Gasoline prices: Going up again??? What is going on here?

[sweetbilly]

I am a future Geologist ( that is if i ever graduate LOL) so i know a little about the petroleum/gas industry, However, probably more than the average person. Last month a major American fuel producer announced to their stockholders that their annual profit margin had increase approximatly 1.4% this year, to over 4.1 billion dollars! (4.1 BILLION IN PROFFIT!!!!! NOT GROSS INCOME!!! PROFFIT) The next day the stock market announced that consumer spending in America had decreased substantally as a result of petroluem prices (i can't remember their exact estimates but it was enough to hurt the stock market bringing it down a few hundred points)

Anyways, now the U.N. is discussing embargos they want to put on Iran for refusing to stop it's nuclear weapons production program, which Iran is claming is simply needed for clean, economical power. However, Iran exports approximatly 4% of the world oil demands, what the hell do they need nuclear power for!?! They are the power. If these embargos are imposed, they estimate that a barrel of gasoilne will go to over 80 dollars in the U.S alone!! To do the conversions... it will cost Americans approximately 7+ dollars a gallon at the pumps and could potentally detrimentally destable Americas' economy sending us into a recession/depression that has not been seen since the 30's.

Here's the funny thing though, we here in Grand Junction have approximately 200 billion barrels of oil right here in my backyard in the oil shale deposits. Thats more confirmed barrels of oil than in all of the middle eastern countries COMBINED!!! (which had only something like 2 billion barrels recorded in the late 70's. However, none of these petroleum claims have been verified since then, so who knows how much they actually have now.) it's not very economical to extract but it can be done for aproximatly the same price of oil right now. We have an almost unlimited supply of coal (which can be made into clean burning fuel/gasoline for approximatly 32 dollars a barrel) which is 48 dollars less than the estimated price per barrel if the embargos are impossed; and 28 dollars cheaper than a barrel right now!!! Not to mention all the other useable fuel sources that are very cheap... solar, etheline etc...

Here's the problem: Laws in our country and the tree hugggers which fight for antiquated foolish laws are preventing us from extracting these greatly needed resources right here at home out of fear of hurting our environment. I don't believe they know they are perpetuating and compounding our problems, i just think they are uneducated and act unreasonably and brashly; more based on their emotions than on scientific fact. I know what you are going to say next.. " well aren't the tree huggers right? Doesn't the carbon exausts destroy the environment?" NO, it does not!!! infact there isn't any scientific proof in any form known that suggests that carbon could, in anyway, hurt the environment.
In fact the only known evidence about carbon suggests that it is actually GOOD for the environment and causes plants and vegitation to grow, not die out!! Plants do not breath oxygen like us they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen. We breath in oxygen and release carbon dioxide. If anything at all we are killing plants just by breathing.

Thus, this was the prime reason for pres. Bush rejecting the kyoto agreement a few years ago. He knew the evidence was incomplete and distorted, and was defending the U.S economy by rejecting it (the U.S. is the only country under that agreement that would have to abide by the rules, we were the only ones capable of production on a scale that size.) A plan which i might add which was written and introduced by EUROPEAN countries who have the largest oil companies in the world and have no problem dealing with the Middle eastern counrties and sell their products freely in our in the American economy!!! However, due to propaganda and a miseducated public in the U.S. the idea that we are destroying our environment with petroleum products only further compounds our economic and political problems, and if i didn't know better i would say the only people that stand to proffit from these beliefs are the OIL companies themselves. Hang with me here ok, i'm getting to my point.

Well we know that there are some substantial sized petroleum companies in the U.S and most uneducated tree huggers would like to convience you that they are the prime culprits in this, but thats only a half-truth and a whole lie. If the oil companies in the U.S are responible why are do we continue importing a substantial amount of our oil from foreign nations? Exporting expensive oil takes money out of their hands and is illogical thinking. Isn't it cheaper to get our oil from right here in Grand Junction or from the Pennsylvanian coal mines? After all it can be produced and delivered to market for about half the cost of foreign oil, and would destroy not our economy but theirs if it was done. And why aren't we importing oil from Iraq now if it's so cheap, we own Iraq now.

Think about who the major players here are for a second... OPEC, foreign oil companies from Iran or Venezuela maybe; of which Venezuela is another major suppiler of oil to the U.S. and a previous friend of Saddam Hussein; of whom were all enemies of the U.S. and all members of OPEC! Starting to get my point here? Foreign countries are influencing our laws spreading propaganda, makig us believe that our carbon consumption is destroying our ecology forcing us to create new laws, preventing the extraction of badly needed resources and eventually putting us under the control of foreign powers without ever even knowing it. Is there a foregin influence in washington stronger than our president? I would venture out on a limb and say, YES there is?

Are we really in control of our own country? If not who is in control of our country? And why, if our country is controled by foreign oil, why did George Bush move against Iraq if it wasn't for honest reasons? Was it really for the benifit of foreign oil, more compitition takes money out of their hands and money is POWER!! why do anything (such as lobby for artic drilling in Anwar) if it's gonna mess with my, as Michael Moore put it "Base" Was the movie farenheit 911 right? Is is Michael Moore just another idiot tree hugger attacking the wrong people, his own? If i'm one of the worlds top oil importers i wouldn't want anyone preventing my oil from reaching market, so i spread propaganda and fear and allow the people of that coutry to be lead like sheep to the slaughter. If i'm the president, and genuinely care about my country, i do anything i can do empower my people again, even invade another country! I'm definately NOT a George Bush supporter, i did vote for him but i feel we could have been given so many more better choices for President. .....but could it be that George Bush was actually doing what he claimed to be doing, DEFENDING us by trying to make the world free? If American oil companies are doing this why would they risk destroying our own enonomy to their detriment, without the American economy they would lose their businesses!! I'm interested in others opinions please post something, but please be intelligent about it don't just spam cause you don't like my idea. Say something constructive. Thanks

[Merika]

Gosh Billy....you should set yourself up on one of the Journals on here and keep writing. I do admit your knowldge on this subject probably far outweighs anyone elses on here.

You said a lot...I'll have to think about it before I can give any decent kind of a reply. Short of that situation in Montana which we were talking about the other night....I really don't know that much about America's oil areas. I know Canada is full of sour crude also....which could be refined.

[sweetbilly]

Oh, i know it's kind of long but i think it has some very relivant and powerful points and it's something i've been thinking about for a very long time. I tried to make it extremely simple to understand so everyone could see things from my point of view and experiences. I truly hope everyone enjoys it. Take your time reading and considering what i've pointed out before you post.

[Vautrin]

Yes, but you can also do the math. On the costs, and the labour expenses if you do that in the US. Simply put, the US cannot produce at competitive costs, compared to Iran, Iraq et cetera. Even though that they could produce for a profit, if the oil prices remain above say $32 / barrel. If they would drop below that, the US would be burning money. And not to mention that if you extract from the US itself, you become more dependent on partners in the long run (as you can't be as self-sufficient for as long as you previously could).

Here's the problem: Laws in our country and the tree hugggers which fight for antiquated foolish laws are preventing us from extracting these greatly needed resources right here at home out of fear of hurting our environment.

Or invest in alternative power. Which will even last longer than oil. Be it nuclear (also limited), solar, wind, or even fuel cell technology. And if you invest a whole billion in those, and spend tens of billions to promote oil, that simply does not cut it.

I don't believe they know they are perpetuating and compounding our problems, i just think they are uneducated and act unreasonably and brashly; more based on their emotions than on scientific fact. I know what you are going to say next.. " well aren't the tree huggers right? Doesn't the carbon exausts destroy the environment?" NO, it does not!!! infact there isn't any scientific proof in any form known that suggests that carbon could, in anyway, hurt the environment.

There is no scientific proof that a bullet through the head causes death. Does not mean that a bullet through the head can be recommended as healthy though. And if you call that false science, I can do the same with your true science. And we will get nowhere.

In fact the only known evidence about carbon suggests that it is actually GOOD for the environment and causes plants and vegitation to grow, not die out!!

Right ... of course as plants need CO2. Just as we need O2. Have you ever looked at the lovely planet Venus? Or some of the moons in the solar system? CO2 has a lot of nice and less nice properties. I can say that lead is good as it makes for strong materials. However, consumption of lead is by no means a healthy thing to do. To base any judgement of the impact on CO2 on such an argument is flawed at best.

