DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Lanya on May 22, 2008, 04:00:48 PM
-
[...........]
A gallon of gas costs just 12 cents in Venezuela, $2.81 in China and $3.33 in Moscow, according to Associates for International Research Inc., a consulting firm based in Cambridge, Mass. Those prices encourage citizens of those countries to drive more, shielding them from the reality of a limited global supply and inflating prices in North America and Europe, where taxes have pushed as high as $8.73 in Norway and $8.38 in the United Kingdom.
But the possibility of countries backing off subsidies is slim, as entire populations would likely object to the sudden escalation in prices, adding another dimension of instability to already fragile places. "You already have had food riots in a dozen countries," Dancy said. "You take off the subsidies to gasoline and diesel, you're adding fuel to the fire. I don't think a lot of these governments legitimately have a choice. They're really in a vise."
[........]
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-sun-gas-prices-no-letup-may18,0,6879387.story
-
What? Subsidies artificially lower prices and skew the functioning of the market?
Sigh. Now, if we could just get people understand that about the subsidies here...
-
I think this is Lanya's subtle swipe that our gas prices are simply the result of evil oil companies, vs the notion of supply & demand, combined with the overt regulations imposed on oil/gasoline by the state and federal governments
And guess who that proposed windfall profits tax is actually going to hit? Hint, it won't be the evil oil companies
-
A subtle swipe? Honestly, Sirs, I just read on a website that Russia and China paid way less at the pump than we did, so I googled up articles about it. This is the result.
I hate the high prices and want them down, down, down. I live in a semi-rural area and this hits people very, very hard. Some people can't get to work at the nursing home, they don't have the money to come in. Very bad times. It's like...constantly living in a Level 3 Snow Emergency.
-
A subtle swipe? Honestly, Sirs, I just read on a website that Russia and China paid way less at the pump than we did, so I googled up articles about it. This is the result. I hate the high prices and want them down, down, down. I live in a semi-rural area and this hits people very, very hard. Some people can't get to work at the nursing home, they don't have the money to come in.
Yet I'm pretty confident you'd be of the leftist mix that are railing that oil companies profits are far too obscene, that we not be allowed to drill and expand our own oil reserves off of Florida, California, or ANWR, and that nuclear power is too dangerous as well. So, am I 1 for 3? 2 for 3? 3 for 3?.
-
We should bend over and let the oil companies charge whatever they wish, of course. They should never be punished or taxed, because they are our very best buddies and would never, ever lie to us about anything.
-
We should bend over and let the oil companies charge whatever they wish, of course. They should never be punished or taxed, because they are our very best buddies and would never, ever lie to us about anything.
Do you really consider <10% profit on sales to be "charging too much"?
-
I consider them stating that they make 10% profit to be a bald faced lie, actually. Oil execs are exactly like tobacco company execs. You know they are lying when their lips are moving.
My consolation is that (a) I do not buy petroleum products and (b) I have enough money invested in natural resource funds to make up for the amount I am being diddled for biodiesel, which has gone up to $4.25 a gallon from $2.30 a gallon "due to market forces".
-
I consider them stating that they make 10% profit to be a bald faced lie, actually. Oil execs are exactly like tobacco company execs. You know they are lying when their lips are moving.
I don't remember you presenting any of that evidence when the profit reports were in the news.
Got any now?
-
I am pretty sure that their reports are right up there in accuracy with Big Tobacco's cancer statistics.
Go ahead and believe every damned thing they say if you wish. I don't believe them. They have every reason to lie and they know they will never get caught in a lie. Everyone connected with the business is a liar. The only true thing they say is that they are making money.
The oil industry consists of a hole in the ground with a pipe coming out of it. There are maybe two people who know what is coming out of that hole and how fast. And both of those people can be easily bribed, and always have been, and always will be.
I know that they are lying. They always have lied and they always will lie. They hire professional liars to lie for them for special occasions. They bring these special professional lying lawyers to sit next to them as they lie. They are the ones in the shinier suits, as a rule, who whisper lies in their ears prior to their passing them on to our Congressmen.
Years later, someone is near death and spills it all, and there it is on page 23. By then there are new lies and new liars have been hired.
And everyone says that past lies are no indication of future mendacity. It might get two minutes on the news, between denture adhesive and antidepressant commercials
And so it goes.
-
So the oil industry is a gigantic conspiracy? Heh. That's funny.
-
I've lost count of how many "congressional investigations" and committees were put forth to get to the bottom of these "egregious oil company profits" and the accusations of gouging. At least 20, if not 30+. NONE of them came back with any offcial conclusions that the oil companies were lying or falsely selling their product at any time. In fact, the consistent consensus kept falling into the supply & demand scenario.
Perhaps Xo can enlightn us with one of these official reports that concluded the contrary, that concluded how oil companies were simply fixing their prices just to make big bucks.
-
I don't think the oil companies are in a conspiracy, but some of the CEO's at the Senate (or was it House?) hearings sure were liars.
One of them said something along the lines of: "we invest most of our profits back into research and production."
Sounds swell, don't it?
The problem with that statement is that GAAP regulations require that any such investments are designated as expenses. In other words, they would not be listed as profits (i.e. profits = net revenue - net expenses - adjustments).
So, if they've nothing to hide and everything is peaches & cream - why blatantly lie?
-
I think this is Lanya's subtle swipe that our gas prices are simply the result of evil oil companies, vs the notion of supply & demand, combined with the overt regulations imposed on oil/gasoline by the state and federal governments
And guess who that proposed windfall profits tax is actually going to hit? Hint, it won't be the evil oil companies
Said by someone whose knowledge of economics is clearly lacking.
Inflation is driving the price of petroleum, not so much supply and demand Sirs. The weak dollar and this administration's inability to handle inflation through poor fiscal policy (along with a terribly inconsistent Fed Reserve) has much more to do with why you're paying high prices at the pump than some sort of lack of supply. The truth is that even peak oil theorists believe that we have not reached the peak of world oil supply - which at present is predicted around 2011 or so.
-
I think this is Lanya's subtle swipe that our gas prices are simply the result of evil oil companies, vs the notion of supply & demand, combined with the overt regulations imposed on oil/gasoline by the state and federal governments. And guess who that proposed windfall profits tax is actually going to hit? Hint, it won't be the evil oil companies
Said by someone whose knowledge of economics is clearly lacking. Inflation is driving the price of petroleum, not so much supply and demand Sirs.
I never claimed it was solely Supply & Demand Js, only that the prior mass of congressional investigations clearly had a consistent theme of no to price gouging and yes to supply and demand issues.
Now currently inflation is obviously having an effect, and I never claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is the left frequently attacks "big oil" as the main reason for increasing gas prices, when it's the same left inhibiting, when not out and out preventing, a vast # of avenues that could bring the price of oil down substantially, be it increasing our domesit oil supply, actually bulding a damn refinery, if not 2 dozen, opening up more Nuclear facilities, and lessoning the cost prohibitive regulations government imposes. (read NOT abolish, but loosen)
ALL such avenues would counter the weak dollar and boost our own supply, thus decreasing the overall demand. But we'll we get any support from the left on these ventures?? I'm guessing not. so much easier to simply demonize "big oil", and push to pass windfall profits taxes, which of course gets passed onto to......you guessed it, us again, in the form of even HIGHER fuel costs.
-
Building refineries has absolutely nothing to do with it. That is a myth of the right wing. Ask yourself this Sirs, if you were a CEO of Exxon and making massive profits - would you build a refinery, thereby increasing supply, thereby reducing profits?
The answer is obvious and I've given you the links to memos from the oil companies in the 1990's when they closed twenty-six refineries to purposefully reduce supply and increase price. These guys don't want to build refineries. It is extremely expensive to open a new refinery. And you blame "the Left" (some neo-mystical force that prevents everything good, no doubt), but the reality is that Shell, Exxon, and others have been the hardest on small oil firms that try to build their own small, new, and efficient refineries. The technology is there to easily meet government environmental regulations. The reality is that these companies don't like competition and they have no desire to increase supply. Both of those possibilities might reduce profits. And they always have people like Sirs to defend them! It is a wonderful system of pissing down people's backs and having those people tell others that it is rain!! Yipee!
You think they give a half shit about ANWR? It is extremely expensive to get up there and drill. Even if you all get your way and let them simply rape the land and not bother with environmental regulations, it is still far too little of a return on Energy ROI. That oil is useless. Only the Chinese and Japanese will bother with such impure crude oil. Not even our ancient and massively polluting refineries in Louisiana and Texas will touch that crap. That isn't Saudi pure liquid gold up there, my friend. That is sweet crud, filled with heavy metals and sulfur. It won't move your car two feet. It will fire a Chinese power plant and give 20,000,000 more Chinese workers an early death though. And you have to pay workers a hell of a lot more than usual to get up there and freeze their nards off, cut through permafrost, build ice roads in the winter, and pay exorbitant amounts to get the crap out. And for what? Low quality petroleum, when the easy sands of Saudi Arabia still produce nice high quality stuff.
