The real story on gas prices

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

That's certainly no evidence of gouging. Oil is a global commodity, and the companies you mention are global companies. If India and China bid up the price of crude, those companies are not morally or legally required to forgo a better deal just for your convenience.

The price of crude isn't the only factor. The oil companies disasembled more than half of their refineries and now they use the excuse that prices are high because there aren't enough refineries. It's ridiculous. Oil may be a global commodity but the price of crude per barrel is different for every country that imports it. It costs $4 per barrel to remove the crude from the ground. OPEC then charges the U.S. more than $66 per barrel then the oil companies charge to refine and cite the fact that they have to charge more because there aren't enough refineries even though they're the ones that shutdown and disassmbled those refineries then the cost of shipping mysteriously increases then it comes to the pump where the gas tax is applied etc etc. Gas should not be rising on a daily basis when theres gasoline not being used sitting around in enormous tanks owned by those comapanies and considering the fact that the price of shipping and the gas tax do not change multiple times per week.

 

[Dezaad]

Allow more drilling. Allow more refineries to be built. Re-examine the Clean Air Act to continually review whether the boutique fuel requirements are really necessary and doing what they are supposed to do. Allow nuclear plants to be built. Revise the Endangered Species Act to prevent frivolous lawsuits from the environmental Luddites.

Allowing more drilling in the U.S. will not yield energy independence, though it would reduce dependence, to be sure. But as has been expressed, there really isn't that much oil here.

More refineries will do NOTHING at all with regard to energy independence, though it would reduce prices. The same goes for 'boutique fuel requirements'.

Nuclear plants are unprofitable unless you allow the plants to externalize their operating expenses. Most people don't want to do this, because it means we could have nuclear waste pile up and no place to store it safely. When you allow this to happen, taxpayers end up paying more taxes to try and find a way to dispose of it. This is equivalent, in a roundabout way, to raising taxes to subsidize an industry.

I am not opposed to subsidizing energy independence with tax dollars, however. You are the one who said you are.

Absolutely, I am an advocate of using tax dollars to figure out a way to make nuclear power viable, as I am with other alternative energy sources. But, making nuclear power viable is not currently a purely market solution any more than my suggestion was.

 

[Diogenes]

It costs $4 per barrel to remove the crude from the ground. OPEC then charges the U.S. more than $66 per barrel then the oil companies charge to refine and cite the fact that they have to charge more because there aren't enough refineries even though they're the ones that shutdown and disassmbled those refineries then the cost of shipping mysteriously increases then it comes to the pump where the gas tax is applied etc etc.

Actually, the cost of lifting a barrel of oil from the ground varies from $1.50 a barrel in the Middle East to $15.00 a barrel for some of the US fields (like the deep-water drilling).

OPEC doesn't set the price directly, supply and demand does. OPEC sets the price indirectly by setting production limits: lower production raises the global price, higher production lowers the global price. The Saudis in particular exercise a great deal of influence because they are sitting on developed wells that can produce 10 million barrels a day but normally they produce only about 7 million barrels a day. The Saudis are sharp traders and put a great deal of thought into how to maximize their wealth. They set their production limits accordingly, and can be quite ruthless in enforcing production limits among their members. Back in the late nineties, Venezuela broke ranks and blatantly exceeded their production quota; the Saudis opened the spigots, and the price of oil dropped to the $5 level. Venezuela fell back into line, every other producer in the world took note, and the price went back up. So far, the Saudis have been careful not to raise the price so high that it would set off a recession in the US and Europe - but the threat is always there.

We have more oil than the Saudis just in the states of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, but it's locked up in oil shale deposits and will cost quite a bit more than $15 a barrel to get it out (not to mention the environmental destruction from the massive strip mines required). We also have enormous reserves along the east and west coasts, and the eastern part of the Gulf which we are not allowed to tap. To be safe from the short- and medium term (perhaps 10 years) threat of a Middle East shutdown, we too would have to develop and cap wells where we could instantly turn on the spigot and replace the cheaper oil from the ME. But it would cost billions to develop that capability, and millions every year to keep it ready. That's too much to ask of any private company or industry, no matter what their quarterly report shows.

