Poll: Will Gas Hit $5/Gal by 4th of July?

[thstone]

Brucelee, I meant to respond back...

Yes, $10,000,000,000 profit per quarter for a single company seems excessive and generally proves my point that there is inadequate competition in the oil industry. Only when competition is weak can a few companies control a market well enough to rack up some of the biggest profits of all time.

The oil companies are not doing anything "wrong" when they do this - in fact, they are doing exactly what they are supposed to do and designed to do - make as much profit as legally possible.

Thus, if I had any say in the matter (which I don't), I'd intoroduce measures that would increase competition to improve the efficiency of the overal oil market.

Just my humble opinion.

This makes no sense, sorry. The oil companies are big and generate alot of revenue. They also require a huge amount of invested capital. In proportion, they are "normal." Moreover, there are tons of smaller oil companies that you never hear of because they are.

I know them and invest in them. Believe me that the industry does not realize super normal profits.

Think of it this waY:

Exxon profit on a gallon of gas: .02 cents

Total tax on gallon of gas in many states: over .50 cents.

Who is raping whom?

[thstone]

Exxon Mobil may not be the biggest company in the US but it's by far the most profitable: Driven by higher prices for crude — as well as big gains in its natural gas and chemicals businesses — profits at Exxon Mobil topped $30 billion, a whopping 58% jump. (Ref: Yahoo Finance 5/5/11)

Higher prices for crude = higher profits. Why? Exxon raises the price of gas higher than the equivalent price increase for buying more expensive crude oil and thereby increases their profit margins.

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by AKL

This is why we need to drill for our own here in the US.

would not matter:
1. oil is sold on the global market - just because it was extracted in the US does not mean the gasoline would be put into your car
2. OPEC would decrease their output proportionally with our output
3. even if we opened more areas for drilling tomorrow, it would be years before it was extracted and refined into useable gasoline or other petroleum products
4. us oil production is up already - we have gone from 7.6m bbl/day to just over 9m bbl/day in 2010. the us is the #3 producer in the world.
5. exxon (and other refiners) are not complaining that oil supply is too low

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Originally Posted by tonycarreon

would not matter:
1. oil is sold on the global market - just because it was extracted in the US does not mean the gasoline would be put into your car
2. OPEC would decrease their output proportionally with our output
3. even if we opened more areas for drilling tomorrow, it would be years before it was extracted and refined into useable gasoline or other petroleum products
4. us oil production is up already - we have gone from 7.6m bbl/day to just over 9m bbl/day in 2010. the us is the #3 producer in the world.
5. exxon (and other refiners) are not complaining that oil supply is too low

I beg to differ. The greater the supply the less it costs. When we used to do more drilling and refining here the price wasn't so high. Sure it is sold on the global market but a glut means lower prices. Just like a bad corn crop means higher prices and a bumper crop means lower.

Fine if OPEC cuts out production. Maybe more of our gas money would stay home and we wouldn't be so DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN OIL, no? Also we would no longer be funding terrorist states. They wouldn't have as much to spend on nuclear bomb programs etc. Even the price of AK47s would go up for them.

This argument about 15 years before we had any results is an old Democrat talking point. I heard that 30 years ago. 15 years went by and we hadn't done a thing. Another 15 goes by and we still haven't built new refineries. You could use that argument for a number of things but it has no validity, sorry.

Now how about your take on the role of govt. with a hostile policy on energy production? Do you think that may have an influence on the price? Oil prices soared after NObama delcared there would be no drilling ANYWHERE ( but then lends tax money to Brazil to drill and develop oil). I really would like your take on a president who says he will bankrupt coal companies....where in the constitution does he get that power?

AKL

[Allen K. Littlefield]

Still waiting for an answer to this question? Anybuddy?

Now how about your take on the role of govt. with a hostile policy on energy production? Do you think that may have an influence on the price? Oil prices soared after NObama delcared there would be no drilling ANYWHERE ( but then lends tax money to Brazil to drill and develop oil). I really would like your take on a president who says he will bankrupt coal companies....where in the constitution does he get that power?

AKL [/QUOTE]

[tonycarreon]

Originally Posted by Allen K. Littlefield

Still waiting for an answer to this question? Anybuddy?

Now how about your take on the role of govt. with a hostile policy on energy production? Do you think that may have an influence on the price? Oil prices soared after NObama delcared there would be no drilling ANYWHERE ( but then lends tax money to Brazil to drill and develop oil). I really would like your take on a president who says he will bankrupt coal companies....where in the constitution does he get that power?

AKL

[/QUOTE]

ugh. i'll bite. what was the question?

"hostile policy on energy production" - then why did president bush (w) - republican, wait until nearly the end of his presidency to lift the moratorium on drilling, that was put in place by his father - also a republican? why did obama not put it back in place? why has the US increased oil production for the past two years (again from 7m bb/d to over 9m bb/d)?

obama's energy policy is:
- increase domestic oil production
- boost output of biofuels to augment non-renewable sources of energy
- encourage natural gas in transportation fleets
- increase fuel efficiency

those are "hostile"? sure there was a moratorium on off-shore drilling, but you don't think a republican president would do the same thing after the deepwater horizon disaster? of course. it was put in place to create new safeguards that would hopefully help protect against another spill. the number of new wells dug under president obama is the same as under president bush during the same term in office - 1,738 rigs (the highest since dec 19, 2008).

from the department of the interior's site:
To date, 51 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8, 2010. Permits have averaged 6 per month since October 2010, compared to an average of 8 per month in 2009. Just 7 of these permits are currently pending; with 4 having been returned to the operator for more information.

that's 51! new "drill, baby, drill" permits have been granted. 25 permits for deep water drills.

the money you say president obama is lending to brazil after announcing no new offshore drilling is false - the money was a credit facility made available in 2009 by the export-import bank of the US. the board members were appointed by president bush and made the decision, not president obama. furthermore, the money was made available so the oil company could purchase US-made products only.

from the EX-IM Bank's Website:
So far, Ex-Im Bank has approved one portion of the $2 billon offer, a request from JP Morgan Chase, acting as lender, for a medium-term credit guarantee facility in the amount of $300 million. This facility will be used to finance the company's general purchases of U.S. manufactured oil and gas equipment and services. To date, there has been no request for a long-term final commitment under the facility.

and finally, you said that president obama said he "would bankrupt coal companies." this is also false. he did not say that. what he said (as candidate obama) was that he wanted to implement a cap-and-trade system where each energy producer was given a certain allowance of pollution that could be emitted. if they did not emit that much pollution, they could sell their left over "credits" to another company that produced more pollution than would be allowed under law. (by the way, this is what texas does, and the company i worked for made millions selling their left-over "credits"). he said that if a coal company wanted to belch out tons of pollution, they could, but it would bankrupt them. they would need to clean up their act...

candidate obama's quote:
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

[Allen K. Littlefield]

This president and his party are in bed with the radical eco movement and until they open up Alaska and many other places NOW the 9% is peanuts compared to what this country has in reserve. How much do these coal firing plants "belching out with all of the strict regulations that now govern them? When he says he will bankrupt them I believe he means it. Solar and wind are not viable and I have been watching that industry for over 35 years and it will not replace oil, nuclear or natural gas for years to come if ever. Meanwhile the economy continues to go into the tank. Looks like NObama wants to bankrupt the rest of us too. Cap and trade is a big a fraudulent scheme as is the CO2 greenhouse gas fraud is. Higher taxes, more greedy govt. spending on itself (all done, of course, in the name of helping people and the "Children")

Baloney,

AKL

ps Goldman & Sachs, a big rich wall st. firm in bed with the democrats, just declared that pump prices wouldn't fall just because cost of a barrel is now going down. Claim the demand has led to a short supply. This is BS of the first magnitude! With demand dropping off and a glut of oil we now know where the speculators who are driving this obscene price increase are coming from. That along with the FED driving down the value of the dollar. Hmmm???




and finally, you said that president obama said he "would bankrupt coal companies." this is also false. he did not say that. what he said (as candidate obama) was that he wanted to implement a cap-and-trade system where each energy producer was given a certain allowance of pollution that could be emitted. if they did not emit that much pollution, they could sell their left over "credits" to another company that produced more pollution than would be allowed under law. (by the way, this is what texas does, and the company i worked for made millions selling their left-over "credits"). he said that if a coal company wanted to belch out tons of pollution, they could, but it would bankrupt them. they would need to clean up their act...

candidate obama's quote:
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."[/QUOTE]