OUR ENERGY POLICY

No. You EXPORT oil to the U.S.

Georgob,

I have absolutely no qualms with "obscene profits," per se, so won't engage that side of the argument. Absent a major market failure, I wholly agree that government regulation is typically the best way to damage a market and to stifle progress.

However, this is as much a geopolitical issue as it is an issue of either economics or conservation. A free market is almost certainly the best way to ensure cheap, efficient, sources of energy, but it leaves us at the mercy of major petroleum producing countries (even if we didn't buy from those countries, their output would still indirectly control the market). We are too reliant on nations that wish us harm. A gas tax?-artificially raising the price of consumption and lowering incentives to produce?-would be the simplest way to stimulate the development of alternatives that don't bind us to the likes of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and others. Thus, we could gradually shift from dependency on these countries to alternatives. The tax needn't favor any particular alternative, so we could limit intervention and allow flexibility in the private sector. This also needn't involve complicated regulations, so we could minimize opportunities for capture and administrative waste.

I would agree with such a proposal, but I doubt seriously that it is a realistic political possibility, I certainly agree with your proposition that a consumption tax is by far the simplest and least inefficient way to stimulate alternative sources. However imagine for a moment the howls that will rise up for accompanying government programs to minimize the impact of the increase on favored constituents. (notwithstanding the fact that reducing the impact is precisely counter to the desirred effect of the tax itself.)

Another factor usually omitted from this discussion are the many politically-motivated things we do to increase our dependency on petroleum imports -- resistence to the development of reserves on the North Slope of Alaska and in our coastal waters; restrictions on the construction or expansion of our physical plant for petroleum refining and distriobution, as well as LNG terminal facilities; opposition to the increased use of nuclear power ; etc. The list is a long one.

I don't particularly buy the notion that our dependency on oil imports is any more strategically important than (say) our import of Chinese textiles & DVDs, etc. The truth is that, even if we do reduce our petroleum imports, the reserves in the Middle east will remain a fact of great strategic significance in the coming era of European decline and Indian/Chinese ascent. Finally, our interest in the Mideast is also motivated by other factors: Israel and, more importantly, the future political and economic evolution of the Islamic world after a century's dominance and misrule at the hands primarily of the British and the French.

"I don't particularly buy the notion that our dependency on oil imports is any more strategically important than (say) our import of Chinese textiles & DVDs, etc"

I think it was John McEnroe who said You cannot be Serious

Damn your observant eyes!

georgeob, Id expect nothing more from you. The fact that the profit had risen from .09 to .18$ per gal delivered in this year is what Id call "obscene profits"
Theyve sold Less prodct and earned almost 3 times the amount of net profit before taxes.
When Limbooger talks about "Oh well, The oil prices on the spot market are just futures" If thats the case , why do we get these jackups in per gal of gas almost the very afternoon when the news reports the spot market price rises.
The majors are pocketing that difference immediately, and you damn well know it.

At least Jimmy Carter had the right idea.

Oh, Wolf, you export gasoline, too. At least Europe does. They have so many diesel vehicles, there's a surplus of gasoline - oil being economically refinable into so much diesel and so much gasoline.

I don't think that particular phenoomenon has ever occurred.

In the first place $.18 is twice $.09, not three times. Moreover since the selling price of a gallon of gasoline nearly doubled in the same period, their profits as a % of sales have held nearly constant. Very likely their costs increased by less than a factor of 2, but they certainly increased significantly.

The prices of all commodities, from lumber and wallboard, concrete, mild steel & rebar; to wheat, soybeans, cattle; and finally to coal, petroleum products and natural gas are highly variable, as are the profits associated with them. In that context the swings we have seen in gasoline prices are not particularly large or unusual.

i'd like lower gasoline prices almost as much as everyone else. i say "everyone else" because i have a very modest amount of money invested in canadian energy stocks. also keep in mind that almost all pension funds - including union funds - have investments in energy stocks; so there is a modest benefit for most pension receipients if the profits (and shares) of energy companies rise.

speaking of unreasonable profits, shouldn't casinos and other industries that are of no benefit to the population be taxed to the hilt ? how about companies that sell us bottled water at $2 a bottle ?

i would agree that our "economic system" is out of kilter and i have some ideas on how to correct it ... unfortunately, too many other people have their own ideas as to how the system should operate ... of course, the others have it all wrong ! sorry for my facetious comments ??? hbg

george you certainly dont understand the amount of profit as a function of all capitalization and expenses.
1 They sell less product (based on perception that gas is scarce, even though the oil companies have shut down their own refineries with no help from the govt). When there is less to sell the price skyrockets
2They export gas and diesel by 2 to 5% of the distillate from the US. That allows the price to be jacked up by a "whatever the market will bear"

PS the energy policy from Darth's group had very little in it about all the renewables. It was fossil fuel driven.

I think the oil companies had a pang of conscience because even after Wilma causing same refinery outages as Katrina, the price went down a tad.

NIBT values included all expensing so it was 3 X. The Lundberg merely wuoted the 9 cent to 18 cent per unit volume sold.
Why the hell, during all this percieved shortage is the US selling diesel to Chile? And dont give me the fungeable argument, since were not meeting demands obviously. I drive diesels and since it competes with heating oil its outta sight aboult 1 buck more per gal this year than last. (Nothing has really changed cause much diesel is refined at the source, eg PEMEx sells us refined gas and diesel from Mexico. Mobil/Exxon just marks it way the hell up.
Hamburger, pension funds arent usually pigs about a market sector. Because even though oils are doing well, all other industries held captive (cars,planes , airlines, etc) are taking it in the butt.

george you certainly dont understand the amount of profit as a function of all capitalization and expenses.
1 They sell less product (based on perception that gas is scarce, even though the oil companies have shut down their own refineries with no help from the govt). When there is less to sell the price skyrockets
2They export gas and diesel by 2 to 5% of the distillate from the US. That allows the price to be jacked up by a "whatever the market will bear"

PS the energy policy from Darth's group had very little in it about all the renewables. It was fossil fuel driven.

I think the oil companies had a pang of conscience because even after Wilma causing same refinery outages as Katrina, the price went down a tad.

NIBT values included all expensing so it was 3 X. The Lundberg merely wuoted the 9 cent to 18 cent per unit volume sold.
Why the hell, during all this percieved shortage is the US selling diesel to Chile? And dont give me the fungeable argument, since were not meeting demands obviously. I drive diesels and since it competes with heating oil its outta sight aboult 1 buck more per gal this year than last. (Nothing has really changed cause much diesel is refined at the source, eg PEMEx sells us refined gas and diesel from Mexico. Mobil/Exxon just marks it way the hell up.
Hamburger, pension funds arent usually pigs about a market sector. Because even though oils are doing well, all other industries held captive (cars,planes , airlines, etc) are taking it in the butt.

Yeh Jimmy Carter was the last president to even understand the energy situation as a interlaced web of supply and demand. He tried to cut the demand and turn our energy needs to other and renewables. Other countries have adopted this and have not suffered economic disasters.
George just fails to recognize that the administration is beholden to big energy, and, as a consequence, we suffer.

I think I understand profits very well. However I do not understand your words above. The more carefuly I read it the less I understand just what might be your meaning, hidden as it is in a tangle of loosely connected and disjoint phrases.

i agree with farmerman that we all should be using less renewable resources. i think he is also correct in stating that other economies/countries have been able to reduce their consumption more than north-american consumers without suffering economic disasters.
imo people have different ideas about how to adjust their lifestyles to changing economic realities - some do it more quickly than others - but in the end they all adapt. i think that in north-america we have different priorities than people in other countries; even just comparing easterners with westerners , and southerners with northerners within our own countries , we find quite a few differences.
i don't know that we can force our lifestyles on others. we can try and show others what we might think is a better way of doing things, but in the end we'll all have to make decisions that we think are correct - unless we want to live in a totalitarian state.
i even think there is evidence that north-americans are becoming more energy concious, otherwise we would not see any cars produced by honda, toyota and other manufacturers on our streets. perhaps it would have been better for general motors and ford to be a little ahead of the curve ... but that's the way things are. it may even happen that GM will go belly-up - they are certainly losing market share and investment analysts have called GM debt "junK" . other companies have gone under and others have taken their place. the more things change, the more they stay the same. hbg

Re: OUR ENERGY POLICY

I think you don't, as well you shouldn't.


I sure hope not.


You mean, drilling in the arctic national parks and such? Nah, that's mostly driven by an adolescent urge to annoy environmentalists. From what I read in the business section of the newspapers, Big Oil is not too keen on that drilling.


Easily possible -- you have no idea how much energy those lightsabers need.

THATS IT. tHATS ALL THE PROOF i NEED. sOMEBODY GET A ROPE.

WELL i HOPE YOU ARE NOT GOING OVER TO bAVARIA WITH IT

(my machine has a key called caps lock which I use sometimes)