send a message to the oil companies

[slipperyfrog]

My vote is for capitalism but I do feel government has a role to play in keeping companies from forming monopolies and harming market quality/price equations. Government should not be in the role of regulating profit margin. You make what people are willing to pay.

I'm all for the China comments. More products need to push the "Made in America" & "Made in Canada" labels and we should support them by buying the products. Bring the spending dollar back to American and stop it from going abroad. Am I a union supporter.........no but I am pro North America.

[tintshopky]

IMO raising fuel prices is one way to wake us up as a nation, about going green and looking for alternate ways to power our modes of transportation....

If prices stayed low we would all still be driving those lumbering gas gusslers around....

Now you see people buying hybrids and small cars to offset the price hike...

What we need to do is come together and start using less fossil fuel and start developing cleaner and cheaper alternatives...

Check out this vehicle.....100 plus mpg...

Aptera

I'm with ya on that. well said.

[Guest Sidewinder]

SO we support terrorism and buy from the middle east!

It always goes back to government interference... they always screw it up!

Our number one supplier of oil is Canada 20%. Canada is a real problem, thay have a lot of healthy citizens owing to their national health system....

Of our top ten suppliers only two are from the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. We own Iraq so that doesn't really count either, so just one.

[tint123]

Boycotting would never work.

Boycott Exxon.

Exxon responds by lowering thier price by 10 cents a gallon for a week or 2.

Who is going to continue to boycott Exxon if they save money by filling up there ?

[Guest pmuzik]

now this is some "fuzzy" math

May 22, 2008

How much have the Democrats cost you at the pump?

Marc Sheppard

Senator Chuck Schumer claims that coercing Saudi Arabia to increase oil production by 1 million barrels a day would drop the per barrel price by $25, saving Americans 62 cent per gallon at the gas pump. Yet, somehow, that same amount of oil coming from Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would only ease oil prices by a penny.

In a Senate floor speech he gave on May 13th, the New York Democrat insisted that:

"If Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel. In turn, that would lower the price of gasoline between 13 percent and 17 percent, or by more than 62 cents off the expected summer regular-grade price - offering much needed relief to struggling families. "

Schumer repeated these words almost verbatim when grilling oil company executives during yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

Yet Schumer's daily magic number of 1 million barrels is the exact increase experts believe we would today be pumping through the Alyeska pipeline had Bill Clinton not vetoed ANWR drilling back in 1995. And even the most rabid anti-domestic-drilling Democrats don't take issue with that figure.

So then, the increase he demands of "Bush's friends," the Saudis - which he claims would reduce prices by up to 25 percent -- is the exact amount he argued earlier this month would only "reduce the price of oil by a penny" were it coming from ANWR - eco-sacred breeding ground of the Porcupine Caribou.

It doesn't take a Ph.D in economics to know that both figures can't be right.

Nor one in Poli-Sci to know why they're so starkly different nonetheless.

no wonder congress's rating is lower than George's

[Guest pmuzik]

The last paragraph in this pretty much sums it up too.

Tom Glennon

INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL

May 23, 2008 at 4:47 pm ·

INCONVENIENT TRUTHS ABOUT OIL

Before my recent retirement after a career of almost 40 years, I had the unique opportunity to work in the technology areas for a major oil company, an international financial operation, and one of the world’s largest international banks. As a result, although not an expert in either exploration or production of crude oil and its impact on financial and consumer markets, I did have access to information that most American consumers did not. This was not secret data, nor was it proprietary information. It was simply a case of facts the media was not interested in reporting, and our politicians felt were not germane to their own agendas. Let me start with a few simple facts.

At the time of the 1972 OPEC oil embargo, the domestic production of crude oil in America peaked at about 10 million barrels per day. This domestic production accounted for almost 2/3’s of our total needs, resulting in about 1/3 of our needed crude to be imported. The chilling effect of the embargo on our economy, and ability to provide for the national defense, resulted in our political leadership pledging that the government would work to allow America to achieve energy independence in 10 years. What have we achieved so far?

By 1980, domestic crude production had fallen to 8,572 million barrels per day, while our oil usage climbed to 16,058 million barrels per day. Imports had risen to 7,486 million barrels per day, or 46% of our needs. In 2005, our total crude oil requirements were 20,802 million barrels per day, while domestic production had fallen to 7,486 million barrels per day. The 15,624 million barrels per day necessary to keep America and her economy moving were met by imports, which now account for 75% of our needs. So much for the pledge to make America independent of unreliable foreign sources. What went wrong?

Of natural crude, we have large reserves off the coasts of California and Florida. However, no drilling in these areas has been permitted by law since the late 1960’s. China, however, by using agreements with Cuba to drill in this area, will begin doing so shortly.

America also has additional reserves in the Gulf areas, from Florida to Texas. However, no drilling is permitted in most of these areas. Mexico, however, has no such restrictions.

In Alaska, both onshore and offshore, we have large areas of proven reserves, which are not allowed to be developed by law. Canada has no laws prohibiting such development.

In the mountain Western states, large amounts of oil are available in the shale rock formations. However, EPA regulations prohibit their development.

In the far West, vast areas of tar sands remain undeveloped due to environmental restrictions. As with the geographic areas noted above, most of the land is owned or controlled by the federal government. Canadian use of tar sands is a major source of their oil exports.

The conversion of coal to oil, a technology available for over 100 years, remains another untapped resource, due to legislative and environmental restrictions.

The bottom line is that America could have become energy independent with regard to crude oil by the mid 1980’s. In the area of electricity, the addition of more coal fired generating plants, nuclear power plants, and additional hydro electric plants could have made the need for gas and oil fueled electrical plants unnecessary by 1990. That would have freed up more crude for other purposes, and reduced our overall consumption of oil. In addition, our electrical generation capacity would substantially exceed our present needs, rather than the sporadic shortages we now experience.

Some analysts have estimated that if all of these options had been initiated in the immediate aftermath of the OPEC embargo, crude oil today would have a domestic price of 40-45 dollars per barrel, with secure supplies, and uninfluenced by foreign costs or international speculators. Why didn’t this happen?

It is popular to blame the oil companies, oil cartels, or greedy speculators. But in truth, we are in a bed of our own making. It is not the usual suspects who have passed laws based on bad science, radical environmental lobbies, self interest, political agendas or ignorance of technological advances and free enterprise economics. It is the result of our own government, mainly through the ineptness of Congress. At the risk of sounding glib, the following old saw comes to mind. If the opposite of Pro is Con, what is the opposite of Progress?

One need only look at the energy bill recently passed to confirm my opinion. While this 86.3 billion dollar legislation (including 3.8 billion in pork that has nothing to do with energy) does tell the auto makers how to build cars, tell us that we can’t buy incandescent light bulbs after 2012, and demand that we continue to use 1.25 gallons of gasoline to produce 1 gallon of ethanol (subsidized by us of course); it does not result in one new gallon of gasoline, or one watt of new electricity.

So who is to blame for the “new” energy crisis we face? Look no further than Washington DC. For 34 years, through Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses and Presidencies, they have done all that they can to create what we, the consumer, must now face. And I see no hope that they will do anything to correct the situation they have created. The resources are there, the technologies are proven, and the self corrective economic system is in place. We need only a government that is both accountable and responsive.

[Guest CajunTinter]

Did anyone even take into acount that 85% of our US territories are OFF LIMITS TO DRILLING or exploration? The USA HAS LOT'S of OIL underground! Wake up folks ...the phoney wacko environmentalist that want you to live in a cave without electricity and running water and their political buddies in congress have put us in this position NOT the oil companies. No refineries have been built in 25 years and they don't want nuclear power plants or more coal which we have hundreds of years of reserves. SO we support terrorism and buy from the middle east!

It always goes back to government interference... they always screw it up!

Well said !!

[Guest whyBdark]

This kind of post gets me angry because it is misinformed. Would people wake up and stop simply looking at what the dollar amount of profit was. Try looking at the profit margin % for a change. You will surprise yourself who is making out like bandits regarding profits. Maybe we should boycott Google for charging too much for ad words first.............

Further if you want to know a big reason for your petroleum hikes in price, look no further than China and India. Just wait until they really tap the market of automobiles/industrialization for the majority of their people. I imagine gas will be a hell of a lot more expensive than it is now. It is simple supply and demand. Supply is high but demand is beating it up.

I couldn't agree with you more!!!

[tint123]

Good article in Todays (Sun May 25th) Dallas Morning News about this.

Don't know if or how to pull it up their website, dallasnews.com

It is front page of the first section.

Interesting reading.

[TintDude]

Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves larger than any on earth, and about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.