A Horrible EIA Oil Inventory Report

[PITbull]

and would be many billions of dollars in the aggregate.

What does the minimum wage have to do with oil prices? If you worked 4,000 hours a year for the current minimum wage, you still couldn't afford a car, insurance, rent, food, clothing, and heat, let alone gasoline - at any price. You'd need free gasoline. Even then, you wouldn't have enough money to go around.

For far too many years, we have been spoiled by very low gas prices. Now it's up in price, and suddenly its price needs regulated? No thanks. Our country has already been down that path and fortunately, most learned some lessons from those dismal failures. Nothing good comes from price controls. Not on gasoline or any other product we consume.

In your all-consuming-self-absorbed causim, you missed that folks who only make min. wage usually have roomates or live at home. Uh, they do buy gas...or DID. MY point is that their income never changes, and they certainly can't afford these prices. Have you noticed lately? Crime has gone up, specifically ROBBERY. What area do you live in again...million $$ mansion-arena? You have security or some kind of huge WALL???

Spoiled???? Price controls create a "balance"...you know "checks and balances" in a capitalistic economy. Heard of that?

Probably not...go back to your day trading. Keep your lights on and security checked.

Boo-yah! :angry:

 

[Bear96]

It is not a necessity to by Coke, or any soda.

It is not a necessity to buy large amounts of gas either. A petroleum-dependent lifestyle is a choice. It has never been a very wise choice, and even less so today. We probably ain't seen nothing yet compared to the coming years as far as gas prices go. Think of this as a warning, and start planning long-term. (Which, by the way, should be a huge red flag for airline employees, whose very livelihood is inextricably petroleum-dependent. Plan accordingly!)

Fuel is a commodity that most if not every citizen (or non) who works for a living needs to purchase in order to go back and forth to work etc...if you can't afford to go to work, than, you lose your house, job, medical and the walls come crashing down.

Solution: Live near where you work. Problem solved.

Why do oil companies charge so much for gas? Because they can. Despite all the whinging about high gas prices, I still see people filling up their humongo SUVs at the gas stations every day, and my neighbors still seem to mow their lawn with their gas-powered rider mower about every other day or so, whenever the grass gets to be more than about one-eigth of an inch high.

Yep, seems like $3 gas is a mere annoyance. Wait for a few more million Chinese to buy automobiles, leading to $5 or $10 / gallon gas. Then the real fun will begin. But don't say you weren't warned.

(By the way, PITbull, calls for "regulation" of the U.S. oil industry won't do squat as long as there are a billion or so Indians and Chinese willing to pay top dollar for oil. You sound like Bill O'Reilly. That should be your first clue that you've got this all wrong.)

 

[PITbull]

I hate Bill O'Reilly...but if he is for regulating gas, than I'm with him.

Living close to where you work is great in theory, but absolutely NOT realistic.

Solution is US finding other sources of energy to fuel automobiles. Unfortunately that will take a long time, and the oil companies have absolutely no incentive to change the way they do business. They're making more than any company or industry in the world. That's fine, but blaming the American public for depneding on fuel for their cars is like blaming the Gulf Coast folks for living in Hurricane Alley, and basically getting what they deserve.

For those reasons, gov. must regulate until another source of energy is achieved for the American people. Free market is great, until the equation becomes grossly slanted...then there needs to be a "check" which is "regulating". Once competition is in the equation in what we use to fuel autos, then...deregulate.

Otherwise, our entire economic structure is heading for collapse.

 

[PITbull]

Bob,

Again, in theory your post I could agree in certain instances.

But, in the interim, and realistically regulation is necessary when it comes to fueling resources to keep or continue maintaining a strong economy.

I make no apology for my views. I am not a proponent of "free markets" being the utopia. There always needs to be "checks in balances" when the system is grossly off track.

As I wrote above regarding the analogy with the Katrina victims, I expect my tax $$ and those in gov. to protect my ability to live and support my family. And for anyone on here to imply that Price gouging the public is not going on, is heavily vested in the oil company stocks or an employee of the Industry.

 

[TheWatcher]

Government complaining about golden parachutes given to executives in the oil industry is a bit silly. These people have presided over very profitable and growing businesses that create jobs-high end, high paying jobs- by the 100's of thousands in this country. The profits are pretty well distributed and not all consumed by the top few, atleast not in these great United States. If the government would watch the airline golden parachutes just a fraction of the way they watch the SUCCESSFUL oil industry, perhaps you wouldnt see airline executives running away literally with millions of dollars while thier companies and industries suffer to the point of collapse in many cases....

 

[ClueByFour]

That's fine, but blaming the American public for depneding on fuel for their cars is like blaming the Gulf Coast folks for living in Hurricane Alley, and basically getting what they deserve.

Umm, people who live in hurricane-prone areas know what they are getting into (or have if they've been able to read or watch television since the 1960s when we first got weather sats up).

Likewise, we (as a society) are overdependant upon the automobile. C'mon--take PIT as an example. Used to have trolleys all over the city. Now you have the "t". And nobody cares, largely because oil has been cheap.

Oil is going to go from "cheap" to "unattainable for the average joe" relatively quickly in the grander scheme (I figure 10 or 20 years at the most). This was all preventable, and should have been after the 1970s, but we as a society missed the point.

But yeah, both groups can be blamed for not thinking long term. The guy who loves the winter sunset while tossing beads off his house at Mardi Gras has to know that hurricane season is but months away. Likewise, somebody who lives somewhere that requires driving to anything should clearly think about what might happen if oil quadruples in price.

But really--we freaking know (and have known) that oil has a finite supply.

For those reasons, gov. must regulate until another source of energy is achieved for the American people. Free market is great, until the equation becomes grossly slanted...then there needs to be a "check" which is "regulating". Once competition is in the equation in what we use to fuel autos, then...deregulate.

If you regulate the market, there is no incentive to develop the technology and fuels of which you speak. They will only come about as the market demands, and that won't happen with price regulation.

History is a guide here--the price of whale oil went up about %500 between 1830 and 1850. Two things happened--people figured out how to make more efficient lamps, and some inventive soul refined kerosene for the first time. As a result, by 1890 the price of whale oil dropped to about half of what it was in 1830.

Something will happen this time around--we were just not as smart as we used to be and missed the chance in the late 70s.

Otherwise, our entire economic structure is heading for collapse.

And if we don't allow the market to dictate what's going to happen, it'll be worse.

 

[PITbull]

Clue,

We didn't with the airlines...with the help of gov. ATSB loans, and BK code helped them ALL survive. Are they any worse off? Are we any worse off as the public (don't include the employees as the answer would be starkly different).

Most folks will say we are better off that gov. helped support the airline industry.

I belive very strongly that in certain instances, government intervension is a must.

With regard to oil, there's tons of it in Alaska, but certain lobbists flip out when you even mention drilling. The oil companies will not look for alternative fueling sources. It will be some genius whose not even in the business that will.

My prediction, regardless of the price of fuel, in 20 years, our dependency on Petroleum oil will decrease significantly here in the US. In certain countries in Europe like Greece, gasoline is over $5 a gallon for the past 10 years, and the consumption has not decreased one ounce. But, part of that amount goes towards socialized health care, and everyone has health care. Oh and did I mention, they all drive Honda civics, or the smallest car known to mankind.

For our buck, we get just gasoline and not even a cup of coffee.

 

[SpinDoc]

I am really tired of being gouged for soda at the store. I mean evil Coca-cola makes 21% profit for each dollar of sales. GOUGING! Their obscene profit should be more along the lines of 9%, like ExxonMobil.

WH:

Do you drink 4 gallons of Coca-Cola per day? And do you need that much to accomplish your daily routine? I think not.
Gasoline cannot be compared to other products, because it is a necessity, and is used by the gallon, not by the 20oz. bottle.

 

[700UW]

If you don't like the price of gas, get a bicycle.

The government needs to reenact the windfall profit tax.

 

[ClueByFour]

We didn't with the airlines...with the help of gov. ATSB loans, and BK code helped them ALL survive. Are they any worse off? Are we any worse off as the public (don't include the employees as the answer would be starkly different).

Most folks will say we are better off that gov. helped support the airline industry.

What I am going to say is going to pizz you and others here off to no end.

That said, the correct move would've been to not have the ATSB porgram in the first place. Yeah, a couple of airlines would have folded. People would have lost their jobs.

Instead, by keeping the extra capacity flying around, every legacy save CO and AA entered bankruptcy, and every legacy employee has had their pay and benefits and retirement whacked (relatively) back to the stone age.

Messing with Darwin never produces quality results.

I belive very strongly that in certain instances, government intervension is a must.

I just checked Article I, section 8 of my copy of the US Constitution. Absent the dumping ground that is the Commerce Clause, I'm hard pressed to find where government is supposed to intervene is cases like these, unless you argue that it's critical for national defense. Certainly, a few legacy airlines don't qualify.

With regard to oil, there's tons of it in Alaska, but certain lobbists flip out when you even mention drilling. The oil companies will not look for alternative fueling sources. It will be some genius whose not even in the business that will.

Assuming our current rate of consumption and if ANWR was our only oil source, it would last for between 250 and 590 days. It's a pimple.

I'm not a tree hugger or anything. ANWR is not a magic bullet. ANWR, the areas off the continental shelf that are current closed to drilling, and off the Alaskan coast together might give us 10 years.

If anyone ever figures how to cheaply extract hydrocarbons from oil shale, we might be in good shape for awhile. We could always invade Canada and grab the tar sands, but neither of these options (nonwithstanding invading Canada) are currently all that economical. It'll produce oil, but not cheaply.

My prediction, regardless of the price of fuel, in 20 years, our dependency on Petroleum oil will decrease significantly here in the US. In certain countries in Europe like Greece, gasoline is over $5 a gallon for the past 10 years, and the consumption has not decreased one ounce. But, part of that amount goes towards socialized health care, and everyone has health care. Oh and did I mention, they all drive Honda civics, or the smallest car known to mankind.

If you really want to end the world as we know it, we'd tax gas the way the europeans do it. Sure those revenues would climb and the economy would subsequently tank, income tax receipts would fall like a brick, and the government would still be running mammoth deficits (with no universal health coverage).

Market driven oil shortages, in our case, would be better. It'll force the innovations that we passed on the last time this happened.

For our buck, we get just gasoline and not even a cup of coffee.

Looked at the infrastructure in Greece lately? Or the quality of healthcare (nonwithstanding who pays for it)? You want to step down a notch in quality of life and quality of care--sure socialism rocks.

The government needs to reenact the windfall profit tax.

That worked well the last time. So well, in fact, that we've not seen a new oil refinery of any magnitude built since.

 

[N628AU]

Government regulation of gas prices will lead to one thing, gas lines of the 1970s when they tried to manipulate pricing. If guy running the corner gas station is forced to sell for a loss, he simply won't sell. These guys aren't as dumb as a lot of airline CEOs who will continue to sell seats at a loss just to fill them.

This fact is true, the percentage of personal incomes spent on energy is still not anywhere near the highs seen in the past. You'd need another 33-40% jump in prices to get close.

 

[TheWatcher]

That worked well the last time. So well, in fact, that we've not seen a new oil refinery of any magnitude built since.

Havent you heard? Theres a mass conspiracy by the oil companies to close the refineries and get lots of profits. Also they moved the largest petrochemical complex from Houston to Port Author.....something that must have had the help of black helicopters......Totally stupid!!!!

I have read some silly things on this board and i say i find it very entertaining.....so much so, i have suggested reading it to some of my co-workers inbetween calls from the rediculous politicians that are making noise about high oil prices and price gouging in front of every TV camera they can, when they know damn well its crap.

I should have been in China working on a deal this month, but instead i was chosen as the one of the lucky ones to stay home to deal with politicians that are trying to get re-elected.......

I think its time for me to retire again, im getting too old for this sh*t

 

[whlinder]

WH:

Do you drink 4 gallons of Coca-Cola per day? And do you need that much to accomplish your daily routine? I think not.
Gasoline cannot be compared to other products, because it is a necessity, and is used by the gallon, not by the 20oz. bottle.

(And also for PitBull, who told me that gas is a necessity)

Who determines what a necessity is? How do you know that I don't need 4 gallons of Coca-cola per day?

How long has the human race needed oil as a 'necessity'? Was it a necessity to the Romans? Please do tell.

 

[Bear96]

I hate Bill O'Reilly...but if he is for regulating gas, than I'm with him.

What exactly do you mean by "regulating gas"? Are you talking price caps? Do you not understand that oil is sold on a GLOBAL MARKET, meaning that if the U.S. govermnent caps gas at (say) $3/gal., if China and India are willing to pay a little more, that's where it will go, and there will be NO GAS AVAILABLE AT ALL in the U.S.? Is it better for the average American worker to be able to pull up to a pump and pay $4/gal, or is it better for her to pull up to a pump and find out it is shut down?

Living close to where you work is great in theory, but absolutely NOT realistic.

Lots of people do it, all over the world, and even in the U.S. Yes it will take some changes, and it may not be easy. But the era of 99-cent gas is over, and it is time to start waking up to that harsh reality and making appropriate lifestyle choices (which will involve larger public policy issues like urban planning and development policies). Again, $3/gas is only a warning sign. If people start addressing the problems NOW, the change won't be as painful. Or we can call for "regulation" and price caps on gas, ride out this storm, and then in 10 or 20 more years look like deer in the headlights when the shi!t really hits the fan.

Solution is US finding other sources of energy to fuel automobiles.

Yes, that is a major component. But PITbull, do you not realize that those "other sources" will cost way more than 99-cents/gal? That is a large reason why they haven't taken off in the market yet. When gas was cheap, there was no motivation to develop those "other sources" because those sources cost a few bucks per gallon. Now they are starting to make sense.

Bottom line: the days of putting ANYthing in your tank for $0.99 (or even $1.99) / gal are probably over. The point of alternative sources is not that they are cheap, but that they will be cheaper than gas in the decades ahead as the easy sources of oil begin to run dry and we have to turn towards more expensive sources.

the oil companies have absolutely no incentive to change the way they do business.

Why should they? They have a stellar business model. They have what others are willing to pay a lot of money for. Capitalism at its finest. You want to develop other sources of energy, get a bunch of investors together and start your very own alternative energy company. But then when you've sunk a bunch of your own money and sweat into the company in a very risky venture to develop another source and start actually making a profit, get ready for the PITbulls will be knocking at the doors of Congress saying the price on what you sell should be "regulated."

but blaming the American public for depneding on fuel for their cars is like blaming the Gulf Coast folks for living in Hurricane Alley, and basically getting what they deserve.

I absolutely blame the American public for making poor lifestyle, policy and planning decisions over the decades that has led to the outrageous oil consumption in the U.S. (which in turn leads to disastrous foreign policy in the Middle East, among other problems). We went through the EXACT SAME THING in the 1970s, and learned absolutely nothing.

For those reasons, gov. must regulate until another source of energy is achieved for the American people. . . . Once competition is in the equation in what we use to fuel autos, then...deregulate.

OK, see, as I explained above, the reason "other sources of energy [haven't been] achieved" is because of low oil prices. If you force gas prices to remain artificially low through "regulation," that will delay the development of alternative energy sources even longer. As PineyBob explained, having high oil prices will hasten the day when we actually have those alternative sources available.

Otherwise, our entire economic structure is heading for collapse.

Our entire petroleum-dependent economic structure is certainly headed for change. If we don't start making changes to our lifestyle and living closer to where we work, or at least making where we live and work more amenable to public transit, yes there will indeed be tough times ahead. But we're a clever people, and it can be done. On the other hand, policies like what you are suggesting -- keeping gas prices lower than what the market dictates -- would indeed lead to the collapse of our entire economic structure. We need to start planning NOW for $5 or $10/gal gas or whatever alternative source you are thinking of.

WH:

Do you drink 4 gallons of Coca-Cola per day? And do you need that much to accomplish your daily routine? I think not.

If you're using four gallons of gasoline per day, you really have some changes to make in how you live.

 

[700UW]

People seem to forget the increase of gas/diesel prices just doesn't hit the consumer at the gas pumps.

It hit us at the grocery store, or any other store that is dependent on trucks to move their goods.

There is a bigger picture to the high prices.

And if gas is such in demand all over the world and prices are high, why are the oil companies making record profits?