I’m NOT talking about the oil drillers…We’re talking about the refineries. That’s where the profit/money is.
Nope, Exxon, for example, reported about three times the profit from oil and gas production than from refining and marketing.
Nope, Exxon, for example, reported about three times the profit from oil and gas production than from refining and marketing.
First you say that Exxon is IMPORTING it’s oil…NOW you’re saying that’s where they’re making all their profit from…Pick one and stick with it.
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/Oil_and_Gas/articles.cfm?ID=11829
One more try…the world is depending on national oil companies for 70% of the world’s oil production. Exxon still does produce oil, and makes about 3/4 of it’s profits from that, 1/4 from refining/marketing.
“The Prime Minister of Iraq seems to like Obama’s timetable.”
The Prime Minister of Iraq is happy to pander to either Obama or McCain. He needs to be on good terms with whoever is elected. And the Iraqi government does not want us out just yet. Otherwise, we’d be gone.
Enron loophole & ethanol
It is all about the same thing, complete private control of a necessity, with the laws and regulations changed to support
the investors who can’t make an honest dollar.
Our policy will be what Americans have always done, use up the natural resources of an area and move on. We had a good run at cheap energy. Now all you free marketers are crying when they charge what they can get! We went to war to get some cheap oil and that didn’t work out. T. Boone Pickens plan has two basic flaws, Americans are not smart enough to understand it or even care to. The Freddy and Fanny bail out bill had a provision to prevent political contributions by the firms. One of the reasons we got in this mess. That provision was kicked out. The energy bill you get will be the one lobbyists pay for.
actually i think the problem (already alluded to) is that one politician is trying to work within the framework of the party. and the other politician is trying to work with the popularity (poll oriented) response.
both ways of ‘making up their minds’ are pretty indicative of the two choices limitations as far as being a leader.
i see neither side having such a solution or ‘vision’ needed to carry the nation forward. (at least as far as a cohesive energy policy is concerned.)
unfortunately i think we are headed for another 51% to 49% on this election, since neither candidate has a clearly different vision, or has their own idea about the ‘way out.’
some talking points come back to my memory, things like: supply side economics, SDI, Mr.
Gorbachev tear down this wall. not that i think reagan was that good, but he could come up with ideas, and pushed them until they either went through, or stopped.
there hasn’t been a politician since who has DONE anything, unless it was approved by the polls, got some votes, or got paid. personal initiative is not rewarded, or encouraged by political parties. on the other hand it seems to actually be discouraged, so as to NOT water down the party line.
Neither candidate offers a solution because neither has a solution. “Get out of the way” is the best solution govt. can offer. But a qualified “get out of the way”. Govt. makes nothing but policy, and encouraging small bussiness solutions in terms of tax credits to consumers, not corps, and mandating that cars be flex fuel for nominal cost. Then step aside and let the solutions roll out. Profit for the biggest employer of the American worker, our small businesses has always been the solution to economic woes.
Energy platform schmatform ! Even if the candidate has a precision plan ( for ANYTHING ), nothing will transpire unless he/she can rally the congress into agreement. All political candidates face this challenge from the city level to the presidency, if they can’t get their ideas into laws, it doesn’t mean they broke their campaign promises.
“some talking points come back to my memory, things like: supply side economics…”
President Reagan had nothing to do with the boom in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It was an industrial revolution. His grandstanding had little effect. The efforts of Grove, Gates, and the other silicon giants anf bytemeisters made it happen.
“START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80% of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States’ President Ronald Reagan,” wikipedia
actually the media internet revolution was part of it, but as you said “that” was happening regardless of who was in office. but there were other substantive happenings occurring driven by the oval office. the end of the cold war probably being the most important.
these happened because someone who was in office had a vision (or at least an idea) of a desirable end result.
in my mind, neither of these candidates have a true vision. thinking about the current occupant of 1600 pennsylvania ave, when has he had ANY original thought, or an idea? never i imagine! slick willey never thought of anything other than a lewinsky. he even bombed the afghani al quaida training camps with 70 cruise missiles, and the camps were empty! how about that for an idea of a sure way to look good, but actually not hurt anyone!
i believe this is the problem as seen in the recent elections.
the main stream political parties have so delineated and specified exactly what the candidates are demanded to do (in order to get the parties acceptance) the individuals are not wanted to have their own agenda. to me that is sad.
personally i vote independent, and write in my choice. (for the last five elections)
i will NOT vote for these mainstream party idiots, who have no cojones to stand up for what they really think.
Forget about a president…
More importantly, focus on members of congress. They are supposed to make laws that steer our country, not the president. Congress (both republican and democrat) has had opportunities for years to do something about heading off an energy crisis and now easing a crisis, but does basically nothing. Sometimes the President can influence congress, but our current Speaker of the House who won’t work with the Executive branch at all now and won’t even allow a vote to lift the Congessional ban on domestic exploration/drilling, as did our President when he lifted the Executive ban, recently! This is the same individual that demanded and got a freakin Boeing 747 (like Air Force One) to haul her butt around the world with a host of “attendants”. However, this person doesn’t want me to be able to purchase affordable gas to get to work until we can transition to the next level of personal transportation, kind of like Albert Gore personally using 10 times the energy at his residence as the average person does. “Do as I say, Not as I do.”
This idea of requiring higher mpg vehicles or developing alternative energy vehicles is fine for down the road, but as for our family, I am not going to throw away perfectly good vehicles. I need affordable gas and it would be great if the dollars paid could stay in the U.S.A. and create more jobs by hiring people to go after domestic energy, even fossil fuels.
We need congress to “pull out all the stops” and drill here, create incentives for alternatives, “get out of the way” of U.S. free enterprise (as mconn said in a previous post), etc.
I sincerely believe that energy prices in the U.S. will come down as soon as the world realizes we are seriously persuing energy independence and I think we have already witnessed this when our President lifted the Executive ban and one of our Presidential candidates is talking “drill here, drill now.” I believe this had some impact on slowing rising prices and even price reductions.
Choose Representatives and Senators very carefully. Don’t worry about President, it looks like the best candidate is going to win.
We get the government we deserve, especially when we choose not to vote or not to research candidates.
and please…NEVER expect the truth to come from the mouth of ANYONE running for public office. They need to get elected first and will say anything to get there. Look at all energy policies supported by these candidates when they WEREN’T running.
Sounds like the best answer to this dilemma is to make every possible effort to stop using oil! If the only way to power our county is to line the pockets of the oil companies and the mid-east, there are tons of other ways to provide energy for our lifestyle (another discussion) and not be so wasteful, environmentally damaging and internationally dependant.