Lawmakers Near Agreement on Energy Bill

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Exxon-Mobil made $25,000,000,000 last year. How'd the U.S. government come out?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Exxon-Mobil add to the their reserves, deplete their reserves, or stay about the same? You tell me.

[ QUOTE ]
Markey's right. Why not produce cars that get better mileage and we can tell both the Saudi sheiks extortionists and Exxon-Mobil extortionists where they can shove it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is the goal to reduce the price of gasoline or make the U.S. less dependent on foreign imported oil (especially from the mid east) or both. If it's to reduce the price of gasoline then reducing demand will have that effect. However, as I've stated many times before reducing demand will reduce the price which will make the marginally profitable producers quit producing. In the end the lowest cost producer wins and guess who that is? It is a total myth that reducing consumption will reduce our dependence on mid east oil since mid east oil producers are the lowest cost producers by a landslide and it isn't even close [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

If the goal is to reduce dependence on foreign oil, particularly from the mid east, then there are two things that come to mind. Encouraging domestic production and encouraging the use of non fossil fuels. The latter doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon because it's cost prohibitive but I note that the new energy bill does start to address this. In order to encourage domestic production either the price of oil has to be such that it's profitable to produce and/or the cost of production is artifically lowered via subsidies. If the goal is to reduce the cost of gasoline and encourage domestic production, I don't have a good solution except to bring as much supply on as possible which implies subsidizing production from costlier more desirable producers.

Again your implicatin that simply using less fossil fuel will reduce dependence on mid east oil is just plain wrong. At one time the U.S. did favor domestic production but Congress changed that and it was due to folks like Markey who decried the profits made by the oil companies. When this changed the U.S. became more reliant on mid east oil. Furthermore a healthy domestic oil industry does benefit at least some people in the U.S. Anecdotally, I went to Oklahoma City over the 4th of July weekend (to attend some dog shows) and I can say that from my previous visits ot OKC things are picking up there. If you want a see a section of the country that was devastated by the decline of the petroleum industry go to OKC and see the blight in that town. I was glad to discern some improvement there.

[adios]

And what will be the equivalent cost to consummers. You're right in your assessment IMO about how to reduce dependence. I think you're way, way wrong if you believe that the government won't have to subsidize an alternative to fossil fuel industry to make it cost effective to consummers. If the alternatives were reasonable in price we'd see them but they're not and IMO they won't be anytime soon unless they get subsidized by the government.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't legislate technology, but it you're going to subsidize an endeavor, it shouldn't go to the wealthiest companies in the world. Exxon-Mobile can afford to finance new oil-explorations with their own money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Exxon-Mobile has come out and stated that they specifically are not going to step up their efforts to find new reserves. They're mum on what they're going to do with their cash. Why should they be required to go out and explore for more oil? The CEO's position is that the risks don't justify the rewards more or less.

[ QUOTE ]
Internal financing of R&D for a more fuel efficient engine isn't that realisitic given how much American car manufacturers are struggling as it is. If you're going to subsidize something, subsidize that. The notion that the US government would give a nickel in relief to an oil company is sickening. They don't need it!

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is exactly the thinking that tanked domestic production in the U.S. in the 80's.

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you note that I chose the words 'research grant' and not 'tax cuts'. They are NOT the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they were - I associated 'research grant' with "corporate welfare" and 'tax cuts' with "incentives" from your earlier post.

It's funny - I agreed with you and now you are arguing against your own points!

[ QUOTE ]
The current energy bill in Congress is nothing but corporate payback for the election contributions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was talking about: You want incentives, grants, and so on, but when there is actually a bill with these items you carp "it's coporate payback!!!!"

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you note that I chose the words 'research grant' and not 'tax cuts'. They are NOT the same thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Different forms of a subsidy is what they are. Just making a preference on what you subsidize.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually Exxon-Mobile has come out and stated that they specifically are not going to step up their efforts to find new reserves. They're mum on what they're going to do with their cash. Why should they be required to go out and explore for more oil? The CEO's position is that the risks don't justify the rewards more or less.


[/ QUOTE ]

And that's fine I guess. You, I, or the Government can't tell Exxon-Mobile how to spend their money. However, their risk-reward assesment doesn't obligate or justify Uncle Sam footing the bill.

[ QUOTE ]
And this is exactly the thinking that tanked domestic production in the U.S. in the 80's.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with the 20 year old dilemma you're speaking of. However, I think I understand what you're saying: if the US doesn't step in and help, domestic production suffers. I'm sure you're right, but that doesn't justify it. It's almost like blackmail. Domestic oil companies are only willing to step up domestic exploration if taxpayers pay for it. If they don't, domestic production falls. Domestic production bottoms out, some politician convinces everyone there's a crisis, and the oil companies get what they wanted in the first place- a government check for something they could have self-financed from the beginning.

If I'm wrong please educate me. I just can't understand how one of the wealthiest companies in the world needs government relief.

[johnc]

[ QUOTE ]
Exxon-Mobil made $25,000,000,000 last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone really believe that non-fossil fuel energy source R & D ever be properly funded? Any so-called "funding" to renewable energy sources is a joke and just politcal rhetoric to pacify the masses' concern over the Middle East and our continued dependancy on their oil.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

And this is exactly the thinking that tanked domestic production in the U.S. in the 80's.

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm, no. Geology did that. If it ain't there you ain't gonna dig it up.