Oil Surges above $85/barrel
10-19-2007, 12:33 PM
#51
Big Poppa
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 613
I'd laugh at them too if I was an oil producer. For all the people that actually have anything to do with producing a gallon of gas, they get a collective $0.23/gal profit whereas the collective government gets $0.44-%0.50/gal. Who is it that is really raping the public here? McDonald's Restaurant had a higher net profit % than did the oil companies and they didn't have to testify on the Hill.
Who Really Profits From High Fuel Prices?
Federal Diesel Fuel Tax: 24.4
Maine Diesel Fuel Tax: 26.3
Total Government Revenues Per Gallon: 50.7 cents per Gallon
Federal Gasoline Tax: 18.4
Maine Gasoline Tax 25.9
Total Government Revenues Per Gallon: 44.3 cents Per Gallon:
Refining profit: 10¢
Transportation profit: 9¢
Marketing profit: 4¢
Total Oil and Gasoline Industry Profits Per Gallon: 23 Cents Per Gallon
Source on industry profit figures:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Disclaimer: I do not own any oil stocks (unless perhaps one of my mutual funds contains some)
Who Really Profits From High Fuel Prices?
Federal Diesel Fuel Tax: 24.4
Maine Diesel Fuel Tax: 26.3
Total Government Revenues Per Gallon: 50.7 cents per Gallon
Federal Gasoline Tax: 18.4
Maine Gasoline Tax 25.9
Total Government Revenues Per Gallon: 44.3 cents Per Gallon:
Refining profit: 10¢
Transportation profit: 9¢
Marketing profit: 4¢
Total Oil and Gasoline Industry Profits Per Gallon: 23 Cents Per Gallon
Source on industry profit figures:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Disclaimer: I do not own any oil stocks (unless perhaps one of my mutual funds contains some)
10-19-2007, 12:50 PM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 2,934
And yes, fuel taxes are very high. However you have one of two choices when it comes to funding infastructure. Tax it, or toll it. Most people are very opposed to tolls.
Do we need oil? Yes. Can we reduce consumption? Of course. There are tons of ways to do so but many Americans are too proud to use public transportation or realize they don't need a huge vehicle. I find it funny that American automakers are pushing "crossover" vehicles as being fuel efficient at 25mpg. Most of these vehicles have no more cabin space than a comparable midsize car that does much better on fuel economy.
I know it's difficult in our industry to carpool, or use public transportation however most of us are only doing the round trip to work once or twice a week versus 9-5ers doing it on a daily basis. Little changes on a big scale would have a big effect on the oil industry.
10-19-2007, 01:58 PM
#54
Big Poppa
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Posts: 613
Very little, if any, of our oil comes from the middle east. Theirs for the most part is going to Europe and China. Our oil imports come mostly from Canada and Venezuela. The problem in Venezuela is that you have a communist who is trying to take over the oil industry there.
And yes, fuel taxes are very high. However you have one of two choices when it comes to funding infastructure. Tax it, or toll it. Most people are very opposed to tolls.
Do we need oil? Yes. Can we reduce consumption? Of course. There are tons of ways to do so but many Americans are too proud to use public transportation or realize they don't need a huge vehicle. I find it funny that American automakers are pushing "crossover" vehicles as being fuel efficient at 25mpg. Most of these vehicles have no more cabin space than a comparable midsize car that does much better on fuel economy.
I know it's difficult in our industry to carpool, or use public transportation however most of us are only doing the round trip to work once or twice a week versus 9-5ers doing it on a daily basis. Little changes on a big scale would have a big effect on the oil industry.
And yes, fuel taxes are very high. However you have one of two choices when it comes to funding infastructure. Tax it, or toll it. Most people are very opposed to tolls.
Do we need oil? Yes. Can we reduce consumption? Of course. There are tons of ways to do so but many Americans are too proud to use public transportation or realize they don't need a huge vehicle. I find it funny that American automakers are pushing "crossover" vehicles as being fuel efficient at 25mpg. Most of these vehicles have no more cabin space than a comparable midsize car that does much better on fuel economy.
I know it's difficult in our industry to carpool, or use public transportation however most of us are only doing the round trip to work once or twice a week versus 9-5ers doing it on a daily basis. Little changes on a big scale would have a big effect on the oil industry.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html
I think there are more people that find it inconvenient to use public transportation than there are people who are too proud. Yeah, I agree, it's laughable what American car companies will consider fuel efficient.
