Oil Companies continue to fleece Americans

[oregonpackfan]

Today, representatives of the five largest oil companies were grilled by Congress over the $123 billion in profits they made in 2007. While average Americans struggle to make ends meet with rising gas prices of near $3.40 per gallon and $4 for diesel, the oil companies continue to reap in record profits every year.

What is particularly maddening is the fact the US gave over 18 billion dollars in tax breaks to these same oil companies.

http://finance.comcast.net/www/news.html?x=http://absorigins.comcast.net/data/news/2008/04/01/926621.xml

[HarveyWallbangers]

I love fuzzy math.

We should all push harder for biofuels.
:shock:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html


The best place to see this is America's biofuel mecca: Iowa. Last year fewer than 2% of U.S. gas stations offered ethanol, and the country produced 7 billion gal. (26.5 billion L) of biofuel, which cost taxpayers at least $8 billion in subsidies.

All to make global warming even worse.

[LL2]

I think it's a joke that Congress grilled the execs from the oil companies. Sure the high prices of gas is a big issue for most Americans, and that is why they did it. It makes the Congress men and women look good in front of their constituents, but you don't see other companies being grilled for being profitable. Isn't that the purpose of business? To make as much money as possible?

[Kiwon]

$18 Billion dollars in tax breaks over 10 years - $1.8 Billion a year.

How much money does Congress waste in one week?

How much of that price at the pump is local, state, and federal taxes?

Edward Markey from Taxachusetts is a socialist. He's anti-business through and through.

Oil companies make money, they lose money. They spend billions on R and D, exploration, on and on. I guess Ed Markey wants these private businesses and their shareholders to risk their own capital in doing the R and D and then subsidize the American consumer at the final stage by undercharging at the pump. Isn't that fair?

No, it's not. In 2006, Exxon Mobil paid $27.9 Billion in Federal Taxes. They retained $39.5 Billion in after tax income. That's a 41% tax rate.

In 2004, the bottom half of 130 million tax returns paid $27.4 Billion in Federal Taxes on an adjusted income of $922 Billion. That's a tax rate of 2.7%.

In 2007 alone, Exxon will over $30 Billion in Federal Taxes. One company is paying more in taxes at a much higher rate than 50% of all taxpayers. And, of course, a sizeable percentage of those taxes is YOUR MONEY that the government requires them to collect from you.

Much of the oil profits will be plugged back into R and D. Some of it will go to reward the shareholders and the company execs and employees. That's the way profitable businesses work.

Oil companies are making record profit as the Chinese and Indian economies (2 countries accounting for 40% of humanity) are developing and driving up the cost of oil. That's reality. Deal with it.

The government won't allow the oil companies to drill off the coasts and in Alaska, they can't build new refineries, they force them to make dozens and dozens of fuel blends, they add all kinds of taxes to the bottom line to fund their spending programs and then they want to complain over high prices and record profits during a time of unprecedented demand?

This is a Stalinist show trial by the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Oh boy, I love that title. Congress is going to solve "Global Warming." I wonder how much that is going to cost everyone in new taxes?

[Partial]

Excellent posts by Kiwon and LL2

[Zool]

Congress is going to solve "Global Warming." I wonder how much that is going to cost everyone in new taxes?

I assume about 2.7%

[The Leaper]

Today, representatives of the five largest oil companies were grilled by Congress over the $123 billion in profits they made in 2007. While average Americans struggle to make ends meet with rising gas prices of near $3.40 per gallon and $4 for diesel, the oil companies continue to reap in record profits every year.

News to OPF:

The government (feds and state) make far more off your gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.

Congress is filled with hypocrites and dumbasses. Follow them at your own peril.

[Scott Campbell]

I guess this carefully orchestrated spectacle was newsy, but it really doesn't do anything to address the cause of the problem.

[Deputy Nutz]

Today, representatives of the five largest oil companies were grilled by Congress over the $123 billion in profits they made in 2007. While average Americans struggle to make ends meet with rising gas prices of near $3.40 per gallon and $4 for diesel, the oil companies continue to reap in record profits every year.

News to OPF:

The government (feds and state) make far more off your gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.

Congress is filled with hypocrites and dumbasses. Follow them at your own peril.

well I don't know if "Big Oil" makes more than the governement, but I do know that the actual fueling stations make far and away less per gallon on gas than the federal and state governments. Fueling stations sadly only make pennies per gallon of fuel.

[Partial]

Today, representatives of the five largest oil companies were grilled by Congress over the $123 billion in profits they made in 2007. While average Americans struggle to make ends meet with rising gas prices of near $3.40 per gallon and $4 for diesel, the oil companies continue to reap in record profits every year.

News to OPF:

The government (feds and state) make far more off your gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.

Congress is filled with hypocrites and dumbasses. Follow them at your own peril.

well I don't know if "Big Oil" makes more than the governement, but I do know that the actual fueling stations make far and away less per gallon on gas than the federal and state governments. Fueling stations sadly only make pennies per gallon of fuel.

