Cost Comparison: Diesel and Heating Oil vs. Gasoline

I personally get very concerned over recommendations to return to wood burning for heating purposes. First of all, most stoves are not that efficient, and wood combustion emits most of the same noxious compounds as fossil fuels, plus some others. Furthermore, and more importantly, what impact does cutting trees down for firewood have on the environment? You may require only a small amount of wood for your home, but what happens when you multiply that by, what, 100,000,000 households? That adds up to a whole lot of trees being destroyed, and a whole lot of carbon not being sequestered. How long does it take to replace the tree you cut down to burn for heat this year? While there are situations where burning wood for fuel is the most appropriate solution, it is not a good idea to consider it a universal solution.

Gentlemen, I think you should consider the larger question before accusing Big Oil or speculators.

First of all, Big Oil typically pays twice as much in taxes as it makes in profits already, and exploration and drilling are an incredibly costly business to begin with. The actual percentage of an oil company's gross which is profit is terribly small to begin with, and once they pay the shareholders off, there's not all the much left over.

Now consider this. The majority of the world's proven reserves of oil are controlled by nations hostile to the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela to name a few of the main players.

But wait, you say. Aren't the Saudis our allies? Take note that vast sums of terrorist financing money do in fact come from Saudi Arabia. As they also do from Iran and other hard-line Islamic governments. So the simple fact is that we are, ourselves, financing terrorism by buying oil from our enemies, and I will be happy to comment further on this if anybody is interested. Just don't expect me to be politically correct.

Because OPEC controls the lions share of the world's oil, and the House of Saud controls OPEC, it pretty much can (and does) dictate the price of oil world-wide, and trust me, they are not at all distressed about all those trillions of dollars that they are raking in.

Further consider this. In the United States, there has not been a single new well drilled nor a new nuclear power plant built in 30 years. Not many days ago President Bush (the most wrongly maligned president in US history) rescinded a long-standing executive order against off-shore drilling, and oil prices immediately began falling. I have read well informed and authoritative estimates that there is very like more oil under US territorial waters and under the ANWR than the entire Middle East, and possibly the entire world.

Of course the next question is why are we not drilling for this oil, instead of sending our money to hostile foreign nations? The answer is that for the last 30+ years the US Congress has been controlled by the Democratic party, which has been controlled by is extreme left wing (check out who's writing the checks), and that same Democrat controlled congress has bowed the the environmental lunatic fringe and banned new drilling, as well as blocking all nuclear power plant construction.

Now ask yourselves what's going to happen in the next decade if Senator McCain is elected? He wants to drill new wells everywhere, and wants to build new nukes as well. Not to mention that we are proceeding full-bore on new forms of energy generation and transportation technology is going to continue to improve, thus reducing demand. Which means that it's going to be a heck of a lot harder for OPEC to charge so much for a barrel of oil, and the price at the pump is going to come down. Count on it being a bit different under a President Obama, since he doesn't seem to mind us paying $4+ per gallon at the pump.

Thank you Dr Moose! I'm with you.

Here is a slightly abridged piece piece I wrote a few days ago that was shotgunned to friends across the Internet. It supports much of what you wrote.

"The media news people and politicians alike, are both guilty of deliberately parsing the truth selectively so as to distort the thinking of the American public and influence an outcome.

A good example of this is the current fuselade directed at oil companies, for what is alleged to be immoral, record breaking profits.

I've just completed just some basic research into pre-tax profits for a lot of companies. Except for one, Boeing at 9.5% , their pretax profits never dropped below 11%. In fact many companies like Pepsi-co and Coca-Cola reported pretax profits in excess of 20%! TWENTY PERCENT!! That is fantastic!

Verizon reported profits of 16.2%, General Electric's pretax profit was 15.1%. At 19.2% Bristol-Myers Squibb is right op there with carbonated sodas.

By contrast, the average pretax profit for the oil industry is an underwhelming 8%!

In spite of all the record breaking earnings politicians wag their tongues at, the average pretax margins for the entire industry are 2 points below pretax margins considered acceptable by investors and CFO's.

Where is this "windfall" people keep screaming about?!

There isn't a court of law in this Country that doesn't require us to take an oath prior to testifying. The oath is well known:

"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. . . "

Notice that the language of that oath is carefully worded so that purposeful omissions are forbidden. We aren't allowed to tell just enough of the facts to distort or we'll be found guilty of false testimony . . . . of lying!

When you consider that most elected officials are attorney's, so-called "Officers of the Court", you can't help to raise questions about the integrity of the judicial system as well. If some lawyers in Congress can lie by deliberate omission that way, what's going on in Court rooms?

How do they get away with it?

How do the politicians and news people continue to misrepresent the profits of the oil companies and pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

Before he died, Kurt Vonnegut was quoted as having accused the American people of being stupid. I can't say for sure if he is right or not. However, the ease with which I was able to uncover the real facts on profits, suggests that if politicians and the news media distort the truth it may well be because Americans have gotten very lazy and those guys know it.

The companies I looked up are all publicly traded. As such, they are required by law to post their financials for all to see. It took less than an hour to accumulate profit averages.

Please, don't believe a word I've written or take this on faith. Instead, go look up pre-tax profit margins yourself. Then you decide.

Just so I'm not accused of being a shill for the oil industry: I personally can't stand Exxon. That contempt for them existed long before the Valdez accident. It increased dramatically, however, when I saw them get away with absurdly low punitive damages after ruining the lives, the economies and the ecology of people in fishing villages in over 10,000 square miles of Alaskan coast.

There are many valid reasons for being contemptuous of Exxon-Mobile and to justify boycotting them.

High margins of profit, however, are not among them."

End of post

I don't want to be guilty of hijacking my own thread by turning the conversation political. However, DrMoose has made some very relevant statements I feel I need to support.

Thanks

L. J.

Just a brief note Jag. The site of the Exxon Valdez disaster which you have cited, now looks like any other section of Alaskan coastline, in spite of Exxon's half-hearted clean-up efforts. Testimony I think to nature's ability to heal itself.

Thanks for the corroboration on this part of the issue. Though I do think that the global political implications of the matter bear the most consideration, and it seems to me that too many of us scientific/technical types part far too little attention to these matters. Small wonder that the Founding Fathers saw fit to restrict sovereign franchise to those they considered fit to wield it.

Anyway, good comment and good research. Well done.

lets get real tecnical her on the Valdez spill. The area where exxon was allow to stop clean up is just like its old self with life back. In the areas where the econuts require the use of hot, high pressure cleaning to remove 100% of the oil, that area is dead, dead, dead. By cleaning off the oil, the econuts killed all the bateria that thrieves on eating oil. They killed the moses and licheans which is ffod for the little invertabrea, which is food...

Exxon, like all other businesses, is a driven by a preoccupation with the bottom line. The CEO and CFO are under pressure from investors, which is likely a factor in the risks employees take, like that captain of the boat.

It matters not how the cost of that spill got handled: it costs Exxon a lot and sooner or later, being a bottom line company, the cost of cleanup got passed along to consumers. it always does.

As for the extent of the environmental recovery, I suspect that's been overstated. Fish and wildlife experts alleged that there are still species of fowl and fish missing from the region.

I agree for the most part.

President Bush (the most wrongly maligned president in US history)

War crimes and industrial war machine profiteering are not acceptable. Even if he was mislead he has not called for accountability of those who have committed crimes and incompetence harming the American public but furthering the goals of a self serving government and their lobbyists.

Take 9-11, incompetence and or corruption are both reasons for termination and criminal charges. But the ex head of the CIA is president.

600 whistle blower cases, many with war interests, are being stalled by a judiciary that flies a executive admiralty flag using Congressional article 4 authority. Why?

Bush has long term connections to CIA, Oil, and Banking. I question his motivations.

Are lies being told? By both sides. Is anyone in charge calling for accountability? Not to where one would notice.

Until we hold our public servants accountable there will be a government that does what it wants not what the US needs.

Long term does not look good. I'd say (yes my opinion) we are but one step from being bankrupted again by foreign interest. The US public does not have 50-60k in currency, let alone dollars, each to bail out its' government. Especially now that inflation/devaluation is moving much faster than income rises.

GA by the way

Brad

The US is being bankrupted by easy credit, and relying on the government to bail fools our of their troubles. You can only live off future income for so long- eventually, you have to pay for it....And you have to limit consumption to what you produce...

George Bush is arrogant and has a closed mind, but I do not believe he is criminal. He is not the cause of the current crisis- he inherited it from Franklin Roosevelt and his ilk. Obama is just like Bush, arrogant and a mind closed tight, who will only accelerate the decline into insurmountable debt...

Hello cwarner7 11,

I agree He is just business as usual. Much of our problem go back to Lincoln and his compromises of our system that opened the way for FDR and his New Deal.

My issue is when he appoints a senator to investigate if water-boarding is torture and the senator uses his own initiative by having himself water-boarded concluding it is torture, Bush then removes the senator from the investigation and ignores his findings.

Under Nuremberg we put Nazis to death for being in charge, when the German government ran amok, for less.

Iraq had little to do with 9-11 but over 1,000,000 of it citizens have died in this last war. LBJ was no different with the Vietnamese.

So if not Bush, where do we start cleaning our house of public servants that defy the Constitution? Germany tolerated the Nazis until to late. Couch potato apathy is not a valid defence. This country is broke($) and broken. Do we fix it or wait until we have to replace it?

Ask your self what long term goals should this country be doing for its people. Now compare our country to a corporation being skimmed in preparation to be parted out.

Not a pretty picture. The time to do things is when they are easy, not when they are hard.

It appearers that the Banks that financed this countries start have never let go and still corrupt and bleed it. Root cause problem solving and failure analysis are not taught in high school for a reason.

I've ranted to long and said to much but most of the people I've talk to have no confidence in our government any more but are not willing to speak out.

Brad

UV-

We are of similar opinions- especially the concept that Lincoln's policies essentially negated the 9th and 10th amendments of the Constitution- the last two of the Bill of Rights (although, in my opinion, not the least important). These originally limited the power of the Federal Government.

With regards to how to fix it, I voted with my feet, now being a permanent resident of Panama. In my youth, I was a devout patriot- even volunteered, not one, but three times, to serve in Viet Nam (let us not discuss the wisdom of that war- in those days, the biggest threat was Communism, and I grew up well conditioned to fear communism, with "Bomb Drills" in school and all. Ah, but had we had the wisdom and foresight to realize that Communism would ultimately destroy itself!). By the way, Eisenhower and Kennedy are the ones who set the Viet Nam war up- Johnson just fought it...

Mr. Bush has a rich history of rejecting information he does not like, independent of the truth. The controversy over the intelligence reports about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is the most blatant example...

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who advocated a revolution every couple of generations? Or was that one of the other founding fathers? I don't remember...But I don't have much faith in anyone's ability to repair the system at this stage...

I voted with my feet, now being a permanent resident of Panama.

How are things in Panama these days? I'm given to understand there is a thriving "off-shore" banking business--is it "stable", so to speak? Is there another Noriega in power now? Is it overrun with asian tourists?

Panama is currently being overrun by condominium developers that have gone bust elsewhere. Panama city skyline looks more and more like Miami Beach every day. There are more Gringo tourists than Chinese. We are blessed by a very inefficient government. We have a very stable banking industry, but this may not last, since the currency is the US dollar.

Interestingly, the current president is the son of Omar Torrijos, the dictator preceding Noriega (who was also much nastier than Noriega ever thought of being). I do not see any of Noriega's children in line for public office, though...

cwarner7 11-

I concur, and the 14th was obtained at gun point in Tennessee and due to the telegraph the rest of the southern states congress was not to be found so under marital law individuals were found who could just sign their name to fill in.

I don't think that is what the Constitutional creators had in mind for a valid amendment.

As for the Military I was young and dumb and joined the 1st of the 75th during peace time. Kept getting in trouble for winning and was given an Honourable and shown the door. Go figure.

If all else fails I probably be next door in Costa Rica.

I did learn something though. Live romance, read adventure- it's easier on the body.

Brad

util people hold themselves accountable, how can you hold the person you elected accountable. People got themselves in a financial crisis, people voted in stuip laws that gave themselves things for free, which is in reality from the future.

A democracy can't survive once people realize they can vote themselves free lunches.

So true vicini,

As the government so the people. What I see is the people going to prison for anything or nothing and the government getting away with everything.

I expect crooks to be crooks I don't expect our leaders to be above the law. As for the Voting, 11% of the population votes last I heard the rest are felons or don't believe the system works.

They are leaders we emulate but the deck is stacked. Look at the rap sheets financial reports for congress. Scary.

Brad

Hey--I'm dancing all the way to the friggin' bank! Who are the moron now?

We are too!signed: Big Oil

I'm waiting for someone to define big oil. Is it the top 5 oil companies, How about market share? Please elaborate.

Do you know of money given Bush that doesn't show up on his taxes? If so provide the proof, else be prepared for slander once he is no longer President.

Vicini-

I will attempt to define big oil for you, but I think the modern definition is a little different since Standard Oil was broken up back in the early 1900's, when it was, in fact, a monopoly. Today, we will begin with a fact from my own past- my Mother, while living, was receiving a royalty check from Skelly Oil, resulting from some oil rights acquired by either her parents or her grandparents as a result of homesteading the appropriate land during the Oklahoma Land Rush. The check was less than $.50 per month back in the sixties, and I doubt there is any oil left on those leases. I am not even sure Skelly still exists. So, I guess my mother was a part of Big Oil.

Next, we have to look at the actual owners of the, say, Top 5 (just to make the whole thing manageable). I do not have actual numbers available, but I suspect that a large segment of the American public are the actual owners, either through direct investment in stock, or through some mutual fund or retirement plan. That makes them each a part of Big Oil, being part owners. I, unfortunately, do not fit in that segment, because I have divested myself of all investments in order to start my own company, which does not rely on Big Oil in any direct way for its normal operations. So, I can say, absolutely, I am not Big Oil, even though my mother may have been at one time. It is rather difficult to get any closer to a definition at this time.

With regards to President Bush's income from Big Oil, again, I do not have exact figures. But I do know that Daddy Bush made his fortune as a wildcatter in West Texas before turning to the more lucrative profession of politics. Therefore, when Daddy Bush passes on, it is reasonable to assume, if one considers wildcatting a part of Big Oil, that President Bush will become a beneficiary of Big Oil. I do not believe this is illegal or even underhanded, but that is only my opinion. There are those (the US Government, for one) who consider it unethical to inherit one's wealth from one's parents (check out the current Death Tax situation- I have two friends who have recently been ruined by death taxes- they did not take the proper precautions...)

I hope I have clarified some of your questions. Please, PLEASE don't as me to identify the US Government. I still haven't figured out who they are yet...

here's your flaw, exxon is the 17th largest oil company, yes exxon doesn't even control 1% of the oil. So, a company that controls 1% of the oil is in charge of the market???? I don't think so.

Big oil is a myth.

http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/Worlds_Largest_Oil_and_Gas_Companies_Sites.htm

My mother obviously controlled less than 1% of the oil with her $0.50 monthly royalty. I guess she wasn't Big Oil. Or was she a myth???

No, I think she was a Mythus...

exxon is the 17th largest oil company, no to big huh? As for your theory of corporate welfare. The US GAO said that the oil industry recieved 18,000,000 in credits or less than 6% of all tax credits. Of that 18,000,000 about 12,000,000 went into R&D for alternative and clean fuels research.

So, either get you facts correct and join the USA as a real person or move to China...

Pull your head out of your wellhole--according to http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html

Fortune Magazine, Exxon-Mobil was the most profitable US company in 2007:

1. Exxon Mobil The oil giant racked up $39.5 billion in earnings last year, the largest-ever profit in U.S. history. That figure topped the previous record of $36.1 billion, also set by Exxon Mobil, in 2005. Profits were up 9.3% from the previous year, while sales rose 2.2%.

Are you paying attention you rightwing bloodclot nimrod?!?

Of course the profits don't compare to companies that have been NATIONALIZED, you idiot.

Very well. Let us examine Mr. Bush's record. In the course of his 8 years in office, the economy has expanded at a steady if not spectacular rate. Unemployment today is lower than when he took office. We all of us (Americans) pay lower taxes than under Mr. Clinton, and yet federal tax revenues are higher. And most tellingly, since 911 and the anti-terrorism programs which Mr. Bush implemented, there has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil, in spite of numerous attempts.

No, the simple fact is that the reason behind George Bush's low job approval numbers is partisan politics. The media in particular, having dropped all pretense of unbiased journalistic integrity, has viciously attacked him, his policies and his people since his election, with exception to a very few weeks immediately following 911. And it is worth pointing out that both the Democratically controlled congress and the left-wing mainstream media enjoy lower popularity and job approval numbers than Mr. Bush.

Now I suggest you consider what the President of the United States has to live with. Every day, the weight of quite literally the entire world rests upon his shoulders. He is responsible not only for the safety and general well-being of 300 million Americans, but also the defense of the entire Western world, a responsibility which has fallen to the United States since the end of World War Two, when the rest of NATO discovered that we were big enough to handle it almost completely without their help and have contributed only slightly more than nothing to since. So I think that to judge him by such standards as apply to us mere mortals is grossly unfair. For that matter, if Mr. Clinton were held to the same standard, he would be spending the rest of his life in prison.

Now, the fact remains that the Islamic world has declared war upon us, and a war of the most cowardly sort, and is vigorously prosecuting that war. But in spite of that and against massive resistance from the political left, President George W. Bush has kept the United States free and safe from all enemies, foreign and domestic, and as a retired U.S.Navy sailor and frogman, I am proud to call him my commander-in-chief.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

And by the way, has anybody stopped to consider that of the tens of thousands that have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of the wars there, most have been slaughtered by their fellow Muslims for ideological differences? What's wrong with that picture?

As I see it, the problems here are two-fold.

One, is that the market has not been free for a very long time. As long as there is legislation being written which favors one thing over another, the market cannot be free. When a free market is allowed to do what it does, when competition flourishes and people vote with their wallets, then the economy takes care of itself. We began to move back in this direction during the Reagan administration, but once again reversed course under Clinton. Much of what is ailing Wall street right now can be (but is not) laid at the feet of the Clintons and the Democratic congress of the early 90s, for mandating new lending rules which forced institutions to make risky loans to people with only limited ability to pay, which has now snowballed.

Two, and this is where the real trouble is. As others have already intimated, the electorate has discovered that it can vote itself bread and circuses, never realizing that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and they will go right on voting for their freebies until the system collapses under it's own weight. And the bill is coming due. Soon.

In the very beginning of this nation, the founding fathers in their wisdom, knowing the dangers of a warm body democracy, sharply limited the right of sovereign franchise to those who could be reasonably expected to use it wisely, in the best interests of the nation as a whole. Businessmen, land owners, people who had a stake in seeing that the system was run properly, and that government was limited to it's proper sphere. And significantly, any person who received public assistance was required to swear "Pauper's Oath" and was specifically restricted from the political process.

No doubt at this point lots of you are screaming bloody murder. "Why should the fat-cats have all the say and not the little people?!" Let me point out two more things.

First, is your neighbor, the fellow who with his wife runs that little corner bakery, a fat-cat? What about the woman down the street who has that Laundromat, or the guy the next block over with the service station? Are they fat-cats? In fact they are little people themselves, albeit business-men and women under the old definition, who are just trying to make a living for themselves and their employees.

And second, following logically from the first, is that business is what drives the economy. People who build businesses create jobs for their neighbors. And business requires investment. When the government interferes with the practice of business and taxes profits, it stifles investment. After all, the dollar you pay in taxes or in compliance with regulation is a dollar less you have to invest in your business.

Furthermore, if a rich man spends his hard earned money to buy a yacht, there are a whole bunch of skilled craftsmen and unskilled laborers alike who are going to be getting paid to build that yacht, and still others who are going to be getting paid to crew and service it. So, lots of people benefit from Mr. Fat-cat's spending.

Now I will not say that there is no place for regulation. Until the government passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890, very large businesses often stifled competition themselves by buying up the smaller players, or forcing them out of business. But, by and large, the more government interferes with business, the harder it is to conduct business, and then the entire economy suffers.

Permit me to end this already over-long comment with a story.

Back before the United States entered World War Two, a Japanese diplomat (who was also a business man) wrote home to a friend that that he had watched in shear jibbering terror as an American company had ripped out a six month old plant to rebuild with newer, more modern and efficient tooling. His fear was that he knew that Japan was going to go provoke the U.S. to war, and there was no way that Japan's industrial plant could possibly keep up with America's, thus predestining Japan to defeat.

I do not understand why your post is rated off-topic. It very much deals with why costs differ, and why we need less government, not more (as the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution).