All of the first-quarter reports are in now - and it's as bad (or good) as I expected it to be.

Here's the list...
ChevronTexaco - "Revenue totaled $41.61 billion, which was 24 percent greater than $33.65 billion a year earlier, ChevronTexaco said."
Shell - "28-percent increase in first-quarter net profits to 5.548 billion dollars (4.293 billion euros), as soaring oil prices outweighed declining production."
Exxon-Mobil - "...first-quarter earnings soared 44 percent from last year, due mainly to strong crude and natural gas prices. The company said it will boost its share repurchase rate by $1 billion in the second quarter."
Unocal - "...first-quarter earnings jumped 69 percent from last year on strong crude oil and natural gas prices."
Marathon Oil - "...first-quarter profit grew 26 percent as the oil and gas exploration firm reaped some benefits from higher energy prices despite lower sales volume during the period."
BP Oil - "British oil giant BP posted a 29-percent surge in net profit for the first quarter of 2005, lifted by record oil prices and strong demand."
Conoco-Phillips Oil - "first-quarter profit jumped 80 percent to a record $2.91 billion as energy prices surged and margins on gasoline and other fuels widened."

So besides Citgo, who have I left out?
Citgo does not have to report to US markets because they are owned by Petróleos de Venezuela.
Sure there are small re-sellers, but I think this is most of the big-hitters and refiners.

SO...
Anybody (besides me) wonder why all the oil companies are making record-breaking profits during 1Q2005 while the REST of the nation is struggling with inflation, healthcare costs, operating costs, and barely eeking a profit if not losing money?

Economics is not really that hard to follow...
Cost of material goes up... cost of product goes up... most of the time they go up proportionally - so the net profit stays relatively the same. When this happens, total sales $$$ may go up, but profits stay the same. This is called "passing the cost along to the consumer".

When a company's raw material goes up 10%, but they increase the retail price by 25% because "they can" - this is not "passing the cost along to the consumer", this is called "price gouging", and the results are huge jumps in profit while selling less volume.

Our President said last night that he will not allow price gouging to happen in the United States. Ummm.... OK.

Oil companies sympathize with the people at the pumps, but they are unable to control crude prices. Ummm.... OK.

My thoughts...

Please, discuss amongst ourselves...

 

At least we can use that $300 tax refund from Bush a few years ago to pay for some of the price increases of the the last few years

at $2.30 a gallon I pay an extra $800-$900 a year vs. if prices were $1.50 a gallon which they realistically should be.

Even this years avg price is 50 cents more than last years price, that is an extra $520 out of my pocket that could be saved for the 2008 Camaro fund

 

Its capitalism, supply and demand. In order to lower the prices one of a few things have to happen. Either be more fuel efficient to lower demand, find another source of power to propel cars, or a new competitor comes along that is willing for some reason to slash prices and start a price war like the airlines are doing right now.

 

It theory that is how it should be. If the price jumped from 99˘ in 2000 to $1.50 in 2005 then I would 100% agree with you. Unfortunatly there are a lot of factors that are driving prices artificially high. If it wasn't for OPEC, the US govn't fear mongering, Oil co. greed, Operation Iraqi blunder, etc... we would have a pure supply and demand market.

Hopfully Hydrogen and "plug in hybrids" will put enough preasure on the gasoline industry that by 2015 our current situation will be a thing of the past.

In the mean time plug in hybrids are our best bet if we want a practicle car that doesn't run 100% on oil based fuel.

 

Lowering demand isn't going to help, and it won't happen.

At this point, America uses all it can get its hands on ... and governments are dependent upon the tax revenue generated on many levels ... not only on the semi-direct taxes to the consumer on gallons at the pump that you may actually see quantified, but also the severance taxes for taking it out of the ground and then the net income and property taxes on the oil companies and other players in the supply chain.

Fed, State, and local governments are not unhappy when domestic oil companies are doing well.

Hybrids and such will help to clean up the environment because total national consumption could decrease, which is certainly a good thing. Hybrids will not effect the price of gas, even to the consumer.

A major economic shift away from crude would cause one of two things, further increase in taxes based on the crude oil industry (easy target) or an increase in other taxes to make up the tax revenue stream. Probably both, one in the name of curbing demand, and the other because new revenue is needed in the long term.

You see this with sin taxes as well -- alcohol, tobacco, gambling, lottery. For some odd reason, taxes are increased in the name of curbing demand, yet the revenue streams are dedicated to permanent expenses such as education.

 

As a person who's paying just about the highest residential power rates in North America, I can only say that the idea of a plug-in-hybrid is just plain silly. Since, my cost/kilowatt hour is astronomical why the heck would I want to plug in a car?

 

I love how events in our nation and around the world have an effect on gas thats all ready in the tanks at stations.

Uh oh there is a fire at a refinery, gas prices go up .20 gal. overnight. There is a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico gas prices go up .25 gal. overnight, etc.,etc. Then it takes weeks for the price to trickle back down. There is no overnight jump back down.

They use everything as an excuse to "temporary" raise gas prices.

 

Say it again brother!

 

Kinda like on 9/11 when people around here were in lines at the gas station paying around $4.50ish a gallon

 

$2.00 a gallon in oklahoma

but it should be $1.50

 

Gasoline would need to goto to $5.00 a gallon and crude to goto $80.00 a barrel (when adjusted for inflation and impact on the GDP) to equal the same economic hardship of OPEC's 1970's oil embargo.

 

Hydrogen isn't going to put much of a hurting on anyone until we figure out how to get lots of cheap hydrogen from sources other than fossil fuels. Even then, hydrogen is going to be much more costly and complicated to deal with than plain old gas.

 

The main alternatives of hydrogen, natural gas and electric are all created from the same source that we get gas from now.
Many electric plants are run on oil or gas, though many are nukes or coal.
The only way I can see to get hydrogen cheaply and not from fossil fuels is to have a massive electrolosis plant next to a nuclear plant cranking out both oxygen and hydrogen. Sell the hydrogen for cars, oxygen for all of its many applications.

 

My question is: How high will the Teamsters allow Diesel to go before they protest, by cloggiing the streets around the Capital....Oh wait, that'd be Domestic Terrorism, I guess they put the HS plan in for hard times as well.
(Protest=Guantanamo Bay vacation)

 

What about vegetable based alcohol? It's a renewable resource, burns cleaner, & to the end use customer would be a transparent conversion. Granted, you wouldn't have the current fuel economy since alcohol doesn't generate the BTU's of gas, so you have to burn more of it to get the same power. That's why those flex fuel vehicle's have bigger injector's. But with alcohol you have a guaranteed supply as long as we have fields of corn & soybeans & no reliance on imports. With this scenario the fuel giants would be those countries with a major agricultural industry!