Skip to main content

113 replies

Gas prices are outrageous... still Bush's fault??

Opie CunninghamOpie CunninghamPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Per your link taxes 4 years ago was in fact less than 70 cents. What is the tax today? I don't know. What is the "real" cost of a gallon of gas? I'm willing to bet it is less than $1.50.


I suppose that record profits by oil companies pretty much tell the tale. They would love for you to believe its high taxes.
Opie CunninghamOpie CunninghamPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
quote:
I suppose that record profits by oil companies pretty much tell the tale.

What is wrong with profits? Go and try to run a business without profit and see what happens. What the hell is the public education system coming to?



Speculation driven, inflated Gas prices contributed to our recent economic meltdown. Don't you see a disconnect when entire industries are failing while oil companies are declaring record profits?

Or haven't you developed any reasoning skills?
MA mad AmericanPost Master
quote:
Or haven't you developed any reasoning skills?

I have plenty of reasoning skills, I realize that if oil companies don't make a profit, I can't ride my motorcycle, drive my car, operate a lawnmower. Go back to school and ask your teacher the right answer. What happens to a business when it doesn't make a profit? Or are you too fu32in stupid to know the answer? The answer to the second question is yes.
Opie CunninghamOpie CunninghamPost Master
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!


We do.


Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.



What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.
Stuck-In-TrafficStuck-In-TrafficEverybody Knows My Name
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!


We do.


Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.



What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.


Because the tree hugging liberal panty waist interventionist will not let them drill and refine in the areas they need to.
E EastsideHall of Famer
Yes, inflated gas prices which in turns increases the cost of food etc - has contributed to our economic struggles and will continue to do so at this rate and the President isn't trying to do anything about it. After Hurricane Katrina, people including Congress screamed for President Bush to release some of the oil reserves to lower prices. Why is no one screaming for Obama to do so? It's not like we don't have reserves to use instead of depending on the Middle East. Maybe I'm missing something though.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Eastside:
Yes, inflated gas prices which in turns increases the cost of food etc - has contributed to our economic struggles and will continue to do so at this rate and the President isn't trying to do anything about it. After Hurricane Katrina, people including Congress screamed for President Bush to release some of the oil reserves to lower prices. Why is no one screaming for Obama to do so? It's not like we don't have reserves to use instead of depending on the Middle East. Maybe I'm missing something though.


I believe what you are missing in the equation is the very reason for the reserves in the first place. They are intended to be used in the event our supply was cut off again primarly for the military for self defense, and secondly for emergency for people. They were never intended to be used to supply cheap gas for people to waste in their H3's and gas-guzzling SUV's.
Personally, I am not for their use in an attempt to control the price of gasoline. Maybe enough people feel the same way and that is why there is not a cry to release the petroleum stores.
If you want to make a contribution in lowering the price of gasoline, quit buying it, or at least buy no more than you need to get by.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!


We do.


Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.



What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:

"[T]he most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. (The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry.) Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
quote:
Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:


Uh, this quote is from 1996 before the US commodities traders were involved. If you are going to pull quotes out of your anus, you ought to be honest about where and when they were made. Try attributing your sources. Here, Ill do it for you: http://wyden.senate.gov/issues...wyden_oil_report.pdf
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by Flatus the Ancient:
quote:
Large oil companies have for a decade artificially shorted the gasoline market to drive up prices.

Take this internal Texaco strategy memo excerpt:


Uh, this quote is from 1996 before the US commodities traders were involved. If you are going to pull quotes out of your anus, you ought to be honest about where and when they were made. Try attributing your sources. Here, Ill do it for you: http://wyden.senate.gov/issues...wyden_oil_report.pdf


So what? Commodities traders is not an issue.
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
“We have too much capacity,” said Lynn D. Westfall, the chief economist at the Tesoro Corporation, a midsize refiner, who estimated that the industry’s capacity of 18 million barrels a day must be cut 5 to 8 percent. “We need refineries to be shut down.”

Refineries, especially smaller ones, have been closing for many years. The number of refineries in the United States fell to about 150 in recent years from more than 300 in 1982. At the same time, the nation’s refining capacity grew by about 13 percent, as companies expanded their most efficient refineries.



http://www.nytimes.com/imagepa...efining_graphic.html

Major refiners have been circumspect about their plans, saying that they are considering options that could include closing refineries, selling parts of their operations, laying off workers and slashing spending.

"Refineries will have to be closed," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. "Unless this excess capacity is permanently shuttered, a recovery in refining margins is unsustainable."

I will leave the attribution to the trolls.
Mr.DittoheadMr.DittoheadOld Faithful
Valero Energy provides a window into the industry's changing fortunes.

Five years ago, Wall Street loved the San Antonio firm. Valero had seen a fivefold increase in share price in 2005, and fourth-quarter earnings for that year were the company's best ever.

Now Valero finds itself in a much different position. It was nearly $2 billion in the red at the end of last year, and its fourth-quarter results were among the company's worst ever, with losses of about $1.4 billion.

The recession contributed to declining fuel demand. But in that same period, vast -- some think permanent -- changes happened.

Americans drove less and switched to vehicles that got better mileage or didn't use gasoline at all. They used mass transit in record numbers. Baby boomers began retiring and stopped commuting. And gasoline gained even more of something that didn't have to be refined from oil -- ethanol

Critics complained that no new U.S. refinery had been built since 1976, leaving the country's gasoline supplies vulnerable. In fact, between 1998 and 2009, U.S. refining capacity increased by 2.2 million barrels a day, to 17.67 million barrels a day, with the addition of equipment and with improved processes at existing facilities, Energy Department data show.
Flatus the AncientFlatus the AncientHall of Famer
You are complaining about supply and demand. If a farmer knows that there is an overabundance of wheat on the market, that farmer will try to grow something else. Its called matching supply to demand. If there is no profit in over producing gasoline then naturally refineries will be closed. During the 90's gas was cheap and unprofitable for the oil companies. Because gas was cheap, people started buying gas sucking SUV's at the same time the oil companies were closing unprofitable refineries. Commodities traders could buy both unrefined oil and refined gasoline and sit on the supply and wait for prices to inflate in the late 90's. Compounding the above factors was the increased worldwide demand for oil especially by China. It was a perfect financial storm with lots of players.
MA mad AmericanPost Master
quote:
We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

We should work to do both. Increase capacity while decreasing demand. The most popular vehicle during the cash for clunkers debacle was a Ford F150. That don't make much sense to me. I was opposed to the cash for clunkers program because it made dependable used cars worth more than their market value. But if the supposed intent was for folks to buy fuel efeciant vehicles, why was an F150 even allowed in the program? As long as we keep buying fuel for massive SUV's and pickups the oil companies can charge as much as they want.
elinterventor01elinterventor01Post Master
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!


We do.


Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.



What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.



Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.

No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.

Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.

Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.

California stopped drilling within the state.

Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

This is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.
B beternUOld Faithful
Consider:

"When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, the national average gas price was $1.46 per gallon. Six and a half years later, on August 27, 2007, the national average gas price had jumped to $2.76, roughly 89% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 10% jump each year Bush has been in office.

Now, let’s compare the numbers over the same time period for President Clinton.

When Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, the national average gas price was $1.06 per gallon. six and a half years later, the national average gas price had jumped to $1.22, roughly 15% higher. Compounded annually, this represents about a 2% jump each year."

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip...and-gasoline-prices/


But please understand this. I am not, in posting the above, arguing that Bush was responsible for this increase because it was "on his watch." Pricing of oil is not something that a President has a lot of control over. It is a bit simpleminded to draw the kind of cause-and-effect linkages that are sometimes cited to blame a given administration for such things as the fluctuations in the world price of crude oil. The world economy includes too many factors beyond the control of any President, including rapidly increasing demands by India and China. Those who would attach such responsibility to Bush, Obama, or any other sitting President are of the same simplistic mindset as those who look at this harsh winter and cite it as denial of global climate change.

Notwithstanding the above, I do not subscribe to the notion that international oil prices are a function of a pure market economy. There are factors that can be and are manipulated to afect the price of oil. Can you say "OPEC"?
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by elinterventor01:
quote:
Originally posted by seeweed:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by Stuck-In-Traffic:
quote:
Originally posted by Opie Cunningham:
quote:
Originally posted by mad American:
And while we are talking about the current prices. Why the hell hasn't the present genius in the white house said that we should drill and refine our own oil? Because he is STUPID!


We do.


Not to our actual capacity, dumb ass.



What is our actual capacity, and why haven't new and better refineries been built by your precious oil companies?

Because less supply keeps prices up. We should work to scale back our demand, not increase our capacity.

