Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Energy injustice

November 10, 2013

Heating oil and gasoline costs six times more than what it did at the turn of the century, but minimum wage workers and other low-income citizens such as social security recipients income has......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(29)

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 8:25 PM

Yea, I tracked it back to a PDF report. My opinion on it is still the same.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Nov-10-13 6:13 PM

gavin, the article about the Koch brothers first appeared in Fed. 2011 on REUTERS titled, "Koch Brothers Positioned to be Big Winners if the Keystone XL pipeline is approved", this is old news Echo just ran with it in a different way.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

farmer

Nov-10-13 4:11 PM

I would also like to say, This letter was way off base. Anyone who thought shale gas was not going to be traded to the highest world bidders is,,,, well again I got nuthin'.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Nov-10-13 4:08 PM

Rick, the only way shipping energy somewhere else would affect our supply and price is if there was a shortage and that doesn’t appear to be the case. Energy companies have a right to maximize their profits like any other business, as long as they don’t use fraudulent methods.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

farmer

Nov-10-13 4:05 PM

"The actions of the democrat president have lead to embargo's against Iran and an overthrow of a stable Lybian government that severely cut the nations oil output. Iraq's output is severely crippled by national infighting and poor security". Texas

I'm sorry to point out someone else's typos but I can't help myself. I think you meant to say "the Republican President". You know, when President Reagan signed Executive Order 12613 making it illegal to trade with Iran. (something I totally agreed with) I would also suggest Iraq's oil production dropped when we went to war with them. And about Libya's stable government, well I've got nuthin'.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 3:59 PM

NM, I just traced the report all the way back to it's source. I just went from a little bit skeptical to completely skeptical.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 3:43 PM

"Koch Industries, own more than 2 million acres of land in Northern Alberta, the source of the tar sands oil that will be pumped to the United States via the Keystone XL pipeline."

Um, if the information in "the report" is correct, the Kochs will make the money whether the XL pipeline goes in or the pipeline goes to Vancouver to ship it to China.

JMHO, Ecowatch just used the "Koch Bros" as a dog whistle to rile up their supporters and oppose the XL Pipeline.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-10-13 3:24 PM

Rick:

You keep thinking the gas will be exported and we will have none.

The FACT is that they are finding shale gas all over the world. Even the UK has found it and is looking to start hydraulic fracturing.

The export market will change dramatically over the coming years.

There is also so much energy under our feet that there will only be supply issues if we create them by slowing pipeline construction.

Jobs are coming. I met with Sunbury Generation about their conversion. It will mean hundreds of jobs back to our area.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Nov-10-13 3:01 PM

Hi rick, check out the new report in EchoWatch that reveals the Koch Brothers could make $100B profit on the Keystone XL.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Nov-10-13 2:35 PM

On this Phil I respecfully disagree. They will just move on to a market that will pay more.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Nov-10-13 2:24 PM

2 reasons, one is it is mainly imported, two it is very heavily taxed. The low price here in the US has nothing to do with any "Government tax subsidy". -Gavin

Heavily taxed to help pay for universal health care.

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Nov-10-13 1:54 PM

Rick, there are many things that effect the price of anything, but without government interference, competition will keep prices where they should be. In the energy market, that includes competition between different energy sources.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BornHere

Nov-10-13 11:36 AM

What Mr. Cohick is missing here is the bigger picture.

There is a reason why the natural gas prices have been so low for so long in the US, the reason is to set the stage for US involvement in the gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that Russia has enjoyed for so long.

As of this morning Europe plunged into a energy crisis because Russia cut off the gas supply by 60% in a move that will push up the prices in Europe.

So the big rush to build our pipelines to export is nothing more than money, power, and politics.

12 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Nov-10-13 10:50 AM

"Gas prices in this country are much lower than in other countries, recent trips to New Zealand and Europe verified that for me." - rick424

2 reasons, one is it is mainly imported, two it is very heavily taxed. The low price here in the US has nothing to do with any "Government tax subsidy".

The price here in the US is a much closer to the real cost than it is in Europe or New Zealand.

If you want to make Weldon Cohick really rant, tax the carbon fuels here the same as they are in Europe.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Nov-10-13 10:39 AM

Oil and gas is a world commodity and the more it is used the higher the price. With the natural gas excess they are looking for ways to sell more and raise the price. The wierd thing is the industry is using government to help them and no one seems to care. Gas prices in this country are much lower than in other countries, recent trips to New Zealand and Europe verified that for me. I think you are wrong on this Phil. If left on their own the price would be even higher. They would sell to the highest bidder while raping the land you live on.

6 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Nov-10-13 10:16 AM

If you want to take a troubling situation and make it much worse, let government fix it. Energy prices should be based on supply and demand, but that won’t happen as long as we have government by special interests.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Nov-10-13 9:42 AM

No ritty that is what the coal indusrty did or what happened in Love Canal. Nice try to get your political agenda out there.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ritty77

Nov-10-13 9:05 AM

"Don't worry about the now, let the future generations deal with the aftermath."

Isn't that the Progressive approach to routine overspending and crushing debt?

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Nov-10-13 8:54 AM

Get rid of the EPA and let the industry self regulate. Don't worry about the now, let the future generations deal with the aftermath. I assure you the price will not go down. Oh and your tax dollars are helping to export that gas. What a crock. Good letter.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Nov-10-13 8:23 AM

The actions of the democrat president have lead to embargo's against Iran and an overthrow of a stable Lybian government that severely cut the nations oil output. Iraq's output is severely crippled by national infighting and poor security. Couple that with the low reinvestment into the Venezuelan oil fields because of the socialist tendencies of Chavez and these have lead to lower supply in the world market, thus leading to higher prices.

With the higher prices, oil companies in the US have reinvested lots of money and developed new technologies to do enhanced oil recovery (injecting CO2) and horizontal drilling with fracking in the oil shales to get at these hard to reach supplies.

The big winners are the Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, and the governmental agencies that add taxes on the products.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-10-13 8:19 AM

With regard to export, it is only moving forward as the price of NG in other countries is about 5 times higher than it is here in the US.

Pipelines are needed to get NG to other parts of the country. Those pipelines are being built, but that takes time and faces opposition from people like Mr. Cohick.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Nov-10-13 8:17 AM

I work with the refineries on a daily basis.

What everyone forgets is the cost of regulations.

The EPA has been imposing many new regulations on refineries (including under Bush43, but accelerated under Obama).

These regulations, like those on coal-power plants are intended to make the price of hydrocarbons higher in a vain effort to make renewables look more financially realistic.

Additionally, refineries are forced to buy and blend ethanol into gasoline at extremely high prices and damaging effects (to pipelines, vehicles, etc.)

Right now, refineries are fighting the ethanol mandates. I agree with this.

Unfortunately, large corporate farms (ADM) and representatives from corn states (Iowa) are pushing for higher amounts of ethanol in gasoline to benefit their donors.

Stop burning our food!

5 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Nov-10-13 8:16 AM

Consider this, our taxes subsidizes energy industry even when they do really well.

8 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Nov-10-13 7:50 AM

Mr. Cohick did swerve into one point - fuel prices continue to rise but wages seem to remain stagnant (at least mine have for the past 5 years or so).

Thankfully gasoline prices are continuing to fall, but still - $3.22/gallon is nothing to sneeze at.

Home heating oil is $3 more per gallon than when I replaced my oil furnace in the 90's. I kept my oil receipts, and paid 79 cents per gallon. Now you're lucky to get it for $3.79, nearly a 5 fold increase.

Increased fuel costs drive up costs for everything else from food to clothing to electronics, as it all has to be taken from point A to point B and that involves fuel.

Unfortunately, I don't see the gas companies or the government investing in a natural gas infrastructure for rural areas to reduce the dependence on foreign oil for heating needs.

7 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Nov-10-13 6:45 AM

Kerstetter,he could be right on price per acre if he is 80 and lives outside the city limits. Agree, it would be better to have gas for heating and cooking. Oil prices are outrageous.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web