Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

US oil companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 03:48 PM
Original message
US oil companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.
There is a new drive by the Bush administration to drill off-shore of coastal states. It is like a mindless propaganda drive, and it is working well.

But there is very little in the news about the fact that while this big push for drilling offshore is going on....our US oil companies are shipping records amounts to other countries.

It is shocking that the media is not covering this.

From CNBC:

As Oil Firms Seek Drilling Access, Exports Set Record

While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, U.S.-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries.

A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.


Up 33% since 2007...amazing.

Maybe the Democrats will see this is happening and speak up strongly on it. Or...maybe not.

Some House Dems team with Republicans...do not count out off shore drilling.

A group of House lawmakers are looking to replicate an effort among Senate centrists by bypassing their party leaders and putting together a compromise plan to address gas prices. Reps. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, and John Peterson, R-Pa., are gathering a group of rank-and-file lawmakers preferably split evenly between the two parties for a meeting Monday in the hopes of quickly piecing together a legislative package. They plan to formally announce the groups formation Tuesday.

There is an effort thats going on among members to try to put together something that makes sense and is balanced, Natural Resources Energy Subcommittee Chairman Jim Costa, D-Calif., said. Costa was one of 19 Democrats, predominately from oil and gas producing districts, who voted against a use-it-or-lose it plan sponsored by Democratic leaders shortly before the Independence Day recess.


The Use it or Lose it plan is the one supported by Barack Obama. I have to wonder why Democrats would do this.

House Democratic leaders as early as next week intend to bring that plan up again as part of a larger package emphasizing more production in areas where it is allowed to counter repeated calls from GOP leaders to expand access to new areas.

Many Democrats from oil and gas producing areas including those opposing use-it-or-lose-it agree with Republicans on opening up areas for drilling.


The CNBC article points out that "the biggest share of U.S. oil products exported went to Mexico, Canada, Chile, Singapore and Brazil." It also points out that "U.S. consumers are paying record prices for gasoline and diesel fuel, which the Bush administration blames in part on tight supplies."

The arguments are right there and ready-made for our Democrats. All they need to do is speak out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. this was reported the other day and the media took a big snooze...nobody wants to know or admit it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yep, I saw it, and it needed reporting again
And it needs reporting tomorrow. And our Democrats need to use it, by golly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. agreed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
32. Kick and Rec.
Great catch MF! I missed it the first time around. I'm forwarding that CNBC article to everyone I know. Especially the remaining Bushbots.

Capitalism at it's finest!

Just like the "Great Hunger" in Ireland. There was plenty of food for export. There just wasn't any food for the Irish.


And How much has the price of gas gone up this year? In the vicinity of 33%? If anybody knows any truck drivers or Teamsters Reps, they should forward this to them. It seems they're the only ones with the balls to take any action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. K & R ....
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
3. the Repubs want every drop of oil in ANWAR for EXPORT ONLY...fact
Edited on Sun Jul-13-08 04:02 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FREEWILL56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. The cry back in the 70s was to drill drill drill
and that drilling was in Alaska and the pipeline was born to push it south to the main part of our country. It was to relieve our energy needs, but in fact it was being exported to the same places mentioned and none being consumed here. It is one big corporate farce as we have speculators driving the price up as there isn't a shortage at present and they cry as if there is a shortage so as to open up new areas to drill in order to export more to other countries at a high premium. They profit while snowballing the American people. IMHO the greed of the oil industry and other factors such as what the housing loan industry has created may trigger a depression. That is the definition of a resession or depression as being too much wealth going to too few with one being a higher degree than the other without defineable transition points making a depression being allowed to be coined as a recession to the advantage of those few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
74. Will they pay FMV for the leases? To whom will they pay it ?
Will they be fairly taxed on their profits? Will the oil be sold in the US for US consumers?

It's federal land,right? So we own the land. Does Bush have the right to give away our oil rights to big business?Does he own those rights?

Thievery! Embezzlement! Tyranny! Didn't we rid ourselves from King George?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. we're being Enroned
on a national scale. Why do you think Cheney has fought so hard to keep his energy task force meeting notes secret?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. I read that OilMovements is reporting tankers just sitting, full
of oil. Offshore somewhere. Yes we're being Enronned. Again. Again. Again...What do you expect when there's a duo of BigOilMen in our White House?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Simple enough to remember: 33% more exported
Edited on Sun Jul-13-08 04:10 PM by kentuck
A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007.
==============

So, they get a new market, China or India, and they raise the price on Americans to make up for the difference in price if were sold to American consumers. Just think of how much they could sell on foreign markets if it were $8.00 per gallon??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
71. A bell just went off....Isn't this what the pharmaceutical companies do? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
79. China and India sell things to us, because we will pay more for them
than their own consumers will. If, on the other hand, they will pay more for our refined petroleum products than our consumers will (I assume we are exporting more of these products because other countries will pay more, not because we are nice guys), why shouldn't we sell to them?