And y'all are supposed to be the businessmen? ::)
This is about the bottom line, and you can listen to Rush and the other blowhards and read the Daily Hate Mail, but the truth is that those oil companies have no desire to build more refineries or drill in godforsaken parts of the globe. If they did, and there were buckets of cash to be made - they'd be doing it today.
-
Building refineries has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Sure it does. Oil coming out of the ground requires being refined. It's one of the reasons Iran has so little oil useage, despite sitting on one of the largest plots of oil....liack of refineries. We haven't built a refinery in.....how many years now?? And refineries take the oil we have either pulled up ourselves, or whatever crude we have purchased from abroad, and refine it to whatever it is that oil is meant to become. The severe shortage of refiners --> the much less refined oil we can use for items such as... GASOLINE
That is a myth of the right wing. Ask yourself this Sirs, if you were a CEO of Exxon and making massive profits - would you build a refinery, thereby increasing supply, thereby reducing profits?
I'm referencing what we could do to DECREASE the amount we pay at the pump, and you're there reinforcing my point. Do I really need to google all the refinery projects stopped by way of legisation at the behest of enviromental groups, and judicial decisions by activist judges??
It is extremely expensive to open a new refinery.
made MORE costly by the insidious amount of lawsuits and litigation aimed to primairly make such acts so cost prohibitive
And you blame "the Left"
It sure as hell ain't "the right". Yea, in particular left wing enviromental lobbies and extremists, and those Politicians beholden to them for their significant donations. But I understand the tactic being employed. Cause all sorts of litigious, legislative, and financial roadblocks aimed at "big oil", then castigate the same group for making profits brought about by the same practices that facilitated the profits in the 1st place
You think they give a half shit about ANWR? It is extremely expensive to get up there and drill. Even if you all get your way and let them simply rape the land and not bother with environmental regulations, it is still far too little of a return on Energy ROI. That oil is useless.
LOL.....I see you have the Left wing enviromental talking points down to a tee. Everything from how expensive, to raping the land, to useless oil. Impresive. A) the expense would be offset by the revenues and jobs the new oil brought in would be. B) the latest techniques leave a mere microblotch on the land as a whole, with their ability to drill nearly horizontally. C) The oil would increase our own supply, and decrease the overall demand......whala, lower gasoline prices
Only the Chinese and Japanese will bother with such impure crude oil. Not even our ancient and massively polluting refineries in Louisiana and Texas will touch that crap.
I tell you what, let's give them the opportunity, then if they decide they don't want to touch it, then we can move on.
And y'all are supposed to be the businessmen? ::)
Huh??
This is about the bottom line, and you can listen to Rush and the other blowhards and read the Daily Hate Mail, but the truth is that those oil companies have no desire to build more refineries or drill in godforsaken parts of the globe. If they did, and there were buckets of cash to be made - they'd be doing it today.
Back to the talking points, I see. Even added the Xo tact of claiming I'm listening to Rush. I guess I should then claim that you listening to Al Franken & Air Hate America isn't helping you out any here either. Get back to me when we actually have examples of such efforts not wanting to be peformed vs being prevented from being performed
-
We haven't built a refinery in.....how many years now?? And refineries take the oil we have either pulled up ourselves, or whatever crude we have purchased from abroad, and refine it to whatever it is that oil is meant to become. The severe shortage of refiners --> the much less refined oil we can use for items such as... GASOLINE
In the last 23 years, the EPA has had one, that is one as in uno, request for a new refinery, and it was approved. One of the largest problems has been the buyouts of independents in the last 20 years, now all the oil is controlled by a handful of mega companies. I'm not necessarily saying that's bad, but it is easier to price fix with a handful of big companies vs. a bunch of smaller ones.
And I'm a big believer in nuclear power.
-
I'm fereferning what we could do to DECREASE the amount we pay at the pump, and you're there reinforcing my point. Do I really need to google all the refinery projects stopped by way of legisation at the behest of envirometal groups, and judicial decisions by activist judges??
Yes. Please provide some evidence.
A) the epense would be offset by the revenues and jobs the new oil brought in would be. B) the latest techniques leave a mere microblotch on the land as a whole, with their ability to drill nearly horizontally. C) The oil would increase our own supply, and decrease the overall demand......whala, lower gasoline prices
You ought to try never talking about economics Sirs. You're really bad at it.
1. Expenses would be offset by jobs? ::)
Only if you've decided to institute slavery again! (and even then you'd have to transport them to Alaska) Sirs, it costs businesses a hell of a lot of money to have a workforce. It costs even more when you want a workforce in the middle of nowhere in Alaska and the closest "city" is a nothing town hundreds of miles away. Expenses are never offset by personnel expenses. That is completely daft. You better hope that revenues offset expenses, that's the whole friggin' point. That's exactly why Shell isn't knocking down anyone's door and running over Exxon to be the first one's there. It isn't worth the investment. The ROI is too low.
2. The latest techniques blah, blah, blah. I'm not some radical environmentalist. You think you know me because you want to pigeonhole me as a typical liberal. I'm a socialist. If there are good jobs for workers, I'm all for it. I'm telling you why "Big Oil" has no interest in it.
3. Increasing supply doesn't equal decreasing demand. It also doesn't stand to reason that we would be the ones using the oil Sirs. Whether you like it or not, not all oil is equal. The oil from Alaska is not good, it is highly impure. Let me make this simple.
Oil = Energy. It costs energy to refine oil. So there exists a ratio of X:Y of energy input to energy output. The greater X is, the worse off you are. X is increased by the impurity of the oil. Do you know why people quit pumping oil from Texas, Tennessee, Oklahoma? Because it is crap. Alaska is about one tier better. Somewhere, many tiers higher is Saudi oil. Saudi oil makes certain that X is very low and that means profits can be very high.
Does that make sense? I'm being sincere. There is a point where X is so high that it takes more energy input than you get in output. Then you've accomplished nothing. The same is true of coal. We're geologically luckier in that regard because Appalachian coal is the good stuff.
The problem Sirs, is that you don't seem to be able to grasp a bigger picture. If I am a CEO of Shell, tell me why I want to build a refinery. Why do I want to bother with ANWR? I have no incentive. You can throw around court cases, mean leftists, etc...but I'm a CEO of a massive corporation with deep pockets and plenty of influence on Capitol Hill. If I want a refinery, I'll find a place to build it, even if it is another country (which has been the trend). I'll drill where I please. I'll line the necessary pockets if we're talking about billions of dollars.
So why don't I?
-
<<So why don't I?>>
Because you're a mean nasty oilman with a heart of...I don't know, lead, and you'll only drill if Pauline (as in Perils of) will marry you but she won't, so you'll hold the whole damn world hostage until she comes around like a dutiful woman should, and her father's got the consumption and no doctor will come see him because they're so very poor...
Oh.
Never mind.;)
-
I recall Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the democrats telling us that if elected, they would lower gas prices.
Seems to me that after the 2006 election prices really shot up.
Could they have been lying?
hmmmmmmm
-
"Do you really consider <10% profit on sales to be "charging too much"?
dont the oil companies have a smaller profit margin than Microsoft, Starbucks, and many other companies?
i heard some democrat senator ask an oil executive in some moralistic way today, "how much is your yearly salary"?
I wish the executive would of said "shame on you senator" -"it is none of your damn business you crook!"
Exxon didn't pilfer Social Security!
Exxon doesn't fail to educate our kids
Exxon didnt waste billions in Katrina Aid mismanagement
Exxon didn't bang hoes in the Oval Office
Exxon was not responsible for the House Post Office Scandal
Exxon didn't allow airlines to skip safety measures
Exxon doesn't neglect to enforce our border security
Exxon doesnt print money and spend more than they take in
Exxon doesn't sit back like gvt, not produce anything, and yet still reap billions from Exxon oil
gvt has the balls to condemn Exxon but happily take the billions in tax $ from Exxon to spend on pork, ect
"Mr. Highhorse Senator" if "Exxon Money" is so "dirty" and "immoral" why the hell do you love it so much?
Like the crooks running the congressional pork belly/lobbiest circus are some examples of morality?
LOL , now thats funny
Maybe ask Tiger Woods how much he makes a year? Probably triple what most top oil executives make.
Tiger employs maybe a few dozen people, when the oil exec employs tens of thousands and produces a vital product.
What a sham for the oil companies to be demonized by leeches that produce nothing.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102702399.html
"...Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil "earn" more, depending on what measure is used.
Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.
Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.
By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout...."
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html#price
In the history of the world, according to AAPG presidential address, April 1993,
750 billion barrels have been produced.
1000 billion barrels are known in the ground
1000 billion barrels are estimated undiscovered
World proved reserves: 1,081 to 1,293 billion barrels
2 trillion is a common number you see for unproduced oil - but by no means does everyone agree on that number. "Peak Oil" people say half of all that can be produced has been produced (or soon will be) and half remains - maybe 1 trillion produced, 1 trillion remaining.
..........................................................
"....it is impossible to remove all my bias, even though as a scientist (geologist) I try to do that..................
....in the late 1990s I really thought the "peak oil" people were crazy, or at least "doomsayers" and pessimists. Oil exploration people (like me) tend to be optimistic - you have to be, since you fail so often. But in the past 5 to 7 years, I've come to feel, largely through creating this compilation, that the "peak oil" people are a lot closer to right than are the "sweetness-and-light-and-nothing-is-really-wrong" crowd. I don't KNOW that - but based on what I can see and read with my own eyes, there is little question that Americans' oil guzzling will bring us to a fall, likely sooner rather than later...."
The demand of the world for oil products if up a lot , the supply has stopped increaseing at a rate that keeps up with demand.
The law of Supply and demand is a law of nature , it is not violated without cost.
The Executives of the oil produceing companys are getting a bum rap in my opinion , if you fired every one of them and replaced them with clones of Mother Teresa the price of oil would still rise as it grew scarce, probly no less.
So lets make a theroetical standard , in which the decisions of oil executives were absolutely correct from the customers point of view , how much less woud we now be paying? I don't think that there is very much room for improvement .
-
i heard some democrat senator ask an oil executive in some moralistic way today, "how much is your yearly salary"?
Do you recall what the answer was? One exec said "I don't recall". Talk about absurdity. And I notice that Arlen Specter wasn't shy about slamming the oil companies either.
-
i heard some democrat senator ask an oil executive in some moralistic way today, "how much is your yearly salary"?
Do you recall what the answer was? One exec said "I don't recall". Talk about absurdity. And I notice that Arlen Specter wasn't shy about slamming the oil companies either.
That is just being diplomatic .
Telling the senator that he didn't have a right to ask that would have also been appropriate , if less diplomatic.
-
How likely is this dork to not recall his salary, really?
You had better believe that it is astronomical.
-
Ask yourself this Sirs, if you were a CEO of Exxon and making massive profits - would you build a refinery, thereby increasing supply, thereby reducing profits?
If I'm the CEO of Exxon, the answer is yes, because I'm thinking long term. Higher prices might not immediately result in reduced demand, but it will in the long term. Lower prices help keep demand high. If I, as CEO, expect to continue profitability and growth with 10% profit, then yes, absolutely I would build a new refinery. That is, of course, provided that I could find a place to build it, and get permission to build it there, and get the land rezoned, and get the permits necessary to have an oil refinery in operation. One does not simply buy up some land and build an oil refinery. Before all the myriad of permits one must get, first one needs permission to build the damn thing in the first place. And most places seem opposed to having an oil refinery around. Something about pollution concerns. Go figure.
That one guy who got a permit to build that Fatman keeps talking about, the site for the refinery had to be moved because Phoenix changed it's clean air requirements. As of 2005, he had spent $30 million and still had not started building. And he still had more permits to get and to have the land rezoned. And then he apparently had to wait for a lawsuit brought by some American Indians to be settled. So the notion that somehow this is all some easy process that the oil companies are too greedy to participate in, it's just something I don't buy.
I'm not saying there isn't a matter of profit consideration involved in the decision making, but if building a refinery elsewhere and shipping in the refined product is cheaper and easier, then yeah, the CEO is probably going to do that instead. And while people bitch and moan about "record" profits, their profit margin just isn't that big. A huge increase in expenditure that may not be followed by a comparable increase in revenue is a huge risk, and if you think the U.S. oil and gasoline problem is bad now, just wait till the oil companies are struggling to survive. Then, as my dad might say, we'd really be hurtin'.
-
i heard some democrat senator ask an oil executive in some moralistic way today, "how much is your yearly salary"?
Do you recall what the answer was? One exec said "I don't recall". Talk about absurdity. And I notice that Arlen Specter wasn't shy about slamming the oil companies either.
I think I'd ask the senator what his yearly salary is. No, probably is not as high as the oil company executive, but most people could live quite comfortably on what senators make. It's something around $160,000 a year, I think. Possibly higher. And U.S. senators get to vote on whether they get a pay raise too. Seems to me, U.S. senators ought not to be criticizing how much money other people make.
-
If I'm the CEO of Exxon, the answer is yes, because I'm thinking long term. Higher prices might not immediately result in reduced demand, but it will in the long term. Lower prices help keep demand high. If I, as CEO, expect to continue profitability and growth with 10% profit, then yes, absolutely I would build a new refinery. That is, of course, provided that I could find a place to build it, and get permission to build it there, and get the land rezoned, and get the permits necessary to have an oil refinery in operation. One does not simply buy up some land and build an oil refinery. Before all the myriad of permits one must get, first one needs permission to build the damn thing in the first place. And most places seem opposed to having an oil refinery around. Something about pollution concerns. Go figure.
That is just simply incorrect Prince. You'd be right if we were dealing with a commodity with an elastic demand, but we're not. Oil has a very inelastic demand and increasing the supply will make no difference. A simple look at the statistics will show you that as the world production has significantly increased, yet demand has done nothing but increase significantly right alongside.
As for building a new refinery, it is generally far cheaper to expand existing refineries. Moreover it is easier to build them in countries where labor is cheaper and workers have fewer rights (why bother with their health and safety concerns?). So again, you've given me no incentive to increase supply.
I'm not saying there isn't a matter of profit consideration involved in the decision making, but if building a refinery elsewhere and shipping in the refined product is cheaper and easier, then yeah, the CEO is probably going to do that instead. And while people bitch and moan about "record" profits, their profit margin just isn't that big. A huge increase in expenditure that may not be followed by a comparable increase in revenue is a huge risk, and if you think the U.S. oil and gasoline problem is bad now, just wait till the oil companies are struggling to survive. Then, as my dad might say, we'd really be hurtin'.
Profit consideration is my whole point. There is no compelling reason to drill in the ANWR or build dozens of new refineries. As I've pointed out, these companies closed refineries in the 90's. Why build them now?!?
No, it isn't an evil conspiracy, it is just business. And these companies aren't all American either. The notion of American oil independence is a joke. Many of these companies aren't American at all. The ones that are, still have international business to conduct. I don't understand what "energy independence" is supposed to mean. It is a typical political sound byte that has no meaning in the real world of economics.
That one guy who got a permit to build that Fatman keeps talking about, the site for the refinery had to be moved because Phoenix changed it's clean air requirements. As of 2005, he had spent $30 million and still had not started building. And he still had more permits to get and to have the land rezoned. And then he apparently had to wait for a lawsuit brought by some American Indians to be settled. So the notion that somehow this is all some easy process that the oil companies are too greedy to participate in, it's just something I don't buy.
I'm not saying there isn't a matter of profit consideration involved in the decision making, but if building a refinery elsewhere and shipping in the refined product is cheaper and easier, then yeah, the CEO is probably going to do that instead. And while people bitch and moan about "record" profits, their profit margin just isn't that big. A huge increase in expenditure that may not be followed by a comparable increase in revenue is a huge risk, and if you think the U.S. oil and gasoline problem is bad now, just wait till the oil companies are struggling to survive. Then, as my dad might say, we'd really be hurtin'.[/color]
[/quote]
-
I wish the executive would of said "shame on you senator" -"it is none of your damn business you crook!"
It is a matter of record for a publicly traded company. It wouldn't be very difficult to obtain, the media does it all the time.
-
You'd be right if we were dealing with a commodity with an elastic demand, but we're not. Oil has a very inelastic demand and increasing the supply will make no difference. A simple look at the statistics will show you that as the world production has significantly increased, yet demand has done nothing but increase significantly right alongside.
And you might be right if the problem was elasticity. The problem, however, is not elasticity. The problem is volatility. The market in oil is not so stable as you make out.
As for building a new refinery, it is generally far cheaper to expand existing refineries. Moreover it is easier to build them in countries where labor is cheaper and workers have fewer rights (why bother with their health and safety concerns?). So again, you've given me no incentive to increase supply.
Of course not. I believe the cost of building a new refinery was a part of my point.
Profit consideration is my whole point. There is no compelling reason to drill in the ANWR or build dozens of new refineries. As I've pointed out, these companies closed refineries in the 90's. Why build them now?!?
Because the average cost of gasoline is going to be $4/gallon if isn't already. And possibly $5/gallon in the next 12 months. As I said before, higher prices might not immediately result in reduced demand, but it will in the long term. People will be less likely to take frequent trips to the store, will reconsider long commutes when they move, will do little things to cut back on how much gasoline they use. And those little things will add up. People will use less gasoline. The long term interest of the oil companies is to find ways to at least plateau if not reduce the cost of gasoline. But as I said before, if building a refinery elsewhere and importing the gasoline is cheaper, then that is what will happen. It is increasingly what does happen.
No, it isn't an evil conspiracy, it is just business.
That's what I'm saying. Though while you might mean that in a bad way, I don't. We've regulated ourselves into a situation where building refineries here is less profitable than not building refineries here. Taking that into consideration, and whether or not one considers that a good thing, to complain that the oil companies are concerned about trying to remain profitable seems really petty, to put it politely.
And these companies aren't all American either. The notion of American oil independence is a joke. Many of these companies aren't American at all. The ones that are, still have international business to conduct. I don't understand what "energy independence" is supposed to mean. It is a typical political sound byte that has no meaning in the real world of economics.
I agree there, completely. Energy independence is not only impossible, it is undesirable. But it makes a good talking point for self-aggrandizing pundits and politicians.
-
"It is a matter of record for a publicly traded company.
It wouldn't be very difficult to obtain, the media does it all the time."
Yeah. well then I would of said.....
"you fraud vote pandering POS "it's a matter of public record" go look it up yourself!
-
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/38223.html
Title:
Here're the savings from Arctic drilling ? 75 cents a barrel
-
And you might be right if the problem was elasticity. The problem, however, is not elasticity. The problem is volatility. The market in oil is not so stable as you make out. Because the average cost of gasoline is going to be $4/gallon if isn't already. And possibly $5/gallon in the next 12 months. As I said before, higher prices might not immediately result in reduced demand, but it will in the long term. People will be less likely to take frequent trips to the store, will reconsider long commutes when they move, will do little things to cut back on how much gasoline they use. And those little things will add up. People will use less gasoline. The long term interest of the oil companies is to find ways to at least plateau if not reduce the cost of gasoline. But as I said before, if building a refinery elsewhere and importing the gasoline is cheaper, then that is what will happen. It is increasingly what does happen.
It is a volatile market, but that doesn't change the fact that oil is an inelastic commodity. You're missing a few key points.
1. Individual consumer consumption of gasoline is not the only use of oil. It has industrial use as well, oil-fired power plants for example. Consider all the products made from petroleum or using petroleum as a part of the manufacturing process. Oil is used in the extraction of other energy sources. In fact, and you'll love this, it takes quite a bit of oil to extract oil from the tar sands.
2. The long-term interest for oil companies is to absolutely not tap out all of the current oil supply which is finite. But we run into the same problem Prince, and I think you agree. The largest oil field in the world is in Saudi Arabia and was discovered by the British in the 1940's. We are increasingly finding smaller oil fields, in more difficult extraction locations, and of poorer quality. If the price of oil is not very high then there is absolutely no financial incentive to tap that oil.
A brilliant economist once said that in the long-run we're all dead. In the case of oil, he was spot-on. I'm not saying it is business in a degrading tone, just indifferent. Unless you and I are willing to pay premium money for oil, their is absolutely no incentive to drill in the ANWR or invest in very expensive new refineries. If and when we reach that point, you'll see it happen.
3. Increasing supply does not necessarily reduce demand.
I agree there, completely. Energy independence is not only impossible, it is undesirable. But it makes a good talking point for self-aggrandizing pundits and politicians.
Thank God, someone else understands!
By the way, there are two really good articles on oil in this month's National Geographic. One on how well Western Siberia is doing as well as how Moscow has centralised the oil production. Plus, one on oil supply. Great reads, both of them.
-
Can't think of a much more scarier scenario than our post Katrina Fed centralizing and running the nation's oil supply. Well, actually I can.....the same post Katrina Fed that also wants to centralize and run all of our healthcare
:o
-
Can't think of a much more scarier scenario than our post Katrina Fed centralizing and running the nation's oil supply. Well, actually I can.....the same post Katrina Fed that also wants to centralize and run all of our healthcare
:o
They cannot centralize our oil. We have nothing worth centralizing. If they did, you wouldn't even know it because no one would give a damn. It would be like nationalizing our coffee plantations.
Sheesh.
Russia, on the other hand, actually has oil. In fact, they are the world's leading supplier. You better get used to American leaders flying to Moscow. Russians don't hold hands though. It is ashame, I thought Vlad and George made a cute couple.
-
So when Maxine Waters was going off on the Exxon President about how "this liberal would have the Government run it all", she was just ......... blowing smoke?
-
So when Maxine Waters was going off on the Exxon President about how "this liberal would have the Government run it all", she was just ......... blowing smoke?
I have no idea what she said or meant.
What you said was this: "Can't think of a much more scarier scenario than our post Katrina Fed centralizing and running the nation's oil supply."
Our oil supply, as in the oil inside this country's borders, is nothing. Just compare it to the world supply. American oil peaked in 1970 for goodness sake!
Does it somehow surprise you that a politician says something dumb? You (nor anyone here) still haven't explained to me why the CEO lied.
-
So when Maxine Waters was going off on the Exxon President about how "this liberal would have the Government run it all", she was just ......... blowing smoke?
I have no idea what she said or meant.
She clearly stated her agenda of government centrally running the oil companies, thru DC
What you said was this: "Can't think of a much more scarier scenario than our post Katrina Fed centralizing and running the nation's oil supply."
Precisely what Miss Waters would want to do.
Does it somehow surprise you that a politician says something dumb?
Nope, not at all.
You (nor anyone here) still haven't explained to me why the CEO lied.
about what?....not knowing what his actually salary is? I don't actually know what my salary is....so I must be lying, right? Besides being a question that's simply posed to stir emotion at the high amount he's making, what's the revelence? There isn't any outside of doing precisely that, invoking animosity for someone daring to make as much as big corporation CEO's make.
-
Do you really consider <10% profit on sales to be "charging too much"?
I do.
I'm sure this time next year we'll be reading about the oil execs getting obscene bonuses.
As far as I'm concerned, the gas prices are wreaking havoc on our way of life and now is as good a time as any to at the very least threaten to national gas production in this country then move into generating electricity from clean resources like wind, solar and tidal combined and allow corporations to only sell electric vehicles in the US.
It is WAAAAAAAY past time to put aside that socially retarded and ideologically rigid stance of not interfering in "the market".
Gas is a non-negotiable kind of purchase. It is unnecessarily too integral to our economy and our way of life as Americans. (Of course, Ami has made the ridiculous case that we can "choose" to not buy gas but I doubt my mother would like to "choose" to use a bicycle to ride the 100 miles from Memphis to Corinth, MS to visit her mother in the nursing home every week. Maybe she could consider a horse and buggy, eh, Ami? That's a choice, right?)
-
(Of course, Ami has made the ridiculous case that we can "choose" to not buy gas but I doubt my mother would like to "choose" to use a bicycle to ride the 100 miles from Memphis to Corinth, MS to visit her mother in the nursing home every week. Maybe she could consider a horse and buggy, eh, Ami? That's a choice, right?)
Or she could relocate.
XO does not buy petroleum based fuel for his car any longer.
So, since a 10% profit is too much, are you prepared to protest against your local grocery store which makes a 30% or more profit? Groceries are just as necessary as gasoline...
-
(Of course, Ami has made the ridiculous case that we can "choose" to not buy gas but I doubt my mother would like to "choose" to use a bicycle to ride the 100 miles from Memphis to Corinth, MS to visit her mother in the nursing home every week. Maybe she could consider a horse and buggy, eh, Ami? That's a choice, right?)
Or she could relocate.
XO does not buy petroleum based fuel for his car any longer.
So, since a 10% profit is too much, are you prepared to protest against your local grocery store which makes a 30% or more profit? Groceries are just as necessary as gasoline...
If she did relocate, she'd just have to drive back to Memphis once a week to see her grandchildren. Or are you suggesting she choose? Maybe it would enough to just see her three grandchildren over the internet?
And, absolutely YES, I am prepared to protest their profit as well, if it amounts in the billions and is resulting in the destruction of families and lifestyles. Aren't you?
-
(Of course, Ami has made the ridiculous case that we can "choose" to not buy gas but I doubt my mother would like to "choose" to use a bicycle to ride the 100 miles from Memphis to Corinth, MS to visit her mother in the nursing home every week. Maybe she could consider a horse and buggy, eh, Ami? That's a choice, right?)
Or she could relocate.
XO does not buy petroleum based fuel for his car any longer.
So, since a 10% profit is too much, are you prepared to protest against your local grocery store which makes a 30% or more profit? Groceries are just as necessary as gasoline...
If she did relocate, she'd just have to drive back to Memphis once a week to see her grandchildren. Or are you suggesting she choose? Maybe it would enough to just see her three grandchildren over the internet?
And, absolutely YES, I am prepared to protest their profit as well, if it amounts in the billions and is resulting in the destruction of families and lifestyles. Aren't you?
Without that profit there would not be any reason to bring gas or grocerys to you .
-
If she did relocate, she'd just have to drive back to Memphis once a week to see her grandchildren. Or are you suggesting she choose? Maybe it would enough to just see her three grandchildren over the internet?
Like I said, it's a choice. You decide what's important and make your decisions based on that. If living without buying gasoline is important to you, that can be done.
Oh yeah, the relocation can be to relocate the mother to Memphis as well. Hadn't thought of that?
And, absolutely YES, I am prepared to protest their profit as well, if it amounts in the billions and is resulting in the destruction of families and lifestyles. Aren't you?
Ah, so you're jealous of the amount, not the fact that they're actually racking in more per dollar spent than the oil companies...
-
If she did relocate, she'd just have to drive back to Memphis once a week to see her grandchildren. Or are you suggesting she choose? Maybe it would enough to just see her three grandchildren over the internet?
Like I said, it's a choice. You decide what's important and make your decisions based on that. If living without buying gasoline is important to you, that can be done.
Oh yeah, the relocation can be to relocate the mother to Memphis as well. Hadn't thought of that?
And, absolutely YES, I am prepared to protest their profit as well, if it amounts in the billions and is resulting in the destruction of families and lifestyles. Aren't you?
Ah, so you're jealous of the amount, not the fact that they're actually racking in more per dollar spent than the oil companies...
Normally I don't ask members of 3DHS what kind of money they make , I don't really want to know.
But how many of us know what percent of their company's expenses is pay for employees?
How many of us can state with confidence what load on their companys profit or agencys effectiveness is their own pay?
I would guess that a large company's president ,whose company was makeing him a billionaire ,would represent a smaller load on the company than the percent drawn by an employee of a small company , or the workforce of a large one.
Is it worthwile to attract the best talent in the world to corporate positions with the best pay in the world?
-
You (nor anyone here) still haven't explained to me why the CEO lied.
about what?....not knowing what his actually salary is? I don't actually know what my salary is....so I must be lying, right? Besides being a question that's simply posed to stir emotion at the high amount he's making, what's the revelence? There isn't any outside of doing precisely that, invoking animosity for someone daring to make as much as big corporation CEO's make.
No. I could give a shit less about that.
One of the oil execs said that his company's profits were justified because they reinvest most of it back into scientific research and plant development.
It is a blatant lie because of the rules of accounting. Research and improvements are expenses. Profits = net revenue - net expenses - adjustments. (It can be a bit more complicated, but that is the basic idea in every for-profit company)
So why tell such a blatant lie?
-
It is a blatant lie because of the rules of accounting. Research and improvements are expenses. Profits = net revenue - net expenses - adjustments. (It can be a bit more complicated, but that is the basic idea in every for-profit company)
So why tell such a blatant lie?
==================================
Perhaps it is in the nature of blatant liars to tell blatant lies.
-
One of the oil execs said that his company's profits were justified because they reinvest most of it back into scientific research and plant development.
So 10% profit is just too egregious, even when its claimed how most of it goes into R&D. Amazing. What was Microsoft's profit margain again? Last time I checked, it was greater than 10%. Where's the outrage??
What's seriously blatant here Js, is this complete lack of objectivity when it comes to concepts of supply & demand, as it relates to the global oil market. You rage how more refineries wouldn't amount to anything, when our population has been growing exponentially, yet refinery buidling to keep up with that growth have been non-existant. And it's NOT because oil companies don't want to make them, it's largely because one way or another, they're inhibited, when not out right prevented, and made cost prohibitive via insidious levels of litigation, permits, regulations, & zoning restrictions.
So don't sit there and rail at their profits. Yea, they probably aren't being completely honest in everythign they say....which is why they have perjury charges. If this fella "blatantly lied", he'll be handed a perjuery indictment.....right?? Point being, that SO WHAT if they're making bazillions of dollars. They're only making around 10% profit. That's CONSISTENT with nearly every other company and much less than Microsoft. Maybe if you can get past this apparent jealous animosity of rich people, you might actually become a tad more objective to the supply and demand issues that have helped fuel the current oil costs. The market is volatile, and there is MORE oil we could extract........IF were were allowed
-
One of the oil execs said that his company's profits were justified because they reinvest most of it back into scientific research and plant development.
It is a blatant lie because of the rules of accounting. Research and improvements are expenses. Profits = net revenue - net expenses - adjustments. (It can be a bit more complicated, but that is the basic idea in every for-profit company)
So why tell such a blatant lie?
Actually, your definition (R&D are charged as expenses in the year they're accrued) comes from FASB Statement 2, issued in 1974. This statement specifically says that it does not apply to mining and drilling industries R&D.
FASB Statement 19 is the appropriate one for the oil and mining industries. In it, we find that R&D costs are capitalized and charged against future production - ie, it becomes a cost against production when the production starts producing income. Only costs related to "failed" ventures are charged as expenses, and only in the year that it becomes known to be a failed venture (they're capitalized until then).
I'm sure the auditors know all this. Or do you think the auditors who approve the petroleum company's financial statements are "in on it" too?
-
Wow.....there's an eye opener. Thanks Ami
-
One of the oil execs said that his company's profits were justified because they reinvest most of it back into scientific research and plant development.
It is a blatant lie because of the rules of accounting. Research and improvements are expenses. Profits = net revenue - net expenses - adjustments. (It can be a bit more complicated, but that is the basic idea in every for-profit company)
So why tell such a blatant lie?
Actually, your definition (R&D are charged as expenses in the year they're accrued) comes from FASB Statement 2, issued in 1974. This statement specifically says that it does not apply to mining and drilling industries R&D.
FASB Statement 19 is the appropriate one for the oil and mining industries. In it, we find that R&D costs are capitalized and charged against future production - ie, it becomes a cost against production when the production starts producing income. Only costs related to "failed" ventures are charged as expenses, and only in the year that it becomes known to be a failed venture (they're capitalized until then).
I'm sure the auditors know all this. Or do you think the auditors who approve the petroleum company's financial statements are "in on it" too?
I am not sure yet that I understand this issue.
Was the executive in question stateing that they spend more on R&D than they harvest as profit?
Or was he saying that profit is reduced by R&D after it goes on paper as profit?
-
Thanks Ami, that was all I was asking. And no, I didn't think anyone was "in" on anything. I didn't realize there was an exception for drilling or mining industries.
I have no idea what your rant was about Sirs. Please quit going off the deep end. You started talking about profit margins...I never asked anything about margins.
I never "raged" about refineries. I tried to explain to you why they aren't being built. You try and make this into high school economics and it just isn't. You act like you understand, but you clearly do not. It isn't this grand conspiracy to harm the oil companies that you pretend it to be.
Your understanding of business and economics is remarkably sophomoric Sirs. I'm sorry to put it that way, but it really is. It is terrible. You buy into all of the political garbage like "energy independence" and the evil environmentalists, and the truth is you're no different than some nutty tree-hugger. You're just on the opposite scale, but you don't understand any more of the issue than they do. And you do not care to learn.
Maybe if you could get past your animosity of actually reading intelligent literature or possibly listening instead of taking everything so damned personally and defending anything that you see as remotely right-wing, then you could learn a little.
I don't mind making a mistake. I'm glad Ami corrected me. That was all I asked. I learned something new. You, on the other hand, learned nothing. You think ANWR is still the answer and energy independence is still possible if environmentalists just get out of the way. ::)
Fucking daft.
-
Thanks Ami, that was all I was asking. And no, I didn't think anyone was "in" on anything. I didn't realize there was an exception for drilling or mining industries.
I took accounting courses in college, and spent 5 or 6 years working on GL systems. Can be interesting stuff.
-
Thanks Ami, that was all I was asking. And no, I didn't think anyone was "in" on anything. I didn't realize there was an exception for drilling or mining industries.
I have no idea what your rant was about Sirs. Please quit going off the deep end....I don't mind making a mistake. I'm glad Ami corrected me. That was all I asked. I learned something new. You, on the other hand, learned nothing. You think ANWR is still the answer and energy independence is still possible if environmentalists just get out of the way. ::) Fucking daft.
And you know what's really daft? Accusing folks of things they never claimed or even implied. Such as ANWR is the end-all be-all answer to reducing oil prices....that energy independence is right at our fingertips if it weren't for enviromental nut jobs. As it's painfully clear, if you could get past your apparent acute disdain for the "uber rich", and how dare they not spread their wealth more they way you'd see fit, you might not look quite so arrogant & condescending when you make such bold proclaimations of "blatant lie", only to be corrected.....again
-
Or was he saying that profit is reduced by R&D after it goes on paper as profit?
Yes.
-
Or was he saying that profit is reduced by R&D after it goes on paper as profit?
Yes.
I would never have guessed that.
So the cents on the dollar reported profit is not all availible to shareholders?
-
I would never have guessed that.
So the cents on the dollar reported profit is not all availible to shareholders?
Nope. Exxon, as an example, paid about 27% of it's profits to shareholders. So, the amount that oil company shareholders "raped" the American people for is only about 2.7% of sales. The balance of profit was reinvested into delivering more product in the future.
-
2.7%?? Those evil bastards
-
2.7%?? Those evil bastards
Evil lying bastards.
After all, we can assume that everything they reported was lies, and the auditors are all just in on it.
8)
-
I sit corrected ;)
-
It is a volatile market, but that doesn't change the fact that oil is an inelastic commodity.
But it does change the amount of risk involved. Risk to the profits that make running the company possible. So it cannot be as blithely disregarded as you seem to be doing.
1. Individual consumer consumption of gasoline is not the only use of oil.
Of course it isn't. But gasoline is an important source of revenue, and perhaps more importantly, the gasoline side of things is the face of the oil industry.
2. The long-term interest for oil companies is to absolutely not tap out all of the current oil supply which is finite. But we run into the same problem Prince, and I think you agree. The largest oil field in the world is in Saudi Arabia and was discovered by the British in the 1940's. We are increasingly finding smaller oil fields, in more difficult extraction locations, and of poorer quality. If the price of oil is not very high then there is absolutely no financial incentive to tap that oil.
It has less to do with the price of the oil than it does with whether or not reasonable profit can be made. The technology of cracking oil and refining it has improved over the years and they can now get better product from smaller amounts and/or lesser oil. As the technology improves the profitability may change, but the technology is not going to improve if the oil companies don't first make a profit to invest into research and development. Like most business, the goal of the oil companies to remain in business is a reasonable priority.
Unless you and I are willing to pay premium money for oil, their is absolutely no incentive to drill in the ANWR or invest in very expensive new refineries.
Again, it has to do with profitability. Whether one agrees with the regulations or not, they increase the cost the work the oil companies do. Suggesting the companies have not current profit incentive is nice, but it ignores that the costs of the regulations functions effectively as a disincentive by decreasing the ability to turn a reasonable profit. Agree with the regulations or not, they discourage new refineries. To then complain about no new refineries here or new refineries only in other countries is sort of like slapping one's child every time he laughs and then wondering why he never laughs any more.
-
(http://www.cagle.com/working/080522/trever.gif)
-
As it's painfully clear, if you could get past your apparent acute disdain for the "uber rich"
What makes you think I "disdain" the "rich?"
Why is it such a bad thing to be corrected?
-
As it's painfully clear, if you could get past your apparent acute disdain for the "uber rich"
What makes you think I "disdain" the "rich?"
Fair share comments, references to the profits companies make, rationalizations galore as to why Oil companies have no incentives, a liberal desire to redistribute wealth. Of course, I confess, disdain may have been too harsh a word for you. Obviously not for Xo or Brass, however
Why is it such a bad thing to be corrected?
Nothing. We have Ami here to help correct the left, most of the time
-
The cartoon is bogus, since there is NO WAY the US could drill enough to supply all its petroleum needs.
Ami does not "correct" anyone, he just offers his opinions.
It is also rather bogus to claim that 27% of the profits go to shareholders. One must also take into account the rather huge sums that are paid to executives and board members, which are listed as "expenses". There are also many ways that profits can be disguised, such as claiming that company-owned tankers really belong to a separate company headquartered on the Isle of Sark or in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, or some other pace that charges small or no taxes, and then is paid way above competitive shipping rates.
-
There are also many ways that profits can be disguised, such as claiming that company-owned tankers really belong to a separate company headquartered on the Isle of Sark or in Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, or some other pace that charges small or no taxes, and then is paid way above competitive shipping rates.
And, of course, you have the evidence that this is happening, and somehow the auditors all missed it.
-
d'oh
;)
-
Fair share comments, references to the profits companies make, rationalizations galore as to why Oil companies have no incentives, a liberal desire to redistribute wealth. Of course, I confess, disdain may have been too harsh a word for you. Obviously not for Xo or Brass, however
Why would discussing oil company incentives reflect a "disdain" towards the rich?
If oil companies closed refineries in th 90's, why would they need to build more today?
-
Fair share comments, references to the profits companies make, rationalizations galore as to why Oil companies have no incentives, a liberal desire to redistribute wealth. Of course, I confess, disdain may have been too harsh a word for you. Obviously not for Xo or Brass, however
Why would discussing oil company incentives reflect a "disdain" towards the rich?
Must have missed the part where "disdain" might be a tad over the top for you personally. Let me suggest you re-read the above paragraph
If oil companies closed refineries in th 90's, why would they need to build more today?
Myriad a reasons, I'm sure, with the one that comes to mind presently, that of modernization. Being that we haven't built a new one on 20+years I believe, yet our population continues to grow, increasing demand of an already referenced finite supply. Yet, somehow it's "big oil" simply trying to gouge us, as the reason for increasing gasoline $$. Imagine that
-
Myriad a reasons, I'm sure, with the one that comes to mind presently, that of modernization. Being that we haven't built a new one on 20+years I believe, yet our population continues to grow, increasing demand of an already referenced finite supply.
=============================================
"We?" I do not think that any of us here, OR the government, acting for us, builds refineries. Refineries are built for the oil companies by the oil companies, and for their own interests, the principle interest being to make money. The growth in population and demand is hardly a secret.
It is very, very, extremely unlikely that the only reason THEY have neglected, refused, or failed to build one or more refineries is due to government regulation. It is no doubt also true that currently existing refineries can be and have been modified over the years to have more efficient operation and a higher output.
Let's not blame ourselves for a lack of refineries. We might as well blame ourselves for a lack of or abundance of shopping malls and burger joints.
-
but just saying technology now should be enough to eliminate the need for more refineries isn`t a very good statement.
isn`t the point that the need for more refineries is allow backups to ease the great demands on them.
remember the fire one of them had that driven the prices up for a few months.
one of factors was lack of maintenance caused by large demands.
isn`t it a better to have more for safety reasons
also on the matter of oil profits
in dollar amounts it`s true very high
but in percents they got a very small margin
meaning these companies are constantly pumping money straight into getting petro
these guys are in a very scary balancing act.
-
but in percents they got a very small margin
meaning these companies are constantly pumping money straight into getting petro
these guys are in a very scary balancing act.
===================================
This is what the oil companies SAY. You will never, NEVER find any company that will admit to making high profits: they resort to all sorts of subterfuges to disguise profits, such as separating their tanker subsidiaries and storage subsidiaries into offshore corporations that need not report their true income publicly and having them charge immense fees for storage and delivery, having subsidiary insurance companies report extremely high premiums, misreporting lower grade oil as higher grade: all sorts of ruses and deceptions that are hard or impossible for the government or independent agencies to disprove.
They want us all to believe that their business is far riskier than it really is, and that their total profits are far smaller than they really are.
-
but in percents they got a very small margin
meaning these companies are constantly pumping money straight into getting petro
these guys are in a very scary balancing act.
===================================
This is what the oil companies SAY. You will never, NEVER find any company that will admit to making high profits: they resort to all sorts of subterfuges to disguise profits, such as separating their tanker subsidiaries and storage subsidiaries into offshore corporations that need not report their true income publicly and having them charge immense fees for storage and delivery, having subsidiary insurance companies report extremely high premiums, misreporting lower grade oil as higher grade: all sorts of ruses and deceptions that are hard or impossible for the government or independent agencies to disprove.
They want us all to believe that their business is far riskier than it really is, and that their total profits are far smaller than they really are.
So they have two books?
Every now and then one of them fails , I don't remember anyone asking for windfall loss tax rebates to go to Oil companys when the prices fell.
You have to get over the notion that that oil is your birthright , it belongs first to whoever maintains the mineral rights to the wells , if they don't want to sell it you have to go to another well.
After Exxon buys a barrell of oil , and converts it to styrene and gasolene why should thay sell any of it to you?
You and I were not born with a birthright to the oil of the world , nor to the gas of the world either , we have to earn it.
-
They want us all to believe that their business is far riskier than it really is, and that their total profits are far smaller than they really are.
Funny how you're the only one who's right, you cannot show us any evidence, and "obviously" the auditors are idiots or "in on it".
-
So they have two books?
Every now and then one of them fails , I don't remember anyone asking for windfall loss tax rebates to go to Oil companys when the prices fell.
==========================
They don't NEED two sets of books. If their tanker (or refining, or some other part of the business is headquartered in Sark or Bermuda, where there are no taxes, ten they do not need to have any set of books that much be shown to any officials at all.
Oil companies do not fail. At worst, they buy one another out. There is no such thing as "windfall rebates" to anyone who is losing money. If you conceive of such a thing, you do not understand the concept of "windfalls".
If Exxon receives the support of the Navy or some other part of the US military, then they DO have an obligation to supply the people of this country with oil and gas.
If their books do not tell the whole story, and they wish to hide what is inconvenient fpor them to show, then how is anyone supposed to such evidence? But the ways of furgling the books of oil companies are well-known to anyone who has studied the subject.
-
If their books do not tell the whole story, and they wish to hide what is inconvenient fpor them to show, then how is anyone supposed to such evidence? But the ways of furgling the books of oil companies are well-known to anyone who has studied the subject.
Well-known, apparently, to many except their auditors.
-
And all the while, with all the hyperbolic acccusations, with all the official investigations, and organized committees desginated to look into "big oil", their profits, supposed price gouging, & price manipulation, not 1 SHRED of evidence to support ANY of the allegations. No indictments, no NOTHING
But "obviously" they must be doing something sinsister, if not illegal. ::)
-
don`t forget they`re selling a product will a shelf life
the oil itself can last quite awhile,but gas actually doesn`t last very long
it kinda say something about how much we consume if people don`t know gasoline spoils
our consumption rate is very high
people who mow lawns seasonally know this fact.
-
If their books do not tell the whole story, and they wish to hide what is inconvenient fpor them to show, then how is anyone supposed to such evidence? But the ways of furgling the books of oil companies are well-known to anyone who has studied the subject.
Like all good conspiracy theories, supposedly anyone who studies the matter just knows that the conspiracy exists because the lack of evidence proves the conspiracy exists.
-
If their books do not tell the whole story, and they wish to hide what is inconvenient fpor them to show, then how is anyone supposed to such evidence? But the ways of furgling the books of oil companies are well-known to anyone who has studied the subject.
Like all good conspiracy theories, supposedly anyone who studies the matter just knows that the conspiracy exists because the lack of evidence proves the conspiracy exists.
Ooo, ooo, I know who's a leading advocate of that mindset....lack of evidence on x = proof of x. And again, welcome back, Tee ;)
-
don`t forget they`re selling a product will a shelf life
the oil itself can last quite awhile,but gas actually doesn`t last very long
it kinda say something about how much we consume if people don`t know gasoline spoils
our consumption rate is very high
people who mow lawns seasonally know this fact.
================================================
Gasoline in huge storage tanks does not, in fact, spoil very rapidly, because it is not exposed to circulating air or water. In a lawnmower, where there is just a small quantity exposed to the air and moisture in the air, it can gel and gum up the carburator. It will keep for over a year in a full tank of a modern car.
To prevent this, allow the gasoline to run out, or put a small quantity of stabilizer (such as Sta-Bil) in the gas tank.
And welcome back, Tee
-
If Exxon receives the support of the Navy or some other part of the US military, then they DO have an obligation to supply the people of this country with oil and gas.
What?
I don't get that one.
-
And all the while, with all the hyperbolic acccusations, with all the official investigations, and organized committees desginated to look into "big oil", their profits, supposed price gouging, & price manipulation, not 1 SHRED of evidence to support ANY of the allegations. No indictments, no NOTHING
But "obviously" they must be doing something sinsister, if not illegal. ::)
On the contrary, memos indicated that refineries were closed in the 1990's purposefully to decrease supply and increase price. There have also been memos indicating collusion to force out small business refiners and suppliers of petroleum.
You are simply wrong Sirs.
CBS News Story (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/06/14/national/main296584.shtml)
Chevron Memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/chevron.pdf)
Texaco Memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/texaco.pdf)
Mobil Email (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/mobil.pdf)
Senator Wyden's Report (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/wyden.pdf)
BBC News Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4296812.stm)
From the BBC:
But the primary motive behind the lack of US refinery new builds is a basic one, a lack of profits for oil companies.
In the 1980s and 90s, the fashion for American refineries was not to build more, but to close existing ones.
In 2001, Senator Ron Wyden authored a comprehensive report on the state of the US refining industry.
He noted that between 1995 and 2001 there were a total of 24 refinery closures in the United States.
These lost America around 830,000 barrels per day of gasoline. That is about the same amount of capacity lost to Katrina alone.
Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.
Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing."
"The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.
"The same situation exists for the entire US refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."
The same basic premise has operated in Europe. Not only have no new refineries been built for two decade; there are no plans to build any in the future.
There is a plan for one small 150,000 bpd US refinery in Arizona near the town of Welton, but even that has many hurdles to overcome.
Telegraph Story on Shell (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2004/05/08/tebGcnshell20.xml)
-
from the Chevron Memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/chevron.pdf) linked above: "Unocal is exploring sale of three refineries and 1,441 gasoline stations in California due to low West Coast refining margins and high capital expenditures required to comply with stringent environmental regulations." Really? Stringent environmental regulations? Complying with them cuts into profits? Huh. I wish I had known about that. I might have said something about it... oh, wait, that's right, I did.
-
I think I did too, Prince. Go figure. When a company's effort to build new refineries is made so cost prohibitive, is it no wonder there's been so little new building?
-
If Exxon receives the support of the Navy or some other part of the US military, then they DO have an obligation to supply the people of this country with oil and gas.
What?
I don't get that one.
I still don't get it , if they make better profit selling to Switzerland , why shouldn't they?
-
from the Chevron Memo (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/chevron.pdf) linked above: "Unocal is exploring sale of three refineries and 1,441 gasoline stations in California due to low West Coast refining margins and high capital expenditures required to comply with stringent environmental regulations." Really? Stringent environmental regulations? Complying with them cuts into profits? Huh. I wish I had known about that. I might have said something about it... oh, wait, that's right, I did.
And of course, you read the rest of it, correct Prince?
-
I think I did too, Prince. Go figure. When a company's effort to build new refineries is made so cost prohibitive, is it no wonder there's been so little new building?
And of course, you see that your statement:
And all the while, with all the hyperbolic acccusations, with all the official investigations, and organized committees desginated to look into "big oil", their profits, supposed price gouging, & price manipulation, not 1 SHRED of evidence to support ANY of the allegations. No indictments, no NOTHING
...is completely false Sirs?
-
No, not false at all. Where are the indictments?? Where's the illegal activity?? Where's the unlawful conduct?? When the rubber hits the road there is none, outside of the continued issues regarding supply and demand and the continued efforts to BLOCK & IMPEDE any effort to increase supply by the enviromental lobby and those politicians/judges beholden to them
-
No, not false at all. Where are the indictments?? Where's the illegal activity?? Where's the unlawful conduct?? When the rubber hits the road there is none, outside of the continued issues regarding supply and demand and the continued efforts to BLOCK & IMPEDE any effort to increase supply by the enviromental lobby and those politicians/judges beholden to them
Did you not read the articles? Did you not see where Shell broke the law? Where the oil companies closed refineries to decrease supply and increase profits?
I provide you the documents, and yet you refuse to read them. They completely contradict your statement.
-
So I guess I need to flood the site with the multitude of efforts brought forth by the enviromental fringe, as it relates to litigations & lawsuits, and those politicians beholden to them, who have been instrumental at producing new regulation after new regulation, specifically impeding, when not out and out blocking ,any effort to expand both refinery contruction and drilling expansion, by "big oil"
And I'm also going to guess my list will far outnumber your article. And if that happens, your response will be............? Just trying to glimmer the rationalization effort you'd likley play
-
No, not false at all. Where are the indictments?? Where's the illegal activity?? Where's the unlawful conduct?? When the rubber hits the road there is none, outside of the continued issues regarding supply and demand and the continued efforts to BLOCK & IMPEDE any effort to increase supply by the enviromental lobby and those politicians/judges beholden to them
Did you not read the articles? Did you not see where Shell broke the law? Where the oil companies closed refineries to decrease supply and increase profits?
I provide you the documents, and yet you refuse to read them. They completely contradict your statement.
Did they really close profitable enterprises?
-
And of course, you read the rest of it, correct Prince?
I did. And I know it's shocking, shocking! that oil companies were/are concerned about making a profit. Why can't they just forget about profit and depend on government bailouts like everyone else?
Sarcasm aside, I get that you saying the greed for profits is keeping gas prices artificially high and that greed for profit means the oil companies won't bother with new refineries. One thing I think the memos also point out is that the costs of conforming to environmental regulations has also cut into profits, particularly regarding refineries. The regulations helped cut into the refinery margins because the refinery is where many of the regulations have to be implemented. That is not, in itself, an argument against the regulations, just a recognition of what regulation has accomplished. The more we increase the cost of production, the more the oil companies have to look for ways to maintain profitability. That we are now supposed to be offended that the oil companies have cut back on supply to achieve a measly 10% profit margin, most of which, as I understand it, gets reinvested in the company. The alternative, in broad strokes, being that the companies fail and end up with huge government bailouts to keep the companies in operation and thousands of people end up out of work anyway. The oil companies are not the bad guys in this tale. I'm not sure there are any bad guys in this tale. Not even the folks who seem to think somewhere there is an oligarchy that sits around making prices too high out of a desire to screw the masses. The closest might be the guys at Shell that you're complaining about, but I notice they were investigated but not prosecuted.
-
And of course, you read the rest of it, correct Prince?
I did. And I know it's shocking, shocking! that oil companies were/are concerned about making a profit. Why can't they just forget about profit and depend on government bailouts like everyone else?
Sarcasm aside, I get that you saying the greed for profits is keeping gas prices artificially high and that greed for profit means the oil companies won't bother with new refineries. One thing I think the memos also point out is that the costs of conforming to environmental regulations has also cut into profits, particularly regarding refineries. The regulations helped cut into the refinery margins because the refinery is where many of the regulations have to be implemented. That is not, in itself, an argument against the regulations, just a recognition of what regulation has accomplished. The more we increase the cost of production, the more the oil companies have to look for ways to maintain profitability. That we are now supposed to be offended that the oil companies have cut back on supply to achieve a measly 10% profit margin, most of which, as I understand it, gets reinvested in the company. The alternative, in broad strokes, being that the companies fail and end up with huge government bailouts to keep the companies in operation and thousands of people end up out of work anyway. The oil companies are not the bad guys in this tale. I'm not sure there are any bad guys in this tale. Not even the folks who seem to think somewhere there is an oligarchy that sits around making prices too high out of a desire to screw the masses. The closest might be the guys at Shell that you're complaining about, but I notice they were investigated but not prosecuted.
Prince, I never said there are bad guys in this tale. I simply provided documents that refuted a commonly held right-wing notion that the only thing preventing new refineries are wacko environmentalist nutters. I also wanted to point out that Sirs was incorrect in claiming that these investigations proved nothing.
I made a point a while back that oil companies had little incentive to construct new refineries and I believe this makes that argument well. I'm not exactly sure why you or Sirs has painted me into some conspiracy theorist, can you show me where I've indicated that I believe in some sort of oil oligarchy?
-
So I guess I need to flood the site with the multitude of efforts brought forth by the enviromental fringe, as it relates to litigations & lawsuits, and those politicians beholden to them, who have been instrumental at producing new regulation after new regulation, specifically impeding, when not out and out blocking ,any effort to expand both refinery contruction and drilling expansion, by "big oil"
And I'm also going to guess my list will far outnumber your article. And if that happens, your response will be............? Just trying to glimmer the rationalization effort you'd likley play
Sirs, I've asked you to provide evidence for many of your arguments beforehand. I'll be amazed if you even bother.
Yet, that hasn't refuted what I've posted nor your inability to respond. Can you not just admit that you were wrong?
-
I'm not exactly sure why you or Sirs has painted me into some conspiracy theorist, can you show me where I've indicated that I believe in some sort of oil oligarchy?
I was not referring to you with the oligarchy remark. Sorry for the confusion there.
Anyway, I think the oil companies do have a reason to try to up production of gasoline. Same reason they closed refineries. Profit. As I said before, higher prices for gas will cut into demand in the long term. We may not see gas for less than $2/gallon ever again, but bringing the price down would be in the best interest of the oil companies. Many people are already figuring out ways to cut gas consumption. $4/gallon (roughly speaking) gas cuts sharply into paychecks. Particularly those who have chosen not to live close to work. Demand will decline, and even higher prices will not compensate, because that would only cause more decline. We may not get refineries here in the U.S., but I think we will see lower gas prices before this is all over.
-
Prince, I never said there are bad guys in this tale. I simply provided documents that refuted a commonly held right-wing notion that the only thing preventing new refineries are wacko environmentalist nutters. I also wanted to point out that Sirs was incorrect in claiming that these investigations proved nothing.
And WHEN, WHEN, WHEN?? did I ever say the ONLY THING preventing new refineries being built were whaco enviromentalist nutters?? And where are the criminal indictments it was officially deterined something illegal had been discovered?? Where Js?? I think we can chalk that one up to you assuming what I'm supposedly believing as some supposed "typical republican", and not bothering to READ what I post.
-
I'm not exactly sure why you or Sirs has painted me into some conspiracy theorist, can you show me where I've indicated that I believe in some sort of oil oligarchy?
I was not referring to you with the oligarchy remark. Sorry for the confusion there.
Anyway, I think the oil companies do have a reason to try to up production of gasoline. Same reason they closed refineries. Profit. As I said before, higher prices for gas will cut into demand in the long term. We may not see gas for less than $2/gallon ever again, but bringing the price down would be in the best interest of the oil companies. Many people are already figuring out ways to cut gas consumption. $4/gallon (roughly speaking) gas cuts sharply into paychecks. Particularly those who have chosen not to live close to work. Demand will decline, and even higher prices will not compensate, because that would only cause more decline. We may not get refineries here in the U.S., but I think we will see lower gas prices before this is all over.
I'd say that you are right. There is an equilibrium to be reached and it depends on many factors. Consumers will be hit in many ways from high oil prices. Governments, from local, state, to federal use large fleets of vehicles as well as lots of energy to function. Corporations do as well, plus many modern corporations use a great deal of travel as most are spread out over national and international boundaries. One can imagine how the airplane, rental car, and hotel industries may be affected as well. For those who make wages in the low teens per hour and less, long commutes can definitely begin to create employment decisions.
It'll definitely be interesting to see what economic behaviors take place over the next few months to years.
-
Prince, I never said there are bad guys in this tale. I simply provided documents that refuted a commonly held right-wing notion that the only thing preventing new refineries are wacko environmentalist nutters. I also wanted to point out that Sirs was incorrect in claiming that these investigations proved nothing.
And WHEN, WHEN, WHEN?? did I ever say the ONLY THING preventing new refineries being built were whaco enviromentalist nutters?? And where are the criminal indictments it was officially deterined something illegal had been discovered?? Where Js?? I think we can chalk that one up to you assuming what I'm supposedly believing as some supposed "typical republican", and not bothering to READ what I post.
Blah, blah, blah.
Here is what you posted.
And all the while, with all the hyperbolic acccusations, with all the official investigations, and organized committees desginated to look into "big oil", their profits, supposed price gouging, & price manipulation, not 1 SHRED of evidence to support ANY of the allegations.
I gave you evidence. You threw in criminal allegations as an afterthought. The truth is that they did close refineries to increase price on consumers. That is an allegation against "Big Oil." And it was true, whether you like it or not.
You were wrong. Your statement above is not true.
-
You gave me evidence that companies will attempt to *gasp* make a profit, and when made too cost prohibitive, not try. That's what you have provided. No indictements, no criminal precedings, squat, zip, nada
Now, shall I start googling the mass amount of litigous efforts & regulations aimed at preventing if not completely derailing efforts for these same companies to build refineries and expand drilling??
-
You gave me evidence that companies will attempt to *gasp* make a profit, and when made too cost prohibitive, not try. That's what you have provided. No indictements, no criminal precedings, squat, zip, nada
Now, shall I start googling the mass amount of litigous efforts & regulations aimed at preventing if not completely derailing efforts for these same companies to build refineries and expand drilling??
No. I gave you evidence that refineries were closed, not because they were cost prohibitive, but because supply was too high and price needed to increase. I.E. price that you pay at the pump was considered too low and the oil companies wished to make a higher profit by closing refineries. That is essentially what many have been saying all along, yet you claim that these are "hyperbolic allegations."
Obviously you are WRONG.
Oil companies purposefully closed refineries in order to decrease supply and increase price. There's no hyperbole there, that is just a flat out fact. I gave you the documents, right there. Yet, you bitch and moan about litigious efforts. So the "refinery expansion crisis" is a load of horse feces. The refineries were there, you just weren't willing to pay enough for the plentiful petrol at the time.
Yes, you google away now. Toddle off.
-
You gave me evidence that companies will attempt to *gasp* make a profit, and when made too cost prohibitive, not try. That's what you have provided. No indictements, no criminal precedings, squat, zip, nada
Now, shall I start googling the mass amount of litigous efforts & regulations aimed at preventing if not completely derailing efforts for these same companies to build refineries and expand drilling??
No. I gave you evidence that refineries were closed, not because they were cost prohibitive, but because supply was too high and price needed to increase. I.E. price that you pay at the pump was considered too low and the oil companies wished to make a higher profit by closing refineries. That is essentially what many have been saying all along, yet you claim that these are "hyperbolic allegations."
Obviously you are WRONG.
Oil companies purposefully closed refineries in order to decrease supply and increase price. There's no hyperbole there, that is just a flat out fact. I gave you the documents, right there. Yet, you bitch and moan about litigious efforts. So the "refinery expansion crisis" is a load of horse feces. The refineries were there, you just weren't willing to pay enough for the plentiful petrol at the time.
Yes, you google away now. Toddle off.
I once knew a farmer who had an apple orchard , he was not makeing much profit , so he destroyed the Apple trees and planted grapes.
Did he do wrong? I really missed that Apple orchard.
-
And with all official investigations & congressional committes, the NO criminal indictments, NO Criminal prosecutions, NO illegal activity of any kind. Pretty much what I said, thank you very much
-
Pretty much what I said...
LOL
I love it.
-
No. I gave you evidence that refineries were closed, not because they were cost prohibitive, but because supply was too high and price needed to increase. I.E. price that you pay at the pump was considered too low and the oil companies wished to make a higher profit by closing refineries. That is essentially what many have been saying all along, yet you claim that these are "hyperbolic allegations."
.
Oil companies purposefully closed refineries in order to decrease supply and increase price. There's no hyperbole there, that is just a flat out fact.
All right for the sake of this argument lets address the second half , would they be outside their rights to do this?
And the third half...
What is keeping one of the thousand other companys who could ,from building a refinery?