published Thursday, April 1st, 2010

Offshore

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

46
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
Clara said...

A little off-topic, but...

I wonder how many wind mills could/should fit on an oil- drilling platform to supply electricity for their endeavors.

Is the fish caught by the workers on the platform edible?

What kind of fish might the oil workers catch on their off-hours?

April 1, 2010 at 12:32 a.m.
nucanuck said...

For Obama to open up offshore areas for drilling is an act of political brilliance. With an opening gambit of a concilliatory gesture,Obama has set the stage for the introduction of an ambitious far reaching energy policy.

Offshore drilling can only supply a small part of America's energy needs,but by opening that door first,opposition to other energy approaches has been dulled. No one new source will fill our needs and worldwide conventional oil flow rates have fattened out. Synthetic crude and ethanol have been filling the shortfall of conventional crude oil.

I can't think of any other thing more difficult for America than the unavoidable energy transition that is just beginning. The coming price of oil means we have to develope nuclear,concentrated solar,geothermal,wind,but most of all we will have to reduce consumption aggressively.

Most of us don't want to do that and will resist mightily,but those that understand the depth of the problem and take appropriate measures will be ahead of the curve.

In the meantime the President has thrown the conservatives a bone in the form of offshore drilling. I can't wait to see the next move.

April 1, 2010 at 1:56 a.m.
woody said...

Interesting and sensible post, Nucanuck. However, in answer(?) to your last remark, it really makes no difference what Obama does or doesn't do. The "Right" is going to find fault with it.

Even though I didn't vote for the president, I have been more than willing to allow him the privilege of making his own mistakes. Granted, I am still not convinced he was the best choice in the last election, but according to some (and you know who you are) Obama hasn't done one thing right(if you'll pardon the Freudian slip) since taking office.

Off-shore drilling will not damage this great nation of ours, and, in fact, can only lead to bigger and better things for all. First and foremost, energy independence.

Stabilizing the price of crude, while developing viable alternatives to to outmoded energy ideas is the right(there I go again) way to go.

The biggest April Fool of them all, Woody

April 1, 2010 at 6:15 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

And windmills kill eagles. (I'd think they could design, instead of three or so huge blades that whack birds, blades in the shape of a screen, tiny but aerodynamic, mutually supporting--probably with some stronger beams--looking solid and perhaps able to brush off a bird rather than hit it.) If Senator Obama had run stiffly against offshore drilling, Sarah Palin might be our Vice President. Youtube's "Are we better off now than we were two years ago?" expresses my overall opinion of President Obama, but FWIW he's doing the right thing this time. (Or at least pretending to, and taking a small step in the right direction; I'm sure he knows we're still a long way from pumping the gas that's there.)

April 1, 2010 at 6:30 a.m.
EaTn said...

Does anyone really think this off-shore drilling is for real? Remember "drill baby drill"? It was a political ploy used to gander-up gullible right wing support the last election, and Obama is brilliantly using the same tool to pour cold water on the gullible right-wingers who are opposing some of his programs. Don't bet the farm on seeing massive oil farms popping up anytime soon.

April 1, 2010 at 7:01 a.m.
Shock said...

Everybody here knows that any oil drilled in the U.S. just goes on the world oil market and is sold back to us at whatever prices the market/OPEC sets, right? If we allow the offshore drilling, we'll collect revenue from leasing the rights to the oil (which is great), but the oil is the property of the oil companies. Let's say we allow offshore drilling in a U.S. field that produces the same amount of oil as the Saudis, then the Saudi royal family goes through some crisis that cuts off the flow of oil from that area of the world. Oil prices will shoot through the roof and the oil that is drilled in the U.S. will just be sold back to us (and everybody else) at the much higher prices. There isn't any "oil independence" that we keep hearing about from those clamoring to drill all over Alaska. Researching other energy sources is the future.

April 1, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
brandon83 said...

Clara, some of the best off-shore fishing occurs around platforms.

Dorado, Marlin, Tuna, etc...good stuff!

Obviously Clay has neve heard of regulations...those platforms in the Gulf sure are killing a lot of fish and polluting the water. Why don't you make a cartoon about all the documented cases.

:rolleyes:

April 1, 2010 at 8:25 a.m.
SeaSmokie59er said...

I love a good game of chess.

April 1, 2010 at 8:29 a.m.
memphisexile said...

This will not result in any new oil being drilled any time soon. First they have to do the studies to see how much is there, then there will be years of litigation tying this up in court. The amount of oil we drill will never be enough to cover our needs and until we develop alternate means of energy we will be held hostage by the middle east.

We put a man on the moon, cured polio, invented the first nuclear bomb. Surely with all the resources this country has we can develop some alternate clean way to power things. Lets pull all our resources into that idea instead of wasting time and money on energy sources that only hurt the U.S.

Not to mention that drilling more oil won't help drive gas prices down. The endless speculation on Wall Street is what drives the price of gas up not supply and demand. I guess we have the recession to thank for our current gas prices that have been lower (although going back up lately).

One more day till the weekend when I get to return to lovely Chatt. for 72 hours. Maybe I'll take a stroll through Coolidge Park and see how the gangs there compare to the gangs here in the Bluff City.

April 1, 2010 at 9:25 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Nananuck,
It takes 4 gallons of gas to make 3 gallons of ethanol. When they produce it they are burning energy. They can't ship it through pipelines like gas, so they have to ship it via trucks. Trucks then burn a ton of fuel to get to their distination, polluting the air along the way. Farmers look out at their fields saying, I'll cut back on my other crops and grow corn. Since the farmers are growing more corn, the price of feed for the animals goes up, the price of oats, wheat, barley, and vegetables all go up. Now at the grocery store all of the prices go up. The USA feeds the world and there is less food exports going to 3rd world countries. I believe it was Mobil Oil who found that large oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. Who do you want to drill, Mexico, Cuba, France or the United States with it's superior technolgy? If oil washes up on our shores it won't be coming from a US Oil platform.

Clara, Do you know how many windmills you would need to help with our energy problems. Check it out. They are NOT the solution, trust me.

April 1, 2010 at 10:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Bob, you are spot on about the ethanol. It is not as good a substitute as some may think. I feel it is immoral to use food to make it, though.

Windmills will not cover all our needs, but they are part of the picture. Solar and nuclear have a part to play, but the idea of building lots of nuclear plants is frightening. The best "alternative" energy is saving energy by increasing efficiency and using less.

April 1, 2010 at 10:22 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Waaay off topic - except that it was "offshore" - but too entertaining to pass up

US navy nabs pirate suspects

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100401/pl_afp/uspiracyshippingseychelles

This is what the pirates attacked from their skiff

http://www.nicholas.navy.mil/default.aspx

Y'all have a nice day

April 1, 2010 at 10:38 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Ethanol also damages your engine and reduces your MPG.

April 1, 2010 at 10:41 a.m.
nucanuck said...

BobMKE,

I couldn't agree more about ethanol. There is virtually no upside except for farmers making money and even getting a government subsidy...beyond comprehension unless you are a farmer. Ethanol should not be used as a fuel with the possible exception of ethanol produced from sugar cane which has a higher EROI (energy return on investment).

As to your point about who drills in the Gulf of Mexico,each country is limited by offshore territorial boundries and the deeper it is,the more expensive it is to extract. Some of the more recent deep discoveries may require a world price of oil above $150 per barrel to be econonically viable.

What many people fail to understand is that oil supply is bound by flow rates,not inground reserves. A growing consensus now believe that no matter what we do,the maximum wordwide flow rate has been reached. If true,the world's growing population will have to share a fixed number of barrels per day and that can only lead to spiraling prices.

So far,no other form of energy can match oil for EROI and one hundred fifty years of cheap oil (energy) has paralleled the worldwide population explosion (causal relationship?). Known energy alternatives,even combined,can't replace oil,which brings us to an energy tipping point. Something has to give,either we use less,reduce population levels,or find a yet unknown new energy source,or a combination.

Finding more low cost oil and increasing flow rates can only be considered hope based...there are almost no technical reasons to believe that can happen.

April 1, 2010 at 12:12 p.m.
Sailorman said...

The solution won't come easily or cheaply. The one indisputable fact is that oil is a finite resource. A combination of everything mentioned so far and options we haven't thought of, each with its particular downsides, will eventually emerge. In the meantime, we better pray the oil keeps flowing long enough to outlast "eventually"..

We seem to now have an abundance of unemployed rocket scientists. Maybe they can be put to use.

April 1, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.
JohnnyRingo said...

I have little problem with offshore drilling, and for the record I would feel the same if the Republican's "drill baby drill" proposal only concerned offshore drilling.

The issue I had with the Republican plan was their interest in selling out our National parks. Those parks are not the government's property to give away. They belong to each and every one of us Americans. Even a homeless person sleeping under a bridge owns a part of the National parks system. That's why no one can be charged an admission.

The reason I approve is that when I visited California a couple years ago, I saw the platforms from the Pacific Coast Highway. Unlike the derricks of old, these platforms send feelers for 30 miles in every direction. From any beach, you can usually only see one rig.

The only reservation I have stems from an Interview I saw with a Shell exec. When asked if the crude will be used here or sent to the global market, he waffled and gave an indistict reply. Unlike the Alaska oil that gets loaded onto tankers headed to the lucrative Asian market instead of down the pipeline, I want this oil brought ashore and refined here.

I understand the supply and demand of commodities, but I don't want this oil to average out the price globally. Why reduce the price in Europe and Asia.

As a footnote, I notice these platforms won't sully the view from Walker Point Kennebunkport, Martha's Vineyard, or Staten Island, so the Bush's, Kennedy's, and fatcats in NYC skyscrapers will watch unspoiled sunrises.

April 1, 2010 at 12:38 p.m.
Clara said...

BobMKE,

I wasn't talking about the whole population, just the drilling platform utilizing the ocean breezes. It would be intersting to also add a solid roof on which to place solar panels.

Would it be feasible to also experiment with wave action collectors at the same time?

Oil, no matter from where garnered, is going to give out.

This shouldn't be the political shindig it has evolved into.

Andrew Lohr, I was also thinking of a way to shield the blades.

Isn't there a some spiral funnel arrangement that would gather the wind, but that narrows at the end, and would permit a smaller shielded blade at the end, but moving faster, to be utilized?

I'm not sure even I understand the last paragraph! C:-)

I'm no engineer!

April 1, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
nucanuck said...

JR

Oil is fungible. One barrel of supply satisfies one barrel of demand wherever it comes from,at least up until now.

What now looks likely is that oil surplus nations may decide to produce less than maximum capacity to extend the life of their reserves. That probably means that the net amount of oil available for export would fall faster than anticipated and would disadvantage importing countries like the US. That is another reason we have to try to prepare quickly. We should have started to move in the 1970s when the first warning shot was fired and when US production maxed out.

Now we will probably fall to political fighting over what is the right course.

April 1, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.
Sailorman said...

"Now we will probably fall to political fighting over what is the right course."

And once that happens, hope is lost. The political solution will bear no resemblance to a technically sound and achievable solution.

If you want a preview, look no further than the foolish regulations covering everything from drinking water to lead being forwarded as we speak by the EPA.

April 1, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.
Clara said...

Ugly! It doesn't look this one is in the open sea, but...

April 1, 2010 at 3 p.m.
redbearded said...

New wells are fine and dandy, but what we could really use are a couple of refineries on the east and west coasts. Not concentrated in the gulf in the middle of hurricane alley. That would ensure a steady supply of gas and a steady price for it.

April 1, 2010 at 4:04 p.m.
aces25 said...

Clay make his funny about the bait, but I'm still waiting for the switch.

Shock- there is more to the price at the pump than the cost of a barrel of oil. While the pump price fluctuates with the barrel price, the pump price is dictated by so many other factors: transportation, refineries, storage, etc. Domestic oil reduces some (obviously not all) of these costs.

(A note: refineries are major key to actual supply. The refineries buy oil at the market price to be made into usable fuel. Increasing the amount of the refineries is just as important as increasing drilling.)

I believe a comprehensive plan is needed to move away from dependence on oil into more sustainable means. What that means is I believe has yet to reveal itself.

April 1, 2010 at 5:08 p.m.
Clara said...

I finally remembered the word I wanted to use in my post of 1:11pm..."venturi". Oh Well! Back to my corner!

April 1, 2010 at 9:03 p.m.
rolando said...

redbearded finally hit the real problem here...the lack of US refineries. We don't have enough capacity in our outmoded and worn out refineries to serve us now, much less when they are shutdown for months after a hurricane.

This is why our current Alaskan oil is sold on the world market...where are we going to refine it? The same thing will happen with any new wells coming on line. We Do Not Have Capacity. Sop we end up buying our own refined crude back at twice the price or more.

We can blame the Left Coast, those states following its lead, and our federal/state regulators that force the refineries out-of-country for this state of affairs.

As someone here said, the off-shore drilling is just a ploy; Dear Leader will long be run out of office before any of that oil appears. It is merely a run-up for the Nov elections...something to take our too-short memories off the ObamaNationHealthService. Once that is out of the way, he will reverse himself [again]. You can bet the rent on that.

Finally, are you still trying to tell us how to run our States after you hightailed it out of Dodge at the first hint of difficulty, nucanuck?

What, nothing about how wonderfully efficient the Canadians drill for oil? Or how wonderfully they keep the area around their nickle mines and smelters so pristine?

April 1, 2010 at 10:55 p.m.
nucanuck said...

rolando

I think the refining capacity shortfall has more to do with the increasing amounts of heavy crude to be processed. Many of the older refineries have been modernized and expanded so,even though the number of refineries is down,capacity has increased,but mostly for light crude. If there were money to be made,rest assured that new refineries would be built. US consumption is down almost two million barrels a day from its peak. In spite of that,world consumption is still growing albeit more slowly with the US in decline.

As for Canada's oil industry,it is a bit of a public embarassment. Canadians pride themselves in their high level of ecological responsibility,but there is a problem. The tar sands in Alberta are producing alot of oil while creating an unparalled ecological disaster. Greed has come face to face with responsibility and greed is winning.

And I will continue to offer my opinions from afar until I'm sure you,rolando,can handle things there on your own. Looks like that could take a while.

April 1, 2010 at 11:51 p.m.
alprova said...

The Ronald Reagan that not many knew or could imagine. I wonder what happened?

It takes this discussion a little off-topic, but this four minutes of radio history shows that 53 years ago, people were concerned about many of the same problems that we are today, including the price of gasoline.

April 2, 2010 at 6:27 a.m.

I was waiting for someone to come up with the facts about the Progressive-enviros stifling construction of new refineries over the last 30 years or so. Rolando did and spoke the truth. 2 or 3 years ago, the refinery advocates were being shouted down in the media when they warned we did not have enough capacity here in the US to produce the final product-gasoline and keep costs down. It is NOT true that all the older refineries are now modernized. Gov't Progressive regulating and Enviros screaming at every little encroachment on a fly's or a frog's territory has done it.

Living out West, we paid incredibly high prices for gas, even though oil platforms dotted the coast. BTW, the Santa Barbara/Montecito screaming Progs, were laughable. If you visit any of the beaches there you will find oil tar sticking to the bottoms of your feet. Seems the tar was used by the aboriginal peoples to caulk their seaworthy boats and canoes. The drilling does no discernible damage to the shoreline and neglible out to sea. The oil spill damage has been due to the large tankers and their own human errors.

In Canada, they did the same for 40 years and when they desperately needed to kickstart their failing economy, they got smart and started selling and using some of their huge natural resources.

"And I will continue to offer my opinions from afar until I'm sure you,rolando,can handle things there on your own. Looks like that could take a while". See the arrogance, the little prog-king has spoken. He has wisdom and (according to his last posts to me) we mere mortals do not. He knows all. um hmm. That's why someone like Rolando, who actually lives in Reality is dead on right about the political reasons Obama made the drill baby drill statement. Those living in a world of fairies on the other hand, will believe whatever they're told to.

April 2, 2010 at 10:25 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

canary, in this case you are correct. It is the environmental restrictions that have made building new refineries too expensive in the US for the last 30+ years. It's sad-we are buying refined fuel whose manufacture is causing pollution elsewhere, just like factories overseas exploiting workers rather than paying high US wages.

April 2, 2010 at 11:56 a.m.
Clara said...

Canary,

We are all in this fix as individuals; this is one world! Your "exclusivness" is a sad commentary on your narrow views.

I think I'll vote for putting an ethenol plant in YOUR subdivision.

April 2, 2010 at 12:11 p.m.
nucanuck said...

canary

The US currently has substantial excess oil refining capacity. If we assume that growth in demand will return and exceed former levels,then capacity may become an issue. More likely is that price driven conservation will continue concurrent with a slow transition toward other energy sources. Refiners can't make money on under-utilized capacity. New refineries won't be built without a clear demand trend change.

Pollution of land,sea,and air has become a concern for us all.You canary,bring another dimension,that of information pollution. What you lovingly call facts and truth rarely stand up to the slightest scrutiny. I know you try,but please try harder.

April 2, 2010 at 12:15 p.m.
Sailorman said...

NC

Substantial excess capacity? Hardly - where do you get this stuff.

Try this

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/energymarkets/background/hazle.pdf

Investment in U.S. refining capacity has fluctuated significantly over the past 40 years due to the effects of government policies and market forces. The federal crude oil allocation and price control system that was in effect in the 1970’s stimulated investment in capacity until, in 1981, there were 324 refineries with a total U.S. refining capacity of 18.6 million barrels per day which were collectively operating at less than 70% of capacity. However, the U.S. abandoned those controls in 1981 and allowed market forces to take over which quickly forced the closure of the most inefficient and unsophisticated refineries. Since 1981, 175 refineries have closed leaving the U.S. with 149 refineries with a total U.S. refining capacity of 17.3 million barrels per day and a collective capacity usage greater than 90%. The refining industry’s capacity reached its nadir in 1994, but since then has seen increasing capacity and throughput fueled by billions of dollars in new investment. Since 2000, the pace of refinery capacity investments has increased and has now reached a point where investments are being constrained by a lack of resources (manpower and materials) rather than will.

More at the link.

April 2, 2010 at 1:37 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SM

I don't see a date on the White Paper you posted,perhaps it it is not current. I read (and don't remember where) last week about current under-utilization in US refiners due to the contraction in consumption across America.

Since consumption is down almost 2 million barrels per day,peak to trough,I suspect the article was correct,and refiners do indeed have excess capacity currently.

April 2, 2010 at 2:37 p.m.
Sailorman said...

NC I didn't say there was no excess capacity but what there is can hardly be called substantial. If you had looked a little deeper, you would have found the paper was presented in Dec 2007 - not exactly ancient history.. Since it's Easter, and I'm a nice guy, I'm going to help you out.

This report was released March 31, 2010. Is that current enough for you?

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

Lots of good information in the links as well - enjoy. In addition, refineries are preparing for the summer blend switchover. As I recall, if you throw in the EPA demands plus the states, especially CA, they have to produce some 50 odd different blends of each grade. Bit silly but there you are.

April 2, 2010 at 2:57 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SM

Thanks for the EIA link,that was helpful.The earlier link from 2007 obviously would not reflect the events since Oct 2008.

My earlier observation was that current consumption levels are likely the new reality for the foreseeable future. That opinion is based what I read about probable price trends based on projected world flow rates,available exportable oil,world demand,and the impact those will likely have on pricing. I fully expect to see oil in the triple digits fairly soon and assume that will put a lid on US demand.

Another wild card is the US dollar. Further monetizing in excess of other countries' monetizing will move the dollar down,maybe alot. That may even be the US intention. If so,a decrease in the dollar translates into an increase in the US price of oil almost certainly.

Taken together there is a strong case to be made that the US won't need more refining capacity for a long,long time.

April 2, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.
Sailorman said...

I think your second point about the dollar is much more relevant to a decreasing need for refinery capacity than is the availability of crude.

April 2, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.

Clara, I hardly think you are one to talk about "narrow" thinking. You have gone (miraculously) in 6 months or so from admitting you know nothing and posting things about housework and washing dishes-to downloading and pontificating every Leftist viewpoint out there. Hardly unbiased. Maybe you're a nice lady to your fellow Progs here, but your postings and heart say otherwise.

Nu's: "I read (and don't remember where) last week about current under-utilization in US refiners due to the contraction in consumption across America". See, that's your problem in a nutshell, you read the biased propaganda without doing your objective homework. You jump on the Left-Prog bandwagon and as they love to do, call some of us stupid, unknowing and delusional. When I give you facts, you resort to insults. I don't need 3 dozen links to understand what is the truth and who is being truthful. You have little to no judgement, because of willful denial of the truth. I call it sweet Justice.

I thank Sailor for straightening you out, you slid out of that one pretty good and fast eh? Nothing like insulting the old canary here about lack of knowledge as you are wont to do, then finding out how much you lack yourself. Doubt it will make you or the other arrogant ones humble though. Hasn't happened yet. Every time you guys slobber insults, I wait and sure enough, sooner or later, the REAL facts and truth hit the light of day.

April 2, 2010 at 8:24 p.m.
nucanuck said...

SM

I am an incurable peak oiler. I have studied and read on the subject for almost ten years. I am either way wrong or way ahead of the public consensus,only time will tell.

If conventional oil did peak in 2005 and we are now on a plateau before the descent,then life as we have known it will change rapidly starting as early as 2014. We shall see.

April 2, 2010 at 8:24 p.m.
Clara said...

I read your URL on oil, Sman, but I'm not much into statistics. What I did see was that the price of oil is again, however slowly, rising to meet the peak when it was hitting over $3.00 a gallon. I wasn't too good at making out the other statistics.

I was very much restricted in my necessary travel then, and am feeling the pinch already. I thought we'd have some price restrictions.

I don't think the oil companies are suffering too much, if at all.

April 2, 2010 at 10:29 p.m.
alprova said...

How wonderful to see Canary back in full attack mode. I'm sure that somewhere in his Bible, he reads words that tell him to level insults at least one person each day, especially if they are female and/or a senior citizen.

The price of oil is not a political issue. No President, from the Oval Office, can do a thing to change the price of oil with the stroke of a pen announcing any expansion of domestic pumping of oil.

Why not? Because the Government does not own any oil drilling equipment and does not retain the right to force any private enterprise to sell what it has for sale to the citizens of the United States.

So arguing any and all factors that continue to be argued every time this subject comes up is more than laughable.

A gallon of crude pumped in Iraq is worth the same on the open market as a gallon of crude that is pumped up from the ocean floor off the coast of Virginia, assuming of course that the two gallons are of the same quality. Oil is a commodity that is bid on months before it is pumped.

Right now China is more than willing to pay more per gallon for crude or for refined products than most of the rest of the world will, because their economy is booming. So the bottom line is that for now, China is basically setting the price for oil and their demand is through the roof.

Oh...and let's not forget that nothing has changed in regard to commodities speculators, who can still manipulate oil stocks, repeating at any time that which drove the price at the pump over $4.00 a gallon here in the United States. Given that the airwaves have been inundated recently with ads aimed to entice first time investors to get in while the time is right, I'd say that we're in for another roller-coaster ride in prices at the pump.

April 3, 2010 at 12:12 a.m.
Clara said...

Alprova,

I believe Canary is a woman, and furthermore, she's Rolando's wife.

Just guessing. C:-)

April 3, 2010 at 12:54 a.m.
alprova said...

I had not considered that possibility, and if you are indeed right, it would absolutely explain a few things.

Misery does indeed love company.

April 3, 2010 at 1:30 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Clara said:

"I thought we'd have some price restrictions."

If I understand you correctly, you think this would be a good thing? If so, please look at this.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PriceControls.html

If I misunderstood, my apologies.

April 3, 2010 at 7:47 a.m.
Clara said...

Sman, Thanks for the URL. It seems a reasonable source, even if it does mention Karl Marx. I've bookmarked it.

My comment was based on the vast profits the oil companies were making on that surge in gas prices several years ago.

It didn't apparantly have anything to do with production or delivery costs.

Instead of the huge, immediate surge in prices this year, the price has been slowly rising to the former high levels.

I realize inflation is around 25% higher than it was about 2 years ago and that might be the reason. However, I'm still on the borderline of poverty according to state figures and Social Security hasn't gone up one bit, (which is also understandable.)

My grasp of the finances is minimal, and I can't discern actual cost of production and delivery deducted from the price and what their actual profit is. Have I made my stand clearer?

Sorry, as I said, I'm certainly not into high finance.

April 3, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
Sailorman said...

Clara

You may find this interesting reading.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2571

April 3, 2010 at 12:31 p.m.
Clara said...

Sman,

It is STILL confusing and unclear, but thanks for the URL. I read it several times.

I knew gasoline was being drawn from common pools, but it still doesn't explain the profit margin of Big Oil that was announced last year.

April 5, 2010 at 1:13 p.m.
Sailorman said...

Clara

You may be confusing "profit margin" with "profit".

April 5, 2010 at 4:23 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.