Spokane7
50°
February 22, 2012 in Nation/World
Gas prices defy bounds of supply, demand
WASHINGTON – U.S. demand for oil and refined products – including gasoline – is down sharply from last year, so much that the United States has actually become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all that it makes.
Yet oil and gasoline prices are surging.
On Tuesday, oil rose past $105 a barrel and gasoline averaged $3.57 a gallon – thanks again in no small part to rampant financial speculation on top of fears of supply disruptions.
The ostensible reason for the climb of crude prices on the New York Mercantile Exchange, where contracts for future delivery of oil are traded, is growing fear of a military confrontation with Iran in the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil passes.
Other factors driving up prices include last month’s bankruptcy of Petroplus, a big European refiner, and a recent BP refinery fire in Washington state that has temporarily crimped gasoline supply along the West Coast; gas now costs an average of $4.04 a gallon in California.
While tension over Iran has ratcheted up in the past few months, the price of oil and gasoline has leapt far beyond conventional supply-and-demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.
“Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation,” said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. “I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated.”
Consider that light, sweet crude trading on the NYMEX changed hands at $79.20 a barrel just four months ago but soared past $105 a barrel Tuesday, partly on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil to Britain and France. But those countries already had stopped buying Iranian oil. And Didier Houssin, the International Energy Agency’s director for energy markets and security, said “there are alternative supplies that can make up for any loss of Iranian exports,” the Wall Street Journal reported.
Still, oil’s price shot up because it trades in financial markets, where Wall Street firms and other big financial players dominate oil trading, even though they have no intention of ever taking possession of the oil whose contracts they are trading.
Since oil prices are the biggest component in the price of gasoline, pump prices are soaring. AAA said Tuesday that the nationwide average price for a gallon of gasoline stood at $3.57, compared with $3.38 a month ago and $3.17 a year ago. It takes about $6 more to fill up the tank than it did this time last year – and last year’s gasoline-price surge helped take the steam out of the economic recovery.
Historically, financial speculators accounted for about 30 percent of oil trading in commodity markets, while producers and end users made up about 70 percent. Today it’s almost the reverse.
A McClatchy Newspapers review of the latest Commitment of Traders report from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates oil trading, shows producers and merchants made up just 36 percent of all contracts traded in the week ending Feb. 14.
Not surprisingly, big Wall Street traders on Tuesday projected oil will rise above $112 a barrel; some such as Swiss giant Vitol even suggested $150-a-barrel oil is coming soon. When they dominate the market, speculators’ bids can make their prophecies self-fulfilling.
“These people are not there to be heroes. They are there to make money. It’s our fault because we are allowing them to do that,” Gheit said. “Obviously these people are very strong, and the financial lobby is the strongest of any single lobby.”
What’s indisputable is that oil and gasoline are not in short supply, and that demand remains weak. That was clear in the latest weekly energy market update by the U.S. Energy Information Administration – published last week for the week ending Feb. 10.
“Total products supplied over the last four-week period have averaged 18.3 million barrels per day, down by 4.6 percent compared to the similar period last year. Over the last four weeks, motor gasoline product supplied has averaged nearly 8.1 million barrels per day, down by 6.4 percent from the same period last year,” said the EIA, the Energy Department’s statistical arm.
Inventories of stored oil are also unusually high, the EIA said.
Hence, no shortage to explain soaring prices.
In fact, U.S. demand and consumption patterns are so abnormal compared to recent decades that oil and gasoline are both now being exported to Europe, Asia and Latin America.
Exports of U.S.-refined product averaged 2.93 million barrels per day over the four weeks ending on Feb. 10, compared to 2.19 million barrels per day for the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, the EIA said.
Similarly, the United States did not export any oil in the four weeks ending Feb. 11, 2011, but in the four-week period ending this Feb. 10, the nation exported 37,000 barrels.
The export picture suggests that when domestic demand rises, American motorists might be competing with drivers elsewhere for U.S.-made gasoline, which fetches a higher price as an export.
“To the extent that there is this export market that wasn’t there before, it is certainly … keeping prices higher than they otherwise would be,” said John Kilduff, a veteran energy analyst at AgainCapital in New York.
Zoo hand-raising cubs after rare cheetah birth 
Dazzeetrader11 on February 22 at 1:46 a.m.
No…the US could consume what it has. Weakened dollat..thanks Obama.. you promised it would happen…you and Chu…
.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/02/22/arent_high_gas_prices_what_democrats_want_113206.html
greenlibertarian on February 22 at 1:47 a.m.
Consider that light, sweet crude trading on the NYMEX changed hands at $79.20 a barrel just four months ago but soared past $105 a barrel Tuesday, partly on news that Iran would halt shipment of oil to Britain and France. But those countries already had stopped buying Iranian oil.
