Federal Government Gouging US Oil Consumers

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Chris Gas : $4 USD per US Gallon - Federal Tax : $0.184 USD per US Gallon - State Tax : $0.08 - $0.51 USD per US Gallon = Remainder : Shitpile of cash. Does it go to the "evil Government"? no. Where does it go??????????? That's the question...

:-)))

That is the whole case with oil, including its high price
That is not about appx. $0.47 per gallon - cpg <---> centspergallon, what stands for appx. 11.75% (as an average for State and Federal tex), but :
- what happens to the rest of that ? since there is appx. 88.25% missing (out of every single gallon).
CEO's for almost all the major petrolium distributors already testified and provided all the data with a reference to their profits. It appears that the price for oil is appx. 60% higher.
Still, there is no answer to appx. 28.25% unaccounted for.

[Chris]

ok great but it doesn't go in line with burning Giraffes accusatory "the gubmint is robbin us" argument. (who has respectfully removed himself from the debate - unless he has new evidence to present.

[Burning Giraffe]

Quote by: Chris Remainder : Shitpile of cash. Does it go to the "evil Government"? no. Where does it go??????????? That's the question...

It goes to cover the cost. This has already been stated. Profit is the income over the initial cost of researching, producing, storing, and transporting the product. What is left is about 9.2 cents a gallon. That's what the oil companies make. The state governments average in the mid-.20's and the federal government is something like 18 cents. So, per gallon, the government is making much more profit than the oil companies. Where do you think the trillions of dollars our government wastes comes from?

[Nono]

Hey, Giraffe, you ever worked for a big corporation?
If you have, you'll have seen plenty of waste, usually waste written straight off its taxes.

[Chris]

Quote by: Burning Giraffe It goes to cover the cost. This has already been stated. Profit is the income over the initial cost of researching, producing, storing, and transporting the product. What is left is about 9.2 cents a gallon. That's what the oil companies make. The state governments average in the mid-.20's and the federal government is something like 18 cents. So, per gallon, the government is making much more profit than the oil companies. Where do you think the trillions of dollars our government wastes comes from?

ill just say that you're just plumb wrong. the taxes for the gas go directly to federal dept of transport most of the tax money thats being wasted comes from income taxes. oh and I forgot there are a whole lot of tax breaks and kickbacks to the oil companies from the "gubmints" which of course is wasteful and wrong when you get these bastards pulling in record breaking 100 billion dollar profits already.

[oades11]

Quote by: Burning Giraffe It goes to cover the cost. This has already been stated. Profit is the income over the initial cost of researching, producing, storing, and transporting the product. What is left is about 9.2 cents a gallon. That's what the oil companies make. The state governments average in the mid-.20's and the federal government is something like 18 cents. So, per gallon, the government is making much more profit than the oil companies. Where do you think the trillions of dollars our government wastes comes from?

As has already been said, what the government is making isn't profit- however, that doesn't mean that what they are spending our tax dollars on isn't wasteful.

I don't know of any legitimate source for exactly where are tax dollars go, but here's one source I found after a quick google search:

The Federal Pie Chart

[Rainbow]

I submited my posts with a thought in mind that Pubmanager will join and participate, in order to get some additional data that price for oil is too high and/or does not justify all the costs invloved in that whole process.

Since 11.7% stands for Federal and State taxes, that is obvious that others anticipate some portions as well. That includes :
- productions costs
- distribution
It would be reasonable to assume that a "manufacturer" gets appx. 10%, so a "distributor" follows that pattern, respectivelly.
There is a missing percentage, still, even if we raise that bar to 15%.

[dreamy]

Yes our Government is gouging us. Take a look at this:

"Running Out of Oil" Utter Nonsense. | Hypocrisy

How can we stop it?

[Compugasm]

Yeah, when I was in school we learned the oil would run out in 2000. Eight years after that, there is more oil than ever.

[Gods_Mercenary]

The asserion is always made under assumptions about future discoveries and technology, which is almost always wrong

[Chris]

heh

regardless of when we run out of oil, we do know one thing for certain... We are going to run out of oil

Why not start now and look for alternatives? The same people who plug their ears and put their head in the sand regarding the end of oil - are most of the time the same people who want to go drilling in ANWR.

Give it up people.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Lets start killing off large amounts of plants and burying them in conditions that make oil? Only, what, a few million years to wait?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Chris heh regardless of when we run out of oil, we do know one thing for certain... We are going to run out of oil Why not start now and look for alternatives? The same people who plug their ears and put their head in the sane regarding the end of oil - are most of the time the same people who want to go drilling in ANWR. Give it up people.

