Gas prices in other countries

[Universe Prince]

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.

[sirs]

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

d'oh



 

[_JS]

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?

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[kimba1]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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.

[Amianthus]

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".

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.