NationStates Jolt Archive

What a joke. The Speaker of the House calls oil company executives to to tell them how to spend their profits. The man wouldn't know a profit if it bit him. Congress needs to back off and let energy companies do what they know how to do.

Oh, and the "Demogouge of the Week" award goes to Mr. Ron Bonjean. He provided us with the humorous statement that “People are making choices between putting food on the table, clothing their kids or paying for gasoline.’’

People are spending between 3 and 5 percent of their income on gas. To put it in a different context, people work about 30 days in the year to pay for ALL their energy. How long each year do you suppose one works to pay the tax bill? About 90. Energy prices are high, but they aren't unmanageable.

The best thing to come out of that meeting was this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480632

The best thing to come out of that meeting was this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=480632

It's true; the only way prices can fall in the near term is using less because alternatives will take several years to hit the market, and larger fixes will take even more time. Even fuel economy growth still takes a few years to have an effect, and new oil production or refining capacity take years as well...we're hitting the ultimate dry spot because 10 years ago oil was plunging to its all time real lows.

We can improve our energy efficiency by as much today as we could in 1973 or 1979; even a simple measure like turning down our thermostats 2 degrees in the winter would reduce natural gas demand by 8%, and carpooling could drop our demand by double digits fairly rapidly, to say nothing of simply driving less.

I generally tend to agree that there is little the government can do near-term, but it can't be overlooked that many of our laws are geared toward exaccerbating the oil crisis. By this, I don't necessarily mean fuel-additive laws, as these are more temporarily bad situations that cause long-term benefits. Instead, I'm talking more about zoning laws that create long-distance commutes from the exurbs to the city and don't pay for things like bike routes and sidewalks from houses to the local grocer. The biggest thing we can do to end the oil price crisis is to give people alternatives to living 40 miles from work.

Ahhh...the beauty of laissez faire economics...an opinion is the only thing to which they are entitled.

Oh, and the "Demogouge of the Week" award goes to Mr. Ron Bonjean. He provided us with the humorous statement that “People are making choices between putting food on the table, clothing their kids or paying for gasoline.’’

This is a choice for some people? They actually consider buying gasoline before feeding or clothing their kids? Boy, I'm glad they ain't my parents.

This is a choice for some people? They actually consider buying gasoline before feeding or clothing their kids? Boy, I'm glad they ain't my parents.
Well, if you cant get to work, there definately wont be any food for the kids, right?

This is a choice for some people? They actually consider buying gasoline before feeding or clothing their kids? Boy, I'm glad they ain't my parents.
Last time I filled up here in the UK, I paid the equivalent of $6.75. Last time I checked, Europeans were not magically twice as rich as Americans. It should not be an issue. And long distances my ass. They drive from their suburb to their office like anyone else.

I agree that it is too late to complain about oil company profits now. The time to do something was years ago. Even something very simple such as making SUVs subject to CAFE standards would have been a considerable help. But that chance was blown through corruption and short sightedness.

But I do believe that oil companies should not recieve the pointless tax breaks they currently do. These should be removed. They shouldn't be treated differently from any other business. Also, people who use oil products to damage the environment should pay for it, so I'm in favour of a carbon tax (even a small on would help), although I doubt there will be one any time soon in the U.S.

The government makes more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the oil companies make on a gallon of gas.

The government makes more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the oil companies make on a gallon of gas.

Which is lucky. Can you imagine how big SUVs would be now if there were no gas tax? Mind you, in Australia we get a lot of general revenue from petrol tax, but is the gas tax in the U.S. enough to cover road and highway maintenace and construction, road accident medical costs, medical costs due to car related pollution etc? My guess is with the U.S.'s low taxes there wouldn't be a lot of money left over.

Mind you, in Australia we get a lot of general revenue from petrol tax, but is the gas tax in the U.S. enough to cover road and highway maintenace and construction, road accident medical costs, medical costs due to car related pollution etc?
Not that that would be what the Australian government is doing with the money. They're busy making a "surplus", because that's easy to explain to a voter, not because there's any point to it.

Not that that would be what the Australian government is doing with the money. They're busy making a "surplus", because that's easy to explain to a voter, not because there's any point to it.

It's a bit weird. You want to run a surplus to get rid of your public debt which is bad for your long term economic success, but at the same time they keep trash talking education which is even more vital for long term economic sucess. Methinks they are burning the village in order to save the village.

But I'm in favour of running a surplus. We would never be able to afford a state funeral for billionaire Kerry Packer if we didn't. I'm glad they gave a state funeral for Kerry. This guy did nothing in his life but make himself rich and have fun. This means they absolutely have to give a state funeral to my Grandfather who fought on the Dakoda trail, right?

This is a choice for some people? They actually consider buying gasoline before feeding or clothing their kids? Boy, I'm glad they ain't my parents.
And thus he made my Demagogue of the Week selection. Nancy Pelosi was a close second for her comments about "Modern Day Robber Barons", but that wasn't quite good enough for the top honors.

Well, if you cant get to work, there definately wont be any food for the kids, right?

Why wouldn't you carpool, use mass transit, walk, ride your bike, or participate in car sharing? If you're hurting from high gas prices, than surely there are others you know that are in similar situations that would be willing to make those sacrifices in order to save on gasoline? If you have to choose between driving yourself to work and food or clothing, than you're going to look for ways to reduce your gas expenditures. With the average number of people per car in the US around 1.2, there seems to be plenty of room for more carpooling.

The notion that people have to choose between driving their car and food is ridiculous...there's no reason why a person seriously hurting financially would not be able to work something out with people they know or use other options unless they don't want to sacrifice their "lifestyle" or "convienence".

i think they created these new-fangled things called buses and trains and subways. their gonna call it public transportation.

because i'm sure gas for the car weighs as much on the checkbook as electricity or food.

oil still makes billions, so i need nothing more.

Why wouldn't you carpool, use mass transit, walk, ride your bike, or participate in car sharing? If you're hurting from high gas prices, than surely there are others you know that are in similar situations that would be willing to make those sacrifices in order to save on gasoline? If you have to choose between driving yourself to work and food or clothing, than you're going to look for ways to reduce your gas expenditures. With the average number of people per car in the US around 1.2, there seems to be plenty of room for more carpooling.

The notion that people have to choose between driving their car and food is ridiculous...there's no reason why a person seriously hurting financially would not be able to work something out with people they know or use other options unless they don't want to sacrifice their "lifestyle" or "convienence".
This is something that we were talking about at work the other day. Carpools aren't easy to get started. A group of you need to live and work in reasonable proximity to each other. Public transit doesn't always fit, either.

In the Atlanta metro area, we have a subway, MARTA, but it doesn't get out to the suburbs. We have buses in the 'burbs, but they only run sporadically. If I wanted to take public transit downtown and expect to be there at a specified time, it's a real chore. I might have to leave two hours early. I might spend another two hours getting home. That isn't a fair trade for my time. And I suspect that many others have the same thoughts about using public transit.

I generally tend to agree that there is little the government can do near-term, but it can't be overlooked that many of our laws are geared toward exaccerbating the oil crisis. By this, I don't necessarily mean fuel-additive laws, as these are more temporarily bad situations that cause long-term benefits. Instead, I'm talking more about zoning laws that create long-distance commutes from the exurbs to the city and don't pay for things like bike routes and sidewalks from houses to the local grocer. The biggest thing we can do to end the oil price crisis is to give people alternatives to living 40 miles from work.
Thank you. Couldn't have said it better myself.

And trains. Don't forget trains. Imma big fan of trains.

This is something that we were talking about at work the other day. Carpools aren't easy to get started. A group of you need to live and work in reasonable proximity to each other. Public transit doesn't always fit, either.

In the Atlanta metro area, we have a subway, MARTA, but it doesn't get out to the suburbs. We have buses in the 'burbs, but they only run sporadically. If I wanted to take public transit downtown and expect to be there at a specified time, it's a real chore. I might have to leave two hours early. I might spend another two hours getting home. That isn't a fair trade for my time. And I suspect that many others have the same thoughts about using public transit.
And I bet all those suburbanites who are complaining the loudest about gas prices were screaming bloody murder about haveing the construction for the subways or trains when they wanted to build them out to the suburbs, too, right? That's what happened here in the LA. Now they piss and moan about high gas prices and no mass transit. The same people 10 years ago were screaming about the traffic congestion caused by building subways.

Last time I filled up here in the UK, I paid the equivalent of $6.75. Last time I checked, Europeans were not magically twice as rich as Americans. It should not be an issue. And long distances my ass. They drive from their suburb to their office like anyone else.

And what distance would that be?

Yeah I guess that makes it okay to be spending 3-5 times more on gas than 10 years ago.

And what distance would that be?
Among people I know, the average commute is at least an hour. I know from experience it takes that long to drive halfway across Manchester during a bad spring rush hour.

I don't think anyone would be fooled by claims that the average American has to cross a whole state to get to work. It's suburb -> city or town -> town for the most part, across decent roads, no different to anywhere in Europe.

The whining out there isn't anything to do with what distance Americans drive, or what their take-home pay is. It is a simple case of the absurdly low price to which they have become accustomed, and which was never going to last forever.

I don't think anyone would be fooled by claims that the average American has to cross a whole state to get to work...
Unless the state is Rhode Island or Delaware.

The government makes more in taxes on a gallon of gas than the oil companies make on a gallon of gas.
Provide sources?

And it's amazing how the pro-Oil Company people showed up out of the wood work,

Are you part-time Agents (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/agent.htm) or something?

Among people I know, the average commute is at least an hour. I know from experience it takes that long to drive halfway across Manchester during a bad spring rush hour.

I don't think anyone would be fooled by claims that the average American has to cross a whole state to get to work. It's suburb -> city or town -> town for the most part, across decent roads, no different to anywhere in Europe.

The whining out there isn't anything to do with what distance Americans drive, or what their take-home pay is. It is a simple case of the absurdly low price to which they have become accustomed, and which was never going to last forever.
You sure about that? I don't have a source, but my understanding is that Americans live farther away and have less transportation alternatives than any industrialized country in the world. Out here, if you're in Canyon Country and work in Hollywood then there is no bus or train or anything else that can take you on your 80 mile round trip commute. I have a 60 mile round trip myself and would have a train if I didn't need to be to work before the train even leaves Simi Valley.

Provide sources?

And it's amazing how the pro-Oil Company people showed up out of the wood work, Are you part-time Agents (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/agent.htm) or something?
I'm not pro oil company. I'm just educated in economics and the oil industry.