Refineries, particularly the independents, are in a tenuous position. They're caught between the supply of crude oil on one side, and the demand for the refined product on the other side. They're also limited by what type of crude oil they can handle. The oil from the North Slope of Alaska goes to Asia, mostly Japan, because the refineries we had on the west coast were built to handle the light sweet crude that we can no longer extract from offshore California, and the Alaska oil is heavy sour crude like we get from the Gulf of Mexico.

The assertion that the prices are up just because we are being gouged by "Big Oil" is much too simplistic.

Nuclear plants are unprofitable unless you allow the plants to externalize their operating expenses. Most people don't want to do this, because it means we could have nuclear waste pile up and no place to store it safely. When you allow this to happen, taxpayers end up paying more taxes to try and find a way to dispose of it. This is equivalent, in a roundabout way, to raising taxes to subsidize an industry.

If the government performs its regulatory role, defining a place or places to store the waste and prescribing the necessary precautions for handling and transport, the power generating companies will be able to figure their costs accurately and price their product accordingly. But because the investment runs into the billions of dollars to be recovered over decades, the rules have to be firm and not subject to frivolous lawsuits and the whim of capricious judges.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

OPEC doesn't set the price directly, supply and demand does. OPEC sets the price indirectly by setting production limits: lower production raises the global price, higher production lowers the global price. The Saudis in particular exercise a great deal of influence because they are sitting on developed wells that can produce 10 million barrels a day but normally they produce only about 7 million barrels a day. The Saudis are sharp traders and put a great deal of thought into how to maximize their wealth. They set their production limits accordingly, and can be quite ruthless in enforcing production limits among their members. Back in the late nineties, Venezuela broke ranks and blatantly exceeded their production quota; the Saudis opened the spigots, and the price of oil dropped to the $5 level. Venezuela fell back into line, every other producer in the world took note, and the price went back up. So far, the Saudis have been careful not to raise the price so high that it would set off a recession in the US and Europe - but the threat is always there.

OPEC does set the price directly. They control the majority of the flow.

We have more oil than the Saudis just in the states of Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, but it's locked up in oil shale deposits and will cost quite a bit more than $15 a barrel to get it out (not to mention the environmental destruction from the massive strip mines required). We also have enormous reserves along the east and west coasts, and the eastern part of the Gulf which we are not allowed to tap. To be safe from the short- and medium term (perhaps 10 years) threat of a Middle East shutdown, we too would have to develop and cap wells where we could instantly turn on the spigot and replace the cheaper oil from the ME. But it would cost billions to develop that capability, and millions every year to keep it ready. That's too much to ask of any private company or industry, no matter what their quarterly report shows.

Oil Shale is relatively worthless. It loses 40% of it's fuel value in production alone not to mention the cost. The reserves we have would only produce a few barrels per day.

Refineries, particularly the independents, are in a tenuous position. They're caught between the supply of crude oil on one side, and the demand for the refined product on the other side. They're also limited by what type of crude oil they can handle. The oil from the North Slope of Alaska goes to Asia, mostly Japan, because the refineries we had on the west coast were built to handle the light sweet crude that we can no longer extract from offshore California, and the Alaska oil is heavy sour crude like we get from the Gulf of Mexico.

The assertion that the prices are up just because we are being gouged by "Big Oil" is much too simplistic.

If the government performs its regulatory role, defining a place or places to store the waste and prescribing the necessary precautions for handling and transport, the power generating companies will be able to figure their costs accurately and price their product accordingly. But because the investment runs into the billions of dollars to be recovered over decades, the rules have to be firm and not subject to frivolous lawsuits and the whim of capricious judges.

The oil companies shut down and dissassembled 151 refineries between 2004 and 2005. Their profits shot up an additional 67% as a result. The only reason the oil companies gave for shutting them down was that they weren't profitable. Normally when someone fixes the market it's called price gouging.

 

[Diogenes]

OPEC does set the price directly. They control the majority of the flow.

At the risk of disillusioning you, that's indirect.

Oil Shale is relatively worthless. It loses 40% of it's fuel value in production alone not to mention the cost. The reserves we have would only produce a few barrels per day.

Agreed that it is a low grade source, but the oil is there in huge quantities if we have the will to go after it.

The oil companies shut down and dissassembled 151 refineries between 2004 and 2005. Their profits shot up an additional 67% as a result. The only reason the oil companies gave for shutting them down was that they weren't profitable.

They weren't profitable. They were older plants that couldn't be economically retrofitted to current EPA standards.

Normally when someone fixes the market it's called price gouging.

Agreed. And your point is?

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

At the risk of disillusioning you, that's indirect.

How so? OPEC controls the flow of oil thus controlling the price. When they want the price to go up they decrease the amount that is pumped.

Agreed that it is a low grade source, but the oil is there in huge quantities if we have the will to go after it.

We'd still be paying out of our nose for it even though it's very low grade.

They weren't profitable. They were older plants that couldn't be economically retrofitted to current EPA standards.

None of them ever even ran at their full capacity and they did meet EPA standards. The oil companies were making tons of money and they could have easily retrofitted them (which wasn't needed) or run them at their full capacity at the very least and rebuilt them at the most.

Agreed. And your point is?

The oil companies claim that lack of refineries is a major factor in the price of gasoline. They shut down 151 refineries. They fixed the market.

 

[Dezaad]

If the government performs its regulatory role, defining a place or places to store the waste and prescribing the necessary precautions for handling and transport, the power generating companies will be able to figure their costs accurately and price their product accordingly. But because the investment runs into the billions of dollars to be recovered over decades, the rules have to be firm and not subject to frivolous lawsuits and the whim of capricious judges.

I will let you have the last (argumentative) word in this. The reason is that I simply don't have the time necessary to bring together all of the information to attempt a dispute about market vs. government solutions toward energy independence. It is a complex issue, and the subject is a bit off topic for this thread in any case. It deserves a thread of its own. Perhaps I will have time to engage after next week or so. Thanks for your responses.

 

[Canuck]

That's certainly no evidence of gouging. Oil is a global commodity, and the companies you mention are global companies. If India and China bid up the price of crude, those companies are not morally or legally required to forgo a better deal just for your convenience.

no gouging ?

how is 0.12$ cents a gallon in venuzuala
compared to $3.50 American in places
tell me there is no gouging come on are you for real

 

[dragonslayer]

A handfull of companies own all the refineries and the under capacity is built in to assure that shortages will occur from time to time that spike the gas and oil prices generating alot of extra profits for those very few companies

Saudi Arabia has offered to build refineries in the US for FREE
and just recently Kuwait offer to build them
the companies and the govt. said no why?
because they are comfortable with the built in under capacity

Alot of people always think that companies are good and that they have america's best interest at heart LOL
they are raping you and you open your legs wider

Yes I read about the Saudis offering to build free refineries, and the neoconservatives refusing. What surprised me is that the Saudis, whom are blood brothers and cousins with the Bush family would make this kind of offer.

I have to Agree with you. People listen to Fox New, Rush, and other propaganda machines and open their legs wider. Whille I don't care with your analogy, I cannot but agree with you.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Yes I read about the Saudis offering to build free refineries, and the neoconservatives refusing. What surprised me is that the Saudis, whom are blood brothers and cousins with the Bush family would make this kind of offer.

I have to Agree with you. People listen to Fox New, Rush, and other propaganda machines and open their legs wider. Whille I don't care with your analogy, I cannot but agree with you.

You'd be suprised at how often FOX analysts and commentators accuse the oil companies of price gouging.

 

[cnredd]

You'd be suprised at how often FOX analysts and commentators accuse the oil companies of price gouging.

Keep it down...

Don't wanna ruin any pre-conceived perceptions....

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Keep it down...

Don't wanna ruin any pre-conceived perceptions....

Lol. I've noticed that very few people acctually take a gander at these networks themselves instead of taking the king of distortion's ie Michael Moore's word for it and that ridiculous "Out FOXed" cut and paste job.

 

[Diogenes]

How so? OPEC controls the flow of oil thus controlling the price. When they want the price to go up they decrease the amount that is pumped.

That's still indirect. Direct is stating the acceptable price, like at the gas pump. Indirect is controlling the production to get the price you want.

We'd still be paying out of our nose for it even though it's very low grade.

Of course. The price always goes up as the stuff gets harder to find and recover. And as long as the Saudis have enough easily accessible oil in the ground, they will be in the catbird seat.

None of them ever even ran at their full capacity and they did meet EPA standards. The oil companies were making tons of money and they could have easily retrofitted them (which wasn't needed) or run them at their full capacity at the very least and rebuilt them at the most.

Wrong. They've been running at 98% for the past several years, and that means that even a minor interruption is going to cause pain at the pump. A refinery built to handle low-sulfur (sweet) crude cannot be easily retrofitted to handle high-sulfur (sour crude) with the associated air quality requirements. Rebuilding a refinery takes it out of any grandfathering clauses and requires the same permitting as a new refinery; the environmental Luddites make sure that the permitting is next to impossible by filing serial frivolous lawsuits.

I will let you have the last (argumentative) word in this. The reason is that I simply don't have the time necessary to bring together all of the information to attempt a dispute about market vs. government solutions toward energy independence. It is a complex issue, and the subject is a bit off topic for this thread in any case. It deserves a thread of its own. Perhaps I will have time to engage after next week or so. Thanks for your responses.

If you can find out what the French do with their nuclear waste, I'd like to know. I don't know exactly what percentage of our oil consumption actually goes to producing gasoline, producing electric power, or whatever else, but if we could find a substitute energy source for electric power it would go a long way toward making more gasoline available for vehicles.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Wrong. They've been running at 98% for the past several years, and that means that even a minor interruption is going to cause pain at the pump. A refinery built to handle low-sulfur (sweet) crude cannot be easily retrofitted to handle high-sulfur (sour crude) with the associated air quality requirements. Rebuilding a refinery takes it out of any grandfathering clauses and requires the same permitting as a new refinery; the environmental Luddites make sure that the permitting is next to impossible by filing serial frivolous lawsuits.

You can't honestly believe that all 151 refineries were low-sulfur crude refineries and that it wasn't proffitable to run them. The oil companies were still making big profits then. Now, after shutting the refineries down their profits are obscene.

If you can find out what the French do with their nuclear waste, I'd like to know. I don't know exactly what percentage of our oil consumption actually goes to producing gasoline, producing electric power, or whatever else, but if we could find a substitute energy source for electric power it would go a long way toward making more gasoline available for vehicles.

It's been available on the market in Germany since the early 90s. They're solar powered and entirely electric cars called the TWIKIE , the Citroen Saxo, the Berlingo, and the City-El. There are stations all across europe called the "Park & Charge System" which convert solar energy into electric energy and you can insert a special probe into the box and the energy is transferred to the car. There are also miniature solar pannel attachments available which you can keep on your car instead of going to the "Park & Charge". Of course those who use the Park & Charge must have a key which you pay a certain fee for using so you can't just go to the park and charge, take the energy, and run off. You must have the key to activate it. Even GM put out an entirely electric car known as the EV-1. The recalled all of them and scrapped the program and crushed the cars in 2000. Why? No one really knows. The europeans have been extremely successful at building alternative fuel source cars and I know that the car companies know how to build them properly. They race them in Australia in the annual solar power race every year!

 

[Diogenes]

They race them in Australia in the annual solar power race every year!

Do they race them at night? :mrgreen:

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Do they race them at night? :mrgreen:

Do you know what solar power is? The energy is converted to electric energy and stored in batteries. You can drive a solar powered car at night.

