This editorial places the blame for high gas prices where it belongs and suggest some measures to lower prices that have proven effective in the past.

"We're going to go right at OPEC," the candidate said Monday on the campaign in Indiana. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they're going to produce and what price they're going to put it at."

 

Clinton said that along with her plan to tax oil companies' "unreasonable" profits, she'd pursue OPEC through the World Trade Organization and by suits under the U.S. antitrust law.

 

Spoken like a true Democrat. But Clinton's plan to go after OPEC is a slick PR exercise, and her recent threats against U.S. oil companies are downright dangerous.

 

"(Oil companies) have record profits," she said, "that they frankly are just sitting there counting because they are not doing anything new to earn it; they are just taking advantage of what's going on."

 

This is patently false. In fact, oil companies from 1992 to 2006 invested more than $1.25 trillion. Their profits over that time: a little over $900 billion.

I found the following snippet pretty interesting too:

Around the world, governments control about 80% of all energy reserves — that includes the U.S. And 12 of the 15 largest oil companies are government-owned. The real energy problem, in other words, isn't Big Oil; it's Big Government.

Very true, very true. Increase supply instead of tax the oil companies.

Very true, very true. Increase supply instead of tax the oil companies.

 

Key thing is that it is not the supply of crude oil but our ability to transfer it into gas. My understanding is that the refineries are pumping at pretty much peak capacity.

Very true, very true. Increase supply instead of tax the oil companies.

It's tough to see how attacking a few of the companies that control 20% of the world's oil reserves is going to do anything but help the governments that control 80% of the reserves (except our own).

Key thing is that it is not the supply of crude oil but our ability to transfer it into gas. My understanding is that the refineries are pumping at pretty much peak capacity.

 

We need to be drilling in more areas and build more refineries.

We need to be drilling in more areas and build more refineries.

 

My understanding that the cost to build a new refinery is very, very high with all the EPA guidelines and because they need to be in certain areas because of getting crude oil there, those areas don't want the refineries.

We need to be drilling in more areas and build more refineries.

 

Or finding alternative energy sources.

Or finding alternative energy sources.

 

:thumb: Agreed

My understanding that the cost to build a new refinery is very, very high with all the EPA guidelines and because they need to be in certain areas because of getting crude oil there, those areas don't want the refineries.

It is time that the federal government exercise its power of imminent domain if necessary for the sake of national security. If our government can punish landowners for draining swamps on private property, it should be able to do something to protect the endangered species of the American oil refinery.

It is time that the federal government exercise its power of imminent domain if necessary for the sake of national security. If our government can punish landowners for draining swamps on private property, it should be able to do something to protect the endangered species of the American oil refinery.

 

That is a good point.

Or finding alternative energy sources.

There is no viable alternative for oil in the foreseeable future. We can either waste billions of tax dollars on inefficient government research programs or deal with the short term problem while we continue seeking a better long term answer. We can do both.

There is no viable alternative for oil in the foreseeable future. We can either waste billions of tax dollars on inefficient government research programs or deal with the short term problem while we continue seeking a better long term answer. We can do both.

 

Never said we couldn't.

Or finding alternative energy sources.

 

Never said we couldn't.

Sorry. I took the "or" suggestion as an alternative solution instead of an add-on solution. So does this mean that you support additional oil refineries?

There is no viable alternative for oil in the foreseeable future. We can either waste billions of tax dollars on inefficient government research programs or deal with the short term problem while we continue seeking a better long term answer. We can do both.

 

Do you see the hybrids that at least helps address our supply issues as a no viable alternative?

Do you see the hybrids that at least helps address our supply issues as a no viable alternative?

Hybrids use conventional power sources and they currently do not get much better mileage than similar powered gasoline-only cars. Coal gasification/liquefactionn is a viable alternative but given the way that coal and oil companies have been demonized by the government I do not foresee them making the risky investments necessary to make a dent in our oil demand.

 

Conservation that is not coupled with increased oil production is a lost cause - at least as far as slowing the rate of gasoline cost price increases. While our government treats private oil companies like criminals, China and other developing countries are busy securing their own oil supplies. China is also aggressively pursuing a program of building several large coal liquefaction plants.

 

Maybe if China is successful with its synthetic fuel plants, our oil prices will drop. It is really unfortunate that Democrats have demagogued the development of our domestic oil reserves to the point where our national security may soon be threatened.