Or would it be better if Chinese factories only sold to Chinese and American oil companies only sold to Americans? (Of course, I am not urging Canada to only sell their oil to Canadians and not to us. And I am not urging all of Boeing's international customers to stop buying American airplanes and just buy from their own manufacturers.)

For 60 years the US market has set the standard for the rest of the world, mainly because our consumers had much more money to spend than any where else. Consumers in other countries were effected by the fact that much of their manufacturing was geared for export rather than the domestic market. The result for these consumers was fewer products available domestically and higher prices.

Now that the parts of the rest of the world are becoming wealthy enough to affect our domestic markets by attracting away US goods that previously would have been sold domestically, we are waking up to a reality that has affected the rest of the world for many decades.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
8. This is treason!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
file83 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #8
42. Which is really just business as usual for this Corporate Administration.
AKA, Bush Inc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. In a globalized market isn't the distinction between foreign and domestic meaningless?
Aren't products that can be shipped gonna be shipped to where they bring the most money regardless of where they are produced?

As our candidate and the leaders of the "party" argue that globalization is here to stay, I think it's pointless to expect otherwise.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Our government and congress should not lie to us.
Period, bottom line.

Our party should be standing up against this, and not caving in again.

It is their job to point out the lies.

If we expect nothing, we will get nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. If the dems aren't clean enough to call the Cheneygroup on this, they might as well
hoist the Jolly Roger and sing the pirate's gospel until we all get it. That they need the boot too.

Criminality can't even pretend to be mainstream anymore, and we've had just about enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I just feel tired of fighting now.
I don't feel anything we do or say matters to them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #23
46. Never did matter to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
52. CheneyGroup?
:rofl:

RepDemGroup would be more appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. You are correct. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eallen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Yep. Which is why the GOP mantra about drilling in the US is wrong....
Slightly slowing the decline in US oil production will affect the US economy only to the extent that it affects global oil prices.

:hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
67. There is no such thing as a free market. It's just rhetoric. There is, however,
deregulation. The laws left are those that protect the ruling class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HereSince1628 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #67
73. Very true.
"Free Market" is language that would be good to delete from my vocabulary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. Oh and by the way. That oil in Iraq. It's on its way to China. The
agreements have been signed. The oil companies are war profiteering anal retentive whores. Sell to the high bidder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. I had not seen that.
But nothing surprises me. We are in some serious trouble in this country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Seems like a good solution might be to make the oil sold to China...
worth less than the oil sold to America. And how do we do that? A windfall profits tax. A tax that would make it less profitable to sell to the Chinese than to sell to Americans...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutonic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
24. Yes I think it was in Rueters about a month or two ago. The
Chinese government officials were in UAE and Iran to discuss the sale of oil from the middle east (including Iraq) to China. The article indicated that China's demand for oil will far outpace the US, Japan and other nations in 3-5 years. the Chinese government subsidizes oil, so teh big oil companies would make a win fall profit from sales to 1.5 billion drivers in China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elehhhhna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #24
92. Is there oil in China? It's a huge country. Do they do any explo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-16-08 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #11
98. Should we force Iraq to sell us their oil at reduced prices because we "liberated" them?
I suppose we on the left could argue that the war was fought for oil, so we intend to obtain the spoils of that war in the form of cheap oil whether Iraqis like it or not.

Of course, they will sell their oil to whomever will pay the most for it. When I sell my car that is the the criteria that I will use to decide whom to sell it to. When Boeing sells its jets that's whom they sell to.

I am not sure what is ahead for Iraq, but I can't envision a construct where we are forever telling them whom to sell their oil to. Our troops would have to stay there forever to maintain our clout in running their oil industry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
17. THERE IS NO CURRENT GASOLINE/OIL SHORTAGE..
No locked down gas stations..no lines around the block,..no rationing..

All this is, is a smash & grab looting operation. Speculators are playing Las Vegas, and are gaming the oil market..and everyone's just letting them,. :grr:

Last week, an "expert" on CNBC said that "upwards of $75 a barrel" was "speculative trading"...

Also, there IS no "our oil-their oil".. ANY oil found, is part of the "global market", so finding more here (or anywhere) only enriches the ones who sell it, tranport it, and gamble on it.. The end-line consumer just has to pay whatever all those costs have added to the price....or walk..

Some oil-producing companies probably hold back enough to allow their own citizens to have cheap gas (Venezuela's 25 a gallon gas or cheap gas in Saudi Arabia), but most of the oil ends up on the open market, no matter where it came from..

All the idiots who think they can get cheaper gas by drilling offshore , are deluding themselves..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. They are especially deluding my state....the opinion change is amazing
"All the idiots who think they can get cheaper gas by drilling offshore , are deluding themselves.."

People are feeling very patriotic and superior now that they are saying ok to more drilling. A feel good kind of thing for our country.

