Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary's Big Oil friends

Posted on 09/23/2007 9:45:45 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke

George Stephanopolus interviewed Hillary Clinton this morning. After the LONG interview, there was a Conoco/Philips commercial for its Tyson Renewable project. Conoco didn’t mention Tyson by name. They just called them “one of America’s largest food processors”.

You remember Tyson don't you? Remember Hillary's skilled foray into options trading?

Just so you know what CP and Tyson's "renewable diesel" is about, it's a mechanism for Big-Oil to grab $1.00 per gallon in federal tax credits (a subsidy, for what some people call mixing a little fat with diesel fuel) ON TOP of the huge, HUGE profits that they are already pulling down. That is ONE WHOLE DOLLAR for every gallon they produce....right out of the US Treasury. Our money to make them richer.

I've noticed that Hillary hasn't attacked big oil yet. Oil is headed to $100-125 in the next year folks. Count on it. I'm sure she has a very European like tax in store for us, bringing gasoline over the $6.00/gal mark. Her friends at CP and Tyson will then step in with their renewable diesel. Just why in the hell would CP and/or Tyson need another one of your dollars for every gallon that you purchase?

To be clear, "renewable diesel" is NOT bio-diesel.

Talk about insane, more money for big oil with the help of their friends.

I'm not sure what that means (the fact that Tyson wasn't mentioned by name). The whole point of Big Oil’s recent spate of political hour commercials can only be to associate their names with the good of all humanity, and that Tyson wasn't mentioned with such politics really says something. Apparently, the Tyson-Clinton political machine is hard at work once again.

The politics of oil money.

Some things never change.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: bigoildemocrats; clintonistas; conoco; conocophillips; hillary; oil; tyson; tysonfood

1 posted on 09/23/2007 9:45:49 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

Would you have some links to back up your allegations?

Thanks.


2 posted on 09/23/2007 9:48:05 AM PDT by upchuck (Psychiatrists have labeled George Bush's South-of-the-Border obsession as mexicosis. ~ firehat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
Just so you know what CP and Tyson's "renewable diesel" is about, it's a mechanism for Big-Oil to grab $1.00 per gallon in federal tax credits (a subsidy, for what some people call mixing a little fat with diesel fuel)

To be fair, I believe that the subsidy is only for the diesel produced from bio-sources. IOW, the raw addition to our present usage, not for the mixed product.

My understanding is that these animal by-products are not presently discarded, but are rather already being used to produce animal feed and for other purposes. (Whether that is a good idea is an entire other discussion.)

3 posted on 09/23/2007 9:51:31 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

Sounds exactly like the “synthetic” fuel tax scam thats been going on for years where electric power utilities spritz just enough diesel fuel on their coal where they can clain it’s magically better and different from plain coal.


4 posted on 09/23/2007 9:53:09 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

The way to make cooking oil into REAL Diesel fuel, that won’t clog the fuel filters, grow bacteria in the fuel tank, or go thick and gummy in cold weather, is to put it into a reflux with methyl or ethyl alcohol, causing the triglycerides in the fat to separate the glycerine and form methyl or ethyl esters, a much more volatile and easily combustable form of fuel. That is why Biodiesel fuel is such a large consumer of ethanol.


5 posted on 09/23/2007 9:56:12 AM PDT by alloysteel (As Commander in Chief, who would treat the Secret Service with the most respect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

Don’t forget that Tom Harkin’s wife, Ruth, is a member of the Board of Directors of ConocoPhillips and will likely be a big Hillary supporter.


6 posted on 09/23/2007 9:56:14 AM PDT by gunservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

I never believed “Big Oil” was synonymous with the GOP alone. The D’craps are as much in bed with the oil companies as the Pubs are. When the Enron scandal broke it initially was supposed to be a Republican issue alone until the truth came out that the D’craps were as much involved with Enron as the Pubs. As for the 100\125 dollar a barrel cost,never mind a recession,I’m thinking more along the lines of a depression !!!


7 posted on 09/23/2007 9:57:25 AM PDT by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

I have no allegations. I’m simply making an observation and commenting on the news. It’s no secret that CP has asked the IRS to comment on renewable diesel’s tax credit worthiness. That was big news back in April or May if I remember correctly. That was the last I read about it. I have been told that it competes with other green fuels and some folks in that arena aren’t happy.

Who knows what the outcome will ultimately be. I saw the commercial, but I don’t have a link to it.

