Fracking likely caused series of Ohio quakes, officials say

[Leatherneck 693]

Actually, what's odd is the incessant support of the fossil fuel industry by ordinary citizens who willingly submit themselves as minions to an industry whose dominance over energy production is nearing its end. These fossil fuel minions can't fatham building an economy around alternative energy. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is moving forward at a rapid pace. We have te techhnology to convert most of our energy needs to more sustainable sources, but the only thing slowing that transition down are fossil fuel minions who think the word, 'green' is a communist conspiracy to take away your car and make you ride a bicycle.

I know you might find this shocking -- but when the sustainable energy folks and the green 'wienies' produce products and energy the public wants -- minus the large infusions of taxpayer dollars, the public will buy that energy and those products. It is the green energy sycophants with their heads in the sand refusing to face the economic and practical limits of green energy vs fossil fuels. It's not very complicated.

"We have te techhnology to convert most of our energy needs to more sustainable sources," really? Then the alternative energy movement should put or shut up. Do you really think the public would refuse to buy sustainable energy if the cost was the same or lower than what is available now, and if that energy was practical? So far, wind -- has not come through; solar -- in all those years has not proved to be the savior; the whole electric car thingy -- nuff said; hydrogen powered vehicles -- still a ways away; hybrids -- very promising, except for the battery replacement issues; maybe Obama's algae will save the day.

[Leatherneck 693]

Solyndra story is a bit more complicated, and a story of the real risk in any new technology venture. Solyndra was started to find an alternative method to creating solar power in response to rising prices of silicon. Unfortunately the prices for silicon dropped (and less directly the drop in natural gas prices) and the market moved away from its technology.

Oil and gas still receive direct or indirect tax breaks and subsidies totaling much more than what was lost on Solyndra. But at this time its hugely benefiting from economics of scale that other energy sources have yet to build.

What happened with Solyndra came as no surprise and it did not have to happen -- in fact based on the due diligence performed it was expected they would go belly-up. All industries get tax breaks, oil and gas is no different.

Wanna guess who makes more per gallon of gasoline sold than the producers -- yes, government? The state and federal are "hugely benefiting" more than the actual oil companies.

[Dan J 277]

The alternatives are not cost effective yet. When you and your clueless brethren get the costs of the alternatives down to even near what us cost conscious people want then that technology will not need HUGE subsidies and laws forcing us to use the technology. The alternatives need to stand on their own. As it stands now it is riddled with corruption. The money could be used to pay down a huge debt but is used to pay off donors. As it stands now we are being ripped off and anyone that advocates ripping us off is an idiot.

Its going to take years if not decades to develop alternative energy technologies. If we let the free market drive research and adoption, we will probably just be starting research now. Energy prices would be quite high before we got any alternative solution.

Alternative energy is also long term strategy, also well outside the window of return for most investors. I don't know too many investors that will invest in something that make take longer than just a few years to produce returns.

The government will be involved in shaping and investing a long term energy strategy, just like they are with fossil fuels.

[Dan J 277]

What happened with Solyndra came as no surprise and it did not have to happen -- in fact based on the due diligence performed it was expected they would go belly-up. All industries get tax breaks, oil and gas is no different.

Wanna guess who makes more per gallon of gasoline sold than the producers -- yes, government? The state and federal are "hugely benefiting" more than the actual oil companies.

The federal government puts an $0.184 tax on a gallon of gas, states add an up to an additional $0.40 per gallon. Unless gas costs less than $1.20 per gallon, the government is not taking the most out of the price of a gallon of gas.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2012/01/27/what-am-i-paying-for-in-the-price-of-a-gallon-of-gasoline/

What am I paying for in the price of a gallon of gasoline?

January 27, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen

[luckytxn 2,265]

What a load of crock and a lame excuse. So lets get this straight - we shouldn't invest in alternative energy because it isn't cost effective "yet." You guys buy into the fossil fuel industries sound bytes, hook-line-and-sinker. Boy, yeah, we really did that with other energy technology such as nuclear power, oil refineries and huge pipelines. Yeah, there were no public monies used for oil exploration, no wars, no military bases in oil producing countries, because those industries have done everything using their own private funding. Yeah, right. And I've got some lake front property I'd like you to see on the moon, just step into my spaceship.

Look, you are the one being deceitful here. You posted this story with a headline that said Fracking caused earthquakes. In the story itself it never said that Fracking was a cause at all and not even the injections but injecting maybe in a possible unmapped fault line may have caused the earthquakes. It is stories like this and the logic of trying to say one thing and doing another that ruins the arguments and points you were trying to make. Please learn to read your own stories and headlines. All we have gotten from this is a chuckle.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Solyndra story is a bit more complicated, and a story of the real risk in any new technology venture. Solyndra was started to find an alternative method to creating solar power in response to rising prices of silicon. Unfortunately the prices for silicon dropped (and less directly the drop in natural gas prices) and the market moved away from its technology.

Oil and gas still receive direct or indirect tax breaks and subsidies totaling much more than what was lost on Solyndra. But at this time its hugely benefiting from economics of scale that other energy sources have yet to build.

I keep hearing this about the Oil company subsidies but it never has been shown to be so. The industry does get tax write offs but it is a normal tax write offs that all businesses get. They get no subsidies at all. I hear the cry to stop big oil tax breaks but why just that ones industry? Get rid of them for all companies and don't single out. That sucking noise you hear is the jobs leaving the country.

