Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: crockett on March 14, 2008, 10:23:06 AM
-
$5 a gal fuel is rolling it's way on in..
Bush and Oil co, must be real proud of them selves to manage to see the price of gas to more than double in their time in the white house. No other president has done more for big oil, I'm sure the stock holders are proud. From a average of $1.50 in 2001 when he first entered the white house, to a now record high average of over $3/gal, but just hitting $4/gal in Hawaii today. I'm sure it's on the way for the rest of us as well. Hi five!!!
I'm quite sure this president has what it takes to help big oil get us to that $5/gal barrier. Go Bush go.. you the oil man of the year.. maybe even the decade! On a side note yet again yesterday, the dollar hit a record low 1 euro = 1.56 dollar. Bush is the man to set records!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_bi_ge/four_dollar_gas
-
I mean this in a friendly way: stop being such a dolt :rolleyes:
-
:lol
-
If you don't think it's related you clearly have your..
(http://www.westwiltshire.gov.uk/Bins/fraud/pics/10.gif)
then again half the people on this forum believe global warming is made up to sell books.. :salute
-
I think crocket might have a good point.
All Bush has to do is make a couple of phone calls, and he can alter the entire world oil supply/demand and and set the price of oil at whatever he wants.
-
Zapata was long since sold. the Bush family has been out of oil for decades.
-
For those of you who think Crockett's talking to himself on the second post & just generally being an ass, he's not. It was in response to something very rude that I wrote, and thought I deleted before it was read. Obviously not though. :lol
-
For those of you who think Crockett's talking to himself on the second post & just generally being an ass, he's not. It was in response to something very rude that I wrote, and thought I deleted before it was read. Obviously not though. :lol
:)
-
Do a little research. Oil prices skyrocketed after Bill Clinton made the statement to a multi national meeting of world leaders that he thought "americans are willing to pay $5 a gal for gas". You can't blame Bush for the idiotic statement made by Clinton, however i do agree he has failed to take any action to reduce what we are paying. The biggest problem is the EPA and the lack of refineries in the U.S.. Can't remember where i saw this but we have less refineries in the U.S now than we did in the 40's/50's. If we stopped importing any refined product, I.E. gas/diesel, traffic in the U.S. would grind to a halt in the country within 90 days or sooner. When the hurricane hit New Orleans and they shut down the pipeline we were restricted at most truckstops to only 50 gal of fuel per truck being purchased. At 6 miles to the gallon with a load on i'd start having to look for another place to fuel within 150 miles.
-
Do a little research. Oil prices skyrocketed after Bill Clinton made the statement to a multi national meeting of world leaders that he thought "americans are willing to pay $5 a gal for gas". You can't blame Bush for the idiotic statement made by Clinton, however i do agree he has failed to take any action to reduce what we are paying. The biggest problem is the EPA and the lack of refineries in the U.S.. Can't remember where i saw this but we have less refineries in the U.S now than we did in the 40's/50's. If we stopped importing any refined product, I.E. gas/diesel, traffic in the U.S. would grind to a halt in the country within 90 days or sooner. When the hurricane hit New Orleans and they shut down the pipeline we were restricted at most truckstops to only 50 gal of fuel per truck being purchased. At 6 miles to the gallon with a load on i'd start having to look for another place to fuel within 150 miles.
Yes the real reason for the high gas prices is because of the lack of refineries here in the US. This is a direct result of big oil purposely not building them to add in the needed capacity, simply because it means more profits for them as they can just charge more for their product, by exploiting the free market. That relates back to the govt, because we continue to give big oil millions in tax subsidies while they continue to screw us over. It's up to the leader of our country and the govt whom backs him to put a stop to that and put them in check. Yet to this day Bush doesn't stand tuff for the nation he just goes along with what ever big oil wants. Like nothing more than a Yes Man..
Hence Bush has dropped the ball in regards to that, is it entirely his fault? No but it's fun to get the O club in a hussy fit by saying so. However he is partly to blame because of his, for the most part "non" action. This admin tries to put the blame on OPEC rather than where it really should be put, right here in the US with big Oil. So yes he can be blamed for continuing to give big oil tax breaks and other subsidies while they continue to screw over the American people.
-
ahh.. but the half negro guys plan to put a buck or so tax on each gallon and to gouge the oil companies will make it all better? $7 a gallon but we will "feel" better about it? the democrats plan to stop all oil exploration and drilling and to stop building refineries and to kill nuke plants is all gonna make it better somehow?
croc-it.. your anguish is a constant source of amusement for me. it is so.... unnecessary and poorly aimed.
lazs
-
But hope and change are on it`s way.
We`re screwed. :)
-
ahh.. but the half negro guys plan to put a buck or so tax on each gallon and to gouge the oil companies will make it all better? $7 a gallon but we will "feel" better about it? the democrats plan to stop all oil exploration and drilling and to stop building refineries and to kill nuke plants is all gonna make it better somehow?
croc-it.. your anguish is a constant source of amusement for me. it is so.... unnecessary and poorly aimed.
lazs
It has nothing to due with the amount of oil.. We have more than enough oil.
-
Yes the real reason for the high gas prices is because of the lack of refineries here in the US. This is a direct result of big oil purposely not building them
Uhh actually you are wrong.... again. Companies and individuals have tried to get refineries built but have always run into insurmountable resistance, both by politicians and locals. Please, try to have something to say that is at least close to being accurate. There are young and naive people on here that might not realize you are completely uninformed.
Global warming? Prove it.
-
crok-it.. if we have to buy most of our oil then how is it that we have "more than enough oil"?
how will adding a couple of bucks tax on a gallon of gas help the little guy at the pump?
lazs
-
Uhh actually you are wrong.... again. Companies and individuals have tried to get refineries built but have always run into insurmountable resistance, both by politicians and locals. Please, try to have something to say that is at least close to being accurate. There are young and naive people on here that might not realize you are completely uninformed.
