NationStates Jolt Archive

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_refineries)

It's hard to find a more despicable groups of d bags than the oil company executives. "First, we control supply and complain there's not enough capacity to make more gas and have prices go down. Next, we say we're going to use the record profits we've been raking in to increase supply and finally pas some savings on to the consumer. Finally, we pull back from our promises in order to artificially inflate the market and continue to make obscene profits on the backs on the consumer." The jist here is that oil companies could make money and make prices come down but they won't. I hope someone laces their Cristal with antifreeze because if anyone deserves a horrible, burning death it is people who take pleasure in others' pain.

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.

Just another reason we should start to stop using oil...

And start using... what?

Just another reason we should start to stop using oil...

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.

lol.

Its a supply demand thing. Oil companies don't make the price of their oil or gasoline, its all done on the market based on supply and demand.

There is one solution to this - if they refuse to reinstate their plans, fine them the same amount of more of the cost of the refineries for attempts to destabilize the economy by manipulating the oil supply.

lol.

Its a supply demand thing. Oil companies don't make the price of their oil or gasoline, its all done on the market based on supply and demand.

Suuuuure it is:rolleyes:

lol.

Its a supply demand thing. Oil companies don't make the price of their oil or gasoline, its all done on the market based on supply and demand.
...

That's what I said, is it not? Oil production is dwindling due to a lack of supply, that lack of supply being oil fields going dry.

Neesika: Oh, come on. You can't really believe that there's huge amounts of oil sitting around that could be bought more cheaply because the oil companies are trying to pin up profits. That sort of thing only works when the people aren't paying attention, and everyone is. Law of supply and demand is especially important when the product is inelastic.

No, infact we are not in the first stages of "Peak Oil." However, we are facing a dwindling supply of what is described as "pure oil," which is prominent in the Middle East. Pure oil is essentially crude that does not have to be purified before it is refined.

Now, there is an abundance of unpure oil out there. For example, the tar fields of Canada alone can fuel the world (at current capacity) for 100 years. But it is much more expensive because the crude has to be drawn out of sand and dirt rather than being brought up as a liquid. Which will cause the price to go up once we start utilizing more unpure oil. Obviously and preferably, we move to a new form of energy, whether that be ethanol, other bio-fuels, or nuclear before that point.

And start using... what?

Nuclear powered Cars? :p

Can't we use ethanol or alternative fuels...I heard Brazil powers all their cars by grass :confused:

Nuclear powered Cars? :p

Can't we use ethanol or alternative fuels...I heard Brazil powers all their cars by grass :confused:

Not viable for the long term.

Ethanol from corn is very inefficient. It probably takes as much ethanol gas to transport a truck carrying a full load of corn husk and other material, as that same material would produce in ethanol.

If people and governments were to realize that cars driven by humans are retarded, and anything with an engine is inefficient, we would probably move to a mag lev strip thing, except with personal "cars" which would be very efficient, probably about 95% instead of a gas powered car's 15% at best efficiency.

No, infact we are not in the first stages of "Peak Oil." However, we are facing a dwindling supply of what is described as "pure oil," which is prominent in the Middle East. Pure oil is essentially crude that does not have to be purified before it is refined.

Now, there is an abundance of unpure oil out there. For example, the tar fields of Canada alone can fuel the world (at current capacity) for 100 years. But it is much more expensive because the crude has to be drawn out of sand and dirt rather than being brought up as a liquid. Which will cause the price to go up once we start utilizing more unpure oil. Obviously and preferably, we move to a new form of energy, whether that be ethanol, other bio-fuels, or nuclear before that point.
Sorry, but shale oil and tar oil contains far less energy per gallon than so called pure oil, and would not be enough to stave off the rising demands, especially those of China and India.

What we need to do is start building new power plants--preferably nuclear fission for the moment--that can serve as a stop-gap measure to keep our power infrastructure going until we develop a new source of energy comparable to oil in terms of power. Once we do we'll be fine and dandy, but the problem is, if we don't impliment some stop-gap measures right now, we won't have the time to research and develop that new technology, mainly because we sat on our hands and screamed "lalalalaIcan'thearyou!" about Peak Oil. THIS is what you should be blaming oil companies for, that lack of listening.

Not viable for the long term.

Ethanol from corn is very inefficient. It probably takes as much ethanol gas to transport a truck carrying a full load of corn husk and other material, as that same material would produce in ethanol.

If people and governments were to realize that cars driven by humans are retarded, and anything with an engine is inefficient, we would probably move to a mag lev strip thing, except with personal "cars" which would be very efficient, probably about 95% instead of a gas powered car's 15% at best efficiency.

And there isn't even enough land to run everything on ethanol. I read that the amount of land in the UK isn't (anywhere near) enough to run all the vehicles alone, even without growing food and having room for cities. I forget the exact numbers, though.

I completely agree with you, however, shale oil is as efficient. The Athabasca Tar Sands in Canada and the Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela still contain approx 1700 billion barrels each.

Additionally, using the Fischer-Tropsch process of turning coal into oil, which is prevelant in South Africa, is a method of processing more oil.

The point is the overall supply is not dwindling. And that the Hubbert peak theory is rubbish.

However, I certainly agree that we need to drop oil for many, many reasons. Nuclear power is the best overall choice, it is safe, efficient, and clean (barring an unforseen problem).

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.

The point is that they could increase refinery and production if they wanted to (by their own admission) as they have not invested in their infrastructure for decades. They just choose not to.

And start using... what?

There are dozens of options: from ethanol to electric to hydrogen to biodiesel to solar and so on. Take your pick. I might also add that public transport is a very viable option that would reduce the need for oil greatly.

lol.

Its a supply demand thing. Oil companies don't make the price of their oil or gasoline, its all done on the market based on supply and demand.

And if they increased their refinery capacity they would have more supply right? This would decrease the price of a gallon of gas because the supply would go up, yes? The point is they promised last year they would increase their refinery capacity and now they are going back on their word because people are getting sick and tired of their charade. Price is at 3.07 a gallon and if they increased refinery capacity they could do it for 2.27 (just an example). Instead they intentionally don't invest in refinery capacity intentionally keeping the price inflated. You dig?

I completely agree with you, however, shale oil is as efficient. The Athabasca Tar Sands in Canada and the Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela still contain approx 1700 billion barrels each.

Additionally, using the Fischer-Tropsch process of turning coal into oil, which is prevelant in South Africa, is a method of processing more oil.

The point is the overall supply is not dwindling. And that the Hubbert peak theory is rubbish.

However, I certainly agree that we need to drop oil for many, many reasons. Nuclear power is the best overall choice, it is safe, efficient, and clean (barring an unforseen problem).
No, it's not efficient. Shale oil requires huge amounts of energy just to process and gather, and provides substantially less power than traditional oil. It will not be enough. At most, it could buy another five years.

And that's not taking into account the amount of time required to set up such production, which typically takes years.

The point is that they could increase refinery and production if they wanted to (by their own admission) as they have not invested in their infrastructure for decades. They just choose not to.
They choose not to because American oil production Peaked in the seventies and is simply not worth it anymore. Furthermore, as I said, it takes years to build up the new infrastructure and machinery required to boost production in any case, and we don't have that kind of time.

We can't sit on our hands whining about companies doing what companies do: earning profit. That will get us absolutely nowhere. Yes, the oil companies fucked up. We understand that. Let's move on rather than sitting in place whining about it just like we do with global climate change. On both issues we have very little time to act before we start seeing serious damage to our economies and way of life.

And there isn't even enough land to run everything on ethanol. I read that the amount of land in the UK isn't (anywhere near) enough to run all the vehicles alone, even without growing food and having room for cities. I forget the exact numbers, though.

To grow enough crop ethanol for the world's economy, we would need a field the size of continental Europe.

The usual monopolistic pricing practices
* Limit supply
* Delay or ignore price drops
* Inflate pricing by making up excuses which aren't even valid
* Collude with other companies to increase prices
* Don't spend money on new infrastructure and run the old/current infrastructure into the ground until it needs replacement (or blows up in an accident)

I completely agree with you, however, shale oil is as efficient. The Athabasca Tar Sands in Canada and the Orinoco tar sands in Venezuela still contain approx 1700 billion barrels each.

Additionally, using the Fischer-Tropsch process of turning coal into oil, which is prevelant in South Africa, is a method of processing more oil.

The point is the overall supply is not dwindling. And that the Hubbert peak theory is rubbish.

However, I certainly agree that we need to drop oil for many, many reasons. Nuclear power is the best overall choice, it is safe, efficient, and clean (barring an unforseen problem).

I agree that new forms of energy must be used for both practical and environmental reasons. But the oil companies are saying, "Oh, you want to use alternative fuels? Well, we did have the means to make your prices lower but F you now. We're going to squeeze every last penny out of you because shit, you can't live without us. We fuel your cars, planes, ships, etc. and will continue to keep the price high by refusing to do what we promised to do with the record profits we made the past 5 years. So before you can change to new forms of energy we're going to make money hand over fist and make our CEOs richer than ever." That's the argument I am making here. They admit they have the ability to increase supply but are now refuses to do it. In other words they are taking their ball and going home. In its place they are leaving you an old ball that works less well but charging you more for it.

No, it's not efficient. Shale oil requires huge amounts of energy just to process and gather, and provides substantially less power than traditional oil. It will not be enough. At most, it could buy another five years.

And that's not taking into account the amount of time required to set up such production, which typically takes years.


They choose not to because American oil production Peaked in the seventies and is simply not worth it anymore. Furthermore, as I said, it takes years to build up the new infrastructure and machinery required to boost production in any case, and we don't have that kind of time.

We can't sit on our hands whining about companies doing what companies do: earning profit. That will get us absolutely nowhere. Yes, the oil companies fucked up. We understand that. Let's move on rather than sitting in place whining about it just like we do with global climate change. On both issues we have very little time to act before we start seeing serious damage to our economies and way of life.

So you're telling the rape victim that "it's ok, at least you didn't get raped again?" Our government subsidizes these scumbags, for what? Subsidies should go to struggling markets, not record profit producing ones. It's the collusion between the Bush Whitehouse and the oil companies that pisses most of us off. Not that this type of corruption isn't worldwide.

Hugo Chavez took care of the greedy oil companies well in his country, he expropriated their assets and nationalized their property, and instead of hording profits like the greedy companies do, the oil revenues can be put to good use in subsidies, rebates and general welfare to the people, Chavez should be taken as a good example in this way.

In the US government/corporate quasi-fascist relationship is maintained through massive subsidies to the oil companies so they can horde their profit and the government can pay for R&D, not only is this against the free-market for those on the right, but for those on the left such as myself is taking the resources away from their natural owners, the people.

ok, i'm too drunk (can barely see the keyboard) but feel this thead cannot go without some comment from myself.... *reminding yself what the thredads abput* *remembers that it's those dicks with voters/tools*).

basically it comes down to OMGWTFBBQTITFBOMCLAIOHYO

edit: lol.... wut?

So you're telling the rape victim that "it's ok, at least you didn't get raped again?" Our government subsidizes these scumbags, for what? Subsidies should go to struggling markets, not record profit producing ones. It's the collusion between the Bush Whitehouse and the oil companies that pisses most of us off. Not that this type of corruption isn't worldwide.

...

Yes, because clearly oil production and oil companies are equivalent to rapists.

Sorry, but I just lost all interest in this discussion thanks to that bought of idiocy.

I can't help but think of the "gas shortage" of the 1970's, not that i'm saying it won't happen, but when you cry wolf...

I can wait till everone will have to live in small local communials, because we can't go 20 miles within a week like we did durin' the gold rush, ramble, blah, yadda, soforth, etc...

The good thing about high oil prices is that it will encourage us to move to alternatives. The bad thing is, those alternatives are more expensive than oil was (which is why we stayed with oil), and the poor people get squeezed, as usual.

I hope someone laces their Cristal with antifreeze because if anyone deserves a horrible, burning death it is people who take pleasure in others' pain.
Like you?

And AP, Hugo Chavez fired thousands of workers because he suspected them of not supporting him and replaced them all with less experienced workers that have not been able to maintain production. Since he took over his country's oil fields the production has been in steady decline. As much as we may hate the boogy man scapegoat of BIG OIL nationalizing the industry does not work for anyone except those running government.

Chavez and all other "communist" leaders throughout history are pretty much totalitarian dictators that stomp on opposing views, enslave people for not chearing loud enough during parades, confiscate property from those that make it, and generally fuck over the proletarians while they get fat and rich using the red star as a sheild against criticism abroad and their personal army as a weapon against it at home. The Communist ruling class use their power to keep a populace in a perpetual state of fear through a police state more concerned with rooting out political dissent than stopping real crime.

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.
Then they can suck it up and start taking the profit hit now. Either that or have a country that can't do anything because they can't afford the gas.

It's time for the Oil companies the feel the pain as well!!!

Bush and all other "democratic" leaders throughout history are pretty much totalitarian dictators that stomp on opposing views, enslave people for not chearing loud enough during parades, confiscate property from those that make it, and generally fuck over the proletarians while they get fat and rich using the the Red and White as a sheild against criticism abroad and their personal army as a weapon against it at home. The Business ruling class use their power to keep a populace in a perpetual state of fear through a police state more concerned with rooting out political dissent than stopping real crime.

Welcome to America.

Do you people seriously have a clue what you are saying?

I see people with tinfoil hats panicking about how oil is going to suddenly disappear 5 years from now, crumpled tinfoil hat people screaming about some massive conspiracy, and nobody that actually takes half a minute to even read the article in the OP.

Building a new refinery represents a long-term investment of billions of dollars, several years of construction, and significant legal liability for decades. They are not cheap prefab units you can setup overnight for negligible cost. Current capacity is well below optimal production, but if you actually could be bothered to read the article, you would know that government initiatives are focused on reducing demand by 20% of current levels. This would mean that by the time the new refinery would open, there will already be excess capacity before the new facility even comes on line.

Why should they undertake the massive cost to build something that is not going to be needed by the time it is built?

You know it doesn't help your arguments when you intentionally alter the wording of quoted text. You haven't changed the text of my post and you haven't argued against anything. All you've done is show me to be right in saying that communists don't like opposing views and will try to stomp on free expression that doesn't cast them in a good light.

Hell a linked article on the website Communism.org says modern communism has become an ugly thing that screws over proletarians.

Those that cling to the ugliness that is communism are sad little trolls that can't handle the real world.

If you quote-edit this post you'll be further proving me right on the whole free expression thing.

I also suggest everyone read Aleksander Isayevich Solzhenitsyn's "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich". If that doesn't show you the dark cloud beneath the silver lining I don't know what will.

Welcome to America.

Yeah...because it's not there's anyone in America criticizing Bush right now...or he's approval ratings are incredibly low...nope, it's all been stomped out by t3h fascists!!11!

And start using... what?

Good will towards men.

Ooh! Zero-point energy!

Yeah...because it's not there's anyone in America criticizing Bush right now...or he's approval ratings are incredibly low...nope, it's all been stomped out by t3h fascists!!11!
Credit due then, obviously, to the people who were all up in your business about how much a smear of excrement he is before his approval rating started approaching what he actually merits, eh?
*poke*

Credit due then, obviously, to the people who were all up in your business about how much a smear of excrement he is before his approval rating started approaching what he actually merits, eh?
*poke*

His approval rating only skyrocketed when 9/11 happened. IIRC, it was in the low to mid 50s before that.

Bush's ratings keep on faalllllllllllllllllllllllllling (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Bush_approval_ratings_line_graph.png)

His approval rating only skyrocketed when 9/11 happened.
If that isn't one of the sickest and most twisted statements on the world today, i don't know WHAT is.
And it could be argued that i know a thing or two about "sickest" and "twisted".
:(

Good will towards men.
Is overrated.

Ooh! Zero-point energy!
Doesn't work.

Is overrated.
o.0
Well, then, perhaps drawing-and-quartering.
No dance tonight.


Doesn't work.
Oh, are you KIDDING?
We haven't even tried.
Seriously.
Not even close.

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.
You have no idea. They are trying to force artificially high prices to make money!!!1

You have no idea. They are trying to force artificially high prices to make money!!!1
At $39.5 billion, what in the hell makes you think they're in it for the $?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/index.htm

Isn't something like 85% of the oil in the world state-owned?

I would fire any oil company executive who made a massive, long-term capital-intensive investment decision like refinery expansion when there is a high probability that demand will not rise fast enough to compensate for the costs sunken in to such a venture. You don't invest unless you're going to profit from it, and idle, unused refinery capacity doesn't make you a single cent of profit. In fact, it destroys it both from the investment itself and from the oversupply of capacity pushing down prices. These oil companies are being responsible with their profits, not throwing them away frivolously so that the disgraceful whiners in this country can have cheap gas.

If you don't like these prices, drive less, support alternative fuels, and buy a more efficient vehicle. The only way prices fall is if demand falls; supply-side growth isn't going to do a damn thing to affect the price because this market is strong and world demand for oil is continuing to grow. Companies make investment decisions based upon the long-term profitability of that investment and they have no responsibility to sacrifice their resources in order to make people happy. They sell at the price the market is willing to bear, no more and no less. Frankly, I applaud them for not giving in to the ignorant, populist whining of the politicians and the people unwilling to change their oil consumption habits.

And you know what's really laughable? It was the underpriced oil of the 1980's and 1990's that produced this very situation; nobody said a word when oil companies were losing billions and going under one after the other due to cripplingly low prices, and nobody said a word when they were forced to close refineries due to lack of demand. And yet they expect the oil companies to risk a repeat of the 1970's in order to make them happy? That's absolutely ludicrous.

At $39.5 billion, what in the hell makes you think they're in it for the $?
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/index.htm

That's a 12% profit margin, in line with other major companies and actually less than some of them. Cisco Systems has about a 21% profit margin, and Microsoft has a 28% profit margin.

Where are the complaints about price gouging on routers or office software? Given that Cisco products are part of our entire technology backbone and Microsoft products run on the overwhelming majority of the world's computers, they're hardly less vital to our modern economy than oil itself. But, mysteriously, nobody accuses them of gouging despite their significantly higher profit margin.

Do you people seriously have a clue what you are saying?
Why, yes, yes I do.

I see people with tinfoil hats panicking about how oil is going to suddenly disappear 5 years from now
...

No. That is not what I said at all, and if you knew anything about Peak Oil, you'd know that.

Obviously oil isn't just going to disappear. We're only reaching the half-way mark when it comes to full oil supplies in the world, and we wouldn't fully drain them until...eh, just a guess...2050 or so.

But, the problem is, due to reaching that half-way point, we cannot produce at any higher a rate than we already have. We're starting on a downward curve now. Think of it as a Bell Curve, since that's basically what it is.

And there's another problem too: unlike the supply, the demand is not going to follow that Bell Curve. It is going to keep going up, skyrocketing mainly due to Chinese and Indian efforts in recent years which will just continue. And oil is the single most important part of every economy of every industrialized nation in the world. We use it to ship our food, to create plastics and other synthetics, to power and heat our homes, to construct our homes, our places of work, our vehicles, to manufacture the computers on which we type, and all sorts of other stuff. It's not something we can just ditch.

Prices are going to rise, and they are going to keep rising because our demand is not going to decrease substantially. Yes, we're working on cutting it, but it's not going to be enough because China and India are not going to cut their demand at all. Instead, they will raise it significantly.

Still, this is not a problem without solutions. We can definitely develop new energy sources, but that takes time and money, and in the meantime our economies will fall apart unless we institute stop-gap measures. At the very least we can take care of power generation--one of the biggies--with new power plants of varying types. From there, we work on significantly cutting our transportation--the MAIN biggie--at least for the next fifteen years. We do that, we'll easily buy enough time to develop all the technology we need. Easy peasy.

But it's not going to happen if all we do is shout and complain about oil companies and their profits. Yes, they made profits. So what? Every other company in the world does too: that's how our economy works. So we need to shut up about it and start working, right now. And yes, I do mean this instant.

Oh, are you KIDDING?
We haven't even tried.
Seriously.
Not even close.
No, I'm not kidding. It really sucks.

Zero Point Energy is the energy left behind in a volume of space after all the matter and radiation has been removed. ZPE, also known as vacuum fluctuation energy, is predicted by quantum mechanics and gives rise to some unusual phenomena such as the Casimir effect. It represents a vast unexploited potential: according to one estimate, there is enough ZPE in a volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans. This estimate is based on fuzzy math and should be taken with a block of salt bigger than all the pyramids put together. This estimate is wrong and has been exposed as such more than once.

ZPE is th lowest amount of energy remaining in a system after all other energy has been removed and so cannot itself be removed making tapping it for a power sauce impossible. Perpetual motion and free energy are pseudoscience and don't work. There are two realistic replacements for oil; one is coal, the other is fission. Since everyone hates coal and mining fission fuels, plant operation, and other related operations result in fewer deaths than coal plants that means that you need to write to your congressmen and tell them to start building more nuke plants or give up electricity and go back to pre-industrial revolution life.

No, I'm not kidding. It really sucks.

Zero Point Energy is the energy left behind in a volume of space after all the matter and radiation has been removed. ZPE, also known as vacuum fluctuation energy, is predicted by quantum mechanics and gives rise to some unusual phenomena such as the Casimir effect. It represents a vast unexploited potential: according to one estimate, there is enough ZPE in a volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away Earth’s oceans. This estimate is based on fuzzy math and should be taken with a block of salt bigger than all the pyramids put together. This estimate is wrong and has been exposed as such more than once.

ZPE is th lowest amount of energy remaining in a system after all other energy has been removed and so cannot itself be removed making tapping it for a power sauce impossible. Perpetual motion and free energy are pseudoscience and don't work. There are two realistic replacements for oil; one is coal, the other is fission. Since everyone hates coal and mining fission fuels, plant operation, and other related operations result in fewer deaths than coal plants that means that you need to write to your congressmen and tell them to start building more nuke plants or give up electricity and go back to pre-industrial revolution life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Point_Module

And start using... what?

your feet?

listen, it's supply and demand, if you demand it, they will supply it. You don't want to pay what they charge? don't. figure something else out.

I heard Brazil powers all their cars by grass :confused:

No, we don't. A percentage of our cars are powered by alcohol, but that's it.

Is it me or is their thinking a bit self-destructive?

Gas prices went up do to lack of refining which then made people look towards alternative fuels. Since people are looking toward alternative fuels the oil companies are going to try to keep the gas prices as high as possible which will almost certainly drive people to more alternative fuels and faster.

So I want to give a thank you to the oil companies who finally helped move the United States to alternative fuels. Imagine, the future of the planet saved by greed.

your feet?

listen, it's supply and demand, if you demand it, they will supply it. You don't want to pay what they charge? don't. figure something else out.

Thank you!

It's obvious, isn't it? Can't afford it = don't buy it. All these arguments about energy -- which are all the most ill-informed bunches of nonsense I've ever read, from all sides of the issue -- are all based on one assumption -- that we must maintain the same energy usage levels that we have now and anything less is a non-starter.

But current energy usage levels are inflated by wastefulness. If consumers were to reduce their personal usage -- of gasoline, heating fuels, and electricity -- we would see a dramatic decrease in usage and, thus, a postponement of supply shortages. You would also see an immediate reduction in costs to consumers, regardless of what oil companies do with their prices. Why? Because if you don't buy it, it doesn't cost you anything.

Those who say the oil companies are copping a "you need us" attitude and that's why they are playing fast and loose with pricing promises are right. But the oil companies are not right. They need us, not the other way around. They need our money, and where we go, they will follow.

So frikkin stick the car in the garage and walk, bike, take public transit or carpool where you need to go. If your house gets a tad chilly, meet a sweater (as my grandma used to say). If it's hot, sit in the shade. Or whatever, but try using the brains nature gave us to solve this basic problem -- instead of just whining about it.

Is it me or is their thinking a bit self-destructive?

Gas prices went up do to lack of refining which then made people look towards alternative fuels. Since people are looking toward alternative fuels the oil companies are going to try to keep the gas prices as high as possible which will almost certainly drive people to more alternative fuels and faster.

So I want to give a thank you to the oil companies who finally helped move the United States to alternative fuels. Imagine, the future of the planet saved by greed.

Their thinking is self-destructive in the long-run, but the long-run is not where corporate planning is these days, since the purpose of corporations is not to run businesses but to produce profits on a quarterly basis (not even annual). The short-term is all that matters in most cases. All they care about is meeting the next projected margins, and if they have to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs to do that, then they will and move onto a different venture for their next profit engine.

On a slighly less negative note, there is also a hint of suicide in this. Most of the same companies that are robbing oil consumers blind now are also developing alternative fuel divisions. I would prefer not to see the next generation of energy resources manage the same way oil has been, but I think the point is that many companies may already be working towards replacing oil gradually and, ultimately, completely. It would be nice to think that the inflated prices of oil today will be applied to R&D and marketing of new fuels in the near future, but it is more likely that they are just trying to loot the oil market for as much as they can before dropping it.

No. That is not what I said at all, and if you knew anything about Peak Oil, you'd know that.
That was a little bit of hyperbole - the tinfoil hat comment should have clued you into that... unless you actually do wear a tinfoil hat ;)

I do know quite a bit about it, and I think it is vastly over-hyped chicken-little kind of thinking - not that oil becomes harder the extract, but that it is a civilization ending event causing massive calamity. Society switched from wood to coal without the world coming to an end, and from coal to oil, again without civilization crashing down. We have very well developed systems in place which will allow us to shift, in ever increasing proportions, to other sources of energy. Solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, nuclear, tidal, hydrogen, methane, and many other sources besides oil are viable - any combination of which will supply all our needs. As supply drops off, the price rises, and alternatives become more attractive - most especially simple efficiency and energy conservation. Paying attention to simple minor changes to reduce waste will drastically drop demand. Civilization will not come to an end.




Oil companies are not gouging consumers - supply is very tight right now. Record profits are coming more from high sales than high profitability. The profit margin on gasoline is not nearly as high as most other commodities, but people want a scapegoat and populists like to whip up anti-business sentiment whenever they can. Oil companies make easy targets because people see the price fluctuations quite easily.

...

Yes, because clearly oil production and oil companies are equivalent to rapists.

Sorry, but I just lost all interest in this discussion thanks to that bought of idiocy.

Ok, perhaps I should said a "violation of trust" instead of rape. You may not like my analogy but it still holds true. You're asking people who have been violated to let it happen all over again and take it with a smile. I

Good will towards men.

Ooh! Zero-point energy!
I love you.

Is it me or is their thinking a bit self-destructive?

No, because they are making this projection based on the assumption that gasoline demand will not increase significantly because of biofuels. If demand doesn't increase considerably, they won't need to increase refining capacity much. Spare capacity would build up by virtue of reduced demand, removing the tight capacity that has played a role in current prices.

If they invest in refining capacity and demand does not rise to meet it, they lose a fortune because gasoline prices will fall and they will be saddled with an overhang of useless capacity that might not ever be used if alternative fuels continue to grow and displace oil. This is actually a responsible, long-term decision based upon the policies in effect. If they did greenlight all this extra capacity even though there is a significant chance it would not be used, that would be mind-bogglingly stupid. They already made that mistake once back in the 1970's, and they're not inclined to do it again.

So you're telling the rape victim that "it's ok, at least you didn't get raped again?" Our government subsidizes these scumbags, for what? Subsidies should go to struggling markets, not record profit producing ones. It's the collusion between the Bush Whitehouse and the oil companies that pisses most of us off. Not that this type of corruption isn't worldwide.

Try the Clinton administration. Billions in tax breaks and subsidies were awarded to oil companies when they stood to lose a fortune due to collapsing oil prices in the 1990's. Honestly, Bush has done more to advance alternative energy in this country than any of the presidents since Carter. We did nothing in the 1990's and very little in the 1980's to diversify our energy needs, and now we are paying the price. That's the way the free market works.

No, we don't. A percentage of our cars are powered by alcohol, but that's it.
So it's a lot like The Flintstones?

You are missing the point. Shale oil will take the place of pure oil as we begin to run out of reserves of pure oil. Why? because we have not put enough money into alternative fuels.Shale oil can be efficient, if we put more resources into making it a viable option (better ways of extracting from the ground, better transport and better ways of purifying it). 3400 billion barrels from two fields alone is enough to fuel, at current rates, for atleast 150 years. Obviously, we will continue to increase consumption if we are still reliant on oil for that long. That is why, alternatives are extremely important, such as nuclear power. Keep in mind, the Fischer process works just as efficiently if we were to make it another viable option at making petro based prodcuts.

However, and its a big however, oil companies have only begun looking into new forms of energy. Why? because they know we have been hooked for 100 years now. And why change a good thing is their rational. Clearly, that is extremely unfortunate for you and me who are hooked on it. And only now, do they realize that we want change, and are trying to force change. But we shouldn't hope for some immediate change from the oil companies. Rather, we need to look at other companies who are making strides at changing our addiction to oil.

And another thing, don't blame the US government for the price of oil. If anything, they have kept our prices lower than any other country importing more oil than they export. Keep in mind the US is the 3rd largest oil producing country, and exports are 0%. That is saying something, and it has nothing to do with subsidies, because we have enough reserves to fuel our nation. If they were to flood the market for as long as they can, as soon as the reserves dry up, the price would shoot up beyong anything we have ever seen. Because at that point, we would be completely at bay of Chavez and OPEC. (thats not being Xenophobic, or jingoistic, rather it is the truth).

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_refineries)

It's hard to find a more despicable groups of d bags than the oil company executives. "First, we control supply and complain there's not enough capacity to make more gas and have prices go down. Next, we say we're going to use the record profits we've been raking in to increase supply and finally pas some savings on to the consumer. Finally, we pull back from our promises in order to artificially inflate the market and continue to make obscene profits on the backs on the consumer." The jist here is that oil companies could make money and make prices come down but they won't. I hope someone laces their Cristal with antifreeze because if anyone deserves a horrible, burning death it is people who take pleasure in others' pain.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

well, as long as they're damned

well, as long as they're damned

Well, you never know, the OP may actually want the oil companies to continue to fight tooth and nail against anti-pollution regulation. I mean when faced with government that wants to limit pollution by making it less cost effective, the oil companies have an obligation to make pollution cheap again, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Point_Module
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy
Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non zero

You just ain't not too bright.

I love you.

How much?
...an hour?

No, I'm not kidding. It really sucks.
Uhm, this is the part where i say something like, "I didn't really call you 'Shirley'."

How much?
...an hour?

It love you long time?

It love you long time?
I don't know yet. But hopefully it works like smack - first hit's free. :p

You know, there's a very good reason for why they won't: because they can't. Oil prices are skyrocketing not because oil companies want to increase profits but because oil production is dwindling. We're in the first stages of Peak Oil, ladies and gentlemen, and it's just going to get worse from here.

But then their profits wouldn't skyrocket. Just their gross income. There's also the matter of the refineries that they won't build. Even when offered government grants to do so.

And the royalties that they are supposed to pay for use of public land with oil underneath it. But they don't because they'd rather spend that money on bribing legislators.

just let them build their own streets and highways, the way railraods have to build and maintain their own tracks, instead of subsidising the oil and automotive industries by building them for them out of taxes that everyone, including environmentally superior modes of transportation have been forced to pay.

i think that's what's really insane about it. that every penny that subsidises them in the from of building streets and roads and intersections and streetlights is robbed from the poor and paid to the rich.

the'll try and scare you that a trolly car costs $300k to $600k, without just happening to mention that every streetlight protected intersection costs just as much!

they are the least needing to be subsidised industry and the most heavily subsidised, because the public has been conned. and now that don't give a dam who they screw, whether it's legally protected corporate crime at home, or actual cold blooded mass murder half way arround the world to rip off what they sell. because they know they can keep getting away with it now that they've completely usurped any sort of political proccess.

all the flags and soverignties and legal posturings are just an amusing game to them, something to relax watching after counting their ill gotten gains.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, you never know, the OP may actually want the oil companies to continue to fight tooth and nail against anti-pollution regulation. I mean when faced with government that wants to limit pollution by making it less cost effective, the oil companies have an obligation to make pollution cheap again, right?

No, what I would really want is hydrogen technology to be abundant and efficient so we could power our vehicles cheaply without producing pollution. In the meantime I'd like an industry that makes record profits to not have let their refineries go to hell so now they can artificially increase their profit margin even more. I'd like to not be gouged while we are producing fules that are more efficient and pollute less. I'd like it so my taxes wouldn't go to an industry that already makes a shitload of money. Wouldn't it be nice if you were a billionare and the government said, "here's another $350 million just for shits and giggles."

No, what I would really want is hydrogen technology to be abundant and efficient so we could power our vehicles cheaply without producing pollution. In the meantime I'd like an industry that makes record profits to not have let their refineries go to hell so now they can artificially increase their profit margin even more. I'd like to not be gouged while we are producing fules that are more efficient and pollute less. I'd like it so my taxes wouldn't go to an industry that already makes a shitload of money. Wouldn't it be nice if you were a billionare and the government said, "here's another $350 million just for shits and giggles."

Lets try this again shall we?
Oil companies are making record profits, but still have low profit margins. The consolidation in the industry means that the same dollars are going into fewer companies, thus those companies are getting more simply by the same pie being divided up among fewer entities. Oil companies are not 'gouging' consumers. Profit margins are quite low; supply is low while demand is very high.

I agree that companies should not be getting subsidies, but that is because I do not believe any company or industry should be getting subsidies. Likewise, I do not demand that companies be forced to spend what they do make on foolish decisions because some idiots with no understanding of basic economics think they know where money should be spent better than well educated people who actual know what they are talking about.

Explain to me why you think these prices are 'gouging' consumers? Do not just repeat the mantra of 'record profits, record profits' because it is intellectually dishonest to point to current short-term profits while ignoring returns on investment or long-term projections.

Spending billions of dollars on new refining capacity right now will boost capacity several years from now - when it is likely that capacity will be far in excess of demand. It would be truly idiotic to spend billions of dollars on something that is going to likely operate at a loss.

The excessively low prices of the late 80s and 90s left little incentive to invest in capacity - now we are seeing the result of cheap gas. There was not enough excess capacity to absorb the shock of Katrina shutting down a significant portion of refining capacity. This is where subsidies come in - giving companies incentive to invest in more capacity for just such an event because foolish people will yell and scream if they the government did not subsidize companies to do something unprofitable.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070617/ap_on_bi_ge/ethanol_refineries)

It's hard to find a more despicable groups of d bags than the oil company executives. "First, we control supply and complain there's not enough capacity to make more gas and have prices go down. Next, we say we're going to use the record profits we've been raking in to increase supply and finally pas some savings on to the consumer. Finally, we pull back from our promises in order to artificially inflate the market and continue to make obscene profits on the backs on the consumer." The jist here is that oil companies could make money and make prices come down but they won't. I hope someone laces their Cristal with antifreeze because if anyone deserves a horrible, burning death it is people who take pleasure in others' pain.

We forced them to lower their prices before. The oil crisis of the 70s immediately followed that. You do the math.

The excessively low prices of the late 80s and 90s left little incentive to invest in capacity - now we are seeing the result of cheap gas. There was not enough excess capacity to absorb the shock of Katrina shutting down a significant portion of refining capacity. This is where subsidies come in - giving companies incentive to invest in more capacity for just such an event because foolish people will yell and scream if they the government did not subsidize companies to do something unprofitable.

And you know what's really funny? The disgraceful public outcry after Katrina made the situation even worse because the President and Congress threatened the oil companies to delay maintenance in order to try and appease the whiners. Guess what happens when you delay maintenance? Things break down, catch fire, and fall apart...and that's exactly what is happening now. Companies have to catch up on their delayed maintenance, and that is producing the situation we have now.

Oil companies know what they are doing. They're been working with this stuff since it was discovered and know when and how to invest, regardless of what some sanctimonious senator or ignorant consumer has to say about it.

Where are the complaints about price gouging on routers or office software? Given that Cisco products are part of our entire technology backbone and Microsoft products run on the overwhelming majority of the world's computers, they're hardly less vital to our modern economy than oil itself. But, mysteriously, nobody accuses them of gouging despite their significantly higher profit margin.

I do accuse M$ of selling overpriced bugs. But then, I use only free/libre/opensource software anyways.

I do accuse M$ of selling overpriced bugs. But then, I use only free/libre/opensource software anyways.

I try to use as much of it as possible as well...I don't think Microsoft products are worth the amount they charge for them by a long shot.

We forced them to lower their prices before. The oil crisis of the 70s immediately followed that. You do the math.

We're not talking about artificially lowering prices when the price of doing business is high this time. There was a little more to that oil crisis of the 70's if you would recall. I'm talking about an industry that has for decades been getting subsidies to run their business and they used that not to reinvest in their infrastructure ensuring that there would be plenty of supply in the future, but to squeeze more money out of their margin and consumers. So, your math is all wrong. There were a few more problems coming from the middle East at that time. By their own admission the oil companies have said that supply of light sweet crude is good, but as was demonstratede during Katrina that refinery capacity was the problem. So now that they have made more than the GDP of most developing countries in a year we should expect them to...continue to let their refineries go to shit thereby artificially creating higher prices. I'm all for the free market economy where supply and demand control the price. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people intentionally keeping refinery capacity low in order to keep prices high.

Here's my example. I have 6 rocks which have gupalogorfin in them. I have 1million people vying to buy those 6 rocks. I can clearly charge a pretty penny. However, I have the ability to use a gupalogorfin spectrometer which can stretch the use of those 6 rocks to 60,000 times their original amount. I am the only one that controls this spectrometer and I choose not to use it because I want to charge rediculously high prices for these 6 rocks. Oh and one more thing, the people need the damn gupalogorfin to run their economy and daily lives. It's not like they can miraculously use tea leaves so they are stuck. I can't wait for the day when we can tell the oil companies to shove their product up their ass, but today is not that day.

On a side note, if we didn't have this insane need for their products we may have a different situation going on in the middle east because we damn well know that "freedom" wasn't priority #1.

Tony Snow: "It wasn't political, it was performance based"
a few week later "we never said it had anything to do with performance."

We're talking about people intentionally keeping refinery capacity low in order to keep prices high.
No - what we are talking about is that it takes several years for new capacity to come online. Several years from now, when that capacity would kick in, there will be substantially lower demand. The big push for alternative fuels and the politicians pushing for replacing 20% of gasoline with ethanol, will leave the demand for gasoline lower than capacity.

You are essentially showing yourself to be incapable of thinking beyond the immediate term. Investing billions of dollars now will not suddenly create capacity right now - so no matter how much you might demand there be higher supply now now now, it is not going to happen. No matter what - not even if you nationalize the oil industry (because obviously those evil capitalists are in a conspiracy to screw over the consumer).

You want a company to invest billions of dollars so that a decade from now they can have a nice new shiny refinery to shut down from lack of demand - all because you cannot grasp simple concepts.