It boggles my mind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. I'm sure they will feel patriotic
when the oil slick moves it's way into Tampa Bay and up into the canals. Of course the east coast probably will not suffer much, as their oil slicks will be washing up on the shores from Georgia to Long Island.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #19
34. how soon do they think this "difference" would show up as a price
drop at the pumps? Seems there is some magical thinking by some folks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. A faked crisis to get the US public to buy into a bad business and divert
it's resources and energy from developing alternatives.

What marketing, that gets us to eagerly dig our own graves searching for oil. Reprehensibly brilliant, or at least easy to accomplish if you own the media and public debate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
30. Yup

Well put, about the speculators. Will Congress ever catch on?
:dunce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #30
53. Catch on?
They're in on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #17
54. Although speculation is not helping,
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 11:10 AM by f the letter
it's not what's causing these prices. It's a demand problem: people use too much damn energy. That $75 a barrel is the 'real price' of oil seems quite fishy, do you have a link or any more information about it? Oil prices have risen steadily for ten years or so, in a manner consistent with Hubbert's predictions about peak oil. Throw in the fact that our dollars are worth quite a bit less than ten years ago too..

You're absolutely right about the global oil market and the fact that no amount of offshore drilling will lower gas prices. People don't say that often enough in this debate.

It is still a sham that we are exporting this much oil at great short-term expense to the domestic economy, but of course if you do the math we still have a looming (the first stages are already here) collapse/crisis regardless. Might buy us a few months or conceivably slightly longer, but a drop in the bottomless pit fundamentally.

i think that all of the political talk about gas prices, heating costs, and the like is missing the bigger picture, which is that we have likely already passed the world's peak production of oil and are about to see the end of the oil age and quite likely the end of the energy age.

==
on edit : added this link for further details on the changing world http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #54
60. The guy on CNBC did not say that $75 was the "real" price
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 12:35 PM by SoCalDem
His comment was that upwards of $75 was being ADDED to the real price, due to all the shifty "trading" back and forth.. It's just like the sub-prime issue..every transaction generates money for the seller, and adds cost every time it's sold.. His premise was that all they were doing was skimming money for themselves all down the line, without adding any actual oil, since only the final "buyer" actually ever takes possession ..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. That ends up being the same thing,
with current oil prices. That is 143-75 = just over 75 being the real price. It's hard to believe that the speculation could account for half of the current run-up with demand exponentially outpacing the world's supply as it is.

i understand that the changing of hands adds to the price every time, and that there have never been so many useless and harmful middlemen, but it seems like optimism to think that we could have cheap oil again if we could just rein in speculators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. It would be a start..
Who even knows what the "real price" should be? Here in CA, before Enron gamed our energy system, we were doing fine, but republicans in office decided for us that we could do "better" if only the private companies could run things for us.. Well they did indeed, run things..right into the toilet..and even after Enron imploded, and we all know it was a scam, our prices never returned to "normal"..

Remember how we have had hurricanes forever? and how we have had offshore platforms for a very long time?? Yet for all those past years, fuel prices never USED to be so "sensitive" to every summer storm..It was just a part of doing the oil business, and storm losses were all factored into the business plan.. Now , it's "OMG a storm"..and gasoline prices go up astronomically, in advance, and then stay up after the storm...onlt to be ratcheted up further from the "new" high"..

We are being scammed....big-time..

I have no doubt that emerging countries are putting pressure on the supplies, BUT that only shows how piss-poor the planning has been for DECADES.. We knew it was coming, and did nothing to mitigate the stress on the market..

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #63
85. i fully agree.
Necessary commodities and service should be public, not private. This includes basic health care, oil, police, fire, education, and the like. The Enron thing is a good example of the cost of privatization.

The hurricane argument is interesting. i could see either side of it, though: if demand has outstripped/is outstripping supply so much that there really is barely enough to fulfill the demand, a hurricane would have an actual impact on price in that case. Emerging markets and unnecessarily high consumption in existing markets are combining to put some real pressure on.

i actually think the planning has been perfect for the goals set by the large energy corporations. The oil/gas companies have been killing alternative energies for decades, buying up patents and sitting on them where necessary. My father worked for a company involved with early stages of fuel cells. In a presentation to the department of energy, they described the benefits and details of their approach to the issue. A department official took them aside after the presentation and told them that although he personally thought the idea was excellent and viable, the department was funded by specific oil companies and it was going nowhere. There are countless examples of this same behavior, on and off the record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #54
69. there is no demand problem! we are in a recession
Demand always drops in a recession. Also demand has fallen as these prices discourage driving.

Oil prices have almost doubled in 1 year. Now way on earth demand has doubled. No way at all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #69
89. Global demand, not domestic.
The problem is bigger than our recession. The insatiable world demand for energy is the problem here, not the supply/demand curve within our tanking economy backed by our falling dollar. Rising gas prices discourage driving but aren't doing much to stop it.. at best we're at 2006 driving levels from the numbers i've seen. i realize that i have to dig up the link to support that claim and will do it.