Global warming? Prove it.
Actually no... pretty much every year the govt has asked for new refineries to be built. The problem is the govt doesn't hold their feet under the fire. There hasn't been a new on built in this country since 1976. You can't blame that on public resistance or politicians. The big oil companies are dragging their feet building in this country mainly because it's cheaper for them to build in 3rd world countries and import it.
This is a direct quote from the spokesman from the refineries association explaining their stance on the issue..
"What refining executive in their right fiscal mind would say, gee, we need to add refining capacity right now," said Drevna at the refiners' association.
source.. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm
Big oil is dragging their feet here, yet they build them else where with no issues because they don't have to pay as much for labor or taxes. So in short they are very happy to build in 3rd world countries so save a penny, then charge us even more because they have to import it. It's win win situation for them.
-
Actually no... pretty much every year the govt has asked for new refineries to be built. The problem is the govt doesn't hold their feet under the fire. There hasn't been a new on built in this country since 1976. You can't blame that on public resistance or politicians. The big oil companies are dragging their feet building in this country mainly because it's cheaper for them to build in 3rd world countries and import it.
This is a direct quote from the spokesman from the refineries association explaining their stance on the issue..
"What refining executive in their right fiscal mind would say, gee, we need to add refining capacity right now," said Drevna at the refiners' association.
source.. http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/economy/refineries/index.htm
Big oil is dragging their feet here, yet they build them else where with no issues because they don't have to pay as much for labor or taxes. So in short they are very happy to build in 3rd world countries so save a penny, then charge us even more because they have to import it. It's win win situation for them.
Big Oil is NOT building because of the freaking tree hugger laws here........save the spotted owl gang. the hurdles and hoops and penalties have made it no longer practicle to build........same issue with Big Nuke... a very safe, sane, and clean power option taken off the table by libs.
-
If it's cheaper for the oil companies to refine and ship from over seas, then what's the problem?
If the government want to build a refinery, what's stopping them?
-
crok-it.. if we have to buy most of our oil then how is it that we have "more than enough oil"?
how will adding a couple of bucks tax on a gallon of gas help the little guy at the pump?
lazs
lard... there isn't a shortage of oil right now. There is a shortage of refined product which is driving up the prices. If we had more oil pumping in this country it wouldn't change the fact that we don't have enough refineries to meet the current demand.
-
If it's cheaper for the oil companies to refine and ship from over seas, then what's the problem?
If the government want to build a refinery, what's stopping them?
Did you read?
-
Big Oil is NOT building because of the freaking tree hugger laws here........save the spotted owl gang. the hurdles and hoops and penalties have made it no longer practicle to build........same issue with Big Nuke... a very safe, sane, and clean power option taken off the table by libs.
Yes because no Republican has ever stood up to say.. no I don't want a nuclear reactor next to my million dollar house. Some of you right wingers really do fall off the deep end..
-
Did you read?
yeah, and you said this:
The big oil companies are dragging their feet building in this country mainly because it's cheaper for them to build in 3rd world countries and import it.
You said it was cheaper for them to build overseas and import it.
-
yeah, and you said this:
You said it was cheaper for them to build overseas and import it.
"cheaper" for "them" hence part of the reason they have record profits. That "cheapness" isn't carried over to us because they still limit the production to take advantage of the so called free market.
-
I should think all those acolytes of the church of Global Warming should be thrilled with higher oil prices. What better way to make people conserve? Sounds like Bush has done more for the church than Al Gore dreamed of doing.
-
I think crocket might have a good point.
All Bush has to do is make a couple of phone calls, and he can alter the entire world oil supply/demand and and set the price of oil at whatever he wants.
I wonder if Bush could call in another Katrina and really make it soar! $12 a gallon anyone?
:rolleyes:
-
today bush gave a speech, he asked for congress to allow more oil drilling in the US, ( anwar, gulf coast, ect ), and to remove some of the restraints on building new refineries.
congress makes the law, the president is only the administrator of said laws.
and crockett is just grinding his axe as he always does.
-
Actually no... pretty much every year the govt has asked for new refineries to be built. The problem is the govt doesn't hold their feet under the fire. There hasn't been a new on built in this country since 1976. You can't blame that on public resistance or politicians.
WRONG. do you have any facts or do you just drink the koolaid?
The last refinery to be completed in the United States was in 1976, and Mr. McGinnis knows all too well that community and political opposition squashed earlier projects.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227 (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227)
Before it could break ground, however, the Texas-based energy firm would need to clear a maze of regulatory and zoning hurdles, estimated to drag out over four or five years
A $3.5 billion green energy refinery similar to the one envisioned by Hyperion has been under development near Yuma, Ariz., since 1999. It took Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma nearly four years to get its main air quality permit
In addition to that, the site is now being challenged by an American Indian tribe.
Even as demand grows, industry executives say expanding or building refineries is almost impossible in California, thanks to red tape, strict environmental laws and rampant opposition
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040610/ai_n14573340 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20040610/ai_n14573340)
Please, please stop posting until you actually know what you are talking about.
-
I think crocket might have a good point.
All Bush has to do is make a couple of phone calls, and he can alter the entire world oil supply/demand and and set the price of oil at whatever he wants.
Funny, oil companies making profits that are the largest profits on record for mankind and our gas prices continue to rise. I'm not saying Bush, himself could raise a finger and help, but then again, he is the president. :aok
-
Funny, oil companies making profits that are the largest profits on record for mankind and our gas prices continue to rise. I'm not saying Bush, himself could raise a finger and help, but then again, he is the president. :aok
Isn't that why he went to Iraq? :lol
No war for oil, lol.
-
The lack of refineries, increased competition in the international market, increased demand here at home....all play a part in the upswing in prices. However, the most recent surge is due to oil speculators in the stock market.
Not much Bush can do about that.
-
oil company profits are 7.9%.
-
Funny, oil companies making profits that are the largest profits on record for mankind and our gas prices continue to rise. I'm not saying Bush, himself could raise a finger and help, but then again, he is the president. :aok
The government makes more profit per gallon off of gas than the oil companies do. Many times more.
-
Big Oil is NOT building because of the freaking tree hugger laws here........save the spotted owl gang. the hurdles and hoops and penalties have made it no longer practicle to build........same issue with Big Nuke... a very safe, sane, and clean power option taken off the table by libs.
Plain and simple, it is risky for any business to expand. The Oil companies find spending their own money on new refineries to be out of the question. If it were a small shop owner trying to build on to his shop, he wouldn't get anything but a loan. The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free and then they would reap monstrous profits from them.
-
Plain and simple, it is risky for any business to expand.
It's only risky because they may never get the proper permits to operate or may face grassroots opposition that succeeds. The business itself is quite profitable. It is only artificially created hurdles that make it risky.
I've posted several links supporting my asssertions. can you support yours where you say "The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free". Where did you get this info?
-
Wasn't there a very detailed thread a while back about the taxes being a pretty substantial fraction of the US gas prices? Taxes that were pretty superfluous?
-
Wasn't there a very detailed thread a while back about the taxes being a pretty substantial fraction of the US gas prices? Taxes that were pretty superfluous?
There has always been taxes.. but taxes didn't cause the price to raise from 1.50/gal to now over $3/gal in the last 6 years.
-
ahh.. but the half negro guys plan to put a buck or so tax on each gallon and to gouge the oil companies will make it all better? $7 a gallon but we will "feel" better about it? the democrats plan to stop all oil exploration and drilling and to stop building refineries and to kill nuke plants is all gonna make it better somehow?
croc-it.. your anguish is a constant source of amusement for me. it is so.... unnecessary and poorly aimed.
lazs
Wow, could i get thinly veiled racism with that burger? The color of someone's skin has nothing to do with this thread.
-
The lack of refineries, increased competition in the international market, increased demand here at home....all play a part in the upswing in prices. However, the most recent surge is due to oil speculators in the stock market.
Not much Bush can do about that.
Lotta the upsurge was also because of the recent border dispute in South America Between Columbia/Venezuela, with the prospect of a cut in production.
-
It's only risky because they may never get the proper permits to operate or may face grassroots opposition that succeeds. The business itself is quite profitable. It is only artificially created hurdles that make it risky.
I've posted several links supporting my asssertions. can you support yours where you say "The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free". Where did you get this info?
Gonna take a stab at this just to see:
42 gallons in a barrel of oil, if oil rises $10 a barrel, then gas should rise $10/42 or $.24 a gallon(x2 as only 21 gallons of gas can be made from a barrel of oil) so lets say $10 rise in a barrel = $.48 a gallon of gas.
When oil was $20 a barrel in January 2002 the price of gas was $1.25 a gallon. In January 2007 oil was $55 a barrel and gas was $3.15 a gallon. This should have = a rise in gas of $1.68. $1.25 + $1.68 = $2.93 Pretty close to what it should have been give or take a $.25. Look at how many gallons the US alone uses and thats a lot of $.25's that get lost here and there. Lets just say about $45,000,000,000.
The oil companies have considerable control over what you pay and they make on any given week. To give them $8,000,000,000 in tax breaks and subsidies every year is like giving the fat lady twinkies! There is no need for it.
PS I know I'm about to get slaughtered on these figures, but hey, I put some out there! :aok
-
Yes because no Republican has ever stood up to say.. no I don't want a nuclear reactor next to my million dollar house. Some of you right wingers really do fall off the deep end..
I'm an Independent who calls it like I see it.
-
It has nothing to due with the amount of oil.. We have more than enough oil.
We don't. Again, oil will be EXHAUSTED COMPLETELY within 20-30 years (depending on how soon other fuels are utilized).
-
if you don't like $4.00 a gal gas stop buying it, take the bus, and the price will drop.
of course you could always drive a itsy bitsy teeny car but then women in SUV's would laugh at you.
-
Somehow I doubt Bush actually wishes for $5 a gallon gas.
-
Lotta the upsurge was also because of the recent border dispute in South America Between Columbia/Venezuela, with the prospect of a cut in production.
Yes, I wonder if Exxon still feels that building their refineries in 3rd world countries was such a great idea, after they got nationalized there.
I bet it they likely feel the same way the Halliburton executives will feel the first time a suicide bomb goes off at their new headquarters in Dubai.
:rofl
-
if you don't like $4.00 a gal gas stop buying it, take the bus, and the price will drop.
of course you could always drive a itsy bitsy teeny car but then women in SUV's would laugh at you.
Actually for my self I could care less if it were $10/gal, I work from home and burn about a tank full of gas a month. However this effects more than just myself as anything shipped has it's price affected, so it's bad for the country in general.
-
Gonna take a stab at this just to see:
Did you have your eyes closed when you took that stab? You didn't come close to answering either one of my questions to you. Support your assertion w/ some actual data instead of something that merely sounds provocative. You said:
The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free
Back this up w/ some actual evidence or is it just conspiracy vapor?
-
Who is it that keeps us from developing our own oil supplies? BTW, just before Hillary took office she sold her stock in oil companies. That stock she used to gain a fortune on.
-
i own stock in a oil company, i guess I'm one of them "rich white guys" that control this country. :lol
-
Yep a couple guys hit it right on the head. EPA!!! I'm not sure what oil company it was built a state of the art refinery in colorado, around denver i think not sure on the location. They got so harrassed by the EPA that they said screw it and shut it down, so it sits there, fully modern and ready to go but due to the EPA and tree huggers it's not worth the time nor headaches for the oil company to run it. Most of our steel plants in the U.S. have also been driven out of business and moved overseas due to the EPA, this in turn has driven a lot of other manufacturing out as it's cheaper to go to were your materials are than pay the import fees and transportation costs. I've taken loads of CAT engine blocks from the plant in peoria il, to laredo tx, drop the trailer, and picked up the same load that i took down the week before to come back to il. All because EPA laws forced them to shutdown there heat treating plant here in illinois, which is on the same site as the engine blocks are made! So now the heat treating is all done in mexico.
