Posted on 02/27/2008 6:08:34 AM PST by Brilliant
A President who understand the oil business can certainly do a lot behind the scenes and in front to encourage certain industrial policies. He can move legislation to incentivize industrial behaviors in the public interest. This may appear to be rocket science to Mumbles, but there certainly is ample historical precedent. BTW, that's what Presidents do. The refinery capacity issue is a dropped ball. Period. The oil companies will naturally want to increase capacity for $5/gal gasoline. The trick a competent industrial policy leader just might want to consider is using the political arts to get them to increase production before artificial shortages of America's most needed commodity tank the economy.
With that said, the Port Arthur, TX refineries are expanding as we speak.
Big whoop. Refinery capacity is up 10% from 1995. That's not enough to even supply GW's illegally licensed illegal aliens with gasoline enough to commute to the jobs "Americans won't do." Besides, supplies are so tight that if even one of the "super-refineries" goes on the blink, fuel prices skyrocket ... this is a serious issue.
Bottom line: we have an oil man in the White House for 8 years and we get no oil policy. Listen up. I like George Bush. I appreciate the historic stand he has taken against islamofascism. But as an effective President, as a domestic leader and as a party leader especially, he has been an embarrassment who has played our future right into the hands of the other party, the patriotism of which I sincerely doubt. That's not good.
Kicking up royalties and taking profits away is a surefire way to keep the cost of oil down.
right?
They should go after ethanol.
Firemen can’t put out that kind of fire well at all.
All these people growing corn raised the price of corn through the roof.
People foregoing other crops to grow profitable corn will probably double the prices of all our food.
Oil is OK, they need to stop ethanol.
Behind the scene! Your words not mine. And you know he did nothing behind the scenes in an effort? No you do not.
" With that said, the Port Arthur, TX refineries are expanding as we speak." Big whoop.
All right... I am in the oil and gas industry and you are obviously just a whiner.
Punish the productive. Typical Dem response...
“Oil yesterday finished at a new high of $100.88 a barrel in New York futures markets”
One of the main reasons for the high price of oil right now is the failure of global warming to produce. Too much energy used for heating.
I notice that individual Democrats continue to purchase gasoline, thus contributing to increased demand as well as increased price.
Oil companies don't set prices any more than farmers do.
And the oil business is one of the most competitive industries there is.
You have drunk the Democrat kool-aid, and you couldn't possibly be more incorrect in your assertions.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0921/p11s02-usec.html
Bush Offers Plan to Bolster Refineries and Nuclear Plants
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/politics/28bush.html
Why would anyone in their right mind build a refinery in the US? They yield a pitiful return on investment.
The driving force behind rising oil prices is China and India. There is nothing the President can do about that short of blockading Chinese and Indian ports from tanker access. Ten years ago, automobiles were a rarity in China. Today, their cities are overrun with them. It is a matter of simple economics. The supply of gasoline today is at its highest level ever.
The Democrats use simple mob mentality. Just get mad at the nearest person without actually thinking an issue through.
You really believe that crap? Why should any oil producer be willing to sell a barrel of oil for $40 when China will gladly pay $100?
That current $100 barrel of oil yields around 20 gallons of gasoline and 10 gallons of diesel. Do the math.
The other side of the double whammy is the supply restriction caused by inadequate refining capacity in the US.
Red-Neck is sorta right in that the Oilcos tend to like it this way. Refineries are tied to specific feedstocks and to change suppliers, the refineries have to be changed over, an expensive and long process. It's also another reason why the oilcos are not really all that excited about exploiting new domestic reserves. It's expensive and might screw with one of the greatest free lunches in all of economic history!
Without OPEC, or if OPEC increased crude supplies, or if we increased domestic production, crude prices would fall. But with their stranglehold on US refining, fuel prices would remain high enough to give the oilcos the profit margins they are used to.
Stupid factoid: In Gulf War I, the Saudis offered to fix oil prices at $35/barrel for 10 years in exchange for saving their monarchy!
Guilty, your honor, on this and few other topics.
Carolyn
The bottom line is that when President Bush took office, gas was $1.46/gallon.
As Truman said, “The Buck Stops Here.” Blame Pelosi et al all you want, but it is what it is.
I just don't think those whom the whimsical gods have now placed in charge have done enough to cook up and serve a viable oil policy. To top it off I am constantly subjected to blatherously dumb "Green Energy Talk" about wind, ethanol, hydrogen, methane, waves, solar,and MacDonalds French Fry Grease sources. To top top it off, when we were on the verge of going more Nuclear, the Greenies set us back 100 years.
We're going to run on coal and oil over the next hundred years or so, phasing in more Nuclear, and "alternative" sources as they are developed. So, we really need an oil policy. The one we have, or don't have, is no good.
100% agreement from me.
I agree with you, but I’d be curious to see what is included in the largest line item in that list (”All Other Taxes”). Do royalties paid to the government for extraction operations on public land get counted with this?
When I look back at their 2006 information, where more details are available, it appears that royalties are excluded from the numbers by reducing the production volumes by such. There has been a growing trend to pay royalties with liquid-in-kind. There is less arguement over the value. Alaska has done this for many years. The state then sells their portion of the oil directly to the refinery. It is up to the state to get the best price for the oil produced. And in Alaska’s case, the buyer and the producer are separate companies so there is less concern of a conflict of interest deal.
http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/fo_2006.pdf
See footnote (1) page 56
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.