It would appear that some of the very people who align themselves with the teabaggers wanting smaller government , are the same ones wanting the government to "force" oil companies into drilling or refining more.
The myth that there is some environmentalist stopping the "drilling" is just for idiots.
Very little drilling places are off the table at this point from the federal level.
The problem is that most of the cheap easy to get at oil is pretty much tapped out. Maybe still plenty in the ground, but you can only pump so much per day.
The oil left to get by drilling is mostly in deep water and is very expensive to get at, and to get out once tapped.
Cheap oil and cheap gasoline are a thing of the past.
There are some things left that the feds can do, like bring our "wars" to an end that would free up a lot of capacity that is being diverted to supply the "war" effort, but I am not sure there is much else that is in the hands of the federal government.
There is a lot of talk here about Alaska, and actually the truth is no one really knows how much oil there really is in the federally protected area, just a bunch of guessing. However, drilling is just the beginning, getting it out would be quite a challenge, and if you think for one minute that it would make any difference at the pump, you are just plain nuts.
Oil is sold on the world market. If it is less expensive to ship it to Asia, then , just like it was with the Alaska pipe line, that's where it will go.
Instead of whining, we should be attempting to get off of oil (gasoline) as soon as possible.
Problem is , that just dosen't fit the narrative of the oil companies and senators who get a lot of money from the oil companies. What they want is what is best for them, not what is best for our country.



Not, force the oil companies to drill, but force the government to end impediments to drilling.

No myth, and no idiots. Drilling off the near and far west coast is not allowed because of environmentalists working at the state level. Same for the eastern Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida.

Drilling off Cuba is proceeding, but not off the Florida coast. Because Ken Salazar continued to oppose drilling, despite a court order, Interior will have to pay millions to the reimburse the oil companies for their legal expenses. If a later administration finds Salazar acted illegally, he could be charged with reimbursing the government.

Drilling off the Alaskan coast isn't allowed, nor ANWR or the North Slope.

California stopped drilling within the state.

Now, as to Alaskan oil shipped to Japan, very little was ever shipped. None is now. About 7 percent of the oil from 1996 to 2000 was shipped to Asia.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/alaskaoil.asp

This is the fourth time I posted this fact, at least twice to you in previous guises.


I thought you were FOR states rights !
Perhaps the people of Alaska, Florida, California, and the Eastern Seaboard don't want their seafood industries put at risk- as a lover of seafood, I am with them on this. Just look at the havoc placed on the La Gulf Coast this last summer.
Our current government is doing the right thing supporting via tax breaks, the high-mileage car industry, and should continue those programs regardless of the big oil-backed Republicans. The current admin is also doing the right thing promoting high speed rail service. Rail is a much less energy intensive way to move people than airplanes or cars. Everybody in the world knows this and we are way behind .
For a solid future , we MUST invest in this type of infrastructure - teabaggers be dammed.

Just think where we may be on this issue if Reagan had continued and not dismantled Carter's start to energy independence.
More oil--- hell, we were once told that once the Alaska pipeline was completed, that would pretty much solve our foreign dependence on oil.
Yea, good job that did after we went back to gas-guzzling cars with the rise of the ego-promoting SUV truck.
L LE89Hall of Famer
I haven't seen many posts where I agree with beternU, but this is one. Oil, similar to diamonds, is controled by very few, and our demand for the precious material is governed by the fact we will continue to pay for it, at almost any cost. There still is a supply and demand curve, it just plays out at a much higher level.

Only when competition is introduced will prices be driven down, or when demand decreases, which isn't going to happen. It's kind of hard to break into the diamaond or oil supply business.

Another post commented about no new refineries being built. Government/EPA, etc. has made the codes, guidelines, restrictions, and regulations so incredibly tough, no one will "invest" in this new refineries.

When the cost of an alternate source of moving from point A to point B is made available (other than walking or bicycles or a car you have to plug in every 50 miles), then and only then will the general public make the switch.

Just as you could buy enough land to mount enough solar panels to provide for free electricity for your house, the cost of it all still outweighs the savings on your power bill.

Only when it's cheaper will we begin to use it, period. Government pushes wanting us to spend more to save in the long run, never gonna happen.
seeweedseeweedOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by LE89:
level.



Another post commented about no new refineries being built. Government/EPA, etc. has made the codes, guidelines, restrictions, and regulations so incredibly tough, no one will "invest" in this new refineries.

When the cost of an alternate source of moving from point A to point B is made available (other than walking or bicycles or a car you have to plug in every 50 miles), then and only then will the general public make the switch.



The part of La along the Ms River where most of the refineries are located is also known as "Cancer Alley" some of the highest rates of cancer in the nation.
With that in mind, would you want a refinery built on the banks of our "Ole Man River" here in Florence without any guidelines from the EPA ? Just let the Koch Brothers decide how much pollution they would put into the air and river ?
Not me , keep that stuff away from my kids and grandkids unless it is regulated to the point that there is NO pollution at all.
Just the way I feel because I love my kids, maybe others may feel different, or maybe if it is some of "those" people elsewhere, maybe of a different race, it doesn't matter.
PreviousNext

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×