-
Back this up w/ some actual evidence or is it just conspiracy vapor?
I like to pick on Exxon so I'll quote their VP, Kenneth Cohen, on what he said about Exxons reluctance to build new refineries in the US,
"building even a small refinery would require an investment of $2 billion to $3 billion. Once you've made that investment, what you're looking at is `what's the growth?' It's just like any other business,"
and on the pipeline in Canada, CEO Rex Tillerson is quoted,
"The $16.2-billion price tag for the 1,200-kilometre natural gas pipeline means that it is not viable without sizable federal aid."
I could get more quotes, but my point is proven with these two.
Exxon has been raking in $10,000,000,000 quarterly in profits for years now. PROFITS, mind you!!!!! Could have paid for both of these projects in 1/2 year. But then again, that would mean more gas production and..............lower....... ..prices. :uhoh
It is not about partisan politics, it's about being a red-blooded american who doesn't like Nation-like companies qouging them at will. :aok
-
I like to pick on Exxon so I'll quote their VP, Kenneth Cohen, on what he said about Exxons reluctance to build new refineries in the US,
"building even a small refinery would require an investment of $2 billion to $3 billion. Once you've made that investment, what you're looking at is `what's the growth?' It's just like any other business,"
and on the pipeline in Canada, CEO Rex Tillerson is quoted,
"The $16.2-billion price tag for the 1,200-kilometre natural gas pipeline means that it is not viable without sizable federal aid."
I could get more quotes, but my point is proven with these two.
Exxon has been raking in $10,000,000,000 quarterly in profits for years now. PROFITS, mind you!!!!! Could have paid for both of these projects in 1/2 year. But then again, that would mean more gas production and..............lower....... ..prices. :uhoh
It is not about partisan politics, it's about being a red-blooded american who doesn't like Nation-like companies qouging them at will. :aok
I agree with them. It's just like any other business. Why would they spend billions of dollars just so they could sell gas cheaper?
If the government wants refineries so badly, and if it's such lucrative business to build and operate refineries, how come no one else thought about opening them?
You think oil companies are going to spend billions on something they don't need, just to have higher operating costs? I bet gas would go up in price anyway because it would cost so much trying to dance around with the EPA.
-
US refinery capacity peaked in 1979 at 17.99 million barrels a day. It declined throughout the 80s and early 90s, reaching a low point of 15.03 million barrels in 1993. Since then it has risen to 17.455 mbd (2006 figure, 2007 figures not out yet)
Refinery outputs have also risen. Whilst US refineries had capacity of close to 18 mbd in 1980, they only refined 13.48 mbd. In 2006 the figure was 15.24 mbd.
Refinery capacity is not really a problem in the US. It was in 2005/06 following Katrina and safety related shut downs, but since then US gasoline prices have lagged crude prices to a great extent. US gasoline is now too cheap for the producers to make much money on. They are making their money by pumping crude out of the ground, crude that they can sell anywhere for $100 a barrel.
-
I like to pick on Exxon so I'll quote their VP, Kenneth Cohen, on what he said about Exxons reluctance to build new refineries in the US,
"building even a small refinery would require an investment of $2 billion to $3 billion. Once you've made that investment, what you're looking at is `what's the growth?' It's just like any other business,"
and on the pipeline in Canada, CEO Rex Tillerson is quoted,
"The $16.2-billion price tag for the 1,200-kilometre natural gas pipeline means that it is not viable without sizable federal aid."
I could get more quotes, but my point is proven with these two.
You haven't proven anything. You said:The big oil companies want subsidies and tax breaks so that they would get the damn things built for free
Where does it say they want refineries for free? where? Since when does a pipeline= a refinery? Now, are you full of hot air becuase you hate big, successful companies or do you actually have ANY evidence that oil companies want to build refineries for free?
-
Yes because no Republican has ever stood up to say.. no I don't want a nuclear reactor next to my million dollar house. Some of you right wingers really do fall off the deep end..
"We certainly need energy conservation, we need alternative sources of power, but we don't want it where they want to put it," said Emrich, 62, who works at a jewelry shop in the coastal town of Barnstable, whose waterfront district of Hyannis would be looking out on the installation. "Where should they put it? Somewhere out of sight. We just would hate to see these things out there."
Right now, Boston-based Cape Wind Associates wants to locate the wind farm -- America's first offshore wind-power installation -- on a shoal just off Cape Cod. The wind conditions are ideal, as is the depth of water, and the plant would be close enough to the shore to tap into the region's existing power grid.
...
Environmentalists say the $770 million wind farm -- enough to power 3 out of every 4 homes in New England's most coveted vacation region -- would be a crucial step toward clean, renewable power, without burning a single barrel of Middle Eastern oil, and at a time when scientists are issuing increasingly urgent warnings about the effects of global warming. A draft report on the project, released last week by the Army Corps of Engineers, praised it as a nonpolluting, safe alternative to fossil fuel power plants, which now dominate the Northeast.
But to many Cape Codders, concern for global warming does not justify spoiling a view -- one that also does wonders for the local tourist trade.
Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy, whose family compound in Hyannis would look out at the wind farm -- has warned that the unsightly turbines would depress property values and damage the local economy, which relies heavily on tourism. A Beacon Hill Institute study, commissioned by the opponents of the project, said 21 percent of the 98,000 jobs on Cape Cod were in tourism-related industries in 2000.
If nimby stops a wind farm, how does a refinery stand a chance anywhere?
-
Refinery capacity is not really a problem in the US.
FWIW, from what I've read, our refineries are at capacity and we are not producing enough to be self sufficient.
-
how come no one else thought about opening them?
Actually, someone has, and is trying right here in Arizona.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227 (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12227)
-
$5 a gal fuel is rolling it's way on in..
Bush and Oil co, must be real proud of them selves to manage to see the price of gas to more than double in their time in the white house. No other president has done more for big oil, I'm sure the stock holders are proud. From a average of $1.50 in 2001 when he first entered the white house, to a now record high average of over $3/gal, but just hitting $4/gal in Hawaii today. I'm sure it's on the way for the rest of us as well. Hi five!!!
I'm quite sure this president has what it takes to help big oil get us to that $5/gal barrier. Go Bush go.. you the oil man of the year.. maybe even the decade! On a side note yet again yesterday, the dollar hit a record low 1 euro = 1.56 dollar. Bush is the man to set records!
yawn...same old tired crap.
Definition of a lunatic: someone who never changes their mind AND never changes the subject.
Goodnight. :o
-
There are a lot of reasons. You have to break it out into base price and volatility. You also have to remember that until gasoline gets to a terminal rack, the last stop before a station, it is a commodity. From the time it's pumped out of the ground as crude until it arrives as unleaded at the terminal it has changed hands dozens of times, with a variety of speculation and risk management involved. An oil company can't "set" a price. It can influence a price, but any number of FTC investigations, pushed by "outraged" legislators (pandering to outraged constituents) have shown nothing but natural market practices at work. The oil industry knows that every AG and congressman with a soapbox will put it in the cross hairs at any point and has to behave fairly well and ethically.
Where base price is concerned, today's prices are actually more demand driven than previously, and more natural than previous OPEC efforts. IMO up to about $60 per bbl. China and India demand, and our shift in vehicle choices have had a notable impact that the producers have been trying to meet. . Beyond that... Speculation is playing a major role now. The GENERAL Unrest in the Middle east and Venezuela are playing a role. For Americans, the devaluation of the dollar is playing a great role and if you match graphs of WTI (West Texas Intermediate) and the value of the dollar it is uncanny. According to some, perhaps $25 per bbl. Nor have we fully recovered from Katrina.
Where volatility is concerned (major, but short price swings) particularly NOTABLE unrest in the Middle east and Venezuela spike prices as does any disruption in the distribution system. Our refining capacity is maxed out at peak periods. That is because the oil industry shut down many inefficient refineries in the 1980s at the end of deregulation and expanded capacity at newer refineries. As with any industry the goal is to have just enough capacity to meet the needs without extra. Of course, even with this efficiency returns beyond 5 percent were unusual for much of the 1990s (and many other periods in the industry) and investment financing was not as attractive as elsewhere. Refinery margins are still not all that great for the many relative hassles involved (the major integrated oil companies have shifted away from refining to some notable degree in the past decade or so). Bad decisions cost mega billions and can easily bite a refinery investor in the ass.
So now, the countries with the reserves are doing great. The oil companies are doing pretty good as the suppliers of the commodity. Refiners are doing well, but not nearly as well as E&P (exploration and production). Traders are doing well if they are smart (and stay smart). Credit card companies are doing very well off of merchant interchange fees which are percentage driven. Those who tax gasoline are doing very well. On the street, retailers make about $.07 per gallon GROSS profit and hope you go inside the C-store or use the car wash.
But, oil company profits can change overnight. Before 9/11 $20 per bbl was not that uncommon. Lets say a major recession hits. The US economy slows and unemployment rises. Fewer commuters, and more of a shift among those that do to public transportation. People switch from an 8000 lb Canyonaro to an economy car for the commute. People buy less Chinese plastic crap and other Chinese crap at the Mega-lo-Mart. The Chinese economy starts to tank and it's demand stagnates or drops. The Indian economy slows. The rest of the world economy slows. Demand drops dramatically. Oil drops easily below $50 a bbl. Opps. Suddenly any rash decisions made during the heyday bite you in the ass.
And, 1973 was no joke. The 1990s were the exception not the rule. I would say $60 bbl oil is probably a good base figure for a bit if demand stabilizes and production catches up. Like it or not, there is no magic bullet short of a massive change in US consumer behavior and a massive change in our transportation infrastructure. Alternative transportation and a lifestyle shift will have far, far more impact than alternative fuel. Ditch the big trucks for boring but sensible vehicles. Move to highly encouraged telecommuting. etc.
BTW, a lot of poster seem to be suggesting that the govt. nationalize the oil industry somehow. Well, first, we're not a notable producer, so there is not a lot you can do with these multinational oil companies who's reserves are located off our shores. Little opportunity to be a Chavez. Second, the highest prices we had up until now (adjusted for inflation) and only just matched were under govt regulation that ran through most of the 1970s into 1980. I have spoken with several nationally known consumer advocates and none of them even remotely wants things like price controls and other artificial market disrupters. We might see $7 a gallon gas if we add the brilliance of Washington onto the current situation.
BTW, "small oil" that is not making nearly as much money now downstream (refineries and below) would likely love the idea of price controls with allocation guarantees. They got so fat and happy under the previous price controls that when the industry was deregulated many couldn't handle the free market and didn't survive the transition :)
CNN has actually had some good pieces on the subject:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/economy/gas_gallon/index.htm?postversion=2008031404
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2008/03/11/dinnick.uae.oil.prices.cnn?iref=videosearch
Charon
-
$5 a gal fuel is rolling it's way on in..
Bush and Oil co, must be real proud of them selves to manage to see the price of gas to more than double in their time in the white house. No other president has done more for big oil, I'm sure the stock holders are proud. From a average of $1.50 in 2001 when he first entered the white house, to a now record high average of over $3/gal, but just hitting $4/gal in Hawaii today. I'm sure it's on the way for the rest of us as well. Hi five!!!
I'm quite sure this president has what it takes to help big oil get us to that $5/gal barrier. Go Bush go.. you the oil man of the year.. maybe even the decade! On a side note yet again yesterday, the dollar hit a record low 1 euro = 1.56 dollar. Bush is the man to set records!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080314/ap_on_bi_ge/four_dollar_gas
Just imagine what will happen with the clintons?
Oh and realize this, the only reason gas went up was because of hurricane katrina. The companies found it as a way to raise prices. After katrina, gas went up 30 cents while we were filling up. So not bush. Oh and the democrat's "solution" to help us with expensive gas is to tax them.
-
I agree with them. Why would they spend billions of dollars just so they could sell gas cheaper?
Why would any american agree with someone who is trying to rape money out of us? Do you not want gas to be cheaper if it means some company is going to make 10 billion less than 40 billion a year off of you?
Don't give a company 8 billion a year in tax incintives and subsidies that's already making 40 billion a year in profit.(profit, mind you, not costs) It's not rocket science and it's not politically motivated, just plain american!
-
You haven't proven anything. You said:
Where does it say they want refineries for free? where? Since when does a pipeline= a refinery? Now, are you full of hot air becuase you hate big, successful companies or do you actually have ANY evidence that oil companies want to build refineries for free?
Steve, don't be simple, you know whats going on here. They want BIG profits with taxpayers taking all the risks! It's evident in the quotes!
-
Steve, don't be simple, you know whats going on here. They want BIG profits with taxpayers taking all the risks! It's evident in the quotes!
Sounds like Major League Baseball... wait... Boosh has fingers in that too.
-
For those of you who think Crockett's talking to himself on the second post & just generally being an ass, he's not. It was in response to something very rude that I wrote, and thought I deleted before it was read. Obviously not though. :lol
Did you forget your coffee again??
-
FWIW, from what I've read, our refineries are at capacity and we are not producing enough to be self sufficient.
US refineries have been running at 84 - 85% of capacity in 2008. Practical maximum is about 95%, so they are some way off.
It's certainly true that the US is not refining all the crude it uses, but then again the US doesn't produce the crude. The US is a major oil importer, it makes sense to import finished product, and have the refineries located in third world countries, with third world labour rates.
The reason for high gasoline prices is the high price of oil. Indeed, US gasoline is priced too cheap at the moment.
You get 42 gallons from a barrel (it's actually more complex than that because you also produce diesel, heavy oil, lubricants, plastic feed stock etc). At 42 gallons a barrel, and $100 a barrel, a gallon costs about $2.4, without the costs of refining, transporting and selling, or taxes.
-
EPA.. more vile than the IRS ever was.. every increase in the cost of living that we all experience in the coming years will be directly attributed to the EPA.
Tax... not counting the "normal" federal and state taxes on a gallon of gas.. the sales tax right now is about 4 times MORE than the profit that the evil "big oil" makes on every gallon. Credit card companies make more in some cases than big oil on a gallon.
Democrats.. (see EPA) Every chance at becoming oil independent has been foiled by the demoncrats.. no new refineries.. no drilling in the gulf or anwar... no offshore drilling or nuke plants.. in some cases... not even any wind power.. the EPA even shut down one wind site cause it hurt the birdies.
If crok-it judges evil by how much money is being made off a gallon of gas and by who is stopping us from becoming oil independent.. who is keeping us dependent..
the finger needs to be squarely pointed at democrats...
electing the half negro guy will just make it worse.
lazs
-
i own stock in a oil company, i guess I'm one of them "rich white guys" that control this country. :lol
I own oil stock, too. I'm a "rich white guy" that works 60+ hours a week to keep two kids in school and pay all the bills. Being rich is killing me.
-
its beter than europe which you have to pay for a liter which is about half a galon and its more expensive than a galon
-
You can't bring that supply, demand, open market thing when there is no competition. When a large group of companies collude they basically operate as a monopoly
that's all i'll say on the subject
-
would opec be part of that "large group of companies" that you mention? seems to me that they have raised the price of a barrel of oil.. I believe that speculators are involved too eh? If it costs $110 a barrel how are you gonna cut the price much at the pumps? cut the evil oil companies 7 or 8% profit?
You might be better off taking away the taxes on it and allowing more refineries and exploration and building nuke plants to cut demand and increase supply?
lazs
-
Gas prices are going to be high no matter what. At least with Hillary Clinton, we will have our own oil sources (biofuel).
-
huh? how will hillary get us biofuel? How will making gas cost even more than it needs to help the average person?
lazs
-
Democrats.. (see EPA) Every chance at becoming oil independent has been foiled by the demoncrats.. no new refineries..
lazs
This is a lie. Complete and total lie. Exxon, was quoted as saying they could build small refineries for under $3 billion dollars. They have profited $10 billion every 1/4 for years now. They just don't want to spend their profits on something that will help the average consumer at the cost of their record breaking profits. They could build a small refinery every 1/4 and still profit $7 billion in that same 1/4. It's like a multi-billionaire squeaking about paying $20million in taxes.
And before you start calling me a Commie, let me tell you how I feel about it. I love the free market system, but I also believe that greed corrupts. Simply put, we all are in this thing together, whether we like each other or not. That goes for the sack of poo's that milk the system form the bottom(welfare) and the sack of poo's that milk it from the top(Exxon). :aok
-
This is a lie. Complete and total lie. Exxon, was quoted as saying they could build small refineries for under $3 billion dollars. They have profited $10 billion every 1/4 for years now. They just don't want to spend their profits on something that will help the average consumer at the cost of their record breaking profits. They could build a small refinery every 1/4 and still profit $7 billion in that same 1/4. It's like a multi-billionaire sweetieing about paying $20million in taxes.
SkyRock, if the oil companies are making such huge profits, why do they need to build refineries? Seems they are managing their business very well to me.
As far as I am concerned, they should be allowed to spend their profits however they like.
-
As far as I am concerned, they should be allowed to spend their profits however they like.
I am all for that as well, Nuke. It is the american way, except for the deliberate gouging we suffer from them at their will(which, by the way is illegal, yet for some reason they balk at that law). For a business to (demand) tax breaks of 3-8 billion a year, and raking in profits of 40 billion a year to refuse to invest 3 billion for the sake of the people they are making their killing off of, is a little overwhelming to me. If they had a few more refineries, then the (excuse) of supply and demand would not be arguable as much when they shove a $.25 a gallon hike down our throats(by the way thats $45trillion made for a $.25 rise) for no apparent reason.(Hezbola bombed a pizzaria..........gas just went up)
This is not about republicans and democrats, its about american taxpayers. We are dependant on their product to the point where we must be vigillant of how they treat our business dealings with them. We've been through this before in our nations history where a company with overwhelming power, strangles our people with monopolistic control, .........."For the safety of the Republic we (U.S. Supreme Court) now decree that the dangerous conspiracy must be ended by Nov. 15, 1911 ". Im all for the free market system, but oil is a different story and should be watched like a hawk!
-
If they had a few more refineries, then the (excuse) of supply and demand would not be arguable as much when they shove a $.25 a gallon hike down our throats
Where are they going to get the oil from to refine?
How are they going to get it at less than the market rate (currently $110 a barrel)?
Why should they spend money refining it and shipping it to the consumer then sell it for less than they could sell the crude on the international markets?
Gasoline costs a lot because it's made from oil. Nothing to do with refineries, nothing to do with "big oil" "gouging". About the only people who are "gouging" are the Saudis, who could (probably) raise production, but won't. Even then, oil isn't going to be cheap.
-
Why would any american agree with someone who is trying to rape money out of us? Do you not want gas to be cheaper if it means some company is going to make 10 billion less than 40 billion a year off of you?
Don't give a company 8 billion a year in tax incintives and subsidies that's already making 40 billion a year in profit.(profit, mind you, not costs) It's not rocket science and it's not politically motivated, just plain american!
Gas prices and subsidies are two separate issues. Personally, I'm not a big fan of subsidies to any industry, and I've seen research that suggests even if well intended the subsidy usually fails to produce the desired results. Of course, taking the subsidies away from the oil industry under current plans that I'm aware of will not redirect that money into the bank, so to speak. The proposals that I've seen would simply redirect that money into other industrial sectors that are move favored by the Democrats like agribusiness.
BTW, exactly who is trying to "rape" the money, and how would you fix the problem and still have a free market system, particularly since the entities involved range from foreign counties with state oil companies, to multinational oil companies (BP and Shell not even headquartered in the US) to the OPEC cartel to independent refiners and terminal operators, to any number of trading entities? As I have pointed out, the oil companies do not set a price. They can potentially manipulate that price, but at least two FTC investigations in the 2000's have found no wrong doing, and I can assure you the oversight on these investigations was certainly there.
The reality, though it is one many do not want to hear, is that we are responsible for our own pain. 1973 wasn't the exception, it was the rule for our country's energy future. The late 1980s to 1990s were an exception that geopolitical changes and our move away from efficient cars to "commuter trucks" have only exasperated. There are solutions, but they don't typically involve SUVs or 300+ hp sedans as daily commuter cars, unless you want to pay for that luxury. Just like most of the 1970s and 1980s for those of you too young to remember reality. We'll likely only see 1990s prices again if something really bad happens. But, $2 per gallon gas is not that unrealistic, perhaps.
For those old enough, here's a blast from the past:
Muscle Cars -- weren't any
The Mustang II was built based on the smaller Pinto platform. In 1974 the engine selection was limited to either a 2.3L four cylinder or a 2.8L 105 horsepower V6, from Ford of Germany. This was the only year a V8 engine was not available in a Mustang and it was also the first year no convertible was available. From 1975 through 1978 the Mustang II did offer a 302 2bbl V8, but as with all engines of the time, it was low on power with only 122 to 140 horsepower, depending on the year and whether it was 49-state or a California car.
And the Pony wasn't the only one. Eventually by the Mid 1980s there were a few hotter economy type platforms that could pull 0-60 in the 9 second range that were considered to be "hot rods." It wasn't until probably the mid 1990s that you saw any number of sedans with any real power at all.
Speedometers -- I can drive 85!
In the early '80s, GM removed the 120 mph speedometer from some of its full-size, V-8-powered — and therefore lowest-mileage cars — and replaced them with speedometers that went up to only 85 mph. The idea was to show that the automaker was more concerned with how far, rather than how fast, cars would go on a gallon of fuel.
Govt. Intervention -- it works so well.
US Oil Price Controls - Bad Policy?
The rapid increase in crude prices from 1973 to 1981 would have been much less were it not for United States energy policy during the post Embargo period. The US imposed price controls on domestically produced oil in an attempt to lessen the impact of the 1973-74 price increase. The obvious result of the price controls was that U.S. consumers of crude oil paid about 50 percent more for imports than domestic production and U.S producers received less than world market price. In effect, the domestic petroleum industry was subsidizing the U.s. consumer.
Did the policy achieve its goal? In the short term, the recession induced by the 1973-1974 crude oil price rise was less because U.S. consumers faced lower prices than the rest of the world. However, it had other effects as well.
In the absence of price controls U.S. exploration and production would certainly have been significantly greater. Higher petroleum prices faced by consumers would have resulted in lower rates of consumption: automobiles would have had higher miles per gallon sooner, homes and commercial buildings would have been better insulated and improvements in industrial energy efficiency would have been greater than they were during this period. As a consequence, the United States would have been less dependent on imports in 1979-1980 and the price increase in response to Iranian and Iraqi supply interruptions would have been significantly less.
http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
An oil glut and the free market (where's the love when our profits are down?) From Time, 1987 when oil prices were plummeting. A very insightful piece that shows how the oil glut of this period led to dangerous changes in consumer behavior and a lack of investment capital in the oil industry.
Whenever the moment of truth arrives, it would seem, the beleaguered U.S. petroleum industry will be in no position to respond to a resurgent OPEC. Fully 75% of all U.S. drilling rigs now stand idle. A total of 806 rigs are currently operating in the U.S., down from 4,530 in 1981. The oil is there for the taking, of course, but it is simply too expensive to get out of the ground. While Middle East producers can find and lift a new barrel of oil for about $1, U.S. companies spend an average of more than $17.
Investment in exploration has fallen dramatically. Last year oil firms spent an estimated $16 billion in exploration and production, down from $33 billion in 1985. Says L. Frank Pitts, head of Dallas-based Pitts Oil: "Our industry is being dismantled at a rapid rate."
That is a trend that may not be easily reversed. Rigs are being taken apart and sold for scrap. Stripper wells, which produce less than 10 bbl. of oil a day, are getting plugged up. Once a stripper well is closed, it becomes as expensive to reopen as it is to drill a new well. Petroleum engineers are abandoning the industry, and college graduates are avoiding careers in oil. Meanwhile, alternative sources of energy, such as solar heating and synfuels, are not being developed rapidly because of their high cost....
The national debate over how the U.S. can best stave off a future energy crisis is just beginning. Peter Beutel, an analyst with Elders Futures, a major Wall Street oil-trading firm, believes that despite America's current infatuation with cheap oil, most people can readily recall what it means to suffer through an energy shortage. Says Beutel: "We were caught napping twice. We would have to be extraordinarily foolish to fall into the same trap again." Maybe so. This much is certain: the oil shocks of the 1970s came as a complete surprise. The next one will not.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,963770-1,00.html
Doh!
Charon
-
its beter than europe which you have to pay for a liter which is about half a galon and its more expensive than a galon
How many 20MPG cars do you think get sold every year in Europe?
-
How many 20MPG cars do you think get sold every year in Europe?
Different culture, and different regulations.
Trying to force us into better fuel economy cars like they are doing with this fake oil crisis is what pisses me off.
My wife and I figured that even if gas gets to $10/gallon, we can still afford to drive the way we do. Thats only because we aren't like 90% of Americans that are neck deep in credit card debt. If current plans hold, we will be house payment free as well in six years. Then, we can probably afford $20/gallon gas, and the associated costs of rising goods prices.
-
Yes the real reason for the high gas prices is because of the lack of refineries here in the US. This is a direct result of big oil purposely not building them to add in the needed capacity, simply because it means more profits for them as they can just charge more for their product, by exploiting the free market. That relates back to the govt, because we continue to give big oil millions in tax subsidies while they continue to screw us over. It's up to the leader of our country and the govt whom backs him to put a stop to that and put them in check. Yet to this day Bush doesn't stand tuff for the nation he just goes along with what ever big oil wants. Like nothing more than a Yes Man..
Hence Bush has dropped the ball in regards to that, is it entirely his fault? No but it's fun to get the O club in a hussy fit by saying so. However he is partly to blame because of his, for the most part "non" action. This admin tries to put the blame on OPEC rather than where it really should be put, right here in the US with big Oil. So yes he can be blamed for continuing to give big oil tax breaks and other subsidies while they continue to screw over the American people.
Are you insane?
From your post I gather that you are implying that Bush and the Gov are the ones not allowing new refineries to be built.
The oil companies WANT to build refineries but it's the environmentalists that stop that from happening.
It has absolutely nothing to do with Bush and the Gov.
-
I do agree with the fact there are many multiples involved, but I expect to get screwed from the saudi's, but am not willing to like getting screwed from Exxon. :aok
-
but am not willing to like getting screwed from Exxon.
You're not. There have been a number of investigations that confirm that fact. These same all powerful oil companies that somehow couldn't use their influence to get out from under $10 bbl oil in the late 1980s that made the oil industry a very ho hum investment proposition and proft taker. Market forces are a [female dog]. If there are real gougers today, they sit in front of screens and make bets on commodity price shifts and use some of the less transparent foreign exchanges.
I know you don't want to hear that. Most Americans don't. Like the guy interviewed during the immediate aftermath of Katrina. A reporter for some Midwest paper interviewed him at the gas pump and he was pissed. He was half way through a cross country trip to drop his daughter off at college in his hummer, and was absolutely outraged at the cost to fill the tank in his 12 mpg highway vehicle. A vehicle he chose to take on a multi thousand mile trip. Again, the late 1980s and 1990s were the exception, not the rule. And with globalization that is even more firmly established.
Charon
-
I am all for that as well, Nuke. It is the american way, except for the deliberate gouging we suffer from them at their will(which, by the way is illegal, yet for some reason they balk at that law).
Their profit margins are lower than any retail outlet. I had better see you start a thread that complains about the price gouging at The Gap. Otherwise you are just drinking more koolaid.
-
charon is right about the 70's except for the muscle car thing.. what really did em in was the bizzare and useless smog laws of the time... what they did was make it so that a car that made 400 real hp and got 13 mpg now made 120 real hp and got 12 mpg. that did not make for an attractive muscle car environment.
It is fun to drive my hot rods that get 8-14mpg and do 12 sec quarter miles.. it is fun to ride my BMW bike that gets almost 50mpg.. I don't care about the cost of gas when I use them. I would rather drive a 12 mpg car less than to not have it when I wanted to enjoy it.l
Raising the price of gas artificially by giving it to the government it not only a waste but a step backwards.. they will not only waste the money but use it to come up with programs that compound the waste..
better to just pay $4 at the pump and then run $2 a gallon through a shredder than give it to the government to use to control us.
lazs
-
Their profit margins are lower than any retail outlet. I had better see you start a thread that complains about the price gouging at The Gap. Otherwise you are just drinking more koolaid.
Oil is different and you know it. They have us by the seat of the pants.
-
Oil is different and you know it. They have us by the seat of the pants.
oil is different in that it is a commodity that we must have. Who's fault is this?
-
i'm going to say it again, if you think the price of gas is too high stop buying it (or buy less), the price will then come down.