Interesting read on our oil issues. (Who's to blame?)

[jeepxj3]

Subject: MORE ON OUR HOPELESS FRIENDS IN CONGRESS


May 21, 2008

Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from
the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a
politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready
to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the
event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President
of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter
Roberts on, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe,
Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon,
Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the
petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely
better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.

One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role
played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe
pointed out:

I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely
restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry
must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and
have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7
percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is
completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:

Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for
only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil
production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent
of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank
14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For
an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head
to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs
financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects
requiring enormous long-term investments. To simply maintain our current
operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly
$1 billion each day.

Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming
majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the
cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone
else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular
unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58
percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers
pay for that crude oil, and so do we. Of the 2 million barrels per day
Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States, 90 percent were
purchased from others.

Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is 'gouging'
consumers through the high price of gasol ine, it is federal and state
governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of
the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents
oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but,
strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers'
anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility
for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.
Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:

While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably
India and China, subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's
consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do
this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage
relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources
has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as
Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the
American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.

According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore
federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with
restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer
continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental
shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf
moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore
oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and
even a congressio nal ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential
for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40
specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural
gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I
offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.

When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the
single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of
these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S.
companies outside the United States to produce new supplies.

As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent
of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by > the same
government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some
or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil
and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent
decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the
Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah,
Colorado and Wyoming. It's fair to say that they're not considered part of
America's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.

HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2
trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good
oil, isn't it?

HOFMEISTER: That's correct.

HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?

HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon
what we've seen in the inflation...

HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.

HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if
there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be
cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount
of supply against the demand.

HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop
the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework
of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.

HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.

HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.

HOFMEISTER: Yes.

HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here.
We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to
do that, in
at least Colorado.

HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public
policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to
the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are
largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want
the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of
permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would
both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a
break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative.

Im not pointing any fingers here, take it for what it is nothing more.

[Jpdst29]

where did you get that at? very interesting.

[jeepxj3]

;) You can actually watch this on C-Span

[Muzikman]

But that can't be...it's all Bush's fault...he is an oil guy, he is the one driving up the price of oil.

[SirFuego]

Another oil thread!! :popcorn:

Good read, though.

It's all Al Gore's fault -- driving up oil prices to ultimately reduce demand for oil and "stop" global warming. :D

[jeepxj3]

But that can't be...it's all Bush's fault...he is an oil guy, he is the one driving up the price of oil.

really? Policy put in place way back when is what is preventing the oil companies from bringing down prices. I hate to say it but an uneducated consumer, as well as government is the reason for all of this.

[Muzikman]

Oh come on, Bush is making Billions off of us. Why do you think gas/oil prices are at their all time high just before he's out of office. He wants to milk us for every penny before he leaves office. Open you eyes man. When Obama is president gas prices will be at an all time low and the economy will be booming...just wait, you'll see.

[Megamus]

Oh come on, Bush is making Billions off of us. Why do you think gas/oil prices are at their all time high just before he's out of office. He wants to milk us for every penny before he leaves office. Open you eyes man. When Obama is president gas prices will be at an all time low and the economy will be booming...just wait, you'll see.



r u kidding? I really doubt the president of the United States is that crooked. Do you have any evidence supporting this or is it just that you dont like him?

[jeepxj3]

Oh come on, Bush is making Billions off of us. Why do you think gas/oil prices are at their all time high just before he's out of office. He wants to milk us for every penny before he leaves office. Open you eyes man. When Obama is president gas prices will be at an all time low and the economy will be booming...just wait, you'll see.

please support your speculation.... :wasted:

[XJchris98]

When Obama is president gas prices will be at an all time low and the economy will be booming...just wait, you'll see.


BS. Bush doesnt control the price of oil.

[Muzikman]

The hell he doesn't! I am telling you, it's all his fault. Are you guys really that stupid?

Obama '08! That is out only saving grace!

[jeepxj3]

please support your speculation.... :wasted:

ill repost this because you have yet to support yourself. Goverment policy is what is to blame, and its not just Bush to blame, its past presidents as well, if your boy Obama is elected your pretty much saying he's out to change this policy, well I tell you this much... Good luck getting the support of the enviormentalist out there! With Gore on the loose telling everyone about this global warming scare its gonna be a loosing battle. The consumer is an idiot and not willing to educate themselves on the issue at hand.

[Muzikman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/blame-rising-oil-prices-o_b_106433.html

[jeepxj3]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-scheer/blame-rising-oil-prices-o_b_106433.html

I still fail to see your point, that article talked more so about his current staff's idiocy...

[psychobilly]

hmm. Take it for what it says or get informed on the subect. Its easier to just subscribe to it, I know, but if you do you deserve to be paying 4 bux a gallon and more.



We can only compete directly for 7
percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is
completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.


Did they mention that all of the crude oil in the us (alaska included) accounts for only 3% of the worlds supply? Thats kinda important to know. If we hit it hard and sucked every ounce out, ruining protected forests forever we'd meet our demands for a few years at best. How the hell can that plan make us "energy independent"? And this whole oil mess isnt about supply and demand anyway, there is plenty of supply. So if we tap into ANWAR do you think these oil companies are going to pass this oil on to you for any less money than the market demands? If you do then again, you deserve to go broke buying it. It wont make a difference, theres just billions of dollars to be made right now if our gov will allow them to destroy land you and I bought and own in our national forests. Dont forget too now american companies will be able to compete for 83% of Iraq's oil. Wonder why they forgot to mention that?

And then they talk about oil shale. Our country sits on it, its everywhere, big whoop if theres a place in colorado it cant be dug from. Its not oil however, its contains a hydrocarbon that can make a synthetic oil and thus be refined into fuels. Theres nothing stoping any single company from using it other than the fact right now oil companies can make a bigger profit on other sources of oil (anyone ever hear of exxon). That shale is used to fire generating stations to make electricty, it can be used to make oil if any company so desired. So could coal and boney (waste coal). But since its not a supply and demand issue (at least right now) there is no real desire to go that route. Some companies are buying up land that contains large deposits of oil shale however because the future will demand we use us it. Especially if we dont make the switch to hydrogen and bio's.


I'm not pretending I know the fix for this mess (although a strong dollar would cut the price in half and for that we can IN FACT blame the bush admin) but I know when someones trying to slap a new coat of paint on an old piece of shit and sell it to me. Theres easy profits in crude right now (did I mention exxon?) and with the weak dollar it will have more value on the market. Dont be fooled.

[Muzikman]

I agree that the weak dollar has a TON to do with oil prices (oil is priced on the dollar). I am also a believer that cheaper gas would strengthen the dollar. Maybe not as much as it could, but if people were putting that $300+ a month they spend on gas into their credit card / mortgage payment, they might get out of debt which would mean the banks wouldn't be in such a hurt, which means the feds wouldn't be giving away money which has greatly devalued the dollar.

Not to mention that the price of goods would go back down (or should go back down) since the price of gas effects everyone, from farms to transportation.

[Muzikman]

I still fail to see your point, that article talked more so about his current staff's idiocy...

I dunno, I didn't even read it, I based it on the title.

I am a republican, I voted for Bush both times and will never vote for Obama, I just wanted to ruffle some feathers...and it worked. When you asked me to do actual work to support my false statements, it seemed like a waste...so I blame you for taking away my fun.

BTW, everything I wrote is stuff that democrat supporters have been saying for the last couple years. I was just puking it back up.

[jeepxj3]

Taking oil out of the ground is not going to make us energy independent, by FAR!!! But current policy does not allow for oil companies to drill, uncap, or search out new wells (THIS IS THE PROBLEM) So here we are left to purchase our oil from forign companies.

Just a little tid bit of info: Oil wells over in the middle east only pull about 1/3 of the wells potential then capped off. (Reason being: it is not cost effective to pull all of the oil out of the wells) With rising costs how much potential oil have they left behind? This figure im sure is astronomical!

Ill give you the answer as to why oil companies are making record profits...
(I just pulled this from Bloomberg)
Nymex Crude Future 134.89 /bbl

Lets say the price per barrel goes up today, in turn gas stations raise their prices. That price per barrel today will not reach the U.S. until at least 3 months later due to shipping, and refining. In that time the price can fluctuate either way, but you just paid for the price of crude oil at its current high price... Now ask yourself is this right????

