Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

The EPA wants to 'crucify oil companies' to keep them in line

tennmiketennmike Senior MemberPosts: 27,398 Senior Member
When the regulators use the threat of the force of the U.S. government, they become no better than a rabid dog that needs putting down. The EPA is in need of being put down for the good of the nation, IMO.

http://news.investors.com/article/609419/201204261900/white-house-protects-epa-official-who-would-crucify-oil-companies.htm

EPA regional administrator for Dallas Al Armendariz told a city council meeting in a taped speech two years ago that his "philosophy" of enforcement was to single out an oil company, punish it "as hard as you can," and make an example of it to scare others into submission.

http://news.yahoo.com/epa-official-apologizes-crucify-oil-gas-producers-comments-031712905.html

While Armendariz apologized, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles asserted that the agency is still committed to ethical enforcement of the law.

Ethical enforcement of the law. Yeah, right. I'll believe in the Easter Bunny before I believe that load of scat.
  I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
― Douglas Adams
«1

Replies

  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Tall trees, short ropes, and "regulators" swinging in the breeze- - - - -problem solved. Hang 'em up right next to the politicians who gave them the power to do that stuff!
    Jerry
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,948 Senior Member
    I watched an interview with Neil Cavuto (Fox) and the former CEO of Shell Oil Co. The ex-CEO stated that he is a democrat. What he also said is the following.

    Armendariz is 'all about enforcement'. He is not willing to negotiate, and Texas oil companies now just take any of his rulings to court without making any attempt to negotiate something suitable to both parties. From what I could tell, the oil companies usually won the court case.

    In short, Armendariz is a greenie, and is only interested in making life harder for oil and gas companies. While this may sound like an honorable and reasonable goal to some, it's not very practical, and will only result in higher energy prices.

    Personally, I'd like to see green energy supply all of the nation's energy needs, and maybe one of these days it will happen. Until then, though, we had better continue to develop fossil fuel sources.

    And, even though obama claims that oil and gas production is way up under his administration, it's in spite of his policies, not because of them. Exploratation and drilling on public land is down 17% under his administration.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo, I got no problems with green energy as long as it has not one cent of my tax dollars subsidizing it. It will mature like any other energy source in its own time. Nuclear power is the greenest power source we have right now that could supply the power needs easily, but it has been strangled blue in the face by over regulation and litigation from many directions. Obama wants to reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile. Well, that stuff, properly blended would make a huge amount of fuel for nuclear reactors.

    The problem I see is that the EPA is acting less and less like protectors of the environment and more and more like eco-Nazis using the full force of the government to bankrupt any business or individual that catches their notice. I'm cursed with a long memory, and could reel off a couple pages of things the EPA has done that would make a dictator blush. They need a mega slapdown to get them back on track.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    JerryBobCo, I got no problems with green energy as long as it has not one cent of my tax dollars subsidizing it. It will mature like any other energy source in its own time. Nuclear power is the greenest power source we have right now that could supply the power needs easily, but it has been strangled blue in the face by over regulation and litigation from many directions. Obama wants to reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile. Well, that stuff, properly blended would make a huge amount of fuel for nuclear reactors.

    The problem I see is that the EPA is acting less and less like protectors of the environment and more and more like eco-Nazis using the full force of the government to bankrupt any business or individual that catches their notice. I'm cursed with a long memory, and could reel off a couple pages of things the EPA has done that would make a dictator blush. They need a mega slapdown to get them back on track.

    The only problem with green is it has to be green in the eyes of the socialist clowns in charge of the EPA. They have such strick BS rules that oil companies can't justify building new refineries and the existing ones are ancient. This costs money and it's passed right down to the consumer. I mean you can't expect the oil companies to assume this expense. If they don't make a profit they go under. If they go under it serves no one any purpose because they are one of the main stays of our economy. They supply lots of jobs and pay lots of taxes.

