House Democrats call for nationalization of refine

[Bruzilla]

...exactly, do you expect a nearly 40 year gone system based on some 80% domestically produced product to be replicated today in an environment where barely 40% of the product is subject to the placid environment of domestic US concerns and the rest comes from not so tranquil environs? Saudi and Chevezland do enjoy, you know, the vast advantage of having the stuff in their back yard. Didn't think about that, didja?

I believe Tom Hanks said it best in A League of Their Own... "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it great!" I don't think that anyone, especially me, is saying this would be an easy thing to do, but it can be done. It may help you to remember that prior to the Saudis nationalizing their oil production and forming Aramco, that their oil production industry was nothing more than letting US oil companies control everything. If the Saudis were able to transition from the oil companies running everything to a state-owned company running them, why wouldn't the US be able to do so?

As to the availability of product, the oil companies shifted from domestic oil to foreign oil not because there was any shortage of domestic oil or the ability to get it. They made the move because labor and other costs were so much lower in foreign countries that even with the price of shipping factored in there was more profit in buying oil pumped overseas than that pumped domestically. The oil companies could pay the bills and make a profit with oil at $23 a barrel, but they could make even more if they used cheaper foreign oil. This was a sound decision that was based on a profit motive, but if we take the profit motive out, then there's no reason we can't meet 100% of our needs with domestic sources of oil. And if we do need to to buy 20% of so oil from foreign countries due to political reasons, it'll be for much less than it is selling now.

If the government passed the Bruzilla Fuels Act, here's what would happen. All the oil companies would freak out and proclaim the end of civilization. The government would contract out production to Independent oil producers who would spring up like daisies as they would see making some money as better than making none, and these folks would reopen closed wells and fields and get them producing again. When the oil companies realized they were fighting a losing battle, they would then get on board with the program. And before long the US would be producing most of our oil products from oil produced in the US, there would be lots of new jobs, and the price of gas would be back to where it should be... about $1 a gallon.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

I believe Tom Hanks said it best in A League of Their Own... "It's supposed to be hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it great!" I don't think that anyone, especially me, is saying this would be an easy thing to do, but it can be done. It may help you to remember that prior to the Saudis nationalizing their oil production and forming Aramco, that their oil production industry was nothing more than letting US oil companies control everything. If the Saudis were able to transition from the oil companies running everything to a state-owned company running them, why wouldn't the US be able to do so?

As to the availability of product, the oil companies shifted from domestic oil to foreign oil not because there was any shortage of domestic oil or the ability to get it. They made the move because labor and other costs were so much lower in foreign countries that even with the price of shipping factored in there was more profit in buying oil pumped overseas than that pumped domestically. The oil companies could pay the bills and make a profit with oil at $23 a barrel, but they could make even more if they used cheaper foreign oil. This was a sound decision that was based on a profit motive, but if we take the profit motive out, then there's no reason we can't meet 100% of our needs with domestic sources of oil. And if we do need to to buy 20% of so oil from foreign countries due to political reasons, it'll be for much less than it is selling now.

...you're saying, then, if we simply let the Saudis take over the US oil industry, we can have $.90 gas???



Look, the whole reason we're getting more oil from them than from here is so that we can pump the bastards dry. Then we'll see.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Which is another argument for nationalization. I have made this argument before and I'll make it again: there is no financial motive or reward for the oil or energy companies to pursue more drilling or refineries, and that's the real reason why we've had neither. These companies have vastly more influence at all levels of govenment than the greeners have. The idea that somehow the Sierra Club and Greenpeace wield more control in DC than Exxon/Mobil is laughable. When it comes to taxation and other negative business issues, the oil/energy crowd has no problem getting bills killed over anyone's objections... but when it comes to bills that drive prices higher by restricting exploration, drilling or refining, they are powerless to the will of the Greeners. I can't believe anyone buys their nonsense!

As long as we leave these matters in the hands of for profit businesses, they will never make a serious effort to exploit additional resources.

The United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works would disagree with you.

FTA: "Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades."

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Kind of an afterthought, but where would the government get the trillions of dollars to buy out the stockholders of these companies? Or should the Maxine Waters of the world just pretend they're Chavez and take what they want?

If one wanted to live under socialism because one thought it was a better political system one should move to a country that accepts that system. At least they don't have to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

 

[MMDad]

China had price controls until yesterday. How did their oil companies handle those controls? They cut supply. That meant shortages at the pump.

China figured it out and stopped their price controls. Prices at the pump will rise, but at least people will be able to get gas.

Do we really want price controls? Do we want to have $1 gas, but be limited to five gallons per week?

If the Chinese with their dedication to socialism have given up on this, what will it take for Democrats to understand that this is a stupid idea?

