# Big Oil's Big Problem: Increasingly Expensive Production Costs



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

BooHoo!


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

If cheap Iranian oil comes on the market in a big way, alternative energy and fracking might be 'too expensive' all of a sudden.

Then again, if you drive an EV, and bike places, you don't care much about the price of oil to begin with. 

If a few oil companies lose money on building up too much too fast, while spending a lot to process the crap, it doesn't work.


----------



## dreamer (Feb 28, 2009)

How can anybody write an article on the cost of producing oil, and never mention what that cost actually is ? A few years ago, it cost the Saudis less than $5 to produce a barrel of oil and this was given as a reason oil-from-shale, of which Colorado alone has a trillion barrels, was not being pursued -- it cost $30/b at that time to produce oil from shale and the Saudis could flood the market until price was under $30/b long enough for oil-from-shale losses to ruin their competitors. So the most relevant fact in any article on the cost of producing crude oil is obviously how much per barrel it costs. Yet this article says not one word about it. That is just mind-boggling how fact-free articles like this get published. Without that info, how can anyone determine whether any alternative sources -- shale, algae, ethanol, hydrogen, etc. -- are becoming more competitive ?


----------



## Caps18 (Jun 8, 2008)

Th only way to win the game is to not use any at all.

If we had a competent investigative journalist organization, maybe we could figure out what is the truth. But, I'm not even sure if the Saudi's would flood the market anymore. They are raking in the high price too, since it is sold on the world market and speculators can control the prices of the last barrel that has to be paid for every barrel along with it.



> http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/determining-oil-prices.asp
> 
> According to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME), the majority of futures trading is done by speculators as less than 3% of transactions actually result in the purchaser of a futures contract taking possession of the commodity being traded.


And I wouldn't be surprised if the OPEC cartel and the North American oil cartel have teamed up to get as much money as possible.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

CNN: Sponsored by the dirty energy companies!
FOX: Sponsored by the dirty energy companies!
ABC: Sponsored by the dirty energy companies!
NBC: Sponsored by the dirty energy companies!
CBS: Sponsored by the dirty energy companies!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

While you folks sit there demonizing big oil, lets take a moment to consider the inherent hypocrisy:


The clothes you are wearing probably contain petroleum products
The food you eat was harvested and delivered by petroleum
The computer you are using to read this contains petroleum products, and is probably powered at least in part by petroleum
Your home was built with machines powered by petroleum, and your roof probably is protected by petroleum products
The car you drive, even if it is powered by electricity, is probably powered in part by petroleum and was manufactured using petroleum products
Face it, the reason you hate big oil is because you depend on it, like a junkie needing his next fix.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

All of these can alternatively be done without petroleum and create a more sustainable world. It also creates a better economy that is not rocked by fluctuating oil prices. Alternative energies produce more jobs.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> All of these can alternatively be done without petroleum and create a more sustainable world.


Perhaps, but clearly at a higher price which would translate to a lower standard of living for you and I.



> It also creates a better economy that is not rocked by fluctuating oil prices.


Now that is just nonsense. The inflation-adjusted price of gasoline has rarely varied by more than 50% over the past 100 years - and when it did it was usually caused by bad government policies. For example, the 1981 peak price was caused when Jimmy Carter set artificial oil and natural gas price controls. Too, I believe that our current gas prices are shown artificially high on the "adjusted for inflation" scale for the simple reason that inflation is incorrectly calculated - if you compare it to the price of gold adjusted for inflation you will see disturbing similarities in the charts suggesting someone is playing fast and loose with reporting of "inflation."



> Alternative energies produce more jobs.


Yes, if you call hand-pumping water for your shower a job. What you are really saying can be illustrated by the converse of your statement: Given cheap oil, we can get the same work done using fewer workers.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Oil is cheep because many costs are externalized like the military keeping the right people in power.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Have you shopped for groceries, lately. Petroleum is used to produce those products. Farms can, alternatively, use solar for machinery on the farm.
It is a massive shift to make the change, but it employs Americans and cleans the air. The oil addiction needs to be weened off.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> Oil is cheep because many costs are externalized like the military keeping the right people in power.


Again, nonsense. Oil is cheap because it is not difficult to drill and pump it out of the ground, and because it is plentiful around the world (so that no one country can withhold it).


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

All of the cheap oil has already been exploited and from here on out is expensive to get at.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> All of the cheap oil has already been exploited and from here on out is expensive to get at.


Nonsense. If the remaining oil were expensive we would already be seeing it at the pump.

I have no doubt that some day oil will be uneconomical to pump. Today is not that day. Drilling & other recovery technologiess are still staying ahead of demand.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

I guess that overlooked the fact that oil is oozing out of the surface of the earth like artesian wells. All of the easy oil has been taken and this is why oil prices have risen and imported oil is expensive.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> I guess that overlooked the fact that oil is oozing out of the surface of the earth like artesian wells. All of the easy oil has been taken and this is why oil prices have risen and imported oil is expensive.


I will give you this - you are persistent. However, while it is more technically challenging to recover oil today than in the past the facts do not agree with you with respect to price.

Gas prices 1918 - 2012
Gold prices 1915 - 2012

Note the correlation of the price of gasoline to another substance which has real value to humans. The excursions on the graph have to do with failed government attempts to "control the economy" far more than with the actual value of the substance.

Regular gas is now $3.05 in Atlan ta - well below the 1980's peak caused by artificial price controls.

Add in the fact that todays' cars travel a lot further on that same gallon, and gas is actually cheaper than it has been for much of its useful history.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

http://www.businessweek.com/article...rnings-reports-reveal-big-production-problems


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> http://www.businessweek.com/article...rnings-reports-reveal-big-production-problems


Ah, let's see what this article has to say:

_"Profits at Exxon Mobil (XOM), the biggest U.S. oil company, are down 27 percent off its worst fourth-quarter earnings in four years. Royal Dutch Shell (RDS.B), Europe’s biggest oil major, saw its profits tumble 48 percent."_

In other words, they are still profitable. Yawn.

"_Just to maintain production rates, oil companies have to race to find new reserves faster than the old ones dry up._"

This is non-factual. There are plenty of known reserves. What this really means is that they have to keep locating new reserves at the cost level of existing reserves to extract. If, or when, they actually fail to do that (which hasn't happened yet) then we will see real price increases. Probably won't happen for at least a decade, and by then batteries will be much better and cheaper than they are today.

"_As a result, oil majors are throwing massive amounts of cash at super-expensive mega-projects such as Shell’s LNG-producing “Monster ship” the Prelude, estimated to cost upwards of $12 billion._"

"Mega-project?" Project sizes are only meaningful when gauged against the size of the market they serve. Global consumption of gasoline (not all petroleum products) is about 23.5 billion barrels per DAY, or 1.3 trillion gallons per day, or 470 trillion gallons per year, or about $1.5 quadrillion dollars per year @ $3/gallon. That's barely a blip on the financial sheet.

Will there be challenges in the next few decades? Certainly. Will gasoline cost $50 / gallon? Hardly.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

shell profits down 48% , YAWN? are you kidding. Shells CFO is not yawning . But then they pay him not to think like you.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> shell profits down 48% , YAWN? are you kidding. Shells CFO is not yawning . But then they pay him not to think like you.


Edit. Too much sarcasm too early in the day and outside the ChitChat forum. Let's just say the responses I'm getting seem to be internally inconsistent.

The big oil companies may be having a down year, but it is certainly not a trend since just a few years ago people were complaining about their record profits.

I have neither love nor loathing for the gas companies. They provide a vital service for humanity and for that they are constantly attacked, ridiculed, despised, mocked, singled out for excessive taxation, and downright demonized. Despite all of that, as businesses they are doing just fine and the free market is doing a better than average job of keeping prices in line with historical levels.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

The oil companies are demons and the hired bribery firms that control the politicians. They have polluted the oceans for many years to come and get away with it with a slap to the wrist and get away with paying next to nothing in taxes.
See the truth about it by watching "Were Not Broke" documentary.
The facts are true in this documentary, unlike some shills might profess to be untrue.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I saw the movie and agree . 
PP how could you possibility come to the conclusion that I was complaining oil co's not making enough .
I was trying to indicate they are in a long accelerating decline , due to oil getting more expensive (production) , market decline(economy) , market share decline( wind, solar, tesla etc.). Do I need to spell out the thread title.
Starting to sound like a troll.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> The oil companies are demons and the hired bribery firms that control the politicians. They have polluted the oceans for many years to come and get away with it with a slap to the wrist and get away with paying next to nothing in taxes.


Oil travels on the great lakes as well as the oceans, and those are cleaner today than 5 decades ago. What about natural leaks of petroleum into the oceans? Are those demons too? Do you know what the relative contribution of man-caused spills into the ocean as compared to natural leakage is? There is effectively an Exon Valdiz sized oil spill each day from leakage at just one location.



> See the truth about it by watching "Were Not Broke" documentary.
> The facts are true in this documentary, unlike some shills might profess to be untrue.


Calling political propaganda a "documentary" does not improve its lack of factuality. We are broke, but it has nothing to do with the oil companies.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> I saw the movie and agree .
> PP how could you possibility come to the conclusion that I was complaining oil co's not making enough .
> I was trying to indicate they are in a long accelerating decline , due to oil getting more expensive (production) , market decline(economy) , market share decline( wind, solar, tesla etc.). Do I need to spell out the thread title.


Notice I edited my post, you may wish to edit yours for similar reasons.

I agree that the oil companies will decline, but disagree on the facts that they are. The only "evidence" suggesting their decline amounts to hyperbole. 

The synergy between improving technology and economies of scale have conspired to keep gasoline prices relatively steady for the past 100 years. This is fact, not opinion (see the links posted earlier), and nothing in that article (or elsewhere, for that matter) actually indicates that that will change before gasoline begins to become irrelevant. By that time, any diminishment in supply (if in fact that becomes a "problem," which so far it isn't) will not be horribly felt as more and more people switch to EVs.

Airplanes will be the last to switch because of energy-density needs. All aircraft traffic accounts for only 10% of other transportation uses of petroleum; light aircraft (non-airlines) account for only 10% of that (or 1% of the total). When the "big switch" starts we can expect rail and large cross-country trucks to lead the way (smaller infrastructure changes needed to accomodate those); that will significantly reduce the demand for diesel, so more of the output of pumped oil can be cracked as gasoline (helping to keep supply constant even if petroleum output begins to drop a bit). At worst, prices will rise above $4/ gallon (current dollars adjusted for inflation) as oil companies switch to lower-yield or more costly to extract sources.

In fact, when trucks and trains begin their conversion (remember that magical 3-year return on investment formula? Onec that hits it will be an avalanche) *I expect there will be a glut of gasoline on the market, driving prices lower*. Attempting to hold onto their markets just a little longer, oil companies will similarly cut margins during cutover in an attempt to persuade people to put off converting "just a little longer."


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> I saw the movie and agree .
> PP how could you possibility come to the conclusion that I was complaining oil co's not making enough .
> I was trying to indicate they are in a long accelerating decline , due to oil getting more expensive (production) , market decline(economy) , market share decline( wind, solar, tesla etc.). Do I need to spell out the thread title.
> Starting to sound like a troll.


Thanks!
I'm with you.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Calling political propaganda a "documentary" does not improve its lack of factuality. We are broke, but it has nothing to do with the oil companies.


 It looks like you never saw the movie, did you?


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

The Tea Party might learn who really is destroying the middle class in America, if they could watch the documentary.
Snopes and Truth.com gave it good marks for accuracy and truths.
Only a shill or someone who does not watch it would deny the content.
Oil companies pay almost no taxes. It is all on record.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

And that doesn't even talk about the notoriously abused oil depletion allowances . Tax wright offs for selling oil that's owned by U.S. government, via oil leases , plus all normal business expenses .


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Now tar sands are shipped by rail, all over America and Canada. Tank cars are derailing, at alarming numbers and in some cases burning whole towns down. 100,000 tank cars a day are planned to supply Valero Oil Co. The tank cars will travel through Sacramento and Davis, California. Valero paid the officials off to get preliminary permits but has been stalled with an injunction by protests from citizens in the communities.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Oh great, I live in West Sacramento . It will be just like Burning Man only bigger and better . LOL


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> It looks like you never saw the movie, did you?


You don't read what's written here before you make these comments, do you?

I would not have known the film is propaganda if I hadn't watched it. Like any good piece of propaganda it has a few truthful points in it; however, it wanders between truly non-factual and clever misrepresentation (accomplished through a single-sided presentation; i.e. the tax exemptions are true, but the level of profit is still lower than almost any other industry). Presenting only half a story is the same as a blatant lie, something I call the editors of other sites on who consistently present only the facts which make it look like their position is supported when in fact presentation of all the facts would give exactly the opposite impression.

BTW - I don't disagree that the exemptions and subsidies (I will use the word even though it is not accurate because that is what the politicians call it) the oil companies get should not exist. However, they would not exist if Congress had not given them to them - so I blame government not business for that since no subsequent Congress has corrected those mistakes. On the opposite side of the coin (and entirely ignored by the Mockumentary) is the fact that oil is singled out for higher taxes at point of sale than anything except alcohol and tobacco. So, the points I made previously (that oil companies make $0.06/gallon, while government makes $0.40 / gallon - 6.6 times more than the oil companies make on their own product and the oil companies make less per dollar of capital investment than any surviving business except groceries) are still true and represent a more accurate assessment of the industry than the propaganda film.

Oh, BTW. The act of calling other people "trolls" (


 * Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia *

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) - Similarto *Troll* (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  
In Internet slang, a *troll* is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic *...*

) in your posts is a both an act of trolling and is also a violation of the TOS of this site - particularly given that your accusation was based on my responding truthfully (if sarcastically) to your vague insinuations based solely on emotion and propaganda. SunWorksCo quoting that text is in the same boat. If you want to go down that kind of road, it should either be restrained to the ChitChat forum (which is held to a lower standard) or you should self-edit such comments.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> The Tea Party might learn who really is destroying the middle class in America, if they could watch the documentary.


I watched it. I researched the facts. Yes the oil companies get outrageous tax loopholes. That is less than 1/2 of the truth, and so focusing on that is a lie. Oil companies also get singled out for the highest taxes in the country.



> Snopes and Truth.com gave it good marks for accuracy and truths.


Snopes only rates truth on what is told - not on what is omitted. Telling half the truth when half the truth leads people to a dishonest conclusion is as bad as, or worse than, telling a straightforward lie.

Truth.com is a paid for site funded by liberal groups, and is little more than a propaganda site.



> Only a shill or someone who does not watch it would deny the content.


Only a shill or a deluded tool touts something as truth without actually researching the entire truth in context.



> Oil companies pay almost no taxes. It is all on record.


Yep. And still somehow the government makes 6.6 times more off their product than the oil companies make, while earnings per dollar for oil companies are less than those of grocery stores. How is that possible? Simple - politicians find oil companies to be a convenient scape goat, but they need them to be profitable because we all need them.

Once you swallow the kool aid, I suppose anything is believable. Strange, though, how those pesky facts seem to keep popping up in the middle of your prepared speeches.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

These last two posts look to me as a perfect example of trolling 
You said oil gets outrageous loopholes . Then it would look like they made almost nothing. Loopholes reduce profit, at least on the books, but not in reality.
How is such a basic bookkeeping principle lost on you?


----------



## muffildy (Oct 11, 2011)

From:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/574161/what-five-oil-companies-did-with-profits/

"The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production."

"In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders."

"The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks, totaling nearly $150 million."

Sad truths about oil....and probably most other corporations.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> Oh great, I live in West Sacramento . It will be just like Burning Man only bigger and better . LOL


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/27/train-derailment-new-brunswick-edmunston_n_4671778.html

I used to live in West Sacramento.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

sunworksco said:


> Now tar sands are shipped by rail, all over America and Canada. Tank cars are derailing, at alarming numbers and in some cases burning whole towns down. 100,000 tank cars a day are planned to supply Valero Oil Co. The tank cars will travel through Sacramento and Davis, California. Valero paid the officials off to get preliminary permits but has been stalled with an injunction by protests from citizens in the communities.


Wait a tick, entire towns have burned down? Where did this happen and why haven't I heard about it? One would think entire towns burning to the ground would be big news. Link?


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

It was all over the news. The problem is as soon as it appears, it disappears.
The entertainment and info commercial news stations like it to go away so their dirty sponsors can get on with their campaigns.
Just like Fukushima. The whole Pacific has been contaminated by nuclear waste but do we hear about it every day? We did see the "Pandoras Promise", the nuclear energy info commercial every hour, on the hour.
The shills are still using the benign banana as the benchmark for harmless radioactive levels. The 300 tons of nuclear waste water flowing into the Pacific on a daily basis since July 2011 is going to kill at least 400,000 or more people in the world. The airborne partials will cause deaths and birth defects and deformities. 
Do you think that we would not talk about these many deaths if terrorists killed that many people? It would a news flash every minute.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

wow I wonder what the carbon footprint is. 
I almost went up there a few years ago , as I looked into it I though this is the biggest mess ever, except for nuclear .


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

This tar sand is a boondoggle at best.


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

sunworksco said:


> It was all over the news. The problem is as soon as it appears, it disappears.


There has to be at least a couple articles on the internet somewhere. You don't simply erase all evidence of a town burning down. People live there after all, and people talk.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Here are three big ones in the last couple of months

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/quebecexplosion.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/12/131231-north-dakota-oil-train-fire/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-b...-derailed-on-fire-near-plaster-rock-1.2487977

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/b...rge-as-oil-industry-takes-the-train.html?_r=0


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I was in Madison Wis. and spent time at U.W. student union . They have free movies and if documentaries, they have a discussion afterwords . So "Pandoras Promise" is played , time for the experts to start , 2 of these parrot the movie , the 3'ed is a epidemiologist but he says no safe dose of radiation it all does damage etc. Then instead of people getting the mic. they pass out cards to be submitted and they pick softball questions . Also they loaded the audience with nuclear operators and other pro nuclear people . 
So at the end I walk up to the 3 experts and say this isn't propaganda it's fraud ! The epidemiologist says your right! The 2 others turned and walked away . 
Next day I said to the people that run the theater, this was fraud . They say we heard about you and we had nothing to do with it don't blame us.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_epidemiologist but he says no safe dose of radiation it all does damage etc

_He is correct - all ionizing radiation causes damage - as in it damages molecules

BUT - most radiation is natural and the amount of background radiation varies from place to place worldwide - by a factor of 100 or so

As an epidemiologist he can of course correlate this radiation exposure to peoples health???

Unfortunately that is where the data gets in the way - the only correlation from the data is a very weak positive correlation - it seems people are healthier when the background radiation is higher!
This is a very weak correlation and nobody is suggesting that we improve peoples health by deliberately increasing the background radiation level
But it does blow away the - There is NO safe dose theory
Which is what you would expect - we have evolved in a radioactive world,

The slight positive effect may be like the results that we are finding that bringing up kids in surroundings that are too clean results in weakened immune systems

Your immune systems need to be used to remain available when required

Use it - or lose it


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Background is far different then particles, called fuel flies getting into 
your body and radiating until removed .


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Background radiation and bananas have nothing to do with cesium-137 and strontium-90. These are in the Pacific fish bones and flesh. I have stopped eating any seafood. First we shat in the sea, then we dumped non-biodegradable trash, then lethal chemicals, every drug imaginable through urination and now radioactive waste. What are political conservatives conserving? It isn't earth!


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

We are breathing these intermittently since the event . 3 days away by the jet stream . This is going around the world . 
Dilution does nothing to particles. just less of them .


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Here are three big ones in the last couple of months
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/quebecexplosion.html
> 
> ...


AFAIK, the Lac-Mégantic incident is the only one where a town burned, and it certainly wasn't the whole town. While I think its prudent and worthwhile to debate the safety of transporting fuels via rail, I don't think such extreme exaggeration is needed.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Radioactive particles

High background radiation is either local geology 
And the local dust will be made from that geology - radioactive particles

Or High altitude
And the radiation will be secondary radiation from cosmic rays 
Ie. from radioactive particles made radioactive by the cosmic rays

In both cases the radiation will be ingested

This is where coal power is so bad,
Coal power releases more radioactive particles into the atmosphere every five years than the civilian nuclear power system has released in total - and that includes Chernobyl and Fukushima

Whats worse is coal power deliberately releases them as high as possible so they spread as much as they can


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

rochesterricer said:


> AFAIK, the Lac-Mégantic incident is the only one where a town burned, and it certainly wasn't the whole town. While I think its prudent and worthwhile to debate the safety of transporting fuels via rail, I don't think such extreme exaggeration is needed.


Maybe you should have been on the street next to the derailment to see how exaggerated the fire actually was burning.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Radioactive particles
> 
> High background radiation is either local geology
> And the local dust will be made from that geology - radioactive particles
> ...


Three Tepco reactors melted down. The radioactive particles will be hot for over 20,000 years. Coal burning is on its way out. It can't compete and is too dirty.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

These are nano sized products of evaporation that cool before they can come back in contact with other particles . A nuclear fire will evaporate fuel which if small will have a high surface to weight ratio . They can travel great distances and can't be picked by a geiger counter but can be picked by a spectrum ana
lyzer .
Tepco also has tall stacks to send this stuff as far as possible .


----------



## rochesterricer (Jan 5, 2011)

sunworksco said:


> Maybe you should have been on the street next to the derailment to see how exaggerated the fire actually was burning.


Then you acknowledge that your exaggeration was unnecessary and likely detrimental to the argument you were attempting to make? There is no need to exaggerate when talking about incidents like this, the truth is serious enough.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> These last two posts look to me as a perfect example of trolling


Then you obviously didn't read the definition of trolling, did you, even though I posted it for you? Posting facts, while you may find it offensive because they don't fit in with your ideology, is not "trolling." Accusing other people of being trolls for posting facts? That is a form of trolling. Happy to have the mods make a ruling on this, though, if you're convinced you're lilly-white.



> You said oil gets outrageous loopholes . Then it would look like they made almost nothing. Loopholes reduce profit, at least on the books, but not in reality.
> 
> How is such a basic bookkeeping principle lost on you?


Probably because it's not a bookkeeping principle. You are very confused if you believe loopholes reduce profits. The definition of a loophole is a tax law passed explicitly to allow favored cronies a way to avoid paying taxes, thus retaining earnings as profits. Loopholes are one of the reasons our founders forbade "Income Taxes;" because they knew the corruption which would result. Excise, or "sales" taxes were the preferred means of raising revenues for the Federal government - and the sales taxes on gasoline are a perfect example of an excise tax with no loopholes (everyone must pay it).

But enough of this. You have made it clear that in your eyes the oil companies are run by demons and facts have no place in your opinion. If it makes you feel better to have nightmares that the oil barons have it in for you, god bless you.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

muffildy said:


> From:
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/574161/what-five-oil-companies-did-with-profits/
> 
> "The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production."
> ...


Ah yes, the "Center for American Progress" (founded by George Soros to demonize capitalism and to promote global totalitarianism & socialism). Nah, can't be that they present partial facts to pursue an agenda, could they????

Let's put these half-truths into perspective, and compare Exon-Mobil to Apple:










These companies make a great deal of money for the simple reason that they sell a lot of product - 18.55 million barrels per day in the U.S. alone, or a little over 1 billion gallons per day. China consumes about 60% of that amount, and together the big two account for only 15% of global consumption. So with 6 billion gallons of products being consumed daily, that makes 2.2 trillion gallons of products per year. So, they are only making a net profit of about $0.05 per gallon.

In the United States, government takes about $0.40 per gallon in taxes - or 8 times the profit that big oil makes on their own profit. In Europe, where taxes are in the dollars per gallon, government takes about 40-80 times what the oil companies make on their own product.

Are the criminals here the pension funds of teachers, firemen, and policemen which comprise one of the biggest blocks of stockholders of big oil? Are they evil for wanting a return on their investment?

So here's the bottom line, guys. As long as you focus on politically oriented sites for your "facts" (which will never show the whole picture, no matter what polarity site you visit), you will inevitably draw bogus conclusions.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> _epidemiologist but he says no safe dose of radiation it all does damage etc
> 
> _He is correct - all ionizing radiation causes damage - as in it damages molecules
> 
> ...


One long distance daytime airline flight at 40,000' exposes you to about the same amount of normal background radiation you would receive on the ground in half a year. There is very little correlation between frequent fliers and related health issues. 

If the background radiation goes up 10% in your area because of one of these accidents, it would still take you 5 years of that level of increase to receive as much additional radiation as one cross country airline flight. And of course, the increase never lasts that long from an accident unless you park next door.

It's good to be informed and take prudent precautions. It's not good for your well being to scream "The Sky is Falling!" for every news story.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PP What I meant by bookkeeping was if I net 100,000 and I expense (offshore) 99,000 my net goes to 1,000 or 1% , I still have my 99,000 offshore where the IRS can't audit it(I claim it as expense) . You know what's been done and condem it , but in the next breath you defend it, I'm only making 1% .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

fairewinds.com has a lot of information on background radiation , tepco,etc.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> PP What I meant by bookkeeping was if I net 100,000 and I expense (offshore) 99,000 my net goes to 1,000 or 1% , I still have my 99,000 offshore where the IRS can't audit it(I claim it as expense) . You know what's been done and condem it , but in the next breath you defend it, I'm only making 1% .


If they shift the money to a subsidiary, it becomes profit to that subsidiary and is taxable under the government of that nation. They do not simply get to keep it all as you seem to believe. 

The reason they do this is because the U.S. now has just about the highest tax rate in the world - about 8 times higher than the tax rate that caused our ancestors to revolt and create a free nation. I applaud the oil companies for being pragmatic, for if they simply accepted this sorry state of affairs my retirement stocks would take a nose dive. I don't want idiots managing the finances of companies, because idiots cause companies to fail, services to stop, employees to be laid off, and tax revenues to disappear completely.

In any event, you keep fixating on the profit as if it is an evil creature on the one hand, then applaud government for taking 6-40 times that much (which, although it does reduce the profitability of the oil companies it does so by taking the mony out of the pockets of you and I) - most of which is squandered on crony-capitalist deals or to create propaganda that deludes people into voting for even more government. If you cannot see the irony in your position, thank a Union teacher...


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

*The reason they do this is because the U.S. now has just about the highest tax rate in the world - about 8 times *

Blatant bullshit!

CHART: The US Has One Of The Lowest Tax Rates In The Developed World


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> fairewinds.com has a lot of information on background radiation , tepco,etc.


It's always a good idea to Google the sources of any article. Since I've seen the other sources you tend to pull from, I was not surprised when I googled their names that the second link (the first was Arnie's own site) provided this article:

Is Arnie Gundersen Devious or Dumb? (Or is He Simply a Professional Fear-Monger?)

It's been 30 years so some of it may be a bit faded in my mind, but we had to study quite a bit about radiation when I trained to handle nuclear weapons. They did not just teach us about nuclear fallout, but gave a broad understanding so we could put it into perspective. This article from the NRC aligns pretty well with what I remember. Here is an article which suggests my earlier post about airline travel was off (I mis-recalled "regular travel" as "a single trip"), and that you would need to travel routinely to get those levels of increased exposure. Still doesn't make much difference to the point I was making; the total number of people who will be exposed to dramatically increased radiation due to Fukoshima will not be in the millions as the alarmists would have you believe.


In any event, if you want to understand the effects of radiation you should look at multiple peer-reviewed sources. I'm not going to do that again as I did it 30 years ago; as long as the summaries available dont suddenly change radically I suspect that newer information will simply refine slightly what was already known.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> *The reason they do this is because the U.S. now has just about the highest tax rate in the world - about 8 times *
> 
> Blatant bullshit!


This is not the Chit Chat forum, you should restrain your emotional (and erroneous) outbursts. 

Have you already forgotten how you pointed out that the Big 5 did not pay anything, or hardly anything, in income taxes?

Your chart explicitly states that it includes all major Federal taxes, including social security and income taxes. Since most Big Oil company employees do not work in the United States (because this isn't where most of the oil is), the employer's portion of tax liability to SS is relatively small. Ditto income taxes, which even allowing we eliminated their ability to shift revenues off shore would still allow them to disburse any net income as Dividends, shifting that entire tax burden to stockholders.

Social Security and Income taxes represent about 80% of Federal tax revenues, which leaves only Capital Gains to plague Big Oil. The United States now has just about the highest Capital Gains taxes in the world, something even Obama has been forced to acknowledge contributes to companies moving parts of their business offshore.










Article source of chart here.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Ireland's tax rate is 12.5% . earning stripping is loading U.S. subsidiary with debt from parent corp. . inverting or expatriate is moving headquarters offshore . After 
successive rounds of legislation, corporations needs to have 20% foreign ownership .


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PhantomPholly;
[FONT=Arial said:


> Is Arnie Gundersen Devious or Dumb? (Or is He Simply a Professional Fear-Monger?[/FONT]
> 
> looks to me like your are trolling .


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> PhantomPholly;
> [FONT=Arial said:
> 
> 
> ...


Facts aren't trolling, but accusing others of trolling for dispelling your poor references is.

Google: "arnie maggie gundersen"

For me, this article is the second result. Fact. You may disagree with the author's conclusions, but that still doesn't make it trolling. However, given that your hero has established a website and a career positing a particular and controversial point of view, clinging to his words appears to be more a matter of faith than of reason.

If you want to support your position with facts, you need to use actual accredited experts, not "self-described experts" whose results are not peer verified. Here's a big clue: When it is primarily a single person disputing the entire industry, Occam's Razor says that it is most likely that the single person is wearing his tin foil or otherwise simply trying to profit from his agitation. In other words, he is probably a professional troller, and you are emulating him.

When you are simply trolling, of course, you can quote anyone you want and say it means the moon is made of green cheese.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PP that's what I expected Google did it .


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

I really hate to say this but on the radiation question I agree with the Phantom


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

I truly hope that all of you nuclear energy lovers don't mind eating cesium-137 and strontium-90 in your seafood.


----------



## PStechPaul (May 1, 2012)

I do think the "greenies" often exaggerate the dangers of nuclear power and radiation, as well as effects of global warming, climate change, pollution, EM radiation from cell phones, etc. But, OTOH, oil, coal, gas, chemical, and nuclear companies also overstate their claims of safety, because they are motivated by profit, which to a large extent goes toward exorbitant CEO salaries as well as lobbyists who "own" many lawmakers.

This makes it very hard to discern the "truth", and it most certainly lies somewhere in the middle of these extremes. I favor caution, as well as legal and economic means of reducing pollution, waste and unnecessary consumption of resources, so I am aligned toward the "greenies", but not completely. It is fair to say that nobody knows all of the facts, and the harm from radiation and other environmental conditions is based on statistics (which are worse than damned lies). 

But there is a very important difference between full body exposure to X-rays and cosmic rays, and ingesting a particle of radioactive material. The radioactive substance lodges and remains in one place in the body, and continues to bombard a group of cells with a very concentrated dose, which over a period of time will almost certainly cause mutations that can become cancerous, and the surrounding cells may be unhealthy and unable to elicit an effective immune response. The more diffuse exposure is spread over the entire body, and if a dangerous mutation happens to occur, it will probably be only one cell, and the healthy, unaffected surrounding cells can use their immune response to destroy it.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

_But there is a very important difference between full body exposure to X-rays and cosmic rays, and ingesting a particle of radioactive material. The radioactive substance lodges and remains in one place in the body, and continues to bombard a group of cells with a very concentrated dose, which over a period of time will almost certainly cause mutations that can become cancerous, and the surrounding cells may be unhealthy and unable to elicit an effective immune response. The more diffuse exposure is spread over the entire body, and if a dangerous mutation happens to occur, it will probably be only one cell, and the healthy, unaffected surrounding cells can use their immune response to destroy it._

True
Which is why coal is far more hazardous than nuclear - from a radiation standpoint before you even start on things like mercury


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

you guys remember when that Russian got polonium internally . I saw the pictures of him as he progressed to death, took about a week I think . They use this average per sq. meter, even one little bit of plutonium 
in your in lung by 1 meter average would do little harm . But it will do great damage to tissues next to it. They know this averaging is not realistic . 
Arnie Gunderson has great cred. He has worked on the 3 mile island cleanup , testified NRC etc.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> I really hate to say this but on the radiation question I agree with the Phantom


lol - that's twice this year! Look out, you'll be a Libertarian in no time...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

PStechPaul said:


> But there is a very important difference between full body exposure to X-rays and cosmic rays, and ingesting a particle of radioactive material. The radioactive substance lodges and remains in one place in the body, and continues to bombard a group of cells with a very concentrated dose, which over a period of time will almost certainly cause mutations that can become cancerous, and the surrounding cells may be unhealthy and unable to elicit an effective immune response. The more diffuse exposure is spread over the entire body, and if a dangerous mutation happens to occur, it will probably be only one cell, and the healthy, unaffected surrounding cells can use their immune response to destroy it.


Even this can be overstated. Every molecule in your body not locked up in the calcified bone structure is replaced each and every month of your life. Every day you ingest and inhale radioactive particles.

In order to do damage equal to or beyond your body's natural ability to repair itself, it is really necessary to ingest either a chunk of material which becomes lodged, or inhale a high concentration of such particles over a long period of time. The first pretty much requires close proximity to a source of such chunks (either near a failed reactor or in mining operations); the latter close proximity to a continuous outflowing of such a concentration.

You are far more likely to die from a lightning strike than develop illness from any single source of environmental radiation (i.e. a reactor leak), unless you live right by the event. In fact, you are far more likely to develop radiation-related illness from too many X-rays than from environmental sources, again excepting folks living right next door to a major incident.

The answer, of course, is to retire the older high-pressure reactors which can spew vapors or melt through their containment vessels. There is still a place in our energy matrix for some nuclear power, and we should be developing MSRs (Molten Salt Reactors) which have no high-pressure radioactive materials and which automatically "fail" to a safe condition (fail = automatic shutdown).


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

There is absolutely no financial advantage of nuclear energy plants over green technologies. Nuclear plants are upside down technology and by the time it takes to build them, green technologies could have already been producing.

Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, didn't mince words in an interview with IEEE Spectrum. The United States is turning away from nuclear power, he said, and he expects the rest of the world to eventually do the same. 

"I’ve never seen a movie that’s set 200 years in the future and the planet is being powered by fission reactors—that’s nobody’s vision of the future," he said. "This is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course."

Jaczko bases his assessment of the U.S. nuclear industry on a simple reading of the calendar. The 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States are aging, and he thinks that even those nuclear power stations that have received 20 year license extensions, allowing them to operate until they're 60 years old, may not see out that term. Jaczko said the economics of nuclear reactors are increasingly difficult, as the expense of repairs and upgrades makes nuclear power less competitive than cheap natural gas. He added that Entergy's recent decision to close the Vermont Yankee plant was a case in point.

"The industry is going away," he said bluntly. "Four reactors are being built, but there’s absolutely no money and no desire to finance more plants than that. So in 20 or 30 years we’re going to have very few nuclear power plants in this country—that’s just a fact." 

Jaczko spoke to IEEE Spectrum following his participation in an anti-nuclear event in New York City at which speakers discussed the lessons that could be learned from the Fukushima Daiichi accident. Speakers also included former Japanese prime minister Naoto Kan, who headed the government during the Fukushima accident, and Ralph Nader. Several speakers talked about New York's Indian Point nuclear power station, and Jaczko expressed his personal opinion that the plant should be shut down. 

Jaczko argued that more Fukushima-type accidents are inevitable if the world continues to rely on the current types of nuclear fission reactors, and he believes that society will not accept nuclear power on that condition. "For nuclear power plants to be considered safe, they should not produce accidents like this," he said. "By 'should not' I don’t mean that they have a low probability, but simply that they should not be able to produce accidents like this [at all]. That is what the public has said quite clearly. That is what we need as a new safety standard for nuclear power going forward." He acknowledged that new reactor designs such as small modular nuclear reactors and some Generation IV reactor designs could conceivably meet such a safety standard, but he didn't sound enthusiastic.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

http://youtu.be/fc_Fw1sSMDU


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> There is absolutely no financial advantage of nuclear energy plants over green technologies. Nuclear plants are upside down technology and by the time it takes to build them, green technologies could have already been producing.


With current reactors, that is not quite true - if they last long enough they have a lifetime cost per watt competitive. 

With new technologies, we should compare not only cost per watt as compared with green technologies (such as solar, which is coming down rapidly) but also with the cost of "grid storage" which solar abd wind cannot replace.

In point of fact, it is quite probable that LFTR reactors could be far less costly per watt than most other types of power. They cannot "melt down," they cannot have an "escape of radioactive gasses," and the fuel used per capita in the United States today (including vehicle propulsion) is about 1 gram of Thorium per person per year - with the Thorium being, for all practical purposes, free as a byproduct of precious metal mining. Contrast 1 gram of Thorium (a tiny lump about the size of a pea) with the typical 750 gallons of gasoline plus 4,000 lbs of coal typically consumed by each person each year...



> Gregory Jaczko, who was chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at the time of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, didn't mince words in an interview with IEEE Spectrum. The United States is turning away from nuclear power, he said, and he expects the rest of the world to eventually do the same.


Not any time soon. China is still building a coal plant each week, and has committed to leading the way towards MSRs. It is quite likely they will take the lead because we have so completely stifled innovation here.



> "I’ve never seen a movie that’s set 200 years in the future and the planet is being powered by fission reactors—that’s nobody’s vision of the future," he said. "This is not a future technology. It’s an old technology, and it serves a useful purpose. But that purpose is running its course."


It depends upon the type of fission. The dreamers all say fusion and hydrogen; the physicists suggest that the right type of fission will be far less expensive than any fusion, and hydrogen will never be more dense than gasoline.



> "The industry is going away," he said bluntly. "Four reactors are being built, but there’s absolutely no money and no desire to finance more plants than that. So in 20 or 30 years we’re going to have very few nuclear power plants in this country—that’s just a fact."


Yep. Traditional high-pressure reactor vessels need to be decommissioned.

The problem isn't with "all nuclear energy." The problem is with power plants which were designed expressly to meet the lust for nuclear weapons which grew from WW II. Politicians don't want to give up traditional reactors because without them it is hard to develop weapons-grad Uranium and Plutonium.


----------

