Record oil profits

Messages
10,002
Location
OH
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
If you want to accuse somebody of raping consumers, then how about OPEC, the speculators, and our government's policies?
Since when are they all not connected?
 
Messages
10,002
Location
OH
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: grampi
Shopping around for gas prices is a waste of time since prices are strictly controled (within a few pennies) so they're basically the same for any given area. Also, I can more than likely do with the stuff from Wal-Mart much easier than I can do without gas...and the oil companies know this, which is why they get away with raping consumers...
Gramps: crude oil is $100-120 a barrel everywhere in the world, with the exact price depending mainly on quality -- light sweet crude is more valuable than heavy sour crude. Gasoline and distillate fuels are also about the same everywhere in the world, before taxes in most countries but before subsidies in places like Venezuela, Iran, and some other oil-surplus countries. The prices of fuel vary from state to state according to taxes and supply-demand patterns. They vary from city to city according to competitive pressures or the lack thereof. No-brand stations tend to be cheaper than branded stations, and average prices are higher where there are few no-brand stations. I suspect your ranting against "oil companies" makes you feel better; but really, it is a pointless exercise and you are not persuading anyone with your rants.
So what's your point? You're just proving correct what I said earlier that the oil industry operates in a cartel market, selling a product the world MUST have, so they can pretty much name their price...
 
Messages
1,798
Location
Saint Paul (ex-San Diego)
Originally Posted By: grampi
So what's your point? You're just proving correct what I said earlier that the oil industry operates in a cartel market, selling a product the world MUST have, so they can pretty much name their price...
That cartel is called OPEC, but even OPEC cannot control prices. All it can do is set quotas and hope that the individual members do not cheat too much. If OPEC controlled the price of oil, why did they allow that price to drop from $147/barrel to less than $30 between July 2008 and early 2009? Try to explain that one!
Originally Posted By: grampi
Two simple solutions; either remove energy products from the commodities market altogther, or change the rules pertaining to speculators so that they must front at least 75% of their own money when playing in the market. This would dictate that price would be based soley on supply and demand, and not feelings as they are now...
The futures market and the spot market are interconnected. Eliminating the futures market would not lower prices in the spot market, or make spot prices more stable. And margin requirements in all futures markets are raised or lowered all the time, to adjust to changes in price levels and/or volatility. What you call "feelings" are, in fact, educated guesses about the future. Humans think about the future -- we are not going to stop thinking about it because some government agency places limits on how we can plan for the future. Your suggestion that speculators should put up 75% of the full value of a contract, before they can trade that contract, would immediately result in the relocating of the exchange to London, Rotterdam, Dubai, Singapore, or Shanghai. There would be only a slight disruption -- unless the new dominant exchange decides to offer crude oil futures contracts denominated in a different currency, not in US dollars. THAT would be very bad for American consumers, so I wouldn't want that to happen; but it would serve you right.
 
Messages
10,002
Location
OH
The cartel isn't just OPEC, it's all the oil companies. What other energy sources do they compete with in the market? And I'm not talking about changing the specualtion rules for only one segment of the market, but worldwide. It wouldn't make sense to change the rules in only a small segment of the market when oil is traded globally...
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,798
Location
Saint Paul (ex-San Diego)
Originally Posted By: grampi
The cartel isn't just OPEC, it's all the oil companies. What other energy sources do they compete with in the market? And I'm not talking about changing the specualtion rules for only one segment of the market, but worldwide. It wouldn't make sense to change the rules in only a small segment of the market when oil is traded globally...
So, you would take authority away from our Commodity Futures Trading Commission? and give it to some global governing agency like the World Bank or IMF or UN? Are you sure that's such a good idea? Most of global oil reserves are held by the national oil companies, like Saudi Aramco and NIOC. Exxon-Mobil is the biggest of the vertically-integrated shareholder-owned oil companies, with less than 5% of the world's oil. The other major oil companies have less. But according to you, when you are blasting oil companies and blaming them for high fuel prices, you're not blaming OPEC? You need to make up your mind(s). Are the shareholder-owned companies with a tiny fraction of the oil market the ones who set the price? Or the national oil companies, most of them members of OPEC?
 
Messages
508
Location
UT
So, you would take authority away from our Commodity Futures Trading Commission? and give it to some global governing agency like the World Bank or IMF or UN? Are you sure that's such a good idea? The World Bank, the BIS, the Bank of England, our Federal Reserve, the U.N. and the IMF already DO control the oil market and every other market as well. Including gold and silver which are the only real money world wide. It's never been "the speculators". "The Speculators" are just investors who buy stock based on what they think will happen in the future. Shutting down the gulf and stopping oil production because of a lizard in TX is a pretty good sign prices will go up. It's the above mentioned that really control the markets because they control the supply. Unfortunately, those who watch "the news" on bubble vision think that governments should control the markets when it is the above mentioned organizations and banks that control the governments through monetary policies that are unconstitutional here in the U.S. and legislation that they buy by buying our presidents, congress and the senate. I find it hard to believe that there are those that actually believe "the speculators" scam just because their favorite talking head says so. OUR oil should NOT be sold on the world market and foreign governments should NOT be here drilling for it or any of our other natural resources for that matter. As a side note, the CFTC is bought and paid for which is how the biggest banks (J.P. Morgan/Chase) have managed to get away with rigging the silver and gold prices. Theodore Butler has been on the CFTC's butt for years concerning the rigging of the silver market. Nothing has been done about it to this day. How anyone can trust ANY government agency is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Messages
508
Location
UT
Originally Posted By: grampi
The cartel isn't just OPEC, it's all the oil companies. What other energy sources do they compete with in the market? And I'm not talking about changing the specualtion rules for only one segment of the market, but worldwide. It wouldn't make sense to change the rules in only a small segment of the market when oil is traded globally...
It isn't the oil companies, Grampi. It isn't Opec either. It is the BANKS and Wall Street! Who do you think is doing all the trading? The banks and Wall Street control the supply of oil and they control the legislation that is passed in the energy industry in this country. Get yourself a copy of "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo and learn who really controls your country.
 
Messages
1,798
Location
Saint Paul (ex-San Diego)
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
OUR oil should NOT be sold on the world market and foreign governments should NOT be here drilling for it or any of our other natural resources for that matter.
I was in agreement with your previous statements, but I can't agree with this. You have forgotten a basic principle of property rights -- the distinction between public and private property. If you own something individually, it belongs to you and not to US, the public. If you own a farm, a ranch, a factory, a coal mine, an oil field or just the mineral rights, or the timber rights to a forest... if you own software you've written, or the copyright on a novel, or the patent on an invention... then it is YOURS and not OURS. So when you say OUR oil should not be sold on the world market, you need to make clear whose oil you are referring to. A law may be passed disallowing the sale of oil belonging to the public or to the government. But any law limiting the ways in which privately-owned oil may be disposed of will, of course, be challenged in the courts. If a law is passed which says you may sell your oil to anyone -- except those willing to pay the highest price -- then naturally you will object.
 
Messages
508
Location
UT
Originally Posted By: Tornado Red
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
OUR oil should NOT be sold on the world market and foreign governments should NOT be here drilling for it or any of our other natural resources for that matter.
I was in agreement with your previous statements, but I can't agree with this. You have forgotten a basic principle of property rights -- the distinction between public and private property. If you own something individually, it belongs to you and not to US, the public. If you own a farm, a ranch, a factory, a coal mine, an oil field or just the mineral rights, or the timber rights to a forest... if you own software you've written, or the copyright on a novel, or the patent on an invention... then it is YOURS and not OURS. So when you say OUR oil should not be sold on the world market, you need to make clear whose oil you are referring to. A law may be passed disallowing the sale of oil belonging to the public or to the government. But any law limiting the ways in which privately-owned oil may be disposed of will, of course, be challenged in the courts. If a law is passed which says you may sell your oil to anyone -- except those willing to pay the highest price -- then naturally you will object.
I understand your point. If someone owns a ranch and they discover oil on it then the owner of the ranch should be able to do what he wants with his oil. I'm referring to the oil in our gulf and the oil in the Balken as well as the oil in Prudoe Bay and on the north slope. If this so-called oil shortage REALLY exists, which it doesn't, then it would stand to reason we keep OUR resources here for OUR use and since the only oil shortage is a contrived shortage then we should still do the same to get the price of OUR fuel down. Those areas aren't "privately" owned as far as I know. Those areas belong to the United States and we the people. Many a farmer and land owner has been made a millionaire over night up in North Dakota over the last five years since the discovery of the Balken Field. My point is that if we have gas at $4.00 a gallon and it is crippling the economy then our government should step in a do something that is in OUR best interest for a change instead of the interest of the global community, the central bank and Wall Street. They could easily set aside oil found in our gulf, the Balken or up in Alaska then drill for it, refine it and use it strictly in this country. Doing something "in house' always saves money as any business owner knows. That's why Wal-Mart has it's own trucking fleet. This, of course doesn't solve the problem of "quantitive easing" collapsing our currency which is unconstitutional to begin with. Our illegal monetary policy is the real problem but the price of fuel would still come down some if we allocated our own oil for use here. There is so much corruption in the banking industry and on Wall Street that I doubt it will ever stop. The problems are "global" as well. Unfortunately, our economy has been intertwined with the rest of the world and "The Dollar" which has been illegal from it's conception is the world's reserve currency. We are being taken to a one world government whether we like it or not and I highly doubt when we get there anyone will be happy about it. We can already see how bad it is and it's going to get much worse. Those who control the currency control everything.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,798
Location
Saint Paul (ex-San Diego)
Originally Posted By: Trvlr500
I understand your point. If someone owns a ranch and they discover oil on it then the owner of the ranch should be able to do what he wants with his oil. I'm referring to the oil in our gulf and the oil in the Balken as well as the oil in Prudoe Bay and on the north slope. If this so-called oil shortage REALLY exists, which it doesn't, then it would stand to reason we keep OUR resources here for OUR use and since the only oil shortage is a contrived shortage then we should still do the same to get the price of OUR fuel down.
In the event of a major war, then all imports and exports of oil and other strategic commodities would be controlled. Since there is no major war, there is no reason to control imports or exports. As for oil on the Continental Shelf, or other public lands, oil companies pay billions every year for the right to drill, plus they pay royalties for every barrel they produce. Once the government sells those drilling rights, the oil belongs to whoever takes it out of the ground. After something is sold, it no longer belongs to the previous owner.
Quote:
My point is that if we have gas at $4.00 a gallon and it is crippling the economy then our government should step in a do something that is in OUR best interest for a change instead of the interest of the global community, the central bank and Wall Street.
Absolutely the government should do something -- or rather, it should stop doing all the things it has been doing to prevent the production of oil, coal, and natural gas. I could make a list, and it would be a long list.
Quote:
They could easily set aside oil found in our gulf, the Balken or up in Alaska then drill for it, refine it and use it strictly in this country. Doing something "in house' always saves money as any business owner knows.
You know, of course, that a lot of gasoline is exported from Europe to the US. And the US is a net exporter of distillates -- not a lot, but a little. If these distillate fuels can't be exported, then refiners would eventually run out of storage space for distillates and would have to stop producing both distillates and gasoline. I only buy diesel, never gasoline, so I'd welcome lower diesel prices and could care less what happens to gasoline. But some other folks might be unhappy. So maybe you ought to think about this idea again, about banning exports. It could lead to unwanted consequences, with some people at least having to pay more.
 
Messages
508
Location
UT
Your correct, Tornado. Your points are well taken. I just have concerns when it comes to this "globalist" path we are on where no country has control of it's resources or it's sovereignty any longer. There is no such thing as REAL free trade and our supreme court is now using international law to make judgements.
 
Messages
10,611
Location
Las Vegas NV
Quote:
So maybe you ought to think about this idea again, about banning exports. It could lead to unwanted consequences, with some people at least having to pay more.
+1 Restrictions on exports creates all sorts of "unintended" consequences.
 
Messages
508
Location
UT
That was a great article although I don't think spending all the trillions on mass transit and "green" energy would have done us any good. They are already spending billions on it and it has been a waste not to mention the eyesore those windmills are. Mass transit is only viable in huge cities like LA. No where else and the big cities already have their mass transit systems. He's dead on when it comes to everything else though.
 
Messages
11,507
Location
Illinois
I don't think he is very accurate. The federal tax on fuel is $0.184/gallon on gas and $0.244/gallon on diesel. So the federal government makes roughly 2x as much as the oil company on refined motor fuels.
 
Messages
16,436
Location
Silicon Valley
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
This assume that the oil companies' profit is from selling OPEC oil and is not part of the producing end of the operation. It is well known that refining and retailing fuel doesn't make much money and most of the profit is on the exploration and "drilling" side of the business. The oil fields in OPEC nations are explored and operated with these big oil companies, as well as those in the US production which is fully or partly owned by the oil companies, or leased to the oil companies for production / extractions. Those are the huge profit makers that are not in this chart.
 
Messages
1,137
Location
Florida
OPEC's Windfall Revenues
Quote:
The forecast of earnings of $1.034-trillion this year represents a hefty 32.5-per-cent increase from the nearly $780-million that OPEC earned last year. Even in real terms, adjusted by inflation, OPEC earnings would also hit a record this year and nearly double the earnings level set in 1980 during the second oil crisis.
 
Messages
1,166
Location
N. Texas
Originally Posted By: LTVibe
OPEC's Windfall Revenues
Quote:
The forecast of earnings of $1.034-trillion this year represents a hefty 32.5-per-cent increase from the nearly $780-million that OPEC earned last year. Even in real terms, adjusted by inflation, OPEC earnings would also hit a record this year and nearly double the earnings level set in 1980 during the second oil crisis.
I really hate it when reporters do not understand the relationship between million, billion, and trillion - and no one in the general public even notices. One of the figures in the article is wrong, and if it was the first number, there would not even be a story.
 
Messages
1,798
Location
Saint Paul (ex-San Diego)
Originally Posted By: jmac
I really hate it when reporters do not understand the relationship between million, billion, and trillion - and no one in the general public even notices. One of the figures in the article is wrong, and if it was the first number, there would not even be a story.
Global production is over 80 million barrels per day (mbd), and OPEC production is somewhere around 29 mbd. This works out to about 10.6 billion barrels annually. At $100/barrel, total revenue for OPEC countries would then be around $1 trillion... but this is gross revenue, not profits or earnings as we commonly define earnings. The Globe & Mail story is a bad story -- poorly researched and poorly written. Thank you, LTVibe and jmac, for bringing these bloopers to our attention.
 
Top