Just because oil prices doubled this year does not mean demand has doubled, exponential processes are not always 1:1.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
57. This is where the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would help ...

There is very little oil in the reserve compared to our actual needs. But releasing a large amount from the reserve may be enough to burst the oil bubble and send oil prices crashing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #57
75. ...or not
> releasing a large amount from the reserve

The whole SPR isn't a large amount, compared to global consumption. And oil prices are determined globally.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 11:01 PM
Response to Reply #57
96. i wish it were that easy.
Long-term demand dwarfs all the world's strategic reserves combined. It could conceivably provide a (very) temporary drop in price, but it would go right back up and we'd have nothing in reserve. If this were a bubble and not a peak that would make a lot of sense though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
76. DRILLING OFFSHORE WON'T CURE THE OIL SHORTAGE
> No locked down gas stations..no lines around the block,..no rationing..

Not yet, anyway...

Fortunately, we don't have to wait for the hole in the hull to know that there's an iceberg ahead. We have production and consumption stats, for starters.

The "speculation" meme is downright harmful, because it encourages denial about the fundamental decline of oil production worldwide. That decline wouldn't be reversed even if the entire US continental shelf went under the drill.

Any commodity trading is speculative. It's certainly adding a premium to the price, but claiming that speculation accounts for half of it is just wishful thinking. Two-digit oil prices are a part of history now. Time to start dealing with it.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 06:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. It's about REFINED petroleum products, not crude. If anything, it's about refinery capacity.
We're still importing the majority of the crude oil we use. So, this story punctures a hole in the notion that gasoline shortages result from a lack of refinery capacity. Clearly, we're shipping to nations that don't have the refinery capacity ... possibly due to THEIR environmental constraints??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Probably due to what would be a glut of product
Every which way it becomes more obvious that * is an actual incarnate the duplicate agenda of the oil titans themselves. The oil companies and their bo were running out of storage space in the strategic reserve so now they are sending the finished product overseas. If they cut down on the purchase of the crude then the price of it would go down. Hording to keep the price high almost always fails and a multi-gross of crude could probably be even worse
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
36. That's correct. Consumption has declined, ethanol production up. So, they export to prevent "over-
supply" that might drive down prices. Just like any self-interested oligopoly. The domestic oil industry is THE model for self-interested industries, after all.

Time to break up the trusts, again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BearSquirrel2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
58. I think we are exporting crappy oil ...

I think we're exporting the crappier oil that is harder to refine to our own environmental standards. Conversely, we're importing the better stuff.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spag68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
25. Don't forget the deal
that allows them to not pay royalty's on the oil from the gulf. How long will that last? Why should we let them have more places to drill, when they don't pay for what they have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-13-08 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. I did forget that, thanks.
Our party has a tailor made issue all ready to go, and they need to take advantage of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:17 AM
Response to Original message
29. backfiring
This tactic has the potential of backfiring on them in a big way. This run-up in the cost of gasoline has shaken Americans to the very core, and in particular the ones who most needed to be shaken--out in the rural areas.

And yes, there is a shortsightedness that leads some people to think allowing offshore drilling is a patriotic thing to do. But that simpleminded thinking works both ways--they also directly blame George Bush.

It so much reminds me of the pharmaceutical companies, who make Americans pay more for prescription drugs because they are among the few in the world who can afford to pay for them.



Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 05:27 AM
Response to Original message
31. wouldn't that be because u.s. refineries make gasoline for other countries...?
not every country has refining facilities- the u.s. does, and it makes gasoline for other countries. and as populations increase in those countries, so does demand- so it only makes sense that they would be refining more and shipping out to those countries.

i don't see the big deal- it's not like there's a shortage of gasoline in the u.s.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
33. Logical proof:
One of the Repukes excuses for high gas prices is that it's not really the lack of crude, but that we don't have the refineries to process it into gas.
So if we can't process it, why drill it if not for profit?

As if
1) The oil companies need more excessive profit, and
2) We should deplete our own natural reserves (while harming our environment!)


Just more bullshit. It is beyond sickening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #33
37. Not to mention that they colluded to close a lot of refineries last decade.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
35. I read somewhere that all the ANWR oil is designated for export
I'll see if I can locate the d0cuments and article again and post the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
39. Snopes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
psychmommy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #39
78. did you check out the sources snopes used.
their sources seem pretty thin this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 07:49 AM
Response to Original message
40. this is
purely a function of the weak dollar.

US produced goods are cheaper to buy here and sold over there.

I work for a multinational and the pricing for one of our products works like this:

we sell in the US for $4995 (list price) which works out to be 3149.

We sell the exact same product for 3602 (list price) in Europe.

this works out to be a 12% advantage for a European company buying here and transporting there.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
41. Don't TPTB realize that this will put the US economy in the toilet?
As if it isn't already.

Yesterday I heard a teacher talking about where will the school district get the money to buy gas to operate the buses. I guess they'll cut somewhere else.

People will travel less, which will make tourism suffer. Which means less tax revenue for areas that rely heavily on tourism.

Because people are spending more for gas and everything else, due to the ripple effect, they'll spend less money on "wants"--which will hurt small businesses, from plant nurseries to pet groomers.

The few at the top of the pyramid will benefit, but what about the other 98%? This is like a farmer who doesn't care if all his chickens die, doesn't think about he won't have any more eggs or fried chicken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 09:15 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. yes, but...
This is what has to happen as the economic landscape changes in America. That's indicated, but not directly stated, in my post upthread. There have been big changes already in America because of the rise in the price of gasoline--SUVs are being abandoned by automakers, GM might be ready to go under because of its past foolishness with vehicles like the Tahoe, but best of all, people now really understand what life is going to be like with peak oil. In addition, automakers are racing to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Change is difficult--very hard for some people. There are plenty of alternatives to a vacation other than travel. Areas that rely on tourism may have to look at another economic base--what's so terrible about it? Any town in America that's had its economic base removed will be able to tell them about that.



Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
43. What should be sell to other countries? Anything we sell abroad reduces
the supply of it in the US relative to what it would be if we prevented all exporting.

One could make the argument that if we stopped all exports (and we are the world's third largest exporter after Germany and China), domestic supplies of these goods that used to go to other countries would increase dramatically and prices would decline accordingly.

If we stopped food exports, the domestic food supply would increase and prices would be lowered. If we stopped aircraft exports, the supply of airplanes would increase and their prices (and that of air travel?) would be lowered. If we stopped computer exports, the domestic supply would skyrocket and prices would drop dramatically. The same is true of any good that the US export.

While it is true that exports do create jobs in the exporting country (see China as a prime example of this), it is also true that a good exported is no longer available to domestic consumers and, thus, does not benefit the consumers in the producing country but those in the importing country. Consumers in the importing country wouldn't buy the good unless it was superior in some way (price, quality, style, some combination of these). Now imports from China are cheaper. In earlier days, imports from Japan were deemed to be of superior quality in cars and electronics. Fashion imports from some European countries are desired because of their style.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiJaMu Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #43
49. finished goods vs natural resources
pampango,
you make a few good points. Remember, though, there is a difference between trading a resource and a finished good. Right now, China buys our natural resources, turns them into finished goods and sells them back to us at a huge profit (just like we did to Europe for ~170 years).

Food exports are different from airplanes. We want to make and sell as many airplanes (finished goods) as possible to the world because that means good jobs. If we stopped exporting airplanes, domestic supply would increase. But global demand for airplanes will not go away just because we stop selling them. Someone else will step in and fill that demand. Besides, plane prices do not determine air fares (jet fuel does).

We should not cut ourselves off from the world market. We should be the world leader in every market (or at least competitive). This will only get worse in the years to come. Unfortunately, our politicians are too busy figuring out how to profit from pork projects to worry about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #49
77. I agree that we should at least be competitive in markets.
Oil is a natural resource, as is coal, iron ore, timber and so on. I'm not sure that I would put food in that category, though is is surely different from manufactured goods. Farmers put a lot of effort and money into producing food from seeds, soil, water, etc. I'm not sure they would look at food as a resource nature has provided.

If Germany can be the world leader in exports with their high wage, high social safety net economy, I don't see why it is impossible for the US to do the same. It would mean, among other things, that our politicians would have to do things other than provide pork barrel projects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nxylas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
44. But we must defend everything environmentalism opposes
This wingnut said so (scroll down to the bottom, if you can stomach it):

http://theautonomist.com/home/?/ind_ind/article/evil_in...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
47. RFK Jr. tried to make this point on Larry King.
When he was on opposite the CEO of Chevron. I don't think RFK was allowed to get his point across as some confusion ensued and/or Larry interrupted to take one of his convenient commercial breaks to sell sunglasses or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiJaMu Donating Member (13 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
48. but...from the same article
But many energy experts say oil and petroleum products are traded globally, and it may make economic sense to export gasoline refined along the U.S. Gulf Coast to Latin America and import European-refined gasoline to U.S. East Coast markets.


When will people wake up and realize there is no such thing as breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Any politician who claims to have such a plan is ignorant or deceiving us. Oil is a global commodity. Oil companies are global corporations. News flash: we live on a globe!

America makes goods for export and buys goods from other countries. Oil is just another resource (like iron, fish, corn, etc.) that we trade on the global market. And high prices will simply open the door for other competing energy technologies to emerge.

So when you see the price of oil go up, don't complain. Be happy that its another nail in the coffin of the oil industry energy monopoly. They are in their death throes. Let them moan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #48
51. At one point . . believe it or not . . .
OPEC was asking that .... "when the times comes when they have to suspend or STOP oil

production because of Global Warming" . . . that they be SUBSIDIZED... !!!

This was more than a dozen years ago in the NY Times. . .

We should move now to NATIONALIZE all of our natural resources ---

and get Electric Cars on the roads immediately ---


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. Too little too late on the electric car, but would have been nice decades ago.
i posted some of this upthread, but there is no substitute for oil that meets energy demand. The demand is too high to maintain, no matter what combination of other energy sources we're discussing. Electric cars take massive amounts of oil (and a huge amount of oil-mined metals, refined using oil or sometimes coal, and shipped about from place to place on oil-run vehicles). The whole age of cheap energy is over, as it should be. We've blown through billions of years of stored energy in a couple hundred years, and it should come as no surprise.

We should probably still nationalize our natural resources, but it'll cause some serious problems. It's shocking how much American water is owned by corporations in France and Germany, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Papa Donating Member (505 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #56
66. There is a substitute for oil, and that substitute is ....
WATER. Water is the energy source of the future. The oil companies, the government, and the auto industry are in collusion to keep this technology from being widely used or adopted. How do I know? Well, lookup HHO /browns gas on Google. People are currently using HHO gas to mix with their gasoline to improve gas mileage by up to %300 . Average seems to be close to %50 improvement. IT's not a scam, it does work, and the technology is more than a century old.

This simple to use technology could not have escaped the attention of the three culprits mentioned above.

THe way it works is you use electrolysis to release the HHO gas. (I had no idea that you could burn water). THis HHO gas that is released is 3 times more combustible than gasoline. Those that are using it in their automobiles implement a system that creates this HHO gas on demand, and MIX it with their gasoline, which allows the gasoline to burn more efficiently. This is what increases the gas mileage. This technology is here and ready today to be used now.

As this is FACT, it doesn't take long to see how we could adapt our current technology to burn this HHO gas instead of OIL at some point in the future. Virtually all emissions are also eliminated by mixing HHO with gasoline!!

I see it as a potential for "free" energy. Get a solar panel, charge up a battery, then use the energy from the battery to get electrolysis going and generate the burnable HHO gas as you need it.

There are a number of user forums that discuss putting this in your vehicle... check out www.fuel-saver.org where there are dozens and dozens of people across the country that are experimenting with this technology. Look specifically at the "results" forum, and the HHO/Brown's gas forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #66
83. Wow . . . and if I recall correctly, business uses more than 80% of our water . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #66
86. The problem is the energy return on investment:
Hydrogen burns great, way better than gas as you say. Unfortunately, to get it to come out of water you use quite a bit of energy. Then there is the storage (hydrogen is highly volatile and notoriously hard to store for long periods of time or over long distances), transportation (lots of energy here), even disregarding the safety concerns attached to something as explosive as hydrogen being all over the place. Think Hindenburg.

http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net has a good section on the inadequacy of hydrogen to solve our problems. i wish it weren't so, but it seems to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #56
82. Baloney . . . any day we don't have gas-guzzlers on the roads is a day
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 10:20 PM by defendandprotect
that helps us --

We could raise a corporation and have electric cars on the roads in months ---

in 3-5 years we could replace every gas-guzzler on our highways.


See the movie "Who Killed The Electric Car?" --

there were 4,000/5,000 on the roads in California from the late 1990's into 2000's . . .

all recalled and crushed --- those who leased them loved them and wanted to buy them.


Evidently, they didn't call you as a consultant . . . ???

:eyes:


There's a 50 year delay in Global Warming . . . which means we're only up to 1958

and I'm sure you can imagine how much more pressure is going to be piled on this

situation every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #82
88. It is a day, but no more or and possibly less.
i did see "Who Killed The Electric Car," and i liked it a lot. It's a great example of the evils of the oil companies. They (neither the makers of the movie nor the oil giants) didn't call me as an expert.. excellent point. As i wasn't an expert in the movie, everything i say must be invalid. Roll the eyes as needed.

Electric cars are _far_ better than oil-run cars, but they won't save us. Some facts from lifeaftertheoilcrash.net (sorry to quote this website so often, but it is one of the most solid and most honestly sourced i have found).

==== begin quote of lifeaftertheoilcrash page 2 ====

... the construction of an average car consumes the energy equivalent of approximately 27-54 barrels (1,110-2,200 gallons) of oil. Thus, a crash program to replace the 700 million internal combustion vehicles currently on the road with super fuel-efficient or alternative fuel-powered vehicles would consume the energy equivalent of approximately 18-36 billion barrels of oil, which is the amount of oil the world currently consumes in six-to-twelve months. Consequently, such a program (while well-intentioned) would actually bring the collapse upon us even sooner.

Electric vehicles are incapable of replacing more than a small fraction (5 or maybe 10%) of the 700 million internal combustion engine powered cars on the road due to the limits of battery technology. Dr. Walter Youngquist explains:

(source: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm )

" . . . a gallon of gasoline weighing about 8 pounds has the same
energy as one ton of conventional lead-acid storage batteries.
Fifteen gallons of gasoline in a car's tank are the energy equal of
15 tons of storage batteries.

Even if much improved storage batteries were devised, they
cannot compete with gasoline or diesel fuel in energy density.
Also, storage batteries become almost useless in very cold
weather, storage capacity is limited, and batteries need to be
replaced after a few years use at large cost.

There is no battery pack which can effectively move heavy farm
machinery over miles of farm fields, and no electric battery
system seems even remotely able to propel a Boeing 747 14 hours
nonstop at 600 miles an hour . . . "

Some promising research into new battery technologies using lithium is being performed, but even the scientists at the forefront of this research admit, "We've got a long way to go." http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/wtr_15920,318,...

See also:

Prius Batteries Creating Massive Environmental "Dead Zone" http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/editorial/editorial_item...

Assumming these problems away, the construction of an average car also consumes 120,000 gallons of fresh water. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/091704_beyond...

Unfortunately, the world is in the midst of a severe water crisis that is only going to get worse in the years to come. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/...

Thus, the only way for us to replace our current fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs with fuel-efficient hybrids or electric vehicles is to seize control of the world's reserves of both oil and fresh water and then divert those resources away from the billions of people who already rely on them.

==== end quote of lifeaftertheoilcrash page 2 ====

See the problem? It's the insatiable demand for energy. No alternative energy or combination of alternative energies will solve this problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #88
91. Nothing alone is going to "save" us from patriarchal /capitalistic stupidies . . .
We've understood for more than 100 years, at least, that patriarchal/capitalistic concepts

are suicidal ---

Certainly, this was all clear in the late 1950's . . .

and we can certainly not afford to burn any more fossil fuels --- it has to be stopped.

This is the beginning of alternative energies --- as was quite clear in the movie.

This also needs to be addressed in cultural change . . .

It's the insatiable demand for energy.

No -- the problem is the insatiable demand for profit which keeps all those cars sitting

at our railroad stations every day in every town. Trolleys and small buses could wipe

those out in two weeks.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
f the letter Donating Member (402 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #91
95. Although public transportation and small cars are far better,
they are not enough. As the cited information / links show, alternative energies are in fact derivative energies. It takes a lot of oil to produce electric cars, small cars, trolleys, small buses, etc. Let alone the fresh water. There is no viable or effective substitute in place for oil when it comes to liquid fuels, meaning fuels for vehicles. Not hydrogen, not batteries, not biodiesel, not cold fusion.

One can make the argument that public transportation can be run on electricity and not on a liquid fuel, which is true but ignores the massive input of (petroleum) energy to build a national public transportation network (which should have been in place in the 50's as you point out). Then there is the problem that the energy to make the necessary electricity comes from somewhere:

If it's coal then there's a major problem as peak coal is not so far away, and coal burned on such a scale is extremely bad news for climate change. It takes energy to find, mine, and transport coal, and it's all in the form of oil. To change this coal extraction paradigm on an industrial scale will take 5-25 years by most estimates i can find.

If it's nuclear power then we'll have to find a place to put the radioactive waste which will be active for countless generations to come. Meanwhile there is the cost of discovering, delicately refining, shipping, protecting, and transporting away for disposal the uranium. By the way, uranium is finite and will be peaking in the near future.. especially as oil and coal get more and more expensive and impractical to find and extract.

If it's hydrogen, then there is the electricity to produce it by electrolysis of water, or liquefaction of air. Massive energy input, and generally more input than output. Following this is the pesky problem of storage of a volatile, hyperflammable gas, and its transportation on a national/global scale.

etc, etc. You get my point obviously. It's too late for any solution that assumes our current way of life can continue with some other energy input replacing or even partially replacing oil. The profit motive has exacerbated the situation and especially its impact on the U.S. economy, but it is not the biggest of problems.

You seem like you probably realize this type of issue exists if you call the concepts driving this patriarchal / capitalistic, but i don't know if it's carrying over to your analysis of the big energy picture. The demand, though fueled by greedy industry and its wage slaves, would cause this problem with or without speculation and with or without 'alternative' energies. The profit is no longer the whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
50. Creating shortages . . . the Enron way . . . make the product disappear . . . !!!
When are we putting these people in jail . . ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #50
70. When are we putting these people in jail? When their puppets no longer

inhabit the halls of national government. The Texas-American Petroleum Mafia OWNS the White House and the Vice President's mansion. The Texas-American Petroluem Mafa and its evil, symbiotic twin, the Military-Industrial Complex own most members of Congress. Wake Up America!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #70
81. I think Ike passed us a **&&^%%((**^^ MIIC . . .
Edited on Mon Jul-14-08 10:15 PM by defendandprotect
which assassinated JFK to get where they are today --

stealing a couple of million elections in between ---

As for further explanations . . . with the death of Bill Buckley a few documents came

floating out which say that the CIA was financing Republican campaigns using the

Howard Hughes' front companies set up for the CIA as a way to get money to them . . .

Two of those named were Sen. Strom Thurmond and Rep. Gerald Ford.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #81
87. I don't think Ike was warning us about what was to come or could come,
I think he was telling us about what was already here. The Texas-American Petroleum Mafia and the MIC are symbiotic entities. They need each other to perpetuate. They need crony politicians to survive. And they need us--you and me--to feed off of. The United States of America will NEVER know peace as long as these factions are allowed to control our governments AND OUR LIVES.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #87
93.  Come on . . . Ike knew a few things . . .but he seemed a little shy about
Edited on Tue Jul-15-08 01:06 PM by defendandprotect
actually acknowledging much of it ---

I think he was also deep into GOP slush fund help from elites ---

I don't think Ike was warning us about what was to come or could come,
I think he was telling us about what was already here.


But . . . of course, Ike was warning us about the future!

Why warn about something if you don't think it's anything but a problem of the moment!???

Additionally, most Americans don't know that Ike was actually warning us also of the "intelligence"

complex . . . he had called it the "MIlitary Industrial Intelligence complex" in drafts of his

speech and it was taken out. Ike put it back in . . . and it was taken out again.

So heed that warning . . . he was then talking about the CIA.

Couple that with Harry Truman's later comments on his big mistake in establishing the CIA . . .

which also forked off into areas he very much didn't intend.

The Texas-American Petroleum Mafia and the MIC are symbiotic entities. They need each other to perpetuate. They need crony politicians to survive. And they need us--you and me--to feed off of. The United States of America will NEVER know peace as long as these factions are allowed to control our governments AND OUR LIVES.

I do agree with you re Texas as a large part of our problem . . .

the outlaw state has bred a lot of problems for us all ---

H. L. Hunt, Murchison, LBJ . . .


On the other hand . . . it would be good news if you can't wage war with solar driven

bombers or tanks with electric batteries ---

It might be the beginning of the end of patriarchal violence --- ???



There has been, obviously, much corrupt assistance given to the right-wing in secret

funding -- CIA using our tax dollars to keep corrupt legislators in power ---

and in stolen elections. And, I think we'd be very NAIVE not to understand that the

CIA has played a role in those stolen elections. Not only in America, of course, but

in keeping the right-wing in power all over the world. See: Operation Gladio


Granted, as well, we are fighting Mafia in the sense that the elites use them to do

their dirty work. The Mafia wouldn't exist without that protection from corrupt

officials.


The corporate-press has a lock down on info, but one way or another the public is

coming to realize what's going on. Too many fear that knowing, however . . .








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ooglymoogly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
55. KR nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
riona Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:15 PM
Response to Original message
59. Let's see
War, death, recession, job loss, hunger - gee what else can we do to make the our oil companies happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fireweed247 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
61. It's the Enron Loophole Stupid!
Great post! I don't know how Bush and the media continue to lie to people and they believe them. It is so not about supply and Demand, it is about unbridled greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
64. I'm sure thats how they're keeping the bottom line up
I know we have and everyone I know has cut down on our driving considerably.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
65. What a racket
thieves, all of them. Selling off our natural resources, and laughing all the way to the bank. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
68. Reid's previous statement on offshore drilling. Playing both sides
This worries me, and it indicates they might not stand up. Reid and Durbin sound too iffy.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/...

"Democratic leaders showed varying degrees of interest Wednesday in opening up new areas for oil production, as public opinion veers in favor of drilling. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that expanded offshore drilling, which the Republicans have long supported, is not off the table. He said he opposes giving the states the right to choose whether to drill off their coasts, but also said Democrats are taking a look at that.

Im not knee-jerk-opposed to anything, Reid said. Were willing to work; we havent shut our minds to anything.

And the words of Dick Durbin:

"..."Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Wednesday that he wants to limit offshore drilling if there is any environmental impact. He added that there are more than 30 million acres leased by oil companies that they should use to explore. They ought to lose their leases if they arent going to use it, Durbin said.

However, he also stated, Beyond that, if there is a suggestion of some new area to go into, Ill look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
72. So this is what "free trade" means
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KelleyKramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
80. Why is it shocking that the media is not covering this?

It would make George Bush, the Republican party, and huge corporations look bad ... and those are the exact people the US media are there to protect.

I would be shocked if it made more than a blip on the MSM radar.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-14-08 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
84. And what is our Democratic Congress doing about this . . . ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
90. Not shocking at all that the media is not talking about this shit...just like they are not telling
people that it would take 20 years to actually produce any oil from the off-shore drilling, and once it did become available, its influence on the price of our gasoline would be negligible.
The media has forgotten its true reason for existing, which is supposed to be to inform the public, not to kiss the asses of the big corporations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
94. Kicking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
97. I'm not surprised. We should all know by now those bastards are scamming us all but good.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-18-08 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
99. I see Crist has flip flopped and is now for off shore drilling.
I feel quite sure they will get their way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 23rd 2014, 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC