Petrol Prices

Remove all ads!

I own a Chevrolet S-10 and I need it for work. Try driving around a build site carrying a truck box full of construction materials in a regular car, and then we'll talk.

 

Lord, SUV's and fuel-guzzling cars are so not the issue! The prices are going up because of supply and demand. China and India have started using oil heavily in the last few years. That's almost 3 billion new users demanding oil while supply has not increased.

I don't know whether to laugh or sigh at that one. For fiscal year 2005, ExxonMobil earned $36.130 billion in profits on $339.938 billion in revenues. ChevronTexaco earned $14.099 billion in profits on $189.481 billion in revenues. ConocoPhilips earned $13.259 billion in profits on $166.683 billion in revenues. That covers the top three petroleum companies. Would you like me to continue?

Calculate the numbers yourself and compare them to the margins of companies in other industries. You'll see that none of those companies are above the average, and most are well below it. Is that what you call corporate greed?

I also have to know, how many of you that complain about the high profits have decided to cash in on them by buying the companies?

 

How do you define what profit a company 'should' make? I have absolutely no problem with petrol companies trying to make as much money as they can. That's the price we pay for living in a free market economy. It's all about supply and demand. A company should charge the highest price that people are still prepared to pay for their products. There's no such thing as charging too much, so long as people are still buying it.

Exactly.

 

$90 US to fill my 30 gallon tank. I would walk to work, but I live 22 miles from my closest job. At least my truck gets about 20 mpg.

 

SUVs and other gas guzzling cars create demand. Not as much as 3 billion consumers, but enough to make gas prices go up.

In any case, I'll drop it. Its not worth arguing, just worth fixing. Go engineers! Find a cure!

 

Oh, yes we will. Give it time, my friend. Not all that much time, either, in all probability.

 

Oh yeah. Never say never! Petrol prices will go way past $1 a litre one day.

 

The problem is that the supply will decrease in the next 100 years, and the demand will certainly not.

Expect the prices to rise. Much.

 

One would hope, but that's not likely, as no matter how high gas prices go, over the short term it is still cheaper the continue driving your existing car that buying a new one. The problem is that hybrid cars are still relatively new, so it's not likely you're going to find an inexpensive used hybrid vehicle. Add to the fact that a hybrid vehicle currently costs thousands of dollars more than a similarly sized all-gas vehicle. So it literally takes years to recoup the cost in gas savings as what you spent extra to purchase the hybrid - you'll be lucky if you break even over the life of the vehicle.

And this is one way that a fleet of hybrids would help. In the U.S., 60% of oil that is consumed is used for gas in people's vehicles. This doesn't include commercial vehicles, or transport vehicles, or things like boats and planes. 60% of what we use go into cars people drive every day. As such, that is where you can gain the most from conservation, but for reasons cited above, you're unlikely to see a major shift in purchasing hybrid vehicles. Even if every auto manufacturer started producing only hybrid vehicles, it would still be another 5 years before we see a major drop in gas consumption, and 5 more years after that before we move to a mostly hybrid fleet of cars.

 

Taxation helped a lot in Europe. Target of the high taxes was to lower demand through higher-efficency. Which worked to some degree. Without the high taxes on oil, we poor Europeans would be seriously ****ed now. Really seriously ****ed, but since the findings of the club of rome 1972, two economical disastrous oil-crisises 1974 and 1979, there was enough political will to lower the oil-dependency from foreign and capricious oil from nearly 100% to something over 50%. Be through replacing it through north-see-oil, better public transportation or buying japanese cars.

Many forget that energy-efficency has not only ecological advantages, but also economical and geopolitical. It keeps us safe from OPEC without having to invade them. And let's not forget the fiscal waste. Ever checked how many percentages of a cantonal budget get burned for building and mainting roads, bridges and high-ways. All for free!! Bah, I am all for the New Alpine-Transversal.

 

Well, looks like Bush is trying to do something ( )...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/04/25/376891.html

Sorry its from comcast... news is news.

 

Yeah, then you say this:

One of these statements makes sense, and the other does not. Let's see, SUVs use more gas, which causes usage to go up, which causes...And Exxon just past GE as the world's largest corporation; wonder if gas prices have anything to do with that? But maybe we should do the American thing here and blame China for the problem (note: it's never anything Americans do, or their greedy corporations, which causes any of America's problems; it's more than likely the "Axis of Evil" or, when all else fails, China). Yes, we understand that there is a lot of usage across the entire world. But, more than likely it's what BTA has already noted: speculation in the oil market that US and Iran might have a war. See, it really is the Axis of Evil after all.