Also, this is my opinion only and it’s anybody’s guess as to what is actually happening.

One thing is for certain, CP is spending real dollars on advertizing.


8 posted on 09/23/2007 9:57:44 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
Oil is headed to $100-125 in the next year folks. Count on it. I'm sure she has a very European like tax in store for us, bringing gasoline over the $6.00/gal mark. Oil goes way up, economy slows down. Folks buy less gas, business burn less gas, oil stockpiles get full, refineries get full, gasoline stockpiles get full, Hedge fund speculators cant make money on it and bingo, oil begins to drop and fast.

Without the raid on Syria backed up by the fed cutting a half point crude would not be where it is now. When it turns out that Syria isn’t going to retaliate and the fed cut bounce wears off crude will start heading right back to 60.00, perhaps even less. Maybe 52.00.

Then you will see reports from “experts” predicting “colder that normal winter” despite being heresy to Lord Gore.

9 posted on 09/23/2007 10:04:34 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: upchuck

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4399475

Searching the WSJ and Chron, here is a link to the Houston Chron from August. It looks like the plan is facing difficulty.


10 posted on 09/23/2007 10:06:20 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Koch Industries collected over $100 million on this scam.


11 posted on 09/23/2007 10:08:03 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TLI
Oil is headed to $100-125 in the next year folks. Count on it. I'm sure she has a very European like tax in store for us, bringing gasoline over the $6.00/gal mark.

I work for a contract manufacturer that built computers for a few decades. Lately we have seen numerous alternative energy products being prototyped. Watch for a flood of products in the next few years like fuel cells and solar power for your home, and vegetable oil systems for your car.

It will be surprising if oil gets much higher. It won't be surprising for a President Clinton to establish a European style gas tax.

12 posted on 09/23/2007 10:15:52 AM PDT by alrea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLI

I have been reading more and more on the price of oil going more towards the roof than the downside. I’m certainly no expert, but I read alot.

I was always under the impression that when the Fed makes big ratecuts, the price of commodities soars (in an inflationary environment).

I’d bet it goes up further. Is that Big Oil doing that? No. Do they benefit? Yes and no. If they dont have lots of reserves and/or aren’t adequately hedged, it could be as painful for them as for us. Many things come into consideration. I just look at their quarterlys and annuals. I have’t seen where any of them are hurting (but my next door neighbor certainly is). A few dollars here, a few dollars there....pretty soon you are talking about real money.

BTW, I don’t care if it’s CP, Exxon, Shell or Texaco, they are all reaping billions. I guess in our capitalist world, that’s a great thing.

My bet is that it’s headed north. My wife thinks like you. She is definitely right more often than I, so let’s hope you are both right.


13 posted on 09/23/2007 10:16:14 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

If you’re so dissatisfied with big oil, why don’t you drill your own well and refine your own gasoline? Obviously, you must believe that exploration, drilling, refining and distribution require minimal capital expenditures which should not be recovered and that wells once drilled produce forever and refineries will never have to be replaced. Would you be surprised that the government without investing a penny reaps more rax revenue from oil companies than the profits earned by the oil companies?


14 posted on 09/23/2007 10:27:28 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

I don’t think its a scam. It’s a legitimate enterprise that ‘we the people’ allow our elite masters to exploit.

The only reason I bring it up is because I just get so angry when I think of the massive amount of subsidy going to oil and the politicians playing with us by not allowing oil to drill in Alaska or of the Florida Gulf Coast (just to keep the supply-demand curve in balance).

I believe the truth is that Big oil doesn’t want more supply in our hemisphere. Wouldn’t you want your foreign reserves valued at $80 vs $20 if you were them?

Now with Russia becoming a massive player, I’m interested to see who inflences US foreign policy more in the next few years with a new Presidency, Putin (or his successor) or the House of Saud.


15 posted on 09/23/2007 10:30:17 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Obie Wan

As for the 100\125 dollar a barrel cost,never mind a recession,I’m thinking more along the lines of a depression !!!
********************************
The 1981 high water mark (inflation adjusted) is $101 bbl. ,,, I agree that oil is going there but haven’t decided on how to play it yet (RIG/XOM/CP ..) ,,, it took the Reagan Tax cuts to save us last time,,, we will need the boost the fairtax will give us plus drilling in all available known deposits....

This fits well with the “inflate our way out of debt” and the housing/liquidity bubble moves we’re starting to see...


16 posted on 09/23/2007 10:35:48 AM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: monocle

So oil companies made no money when oil was $9/bbl? Hell, it was $20/bbl 7 yrs ago.

I’m not upset with someone making money off of my back. I’m upset that with the price of energy today, they need ANOTHER dollar per gallon.

I agree with you re: tax collections, as the Gov’s tax scheme is massive and heinous.

A well producing in a field paid for/off when oil was $20/bbl with a basis of $11/bbl can make big dollars today. I say God Bless Em. I don’t say, “God Bless ya, here’s a lil more cuz I like ya.”

When is enough?


17 posted on 09/23/2007 10:37:29 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
If you're so dissatisfied with big oil, why don't you drill your own well and refine your own gasoline? Obviously, you must believe that exploration, drilling, refining and distribution require minimal capital expenditures which should not be recovered and that wells once drilled produce forever and refineries will never have to be replaced. Would you be surprised that the government without investing a penny reaps more rax revenue from oil companies than the profits earned by the oil companies?

Forgive the rant, but I get tired of mindless whining by frustrated populists. The abuses you allege are the result of big government which invites all sorts of con artists to ply their skills in bilking taxpayers. If government stayed out of business, there would be no need for lobbyists.

18 posted on 09/23/2007 10:38:54 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
Sorry for the double post.

Today's high oil prices are in a good part the result of OPEC and other state-owned oil companies. Another factor contributing to high prices is overall increase in worldwide consumption.

19 posted on 09/23/2007 10:47:51 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: monocle

Agree completely and totally.

If it stands on its own, let it.

It’s said that we have lots of oil in North America, especially way up there in Alaska (that’s why Russia declared the North Pole as theirs).

Russia will want Alaska back too. Thy won’t need to take it at gunpoint (they’d lose), they’ll take it by paying cold, hard rubles for it. Soon, the ruble will be more valuable than the US Dollar.

Again, just my opinion.


20 posted on 09/23/2007 10:50:20 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke
My bet is that it’s headed north. My wife thinks like you. She is definitely right more often than I, so let’s hope you are both right.

>>> When <<< it turns out that Syria isn’t going to retaliate and the fed cut bounce wears off.

Watch the stockpile numbers. When the annual slowdown occurs in the fall and inventories are full and the price of crude is jacked so high there is frost on the barrels watch the pro's go short and suck all the money out of the amateur speculators.

21 posted on 09/23/2007 10:51:52 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: monocle

Right you are about consumption.
It’s that future consumption (mainly in China and India) that has some experts saying that $100bbl oil is not far away.

Anyone could say that oil will get to $125. Its the “when will it get there” that makes a difference. It’ll get there for sure one day. When? My guess is by JAN 09.

Again, my ole lady says I’m an idiot. (she knows I call her the ‘ole lady’ guys, so extortion wont work).


22 posted on 09/23/2007 10:59:21 AM PDT by SubmarineNuke (To the Sea I shall return)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: monocle

There is a MASSIVE source of altrnative energy, that is not being utilized, aor at least not to the degree it could be, given the cost of the raw materials.

Turning trash into energy, through the use of a plasma burner, offers a double bonus, reducing potential landfill, and plentiful electic power at reasonable cost. The concept is really wonderfully simple, in that by generating an electrically induced plasma arc, the finely granulated piles of waste, of mostly organic origin, once fed into this plasma arc, are broken down into hydrogen and carbon monoxide, the first step of a Fischer-Tropsch reaction. Rather than proceed further, this syngas fuel is used to directly for electric power generation, either by a gas turbine or by driving a steam boiler generation plant. The non-organic parts of the trash stream are reduced to a molten glasslike substance, composed mainly of silicate minerals or of metallic oxides, which have their own industrial uses. Once the system has had the necessary first induction of energy to creat the plasma, the plasma can continue to be powered by the output of the cower plant, with enough power generation left over to make about three-quarters of it available for other purposes.

New York City alone could generate enough power from its existing landfills and daily trash production to adequately power all its current and anticipated future needs, and even export a sizable quanty of energy. Since it may cost about $90 a ton or more to move the trash to the current forms of disposal, if the costs could be held to about a third of that, it immediately becomes very cost-effective.

Check out the following:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/garbage_plasma.php

This may be something the “greenies” could be talked into doing, that cleans up some of the accumulated trash stream, and helps the environment at the same time. And it is essentially “carbon neutral”, as very few if any fossil fuels are involved.


23 posted on 09/23/2007 11:10:05 AM PDT by alloysteel (As Commander in Chief, who would treat the Secret Service with the most respect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Are you implying that "big oil" is preventing the implementation of the process you described? One problem you failed to acknowledge is the potential for pollution from the process. I would suspect that garbage contains significant quantities of sulfur, chlorine and other undesirable pollutants which would be gasified in the process.

If the process is as economically viable as you suggest, why hasn't some enterprising company or individual announced their interest in exploiting the process. Generally there is no shortage of profit-seekers looking for new opportunities.

24 posted on 09/23/2007 11:37:26 AM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: monocle

To be sure, this is new technology, and there is a resistance to its adoption.

At first.

But the “killer app” would be its adoption by, say, some community in California, where the huge flow of daily trash production, and the relative paucity of power generation stations, all compound with the restrictions of the California Air Resources Board, to create a DEMAND for one of these highly developed systems. The system can be placed in close conjunction with the trash collection points, and the products (syngas fuel and a glasslike slag) may both be refined for further use, by using “scrubber” technology already designed for fossil fuel plants. The volatiles like sulfur or metallic vapors (lead and mercury, mostly) are all pulled out of the product stream and sequestered before they escape the exhaust stack. The system is GREAT for destroying highly toxic organic chemicals like polychlorinated bi-phenyls or organic pesticides. Not even cyanides get past this plasma torch.

The process may also be used to produce elemental hydrogen (by a separation process that takes the carbon monoxide out of the syngas mix), which may be used to power fuel cells, while the carbon monoxide is burned as a fuel directly in a power generation station. A steam fired boiler or internal combustion engine works perfectly well with carbon monoxide as its only fuel.

This should not only be considered a supplement to existing energy sources, but as an outright replacement for some, as these systems allow the diversion of petroleum into higher-value products, like plastics and industrial feedstocks, and allow a way to dispose of the residual energy in these products once their economic value has been extracted.


25 posted on 09/23/2007 12:08:03 PM PDT by alloysteel (As Commander in Chief, who would treat the Secret Service with the most respect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

No mention of Senator Harken’s (sp?) wife...some years back she was
revealed to have a fair chunk of Conoco stock (due to a public filing)


26 posted on 09/23/2007 12:11:30 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gunservative
Don’t forget that Tom Harkin’s wife, Ruth, is a member of
the Board of Directors of ConocoPhillips and will likely
be a big Hillary supporter.


Note to self: at least try to scan thread before posting!
(re post 26)
27 posted on 09/23/2007 12:13:32 PM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

The question is if the process is technologically superior and is economically viable why hasn’t it been commercialized?


28 posted on 09/23/2007 12:16:44 PM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

Restricting travel is one of the tools of a good dictator. Herself and her buddies are setting this up for her.


29 posted on 09/23/2007 12:39:00 PM PDT by Shady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monocle

One of the obstacles to its wider adoption, is that a full-sized plant, capable of consuming 2,000 tones of trash daily (about as much as would be produced by a million population) costs about $250 million.

And a quarter billion, even in today’s inflated and superheated economy, is nothing to be sneezed at. Although, that is probably less than setting up a nuclear power plant. And there is no residual radioactive contamination.


30 posted on 09/23/2007 12:41:28 PM PDT by alloysteel (As Commander in Chief, who would treat the Secret Service with the most respect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
Raising that amount of capital for an economically feasible project should not be much of a hurdle. A semiconductor chip plant can easily cost a billion dollars and the chip industry is notably volatile. Damages in some lawsuits run much hight than your $250 million estimate.

On a technical point, the process you're promoting is basically converting one energy form into another, much like the ethanol industry. The question then becomes energy in versus energy out. Other energy considerations are that garbage generally contains high amounts of water which has one of the higher heats of vaporization and that unless the combustible gases can be utilized nearby significant energy losses will be incurred due to cooling.

31 posted on 09/23/2007 1:00:53 PM PDT by monocle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

They just want to take over more big business. Get our country in a position to be state or world owned so they can put in who ever they want to run it.


32 posted on 09/23/2007 1:42:27 PM PDT by freekitty (May the eagles long fly over our beautiful and free American sky.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubmarineNuke

There’s no question that US based oil companies have become international players but I doubt any are happy about the ban on drilling in the US. There are some easy pickings off the California coast. Unocal has the drilling records and would sell them cheap if some company got the go ahead. The real pity is, California is so short of burner tip energy and can’t seem to understand why.


33 posted on 09/23/2007 1:55:41 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson