First you claim:
Since Bush got in office (oil family) the prices of gas have steadily risen to three times what they were before he got in
While not incorrect
, that says nothing really and you are trying to imply something that just is not true...So while your facts are correct, your implications
The cost to produce gas has also risen due to having to use such techniques as shale recovery which was considered too expensive when oil was 30 dollars a barrel, but now looks cost effective at 90. From the link in the first post of this thread,
But finding oil has also become more costly. The oil boom has led to a surge in exploration and drilling activity, which has pushed up the price for skilled workers and equipment
Furthermore, new supplies of oil are increasingly difficult to find and generally tend to be located in harder to reach - and hence more expensive - places. The new natural gas field discovered this week by Brazil's Petrobras lies three miles under the ocean
And the "record" profits seem really big when you look at the total numbers. But again, not the whole picture. From 1977 through 1999, net income in the oil industry was equal to only 9.7 percent, as opposed to 11.5 percent for all of American industry.
From the link in the first post of this thread,
Analysts were looking for the company to report quarterly profit of $10.36 billion on revenue of $114.9 billion
10.36 B is 11% of 114.9 B. So from 1999 to 2008 their net gain was 1.3%
. Nowhere NEAR your claims of THREE TIMES anything.
In a commodity business, where a significant portion of operating costs is raw materials, it is pretty common to look at profit as a percentage of sales. Detractors don't like that since 11% does not sound "evil" enough. They like to use numbers that sound better to them...So they use the total number and pay no attention to how much more it cost to make that big of a number in sales.
So yes, the oil company's are doing about 1.5% better than in 1999. Not "sexy" and it does not make the oil company's look "evil"...But a much more accurate set of numbers.
Then you said,
They are supposed to make a profit but not to the point where it is ridiculous.
Bank of America posted a 41% increase in profit for 2006 over 2005...Where is your outrage at that?http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...39CAF9467A4E%7D
Microsoft rose 27%...Where is your outrage at that?http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earni..._rel_q1_08.mspx
So to put this in perspective:
Bank of America 41% = OK
Microsoft 27% = OK
Exxon 11% = BAD
And finally this:
Economics don't come into play when you are DEPENDENT on something like we are on oil unfortunately
One simple way it is wrong is that supply and demand works in EVERYTHING. Looking at supply and demand inside a market is known as micro-economics
. Your complaint that you "need" oil is really just your way of complaining about demand for an inelastic good
. It is not like you are going to drive more just because oil is less expensive, nor are you likely able to drive less just because it becomes more expensive. You still want/need/have demand for oil no matter what the cost.
Oil is strange in the fact that both supply and demand are both relatively inelastic. It is difficult to suddenly get more oil just because we want it, and it is difficult to suddenly use less oil (as you know). Any economist will tell you that there are two "curves," supply and demand, and that the curves will adjust to a new meeting point anytime there is an adjustment to either the supply or demand.So what you have is micro-economic issues with an inelastic supply and an inelastic demand....But it is still supply and demand.
Here is a neat article...From a cite that is not Bush friendly at all. Entitled "Demand for Oil Outstripping Supply"http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0128-10.htm
Additional supplies could be generated from tar sands and oil shale in Western Canada and in Venezuela's Orinoco belt. But more than half as much energy is used extracting this oil as the energy value of the oil produced
. Other potential supplies, such as polar oil and liquid natural gas, are horrendously expensive.The real problem isn't supply, though. It's demand
. Last year, one element of the demand equation clicked into place. In 2003, China overtook Japan to become the world's second-largest consumer of oil. The International Energy Agency describes China as "the major driver of global demand growth."
They mention supply and demand, yet you claim it does not apply to oil?!?!?!?!
How about this one: "Oil supply lagging demand, says IEA"
Opec needs to increase its production in the short-term as world oil supply is lagging demand, the industrialized countries’ energy watchdog warned on Friday.
If you want to blame anyone....Blame OPEC
Saudi Arabia, the cartel’s leader, kept its supply almost unchanged at 8.6m b/d. The kingdom’s output is about 6 per cent below this time last year. Opec controls about 40 per cent of the world’s oil production.
I hope that helped.