It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jakomo
George Bush hates black people.
Er, I mean people.
Er, I mean all human life.
U.S. energy policies, for the most part, have been anti oil company oriented since the 60's & 70's.
Omfg I died laughing when I read that. Thanks for the smile!
While I applaud and approve of most of the actions of the various environmental groups, there is no doubt of their impact on the oil companies.
That too! LOL! You damn evil environmentalists are hurting the generous, life-affirming oil companies! Wheee!
[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]
[edit on 26-4-2006 by Jakomo]
Originally posted by StarkMan
I can't believe Seekerof and anyone else blaming enviromentalists, its like blaming the Mormons for Catholic Priests who rape kids while ignoring/defending the Bishops and Cardinals who covered up for the priests, or blaming Canadians for drug problems in Miami while ignoring the 5.5tons of coke caught on a plane owned by republican officials, they have nothing in common and doesn't make sense!
I'm not a republican, I just defend Bush even when the arguement I use is so whack only Faux News could spin it in Bush's favor.
Originally posted by radardog
I know a really quick way to bring down the cost to fuel to an average consumer that does not involve supply or demand: remove any federal or state taxes on gasoline. In California alone, it would knock of .50 a gallon. What does that mean to us? Assuming 3.00/g, paying 2.50/g results a little more than a 15% decrease in cost to average consumers.
Reducing production standards will help also, I'm sure -- but everyone is forgetting the most obvious method to reduce the cost to us at the pump: remove the taxes.
For fuel taxes by State: source
With gas prices climbing, Democrats hoping to win control of Congress in November have used the issue to slam White House energy policy and Republicans' ties to big oil companies.
Originally posted by StarkMan
Why drill in ANWR and not around it? You do know that ANWR is not on top of the major oil bubble right? It is off center to it, the area on top of the bubble is not protected yet republicans seem to ignore those lands where it is perfectly legal to drill, a better place to drill, but seem focused on ANWR.
Again, How Can You Blame People WHo Have No Control!
They are making BILLIONS!!!! THEY ARE GOUGING THE PRICES!!!!! It costs less then a dollar to make a gallon of gas yet they charge more then 3 dollars all over the country, why?
And how do they get away with this? Several members of congress, the President, the Vice President, and Rice are all former OIL Men/Women.
(I'll bet we could have retrofitted for free everyone's cars with the $ spent in Iraq--but, then, Cheney's not in the car business.) Re gas taxes--how do you recoup the revenue if you get rid of them--pay for roads, etc.? Maybe this is why there is the push to put a gps on a vehicle and pay per mile.
Originally posted by Seekerof
I highly doubt he is laughing, but you can best be assured, I am not laughing.
Furthermore, I am not laughing at the antics of environmentalist, who are partially to blame for the situation that 'we' are experiencing in the U.S.
The environmentalists have steadily and continually impeded and blocked any and all attempts to drill for oil and gas of the East and West Coast and in areas of the U.S. known to have super large quantities of oil and gas, such as ANWAR.
This can be debated which ever way is blue, but it does not, in no uncertain terms, remove what blame there is to be placed upon those environmentalists.
And Marg, this is not all and solely about just oil companies--this is about U.S. energy policies, past and present, that have put this country in the position that it is currently in over our oil and gas needs.
Originally posted by StarkMan
JSO Becky, we have oil drills in Texas, Lousianna, Gulf of Mexico, not just the Middle East. Why the "Barrels are at 70$ each" is misleading because it doesn't account for the oil the companies get out of the ground through their own pumps/drills. Also Canada helps out and provides more oil then the ME.
To achieve their targets, speculators use ?future? and ?forward? markets to sell risky products. ?Cashable oil shares?, which began to be traded in the London Stock Exchange, have become tools of increase in the market. By increasing prices, the aim of the oil giants is to make $ 60-70 seem normal, an amount unimaginable before.
Professor Abdurrahman Satman says: ?The production cost is about $ 10 a barrel. The price can at most be $ 35-40 a barrel. However if the price comes close to $ 70, this is called speculation.?
Hey! Why not drill more in Prudhoe Bay? Oh because its legal to drill there, is the 18th largest oil field, has billions of barrels just waiting to be pumped up, but instead of adding more drills lets go south to ANWR!!!! In fact Prudhoe bay is the largest oil field in our nation yet Republicans ignore it and will yell and scream if you even think of mentioning it. Why not drill more in a legal oil field, largest in our nation, instead of wasting time and money to try and drill in a place where it is illegal to drill?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
We ARE spoiled brats! We should be paying 6-8 bucks a gallon and riding our bikes, walking, carpooling and taking public transportation, but no. We have to have the Jimmy to go to lunch and the Hummer to make us look like we have big units.
And it's the antics of the environmentalists that are to blame? Yeah, that's so funny, it's not. Shame on them for not letting us suck the planet dry!
That's just like blaming the liberals for the situation in Iraq. And yes, there are plenty of people who do.
Bush is famous for stunts like this. Air too dirty? Then lower the standards and call it the Clean Air Initiative! There all better! Next?
I can't believe people are still defending this moron!
Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
If only security guards didn't exist...it would make robbing the bank a whole lot easier...
What blame? The blame for keeping NATIONAL WILDLIFE RESERVES from being pillaged by a group of people that have a hard-on for the Texas "T" black gold and who could give two #s about the environment.
If it weren't for environmental regulations and the legal repercussions that come with them you think these people would choose a clean environment over higher profits?
If it weren't for those past and present energy policies that you feel are hurting this nation our skies would be choked with black smoke, our waters would be polluted with chemical runoff, and our forests would be quickly receeding if not utterly destroyed.
Have you ever even been to a third world country?
Originally posted by StellarX
Oil companies are just trying to make a profit ( like everyone else)...
How can you be sure what our skies would look like..
“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
... A significant part of the supply reduction was caused by the investment decisions of three firms ... One firm increased its summer-grade RFG [reformulated gasoline] production substantially and, as a result, had excess supplies of RFG available and had additional capacity to produce more RFG at the time of the price spike. This firm did sell off some inventoried RFG, but it limited its response because selling extra supply would have pushed down prices and thereby reduced the profitability of its existing RFG sales. An executive of this company made clear that he would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower margin. Another employee of this firm raised concerns about oversupplying the market and thereby reducing the high market prices. A decision to limit supply does not violate the antitrust laws, absent some agreement among firms. Firms that withheld or delayed shipping additional supply in the face of a price spike did not violate the antitrust laws. In each instance, the firms chose strategies they thought would maximize their profits.
2001 Midwest Gasoline Price Investigation