If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   What do cellulosic ethanol, an additive that the EPA requires be added by refiners to gasoline, and unicorns have in common?   (foxnews.com) divider line 174
    More: Stupid, cellulosic ethanol, EPA, oil refineries, Renewable Fuels Association, gasoline  
•       •       •

11346 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 02:05:20 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Banned on the Run: Also, those fines are an invisible tax you pay at the pump.

Idiot consumer mob: "Grab you pitchforks! Let's tax oil companies!
Populist government: "Sure! Will you vote for us now?"
Oil industry: *facepalm
Breathless MSM: "Gas is up 10 cents per gallon ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!!"
Idiot consumer mob: "How did this happen? It's a conspiracy!!!"

Oh, so these "fines" take effect every year around May and then go away? Or are you an idiot?


No. Demand goes up every May.
Supply and demand. Look into it.
 
2012-06-22 02:08:04 PM  
I work at the EPA so I'm getting a kick out of these replies.

/IT Contractor
//Sounds like something the bureaucrats would do
 
2012-06-22 02:08:55 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.


t3.gstatic.com

You were saying?
 
2012-06-22 02:09:36 PM  

anti-riaa: wait let me get this straight, I'm supposed to feel bad for oil companies and refineries that pull billions of profits each quarter?
fark them, they should charge them for unicorns too!


Hey, oil companies are people too!
 
2012-06-22 02:10:11 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Umm, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress in 2005 when this became law. You know, the party of small government. But fark it...since it worked so well the last time, lets do it again!


BushCo is about as far from small government as it gets, and you're not going to catch me saying otherwise. ObamaCo is bigger-government than BushCo, but that's not saying anything good about BushCo.

The GOP is not the party of small government. We have no such animal in America and haven't for decades. You want to see what happens when governments actually CUT themselves back? Check out Estonia.
 
2012-06-22 02:10:26 PM  
energyanswered.org
 
2012-06-22 02:10:43 PM  
F*ck Fox News.
 
2012-06-22 02:12:02 PM  

Banned on the Run: Wendy's Chili: Banned on the Run: Also, those fines are an invisible tax you pay at the pump.

Idiot consumer mob: "Grab you pitchforks! Let's tax oil companies!
Populist government: "Sure! Will you vote for us now?"
Oil industry: *facepalm
Breathless MSM: "Gas is up 10 cents per gallon ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!!"
Idiot consumer mob: "How did this happen? It's a conspiracy!!!"

Oh, so these "fines" take effect every year around May and then go away? Or are you an idiot?

No. Demand goes up every May.
Supply and demand. Look into it.


Which price spikes are caused by "fines"?
 
2012-06-22 02:12:26 PM  

Welfare Xmas: DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[t3.gstatic.com image 230x219]

You were saying?


They have smaller margins but sell on such a large scale that they still can make more in total amount of profit. IIRC Exxon still has the largest quarter profit record. (Apple is second).
 
2012-06-22 02:12:31 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Galloping Galoshes: SandMann: I don't see why they worry about being fined. Just pass the cost on to the consumer.

And that's just what they'll do. So, YOU want to pay the fine for not using the non-existent additive?


Pssst. You already are. Profit is the money that is made after expenses are paid. The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever. You already pay a price that is substantially higher than the cost of doing business. And please believe, they're charging you for it right now.


And all PROFIT is bad, right?
 
2012-06-22 02:14:02 PM  

Welfare Xmas: DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[t3.gstatic.com image 230x219]

You were saying?


Profit and profit margin are two different things. That's why one of them says "margin" at the end and the other one doesn't.
 
2012-06-22 02:14:34 PM  

Tellingthem: They have smaller margins but sell on such a large scale that they still can make more in total amount of profit.


So they aren't screwing the little guy, they just sell stuff a lot of people want. THOSE farkING WORTHLESS BASTARDS!1111!!!!11!!!
 
2012-06-22 02:15:03 PM  

Welfare Xmas: DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[t3.gstatic.com image 230x219]

You were saying?


Smaller % plus ginormous revenues = higher $$$.
 
2012-06-22 02:17:55 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Galloping Galoshes: SandMann: I don't see why they worry about being fined. Just pass the cost on to the consumer.

And that's just what they'll do. So, YOU want to pay the fine for not using the non-existent additive?


Pssst. You already are. Profit is the money that is made after expenses are paid. The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever. You already pay a price that is substantially higher than the cost of doing business. And please believe, they're charging you for it right now.


