Comments on: Big Oil to Congress: Please Share This Misinformation With Your Constituents

By: tom vilsak

tom vilsak — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:49:39 +0000

Ethanol will NEVER be economically viable replacement for oil UNTIL we seperate Ethanol from the oil companies. WHO distributes Ethanol now????? Ethanol IS much cheaper to produce than gasoline. WHO is making profits from Ethanol??? WHO controls price, delivery, and availabilty of Ethanol???? Why are there not any E100 vehicles???? Hmmmm, if there were E100 vehicles ( which exist right now outside the USA ) then it would not have to be supplied through oil industry network of gas stations. Think about it people!!!!! WE are and Ethanol is being manipulated by oil companies with the end result being bigger profits for oil companies, a pitiful dent in our dependency on oil, too little too late effect on pollution, and a nation losing focus on viable fuel options. I live in Iowa. I own an E85 car. My family raises corn. I don’t buy E85 because the gas stations here gouge us with a inflated price for a product that is less efficeint. We NEED to get Ethanol away from the oil industry. PERIOD.

By: moonshineman

moonshineman — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:59:34 +0000

E85 has no chance of finding any real market in the U.S. while the GOP controls Congress. Most Members of Congress are bought and paid for and have long since sold their souls to the Big Oil lobbies. Get use to it. It ain’t gonna change anytime soon.

By: Eye on Williamson » John Carter’s Million Dollar link to Exxon

Eye on Williamson » John Carter’s Million Dollar link to Exxon — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:34:07 +0000

[...] When not voting his financial self-interest, Carter helps the American Petroleum Institute spread misinformation directly to his constituents. Last month, the API sent this letter to Congress with talking points to deflect voter outrage over oil company profiteering. (ThinkProgess has more.) Carter complied, offering this op-ed in today’s Hill Country News. Carter also staged a press conference at a Shell station in Killeen, repeating many of the same points (watch the video). The similarities between the API letter and Carter’s words are readily apparent. In particular, the API and Carter blame: [...]

By: qrswave

qrswave — Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:32:32 +0000

Globablists would sooner rain bombs on our heads before they allow us to nationalize. Or they would pull our money supply out from underneath us.

That said, we need to start by nationalizing the money supply, THEN we can nationalize the country’s mineral resources. But, the energy sectors, like banking, health care, and insurance, must be run by private, NON-Profit community organizations – NOT an incompetent federal government.

By: charles Mcfadden

charles Mcfadden — Fri, 28 Apr 2006 00:14:15 +0000

I am more concerned about where are we headed? Logic tells me,that we are not uttillizing all our means.Why,are we not using the famer to grow the essentials to produce ethonal.I am so tired of hearing the quarterly reports of oil companies.It sounds like they are bragging in the midst of a catastrophy.

By: Buzz Baer

Buzz Baer — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:12:42 +0000

Gas vs Biofuels. I dont think China or India care about MTBE additives,Ethernol or Global warming. They will puchase all the oil they need to contiue there economic growth and the Americans will continue to import their products. Oil companies will sell oil to higest bidders and that includes American Oil companies. we have some refineries down now do to Katrina and some off line for refitting. In the past we had 15 refineries,today only 4. if we go totally green,those countries will continue to use oil, and just like a volcano that blows it top, the winds of fortune will blow the reidue around the world. Global warming will continue. Vrapy Buzz Baer Kailua Kona Hi.

By: Luck91

Luck91 — Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:44:18 +0000

Subsituting a food source for mechanical energy is a mistake (even if the corn is not the food source now, we would have the potential of switching to our corn that is the food source). Think scope and what happens if corn is the answer…we would use it like crazy.

Some one PLEASE find the law that forces gas stations to make a profit on every gallon of gas they sell. This is the immediate problem to our high gas prices. The law was implimented to stop the gas wars of decades ago that caused so many mom and pop stations to go belly up. Gas stations are no longer mom and pop and we need to bring back true market competition…as there is no competition now and only demand with oil company controlled supply.

Exxon’s biggest profits are coming from their future purchases of oil in the $30’s for a barrel of oil and not from the gas prices themselves (but that does not hurt the bottom line of course). So, if I bought gas for $1/gallon last year and now the market is at $3/gallon and I sale for $3/gallon, I make $2/gallon. True; however, why not sale at $2/gallon and undercut everyone else? Because they are conspiring and don’t have to compete do the law that forces all gas stations to make profit on gas sales! The gas comes in the same gas trucks to most gas stations. I ran a gas station for 2 years. Just check and see how many gas distribution points you have in your city and who owns them…this gas goes into all of your gas stations. It is a commodity that consumers are forced to pay for at a premium by a law designed to protect consumers…but now protects big business at the expense of consumers. This is capitalism? This is communism! Let free market competition reign!!!

By: Howard

Howard — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:18:38 +0000

The Ethanol Hoax

Ethanol is always going to be more expensive than gasoline because it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the amount of energy that can be gotten out of it.

One step in producing ethanol is growing corn. In order to grow corn, the farmer must plow the field, cultivate the field, and apply such chemicals as fertilizer, herbicides, fungicides, and insecticides. He must also harvest the corn and transport the harvest to the plant which produces the ethanol. All of this requires the use of tractors and trucks which burn gasoline.

Adding ethanol to gasoline causes the price of the gasoline to go up, thus causing the cost of producing the ethanol to go up in a never ending spiral!

By: Doreen G

Doreen G — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 00:01:59 +0000

How can we organize a protest of these oil prices? Two weeks ago, illegal immigrants were able to organize huge protests in several cities…..can’t we get something organized to get people together to speak out about this now? We are all being taken advantage of by big oil companies and the current federal government administration and we have to get our word out to show them that this is a BIG issue to us now! It shouldn’t be hard to get people out when they are hit in the wallet!

By: Dick B

Dick B — Tue, 18 Apr 2006 14:40:18 +0000

Its good that somebody else has finally joined my cry – Nationalize these Aholes – if we have to pay exhorbinant amounts for their profits, lets use those monies for taxes where we get some benefit (albiet very little). Oh – and by the way, for all the help our elected officials are giving us in the oil screwjob, let’s DUMP THE ENCUMBENTS! The hell with the Democrats and Republicans. I’ll vote for anybody except one of these 2 parties. I’m tired of this bull!

By: Reginald

Reginald — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:23:51 +0000

In concurrence with post 45, I think we should take some profits from the oil companies and put in our pockets. There are ways to do this which includes burning the fuel in our cars more efficiently. How do you do that you ask? Well, the gas has to be treated so the flash point is reduced. Once that happens, you’lh have a cleaner burning fuel that will release more energy. Check out the link to learn more.

By: All Wrong » Crude vs Refined: What’s up with oil?

All Wrong » Crude vs Refined: What’s up with oil? — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:55:09 +0000

[...] But wait, there’s more! Check out this article on exactly that issue posted mid-last week, suggesting exactly the opposite. [...]

By: Biodiesel Guy

Biodiesel Guy — Sun, 09 Apr 2006 13:11:48 +0000

Many short-sided authors here. High gas prices creates innovation and conservation. High profits for oil companies will be short lived as competition will eventually bring the profits down. Looks like competition–this time–may come from non-petroleum sources such as alternative fuels (biofuels, propane, LNG, etc.). This is a good thing.
Some think that competition is being stifled by oligopolies controlled by a few oil companies controlling prices. Truth is oil companies are making profits because of the volitility of the market. The oil companies are not causing the volitility. Our addiction to oil in the face of demand outstripping supply is doing that on its own. Oil companies are simply reaping the benefits of our wasteful behavior. Don’t blame oil companies or politicians for the problem we have created. We have elected politicians over the last twenty years that would make sure that we keep getting more and more wasteful vehicles. Our average fuel economy peaked in 1982, and now resides around 20.9 for 2006 model year, which is down 1 mpg from 2005.

We can only live in denial for so long. We can only use 25% of the world’s oil for so long while producing 9% of the supply. We’re looking for conspiracies, but they are not there. If you want something to change, change our behavior. 1. Stop unnecessarily idling your vehicle: warming up, running the A.C. in parking lots, going through drive throughs. 2. Slow down to the speed limit or lower. 65 mph instead of 75 mph will save you about 10% fuel. 3. Drive less. 4. Walk or ride when possible. 5. When you buy a new vehicle, make an econmical choice. 6. When you make choices such as lawn care, choose non-petroleum choices (i.e. electric lawnmowers). 6. Support alternative, renewable biofuels and use them in your tank, even if it is a few cents higher. 7. Stop recreational activities that use lots of petroleum, such as racing, boating, etc. and supporting racing sports that use lots of fuel such as NASCAR. 8. Support legislation and politicians that support increasing fuel economy, conservation, reducing climate change, and giving tax incentives for alternative fuels and alternative energies for transportation, while increasing taxes on petroleum-based fuels.

Truth is we don’t pay near for gas what it costs. Its estimated that securing the free-flow of oil accross the globe costs us around $50 billion dollars towards our defense budget. This money doesn’t go towards the cost of gasoline, but is passed on to all the tax payers, or contributes to the national debt.

Just now people are investing in alternatives that will net us less petroleum consumption. High gas prices are making us mad, but they are doing such good things for us in the long run. The worst possible thing that could happen now is for gas prices to drop.

By: TJM

TJM — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:24:53 +0000

I don’t know if anyone noticed that in the linked article,the author noted that at $40 per ton,and sales of 200 million tons,a profit of $5.1 billion is a profit margin over 60%. Big oil margins don’t come close to that. Let’s grow some corn!

By: Russ

Russ — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:36:12 +0000

From BBI International:

http://www.bbibiofuels.com/news/view.cgi?article=435

February 12, 2002

U.S. DOE STUDY CONCLUDES “NO MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE BARRIERS EXIST” FOR A 5.1 BILLION GALLON PER YEAR ETHANOL MARKET

Study Boosts Support for Renewable Fuels Standard and California Market

WASHINGTON, DC — The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) called attention yesterday to a new report completed for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on the infrastructure requirements for an expanded ethanol industry. The report found that â€œno major infrastructure barriers existâ€ for producing and using over 5 billion gallons of ethanol across the country each year.

â€œThis study produces empirical support for the transportation industryâ€™s recent statements that they have the capability and the capacity to move large quantities of ethanol from coast to coast,â€ said Bob Dinneen, RFA president. â€œThis report leaves no reasonable doubt that a dramatic expansion of the domestic ethanol industry can be achieved without supply disruptions or distribution problems. Whether replacing MTBE in California or meeting the demand for ethanol created by a robust renewable fuels standard (RFS), the U.S. ethanol industry can and will respond.â€

The report, Infrastructure Requirements for an Expanded Fuel Ethanol Industry, analyzed the infrastructure requirement for expanding ethanol use, including transportation, distribution and retailing issues. The study assumed ethanol production of 5.1 billion gallons per year, comparable to pending legislation establishing an RFS. According to the study, 495 terminals (58.6% of operating terminals) would offer ethanol.

By: Electric-Escape.net

Electric-Escape.net — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:38:06 +0000

Oil Companies Blame Ethanol for High Gas Prices…

“…and pay no attention to our record-breaking profits behind the curtain.”…

By: Muckraked » Blog Archive » The Daily Double

Muckraked » Blog Archive » The Daily Double — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:22:37 +0000

[...] Of course, ethanol just happens to represent a threat to the major oil companies, a fuel additive grown in America by American farmers and that reduces greenhouse gas emissions from cars by 20%, reports Think Progress. [...]

By: L.J. Abershawe

L.J. Abershawe — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:00:19 +0000

Well, unlike Jackelope who is obviously an expert on ethanol as an alternative fuel source, this article perked up my curiosity. Anyone that thinks any industrial corporation, whether supporting the usage of a non-renewable resource or the usage of a “green” fuel, isn’t going to worry about their bottom line and profit margins are completely ignorant of the corporate world. I’ve been reading several articles and studies on the usage of Ethenol. It has pros and cons. I would suggest any uninformed readers go and educate themselves on it. I started at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel

Seemed a good place, and it’s a worthwhile read. Of course those ignorant louts who want to just spout off the talking points of their chosen interest group, by all means spout away.

By: For Truth

For Truth — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:34:58 +0000

#12,

Yes I saw that in the History Channel also, I couldn’t help but think that Bush is a Dispensationalist.

By: MrBlueSky

MrBlueSky — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 20:33:35 +0000

I think I’ll just sit in the corner and sing “Peace and Love” while smoking some peyote.