 

[RadioPatrol]

Any surplus production could then be sold on the global market at the market rate, with all revenues from foreign sales being used to offset domestic prices.

naa screw that ........ if you cannot use it all @ once, don't draw from the ground so fast ......

 

[BOP]

That's absolutely what we should be doing! Just because Communists are doing it, or the Sauds, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. But I think we do need to look at nationalizing it as this does seem to work in Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. If we try to treat it like a utility, we can end up with gas costing .50 in PA and TX, and $2.00 in Oregon and Idaho. If we have a national oil company like Aramco, that controls all the oil pumped by the US, and the refineries that make it into gas, there's no reason why we can't have the same low-cost fuels that Venezuela or Saudi Arabia have.

Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you say is accurate, and I'm not making a value judgement; I simply don't know enough to say, the question is: do we have the collective will to implement such a thing? Especially in light of the fact that corporations effectively control America.

 

[BOP]

...but when a high exposure, emotion based group that the public loves happens to have an agenda that helps the oil companies, we have strange bedfellows. The best friend oil companies have is Al Gore.

You may find this book interesting/worthwhile reading: THE FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES, by Virginia Postrel (weblink: Dynamist.com).

Excerpt:
"SYNOPSIS OF THE FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES
Today we have greater wealth, health, opportunity, and choice than at any time in history - the fruits of human ingenuity, curiosity, and perseverance. Yet a chorus of intellectuals and politicians loudly laments our condition. Technology, they say, enslaves us. Economic change makes us insecure. Popular culture coarsens and brutalizes us. Consumerism despoils the environment. The future, they say, is dangerously out of control, and unless we rein in these forces of change and guide them closely, we risk disaster.

In The Future and its Enemies, Virginia Postrel explodes this myth, embarking on a bold exploration of how progress really occurs. In areas of endeavor ranging from fashion to fisheries, from movies to medicine, from contact lenses to computers, she shows how and why unplanned, open-ended trial and error - not conformity to one central vision - is the key to human betterment. Thus, the true enemies of humanity's future are those who insist on prescribing outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of competition and experiment in favor of their own preconceptions and prejudices."

 

[Bruzilla]

The United States Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works would disagree with you.

FTA: "Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the documentation showing that proponents of man-made global warming have been funded to the tune of $50 BILLION in the last decade or so, but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades."

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Kind of an afterthought, but where would the government get the trillions of dollars to buy out the stockholders of these companies? Or should the Maxine Waters of the world just pretend they're Chavez and take what they want?

If one wanted to live under socialism because one thought it was a better political system one should move to a country that accepts that system. At least they don't have to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

You see... this is an excellent example of the problem. You try to make the case that the Greeners have dumped $50 BILLION dollars into the case for global warming while Exxon/Mobil has only put in $19 million. Okay, let's look at that. $50 BILLION dollars... where do you suppose the Greeners came up with $50 BILLION dollars over a decade??? That number seemed a bit far-fetched to me, so I decided to do some fact checking. And what did I find? Well this for starters: "Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate EPW committee, explains how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears.

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."

Ah... so it wasn't the Greeners ponying up $50 BILLION, it was governments paying it. That figure includes all of the spending that's been done to do scientific research, which is all fine and good, but what I am talking about is lobbying and influence... not reserach. We all know that money talks in Washington DC, and the oil industry has buttloads more of it to spread around than the Sierra Club or all the other Greeners combined! We also all know that the passage, or non-passage, of any bill in Washington DC is very highly influenced by who's got the most cash on the table, which is how the oil industry is usually able to kill any laws that are not advantageous to their bottom line even with a Democrat-controlled Congress. So how seriously should we take the claims of these companies when they say they are totally powerless to overturn the will of the Greeners on bills that are disadvantageous to them, when they have no problem running over the Greeners on bills that are advantageous to them?

As to your afterthought, that's a very good question. I guess I would look back and see how our former leaders dealt with this issue when they began regulating various industries along the same lines. My guess would be that the stockholders, those who were still around when the act passed, would get screwed... isn't that what the stock market is all about? Risk and reward? Some people score big, some people get screwed.

 

[Bruzilla]

China had price controls until yesterday. How did their oil companies handle those controls? They cut supply. That meant shortages at the pump.

China figured it out and stopped their price controls. Prices at the pump will rise, but at least people will be able to get gas.

Do we really want price controls? Do we want to have $1 gas, but be limited to five gallons per week?

If the Chinese with their dedication to socialism have given up on this, what will it take for Democrats to understand that this is a stupid idea?

You're mixing apples and oranges. We saw the exact same thing happen in the 1970s when we tried price controls. Price controls in China and the US failed becaus neither country controlled the industry. Also, we don't just want "$1 gas", but rather gas that is priced at a minimum level to cover the expense of producing it, which is how we price water and electricity.

Let me put it this way. A hundred gallons of drinking water costs me .07 cents here in Florida. A hundred gallons of drinking water in Buenos Aries costs five times as much. Should I be paying the same rate for water as the folks in Buenos Aries? I would be if I had to pay for water that is bought on a global market basis, but instead I pay based on the cost to provide it locally. What we should be paying for our gas is a price based on the cost to produce and distribute it, absent the inflated costs of profits and speculation. For example, if it costs the US Oil Co. $22 to pump and refine a barrel of oil into 27 gallons of gasoline, then the cost of a gallon of gas should be .81 cents a gallon. If something happens, say we lose a refinery to a hurricane and it needs to be rebuilt, and the it now costs $25 to pump and refine, then a gallon should cost .92 cents a gallon until the refinery is back online, and then drop back down to whatever the current cost of production is. The costs will certainly fluctuate, but they will fluctuate due to valid cost issues and not due to fears, worries, or concerns the way they are now.

 

[Bruzilla]

Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you say is accurate, and I'm not making a value judgement; I simply don't know enough to say, the question is: do we have the collective will to implement such a thing? Especially in light of the fact that corporations effectively control America.

Do you listen to Limbaugh or Hannity? If you do, you heard the daily commercials, paid for by the oil companies, that warned how higher taxes on oil or price controls were going to end civilization as we know it. This was the first nationwide ad campaign the oil companies ran since the last time Congress discussed raising their taxes. You might also have noticed that these same companies have never found it necessary to run a similar campaign to urge voters to call Congress and demand that new oil exploration be allowed or refineries built... but I digress.

The second that any effort is made to nationalize our oil industry, or at least regulate it as we do water and electricity, the oil companies will go into hyperdrive with advertisements and media saturation as to how this too will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. We'll hear all about how we shouldn't let the same government that gave us (insert name of most egregious case of government mismanagement here) run our fuel system, but they'll never mention that the same system has worked very well with providing electricity and water at the lowest price possible. And then you'll have lots of people running about and screaming as to how this will never, ever, work, even though it seems to be working fine elsewhere.

Do we have the national will? Probably not. We still have people thinking that our current gas prices are actually the result of "vastly increased demand in China and India" (even though it isn't) or "vastly increased demand because of all the SUVs" (even though SUV sales have been declining for the past four years), so it's obvious that a lot of people will swallow any BS the oil companies and speculators throw out to them.

 

[RadioPatrol]

In The Future and its Enemies, Virginia Postrel explodes this myth, embarking on a bold exploration of how progress really occurs. In areas of endeavor ranging from fashion to fisheries, from movies to medicine, from contact lenses to computers, she shows how and why unplanned, open-ended trial and error - not conformity to one central vision - is the key to human betterment. Thus, the true enemies of humanity's future are those who insist on prescribing outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of competition and experiment in favor of their own preconceptions and prejudices."

AMEN .........

 

[Bruzilla]

You may find this book interesting/worthwhile reading: THE FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES, by Virginia Postrel (weblink: Dynamist.com).

Excerpt:
"SYNOPSIS OF THE FUTURE AND ITS ENEMIES
Today we have greater wealth, health, opportunity, and choice than at any time in history - the fruits of human ingenuity, curiosity, and perseverance. Yet a chorus of intellectuals and politicians loudly laments our condition. Technology, they say, enslaves us. Economic change makes us insecure. Popular culture coarsens and brutalizes us. Consumerism despoils the environment. The future, they say, is dangerously out of control, and unless we rein in these forces of change and guide them closely, we risk disaster.

In The Future and its Enemies, Virginia Postrel explodes this myth, embarking on a bold exploration of how progress really occurs. In areas of endeavor ranging from fashion to fisheries, from movies to medicine, from contact lenses to computers, she shows how and why unplanned, open-ended trial and error - not conformity to one central vision - is the key to human betterment. Thus, the true enemies of humanity's future are those who insist on prescribing outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of competition and experiment in favor of their own preconceptions and prejudices."

The problem with this view is that it attempts to deal in absolutes, and there are no absolutes in this World. The concept of "unplanned, open-ended trial and error" is a wonderful thing, but is it all we need to focus on? Being a kid from Pittsburgh, I saw what unresticted "unplanned, open-ended trial and error" did to the city: the skies were so choked with black smoke that it looked like midnight at midday. So what happened? The unplanned, open-ended trial and error, steel companies were forced to accept one central vision: clean air. The result was that the companies were able to use unplanned, open-ended trial and error to attain that one central vision.... then the unions wrecked everything. So the reality is that unplanned, open-ended trial and error alone is just as bad as focusing on just a pre-determined outcome or expectation.