Crude oil is restricted to several large pipelines, in terms of refining.
Light, sweet oil refineries can not process heavy oil like Iranian and Venezuelan oil.
Lotsa heavy oil going to Chinese refineries. Filthy to refine and burn that stuff, sans multiple, expensive scrubbers.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 22 at 2:02 a.m.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/obamas-rising-gas-prices-problem/2012/02/01/gIQAA3mQRR_blog.html
Key article.
The real unemployment rate. AND it’ll get worse. Now…where’s the Keystone thingie??? What happened to those jobs?? Thanks Obama..
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-finds-unemployment-climbing-nine-percent-february
greenlibertarian on February 22 at 2:26 a.m.
Please don’t feed the the born again never lost it ignoramus[‘s], aka trolls. Day-zee.
They can’t be helped.
Ignore on “sight”. Move along. No sense consuming pure blather.
mikeln on February 22 at 2:32 a.m.
This is what happens when you let the private sector control energy. It should have never been allowed into private hands. These scum now control our military, which runs on oil and therefore control us. Corrupt elected officials gave these people the oil instead of securing it for public control. We are now paying the price of this corruption.
rawbertb on February 22 at 3:11 a.m.
It is all about greed, my friend.
oneanddone on February 22 at 3:52 a.m.
At some point the electorate will DEMAND that US oil and gas reserves be nationalized. I know it sounds drastic but as supplies dwindle the obscene profits of a few companies, at the expense of all the rest of us, will no longer be tolerated. This resource does NOT belong to them. It belongs to US.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 4:14 a.m.
Just as a side note - I’d like to hear again from the savants of isolation-ism from a few days ago who were snarling about how what goes on in the Strait of Hormuz don’t affect us and therefore aren’t any of our concern.
WyIdaWa on February 22 at 6:02 a.m.
oneanddone - Obscene profits? Shell makes something like 7 cents a gallon profit; meanwhile, state governments like California make around 45 cents a gallon… interesting that the entities that ‘belong’ to us make the most profit while the ones that don’t do all the work…
And the resource does not belong to “US” - much of it lies under private lands, so unless you want to resort to a government seizure of private property….
PROFINTOX on February 22 at 6:17 a.m.
Interesting how gas prices always seem to be tied by some to just politics (administration) when there are several factors involved, not the least of which is greed which if pretty much ideologically independent. I guess though since it has got to be linked to politics/policies only that in mid-2008 when the USA average peaked above 4.10 a gallon, GW was completely to blame for that, just as when it dipped below 2.00 later in the year at the ring in of the recession, well that was due to his genius. No wonder Moms always told us not to discuss politics or religion during holiday gettogethers like Thanksgiving.
DHF on February 22 at 6:27 a.m.
Higher gas prices mean Higher food prices Higher everything. Thats what Bama wants as he glides off into the sunset on his 747 Jumbo Jet to the next fundraiser. Maybe that will give the Libs good feeling come election time. I would rather vote for the devil than that scalawag.
mikeln on February 22 at 6:41 a.m.
Fancy accounting makes it appear they only make 7 cents per gallon. If we were to keep our books like the oil companies do we would be put in jail. It’s all about greed. These people have no loyalty to any country and could care less if most of us just went to hell. With 7 billion people on this planet it would not take them long to get new customers if we were gone.
WHS on February 22 at 6:48 a.m.
WyIdaWa on February 22 at 6:02 a.m.
oneanddone - Obscene profits? Shell makes something like 7 cents a gallon profit…
Shell Gas Stations sell 9.3 million barrels a day X 42gals barrel X 365 days = 142.5 billion gallons X .07 per = $9,975,000,000 PROFIT
Yeah, your right… Nothing obscene about that and certainly justifies why we should be paying what we pay at the pump.
Seriously, Shell has 24,008 employees. That would mean, just on profits, Shell oil could pay each one of those employees $374,875.00 a year.
Bottom line, oil speculation is a con game and we are the marks.
WHS
PROFINTOX on February 22 at 6:54 a.m.
I believe oil companies are probably required by law to keep their books just like everyone else is, which means they can use accounting gymnastics available to every other company, so I really do not take issue with the 7 cents per gallon figure, however, because they deal in such high volume, they make tremendously large amounts of absolute profit (generally speaking) and so really cannot complain (which is why I do not understand subsidizing them — they have more than enough of their own money with which to use for capital reinvestment in my opinion). Then add to this though the pure greed of the speculators and high taxation rate and you get what we have. Not to mention foreign dependency and being slaved to cartel price determination. To say this is an lib thing or conservative thing is just arguing without reason. As I mentioned earlier — we had periods of both outrageous pricing and really decent pricing under Bush and for those who remember the embargo back in the 70s (which happened under conservative leadership) — who in their right mind would simply say, well, an R was in power, so it must be their fault. There is simply a lot more involved. Administration can have influence but is not as huge a determinent as some would have you believe.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 7:05 a.m.