    Then, also like I said, the green a company is has to be the same shade as the socialists see it. That means even though Nuclear Energy is the cleanest possible feasible source we have, it's not green to these dodos because it isn't in their agenda to keep us under the socialist thumb. So they use disasters such as what happened in Japan or Chernoble to scare the unknowing public away from using it.

    Nope, I'm with Teach on this, tall trees and short ropes. It's looking like that's the only solution to this BS we have until we figure out how to idiot proof the government.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Also, we need to work toward being independent of not only the Middle East, but all the rest of the world for crude oil. It's being proven more and more everyday that we have enough of our own resource of crude in the ground to tell everybody to take a hike. We need to drill here in places like Alaska. We need to realize if there's oil there we need to go for it. Of course we need to insure it's done properly and environmentally friendly. We don't need anymore disasters like BP and Exon Valdez. But that can be done and overall it is being done every day. Again, it looks like "Tall Trees and Short Ropes" is our only hope. LOL!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    The obvious solution for the vast amount of overreach these alphabet-soup agencies are doing is to defund them. Let's see how dedicated the greenies are to their cause when the fat government paychecks stop coming in. Since all appropriations must begin in the House of Representatives, and the conservatives control that body, why not just yank the money tree out by the roots? That will work for DOJ, EPA, Education, Labor, NEA, and a lot of other departments the commiecrats have taken over.
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Mike, I find your statement quite ironic given the fact that nuclear energy has been by far the most subsidized energy source in history and flat out would never have existed without massive government investment. Even today is still dependent upon govt subsidized loans to be remotely competitive.

    Only thing that is remotely connected to a subsidy is the construction loan. Not many banks can float a loan for a $2 Billion construction project. Uncle Sugar makes the loans, and gets paid back principal + interest. How you figure that relationship is a subsidy? Once the plant is built and operating, the utility stops paying on the construction loan and starts paying off the principal, and electric rates go up to pay off this debt. Fuel bundles for a PWR are around $1 million + a pop, and good for around a 36 month life cycle; depends on the fuel bundle location. It may only last for 18 months. The utility pays for these from revenue from bulk electric generation sales.

    I've explained it before, several times. The reason that nuclear has a hard time competing with other generation forms is due to the massive regulation, rules, laws, and other impediments put on its back by the Federal goverment. What part of that don't you understand?

    Nuclear power started as an offshoot of the nuclear weapons program after WWII. This history for you; I actually lived during that time. The reason the government was so involved then was because they didn't want to let mere mortal power generators in on the deal. Secret hush-hush secret squirrel stuff. As to cost, I can buy a Dragon brand high pressure sample valve from a distributor for around $10, but if the same valve is used on the primary side of the nuclear plant, it will cost around $1,000 for the certification process and paperwork. AND IT'S THE SAME :cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss: VALVE! Just has some paperwork to prove it meets 'nuclear grade component' regulations. A $1,000 high pressure valve on the secondary side will easily cost $100,000 if used on the primary side, or in a safety system like emergency cooling. Same valve, except one has a pedigree and the other doesn't. Stop bean counting and buy a clue about this stuff. You are beginning to disturb my calm. :tooth::jester:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • 104RFAST104RFAST Senior Member Posts: 1,281 Senior Member
    I like the swinging part!! hope I live long enough to see it.
    Teach wrote: »
    Tall trees, short ropes, and "regulators" swinging in the breeze- - - - -problem solved. Hang 'em up right next to the politicians who gave them the power to do that stuff!
    Jerry
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Unless any of you have been not reading the newspapers, the big oil companies have reaped record profits for the last four or five years.
    Why? Because of the speculators on Wall St.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Unless any of you have been not reading the newspapers, the big oil companies have reaped record profits for the last four or five years.
    Why? Because of the speculators on Wall St.

    Ummmmmmmmmmm. How about 'No'. The speculators on Wall Street are making the record profits. Oil company profit margins are around 9.9%. That's a lot lower than a lot of other commodities.

