Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oil companies continue to gouge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by M21Sniper
    Well to anyone that thinks 36 billion in PROFIT for just one company(the profit margin is similar for all the other big oil companies) is fair and equitable
    I actually think 9% is kinda low. It's only redeeming value as an investment is that it is reasonably safe...
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by M21Sniper
      Well to anyone that thinks 36 billion in PROFIT for just one company(the profit margin is similar for all the other big oil companies) is fair and equitable for THE national economic strategic product, then i guess i would appear as if to be a loon.
      My problem with your stance, Snipe, is that priofit has nothing to do with "fair and equitable".

      What if there were some kind of democratic revolution in S.A. and Venezuela tomorrow and oil price wars started, and the price of oil dropped to $20/bbl overnight? What is "fair and equitable" about that? Will you call for price supports to keep the oil companies from losing money at that point?

      -dale

      Comment


      • #63
        The days of cheap oil are over, the solution now is alternative power sources as already pointed out.

        Comment


        • #64
          or we could deregulate to buy us some time
          rock chalk

          jay hawk

          Comment


          • #65
            Bottomline:

            1. We use too much
            2. Too expensive to increase supply (new refineries, off-shore drilling, ANWR...etc)
            3. Too expensive to decrease demand (more power plants that use nuclear or hydro to replace coal fire or oil fire plants)

            Give it some time. Our habits will switch. We will develop alternative energy sources if oil continue to be so expensive. Being so expensive means it's worth our time to look for new things.

            Make no mistake, oil is cheap. Much cheaper than existing alternative fuel sources. Some people want to use ethanol made from corn. Well, we need to increase our corn supply. Someone has to make corn into ethanol. All these steps cost money. In the end, ethanol will probably be more expensive than current gasoline. But if gasoline goes to $4 or even $5 per gallon, we will then be able to stomach ethanol at $3 per gallon.

            Then there's the problem of how efficient these new energy sources are. What if we come up with (just for example) ethanol that costs $2 per gallon but gets 50% of the mileage that a gasoline engine of similar performace gets? That translates into a lower efficiency. We actually spend more even though per unit price is lower.

            Finally, if we switch to another fuel source, even partially, it means someone will make money off it. Who's best at converting a huge amount of corn into ethanol? Who's the most efficient at it? Large companies, possibly the oil companies of today. They can make the same margin on ethanol as they do today in gasoline and some people will still be unhappy because they make too much money.

            We can't just look at how much money they make. They make so much because they deal in an obscenly high quantity, thanks to our insatiable thirst for gas. They can cut their margin in half so they make $18 billion instead of $36 billion, and our gas price might drop by $0.08 to $0.13 per gallon.

            We use too much. We must cut back. But the problem is even if we do, we may not be able to affect the world crude price. Why? China and India will still demand that much. All we're doing is making it cheaper for them.

            Think about that one.
            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by dalem
              My problem with your stance, Snipe, is that priofit has nothing to do with "fair and equitable".

              What if there were some kind of democratic revolution in S.A. and Venezuela tomorrow and oil price wars started, and the price of oil dropped to $20/bbl overnight? What is "fair and equitable" about that? Will you call for price supports to keep the oil companies from losing money at that point?

              -dale
              Yeah, the gov't would bail them out- that means that we'd be footing the bill. That being said, turnabout is fair play.

              PS: Wars would just boost the price even further as profiteers looked to take even more advantadge of the country.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by gunnut
                Make no mistake, oil is cheap. Much cheaper than existing alternative fuel sources. Some people want to use ethanol made from corn. Well, we need to increase our corn supply. Someone has to make corn into ethanol. All these steps cost money. In the end, ethanol will probably be more expensive than current gasoline. But if gasoline goes to $4 or even $5 per gallon, we will then be able to stomach ethanol at $3 per gallon.
                Ethanol makes TREMENDOUS strategic sense because we grow more corn in the US than anywhere else on earth, and we actually pay farmers subsidies to NOT grow more than we can sell as food or give away as aid.

                At last we would have energy independence.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by M21Sniper
                  Ethanol makes TREMENDOUS strategic sense because we grow more corn in the US than anywhere else on earth, and we actually pay farmers subsidies to NOT grow more than we can sell as food or give away as aid.