Now also keep in mind that these oil companies have seen the writing on the wall, they are aware of our current situation, and dont think for 1min that they dont have plans for alternative energy.

[XJchris98]

Maybe people should spend more time working and less time complaining about high gas prices. Honestly, everywhere you go nowadays you can find SOMEONE whos either complaining or has a chip on their shoulder about how much they just paid to fill up there car/truck/or SUV. Seriously, if you have that much time to complain all the time, maybe you should consider putting that extra time into getting a better job or going back to school so you can get a degree to GET a better job.

Gas prices and the economy is what it is. One person sitting on an internet chat room or forum whining about things isnt going to change a damn anything. Even voting for president so and so isnt necessarily going to help. Voting in a good president with decent views MIGHT help the situation, but its not going to be an overnight change.

[RANT OFF]

And that wasnt directed at anyone on here...just making a comment.

[Effjae]

Bush is dumb, that is fact. The problem is that we let politicians run this country. They don't care about our interests. They are not the common man. They are all in one pocket or another and are worried about their own interests and well being. They all need kicked out and we should start from scratch with, perhaps, a lottery system to determine who should run the country?!?

[psychobilly]

ill repost this because you have yet to support yourself. Goverment policy is what is to blame, and its not just Bush to blame, its past presidents as well


I feel that musicman is being sarcastic but he's correct in a large part so allow me to prove it, its quite easy.

The department of energy gives a weekly report on the energy situation. Every week we have been stockpiling unused supplies of gasoline and heavy fuels. This despite the fact that we are importing less oil. Demand is down from one year go considerably. According to the D.O.E. we are importing and using nearly 1,000,000 FEWER barrels of crude a day compared to this time last year. So if supply and demand were driving the cost of energy, the prices should have been going down for the last year, not up. Were importing less, using less and stockpiling more. Gas surplus has been up 3-20% from last year. Heating oil surplus is up too, remember that when you take your july delivery at 4 bux a gallon.

So the price is not being set by the consumers demand and opec is holding up their end of production as well.

Next we look to the market, prices are pretty much determined on the NYMEX. This is where the price has gone through the roof and its been caused by inflation (and speculation). When the dollar falls (inflation) people invest in metals and oil. This inflation is caused by government policy. Bush's republican policy does not care about inflation because georges people "the have's and have more's" (and that is a quote of his) they dont feel inflation. In fact they benefit from it with big contracts like were seeing haliburton getting right now. So our gov has to pay those contracts but we dont have the money. Not a problem if your George Bush, we'll just borrow it from the federal reserve at interest and what they dont give GW he just borrows from other countries and foreign banks. So every dollar we get on loan from the federal reserve it must create. Every dollar we create decreases the value of every dollar we have, especially now because were flooding the foreign markets with american currency. Our dollar is barely worth more than a peso these days and no one wants it. When the dollar is worth nothing people dont invest in american companies, they buy oil and foreigners buy american property. Its UNREAL how many foreign investors are buying property in american. They are doing it because they "cant believe how cheap" american homes are. Not to us, hell our working class is becoming homeless while foreigners are buying them up. Even bigger american companies are buying these homes and property and selling them from offices in dubai and south korea because thats where the money is. Its not in our working class, thanks GW. Were being beaten big time and my bet is 4 more years of republican policy like GW's and our working class will be among the poorest people in the world. I freakin hate republicans. Even more I cant stand folks who make less than 5 million a year and support them. You people that do deserve what you get, hell you deserve what you got. You remember GW talking to that lady who "worked 3 jobs just to make ends meet" and he smiled and was real happy and said something like " you work 3 jobs, now thats american, that is FANTASTIC" like he was proud she had to work 3 jobs to make ends meet.

Want some sources?

Shoulda bought some peso's a few years ago. Or better yet canadian dollars, you woulda doubled your investment. Might of been almost able to keep up with inflation
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=MXN&amt=1&t=2y

oil supply and demand

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/weekly_petroleum_status_report/current/txt/wpsr.txt

[jeepxj3]

Maybe people should spend more time working and less time complaining about high gas prices. Honestly, everywhere you go nowadays you can find SOMEONE whos either complaining or has a chip on their shoulder about how much they just paid to fill up there car/truck/or SUV. Seriously, if you have that much time to complain all the time, maybe you should consider putting that extra time into getting a better job or going back to school so you can get a degree to GET a better job.

Gas prices and the economy is what it is. One person sitting on an internet chat room or forum whining about things isnt going to change a damn anything. Even voting for president so and so isnt necessarily going to help. Voting in a good president with decent views MIGHT help the situation, but its not going to be an overnight change.

[RANT OFF]

And that wasnt directed at anyone on here...just making a comment.

Chris, im working on alternative energy... So I think I can speak :flipoff2:

[psychobilly]

Maybe people should spend more time working and less time complaining about high gas prices. Honestly, everywhere you go nowadays you can find SOMEONE whos either complaining or has a chip on their shoulder about how much they just paid to fill up there car/truck/or SUV. Seriously, if you have that much time to complain all the time, maybe you should consider putting that extra time into getting a better job or going back to school so you can get a degree to GET a better job.


If your eager to accept incompetence and defeat you deserve the reprocutions. I have a degree, a decent income and everything I own except my house is bought and paid for. 2 days of work makes my monthy mortgage and I could pay it off today if I wanted. So I'm not hurting, in fact I have probably benefited a little from this in some ways. I still wont just accept it, we deserve better but if your eager to forget that you will never get it.

[SirFuego]

I am a republican, I voted for Bush both times and will never vote for Obama, I just wanted to ruffle some feathers...and it worked. When you asked me to do actual work to support my false statements, it seemed like a waste...so I blame you for taking away my fun.

BTW, everything I wrote is stuff that democrat supporters have been saying for the last couple years. I was just puking it back up.

From the couple times I've met you, I thought your comments were quite sarcastic and not consistent with the way you usually argue stuff (i.e. have facts/documents to back it up). It made my day that people went el nutso over it.

That's why I put the [sarcastic] tags around my Al Gore comment -- in fear that people would take me seriously.

I :057: the Internets.

[MemorEsto]

I dunno, I didn't even read it, I based it on the title.

I am a republican, I voted for Bush both times and will never vote for Obama, I just wanted to ruffle some feathers...and it worked. When you asked me to do actual work to support my false statements, it seemed like a waste...so I blame you for taking away my fun.

BTW, everything I wrote is stuff that democrat supporters have been saying for the last couple years. I was just puking it back up.
Yeah, I thought you were joking as well, but thought for a second.... what the hell happened to Jason?!?!?

[Jpdst29]

i don't care if you make 10k a year or 1 million a year. $4+ per gallon of gas is insane no matter how much you make. yes the people who make more won't feel the tug on their coinpurse as much, but it still comes down to the fact that it is just plain expensive to drive anywhere.

i have found myself not going certain places due to the fact of the price of gas. driving up north to camp every weekend has become a thing of the past because i dont want to or can't afford to fill my Jeep up 2x a week.

get the fawking lead out and hurry up on that alternative energy jason.

:040: :079:

[jeepxj3]

oh, trust me, your not he only one whos anxious... Im sick of this as well, but im at the mercy of distributors, custom built controls, lead times, ect... (Things look good though ;))

[Jpdst29]

well. here's my biggest question for you. and feel free not to answer or at least beat around the bush if you cant legally answer.

will these "new" alternative energy be able to be adapted to current vehicles. or will it only be available with new models?

[jeepxj3]

ill feel free not to answer ;)

[psychobilly]

Correct me if I'm wrong but GM is leading the way and their alternative energy of choice seems to be hydrogen. Hydrogen power electric drive.

[Jpdst29]

ill feel free not to answer ;)

yeah...i figured as much. oh well...

[Krod]

Obama '08! That is out only saving grace!


Putting that in my sig for when you're wrong later :flipoff2:


Oh and...

http://www.personal.psu.edu/students/m/s/msl197/Funnies/popcorn-1.gif

[King]

theres enough crude to go around, the refineries cannot keep up with the demand and it is so hard with the enviro nazis nowadays to build more refiniries in the US. Goverment putting $$$ into refineries in the US would help the situation as well.

[Muzikman]

Putting that in my sig for when you're wrong later :flipoff2:


Oh and...

http://www.personal.psu.edu/students/m/s/msl197/Funnies/popcorn-1.gif

Wow, and people STILL think I am serious...oh well.

[ArtCloud]

personally i think the point of the government profit compared to oil company profit is the biggest load of shit, the statistics of oil company profit is % of profit after all expenses and salaries (including ceo's) have been paid and that % is whats going back into the company whereas the tax money is a straight percentage of how much of the price of gas is a tax.

this next paragraph has a lot of figures so try to follow along

by my calculations if 58% of the price of gas is for the actual supply and 15% is tax then the % of money going to the oil company itself is 28% with 4 points of that being company profit meaning that 24% of the price of gas is operating cost including salaries. incredible how statistics can be used to twist things around if only you use the right words hmmm

if we want prices to go down we need to down we need to do the following:
1. cut record profits of oil companies (out of the question)
2. cut operating costs of oil companies (pretty much out of the question)
3. cut salaries of oil executives (hah, i don't need to comment)
4. lower/cut taxes on gas (less than likely)
5. increase the availability of oil in countries that despise us (lol, bush is working on this one, oh but wait no sorry i don't want to confuse anyone "war on terror")

to sum things up, politicians, no matter blue or red are all assclowns, so are oil executives. we're all fawked so hope some genius invents a cheap alternative way to get to work otherwise we should start buying stock in huffy.

[Krod]

Wow, and people STILL think I am serious...oh well.



:037:;-)

[bluespark]

if we want prices to go down we need to down we need to do the following:
1. cut record profits of oil companies (out of the question)
2. cut operating costs of oil companies (pretty much out of the question)
3. cut salaries of oil executives (hah, i don't need to comment)
4. lower/cut taxes on gas (less than likely)
5. increase the availability of oil in countries that despise us (lol, bush is working on this one, oh but wait no sorry i don't want to confuse anyone "war on terror")



1. Why cut their profits? It is afterall free enterprise. If the world wide economy stopped buying their product, the profits would fall.

2. Cut the operating costs and supply goes down, prices go even higher. We actually need them to raise their operating costs through the constuction of new, modern refineries.

3. Cut them when they are all brining in record profits for their share holders?

4. Think our highway system sucks now? Cut the gas tax and tell me what you think then.

5. I'm not even going to start on this one. I will however ask a question. Why is China drilling off the coast of Florida but we are not allowed to under the current moratorium????



to sum things up, politicians, no matter blue or red are all assclowns, so are oil executives. we're all fawked so hope some genius invents a cheap alternative way to get to work otherwise we should start buying stock in huffy.

Oil execs are assclowns? This is the attitude that I just can't understand no matter how hard I try. I'll agree most all politicians are working to their own agenda and not representing their constituants, but oil company execs are assclowns???

[ArtCloud]

all I'm saying is that i think the people that run the oil industry are so knee deep in cash that they are blind to the problems that these increasing gas costs are creating to the average american citizen.

i could understand if gas were going up 25 cents a year due to inflation but these skyrocketing prices are just ridiculous because no one has time to adapt their budget to be able to handle the increases and its crushing the economy because nobody can do the things they normally were able to afford.

its one thing to use supply and demand as a reason to raise the cost of oil but its getting out of hand. its basically like a fricken fly landed on the shoulder of one of our soldiers in iraq so crude oil went up a dollar a barrel.

Sorry if you don't agree with me, oil tycoons, they're all making ridiculous amounts of money by lying through their teeth at our expense, and the politicians just keep letting it go on, they're all scum in my eyes.

[YJBeef]

:102: This argument still goes on?!?!

[ArtCloud]

honestly there really isn't much to argue about.

my whole point is saying that high prices are more of the gov't fault than oil companies (or vice versa) is like saying that brain cancer is worse than lung cancer...

[Jpdst29]

http://lightbiker.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/apriliascoop2001.jpg

[ArtCloud]

http://flytheroad.com/

100mph, 100mpg and under 20k

[Jpdst29]

i like that thing.

[DMG]

I feel that musicman is being sarcastic but he's correct in a large part so allow me to prove it, its quite easy.

