Senate Republicans block windfall taxes on Big Oil

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

Oil company profit margin % is not very high... under 9 percent.
If you sell a product at $1 with 9% profit you make 9 cents.

If you sell a product at $2 with 9% profit you make 18 cents.

Sell the same amount you make twice as much profit but the same margin percentage.

Should your tax rate go up because prices did? No, thats stupid.

What about milk companies? Milk is expensive... windfall tax! Right.

Its amazing how people can't understand that. They just like to complain and put the blame on somebody and the oil companies are the easy target. If they keep a reasonable profit margin, why should they be punished for selling alot of product?

 

[twisztdauthorit 10+ year member]

Its amazing how people can't understand that. They just like to complain and put the blame on somebody and the oil companies are the easy target. If they keep a reasonable profit margin, why should they be punished for selling alot of product?

wasnt there a bill that was presented to allow drilling more oil in alaska or something. I believe there is enough oil in alaska alone to supply the us with oil for over 50 years or so isnt there. Dont take me word for word. Why did the gov turn down that bill? It would make gas cheaper for us and we would be doing something on our own instead of being dependant on some rag heads. well just my opinion... and if its hurting the enviorment to go drill there, well then ****, with all the $ they make they can turn some desert into a forest(sarcasm ofcourse)

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

I haven't read much of the replies since I last posted except for more people mentioning fuels that are planted and grown. The problem with any of these approaches is that it would take extremely large crops to supply the planet with the fuel we currently require. These crops would have to be grown every summer (or in warm enough climates, practically year round). This leads to nutrient deprivation in the soil, a problem that corn growers are already experiencing. This is countered by the use of fertilizer, but the current method of producing fertilizer uses the Haber process, which means we're back to using fossil fuels.

There is the possibility that we can produce fertilizer using electrolysis, but like all ideas using this method it is not considered cost-effective right now and requires large amounts of energy.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Doesn't switchgrass grow naturally, as in not harvested as a crop?

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

wasnt there a bill that was presented to allow drilling more oil in alaska or something. I believe there is enough oil in alaska alone to supply the us with oil for over 50 years or so isnt there.

This has already been covered (maybe in a past thread, though). The total proven oil in the US is only enough to supply the US for 3 years at the current rate of consumption (assuming no foreign oil is used to complement this supply). Horizontal drilling in the Bakken Formation (Montana and North Dakota) would supply another ~8 months.

If there is a viable approach for production of oil from oil shale reserves, however, the US is in a good position. Unfortunately, this is not currently the case.

 

[newusername 10+ year member]

Doesn't switchgrass grow naturally, as in not harvested as a crop?

Well....it has to be "harvested" and grown to be used (maybe we're not understanding each other). A big advantage of using switchgrass is that it grows even in very poor soil conditions, grows in diverse climates, requires low levels of fertilization, and is perennial (I think this is what you were referring to). Also, switchgrass can provide as much as 10 tons of biomass output per acre.

The big challenge facing switchgrass is its energy efficiency. I'll have to look this up in a bit, but I remember there was a report done by a prof at a school in California (might have been Berkeley?) that demonstrated that it took more energy to produce fuel from switchgrass than the amount of energy switchgrass produced. I think this is still open to debate, though.

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

Well....it has to be "harvested" and grown to be used (maybe we're not understanding each other). A big advantage of using switchgrass is that it grows even in very poor soil conditions, grows in diverse climates, requires low levels of fertilization, and is perennial (I think this is what you were referring to). Also, switchgrass can provide as much as 10 tons of biomass output per acre.
The big challenge facing switchgrass is its energy efficiency. I'll have to look this up in a bit, but I remember there was a report done by a prof at a school in California (might have been Berkeley?) that demonstrated that it took more energy to produce fuel from switchgrass than the amount of energy switchgrass produced. I think this is still open to debate, though.

If you are thinking about the same guy I am...he has a podcast of his classroom. But he said if we are going to go this route (with the crop based ethanol) then swithgrass is the best choice for the aformention reasons.

All the reasons is what I am referring to. I guess I should have stated that switchgrass > corn, simply.