Also with respect to the ‘seven cents versus forty-five cents’ disparity - is the assertion that the oil companies receive nothing back from that forty-five cents?
A good deal of that tax revenue goes toward transportation infrastructure. Do oil companies not depend upon that infrastructure? Or do their products magically teleport from point of origin to point of sale? And how do their employees get to and from work every day?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 7:14 a.m.
Several posters - along with the original article - have gotten it right. This isn’t so much about politics or oil company profits as it is about the out-of-control role commodities speculation plays in the price at the pump.
Therefore, I think it’s not so much a case of needing to nationalize our oil resources or reign in profits as it is a need to prohibit speculating in basic resources like energy. (I don’t think nationalizing our oil resources would accomplish much because, even though we’ve become a net exporter of refined products, we still import a significant amount of crude oil.)
WHS on February 22 at 7:24 a.m.
The next question I have is this… If the US is producing enough oil to export, THEN WHY ARE WE STILL PAYING WORLD OIL PRICES!
WHS
JBlim on February 22 at 7:28 a.m.
Because it’s a world market, duh.
huskerinwa on February 22 at 7:32 a.m.
The #1 export in the U.S. last year was fuel. Our usage is down & refinery workload is up.
The Keystone XL (export pipeline) will put more strain on U.S. refineries raising domestic prices.
Congresswoman Cathy “Big Oil” McMorris thinks KXL is a great idea because they are paying her off.
Don’t be fools & allow a foreign company to take American land to increase domestic oil prices!!
RedCedar on February 22 at 7:33 a.m.
Almost all of the cost of gasoline these days is crude oil. It used to be that oil was practically free ($2/barrel until the OPEC embargo) and there was plenty of margin in the pump price for refiner’s and retailer’s profit. That’s why they could afford to pump your gas, wash your window, give you a map, and give your kid a plastic dinosaur, AND only charge 35.9. Now there’s nothing in it for the retailer or the refiner.
The real profit of the oil companies comes from owning oil fields where the cost of production is way less than the spot price of oil. In this sense, mikeln is right, though it doesn’t really take any fancy accounting if the actual price the company pays for much of its crude is well below spot. While they’ve clearly benefited enormously from a commodity trading system that make their oil in the ground much more valuable than it would otherwise be, they aren’t the cause of the problem.
Nationalizing the oil companies, which means also nationalizing the refiners and distributors, doesn’t solve anything unless the global commodity trade is also broken. The history of state oil companies is not very good. They tend to either become technically incompetent and ruin their oil fields through mismanagement, become bloated quasi-governmental bureaucracies used for political patronage and as a slush fund for the ruling party, and eventually become an unsustainable drain on the treasury as they attempt to continue supplying cheap fuel to keep the voters happy, while the cost of production climbs. Many state oil companies have had to raise prices drastically in recent years and endure the wrath of voters.
If this article is correct and 70% of the oil contracts are being traded by speculators, while the actual oil is in plentiful supply, then that’s where we need to focus our attention. I don’t understand commodity trading well enough to suggest how to better structure the markets such that speculation serves the interests of the majority of people rather than opposing our best interests. There’s obviously a role for trading in keeping markets fluid and responsive to changes in supply and demand, but there’s also the risk of speculative bubbles that hurt everyone except a few lucky or powerful traders. Nobody in business or the private sector benefits from wild price swings in anything.
It seems to me that oil speculation can’t go on forever because unlike gold and silver, traders can never actually opt to take delivery of their crude oil. If there’s nothing but speculative traders bidding the price up, what happens in 6 months if there aren’t enough refiners out there to buy all the high-priced crude oil contracts that are expiring? The speculator can’t just say “Okay, ship me the oil” like he might if he was holding a contract for gold or silver. He’s got to unload that contract even if he loses money doing so. The idea of course, is that he would sell is contract to another speculator for even more money, but this kind of thing can’t go on forever. There is surely some change that can be made to the commodity trading regulations that would reduce volatility and speculative bubbles. Perhaps they could shorten the contract term or increase the amount of cash that a trader has to put up to hold a contract. They do this regularly in the silver markets when things start looking too frothy. Why not do it with oil, which is surely more vital to modern life than silver?
Orphan on February 22 at 7:34 a.m.
