}

determined by 5 factors

STATE JOURNAL-REGISTERPosted May 17, 2008 @ 01:18 AM



I want to explain some issues regarding our national pastime. So, is this a column about baseball? Football? Nope! It’s about our real national pastime — gasoline price obsession. After 32 years on the front line explaining gasoline and diesel prices in literally thousands of interviews and testimony about industry activities here in the fourth-largest oil refining and transporting state, I feel I’m qualified to make that observation.  Let me present a five-factor matrix that explains gasoline prices.** The biggest factor in gasoline prices, almost 58 percent, is the cost of crude oil. Crude oil prices are skyrocketing, but only recently at inflation adjusted highs. There are several reasons:

—  Domestic demand, especially for diesel.
—  Red-hot worldwide demand, especially in China and India.
—  The historically low value of the U.S. dollar.
—  Civil/political strife in major oil-producing countries such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Iran.

These factors have tightened worldwide supply significantly. Continued economic growth, which is directly tied to increased energy use, exerts further upward pressure on crude oil prices. Like it or not, local prices are directly tied to the world market and can’t be controlled by U.S. companies.  Exxon controls a miniscule .62 percent of worldwide reserves, and BP accounts for only 3.42 percent of oil production. ** Taxes are the second biggest factor in gasoline prices.  The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents and Illinois adds 19 cents.  Unfortunately, Illinois is one of only nine states that charge a sales tax on gasoline and the only one I know that allows additional local gas and sales taxes.

These extra taxes are a massive self-inflicted price increase of almost 24 cents per gallon in Springfield and even more in Chicago, where an  85-cent total gas tax is the highest in the United States. And remember, gas prices include the tax! Consumers’ gas price perception would be different if the sign that says “$3.35 a gallon” said “$262.5 plus tax” as every other consumer item is priced.  According to AAA, the difference between Illinois, with the fifth-highest price, and Missouri, with the fourth-lowest price, is all taxes! Illinois politicians don’t like to talk about taxes. I wonder why.

** The third factor in gas prices is about making the fuel. Price-wise, Springfield is fortunate not to have to sell special low-polluting fuels as Chicago and St. Louis do. They’re the world’s cleanest fuels but much more expensive. We have too many special fuel requirements, a gridlocking 45 or so required nationwide in the summer.
Since the 1990s, the oil industry has increased refinery capacity about 15 percent. Numerous Illinois expansions are planned but move slowly through a rocky political process where the same politicians and others who demand infrastructure expansions on Monday and Tuesday, oppose them on Wednesday and Thursday. NIMBY and lately BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) are factors in higher prices and uncertain supply. They’re self-imposed problems that reasonable people should be able to solve.

** The fourth-biggest factor in prices is the cost to establish and maintain the retail outlet. There are more than 5,000 service stations in Illinois and most experts believe gasoline sales are often a “loss leader.” Springfield is increasingly affected by large general retail chains selling gasoline.  Most experts conclude these “new era” marketers sometimes offer lower prices, but cause significant price volatility. My experience tells me many consumers are more upset about volatility than the actual price. Unfortunately, I don’t see price volatility going away.

** The final factor in gasoline prices are earnings.  Major oil companies earned a little above the U.S. industrial average, 8.3 percent, on gasoline for 2007. No doubt, 8 percent earnings represent billions in profit. However, consider that oil companies are large due to their financial commitments, such as alternate fuels ($100 billion since 2000) and clean fuel technology ($65 billion since 1999). Moreover, between 33 percent and 37 percent of gross industry revenues are paid back to government in taxes. And while conspiracy theorists love to think dark thoughts about 8 percent earnings, the reality is that over 65 percent of oil industry assets are held by pension plans, IRAs and 401(k)s.  Industry executives hold less than 2 percent. When the “Who owns Big Oil?” question is raised, the answer is usually “You do!”

I’ve covered a lot of complex ground. I hope to visit with you again to discuss specific ideas on how to secure our energy future. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our national pastime. David Sykuta is executive director of the Illinois Petroleum Council. 

Nuclear Power – Grandma I want to build a nuclear powerplant but no will let me

Posted on by
Reply

Why would you want to build a Nuclear powerplant?

Because the world needs electricity and all the cool kids are doing it.

So you think building a Nuclear powerplant will make you cool?

Yah Grandma, they are huge, and shiny and they generate megawatts and they have big cooling towers and stuff!

Well how much clean water to they take to cool the reactor?

Oh hundrens of gazillions of gallons.

Well what are all the little fishes supposed to do when you take their water?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that mining uranium creates lots of toxic waste. What would happen to that?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

You know that uranium is dangerous. What would you do with it when you were done playing with it?

Oh I don’t know Grandma.

Well you know, you need to think about that before you start playing with Nuclear power right?