Well, long before we actually run out, we'll get to the point where other sources are cheaper. There's plenty of oil in the ground that nobody's pumping because it would cost more to get out than they could make from it. I wonder if some of that formerly unprofitable oil is now entering the marketplace due to the high prices.

TC

[Rainbow]

There is plenty of oil within waters around the globe. (Some guys estimate, that it tops the Middle-East region, several times.)

2 major aspects to be considered :
- technology
- environment
We are (still) lacking technologies to expoit those points at acceptable and/or reasonable costs.
Some of those oil points, are ready to expoit.
Some of those oil points, have been capped, waiting for new technologies.

With "Global Warming" into effect, we need to start developing technologies that would not affect environment so heavily, since it worsens the climate around/within Earth.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Chris Why not start now and look for alternatives? The same people who plug their ears and put their head in the sane regarding the end of oil - are most of the time the same people who want to go drilling in ANWR.

The key phrase is "look for alternatives". Meaning, make use of this nonexistant source, energy price will go down. Frozen methane pockets, solar, wind, geothermal, moon rocks??? They have no effect on the prices of energy. Honestly, I have no idea what difference ANWR will make. But I do know energy can be made, and distributed, by methods of drilling/refining that we already have.

I think unanimously everyone would agree with you Chris that alternatives should be found. But rising prices are simply due to limited supply and increasing demand. It's almost irrelevant what side of the issue you take, green or dirty. All the efforts to create supply are being limited while demand is not.

If middle american consumers want prices to go down, refineries and nuclear are the only two viable options to reduce prices for energy. Hydrogen cars, "sustainable living", alternative sources... I think it's all really cool. But the only people who can afford it are the wealthy, or the poor.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Compugasm If middle american consumers want prices to go down, refineries and nuclear are the only two viable options to reduce prices for energy. Hydrogen cars, "sustainable living", alternative sources... I think it's all really cool. But the only people who can afford it are the wealthy, or the poor.

I think it's helpful to distinguish between energy sources and delivery methods. Hydrogen is a nice delivery method because it burns cleanly, but we hardly expect to find large quantities of it just laying around. It's not an energy source, instead we need an energy source to power the electorlysis that extracts it from water.

We need renewable energy sources that are not polluting. The problem is that things like solar and wind power are too expensive and limited in scope; not all places get enough sun or wind to make it worth the effort. Right now, the best we've got is fission, and it's got a whole bunch of safety issues, particularly in the long term due to the waste it creates. Fusion has a lot of potential for generating huge amounts of energ cheaply and cleanly, but it's still just potential.

With a good energy source, we can then replace gasoline with hydrogen and electricity, depending on convenience. Until then, we can at least burn the coal, oil or natural gas in large factories that we can scrub the output of and distribute the power as hydrogen or electricity, so that the end users are ready for the eventual switcht to fusion.

TC

[Compugasm]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I think it's helpful to distinguish between energy sources and delivery methods.

Automobiles are the least effective method of hydrogen consumption. Why use electricity to create hydrogen, trucking it to stations, just so the car can convert hydrogen back into electricity? IMO, an electric car is the way to go. No gas stations needed. Hydrogen is best used in buildings. It needs large tanks and/or pipe distribution, like natural gas.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Compugasm Automobiles are the least effective method of hydrogen consumption. Why use electricity to create hydrogen, trucking it to stations, just so the car can convert hydrogen back into electricity? IMO, an electric car is the way to go. No gas stations needed. Hydrogen is best used in buildings. It needs large tanks and/or pipe distribution, like natural gas.

Hydrogen has a lot of energy but it's very light. Batteries are heavy and don't hold a lot of energy. On top of that, batteries take time to recharge, while hydrogen just gets squirted in. I'm sure there's some loss when using elelectrical power to produce hydrogen, but there's also some loss in charging and discharging a battery. In short, it comes down to the details. Maybe batteries make more sense for smaller cars while hydrogen fuel cells are best for buses. Either way, we still have the same problem: a strong, cheap and clean power source.

TC

[Compugasm]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Hydrogen has a lot of energy but it's very light.

But a place to pump it from doesn't exist. You'd have to retrofit most (if not all) service stations because a hydrogen hybrid would require two fuels. Retrofitting a gas station would mean closing down, bringing in machinery, digging holes in the ground for tanks, replacing all the pumps... If hydrogen cars are the goldmine of the future, Exxon would not be selling off their stations as recently reported. Your source arguement is a good point.