I'm not pro oil company. I'm just educated in economics and the oil industry.
Actually the Oil industry can stand to LOSE some money right now. To help the rest of the world that is. They should take a hit so people will actually do something beside stay at home to conserve fuel. Instead of doing things to help the econmy like shop and stuff.

Unless the state is Rhode Island or Delaware.
Yeah, those people just have to be different.

You sure about that? I don't have a source, but my understanding is that Americans live farther away and have less transportation alternatives than any industrialized country in the world. Out here, if you're in Canyon Country and work in Hollywood then there is no bus or train or anything else that can take you on your 80 mile round trip commute. I have a 60 mile round trip myself and would have a train if I didn't need to be to work before the train even leaves Simi Valley.
I am sure Americans have virtually no public transport compared to Europe. However, a 60 mile round trip is hardly unknown to Europeans. Some of my colleagues have a 90 mile round trip, with the equivalent of $6.75 per gallon fuel prices, and they are quite surprised by the reaction across the Atlantic.

Actually the Oil industry can stand to LOSE some money right now. To help the rest of the world that is. They should take a hit so people will actually do something beside stay at home to conserve fuel. Instead of doing things to help the econmy like shop and stuff.
Are you saying the rest of the world is entitled to what they have, simply by virtue of their existence? That is nothing short of robbery.

Actually the Oil industry can stand to LOSE some money right now. To help the rest of the world that is. They should take a hit so people will actually do something beside stay at home to conserve fuel. Instead of doing things to help the econmy like shop and stuff.
Here are some tips for you.

1. The oil companies are not making the huge profits they are because of retail gasoline prices. The money they are making is from selling crude oil.

2. Prices for crude oil and wholesale gasoline are not set by oil companies. They are set by futures traders who trade delivery contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchage (http://www.nymex.xom) and a few other exchanges around the world.

3. The actual profit margin that oil companies are making right now is only 7%. That's pretty much right in the middle of the profit margin for all other corporations and actually make banks, who make sometimes upwards of 20%, look like robber barons. The thing is, 7% of $70/barrel is a lot more real dollars than 7% of $9/barrel. Again, they did not set the price at $70+ dollars, speculators on the Nymex did.

4. The reason speculators have set the prices so high is because global oil prices are set at the margins. In other words, it is not the total supply or total demand that matter, it is the difference between potential supply and real demand. The world burns about 85 million barrels/day right now and total available supply is about 86 million. This means that there is no margin for error. If we have another serious hurricane that takes 2 million barrels/day off the market, if Iran stops pumping its 4+ million barrels/day because of its showdown with the West, if Nigeria erupts into civil war, etc... then there is no way to make up for the shortfall. This has never been the case before. Saudi Arabia has always had the ability to pump more oil in the case of a disruption, but now they are pumping at full speed with only about 1 million barrels/day of excess capacity and all that excess capacity is heavy, sour crude that most refineries cannot handle. Speculators are betting on an oil crisis in the near future and are buying contracts accordingly. This is a very goos thing and is why the futures market was craeted in the first place. It is a price signal that there is a problem ahead. An early warning, if you will.

5. The reason it is a good thing is that the worst thing that can happen right now is for oil prices to fall significantly because this would get people right back to the Chevy dealership and into that Suburban they were going to buy. Just when they were going to get that Civic to drive that 80 mile commute. We need prices like this to destroy our demand for oil. We need people out in the streets demanding public transport. We need people who can do their jobs from home to demand that they be allowed to. We need people to buy cars that get 30+ miles to the gallon, not 8. Futures markets were created to "smooth out" commodity prices so that they are predictive of problems, not reactionary. belive me, you are better off if the price of oil slowly climbs from $9/barrel to $70 over 7 years, as it has, than you are if they jump from $9 to $70 overnight. You wanna see gas go from $3.00 gallon now to $8.00 next week? Not a lot of time to adjust.

I am sure Americans have virtually no public transport compared to Europe. However, a 60 mile round trip is hardly unknown to Europeans. Some of my colleagues have a 90 mile round trip, with the equivalent of $6.75 per gallon fuel prices, and they are quite surprised by the reaction across the Atlantic.
Well, I gues then the chief difference, and an important one, is that we do not have a choice. Well, we do, but it will be made for us.

You may know allot about economics but you know nothing about human nature if you think raising the prices will "Destroy our demand for oil." Did Prohibition "Destroy our demand for Alcohol?" People are NOT going to give up their Cars easily. Your declaring that this country can just go Cold Turkey. It's not that simple, if this keeps by the time there is the so called 'Demands' the Economy will be in shambles.

You may know allot about economics but you know nothing about human nature if you think raising the prices will "Destroy our demand for oil." Did Prohibition "Destroy our demand for Alcohol?" People are NOT going to give up their Cars easily.
Geology could give a shit about "human nature." The fact is, we will be giving up our cars whether we like it or not.

Look at this graph:

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.png

You'll notice two dips. One right around the mid seventies, the Arab Oi embargo that drove oil prices through the roof, the second right around the early eighties, the Iranian revolution in which Iranian oil was taken off the market and prices skyrocketed to $80+/barrel in todays dollars. The result in both cases was demand destruction. People got out of their Lincoln Continentals and into their Toyota Corrolas pretty quick. I remember those times. Lining up for several hours on odd/even license plate days to get gas. I was just a young kid but I still remember. Even now the most popular car in America is the Toyota Prius. Five years ago it was the Ford Explorer. Gas prices do make people make different choices. The problem is that the two times it happened in the past it was political. Countries decided not to sell oil, but the oil was there. When the North Shore of Alaska was opened during the Reagan Administration and the North Sea was opened in the 80s oil prices collapsed again because we were flooded with oil and many oi lcompanies failed by the mid 90s amongs $9/barrel oil and no one was crying for the poor oil companies. The problem this time is that it is not political. This time it is geology. There simply isn't enough oil out there to feed growing demand as this graph of the history of oil exploration and use shows:

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

Get used to it. Nothing we can do will change what geology is telling us. We are going to have to change the way we live whether we like it or not because circumstances are going to compell us to. The sooner we get about doing that, the better. We need high prices to effect that change.

I am sure Americans have virtually no public transport compared to Europe. However, a 60 mile round trip is hardly unknown to Europeans. Some of my colleagues have a 90 mile round trip, with the equivalent of $6.75 per gallon fuel prices, and they are quite surprised by the reaction across the Atlantic.

But how much of that price is tax related?

This is something that we were talking about at work the other day. Carpools aren't easy to get started. A group of you need to live and work in reasonable proximity to each other. Public transit doesn't always fit, either.

In the Atlanta metro area, we have a subway, MARTA, but it doesn't get out to the suburbs. We have buses in the 'burbs, but they only run sporadically. If I wanted to take public transit downtown and expect to be there at a specified time, it's a real chore. I might have to leave two hours early. I might spend another two hours getting home. That isn't a fair trade for my time. And I suspect that many others have the same thoughts about using public transit.

But if the difference is between eating/clothing/basic expenses and driving, you're going to make that sacrifice. Most people that have serious conflicts between food and gasoline don't live in the suburbs either; the lower income areas hit hardest tend to be closer to the city or in rural areas, and rural commutes aren't as common.

If you have to choose between food and gas, you'll look for all available ways to reduce your expenses...it's not a luxury to find them, it's a necessity.

But if the difference is between eating/clothing/basic expenses and driving, you're going to make that sacrifice. Most people that have serious conflicts between food and gasoline don't live in the suburbs either; the lower income areas hit hardest tend to be closer to the city or in rural areas, and rural commutes aren't as common.

If you have to choose between food and gas, you'll look for all available ways to reduce your expenses...it's not a luxury to find them, it's a necessity.

And your experience in this situation is what?

And your experience in this situation is what?
You don't need experience. You can just look at history. When prices are high for a commodity people find ways to use less of it. Just scroll up to my post and there's some pretty ample evidence right there in the graphs.

But how much of that price is tax related?
Rather a lot, not that it is relevant. Slap $3 tax on the stuff in the US, and the screams would be heard on the Moon. :rolleyes: We just get on with it.

=snip

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

Get used to it. Nothing we can do will change what geology is telling us. We are going to have to change the way we live whether we like it or not because circumstances are going to compell us to. The sooner we get about doing that, the better. We need high prices to effect that change.
I do have to say whoever did that graph did a horrible job doing the forcast ... when you deseasonaliaze you are supposed to reapply the sesonal factor after the forcast :p (edit by deseasonalize I mean things such as smoothing)

I do have to say whoever did that graph did a horrible job doing the forcast ... when you deseasonaliaze you are supposed to reapply the sesonal factor after the forcast :p
It's a year over year graph, not a month by month one.

Rather a lot, not that it is relevant. Slap $3 tax on the stuff in the US, and the screams would be heard on the Moon. :rolleyes: We just get on with it.

-edit back how did I do that-

Whatever.

At least it could be argued that something would come from the taxes rather then simply sitting in corporate coffers.

-edit-

Ok again what is the market price you listed minus the tax?

You don't need experience. You can just look at history. When prices are high for a commodity people find ways to use less of it. Just scroll up to my post and there's some pretty ample evidence right there in the graphs.

Actually it has more meaning if you have lived it.

All to often "silver spoons" talk about the sacrifices people have to make.

Whatever.

At least it could be argued that something would come from the taxes rather then simply sitting in corporate coffers.
I agree. We need to tax gasoline more and use the money for trains.

And I bet all those suburbanites who are complaining the loudest about gas prices were screaming bloody murder about haveing the construction for the subways or trains when they wanted to build them out to the suburbs, too, right? That's what happened here in the LA. Now they piss and moan about high gas prices and no mass transit. The same people 10 years ago were screaming about the traffic congestion caused by building subways.
The discusssion wasn't so much how bad gas prices are. We all live fairly close to work. The point was more about how to change attitudes about commuting when the alternatives are so difficult to use.

Actually it has more meaning if you have lived it.

All to often "silver spoons" talk about the sacrifices people have to make.
It doesn't make a difference as far as teh question of whether or not people will make different choices in the face of high energy prices. Rich people will and poor people will and you need only look at history to see that. having said that, if you read my post you'd know taht I did live it. Both of the last two oil shocks. I was a kid in the first and a teenager in the second, but my family was a lower middle class family and I remember what my parents went through to put food on the table.

The discusssion wasn't so much how bad gas prices are. We all live fairly close to work. The point was more about how to change attitudes about commuting when the alternatives are so difficult to use.
Well, it's crying over spilt milk, now. We're in trouble, now, and we need to stop blaming oil companies and asking them to turn into charities and start looking for how we can change our lives to make ourselves less energy dependent because we're going to have to do it whether we like it or not. As individuals we need to start looking for our own solutions now and as a country we need to start demanding mass transit and walkable communities.

The discussion wasn't so much how bad gas prices are. We all live fairly close to work. The point was more about how to change attitudes about commuting when the alternatives are so difficult to use.

Absolutely. I would be happy to use mass transit if it was convenient. I once trained it to the city for training. It was nice to veg and catch up on the techno reading. The system here starts breaking down when it gets late. If you are prone to working late then you get screwed by the lack of transport.

It doesn't make a difference as far as teh question of whether or not people will make different choices in the face of high energy prices. Rich people will and poor people will and you need only look at history to see that. having said that, if you read my post you'd know taht I did live it. Both of the last two oil shocks. I was a kid in the first and a teenager in the second, but my family was a lower middle class family and I remember what my parents went through to put food on the table.

Sure it does. People that don't have to suffer really shouldn't talk about the sacrifices others have to make. I know what's involved as well as we were rather poor. Mom was divorced with no skills and 2 kids. Remember what people used to think about such women?

Besides I wasn't asking you. ;)

As individuals we need to start looking for our own solutions now and as a country we need to start demanding mass transit and walkable communities.

And with the amount of money the oil industry amasses, do you really think they want to see that happen? Why else are energy standards always dumbed down before they are passed?

Sure it does. People that don't have to suffer really shouldn't talk about the sacrifices others have to make. I know what's involved as well as we were rather poor. Mom was divorced with no skills and 2 kids. Remember what people used to think about such women?

Besides I wasn't asking you. ;)
But Vetalia wasn't making social/political statements. He was making economic statements. There was no value judgement in them. I'm sure we all realize these choices are hard, but the fact is that people need to make them and by artificially supressing the price of gas you'll only make a bad problem now much worse in the future by preventing them from making choices now that will make the coming energy shocks less painful than they would have been. Especially in light of the fact that the coming energy shocks are likely to last the rest of our children's natural lives.

As individuals we need to start looking for our own solutions now and as a country we need to start demanding mass transit and walkable communities.

One thing that p*sses me off is that the communities are less "walkable" than they were in the 70's. Most of the small businesses I used to go to then closed, and the businesses now are 20+ miles away.

And with the amount of money the oil industry amasses, do you really think they want to see that happen? Why else are energy standards always dumbed down before they are passed?
Exactly why you can't blame them for energy prices now. Energy companies know full well the result of high energy prices. You think Exxon wants to see a freeway full of Priuses? Traintrack crisscrossing Los Angeles? They see demand destruction ahead just as surely as they saw it in the 70s and 80s. The fact is that the biggest American oil company, Exxon, controlls 3% of the total global oil reserves. You CANNOT controll the price of a commodity with that small of a market share. They sell their oil at global prices that are set on the exchanges, thank God. The last thing I want to see is lower prices. If I had my way we'd be paying $5.00/gallon.

But Vetalia wasn't making social/political statements. He was making economic statements. There was no value judgement in them. I'm sure we all realize these choices are hard, but the fact is that people need to make them and by artificially supressing the price of gas you'll only make a bad problem now much worse in the future by preventing them from making choices now that will make the coming energy shocks less painful than they would have been. Especially in light of the fact that the coming energy shocks are likely to last the rest of our children's natural lives.

Was he? He seems to respond many times like it's no big deal.

Exactly why you can't blame them for energy prices now. Energy companies know full well the result of high energy prices. You think Exxon wants to see a freeway full of Priuses? Traintrack crisscrossing Los Angeles? They see demand destruction ahead just as surely as they saw it in the 70s and 80s. The fact is that the biggest American oil company, Exxon, controlls 3% of the total global oil reserves. You CANNOT controll the price of a commodity with that small of a market share. They sell their oil at global prices that are set on the exchanges, thank God. The last thing I want to see is lower prices. If I had my way we'd be paying $5.00/gallon.

Europe's prices were always more then what we paid. Why isn't theirs climbing up as well(Actually I really don't know their prices so I am assuming).

It could very well be they are jacking the prices because they know shrubby wouldn't do anything about it.

As to the 5 a gallon? Don't worry it will happen over the next few months.

Was he? He seems to respond many times like it's no big deal.
Precisely because he was making a dispassionate point about economics.

Europe's prices were always more then what we paid. Why isn't theirs climbing up as well(Actually I really don't know their prices so I am assuming).

It could very well be they are jacking the prices because they know shrubby wouldn't do anything about it.

As to the 5 a gallon? Don't worry it will happen over the next few months.
Gas and oil prices are going up everywhere in the world. The only places they are staying down is in socialist countires. They will, however, pay the prices for that subsidization. China is now going to stop supressing their gas prices because they are having shortages and it is getting to expensive to purchase a barrel of oil and sell it's products for less than the market price.

Precisely because he was making a dispassionate point about economics.

I don't think so. He seems to defend the wealthy.....

I don't think so. He seems to defend the wealthy.....
Trust me. He and I and TacticalGrace argue about oil and energy all the time on this forum. I know his sentiments.

Gas and oil prices are going up everywhere in the world. The only places they are staying down is in socialist countires. They will, however, pay the prices for that subsidization. China is now going to stop supressing their gas prices because they are having shortages and it is getting to expensive to purchase a barrel of oil and sell it's products for less than the market price.

Well then how is it the Texas prices are about a buck on the going rate?

Well then how is it the Texas prices are about a buck on the going rate?
There are going to be regional differences because of refining requirements and blends and transportation costs. I live in one of the worst areas. Gas here is $3.50 for regular blend. I just came from Las Vegas where it as $2.89. The trend will not change. get used to it and start planning for an energy poor future. Don't look to punish the oil companies. If you're looking for revenge, get your revenge by finding ways to buy less of their products. You'll have to in the future whether you like it or not.

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/charts/COM.GIF

Don't look to punish the oil companies. If you're looking for revenge, get your revenge by finding ways to buy less of their products. You'll have to in the future whether you like it or not.

Revenge? How would I achieve that? Who is the political landscape going to listen to? Me? Not when they see my tax return. Change happens in other countries. Here it seems you have to pay for it.

Revenge? How would I achieve that? Who is the political landscape going to listen to? Me? Not when they see my tax return. Change happens in other countries. Here it seems you have to pay for it.
Just know that as teh resource they made their money from continues to dwindle two things will happen.

1. Your life will get harder proportionat to the plans and actiosn you have taken to mitigate the consequnces.

2. Oil companies will cease to exist when oil becomes too expensive to buy.

If you really want to know more about the whole issue, you can start here:

www.energybulletin.net

While it has an obvious Peak Oil bent, meaning that they subscribe to the "theory," they publish articles from both sides of the issue. All it is is a site that publishes stories from other major and minor news sources that relate to energy.

And with the amount of money the oil industry amasses, do you really think they want to see that happen? Why else are energy standards always dumbed down before they are passed?

Surprisingly enough, because of the auto industry; the oil industry isn't bothered as much by higher standards as the autos are because of their ability to regulate oil production to keep the market balanced, and higher standards don't cost them any money.

Interestingly, the first diesel engines were designed to run on peanut oil, not petroleum...biofuels have a history as old as petroleum based fuels, but collusion between oil and auto industry interests have forced gasoline, diesel, tetraethyl lead and a host of other products on us rather than developing ones based upon renewable sources.

I guess it's finally coming full circle...lets hope oil and gas stay high (not too high, but high enough) to keep momentum for alternatives building. Ideally, these alternatives will someday be competitive at any price of oil above $0, but that takes time...but thankfully high prices provide plenty of time to do that.

If you really want to know more about the whole issue, you can start here:

www.energybulletin.net

While it has an obvious Peak Oil bent, meaning that they subscribe to the "theory," they publish articles from both sides of the issue. All it is is a site that publishes stories from other major and minor news sources that relate to energy.

Site seems down.

Who sponsors them?

Just know that as teh resource they made their money from continues to dwindle two things will happen.

1. Your life will get harder proportionat to the plans and actiosn you have taken to mitigate the consequnces.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell; if you act rationally in the face of high prices, you'll be able to weather it with your standard of living (emphasis on standard of living and not lifestyle...the latter will dramatically change with the good or bad nature of the change depending on the actions of individuals and government).


2. Oil companies will cease to exist when oil becomes too expensive to buy.

Oil companies will only survive if they adapt...the history of economics is littered with companies and economies that failed to adapt to change and failed or even disappeared.

The waste and overconsumption that have been the hallmarks of the past century will hopefully be the thing to go rather than our standard of living, but like any economic change there are those unwilling to do it and they suffer for it...in fact, the history of oil is in itself littered with those unable to adapt, and they are going to face their greatest challenge ever.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell; if you act rationally in the face of high prices, you'll be able to weather it with your standard of living (emphasis on standard of living and not lifestyle...the latter will dramatically change with the good or bad nature of the change depending on the actions of individuals and government).


Curious: So what is acting rationally?

What should be a persons standard of living?

And finally what about the lifestyle?

Site seems down.

Who sponsors them?
I don't know, but they don't write their own stories. They just take them from newspapers and publications from all over the world every morning. They take them from Peak Oil debunkers and Peak Oil doom and gloomers and everyone in between. From the NY Times to the Heritage Foundation to Green Peace to Congressional Reports.

They're no friends of oil companies, though, if that's what you're getting at. Try again. They're rarely down.

Here's a smaple of a story list from today.

Peak Oil - May 4 (late-breaking)
Staff, Energy Bulletin
Outside Magazine does Peak Oil (good article) / Bartlett on CSPAN last night / Hirsch et al publish summary of latest study
published May 4, 2006.

Peak oil - May 4
Staff, Energy Bulletin
Simmons and Yergin on NPR / Julian Darley at Local Solutions Conference, NYC / Report for Congress: Oil shale: history, incentives, and policy (mentions PO) / Report for Congress: Navy ship propulsion technologies: options for reducing oil use (mentions sailpower) / Presentation on future fuels for flag officers (Navy)
published May 4, 2006.

Solutions & sustainability - May 4
Staff, Energy Bulletin
Building industry coalesces around environmental techniques / Dongtan and greening China / Vampire Power / Teaching environmental science without a textbook


Actually, I just went and their DB seems down. I've never seen that before. Won't last long.

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/charts/COM.GIF

The markets pulled back fairly solidly today; the EIA report did confirm some good news on the demand and supply front, but there's a lot of risk still built in to the price of crude. That's not going to go anywhere until Iran and Nigeria are resolved.

Surprisingly, there was no natural gas movement on Bolivia's nationalization program; I imagine it's due to inventories remaining well above average and improved production in other places. Still, the July and August contracts remain to be seen in terms of prices; I found it interesting that the futures for natural gas are in a downtrend but oil and its derivatives are more or less in a slight uptrend out to 2012.

Surprisingly enough, because of the auto industry; the oil industry isn't bothered as much by higher standards as the autos are because of their ability to regulate oil production to keep the market balanced, and higher standards don't cost them any money.

Interestingly, the first diesel engines were designed to run on peanut oil, not petroleum...biofuels have a history as old as petroleum based fuels, but collusion between oil and auto industry interests have forced gasoline, diesel, tetraethyl lead and a host of other products on us rather than developing ones based upon renewable sources.

I guess it's finally coming full circle...lets hope oil and gas stay high (not too high, but high enough) to keep momentum for alternatives building. Ideally, these alternatives will someday be competitive at any price of oil above $0, but that takes time...but thankfully high prices provide plenty of time to do that.
And therein lies the chief difference between Vetalia and I. I happen to think we're in for a much rougher ride. I don't think we're headed fro the stone age, just somewhere in between the stone age and where we are now.

The markets pulled back fairly solidly today; the EIA report did confirm some good news on the demand and supply front, but there's a lot of risk still built in to the price of crude. That's not going to go anywhere until Iran and Nigeria are resolved.Yeah, but it's still above $70.00 and I don't see it going down. Even with an occasional surprise build in inventories. All those traders are not gonna let go of high dollar contracts when the Iran situation keeps getting worse and hurricane season is just around the corner. It's funny how they say a $2.00 drop in the price right after an inventory report is a "Plummet." I've been watching that report for two years and oil always makes big moves on Wednesday unless inventory is right in line with forcasts and there is no news.

Surprisingly, there was no natural gas movement on Bolivia's nationalization program; I imagine it's due to inventories remaining well above average and improved production in other places. Still, the July and August contracts remain to be seen in terms of prices; I found it interesting that the futures for natural gas are in a downtrend but oil and its derivatives are more or less in a slight uptrend out to 2012.
Because we can't import it because we don't have much in the way of LNG terminals and they also only have about 1% of the world's reserves. basically, the world's largest consumer is uneffected by supplies in South America.

Hmmm. I wonder if we will see another magical drop in time for the elections say september time?

Curious: So what is acting rationally?

If prices are rising and you think they are going to go higher and likely beyond your ability to afford them, you cut back and look for ways to improve efficiency and lower costs by conserving.

In business, it's just cost cutting; if energy remains expensive, implementing energy efficiency measures and on-site sources of power and alternative fuels for transportation are all possible and cost effective measures. Plus, they're good PR.

At home, it's buying more efficient vehicles, turning down the thermostat, installing energy efficiency improvements, getting alternative power sources for the house (two degrees cuts national natural gas usage by 8%), consolidating trips, exploring carpooling/mass transit/carsharing, and looking in to telecommuting.

In government and utilities, it's building alternative power sources, tightening fuel standards, supporting alternative fuels and encouraging technological development and innovation in the energy sector.

We can conserve as much additional energy now as we could in 1973 or 1979, and we have the added help of 30 years of technological advancement and faster development of technology to boot.

What should be a persons standard of living?

Access to healthcare, sanitation, clean food and water, safe housing and education...they aren't going to disappear due to

And finally what about the lifestyle?

It's relative, but a general guideline is discretionary spending on things you don't really need; the things you'd cut back on if you hit financial trouble, for example.

Most things are going to survive any oil crisis because companies are going to find ways to build them more efficiently, with alternative products, and with lower energy intensity...cars, computers, and TVs didn't disappear in 1979, but they sure became more efficient and eventually much better. A prolonged one will drive that even further.

Hmmm. I wonder if we will see another magical drop in time for the elections say september time?
If the hurricane season allows it. You'll be able to tell if it's planned. September is the end of the driving season so oil prices always fall then unless you have a Katrina. If they are trying to manipulate they'll try to influence the market with a release from the Startegic Petroleum Reserve. If they don't release any from the SPR then it is just normal seasonal price fluctuations.

Yeah, but it's still above $70.00 and I don't see it going down. Even with an occasional surprise build in inventories. All those traders are not gonna let go of high dollar contracts when the Iran situation keeps getting worse and hurricane season is just around the corner. It's funny how they say a $2.00 drop in the price right after an inventory report is a "Plummet." I've been watching that report for two years and oil always makes big moves on Wednesday unless inventory is right in line with forcasts and there is no news.

$70.00's got strong support; we couldn't push below $60 considerably during the last correction, so it's likely the same is true with $70 especially in a bull market for commodities. As you mentioned in an earlier thread, until growth slows considerably there is not going to be a major drop in oil.

$2 is about 2.8%; that's a pretty sharp one day pullback but quite far from a plummet. 1985 is a better example of a plummet, or maybe 1998.


Because we can't import it because we don't have much in the way of LNG terminals and they also only have about 1% of the world's reserves. basically, the world's largest consumer is uneffected by supplies in South America.

But they do supply Europe, which would seem to increase volatility given that any disruption worldwide makes the EU more dependent on Gazprom for its gas, and that appears to be a rather uncertain source.

$70.00's got strong support; we couldn't push below $60 considerably during the last correction, so it's likely the same is true with $70 especially in a bull market for commodities. As you mentioned in an earlier thread, until growth slows considerably there is not going to be a major drop in oil.

$2 is about 2.8%; that's a pretty sharp one day pullback but quite far from a plummet. 1985 is a better example of a plummet, or maybe 1998.




But they do supply Europe, which would seem to increase volatility given that any disruption worldwide makes the EU more dependent on Gazprom for its gas, and that appears to be a rather uncertain source.
But they're not a major supplier to anyone and they're not actually cutting supply anyway. It's not like they just said, "That's it! No more gas from us!" They said they're nationalizing their industry and they're industry is a drop in the bucket to world supply especially when there isn't an acknowledged world supply problem with nat. gas.

Also, remeber that the Nymex trades North American natural gas futures, not European.

This is why I like my bike. :D

I just have to find a safe route downtown.

If the hurricane season allows it. You'll be able to tell if it's planned. September is the end of the driving season so oil prices always fall then unless you have a Katrina. If they are trying to manipulate they'll try to influence the market with a release from the Startegic Petroleum Reserve. If they don't release any from the SPR then it is just normal seasonal price fluctuations.


But will the "typical" driving season happen? I am seeing many travel groups and ads saying "Don't cancel that vacation yet....."

But you are right the influence will come from the use of the SPR........

This is why I like my bike. :D

I just have to find a safe route downtown.


I wish I could use a bike.....

And therein lies the chief difference between Vetalia and I. I happen to think we're in for a much rougher ride. I don't think we're headed fro the stone age, just somewhere in between the stone age and where we are now.

Collectively, no, but locally I'd have to agree. Every major transition has had its winners and losers; while Europe struggled in the Dark and Early Middle Ages, China, Arabia and Byzantium were achieving new heights of civilization. When the world transitioned in to the Industrial Revolution, China and India (who controlled around 40-50% of world GDP in the early 1800's) were marginalized by the European industrial powers.

The question is, of course, who will be the winners and the losers. I think China and India will win due to their fairly dramatic and rapid commitment to alternative energy (which is helped immensely by the fact that they are industrializing at the same time that alternative fuels are available to power that growth), and the US and EU will hinge on their ability to make their mature economies transition to the new energy demands.

They have the capacity, innovation, money and resources to do it but the real question is if they can commit to it. I can commit personally, but it takes the work of many, many people to really change things. Really, we have to place hope in government, the free market, technology and individuals to meet their challenges, and that will always remain uncertain until it's achieved. I have hope in our ability to do it, but there are many reasons to feel the opposite way as well.

But will the "typical" driving season happen? I am seeing many travel groups and ads saying "Don't cancel that vacation yet....."

But you are right the influence will come from the use of the SPR........
If the typical driving season does not happen and we have a mild hurricane season then inventories will build and you'll see price drops every Wednesday and Thursday as teh DOE inventory reports come out.

This is, of course, if we're not at war with Iran or someone doesn't blow up a Saudi oil platform. If something like that happens you're gonna learn what the term "oil crisis" really means.

But they're not a major supplier to anyone and they're not actually cutting supply anyway. It's not like they just said, "That's it! No more gas from us!" They said they're nationalizing their industry and they're industry is a drop in the bucket to world supply especially when there isn't an acknowledged world supply problem with nat. gas.

That's true. If anything, Latin America is probably the most vulnerable, although I could see this as inspiring concerns in traders that nationalization and asset seizure will become more common.

Also, remeber that the Nymex trades North American natural gas futures, not European.

Who trades European futures...is it the ICE? Still, the rise of LNG and international energy markets means problems in Europe can easily translate in to higher prices here.

The question is, of course, who will be the winners and the losers. I think China and India will win due to their fairly dramatic and rapid commitment to alternative energy (which is helped immensely by the fact that they are industrializing at the same time that alternative fuels are available to power that growth), and the US and EU will hinge on their ability to make their mature economies transition to the new energy demands.


With all the computing moving over seas shouldn't the power usage be dropping? :p

Who trades European futures...is it the ICE? Still, the rise of LNG and international energy markets means problems in Europe can easily translate in to higher prices here.
But not yet.

i think it's the London Merc. Exchange.

And here we go.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Wednesday approved criminal penalties and fines of up to $150 million for energy companies caught price gouging, yet lawmakers acknowledged there is no quick and easy fix to higher pump prices.

You gotta wonder if any of these "Congressional Leaders" ever went to college and took anything other than political science classes.

And here we go.



You gotta wonder if any of these "Congressional Leaders" ever went to college and took anything other than political science classes.

Wow 150 million! That will teach them!

Exxon made how much? Seems worth it to pay.

Now if we only had that $100! :rolleyes:

At least it could be argued that something would come from the taxes rather then simply sitting in corporate coffers.

Ok again what is the market price you listed minus the tax?
It works out as $6.75 per gallon down the road, impossible to say exactly how much of it is tax, but certainly around 60%.

If you think we are going to see much of that tax money, I laugh and point in your direction. For several years now, successive governments have managed to provide less and less, at an ever-rising cost. Administrative expenses - a quarter of NHS staff being non-medical, for example.