MR

Oil prices dropping because of less demand

Oil prices fell below $127 a barrel Wednesday, extending a decline of more than $3 in the previous session on a growing sense that record-high costs have cut demand for gasoline and other fuel. The summer driving season in the U.S. began with the just-ended Memorial Day weekend, and some analysts are predicting that data will show a lackluster start. U.S. Energy Department data covering the weekend won't be released until next week. But even ahead of those figures, other statistics indicate Americans are driving less because of bloated prices at the pump. The Schork Report, edited by Stephen Schork, cited the latest statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, noting that "estimated vehicle miles traveled ... on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent, or 11 billion miles, compared with March 2007".

Angiekay wrote:

When our gas was $2 a gallon, their's was $6....could you imagine $9 for a gallon of gas?!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 00,00.html

give it another year and yes

AlteredDNA wrote:Oil prices dropping because of less demand

Oil prices fell below $127 a barrel Wednesday, extending a decline of more than $3 in the previous session on a growing sense that record-high costs have cut demand for gasoline and other fuel. The summer driving season in the U.S. began with the just-ended Memorial Day weekend, and some analysts are predicting that data will show a lackluster start. U.S. Energy Department data covering the weekend won't be released until next week. But even ahead of those figures, other statistics indicate Americans are driving less because of bloated prices at the pump. The Schork Report, edited by Stephen Schork, cited the latest statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, noting that "estimated vehicle miles traveled ... on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent, or 11 billion miles, compared with March 2007".

Time to take the business out of oil. Regardless of how it's happening, the oil companies are posting record profits. They can't on one hand say "it's not our fault" while keeping the profit on the other.

I propose a huge windfall tax on the oil companies followed by quarterly "economic stimulus checks" mailed back to the tax payers.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:Oil prices dropping because of less demand

Oil prices fell below $127 a barrel Wednesday, extending a decline of more than $3 in the previous session on a growing sense that record-high costs have cut demand for gasoline and other fuel. The summer driving season in the U.S. began with the just-ended Memorial Day weekend, and some analysts are predicting that data will show a lackluster start. U.S. Energy Department data covering the weekend won't be released until next week. But even ahead of those figures, other statistics indicate Americans are driving less because of bloated prices at the pump. The Schork Report, edited by Stephen Schork, cited the latest statistics from the Federal Highway Administration, noting that "estimated vehicle miles traveled ... on all U.S. public roads for March 2008 fell 4.3 percent, or 11 billion miles, compared with March 2007".

Time to take the business out of oil. Regardless of how it's happening, the oil companies are posting record profits. They can't on one hand say "it's not our fault" while keeping the profit on the other.

I propose a huge windfall tax on the oil companies followed by quarterly "economic stimulus checks" mailed back to the tax payers.

You're kidding, right?

Make it a public utility.

THERE ARE NO BIG OIL COMPANIES IN THE US! Exxon Mobile is a puny 14th in the world.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/020589.php

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

RedWingFan wrote:THERE ARE NO BIG OIL COMPANIES IN THE US! Exxon Mobile is a puny 14th in the world.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/020589.php

Is Exxon the biggest U.S. oil company? I believe they only end up controlling about 2% of the oil supply in the world. It seems to me that the oil companies that are the problems are the state-owned companies from Russia, Venezuela, etc.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

Congratulations, you're a socialist!

RedWingFan wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

Congratulations, you're a socialist!

As much as I dislike execs taking multi-million dollar bonuses when their employees and other citizens are struggling to pay for gas, I would never want the government to just TAKE their profits. The government should stay the hell out of the way. It's not the government's money and it never should be. The government does a horrible job at just about everything else. I shudder to think what the price of oil or even supply would be if the government got its filthy hands on the oil companies.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

Wow...ok...

1) How much, exactly, is TOO much profit?
2) How much, exactly, is TOO much to charge for gasoline?
3) Who should / would determine these figures?

RedWingFan wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

Congratulations, you're a socialist!

No, what I am is against the oil companies retaining record breaking profits, not gross, PROFITS on the backs of middle and lower class people who have no choice but to buy their product. In the decades that have past since the first oil crisis under Carter, have we moved to get our country off oil? Car companies created a line of electric cars that worked and refused to put them out on the market. They wouldn't even let private individuals buy the models they made. They scuttled them and piled them up in the desert. You know why? There's less long term profit in it for them. All well and good, except now it's affecting us on a national scale and the cost of energy runs the risk of sending our economy from a recession into a depression.

Oil is not a product that we can take or leave. It's not the next TV, it's not the next version of Windows, it's not a house. It is a monopolized product. Our national infrastructure depends on it. It's not a luxury, it's a necessity and that makes it a national security issue.

Time for government to take it out of private hands.

STORY_TELLER wrote:No, what I am is against the oil companies from retaining record breaking profit, not gross, PROFIT on the backs of middle and lower class people who have no choice but to buy their product. In the decades that have past since the first oil crisis under Carter, have we moved to get our country off oil? Car companies created a line of electric cars that worked and refused to put them out on the market. They wouldn't even let private individuals buy the models they made. They scuttled them and piled them up in the desert.

Oil is not a product that we can take or leave. It's not the next TV, it's not the next version of Windows, it's not a house. It is a monopolized product. Our national infrastructure depends on it. It's not a luxury, it's a necessity and that makes it a national security issue.

Time for government to take it out of private hands.

IT...WON'T...WORK. As you can tell if you look at that link at the beginning of this thread, the private oil companies are small potatoes when it comes to the overall picture. The more government gets involved, the more expensive and cumbersome the final product becomes. We won't let the oil companies drill where we know there are large oil deposits so that our supply is more domestic instead of foreign, yet foreign countries can drill just a few miles further out into the ocean, not far off our own shores. The portion of Anwar, which was set aside specifically for oil exploration, cannot be explored because of the government. There are huge deposits of oil shale that could be developed that aren't. We could be doing coal to oil, but we're not. Most of these are BECAUSE of the government, not the oil companies. We could be doing nuclear power instead of relying on oil, as does a large percentage of Europe, but our government gets in the way.

What makes you think the government taking over the oil companies would do anything at all to solve the energy problems we have?

AlteredDNA wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

AlteredDNA wrote:You're kidding, right?

Not in the slightest.

Wow...ok...

1) How much, exactly, is TOO much profit?
2) How much, exactly, is TOO much to charge for gasoline?
3) Who should / would determine these figures?

Okay, how much profit were the oil companies making prior to the vast increase in prices that set profit breaking records quarter after quarter? They were still in vast profit at that point, just not the obscene profit they're in now.

Take that figure and use it as the basis for a cap. We're talking profit, not gross.

conversationpc wrote:What makes you think the government taking over the oil companies would do anything at all to solve the energy problems we have?

Because the profits wouldn't go into private pockets allowing a select few to buy 15 mansions at a clip off our collective backs. The profits should either be returned to the tax payer or go into the national coffers to pay for services. Individual income and property taxes on the population should reflect the windfall.

The prices at the pumps might stay high, but we'd see the costs reduced on the opposite end.

STORY_TELLER wrote:No, what I am is against the oil companies retaining record breaking profits, not gross, PROFITS on the backs of middle and lower class people who have no choice but to buy their product.

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ANY COMPANY WHAT PROFITS THEY CAN MAKE? You're drunk on class envy politics.

STORY_TELLER wrote:In the decades that have past since the first oil crisis under Carter, have we moved to get our country off oil?

Making their product obsolete should be the oil companies top priority?

STORY_TELLER wrote:Car companies created a line of electric cars that worked and refused to put them out on the market.

The market will determine what gets made and what doesn't get made when the market demands it. Hybrids are just now kicking into high gear with gas @ $4 a gallon. With the same technology and gas @ $2 a gallon. They weren't selling because it wasn't worth the initial cost of the hybrid.

STORY_TELLER wrote:They wouldn't even let private individuals buy the models they made. They scuttled them and piled them up in the desert.

Why would they go through the extra safety regulations and make them legal to drive and sell to sell a few thousand cars they'd lose their ass on? The current global warming hoax wasn't started til years after Carter left office. So you can't use "to save the planet as an excuse."

STORY_TELLER wrote:Oil is not a product that we can take or leave. It's not the next TV, it's not the next version of Windows, it's not a house. It is a monopolized product.

It is monopolized, by the environmentalist lobby and the US government. Here are a couple of brilliant columns about the recent hearings on the subject. Exxon and other American oil companies have to buy almost all their crude from overseas.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 020571.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 020589.php

conversationpc wrote:The portion of Anwar, which was set aside specifically for oil exploration, cannot be explored because of the government. There are huge deposits of oil shale that could be developed that aren't.

Doesn't Anwar only contain six months worth of oil?

conversationpc wrote:We could be doing nuclear power instead of relying on oil, as does a large percentage of Europe, but our government gets in the way.

So let's follow in their footsteps when it comes to energy, but when it comes to healthcare, forget about it?
Nuclear sucks.
Once the ore runs out you have to switch over to plutonium.
No thanks.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

conversationpc wrote:What makes you think the government taking over the oil companies would do anything at all to solve the energy problems we have?

Because the profits wouldn't go into private pockets allowing a select few to buy 15 mansions at a clip off our collective backs. The profits should either be returned to the tax payer or go into the national coffers to pay for services. Individual income and property taxes on the population should reflect the windfall.

The prices at the pumps might stay high, but we'd see the costs reduced on the opposite end.

The bonuses the execs receive are small in comparison to where most of the profits go. Much of those profits goes to your average joe (me & you, teachers, police officers, firemen, etc.) in the form of dividends that go to stockholders. Many stockholders invest in oil companies through their 401k plans.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The portion of Anwar, which was set aside specifically for oil exploration, cannot be explored because of the government. There are huge deposits of oil shale that could be developed that aren't.

Doesn't Anwar only contain six months worth of oil?

The government won't even do any exploration to find out how much is even there.

RedWingFan wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:No, what I am is against the oil companies retaining record breaking profits, not gross, PROFITS on the backs of middle and lower class people who have no choice but to buy their product.

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ANY COMPANY WHAT PROFITS THEY CAN MAKE? You're drunk on class envy politics.

STORY_TELLER wrote:In the decades that have past since the first oil crisis under Carter, have we moved to get our country off oil?

Making their product obsolete should be the oil companies top priority?

STORY_TELLER wrote:Car companies created a line of electric cars that worked and refused to put them out on the market.

The market will determine what gets made and what doesn't get made when the market demands it. Hybrids are just now kicking into high gear with gas @ $4 a gallon. With the same technology and gas @ $2 a gallon. They weren't selling because it wasn't worth the initial cost of the hybrid.

STORY_TELLER wrote:They wouldn't even let private individuals buy the models they made. They scuttled them and piled them up in the desert.

Why would they go through the extra safety regulations and make them legal to drive and sell to sell a few thousand cars they'd lose their ass on? The current global warming hoax wasn't started til years after Carter left office. So you can't use "to save the planet as an excuse."

STORY_TELLER wrote:Oil is not a product that we can take or leave. It's not the next TV, it's not the next version of Windows, it's not a house. It is a monopolized product.

It is monopolized, by the environmentalist lobby and the US government. Here are a couple of brilliant columns about the recent hearings on the subject. Exxon and other American oil companies have to buy almost all their crude from overseas.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 020571.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/ ... 020589.php

Who am I? I'm the guy who has no choice but to purchase their product. That's a monopoly. Monopolies are illegal for a reason.

Everything you stated is based on the idea that the product being offered for sale is one that I can either choose to purchase or not choose to purchase. I have no choice but to purchase gas because I have no alternatives. I have no alternatives because those rich people want to keep getting richer and these "free markets" have free reign to charge whatever they want without penalty. That's tantamount to taxation without representation. The end result is the same. Just because private business is doing it instead of the government doesn't make it any more acceptable.

Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

RedWingFan wrote:Why would they go through the extra safety regulations and make them legal to drive and sell to sell a few thousand cars they'd lose their ass on? The current global warming hoax wasn't started til years after Carter left office. So you can't use "to save the planet as an excuse."

Note of trivia: One of Ronald Reagan's first acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the White House roof.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

conversationpc wrote:The portion of Anwar, which was set aside specifically for oil exploration, cannot be explored because of the government. There are huge deposits of oil shale that could be developed that aren't.

Doesn't Anwar only contain six months worth of oil?

I'm not sure what the total is thought to be but it's much higher than that. Regardless, it's just one example of how the federal government is standing in the way instead of stepping OUT of the way.

So let's follow in their footsteps when it comes to energy, but when it comes to healthcare, forget about it?
Nuclear sucks.
Once the ore runs out you have to switch over to plutonium.
No thanks.

Red herring alert!!! Europe is better off in how they produce their electricity than the U.S. is. This is in no way comparable to the healthcare debate, where socialized medicine is the norm.

STORY_TELLER wrote:Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

The_Noble_Cause wrote:

RedWingFan wrote:Why would they go through the extra safety regulations and make them legal to drive and sell to sell a few thousand cars they'd lose their ass on? The current global warming hoax wasn't started til years after Carter left office. So you can't use "to save the planet as an excuse."

Note of trivia: One of Ronald Reagan's first acts of office included removing Jimmy Carter's solar panels from the White House roof.

Thanks TNC. One more reason to love Reagan!!!!

conversationpc wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

I stand by my statements. If I had alternative choices, it wouldn't be an issue. I have no choice, so it is.

STORY_TELLER wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

I stand by my statements.

Would you feel the same way if you were paying, say, $1.00 - $1.20 per gallon? Lower?

conversationpc wrote:Red herring alert!!!

I'm just making the point that you want to copy Europe. An idea that is normally reacted with unanimous kneejerk derision and scorn from the right. That is all.

conversationpc wrote:Europe is better off in how they produce their electricity than the U.S. is. This is in no way comparable to the healthcare debate, where socialized medicine is the norm.

Nuclear and Clean Coal both suck. Not the answer.

STORY_TELLER wrote:Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

I'm someone who THINKS about the subject instead of moping about what other people have.
Please answer these questions.

1. Do you agree that oil/gas prices are determined by supply and demand????

2. If Exxon were to waive all their (4%) profits it would save you approx. $ .16 @ $4 a gallon. How would this increase SUPPLY to lower the price substancially?

AlteredDNA wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:

conversationpc wrote:

STORY_TELLER wrote:Who are you? An oil company exec? A stock holder?

Millions of ordinary people own stock in the oil companies through their pension plans, 401k, etc.

I stand by my statements.

Would you feel the same way if you paying, say, $1.00 - $1.20 per gallon? Lower?

No, because the price wouldn't be affecting the vast majority of the populations wallets and subsequently the economy as a whole, in an unreasonable manner like it is now. There is a line and it has been crossed. What you guys seem to be saying is there should never be a line. Sorry, but that's unreasonable.

I'm not against reasonable profit for the oil companies. I'm against the obscene record breaking profits at the expense of the masses. If the masses had a choice, there would be fair competition and they could charge whatever they wanted without issue. There would be risk on their part that they would lose their customer base. With oil, there is no risk of that whatsoever. None. That's a monopoly and monopolies are illegal for a reason.