You mentioned light weight. An obvious use then would be airplanes where weight determines the cost. Also, large storage tanks could be built at an airport without ripping up entire residential neighborhoods. The killer though, is the first hydrogen airplane is 25yrs away from being prototyped. Then, it has to be mass produced. The same goes for cars. So that's anywhere from 30-40 years before hydrogen makes any difference in travel, assuming this project is started tomorrow.

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal Batteries are heavy and don't hold a lot of energy.

Even at a 200mile range, that is a dramatic improvement over the 350mi from gas. True batteries don't hold alot, but electric outlets are ubiquitous. I could plug the car in almost anywhere, which is certainly easier than digging up all the gas stations.

I could even imagine a method of transfering energy without cables. Like, I saw a flashlight you shake back and forth to create light. If you could park your car next to an electric field which shook something back and forth in your car, this motion could charge a battery without cables. Any parking lot could use magnetic painted dividing lines to transfer the energy. It would be like a continuous trickle charge.

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I'm sure there's some loss when using elelectrical power to produce hydrogen...

A railroad gets 400mpg because of electricity. it makes no sense to use dirty methods to create hydrogen, then convert hydrogen to electricity. It is two extra steps of conversion where energy is lost. Cars seem like an obvious choice because they're everywhere and everyone has one. But they don't have dependable and predictable routes to follow, and they aren't stationary like industrial, warehouse, and office buildings that benefit from producing their own clean sources.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Compugasm But a place to pump it from doesn't exist. You'd have to retrofit most (if not all) service stations because a hydrogen hybrid would require two fuels. Retrofitting a gas station would mean closing down, bringing in machinery, digging holes in the ground for tanks, replacing all the pumps... If hydrogen cars are the goldmine of the future, why would the Exxons be selling off their stations?

The key word here is "future". Exxon's making plenty of money now on inflated gasoline. The hydrogen stuff was just for show, so they're selling it off.

Quote by: Compugasm You mentioned light weight. An obvious use then would be airplanes where weight determines the cost. Also, large storage tanks could be built at an airport without ripping up entire residential neighborhoods. The killer though, is the first hydrogen airplane is 25yrs away from being prototyped. Then, it has to be mass produced. So that's anywhere from 30-40 years before hydrogen planes makes any difference in worldwide travel.

The first use of fuel cells was in space travel, actually. I'm not sure about how ready it is for airplanes, though.

Quote by: Compugasm Even at a 200mile range, that is a dramatic improvement over the 350mi from gas. True batteries don't hold alot, but electric outlets are ubiquitous. I could plug the car in almost anywhere, which is certainly easier than digging up all the gas stations. I could even imagine a method of transfering energy without cables. Like, I saw a flashlight you shake back and forth to create light. If you could park your car next to an electric field which shook something back and forth in your car, this motion could charge a battery without cables. Any parking lot could use magnetic painted dividing lines to transfer the energy. It would be like a continuous trickle charge.

Last time I checked, electric cars didn't have good performance or staying power, and took silly amounts of time to charge. That's why hybrids are all the rage now. As for putting transformers in parking lots, there's still the issue of paying for all that electricity.

Quote by: Compugasm Which is why it makes no sense to use dirty methods to create hydrogen, then convert hydrogen to electricity. It is two extra steps of conversion where energy is lost.

It may well make sense as a transitional step. Otherwise, you get a chicken/egg problem. If no vehicles use H, there's no incentive to sell H. But if nobody sells H, there's no reason to own a vehicle that uses it. Once there are vehicles and stations, there's more incentive to commericialize fusion.

Keep in mind that a portable gasoline engine, even with a catalytic converter, isn't going to be the cleanest possible way to burn gas. When you burn stuff in a plant, you have room for scrubbers and other technologies, such as one plan to break out the carbon and burn just the hydrogen.

Quote by: Compugasm I belive what is key, is that there is a fleet of something, and the fleet requires a central fueling location. Busses already use natrual gas don't they? So maybe boats, airplanes, police cars?, maybe even UPS because they have fleets of trucks. Cars seem like an obvious choice because they're everywhere and everyone has one. But they don't have dependable and predictable routes to follow. A railroad gets 400mpg because of electricity. Buildings benefit from solar because they have large rooftops. That is where efforts should be focused as a nation. Clean up the stationary buildings and large fleet vehicals.

I mentioned bused because I know for a fact that one company is manufacturing ones that run on fuel cells. The other thing that comes to mind is that it might make sense to make the hydrogen locally. All it takes, really, is electricity and water, and you can capture the oygen and sell it. That would mean that a station wouldn't need to store large amounts of H, just enough to give them time to make more when there's a lot of customers. As for storage, why dig a hole? It's a gas, so inflate some balloons or fly a blimp overhead.

TC