More on gas prices...

[jetflyer]

If you guys haven't read it you should read what the oildrum people are sending to our politicians:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/4/26/121441/891#more

They're sick of the 100 senators and 400+ Retarded house reps that we have and their total lack of knowledge of such a serious issue.

Our leaders are even blaming the oil companies and saying it is just pure greed. We're going to get nowhere having such morons leading us.

Jet

 

[414Flyer]

Yeah but the problem with that article, is that it is logical, contains reality, and does not speak in emotional cliches that deal with conspiracies.

Politicians do not want to deal with either, do not want to tell people to make changes in their lives, and would rather make nice political sound bites that they can use in re-election commericials. But hey, its easier to to that and let people get back to reading celeb gossip magazines to know more about Paris Hilton, than it is to tell people to pick up a book and learn about topics like oil production and economics.

Instead, they will continue to make vague accusations of price gouging so they can get on tv and act like they care, even though investigations do not find such gouging. And make allegations of unfair profits, even though oil industry profit margins are lower than many other industries.

 

[jetflyer]

414,

Unfortunately you make me laugh, and I agree with you.

The Dems like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are so clueless. They're just going on and on about their price gouging mumbo jumbo and wanting an investigation into the oil companies profits, etc. to make themselves look like a hero.

I'm afraid that you're right and that they don't even care what the truth is. They just want to link Bush to the oil companies and bring the Republicans down in the mid-term elections.

I hope America continues enjoying their "IN TOUCH" magazines in the meantime, while everyone remains clueless.

Jet

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

shorter skirts on the flight attendants

WOOHOO!!>...wait a second, you mean ALL flight attendants? nevermind.

Oh, there's an election coming up. I have a feeling Mickey Mouse will be popular


CE

 

[LarryinTN]

While this might be true, I can choose tap water (free) over a $1.50 Coke because buying a soft drink is optional.

So because people have to buy gasoline, oil companies should be denied the same oppertunity for profits as other businesses? Is that what you are saying?

Wouldn't it be better if companies which provide essential services earned higher than average profits so as to attract additional capital investment into those industries and producing more of the essential products?

The compairson with Coca-Cola was just to show that the size of the oil company's profits is due to the size of the oil companies, not some unusually high profit margin on their products. They make more money than other companies because they are bigger than all of the other companies. Their profit margins are actually rather low.

 

[LarryinTN]

Fuel taxes are based on a set amount per gallon--not a percentage of the sales price

No, quite a few states do charge a percentage on gasoline.

 

[flyer172r]

So because people have to buy gasoline, oil companies should be denied the same oppertunity for profits as other businesses? Is that what you are saying?

Wouldn't it be better if companies which provide essential services earned higher than average profits so as to attract additional capital investment into those industries and producing more of the essential products?

The compairson with Coca-Cola was just to show that the size of the oil company's profits is due to the size of the oil companies, not some unusually high profit margin on their products. They make more money than other companies because they are bigger than all of the other companies. Their profit margins are actually rather low.

If oil companies were re-investing their profits into further oil exploration, then yeah, that'd be great. But since they're not, I think people have at least some right to be pissed.

 

[LarryinTN]

Oh, and buying a fuel efficient vehicle is not necessarily cost effective. Unless you are already due for a new vehicle AND the purchase will cut your consumption a MINIMUM of 30%-50% you're likely to lose money on the deal.

That assumes that you'll buy new. If someone drives a lot of miles and wants to move to a more efficient car they can sell their gas guzzler and buy a more efficient used car for about the same price as what they get on the sale. i.e. Sell an SUV for $10,000 and buy a $10,000 small car, etc.

Looking at the Carmax web site for an example I find an '03 Blazer with 47,000 miles and a '04 Cavalier with 18,000 miles, both listed at $12,000. By selling the Blazer, and buying the Cavalier, you not only improve your gas mileage but you get a newer car with quite a bit fewer miles on it.

 

[LarryinTN]

If oil companies were re-investing their profits into further oil exploration, then yeah, that'd be great. But since they're not, I think people have at least some right to be pissed.

They are reinvesting.

Up until last summer's energy bill, you couldn't build a refinnery in the US. Too many bueracratic hurdles, environmental studies and public opposition. Now, for the first time in two decades, there are finally plans underway to build new US refineries.

Even today the oil companies are prohibited from doing new exploration in Alaska and off the coast of Florida, the two most promising sites for new domestic oil production.

 

[jetflyer]

Flyer,

Good point. They're NOT re-investing very much in future oil exploration. Sorry to contradict you LJ-ABX but I also heard they were not going to build another refinery in the U.S. and that they were going to allow others to build them overseas and ship in the finished products.

Granted LJ, you're right they need to be able to drill in those places. Soon we'll be begging them to go into Alaska and off both coasts, but should they just give up looking elsewhere till then?

Here is a short summary of the 2005 New Oil discoveries:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/28/21235/1491

The producers found less new oil that was potentially producable in 2004 and 2005 than any year since WWII. That's right.
Some say this is because they've gotten all the oil they're gonna get because they're so good at finding it now with seismic technologies, etc. and there's nothing else to find. They all had incentives to keep looking and they didn't find anything............ This is troublesome.

1/3 of the new discoveries were found through deep water exploration.

Lukoil(Russian company) found the largest find with 600 million barrels which is enough to power the world for a grand total of 7 days. Woohoo.

No oil company found as much oil as they sold last year. Exxon found enough natural gas in Qatar to be the equivavlent of the oil they sold.

We NEED these oil companies to invest those profits into alternatives and stop stock-buybacks etc. It's almost like they're content to just let their share price go up and sit back and watch the world crumble from an energy crisis.

On CNBC yesterday one analyst had a good idea:
He would tax heavily the profits of the oil company that were not reinvested into alternatives or for energy exploration.

I hate taxes but that sounded like a good idea since we NEED THEM TO KEEP LOOKING or start trying to get oil from coal or shale or start planting corn!!

So if they reinvested those profits for new energy sources they wouldn't be taxed extra. If they decided to do a stock buy-back that money would be taxed first. Taxes sometimes can do good things and encourage things we need to encourage. Sound like a good idea? To me, kinda...

Jet

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

That assumes that you'll buy new. If someone drives a lot of miles and wants to move to a more efficient car they can sell their gas guzzler and buy a more efficient used car for about the same price as what they get on the sale. i.e. Sell an SUV for $10,000 and buy a $10,000 small car, etc.

Looking at the Carmax web site for an example I find an '03 Blazer with 47,000 miles and a '04 Cavalier with 18,000 miles, both listed at $12,000. By selling the Blazer, and buying the Cavalier, you not only improve your gas mileage but you get a newer car with quite a bit fewer miles on it.

Mind you, if you're SELLING your 2003 Blazer, you're NOT
going to get $12,000 for it. Likely, half that. Then you have
to figure how long it will take to save $6K in fuel.

The prices of used efficient cars is absolutely crazy.
I saw a 2000 Toyota Echo with 75k miles going for $9,999
It was $11k new. See my point?

Oh, don't buy a Caviler. uke:

(just sayin')

CE

 

[LarryinTN]

Mind you, if you're SELLING your 2003 Blazer, you're NOT
going to get $12,000 for it. Likely, half that.

The point was that those two cars have about the same retail value. That would mean that they'd also have about the same private sale value. If you're going to trade in and buy retail, instead of selling yourself, then you wouldn't be able to move to a newer/lower-mileage economy car.

When it comes to used cars the domestic cars are the best value. They lose a huge percentage of their original value in the first few months while only haven been driven a few miles. Most of the imports hold their value much longer so aren't as great of a deal on the used market.

 

[jetflyer]

I found from reading that link better that only $15 billion dollars was spent last year on exploration by the World's PUBLICLY traded oil companies including Russia's, U.S.'s, Europe's, etc.

Exxon made $15 billion in profits in 4 1/2 months alone last year!

The world's publicly traded oil companies didn't spend much at all on exploration.

Exxon didn't even find enough oil from a single field to last ONE DAY at the current 84million barrel/day usage.

From the article:

So to answer some of the questions above - who won and who lost in 2005. None of the International Oil Companies appear to be big winners. Of the 9 discoveries reported to be greater than 100 million BOE, the operators include BP, Woodside, Daewoo, Shell, Lukoil, ONGC, ConocoPhillips, Unocal, and Gujarat SPC. Overall I would say we are all losers. More money chasing smaller volumes in more and more difficult areas. The remaining unexplored areas of the world are fewer and fewer. Not a lot of smiley faces here.

Has it all been found?

Jet

 

[CrimsonEclipse]

This is the point ----------------------> .

This is you missing the point------------------------------------>

CE

 

[jetflyer]

What do you guys think of the tax proposal in post number 100 above?

I think taxes are usually not a good thing unless used properly. If we tax the profits not used for exploration or alternatives, then I would think that would ENCOURAGE them to atleast start planting corn!

They could plant a lot of corn with their $100+ billion/year profits.

They keep buying back their stock which does only the major shareholders any good. Granted they are a public company, but the U.S. needs oil!!

The fact they only spent about $15 billion in exploration last year which includes Russia's oil companies and England's, etc. is pretty pitiful....

Jet