And you're right. They are making much more profit than the price of doing business. That's because they don't make much off of refining and sales. They make their money on the crude reserves coming out of the ground. They make money on a commodity they bought decades ago when oil was much cheaper.

Next time you 401k goes up, just write a check to charity for half that. You don't wan to be making a PROFIT now, would you
 
2012-06-22 02:18:24 PM  

Welfare Xmas: You were saying?


That's percentage versus dollars. But don't take it personal, this same thing is also completely baffling to the "Warren Buffet's secretary pays more in taxes!" mob.
 
2012-06-22 02:19:44 PM  
I complain about oil companies while typing on a keyboard made of plastic that's chemically derived from oil.

suptg.thisisnotatrueending.com
 
2012-06-22 02:20:18 PM  

Welfare Xmas: Tellingthem: They have smaller margins but sell on such a large scale that they still can make more in total amount of profit.

So they aren't screwing the little guy, they just sell stuff a lot of people want. THOSE farkING WORTHLESS BASTARDS!1111!!!!11!!!


Whoa there guy. I never said anything like that. I don't care one way of another. Just pointing out that even with small margins they can still make more money than anyone else. So take a deep breath, hold... and exhale...feel better now? Good.
 
2012-06-22 02:20:41 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Banned on the Run: Wendy's Chili: Banned on the Run: Also, those fines are an invisible tax you pay at the pump.

Idiot consumer mob: "Grab you pitchforks! Let's tax oil companies!
Populist government: "Sure! Will you vote for us now?"
Oil industry: *facepalm
Breathless MSM: "Gas is up 10 cents per gallon ZOMGWTFBBQ!!!!"
Idiot consumer mob: "How did this happen? It's a conspiracy!!!"

Oh, so these "fines" take effect every year around May and then go away? Or are you an idiot?

No. Demand goes up every May.
Supply and demand. Look into it.

Which price spikes are caused by "fines"?


I didn't say price spikes were caused by fines. I said prices go up.
 
2012-06-22 02:21:41 PM  
So wait, let me get this straight. The oil refiners are required to include an additive that exists, but isn't being produced commercially. So instead of taking their Billions in profits they make each quarter and investing a small fraction of it to produce the additive commercially themselves they are instead biatching that they can't get it? Fark them! Make the stuff yourselves and shut your pie holes.
 
2012-06-22 02:22:57 PM  

newtekie1: So wait, let me get this straight. The oil refiners are required to include an additive that exists, but isn't being produced commercially. So instead of taking their Billions in profits they make each quarter and investing a small fraction of it to produce the additive commercially themselves they are instead biatching that they can't get it? Fark them! Make the stuff yourselves and shut your pie holes.


The fine is a tax that's not a tax.
 
2012-06-22 02:23:48 PM  

anti-riaa: wait let me get this straight, I'm supposed to feel bad for oil companies and refineries that pull billions of profits each quarter?
fark them, they should charge them for unicorns too!


Personally, I'm of the opinion that, rich or not, everybody and every company should get a 'fair shake'.

The oil industry gets a lot of perks, yes, but this shows the other side of the coin, where the stick is. Also, the oil industry might be making mad money right now, but back in the '80s it was looking a lot more like GM and Ford a few years ago.

In this case, despite my like the idea of cellulostic ethanol, it's not panning out. Lots of promise, lots of complexities. At this point I wonder if depolymerization and transformation into some sort of 'biogasoline' might not be better. Ethanol has it's issues as a fuel. Personally, I think that biodiesel has better prospects.
 
2012-06-22 02:24:43 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Welfare Xmas: DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[t3.gstatic.com image 230x219]

You were saying?

Profit and profit margin are two different things. That's why one of them says "margin" at the end and the other one doesn't.


So a loan shark that makes $2M profit at 100% margin is better than an oil company that makes $10B at 6% margin.
Got it.
 
2012-06-22 02:29:59 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas: Dear dumbassmitter,

The technology to produce cellulosic ethanol exists. Oil companies chose not to use it. The End.


Sincerely,

People who can think critically

Is it actually scalable enough to produce cellulosic ethanol at rates that wouldn't drastically increase the cost of fuel? Prove that it is and then we can have a discussion.

/that's actually thinking critically.
//which is what you didn't do


So it does exist, but it must not be economically feasible, huh? Keep on moving those goalposts.
2.bp.blogspot.com

By the way, this place produces 1.4 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year:
www.inbicon.com

Yes, it still costs more than other ethanol sources, but once we get the bugs worked out of the enzyme production process, it will be far, far less expensive than corn ethanol. Turning waste sawdust and agricultural scrap into fuel alcohol... it's not too good to be true.

If we ever get our shiat together and start putting some decent funding into research and education in this country, we could achieve energy independence from the Middle East. That's probably what George Bush had in mind when he signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law, which is where these EPA requirements come from.
 
2012-06-22 02:36:21 PM  

snowjack: So it does exist, but it must not be economically feasible, huh? Keep on moving those goalposts.


One can make gold too, given a nuclear reactor and enough time. Lots of things are possible as a science experiment.
 
2012-06-22 02:43:42 PM  

Wendy's Chili: What the f*ck difference does it make? They're offered a subsidy for using an emerging technology, but instead of taking advantage of it, they're using their propoganda arm to try to get the subsidy without doing anything.

And here you idiots are howling about how stupid the EPA is for not shoveling enough free money at them.


I don't believe I've made a statement about the EPA. What I've pointed out is that it's an economic non-starter. You've done nothing to disprove that whatsoever. All you've done is the equivalent of say "they should make unicorn farts work".

Wendy's Chili: If it can't be done, they shouldn't get the subsidies for doing it, now should they?


Yeah - no problem. And as I understand it, they're getting less in subsidies because they're not using it. However, if they get a subsidy for using it I've got no problem with them not getting that subsidy.

However, that still doesn't magically make unicorn farts work, either.

algrant33:
The oil companies don't even want to have the discussion. The Corn Lobby would kind of have something to do with that, don't you think? Something about the demand for field corn falling flat.


You know this for a fact? If they could find a way to profit off of it, they would. Even if it would squeeze a basis point of extra profit out, they'd be all over it. As long as it was economically viable or they could get someone else to pay for it.

Pochas: No they would not because it is cheaper just to drill for the stuff. But that is bad for two reasons. Reason 1: environmental costs like the BP oil rig and global warming.


It may be cheaper to drill the stuff, but that's not the point now is it. The point is that there is legislation that, in essence, would pay for them to produce the stuff if they could. Whether or not oil, in and of itself, is irrelevant. That subsidy is all that matters. For anyone who can produce it economically, it's free money (well, taxes, but that's free money for these purposes).

2: It is unsustainable over the next century. Oil prices will eventually become prohibitively expensive. Problem is our society depends on oil and without it many people would starve and economies would collapse. If there is not another infrastructure in place already when this happens, then many many people will die.

I don't argue that this couldn't happen. It could be a rapid drop-off or it could be a more gradual rise in prices as more and more difficult to use sources become viable. What I do argue is that this specific technology doesn't seem to be economically viable. Stay on topic.

Now do you think a typical entrepeneur, let's take Donald Trump for example, would invest in this? Is he concerned with the well being of everyone else over the next century? No he is a dumbass so he is concerned about windmills near his golf courses, his awful hair, and how much money he can make today. If we let people like him entirely decide the course of energy development in this country, we are so screwed in the long run that it is not even funny.

Also an irrelevant point. If there's money in there and the entrepreneurs thought they could make money at this, they would. Plain and simple. Whether or not there's a short term or long term benefit (or even a detriment, for that matter) to society is not part of the equation. Profitability is. It doesn't exist here.
 
2012-06-22 02:45:13 PM  

Banned on the Run: Wendy's Chili: Welfare Xmas: DROxINxTHExWIND: The oil companies have made more money in PROFIT the last decade than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[t3.gstatic.com image 230x219]

You were saying?

Profit and profit margin are two different things. That's why one of them says "margin" at the end and the other one doesn't.

So a loan shark that makes $2M profit at 100% margin is better than an oil company that makes $10B at 6% margin.
Got it.


That depends. Is the shark coordinating with his buddies at Fox News to dupe voters into electing people who will give him subsidies for doing nothing?
 
2012-06-22 02:49:42 PM  

snowjack:
So it does exist, but it must not be economically feasible, huh? Keep on moving those goalposts.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 512x325]


Uhmm - if you're going to try a "moving the goalposts" argument with me you need to prove where I said it didn't exist. Until then, you fail.

By the way, this place produces 1.4 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year:
[www.inbicon.com image 420x206]

Yes, it still costs more than other ethanol sources, but once we get the bugs worked out of the enzyme production process, it will be far, far less expensive than corn ethanol. Turning waste sawdust and agricultural scrap into fuel alcohol... it's not too good to be true.


When it does, call me. In all honesty, I'm all for coming up with alternate sources. Personally, I think the algae methods will likely be the most cost-effective in the long term and potentially the most beneficial. Mostly because they pull carbon out of the air, so they're likely to be net carbon sinks and they allow us to use current infrastructure, to a large degree.

If we ever get our shiat together and start putting some decent funding into research and education in this country, we could achieve energy independence from the Middle East. That's probably what George Bush had in mind when he signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 into law, which is where these EPA requirements come from.

Don't disagree that we could, but there are lots of hurdles. Something something tar sands, oil shale, etc. comes to mind. Along with alternate technologies. As the price of fuel goes up, we start pushing towards those. That's the market at work, to a large extent.
 
2012-06-22 02:50:53 PM  

ronaprhys: algrant33:
The oil companies don't even want to have the discussion. The Corn Lobby would kind of have something to do with that, don't you think? Something about the demand for field corn falling flat.

You know this for a fact? If they could find a way to profit off of it, they would. Even if it would squeeze a basis point of extra profit out, they'd be all over it. As long as it was economically viable or they could get someone else to pay for it.


That's kind of EXACTLY my point. The Corn Lobby's not getting their back scratched by reducing our dependence on domestic corn for energy requirements. By switching from primary goods to 1/2 primary goods (corn) and 1/2 production byproducts (fibrous biomass), either the price and volume of corn goes down (bad for Big Corn), the price of energy goes down (bad for Big Oil), or net consumption of energy is allowed to go up (bad for the EPA). None of these is an attractive proposition to the people holding the moneybags, which is why they're taking their sweet little time investing in R&D.
 
2012-06-22 02:53:17 PM  

ronaprhys: Wendy's Chili: What the f*ck difference does it make? They're offered a subsidy for using an emerging technology, but instead of taking advantage of it, they're using their propoganda arm to try to get the subsidy without doing anything.

And here you idiots are howling about how stupid the EPA is for not shoveling enough free money at them.

I don't believe I've made a statement about the EPA. What I've pointed out is that it's an economic non-starter. You've done nothing to disprove that whatsoever. All you've done is the equivalent of say "they should make unicorn farts work".


No, I'm saying that if they can't or won't make the unicorn farts work, they shouldn't get the working unicorn fart money.
 
2012-06-22 02:53:52 PM  

algrant33: ronaprhys: algrant33:
The oil companies don't even want to have the discussion. The Corn Lobby would kind of have something to do with that, don't you think? Something about the demand for field corn falling flat.

You know this for a fact? If they could find a way to profit off of it, they would. Even if it would squeeze a basis point of extra profit out, they'd be all over it. As long as it was economically viable or they could get someone else to pay for it.

That's kind of EXACTLY my point. The Corn Lobby's not getting their back scratched by reducing our dependence on domestic corn for energy requirements. By switching from primary goods to 1/2 primary goods (corn) and 1/2 production byproducts (fibrous biomass), either the price and volume of corn goes down (bad for Big Corn), the price of energy goes down (bad for Big Oil), or net consumption of energy is allowed to go up (bad for the EPA). None of these is an attractive proposition to the people holding the moneybags, which is why they're taking their sweet little time investing in R&D.


Said another way, what's good for the consumer and what's ultimately good for securing our energy future is not good for the producers, and the producers have agreed to fark the consumer and fark our energy future in exchange for maximizing short-run profits and not pissing off Big Corn.
 
2012-06-22 02:54:58 PM  

Mikeyworld: If someone was to actually produce it, out of waste corn stalks


Corn stalks are not "waste" the way you think it is. It get's plowed under and reduces fertilizer requirements. The only farming refuse that exists is either from animals or runoff from fertilizer.
 
2012-06-22 02:55:00 PM  

algrant33: That's kind of EXACTLY my point. The Corn Lobby's not getting their back scratched by reducing our dependence on domestic corn for energy requirements. By switching from primary goods to 1/2 primary goods (corn) and 1/2 production byproducts (fibrous biomass), either the price and volume of corn goes down (bad for Big Corn), the price of energy goes down (bad for Big Oil), or net consumption of energy is allowed to go up (bad for the EPA). None of these is an attractive proposition to the people holding the moneybags, which is why they're taking their sweet little time investing in R&D.


I'm not, nor have ever been, talking about big oil investing in this. Get that through your head. Their investment is completely irrelevant to the discussion. An entrepreneur could invest the money and make this work if they had the backing. No one is doing it at an economically-viable level. Two companies have been shown to be able to produce cellulosic ethanol at this point. Neither is coming anywhere close to economically viable here.

That's the point. It's simply not economically viable at this point. No entrepreneur has been able to do so (hell, someone else even linked to efforts Shell made trying to make it work).

Discuss that - not some unicorn fart nonsense. This has nothing to do with big oil not investing their money. If they could do it and make it work, they would. Or someone else would.
 
2012-06-22 02:56:30 PM  

Wendy's Chili: No, I'm saying that if they can't or won't make the unicorn farts work, they shouldn't get the working unicorn fart money.


And I agree with you on that. In fact, I agreed in the very post you quote, IIRC.

So what's your point? You still seem to want to say that they need to make unicorn farts work because you want them to.
 
2012-06-22 03:01:21 PM  

ronaprhys: Wendy's Chili: No, I'm saying that if they can't or won't make the unicorn farts work, they shouldn't get the working unicorn fart money.

And I agree with you on that. In fact, I agreed in the very post you quote, IIRC.

So what's your point?


That's it. No farts, no subsidies.

You still seem to want to say that they need to make unicorn farts work because you want them to.

Oh. Is that what I seem to want to say? Fascinating.
 
2012-06-22 03:01:28 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: We've got a huge expanse of desert in the US that could be put into production.


Now we just need water. If the deserts could sustain grassland they wouldn't be deserts. Bushes vision on ethanol was 100% bullshiat. Even if we converted all the arable land in the US toward ethanol production, we still wouldn't have enough to power our cars.
 
2012-06-22 03:05:00 PM  

lockers: Even if we converted all the arable land in the US toward ethanol production, we still wouldn't have enough to power our cars.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-06-22 03:07:22 PM  

ronaprhys: I'm not, nor have ever been, talking about big oil investing in this.


Then you're missing the entire point, since they're the ones blending the gasoline for delivery to final destination, and they're also the ones taking the subsidy cuts for failing to follow through on their mandates.

They're the ones with the venture capital to make it happen, and they're also the ones that stand to profit the most. It's the exact same concept as car manufacturers with their half-assed attempt to R&D on fuel-efficient, hybrid, and alternative-fuel vehicles. They could grind at it and really make it something, but they choose to half-ass it for the tax breaks.

No emerging technology is economically viable at its outset. They'll spend $10 million in exploratory drilling that won't turn a drop of oil but won't drop $1 million in biomass conversion that at least will.
 
2012-06-22 03:09:03 PM  

kyleaugustus: FTA: And Tom Pyle of the Institute of Energy Research says, "the cellulosic biofuel program is the embodiment of government gone wild."

I'd've gone with state controlled genocide, but okay.


www.flashingblog.com

It's like Girls Gone Wild, but with government. Government and its naughty, naughty cellulosic ethanol.
 
2012-06-22 03:13:35 PM  

algrant33: They'll spend $10 million in exploratory drilling that won't turn a drop of oil but won't drop $1 million in biomass conversion that at least will.


It's not that simple. ...not to deflate a good rage, but if you really want to introduce a new technology like cellulosic ethanol, you don't just spend $1m on a lab. You'd have to build a pilot plant -- it'll be $100's of millions just to do the experiment properly. Even then, assuming you show that it *can* be done, you'd have to invest $billions in a production-scale plant with first-of-its-kind licensing and environmental reviews that will take years and cost $unknown. ...and even then, there's a chance that having such a disruptive technology come on-line at a large scale will alter the economics in unpredictable ways (such that the feed-stocks go up in price) that make your initital economic estimates invalid and the whole adventure is a loss.

It really is a big risk.

/chemical engineer
 
2012-06-22 03:21:30 PM  

jshine: algrant33: They'll spend $10 million in exploratory drilling that won't turn a drop of oil but won't drop $1 million in biomass conversion that at least will.

It's not that simple. ...not to deflate a good rage, but if you really want to introduce a new technology like cellulosic ethanol, you don't just spend $1m on a lab. You'd have to build a pilot plant -- it'll be $100's of millions just to do the experiment properly. Even then, assuming you show that it *can* be done, you'd have to invest $billions in a production-scale plant with first-of-its-kind licensing and environmental reviews that will take years and cost $unknown. ...and even then, there's a chance that having such a disruptive technology come on-line at a large scale will alter the economics in unpredictable ways (such that the feed-stocks go up in price) that make your initital economic estimates invalid and the whole adventure is a loss.

It really is a big risk.

/chemical engineer


Bullshiat, reality is just a clever plot for the oil companies to screw the little guy and make the GOP rich.
 
2012-06-22 03:31:30 PM  

Welfare Xmas: jshine: algrant33: They'll spend $10 million in exploratory drilling that won't turn a drop of oil but won't drop $1 million in biomass conversion that at least will.

It's not that simple. ...not to deflate a good rage, but if you really want to introduce a new technology like cellulosic ethanol, you don't just spend $1m on a lab. You'd have to build a pilot plant -- it'll be $100's of millions just to do the experiment properly. Even then, assuming you show that it *can* be done, you'd have to invest $billions in a production-scale plant with first-of-its-kind licensing and environmental reviews that will take years and cost $unknown. ...and even then, there's a chance that having such a disruptive technology come on-line at a large scale will alter the economics in unpredictable ways (such that the feed-stocks go up in price) that make your initital economic estimates invalid and the whole adventure is a loss.

It really is a big risk.

/chemical engineer

Bullshiat, reality is just a clever plot for the oil companies to screw the little guy and make the GOP rich.


You haven't spent much time actually working in industry, have you? Just a hunch...
 
2012-06-22 03:43:54 PM  
 
2012-06-22 03:53:11 PM  
I love the oil companies and I wish the government would leave them alone. People who hate oil companies have misplaced anger. There are other companies that are really screwing you over along with your government and that is where your rage should be directed.
 
2012-06-22 03:54:10 PM  
I love all the butthurt against oil companies here on Fark. I'm getting paid right now by an oil company to sit here and troll you hypocritical douche bags. Until all you f*cks start reducing your dependence on oil products you can all STFU and GBTW. I can look out of my field office window and see a drilling rig right now. I can smell the diesel fumes from the rig motors..........it smells like.......VICTORY.
 
2012-06-22 04:18:29 PM  

Wendy's Chili: I have a strong suspicion that "what amounts to fines" is smaller subsidies.


I'm wondering if its just them not qualifying for the gas-a-hol tax break at the pump. The tax that goes to the highway trust fund.

/But I suspect they skirt that anyway with the 'MAY contain up to 10% ethanol' labeling on the pump. (.000001% ethanol fits 'up to 10%' description)
 
2012-06-22 04:19:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Pochas


Actually you are the one making irrelevant comments. Things that are good for the US and Americans in the long run might not be profitable in the long run. Things that are profitable for an entrepeneur may not be good for the US or Americans.

An example would be slavery: Good for capitalists, bad for Americans.

It is not the government's role to turn a profit numbnuts.
 
2012-06-22 04:31:55 PM  
So they've had 7 years to make a better fuel and now are complaining they never did it? Whose fault is this again?
 
2012-06-22 04:38:44 PM  

intelligent comment below: Those poor oil companies


sssssshhhh don't tell anybody but those subsidies that oil companies get are the same as tax deductions that every other industry/company gets. But if we let this get out we wouldn't be able to hate the oil companies for being oooooohhh look bright shiny object.
 
2012-06-22 05:00:15 PM  

Welfare Xmas: sssssshhhh don't tell anybody but those subsidies that oil companies get are the same as tax deductions that every other industry/company gets. But if we let this get out we wouldn't be able to hate the oil companies for being oooooohhh look bright shiny object.



False. These are direct subsidies, they are not "tax deductions" which oil companies also get.

Why do you have to lie on behalf of oil companies? Are you a low paid rig worker sticking up for the guys who sign your paycheck?
 
2012-06-22 05:04:40 PM  

paygun: hitlersbrain: "Government is terrible... We know because we get into it and do a terrible job."

"Government regulations are crazy... We know because we make them and make sure they're crazy."

Oil companies and the agencies that regulate them are pretty much the same people.

I don't know if you thought that all the way through when you used regulatory capture as an example of how the GOP is wrong aboutcauses government failure.


Seems pretty straightforward to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report