Deseret News | Companies sold out

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Companies sold out

John C. | 2:48 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I just got to ask…Just what is your beef specifically? Because you make no sense.

Doug G | 7:19 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The only option would be to nationalise them...socialism. Currently, they're doing what unfettered capitalism allows them to do, and that's exactly what we as conservatives want. Right?

wallofvoodoo | 7:33 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

This is Utah, if your making money you can't be bad.

Comments continue below

RedShirt | 8:07 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

So, selling fuel to support business is evil, and running massive debt that will take decades to repay is ok?

If congress really wanted to save us from the evils of CO2, why haven't they fast-tracked some building permits for nuclear power plants? Why haven't they lifted the ban on reprocessing spent fuel rods?

Instead of doing something that will actually make a difference, Congress is selling our kids future by heavily subsidizing solar and wind power projects with money they don't have.

Thinkin' Man | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Have you stopped to think how incredibly cheap gasoline is? It's as cheap as milk, yet look what has to be done to get it to the gas station:

1) Explore for and successfully find oil. Only a fraction of exploration wells are successful, and can cost tens of millions of dollars each.

2) Install equipment to get oil out of the ground. Up to $10's of millions.

3) Create and operate a system to transport oil to refineries via ship, pipeline, or rail. $10's of millions plus.

4) Build a half-billion dollar refinery to convert oil into gasoline, diesel, and other products.

5) Create and operate a distribution system to ship gasoline to your local gas station by pipeline and truck. $100 million.

6) Operate the gas station (a local small business owner) and sell for pennies per gallon profit.

This industry employs millions of Americans, the companies are owned by shareholders like you and me, their profit margin is a LOT smaller than Wal-Mart or Coca-Cola, and they provide you gasoline cheaper than you can get bottled water.

What exactly are you complaining about?

to red | 8:39 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

For once you are right without the 'wing'. They should be building more nuclear (please pronounce this correctly) and reprocessing the fuel. Then you go all wrong by disparaging solar and wind. All three of these will be important to the future of the USA and world.

RedShirt | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To "to red | 8:39 a.m." I am not against wind and solar power being used. I am against wind and solar power receiving huge subsidies.

According to the senate report "Yellow Light on Green Jobs" the following subsidies are given by Congres for power generation:

Solar Power: $24.34/MWh
Wind Power: $23.37/MWh
Nuclear: $1.59/MWh
Geothermal: $0.92/MWh
Hydroelectric: $0.67/MWh
Coal: $0.44/MWh
Nat. Gas & Petrol. Liquid: $0.25/MWh

As you can see, wind and solar are so expensive that if it wasn't for government subsidies, they would still be experimental and would be only used by people in very rural areas without any power generation nearby, which is typically a gas or coal fired power plant running in a standby mode (buring fuel, which was the original complaint). The other problem you have with wind and solar is the fact that they are not constant producers of power.

Solar power is only good during the daylight hours, and has decreased capacity when clouds pass by, and wind only works in windy areas.

Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Money at the expense of the public, that's what it is. We shut down child labor sweatshops a hundred years ago, we should do more to improve the quality of life of our citizens. Corporate greed should not be our public policy. Companies will thrive under a new paradigm, as history has shown us.

@to red | 9:27 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If they develop solar and wind to their fullest potential, they will only contibute 6-7% of our needs. Not a good return on investment. Do the nuclear. I like the way Bush pronounced it.

C'mon Ron! | 10:02 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Our prosperity was built on cheap and widely available fuel.

That's the prosperity you enjoy, that allows you to sit comfortably in your east-bench mcmansion and carp about everyone but you selling out.

There simply IS NO OTHER cheap, widely available fuel. We all know that. You know that.

And we're no more willing than you are to revert to the stone age.

If you've got a solution to the "problem" -- out with it.

I suspect you don't. It's because there is no actual problem.

It's just a phony emergency created by paleoliberals to justify taking away our freedoms.

Mouthing paleoliberal talking points may earn you respect amongst your Birkenstock-wearing buddies, but it's also just plain silly.

Reason | 11:46 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

My goodness, Ronald, I’m curious to know what sparked this bitter antagonism. I for one am GRATEFUL each day for the oil and coal companies, and the energy they provide which keeps our country running. This energy will improve the quality-of-life for our children and grandchildren as well. I’m big-time in favor of nuclear, but I’m not discounting oil and coal, especially with the mountains of red tape that currently hinder nuclear energy production. Oil and coal are a great blessing.

Fiscal Child Abuse | 12:25 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I too am unclear about the writers beef with oil companies, but I re-iterate the above: the oil and gas companies have clearly contributed to the well being of my children. The schools they have attended have been heated and well lit. The school buses have run on fuel provided by them. They have done their homework by electric light in a house heated by natural gas, etc. etc.

What I don't like is the fiscal child abuse being heaped on them by both current and past governments. Bush III is no better, and in fact is much worse, than his predecessors.

STOP FISCAL CHILD ABUSE, and live on a balanced budget.

RedShirt | 12:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Here is another benefit of the oil industry. If we didn't have the oil industry, we wouldn't have the composite materials available to manufacture the giant wind turbines being made to generate power.

So, if we eliminate the oil industry, wouldn't we also end up destroying the wind power industry too?

to:RedShirt | 12:48 p.m. | 1:24 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Typical Black-or-White
All-or-Nothing thinking of a Conservative.

Nobody is advocating elimination.

I believe in a "Moderation of ALL things".

That goes for the oil industy as well.

Try this.... | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Go back and read Revelations chapters 17 & 18.

The whore of Babylon
all the inhabitants drunk on her wine
Kings of the Earth fornicating with her
[root word,"fornicatio" originally referred to prostitution]
Merchants made exceedingly rich from her wine
Her wanting to wage war with Lamb

Consider "Oil" being the "Wine",
and Ancient Babylon encompassing the entire Middle East...
and that revelation takes on a whole new meaning to us today.

Mmmmmm...

AB | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Ahhhh c'mon guys- stop using so much pesky logic with the liberals. This obviously an emotional rant that was sent in on the spur of the moment as a reaction to someone scratching his Prius. Dont take the wind out of his emotional outburst- you ruin all the fun!

Mike Richards | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I'm very happy that so many want to walk where ever they go. They couldn't even consider using a bicycle because a bicycle has tires that are made from oil.

The idiots who claim that everyone else is insane because they don't live in a cave should spend just a minute and take inventory of all that they own. They might even realize, that without oil, books would not have been printed that "enlighten" them, after all, books contain ink and ink is based on oil.

Let them turn off their lights. Let them turn off their stoves. Let them haul water from the nearest free-flowing stream and carry their waste to the nearest cess-pool.

They neither appreciate nor recognize that their education was based on the use of oil, that their comfortable lives have oil at the root, that everything that they own is because of oil (or did they haul that merchandise from the factory to their door on their own backs?).

Let them complain as they sit at their computers and write letters to the editor - as they use oil and coal to generate the electricity that powers their computer.

To Try this | 1:52 | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I can do it to -- instead of oil, let's consider "wine" to be rutbagas.

Takes on a whole new meaning, huh?

Mmmmmmm....

big corporation | 2:45 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

A major rant on oil and coal because of profits but not one mention of GEs obsene profits from alternative energy marketing. Lets nationalize everything, like Cuba and Venezuela, that can't keep the lights on. Next time you go to the er, remember just about everything they use is a derivitave of oil and coal. So at what point do you stop giving them a chance and shut down your use of oil and coal. Look down and if your belt or shoes are made of synthetics, then oil and coal. If not and they are leather, well then PETA wants to tell you what else you can't use.

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 3:12 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Don't just rant on oil and coal because of profits from buying it with gold, rant about the corupted Congress makeing a profit off of it, while double dipping, and ignoring the ones that elected them into that seat. Right Sen Hatch and Sen Bennett?. Start there.

The following is an example of a factually correct, totally logical argument, coming from a totally sound premise. Yet, the conclusion is completely false.

"Government intervention is bad. Market manipulation is evil. Price fixing is counterproductive. And the attempt to control markets is immoral and usually futile. True?

Well, here is a description of the 19th Century Gold Standard, considered by many as the most efficacious monetary standard in history. First of all, under the Gold Standard, gold is a reserve currency. It is held mostly by one country such as The Central Bank of England during the 18th Century, and the Central Bank of the United States in the late 19th and 20th Century. But wait! We have been told by some that any country that administers a reserve currency amounts to a monopoly on money and receives an unfair advantage. And that a Central Banking system is inherently coercive.

tree-hugger | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

What is it exactly do Conservatives want to conserve?

It certainly isn't:

Oil
Water
Gas
Coal
Habitat
Wildlife
Natural Resources

Your "talent on loan from God" calls me the environmental wack-o,
but I do not wish anyone to go back and live in caves...just to use less, cut-back...
i.e., CONSERVE.

The irony is by definiton that would make me the Conservative, and not you.

So, Help me understand your hypocrisy?

RedShirt | 3:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

TO "tree-hugger | 3:15 p.m. " simple. Conservatives want to conserve your freedoms.

RE: tree-hugger | 3:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Their wealth.

RedShirt | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To "tree-hugger | 3:15 p.m." and if we all start using less, but the population keeps increasing, what about those people, shouldn't there be a surplus of power for them to tap into? Or if somebody perfects the electric car, then what?

How will we supply the electricity to power a nation filled with electric cars if all that we are allowed to do is build wind generators that only produce power when it is windy or solar panels that only work during the daylight when our cars are in parking lots?

RedShirt | 4:17 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

To "RE: tree-hugger | 3:48 p.m. " they are also trying to preserve your wealth too.

tree-hugger | 4:34 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I'm all for nuclear power.

And tidal,
and hydro,
and solar,
and coal,
and wind,
and natural gas,
and whatever we come up with next.

As long as we move FORWARD,
making things BETTER tomorrow than they are today,
I'll champion it.

beit;
Energy
Mother Earth
Communications
HealthCare
Human and Family Relationships

always better, always forward.
That's WHY I'm liberal.

Forward thinking.
Learning, growing, improving
Line upon line,
Here-a-little, there-a-little
Eternal progression.
Eternal perfection.

Conservatives seem to yearn to go back to good 'ole days.
Stay were you are.
Hold your ground.
Don't change ANYTHING!

I call that, damnation.

tree-hugger | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

That's also another difference [and quite frankly, a pet-peave I have with Conservatives].

I don't care about conserving my wealth.

It's just money.

I'm more interested in helping other people
live happy, healthy and productive lives.

I came into this world penniless,
I'll leave this world penniless.

Why not spend those pennies improving this world for our posterity?

Happy to be Liberal.

Peace

RE: tree-hugger | 5:00 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

You are free to do so.

We just want to be free, too,

TO THE AUTHOR:

I assume you do NOT use electricity, or a car, or any product made from oil or coal,

or you are supporting satan!

@5:00 p.m. | 7:10 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I assume you do NOT buy anything made in China,

or you are supporting satan!

Funny | 12:31 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009

all this whinning by the Democrats...but not a one lives in a cave....at least literally!

Ron McCormick | 5:51 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009

Sticks and Stones doesn't change facts as demonstrated by comments above that we are dependent on oil purchased with money borrowed from China. A precious commodity to be used wisely rather than being pumped into the atmosphere at exponentially phenomenal rates. To bury ones head in the sand and think that 7 billion people can't affect the environment - now that's silly! Why is it in the USA it costs $10,000 plus to convert a vehicle to compressed natural gas, while in Mexico and Canada it costs only hundreds? CNG reserves are estimated to be at 150 years supply, and that's if we converted everything to CNG, to include diesel dumping 18 wheelers, light trucks, and trains. Profit margins is an issue only if focused on and the air we breath be damned. In SLC natural gas creates electricity far more efficiently and with far less pollution than coal or oil, and could be used to effectively supply electricity charging the new efficient batteries of commuting vehicles in urban areas. And this Birkenstock wearing buddy would much rather ride an oil-produced synthetic wheel than breath oil/coal polluted air.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.