Thus, this was the prime reason for pres. Bush rejecting the kyoto agreement a few years ago.

No. Industry was opposed to investing a few billion dollars in reducing emissions. And who paid for Mr. Bush his election? Not Mr. Treehugger.

Now the European Union is setting up trade in emission rights (which will be very lucrative), and there are already plans abound to let the expenses of emission rights purchase fall under development spending in other countries - i.e. we would not be paying a cent. I can really see where the progress is in the whole treatment if that were to occur. [Do not miss the sarcasm in that sentence!]

He knew the evidence was incomplete and distorted, and was defending the U.S economy by rejecting it (the U.S. is the only country under that agreement that would have to abide by the rules, we were the only ones capable of production on a scale that size.)

What a joke. The evidence for the Biblical flood is non-existent, and we should assume that happened? :roll: But seriously, 25% of the worldwide energy demands is made by the US, which only houses 5% of the worldwide population. So yes, even a reduction of a single percent would mean a reduction with more than most countries in the world actually use.

A plan which i might add which was written and introduced by EUROPEAN countries who have the largest oil companies in the world and have no problem dealing with the Middle eastern counrties and sell their products freely in our in the American economy!!!

Last time I checked, of the seven biggest oil companies, 5 were American, 1 was British and one was half-British half Dutch. Never knew Europe owned the US. But thanks for enlightening me.

And ever heard of the trade wars between the EU and the US? About steel and such (for which the US gives export subsidies, despite rulings of the WTO that that is not allowed?). Now, these tradewars go two ways. (We might have some issues with US agricultural products, if I remember correctly)

If the oil companies in the U.S are responible why are do we continue importing a substantial amount of our oil from foreign nations?

Mr. Joe Jones demands $8 / hour. Mr. Irani Oilworker gets about $0.35. Do the math, and you see that Mr. Joe is too expensive, albeit American, he is just to darn expensive. So the job goes to Mr. Irani.

sn't it cheaper to get our oil from right here in Grand Junction or from the Pennsylvanian coal mines? After all it can be produced and delivered to market for about half the cost of foreign oil, and would destroy not our economy but theirs if it was done.

How would you destroy an economy if doing so? Unless of course you start bombing France, until they agree to use only US-oil. They simply would trade a bit less, or at lower amounts. But whether you get $50 or $70 for a barrel, both times the amounts are quite significant.

And why aren't we importing oil from Iraq now if it's so cheap, we own Iraq now.

Yep - but Mr. Bush still has not written the letter: "We own you" to the citizens of Iraq. The oil in Iraq is a very sensitive issue, and it would be unwise for the US to import Iraqi oil right now. Better to let it go to France and Germany (and take over the previous suppliers of the French and German oil) - that may help to reduce tensions in Iraq for now.

Foreign countries are influencing our laws spreading propaganda,

We can be expelled from the Netherlands to face trial in the US, even though we have not commited any crime in the US (and I am not speaking of terrorism either). The US is basically doing to other nations what you are accusing other nations of doing to the US. So why would that be acceptable?
As for spreading propaganda, I think every major nation in the world is doing so these days, to the other nations.

makig us believe that our carbon consumption is destroying our ecology forcing us to create new laws, preventing the extraction of badly needed resources and eventually putting us under the control of foreign powers without ever even knowing it.

Yes. The law you need is a law that would make US labour cheaper than in Iraq, Norway, Venezuela and wherenot. Problem is, Mr. Joe Oilworker will not think $0.35 / hour is decent pay.

Are we really in control of our own country? If not who is in control of our country? And why, if our country is controled by foreign oil, why did George Bush move against Iraq if it wasn't for honest reasons?

Your country is not controlled by foreign oil (which is in majority under US control anyway). But ruled by a tiny elite that pushes through a specific set of demands and ideas of some sections of big business.
As for Bush his reasons, we can speculate. But it was obvious that the information that was used by Bush was false information. The only controversy that remains is, whether or not Bush knew beforehand whether or not that information was dubious. I think he did know, many think he did not.

If i'm one of the worlds top oil importers i wouldn't want anyone preventing my oil from reaching market, so i spread propaganda and fear and allow the people of that coutry to be lead like sheep to the slaughter.

If you do not use your own resources, you will have more power, when everyone else has used up their resources, and can only turn to you.

but could it be that George Bush was actually doing what he claimed to be doing, DEFENDING us by trying to make the world free?

Free from what?

If American oil companies are doing this why would they risk destroying our own enonomy to their detriment, without the American economy they would lose their businesses!! ... Thanks

US businesses do not solely depend on the US market. But also on China, India, and a whole plethora of counties. And right now oil prices are quite high - but if the costs of producing oil in the US would be $32, that is still quite a bit higher than it is in most parts where oil is currently extracted. Not a very attractive prospect for most companies. And if they can produce it for $30 in Egypt, or $31.99 in Norway (both with transportation of the oil included) the decision to win oil in the US would not easily be made - unless political considerations (White House) play a role.

And right now, the US may also feel that high oil prices are beneficial for its position in the world, compared to China, Europe etc. If China would be unable to pay for its energy needs, that also means that relatively to China, the US is strengthening its position.

So you would set up an industry that is not very strong, in case the market falls again (unlikely at the moment, I admit that). And of course, it takes a lot of time to create the platforms, and processing industry needed to extract oil. So the market would be quite slow to respond, due to technical limitations.

[Merika]

I'd be willing to pay $10 a gallon if we could meet our own supply needs and not have to deal with any other country.

[Vautrin]

I understand the sentiment. But what if China, Japan use oil that costs $2 per gallon? It will make their products a lot cheaper. And then you would need to set up all kinds of trade barriers, which will be answered in kind. The US would become an isolated (also in terms of international market) country - and with that the wealth will disappear in 1 or 2 generations time.

[Merika]

I just don't know Vautrin. You have no idea how many people here really do wish we were isolated. We have enough population, new immigrants and space....that it would be worth it...regardless of the supposed risk.

The Ford company is closing down plants now and over 30 million people are going to lose their jobs....because it's cheaper to this overseas. I'd rather pay more and have less....not to see these things happening.

I don't want to thread jack Sweetbilly's post....we should definately discuss this in another thread to get other people's opinion on this.

[Merika]

I was reading this in email....won't put in the whole article since it's so long....but this was not only interesting....but scary:

Analysis from Fortune
Ready for $262/barrel oil?

Two of the world's most successful investors say oil will be in short supply in the coming months.


By Nelson Schwartz, FORTUNE senior writer
January 27, 2006: 4:40 PM EST


DAVOS, Switzerland (FORTUNE) - Be afraid. Be very afraid.
That's the message from two of the world's most successful investors on the topic of high oil prices. One of them, Hermitage Capital's Bill Browder, has outlined six scenarios that could take oil up to a downright terrifying $262 a barrel.

The other, billionaire investor George Soros, wouldn't make any specific predictions about prices. But as a legendary commodities player, it's worth paying heed to the words of the man who once took on the Bank of England -- and won. "I'm very worried about the supply-demand balance, which is very tight," Soros says.

"U.S. power and influence has declined precipitously because of Iraq and the war on terror and that creates an incentive for anyone who wants to make trouble to go ahead and make it." As an example, Soros pointed to the regime in Iran, which is heading towards a confrontation with the West over its nuclear power program and doesn't show any signs of compromising. "Iran is on a collision course and I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided," he says.

Another emboldened troublemaker is Russian president Vladimir Putin, Soros said, citing Putin's recent decision to briefly shut the supply of natural gas to Ukraine. The only bit of optimism Soros could offer was that the next 12 months would be most dangerous in terms of any price shocks, because beginning in 2007 he predicts new oil supplies will come online.

Hermitage's Bill Browder doesn't yet have the stature of George Soros. But his $4 billion Moscow-based Hermitage fund rose 81.5 percent last year and is up a whopping 1780 percent since its inception a decade ago. A veteran of Salomon Bros. and Boston Consulting Group, the 41-year old Browder has been especially successful because of his contrarian take; for example, he continued to invest in Russia when others fled following the Kremlin's assault on Yukos.

-------------------------------------------------------------
sweetbilly....I'll forward the whole thing to you in email.