Comments on: Congress Hits Big Oil On Renewable Energy

Top Executives Grilled On Steep Gas Prices Vs. Big Profits, Efforts To Invest In Alternative Fuels

[feelfree1]

Re: "Congress Hits Big Oil On Renewable Energy"

Get real!

Unless they hit them with a locomotive, what''s the point?

If Congress wants to promote "green energy", then stop subsidizing oil companies with billions of U.S. tax dollars, and redirect the money to organizations that have this as their primary focus. That, or put it in a big pile and burn it. Either way, it would be a better investment than corporate welfare for oil pigs.

End the subsidies, jack their taxes to the sky, and if they don''t like it, seize and nationalize these companies. Energy production is a natural monopoly and should be nationalized anyway.

These corporate heads should be in prison. A crack-addicted bank-robber is more respectable than an oil executive.

[the74blaster]

Posted by demslie,

Yeah there may be some truth to the environmental restrictions. However, you do not explain why big oil and your beloved GOP has not done more with the huge profits to generate alternative fuels.

Another question is do you really believe that big oil would not export oil to take advantage of the high prices if these wells had been drilled?

I have a better idea. Lets layoff all the 30 million a year executives, outsource their jobs to India for 50K per year and pass the cost savings on the consumers! After all its the American way.

[scottyusa]

What a smoke screen. The oil company executives must think our lawmakers are gullable and they are usually right. These feeble excuses for huge profits are no less than rediculous. Case in point; "Simon said his company, which earned $40 billion last year, had provided $100 million on research into climate change at Stanford University". That is a drop in the bucket to say the very least. What about the other 39.9 billion? I would think Congress would want to see these investments. I certainly would not take the word of greedy CEOs and oil company officials. The fault for the high oil prices lies with the speculators and day traders in the oil market which does not work only on supply and demand. It does in a way, it can easily be manipulated. None of that can justify these company''s profits while the nation withers and suffers from it. Inventories are high right now and demand is low so just what is happening to supply and demand? They haven''t even started taking refineries off line for maintainance and soaking us for that like they do every spring. Government should take control over the oil industry for national security reasons. We are slowly being choked. Throw in all this going green idiocracy and watch the middle class disappear.

[the74blaster]

And we''''re giving them billions and billions in tax breaks to produce the oil! They''''re like paying themselves three times!

Posted by RowdyTexan2,

Considering the abundance of oil people in the Bush administration, does anyelse feel that there is a slight conflict of interest?

The problem is that this April fools joke in on us because the torturous Bush administration and the oil companies are still in power.

[arlt1627]

By population I was referencing the WORLD population for anyone looking.

[arlt1627]

In the last 3 decades oil companies wanted to spend 30 billion on new refineries. They were stopped from doing that by Democrats. If they had built the refineries we would have such a large supply that gas would be a dollar a gallon. If we had drilled for oil in the United States like most industrial nations in Europe our supplies would make gas much cheaper. Democrat environmental nuts stopped that too. If we had drilled in the Giant Gulf reserves just south of Florida, we could stop importing a million barrels a day. Democrats stopped the United States from drilling there but had nothing to say when China and Cuba began drilling in the same exact place. Now Democrats blame it all on the Big Bad Oil Companies. And these people are going to run the country?

Posted by demslie at 07:02 PM : Apr 01, 2008


DOHH! It is now ALL those *** Democrats....it is their fault!! I mean who cares that OPEC controls the world markets....who cares that our population has nearly doubled in the past 30 years increasing demand in countries like China and India. No....it is ALWAYS the Democrats fault in these cases. Republicans can do no wrong and so on....

Sometimes this is called international corporations hose customers. The only option is to not BUY the oil and choose to take alternative transportation. This is NOT a simple political issue. Do not make it one.

[demslie]

In the last 3 decades oil companies wanted to spend 30 billion on new refineries. They were stopped from doing that by Democrats. If they had built the refineries we would have such a large supply that gas would be a dollar a gallon. If we had drilled for oil in the United States like most industrial nations in Europe our supplies would make gas much cheaper. Democrat environmental nuts stopped that too. If we had drilled in the Giant Gulf reserves just south of Florida, we could stop importing a million barrels a day. Democrats stopped the United States from drilling there but had nothing to say when China and Cuba began drilling in the same exact place. Now Democrats blame it all on the Big Bad Oil Companies. And these people are going to run the country?

[rudy654-2009]

Furthermore, they are the beneficiaries of corporate welfare. Profits, while we give them welfare.

[rowdytexan2]

And we''re giving them billions and billions in tax breaks to produce the oil! They''re like paying themselves three times!

[psk123-2009]

End the tax breaks, they don''t need them and I don''t care to pay on both sides for the same product.

[hungry1968]

hungry, gasoline is a commodaty, I thought that''''s waht we were talking about.

Posted by notblue at 05:32 PM : Apr 01, 2008





Even still, commodity profit margins are nowhere near 35% high.

The only one that might be, MIGHT be corn or wheat. Corn only because of extraordinarily high subsidies, and wheat because the farmers that are planting wheat are making a lot more money because of the demand caused by former wheat farmers, now growing corn.

There is NO commodity that operates anywhere near 35% profit margins.

[notblue]

hungry, gasoline is a commodaty, I thought that''s waht we were talking about.

[hungry1968]

hungry, google is an inforamtion and service business it''''s not a commodity. Do you know the difference?

Posted by notblue at 05:04 PM : Apr 01, 2008





Google is one of the most successful companies in the US right now, and their PROFIT MARGIN - the source of our debate - is 25.33%

I never once said it was a commodity. We were talking about companies and their profit margins, not about commodities vs other types of businesses.

[hungry1968]

Hungry the commodities mentioned in my post were food, clothing, and furniture trying to keep the discussion for products most Americans consume. Clothing and furniture in some cases are over 100%. Food meets the 35% percent mark. Any other questions?

Posted by notblue at 05:03 PM : Apr 01, 2008





That is clearly NOT what you said. You made a reference to companies, and their operating profit margins. You never once said anything about commodities, and even if you did, I highly doubt that those profit margins are that high.

NOTE: You never mentioned anything about commodity prices in your original post.

"Most companies bank on a gross profit margin of at least 35%, some more, very few reamin solvent at less than 10%. This is a free enterprise system in America. Is the problem the profit marigin or consumer consumption? Please reply with a logical response.

Posted by notblue at 03:14 PM : Apr 01, 2008"




In fairness, please post the source of your information that proves that commodity trading is typically in a 35% profit margin range. Maybe if you list your source, it will finally make sense.

[notblue]

hungry, google is an inforamtion and service business it''s not a commodity. Do you know the difference?

[notblue]

Hungry the commodities mentioned in my post were food, clothing, and furniture trying to keep the discussion for products most Americans consume. Clothing and furniture in some cases are over 100%. Food meets the 35% percent mark. Any other questions?

[tommy6860]

infe5 said, "These companies don''''t make profit off of the increase in crude prices because they have to absorb those increased costs as well (these companies refine crude)."

Your logic on big oil profits don''t follow. Yes, Americans are bent on consumerism and guzzle more gas than anyone.

Anyway, to say they are not making profits off increased crude prices doesn''t follow on their profits. Since 1999 they are making more and more profits, and we consume about as much fuel as we did 10 years ago. ''97-98'', the oil cos. made less profits than they did the 5 years before (avg $25bbl), because crude prices were around $20BBl (low in early ''99'' of $11bbl), we saw about $.75 for gal of gas, now look at it.

They are reaping profits fsimply because we are willing to pay?. Demand was almost that high in early "99". Now oil drops $10bbl, the price takes a week to reflect that. Oil goes up, changes that same day, not like that years ago, they are playing the system. Their refining capacity is adding to this fact. They haven''t added a new one since the "70s" while losing over 20 of them to attrition of some sort (namely from fire damage). If they are not making money of increased crude prices, then their profit margin should still be considerably lower than it is now.

Overall, oil consumption is the primary reason, and the world as a whole drinks more, not that the US drinks way more than it did just 10 years ago, and that is while oil is so high.

[hungry1968]

Yeah imagine if big oil were able to drill in Alaska, and other places in the USA without EPA and Congressional prohibitions. Wow, wouldn''''t that be novel? Wouldn''''t it be novel if Congress didn''''t tax big oil to the tune of $50 billion - maybe big oil wouldn''''t pass that on to the little guy. What''''s wrong with Big Oil anyway.

Posted by mudrose at 04:44 PM : Apr 01, 2008




Don''t you mean the tax BREAKS that the idiot in chief gave the big oil companies with the help of the 108th republican controlled congress?

Moron.

[bookwerm314]

My GOD there are some FOOLs on here! They think that opening up Alaska, the coastline etc. for oil exploration and recovery will LOWER OIL PRICES??? NOT AT ALL! There is more demand than there is oil, and as LONG as that is the case, prices won''t drop. And others, who think that killing tax breaks and raising taxes ON Oil companies will RAISE our price? ALSO not true.. though they sure would like you to think that..

Why? Well, lets assume you are a farmer.. you plant corn.. costs you $2.00 a bushel to grow and harvest. If you sell for less than $2.00, you lose money.. more, you make money.. Then, there is a corn shortage.. sale prices go up to $8.00/bushel.. you make a lot of money.. the PRICE the bushel sells for has NOTHING to do with how much it costs to GROW!!..

Well, oil, a commodity, is the same way! Obviously if you can''t SELL it for what if cost you to make/grow, you lose money.. but taxing your profit OVER your costs will do NOTHING except reduce the profit the company makes (or the farmer) and NOT the price you pay.

[dzapple]

What''''s down America''''s greedy road 232 years later? We may be about to find out.

IT WILL BE LIKE THE MOVIE "ROAD WARRIOR"-MAD MAX
WE FIGHT AND KILL FOR GAS