 

A couple of weeks ago I heard a news saying something like Exxon had de-throned Walmart in some top companies-list. I then thought it was the Iraq war that had paid off, but I don't want to get into it (too tiresome).
But it is weird how economy "works". Cause lots of countries are complaining of the oil price (as exposed right here on this thread) and in the end, a company is making a load**** of money. Why, they raised it just to gain more profit? What intrincated explanation do they have now?
PS: they = exxon and the rest.

 

Chandos, check out my first post on this page, I am in agreement with you.


Also, doesn't the price increase have something to do with the fact that an additive they used to use caused problems (cancer, or somesuch), so they have replaced it with a more expensive alternative (ethanol, maybe?). I am sorry about the vagueness, I only vaguely recall what this was about.

 

World's largest company defined how? ExxonMobil is the largest by revenues, Wal-Mart is number two, and GE is nowhere close.

World's largest by market cap? ExxonMobil is number one, but it was tied with GE for a while. Both were deadlocked at $370 billion not too long ago.

The difference is negligible when you consider the two largest countries in the world coming online. SUVs were a lot more popular in the late-90s than they are now. Oil prices were around $1 a gallon then. They aren't helping the problem, but they aren't the cause of it.

Prices did go up recently because of ethanol usage, yes. That was also used back when gas was significantly cheaper as well.

 

I understand, Rastor, but if both countries did more to conserve than the problem would not be as large as it is atm; usage is about equal to production. But I still believe that speculation is what is causing a lot of the pain, not S&D.

A funny piece of satire on the situation:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12482934/site/newsweek/

[ April 26, 2006, 04:08: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Here's some interesting numbers to ponder - this was as of 2005.

In 2005, the U.S. represented 3% of the world's population.

In 2005, the U.S. controlled 7% of the of the world's oil supply. (Sounds good so far).

However, in 2005, the U.S. accounted for 20% of the oil used in the world.

Now, with India and China industrializing it is quite likely that the 20% world consumption rate will fall in upcoming years, not because we'll be using any less, but because other countries will start using more. The point is, if the U.S. were using an amount of oil proportional to its population, we'd have more than enough within our own borders. Heck, even if we were using twice as much as you'd think based on population, we'd have enough.

 

Interesting. I think the way would be either securing supply or decreasing demand. What do you think the US global strategy is, securing supply or decrease demand ?

And how "secure" supply.

Influence those who have oil?

Decrease demand. Making oil artifically more expensive.

Isn't oil artifically cheap anyway, I mean securing the flows of the oil costs tons of money through all the gulfs and pipelines that are in dangerous places. And thank god for the dorks that rule those half-civil war countries. What would the world be without them.

****, civil unrest in Nigeria, it hampers production.

 

@Iago -

Well, if we take Bush's announcement yesterday at face value and assume he's being truthful (which I admit is a major caveat), then it appears to be a bit of both those options. However, as I said, there is very little we can do to cut consumption any time soon. Even if everyone bought hybrids tomorrow, it would reduce the oil consumption in the U.S. by 30%, meaning that we'd still be dependent upon foreign oil to meet our demands, but less so than we are now.

Which means that securing the supply (as best as is possible) is the only short-term solution to the problem that is currently available. What really needs to happen is to start long-term planning now so we're in a better position 10 years down the road. There are technologies out there, such as hydrogen cars, and fuel cells that can be developed to reduce the need for oil further. However, these technologies are in their infancy, mostly due to a lack of funding. It's not like we're going to start rolling out hydrogen cars in 2007 or 2008 like we're rolling out hybrids today. Even if you're very optimistic about this technology, it appears that any type of significant use of these technologies is years - maybe as much as a decade - away.

The biggest problem is that we are currently consuming oil (and by we I'm referring the planet's population, not just the U.S.) as fast as they can pump it out of the ground. Moreover, most countries are already near maximum production of oil the way it is, so "pump faster" isn't really an option either. In the upcoming years, China and India's thirst for oil will only increase, and it is a real possibility that the rate of consumption will exceed the rate of production even under the best scenarios.