Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ENERGY: Don’t cut incentives to job creators

Letter by Kristopher Holien, Gig Harbor on Oct. 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm with 69 Comments »
October 12, 2011 9:55 am

I think we can all agree on two things: that Americans need jobs and that we need more domestic sources of energy.

I realize Sen. Patty Murray and those on the debt-reduction “super committee” need to make some very difficult choices, but it would be foolish to generate tax revenue by cutting incentives to companies that are in a position to be instrumental in our economic recovery.

U.S. oil and natural gas companies want to develop our domestic energy reserves; this will in turn create jobs and lessen our dependency on foreign sources of energy. This is one of the few win-win scenarios in this economy

I implore Murray and her colleagues on the super committee to please empower our energy companies to create the jobs and the domestic energy sources we so desperately need.

 

Leave a comment Comments → 69
  1. Above and beyond the record profits the Oil companies are making and the proposed upgrade to the power grid in Obama’s jobs proposal – just what kind of incentives do you think they require?

  2. aislander says:

    How about an end to the moratorium? China can explore and drill where it is proscribed for us…

  3. aislander says:
    October 12, 2011 at 10:48 am
    How about an end to the moratorium? China can explore and drill where it is proscribed for us…

    How about documentation to support that false claim?

  4. I’m all for domestic energy. Let’s try to do it safely, which means that the oil companies might have to take a billion less in profits.

    Ask the folks in the drilling areas about fracking.

  5. Now I’ve gone and done it…..I used research again….

    Kris Holien’s “other cause”….

    We are the families of Crescent Valley in Beautiful Gig Harbor Washington, and we are under attack by Carmela Micheli of the Arcadia Montessori business machine.

    Carmela Micheli of Arcadia Montessori is going to build a 3.6 acre Montessori in the heart of our rural valley despite a petition of over 88 families in Crescent Valley who wanted this project stopped. Carmela Micheli pushed for a Conditional Use Permit to start a business in the heart of a residential community. This development will, forever change the very character and future of this valley for the families that call this valley home.

    Our Goal
    This project is a travesty and we need your help and support to stop this type of development from ever being considered in a residential family community.

    http://www.savecrescentvalley.org/about.htm

    Just a little NIMBY. I wonder how Kris would enjoy oil exploration or fracking in Crescent Valley, as opposed to a 3.6 acre Montessori…..

  6. BlaineCGarver says:

    Ok, Kard….totally replace the products of mining and drilling with something of value that will sustain and grow the nation…..crickets….I thought so….Intead of knee-jerking carbon-based energy in the “nads” come up with a replacement IN TIME to pull us out of our slump. We haven’t had a new refinery since (about) 1978. Greener Socialists are against everything and for nothing.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Fracking arguement is old and proven false. It has been going on for over 60 years in America. Safe and efficient.

    Drinking water is protected by state and federal laws, so save that BS arguement.

    From Kard’s website “This project is truly devastating to many families in the immediate vicinity of the development”. A 4300 square foot school? Devastating? Please.

  8. Between Blake’s obligatory “socialist” and Concerned’s lack of comprehension, I don’t know which to laugh at first…..

    Blake…..tell us of a refinery that is operating at full capacity….

    Concerned…here’s a clue…..Holien doesn’t want a Montessori school in his neighborhood, but wants oil and gas exploration in someone else’s……

    Tell the residents of Wyoming where fracking caused natural gas in the water service that it’s “old and proven false”….

    When a man can light a fire from his faucet…there’s not enough proof….

    http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking/

  9. http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/trailer

    Here…this will make it easier……

  10. tellnolies says:

    That’s it Blaine!!! Only what we did in the past will work, ever. Everything’s been invented, close the patent office.

    There are MANY reasons other than environmental reasons to wean ourselves from burning oil. Geopolitics, for one. We wouldn’t give a rats @$$$ about Iran, and they wouldn’t have the weaponry they have, if it wasn’t for the addiction to burning fossil fuels.

    As for solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and others. It works. They’ve even demo’d a solar powered plane.

    Burning oil is stupid, there are many BETTER uses for that LIMITED substance. (think plastics and other synthetics)

  11. LarryFine says:

    Can anyone tell us what the profit margin for Energy producers is currently… as a percentage ?

    Can anyone tell us what the percentage of money flowing into the treasury from the sale of energy ?

  12. Concerned….”rabbit hole”.,….hmmm…..you might want to change to your other personna that uses that terminology.

    How can you “prove me wrong” when there is an entire documentary movie that demonstates the damage that fracking as caused?

  13. tellnolies…..kinda make you wonder how they ever came up with the idea of burning oil since wood already worked so well…..

  14. “Drinking water is already protected.”

    Not according to the documentary….unless all those people were just making up those challenges with their drinking water….because they hate oil companies…

  15. Oh…come on…lets provide ALL the information…

    What is the Safe Drinking Water Act?
    In 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed by Congress to ensure clean drinking water free from both natural and man-made contaminates.

    What is the Halliburton Loophole?
    In 2005, the Bush/ Cheney Energy Bill exempted natural gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act. It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job. It is now commonly referred to as the Halliburton Loophole.

  16. Meanwhile…you can have all the Clean Water Acts in the world….but if a man can light a flame from his faucet…there’s a problem…

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “Groundwater protection provisions are included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Superfund act.”

    So you see a propaganda film and are now an expert?

    Yes, drinking water is very protected by existing regulations.

    There are also documentary films on McD’s, poultry, global warming, flat earth, and any other subject you can imagine. The fact that a film was made proves zero.

    The nazi’s and commies put out a lot of propaganda also.

  18. concernedtacoma7 says:

    I listed only federal protections. The states each have their own regulations. And why, under a democratic congress, were federal regulations not amended? The FRAC act never went anywhere. Maybe they did not watch kard’s favorite movie.

    Perhaps because kard and the extreme left are looking for something that is not there.

  19. Ah….yes…..”propaganda film”……..nazi’s, commies…..

    HBO probably hooked up a propane tank to that guy’s faucet……

    Well known commies….unlike those patriots over at FOX……

    Sorry…I couldn’t help myself

  20. concernedtacoma7 says:

    “The 2008 investigation concluded that “there [were] no indications of oil & gas related impacts to [Markham's] water well.” It was also concluded that the water well of Weld County landowner Renee McClure, also featured in the film, contained naturally occurring biogenic methane not related to oil and gas activity in the area”

  21. Hey….concerned…you left out part of the wiki….

    “The COGCC concluded that a well belonging to Weld County landowner Aimee Ellsworth, also featured in the film, contained thermogenic methane that was attributable to oil and gas activity in the area.”

    Now….since you are worried about propaganda, I’d suggest you find something a little more stable than wiki…….or never complain about wiki’s reliability again.

  22. I’m certain that the oil and gas lobbyists wouldn’t have anyone working over wiki the way that Bachmann’s and Palin’s people do…..right?

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38678_Palin_Fans_Trying_to_Edit_Wikipedia_Paul_Revere_Page

  23. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Nice consiparcy thrown into the mix.

    OK, busted on the wiki. Rather than spend my time debating a point already debated a couple months ago (with no changes since), I went to wiki to pull some highlights.

    Lets say that ONE well has been contaminated since fracking has been used (1940’s). Where is the story? ONE well? Lets say 10? Still, not a big deal or an environmental nightmare since we are talking about 70+ years of drilling. The process to make the batteries for one prius is probably worse for the environment.

  24. Concerned,
    The fracking argument has never been proving false except by oil company experts.
    Only public supplied drinking water is protected by federal and state regulations; private sources, such as a farm well, are not.

    L_F,
    Energy, especially oil, profits are at record highs.

    Those profits do not flow to the treasury – rather our tax dollars flow to the big oil companies – most of which are foreign owned.

  25. tellnolies says:

    “kinda make you wonder how they ever came up with the idea of burning oil ”

    100 years ago it was cutting edge technology. It wasn’t universally embraced at the time. And the beat goes on….

  26. Since incentives don’t seem to be helping in the creation of jobs might as well cut them. Job creators, that label is such a joke.

  27. Concerned…..did you give up on commie and nazi propaganda????? That argument was working so well for you…

  28. xring….and the contaminated wells in the….er uh…propaganda film were private.

    But it was all propaganda. You know how much money those farmers have to pay for propaganda films on HBO. They would easily outspend oil companies.

    ::::eyeroll:::::::

  29. As to “oil profits”…..that is the net/net…after the luxury vacations, jets, huge salaries, bonuses, expensive meals……

  30. bobcat1a says:

    When the republican efforts to repeal the clean air and clean water acts are successful, this will no longer be an issue. Then we won’t need an EPA. I’m sure that will make us all feel safer.

  31. concernedtacoma7 says:

    .after the luxury vacations, jets, …, expensive meals- you talking about the First Lady again (too easy)

    You ignored my last post. So ONE home in America has flamable gas in their water, possibly from natural causes. You want to end fracking because of that? When the dems controlled DC they did nothing about this. Why? Perhaps because there is no story here. 70+ years and a couple households have problems. Look at the scale here

  32. Oh Kard, don’t you know that the farmers were back by the big agricultural chemical companies, George Sorros, and the unions.

    Why the farmer had almost as much funding as the Koch Boys.

    Concenred7, don’t you ever wonder why the only people who agree with you work for the energy companies doing the fracking, the chemical companies providing the fracking fluid, and zombies addicted to foxbat entertainment spews?

  33. aislander says:

    About 150 years ago, the new technology of petroleum extraction saved a bunch of whales. The whales can thank the free market. When a new technology emerges (or petroleum becomes scarce), we can thank the market for that, too. Solyndra and Obama–not so much…

  34. concernedtacoma7 says:

    xring- very adult post. The extreme, anti-capitalist, fearmongering left is proud to have you as a mouthpiece.

  35. aislander says:

    Should have read, “When a new technology emerges (as oil becomes scarce)…”

  36. tellnolies says:

    “When a new technology emerges” Like anything new there is resistance from those who cling to what they know. There was resistance to petroleum technology at the time it emerged.

    The new technologies exist. Most are still looking for a single source replacement, but what is the replacement is multiple sources.

    Look up “silver buckshot” approach.

  37. LarryFine says:

    Ok, we get the “oil company record profits” mantra.

    2 questions remain…

    Can anyone tell us what the profit margin for Energy producers is currently… as a percentage ?

    Can anyone tell us, what is the percentage of money flowing into the treasury from the sale of energy ?

  38. My perception is that the new technology is not at issue, I think most people actually do embrace new technology… just not in it’s current form…

    Someone earlier brought up a solar powered airplane, I dont and most people I know, dont have a problem with the concept of a solar powered airplane. Can we agree that a passenger carrying airplane is not ready for primetime. That being said punishing current technologies in the hope that future technologies will take over sooner makes no technological nor fiscal sense.

    The resistance I believe is you are asking a large segment of the population to embrace a solution that will only work for a small segment. Electric cars are cool… for those that commute less than @100 miles and have the facilities to charge them up at home. Be advised that your auto fuel bill may and will probably drop but your electricity bill will rise as you charge the little beast. Cost vs benefit…? You, ie the market, get to decide whether that will work for you and your family.

    I was looking at the Smart car (I know not electric) as a commute and local errand type of car. It was meant to supplement my current SUV not a replacement. It can’t as the Smart car can’t carry me, my wife, two dogs and…
    SCUBA nor horse gear nor pull a trailer… but it can help me with groceries, the cobbler, the mail, etc…

    Again, I, representing the market, get to decide what is best for me, my family and in turn get to support those individuals and companies that truly develop solutions that solve everyday issues we are facing….

  39. The process to make the batteries for one prius is probably worse for the environment.

    My “friend” would comment on your D.O.C. tactics.

    btw – if fracking is so fricking safe, why did Cheney find it necessary to prevent any liabilities of any kind to be found against Halliburton, et al?

  40. “concernedtacoma7 says:
    October 12, 2011 at 9:54 pm
    xring- very adult post. The extreme, anti-capitalist, fearmongering left is proud to have you as a mouthpiece.”

    You are not big on the comprehension of sarcasm, are you?

  41. “You ignored my last post. So ONE home in America has flamable gas in their water, possibly from natural causes.”

    I ignored your comment because of your baseless hypothetical analogy that your magnificent magnifying mind turned into reality.

  42. I’m still waiting for someone to justify the letter writer not wanting a Montessori school in his neighborhood, but wanting oil and gas exploration in other’s

    Classic Conservative NIMBY

  43. “Electric cars are cool… for those that commute less than @100 miles and have the facilities to charge them up at home. Be advised that your auto fuel bill may and will probably drop but your electricity bill will rise as you charge the little beast.”

    So this is why Costco provides a charging station for electric cars? Because it costs so much and they just haven’t spent enough money yet? Now if they could just get the drivers of the gas cars to read the sign that says “electric cars only”…..

  44. “Can anyone tell us what the profit margin for Energy producers is currently… as a percentage ?”

    Can anyone tell us the net profit percentage on a Slurpee? Regardless of if it’s 50% or .05% (that’s 5/10ths of 1 percent for the decimal challenged) it’s still profit and the only reason for the difference is the “cost of doing business” which is controlled by the seller.

    When was the last time you saw an oil company REDUCE COSTS by cutting executive salaries by 50%? How about reducing costs of doing business by not flying private jets to meetings in Washington DC?

    If the oil companies want to increase their profit percentage, they need to be like government entities and cut costs…and that doesn’t just mean cutting the minimum wages employees in the corporate owned convenience stores.

  45. a study by researchers at Duke University published today[May 10th, 2011] in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.

    The study examined groundwater obtained from 68 wells above the Marcellus and Utica shale formations throughout Pennsylvania and New York. The researchers found that the groundwater in the areas near active fracking wells contained, on average, methane concentrations 17 times higher than wells located where fracking was not taking place. Moreover, some of these wells had methane concentrations well above the “immedate action” hazard level as defined by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

    http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?p=381

    link to study:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108.full.pdf+html?sid=bde16321-e169-437d-a59c-798e7f65c479

  46. The nazi’s and commies put out a lot of propaganda also.

    Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.”[2][3] In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.
    [...]
    There are many corollaries to Godwin’s law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[7]

  47. LarryFine says:

    So Tard won’t answer the question.

    Government gets approximately 15% and the oil company 8% from the sale of a gallon of gasoline.

  48. I will assume your figures are correct regarding gasoline (though it varies state by state) – How about all the other uses of oil that Oil makes profits from?

    One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make over 6,000 other products
    http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm

  49. “Government gets approximately 15% and the oil company 8% from the sale of a gallon of gasoline.”

    I’ll repeat for the reading impaired. The net profit margins are CONTROLLED BY THE OIL COMPANIES

  50. LarryFine says:

    “How about all the other uses of oil that Oil makes profits from?”

    Good question bB. That’s why I saked the question in the first place. It’s nifty to repeat the mantra “record oil profits”, but certainly… is it not relevant to know what the profit margin % is ?

  51. LF can’t handle the answer that the oil companies are responsible for their profits.

  52. Lets create an example…

    Lets say I make $10,000 a year playing music. After expenses I have $1,000, which is 10% profit. I decide that I need to make a “sales call” in Las Vegas and that I need to stay in a suite and take my “client” out for a nice dinner. Airfare, room, meal – Cost $950

    I now net only 1/2 of 1%. Is this the problem of the paying public?

  53. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Kard- while I cannot speak for the author the main difference I see is when they remove minerals from one’s land, they get paid for it. Those apple farmers in upstate NY are not giving away their gas, they all became evil millionaires. Now compare that to the school. Maybe a couple jobs for the community, but not high paying energy jobs. Possibly a lower property tax base.

    Apples and oranges.

  54. concernedtacoma7 says:

    If we only had 1 producer of oil and one refiner of gasoline, you might be correct in saying that oil companies set their own margins. While heavily regulated and taxed (which affect costs and prices), there still are market forces determining the price of oil/gas.

    Why would a corp not choose a 100% profit margin over 8%?

  55. ct7 – that was just applesauce and orange julius……would you try to connect the dots a little more clearly please?

  56. Oct 25, 2007 – Oil and gas giant BP PLC agreed Thursday to pay $373 million in fines and restitution to end investigations into whether it manipulated energy …

    May 25, 2011 – Reuters reports Regulators launched one of the biggest ever crackdowns on oil price manipulation on Tuesday, suing two well-known traders …

    May 5, 2011 – MOSCOW, Russia – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused oil companies on Thursday of a “conspiracy” to force up gasoline prices, …
    May 17, 2011 – Even though the U.S. Attorney General has already begun an inter-agency investigation into the manipulation of oil prices, three senators have …
    Jun 9, 2011 – Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced the filing of criminal charges against five Madison Heights gas station owner/operators for …
    Aug 22, 2007 – SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A group of California gasoline station owners filed suit in U.S. federal district court in San Francisco accusing …
    etc., etc., etc.

  57. LarryFine says:

    … sigh… still no answer to a simple question.

    If you’re going to repeat the “record oil profits” mantra, at least have the onus to back it up with actual numbers. A percentage is a great place to start.

    Again, what is the energy producers (oil specifically) profit margin as a percent?

  58. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Traders, gas station owners, and Putin. What does that have to do with US oil corps?

  59. Pacman33 says:

    “Instead of knee-jerking carbon-based energy in the “nads” come up with a replacement.”

    In addition to LF’s question, over 24+ hours since Blaine’s inquiry ………………… and nothing. I does appear that the irrational left might be learning though. Only one drone regurgitated the old, tired and lazy “solar, wind, geothermal” off their lamented pocket-sized “Generic Incoherent Leftist Utterances”.

    To be sure there was no doubt of their laziness to inform themselves or their content in minimizing the issue and in turn impeding any progress. The anti-alternative energy spokesman declines to address that “solar, wind, geothermal” are intermittent power sources, absent of a reasonable method to store wholesale power.

    Only the deeply intellectual and knowledgeable decree of: “Burning oil is stupid”

  60. tellnolies says:

    “That being said punishing current technologies in the hope that future technologies will take over sooner makes no technological nor fiscal sense.”

    Technology can’t be punished, it has no self awareness…as for fiscal, and political sense…we’ve wasted enough time with petroleum and coal, time for something akin to the Apollo project, but for energy. Long overdue.

    I agree, the alternative technologies can’t immediately replace the old, but we should move as quickly as possible to use them as a supplement, as you’re investigating doing. (Converting a bicycle to electric assist allowed me to change my commute)

    In the long run, I don’t think it likely a single energy source would make sense, we need multiple sources, silver buckshot as opposed to silver bullet

  61. I’ve addressed LF’s question twice…..I can’t make him comprehend profit and loss of a business.

  62. LarryFine says:

    Not one shred of wallpaper has answered the question…

  63. Explain why oil and gas producers need incentives to conduct a profitable business.

  64. LarryFine says:

    Still waiting for the answer to my question… what is the % percent of profit for oil and gas producers?

  65. still pointing out that the oil companies control their profits

  66. LF – still waiting for an explanation why oil and gas producers need incentives to conduct profitable business

    and…

    how does the %profit enjoyed by oil and gas producers in any way make any difference to whether or not they should be given “incentives” from American taxpayers?

  67. LarryFine says:

    Have some manners bB. I asked the question over a day ago and you want to cut the line with your d.o.c.

    It’s a valid question and one expect easy for you to answer since you seem to know what “record profits” are. Whether or not a “record” was broken (not you Tard) is not the question…

    Define “incentives”. If you’re speaking to oil company tax breaks, you know as well as I do that you and I would end up paying them regardless.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0