Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What if we don't run out of oil?
WND ^ | November 15, 2005 | Jerome Corsi

Posted on 11/15/2005 7:05:19 AM PST by Dan Evans

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: Dan Evans
Of course they kept supplies off the market.

Well, maybe you're right about the time; my memory might be a little faulty. I wasn't affected by either "embargo" because I was out of the country. At the time, though, my dad said he also investigated the oil companies and discovered that none of them could tell him what the actual cost of a gallon of gas was.

Another FReeper confirmed my dad's story when he told me that his dad (a commercial airline pilot) used to fly out of LAX and see the tankers lined up over the horizon.

If price controls were the issue, selling 10 gallons of gas at a time below market price would still mean that the oil companies were taking a loss. It doesn't matter whether they are selling 10 gallons at a time or 100 gallons at a time if it was truly an issue of price controls. That just doesn't make sense.
101 posted on 11/15/2005 12:57:02 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

It's interesting, though, to watch the posts on this site, as time goes by. I've been basically saying the same thing about this since the 90's. You can't assume that things won't change, and you'd better prepare for the possibility that they will.

When gas prices were less than $2 a gallon, the Freepers were ridiculing anyone who dared to suggest that we ought to worry about this. Then the price went up to $3 a gallon, and they were talking about throwing the GOP out because of the hardship of gas prices, and suggesting that we needed to do something about the high oil company profits, even that the oil companies must be colluding. I thought I was reading posts at the DU, it was so pathetic. Now the price goes back down, and we're right back where we started--no problem, no worry, be happy.

Why do I get the uncomfortable feeling that this is going to start all over again very shortly?

The auto companies had years to prepare for this, they did nothing. Now they are going bust. It's the same thing with the economy as a whole. People don't do anything to prepare, and then blame someone else when things go badly.

Look at Social Security. Look at Medicare. I'm not sure why we bother to discuss this stuff at all. It's not going to change anything.


102 posted on 11/15/2005 1:07:44 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
No, go back and remember the "ARAB oil embargo" under Reagan. Long lines and gas rationing.

Not the way I remember it. The Arab embargo was about 1973. Carter and Nixon installed price controls. Reagan removed them. Read Wikipedia:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"The 1979 (or second) energy crisis occurred in the wake of the Iranian Revolution. In the wake of protests, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, fled his country in early 1979, allowing Ayatollah Khomeini to gain control. The protests shattered the Iranian oil sector.

"While the new regime resumed oil exports, it was inconsistent and at a lower volume, driving up prices. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations increased production to offset the decline, and the total loss in production was just about 4%. However, a widespread panic resulted, driving the price far higher than would be expected under normal circumstances.

"In the United States, the Carter administration instituted price controls. This resulted in long lines appearing at the gas stations as they had six years earlier. As the average vehicle of the time consumed between 2-3 liters of gas an hour while idling, it was estimated at the time that Americans wasted up to 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their engines in the lines at gas stations.

"During the period, many people believed the oil shortages were artificially created by the oil companies to drive up prices, rather than created by natural factors beyond any human control or influence. Further, while in a market economy, shortages would be expected to drive up prices, causing a contraction in demand, of themselves they would be unlikely to result in lines at the gas pump but for artificial regulations and price controls. Many politicians proposed gas rationing, such as the Governor of Maryland, who proposed odd-even rationing (only people with an odd-numbered license plate could purchase gas on an odd-numbered day). This did not last long.

"President Jimmy Carter made symbolic efforts to encourage energy conservation, such as wearing a sweater and urging citizens not to turn up their thermostats, and installing solar power panels on the roof of the White House and a wood stove in the living quarters. However, his successor Ronald Reagan ordered the solar panels removed and the wood stove was dismantled. Carter made a speech arguing the oil crisis was "the moral equivalent of war." More importantly, Carter, as part of his administration's efforts at deregulation, proposed removing price controls that had been imposed in the administration of Richard Nixon during the 1973 energy crisis. Congress agreed to remove price controls in phases; they were finally dismantled in 1981 under Ronald Reagan.

103 posted on 11/15/2005 1:13:09 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
You can't assume that just because folks were right (or wrong) before, they will be right (or wrong) this time.

I have an idea. Instead of getting the government to finance new energy production why don't you and your friends invest in alternative energy companies? That way we bypass the middleman.

104 posted on 11/15/2005 1:16:56 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

I own some energy stocks. I put my money where my mouth is, and it's been very profitable. That doesn't mean, though, that I think we can dismiss the problem of declining oil reserves as a nonissue. China is now the world's number two oil consumer, whereas they were previously a blip on the monitor. And they are still growing like mad. Both China and Russia are planning to build vast numbers of automobiles over the next several years. The bicycle is out in China.

All of this is going to hurt us in the pocketbook. There is going to have to be a lot of suffering before we finally do what needs to be done to solve this problem.

I'm not going to simply wait for someone else to do something. I'm doing my share now, and I am going to encourage others to do the same. You won't find me telling people that this is no big deal. That doesn't accomplish anything. It just makes the problem worse.


105 posted on 11/15/2005 1:26:28 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
If price controls were the issue, selling 10 gallons of gas at a time below market price would still mean that the oil companies were taking a loss. It doesn't matter whether they are selling 10 gallons at a time or 100 gallons at a time if it was truly an issue of price controls.

No, because not all of their product costs them the same. They can have a lot of different contracts for oil. Some are long-term and some on the spot market. The costs vary wildly. Not only that, but the costs of refining different grades of oil vary. So they could make a profit selling a little bit of gas but not a lot more.

During the 70's price controls on most things were in vogue I asked a friend who was smarter and wiser than I was why there were so many empty shelves at the supermarket. He very patiently explained the effect of price controls on the market and how price controls demand so that supply always meets demand. If you try to mandate a lower cost, you will have gas lines or rationing.

106 posted on 11/15/2005 1:31:21 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I think it would be tragic if people who don't know better read these threads and start investing in haywire energy schemes like wind power or biodiesel.

Personally, I'm going to trust that the utility companies and the petroleum industry know what they are doing because it is their business to know.
107 posted on 11/15/2005 1:38:46 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

They know what they are doing, and they'd be the first to tell you that there is a problem.


108 posted on 11/15/2005 1:41:02 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
I never thought of the left as puritanical.

That's what I think that "PC" is; an expression of intolerance to any deviation from dogma. The thought control of Orwell comes to mind. I have always considered being conservative as having minimum standards of behavior, like a building code, rather than any particular fashion of behavior. OTOH, the left are into fashion and lifestyle, as you mention, and not standards, which explains their hypocrisy. They are compelled to need a government that provides a "libertine" society for their psychopathologies. As do Striesand and Nader.

109 posted on 11/15/2005 1:41:42 PM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

If oil ever reaches $10 a gallon, the Chinese economy will stall and begin retrenching rapidly. They need cheap oil to raise the standard of living for their 1bn+ people.


110 posted on 11/15/2005 1:44:35 PM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
When gas prices were less than $2 a gallon, the Freepers were ridiculing anyone who dared to suggest that we ought to worry about this. Then the price went up to $3 a gallon, and they were talking about throwing the GOP out

There is a difference between worrying about something and knowing what to do about it. Most of our problems are not caused by a lack of technology but by political forces.

For example, the problem of gasoline price volatility could be solved by simply carrying greater inventories of gasoline and selling them when there is a shortage and price starts to rise.

However, this could land you in jail if some politicians accusing you of hoarding and price gouging. The very threat from rabble-rousers like Bill O'Reilly and grandstanding politicians has a big effect on the market.

111 posted on 11/15/2005 1:52:26 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: cicero's_son

China has a lot of coal. If they do the same coal gassification it looks like America will be doing, they will have all the fuel they need for a long time. It won't do their economy any good any more than it will ours, but they will be able to keep going.


112 posted on 11/15/2005 1:55:19 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
They know what they are doing, and they'd be the first to tell you that there is a problem.

I think some oil companies (like BP) are paying lip service to the alternative energy types with their stupid, condescending ads, but I doubt if they are sincere. Anyway I hope not.

113 posted on 11/15/2005 1:58:18 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
If I may jump in here.....

My grandfather was VP of Distribution for the East Coast for a large oil company during the 'oil crises' of the 70s. He told me on many occasions that there was never a lack of oil in those times.

The problems that he faced were with gas transportation. Namely, how to get the different formulas of gas that are mandated by different local governments to where they needed to be. For instance, there would a huge supply of Formula X gas in Texas, but it needed to be in New York City. Supply has the appearance of being short, demand goes up, price goes up and we have a 'crisis'.

The issues that he faced then, as we are facing now, are largely the making of the environment lobby, and poorly informed politicians. One of the previous posts hit it out of the park when they said that having pols set energy policy was foolish, as they are equally likely to listen to Barbara Striesand, as they are to an informed scientist.

114 posted on 11/15/2005 1:58:25 PM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

I agree with you on O'Reilly. Besides the fact that he is clueless when it comes to this problem, he's blatantly dishonest. The increase in the price of oil is not because the oil companies are colluding. It's simple supply and demand, and he knows it. But like every politician on a power trip, he wants to be able to brag about how he got something done, and if it involves price controls, he can demogogue that.


115 posted on 11/15/2005 1:59:15 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The price will go up gradually and consumption will decrease and alternative energy sources will become more attractive. This will not be an on or off situation.


116 posted on 11/15/2005 2:03:41 PM PST by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

It's more than lip service. The major manufacturer of solar cells is an oil company. The oil corporations will be right there as we convert to other, more expensive energy.


117 posted on 11/15/2005 2:06:29 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

I guarantee you they are sincere. However, they also realize how far down the road it is. You can't sell technology that does not yet exist.

One interesting fact is that the chemical industry is also being touched by this. It's not just energy. How do you produce all the chemicals that we need without oil?

It turns out that there is a big push in the chemical industry right now to build what they call the "biomass refinery." They are going to try to produce chemicals from biomass. DuPont is one of the leaders in this effort.

It's not as far fetched as it might seem. With genetics, etc., becoming a more doable thing, there are a lot of opportunities to advance this technology that were previously not available.

But it's still decades off, so here's hoping that the oil doesn't run out too fast. The Russians and Iranians have a lot more oil than we have. He who has the last billion barrels of oil will rule the world.


118 posted on 11/15/2005 2:07:02 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
True, they have a lot of coal, but they will have to spend a fortune to extract and distribute it. They are facing a conundrum--they need cheap oil in order to raise their standard of living, but their very entry into the market has the potential to raise oil prices beyond their ability to pay.

I am convinced that one of the main reasons for our recent strategic advances into Central Asia is to check any potential Chinese threat to these oil-rich countries.

119 posted on 11/15/2005 2:08:09 PM PST by cicero's_son
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: neutrino

"I'm worried about what happens if we do run out.

Me too. But the mass of people prefer to keep their eyes closed."

You folks need something else to worry about. Innovation in energy is not unlike innovation elsewhere. We will not run out because other energy sources will be substituted for oil as oil gets more expensive. Relax.


120 posted on 11/15/2005 2:08:30 PM PST by cowtowney
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
FYI

Canada's third ocean oil rig starts pumping

Hibernia partners find new oil, mum on reserves

121 posted on 11/15/2005 2:09:00 PM PST by kanawa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cicero's_son

No question. The strategic moves are getting bigger.


122 posted on 11/15/2005 2:12:12 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Solar cells are for satellites. The last I heard, it costs more to make a solar cell that to buy the energy to make it.


123 posted on 11/15/2005 2:26:28 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The "Peak Oil" hypothesis does not say we will "run out of oil" in the foreseeable future. It simply says that new discoveries will at some discrete point in time fail to match consumption increases, resulting in a more or less permanent acceleration in the increase of the price.


124 posted on 11/15/2005 2:35:17 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. My dad was an investigator for the Federal Trade Commission during the "oil embargo" of the 80s. He was assigned to find out what was really going on and what he discovered will shock you. He found oil storage tanks full to over flowing while people waited in long lines to buy their 10 gallons of gas. He discovered oil tankers loaded to the gunwales with oil parked just over the horizon where they couldn't be seen, because there was no place to put the oil.

Draw your own conclusions.



My conclusion is that the govt instituted price controls so it didn't make economic sense to sell the oil at artificially low prices. I.E. price controls == shortages. Macroeconomics 101.


125 posted on 11/15/2005 2:40:49 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

We've already got the permanent acceleration, though. You don't need to wait until the production begins to decline.


126 posted on 11/15/2005 3:20:42 PM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

20 years later and it is still $5 a watt. The solar cells were supposed to be getting cheaper, like 5 cents a watt or something. Wouldn't be hard to choose to cover the house with those and have the power grid buy your excess electricity.


127 posted on 11/15/2005 3:24:31 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
The "Peak Oil" hypothesis does not say we will "run out of oil" in the foreseeable future. It simply says that new discoveries will at some discrete point in time fail to match consumption increases, resulting in a more or less permanent acceleration in the increase of the price.

That reminds me of Julian Simon's bet with Paul Ehrlich in 1980. Ehrlich had been going on and on about how overpopulation was causing us to run out of resources. Simon bet Ehrlich that most commodities would drop in price not rise and challenged him to pick five items that he thought would become scarcer. Simon won the bet.

128 posted on 11/15/2005 3:26:12 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
My conclusion is that the govt instituted price controls so it didn't make economic sense to sell the oil at artificially low prices. I.E. price controls == shortages. Macroeconomics 101.

Ok, suppose I agree that the government implemented price controls. If I believe that, I have to wonder why the Federal Trade Commission, an agency that is an integral part of the very sam government that implemented the price controls, sent my father to investigate the cause of the alleged "oil shortages". Also, with NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN PUMP PRICES, the oil "shortage" mysteriously ended after approximately 4 - 6 months.

National Enquirer advertising slogan.
129 posted on 11/15/2005 3:39:39 PM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Also, with NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN PUMP PRICES, the oil "shortage" mysteriously ended after approximately 4 - 6 months.

That's a good question. I suspect that high prices aren't the only thing that can cause a lower demand. Probably people got sick of waiting in line and they found other things to do -- like staying home instead of going to the movies.

I cannot fathom why people have such a problem with this. Isn't it logical that oil companies are going to be reluctant to sell their product at a loss? Sure, they might have access to a limited supply of cheap crude with long term contracts. But what would be their incentive to buy more expensive oil on the spot market so that the supply equals the demand?

Price controls are either mischievous or they are unnecessary. If the controlled price is above the market price it has no effect. If it is below the market price it creates shortages.

130 posted on 11/15/2005 6:29:05 PM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: fireforeffect
Oil is made by methane percolating up from the earths core, becoming trapped in rock formations and being compressed into oil over time. This is the current view of competent geologist, very simplified.

I thought the Earth's core was made up of iron and maybe nickel as well. When did the thinking on the core's composition change?

131 posted on 11/15/2005 6:52:13 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! --kellynla)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Of course I can't prove my theory is correct - although it makes sense from first principles i.e. that if you cap prices you disincentive suppliers.

But - your amazement at two branches of government working at cross purposes - surely this has happened more times than either of us can count. I have absolutely no doubt that you could have one branch of government impelmenting price controls while another branch is investigating market disruptions.

In any case if my explanation isn't the correct one then how else to explain your father's observation?


132 posted on 11/15/2005 7:31:20 PM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Frohickey
Things have a way of working themselves out. We are pretty good at that.

Bingo. It amazes me how many potential ulcers await development on account of so much worrying by some people...much ado about nothing. Hi Tech will save the day.

133 posted on 11/15/2005 7:33:40 PM PST by Windsong (FighterPilot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans
Price controls are either mischievous or they are unnecessary.

Nixon orived beyond a shadow of a doubt that price controls are unnecessary. The market works best when it is unfettered by any form of price control.

If the controlled price is above the market price it has no effect.

Actually, it does. The oil company can make gazillions in profits that enrage the morons who don't comprehend the workings of a free market economy - which flies in the face of selling gas at a mandated price that is well above the cost of the crude oil.
134 posted on 11/16/2005 4:31:09 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Dan Evans

We spend more money on bottled water than gas. I go to the carry out & pick up about 16 oz of water for about $1.19. That would make that water about $9.52/gallon (if I'm doing my math right)!


135 posted on 11/16/2005 4:44:12 AM PST by vidbizz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
In any case if my explanation isn't the correct one then how else to explain your father's observation?

While I concur that in today's politicized environment, the scenario you describe is more common than any of us wants to admit, at the time of the "oil embargo", the Federal Trade Commission, surprisingly enough, was a better run organization than it is today. Had they known beforehand that artificial price controls had been implemented by another government agency (such as the WH or Congress), they wouldn't have wasted the manpower to conduct an investigation.

That said, I defer to my dad's findings which supported the historical record of the oil industry; i.e. that the "oil embargo" was another in a fairly long line of phony schemes concocted by oil industry executives to dupe the public, raise prices (and increase profits), and shift the focus on OPEC, which was already an unpopular institution with the American public.

As I noted previously, if the "shortage" were due solely to price controls, selling ANY amount of gas at a loss is still selling the product at a loss; IOW, there is no benefit to limiting the available supply versus conducting business as usual and selling all of the available supply at a loss - particularly if the price controls are arbitrary and force the oil companies to sell at a loss. The oil companies had the option of shutting down and not selling any gas at all. Such an action would likely have caused one of several things to occur - the federal government would either have to nationalize the oil industry and sell the gas at any price it chose, or it would have forced the federal government to raid the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to meet the petroleum needs of the country, or it would have to relax the price controls to allow the oil companies to sell their gas with a reasonable margin of profit. Nothing in the Constitution allows the government to force any privately held business to sell its product at a loss. And, in those days, the Constitution was more highly regarded by the Congress than it is today.

Before I get flamed, I want to make it clear that I have no opposition to any private business making a profit - whether that profit is huge or tiny. Nor do I have an axe to grind with the oil industry. I do object to any industry, however, that perpetrates frauds on the American public for the sole purpose of increasing their "bottom line". If they can't honestly come out and say they are going to jack prices up because they can, I don't have a lot of respect for them. I may not LIKE the fact that they are doing that, but I will have more respect for them and exercise my free market rights to shop elsewhere for my gas (or whatever).
136 posted on 11/16/2005 4:58:54 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

orived = proved


137 posted on 11/16/2005 4:59:39 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

Your points are all good ones and far be it from me to say which explanation is the correct one - few points however.

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but the strategic petroleum reserve wasn't created until later on - I want to say around the time of the first Gulf war.

2. The argument that if the oil companies were reluctant to sell *any* of their product at artificially low prices then therefore they would be reluctant to sell *all* of their product at artificially low prices just doesn't make any sense to me. They have to calculate the marginal costs and marginal benefits for each unit of product that they either sell or hold back and (at least in theory) wherever their marginal utility is maximized, then that's how much they would sell. Marginal costs would have to include political costs and political calculations as well as purely financial ones. And all of this assumes perfect wisdom on the part of the oil execs who can't be acting in *complete* collusion. Rarely in business do you see perfect wisdom, perfect collusion, or all or none solutions. That argument for me, that if the prices were artifically low that no oil would be sold just seems absurd.

3. No matter how well the FTC was run at that time, two branches of the government working at cross purposes still seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't even know that it was the FTC that imposed the Nixonian wage and price controls or some other agency (a litttle research would resolve that problem I'm sure).

4. It could be that there is some truth to both of our conclusions - it's not clear to me that they are really that mutually exclusive - the wage and price controls could have been a factor in the oil company's behavior just as your contention that they were trying to gin up a sense of crisis and make OPEC a political pinata.

Great discussion - seems like there has not been enough of this sort of thing on FR lately.


138 posted on 11/16/2005 5:45:36 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: thackney
You are correct.

Kuwait has 10% of proven worlds oil reserves. They just announced that their largest field is now pumping only 1.7, down from 2.0 million barrels a day. The field is rapidly running down.

Chevron announced last year that their proven reserves where 20% overstated.

The hand writing is on the wall..

139 posted on 11/16/2005 5:45:36 AM PST by OregonRancher (illigitimus non carborundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
Correct me if I'm wrong but the strategic petroleum reserve wasn't created until later on - I want to say around the time of the first Gulf war.

According to the website "Howstuffworks", "The United States started the petroleum reserve in 1975 after oil supplies were cut off during the 1973-74 oil embargo." I guess that makes both of us wrong because I thought it was started by Eisenhower.

3. No matter how well the FTC was run at that time, two branches of the government working at cross purposes still seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't even know that it was the FTC that imposed the Nixonian wage and price controls or some other agency (a litttle research would resolve that problem I'm sure).

That two agencies will work at cross purposes today is "reasonable" to me, as well. It was less common at the time of the "oil embargo". The FTC did not impose Nixon's wage and price controls, that was all Tricky Dicky. The FTC primarily investigated consumer fraud (such as rat hide being sold as mink, or "oil embargos"). They also are (or were) the enforcers of the "Fair Credit Act".

4. It could be that there is some truth to both of our conclusions - it's not clear to me that they are really that mutually exclusive - the wage and price controls could have been a factor in the oil company's behavior just as your contention that they were trying to gin up a sense of crisis and make OPEC a political pinata. Great discussion - seems like there has not been enough of this sort of thing on FR lately.

Concur. Thanks for joining in with me.
140 posted on 11/16/2005 7:57:18 AM PST by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

The FTC did not impose Nixon's wage and price controls, that was all Tricky Dicky.



Sure Nixon "imposed" the controls but some Alphabet soup agency had to have implemented and enforced them - or so it would seem to me - maybe there was some "office of wage and price controls" at that time - I'll try to find out.

Thanks for your kind words.


141 posted on 11/16/2005 8:15:59 AM PST by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten (Is your problem ignorance or apathy? I don't know and I don't care.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: vidbizz
We spend more money on bottled water than gas.

I'd like to see the bottled water barons hauled before Congress to justify their outrageous price gouging.

142 posted on 11/16/2005 9:50:30 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Actually, it does. The oil company can make gazillions in profits that enrage the morons who don't comprehend the workings of a free market economy

Yes. I guess you mean price supports, which are the reverse of price controls. They are usually in effect at the wholesale level. Sugar, milk, corn have price supports.

Just as bad. If any industry were to do something like this on their own, they would go to jail.

143 posted on 11/16/2005 9:57:09 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I thought the Earth's core was made up of iron and maybe nickel as well. When did the thinking on the core's composition change?

There are meteorites that contain some percentage of carbon and hydrogen and so it would be surprising if the earth's core had none. It wouldn't take very much at all to account for the oil deposits since the crust is a tiny fraction of the earth's mass.

144 posted on 11/16/2005 10:13:03 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
Federal Trade Commission, surprisingly enough, was a better run organization than it is today. Had they known beforehand that artificial price controls had been implemented by another government agency (such as the WH or Congress), they wouldn't have wasted the manpower to conduct an investigation.

I really think it is a stretch to make that assumption. I would not be at all surprised that these people would be completely bewildered that price controls would cause a shortage.

145 posted on 11/16/2005 10:36:59 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
If they can't honestly come out and say they are going to jack prices up because they can, I don't have a lot of respect for them.

You don't understand. They don't "jack up" prices because they can, they do it because they have to. There is only one correct price. If the price is too high, they can't sell all of their product. If it is too low, they there is a shortage -- gas lines.

What oil companies can do, and what all companies do, is adjust the production to maximize profit. Produce too little or too much and profit falls. It's tricky because competitors are doing the same, demand changes, customer habits change, oil supplies vary, etc. And they have to do this while a hostile government is looking over their shoulder ready to jump on them if they perceive any "gouging".

146 posted on 11/16/2005 10:44:44 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
As I noted previously, if the "shortage" were due solely to price controls, selling ANY amount of gas at a loss is still selling the product at a loss;

No. They could make a profit by selling some gasoline at the controlled price but not a lot. The more gas they produce, the more it costs them per gallon to make it. Why? Because:
1) Some crude costs more than others. Long term contracts may cost less than the spot market price.
2) Refining costs more if you have to pay people overtime.
3) Some crude costs more to refine than other types. If you limit production you can save costs.
4) Some refineries are more efficient. If they can shut down the inefficient ones they save costs.

147 posted on 11/16/2005 10:57:41 AM PST by Dan Evans
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson