Speaking of the price of gas

[Tunga]

"Stuff"

I love it. 

[cathleeninnh]

When driving from SC to NH, I had two consecutive tanks give me 60mpg. That was all interstate at a pokey 61mph. Regular city/highway driving gets us 48mpg.

Cathleen

[cathleeninnh]

Toyota Prius

Cathleen

[Russell Kanning]

$2.83 in little Alstead, NH yesterday .... and that was full serve.
You want to live Norman Rockwell ... then move to small town NH.

[Zork]

$2.83 in little Alstead, NH yesterday .... and that was full serve.
You want to live Norman Rockwell ... then move to small town NH.

Oooh, does full service mean full service, or does it mean getting your gas pumped?  In the "great" state of NJ, we only have full service, but good luck finding an attendent that will do anything more than pump your gas and take your money.

[Pat McCotter]

Table 1. State and Federal Gasoline Taxes Compared to Major U.S. Oil Companies? Domestic Profits
1977-2004 (figures in billions of 2004 dollars)

Year ======	Oil Profits =========	Federal Taxes =========	State Taxes =======	Total Taxes ========
1977	$26.8	$13.7	$29.0	$42.7
1978	$27.5	$13.0	$28.1	$41.1
1979	$34.9	$11.4	$25.2	$36.7
1980	$41.0	$9.4	$22.0	$31.4
1981	$41.4	$8.5	$21.0	$29.5
1982	$35.8	$8.0	$20.6	$28.6
1983	$30.2	$15.0	$22.0	$37.0
1984	$28.7	$16.2	$23.5	$39.6
1985	$29.3	$15.6	$24.6	$40.2
1986	$9.0	$15.9	$25.7	$41.5
1987	$14.0	$15.0	$27.4	$42.4
1988	$16.9	$15.6	$28.1	$43.8
1989	$14.5	$14.5	$28.3	$42.8
1990	$18.6	$14.5	$29.1	$43.5
1991	$11.0	$21.1	$29.7	$50.8
1992	$10.1	$20.9	$30.8	$51.7
1993	$10.6	$20.9	$31.4	$52.3
1994	$10.8	$27.1	$32.1	$59.3
1995	$7.9	$26.3	$31.9	$58.1
1996	$18.9	$26.8	$32.0	$58.9
1997	$18.8	$26.0	$32.6	$58.6
1998	$9.0	$27.1	$33.1	$60.3
1999	$16.8	$26.5	$33.6	$60.1
2000	$34.9	$25.7	$33.3	$59.0
2001	$35.1	$24.9	$33.6	$58.5
2002	$16.2	$24.5	$33.9	$58.4
2003	$31.7	$24.6	$33.4	$58.0
2004	$42.6	$24.2	$34.2	$58.4
Total	$643.0	$533.0	$810.1	$1,343.1

==============================================
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Energy Information Administration

[BillyC]

Question to everyone.

Do you think the oil companies would drop their prices if they were taxed less?
I here the talking heads saying yes but " I don't buy it "

I dont think taxing the oil guys is the right thing by any means but I wonder would they drop their prices if they were taxed less or not at all?

Would they continue with price increases and get even more drunk with even higher profits?

Is Greed good?

I don't see them investing in more refineries and I do not buy the theory that there is an oil shortage.
Demand is up and the companies are not building refineries to keep up with demand.
We know they have they capital to invest in it.
I am not sure why we don't see them being built.
Is it regulations that is stoping them or just it just an excuse to keep jacking up prices?

What do you think?

[tracysaboe]

Yes. Greed is good.

If oil companies really started making enormous profits, then newcomers would enter the marketplace and say "hey, I can make profits too." they would go searching for more oil researves other places. The increased competition from increased profits would increase supply and eventually the prices would come down again.

But we we don't live in a free market. which isolates the current oil companies from new competition.

More later.

Tracy

[FSPinNY]

>Do you think the oil companies would drop their prices if they were taxed less?

Reducing or eliminating taxes or expenses creates the downward 'space' for prices to be lowered by competition. 'They' (all) don't decide as a group to lower prices - why would they do that? They lower prices to increase sales and win market share. The invisible hand.

[FrankChodorov]

Question to everyone.

Do you think the oil companies would drop their prices if they were taxed less?
I here the talking heads saying yes but " I don't buy it "

I dont think taxing the oil guys is the right thing by any means but I wonder would they drop their prices if they were taxed less or not at all?

Would they continue with price increases and get even more drunk with even higher profits?

Is Greed good?

I don't see them investing in more refineries and I do not buy the theory that there is an oil shortage.
Demand is up and the companies are not building refineries to keep up with demand.
We know they have they capital to invest in it.
I am not sure why we don't see them being built.
Is it regulations that is stoping them or just it just an excuse to keep jacking up prices?

What do you think?

they have not invested in new refineries because the oil companies know that we are nearing peak oil production and it would be a waste of money...

[Pat McCotter]

they have not invested in new refineries because the oil companies know that we are nearing peak oil production and it would be a waste of money...

So they haven't built any in 30 years because of this?

[Russell Kanning]

Do you think the oil companies would drop their prices if they were taxed less?
Is Greed good?

In states with lower taxes the gas prices are lower. Did you look at that cool map from kbcraig? There are reasons that the lowest prices were in MT and WY and the highest in CA and NY (NH was also low for New England). Why do you think the price of gas is $3 and not $100? If the oil companies had unlimited ability to raise prices, then why haven't they?
Greed is not good, but I can't make Ytsvu not be greedy.

[BillyC]

they have not invested in new refineries because the oil companies know that we are nearing peak oil production and it would be a waste of money...

So they haven't built any in 30 years because of this?

Well put.
I am not sure I buy into the peak oil story.
It seems to be something else, I wouldnt know what that might be it would only be speculation on my part.

[FrankChodorov]

they have not invested in new refineries because the oil companies know that we are nearing peak oil production and it would be a waste of money...

So they haven't built any in 30 years because of this?

yes

[tracysaboe]

All I'm saying is that if the companies don't make high profits, there's no incentive for new market entrants, and no incentive for current companies to build. (And especially there's no incentive for the ones on the government dole, like Halliburton and the rest of the politicially connected fascist oil/government complex.  Expecially when you have to build a new plant you have lots of regulations to go through and the DOE. (Good grief, the US department of energy would make Stallan proud. It's a completely socialist entity with 5 year plans and everything. ) It's very difficult for a company to know if something will be profitably or not in that environment.

There are lots of places with known oil reserves. There's lots of oil in AK that's free flowing up onto the ground just being waisted, because it starts decomposinog because drilling isn't allowed. Now, simply allowing oil companies to just go in their isn't good either because w/o actual ownership of the property they'll completely rape the land with no regards for other values the property has but getting those lands into private property owners would do a good deal to increase world supplys of oil.

On top of that their are known oil supplies in Africa which nobody's tried to develope. The main reason for that again is lack of private property rights. The 3rd world dictators steal everything of value so what's the point in owning anything. But I bet you that if Oil companies made enough of a healthy profit, upstarts would start investigating these known oil researves more carefully.

In Russia there's lots of oil -- but they have the same problems with socialism. Nobody wants to pay to drill and refine oil if it's all just going to be taxes away from them. There were U.S. companies that were going to try drilling their for awhile and bagged the idea for russian political reasons. But if the price of oil and gas get high enough, I'm sure some companies will revisit the idea and try to figure out how to make a profit.

There are also known oil researves in South America, but research and developement has been stagnant.

The reason R and D into these have been stagnent in U.S. companies doesn't have anything to do w/ the fact that their isn't more oiil out their. It has a lot more to do with U.S. regulations. Neewcomers need to get all sorts of licenses and jump through all sorts of regulatory hurdels. The current crop -- not seeing much competition. (espeically again the politically connected part of the current crop.) doesn't have much incentive. But if all those regulatory hurdels were abolished and it was easier for a new company to start an oil business. you start seeing new supply. But currently, it's not worth it because the cost of regulation is too much for a new company to bare.

Add to that the War in Iraq and the Bomb threat hanging over Iran has pushed the price up a good $40/bll then it would be had the US not invaded Iraq and not started threatening to bomb Iran.

Add to that the regulatory hurdles (in fact the de facto outlawing of Nuclear)  of other types of energy currently. If oil had to compete w/ clean nuclear energy in the U.S. the price of oil would probably be about half what it is now.

The upside to all this, is that soon solar energy will soo start paying for itself w/in 5 years instead of 30 relative to using gas and oil.

But seriously. With all the government distortions in the marketplace it's almost impossible for an oil company to decide with actions would be profitable and which wouldn't be. There's no reason to blame high oil prices on peak oil theories or anything else besides the U.S. governments hybred of fascist (Crony capitalism, Halliburton, etc.) and socialist (DoE, taxing high profits, they're talking about a new $100 gas dole, etc.) policies.

Tracy