Oil Execs Defend Huge Profits Before Senate

by momzcrazy 143 Replies latest social current

• 

  Highlander

  I know there are lots of untapped resiviors out there, but you have to find them, drill for them, produce them - it's not easy. Offshore is even more difficult - it may not have been feasible to drill for that oil until recently. Oil prices only recently skyrocketed.

  I agree. I'd also like to add, that if oil prices are underpriced as they had been for so many years, then it is not cost effective to go after the remaining oil fields. Now that the prices are higher, it is well worth the investment to go after those hard to reach oil fields. Better yet, with high prices, it'll kick our collective asses to go out and think of new alternatives to oil.
• 

  shamus100

  Flyinghigh,

  I respectfully disagree. The United States does a lot of talking with Opec to keep they're production going as much as possible. They are the big players - not the United States.

  Much of this talk is sounding a little like a conspiracy theory - private companies make money from oil and gas, not George Bush. People purchase stocks in said companies hoping that the company will do good, so everyone's stock price goes up and everyone makes money. You're all looking in hind sight, and if we could all do that, we'd all be rich, including George Bush and his buddies. They're looking at those resivoirs now, and want them. The problem here is they are definetly fininte. After a year they're production drops dramatically, and it becomes more and more difficult to extract the remaining oil out of those resivoirs. So drill some more, more, more - it doesn't matter, because the U.S. is running out, weather it's believed or not. If you tapped every resivior there was in the United States, you would still run out of oil eventually.

  So let's say you bought stock in a company, and they made poor choices in regards to drilling and planning. You would go purchase stocks in the next company, and they would make better choices.

  George Bush does not own all the oil companies, at least I don't think he does. (edited to add, at least in the united states that is)
• 

  Indo_Dude

  Well my baby just came home after traveling for work the past two weeks, and he came bearing gifts. He got me a brand new Apple iMac for my graduation present! I'm not sure which one is more sexy right now. I'll let you carry on without me. I have my man to take care of for the next few days. Be back later. :)
• 

  mkr32208

  I have to agree with Glenn Beck from CNN "I would drill for oil through a caribou skull if that's what it takes to get the oil prices down!"
• 

  shamus100

  Or invade Iraq (past) or Iran (future)

  (oh, no he diden't saaay that... oh yea he did....) I'M JUST KIDDING FOLKS - chill pill please...
• 

  Mary

  I looked up the Ford Taurus at www.mpgomatic.com and the EPA estimates show 20 mpg city / 27 mpg hwy for the 2005 on forward. You drive 25 miles one way to work or 50 miles per day roundtrip x's 5 days a week, or 250 miles a week. Add in some personal driving and you are putting what? 400 miles per week on your car? 400 miles / 24 mpg average = 16 1/2 gallons a week, or 71 gallons a month. At $2.50 a gallon that's $177.50 per month, at $3.50 per gallon that's $248.50 per month, and at $4.50 a gallon that's $319.50 per month. A difference of what? $140 a month? If you don't want to pay that much more per month to oil companies, buy a Toyota Prius, and you'll only need 38 gallons per month, or $171.00 @ $4.50 per gallon.....that makes it cheaper than your Taurus was at $2.50 a gallon.

  I'm actually looking into this. The only problem is that hybrid cars and trucks cost about $5,000 to $8,000 more than their conventional counterparts, which is why more people aren't buying them. It's a Catch-22: If you stay with a conventional car, it's cheaper but you pay alot more for gas. If you get a hybrid, you get much better gas milage but you pay alot more for the car itself.

  A good friend of mine, who's been an auto mechanic for 35 years, thinks that the main reason oil is so high is not because there's an oil shortage, but because the first all electric car is due to roll off the lines for the public in 2012 and when that happens (depending on the price), people aren't going to need gas for their cars anymore. So basically he thinks this is just the oil and gas companies getting their last digs in at us while they still can.
• 

  Big Tex

  No! Read the link. Right now we have more inventory on hand than ever. 'Speculation' has NOTHING to do with the supply and demand curve, at all. It is being run on a bubble. That if they, the speculators, hold onto the oil until next month it will be worth more. It has nothing to do with supply and demand currently. It's just like the housing bubble of a couple of years ago. People are buying and selling based on the faulty premise that it will be always higher tomorrow.

  For once I will agree with you. Highlander is wrong when he spoke about the current price of oil being a correction to years of under pricing. It was a correction at $60 -$70 a barrel. Now it's swung way too far the other way, and a bubble has been created. That's why I posted the link to the Dallas News article. The current price of oil is being driven by speculators, who are buying based on fear.

  Absent any proof of conspiracy, I'll go with that idea for their motivation. But the bubble won't last, and oil prices will fall as they did in the mid-80's when the early 80's oil bubble burst. OPEC does not control the price of oil any longer, speculators do.

  I read an interesting article in Vanity Fair about the race for Arctic oil. There are, apparently, billions of barrels of oil there. And as global warming continues, the ice melts making it easier to drill. Russia is trying to grab the lion's share, but Canada and the U.S. (based on Alaskan claims) are trying for their share as well. Even Denmark, because of Greenland, is involved. Right now the lines are being drawn as to who owns what part, and therefore drilling rights.

  But I will disagree with Indo Dude on one thing, Bush isn't the only President to blame. Frankly U.S. energy policy the past 30 years has been the epitome of denial. It should be called the Ostrich Era as administration after administration stuck their heads in the sand and failed to come up with an alternative to cheap oil. That's Democrats AND Republicans. And mix in a corrupt and do-nothing Congress. No one has had the balls to stand up the past 30 years and try to lead toward life after oil.

  Hopefully whoever is elected this November can begin the process of converting to a energy source besides cheap oil. The problem is our infrastructure (transportation, shipping, farming, etc.) is based on cheap oil so converting will take decades, one article I read in Time (or cnn.com? can't remember now) said to fully change over the American infrastructure will take 40 years minimum.

  We've waited too long, but it's not too late. IF the American government can get their act together and start planning for renewable sources of energy we'll be okay.

  FHN, I sent you a PM.

  Chris
• 

  SixofNine

  When Jimmy Carter had solar panels installed at the White House, it was, of course, a largely symbolic gesture.

  When Ronald Reagan took down those same solar panels, that too was a symbolic gesture.

  Perhaps Americans just can't recognize body language?
• 

  shamus100

  Hi all,

  I do agree with some of what everyone says here. I would be certain that high gas prices are here to stay, so everyone should get used to it. Take transit or better yet walk to get groceries. I have friends that live in metropolitan centres that don't even own cars - they take transit and rent cars every other weekend to get around.

  Many people are not eating enough worldwide due to food shortages and/or high food prices, so I'd say generally everyone in North America is doing quite well. It will be a huge adjustment period. Europe has had horrendous gas prices for a lot longer, and they have survived. Trade in your SUV's, get rid of your trucks unless you need them for work - get a compact.

  The world is in a critical spot here, and any attack from a terrorist group that disrupts oil production in a big way would have huge effects on our economies. Hopefully that does not occur.
• 

  Big Tex

  I'll agree with you Shamus. And for the record, I drive a Honda (never owned a "big American" car).

  I think when gas prices level out it will still be around $3 a gallon. I think this summer is going to be bad, we'll probably hit $5 though maybe not for long.

  Long term though, we've got to come up with something besides oil. The clock is ticking. And while I do not think oil is close to the peak yet (if you subscribe to Peak Oil, and I do), I do think we're very close to the end of finding easily accessible, "cheap" investment oil. Which translates to the oil companies expending, relatively, little capital to get the oil out, transport it, refine it and deliver it to your local gas station. There are huge deposits in Alaska, and even bigger deposits under the ice cap in the Arctic. I read where Shell (or whatever they're called now) recently found a very large oil field, so large it could supply all U.S. energy needs for one entire year.

  Which ought to give you an idea of the problem.

  I still say, and have for some time, get together the best and brightest, spend a few hundred billion (or whatever it takes) and solve the cold fusion problem, solve hydrogren conversion problem (platinum is best but it's obviously in short supply).

  The theory says hydrogen is the most plentiful gas/liquid/solid on this planet. It would be a virtually limitless supply of energy. The problem is in exrtracting it economically and then converting it, again economically, into usuable forms. But imagine vehicles that run on hydrogren and the exhaust is water vapor, not pollution. Or imagine nuclear fusion plants that use seawater with no radioactive waste.

  This is where we should have been working towards for 30 years, not business as usual with the oil companies. I'm afraid the U.S. leaders still don't get it, most notably the emphasis lately on ethanol (the biggest sham going on right now). But I'm encouraged that at least their pea brains are starting to think toward alternative energies.

  It's a baby step, but we need to be running right now, not crawling.

  Chris