• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Why you're paying more at the pump

T3023

Well-known member
Cal said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/21/GR2006042100040.html



That's why they leave all that oil parked on barges setting all along piers in various locations so they don't have to count it as a reserve or pay taxes on it, because it is at "SEA" and not on shore.

:twisted:
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
T3032 wrote:
That's why they leave all that oil parked on barges setting all along piers in various locations so they don't have to count it as a reserve or pay taxes on it, because it is at "SEA" and not on shore.

Your intimate knowledge of one of the most complex of industries is truly mind-boggling. Certainly has boggled you mind.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
This is from today's Wall Street Journal. Pain at the pump? Thank the liberals...

Pains at the Pump
Don't liberals like sky-high fuel prices?

Saturday, April 29, 2006

"If $75 a barrel oil and a $3 average for a gallon of gasoline isn't a wake-up call, then what is?"--Senator Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), April 23, 2006

Yes, that's a fine question Senator Schumer asks. But a wake-up call for what, exactly? A wake-up call to produce more domestic oil? Heaven forbid.

In fact, Mr. Schumer and most of his Democratic colleagues in the Senate--the very crowd shouting the loudest about "obscene" gas prices--have voted uniformly for nearly 20 years against allowing most domestic oil production. They have vetoed opening even a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas production. If there is as much oil as the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, this would increase America's proven domestic oil reserves by about 50%.

They have also voted against producing oil from the Outer Continental Shelf, where there are more supplies by some estimates than in Saudi Arabia. Environmental objections seem baseless given that even the high winds and waves of Hurricane Katrina didn't cause oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1970s the environmentalists and their followers in Congress even protested building the Alaska pipeline, which today supplies nearly one million barrels of oil a day. If they've discovered some new law of economics in which a fall in output with rising demand can cause a reduction in price, we'd love to hear it.

The dirty little secret about oil politics is that today's high gas price is precisely the policy result that Mr. Schumer and other liberals have long desired. High prices have been the prod that the left has favored to persuade Americans to abandon their SUVs and minivans, use mass transit, turn the thermostat down, produce less consumer goods and services, and stop emitting those satanic greenhouse gases. "Why isn't the left dancing in the streets over $3 a gallon gas?" asks Sam Kazman, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who's followed the gasoline wars for years.

Scan the Web sites of the major environmental groups and you will find long tracts on the evils of fossil fuels and how wonderful it would be if only selfish Americans were more like the enlightened and eco-friendly Europeans. You will find plenty of articles with titles such as: "More Taxes Please: Why the Price of Gas Is too Low." Just last weekend Tia Nelson, the daughter of the founder of Earth Day, declared that even at $3 a gallon she wants gas prices to go higher.

At least Ms. Nelson is honest about wanting European-level gas taxes. We doubt that many American voters would be as enthusiastic. If you think $3 a gallon is pinching your pocketbook, fill up in Paris or Amsterdam, where motorists have the high privilege of paying nearly $6 a gallon thanks to these nations' "progressive" energy policies. (See nearby chart.)

However, you can be sure you won't hear that from Democrats or Northeastern Republicans on Capitol Hill--at least not in public. Far from it. They're suddenly all for cutting gasoline prices, just as long as that doesn't require producing a single additional barrel of oil. We haven't seen this much insincerity since the last Major League Baseball meeting on steroid abuse.

So how do the sages on Capitol Hill propose to reduce gas prices? They want to slap a profits tax on Big Oil because of alleged price gouging. Here we have another head-scratcher that seems to defy even junior-high-school economics. Usually when you tax something, like tobacco, you get less of it. But somehow a tax on oil will magically lead to more oil.

As a Harvard study has shown, when the U.S. imposed a windfall profits tax in 1980, prices rose to an inflation-adjusted range even higher than today, and domestic production fell. As for claims of "gouging," the price of gasoline at the pump in the U.S. has risen 25% less than the rise in the global price of crude oil since 2003, according to Wall Street economist Michael Darda.

We've also heard proposals to force the oil companies to cut the pay of their CEOs to $500,000. That's about what Kobe Bryant makes for a handful of basketball games, but even if the salaries were chopped to this level--and all of the savings passed on to consumers--the gas price would fall by at most one-tenth of a penny. In any case, CEO pay is an issue to be resolved by shareholders, not Congress.

