The exorbitant profits of the oil companies can't be denied. But why are they able to make exorbitant profits? Because their monopoly is increasingly strengthened by the growing difficulty and expense of extraction. The monopoly profits need to be taxed and spent on public transporation and other needed measures. What's hard to sell is that further taxes on gas consumption are also needed.

Justice demands a way of protecting those at the bottom from being driven under by these added taxes. It would be nice if there were people in OUR gov't that would take a hint from Chavez, who, as we know, hates America, but doesn't let that stop him from lending a helping hand to the poor. We need more of that kind of hate and less of the neo-con love.

Hmmm.  What's your definition of "monopoly" exactly?  Usually, "monopoly" implies a singler player controlling the market.  That's obviously not what you mean by the term...

Perhaps you mean "cartel", and are referring to OPEC?

Oligopoly. But the term is often used (or mis-used) in the the way I have. It's rare to have a monopoly in the purest and strict sense of the word. But the effects of monopoly are felt well before reaching that. If there are a few big players, one doesn't need a cartel or any kind of explicit agreement for monopoly effects to take place. And you see it: you see the result in ExxonMobil's bottom line, you see it Microsoft's bottom line. If there were real competition you would an altogether different profit situation.
My recollection is that Exxon produces about 3% of the worlds oil ... correct me if I'm wrong ... so that doesn't seem to be anywhere close to monopoly or controlling level. And the other IOCs get smaller fast, and all together I don't believe the IOCs are up to 30%.  Even oligopoly is stretching it for the IOCs.  Maybe for the NOCs.

About Venezuela's Chavez -- he has for years been one who pushed ever higher oil prices.   His little effort in the N.E. U.S. is small change compared to what he has made from those same people over the years due to his pricing strategy.

IOC production mbpd  Sept 05

2.6 BP
2.5  Exxon   3%
2.2 Shell
1.7  Chevron
1.6  Total
1.1  ENI
1.0  COP
 .7  STAT
 .6  Reposal
 .4  Occidental

Top four  9 mbpd  10.6%
Top ten 14.4 mbpd  17% of world production

WOW!

The top 4 combined is unabe to match the production of Gazprom  - the equvelent of 9.5 mln.bpd! Anybody know where I can buy Gazprom shares?

Well, I've just got a swift kick in the pants. I obviously need to do some more research. One thing I DO know, EM is immensely profitable.
According to CNBC the other morning, Microsoft, Citicorp and Pfizer all have higher profit margins than Exxon. So I would assume you would suggest taxing them as well?
In fact, Microsoft revealed profits yesterday as well as XOM. Microsoft's margin was 26.5%. Exxon's was 9.4%.

I covered the story here:

I'm Being Gouged!

The average person just doesn't seem to understand that Exxon has to invest many billions to reap those profits, whereas Microsoft certainly does not. I saw it on Jon Stewart last night. He was interviewing someone from The Wall Street Journal who was explaining the situation, and he said "I hear you, but it just feels like we are being screwed. I am paying $3.00 for gasoline, and they are making record profits." Unfortunately, this seems to be the general level of understanding of this issue.

RR

Is that "has to invest billions" or "had to invest billions?"  XOM is collecting a lot of money right now as an ROI from sunk costs.  What evidence do you have that XOM is investing those profits to increase reserves?  By the way, I don't consider buying out another oil company to be a legitimate way to do that.  Why isn't XOM taking out full page ads in WSJ touting all they ways they're spending their new profits to find and mine more oil?  I have to conclude they would if they were.

If oil companies were finding new oil reserves with their recent profits I think the public would be a bit more understanding.  Instead they give Raymond a 400 million dollar goodbye present and the public is understandably PO'd.  That's a serious amount of cash even today.

This issue isn't about reasonable vs: unreasonable profit.  It's about how that profit should be invested.  What does an oil company do with a windfall when their geologists haven't found large new oil deposits in years?  The give it as a nice going away present to an ex-CEO.  Talk about a waste of money!

The public has been indoctrinated with the idea that if they just let the "free market" do its thing then everything will come out allright.  Even the average american idiot driver can sense the problem with taking their gas money and giving it to some retiring CEO rather than investing it in new exploration.  Even it the results were dry holes, XOM could at least justify the effort as a reasonable use of money.

I really think TOD contributors have gotten caught up in the aroma of their own arguments - peak oil and all that - to the exclusion of a perfectly reasonable outrage on the part of the driving public about how the fuel premium they are now paying is being used.

Is that outrage being dealt with politically in an appropriate manner?  Of course not!  When was the last time public outrage was channeled by  a fair-minded political intelligence?

Peak oil and public outrage are two separate issues.

The public outrage component is focused on the failure of the mechanism of our free market economy to provide the stability americans think is their due.  It's a rage against the propaganda they've been fed for years.  And that rage is fueled by a deep, pervasive addiction to all our transportation machines.  I'm sure that's what Cheney was alluding to when he said the American Way of Life is not negotiable.

Next time you take a drive down a street filled with retail commerce in any of the modern American suburbs or exurbs, entertain yourself by  determining what percentage of those businesses are directly involved with either cars or motorcycles or boats.  I refer to repair shops, tire shops, body shops, auto dealerships - everything.  The message of expensive energy is the death knell of the American Dream.  Hilda Hummer and Dickie Dodge know that subliminally and underneath the rage they're scared out of their, for lack of a better word, wits.

Next time you are in a position to eavesdrop in a public place, listen to the conversations.  If your experience is what mine has been, most are about cars, trucks and motorcycles.

The scope of change coming to America is just unbelievable.  We're about to lose our position in the world as well as having to replace a good deal of our inner psychic life with something not nearly so nice.

I was raised on a farm.  About the time I was ready to go out into the fields with my dad he traded in his horses for an Oliver tractor.  He never looked back.  I never, ever heard him talk about the good ole days of horses.  That almost everyone in America can afford a car and gasoline is the touchstone of our freedom.  Just as my father wouldn't give up his tractor, few in any country I know of would happily give up the freedom of a car once they've experienced it.  We're not plants, we're animals and the car is our freedom to move.

My conclusion is that the only way for the political system to keep a lid on this situation is to show every aggressive instinct consistent with getting as much oil for this country as possible - and to hell with the consequences.  People who have the "wise government leading us into a new paradigm" delusion need to quote some examples.  Cuba is about the only one I can think of and Cuba was forced to go cold turkey over a period of months.  Castro had no choice but to decentralize in a hurry or his country would have imploded.  I don't think the US will go that path.  Different country, different social system, different intelligence level.  Cuba has an intelligent, literate population.

Yes I believe oil demand has permanently outstripped supply - at least until the next depression.  Whether that's "peak oil" or not is irrelevant, really.  What's important is that the world's Railroad Commission (OPEC) no longer has much reason to exist.  There is no swing producer and demand will bid the price of energy up to whatever level it can.  What price that may be no one yet knows.

Realistically there ain't much to do about it except batten down the hatches and get ready for a big storm.  Dinosaurs don't have the option to wish themselves into mammals.

This issue isn't about reasonable vs: unreasonable profit.  It's about how that profit should be invested.

Exactly. I posted earlier today on another thread that XOM is essentially returning its windfall to its shareholders in a process of "gradual liquidation." This is because it continues to use a relatively low oil price when evaluating new projects.  

XOM is now in a bind. Its $8.4 billion first quarter profit "was high enough to heat up political criticism of Big Oil in Washington but too low to meet Wall Street's bullish expectations" (quoted from a story in today's WSJ).

What to do with the windfall? Reinvest it in your oil and gas business, invest it in alternative energy projects (e.g. BP), or return it to shareholders (who will then reallocate it in other investments, possibly in alternative energy).

XOM pointed out in their press release that, of the money they made in the first quarter - $8.4 billion, $4.8 billion was reinvested back into the business. So, they are investing billions, still. For ConocoPhillips, they earned $3.3 billion and invested $4.65 billion back into the business. It looks to me like they aren't just sitting around counting their money.

All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change the fact that Big Oil costs a lot of money to operate, and they are still reinvesting billions into the business.

RR

RR- where did COP get the additional $1.35 billion? new shares?
I don't know for sure; I would guess borrowed money. Debt at the end of the quarter was $32.2 billion, but a lot of that was due to the acquisition of Burlington Resources. You can see the complete financials here:

COP 1st Quarter Earnings

RR

You mean we aren't taxing them? ;-)

More seriously, why do we have progressive taxes on individuals?  Why don't we determine the "profit margin" of a farmer relative to a dry cleaner?  Maybe because the raw numbers, total profit, matter?

As a side note, and as someone not terribly motivated by the Exxon Mobil profits, or the calls for taxation ... I do wonder how much they really made.  We know corporate accountants have great flexibility in the way they report numbers.  We know that a large multinationa company has a lot of options when to comes to "book" numbers.  Now, part of the time that flexibility is used to "make the numbers" and come up with income for analysts and investors.  I wonder though, now, when everyone is hopped up about gas prices, how creative XOM has been about underreporting ...

We know that a large multinationa company has a lot of options when to comes to "book" numbers.

True. Back in 1992 when I was a contractor for British Airways, one of their internal auditors told me that management decided what the annual profit was going to be; the figures were reworked to give that profit figure. This surprised me at the time; now it doesn't.

I read a few months ago that 65% of US corporations legally pay ZERO federal taxes. You can tell who rules a country by who doesn't pay taxes.
So I would assume you would suggest taxing them as well?

Works for me.  Probably works for for businesses like grocery stores with 2-3% profit margins.  It's hard to be really impressed when an oligarchy's problem is that it's profits are lower than other oligarchies.

I can buy the monopoly argument with microsoft, not with the IOC.
"As a result of recent mergers, the five largest oil companies operating in the United States now control 61% of the domestic retail gasoline market, 47% of the domestic oil refinery market, and 41% of domestic oil exploration and production. The five corporations are: Exxon-Mobil(Irving,TX), BP Amoco-Arco (London, England), Chevron Texaco (San Francisco, CA), Phillips-Tosco (Oklahoma), and Marathon (Ohio)."

See this and the rest of the executive summary in:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments/report53001.PDF

This doesn't completely rescue me, but I think it gives a some more complicated picture than the 3pct.

"As a result of recent mergers, the five largest oil companies operating in the United States now control 61% of the domestic retail gasoline market, 47% of the domestic oil refinery market, and 41% of domestic oil exploration and production. The five corporations are: Exxon-Mobil(Irving,TX), BP Amoco-Arco (London, England), Chevron Texaco (San Francisco, CA), Phillips-Tosco (Oklahoma), and Marathon (Ohio)."

See this and the rest of the executive summary in:

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments/report53001.PDF

Another one along the same lines:

http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf

Neither completely rescues me, but I think they gives a somewhat more complicated picture than the 3pct world production figure for EM.

Here is a bit of a story I pulled out of the newspaper a few days ago:

There were more than 2,600 mergers in the oil industry in the 1990s, according to James Wells, director of natural resources and the environment for the Government Accountability Office. A study by the GAO, Congress' research arm, found that concentration of market power may have added as much as 7 cents to the price of fuel, he said.

As much as 7 cents due to the mergers. I don't believe that's the problem, Dave.

Also, oil and gas are global commodities, and their cost in the U.S. is not any greater than it is anywhere else, indicating again that it isn't mergers driving costs up. It is supply and demand.

RR