WHS 7 cents per gallon by your figures only amounts to 2% profit assuming the gasoline was sold for $3.50 per gallon. That is pretty low return for the investors that own shell. And a lot of us own shell stick via our mutual funds and 401Ks.
Simply looking at a large number does not mean a company is doing well. Percent of profit tells a much better story.
I don’t see you upset with other companies that make much higher profits than the oil companies do.
I question your figures they do not look correct but I used them just the same.
force_vector on February 22 at 7:44 a.m.
Perhaps the S-R should change “Leave a comment” to “Leave an essay”.
gb333 on February 22 at 8:06 a.m.
Well Force, I enjoyed Red’s comment. I wish there were more posts like that. Instead of the crazies that seem to do most of the posting.
force_vector on February 22 at 8:17 a.m.
I hear what you’re saying, gb333.
I just think this has been hashed out so many times than dedicating that much effort to post an opinion is rather pointless. Everyone seems to fall into one of three camps:
a.) high gas prices are O’s fault for not approving the Keystone Pipeline;
b.) high gas prices are the fault of Republicans simply because they’re Republicans; and
c.) high gas prices are to be blamed on the entire production and distribution process being owned by big oil, with price manipulation justified through rampant speculation.
Excluding the two obvious idiotic conclusions, and coming to terms with the reality that the idiots who believe them won’t change their minds, why bother trying?
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 8:20 a.m.
Red,
Here are some good background articles on the subject of speculation:
http://www.thenation.com/article/159078/will-federal-regulators-crack-down-oil-speculation
The salient part begins with the sixth paragraph; “In the wake of the price explosion in the summer of 2008…”
http://money.howstuffworks.com/oil-speculation-raise-gas-price.htm
This is another very good explanation of how commodities speculation - especially in oil futures - works.
MatthewRoot on February 22 at 8:22 a.m.
“This isn’t so much about politics or oil company profits as it is about the out-of-control role commodities speculation plays in the price at the pump.” – Jeffrey Grey has it right again.
Make speculators take possession of the oil that they bid up, and that would go a long way to reducing oil prices.
RedCedar on February 22 at 8:27 a.m.
Hey, some people type faster than others. Just be thankful I don’t make you watch the PowerPoint (tm) version.
Orphan, that profit assumes that the refiners paid spot price for their oil. Most of the time they didn’t. If an oil company could pump oil out of a given well at a cost of $10 a barrel when they drilled the well, that’s probably still about what it costs to pump the oil out today. That’s where the profit is — companies that still own low-cost producing oil fields or have long-term contracts for such oil.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 9:30 a.m.
Matt,
Take a look at that first article I cited. It makes some very good points.
It also discusses a possible solution that’s in place:
Now the trick is to get a partisan-divided CFTC to actually do what it’s supposed to do. So… yeah … eventually it does come back to partisan politics after all. -sigh-
stitch on February 22 at 9:32 a.m.
Orphan: So right.. If 1 has Mutual Funds, IRA’s, Private or Public Pension Funds ect, We are all connected to the profits of our big oil companies.. Do think however, when we see these ungodly spikes, our profits go right back into the tank.. And then some..
“This isn’t so much about politics or oil company profits as it is about the out-of-control-role commodities speculation plays in the price at the pump”.. Can’t state it any more clean than that in 28 words..
Red Cedar:..”Then that’s where we need to focus our attention”..
Force takes a little different twist, but think he’s on the same page?
With the airing on 60 Minutes re Insider Trading, the American People rallied and said, excuse me I don’t think so.. Congress stood up and took notice.. This issue is no less insulting to us, is it??
PROFINTOX on February 22 at 9:37 a.m.
@force — yes, exactly. You are much more succint than I!
Basically, I get tired of all of the R versus D back-and-forth fingerpointing when the only supporting reason one gives is basically that “whatever is wrong is because either an R or a D and I belong to the other party” or “the reason this is going right is because my party’s boy is in charge and his genius mad this all happen”. I agree with your “why bother trying” conclusion — some of us are just are too easily baited into responding to idiocy. And unfortunately I must admit to being in that camp :)
@orphan — a couple of comments. First, yes, there are many other companies who make a greater profits in terms of margin or for instance ROI/ROE than do the oil companies. The reason that a lot of people do not get so bent about that is that many of those companies do not sell something as necessary as oil. People tend to feel “raped” when someone has them by the short hairs compared to when they have a lot of other choices, one of which is to simply not buy the product (not to mention that petroleum in general is necessary to make many other basic products — plastics being one example). Second, yes, margin is more valuable as a metric since it measures how efficiently one is using resources, however, that does not mean that absolute profit is not important. If I have a company with a net margin of say 40% where my absolute profits are $50,000, well then, maybe I can install a hot tub or start getting large fries with my lunch instead of small fries. If I have a company with a net margin of say 2% where my absolute profits are $35 billion, I can entertain some major capital investment. Of course I have used some rather extreme numbers, but the point is that absolute profit is not meaningless.
monarch on February 22 at 9:41 a.m.
Some of the comments here perfectly illustrate how ideology and partisonship blind people to the facts. THERE IS A SURPLUS SUPPLY OF GASOLINE IN THE UNITED STATES! The markets are broken and being manipulated for greed. Oil companies shouldn’t profit because of world unrest and crisis. It’s time for a windfall profits tax and for some regulation of the oil marketplace.
WHS on February 22 at 9:49 a.m.
And the winner of todays most idiotic answer goes to…..
JBlim on February 22 at 7:28 a.m.
Because it’s a world market, duh.
WHS
MatthewRoot on February 22 at 10:03 a.m.
Thanks Jeffrey, so you don’t have confidence that the politicians who complain most loudly about the spike in oil prices will actually do anything to control speculation and lower the price? ;-)
Perhaps we can follow the logic of the politicians who tout the $2/gallon gasoline prices in December 2008, and just bring back a deep, world-wide recession to stifle the world economy and depress energy prices.
force_vector on February 22 at 10:21 a.m.
“And unfortunately I must admit to being in that camp :)”
Me too man.
“Some of the comments here perfectly illustrate how ideology and partisonship blind people to the facts.”
Abosultely, 100% correct.
It’s refreshing to see more voices of reason entering into the mix. Partisanship is the death of free and logical thought…not to mention our country.
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 22 at 10:35 a.m.
To amend G.K. Chesterton’s marvellously pithy quote (he said it about “country,” not “party”) –
“Saying ‘my party, right or wrong’ is like saying ‘my mother, drunk or sober.’ ”
nslopeofw on February 22 at 10:46 a.m.
We dont need to nationalize our oil. We need to allow it to be produced, with caveats requiring it to be sold domestically at fair market value.
If we produced our coal and natural gas, this would take a load off petrochemical usage, in turn, reducing demand. Then, produce the crap out of our US reserves, and get off the Islamic teat. Once we are off the teat, we can flip them the bird, and smoke their ungrateful sorry as*es.
Shadedmuse on February 22 at 10:47 a.m.
Its the oil speculators and Traitors that are driving up the price of oil.
The U.S sels more oil on the world market by exporting then Importing.
All this keystone pipeline is set up for his to export oil to the gulf to sell on the world market and all the oil in Alaska is being old to over seas markets while YOU continue to PAY PAY PAY at the pump as your tax dollors go to subsdize the greedy oil companies huge massive proffits.
its time to NATIONALIZE the entire oil industry and put an end to greedy vulture capitolism. what is worse then Communisium.
nslopeofw on February 22 at 10:55 a.m.
If the countries of the world (who can) developed their own resources, we could put the middle east out of power, thereby eliminating the people who speculate on prices based on instability in those regions. That is all this is. Speculation of war between Iran and Israel. It will happen, just when is the Q. Meanwhile, because we are at the mercy of foreign oil, and dont produce what we have, we shall be held hostage by the speculators.
I hope someday the morons who fight to keep our resources undeveloped get put in prison for treason. They are fighting to keep our nation beholden to countries that hate us, and that is treason.
nslopeofw on February 22 at 11:00 a.m.
Shaded-
The US as a country does not sell oil to other countries. The US as a country does buy oil from other countries. The US government does not own any oil companies. They are privately held, and sell to who ever they want.
The trick is to allow exploration and development with caveats requiring a high percent to be sold in the US at fair market value.
rosehips on February 22 at 11:19 a.m.
lol @ leave an essay.
we need to reduce gas consumption dramatically. Walk to the market. Live near your workplace. Buy locally. Drive economical vehicles only when you absolutely need to.
No essay needed.
misjustice on February 22 at 11:31 a.m.
And taxpayers still subsidize big oil, WHY?
Bruce (aka thatoneguy) on February 22 at 12:10 p.m.
rosehips@11:19 a.m,. – why, oh why do you hate America so?
</sarcasm>
berrybestfarm on February 22 at 12:34 p.m.
The big money players are at it again—wrecking our economy while Ceasar fiddles. Pass the lube please.
Dennis Patterson—Deer Park
SMARTGUY on February 22 at 12:43 p.m.
Did anyone notice that while this news article explained why the price of gas and oil went up due to the speculators. In the same paper, they printed a Michael Ramirez cartoon in the editorial section that blames it all on Obama. I always laugh when people talk about a liberal media, when, with the exception of one token democrat a year, this paper has endorsed republican candidates for decades.
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 1:05 p.m.
“Meanwhile, because we are at the mercy of foreign oil, and dont produce what we have, we shall be held hostage by the speculators.”
News flash, nsl - domestically produced oil is subject to the same market speculation as foreign oil.
As several cited sources show, the inflated prices we pay have little if anything to do with supply and demand and thus how much we produce versus how much we import.
force_vector on February 22 at 1:43 p.m.
Jeffrey - I agree completely with “inflated prices we pay have little if anything to do with supply and demand and thus how much we produce versus how much we import.”
However, let me point out, if I may, that while I don’t always agree with everything nsl says, he says it (from what I’ve seen anyway), in a respectful way, and deserves as much in return (i.e “news flash”).
stitch on February 22 at 1:55 p.m.
Force_vector: Not sure if were talking about the same nsl..
Was just going to make a quick post to let him know how I appreciated his non-bashing response to shade.. He handled it without implied expletives and still very much got his point across.. Thanx nsl.. Now, back to the conversation..
slamdunk on February 22 at 2:07 p.m.
Thanks J P Morgan. Now your getting our money back from us. NICE GUYS!
Jeffrey_Grey on February 22 at 2:15 p.m.
“I hope someday the morons who fight to keep our resources undeveloped get put in prison for treason.”
Yeah. The very soul of respect for differing opinions and cordiality.
WHS on February 22 at 2:35 p.m.
There is no “supply and demand” when it comes to oil prices. Anybody that thinks that is just a buffoon.
This is what makes people crazy, because we are stuck in the world we created and now we are being taken advantage of… And if you don’t think the oil companies are taking advantage of the American citizen, you are a sadly misinformed buffoon.
Why do you think the same lobbyists and corporate shills that work for big oil, also fight any public transportation agendas.
And note, in the years of 2007 thru 2009 Exxon Mobil paid out $195,896,846 million dollars to the top five exec’s. Yes, that is actually more than they paid in taxes.
http://www.companypay.com/executive/compensation/exxon-mobil-corp.asp?yr=2010
You might also note that Canada is the largest exporter of oil to America, but did you know that Canada imported almost as much as they exported to America? Riddle me that…
If you don’t think we as Americans are getting screwed by big oil… Well, you are not just a buffoon, nor a sadly misinformed buffoon, but a complete and total morAn.
WHS
Teseract on February 22 at 2:39 p.m.
The Speculators won’t be happy until they drive us back into a recession. Then they’ll take their profits on the downswing, make millions, and we’ll all be screwed.
IMO anyone buying commodities of any type should be required to take delivery of a minimum of 10% of what they purchase prior to selling it. If you have to have a physical stake in the market it would drive most of these speculators out of the market.
force_vector on February 22 at 2:41 p.m.
Jeffry - Point taken, sir.
nslopeofw on February 22 at 3:00 p.m.
Smartguy- You are not living up to your name. This paper routinely endorses democrat’s over republicans. Who did they endorse for the mayor? How about prez? What about Eastern WA congress? I dont recall them pushing Cathy McMorris-Rogers.
They have no problem allowing uber-libs to get nasty on this forum, but will remove an non-lib’s nasty post in a heart beat.
nslopeofw on February 22 at 3:06 p.m.
Newsflash Jeffery_Grey-
I would rather have the US government control the country where my energy is produced, instead of Iraq or Venezuela. Our government is stable, and we are not going to have oil withheld by the US government to blackmail or punish us. All you have to do is look at what Iran is doing to the UK right now to see what can happen.
Dazzeetrader11 on February 22 at 3:18 p.m.
Poor Obowow…such the vicitm. Poor guy…blame India, China, Japan…anyone but ME (in an election run).. I mean geez guys….I don’t take responsibility for anything…I’m ONLY the president…lolololol
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-doesnt-accept-responsibility-gas-prices/388946
nslopeofw on February 22 at 3:18 p.m.
Yo force and stitch.
I try and not be a di*k all the time, its just that some people on here have history that apparently you are not aware of. And, like most humans, sometimes i get really fed up with all the people that hate everything i believe in, and lash out.
I work in the energy sector, and am much more familiar with oil production and refining than the average person, so when some people rant about something that i know is not the truth (even though MSM might claim otherwise) I call them on it. And when they respond in an offensive manner, i do the same. I realize its childish, yet if you read all the posts on this story (and are honest) you’ll notice quite a few snarky comments meant to dig the “other” side of politics.
Lemmee ask the 2 of you if you think Karl Thompson is a.) innocent, and b.) a great man. If you answered yes to both questions, then you will believe the same as shadedmuse. Can you imagine the nasty fun we all had during Klubber’s trial? We were treated to the Otto was at fault, etc. THAT is my history with shadedmuse.
SMARTGUY on February 22 at 3:33 p.m.
You need to check your history Nslopeofw, this paper did endorse Mcmorris and McCain. On the last ballet they had ONE token democrat and have NEVER endorsed a democrat for President in my life time, ever.
PROFINTOX on February 22 at 4:16 p.m.
@dazee — so, back in 2008 between roughly April through November when gas was selling for a higher price than today (peaking above 4.10 a gallon) — that was GWs fault, yes? Since he was in office that seems only fair, right?
Orphan on February 22 at 4:19 p.m.
PROFINTOX You are correct in saying that “absolute profit is not meaningless’.
What you missed in your example is the 50K profit scenario is most likely 1 person and shell has literally millions of shares of stock so profit per share is much higher in the small company.
So many ways to look at it most of them are correct only if they are a collage of all of the info.
To all of you who think we should limit or somehow control the oikl speculators; How in the world do you suppose the US government should go about regulating that Rich guy in China or Russia or anywhere else in the world for that matter??????
greenlibertarian on February 22 at 4:45 p.m.
Of course the paper endorsed McMorris-Rogers. They endorse Republicans about 4-1.
People with Neanderthal gravatars can’t pay attention, for obvious reasons.
dougfresh on February 22 at 4:46 p.m.
Considering the prices charged for wholesale gasoline, and the fact that they have a product with constant demand, 7 cents a gallon is a great profit margin for ANY company.
A lot of you hit on the speculation / futures issue, so I wont go there.
My big beef is why is the federal excise tax on diesel fuel higher than on gasoline? Damn near everything we peons consume is transported by diesel trucks, so this translates directly into increased prices for food & any other goods.
Diesel engines are far more efficient than gasoline (not even going to get into bio-diesel), so why does the federal gov promote gas over diesel via a higher tax rate?
nslopeofw on February 22 at 4:49 p.m.
OK, smartguy, i didnt know that. I would never have guessed, as all i ever see are articles about how wrong non-libs are, but i’ll take your word for it. Perhaps the Cowles’ are repub’s, and all their employee’s are demo’s?
force_vector on February 22 at 4:51 p.m.
nsl -
I get that you’re passionate about this topic, and I get why. But bringing up the Thompson issue seems to illustrate how passion can over come good sense when not directed appropriately.
SMARTGUY on February 22 at 5:18 p.m.
Nwslopeofw, The employees may be democrats, but you would never know it. Many people do not realize how tight a control the Cowles family has of the editorial page. Years ago I sent in a letter to the editor, and not only was it never printed. I received an e-mail from Betsy Cowles, assuring me how confused I was, and how I was completely wrong on the issue. Scary huh?
Still have the E-mail.
JBlim on February 22 at 6:44 p.m.
The United States has about 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Even if we doubled our reserves, OPEC could easily just cut back production by that amount. On the other hand, the United States consumes more oil than any other country. That’s why cutting back our usage through conservation has a far greater impact than the what the “drill baby drill” crowd is clamoring for. You can get a 4-wheel drive hybrid SUV that gets 10 miles per gallon more than a conventional SUV. What’s the problem with that? Somehow the oil companies have convinced Republicans that wasting oil is patriotic. Wise up, folks.
force_vector on February 22 at 7:29 p.m.
“You can get a 4-wheel drive hybrid SUV that gets 10 miles per gallon more than a conventional SUV. What’s the problem with that?”
If you are trying to save on your own personal fuel expenditures, nothing. If, on the other hand, you are buying into the fallacy that is if you spend big money on a new “fuel efficient” SUV to lower the exposure of the United States to foreign oil imports, then you have a problem. Wasting oil is not patriotic, and I know of no Democrat or Republican who has suggested such is true. Wise up indeed. The reality is that while the US consumes a huge amount of hydrocarbons, no sector compares as a percentage of the total to one: The Military. So, buy your “hybrid” SUVs if it saves you a little at the pump, but don’t pretend that you are doing something patriotic with the implied inference that your choice makes you somehow a national hydrocarbon independence hero.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29925
Pigrobin on February 22 at 7:43 p.m.
Good point FV on that military consumption…two gallons to the mile is probably not all that fuel efficient. I don’t want to even think about the fuel that’s simply vaporized when dumped out into the atmosphere to reduce gross weight (on a daily basis). Don’t worry folks, it’s done above 5,000 feet and has minimal effect on the atmosphere.
JBlim on February 22 at 8:02 p.m.