 

[Canuck]

Yes I read about the Saudis offering to build free refineries, and the neoconservatives refusing. What surprised me is that the Saudis, whom are blood brothers and cousins with the Bush family would make this kind of offer.

I have to Agree with you. People listen to Fox New, Rush, and other propaganda machines and open their legs wider. Whille I don't care with your analogy, I cannot but agree with you.

sorry my anal ogy
isnt up to the highest standard of havard's
,yale and the rest of the institutional higher learning centres of the universe

I am but a poor boy and my story's often told

 

[Diogenes]

Do you know what solar power is? The energy is converted to electric energy and stored in batteries. You can drive a solar powered car at night.

And if you plug them in, you can drive around for a long time in a circle with the radius of the extension cord. :roll:

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

And if you plug them in, you can drive around for a long time in a circle with the radius of the extension cord. :roll:

Thats not true at all. The batteries store the energy. Apparently you've never seen or researched a solar powered car or ever heard of a battery for that matter.

 

[Canuck]

Front page / World / Continents / Asia
USA to unleash war on Iran?
07/01/2005 16:48

The informational preparation has already been launched

As the scandal about the alleged terrorist past of the Iranian president-elect grows up, it's becoming obvious that the world is witnessing a smear campaign not unlike those aimed at Milosevic and Hussein on the eve of the US-led aggressions against Yugoslavia in 1999 and Iraq in 2003.

Though many independent observers consider the recent elections in Iran as more transparent and superior democratic processes than the 30 January US-staged elections in Iraq and Mr. Ahmadinejad's victory as more convincing than that of Mr. Bush in the last fall, the United States didn't hide their discontent - U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the Iranian president-elect "no friend of democracy" and dismissed the vote as a "mock election." The current allegations that Iran's president-elect was one of the hostage-takers in 1979 is most likely intended to turn Ahmedinejad into a devil incarnate in the US public opinion.

Meanwhile a former student leader involved in the 1979 seizure of the American citizens has already testified that Mr. Ahmadinejad had played no role in the hostage taking. Moreover his office published a photograph of Ahmadinejad of the late 70s showing little resemblance to the hostage-taker taken for Ahmadinejad.

However the fact that the similar propaganda wars preceded military campaigns against Yugoslavia and Iraq may suggest that an attack on Iran is imminent. "Preemptive military action" against Iran requires presenting this country as a "rogue state" not only harboring Islamic terrorists, but even headed by a terrorist.

The strong doubts that the US does not fully embrace the EU's attempts to settle Iran's question through diplomacy arose when John Bolton, Bush's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the UN, had called them as 'doomed to fail'. Since October 2003 the U.S. closest ally in the Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility, being constructed with a Russian assistance in Busher.

According to the political analyst William Clark, the US hostility toward Iran goes beyond the officially cited Iran's alleged nuclear intentions. As the invasion of Iraq was aimed at gaining control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves, rather than at eradicating Saddam's non-existent WMD program, the possible invasion of Iran is most likely connected with Iran's intention to create "petroeuro system" for oil trade, which can critically undermine U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market.
http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=1383

 

[Canuck]

This is a great post other than the liberal bashing, you did get most of the reasons correct, but you fail to see where Bush played a role.
1) Instead of giving billions of dollars in handouts to energy companies for really not doing anything, give these handouts for the purpose of creating more refineries, since OPEC's stated reason for cutting production is because of our like of ability to refine the crude oil.
2) Instead of sitting back and doing nothing, play hardball with China about their semi-capitalist trade policies, which would probably decrease their production, and thus their demand for oil.
3) He's built up the largest deficits in US history. This has been the largest cause for the dropping value of the US dollar.

You know your ****, which is a breath of fresh air, but Bush has played a major role in the growing gas prices.

Finally, there is the refinery capacity of Saudi and other Middle eastern countries, a portion of whose output was offered to the United States. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, Saudi Arabia possesses 1.75 million bpd of its own refining capacity; one oil industry newsletter stated that Saudi Arabia has another 720,000 bpd of in-country refinery capacity in joint ventures with other oil companies. Total refinery capacity on Saudi soil would be 2.47 million bpd. As a result, Saudi Arabia exports 1.15 million bpd of refined petroleum products; Kuwait exports 622,000 bpd; the U.A.E. exports 502,000 bpd. Part of these countries' refined product stockpiles—official and unreported—could be shipped on Very Large Long-Range Vessels, 500-750,000 barrel supertankers. Cheney said, "No."


On Sept. 10, a Washington-based Mideast specialist further filled out the picture. He reported that on the eve of Katrina, the world was awash in crude petroleum. He confirmed that Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have significant spare refinery capacity, and massive reserves of refined petroleum products. These countries refuse to disclose the total amount of their reserves of refined petroleum, but they have been building up their stockpiles for the past 15 years, so they are quite substantial. He asserted that, were Saudi Arabia to load four supertankers with refined petroleum products and deliver them to the United States in special sales, the price of oil would fall 40%
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3237energy_heist.html
This sums up your assumption well

 

[Canuck]

No such sympathy is to be extended to big oil. The nation has on its hands a disaster so profound that we have not even begun to seriously count the bodies in the floodwaters. It brings us as close as we may get in our lifetime to places like Bangladesh.

New Orleans is under martial law and will not return to normal for years. Members of the Red Cross, the Coast Guard, the National Guard, police agencies, and firefighters are sacrificing time and risking lives to save lives. Texas is opening up its school systems for homeless Louisiana children. Generous food wholesalers are giving away their stocks to passersby. The Astrodome is taking in the refugees of the Superdome.

In the midst of this charity, big oil looted the nation. The pumps instantly shot past $3 a gallon, with $4 a gallon well in sight.

In a thinly disguised attempt to act as if it cared about the people wading in the water, Chevron has pledged $5 million to relief efforts. ExxonMobil and Shell have pledged $2 million apiece. British Petroleum and Citgo have pledged $1 million each.

This is nothing next to their wealth. Of the world's seven most profitable corporations, four are ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, and Chevron. ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable company, making $25.3 billion last year. It and the other three corporations had combined profits last year of $72.8 billion. ExxonMobil is also the world's most valuable company, with a market value, according to Forbes magazine, of $405 billion. The combined market value of ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, and Chevron is nearly $1 trillion.

look at the staggering gains of these companies ,and they say there is no price fixing my ass there is no free market when it comes to oil
its is a closed market of the select few
combined profits of 70 billion and they offer the katrina relief effort 10 million
you would think it would be 500 million
at the same time shoot pump prices up shame full
dastards

A few days before Bush launched "Operation Iraqi Freedom," ElBaradei revealed that the US had relied on fabricated documents to support its Niger claim. This revelation raised the ire of Bush, who had included the false Niger assertion in his state of the union address in order to whip up support for his impending illegal invasion of Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101105I.shtml

here is the real reason it was faulty my friend

http://www.rense.com/general67/stock.htm
Cheney's Halliburton
Stock Rose 3,281%
Executive Intelligence Review
10-12-5

(EIRNS) -- Halliburton stock options held by Dick Cheney rose 3,281% since October, 2004,according to figures compiled by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), reports rawstory website today.

The options were worth $241,498, now they are worth $8 million.

In a Sept. 15 statement, as Halliburton was getting no-bid contracts for repairs following Hurricane Katrina, Lautenberg said that Cheney should divest himself of these Halliburton holdings.

"Halliburton has already raked in more thant $10 billion from the Bush-Cheney administration for work in Iraq, and now they are being awarded some of the first Katrina contracts. It is unseemly for the Vice President to continue to benefit from this company at the same time his Administration funnels billions of dollars to it.''
oil for profits atrocities in the name of all that is holly what is wrong America
Peace can only come When america leaves iraq not before

http://www.rense.com/general67/stock.htm