Don't Punish Oil Companies For Profits

[Monorprise]

Then make your congressman allows increasing their competition, thou breaking their monopoly on practical production capability.
Let us build more refinery, drill more oil.

If there making so much money then surely there is more than enough margent to attract others into the market, to complete for it and increase production, if only they were practically allowed to do so by the STATE.

There is a simple solution to this problem, its called Capitalism and freedom.

[Zonker]

Monorprise wrote:

Then make your congressman allows increasing their competition, thou breaking their monopoly on practical production capability.
Let us build more refinery, drill more oil.
If there making so much money then surely there is more than enough margent to attract others into the market, to complete for it and increase production, if only they were practically allowed to do so by the STATE.
There is a simple solution to this problem, its called Capitalism and freedom.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

You should prepare for things to get much worse. Right now gasoline is expensive, but plentiful. That will change. Shortages will appear in the next few years. There are already shortages in China. their consumption growth is is keeping oil markets in turmoil.

And Saudi Arabia again refused to pump more oil. A slap in the face to Bush. Perhaps an indication that Saudi production has peaked. Hard to tell, but it won't relieve the strain on world supplies.

[Richard USA]

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
This forum, and your comment how "evil" oil opmanies are selling in locations they can make the most money, like it's a bad thing.
In case you weren't ware, companies exist for one reason only, to make money.

Spoken just like Kevin James !

[Zonker]

Richard USA wrote:

<quoted text> Spoken just like Kevin James !

S'matter, aren't you ware?

[ByeBye]

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
..........When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must "jawbone" oil producing nations and persuade them to drop rates. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel. The run-up of oil prices lately has been dramatic..........
We all see how much influence Bush and Cheney have on their Saudi friends! They've asked them to increase oil production several times this year, and the Saudi's have declined.
Apparently they're not all that happy with the USA these days.
Whatever happened to Cheney's secret meetings with Oil Co. execs., which supposedly resulted in a new energy policy for America???
Or is $4 gas what Cheney wanted? Methinks that explains why he refused to let the American People know what their government was planning.

Sounds good to me!

[ByeBye]

Daniel Shays wrote:

<quoted text>
How will "re-regulation" lower gas prices?

It seems that everything that was de-regulated has soared in price, most noticeably Electricity, trucking, air travel and oil price controls. I know that we can't get oil for .10 cents a barrel anylonger but these oil companies keep cuting back on refinery operation, they won't build new refineries to keep up with demand at a reasonable price, the do-gooders keep us from drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska and other local areas, it is just time to say, enough is enough.

[Joel]

Tim Phippen wrote:

<quoted text>
clue; environmentalists wackos

found this http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/press/20...
at http://www.topix.com/forum/tech/T5GBDULB6SFU4...
There is a government prototype.

[Sh1tbird]

As an educated Conservative (i.e. not Republican), I railed against the current President prior to his elections. Once he was in, I resigned myself to what has turned out to be 8 years of gross incompetence. But the most appalling thing is the lack of leadership this "oilman" has brought to energy production. I thought of all the things that the US might have to suffer through under his reign, at least high fuel prices would'nt be one of them. Damn, I was wrong - he even screwed that up.

[Monorprise]

Zonker wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You should prepare for things to get much worse. Right now gasoline is expensive, but plentiful. That will change. Shortages will appear in the next few years. There are already shortages in China. their consumption growth is is keeping oil markets in turmoil.
And Saudi Arabia again refused to pump more oil. A slap in the face to Bush. Perhaps an indication that Saudi production has peaked. Hard to tell, but it won't relieve the strain on world supplies.

Why pump oil we cant refine?

[Monorprise]

Yes, things will get worse and to blame Bush for this is the height of hypocrisy. if Bush had his way We would have more refineries, and we would be drilling for more oil on our own, Saudi's oil production whether its peaked or simply caped is ill-relevant, we cant control them, but we can control ourselves. Or to be more specific here Stop restraining ourselves.

An man who had some idea what he’s talking about would not be overlooking Critical our own bottle necks in order to blame a man who has been campaigning against them for more than 8 years for failure to get others to do that which is ill-relevant.

A man who had some idea what he was talking about would not Contradict himself in calming supply is of oil is plentiful, while then going on to complain about a supposed failure to get a foreign country to increase supply.
You can stick your head in the sand if you want to, so that you can get on the hate bandwagon or you can acknowledges what has happened and has been going on for the last 30 years. As it is you seem to be on the hate Bandwagon as evident by your own contradiction of data.

[Zonker]

Monorprise wrote:

<quoted text>
Why pump oil we cant refine?

Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Several Valero refineries are running at less than 80% of capacity due to lack of feedstock (Oil, to the unwashed masses).

Refinery profits are terrible, look at Tesoro and Valero stock prices. Why build a new refinery if profit margins are so thin? Learn something about world oil markets beore making ridiculous assertions.

Oil companies are making big profits. But it pales in comparison to the governments of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Kuwait, Venezuela, and others.

Years ago, early in the Bush admin., oil prices collapsed. The Saudi's asked the West to place a floor under oil prices. We declined. Now the shoe os on the other foot, and they decline our requests to put a ceiling on prices.

What goes around comes around. We like the free market when it works in our favor, but find culprits to blame when the markets work against us.

[Sh1tbird]

Something else to keep in mind: The large profits are NOT necessarily large profit margins. Exxon makes $24 billion dollars in profit, with a profit margin of ~10%. If gas is $4.00/gallon, and the government is charging ~50 cents/gallon, that is ~12.5% for NOT doing the refining, exploration, transporting, repair and construction of infrastructure, etc. The Government may like to point to a 10% profit margin and call it grossly unfair to the taxpayers (voters, this season) but I think a 10% margin for doing all the heavy lifting is not nearly as unfair as collecting a 12.5% margin for doing nothing.

[Joel]

Sh1tbird wrote:

Something else to keep in mind: The large profits are NOT necessarily large profit margins. Exxon makes $24 billion dollars in profit, with a profit margin of ~10%. If gas is $4.00/gallon, and the government is charging ~50 cents/gallon, that is ~12.5% for NOT doing the refining, exploration, transporting, repair and construction of infrastructure, etc. The Government may like to point to a 10% profit margin and call it grossly unfair to the taxpayers (voters, this season) but I think a 10% margin for doing all the heavy lifting is not nearly as unfair as collecting a 12.5% margin for doing nothing.

Who you think repairs & makes new highways, which keeps up the demand for oil.....

[Jeff H]

anon wrote:

I do blame the oil companies. One thing to make a profit. Another thing to rape the public with prices that prohibit heating, and gasoline to go to work. I do blame the oil companies and feel quite helpless everytime I go fill up the tank of my small car. No matter how much I strive to be energy-efficient, it doesn't seem to matter. Those in authority in politics don't care - they're getting rich off of Americans. And it is just so morally wrong.

If you blame the oils companies, it's a sign you are very ignorant.

[Richard USA]

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
If you blame the oils companies, it's a sign you are very ignorant.

.... You know 29 percent Still think Bush is a great president!

[Jeff H]

Richard USA wrote:

<quoted text>.... You know 29 percent Still think Bush is a great president!

Wow, another blazingly ignorant comment, but that's all I expect from you anyway, dope.

Wake up, try to shake off the hangover, and focus on the topic at hand, moron.

[Richard USA]

Jeff H wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, another blazingly ignorant comment, but that's all I expect from you anyway, dope.
Wake up, try to shake off the hangover, and focus on the topic at hand, moron.

But it is True isn't it?....or maybe you don't have television where you live. I don't have to call another person names just to make my point. Pick up a newspaper once in a while, get out of the house do something.

[Sh1tbird]

Joel wrote:

<quoted text>
Who you think repairs & makes new highways, which keeps up the demand for oil.....

Good point Joel .. however, the Feds don't build new highways very much nowaday, and repairs are, for the most part, devolved to the States. I'm currently working on a section of I-25 in Colorado, and the funding breakdown is 68% State, 25% Federal, 3% County, 3% Private (local housing projects, petroleum companies, local heavy industry, and commercial interests) and 1% "Lottery Special Fund" which really is State again. And what I really dislike is Clintons rhetoric on "getting" those big oil companies to pay "their fair share"

[Patrick]

We all can argue until we are blue in the face as to who is at fault and who created all this sh*t. This article covers a topic that dips into so many different areas of discussion (not name calling, but discussion) that it is hard to focus on the point(s) at hand. I do not know as much about who is too blame for the increased prices of gasoline and oil...I wish I did have a definitive answer to that. I also know that while there are plenty of "brilliant" people giving off numerous monitary statistics on this blog, the direction I personally want to focus on is the need to get off of Oil in the first place. Sorry to bust your bubble to all the share holders on the blog. If the need for this fossil fuel drastically dissapears numerous things will happen: the power of the Middle East will follow it and that sand will become worth a lot less. Whether you do or do not give a damn about the environment, I would assume that the loss of that Middle Eastern power would, should, please all of us, Conservative / Liberal alike. A ways back the Swedish gentleman wrote about the, now, MUCH safer development of Nuclear Power. I think this is a wonderful direction to take. Does anyone agree with the concept of ditching oil? Contrary to what some of you think...It is an non-renewable resource and it IS damaging the environment. To what degree is the argument, not whether it is or isn't doing it. If you need any help in understanding that (Jeff H.), please do write back.

[Sh1tbird]

Patrick wrote:

We all can argue until we are blue in the face as to who is at fault and who created all this sh*t. This article covers a topic that dips into so many different areas of discussion (not name calling, but discussion) that it is hard to focus on the point(s) at hand. I do not know as much about who is too blame for the increased prices of gasoline and oil...I wish I did have a definitive answer to that. I also know that while there are plenty of "brilliant" people giving off numerous monitary statistics on this blog, the direction I personally want to focus on is the need to get off of Oil in the first place. Sorry to bust your bubble to all the share holders on the blog. If the need for this fossil fuel drastically dissapears numerous things will happen: the power of the Middle East will follow it and that sand will become worth a lot less. Whether you do or do not give a damn about the environment, I would assume that the loss of that Middle Eastern power would, should, please all of us, Conservative / Liberal alike. A ways back the Swedish gentleman wrote about the, now, MUCH safer development of Nuclear Power. I think this is a wonderful direction to take. Does anyone agree with the concept of ditching oil? Contrary to what some of you think...It is an non-renewable resource and it IS damaging the environment. To what degree is the argument, not whether it is or isn't doing it. If you need any help in understanding that (Jeff H.), please do write back.

OK, we'll try to stay on point. I think we need a combination of wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and conservation to replace oil as a power source.

There is some different kind of nuclear reactor called a pebble bed reactor; read here if you want
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_react...
Its safer but generates more waste then steam models.
Is there any reason we can't mount motion sensors to streetlights in rural areas? I work at night, and although the county road next to the freeway is all lit up, at 4AM there's only about 2 or 3 cars an hour.
Wind power is getting a lot of play in Colorado, since we have lots of wind, and the turbines are surprisingly unobtrusive (unless the sight of a 200 foot tower with spinning blades upsets you). But a field of 700 turbines provides enough energy to light half of Denver. he State is providing tax credits to help spur these farms and so far about 1000 turbines have been installed in the last 5 years.