I guesssss Grandma but shucks?

Why don’t you go play outside and we will talk about it more after you think about it.

OK Grandma!

Give us a kiss..

GRANDMA..

Go play now.

:}

Australia has an active antinuclear movement even though though they have no Nuclear powerplants in operation they are a huge source of uranium through the 3 mines in operation. 

:}

http://www.antinuclear.net/

 aussie.jpg

Even the Aborigines know better than to mess around with some things.

Uranium Mining and Aboriginal People -by Vincent Forrester

I follow the culture of my people. We belong to the land. We are the caretakers for the land. Our lifetime on this earth is only a blink in time, so our lifetime is spent protecting and caring for this land for future generations………

…..I want to tell you how I feel about uranium and how the whole nuclear cycle affects our land, our lives, our traditions….The people who I believe to be among the worst affected by the nuclear cycle are my people, the Aboriginal owners of Australia.It is our land which white miners rip apart to extract the poisonous yellowcake, and it is on our land where they dump the polluted tailingsI

It is on Aboriginal land that the British, with support from the Australian government of the time, exploded deadly nuclear weapons, with no regard for our people, their land or their future.
And it is on Aboriginal land that the government is examining the possibility of dumping deadly radioactive waste in untried synthetic rock.

I say to you, when you consider your attitudes to Australian involvement in the uranium industry, that you think first about what you are doing to our people……….

……..what do Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land know of these dangers? Our people in Arnhem Land and throughout Australia are not sufficiently informed about the extent of damages occurring from uranium mining. Nor do we know the extent to which they are being exposed to radiation in the atmosphere. Nor do we know the extent of contamination already present in the food chain.
There is simply no proper information given to Aboriginal people living in the area about the effects of uranium mining on the land. The monitoring scientists have made no attempt to interpret their findings to the affected Aboriginal people………..”

:}

But then there is the mining end of it:

Taxpayers cut BHP fuel bills CATHY ALEXANDER (AAP), CANBERRA The Advertiser 06 May 2008 – “State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. State TAXPAYERS will subsidise the fuel bill of mining giant BHP Billiton by more than $100 million to help it work the world’s largest uranium deposit, a conservation group claims. ….

……………The foundation estimates the subsidy will be worth $29 million a year to BHP to expand Olympic Dam, where the company also mines the world’s fourth largest remaining copper deposit. “BHP does not need you and me to subsidise their diesel,” ACF executive director Don Henry said……………

…………The subsidy would be worth $117 million over the life of the study, ACF said.
Mr Henry said the fuel tax credits scheme would cost the Government $4.9 billion a year.
He has called on the Government to scrap the subsidy for the mining and transport sectors in next week’s Budget although it should be retained for farmers.
The money saved could be redirected to public transport

:}

And it is pretty ugly just in its own right:

olympic-dam.jpg

Herald Sun Christopher Russell and Nick Henderson May 02, 2008 – “BHP Billiton and the South Australian Government have been forced to scotch rumours of major doubts and delays over the Olympic Dam expansion.
The company said it was on schedule with its planning for the expansion of the copper-gold-uranium mine. Planning was more complicated than first anticipated…………

……….The rumours – reported on a Sydney website and then raised by SA Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith on ABC radio yesterday – said the project was plagued by problems and cost blowouts.

These included that the mine might not go ahead as an open-cut but would only be an expanded underground operation.

The rumours said costs of the pre-feasibility study, under which the company is considering all its options, had increased substantially and that BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers had refused to meet the extra costs……………………………..”.

:}

But then there are these people as well….

Australian antinuclear sites

People for a Nuclear Free Australia www.nuclearfree.com.au

Nuclear Free Australia www.nukefreeaus.org

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom www.wilpf.org.au

CODEPINK -Women for Peace http://home.vicnet.net.au/~codepink/

Anti Nuclear Alliance of WA www.anawa.org,au

NoNukes South Australia www.geocities.com/nonukesa

Nuclear Free Queensland www.nuclearfreequeensland

NORTHERN TERRITORY NEWS http://www.ntnews.info/

The Wilderness Society http://nuclear.wilderness.org.au/

Arid Lands Environment Centre www.alec.org.au

Sutherland Shire Environment Centre NSW http://www.ssec.org.au/

Canberra Region Antinuclear Campaign www.nonukescanberra.org

Independent media Pete’s Intelligence Blog spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

:}

Facts on all aspects of the nuclear industry www.energyscience.org.au

www.greenpeace.org/australia

Friends of the Earth www.foe.org.au

The Sustainable Energy and AntiUranium Service http://www.sea-us.org.au/

Medical Association for the Prevention of War www.mapw.org.au

Jim Green. Nuclear and Environmental research www.geocities.com/jimgreen3/

Opposing US/Australia military operations in Australia arranged in secrecy

www.peaceconvergence.com

:}

Nuclear Power – Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant?

Posted on by
Reply

Daddy can I build a nuclear power plant? Germany, China and Abu Dubai are.

Who?

Germany, China and Abu Dubai. They are cool kids at school. I want to be like them.

Well, I suppose….Did you ask your mother?

Yes I did.

Well I suppose…Wait – What did she say?

uhm atm eh duh

What did she say?

She said I cudnt?

You could not young man, speak up!

Well its not fair. She is always saying NO to me!

Why did she say no to you son?

She said it was dangerous and stuff. She always says that.

Yah and she is always right. Now go outside and play! You tried to con me and I don’t appreciate it!

Daaad..

Do not make me put this paper down young man…NOW go out side and play…

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0330-03.htm

Germany’s Greens Disappoint the Anti-Nuclear Movement

BERLIN – Since they joined the federal government, Germany’s Greens have proved a bitter disappointment to the country’s anti-nuclear movement from where it drew much of its original support.

Opposition to atomic power, widely regarded by ordinary people in Germany as an unacceptably dangerous and unsustainable form of energy, has been fundamental to the Greens’ political base.

This week’s huge confrontation between anti-nuclear militants and the forces of the state over a transport of highly radioactive waste across the country underlines the cleft which has now opened up between the Greens’ leadership and that base.

“Atomic state equals police state,” a common slogan of the militants read.

A central plank of the Greens’s coalition agreement with the Social Democrats of Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder after the leftwing general election victory of 1998 was a commitment to negotiate a nuclear energy phase-out.

The turning point came last June when, after difficult negotiations, the government reached a compromise deal with the power companies for a phase-out which should see the last atomic plant closed around 2021.

The problem is that the phase-out is both vague and far in the future, as it is based on an average working life of Germany’s 19 atomic power stations of 32 years, and names no final date for the closure of the last of them.

The deal, negotiated by Environment Minister Juergen Trittin, also only provides for an end to the fiercely opposed cross-country convoys of nuclear waste from Germany’s power stations in 2005.

The disappointment with the Greens’ leaders goes beyond a section of the urban middle-class or the young hippie-like fringe from which many of the demonstrators against the “Castor” waste containers came.

It includes people of the Elbe valley region of Lower Saxony whose gentle, wooded countryside has been blighted by the establishment of the Gorleben dump for nuclear waste and the resultant repeated mass confrontations 

:}

And then there are these folks:

http://www.castor.de/12english.html

“Illegal” German nuclear funding challenged

(Translated by Diet Simon)German nuclear opponents criticise the continued government funding of nuclear energy although it is government policy to stop it.They allege that funding is channelled “through the back door” via the European Community, which is still putting billions of euros into helping the nuclear industry.Two groups fighting storage of nuclear waste in their areas say a congress on future energies in the Ruhr city of Essen on 19 February “made frighteningly clear the ambitious nuclear energy targets of the North-Rhine Westphalian government.“A forum on innovative developments in nuclear technology in North-Rhine Westphalia heard that nuclear energy promotion funding in the state flows to it via the detour of the European Community.”The most populous German state has a conservative government formed by the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of federal chancellor, Angela Merkel.At national level there is an increasingly fractious coalition government between the CDU and Social Democrats. The Social Democrats brought into the coalition the decision to drop nuclear power made when they formed the previous government.The CDU, backed by most industries, has always resisted giving up nuclear power and is trying in various ways to keep it going.

North-Rhine Wesphalia contains many nuclear installations, including Germany’s only uranium enrichment plant at Gronau and a waste dump at Ahaus, both near the Dutch border and owned by power companies.

The Ahaus opponents and the opponents to dumping at the village of Gorleben in north Germany say in a joint statement that a Dr. Werner Lensa of Jülich Research Centre (near Cologne) told the conference about the development aims for future nuclear power stations.

:}

And they have a real cool anti-nuke sysmbol:

what-is-x.gif
:}

Another View Of Corn Ethanol As An Automobile Source – Very bad idea

Posted on by
Reply

Study: Ethanol use could worsen global warming


By H. JOSEF HEBERT

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS____________

WASHINGTON — The wide­spread use of ethanol from corn could result in nearly twice the greenhouse gas emissions as the gasoline it would replace be­cause of expected land-use changes, researchers concluded Thursday. The study challenges the rush to biofuels as a response to global warming.

The researchers said that past studies showing the benefits of ethanol in combating climate change have not taken into ac­count almost certain changes in land use worldwide if ethanol from corn — and in the future from other feedstocks such as switchgrass — become a prized commodity.

“Using good cropland to ex­pand biofuels will probably exac­erbate global wanning,” con­cludes the study published in Sci­ence magazine.

