You’re missing one minor detail in all of this. The oil-producing countries are under no obligation to supply oil at all. If they want to sit in their palaces and laugh at you while you suffer, they have every right to do so.
We are not entitled to oil. Period. You’re acting as if oil is a natural right. It’s not, the poor notwithstanding.
Forgive me if this is has been answered by I didn’t see it. AFAIK, property, either real estate or personal property, can be seized, as long as just compensation is paid. There were cases where the City of Baltimore wanted to use eminent domain in 1984 to seize the Colts football before they bolted for Indianapolis, but the city lost the case because the Colts’ franchise (an intangible asset) was already gone from the state by the time the eminent domain case was brought, therefore the state and city didn’t have jurisdiction anymore. That’s why the Colts left Maryland in the middle of the night like they did.
You definitely aren’t helping your case with this kind of thing.
Here is what Ravenman was responding to:
You are talking about setting capacity to somehow (magically) keep up with demand (the subtext being regardless of natural disasters, mechanical failures or acts of the gods for all I know). Ravenman responds to your assertion by correctly pointing out that demand isn’t fixed but fluctuates with the rise and fall of prices. He wasn’t addressing your other points, simply speaking to your post there. Try going back and reading the quote he put in his post from you again…then look at what you subsequently wrote. Hopefully you will see the disconnect.
Which has nothing to do with why prices are high NOW. Also, do you have a cite that US refining output is currently strapped? AFAIK, demand is down (prices are up, ehe), so I’d think refinery demand would be slightly down as well. IIRC, our refining output capacity usually runs between 80-90% of our total capacity (i.e. we generally have about 10-20% additional capacity in reserve), but this is just from memory. Since it’s YOUR assertion why don’t you provide a cite that shows that we are seriously straining our current capacity, ehe?
:rolleyes:
-XT
A refinery breaking down and reducing capacity means little if output doesn’t change. For example, if four refineries are running at, say, 75% capacity, but one breaks down and three then run at 100% to produce the same amount of refined products, the effect on the market will be based upon risk, not supply.
You should know that it is to the benefit of consumers that refineries run at high output relative to their capacities, with a few caveats. Two refineries running at 85% are more economically efficient than six factories running at 30%, even though six factories would have far greater capacity.
We don’t import very much gasoline – something like one gallon in ten is refined offshore – so your analogy is poor straight off the bat. Pinning high prices on the refinery process (currently running about 85% of capacity) and not on worldwide demand for petroleum is simply wrong. Refining capacity has increased about 5% in the last five years, and obviously prices are not getting lower.
To say it a different way, even if we had more refining capacity, a barrel of crude is selling for what, $135 now? Gas would still cost $4 a gallon if we had all the refining capacity in the world.
My God is strong reasoning based on facts and a strong understanding of the fields of which we may be conversing. I mean no personal offense, so please don’t take any of my comments that way, but the arguments you have so far constructed do tend towards blasphemy.
Yea that’s simple. Now consider this:
Price shoots up, economy takes a hit, and we have a nasty recession combined with expensive transportation costs.
Remember we wouldn’t have this problem if Congress and the free market had any foresight. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see dino juice is a limited supply.
Too much supply in the past and now they’re paranoid, but you know what? Oh well. They’re also making record profits while the rest of the country goes down in flames.
Companies are required to make earnings statements. Seems like we have a system to tell if that’s happening.
We’ll have one less bottleneck. Keep prices more stable, so a refinery going down doesn’t jack up everyone’s fuel bill.
Let me ask you a question. What do you think industry and the government can do to help with the cost of transportation?
already answered.
Actually the ones that do are making a killing. Valero for example has been upgrading refinery capacity and is making excellent profits.
The thing with oil is it’s a tight resource. Losses in output just increase demand and increase price. It’s the difference between selling an 1,000 oranges for a $1 or selling 1 orange for a $1,000. Both get you $1,000.
One, I’m a quarter Hispanic, and a quarter Native American. You can call me gringo if you want, I really don’t care. I was raised by my white half so I don’t have many cultural connections. Still it is a part of me.
Two, my family is poor. When I was growing up we had many days like that too. I am truly sorry for your past misfortune, and it shows me my assumptions of you were wrong as well, and I apologize for my judgment of you. I’ll endeavor to turn down my hostility levels.
Yes we do.
Yeah, we’d still have the exact same problem (or worse one’s if say we tried to implement your price controls or whatever), but ok. How would you fix this ‘problem’ exactly? I think your thoughts on setting price controls has been sufficiently shot down (I’m guessing you don’t agree), so what else would you do to solve this dilemma?
Well, no. The simple reason (there is a complex one to but let’s stick to simple) is that our current refining capacity meets our needs for demand and has scaled up to keep pace. Running refineries at 80 or even 90% of capacity keeps costs low and still allows for short term ramping up if something goes wrong. Having a bunch of plants running at half capacity, or whatever is inefficient and costly…which is why refining companies don’t build big new plants when their current plants are meeting demand.
Price spikes due to refinery problems are short term and would really not be worth the costs (both capital and residual) of making a bunch of new refineries and then running them at low capacity just so there would be no potential bottleneck due to refinery problems.
This has nothing to do with CURRENT price issues, and really you are worrying about something that is a minor problem when there are major issues out there. Refining capacity is not a major issue…even during Katrina which was a major event there was no serious disruption in supply. No gas lines or other major indicators that supply wasn’t able to meet demand. There was simply a short term price spike that eventually came back down. C’est la vie.
Well, assuming that is true what is the problem? Why do we need the government to step in and put it’s thumbs in the mix?
Do you mean refined oil products or oil? If you mean oil (which is what you said here) then it has nothing to do with refinery capacity…nor is there much we can do about oil output (which is one of the reasons why the price of oil per barrel is so high), nor yet supply.
And thanks for the economics 101 about buying and selling.
I was born in Mexico (on a dirt farm) and immigrated to the US when I was 4. Do I win?
My family was about as poor as it could be. I’m just trying to figure out the point of the question…what difference does it make if I’ve gone hungry in my life? The right answer is still the right answer, regardless of how poor or not poor someone is…as is the wrong. I try not to make any assumptions about people (though I DID call you ‘gringo’ so that shows how well I do it myself), merely argue the post…not the poster.
-XT
I think a significant portion of the price runup has been because China, India and all the other developing countries are subsidizing their fuel to shield consumers from the rising cost. Malaysia spends 7% of GDP on fuel subsidies.
Once China and India eliminate their fuel subsidies (Fuel in China costs about 70% as much as the US and half as much as Canada), demand will go down and oil prices will take a respite. The countries that have already cut their subsidies are mostly poor and not big enough to matter. It’s ironic that the US is generally fairly enlightened compared to these countries, and that the nonsensical policies being advocated in this thread are one of the reasons for the large run up in price.
Which is a major problem to those vulnerable to this kind of trouble, and needs to be addressed.
Nah I agree now. It’s a dumb idea. I’ve been letting my anger cloud my judgement. Oil company and auto lobbies have been bribing congress for reduced mileage requirements for decades. They get their way, now people are guzzling up $4 dollar gas in 11 mpg SUVs jacking up the price for everyone else.
Congress and the companies that paid the lobbyists need to be held accountable for fixing this mess.
Well it was the only way I could think to explain my point. Communication isn’t my strong suit and people here seem to love to leap on any possible misunderstanding. So I try to make it plain. I’m sure you know all about that stuff.
Sure. Hell of a thing to win eh?
Well I think it’s a perspective thing. Like the saying don’t judge a person till you’ve walked a mile in their shoes. The gringo comment isn’t anything to worry about. It’s just a word. Words only bother someone if they let them.
There are so many people stating so many incorrect things in this thread that to go through them one at a time would be too laborious. Let me try to go through a few points.
1) When talking about terms like net profit margin, it really doesn’t make much sense to compare companies across industries. It is useful for comparing a company with its peers or a company to itself for a prior period. There are very few meaningful conclusions that you can draw by stating the Intel had a profit margin or 18% while Exxon had one of 10% and Walmart had one of 3%. It also does not make much sense to compare net profit. This is more an indicator of size. Exxon has a huge net profit because they are a massive company.
2) When talking about a windfall profits tax, it makes no sense to talk about net profit or net profit margin. Net profit doesn’t make sense because it is in many ways more of an indicator of size. Net profit margin doesn’t make sense because many of the companies are essentially conglomerates engaging in multiple industries. Exxon for instance engages in upstream, midstream, downstream, chemical, and other lines of businesses. It is only the upstream sector that is really seeing the big profits. Therefore, you would be best off enacting new federal royalties, so that you could be compensated directly for the money made by producers. Note that I am in no way a proponent of this type of tax. This is the only thing that would be easy to enact. You would be compensated for any company, domestic or foreign, that produced in the United States.
3) Anyone that does not think that the oil and gas business is cyclical and prone to booms and busts is just horribly, terribly uneducated. I could point to dozens of bankruptcies that happened during the low price periods of the late ‘90s and the mid ‘80s. It is ridiculous to point to one of the largest, most financially strong companies in the industry and state that just because they didn’t lose money or go bankrupt that the industry itself didn’t have tremendous problems. For one thing, as I have noted, Exxon (and the other Major Integrated Oil Companies by definition) engage in multiple lines of business. While the upstream business may falter during a bust, the chemical or downstream business may do well. If anyone would like any examples of bankruptcies during the bust periods, feel free to ask.
You had to grow your own dirt?
You win! 
Ate rocks and walked up hill to farm the dirt both ways every day to. 
Luckily I got to live in America so I only had to hear stories from my dad about farming dirt.
-XT
I understand your larger point, and in general agree with it. However, I think your numbers are incorrect once again. Exxon produces about 4.18 milion barrels of oil equivalent per day. According to the department of energy, worldwide production is about 82.53 million barrels of oil equivalent per day. Therefore, Exxon actually produces about 5% of the world’s total production. Further, I have a hard time believing that there are 13 larger producers out there. Certainly, Aramco is larger. Do you have any cite showing that they are the 14th ranked producer? If I had to guess, Exxon would easily be in the top 5, maybe as high as #2.
To help with the Ignorance Factor, you can download an excel file from BP here:
http://www.bp.com/multipleimagesection.do?categoryId=9017892&contentId=7033503
Their current statistical data covers 1965 - 2006, and can really help you “see” how oil production (watch the US slow down its production), reserves, prices and usage change over time.
For an idea of where the money goes, I recommend heading the library and checking out this book, The Color of Oil.
Although written by oil company folks, it does a good job of easily educating you on the various players in the game.
If you want a feel for what matters to the marketers (those folks who sell you a gallon of gas or two), check out their organization:
Really? What does one have to do with the other? Do modest profit margins – no one can legitimately claim that oil companies’ profit margins are large – indicate price gouging? What, exactly, is “price gouging,” btw?
Why? Even if these are large profits, why does that mean that government is entitled to a large share of them? And, if you accept that, why is a “windfall profits tax” the best way to go about this? Is there any proof this lowered the price of gas? Or is it merely motivated out of your hatred that those who own oil company shares (such as many people who have pensions or retirement accounts) are evil and should be punished?
Here is a graph showing XOM at 14th:
Here is 1998 data showing Million barrels per year, 1998:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil2.html
Saudi Arabian Oil Co.* 3028
Petroleos Mexicanos* 1278
Petroleos de Venezuela* 1258
China National Petroleum* 1168
BP Amoco + Arco 963
ExxonMobil 894
Royal Dutch/Shell 859
Nigerian National Oil Co.* 772
Iraq National Oil Co.* 770
Kuwait Petroleum* 757
Chevron + Texaco 756
Lonhorn, one should be careful about quoting the MBOE numbers, Exxon is a huge gas producer and the 4.1 number includes gas equivalent. As natural gas is a very different market I would suggest it would be better to look at only total liquids when considering crude supply (which I think is what we are doing here). This has Exxon (07 annual report numbers) at 2.6 million bbl per day, which is still quite a lot.
now to compare with others a quick scan of last months JPT (journal of petroleum Technology) gives the following numbers for some of the major producing countries (total crude not including NGL and unconventional crude)
the following are countries with significant national oil companies and most of the countries production is through the NOC)
Saudi (mostly ARAMCO) 9.1
Iran (mostly PEDCO but there is some IOCs there) 3.9
Iraq (god knows who is there) 2.3
Mexico (PEMEX almost entirly) 2.9
Kuwait (KOC although soem majors are there) 2.5
UAE (mix of ADCO ADMAR and some other) 2.6
Venezula (PDVSA IOC getting smaller by the day) 2.4
Brazil (petrobras) 1.8
for the hell of it
Nigeria (mostly IOC in PSAs) 2.4
China (mostly regional state companies some IOCS) 3.6
Russia (again, who knows) 9.4
USA total (for comparison) 5.1
Based on those numbers, Exxon is certainly a big player in terms of crude production (although that is liquids production, can’t see if it includes NGLs)
Whe comparing IOCs and NOCs one other thing that should be considered is what is being compared
Total reserves 1P or 3P?
Total production
Total refining capacity
Algher
Your graph is for reserves (OK i cant see the graph, but the title says reserves) not production.
The data for production is 10 years old, have a look at www.iea.org and go to the oil market report (free download) or go to the US EIA www.eia.doe.gov for more up to data data.
Are there any numbers or charts tracking refinery production as a percentage of total usage for the last several years in the US? I was looking for such numbers earlier but I couldn’t find them over time…just the current approximate percentage (about 86% IIRC).
-XT
Thanks! That’s exactly what I was looking for.
ETA: Clink this link (from NBC’s link) to see the trend for percentage of refinery utilization since 1990.
-XT