Why shouldn't the oil companies give something back to America?

[StageLeft]

Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

 

[misle]

According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil.

So, for every $1 Big Oil make in profit, the government takes $2.09. Who's really getting those "windfall" profits?

By the way, it is not OUR oil. WE did not invest billions of dollars to buy/lease land, explore the area and drill for oil. Oil companies did all the work and they should reap the rewards. What gives anyone the right to confiscate earnings from anyone else just because, in your opinion, they make too much profit?

Big Oil only controls 2-5% of the market.

The majority of Big Oil profits come from other counties.

I'm going to laugh my ass off when Big Oil gets enough of this government and moves over to the UAE. Who are you going to loot from then?

 

[GooeyGUI]

Actually, it's not that stupid of a question if you look at it a different way.

The oil companies (and others) want to open up new areas for off shore drilling. Obama proposes that they either develop the 68 million acres of tracts already granted or give them back.

This should happen before new areas are opened up. To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous. To claim that Obama is against off shore drilling, totally, is a misrepresentation of his real position. He has said that the oil companies need to develop what's available first.

Even my kids know that you don't go back for second helpings until your plate is clean.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

thats because they all ready screwed big tobacco, and what happened? the states squandered a majority of the money.


After big oil is ran through the ringer, they will move on to the next big targets, Microsoft, Wal-Mart...hell the way people tout Target around here they'll be the next Wal-mart and when they get that big, they'll be in the cross hairs as well.


god forbid anyone ever actually do well in this country , when you do, you end up getting raped for your successes.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Actually, it's not that stupid of a question if you look at it a different way.

The oil companies (and others) want to open up new areas for off shore drilling. Obama proposes that they either develop the 68 million acres of tracts already granted or give them back.

This should happen before new areas are opened up. To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous. To claim that Obama is against off shore drilling, totally, is a misrepresentation of his real position. He has said that the oil companies need to develop what's available first.

Even my kids know that you don't go back for second helpings until your plate is clean.

If that is truly his position then he knows less about the issue than I thought. I know this is hard to imagine but it is absurdly improbable that "Big Oil" is just sitting on large amounts of easy/cheap oil. There are a lot of actually plausible reasons that those acres have not been developed.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: techs
Why, at this time of fantastically huge profits, which the oil companies are NOT using to find more oil, shouldn't the U.S. get back some of what we gave them???

Find more oil? You've refused to let them drill everywhere they find it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: techs
I feel entitled to money I didn't earn. How dare anyone make a profit at my expense?!?! Surely we cannot be held responsible for our own actions. We must hold the oil companies responsible for supplying us with a product that we have demanded! Since I also feel entitled to continue living my lifestyle, the oil companies should subsidize it while continuing to supply me with every bit of oil I demand, though they should not be allowed to profit while providing me with goods and services. They should run themselves as a charity where I am the benefactor.

Translated into non-failspeak.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: techs
I feel entitled to money I didn't earn. How dare anyone make a profit at my expense?!?! Surely we cannot be held responsible for our own actions. We must hold the oil companies responsible for supplying us with a product that we have demanded! Since I also feel entitled to continue living my lifestyle, the oil companies should subsidize it while continuing to supply me with every bit of oil I demand, though they should not be allowed to profit while providing me with goods and services. They should run themselves as a charity where I am the benefactor.

Translated into non-failspeak.

:thumbsup:

 

[GooeyGUI]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Actually, it's not that stupid of a question if you look at it a different way.

The oil companies (and others) want to open up new areas for off shore drilling. Obama proposes that they either develop the 68 million acres of tracts already granted or give them back.

This should happen before new areas are opened up. To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous. To claim that Obama is against off shore drilling, totally, is a misrepresentation of his real position. He has said that the oil companies need to develop what's available first.

Even my kids know that you don't go back for second helpings until your plate is clean.

If that is truly his position then he knows less about the issue than I thought. I know this is hard to imagine but it is absurdly improbable that "Big Oil" is just sitting on large amounts of easy/cheap oil. There are a lot of actually plausible reasons that those acres have not been developed.

What they want is the oil that is cheaper to get to. A platform takes several years to develop. It takes even longer when the oil is deeper. That's the reason why they haven't developed that yet - closer to the coast is usually more shallow.

Why should they invest money in development when it's more profitable to buy and sell?

 

[TechAZ]

Surely this is a joke?

 

[CPA]

OMG techs, are you serious?

Oil companies give back to their millions of employees (yes, millions), their shareholders, the environment, charities and taxing authorities.

And they are finding more oil or haven't you been reading the news the last two years concerning finds in the Gulf of Mexico?

geesh, just when I think you're coming back down to earth you post something as silly as this.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Oil speculators, funded by Oil Corporations, have almost destroyed GM and Ford and any truck or SUV producer

But for the last 15 years all we've heard about is how the oil companies are subsidizing GM and Ford so they will make SUVs......so which is it - are they trying to prop them up or kill them off?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: winnar111
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend.

And then... what is your point exactly? You pulled this out in another post as well. Are you saying they are taxed to high? Or that they profit so much that a $27 billion tax burden is a badge of honor?

His point seems pretty obvious.

The OP's question - Why shouldn't the oil companies give something back to America?

winnar111's (and the correct) answer - Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes.


What is confusing about that?

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Actually, it's not that stupid of a question if you look at it a different way.

The oil companies (and others) want to open up new areas for off shore drilling. Obama proposes that they either develop the 68 million acres of tracts already granted or give them back.

This should happen before new areas are opened up. To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous. To claim that Obama is against off shore drilling, totally, is a misrepresentation of his real position. He has said that the oil companies need to develop what's available first.

Even my kids know that you don't go back for second helpings until your plate is clean.

If that is truly his position then he knows less about the issue than I thought. I know this is hard to imagine but it is absurdly improbable that "Big Oil" is just sitting on large amounts of easy/cheap oil. There are a lot of actually plausible reasons that those acres have not been developed.

What they want is the oil that is cheaper to get to. A platform takes several years to develop. It takes even longer when the oil is deeper. That's the reason why they haven't developed that yet - closer to the coast is usually more shallow.

Why should they invest money in development when it's more profitable to buy and sell?

That might have some merit if they were not currently spending billions upon billions of dollars drilling ultra-deep wells that weren't even possible a decade or so ago. Hell, the ultra-deep rigs alone cost billions of dollars to engineer, produce and support. BTW, what in the world is "easy" about drilling in northern Alaska? I could be wrong but that doesn't sound very easy at all.

And yes, they would prefer to go after "easy" oil and it would be in our best interests to allow them to go after it. While they might make a few nickles more on it (raise the royalties if that pisses you off) they will be able to bring the oil to the market much sooner.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

The U.S.?

Do you guys seriously want DHS or some over bureaucracy exploring and producing oil/gas? Do you think it would be all that much cheaper? How much cheaper does it get when you factor in the 70% we would still be importing at world market prices?

 

[Capitalizt]

Exxon's profit margin was 8%.

After all their expenses, they only had an 8% return on investment. This is NOT a hugely profitable company. Sure, in dollar terms they made more than anyone because they SOLD more than anyone else in dollar terms. This is meaningless however. Many companies and industries get a far greater profit in terms of percentage than the oil industry. Oil companies are just seen as the "big boys" and it is popular to bully them.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Originally posted by: misle
According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil.

So, for every $1 Big Oil make in profit, the government takes $2.09. Who's really getting those "windfall" profits?

are you that dense? you are making it sound like the government is taking that $2.09 from the oil companies themselves. that would mean the oil companies would have zero profit and be out of business already.

most of the tax revenue is from the tax on a gallon of gas paid for at the pump. that isnt taken from the oil companies' pockets.

lolol

you fail at common sense 101

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

The U.S.?

Do you guys seriously want DHS or some over bureaucracy exploring and producing oil/gas? Do you think it would be all that much cheaper? How much cheaper does it get when you factor in the 70% we would still be importing at world market prices?

You honestly believe we would still be importing 70%?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: misle
According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil.

So, for every $1 Big Oil make in profit, the government takes $2.09. Who's really getting those "windfall" profits?

are you that dense? you are making it sound like the government is taking that $2.09 from the oil companies themselves. that would mean the oil companies would have zero profit and be out of business already.

most of the tax revenue is from the tax on a gallon of gas paid for at the pump. that isnt taken from the oil companies' pockets.

lolol

you fail at common sense 101

Their common sense was bought with may cents by the oil companies.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: winnar111
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend.

And then... what is your point exactly? You pulled this out in another post as well. Are you saying they are taxed to high? Or that they profit so much that a $27 billion tax burden is a badge of honor?

Seems like we are collecting windfall taxes off Exxon already.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: winnar111
Over the last three years, Exxon Mobil has paid an average of $27 billion annually in taxes. That's $27,000,000,000 per year, a number so large it's hard to comprehend.

And then... what is your point exactly? You pulled this out in another post as well. Are you saying they are taxed to high? Or that they profit so much that a $27 billion tax burden is a badge of honor?

Seems like we are collecting windfall taxes off Exxon already.

Yes, it's an outrage. If there are any changes it should be a reduction in taxes and an increase in subsidies. Isn't this obvious?

We should never attempt to question or bite the hand that feeds us. I'm buying gas at the most expensive station I can find from now on.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: idiotekniQues

Originally posted by: misle
According to the Tax Foundation, from 1977-2004, big oil made $643 billion in profits. During that same span, Federal and State governments made $1.343 TRILLION in tax revenues from big oil.

So, for every $1 Big Oil make in profit, the government takes $2.09. Who's really getting those "windfall" profits?

are you that dense? you are making it sound like the government is taking that $2.09 from the oil companies themselves. that would mean the oil companies would have zero profit and be out of business already.

most of the tax revenue is from the tax on a gallon of gas paid for at the pump. that isnt taken from the oil companies' pockets.

lolol

you fail at common sense 101

So then . . . you're for the Fair Tax, then, right? Because you basically just explained one of the arguments for it . . . LOL.

 

[GooeyGUI]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
Actually, it's not that stupid of a question if you look at it a different way.

The oil companies (and others) want to open up new areas for off shore drilling. Obama proposes that they either develop the 68 million acres of tracts already granted or give them back.

This should happen before new areas are opened up. To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous. To claim that Obama is against off shore drilling, totally, is a misrepresentation of his real position. He has said that the oil companies need to develop what's available first.

Even my kids know that you don't go back for second helpings until your plate is clean.

If that is truly his position then he knows less about the issue than I thought. I know this is hard to imagine but it is absurdly improbable that "Big Oil" is just sitting on large amounts of easy/cheap oil. There are a lot of actually plausible reasons that those acres have not been developed.

What they want is the oil that is cheaper to get to. A platform takes several years to develop. It takes even longer when the oil is deeper. That's the reason why they haven't developed that yet - closer to the coast is usually more shallow.

Why should they invest money in development when it's more profitable to buy and sell?

That might have some merit if they were not currently spending billions upon billions of dollars drilling ultra-deep wells that weren't even possible a decade or so ago. Hell, the ultra-deep rigs alone cost billions of dollars to engineer, produce and support. BTW, what in the world is "easy" about drilling in northern Alaska? I could be wrong but that doesn't sound very easy at all.

And yes, they would prefer to go after "easy" oil and it would be in our best interests to allow them to go after it. While they might make a few nickles more on it (raise the royalties if that pisses you off) they will be able to bring the oil to the market much sooner.

Originally posted by: GooeyGUI
To sit on an energy policy over this issue really seems ludicrous.

Drilling for oil easier now or later doesn't really matter if you think long term instead of a decade from now. Eventually the oil will be exploited. In the meanwhile, it's not right to block other legislation that could be part of a comprehensive plan. The oil drilling can always be talked about later. It's not going anywhere.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Demonizing oil companies, real validity of that aside, has become now the new national debate. So childish and such a petty distraction away from reality. Even if their profit margin was cut to $0 we'd still be paying plenty on gas. It's like dogs fighting over scraps. See the bigger picture.

People are finally realizing it's our land, our oil and we are getting raped.

Who is doing better now Chavez or the U.S.?

No, its not. Just because you think it should be doesnt make it truth.