Ironically, at least half the mission of the military is to protect the flow of oil. So get off it. If everyone conserved gasoline, it would make a huge impact. Reduced oil imports will stem the flow of money out of the country. As far as patriotism goes, you’ll have to explain to me what Newt Gingrich’s comment, “you can’t put a gun rack in a Volt,” means. Word salad? I know how it’s taken by the fringe right-wingers out there.
Pigrobin on February 22 at 8:11 p.m.
“Ironically, at least half the mission of the military is to protect the flow of oil.”
Source?
force_vector on February 22 at 8:13 p.m.
“As far as patriotism goes, you’ll have to explain to me what Newt Gingrich’s comment, “you can’t put a gun rack in a Volt,” means.”
As a person who doesn’t follow what Gingrich says, doesn’t own a volt, and doesn’t have a gun rack, I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to even attempt to explain what that means. Though, the mental image of volt with a gun rack installed does make me laugh. It’s like a Veyron with a bumper sticker that says “peace in the middle east”. I’d be lying though if I said I wouldn’t drive it, bumper sticker and all.
stitch on February 22 at 8:42 p.m.
nslope: I don’t hate everything you believe in.. Just think when others lash out at you, there’s usually a reason for it.. I won’t elaborate..
In the 2 short months I’ve been on this site, I’ve learned alot about myself with the help of those who share their posts.. Agree, Disagree, it doesn’t really matter.. Fact is, we can all take something from others opinions if we keep a somewhat open mind and don’t become overly defensive when others choose not to take ones side on any certain issue.. Take care Friend..
JBlim on February 22 at 9:26 p.m.
pigr say “Source?”
You could start here:
https://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/us-miiltary-cost-of-persian-gulf-force-projection.pdf
Pigrobin on February 22 at 9:56 p.m.
Not a bad article although filled with assumptions. This quote from your source article sums it up from my perspective,
“It is difficult to attribute military costs,and specific activities
or forces,to oil consumption or imports per se. Military
activities, even in world regions that represent vital sources of
oil imports,undoubtedly serve a broader range of security and
foreign policy objectives than simply protecting oil supplies.
Furthermore, these military costs may not vary in any
measurable way with incremental variations in oil use.”
nslopeofw on February 22 at 10:51 p.m.
Blim is just using environmental terrorist rhetoric. There is enough oil in SD alone to supply the US its needs for many years. Then add in Texas, Alaska, California, Gulf of Mexico, etc., and we are not dependent on foreign oil for 100+ years. Who cares if it;’s only 2% of the known reserves. All that really shows is how this “finite” energy concept is really just an eco-terror tactic, and how much oil there really is on the planet.
greenlibertarian2nd on February 23 at 12:31 a.m.
nslopeofw on February 22 at 10:51 p.m.
Blim is just using environmental terrorist rhetoric. There is enough oil in SD alone to supply the US its needs for many years. Then add in Texas, Alaska, California, Gulf of Mexico, etc., and we are not dependent on foreign oil for 100+ years. Who cares if it;’s only 2% of the known reserves. All that really shows is how this “finite” energy concept is really just an eco-terror tactic, and how much oil there really is on the planet.
Laughably ignorant, par usual.
Even the industry trade group, American Petroleum Institute agrees your numbers are utterly bogus.
http://www.api.org/publications-standards-and-statistics/industry-statistics.aspx
Why do people think they can just make stuff up and pass it off as fact?
nslopeofw on February 24 at 1:41 a.m.
What maroons like you dont tell while showing links like this is that if current US productions were used , we would only need to import 9mm BOPD from Canada, eliminating all the countries that hate us.
If Obama allowed us to drill, we could be 100% US only oil with in 5 years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43085246/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/bubbling-crude-americas-top-oil-producing-states/#.T0daIYcgcRA
Put that in your environmental pipe and smoke it.
greenlibertarian2nd on February 24 at 2:07 a.m.
Neanderthal, no argument there, the US can get all its petroleum cocaine from Western Hemisphere producers, easy (hey, we got nukes).
[That means tapping ALL (paltry) US reserves AND all of the filthy Canuck oil/tar sands and similar filth crude from ginormous producer Venezuela].
Knock yourself out.
greenlibertarian2nd on February 24 at 3:22 p.m.
If Obama allowed us to drill, we could be 100% US only oil with in 5 years.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43085246/ns/business-oil_and_energy/t/bubbling-crude-americas-top-oil-producing-states/#.T0daIYcgcRA
-nslope
Nothing in the linked [MSNBC no less] article supports nslope’s preposterous assertion that the US could supply 100% of its oil needs. Nothing.
Are there any non-ignoramuses weighing in on this matter?