Subsidies For The Oil Companies – The Big Pass Through

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

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:
:}

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

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/cornethanol.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

:}

One Of The Best Articles Ever On Green Automobiles – The ins and outs of biofuels and electric cars

US News is my hero:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/01/11/the-pros-and-cons-of-8-green-fuels.html

The Pros and Cons of

8 Green Fuels

Our dossiers detail which fuels

are overrated—and which

could power your next car

By Rick Newman

Posted January 11, 2008


 

After years of talk, rising oil prices—combined with global-warming concerns and a disdain for foreign oil—have finally set the stage for breakthroughs in alternative fuels. To see how the hottest new technologies stack up, click on each fuel for a rundown of its attributes and flaws, or click on the topics on the left to see how various fuels compare:

  • What is it?
  • What’s good about it?
  • What’s bad about it?
  • Where would it be most useful?
  • How much will it cost?
  • When’s it coming?
  • What’s taking so long?
  • Who’s doing it?
  • Could it be a silver bullet?

What is it?

Corn Ethanol
A fuel derived from the sugars in corn and other plants. Pure ethanol is usually blended with gasoline. “E10″—10 percent ethanol—is common today. E85—85 percent ethanol—is the highest practical blend; some gas is still required for combustion in most climates.
Cellulosic Ethanol
A biofuel refined from cellulose, the fibrous material that makes up most of the plant matter in wheat, switch grass, corn stalks, rice straw, and even wood chips.
Biodiesel
A renewable fuel made from vegetable oil or animal fats, including soybeans, canola oil, and even used cooking oil. It’s sometimes mixed with conventional, petroleum-based diesel to help cut down on tailpipe emissions.
Clean Diesels
Diesel is refined from petroleum, like gasoline, but the pollution it produces is harder to control. “Clean diesel” vehicles burn the fuel more efficiently and trap pollutants better. New low-sulfur diesel fuel also pollutes less—much like unleaded gasoline, compared with leaded.
Hybrids
There are several kinds of hybrids. In general, today’s models have a battery-powered electric motor that drives the car at slower speeds and a gas engine that kicks in at higher speeds. The engine also helps recharge the battery, along with energy captured from the rotation of the wheels during deceleration.
Plug-In Hybrids
Same principle as for ordinary hybrids: There’s an electric motor and a gas engine, except that the battery powering the motor would be recharged from an electrical outlet, at home or someplace else. The motor would power the car until battery power waned. Then the gas engine or another secondary power source would kick in.
Electric Vehicles
Any car with a battery-powered motor—including every variety of hybrid—is an electric vehicle to some extent. A pure electric vehicle would be run entirely by the battery-powered motor.
Hydrogen/Fuel Cells
The concept is similar to hybrids: an electric motor would drive the car much of the time. In this case, the motor would be charged by something under the hood called a fuel-cell stack, which converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity that flows to the battery. The on-board fuel would be hydrogen.

Top

Primary sources: Automotive News, Union of Concerned Scientists, dieselforum.org, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, General Motors, Honda, Toyota, American Automobile Association, Renewable Fuels Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Biodiesel Board, Center for Automotive Research.

 

Please note, I did not include ALL of the article here but each link for the topic should take you to a longer article which takes you through each category list at the top of the article. For the attention challenged please click on the main US News link at the beginning of this post. Each category is laid out in linear bullet fashion. Either way its one hell of a piece.

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

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 nightmareenvironmentally 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! 

:}