Associated Press
We talked last week about Harold Hamm, one of the planet's wealthiest billionaires, who was named Mitt Romney's top adviser on energy policy right around the time he contributed nearly $1 million to Romney's super PAC.
Today, the conservative oilman was on Capitol Hill, making the case for -- what else? -- tax subsidies for oil companies.
The U.S. must retain tax breaks that help independent oil and gas producers, said Harold Hamm, chairman and chief executive officer of Continental Resources Inc.
Companies should continue to be able to expense intangible drilling costs rather than deduct them over time, said Hamm, who also is an energy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Sure, we could let the free market operate on its own, but Hamm -- who said he was speaking today in a personal capacity -- prefers a system in which taxpayers offer breaks to oil companies, giving them an edge other companies in other American industries don't enjoy.
Romney, who's convinced President Obama opposes the principles of free enterprise, made Hamm the chairman of his "Energy Policy Advisory Group," putting Hamm in a position to shape a new "pro-jobs, pro-market, pro-American" energy agenda, which Romney would presumably pursue if elected.
Leave a Comment:
It just gets stupider-er and stupider-er...
So we'll end up giving Big Oil a subsidy, but definitely not green "algae" energies. Those are stupid. But burning a finite resource that pollutes our environment in incalculable ways... that's just American!
If we eliminated all subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and reallocated those resources to alternate energy R&D, we could get off foreign oil.
Well, duh! What are you going to do, put algae in your gas tank?
Per the wiki page on algae fuel:
Wiki was citing an article from Reuters:
Algae Fuel Inches Toward Price Parity with Oil
/sarc
http://en.wikipedia.org/Algae_fuel
There's even more good pieces of information.
"... [uses] land that is not suitable for agriculture."
"The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map, or about half of the land area of Maine. This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000."
"Harvested algae, like fossil fuel, release CO2 when burnt but unlike fossil fuel the CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the growing algae."
Very exciting!! (Oh wait - unless you are a big oil company)
maphi, it might be easier to grow the stuff on the ocean. no land use required.
NASA OMEGA ocean based algae growing project
Basic Petroleum geology, algae created the bulk of the world fossil oil reserves. At least they were smart enough to save the planet, so we could spent it wisely.
Big Oil Gave $23.5 Million To Senators Who Voted To Protect Oil Subsidies :
http://www.republicreport.org/2012/big-oil-gave-23-5-million-to-senators-who-voted-to-protect-oil-subsidies/
History of U.S. Oil Subsidies Go Back Nearly a Century :
http://news.yahoo.com/history-u-oil-subsidies-back-nearly-century-215500548.html
Big Oil's Excuses Running on Fumes :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/javier-sierra/big-oils-excuses-running-_b_1432701.html
Protest Against “Big Oil Corruption” :
http://priceofoil.org/2012/01/24/protest-against-big-oil-corruption/
CO2 is not an environmental pollutant, and the effects of burning fossil fuels can be calculated right down to a molecular level. However, the impact is always less than calculated because of the fact that ALL plant life takes the CO2 and turns it into food, lignan or cellulose.
If big Oil is so bad while making $0.6 per gallon, then what is big government. The government takes on average $0.46 per gallon on something they did nothing for.
Next question. What is the difference between Mitt Hiring Harold Hamm, and President Obama Hiring Jeffery Immelt. They are both part of the 1%. Both run billion dollar companies.
Maddow the queen of telling only part of the truth.
chemdmd, what's the cost AFTER the subsidies are figured in? Your figure for oil is at 60 cents (that's what $.6 translates to unless you mis-typed?) vs. 46 cents for government - which uses it for the good of the nation. So, wouldn't it be a worse number once the subsidies were figured in...not sure I even understand what your money costs were showing.
I don't much like Immelt being ad advisor, but I'm not sure what tax advantages, subsidies, policies he's advocated for that benefit his company to the exclusion of others. Do you know?
Why will the oil industry be harmed if the subsidies (which Congress keeps voting to keep) are taken away from these most successful companies? Why don't the oil companies help each other instead of depending on the "big government" to pay for their personal wants? You think that's a more important use of tax money than letting contracts to Private companies to work on infrastructure projects for the good of the nation, employing thousands of people?
Not sure what good advice Mr. Immelt has given the President about assisting all business in the U.S., but the report clearly shows what Mr. Hamm's advice would pertain to. I like the t-shirt saying submitted yesterday - w/ adjustments...what's good for rich Republicans is bad for the nation. Mr. Hamm's advice is bad for the nation clearly.
Silly. Big Oil isn't just polluting through carbon emissions. Where do think all those pesticides and insecticides come from? waste products from refining oil. (The nitrogen fertilizers, also often detrimental to the environment, originated with the need to dispose of the nitrates used in arms manufacturing).
If big Oil makes sooooo little money, why is it making absolutely record profits? And if the federal government did not tax gasoline, where would we get the interstates to drive our gasoline powered cars to drive on?
And speaking of ' half truths ' -- More lies from the GOP about oil and renewable energy :
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/05/27/energy-the-big-gop-lie-about-renewables-and-fossil-fuels/
By Bob Berwyn
SUMMIT COUNTY — Closing in on the peak of the presidential election season, it’s probably too much to expect honesty from politicians desperate to get elected or re-elected.
But it’s especially disturbing to hear lies about things that can easily be proved with fact-based reality checks. Energy is one of those issues that’s been twisted beyond recognition by the Republican Party, mainly because so many of the GOP’s candidates are heavily financed by fossil fuel companies — and by the way, so are plenty of Democrats.
The latest political twist is the claim that high gas prices are due to President Obama’s policies of pursuing renewable energy at the expense of fossil fuels, and that we can merrily drill and frack our way to cheaper fuel prices, all the while upping emissions of greenhouse gases.
The truth is that domestic energy production is nearing record levels, both in the fossil fuel sector, as well as from renewable sources. President Obama hasn’t been shy about leasing new plays for oil and gas, while at the same time pursuing ambitious and far-reaching plans for long-term production of renewable energy.
Of course it isn't. In fact, I think you'll be much better for enriching your environment up to 2000 ppm.
As for the plants, how many plants on Earth are growth limited by a shortage of CO2? Never mind the pH of ocean water.
"The U.S. must retain tax breaks that help independent oil and gas producers,..."
What "independent oil & gas producers"? Puhlease, gimme a break! Austerity for the 90% of working Americans all for the benefit of welfare to the oligarchy!
How about we take that tax rate on the 1% up to 75%, no deductions! Millions out of work, foreclosures still occurring, cutting unemployment, raising interest rates on student loans, disenfranchising women/LGBT/minority voters/ disparaging immigrants/ and forcing women to bear unwanted children - and yet the GOP have the nerve to talk about "freedom and liberty, patriotism & sacrifice" - frankly I marvel that every time they open their mouths lightening doesn't strike them down - b(*&^*#&* surely flies out of their mouths....
out there just "picking winners". What hypocrites as usual.
and "chemdmd", CO2 can be an environmental pollutant if we are putting more into the system than it can handle. Plant life evidently cannot take all of the CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere out of it fast enough to avoid the problems its causing. It took millions of years to sequester it naturally, what do you think happens when that CO2 is released in a vastly shorter timeframe?
and really, gov't does nothing for the taxes it collects? Then I do expect you to stop driving on highways, demanding safe food, expecting the military to protect you etc. I certainly don't want someone like you to be a hypocrite....
For someone who claims that Ms. Maddow only tells part of the truth, you sure are a demonstrated expert in actually doing that.
Socialism is good for corporations and bad for individuals according to Republican philosophy. Dems should be crucifying the Republicans for socialism, but the Dems are indebted to the same corporate interests. Very few Dems will stand up to this hypocrisy.
I would refine your statement a bit:
Socialism is good for corporations that are very profitable and can buy politicians - bad for the rest.
Socialism is good for individuals if they are very wealthy and can buy politicians - bad for the rest.
I object to your use of the word "crucifying" but agree with the sentiment.
Yes the corporations essentially own all politicians.
However, call me crazy (you wouldn't be the first) but I think there are more than a few Dems that do "stand up to this hypocrisy". We need to encourage them and join them.
We should make it a priority. I think President Obama is trying to dodge the label they already put on him. The non WH folks need to say it in PAC ads and everywhere else.
Subsidizing oil is bad for deficit, they are not giving the public a break, the prices are not going down because of subsidies and the President does not control price of fuel.
Republicans would give tax dollars to those who are making life more difficult for businesses to hire people, not to mention Joe and Jill working person driving to work.
The military is Socialism. Spending on defense industries by the government is Keynesian. Republicans are Keynesian Socialists.
LOL. Awesome logic !
Here is some irony about Republican logic :
The Urban Dictionary
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=republican+party+minions
Republican Logic :
A mythology often alluded to by the rich. See: oxymoron.
A type of logic that the Republican mind subscribes to. Basically Republican logic tells Republicans that only the rich white male Christian God is the only true God and that everything else is false religion. Republican logic sees no problem with blood soaked oil wars, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the rest of the country, the gutting of social programs, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, and to make life as miserable as possible for non-Republicans. This sort of logic makes no sense to the rest of the world.
1)A myth made up by fox news and believed by the ignorant. See also: lies
2) An oxymoron, e.g. two words with opposite meanings.
The complex system of cognitive dissonance that enables the afflicted to love both Jesus and war.
I see from the mix of Christian and jingoistic stickers on your car that you suffer from Republican Logic.
So, help me out here, is this "good old fashioned Republican socialism" or "good old fashioned Republican yokelism"? I forget.
According to CSPAN Wall St. is going to be accused of speculating when it comes to commodities. They're discussing a big scam in the Agricultural Dept. At least they're getting to the bottom of this.
Does this include speculation in the oil market?
Capitalists don't really like capitalism. Well, at least the kind where's there's competition. No, what capitalists like are inefficient, uncompetitive monopolies. And if that wasn't true, there would be no lobbyists.
Republicans like lobbyists. Republicans don't truly like efficient capitalism. They like the capitalism that fills their campaign coffers. So they like inefficient capitalism. And they're not really concerned if the particular industry involved is responsible for destroying the planet we are borrowing from future generations.
Very well put!
If you get paid to dig holes in the ground, you should leave a renewable electricity generator in the hole you left behind. Like a wind generator. Why not use that wind generator to drill your next hole?
Much always wants more! Gotta save those mom and pop (multinational) oil companies.
Of course the repubs think the oil companies need more money. As the most profitable companies of all time how could they make it just letting the free market work?
Those who have the most must get more. Now that's a solution for our political future, oops, meant to say that's the solution for our economy.
I have an idea why dont we borrow another couple of trillion so we can give the states money to make payroll for the teachers and firefighters for 2 more years. After all thats what we did a few years ago now the moneys gone and we right back where we started. I never did understand the logic in borrow money just to make payroll.
Two things may strike you; deducting intangible drilling cost and independent oil and gas producers.
If the intangible were deducted who would audit the vapors.
Independent producer means that you can buy a paper corporation, drill under that corprations name, sell it if it is successful or file for bankruptcy protection if it fails. These ready made corporations are just for bankruptcy and liability protection. Simple put the risk with the driller and then escape the risk. 500,000 wells and counting.
2012 Forbes 2000 Oil & Gas, 5.285 Trillion Sales, 416.2 Billion Profit.