It's really dumb the way our government works. Why tax the hell out of gas? It's such bullshit and just another thing the government should mind its business about. These companies are getting taxed to high hell (imagine if they weren't in Texas and were paying an additional 5-10% on state income tax), the consumer is being taxed to high hell on gas, and the middle man is getting a raw deal as well. WTF is with it? Personally, I don't see a need to tax these businesses or the consumers on gas at all. It's just more dollars turned into pennies by Washington.

[oregonpackfan]

Perhaps Americans should be asking if allowing oil companies to serve their own financial interests at the expense of American citizens is in the best long term interests of the country.

In addition, giving oil companies billions of dollars to research alternative sources of energy is like giving money to Subway to explore the possibility of opening up a Deli sandwich shop down the street. It is also like paying the fox to build an alternative hen house.

[Freak Out]

Today, representatives of the five largest oil companies were grilled by Congress over the $123 billion in profits they made in 2007. While average Americans struggle to make ends meet with rising gas prices of near $3.40 per gallon and $4 for diesel, the oil companies continue to reap in record profits every year.

News to OPF:

The government (feds and state) make far more off your gallon of gasoline than Big Oil does.

Congress is filled with hypocrites and dumbasses. Follow them at your own peril.

well I don't know if "Big Oil" makes more than the governement, but I do know that the actual fueling stations make far and away less per gallon on gas than the federal and state governments. Fueling stations sadly only make pennies per gallon of fuel.

It's really dumb the way our government works. Why tax the hell out of gas? It's such bullshit and just another thing the government should mind its business about. These companies are getting taxed to high hell (imagine if they weren't in Texas and were paying an additional 5-10% on state income tax), the consumer is being taxed to high hell on gas, and the middle man is getting a raw deal as well. WTF is with it? Personally, I don't see a need to tax these businesses or the consumers on gas at all. It's just more dollars turned into pennies by Washington.

So you don't know what the purpose of the gas tax is in this country?

[Freak Out]

The tax breaks are a fucking joke ATM.....they were put in place when oil was $10 a barrel and we needed to give some sort of incentive to explore and produce oil domestically. We just changed the tax structure here under oil company protests and warnings and still set records at lease sales in some of the toughest places to drill in the world.

[packinpatland]

I heard yesterday that one CEO's payout equated to something like $140,000 A DAY!
:shock:

[The Leaper]

In addition, giving oil companies billions of dollars to research alternative sources of energy is like giving money to Subway to explore the possibility of opening up a Deli sandwich shop down the street. It is also like paying the fox to build an alternative hen house.

Not entirely.

Oil companies are well aware that they are dealing with a substance that is limited in quantity. As time goes on, oil is going to become less and less of an affordable resource.

Oil companies also are not in charge of the Middle East...and recognize that volatility there threatens their own livelihood if they have no stake in alternative energy.

Oil companies have the greatest resources and experience when it comes to developing energy-related technologies. I really don't see who would be better at accomplishing what we need. The key is giving the oil companies INCENTIVES for investing in alternative energies, because there is some truth in what you suggest. Perhaps switch their tax credits to be based on their progress in alternative fuel R&D? However, to suggest that oil companies should not be involved in the process seems counterproductive considering the talents working for those companies and the massive amounts of money they can throw toward something if motivated.

[The Leaper]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

[Zool]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

But the coffee has steamed fluffy milk in it?

[Harlan Huckleby]

And I think the barista likes me.

[Zool]

And I think the barista likes me.

I think he does too.

[Harlan Huckleby]

i was waiting to see who would take the cheap shot. i thought for sure it would be madtown. guess he has attracted many of his own kind to the site.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

While I do agree that coffee is overpriced, this is a stupid comparison.

This country runs on gas..and, we really don't have alternative.

With coffee..i can choose another beverage, can make it at home, brew it at work, etc.

Let me know when i can purchase my own oil/gas maker.

[The Leaper]

While I do agree that coffee is overpriced, this is a stupid comparison.

Well, I was more making the comparison simply in terms of profitability, which is where most people seem to have this outrage.

I agree the general comparison in terms of the economy as a whole is lame.

[hoosier]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

While I do agree that coffee is overpriced, this is a stupid comparison.

This country runs on gas..and, we really don't have alternative.

With coffee..i can choose another beverage, can make it at home, brew it at work, etc.

Let me know when i can purchase my own oil/gas maker.

Here you go. Just attach hose and stand back.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200710/r190833_717779.jpg

[Partial]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

That's just flushing money down the fucking toilet. Anybody that pays anywhere near this is a joker and a dumbass.

[Partial]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

While I do agree that coffee is overpriced, this is a stupid comparison.

This country runs on gas..and, we really don't have alternative.

With coffee..i can choose another beverage, can make it at home, brew it at work, etc.

Let me know when i can purchase my own oil/gas maker.

Whatever happened to that activity called walking? Or hell, maybe riding a bike...

There are alternatives certainly. Hell, you could spend some of that phat bank you're making on some land, harvest some corn, and make your own biodiesel!

[Partial]

So you don't know what the purpose of the gas tax is in this country?

I see why they do it, I just don't agree with it. Too much government interfering with the free market.

[the_idle_threat]

OK, so we remove tax breaks for oil companies, effectively raising their costs.

That's gonna make gas cheaper for everybody at the pump? Riiiiiiiiight ...

Whether or not tax breaks are a good idea, this really doesn't seem like a solution to the problem.

[Partial]

OK, so we remove tax breaks for oil companies, effectively raising their costs.

That's gonna make gas cheaper for everybody at the pump? Riiiiiiiiight ...

Whether or not tax breaks are a good idea, this really doesn't seem like a solution to the problem.

Right, part of the big problem is passing the price for everything onto consumers...

Let me rephrase...

The oil companies are taxed to high hell on their profits.

The consumers are taxed to high hell on their purchase.

The middle man sees few pennies per gallon for his service.

What is wrong with this system? Everyone involved gets screwed but the government. And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process? In my opinion, they're the ones mucking it up.

My solution: Cut taxes on the oil companies, and cut taxes on the consumers. Savings are passed on to those who deserve it instead of the government. People then have more money in their pocket to go and spend on goods to stimulate the economy, and give the government tax dollars through sales tax means.

[Scott Campbell]

And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process?


Well, roads for one thing.

[Deputy Nutz]

BTW

Where is the outrage over paying $4 for a cup of coffee?

While I do agree that coffee is overpriced, this is a stupid comparison.

This country runs on gas..and, we really don't have alternative.

With coffee..i can choose another beverage, can make it at home, brew it at work, etc.

Let me know when i can purchase my own oil/gas maker.

Whatever happened to that activity called walking? Or hell, maybe riding a bike...

There are alternatives certainly. Hell, you could spend some of that phat bank you're making on some land, harvest some corn, and make your own biodiesel!

I wished that more cities in the USA had a viable and reliable transportation system. If you live in Waukesha and have a job in Milwaukee are you going to ride your bike to work? Are you even going to attempt to ride a bus? Most of the time depending on where you live you gotta drive 10 minutes or more to a bus stop that is going to have a bus going to Milwaukee. then what? Catch a cab?

Compared to other countries our PT sucks ass. We are completely dependent on fuel and personal automobiles.

[Freak Out]

So you don't know what the purpose of the gas tax is in this country?

I see why they do it, I just don't agree with it. Too much government interfering with the free market.

No you don't.

[Partial]

Compared to other countries our PT sucks ass. We are completely dependent on fuel and personal automobiles.

Agreed, but if you look at cities in other countries, they tend to be smaller, with more people centralized and more ma and pop type stuff. We're far too spread out for public transportation. I use it, and its great, but the buses are going non-stop all day and 3/4 of the time there is one person on it or less.

[Partial]

And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process?


Well, roads for one thing.

OK, and that can't come out of the trillion other tax dollars? Gas has ridiculous tariffs on it because its essential. If you were paying twice the price you should be for your clothing or food would you think its ok?

[3irty1]

And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process?


Well, roads for one thing.

OK, and that can't come out of the trillion other tax dollars? Gas has ridiculous tariffs on it because its essential. If you were paying twice the price you should be for your clothing or food would you think its ok?

I've noticed that you excel at this type of speculation. The taxing system and government budget are created by experts. Its outrageous to make claims that they should tax less as if it were just that easy.

That's like me going up to an intersection and bitching about the red light. Some engineer set the timing on that light, took into account all the other intersections around it and calculated how to make the whole system work.

Sure we all bitch about gas prices and red lights but to say how other people should do their job while knowing nothing is pretty retarded.

[Partial]

That's not what I am saying at all. Gas is taxed like crazy. Think stamp act crazy. Yet I don't see a Boston Tea Party. All the companies are based in Texas for a reason. No state income tax. They charge very high prices for a reason. To make money. Why do they need so much revenue to make money? Because half of their income is going to the tax man. Then, you've got double 12% social security for the business on earnings. It's ridiculous. Not only is the consumer paying almost 20 cents a gallon to the federal government, they're paying another 40+ to the state. At 3 dollars a gallon that is 15% taxation to the consumer, and what about all the taxes on the crude oil, the importing, the taxes on the profit of the business, etc. Dumb dumb dumb.

You know first hand that I'm a pretty liberal son of a bitch who just runs his mouth for fun on here, but when it comes to punishing businesses I'm 110% against that. It is a regressive way of doing things.

It's just ass backwards to me that the person who gets screwed the most is the business owner providing the gas to the public. They see very little profit, and any chance they have of giving themselves a few more customers is nullified with Wisconsin's minimum mark-up laws.

I don't blame the oil companies for having record profits. The population is growing, we're becoming more of a selfish nation where every man, women and child needs an automobile. It makes sense. What is ridiculous is how the government tries to make the provider of many jobs pay way more than their fair share, while also making the consumer pay a hefty tax in addition to forcing the prices higher for the consumer.

[MJZiggy]

And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process?


Well, roads for one thing.

OK, and that can't come out of the trillion other tax dollars? Gas has ridiculous tariffs on it because its essential. If you were paying twice the price you should be for your clothing or food would you think its ok?

Nah, that money's going to fund the war. By the way, you might want to find out what they're paying for their cheap gas in Europe while you're at it...

[Freak Out]

There Is No Gas Shortage
But Washington, Wall Street, and ethanol and oil and gas companies want you to think there is, says automotive expert Ed Wallace

by Ed Wallace

"They see speculation in the market, I see decline in global inventories. I don't think this is a big surprise, that we've had a jump in price when there has been a decrease in crude inventories."— Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, Bloomberg News, Mar. 5, 2008

"It should be obvious to you all that the [gasoline] demand is outstripping supply, which causes prices to go up." — President George W. Bush, Associated Press, Mar. 5, 2008

One wonders if verifiable facts ever get in the way of this administration's statements on issues that are critical to the average American's wellbeing. After all, last time I checked, when politicians are elected to public office, or appointed, as is Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman, they must take an oath to the American people before assuming their new positions. How can they forget a sacred oath so quickly? Were they daydreaming when they took it, so it never meant anything to begin with? Maybe it's just another promise you have to make to get into office: When you're securely incumbent you can ignore even solemn oaths you took.

Obviously, the two quotes that led this article came from discussions concerning the current high price for oil on the futures market. Bodman appears to be protecting the speculators in oil, as opposed to looking after the interests of all Americans. President Bush, apparently, has never talked to the Energy Dept.'s Energy Information Agency to see whether gasoline demand is actually up. More troubling, the writer of that particular Associated Press article obviously didn't look up the EIA's numbers to verify the President's assertions. They weren't accurate.

1. There Is No Shortage

Gasoline reserves on hand are at the highest levels since the early 1990s, which is remarkable considering the nation's refineries have been cutting back on the production of gasoline because their margins have declined. In fact, average gasoline reserves on hand have risen since this past October, while oil reserves in this country have gone up virtually every week this year—and only fog in the Houston Ship Channel that kept oil tankers from unloading their crude one week kept it from being every week.

In the same Bloomberg article that quotes from Bodman's CNBC appearance on Mar. 4, he also said that it was thanks to ethanol that the gasoline problem isn't even worse. He then added that the fact that making ethanol is forcing up prices of other farm commodities, including hog and chicken feed, is "nowhere near as important as trying to relieve pressure on [gasoline] supplies."

Of course, there is no pressure on gasoline supplies in this country as of today, but Bodman's statement must have made eyes roll among the executives at Pilgrim's Pride PPC; the Pittsburg, (Tex.) poultry producer announced 1,100 layoffs on Mar. 13, closing one processing plant and 6 of their 13 distribution centers because their company's outlay for chicken feed went up $600 million last fiscal year and was on track to increase by another $700 million this year.

Here's the scorecard, in case you missed it. There's no shortage of gasoline or oil in the U.S. today, and we have near-record reserves on hand. Meanwhile the Congressional mandate for ethanol has jacked up the price of chicken feed for Pilgrim's Pride, which is the U.S.'s largest processor of chickens and turkeys—by $1.3 billion. And that's for just one company processing chicken. This is what passes for acceptable to our Energy Secretary?

2. Demand Is DOWN, Yet Prices Are UP

Just so we can all get on the same page, here are the verifiable facts on oil supplies, production, and gasoline demand.

In January of this year, the U.S. used 4% less petroleum than we did a year ago. (Oil demand was down 3.2% in February.) Furthermore, demand has been falling slowly since July of last year. Ronald Bailey of Reason Online has pointed out that worldwide production of oil has risen 2.5% in the first quarter, while worldwide demand has grown by only 2%. Production is expected to increase by 3.3% in the second quarter, and by as much as 4.1% by the third quarter. The net result is that the U.S. daily buffer for oil production against demand, which was a paltry 1.5 million barrels as recently as 2005, is now up to 3 million barrels in excess capacity today.

So what is going on here? Why would our Energy Secretary say there's a supply and demand problem when none exists? Why would he say that speculators have little or nothing to do with the incredibly high price of oil and gasoline, when it's clear they do? President Bush—a former oilman—gives the ever-growing demand for gasoline as the primary reason prices are so high, yet that notion can be dispelled with one minute of research. That's the problem with rhetoric; it rarely matches the facts.

3. Speculation is Up, and the Dollar Is Down

On the same day the President and our Energy Secretary made those foolish comments, no less an authority than ExxonMobil (XOM) Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson was quoted by Marketwatch as saying, "The record run in oil prices is related more to speculation and a weakening dollar than supply and demand in the market." He added, "In terms of fundamentals, fear of supply reliability is overblown."

As for the speculators, in 2000 approximately $9 billion was invested in oil futures, while today that number has gone up to $250 billion. Now, if any publicly traded company had an additional $241 billion put into its stock in the same period, its stock would rise out of sight too—even if the company was not worth anywhere near that amount of market capitalization.

Moving on to the weak U.S. dollar as a primary cause for skyrocketing oil prices—there is "some" truth in that statement. But consider this: The dollar has depreciated 30% against the world's currencies since 2002, while the price of oil has gone up 500%. So is it the weak dollar that has caused a 500% increase in the price of oil, or is it the extra $241 billion worth of speculation? You can make the call on that one.

Possibly just to ensure oil prices don't respond to real-world market conditions, Goldman Sachs (GS) forecast on Mar. 7 that turbulence in the oil market could cause oil to spike as high as $200 a barrel. This flies in the face of all known information—but then again, Goldman Sachs is the world's biggest trader of energy derivatives, and its Goldman Sachs Commodities Index is a widely watched barometer of energy and commodities prices.

What Is Washington Thinking?

Rounding out the list of experts discussing our oil and gasoline situation is Bill Klesse, head of San Antonio (Tex.) Valero Energy (VLO). He spoke in San Diego a week after those comments from Goldman Sachs, the President, and Secretary Bodman. Believe it or not, Klesse said poor margins may cause Valero to sell one-third of its refinery operations; he stated that poor margins in recent months had caused planned refinery expansions—which would have produced 500,000 more barrels per day—to be canceled. Moreover, according to a report from Reuters on Mar. 11, 2008, Klesse recently released the information that gasoline production has been curtailed in response to slowing demand.

Imagine that: Refiners cut gasoline production, yet gasoline reserves have grown to their largest since late 1992. So much for "surging demand."

Klesse also called for the government to start imposing a tariff on imported gasoline to protect U.S. refiners' profits. Protectionism? As famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith correctly said, "In America, the only respectable form of socialism is socialism for the rich."

Which takes us back to the original question: Why is Washington doing everything it can to convince us there is a shortage when there isn't one? After all, the only people they're protecting are those heavily invested in oil futures—and that's to the detriment of all other Americans.

We're Paying for What?

When it became undeniable that poor decision-making by company executives had put a respected 85-year-old U.S. institution in financial peril, why did the Federal Reserve rush in to save investment bank Bear Stearns (BSC)? Of course, we need to restore confidence in our financial institutions, but why protect the personal assets of those who were responsible for the mess? Both the corporation's officers and its board members should contribute their personal assets toward saving the bank they put in the ditch—the bank all of us are going to pay to bail out.

Instead, the Bush administration is protecting those responsible for creating yet another speculative bubble in oil futures, and is protecting investors in the ethanol industry—much to the detriment of food-processing companies such as Pilgrim's Pride. And the net result of all this is that the prices of crude and gasoline rise ever higher thanks to a "shortage" that does not exist, while food costs are soaring thanks in part to the ethanol mandate.

The Federal Reserve lowers interest rates, but the cost of mortgages goes up six weeks in a row—and last month Bank of America (BAC) credit-card holders started being charged more than 24% interest on new purchases.

This is what they call "Republican Prosperity?" Ronald Reagan was both right and wrong when he said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem." And government is still the problem. Instead of a fair and open market they gave us a free-for-all marketplace with no regulations at all, which lately these "bubble boys" have sent south for all of us.

One would guess that Washington missed the obvious: Protect all U.S. consumers and you're also protecting business expansion.

Ed Wallace holds a Gerald R. Loeb Award for business journalism, bestowed by the Anderson School of Business at UCLA. His column heads the Sunday Drive section of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and he is a member of the American Historical Society. The automotive expert for KDFW Fox 4 in Dallas, Wallace hosts the top-rated talk show Wheels, Saturdays from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on 570 KLIF AM in Dallas.

[Little Whiskey]

"17% of all Statistics are made up on the spot"

[Scott Campbell]

And why should the government get a cut at all? What are they providing in the process?


Well, roads for one thing.

OK, and that can't come out of the trillion other tax dollars? Gas has ridiculous tariffs on it because its essential. If you were paying twice the price you should be for your clothing or food would you think its ok?


It's a use tax P. The people using the roads most have to pay the most. Makes perfect sense to me. This is one tax I can support. It's regressive!

[retailguy]

Ok, I can't sit back and read this thread any longer. I knew it was just a matter of time before the "conspiracy theories" got posted. I guess it was inevitable to a certain extent.

The posted article from the "expert" is as slanted for what it doesn't say as it is for what it does say. Clearly, the main purpose is to bash the President. Hey, nothing new there, he's been the "popular" punching bag for about 3 years now.... But, this article really shows it's bias by what it DOES NOT say.

There is a clear explanation why gasoline stocks are at their highest stock levels. It's really simple. The gasoline market is in contango. What is contango? It is a market structure that shows that gasoline will be worth more in the future than it is today. It is about the ONLY petroleum product that has this market structure for the past six months. When it exists, the people that buy and hold, buy and hold. That's what they're doing. It is no different than buying and holding a mutual fund because you believe the fund price will increase.

Crude is, and has been, severely backwardated (not in contango) for the past six months. He doesn't mention crude stocks, but they are probably at their LOWEST levels in recent memory. Why? The market structure has suggested that crude will be worth less in the future than it is today. So, refiners buy what they need to keep the refinery in production, and little extra... Makes business sense, NO?

Perhaps this "expert" should stick to his Saturday morning auto program and leave politics to someone without a huge bias against our President. Wait, if that were the case there wouldn't be ANY political news.... :wink:

Back to oil. Here's my take from 15 years following and working in the business. When this country makes a "strategic" decision NOT to drill for oil in some of the most plentiful places on earth - (Alaska, the coast of California, the Coast of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico...), then by default, you become more dependent upon those countries that DO decide to drill for the oil they have. Those countries also have "more influence" over commodity prices than you do, and hence you pay what you have to pay, when you have to pay it. We made a choice, now we must live with it. Perhaps someday, the American public will try to educate itself before it complains and criticizes. :shock: Nah, that's another pipe dream...

If this Government, (with the support of it citizens) came out and announced that we would "explore" drilling in Alaska, oil prices would FALL overnight, before we even had the chance to start the permitting process.

This is not really complicated. It's basic supply and demand. Crude comes in many forms from really sweet to really sour. Really sour crude is plentiful, BUT, the yield per bbl of Gasoline is lower and emissions are higher. That's common sense, right? That means the refiners have to work harder to get the same amount of gasoline (and run more crude, and get extra, more undesirable products too, ie. Sulfur, Asphalt, Coke, etc), and also produce higher emissions, and we get higher prices because it's more difficult and expensive work, which in some cases requires retrofitting a refinery to run it.... Case in point, BP just spent a couple of billion (yes, billion) refurbishing their refineries in Toledo Ohio, and Whiting Indiana to run Canadian crude, which is so heavy and nasty that it requires being mixed with condensate just to be fluid enough to flow in a pipeline...

Now, back to retirement.... :arrow:

[Freak Out]

If this Government, (with the support of it citizens) came out and announced that we would "explore" drilling in Alaska, oil prices would FALL overnight, before we even had the chance to start the permitting process.



So were not exploring and drilling here?

[The Leaper]

So were not exploring and drilling here?

Nope. The Alaskan Pipeline is full of nacho cheese sauce.

[retailguy]

So were not exploring and drilling here?

Nope. The Alaskan Pipeline is full of nacho cheese sauce.

Yep, that same cheese sauce that the Caribou stand under during the winter to stay warm.

Yes, we are actively taking crude out of Alaska, but, really, how much remains that we have chosen not to go after? What new drilling are we doing? That was my point.

Of course, I know you guys know that, but just want to be combative.... Enjoy the nachos jokes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

that was a joke?

[Scott Campbell]

When this country makes a "strategic" decision NOT to drill for oil in some of the most plentiful places on earth - (Alaska, the coast of California, the Coast of Florida, the Gulf of Mexico...), then by default, you become more dependent upon those countries that DO decide to drill for the oil they have. Those countries also have "more influence" over commodity prices than you do, and hence you pay what you have to pay, when you have to pay it. We made a choice, now we must live with it.


Great post. Here's my take. We don't have a whole lot of options to get out of this mess. I only see 2 things you can do.

1) Reduce our dependency on foreign oil. (Drill more of our own.)
2) Reduce our dependency on oil. (fund research on alternative energy.)

That's it. The little congressional dog and pony show critisizing profit levels does NOTHING to address the problem. All it was intended to do was enhance approval ratings.

[texaspackerbacker]

It hasn't happened, and it probably won't happen, though, because the leftist mainstream media has been so damned effective at brainwashing people to accept the BOGUS environmentalist crap of the Dem/lib Algore crowd.

The mere fact that it is so OBVIOUSLY in America's best interest to use our own oil sources is not enough to make it happen in the context of this skewed public perspective that has been created.

And much as I favor McCain over the Dems, on THIS issue, he isn't the answer either.

[retailguy]

Great post. Here's my take. We don't have a whole lot of options to get out of this mess. I only see 2 things you can do.

1) Reduce our dependency on foreign oil. (Drill more of our own.)
2) Reduce our dependency on oil. (fund research on alternative energy.)

That's it. The little congressional dog and pony show critisizing profit levels does NOTHING to address the problem. All it was intended to do was enhance approval ratings.