                  At last we would have energy independence.
                  That is one benefit of it.

                  But still, someone will make a huge profit out of that endeavor. Will that outrage the public like how the oil company is now? Will we blame the ethanol companies for "gouging" us on something we can't live without?

                  I think we should develop ethanol and get it ready in a few decades. For now, let's use up all the oil in the world so the Chinese don't get their hands on it.
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by M21Sniper
                    Ethanol makes TREMENDOUS strategic sense because we grow more corn in the US than anywhere else on earth
                    Better choice, http://www.changingworldtech.com/ . Save us from the enviornmental catastrophy of mass faming and distilling. Plus it uses the thing the USA creates the best, trash. ;)
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      theres not enough farmable land in the world to produce enough corn to meet with current demand levels, at current technological effeciency. however, it would help reduce the oil pressure, especially considering you can mix the stuff with gasoline at any ratio and put it in your car.

                      another good way would to be to explore nuclear/solar plants to produce electricity, and then you apply that energy to transportation by using it to create hydrogen for hydrogen cars.
                      rock chalk

                      jay hawk

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by guppy
                        theres not enough farmable land in the world to produce enough corn to meet with current demand levels, at current technological effeciency. however, it would help reduce the oil pressure, especially considering you can mix the stuff with gasoline at any ratio and put it in your car.

                        another good way would to be to explore nuclear/solar plants to produce electricity, and then you apply that energy to transportation by using it to create hydrogen for hydrogen cars.
                        Ethanol definitely has a place. However, if the demand on gasoline decreases due to an influx of ethanol, it may drive up the price. Weird, I know. But the lower demand on gasoline might decrease the economy of scale that we have at current level of consumption.

                        A large portion of gas price is due to world demand on crude. We can't really control that. The next biggest level is probably tax. Gas tax generally run at around $0.50 to $0.70 per gallon, depends on what state you're in. Compare that to what Exxon is making ($0.09 per gallon) I wonder why people don't demand more accountability on the part of the government. After all, it has gouged us at 6 times the rate that Exxon and all other oil companies are gouging us at.

                        Nuclear plants? Good luck. We haven't had a new nuclear plant built in this country for 3 decades. Same with our refineries, just in case anyone is interested. Imagine that, no new refineries for oil in nearly 3 decades in a country that is addicted to oil!

                        Solar, good idea, but not very practical. The photoelectric cells are very expensive and they need to be in an area with nearly 365 days of sun shine per year to be economical.

                        If we really want to have cheap and clean gas, we have to basically fvck the environmentalists and their self-righteous bullcrap in the ass with no mercy. Drill ANWR; drill offshore; nuclear plants; hydro plants; new refineries; start adding ethanol to gasoline in increasing amount.

                        Oh yeah, another reason why there's a shortage of gasoline, which contributes to high prices, is because we are switching the additive in gasoline from MTBE to ethanol. Remember MTBE? The chemical that's supposed to clean our air? Except it gets into our ground water and causes cancer. Thanks Al. I would like to exchange my lung cancer for stomach cancer, please.

                        The hidden cost of environmentalism on full display. People need to wake up.
                        "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Ethanol definitely has a place. However, if the demand on gasoline decreases due to an influx of ethanol, it may drive up the price. Weird, I know. But the lower demand on gasoline might decrease the economy of scale that we have at current level of consumption.

                          A large portion of gas price is due to world demand on crude. We can't really control that. The next biggest level is probably tax. Gas tax generally run at around $0.50 to $0.70 per gallon, depends on what state you're in. Compare that to what Exxon is making ($0.09 per gallon) I wonder why people don't demand more accountability on the part of the government. After all, it has gouged us at 6 times the rate that Exxon and all other oil companies are gouging us at.

                          Nuclear plants? Good luck. We haven't had a new nuclear plant built in this country for 3 decades. Same with our refineries, just in case anyone is interested. Imagine that, no new refineries for oil in nearly 3 decades in a country that is addicted to oil!

                          Solar, good idea, but not very practical. The photoelectric cells are very expensive and they need to be in an area with nearly 365 days of sun shine per year to be economical.

                          If we really want to have cheap and clean gas, we have to basically fvck the environmentalists and their self-righteous bullcrap in the ass with no mercy. Drill ANWR; drill offshore; nuclear plants; hydro plants; new refineries; start adding ethanol to gasoline in increasing amount.

                          Oh yeah, another reason why there's a shortage of gasoline, which contributes to high prices, is because we are switching the additive in gasoline from MTBE to ethanol. Remember MTBE? The chemical that's supposed to clean our air? Except it gets into our ground water and causes cancer. Thanks Al. I would like to exchange my lung cancer for stomach cancer, please.

                          The hidden cost of environmentalism on full display. People need to wake up.
                          i honestly think that the costs to all those things which you have stated as necessary for cheap gas would be comparable to what thomas friedman has called a "manhattan project" for renewable energy. as he stated, in that war we had rationing and conscription. if we could do that in the home front on that war, what about the home front in this one? where is the ban, or at least forced gasoline-efficiency increases on SUVs, for example? when zakaria wrote this, gas was at $45 a barrel; now it is at $75.

                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5853718/site/newsweek/

                          in the end, it would probably not even constitute a "self-sacrifice". in this current war we have already spent hundreds of billions on warfighting operations. surely it would not be too much to ask of the american public to spend at least tens of billions on developing fuel sources that will not require buying from outside sources, period. current research into solar energy, for example, is promising; however, because of the low profit margin, research simply does not get funded all that well.

                          so throw the resources of gov't into it. it would be profitable for america in the middle/long-term; R&D costs benefit the economy in more ways than one. i'd prefer money to be spent on this sort of thing rather than continued expansion of infrastructure based upon old technologies.
                          Last edited by astralis; 25 Apr 06,, 09:05.
                          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Apparently my breaking point for fuel costs is the same as the Prez's:

                            Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline
                            AP - 3 minutes ago

                            WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve. Bush also announced steps to ease environmental standards governing fuel grades.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by astralis
                              i honestly think that the costs to all those things which you have stated as necessary for cheap gas would be comparable to what thomas friedman has called a "manhattan project" for renewable energy. as he stated, in that war we had rationing and conscription. if we could do that in the home front on that war, what about the home front in this one? where is the ban, or at least forced gasoline-efficiency increases on SUVs, for example? when zakaria wrote this, gas was at $45 a barrel; now it is at $75.

                              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5853718/site/newsweek/

                              in the end, it would probably not even constitute a "self-sacrifice". in this current war we have already spent hundreds of billions on warfighting operations. surely it would not be too much to ask of the american public to spend at least tens of billions on developing fuel sources that will not require buying from outside sources, period. current research into solar energy, for example, is promising; however, because of the low profit margin, research simply does not get funded all that well.

                              so throw the resources of gov't into it. it would be profitable for america in the middle/long-term; R&D costs benefit the economy in more ways than one. i'd prefer money to be spent on this sort of thing rather than continued expansion of infrastructure based upon old technologies.
                              I disagree with using bans and rationing or other dragonian government measures to regulate the market. Let the market regulate people, which is what it is happening already. Ford and GM are faltering because people stopped buying their gas guzzlers. Toyota is thriving on their little cars and the most recognizable hybrid in the market.

                              This morning on my drive to work I saw more than half the cars around me were full size SUVs and pickup trucks. We brought this on ourselves. People driving 8 seat Expeditions with 12 MPG to work when a small Civic that gets 32 MPG would do the job.

                              Another problem with the American people is we want instant gratification. We want gas prices down NOW. That won't happen for a long time and only if we start switching to small cars now. Those giant SUVs will be on the road for years to come. They will continue to waste gas for all of us, until they go to the junk yard.

                              Just so everyone knows, I have never owned an SUV. I have only driven an SUV once and that's on a ski trip. We rented an Expedition to carry 5 people and gear. It got 15 MPG on the freeway but that was pretty good for 5 plus gear. I switched from a small gas guzzler (18 MPG) to a wagon (23 MPG). I could get a Corrola, but I don't want a Corrola. I would pay more at the pump just so I don't have to drive a Corrola.
                              "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by M21Sniper
                                Apparently my breaking point for fuel costs is the same as the Prez's:

                                Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline
                                AP - 3 minutes ago

                                WASHINGTON - President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve. Bush also announced steps to ease environmental standards governing fuel grades.
                                BRAVO!!!

                                He at least understands how the market works, unlike the dems who want to regulate the market.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X