The researchers said that farmers under economic pres­sure to produce biofuels will in­creasingly “plow up more forest or grasslands,” releasing much of the carbon formerly stored in plants and soils through decom­position or fires. Globally, more grasslands and forests will be converted to growing the crops to replace the loss of grains when U.S. farmers convert land to bio­fuels, the study said.

The Renewable Fuels Associa­tion, which represents ethanol producers, called the re­searchers’ view of land-use changes “simplistic” and said the study “fails to put the issue in context.”

“Assigning the blame for rain­forest deforestation and grass­land conversion to agriculture solely on the renewable fuels in­dustry ignores key factors that play a greater role,” said Bob Dinneen, the association’s presi­dent.

There has been a rush to de­veloping biofuels, especially ethanol from corn and cellulosic feedstock such as switchgrass and wood chips, as a substitute for gasoline. President Bush signed energy legislation in De­cember that mandates a six-fold increase in ethanol use as a fuel to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, calling the requirement key to weaning the nation from imported oil.


The new “green” fuel, whether made from corn or other feed­stocks, has been widely promot­ed — both in Congress and by the White House — as a key to combating global warming. Burning it produces less carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, than the fossil fuels it will re­place.

During the recent congres­sional debate over energy legis­lation, lawmakers frequently cited estimates that corn-based ethanol produces 20 percent less greenhouse gases in production, transportation and use than gasoline, and that cellulosic ethanol has an even greater ben­efit of 70 percent less emissions.

The study released Thursday by researchers affiliated with Princeton University and a num­ber of other institutions main­tains that these analyses “were one-sided” and counted the car­bon benefits of using land for biofuels but not the carbon costs of diverting land from its existing uses.

“The other studies missed a key factor that everyone agrees should have been included, the land use changes that actually are going to increase greenhouse gas emissions,” said Tim Searchinger, a research scholar at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Pub­lic and International Affairs and lead author of the study.

The study said that after taking into account expected worldwide land-use changes, corn-based ethanol, instead of reducing greenhouse gases by 20 percent, will increases it by 93 percent compared to using gasoline over a 30-year period. Biofuels from switchgrass, if they replace crop­lands and other carbon-absorb­ing lands, would result in 50 per­cent more greenhouse gas emis­sions, the researchers concluded.

Not all ethanol would be af­fected by the land-use changes, the study said.

“We should be focusing on our use of biofuels from waste prod­ucts” such as garbage, which would not result in changes in agricultural land use, Searchinger said in an interview. “And you have to be careful how much you require. Use the right biofuels, but don’t require too much too fast. Right now we’re making almost exclusively the wrong biofuels.”

:}

But don’t let me decide for you….Check out the raging debate:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/index.htm

www.igreens.org.uk/ethanol_from_corn_.htm

www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/April06/Features/Ethanol.htm

www.usnews.com/articles/business/car-reviews/2008/01/11/corn–ethanol.html

www.feinstein.senate.gov/05speeches/ethanol-oped.htm

www.petroleum.berkeley.edu/papers/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9QQcP_Y1II

www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm

:}

Beware Of Energy Scams – this one over the internet, the sender: Gas Secret

Posted on by
Reply

As I have reported with the State Journal Register and the National Geographic Magazine about advertising “Energy Conservation” space heaters and Gasoline Fraud…Now they have taken to the “broadband”. These people are scum so I will not post their internet address. Its enough to say that there are no secret ways to improve your internal combustion engine’s “performance”. Those engines have only been around for over 100 years. If you get this email, please reply – Kiss My Grits!

 “Did You Know Your Car Engine Wastes 20%
Of The Gas You Buy? – Ethos Is Easy
To Use, And Starts Saving You Up To 70¢
Per Gallon on Gas – Guaranteed.”

Now You Can Keep Your Engine Healthy, Create 30%
Less Pollution And Save Up To 70¢ Per Gallon Off Your Gas Bill.
With a 100% Natural Bio-Degradable Product, Made by a California
Based Emissions Company, with a 10 Year Old Track Record

 CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

:}

Let me tell you the story:

How The Smog In California Forced
Oil Companies To Do Something They
Didn’t Want To…

 I’m not sure if you ever had the chance to visit California in the mid 70s. It was a nightmare – environmentally speaking.

The smog was so thick you could hardly see 15 miles out.

There was so much smog and pollution in the air, that if you were to stand on your balcony facing the mountains in Southern California, the only way you would know that the mountains were there would be if you had a map showing you so.

Children in poorer families in the suburbs were getting asthma and lung problems at record numbers, the problem was really getting out of hand.

If someone didn’t do something about the air, L.A was heading to a future where wearing gas masks could be common.

CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM CRAP CRAP SCAM SCAM LIARS

Kiss My Grits! 

:}