One thing that I agree with the Democrats on is that the oil subsidies need to go. I would like to see them replaced with incentives for R&D in alternative energy and finding new oil fields. I'd also like to see an incentive to build new refineries, which always seem to be a bottleneck.

One thing that I agree with the Democrats on is that the oil subsidies need to go. I would like to see them replaced with incentives for R&D in alternative energy and finding new oil fields. I'd also like to see an incentive to build new refineries, which always seem to be a bottleneck.

I can agree with this. No subsidies to continue as is but incentives to better this country.

 

My understanding from a friend in this field is that EPA guidelines are one of the biggest hindrances in building new refineries.

I can agree with this. No subsidies to continue as is but incentives to better this country.

 

My understanding from a friend in this field is that EPA guidelines are one of the biggest hindrances in building new refineries.

 

They are, however, they aren't the only hindrance. A lot of it comes down to the whole "NIMBY" thing. Either way, when you let only 4 or 5 companies own 5 refineries here, they can set whatever price they want, there is no competition.

This country's elected representatives voted to attack Iraq. They have thrice voted to fund continued military operations in Iraq. 100% of the populace is not behind anything that is voted upon.

 

I do not know what "windfall" profits are. That has never been defined. Corporations gamble and take risks. Those risks are sometimes rewarded. We have had many threads discussing this subject.

 

The GOVERNMENT is not footing the bill for oil extraction or production. The corporations are, and they are doing it with their own people and using their own capital. The return should go to them, and the government, of course, will tax them on it.

 

I don't recall Colon Powell sitting at the UN making the plea that "we must invaid Iraq and take over the oil fields so the oil companies could make 75% profits". I recall the American people being and the Congress being sold on fantasies such as WMD's, preventing an inevitible Nuclear attack, finding those aluminum tubes yada...yada...yada.

I apologize. I should have been clearer in my response. I should not have directed my post to you, but rather to those that felt the war was fought so Bush and his advisors could line their pockets from the oil money. You have my sincere and heart felt apology.

 

But I assume you would agree that there are people who feel that Bush went to war to make money off of it and to help out his corporate buddies. You have also done a nice job of tap dancing around the issue of whether you believe or don't believe that the potential oil company profits factored into Bush's decision. If you don't, then fine. But if you do, then I have big problem with your conclusion. I find that thinking nauseating, simply nauseating. Perhaps its because I also will, as a stock holder, benefit from the war and I support the war. I do not support the war because I will financially benefit from it and I do not think Bush decided to go to war to benefit financially from it. If those accusations are made against Bush, then they are likewise attributable to me and that is quite insulting. But again, I should have been much clearer in my prior post, although at this point I'm not sure what your position is on the issue, other than to insinuate, from my interpretation of your collective posts, that Bush's greed and support of his corporate buddies factored into Bush's decision to go to war. And if you feel that way towards Bush, by implication, its applicable to me regardless of whether you specifically state it or not. Exactly what are your thoughts on the issue so we know for sure? Do you believe that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was motivated in whole or in part for his personal financial gain or for the financial gain of his corporate buddies? Yes or no?

 

Leatherneck -

 

You owe me no apology. Agree or disagree, I fully appreciate your right to your opinion, and as I have told you before, I sincerely appreciate your (and your family's) sacrifices that afford me the opportunity to have my opinion - and voice it.

 

As for my thoughts on Bush - I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he, his family, his friends, and his business associates will enjoy their share of the profits that private industry will reap as a result of this war. I do not believe for a minute that he (or anyone in his administration) ever sat down and said "Hey, if we start a war in the Middle East, we can all get rich", and gave no thought to the sacrifices that would have to be made. I must say, however, that I am amazed that anyone would think that those same people are not enjoying some excellent runups in their portfolios while this thing drags on.

 

Like you, I too invest in the oil companies. Like you, I do so because it is an investment that (assuming you do your homework) should bear significant fruit for the forseeable future. Unlike you, I have neve supported this war - not even from the outset. All of that aside, I do not see someone as supporting the war simply because they own stocks in oil companies (including W), nor do I think that because someone supports the war, that that means that they have a cavalier attitude about the cost, in terms of human lives (especially American).

 

 

Sincerely,

Frances

I don't recall Colon Powell sitting at the UN making the plea that "we must invaid Iraq and take over the oil fields so the oil companies could make 75% profits". I recall the American people being and the Congress being sold on fantasies such as WMD's, preventing an inevitible Nuclear attack, finding those aluminum tubes yada...yada...yada.

 

They will NOT make 75% profit. Please read closer.

 

"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs"

 

After that, they will keep 20% of the profits.

 

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinformation that gets tossed around.

They will NOT make 75% profit. Please read closer.

 

"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs"

 

After that, they will keep 20% of the profits.

 

It never ceases to amaze me the amount of misinformation that gets tossed around.

 

As for your selective reporting....that 20% is twice the industry norm....please read closer.

Leatherneck -

 

You owe me no apology. Agree or disagree, I fully appreciate your right to your opinion, and as I have told you before, I sincerely appreciate your (and your family's) sacrifices that afford me the opportunity to have my opinion - and voice it.

 

As for my thoughts on Bush - I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he, his family, his friends, and his business associates will enjoy their share of the profits that private industry will reap as a result of this war. I do not believe for a minute that he (or anyone in his administration) ever sat down and said "Hey, if we start a war in the Middle East, we can all get rich", and gave no thought to the sacrifices that would have to be made. I must say, however, that I am amazed that anyone would think that those same people are not enjoying some excellent runups in their portfolios while this thing drags on.

 

Like you, I too invest in the oil companies. Like you, I do so because it is an investment that (assuming you do your homework) should bear significant fruit for the forseeable future. Unlike you, I have neve supported this war - not even from the outset. All of that aside, I do not see someone as supporting the war simply because they own stocks in oil companies (including W), nor do I think that because someone supports the war, that that means that they have a cavalier attitude about the cost, in terms of human lives (especially American).

 

 

Sincerely,

Frances

 

 

Thank you for the clarification; particularly the bolded part. Frankly until you did so, I felt that your opinion was to the contrary (it was probably post no. 10 that had me feeling that way). LN

For whomever it was questioning whether a drop in the price per gallon would coincide with oil dropping under $55 per barrel: Gas at one of the stations in Corbin (exit 29) was $1.98 today.

 

Here's the way I see oil and this administration's incestuous relationship with the industry: Maybe not necessarily the singular driving force behind Iraq, but those within the administration choose to view potential benifits to the oil industry as a "convenient coincidence," especially when you consider they are all friends through prior business relationships. There's a reason those guys are "Rangers," or whatever that silly designation of donor they use for the fattest of fat cats.

 

But here's the kicker: At this point, I don't care. All I want is for that part of the world to clean up its act, and if a few extra jobs for the Iraqi folks can help in that regard, so be it. And if I pay a $1.29 long-term at the pump again as a side benefit of the Iraq war, I'll try to live with my guilt after buying a tricked-out '72 Caddy Eldorado convertible, complete with bullhorns for a hood ornament.

 

Bottom line: I'm worn out from it all, and want to see it change for the better. Somehow.

For whomever it was questioning whether a drop in the price per gallon would coincide with oil dropping under $55 per barrel: Gas at one of the stations in Corbin (exit 29) was $1.98 today.

 

Here's the way I see oil and this administration's incestuous relationship with the industry: Maybe not necessarily the singular driving force behind Iraq, but those within the administration choose to view potential benifits to the oil industry as a "convenient coincidence," especially when you consider they are all friends through prior business relationships. There's a reason those guys are "Rangers," or whatever that silly designation of donor they use for the fattest of fat cats.

 

But here's the kicker: At this point, I don't care. All I want is for that part of the world to clean up its act, and if a few extra jobs for the Iraqi folks can help in that regard, so be it. And if I pay a $1.29 long-term at the pump again as a side benefit of the Iraq war, I'll try to live with my guilt after buying a tricked-out '72 Caddy Eldorado convertible, complete with bullhorns for a hood ornament.

Bottom line: I'm worn out from it all, and want to see it change for the better. Somehow.

 

 

That's the spirit!