You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nationalization of oil industry
- Thread starter oldredneck
- Start date
The price of oil is high because it is:
1. Traded
2. Taxed
3. Subject to supply and demand economics
Any solution ignoring one or more of these factors is bound to fail, regardless of intent. They also seem to be backed by political and ideological forces as much or more so than altruistic or practical concern over the actual cost of oil.
That said, I support mild regulation aimed at curbing speculators artificially inflating oil's value as a commodity, lowering taxes industry wide from the well-heads through to the pumps, and exploring alternative energy sources while maximizing oil production across the board.
1. Traded
2. Taxed
3. Subject to supply and demand economics
Any solution ignoring one or more of these factors is bound to fail, regardless of intent. They also seem to be backed by political and ideological forces as much or more so than altruistic or practical concern over the actual cost of oil.
That said, I support mild regulation aimed at curbing speculators artificially inflating oil's value as a commodity, lowering taxes industry wide from the well-heads through to the pumps, and exploring alternative energy sources while maximizing oil production across the board.
Too many factors that are creating the current gasoline price increases to have an 'easy fix'.
I do think that crude oil speculators are having a significant impact and some regulation of trading is in order. Using the futures market for price protection for industries that use petroleum is one thing, outright speculation is another and should be 'looked at' to determine the impact.
I do think that crude oil speculators are having a significant impact and some regulation of trading is in order. Using the futures market for price protection for industries that use petroleum is one thing, outright speculation is another and should be 'looked at' to determine the impact.
Erik
JWT
So, is it just "speculators" in oil which get your undies in a knot? Or would you like to see speculation in orange juice, pork bellies, gold, silver, natural gas, dollars, euros etc. regulated as well?
That said, I support mild regulation aimed at curbing speculators.....
JWT
I do think that crude oil speculators are having a significant impact and some regulation of trading is in order.....
So, is it just "speculators" in oil which get your undies in a knot? Or would you like to see speculation in orange juice, pork bellies, gold, silver, natural gas, dollars, euros etc. regulated as well?
Is Profit A Crime?
I am getting tired of all the bashing aimed at oil companies. It seems some folks are upset at the amount of money they are making. here are some facts.
Last year Exxon made $36 billion in profit. Yes, it is a record amount, but it is only a 9% margin on $400 billion. Write now Exxon stock is trading at just short of $86.00 a share. In the last 12 months Exxon stock has been as high as $96 and as low as $77.55 a share. This is still short of the $200 to $300 a share price of other stock like Google. Should Google executives be called in front of Congess for their obscene profits?
I am getting tired of all the bashing aimed at oil companies. It seems some folks are upset at the amount of money they are making. here are some facts.
Last year Exxon made $36 billion in profit. Yes, it is a record amount, but it is only a 9% margin on $400 billion. Write now Exxon stock is trading at just short of $86.00 a share. In the last 12 months Exxon stock has been as high as $96 and as low as $77.55 a share. This is still short of the $200 to $300 a share price of other stock like Google. Should Google executives be called in front of Congess for their obscene profits?
"So, is it just "speculators" in oil which get your undies in a knot?"
The mention of speculators and a willingness to examine options to curb the unintended price point consequences of speculation shouldn't be construed as irritance with speculators or even with the reality of speculating.
As previously stated, resistance to considering options is typically ideologically driven; which may or may not be a correct position. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of positions I adhere to from ideological points.
The mention of speculators and a willingness to examine options to curb the unintended price point consequences of speculation shouldn't be construed as irritance with speculators or even with the reality of speculating.
As previously stated, resistance to considering options is typically ideologically driven; which may or may not be a correct position. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of positions I adhere to from ideological points.
"I am getting tired of all the bashing aimed at oil companies."
It is typically either ideologocally or ignorance driven bashing. Maybe both.
The oil industry earns relatively large profits confined with relatively small profit margins. But many folks just can't be bothered with the facts.
Who here is employed in the private sector by entities with profite margins as low as the oil industry's? Probably not too many unless you work in the oil industry, that is.
It is typically either ideologocally or ignorance driven bashing. Maybe both.
The oil industry earns relatively large profits confined with relatively small profit margins. But many folks just can't be bothered with the facts.
Who here is employed in the private sector by entities with profite margins as low as the oil industry's? Probably not too many unless you work in the oil industry, that is.
My Holiday Observation
I spent the last two days driving around Western Nevada and Eastern California. I saw plenty of cars on the road. I saw huge motorhomes, trucks with campers pulling boats, trucks pulling ATV trailers, boats speeding across lakes, ATV's tearing across the desert, generally Americans enjoying the fourth. They were all also consuming gas.
Some of you probably still wonder why the the price of fuel is so high.
I spent the last two days driving around Western Nevada and Eastern California. I saw plenty of cars on the road. I saw huge motorhomes, trucks with campers pulling boats, trucks pulling ATV trailers, boats speeding across lakes, ATV's tearing across the desert, generally Americans enjoying the fourth. They were all also consuming gas.
Some of you probably still wonder why the the price of fuel is so high.
Its really interesting that this thread started with the threat presented by nationalization of oil refineries.
It went on to the nuclear power industry, and the idea that we regulated it to death.
France was used as an example of how much better our nuclear industry could be.
Any idea who owns and built French nuclear power plants?
Any idea of how much of the French economy is socialist?
I worked for a state agency that was in direct competition with private industry. Some years we dominated the industry, some years we got beat up pretty well.
Government involvement is neither a guarantee of success, or of inefficiency. It depends on management, and the quality varies greatly.
The French were able to build nuclear plants because the government was the only agency willing to put up the huge initial investment required to build.
Businesses in the 80's had very little capital to work with, due to ridiculously high interest rates.
In the 90's, most investment went into very little in the way of hard assets. It instead went into intellectual properties, as that was where some very high rates of return were (think software).
In the meantime, GE and a few other companies did a lot of research, with government help, to try and find ways to improve nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants are now dramatically more efficient than they were.
Designs are being developed to improve safety, and to dramatically decrease up front costs.
Attempts are being made to standardize design, so something resembling mass production can occur. Previously, virtually every plant was different. It was like building prototype after prototype, without ever perfecting a design.
There is still no general agreement on what design would be best.
Yes, there was a terrific NIMBY movement. But simplistically saying that environmental regs were the reason nuclear wasn't developed is just plain wrong.
I have seen no evidence that we have oil reserves greater than the middle east. Give me a reference for that one.
We do have substantial reserves, but most are not economically recoverable, at least not now. Believe it, if they were, there wouldn't be so many areas leased by oil companies that are never exploited.
ANWAR is often held up as some miracle that would give us instant oil independence. Sorry, there just isn't that much oil there.
And in tapping it, we risk not only some wildlife, But possibly the Bering Sea, where 40% of the world's fishery now exists. I would rather leave that area as a last resort.
To state that the democrat position is all or nothing on fossil fuels is wrong. Most are looking for a mixed solution, and active research into carbon sequestration is a major plank for many.
It went on to the nuclear power industry, and the idea that we regulated it to death.
France was used as an example of how much better our nuclear industry could be.
Any idea who owns and built French nuclear power plants?
Any idea of how much of the French economy is socialist?
I worked for a state agency that was in direct competition with private industry. Some years we dominated the industry, some years we got beat up pretty well.
Government involvement is neither a guarantee of success, or of inefficiency. It depends on management, and the quality varies greatly.
The French were able to build nuclear plants because the government was the only agency willing to put up the huge initial investment required to build.
Businesses in the 80's had very little capital to work with, due to ridiculously high interest rates.
In the 90's, most investment went into very little in the way of hard assets. It instead went into intellectual properties, as that was where some very high rates of return were (think software).
In the meantime, GE and a few other companies did a lot of research, with government help, to try and find ways to improve nuclear power.
Nuclear power plants are now dramatically more efficient than they were.
Designs are being developed to improve safety, and to dramatically decrease up front costs.
Attempts are being made to standardize design, so something resembling mass production can occur. Previously, virtually every plant was different. It was like building prototype after prototype, without ever perfecting a design.
There is still no general agreement on what design would be best.
Yes, there was a terrific NIMBY movement. But simplistically saying that environmental regs were the reason nuclear wasn't developed is just plain wrong.
I have seen no evidence that we have oil reserves greater than the middle east. Give me a reference for that one.
We do have substantial reserves, but most are not economically recoverable, at least not now. Believe it, if they were, there wouldn't be so many areas leased by oil companies that are never exploited.
ANWAR is often held up as some miracle that would give us instant oil independence. Sorry, there just isn't that much oil there.
And in tapping it, we risk not only some wildlife, But possibly the Bering Sea, where 40% of the world's fishery now exists. I would rather leave that area as a last resort.
To state that the democrat position is all or nothing on fossil fuels is wrong. Most are looking for a mixed solution, and active research into carbon sequestration is a major plank for many.