Well said Scott. I'd agree, but maintain, that we probably don't even need to ACTUALLY drill. We just need to be "willing" to drill. No one wants more competition. These 3rd world countries that are trying to get rich by mining their oil, don't want any more free flowing oil than we have today. They have wells in place and would reduce prices to a level where it is not economic for us to pursue drilling. Right now, the only thing most Americans want is cheaper oil. But, today, what reason do the Angolans and the Venezuelans have to reduce prices?

As to alternative energy, I believe that it will happen when the time is right. Necessity is the mother of invention. When it becomes economical to switch, most will switch and companies will market products that they think will generate a profit. There is no need to 'artificially' force or fund development.

For example, I am intrigued by hybrid cars but at this point, I'm unwilling to invest in the technology. Every analysis I've done shows that the additional monies spent on the cost of the vehicle, combined with the increased maintenance for the technology, combined with the environmental issues (what the hell are we going to do with all these damn batteries?) just don't make it feasible for me right now. My gas guzzler is the cheapest commuting mile for me right now, and until that changes, I'll keep driving it.

[Scott Campbell]

And much as I favor McCain over the Dems, on THIS issue, he isn't the answer either.


That's possibly the only silver lining to $5/gallon gas. At some price point, there will be only one answer.

[retailguy]

It hasn't happened, and it probably won't happen, though, because the leftist mainstream media has been so damned effective at brainwashing people to accept the BOGUS environmentalist crap of the Dem/lib Algore crowd.

The mere fact that it is so OBVIOUSLY in America's best interest to use our own oil sources is not enough to make it happen in the context of this skewed public perspective that has been created.

And much as I favor McCain over the Dems, on THIS issue, he isn't the answer either.

Tex - I'm the biggest right wing nut you'll find, in fact, when GWB's popularity reaches 5%, it'll be me, you, Dick, Laura, Jenna & Barbara that still support him. But, GWB, is out to lunch on this issue. He's as gutless as the other side.

He's as moved by the environmental nuts as Al Gore ever was.... Republicans aren't the solution either, sad to say.

So, in the meantime, I'll just keep gasing up the car. They could make it $7.00 a gallon, and I'm NOT riding the bus.... I'll just stop buying other durable goods. Then those prices will fall as sales slump. Eventually, everything with either be free, OR, someone will step up to the plate and solve the problem. :wink:

[Scott Campbell]

There is no need to 'artificially' force or fund development.


I think the reason is very much the same as your example to threaten drilling above. Both moves would give the appearance of softening demand.

[retailguy]

There is no need to 'artificially' force or fund development.


I think the reason is very much the same as your example to threaten drilling above. Both moves would give the appearance of softening demand.

Yeah. I'll buy that. But I'll also say that there is more development of alternative energy than is readily apparent. I don't think that the Government needs to throw money at it. Private industry is doing a good enough job.

Hybrid cars are a good example. Ethanol plants are another one. Now there is talk about privately funded ethanol pipelines. (Ethanol can't flow in existing oil pipelines because of it's attraction to water... Water and steel cause rust. Not a good idea for a pipeline...) :wink:

[Joemailman]

Tex - I'm the biggest right wing nut you'll find, in fact, when GWB's popularity reaches 5%, it'll be me, you, Dick, Laura, Jenna & Barbara that still support him.

Not to worry RG. It'll never come to that. I'd say a good 30% of the country are right wing nuts. You won't be lonely. :D

[Little Whiskey]

(and run more crude, and get extra, more undesirable products too, ie. Sulfur, Asphalt, Coke, etc)

See that Tyronne?!!!! you can get coke from gasoline!!! even at 4 bucks a gallon its gotta be cheeper than your supplier.

[Freak Out]

I know you guys aren't stupid so I'll just have to assume you are ignorant of the situation up here. We just have to be "willing" to drill? We are drilling..in more places than ever and there will be more holes poked in the ground offshore this spring and summer. We have huge reserves here, some massive strategic reserves for the military but many others have been opened by the Fed, State or Local governments and are open for drilling. Lease sales have been huge the past year and this time they will be developed....now that we finally have started locking up some of the corrupt politicians in the State and we have a Governor and a State Legislature that is going to force the Majors to develop the leases they bought instead of just sitting on them for 30 fucking years. Once we get a deal done for a gas line it will be a gold rush days all over again. I now have contracts with Chevron/Unocal, BP, Conoco Phillips, Shell and Eni. Both Shell and Eni have been added in the last two years. There are other new players as well that have been drilling onshore for the last 6 years. Of course there will always be a few hurdles (lawsuits, Marine mammals, subsistence whaling/hunting timing )in the way but worse things have been overcome to get the product to market.

[LL2]

I know you guys aren't stupid so I'll just have to assume you are ignorant of the situation up here. We just have to be "willing" to drill? We are drilling..in more places than ever and there will be more holes poked in the ground offshore this spring and summer. We have huge reserves here, some massive strategic reserves for the military but many others have been opened by the Fed, State or Local governments and are open for drilling. Lease sales have been huge the past year and this time they will be developed....now that we finally have started locking up some of the corrupt politicians in the State and we have a Governor and a State Legislature that is going to force the Majors to develop the leases they bought instead of just sitting on them for 30 fucking years. Once we get a deal done for a gas line it will be a gold rush days all over again. I now have contracts with Chevron/Unocal, BP, Conoco Phillips, Shell and Eni. Both Shell and Eni have been added in the last two years. There are other new players as well that have been drilling onshore for the last 6 years. Of course there will always be a few hurdles (lawsuits, Marine mammals, subsistence whaling/hunting timing )in the way but worse things have been overcome to get the product to market.

Your probably more of an authority on the issue of drilling in Alaska than any of us. I think there needs a combination of solutions at work. Such as drilling for more oil, plus R&D into technologies like hybrids for cars and huge solar power grids in the SW supplying power to cities. It doesn't bother me that Big Oil makes a ton of money in profits, at the same time I think it's naive to think our country doesn't need to invest in alternative energy and recycling what we use.

[Freak Out]

I know you guys aren't stupid so I'll just have to assume you are ignorant of the situation up here. We just have to be "willing" to drill? We are drilling..in more places than ever and there will be more holes poked in the ground offshore this spring and summer. We have huge reserves here, some massive strategic reserves for the military but many others have been opened by the Fed, State or Local governments and are open for drilling. Lease sales have been huge the past year and this time they will be developed....now that we finally have started locking up some of the corrupt politicians in the State and we have a Governor and a State Legislature that is going to force the Majors to develop the leases they bought instead of just sitting on them for 30 fucking years. Once we get a deal done for a gas line it will be a gold rush days all over again. I now have contracts with Chevron/Unocal, BP, Conoco Phillips, Shell and Eni. Both Shell and Eni have been added in the last two years. There are other new players as well that have been drilling onshore for the last 6 years. Of course there will always be a few hurdles (lawsuits, Marine mammals, subsistence whaling/hunting timing )in the way but worse things have been overcome to get the product to market.

Your probably more of an authority on the issue of drilling in Alaska than any of us. I think there needs a combination of solutions at work. Such as drilling for more oil, plus R&D into technologies like hybrids for cars and huge solar power grids in the SW supplying power to cities. It doesn't bother me that Big Oil makes a ton of money in profits, at the same time I think it's naive to think our country doesn't need to invest in alternative energy and recycling what we use.

Even though we still have lots of oil left in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico as well as huge natural gas reserves were not going to drill our way out of the problems we are facing. Americans need to be much smarter with our consumption considering how fast other nations with massive populations are developing. I'm about as liberal as they come on most things but I'm what I call an "Alaskan Liberal" on some pretty practical matters that we face today regarding our energy needs among other things. I have hammered our Congressional delegation and other members of Congress as well as local politicians for years about renewing production of nuclear power facilities in the US and Alaska (where the fears of earthquakes makes it a hard sell). Toshiba was going to give us one for fucks sake and we said no. Pretty amazing little unit....almost turnkey. :lol:

[Freak Out]

For what it costs funding one month of the Iraqi operation we could build a pipeline to carry Alaskan natural gas to the lower 48. :)

[Freak Out]

BP joins Conoco Phillips in gas pipeline plan


By WESLEY LOY
wloy@adn.com

(04/08/08 16:56:54)

JUNEAU - BP announced this morning it will join Conoco Phillips to plan a natural gas pipeline from the North Slope through Canada.

Conoco in November had announced a plan for a pipeline, but BP and Conoco executives said today in Anchorage that this is a fresh plan.

A third company, Exxon Mobil - the largest Slope gas holder - remains on the sideline and was not part of today's joint announcement from BP and Conoco.

BP's move seems to bolster Conoco's competing alternative to the pipeline proposal from TransCanada Corp., which is bidding for an exclusive state license and a $500 million subsidy under AGIA, the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act.

BP and Conoco said they will spend $600 million to plan for an "open season," a process where companies with gas to ship bid for space in the new pipeline. Then the companies say they will apply for certification from U.S. and Canadian pipeline regulators and "move forward with project construction."

"The Alaska gas pipeline will be a historic project, and we are pleased to be working with Conoco Phillips to move it forward," said BP chief executive Tony Hayward.

BP and Conoco dubbed their project "Denali."

They say they'll establish a new company and a project headquarters in Anchorage to manage Denali.

BP's action is reminiscent of the scenario that played out earlier this decade, when Conoco was followed by BP and then Exxon in a partnership seeking a "stranded gas" contract under the Murkowski administration.

That effort fizzled.

State lawmakers in Juneau have scheduled an 11:30 a.m. news conference to talk about the BP-Conoco announcement.