The department of energy gives a weekly report on the energy situation. Every week we have been stockpiling unused supplies of gasoline and heavy fuels. This despite the fact that we are importing less oil. Demand is down from one year go considerably. According to the D.O.E. we are importing and using nearly 1,000,000 FEWER barrels of crude a day compared to this time last year. So if supply and demand were driving the cost of energy, the prices should have been going down for the last year, not up. Were importing less, using less and stockpiling more. Gas surplus has been up 3-20% from last year. Heating oil surplus is up too, remember that when you take your july delivery at 4 bux a gallon.

So the price is not being set by the consumers demand and opec is holding up their end of production as well.

China is using a massive amount of oil and is subsidizing it to keep cost down (which keeps demand high) for its consumers.

[DMG]

personally i think the point of the government profit compared to oil company profit is the biggest load of shit, the statistics of oil company profit is % of profit after all expenses and salaries (including ceo's) have been paid and that % is whats going back into the company whereas the tax money is a straight percentage of how much of the price of gas is a tax.

this next paragraph has a lot of figures so try to follow along

by my calculations if 58% of the price of gas is for the actual supply and 15% is tax then the % of money going to the oil company itself is 28% with 4 points of that being company profit meaning that 24% of the price of gas is operating cost including salaries. incredible how statistics can be used to twist things around if only you use the right words hmmm

if we want prices to go down we need to down we need to do the following:
1. cut record profits of oil companies (out of the question)
2. cut operating costs of oil companies (pretty much out of the question)
3. cut salaries of oil executives (hah, i don't need to comment)
4. lower/cut taxes on gas (less than likely)
5. increase the availability of oil in countries that despise us (lol, bush is working on this one, oh but wait no sorry i don't want to confuse anyone "war on terror")

to sum things up, politicians, no matter blue or red are all assclowns, so are oil executives. we're all fawked so hope some genius invents a cheap alternative way to get to work otherwise we should start buying stock in huffy.

No offense, Art but from a business/accounting standpoint, this is utter gibberish. Aside from the part about finding an alternative.

[OverkillZJ]

^ Agreed.

I can't believe some of you folks thought MuzikMan was serious. The sarcasm might as well have slapped you in the face.

[psychobilly]

China is using a massive amount of oil and is subsidizing it to keep cost down (which keeps demand high) for its consumers.


We use 20 million blr a day, they use 6 million and we subsadise oil as well with our tax money at the tune of about 6 billion a year. That money goes to oil companies though, not to the people. And along with those subsidies the Bush's energy bill made it law that if oil companies drill on federal lands, like ANWR in Alaska they pay NO ROYALTIES for the oil they extract from there. They get it FREE when in fact they should pay a royalty to the federal gov (stronger dollar, less gov borrowing?). Wonder why youve been hearing so much about drilling on federal lands lately? That oil will still sell for whatever price the market demands, and for the record, you and I did own that oil prior to GW giving it to the oil companies. GW was the best politition they bought yet. Take the time and read some of his energy bill, it will make you sick. But thats what you get with republican politics, they dont make decisions with the little man in mind, they swing to the tune of big business and we pay the price for it, literally.

China its interesting to note has a different kind of subsidie program, kinda like our welfare system. The difference is the oil companies making the big profits pay a kind of "tax" that is used to offset energy costs for chinas people. I dont really agree with that practice 100%, the cost is passed on somewhere somehow. But either way, its like 8 billion USD a year so yes, the workin stiffs there that need energy shouldnt feel the crunch like we do here. They use a fraction of what we do but get more money that DIRECTLY offsets cost to the consumer. Expect their demand to increase but dont think for a minute thats why were hurting. There is no shortage (yet) but watch and see now that our demand is down if we dont start importing significantly less. Watch and see if our stockpiles shrink and the news starts a panic about a gas shortage. It would be a wise business move by the oil folks to manipulate such a thing right now if they can get away with it (and they probably can because the consumer first energy act didnt pass). They will then pressure for the unknowing majority to demand we drill ANWR and on federal lands offshore (see first post for such propaganda). It will be the best heist ever and were going to be happy to let them do it.

[DMG]

We use 20 million blr a day, they use 6 million and we subsadise oil as well with our tax money at the tune of about 6 billion a year. That money goes to oil companies though, not to the people. And along with those subsidies the Bush's energy bill made it law that if oil companies drill on federal lands, like ANWR in Alaska they pay NO ROYALTIES for the oil they extract from there. They get it FREE when in fact they should pay a royalty to the federal gov (stronger dollar, less gov borrowing?). Wonder why youve been hearing so much about drilling on federal lands lately? That oil will still sell for whatever price the market demands, and for the record, you and I did own that oil prior to GW giving it to the oil companies. GW was the best politition they bought yet. Take the time and read some of his energy bill, it will make you sick. But thats what you get with republican politics, they dont make decisions with the little man in mind, they swing to the tune of big business and we pay the price for it, literally.

China its interesting to note has a different kind of subsidie program, kinda like our welfare system. The difference is the oil companies making the big profits pay a kind of "tax" that is used to offset energy costs for chinas people. I dont really agree with that practice 100%, the cost is passed on somewhere somehow. But either way, its like 8 billion USD a year so yes, the workin stiffs there that need energy shouldnt feel the crunch like we do here. They use a fraction of what we do but get more money that DIRECTLY offsets cost to the consumer. Expect their demand to increase but dont think for a minute thats why were hurting. There is no shortage (yet) but watch and see now that our demand is down if we dont start importing significantly less. Watch and see if our stockpiles shrink and the news starts a panic about a gas shortage. It would be a wise business move by the oil folks to manipulate such a thing right now if they can get away with it (and they probably can because the consumer first energy act didnt pass). They will then pressure for the unknowing majority to demand we drill ANWR and on federal lands offshore (see first post for such propaganda). It will be the best heist ever and were going to be happy to let them do it.

The oil companies typically pay around 15% of their profits as royalties. Show me evidence that this has changed.

Republicans are not the only ones in bed with big business, the Dems are just as bad. Not to mention their involvement with people like Soros.

Anything we can do to become more energy independent is a good move, as long as we are not getting fleeced by the oil companies as they do it. We could see substantial production from oil shale in 18 months if the government (mainly dems) would allow it.

[psychobilly]

Show me evidence that this has changed.


Signed into law in 2005, the Bush energy policy act. It waives royalties on public lands like ANWR alaska and offshore. Royalties are not paid on profit either, they are paid on product. An oil company does not automatically own oil, whoever owns the mineral rights to the land containing the oil owns the oil. Royalties are paid to the owner for his/her minerals. There are state laws that regulate these payments, typically the owner is paid 1/8th of the market value but can negotiate for more (sometimes as high as 50%). The 2005 law eliminated those royalties that would/should of been paid to our government. Billions that should serve us has instead found its way into oil company accounts. Billions more are up for grabs in places like ANWR and with that potential were not going to see a big push for oil shale right now. Remember its not a supply issue, there is no shortage, its a profit game. More profit is to be made from free crude than there is from hard to extract shale. No democrat is in any way shape or form preventing the mining of oil shale. Sure, it cant be mined in certain areas but so what, its for good reason. Oil shale has been mined in the US since around the WWII era. Exxon shut down its oil shale operation in the 80's to go after easier profits. It was also mentioned in the Bush energy act which allows for extraction of oil shale from public lands.

[Cebby]

well. here's my biggest question for you. and feel free not to answer or at least beat around the bush if you cant legally answer.

will these "new" alternative energy be able to be adapted to current vehicles. or will it only be available with new models?

That is the big problem - the process to get the majority of the population into vehicles that can use alternative fuels would take forever. There will be reliance on gasoline for years and years to come.

Here's some new thinking...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4133668.ece


From The Times
June 14, 2008

Scientists find bugs that eat waste and excrete petrol

Silicon Valley is experimenting with bacteria that have been genetically altered to provide 'renewable petroleum'

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to – especially the ones coming out of business school – this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs – very, very small ones – so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

Mr Pal is a senior director of LS9, one of several companies in or near Silicon Valley that have spurned traditional high-tech activities such as software and networking and embarked instead on an extraordinary race to make $140-a-barrel oil (£70) from Saudi Arabia obsolete. “All of us here – everyone in this company and in this industry, are aware of the urgency,” Mr Pal says.

What is most remarkable about what they are doing is that instead of trying to reengineer the global economy – as is required, for example, for the use of hydrogen fuel – they are trying to make a product that is interchangeable with oil. The company claims that this “Oil 2.0” will not only be renewable but also carbon negative – meaning that the carbon it emits will be less than that sucked from the atmosphere by the raw materials from which it is made.

LS9 has already convinced one oil industry veteran of its plan: Bob Walsh, 50, who now serves as the firm’s president after a 26-year career at Shell, most recently running European supply operations in London. “How many times in your life do you get the opportunity to grow a multi-billion-dollar company?” he asks. It is a bold statement from a man who works in a glorified cubicle in a San Francisco industrial estate for a company that describes itself as being “prerevenue”.

Inside LS9’s cluttered laboratory – funded by $20 million of start-up capital from investors including Vinod Khosla, the Indian-American entrepreneur who co-founded Sun Micro-systems – Mr Pal explains that LS9’s bugs are single-cell organisms, each a fraction of a billionth the size of an ant. They start out as industrial yeast or nonpathogenic strains of E. coli, but LS9 modifies them by custom-de-signing their DNA. “Five to seven years ago, that process would have taken months and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars,” he says. “Now it can take weeks and cost maybe $20,000.”

Because crude oil (which can be refined into other products, such as petroleum or jet fuel) is only a few molecular stages removed from the fatty acids normally excreted by yeast or E. coli during fermentation, it does not take much fiddling to get the desired result.

For fermentation to take place you need raw material, or feedstock, as it is known in the biofuels industry. Anything will do as long as it can be broken down into sugars, with the byproduct ideally burnt to produce electricity to run the plant.

The company is not interested in using corn as feedstock, given the much-publicised problems created by using food crops for fuel, such as the tortilla inflation that recently caused food riots in Mexico City. Instead, different types of agricultural waste will be used according to whatever makes sense for the local climate and economy: wheat straw in California, for example, or woodchips in the South.

Using genetically modified bugs for fermentation is essentially the same as using natural bacteria to produce ethanol, although the energy-intensive final process of distillation is virtually eliminated because the bugs excrete a substance that is almost pump-ready.

The closest that LS9 has come to mass production is a 1,000-litre fermenting machine, which looks like a large stainless-steel jar, next to a wardrobe-sized computer connected by a tangle of cables and tubes. It has not yet been plugged in. The machine produces the equivalent of one barrel a week and takes up 40 sq ft of floor space.

However, to substitute America’s weekly oil consumption of 143 million barrels, you would need a facility that covered about 205 square miles, an area roughly the size of Chicago.

That is the main problem: although LS9 can produce its bug fuel in laboratory beakers, it has no idea whether it will be able produce the same results on a nationwide or even global scale.

“Our plan is to have a demonstration-scale plant operational by 2010 and, in parallel, we’ll be working on the design and construction of a commercial-scale facility to open in 2011,” says Mr Pal, adding that if LS9 used Brazilian sugar cane as its feedstock, its fuel would probably cost about $50 a barrel.

Are Americans ready to be putting genetically modified bug excretion in their cars? “It’s not the same as with food,” Mr Pal says. “We’re putting these bacteria in a very isolated container: their entire universe is in that tank. When we’re done with them, they’re destroyed.”

Besides, he says, there is greater good being served. “I have two children, and climate change is something that they are going to face. The energy crisis is something that they are going to face. We have a collective responsibility to do this.”

[psychobilly]

Theres a bunch of people working with enzymes and bacteria to produce fuels. Some of them even make fuel from used tires. Thats killing 2 birds with one stone right there.

[Muzikman]

We just a need a Mr Fusion like in Back to the Future. :)

[OverkillZJ]

http://www.core77.com/blog/images/mr_fusion.jpg

[BAD_GNR]

Great Scott!

[jeepxj3]

We just a need a Mr Fusion like in Back to the Future. :)

its in the process

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/indiana-to-buil.html
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/genesyst.png

[92YJCBG]

^^^^^????????????

[DMG]

While it is an awesome concept, I don't think it is fusion.

its in the process

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/04/indiana-to-buil.html
http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/28/genesyst.png

[jeepxj3]

no its not fusion, but its the same concept taking junk and being able to turn it into energy.

[2002wranglerX]

here's something to chew on...

oil companies make $0.04/gallon. The state makes $0.40-0.60/gallon.

who's gouging who?