Which brings us to the Bush Administration, which is bludgeoned daily by the likes of Mr. Schumer, whose real concern is exploiting an issue that might elect a Democratic Senate in November. Meanwhile, the White House refuses to attack the left's anti-consumer energy policies and has even capitulated on requiring a rise in auto fuel-efficiency standards. Mr. Bush could instead be talking about the national and economic security need for a pro-domestic-production energy policy--starting with drilling in Alaska. It's worth reminding the American public that in 1995 the Republican Congress passed an ANWR production bill, which Bill Clinton vetoed because he said it could be five to 10 years before the oil would be produced. We would have that oil today if Mr. Clinton had signed that bill.

Instead we have rising gas prices and record dependence on foreign oil. Is that enough to spur Congress to act on ANWR and deep-sea production? If not at $75 a barrel and $3 a gallon, Mr. Schumer, then when?

Tax on Mobility
Average price of a gallon of gas, including tax, on April 10
Price Tax
Belgium $6.10 $3.77
Britain $6.13 $4.03
France $5.80 $3.65
Germany $5.96 $3.82
Italy $5.91 $3.57
Netherlands $6.73 $4.12
U.S.* $2.98 $0.38
* Average for 50 states
Source: Energy Information Administration

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008309
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
ROTFLMAO! Republicans are sure trying to share this pain, right along with the Abramoff pain. But it's a Republican Congress, a Republican White House. There's no getting around that. Hopefully, every Democratic candidate this year will point that out while they're campaigning.

By the way, that higher gas tax in most of the countries listed above help provide for universal health.
 

the chief

Well-known member
What? NO PROFITS? You mean they are giving it to us for free?

Well, they are giving it to us...just not like I stated. :wink:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
the chief said:
What? NO PROFITS? You mean they are giving it to us for free?

Well, they are giving it to us...just not like I stated. :wink:

It's pretty hard to ignore the profits the oil companies are posting, all the while trying to place the blame for high gasoline prices on someone else. Americans are pretty trusting, but I don't think they're buying this one.
 

Cal

Well-known member
T3023 said:
Cal said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/04/21/GR2006042100040.html



That's why they leave all that oil parked on barges setting all along piers in various locations so they don't have to count it as a reserve or pay taxes on it, because it is at "SEA" and not on shore.

:twisted:
Purposely tying up barges is about as likely or logical or cost effective as filling semis with (pick a commod.) and letting them just sit.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This fits with fedup2's post of ND producers only getting $27 barrel....Cheaper to pipe it from up in Canada and give the profits to a foreign country :???:

Schweitzer asks AG to investigate oil profits
By MATT GOURAS
Associated Press

HELENA -- Gov. Brian Schweitzer asked the attorney general Thursday to investigate "potential unfair practices with respect to oil and gas prices" as oil companies rake in big profits and charge higher amounts for gas at the pump.

Schweitzer said he is particularly worried about the small amount being paid to Montana independent oil producers for their product, a subject of a meeting last week between Schweitzer and the governors of North Dakota and Wyoming.

At that meeting, the governors said oil drillers in the region were getting almost half the amount for their oil when compared to other areas.

"We are absorbing the cost of significantly higher gas prices while at the same time being paid less for our oil," Schweitzer said in his letter to Attorney General Mike McGrath. "The math is simple. Someone is walking away with a windfall, while hardworking Montanans are being hit from all directions -- from lost profits to oil producers, to lost tax revenue to state and local governments, to decreases to the school trust fund, to higher prices at the pumps." Meanwhile, oil companies are paying top dollar to foreign dictators who have used profits to fuel terrorism, Schweitzer said in an interview.

"When you give money to a Montana oil producer, every single bit of it goes into drilling another well," Schweitzer said. "Would you rather have Montana producers finding more oil with that money or sending it to the dictator?

"It is clear there is a rascal out there and we want to find out what rock they live under."

The Montana oil industry has cited a number of factors for the reduced rate they are getting for their oil, including a dominant Canadian oil industry moving product through regional pipelines and limited refining and transportation capacity for oil coming from this area.

McGrath said he would wait for findings from a regional panel being established to discover facts in the case before he launched an investigation.
 

Cal

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
ROTFLMAO! Republicans are sure trying to share this pain, right along with the Abramoff pain. But it's a Republican Congress, a Republican White House. There's no getting around that. Hopefully, every Democratic candidate this year will point that out while they're campaigning.

By the way, that higher gas tax in most of the countries listed above help provide for universal health.
And you think noones smart enough to realize that the Dems and a few RINOs have enough votes to keep legislation from being passed?
 

Manitoba_Rancher

Well-known member
Wouldnt it be nice if we produced a commodity that increased in value like oil. Heck we would be getting $5.00 a pound for calves and $25.00 a bushel for wheat.... what a dream that would be.... :roll:
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
We live on the edge of this same oil patch here in Harding County and this month the price of a barrel of oil from this area was $36 while the rest of the world was getting over $70 for a barrel. Liberals on both sides of the aisle have voted to stop drilling in this country (ANWR, Gulf, off the coast), have blocked the building of more pipelines and have not allowed the construction of any refineries since 1976. 1976!!!

And they have the gall to blame Bush for this?

Governors to discuss need for better oil infrastructure
BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - The governors of Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota plan to meet here Wednesday to discuss how to improve the infrastructure for getting oil to refineries.

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal and North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven will join Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer at the Petroleum Club in downtown Billings to talk about recent drops in oil prices at the wellhead. Pipeline capacity to move the oil is limited because existing pipelines are full with Canadian crude.

Refinery turnarounds and seasonal product changes also have limited refining capacity.

"Our region is the only region in America that has increased their oil production," Schweitzer said. "We have done our fair share to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Now we need the infrastructure to get it to domestic refineries."

The region is taking discounts to get the oil to the markets, some in the $25-a-barrel range.

"Bringing a multistate focus to the issue is part of our continuing work on addressing the oil price differential and making sure that the resources developed in Wyoming and elsewhere command a fair market price," Freudenthal said.

Hoeven noted that both Montana and North Dakota are producing oil from what is known as the Bakken formation, but "we need more pipeline capacity to get our oil to market."

The governors' meeting comes as Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., pressed the Department of Energy on its pricing system that he contends forces Montana producers to sell their oil at a deep discount, compared with their Canadian counterparts.

Currently, Montana producers have to truck their oil to refineries because of the limited pipeline capacity. That drives American producers' prices down, he said, while Canadian producers have access to U.S. pipelines.

"I want to know why in the world, when oil is selling for over $60 a barrel, eastern Montana's oil is selling for as little as $30 a barrel," Rehberg said. "It's outrageous that preference for use of American pipelines is being given to a foreign producer."

April 18, 2006
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2006/04/18/news/state/113364.txt
[/b]
 

katrina

Well-known member
Wahington has sold us out for years!!!!!! I've always wondered about that bowlegged walk....... Illegal alians get more respect than we do.......
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Geeze. First, all oil doesn't have the same value. The price you see quoted is usually sweet oil, West Texas Crude. If the oil produced in your site is of a lower quality, it requires special refining and has less value.

Oil companies build pipe lines, not governments. When the big oil companies buy out all the independents, they'll lay more pipelines.

And, one more time, we have the same refining capacity we had two years ago when gas was $1.50 per gallon. The oil companies are simply ripping us off. There's no way they can justify the huge jump in their profits. It's not costing them any more to produce it than it did two years ago. But two years ago their guy, George W. Bush, still had to get reelected. Once he was safely in the White House for another four years, they're free to charge what they want. And guess who gets to pay for it? You do.
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Geeze. First, all oil doesn't have the same value. The price you see quoted is usually sweet oil, West Texas Crude. If the oil produced in your site is of a lower quality, it requires special refining and has less value.

Oil companies build pipe lines, not governments. When the big oil companies buy out all the independents, they'll lay more pipelines.

And, one more time, we have the same refining capacity we had two years ago when gas was $1.50 per gallon. The oil companies are simply ripping us off. There's no way they can justify the huge jump in their profits. It's not costing them any more to produce it than it did two years ago. But two years ago their guy, George W. Bush, still had to get reelected. Once he was safely in the White House for another four years, they're free to charge what they want. And guess who gets to pay for it? You do.
Well geeze yourself, Einstein. I suppose you think that those of us living on the oil patch have no idea what our oil is worth. Oil is a commodity to be sold on the open market much the way beef, corn and lumber are sold and the seller is usually very aware of the type and quality of the product being sold. The oil in this oil patch is high quality and is ordinarily within pennies of the top price paid - but that’s only when they can get it out to the refineries.

Oil companies will build more pipelines and more refineries when they are allowed to. Do you think they get a kick out of having to sell the oil produced in this area for half of what it’s worth because they can’t pipe it out of the Williston Basin?

There aren't enough refineries to process it when they do get it out because none have been allowed to be built since 1976. The existing refineries must refine enough oil to meet the demands of today's vastly increased needs using technology that is thirty years old, thanks to the liberals and enviro-whackos heading up the Democrat party and a few so-called "moderates" in the Republican party.

It still costs the companies as much to pump oil out of the ground as it did when they are allowed to sell it for what it’s worth and, contrary to how most liberals would like to have it, they are in it to make money for themselves and their stockholders, just like any other business.

The profit on a barrel of oil is 8 to 9 cents. That’s a rip off? The oil companies are in business to make a profit same as the cattleman, the manufacturer and the main street grocer. It’s called capitalism and it’s the system our government was based upon. But I guess you wouldn’t understand that?
 

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Where'd you go dis? Did you lose interest in high oil prices or don't you care to debate the issue when the blame for them can be laid at the clay feet of your idols and ARE NOT Pres. Bush's fault?

Here's an article from the Rapid City Journal you would probably just as soon not read either:

High gas prices nothing to worry about
By Alan Aker, Journal columnist


PIEDMONT - The government shouldn't do anything about gas prices. They're a little high, and they could stay that way quite awhile, but most of the proposals for government action would either make matters worse, have no effect, have bad side effects, or would only have a short-term affect on gas prices many years in the future.

So far the national discussion about high gas prices has been one of the most disappointing spectacles of the entire decade. How hypocritical, short-sighted and economically illiterate have our leaders been? Let me count the ways.

First, the Democrats. If they had any shame or any prospect of hard questions from the antique media, Democrats would just shut up about gas prices. Generally, elected Democrats have stood in the way of every effort to drill for, transport and refine more oil in this country. Realize: the very same Democrat who attends a meeting on Monday in which he agrees that our high energy consumption is causing global warming might also attend a meeting on Tuesday in which he laments high gas prices. One body, two faces.

Just like clockwork, liberals trot out the same tired old answers they have for every problem: regulation, taxation and government spending. In this case, the Democrats' impulse to regulate takes the form of mandating higher fuel efficiency in cars.

If I understand their train of thought, it goes something like this: American car makers possess magic, secret technology that would make cars more fuel-efficient without sacrificing safety, utility or unduly inflating the cost of a car. American consumers would buy these cars, if they were available. American car manufacturers nevertheless refuse to make them.

Wait. Are our automakers really that stupid, or are they just evil? I'm not sure. After all, General Motors executives just announced, without smirking, that it's OK that they're losing money in the midst of an economic boom because they're losing less money than last year. That's a little like the captain of the Titanic announcing the good news that although the ship is still sinking, it won't be hitting nearly as many icebergs.

I have a better idea. Instead of prying that super-secret fuel economy technology out of the clutches of those GM executives, how about we just let all the automakers produce whatever kinds of cars they want and let consumers buy whatever kinds of cars they want? If GM won't make what buyers want, they'll go bankrupt, and good riddance. If people choose to buy gas-guzzlers, that would be a clue that the price of gas really isn't that big a problem.

But regulation isn't the only liberal reflex. They also want a tax increase. In this case, it's a new tax on oil profits. (I refuse to label these profits "windfalls." Profitable oil drilling involves years of careful capital accumulation, geologic research, enormous risk and real physical work. Somehow, the money made by the likes of Oprah, Bill Clinton and Britney Spears have always struck me more as "windfalls" than any money earned in an oil field.)

This oil profits tax will guarantee even higher gas prices. High oil profits serve two purposes: first, they put more money into the hands of people who know how to drill for, transport and refine oil, which allows them to do more of these things, which increases supply, which puts downward pressure on prices. Second, the existence of high profits will lure new investors into the oil business, which will also increase supply and lower prices. Take away some of those profits, and you take away some of these price-lowering resources and incentives.

Not satisfied with the economic vandalism of the oil profits tax, liberals also want to "rescue" us with increased government spending. They want our tax money to study, promote and subsidize alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles and mass transit. They needn't worry. If and when these things make economic sense, the greedy capitalists will invest in them. If they don't make economic sense, they won't lower gas prices any more efficiently than if the government just mailed all of us a rebate check based on how many gallons of gas we buy.

Another Democrat answer to high oil prices is to nag us to conserve energy. Until they and their Hollywood, big media and trial lawyer contributors stop riding in private jets and living in air-conditioned mansions, they should hush up about conserving energy. They should also quit yapping about how much money oil executives make, at least until they agree to income caps for those trial lawyers and big media celebrities. If the president of Exxon Mobile has too much money, maybe John Edwards, Dan Rather, Barbara Streisand and Ted Turner do, too.

Alan Aker is a Piedmont businessman. Write to [email protected] May 2, 2006
http://rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2006/05/02/news/opinion/opin02.txt
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Liberty Belle said:
Well geeze yourself, Einstein. I suppose you think that those of us living on the oil patch have no idea what our oil is worth. Oil is a commodity to be sold on the open market much the way beef, corn and lumber are sold and the seller is usually very aware of the type and quality of the product being sold. The oil in this oil patch is high quality and is ordinarily within pennies of the top price paid - but that’s only when they can get it out to the refineries.

Well, you don't know much about much else. Why should I think you have any knowledge about oil quality?

Oil companies will build more pipelines and more refineries when they are allowed to. Do you think they get a kick out of having to sell the oil produced in this area for half of what it’s worth because they can’t pipe it out of the Williston Basin?

Are you telling me that Liberals won't let the oil companies build more pipelines? Let's see something to that effect. I think oil companies will build more piplines when it's profitable for them to do so, just like they'll build more refineries when it's profitable.

There aren't enough refineries to process it when they do get it out because none have been allowed to be built since 1976. The existing refineries must refine enough oil to meet the demands of today's vastly increased needs using technology that is thirty years old, thanks to the liberals and enviro-whackos heading up the Democrat party and a few so-called "moderates" in the Republican party.

BS. There are the same number of refineries working in the US today as there were two years ago. You just keep ignoring that fact. I didn't know there were any "moderate" Republicans. Thanks for that info.

It still costs the companies as much to pump oil out of the ground as it did when they are allowed to sell it for what it’s worth and, contrary to how most liberals would like to have it, they are in it to make money for themselves and their stockholders, just like any other business.

If it costs the same to get it out, why is the price of oil so high? Why is EXXON making record profits and your independent producers not able to sell their oil for comparable prices. I think the answer is that the big oil companies want to push them out of business.

The profit on a barrel of oil is 8 to 9 cents. That’s a rip off? The oil companies are in business to make a profit same as the cattleman, the manufacturer and the main street grocer. It’s called capitalism and it’s the system our government was based upon. But I guess you wouldn’t understand that?

BS. The "profit" on a barrel of oil depends on who's selling it. The big oil companies get a lot of oil from leases already contracted. Their costs haven't gone up, but they're getting several times as much for that barrel of oil as they did two, three years ago. And you're trying to tell me their "profit" is the same. Get real. I understand profit fine. I understand price gouging even better and that's what's happening at our gas pumps today. There's no way the oil companies can justify the prices we're paying. Gasoline is down a nickel here since Bush proposed investigating price gouging. Since no one really believes he'll do it, the price probably won't go down much more.
 

Cowpuncher

Well-known member
Dis wrote:
BS. The "profit" on a barrel of oil depends on who's selling it. The big oil companies get a lot of oil from leases already contracted. Their costs haven't gone up, but they're getting several times as much for that barrel of oil as they did two, three years ago. And you're trying to tell me their "profit" is the same. Get real. I understand profit fine. I understand price gouging even better and that's what's happening at our gas pumps today. There's no way the oil companies can justify the prices we're paying. Gasoline is down a nickel here since Bush proposed investigating price gouging. Since no one really believes he'll do it, the price probably won't go down much more.

If your house is worth a lot more now than it was two years, are you going to sell it for what is was worth or the market. You lowly price gouger!! Anyone who sells an asset for what it cost instead of what it is worth is an economic idiot.
 
Top