Popular Posts

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Hmm, I Wonder if this May be One of the Reasons Gas Prices are Sooo High?

Remember when the Senate Judiciary Committee met with Oil Company Execs the other week. Well, I came upon this today, and doing research all over the net, have not been able to dispute it.

What I find interesting; this is certainly not the slant that we got from the MSM News sources. Their slant was all about how evil these CEO's are, yet this segment of the hearings tells the story of how our own government is causing the cost of oil to be so out of control.

Some information to digest regarding the evil American oil companies. May 21, 2008

Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summoned top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades showed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hoped.

The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation. Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed, and much more public-spirited than the Senate Democrats.
One theme that emerged from the hearing was the surprisingly small role played by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe pointed out:
I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restricted in the United States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments. We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible.

Stephen Simon amplified:
Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-backed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make needed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day. Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:

Last year, the average price in the United States of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflected the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we. Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchased from others.
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is federal and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.

The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum. Shell's John Hofmeister explained, eloquently:
While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, feeding the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.

Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.

Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean , an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean , an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico , congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska , and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico .

The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented, oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the United States to produce new supplies. As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.

The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development.

Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:

HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It's fair to say that they're not considered part of America 's $22 billion of proven reserves.

HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?
HOFMEISTER: That's correct.
HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dated now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...
HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked. And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.
HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
HOFMEISTER: Yes.
HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado .
HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.

The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.

Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative

25 comments:

  1. I trust our elected govt. folks on BOTH sides of the aisle as much as I trust big oil officials... NOT AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Go here www.therealmccain.com John McCain has take $1,069,854.00 from the Gas and Oil Companies. Over $450,000 already this year. Come on people. Even his campaign lobbied for big oil companies. Watch this, McCain said these things himself. No making this up.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm only finding this information on other blogs and not from any reliable source. I never believe what i read or hear until i know where it's coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  4. very, very interesting. but, if things are so tough on the oil companies why are they showing massive profits. somethin dont jive. perhaps its a little on both sides that need to regroup.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "very, very interesting. but, if things are so tough on the oil companies why are they showing massive profits. somethin dont jive. perhaps its a little on both sides that need to regroup." --

    According to HOFMEISTER,"Look at our revenues and our income for the last quarter. If we had made $7.8 million on $114 million of revenue, nobody would call that excessive, because that's 7½ percent. We made $7.8 billion profit on $114 billion revenue -- same 7½ percent. So to me that is not an excessive number when banks and pharmaceuticals and IT companies earn a whole lot more." -- Can be seen at cnn.com

    ReplyDelete
  6. because the banks and pharmaceuticals make that profit, than by all means its exceptable. 7.8 billion in profit when hard working americans are losing the homes to forclosure, if thats not absurd what is???

    ReplyDelete
  7. $15,000.00 profit every single minute, thats capitalistic corporate greed buddy, any way you slice it. thats the kind of rationalization that got america in the mess shes in. anyone who believes this is just good buisness cares more about the profit than the health of the nation. thats just another s.o.b. were gonna have to deal with when the time comes. trust me its comin.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Doug, What is acceptable profits? Are the oil companies responsible for forclosures? When there are forclosures, should the govt step in and take more money from them and redistribute to the rest of society? I think that Stalin had a similar idea.

    let us all know what is an acceptable profit (1%, 7%, ???) and then maybe we can talk to corporations and our govt. and have them put limits on what a person or corporation can make and redistribute the rest to everyone else.

    How would you like your salary capped? I am sure your boss or customers would love that. Not sure you would.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another point overlooked:

    We could argue all day about how we "should have" been drilling for oil and gas here in this country for decades now. However, no one cared to think long-term when prices were hovering around the $1.00 mark.

    We could decide to start drilling in 100 locations by this evening and we will not see this gasoline at our pumps for another 10 years. Since it is going to take that long, why not invest (with the big money available from the oil companies and the money this governemtn apparently has to throw any and everywhere it sees fit) toward multiple alternative sources of energy, PLUS speak out loud about nuclear energy.

    Whatever the future holds, it will likely see us incorporating several different sources of energy to meet demand (solar, wind, bio, nuclear, H20) and we need to start working on these immediately, with the full understanding that big oil days are over.

    it would be nice if companies worked more for the well being of the Country, then just soley for profit.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "doug wilkerson said...

    because the banks and pharmaceuticals make that profit, than by all means its exceptable. 7.8 billion in profit when hard working americans are losing the homes to forclosure, if thats not absurd what is???"

    Not arguing the point, because it is quite a corrupt system on ALL parts, but would you say that the money that Bill Gates earns is unACCEPTABLE? I mean when you're talking about a 7% return on $100billion+ investment spread over a company the size of Exxon, it's not nearly as absurd as it sounds. I'm far from wealthy, and i hate (envy) seeing the rich get richer, so i think it's time for 'change' :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. if my companies profits were $15,000.00 a minute i would give half every year to help out the americans that need it, not freeloaders, but hard working people, that just need a hand. thats the american way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. doug. how much do you make? How much do you make compared to someone who is poor and living in West Virginia? How much do you make compared to someone working in a factory in china, mexico, or india?

    If you make 100 times more than someone working in a factory, does that make you full of greed? Why dont you take a pay cut and redistribute your wealth?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "if my companies profits were $15,000.00 a minute i would give half every year" -- Do you give half of what you make now to help everyone? You aren't thinking that, to scale, they aren't making a ton more than any other successful person in america.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "if my companies profits were $15,000.00 a minute i would give half every year"

    Yeah. when I was young, I thought that $100 was like a billion. It was a number that I couldnt grasp. But now, $100 doesnt seem so large.

    When talking about large corporations that employ thousands of thousands of people over multiple countries, these numbers dont look that big.

    If there is corruption and price fixing, then that should be handled (ie. enron and the like) but if this is legit profit on investment, then there isnt much you can say.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't think many of you understand the scale of giving when you reach those figures.

    I have a friend that gives $50,000.00 a year to his Roman Catholic Church. The main reason he does so is because if he doesn't, he'd pay it out anyway in taxes, so why not. He believes in his Church and that is his choice.

    I also know that Bill Gates gives away 100% of the interest he makes on his money to a multitude of charities. That's a lot of money!

    Granted, you now have to make the choice, is that true gift giving or is it simply a way to avoid taxes? IMHO, it was money earned so no matter which way you look at it, it's a gift.

    ReplyDelete
  16. $15,000.00 every minute, give me a break. i see no way to justify some with so much and others with nso little."aint capitalism great", perspective, seems we all have differant ones. there should be caps.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Doug Says:
    "i see no way to justify some with so much and others with nso little."

    Doug, it seems that you are pro-communist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    but a large entity will make more per minute than you do. Just like you make more per minute than a person out of work.

    you are clearly dazzled with larger numbers and have a tough time with the concept of scope.

    Purdue Chickens makes alot more per minute than you personally do. but I doubt you would think that they should dump all their money and become equal to you. They do employ many people, have larger expenses and responsibilities.

    And, the oil companies do donate a portion of their profits to various charities and other groups.

    again, you are dazzled with large numbers and the media seems to have you angry with the pure numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. one way to lower oil prices:
    "All the U.S. tanks, planes and ships guzzle 340,000 barrels of oil a day, making the American military the single-largest purchaser and consumer of oil in the world.

    If the Defense Department were a country, it would rank about 38th in the world for oil consumption, right behind the Philippines.


    See Link from NPR.

    Lets think about this whole argument. We wouldnt be so mad if it didnt cost more than $100 to fill up the family truckster. But now, it is hitting your pocket book and we all need someone to blame: 15,000 per minute sounds like alot of money right?

    Well, how much per minute is our millitary spending (lets not forget the loss of the lives of our young men and women who are over there)

    Also, we are purchasing our oil with US dollars. This will flood the oil market with more dollars. This drives the value of the dollar down (which gives us less purchasing power and makes the price of oil go up)

    the US needs to lower their usage.

    ReplyDelete
  19. large numbers, kiss my ass, put your i.q. against mine and youll see a large number. nothing has dazzled me since high school. i had calculous in the junior high dude. im a patriot of the american middle class, i think capitalism is great, what we have now is corporate power, thats not capitalism. capitalism allows everyone a fighting chance, the harder you work the better your supposed to do, aint that a crock of shit. if you think the media can brainwash me your a fool, ive had my eyes wide open for a long time now. corporate america needs to show some mercy for the american people that made them billionaires in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I vote that we take 50% of Doug's income and give the proceeds to those less fortunate than him.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "$15,000.00 every minute, give me a break. i see no way to justify some with so much and others with nso little."
    But why is it the oil companies' fault that you don't make that money? Can you supply what they do cheaper? To me, that's akin to saying that doctors should not make $150,0000/year or more because I don't. The oil companies took the risks, dropped the rigs and invested the money. Why is it wrong for them to profit from it? If the figure of 7 1/2 % profit is accurate, that means that for every $100 invested they are recouping $7.50. What is wrong with that? Should they be in business to lose money?

    ReplyDelete
  22. what are you going to do with extra money???

    ReplyDelete
  23. you guys just dont get it, maybe you never will... theres a nation at stake here people. im not stalin, im not a communist, im just a man from delmur that believes what he believes, and i think 7.8 billion was quarterly, that makes it $60,000.00 a minute. tell that to the poor tired waitress that just wants to go home to her kids, and they gave her shit.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Doug.

    In your 3:57 post, you said "$15,000.00 profit every single minute"

    Then in your 8:24 post, you said "that makes it $60,000.00 a minute"

    This contradicts what you said in your 7:38 post which said "put your i.q. against mine and youll see a large number. nothing has dazzled me since high school. i had calculous in the junior high dude" (btw. the spelling is Calculus, not calculous)

    Which number is it? Or should, instead of sending your 50% of your salary to unfortunates, maybe you should go to Worwic an get a refresher in math?

    Also, you called me "dude". I assure you that I am not an inexperienced ranch hand. I have never been on a ranch at all!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.