namelesstavern.net

Diekan,

Even though the discussion is about global warming, it is a social caste attack by many. Read any of your above anti business, anti conservative posts in this global warming discussion to see a perfect example of that. A lot of the pro global warming change is coming from both sides, but you simply make it a political attack on business. Business will do what consumers demand, not vice versa. Even that whackjob Pat Robertson is onboard the green bus.

The other problem is this is for many groups this is a venue to bring across socialist government controlled industry segues and for others even more of a push for regulation and centralized control. In other words, groups that want government controlling ones life.

The left fights new Nuclear Power plants tooth and nail, when they would be the largest and quickest method of reducing our nations carbon footprint.

Many of the environmental groups are politically motivated and have a goal that is far outside of eco conservationism. It's hard for me to get on board a group that has a good message of conservation coupled with shipping dollars to contest legislation to ban partial birth abortion, which is a known and proven evil to me.

It's tough for many to take the standard bearers of the fight and their alarmist messages seriously as they hop around the world on their private jets and have mansions and 60 pit BBQ grills. People want eco friendliness and it's slowly being achieved. Hypocritical alarmism based on green goals of selling carbon offsets is balderdash.

I'm sure many of those scientists are as neutral and unbiased as you are, Arlos. However, saying global warming is man made and is a danger to us is not in any ways a fact.

Nuclear power plants have their own issues. Not least of which is waste that is incredibly hazardous and toxic, but has half lives that are measured in geologic time, meaning it will be devastatingly dangerous pretty much forever. Plus there is the risk of catastrophic meltdown, as we almost had at 3-mile island, and did see in Chernobyl. (yes, I know US designs are much safer than russian designs, etc.) Nuclear power does not sidestep the TANSTAAFL principle, much as you like to portray it doing so.

You want a quick method of vastly reducing the US carbon footprint, FORCE power plants to abide by law they agreed to 20 years ago, requiring them to retrofit the ultra-high efficiency pollution scrubbers to their plants. As Gaazy posted, those scrubbers reduce the pollution produced by over 95%. To this day most plants lack those devices, because the power companies have whined over the cost, and dragged their heels about complying with regulation.

Plus, as I said in my last post, your continued harping on your great satan of "SOCIALISM" is all just bullshit and nonsense, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It is empty rhetoric that has been proven to be utterly false, just by the CFC changes at the very least, and simply will not fly. Continued spouting of it is hypocritical at best for anyone who claims to be even vaguely interested in real debate.

And YOU claim the assertion that global warming is man-made and a problem isn't a fact. Funny that the overwhelming preponderance of the scientific community disagrees with you. Lets see, who am I going to believe, a DBA in Ohio, or the vast majority of PhD climatologists. Hmmm... Tough decision here....

Funny that you're the same person who tries to claim that evolution isn't a fact too, despite the overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence and statement. Gee, are we seeing a pattern here?

-Arlos

Regardless of your assertions, it is not a FACT that climate change is man made AND that it is dangerous. I think there is some good reasoning, but sorry if I trust an MIT climatologist and many others who have made valid opinions based on facts over many who lack their credentials and expertise. That is a cause for debate, which is good science. Not wanting debate and calling a UN councils declaration fact does not make it so to me.

You can keep up with the segues and personal attacks, but that does not change the simple definition here, or the simple truth of those that are obviously in the camp of social change and would love nothing more than to tangent this into something along those lines, as can be seen by your false assertions regarding evolution and my opinions. Another issue being used politically and misrepresented.

I believe there is global warming going on. I believe we need to do more for conservation. I also have read how little our scientists actually comprehend about the climate and how much we are learning on a daily basis, and the only fact I personally know is people will use it a social and political issue, just like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show up at every event that has the least tint of black/white in it, claiming alarmism and spouting their political messages regardless of the real truth.

Much of this reminds me of a great book, Michael Crichton's State of Fear.

Correlation does not equal causation, and group consensus does not equal reality.

Skepticism of it would be something of a non issue for me if the social response had simply been for people to conserve energy more, waste less, and strive towards alternative energy. The practical benefits alone are worth it - and if pollution does end up being the cause - then great.

It's the fact that nearly all public discourse on the topic EXCLUSIVELY gravitates towards punishment, taxation, and regulation should raise a huge red warning flag that there is a political agenda behind this: whether the theory proves correct or not.

Just who will collect these "Carbon Taxes," and into whose pocket will they go? There is no answer.

What will stop Carbon Regulations from turning into another gigantic, glutted cog in the political Favor-Factory (and with it the usual slew of coercion and bribes)? No answer is given.

Why has there been no consideration of simply giving tax breaks relative to equipment upgrades that reduce pollution? No answer is given.

The people who so routinely condemn the current administration for their abuse of executive power, corruption, and fearmongering to achieve their ends curiously remain silent so long as the string of environmental conservation is attached. You people should know that it's precisely because of a LACK of public skepticism and dissenters being shouted down on the 'latest scare' that in large part allowed us into the horrible mess in Iraq and the whole bullshit of the PATRIOT act. At the very least you shouldn't be blindly discouraging it with petty personal attacks, the like of which are better fitted for the loudmouthed partisan hacks on TV.

If you ask who has anything to gain from Global Warming - it's two groups: the politicians (who are eager to collect on it as yet another form of taking money while producing nothing, and leveraging power over influential groups and individuals by arbitrary means), and the radical environmentalists/academics (who have had a glaringly socialist agenda and fierce hatered of capitalism since many decades beforehand). These two are riding on the wave of fearmongering they've created in the rest of the well-meaning population in the hopes to cash in.

-

Also, this rocks. I had no idea I was a Christian (and a mindless one to boot!)!! OR a Rush Limbaugh listener!! OR a Republican!! OR a supporter of the war!! OR a NASCAR Fan! FASCINATING!!

Ok, so to wrap this up…

Let me put this into two major bullet points to help everyone understand the “right’s” position.

· Scientists from all over the world: Japan, Great Britain, the US, Germany, China… all over the world; have all come to same conclusions. They’ve all gathered the same data, made the same observations, made the same predictions. Not just one particular breed of scientist mind you, but representatives from pretty much every branch you can name: geologists, biologists, ecologists, physicists, chemists, so on and so forth. The vast majority of these experts have no ties to one another, no vested gain in “punishing” the US’s major industries.

And, what does the right say to this?

They claim it’s all some big, elaborate, secret conspiracy to shift the US from a republic to a socialist state.

Now, perhaps, just maybe, if we were talking about a handful of academics, working for a couple of universities here in the US, I’d buy into your conspiracy theory. But, scientists from around the globe? Come on guys, are you really that paranoid?

· The data is there, in black and white, for the world to see. Again, this data hasn’t been collected by a handful of leftwing, anti-capitalists, but by a global network of engineers and scientists – again – all arriving to the same conclusion.

So, what about this factoid? Where does the right stand on this tidbit of information?

They claim it’s all a bunch of unfounded, ungrounded, unverified propaganda. And, again I will say… perhaps if this were a handful of people pushing their findings and those findings haven’t been concluded by others from around the planet – then yes – I could buy into a conspiracy theory.

Ok, so help me out here. What those of you on the right are saying is:

There’s no global warming being caused by man. It’s all just a bunch of “sky is falling” propaganda being pushed by a sect of whacked out lefties who are hell bent on bringing socialism to the US!

And, again, for the fifth or sixth time now, I will say. This isn’t about bringing the big bad corporations down. As much as I detest corporate America, I do not want to see these companies put out of business. The number of jobs lost, the impact it would have on our way of life and economy would be nothing short of catastrophic. However, the impact of not having a planet to live on would certainly overshadow one’s inability to turn the air conditioner on (because the power company was shut down).

This is not about punishing. This is not about putting companies out of business. This is about holding those companies accountable and forcing them to use the technology that is already available to slow the damaging effects of their actions.

I realize the right doesn’t care about the diversity of species roaming the planet. I realize that the vast majority of them have absolutely no concept of how an ecosystem works, or how intricate and delicate the so-called “web of life” really is. Species interact with other species. We depend on many of those interactions.

Give me a moment and I'll tie this into global warming...

Kill off of the snakes and your rodent populations explode. When the rodent population explodes, diseases start spreading and people start dying, enmass. But, it seems, that those on the right don’t particularly care. To them the snake is of no importance, but a “scary” nuisance that we should kill at every opportunity. This same logic, or lack there of, of the right is easy overlaid on the issue of global warming. Most republican types are very short sighted, only looking to the effects of the very near future. To them, referring back the snake example, they see something “dangerous” and thus take prompt action to eliminate the danger giving no thought to the repercussions of their actions. They don’t see the long term effects of their killing the snake. They don’t see the disease ridden rodent populations exploding and spreading plagues. Ok, so where’s the analogy to global warming? They see no short term negative effects of global warming. What they do see (much like when they first see the snake) is a “danger” to their ability to garner more wealth. So, like killing the snake without thinking it through, they go on the attack to discredit global warming. They have no vision of what their actions will have in the future.

They’re not worried about going out of business while they absorb the costs of implementing clearer technologies. What they’re worried about is whether or not they’ll be able to break yet another record profit quarter. Having to pay the costs of compliance would most definitely put a nix on the record profit quest for a short time.

Simply, they see no negative effects now, so as far as they are concerned it’s business as usual.

These companies that many of you think “we” want put out of business ARE serious violators. But, they CAN afford to implement cleaner CO2 reducing technology. The fact is, they don’t WANT to do it. Because after all, what they see in the here and now is profit. And anything that dares dip into that profit must be fought and destroyed.

While I am not a liberal, I am grateful we have people like Al Gore out there pushing the message. I am glad we have people with open minds who’s sole focus in life isn’t on getting as rich as they possibly can making noise about this issue. But, most of all I am glad that people are starting to wake and hold these companies and irresponsible administrations accountable.

I would go out on a limb and suggest that you righties borrow, rent, buy a copy of “An Inconvenient Truth,” but the real inconvenient truth here is that you’re all far to narrow and closed minded to even consider watching something by the big, bad, evil Al Gore.

After all, how dare anyone ask a rightwingnut to open their minds and be exposed to something different! Why, that’s just wrong!!

Anyway, for those you whose minds aren’t closed tighter than a republican’s check book at a charity dinner for the homeless… give it a watch. I think you will find a pleasant surprise. There is no finger pointing, there is no serious political talk, there is no attack on the GOP, there is no cheering of the DNC… just down to earth talking about the issue.

Psst… in the middle of the documentary there is a short talk on how to become a bajillionare!

Oh and a little FYI.

American Electric earned 3.2 BILLION dollars in first quarter of this year.

Do you know much a scrubber costs? Roughly 60 million.

That's roughly 1.9%

To put a scrubber in one of their coal plants would cost them 1.9% of their FIRST QUARTER earnings.

Talk about breaking the bank! I mean come on... how can we honestly expect a company to spend 1.9% of THREE BILLION DOLLARS to do something that betters the quality of air we breath and helps to extend the livability of the planet?

Fucking greed. That's all it is. Greed.

How much does it cost to install? Man hours, maintenance upkeep if any, etc?

Was all of that 3.2 "BILLION" dollars earned over expenditure? Where is their bottom line?

If they made 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, and expenditures added up to 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, your argument would be shot down.

Diekan scream a little louder that there is a consensus about the level humans influence global temperature, maybe if you scream loud enough you can drown out reason and obscure facts... which is the tactic being used to assert the extreme views of global warming.

First of all the same data, same observations, and same predictions is complete bullshit. Comparatively small groups of scientists writing up conclusions on everyone else's research and publication, then deciding based on their works that their opinion is exactly the same, including everyones name as fully supporting the idea put forth as is in a unanimous agreement does not a consensus make. There is great variation in the scientific community about just how much man kind influences climate change. Yet even someone who believes the effect is minimal and that efforts to change global warming trend will be unsuccessful is counted among the consensus.

The above exactly describes the recent IPCC report, there are no individual opinions written up and not everyone, even those who's names are attached necessarily agrees with it all lock stock and barrel.

Other studies and surveys are even less accurate at times, for a few dollars donation and an internet application you too can put yourself in among scientists concerned about climate change.

But again in your ranting you miss-represent at least my opinions on the matter. Global warming is a hoax in it's radically presented form because there isn't an absolute consensus, and because in truth even with all the effort going into research on climate change mankind still doesn't understand much of the dynamics. Much of hype of it is based on computer models who's accuracy wouldn't be anywhere near the realm of what would be considered acceptable outside of academic venue. I only wish my job performance was given the leeway that the computer models are given for projecting future climate variation. Of course there isn't generally much talk about computer models directly after the golden child hockey stick model was found to have some serious logic errors. And of course it's something akin to blasphemy to consider that possibly CO2 levels and their relations to temperature are the result of that temperature and not the cause of it.


As far as business go yes they are concerned with the bottom line, as a direct result of stock holders and employees being concerned with the same even if it's only on a personal level. Part of the reason scrubbers aren't being put in place is that it will likely be a wasted expense in the long run, and is not as monetarily efficient in the short term. The types of stack scrubbers you are referring to are only used part time currently, the rest of the time they are switched off and maintenance being done. Basically they are used to stay in line with seasonal emissions requirements. There is a direct relationship to the financial costs associated with using them vs not using them and paying the fees for additional allowances. The real concern with scrubbers as a viable solution is their uptime. Currently in some cases they fill the technology need in that they can be run during periods where government mandates emissions must be lowest, and the downtime on them for maintenance works. As the restrictions get more stringent and the costs of allowance grow, electric companies all ready see that they will need to find other better solutions to stay in line with restrictions. In short for the long term the scrubbers fall short, and in the current allowance purchase is more viable. What is being looked at as the technology to be implemented are IGCC systems which require radical refitting and a substantial cost beyond scrubbers, but it is technology that will actually fill the needs to reduce emissions vs scrubbers which are at best a temporary bandaid and what will ultimately turn out to be a throw away expense in a lot of cases.

Your overly simplified example of ecology is almost as silly and condescending as the cartoons in Al-Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" (which by the way I have watched twice, but I'm willing to bet you haven't read the Crichton book Lyion mentioned earlier, may I suggest that for you?). The dynamics of any ecology are much more complicated then the scenario you paint, and it's either condescension that you expect it to have an impact or sheer ignorance and failure to realize that for every imbalance there are balancing factors which would make a scenario like you described unlikely. First there has to be a food source capable of sustaining a large rat population, and a lack of other opportunistic predators that would take over the vacant role of the snakes ect. It is mother natures complex dynamics and general trends to balance herself that are perhaps the biggest reason for my skepticism on ecological scares.

Back to Al Gore's video since you are so interested in financial bias look into the former Vice presidents investments and realize he is making and will continue to make huge amounts of money over the issue. Call it visionary investing seeing what was coming, or using his social status to push things in a favorable (for him) economic direction the fact still remains that in promoting Global warming as something heavily influenced by man, he is promoting his own income.

While your at it look into public record of the web of environmental activism, and follow that money trail (we'll see you in a few years). What you will find without much in depth research is that the majority of organizations aren't the grass roots start ups they are perceived to be but organizations started with backing of wealthy elites and that the environmental lobby despite being non profit controls a huge cash flow.. and with that comes power especially for individuals who steer it.

Harrison wrote:How much does it cost to install? Man hours, maintenance upkeep if any, etc?

Was all of that 3.2 "BILLION" dollars earned over expenditure? Where is their bottom line?

If they made 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, and expenditures added up to 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, your argument would be shot down.

and you compare this to being able to breathe clean air? sides government interference er subsidies will help cover.

Uh, Lueyen, one small note: Look at Al Gore's Senate record. He was a major force behind environmental causes in the senate from the beginning. WELL before he had any sort of monetary gain involved.

I am not at this time going to address the rest of your paranoid "THE GREEN FORCES ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE" rant, other than to wonder how good a price you got on your tinfoil hat and other tinfoil acccessories, and ask how the oil-company and power-company Kool-Aid tastes.

-Arlos

Evermore wrote:

Harrison wrote:How much does it cost to install? Man hours, maintenance upkeep if any, etc?

Was all of that 3.2 "BILLION" dollars earned over expenditure? Where is their bottom line?

If they made 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, and expenditures added up to 3.2 "BILLION" dollars, your argument would be shot down.

and you compare this to being able to breathe clean air? sides government interference er subsidies will help cover.

I never said I agreed with them. I am just not frothing at the mouth here over the big bad <insert today's Diekan rant>. So in turn, I am able to look at things objectively instead of through my hulk-rage eyes of bitterness.

arlos wrote:Uh, Lueyen, one small note: Look at Al Gore's Senate record. He was a major force behind environmental causes in the senate from the beginning. WELL before he had any sort of monetary gain involved.

However you want to justify it when a liberal makes money off of a cause they push, I guarantee if it was a conservative making money off a cause they supported even if at the core for pure reasons of concern you'd be blasting them.

arlos wrote:I am not at this time going to address the rest of your paranoid "THE GREEN FORCES ARE GOING TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE" rant, other than to wonder how good a price you got on your tinfoil hat and other tinfoil acccessories, and ask how the oil-company and power-company Kool-Aid tastes.

-Arlos

Main points:

1.) The belief in the degree to which human action influences climate change (and by extension the appropriate response) is not unanimously established among the majority of scientists. Just because someone states human action has an effect does not automatically mean they believe we are the only or predominant effect, yet this is how it is often times painted.

2.) Collective understanding of global ecology can be demonstrated as incomplete by the level of accuracy of the predictions of computer models which are often times cited as the source of predictions about the future climate conditions.

3.) Power plants not installing scrubbers are still in compliance with legislation designed to reduce emissions. The gripes about the use of scrubbers is essentially bitching because they aren't going above and beyond what is required of them, and this is at least in part because the technology limitations don't make it a long term viable solution. It would be somewhat like upgrading a processor in a computer you intend to throw away next week when you get a new one.

4.) If money is the litmus test for questioning the sincerity of peoples and organizations take on the situation, then both sides should be in question because there are vast amounts of money for both sides of the fence.

Not exactly tinfoil hat material but congratz on jumping on the band wagon that dictates dismissing things contrary to radical global warming dogma as either based on a bias in a source of money or as fringe lunatic arguments.

Did it take a massive elaborate conspiracy to convince the world that Iraq had WMD's, or simply a small very vocal cluster of people that knew how to evoke fear in the populace - and the media machine did the rest?

Tinfoil hat indeed..

If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

Diekan wrote:

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

But the oil industry doesn't cite environmental concerns as its reason for existence.

Lueyen wrote:

Diekan wrote:

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

But the oil industry doesn't cite environmental concerns as its reason for existence.

No, they're just the CAUSE of our environmental concerns.

Diekan wrote:

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

That's the dumbest reply ever posted on this board. Why would industry destroy itself by eliminating need in their service.

Ganzo wrote:

Diekan wrote:

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

That's the dumbest reply ever posted on this board. Why would industry destroy itself by eliminating need in their service.

because the change will come someday and they would be able to monopolize it in the future.

If they develop the technology, they can patent it and make gazillions on it.

-Arlos

arlos wrote:If they develop the technology, they can patent it and make gazillions on it.

-Arlos

That's a good point. But, their mindset is based on "why change it, if it we can set record profits in the here and now?" They use every conceivable excuse in the world right now to jack up prices – and they’re getting away with it. They use the excuse that no other refineries have been built in ages, yet the demand for gas only increases about 1% each year. It’s not an issue of supply not meeting demand – it’s an issue of opportunistic parasites taking advantage of a lethargic and poorly-educated (on the subject) populace.

Ok, let me explain it a different way.

The demand for gas has not increased that much, that dramatically, over the years. Yet prices have. They [the oil industry] is making money hand over fist right now. The wind blows to hard in Canada and up the prices go. You drop a slice of bread on the floor – and up the prices go. They claim that it’s because of the costs to refine and they blame the inability of their industry to build new, or more refineries. Here’s the catch my friends. They DON’T want to build more or new refineries. As it stands now, they can use excuse after excuse to jack up prices and continue to increase profits. So, why in the hell WOULD they want to eliminate the scapegoat that have given them so many opportunities to gouge the shit out of you and I? They use the greens as an excuse. “Well we can’t build more refineries because you whacko environmentalists wont allow it!!” Actually what they are saying is “Thank you for giving us an excuse to not build more refineries!”

Diekan wrote:

Ganzo wrote:If half the money "Greens" spending on promoting, went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

If a fraction of the billion dollar record profits of the oil industry went to new energy research, we'd solve the problem with global warming already.

lol

"But, but, but, but, they could do it too!"

arlos wrote:If they develop the technology, they can patent it and make gazillions on it.

-Arlos

It's easier and less costly to let someone else develop the technology and then buy it from them and lock it away. Which to my knowledge, is what they are currently doing anyways.

From the EIA's website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/

US Oil Production thousand barrels per day:

2000 - 5822
2001 - 5,801
2002 - 5,746
2003 - 5,681
2004 - 5,419
2005 - 5,178

US Oil Imports thousand barrels per day:

2000 - 11,459
2001 - 11,871
2002 - 11,530
2003 - 12,264
2004 - 13,145
2005 - 13,714

We import over twice as much oil then what we produce. I'm completely ignoring our minimal exporting here. First of all even if US oil companies sold oil at their cost making zero profit it would have little impact on the price you pay at the pump, simply because it would only account for about a third of our oil consumption, and of course I said at cost so it wouldn't even reduce the overall pricing by a third.

Again it is the world market, not US oil companies that really dictates the price of crude. Also notice our imports are on a significant increase in a 6 year period imports jumped 1,000,000 barrels PER DAY, yet our production remains pretty much consistent. I don't know what you'd call a dramatic increase but I'd call that pretty substantial.

Our own production isn't increasing, our consumption and by extension our imports are. But it's not our increasing consumption alone that is driving world oil prices up, in fact there are other factors that have a much more significant impact, such as China's dramatic increase in crude oil imports over the past few years (I think 2005 saw a 35% increase for them).

And yes the oil industry in the US is making money, they certainly aren't going to be selling crude well below market value... from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense.

Unless you are for something akin to Venezuela's state take over of the oil industry you aren't going to see oil companies providing crude well below world oil pricing here at home. And supposing we even went this far it still wouldn't have the desired impact because our production doesn't come anywhere near meeting our consumption, we would still be at the mercy of the world market. Of course we might be able to increase our production which might help, but we've seen how well attempts at that pan out, Alaska drilling anyone?

And the final kicker here is that all of these dynamics are before refinement, centered around raw crude. It wouldn't matter much how many refineries were built if the underlying raw crude situation doesn't change.

Lueyen wrote:From the EIA's website:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/

US Oil Production thousand barrels per day:

2000 - 5822
2001 - 5,801
2002 - 5,746
2003 - 5,681
2004 - 5,419
2005 - 5,178

US Oil Imports thousand barrels per day:

2000 - 11,459
2001 - 11,871
2002 - 11,530
2003 - 12,264
2004 - 13,145
2005 - 13,714

We import over twice as much oil then what we produce. I'm completely ignoring our minimal exporting here. First of all even if US oil companies sold oil at their cost making zero profit it would have little impact on the price you pay at the pump, simply because it would only account for about a third of our oil consumption, and of course I said at cost so it wouldn't even reduce the overall pricing by a third.

Again it is the world market, not US oil companies that really dictates the price of crude. Also notice our imports are on a significant increase in a 6 year period imports jumped 1,000,000 barrels PER DAY, yet our production remains pretty much consistent. I don't know what you'd call a dramatic increase but I'd call that pretty substantial.

Our own production isn't increasing, our consumption and by extension our imports are. But it's not our increasing consumption alone that is driving world oil prices up, in fact there are other factors that have a much more significant impact, such as China's dramatic increase in crude oil imports over the past few years (I think 2005 saw a 35% increase for them).

And yes the oil industry in the US is making money, they certainly aren't going to be selling crude well below market value... from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense.

Unless you are for something akin to Venezuela's state take over of the oil industry you aren't going to see oil companies providing crude well below world oil pricing here at home. And supposing we even went this far it still wouldn't have the desired impact because our production doesn't come anywhere near meeting our consumption, we would still be at the mercy of the world market. Of course we might be able to increase our production which might help, but we've seen how well attempts at that pan out, Alaska drilling anyone?

And the final kicker here is that all of these dynamics are before refinement, centered around raw crude. It wouldn't matter much how many refineries were built if the underlying raw crude situation doesn't change.

Hey, you are wrong.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html

Crude oil prices are down from last year.