Category Archives: schemes

Will Field Corn Kill Us? No but it’s killing the cows..

Posted on by
Reply

Many people were horrified by the scandal surrounding cattle that were so weak that they were either being prodded with a forklift or actually carried to the kill room with the fork lift. Most people, not being involved in agriculture, wondered how anyone could be so callous. BUT the most disgusting thing you run into when you look into the issue of Factory Farming Cattle (and there are a lot of nasty things here) is that the corn that is feed to the cattle after they are weaned is killing them. So to slaughterhouse staff and meat packers its a matter timing whether they get them in the kill room before they die.

http://richard-goodman.blogspot.com/2008/02/meatpacker-in-cow-abuse-scandal-may.html

 Meatpacker in Cow-Abuse Scandal May Shut as Congress Turns Up Heat

By DAVID KESMODEL and JANE ZHANG
Write to David Kesmodel at david.kesmodel @ wsj.com
and Jane Zhang at Jane.Zhang @ wsj.com
February 25, 2008; 
CHINO, Calif. — Last year, a man carrying a hidden video camera took a $12-an-hour job at a little-known beef slaughterhouse here. Now the meatpacker is about to collapse, and has become a flashpoint in a national debate over meat safety and the quality of food Americans serve their schoolchildren.

Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co., one of the biggest suppliers of beef to the national school-lunch program before videos showing animal cruelty at the plant helped trigger the biggest meat recall in U.S. history, probably will shut down permanently, according to the company’s general manager, Anthony Magidow.

:}

As John Robbins points out modern cattle raising is all about carving up cattle quick:

What About Grass-fed Beef?

 Feeding grain to cattle has got to be one of the dumbest ideas in the history of western civilization.

Cows, sheep, and other grazing animals are endowed with the ability to convert grasses, which those of us who possess only one stomach cannot digest, into food that we can digest. They can do this because they are ruminants, which is to say that they possess a rumen, a 45 or so gallon (in the case of cows) fermentation tank in which resident bacteria convert cellulose into protein and fats.

Traditionally, all beef was grass-fed beef, but in the United States today what is commercially available is almost all feedlot beef. The reason? It’s faster, and so more profitable. Seventy-five years ago, steers were 4 or 5 years old at slaughter. Today, they are 14 or 16 months. You can’t take a beef calf from a birth weight of 80 pounds to 1,200 pounds in a little more than a year on grass. It takes enormous quantities of corn, protein supplements, antibiotics and other drugs, including growth hormones.

Switching a cow from grass to grain is so disturbing to the animal’s digestive system that it can kill the animal if not done gradually and if the animal is not continually fed antibiotics. These animals are designed to forage, but we make them eat grain, primarily corn, in order to make them as fat as possible as fast as possible.
 All this is not only unnatural and dangerous for the cows. It also has profound consequences for us. Feedlot beef as we know it today would be impossible if it weren’t for the routine and continual feeding of antibiotics to these animals. This leads directly and inexorably to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. These are the new “superbugs” that are increasingly rendering our “miracle drugs” ineffective.

:}

Letting Corporations into anything in agriculture besides processing is turning out to be a disaster in many respects from beginning to end. To this end we could talk about any plant or animal that we eat, but if we keep our focus on corn it becomes clear that all the corporate ag production affairs require one thing energy and lots of it.

While the movie, King Corn, has a lot going for it, like cute college kids out for a lark and the absurdity of growing an acre of anything in the current farm system, it is actually a pretty good look at why growing as much corn as we do is stupid and corporate farming only compounds that.

:}

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/kingcorn/

While the planting, growing and harvesting of field corn takes an incredible amount of energy, the real energy comes after it has been harvested. You can’t eat the stuff so it all has to be PROCESSED to be used or eaten by animals most of which don’t like the stuff but eat it if they are forced to. As the film makers themselves say:

 http://kingcorn.net/

Almost everything Americans eat contains corn: high fructose corn syrup, corn-fed meat, and corn-based processed foods are the staples of the modern diet.  Ready for an adventure and alarmed by signs of their generation’s bulging waistlines, college friends Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis know where to go to investigate.  Eighty years ago, Ian and Curt’s great-grandfathers lived just a few miles apart, in the same rural county in northern Iowa.  Now their great-grandsons are returning with a mission:  they will plant an acre of corn, follow their harvest into the world, and attempt to understand what they—and all of us—are really made of.

 

But where will all that corn go? Ian and Curt leave Iowa to find out, first considering their crop’s future as feed.  In Colorado, rancher Sue Jarrett says her cattle should be eating grass.  But with a surplus of corn, it costs less to raise cattle in confinement than to let them roam free: “The mass production of corn drives the mass production of protein in confinement.”  Animal nutritionists confirm that corn makes cows sick and beef fatty, but it also lets consumers eat a $1 hamburger.  Feedlot owner Bob Bledsoe defends America’s cheap food, but as Ian and Curt see in Colorado, the world behind it can be stomach turning.  At one feedlot, 100,000 cows stand shoulder-to-shoulder, doing their part to transform Iowa corn into millions of pounds of fat-streaked beef.

 

Following the trail of high fructose corn syrup, Ian and Curt hop attempt to make a home-cooked batch of the sweetener in their kitchen.  But their investigation of America’s most ubiquitous ingredient turns serious when they follow soda to its consumption in Brooklyn.  Here, Type II diabetes is ravaging the community, and America’s addiction to corny sweets is to blame.

 

The breadth of the problem is now clear: the American food system is built on the abundance of corn, an abundance perpetuated by a subsidy system that pays farmers to maximize production.  In a nursing home in the Indiana suburbs, Ian and Curt come face-to-face with Earl Butz, the Nixon-era Agriculture Secretary who invented subsidies.  The elderly Butz champions the modern food system as an “Age of plenty” Ian and Curt’s great-grandfathers only dreamed of.

.

 November pulls Ian and Curt back to Iowa.  Their 10,000-pound harvest seems as grotesque as it is abundant.  They haul their corn to the elevator and look on as it makes its way into a food system they have grown disgusted by.  At a somber farm auction, Ian and Curt decide to tell their landlord they want to buy the acre.  The next spring their cornfield has been pulled from production and planted in a prairie, a wild square surrounded by a sea of head-high corn.

 :}

OKOKOKOKOK So maybe corn IS killing us but will we miss it when its gone because of energy prices. Probably not one bit though the first winter maybe tough if gasoline goes to $100 a gallon. The first to go though will be the exporting of grain. Do you believe we actually pile billions of tons of corn on diesal power ships so that other people can refine (errr spend their energy on) it? They can’t eat it either.

For more:

Iowa Corn
Get info on biotechnology, corn products and Iowa corn growers.

Corn Palace Convention and Visitors Bureau
As seen in KING CORN, Mitchell, South Dakota’s Corn Palace is a monument to the country’s leading crop.

American Corn Growers Association
“America’s leading progressive commodity association, representing the interests of corn producers in 35 states.”

A Zillion Uses for Corn!
An extensive list of products that contain corn.

Putting DNA to Work: Improving Crops: From Teosinte to Corn
See photos of corn’s ancestor and read about how its genetic makeup has evolved.

EWG: Farm Subsidy Database
View graphs and databases on corn subsidies in the United States.

Mountains of Corn and a Sea of Farm Subsidies
Reprinted from a 2005 New York Times article, this piece examines how the country’s corn overproduction is affecting its farmers.

No-Till Farmer
Top tips on growing monoculture corn.

Corn Refiners Association
Learn about corn refining and resulting products.

High Fructose Corn Syrup
HFCS, how it’s made and how it affects your health, plus other links.

:}

Where Will Coal to Liquids Go? Maybe up in the air

Posted on by
1

This has been widely reported but I think people have overlooked the broader implications. This could actually work and be good for the environment:

 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/air-force-begin.html

Air Force Begins Testing Synfuel Blend in Fighter Engine

30 April 2008

Engineers at the US Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) have begun testing a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine, the power plant for the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a blend of alternative synthetic fuel in the J-1 simulated altitude jet engine test cell. Once testing and evaluation is complete, this will be the first fighter jet engine to use the synthetic blend.

Since 2006, AEDC has taken an active role in its support of the US Air Force’s Alternative Fuels Certification Office in the evaluation and certification of the synthetic paraffinic kerosene (SPK) alternative fuel, which is derived from natural gas or coal using the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process, for use in all Air Force aircraft.

Testing at AEDC on the GE F101 engine, the power plant for the B-1 Lancer bomber, was the first series of testing of a high performance, afterburning engine with FT fuel for a combat aircraft. (Earlier post.) This engine was also tested in the center’s J-1 high altitude jet engine test cell.

The Air Force has already certified the engines for the B-52 Stratofortress bomber to operate on FT fuel and the C-17 Globemaster III transport has flown on SPK fuel.

 http://www.air-attack.com/news/news_article/3167/Synthetic-fuel-testing-begins-on-fighter-engine.html

and

 http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Sci/sci.military.naval/2008-05/msg02235.html

U.S. Military Launches Alternative-Fuel Push Dependence on Oil Seen as too Risky

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Do you wonder why the Navy thinks nuke is a good idea?

U.S. Military Launches
Alternative-Fuel Push
Dependence on Oil
Seen as too Risky
B-1 Takes Test Flight
By YOCHI J. DREAZEN
May 21, 2008; Page A1

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, N.M. — With fuel prices soaring, the U.S.
military, the country’s largest single consumer of oil, is turning
into an alternative-fuels pioneer.

In March, Air Force Capt. Rick Fournier flew a B-1 stealth bomber code-
named Dark 33 across this sprawling proving ground, to confirm for the
first time that a plane could break the sound barrier using synthetic
jet fuel. A similar formula — a blend of half-synthetic and half-
conventional petroleum — has been used in some South African
commercial airliners for years, but never in a jet going so fast.
[Major Expense]

“The hope is that the plane will be blind to the gas,” Capt. Fournier
said as he gripped the handle controlling the plane’s thrusters during
the test flight. “But you won’t know unless you try.”

With oil’s multiyear ascent showing no signs of stopping — crude
futures set another record Tuesday, closing at $129.07 a barrel in New
York trading — energy security has emerged as a major concern for the
Pentagon.

The U.S. military consumes 340,000 barrels of oil a day, or 1.5% of
all of the oil used in the country. The Defense Department’s overall
energy bill was $13.6 billion in 2006, the latest figure available —
almost 25% higher than the year before. The Air Force’s bill for jet
fuel alone has tripled in the past four years. When the White House
submitted its latest budget request for the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, it tacked on a $2 billion surcharge for rising fuel
costs.

Synthetic fuel, which can be made from coal or natural gas, is
expensive now, but could cost far less than the current price of oil
if it’s mass-produced.

Just as important, the military is increasingly concerned that its
dependence on oil represents a strategic threat. U.S. forces in Iraq
alone consume 40,000 barrels of oil a day trucked in from neighboring
countries, and would be paralyzed without it. Energy-security
advocates warn that terrorist attacks on oil refineries or tankers
could cripple military operations around the world. “The endgame is to
wean the dependence on foreign oil,” says Air Force Assistant
Secretary William Anderson.

Some Pentagon officers have embraced planning around the “peak oil”
theory, which holds that the world’s oil production is about to
plateau due to shrinking resources and limited investment in many of
the most oil-rich regions of the Middle East. Earlier this year, they
brought Houston investment banker Matthew Simmons to the Pentagon for
a presentation on peak oil; he warned that under the theory, “energy
security becomes an oxymoron.” House Democrats have proposed creating
a new Defense Department position to manage the military’s overall
energy needs.

:}

Many Readers might be suprised that I might support this idea…But Why? Well, what if the military did it right. My main objection to Coal to Liquid Programs in Illinois  is that they either involve bogus methods of carbon sequestration (untested deep well injection into sandstone) or they don’t. Which would amount to just more global warming when alternatives are available. Using the end product of Liquid To Coal processes as jet fuel for The Defense Department makes excellent sense because there is no alternative. If the Liquid To Coal plant is on a military base there is no environmental ruckus, the US Goverment becomes liable for the Risks and the Cleanup. In addition, if they sited them near one of the depleted secure oilfields , like in OHIO or OKLAHOMA, the sequestration option is viable because they could build a pipeline and pump the effluent to the oil fields. They would in effect be waste free. But Mr. CES you say, will the military do things right? I know, but maybe this time they will.

:}

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:
:}

Nuclear Power – The ultimate anti nuclear groups

Posted on by
Reply

Grandpa can I build a nuclear powerplant?

What son?

Oh never mind….

:} 

It does not get more antinuclear than this:

http://www.gensuikin.org/english/index.html

gen1.jpg

. About GENSUIKIN — Its Organization and Activities —

The official name of GENSUIKIN is The Japan Congress Against A- and H-Bombs. Established in 1965, we are one of Japan’s largest anti-nuclear and peace movement organizations. We have chapters in 47 prefectures and include 32 nationwide labor unions and youth groups in our membership (as of March 1997). Our activities are undertaken in collaboration with radiation victims’ groups, labor unions, and political parties. We sponsor two major annual events. A public rally held in March, “3-1 Bikini Day,” commemorates the crew of the fishing boat Daigo Fukuryu-Maru (Lucky Dragon), which was exposed to fallout from nuclear testing at Bikini in 1954. The World Congress Against A- and H-Bombs is held in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August, the month when atomic bombs were dropped on those cities. Our core activities include efforts to foster solidarity with anti-nuclear activists around the world; anti-nuclear pro-peace campaigns; various initiatives toward a nuclear-free society; and activities in support of radiation victims

 gen2.jpg

 But because the nuclear industry is so inept in Japan the anti nuclear power sentiment has grown.

1999 – Two workers killed in explosion at Tokaimura plant

2003 – 17 Tepco plants shut down over falsified safety records

2004 – Five workers killed by steam from corroded pipe at Mihama

2007 – Damage inflicted on Kashiwazaki plant from earthquake

 The Japanese operate an incredible 55 nuclear reactors. One of the largest and newest anti nuke groups there is

Stop Rokkasho – which represents opposition to a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.

http://stop-rokkasho.org/

Which is led by musicians and I wish I could show you more of the site. But, it’s all Adobe Flash presentations and music downloads which I can’t copy. So you will just have to go look for yourself.

But this is their petition:

Prime Minister of Japan

I, the undersigned, am deeply concerned about the opening on March 31st, 2006 of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant. It is not only an issue for Japan but for the whole world. If operation continues and the plant keeps emitting radioactive waste into the air and the ocean, it would seriously damage the natural environment of the whole region, thereby threatening the health and welfare of innumerable human residents for many generations to come.

I also believe the hyper-toxic plutonium produced in reprocessing will present a grave security risk for an earthquake-prone country like Japan, will make the nation more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, and jeopardize the process of worldwide nuclear disarmament.

I, as one of the concerned citizens of the world, respectfully ask the Japanese government to courageously reconsider the approval of the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant, thereby contributing to environmental protection, regional security and world peace. I am confident that Japan, with its excellent technological capacity, can show good leadership in the world by shifting its energy policy away from nuclear power and towards renewable energy. I believe this is the only path towards a sustainable world.

Dear Prime Minister, please lead your government in stopping the Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant.

The undersigned.

:}

A more conventional Japanese anti nuke site is:

http://cnic.jp/english/

We demand that the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant be closed

The Group of Concerned Scientists and Engineers Calling for the Closure of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant (KK Scientists) was formed shortly after the Chuetsu-oki earthquake. It was started by four people who, on 21 August 2007, issued an appeal. To date over 200 scientists and engineers have endorsed this appeal. They are actively demanding that objective scientific and technical investigations be carried out “keeping in mind the possibility of permanent closure of the plant”.

The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has established the “Subcommittee for Investigation and Response to the Nuclear Facilities affected by Chuetsu-oki earthquake”, chaired by Haruki Madarame, a professor of Tokyo University, and ordered Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) to check equipment and carry out seismic response analysis. However, these investigations are clearly being carried out based on the premise that the plant will be restarted in the near future. It would therefore be difficult to call them objective scientific and technical investigations. In addition, the nuclear industry is trying to lend authority to these investigations being carried out by the government and TEPCO by holding an international symposium in February this year in Kashiwazaki City*2.

As scientists and engineers, we believe that it is necessary to condemn and highlight the problems of this type of biased investigation, which is being carried out by the regulatory authorities and TEPCO without the participation of residents. We have prepared this document for this purpose and welcome comments on its contents.

Our key arguments are as follows:

  • Kashiwazaki-Kariwa was never a place to build a nuclear power plant.
  • Sloppy safety examination overlooked an over 40 km-long submarine active fault.
  • This time was a miraculously lucky escape.
  • The danger of another large earthquake remains. The government is violating its own seismic design rules.
  • Important safety equipment may have been seriously damaged.
  • TEPCO’s equipment checks are not capable of identifying all the damage.
  • TEPCO’s seismic response analysis fails to identify the true situation.
  • Struck by the double blow of aging and an earthquake, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa should not be restarted

:}

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
:}