Now look at the oil industry. For years they used their unplanned, open-ended trial and error to provide customers with excellent products at competitive prices. Then along came 1973 and these companies realized they could charge as much as they wanted and the consumers would still come to them. They used unplanned, open-ended trial and error to determine the best way to lock in standardized pricing to prohibit any company from undercutting another, thus effectively killing competition. Just like the steel companies in Pittsburgh, they got to the point where all that mattered was maximizing profits, and if people died from lung ailments or the economy is pushed to collapse... too bad. The same unplanned, open-ended trial and error thinking that has led to $4 a gallon gas could just as easily be used to come up with ways to make gas cost about a buck... all the oil companies need is someone to give them a new central vision to use it on. It worked for Big Steel and it would work for Big Oil.

Unplanned, open-ended trial and error absent central visions only works to the betterment of us all when there is real competition. If the folks at Coke decide to triple the price of their products to maximize profits, people can pay the price or drink Pepsi. If all the cola producers decide to triple the price of all colas, people can pay the price or start drinking tea or juice. In short, the consumer has choices and these choices prevent companies from going to dangerous extremes with their unplanned, open-ended trial and error thinking. But there are some areas of business, just a few, where the absence of competition requires a common vision, things like electricity, water, and gas... things that most everyone needs and that there are no real substitutes for. It is lines of business like these that we need to watch very closely for signs of excessiveness and reign them in when we find them as there is no competition to do the reigning.

 

[Larry Gude]

As I see...

As to your afterthought, that's a very good question. I guess I would look back and see how our former leaders dealt with this issue when they began regulating various industries along the same lines. My guess would be that the stockholders, those who were still around when the act passed, would get screwed... isn't that what the stock market is all about? Risk and reward? Some people score big, some people get screwed.

...it, the breakup of Standard Oil and the Sherman anti-trust legislation, if viewed through the lens of government, basically says no one is allowed to get bigger than the government. If viewed from the business side, the Sherman limits were simply one more obstacle for business to over come and, over the years, we've had consolidation and, now, globalization, of the oil companies. What this amounts to is monopoly by another name and the function is the same; to defeat competition by growing opponents out of the market.

We saw it when we became a nation of only 3 auto manufacturers. We see it in miniature with major league baseball and NFL football. We've seen it in the days of three major networks and we're seeing it today in the telecom consolidations. Big business is neither Republican or Democrat; they are entities. They are institutions. As such, they'd be happy to go along with the global warming farce as, given their size, they can simply pass along the costs. Same thing for gas 'windfall' taxes; whatever keeps the natives calm as they're gonna pay for it anyway.

So, Dems can beat up on big corporations look and sound good doing it and, in effect, tax us all via them as, once an issue takes on enough momentum, it becomes good business to go along with it. And the GOP is little, if any, better.

Another good example is the tobacco settlement. On it's face, a pro business person would say you can't impose that kind of burden on a business! But, the larger picture is that 'big' tobacco was more than happy, after negotiating what they needed, to go along with the farce. After all, the people are going to pay for it.

Big business goes to government FOR regulation to protect it's interests against traditional competition.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

You see... this is an excellent example of the problem. You try to make the case that the Greeners have dumped $50 BILLION dollars into the case for global warming while Exxon/Mobil has only put in $19 million. Okay, let's look at that. $50 BILLION dollars... where do you suppose the Greeners came up with $50 BILLION dollars over a decade??? That number seemed a bit far-fetched to me, so I decided to do some fact checking. And what did I find? Well this for starters: "Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate EPW committee, explains how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears.

"In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $U.S.50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one."

Ah... so it wasn't the Greeners ponying up $50 BILLION, it was governments paying it. That figure includes all of the spending that's been done to do scientific research, which is all fine and good, but what I am talking about is lobbying and influence... not reserach. We all know that money talks in Washington DC, and the oil industry has buttloads more of it to spread around than the Sierra Club or all the other Greeners combined! We also all know that the passage, or non-passage, of any bill in Washington DC is very highly influenced by who's got the most cash on the table, which is how the oil industry is usually able to kill any laws that are not advantageous to their bottom line even with a Democrat-controlled Congress. So how seriously should we take the claims of these companies when they say they are totally powerless to overturn the will of the Greeners on bills that are disadvantageous to them, when they have no problem running over the Greeners on bills that are advantageous to them?

As to your afterthought, that's a very good question. I guess I would look back and see how our former leaders dealt with this issue when they began regulating various industries along the same lines. My guess would be that the stockholders, those who were still around when the act passed, would get screwed... isn't that what the stock market is all about? Risk and reward? Some people score big, some people get screwed.

Take your argument regarding who came up with the funds for the environmentalists with the government committee. Maybe they're wrong.

Government screws us daily, legal theft of our wages every paycheck. Why shouldn't the government screw us old folks who have 401k plans and other investments? It's fair in their socialist minds, unethical in mine.