10-19-2007, 07:04 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: B737, Capt.
Posts: 384
What then would be a fair profit margin for an oil company? I feel 8% is reasonable. What I can't figure out is what the Gov't did to to receive twice the amount of the oil companies for producing nothing. No wonder the congessional approval rating is 11%.
10-20-2007, 04:51 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 73N
Posts: 863
McDonalds makes a profit by offering a product people decide to buy beacuse of its low price and convienence. The oil companies make a profit by controlling the amount of supply given to the public driving up demand to a point where oil sells for $80+ a barrel. If Ronald McDonald was out there buying all the cattle in America and not selling any of it till a burger would cost us $50 a piece, then he would be on the hill explaining himself too. DeBeers has done this for a long time with diamonds, but nobody cares because we don't need jewelery, but everyone in America needs gas. I guarantee if we didn't have an oil man in office and previously a bunch of his friends controlling the house and senate our policy on oil reserves might be a little different. I thought the government was there to protect the people, not the top .05% of the people in the nation who are making record profits. In the end though, it doesn't really matter because this is a nation that is loyal only to one thing... the dollar.
10-20-2007, 07:01 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Position: Flying the SEC
Posts: 2,350
How do oil companies control the supply whey they don't own the oil? Foreign governments control the supply. The price is set on an open market. Oil companies own very little of the actual oil.
10-20-2007, 08:03 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: 73N
Posts: 863
They own the president... therefore they own the domestic oil. They have had plenty of oppourtunities to drill this oil, but why would they invest money in something that will lower the proce of thier product and decrease thier profit.
http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/execsumm.php
Big Access, Little Energy — the Oil and Gas Industry's Hold on Western Lands
A first-ever investigation of federal land use and energy production records by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) shows that the oil and gas industry has been given access to an immense area of western land, and that this nearly unfettered opportunity to drill in 12 western states has done nothing to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
The report contradicts a widely-repeated myth, most recently articulated at an August 3 town meeting in Arkansas by Vice President Dick Cheney. "What we've fallen into the habit of doing is we continue to increase our consumption of energy, specifically oil and gas, but we aren't producing here at home," Cheney said. "We've taken large chunks of the country and put it off limits to any kind of exploration or development...large parts of the Rocky Mountain West are off limits" (FDCH 2004). EWG's year-long analysis shows:
The federal government has offered 229 million acres of public and private land in 12 western states for oil and gas drilling, an area greater than the combined size of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, according to an EWG analysis of land use records maintained by the federal government from 1982 to the present. This acreage represents the sum of total land actively leased in 1982 and land newly offered from 1982 through 2004.
Despite access to more than 200 million acres of public land over the past 15 years (1989-2003), the oil and gas industry has produced enough energy from this land to satisfy only 53 days of U.S. oil consumption and 221 days of natural gas consumption, according to EWG's analysis of well-by-well oil and gas production records obtained August 16 2004 via a Freedom of Information Act Request. This rate of production amounts to an average of 3.6 days per year of oil and 14.8 days per year of natural gas (MMS 2004, EIA Petroleum Review 2004, EIA Natural Gas Review 2004).
As these small production figures suggest, drilling on federal lands in the West has done nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, since 1982, our dependence on foreign oil has doubled and our dependence on foreign natural gas has tripled (EIA Petroleum Review 2004, EIA Natural Gas Review 2004). A recent government estimate found that the five most oil- and gas-rich basins in the western U.S. contain about a 280-day supply of oil and an 8-year supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption -- an analysis that likely overstates the amount of energy that is economically available (Energy Inventory 2003).
Despite the relatively small amounts of energy in the West, the Bush administration has removed barriers to drilling on a net 45 million acres in 12 western states and has lifted environmental protections and emphasized drilling on lands already open to oil and gas development.
In producing oil and gas, companies often pump out large quantities of water from underground, particularly in coal bed methane development. In the last 15 years, companies have pumped out 548 billion gallons of water, enough to pour over Niagra Falls for 42 days at the Falls' current flow rate. About 66 percent of that water was reinjected, still leaving 181 billion gallons extracted -- the amount of water that pours over Niagra Falls for 13 days (MMS 2004, CNN 2003). Most so-called "produced water" is unfit for human consumption but removing it can deplete local springs and wells; contaminate land, surface water and ground water; and cause erosion. Reinjection can contaminate groundwater (OGAP 2004).
Between 2000 and 2004, the oil and gas industry poured more than $75 million into political campaigns, with 79 percent going to Republicans, money that may have influenced administration decisions opening protected public lands to drilling (CRP 2004).
This is no political statement, I'm just stating the facts.
http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/execsumm.php
Big Access, Little Energy — the Oil and Gas Industry's Hold on Western Lands
A first-ever investigation of federal land use and energy production records by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) shows that the oil and gas industry has been given access to an immense area of western land, and that this nearly unfettered opportunity to drill in 12 western states has done nothing to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
The report contradicts a widely-repeated myth, most recently articulated at an August 3 town meeting in Arkansas by Vice President Dick Cheney. "What we've fallen into the habit of doing is we continue to increase our consumption of energy, specifically oil and gas, but we aren't producing here at home," Cheney said. "We've taken large chunks of the country and put it off limits to any kind of exploration or development...large parts of the Rocky Mountain West are off limits" (FDCH 2004). EWG's year-long analysis shows:
The federal government has offered 229 million acres of public and private land in 12 western states for oil and gas drilling, an area greater than the combined size of Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, according to an EWG analysis of land use records maintained by the federal government from 1982 to the present. This acreage represents the sum of total land actively leased in 1982 and land newly offered from 1982 through 2004.
Despite access to more than 200 million acres of public land over the past 15 years (1989-2003), the oil and gas industry has produced enough energy from this land to satisfy only 53 days of U.S. oil consumption and 221 days of natural gas consumption, according to EWG's analysis of well-by-well oil and gas production records obtained August 16 2004 via a Freedom of Information Act Request. This rate of production amounts to an average of 3.6 days per year of oil and 14.8 days per year of natural gas (MMS 2004, EIA Petroleum Review 2004, EIA Natural Gas Review 2004).
As these small production figures suggest, drilling on federal lands in the West has done nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. In fact, since 1982, our dependence on foreign oil has doubled and our dependence on foreign natural gas has tripled (EIA Petroleum Review 2004, EIA Natural Gas Review 2004). A recent government estimate found that the five most oil- and gas-rich basins in the western U.S. contain about a 280-day supply of oil and an 8-year supply of natural gas at current rates of consumption -- an analysis that likely overstates the amount of energy that is economically available (Energy Inventory 2003).
Despite the relatively small amounts of energy in the West, the Bush administration has removed barriers to drilling on a net 45 million acres in 12 western states and has lifted environmental protections and emphasized drilling on lands already open to oil and gas development.
In producing oil and gas, companies often pump out large quantities of water from underground, particularly in coal bed methane development. In the last 15 years, companies have pumped out 548 billion gallons of water, enough to pour over Niagra Falls for 42 days at the Falls' current flow rate. About 66 percent of that water was reinjected, still leaving 181 billion gallons extracted -- the amount of water that pours over Niagra Falls for 13 days (MMS 2004, CNN 2003). Most so-called "produced water" is unfit for human consumption but removing it can deplete local springs and wells; contaminate land, surface water and ground water; and cause erosion. Reinjection can contaminate groundwater (OGAP 2004).
Between 2000 and 2004, the oil and gas industry poured more than $75 million into political campaigns, with 79 percent going to Republicans, money that may have influenced administration decisions opening protected public lands to drilling (CRP 2004).
This is no political statement, I'm just stating the facts.
Last edited by ebl14; 10-20-2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason: sp
10-20-2007, 11:29 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
well they may not be drilling on land......but the gulf is my playground and I can tell you over the past ten years the amount of activity offshore in deep water and VERY deep water is at a fever pitch.
10-21-2007, 01:28 AM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: B737, Capt.
Posts: 384
Satchip, you are correct. Elb14 apparently has a very limited knowledge of global economics and the oil supply chain as well as the composition of our government. Last time I checked, both the Houses of Congress were controlled by the democrats but then it's just easier to say that oil prices are high because we have an oil man in the Whitehouse. Too funny.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