    And here's a graphic to show what profit margins are in various commodities.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/269679-oil-industry-profit-margin-ranks-fairly-low-there-are-bigger-fish
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Mike, why do you waste your time explaining facts to liberal liars? They never listen! They've been told what to think for so long they're incapable of independent thought processes.
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    It's fun rubbin' their fur the wrong direction!!! :rotflmao: Besides, it's in my job description; as a retiree, I work part time as a PITD (Pain In The Donkey 'cause we ain't allowed to use the three letter word for donkey that begins with 'a' and ends with a double 'ess' :tooth:) Besides, some of it might eventually sink in. And I want to see the meltdown when it does.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • casinoroyalecasinoroyale Member Posts: 68 Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    JerryBobCo, I got no problems with green energy as long as it has not one cent of my tax dollars subsidizing it. It will mature like any other energy source in its own time. Nuclear power is the greenest power source we have right now that could supply the power needs easily, but it has been strangled blue in the face by over regulation and litigation from many directions. Obama wants to reduce our nuclear weapons stockpile. Well, that stuff, properly blended would make a huge amount of fuel for nuclear reactors.

    The problem is that the oil industry today benefits from vast direct and indirect subsidies. If they had to fairly compete, there would be a lot more green technology. I do agree with your point on nuclear energy, but remember, even nuclear plants have historically needed to be subsidized.
    tennmike wrote: »
    When the regulators use the threat of the force of the U.S. government, they become no better than a rabid dog that needs putting down. The EPA is in need of being put down for the good of the nation, IMO.

    http://news.investors.com/article/609419/201204261900/white-house-protects-epa-official-who-would-crucify-oil-companies.htm

    EPA regional administrator for Dallas Al Armendariz told a city council meeting in a taped speech two years ago that his "philosophy" of enforcement was to single out an oil company, punish it "as hard as you can," and make an example of it to scare others into submission.

    http://news.yahoo.com/epa-official-apologizes-crucify-oil-gas-producers-comments-031712905.html

    While Armendariz apologized, EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Cynthia Giles asserted that the agency is still committed to ethical enforcement of the law.

    If the EPA and other regulatory bodies were "put down" then prepare for widespread pollution and contamination, the likes of which were seen before the EPA came into existence. The EPA ain't perfect, but it shouldn't be killed. The mutterings of one mid-level bureaucrat don't reflect on the agency as a whole.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    To be fair, it is NOT true that the nuclear energy industry is SUBSIDIZED. Private source loans are GUARANTEED by the feds, and are normally repaid. But remember that nuclear plants are very expensive to build, and that cost will eventually be paid for by the power customers. In my view, the U.S. should abandon nuclear energy, because of the expense and the physical risk (remember Japan?). Also remember that the loan guarantees are taxpayer money, and it is ultimately the taxpayer who'll pay if there's default, and that would be a deep pit.

    Natural gas, natural gas, natural gas. The only way to go. Risk to taxpayers and entrepreneurs? Zero. Lower electricity costs and lower maintenance costs, and lower intitial investment points glaringly to NG. It would also be good for our economy.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    The billions spent on research and implicit insurance guarantees due to all the risks are a MASSIVE government subsidy for nukes. "Free market" nukes are a complete joke and don't exist anywhere on the planet. No nuclear plant would ever get built if it needed to obtain private capital and insurance.

    Oil also recieves significant subsidies in terms of the trillions we spent on "projecting force" in the middle east to ensure stable supplies.

    See bolded portion of your post. I guess you went temporarily blind reading my post where I said that few if any banks could manage a $2 billion dollar construction loan. As to insurance, many are self insured and have a large cash bond fund available. TMI has been the only accident of note in the U.S. I will assume, lacking verifiable evidence to the contrary, that you also missed ENTIRELY the part where I pointed out that standard components cost vastly more when they are certified as 'nuclear grade'. That is one of the many reasons nuclear plants are so expensive. You just look at some government report or study of cost and take it as gospel without even the merest curiosity of why it is so. That is like a typical clerical 'cubicle rat' noting that an Okuma Baitfeeder spinning reel costs more than a Zebco 33 reel, but having no clue whatsoever WHY that is so, and no curiosity whatsoever to find out.

    Speaking of TMI, I'll bet that you cannot explain the three causes of that accident. There were three main causes; no more, and no less. And I would surmise that you are entirely unenlightened as to them. You just know that something went wrong.

    As to the accidents in Japan during and after the tsunami, there were two, and only two, causes to those accidents. I'll let you sort out those two causes yourself. They are really quite simple.

    I did not mention subsidies for oil, or them being a beneficiary of our projection of force via the Navy. However, they are NOT the only industry that benefits from that projection of force. But it is obvious that you have turned a blind eye to those other beneficiaries because you detest oil along with coal and nuclear. I find it passing strange, and quite amusing, that you spit vitriol at coal generated power, live in a state that receives most of its power from coal generation, and have done nothing to wean yourself from the coal fired grid.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    The billions spent on research and implicit insurance guarantees due to all the risks are a MASSIVE government subsidy for nukes. "Free market" nukes are a complete joke and don't exist anywhere on the planet. No nuclear plant would ever get built if it needed to obtain private capital and insurance.

    Oil also recieves significant subsidies in terms of the trillions we spent on "projecting force" in the middle east to ensure stable supplies.

    You're wrong. The feds do NOT finance the construction of nuclear power plants, the private source loans to finance them are only guaranteed. There hasn't been a new nuclear plant started since 1978, according to my sources. There are two in Georgia which seem to be gaining approval, but the power company only went ahead when it got permission to raise its electricity rates in order to start paying for the planned nuclear plants.

    Read the linked article from Scientific American and educate yourself:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 10,165 Senior Member
    LOL. It's funny to watch someone who has read a couple of liberal articles about nuclear power argue with someone who has worked in nuclear power for decades.

    If they actually let the people who work in nuclear power design the power plants, I wouldn't be paying >$40 a month for electric......
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    If the also let public school teachers do their jobs, maybe we wouldn't have so many liberal weenies to contend with!
    Jerry
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,948 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Unless any of you have been not reading the newspapers, the big oil companies have reaped record profits for the last four or five years.
    Why? Because of the speculators on Wall St.

    I'm getting really tired of hearing and reading about how big oil is making record profits. They're making record profits because they're making record investments and taking record risks.

    Period.

    When you look at their profit margin, it's nowhere close to a record profit. How hard is that to understand?
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Good Lord, man!

    Can you not read the news and not see that the major oil companies have recorded profits of record proportions?

    Let me remind you that "profits" are above and beyond expenditures.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Well of corse private companies will provide financing when the government guarantees the loan, it's free profits! Heads I win, tails you lose. If the loan works out they get their money back plus interest and if it fails the taxpayers foot the bill. Who wouldn't take that deal? It is literally the same thing as solyndra. It's actually exactly the same govt program that provides the guarantees.

    Let me make clear that I don't necessarily have a problem with any of this, we need energy for our economy to function and if we're going to subsidize any industry energy is probably the best investment. We just need to stop pretending that "green energy" is the only energy that is subsidized.

    You read carelessly, it seems. The article I linked makes it very, very clear that the loan guarantees are NOT subsidies. Look up the word "subsidy" in the dictionary. A subsidy is an actual payment. Solyndra was cash money on the barrel-head, gone forever. That is a subsidy, very clearly. It was SPECULATION, at best, hardly a government function. I'll keep saying it until you hear me. Investments
    in gas and coal power plants do not cost the government anything. And there is no long term liability for potential bad debt in the trillions.
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Good Lord, man!

    Can you not read the news and not see that the major oil companies have recorded profits of record proportions?

    Let me remind you that "profits" are above and beyond expenditures.

    Show me your source. Oil company profits are not outrageous, at all. Remember too that oil companies are owned primarily by stockholders, who could the retired guy down the street, or the college student using some accumulated wealth by gift from parents/grandparents/whoever, in order to put him or herself through school. The wealth (profit) earned by the oil companies is distributed and shared by many ordinary folks as a savings tool. The stock market is also fueled by those investing in IRA's, 401Ks and the like, and just plain Joes trying to accumulate some wealth, a healthy and laudable goal for anyone. Dividends are paid and EVERYONE speculates on the stock market (gasp, horrors), the oil company is a generous employer, pays all kinds of taxes, supports medical plans for employees, all those evil things. Grow up!
  • blueslide88blueslide88 Member Posts: 273 Member
    Sorry but a loan guarantee IS a subsidy, so are the tax incentives lots of energy sources get including some domestic oil and gas production.

    And no the solyndra "loan" was a loan guarantee from the exact same doe program as the nuclear plants.

    If you insist on calling a dog a cat, that's up to you. Scientific American is wrong, and I'm wrong and the dictionary is wrong. How much money did Solyndra cost the taxpayer?

    Tax incentives for zero production companies is what this country needs. Tax incentives for nothing, just some lobbying and greasing the wheel here and there. :bang:
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,611 Senior Member
    Sorry but a loan guarantee IS a subsidy, so are the tax incentives lots of energy sources get including some domestic oil and gas production.

    And no the solyndra "loan" was a loan guarantee from the exact same doe program as the nuclear plants.


    Following your logic, wouldn't the loan only become a subsidy if defaulted upon? Until then, it's merely a loan...just sayin'
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,398 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Following your logic, wouldn't the loan only become a subsidy if defaulted upon? Until then, it's merely a loan...just sayin'

    It's a loan if it's an industry he supports(wind, solar, etc); it's a subsidy if it's a loan for an industry he doesn't support(nuclear, gas, oil, coal).
    The tax subsidies for oil that everyone is spouting off about are the same tax laws enjoyed by most any large corporation or business. Apple has around $4 billion dollars of profit that was earned overseas for which they pay zero tax dollars. No one is raising a stink about them, though. Lots of hypocrisy can be found when the oil company haters come out of the woodwork.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BullgatorBullgator Member Posts: 393 Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Good Lord, man!

    Can you not read the news and not see that the major oil companies have recorded profits of record proportions?

    Let me remind you that "profits" are above and beyond expenditures.

    Global petroleum demand increases every year, thus every year is a record for oil consumption. The oil companies are producing and selling "record" volumes of oil every year to meet that demand. Their profit margin hasn't changed, so their profits are "record" profits year after year. How would you expect anything else? If GM sells more cars this year than any other year in history, they will most likely show record profits. Is that a bad thing?
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 7,948 Senior Member
    Airedale wrote: »
    Good Lord, man!

    Can you not read the news and not see that the major oil companies have recorded profits of record proportions?

    Let me remind you that "profits" are above and beyond expenditures.

    When did it become a bad thing for a company to turn a profit? I thought that was what capitalism was all about? Does it bother you that Apple makes a huge profit?

    Would you want to run a business that doesn't turn a profit?

    But, back to my original point, which is that a lot of people seem be to focused on the total dollar amount of big oil's profit, and don't take into account the amount of money they have to spend to make this profit. If I make $1 billion in profit for a given year, but have to spend $100 billion to make it, I'd do better by putting my money in a savings account. And, if part of that $100 billion is spend goes to paying for employess and services, buying supplies and equipment, etc., that's money that goes into the economy. In my view, that's a good thing.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    I didn't say that it was a bad thing for any company to make a profit. That's what they're supposed to do.
    What I said was that oil companies are making record profits.
    What sticks in my craw is that these companies are still getting big time money stimulus from the federal government.
    That's us.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,495 Senior Member
    So... what level of profit would make you happy, and how should we restrict them to that level of money?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • AiredaleAiredale Banned Posts: 624 Senior Member
    Come on Brim!

    What the heck do you want me to say? What level of profit would make you happy?
    I'm not saying that we should restrict anyone.
    But when corporations document record profits, they should not feel entitled to help from the government.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement