I have no idea how Walmart or any other retailer decides to their retail price. I do know how gasoline prices are decided.

We all know how gasoline prices are decided. Exxon, Texaco, etc... look for any excuse to raise prices. The Prince of Saudi Arabia has a cold. Time to raise prices 50 cents a gallo. He is better now. Ok, lets drop them a nickle a gallon. And by the way, if that is the best response you can come up with, just give up. I gave a legitimate scenario and the best you can come up with is I have no idea how walmart decides their prices? They call that pwned around here.

If you would care to dispute my explanation of gasoline prices, please feel free to do so.

Like I said, I have no idea how big-box retailers manage their pricing, so I can't comment on that.

However, it is an interesting comparison: T-shirts versus gasoline. Is the core component of T-shirts a globally-traded commodity, as is crude oil? I suppose it would be cotton, right?

Got any evidence to support this?

You are totally missing the point Donger. Forget the F'ing product. I am talking about conducting business. But, if you want to talk about a globally traded product, try corn. I knew a man with a feed business. His feed prices varied with the market. When his corn cost him $3 a bushel, he charged for his feed based on paying $3 a bushel. If he found out that corn would be $3.50 a bushel next week, he did not automatically raise his prices 50 cents to cover the cost of the next load. You know what he did? He told people that the price was going up next week, and they might want to get more now because next week, his cost would go up and so would the feed. And when the price dropped 50 cents for corn, he dropped his feed price accordingly. Now that is the ethical way to do business. The oil business is not ethical. They are corrupt. They take advantage of the fact that people have to have their product. One thing drives oil and gas prices Greed.

No response Donger?

Anyone notice that even though it has dropped almost 50 a barrel, gas has only dropped about 30 to 40 cents.

The oil executives got kids to feed!

Quoting the great Latrell Spreewell... "$8 million doesn't go as far as it used to."

One of things that you are missing is that amount of time that it takes for crude to pumped to when it becomes refined, usable product.

That being said, we could do comparisons like this all day, but the fact remains that the profit margin of oil companies still remains lower than many major industries.

OPEC may well decrease output to support $100/barrel.

So they ARE money grubbing bastards, just like everyone has suspected (known).

OPEC? Oh h3ll yes they are.

we have enough here at home to last till rapture. but?????

if the terrorist don't blow it all first

Hey, that sounds like my ex-wife. She never did become refined and usable.

I don't see your point. What difference does the amount of time it takes to make it a usable product have to do with the discussion? Corn takes about 100 days from planting to harvest, is that not a comparable time frame?

Secondly. The oil companies are recording record profits. If their margin is so low, you are going to have to back that claim up.

Happy to:

The average net profit margin for the S&P Energy sector, according to figures from Thomson Baseline, is 9.7%. The average for the S&P 500 is 8.5%. So yes, energy companies are more profitable than many others...but not by an inordinate amount.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/mark...buzz/index.htm

Looks to me like they have pretty significant profits Donger.

1. Exxon Mobil
Exxon Mobil
• See more Fortune 500 data for Exxon Mobil
Fortune 500 rank: 2
2007 profit: $40.61 billion

Fortune 500 rank #2. DO you see that? #2. $40.6 Billion in one year because they are greedily gouging the American people.

I didn't say that there profits aren't large. I said that their profit margins are in line with other industries.

And they are.

So you think semantics makes it okay? I don't care what their profit margin is. $40.6 billion is excessive.

It is the highest-ever annual profit from a U.S. company, a record Exxon also set in 2006 and 2005.

Wow.

Look at these numbers

$ millions % change from 2006
Revenues 372,824.0 7.4
Profits 40,610.0 2.8
Assets 242,082.0 —
Stockholders' equity 121,762.0 —
Market value (3/28/2008) 455,929.3 —
Profits as % of
Revenues 10.9
Assets 16.8
Stockholders' equity 33.4
Earnings per share
2007 $ 7.28
% change from 2006 10.0
1997-2007 annual growth rate % 15.8
Total return to investors %
2007 24.3
1997-2007 annual rate 14.3
Industry: Petroleum Refining
Rank Company 500
rank Revenues
($ millions)
1 Exxon Mobil 2 372,824.0
2 Chevron 3 210,783.0
3 ConocoPhillips 5 178,558.

Well, they certainly don't care that fuel costs are affecting other companies profit margins...so what's the problem with him saying that?

Because he's getting hung up on the dollar figure and doesn't care about the profit margin percentage.

You are just going to pick part of what I said and respond wow? Man you are articulate Donger. Next thing you know you are going to pull a Jesse Jackson and start making words up to win your arguement.ROFL

You know what I meant by that. I know profit margin is important, but a company that has broken the record for profits by a US company 3 years in a row while their product is causing financial strain and excessive inflation in the US is bullshit! The greedy F***ers are robbing the American public.

What would you like them to do? Lower their profit margin?

What was their profit Margin when oil was $40 a barrel? I think they were still getting filthy rich. So yes, I think a lower profit margin is needed. God forbid that next year they make $30 billion instead of $40 billion. Why that might just bankrupt them.

About 9%, IIRC.

So, it doesn't bug you that banks have profit margins of around 20%? Google has 25%?

I dont see googles profit margins having the negative effect on the economy that the record profits by oil companies is, so no, I don't have a problem with that. Bakns, you have not provided info to back that up, so I will not address it.

And I dont see how the profit margin has remained virtually the same when the price of oil has tripled, yet their cost has not. Sounds like someone is playing with the numbers

Uh, sorry but you're contradicting yourself there. If the price of oil goes up their costs go right up with it.

Why is their cost going up? They are the ones pumping it out of the ground. Their cost to get it out of the ground has not gone up. The price that they sell the oil for has tripled.

You are aware that the oil companies do not control the price of crude, yes?

Anyway, here's a chart that you'll enjoy:

They refine more crude than they can produce. Therefore, they also buy crude on the open market.

I suppose we should be outraged at that profit margin for pharmaceuticals and medicines seeing that could be considered a necessity and have a negative effect on the economy. I wonder where the healthcare industry as a whole would fall into that graph...

$93 and falling. Come on down!

Donger will be here in a few to tell us why gas is still above $4/gallon. He must own a gas station or something.

Ha, Donger sucks!

It isn't above $4.00/gallon.

ROFL

It is in central Indiana, $4.15 to be exact.

Bullshit - $4.15 by me, and where I live is generally one of the least expensive areas around Chicago. I'll bet the stations downtown are up around $4.40.

National retail average.

See above.

Gas has been a steady 3.65 here 50 miles north of KC for the last couple of weeks. It was 3.49 for quite a while and got down to 3.42 for a bit before it shot up to 3.65.

What are you charging?

$200/hour.

Is that the "National retail average"?

No. I like to gouge my customers.

with elitists ideas for certain......................:)

Crude may close below $90 today. If not, probably tomorrow.

Well, that's lovely, but since they aren't kind enough to charge me the "national retail average," I really don't give two shits what that is, just like I don't care what Billy Bob is getting charged down in Podunk, Oklahoma.

It's $4.15 a gallon up here. Thanks for playing.

You know why prices are so high in Chicago.

I know taxes are bad. But it's not like that the only problem we face.

Good. I can't wait until its $50 and Shieks are shooting themselves in the face.

Then why do you buy it when it is more than a dollar? I mean, those "Cavemen" really have you by the balls, don't they?

That's because there are a WHOLE lot of low tax Republicans running Okiehoma.

Of course, there is the supply and demand for unleaded fuel. It is an entirely independent market from the Crude Market.

You have to have through put in Refineries for there to be a "supply" of gasoline, and right now it is kind of crimped due to the refineries being offline near Houston.

Frankly, I will be happy if the gas cracks 3 bucks a gallon. Dang oil shieks should have listened to Bush when he went begging them to pump more.

What is up with our congress? Oil prices are ridiculously high, and the ban on offshore drilling is about to expire at the end of this month, so they pass a bill in the house to extend the ban? I hope every dumbshit that voted for that bill gets voted out of office in November. Surely to God, the senate won't pass it and Bush won't sign it. The bad thing is, they are trying to spin it as loosening restrictions. Yet oil is up $6 a barrel today because of this bill.



An offshore drilling rig is visible in the background as beachgoers attend the US Open of Surfing, July 20, 2008, in Huntington Beach, Calif. (AP Photo/Ric Francis)
What’s in the House offshore-drilling bill?
By Eoin O'Carroll | 09.17.08


The House of Representatives approved a bill Tuesday night that would relax the federal ban on offshore drilling and try to expand renewable energy.

The bill, which was adopted by a vote of 236 to 189, was backed by Democrats, who long fought the lifting of the 26-year ban but have been under intense political pressure to look as though they are taking steps to ease high gas prices. Republicans, whose vociferous calls for expanded offshore drilling have been met with widespread public approval, opposed the bill, claiming that it did not offer enough financial incentives to coastal states. On the final roll call, 221 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted for the bill; 176 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted against it.

The 290-page Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act, as the bill is known, contains a number of important provisions. Here’s a breakdown:

• Allows drilling between 50 and 100 miles from a state’s coastline, if the state approves it. Areas beyond 100 miles from the coast would be completely open to drilling. This map, taken from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s website shows what it would look like.

According to the Associated Press, Republicans opposing the bill cite data from the Interior Department that estimate that 88 percent of the recoverable oil lies within the closed 50-mile zone. Republicans also argue that there is little incentive for states to permit drilling off their shores. They want a revenue-sharing plan, such as that enjoyed by Louisiana. Democrats counter that such a plan would be too expensive.

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio, whose competing bill would technically allow drilling as close as three miles from the shore (where state jurisdiction ends and federal waters begin) believes that this bill would not result in any significant offshore drilling. “It’s a hoax on the American people,” he said.

If nothing is done, the offshore-drilling ban will expire Sept. 30.

• Sell 70 million barrels of light crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and replace it with less-valuable heavy crude. The swap, which amounts to 10 percent of the total reserve, seeks to provide immediate relief to gas prices. It would be the first time that heavy crude, which is more difficult to refine into gasoline, would be put in the SPR. This provision is based on HR 6578, the Consumer Energy Supply Act, which failed to pass in the House in July.

• Allow oil shale development in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado, if they approve. Environmentalists have long opposed development of oil shale, a sedimentary rock from which fossil fuels can be extracted, because it is far more CO2-intensive than conventional oil and gas and mining it can cause air and groundwater pollution. Oil shale development is currently banned, but this ban is also set to expire Sept. 30.

• Require oil companies to “diligently develop” federal lands for which they already hold leases. Oil companies have leased 68 million acres of federal lands, but many of these leases are not being tapped. This bill would require oil companies to use it or lose it.

• Repeal some $18 billion in tax breaks for big oil companies. In 2004, Congress enacted a provision that effectively lowered the corporate tax from 35 percent to 32 percent for manufacturers, engineering and architecture firms, Hollywood studios, and oil and gas companies. This bill would repeal this reduction for the so-called Big Five oil companies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell. Other oil and gas companies would continue to enjoy the reduced taxes. Additionally, the bill would eliminate a provision that allows US oil companies to claim tax credits for oil extracted abroad.

• Require oil companies to pay royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error. In 1998 and 1999, the Interior Department issued more than 1,000 leases for deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, and, to encourage development of these areas, offered a break from the usual 12 percent royalty. In issuing these leases, the Interior Department accidentally left out the standard escape clause that rescinds this break if prices climb higher than $34 per barrel. The omission was noticed in 2000, but nobody fixed the leases. Oil passed $34 a barrel in 2004, and in January 2007, investigators calculated that the government could have collected an additional $865 million.

• Offer renewable energy and efficiency tax credits. These credits would be covered by that $18 billion taken back from the oil companies, and would apply to solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, biomass, landfill gas, hydropower, and other forms of renewable energy. The bill also includes credits for plug-in electric vehicles.

• Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. This would be slowly phased in, beginning with a 2.75 percent requirement in 2010 and gradually increasing each year until 2020.

• Offer tax breaks for improved building efficiency and strengthen efficiency standards for building codes. This bill requires new homes and commercial buildings to realize a 30 percent improvement in minimum building standards by 2010, and 50 percent by 2020.

• Offer tax breaks for companies that promote bicycles for commuting.

• Issue grants to reduce public-transportation fares and expand bus and rail service.

• Crack down on Minerals Management Service ethics violations. This is a response to the MMS ethics scandal that came to light last week. This bill would make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to offer gifts to government workers. The bill would also institute drug testing for MMS employees.

The bill faces a possible veto from President Bush. Also, the Senate is expected to take up an offshore-drilling bill this week – one that would open up less area than the House bill. The differences between these two bills will need to be reconciled before Congress sends a finalized bill to the White House.

The two chambers don’t have much time: Congress is scheduled to adjourn Sept. 26.

http://features.csmonitor.com/enviro...drilling-bill/

Offshore drilling won't reap any rewards for a *****ing decade. It's a false panacea.

What? So if it won't help today then why worry about it even if it affects the future? The offshore drilling issue needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

You are talking about a drop in the bucket ten years down the road. It is such a small amount that even a miniscule increase in fuel economy standards would far outpace anything that you would gain from offshore drilling. Even T. Boone Pickens has said it's a farce, which is like Herm Edwards telling you that you are running the ball too much.

The question you have to ask is: Will drilling now and accessing crude help in the near term? That answer should be Yes. We all know the long range answer is alternative energy sources but they are not ready now and will not be ready for some years to come.

Drill now? Yes. Continue working on alternative for the future, but for the immediate time we need to do something to offset the necessity of depending of others for as much of the oil we now use.

If it takes a decade to reap the rewards(which it won't) (and oil prices drop because we're TALKING ABOUT IT let alone DRILLING)....I'm good with the benefit in a decade.

Instead of reactionary like NOW....lets plan ahead and start tapping that resource now, so we're not talking about this in 018.


T Boone Pickens has some good ideas.....he's also got SIGNIFICANT investment in the alternative energy sources he's pimping. He's not doing this for the health of earth, he's doing it to make another non-oil-Billion.

I have read several articles on this bill. The new banning bill still allows no drilling within 50 miles of the coast, but loosens restrictions after fifty miles out. That alone will open up 4 billion barrels of oil. Think how much would be available inside that 50 miles. The following is a statement from another article I found on the new bill.

"It would expand our available oil by at least two billion barrels - nearly four years' worth of the oil produced offshore in America and enough to power one million cars for 60 years," she said.

That seems like more than a drop in the bucket to me Hamas.

I disagree. We won't see any oil for a few years, but the price of crude would drop if we actually start drilling the OCS with aplomb.

Go figure.

T Boone has a wind driven agenda he's trying to peddle.

There are a lot more than one million cars in the US. This makes that stat really stupid.

You're right. I didn't even think that part of it through. I still believe that 4+ billion barrels from the area outside 50 miles offshore is more than a drop in the bucket. I wonder how much more is available inside that 50 miles.

I've heard estimates that over 80% of known oil deposits are within 50 miles. It would seem that the dems are playing games again with no intention of doing anything and hoping it all just goes away.

MMS estimates 76 billion barrels of crude and 400+ trillion CF of NG are recoverable on our OCS.

To put that in perspective, we use about 20 million barrels/day. More than 60% of that is imported. In other words, we could supply our demand for 10 years with no imports.

Okay, how about this? All the cars and trucks in America for 1 year.

About long enough to perfect alternatives e.g. all electric, hydrogen fuel-cells, hydrogen, et al.

Yep. Or 20+ if we continue to import. It's a massive amount, regardless of what Hamas "thinks."

You really are a tool of the left, did you know that? Have you even read any articles about one of the most important resources known to man? Do you own a vehicle, use some form of gas to heat your home?

Where do you think the shit comes from man?

In the meantime, the Russians are activly trying to take control of the Arctic so they can drill more and more.

The Chinese want to drill off of Flordia's coast, they don't have enviro nazis holding their balls to the floor. BTW, how do you like the Chinese efforts at curbing global warming? Their country spews more waste into the environent than any other country on the globe? WTF?

Please, stick to football. Infrastructure already exists in the Gulf, that would reduce the "drill to market" timeframe on drilling of Florida. California already has infrastructure in place by Santa Barbara that would also reduce the total time, so, frankly you don't know what the fug you are talking about. Furthermore, If we would have started drilling in Anwar, when the bill originally came up for a vote under Bill Clinton, we would have the oil online RIGHT NOW, making a difference, 10 years ago.

It is like running cross country 10 mile race, something I use to do back in the day. Saying we shouldn't start drilling because we won't see any for 10 years is like saying, oh, SHIT, 10 miles is a long way to run, I shouldn't even take the first step, becuase it is going to be a long time before I get there. What a bunch of absolutely STUPID talking point BULLSHIT.

T Bone, is smart. He realizes that their are a bunch of tree hugging idiots in this country and it is of no use to try to talk to them about the realities of an industrial society, so he talks a green game to get what he wants, more money from his businesses.


Just like PG&E does out here. They run PSA's touting peoples desire to "make a difference on global warming" by conserving energy, all the while, knowing that if people conserve, they can supply them without building more power plants, thus enhancing their profits greatly. NTTIAWWT, but do you believe that PG&E actually believes in global warming?

It's the height of hypocrisy.

Here is another excert from the article

Pelosi's bill keeps the federal prohibition on energy production in place for the first 50 miles. It gives the states the option of opening up from 50 to 100 miles for exploration, but does not offer revenue sharing, depriving states like Virginia the incentive to actually opt in," said Drake.

"Since 88 percent of the known oil and natural gas reserves are inside 50 miles and portions of the OCS [outer continental shelf] beyond 100 miles production may not be economically viable, almost 88 percent of our natural resources would be permanently locked away," she said.

Can anyone tell me why she wants to lock away 88% of our natural resources?