Alternatives get a huge subsidy out right and special tax breaks and even funded in other ways. Laws are made to force the public to buy the higher priced alternatives. It is a rip off to all citizens.

I know you might find this shocking -- but when the sustainable energy folks and the green 'wienies' produce products and energy the public wants -- minus the large infusions of taxpayer dollars, the public will buy that energy and those products. It is the green energy sycophants with their heads in the sand refusing to face the economic and practical limits of green energy vs fossil fuels. It's not very complicated.

"We have te techhnology to convert most of our energy needs to more sustainable sources," really? Then the alternative energy movement should put or shut up. Do you really think the public would refuse to buy sustainable energy if the cost was the same or lower than what is available now, and if that energy was practical? So far, wind -- has not come through; solar -- in all those years has not proved to be the savior; the whole electric car thingy -- nuff said; hydrogen powered vehicles -- still a ways away; hybrids -- very promising, except for the battery replacement issues; maybe Obama's algae will save the day.

Bravo!

[luckytxn 2,265]

Its going to take years if not decades to develop alternative energy technologies. If we let the free market drive research and adoption, we will probably just be starting research now. Energy prices would be quite high before we got any alternative solution.

Alternative energy is also long term strategy, also well outside the window of return for most investors. I don't know too many investors that will invest in something that make take longer than just a few years to produce returns.

The government will be involved in shaping and investing a long term energy strategy, just like they are with fossil fuels.

That is bunk. The technology has to stand on its own. It is not the Feds role to force us to use any technology. It is a huge overreach of the Feds to try and force a technology on us when there is no need to do so. As it stands now the U.S. has enough fuel to power this country for a long time.

I have no problems with driving a battery powered car. The electric car has been trying to become a reality for decades. It is a great idea but it is impracticable as battery technology is not there.....yet. Want to make a electric car that can stand on its own then figure out the battery storage problem that is making the car a joke as it stands now. And do it at a comparable price to a carbon engine car. If the Feds want to really help and not hinder then spend money on the few things stopping that technology by research funds. Right now the Feds are wasting money and time and thus hindering what needs to be done.

[luckytxn 2,265]

http://www.exxonmobi...on-of-gasoline/

What am I paying for in the price of a gallon of gasoline?

January 27, 2012 | Posted by Ken Cohen

When I worked for Exxon many years ago they made a flat 9 cents a gallon profit.

[Leatherneck 693]

The federal government puts an $0.184 tax on a gallon of gas, states add an up to an additional $0.40 per gallon. Unless gas costs less than $1.20 per gallon, the government is not taking the most out of the price of a gallon of gas.

"Less than 3 percent of ExxonMobil's earnings are from U.S. gasoline sales

ExxonMobil's earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. The part of the business that refines and sells gasoline and diesel in the United States represents less than 3 percent – or 3 cents on the dollar – of our total earnings.

For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That's not a typo. Two cents. http://www.exxonmobi...to-think-about/

I stand by my statement "Wanna guess who makes more per gallon of gasoline sold than the producers -- yes, government? The state and federal are "hugely benefiting" more than the actual oil companies.

The price of a gallon of gas is at the retail level does not matter -- the feds and the states still get their pound of flesh, right off the top -- period. This chart from the California Energy Commission proves that. http://energyalmanac...rgins/index.php

[luckytxn 2,265]

"Less than 3 percent of ExxonMobil's earnings are from U.S. gasoline sales

ExxonMobil's earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. The part of the business that refines and sells gasoline and diesel in the United States represents less than 3 percent – or 3 cents on the dollar – of our total earnings.

For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That's not a typo. Two cents. http://www.exxonmobi...to-think-about/

I stand by my statement "Wanna guess who makes more per gallon of gasoline sold than the producers -- yes, government? The state and federal are "hugely benefiting" more than the actual oil companies.

The price of a gallon of gas is at the retail level does not matter -- the feds and the states still get their pound of flesh, right off the top -- period. This chart from the California Energy Commission proves that. http://energyalmanac...rgins/index.php

The link was good but it didn't refer to the Feds Tax they charge for each barrel of crude. I do know they do tax any imported crude. Also the Feds get a nice tax on the profit the company makes. There is more Fed taxes that wasn't shown. The states make out like a bandit though.

[Leatherneck 693]

The link was good but it didn't refer to the Feds Tax they charge for each barrel of crude. I do know they do tax any imported crude. Also the Feds get a nice tax on the profit the company makes. There is more Fed taxes that wasn't shown. The states make out like a bandit though.

That would be the royalties charged by the feds. A royalty rate of one-eight (of the selling price per barrel) for onshore production and 18.75% royalty rate for offshore as of 2008. The feds can take the royalties 'in kind' (actual delivery of natural gas and oil) rather than cash.

Then you have the lease itself that must be paid per acre. The government has no skin in the game -- yet they certainly get paid. People buy into the 'evil' oil company and 'record high profits nonsense, but it is the government making more money than the oil companies.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nationalize the oil companies. Let Congress set the price of gasoline and other petroleum products. We could be just like Mexico, and start paying less than three dollars a gallon for fuel.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Nationalize the oil companies. Let Congress set the price of gasoline and other petroleum products. We could be just like Mexico, and start paying less than three dollars a gallon for fuel.