The US currently (or perhaps I should say pre-Katrina)  imports roughly 60% of it  oil - correct?  If so, then that means that 40% of our oil was produced domestically.

Would it also be safe to say that the cost to the oil companies of producing and distributing the domestic fraction of our oil did not appreciably increase in lock-step with the run-up in prices on the open world oil markets?  Why should it, as the oil companies who pump this domestic oil out of their own wells did not buy this oil, as they already own it. So then, unless I am seeing something wrong, the domestic fraction of US oil production is sort of getting a free ride due to the sharp price increases on the global markets.

Regarding profits: Of course the oil companies are entitled to a reasonable return on their investment. But what I find puzzling is that in other businesses, when the cost of raw materials for their product goes up, the business usually suffers rather than prospers, as they get squeezed between what it costs them to produce the product and what they can sell it for.

However, in the case of big oil, it seems that the worse the raw material supply situation gets, the more money they make. Why is that?  I supspect the reason, as I expressed in an earlier post, is that on the consumer level we don't really have a true market operating for refined products. It is more like an unregulated utility in which the supplier of the utility has far more control over the price of the product than does the consumer of the product. So, I don't think this is solely a matter of supply and demand and the workings of an 'efficient' market, but rather a reflection of the degree to which our vital resources are in the hands of a very powerful oligopoly.  

As far as gasoline at $3.00/gal being so 'cheap', as I pointed out earlier the true price of that gasoline is much higher, largely because of free subsidies to the oil companies (such as the military costs of securing the oil supply) that is not included in the price at the pump but rather shows up elsewhere, i.e., the
taxes we pay.  I'd like to see the price even higher .... IF the oil companies were made to pay for these subsidies themselves and our taxes lowered accordingly. (This will of course never happen.)

Then we have the other question:  how much of the huge pile of cash the oil companies are now happily sitting on is likely to be invested in new capital for energy production, or alternative energy?  I suspect the answer is: very little, as most of it will probably go toward more attractive investments,  such as buying back stock, acquiring other businesses, or a variety of other ventures. For that reason, I am very skeptical of the private sector being willing to provide the enormous capital required get alternative energy going in any  significant way.  

I am very skeptical of the private sector being willing to provide the enormous capital required [to] get alternative energy going in any  significant way.

Actually, Joule,
Expect "them" who sit at the top of the oil-wealth harvesting pyramid to provide enormous capital for brainwashing people into believing that alternative energy will not work.
Why?
Well if you were sitting at the top of the pyramid with all that money funneling in from the gas-guzzling suckers below up to your position at the top of the pyramid, what would you do? Tell them to find alternatives?

But Mr. Wineland says he does not expect the majors to sit on their hands as the world runs out of oil." Most of these companies will identify themselves as energy companies, not oil companies," he predicted. "They are all aware that they will have to move over time slowly into other things. All the majors will be involved in whatever comes next - fuel cell technology, hydrogen. The infrastructure involved in moving us down the highway - as it evolves, these companies will evolve with it."

Today's Energy Stocks May Well Be Tomorrow's www.nytimes.com/2005/11/0...06oil.html

It is still not nearly enough and no amount of investment will let us just carry on with the pattern of energy usage we have to day let alone let the rest of the world join us. but according to a Reuters report:-

Global investment in renewable energy hit a record $30 billion last year, accounting for 20-25 percent of all investment in the power industry, and with solar power the fastest-growing energy technology, a Worldwatch Institute report released on Sunday said.

 The Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based organisation working for environmental sustainability, said the renewables sector was growing as a result of government support and increasing private sector investment.

"Policies to promote renewables have mushroomed over the past few years. At least 48 countries worldwide now have some type of renewable energy promotion policy, including 14 developing countries," the report said.

Most countries with renewable energy policies are targetting 5 to 30 percent of their electricity production by 2012, the end of the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.

Exactly! If you have a good thing going, then what incentive do you have for redically changing it?  

While people in Big Oil talk about planning for the future, I think most of that talk is just lip service. Example: How much did Big Oil invest in new refining capacity over the last 30 years?  

There is also a time-scale problem inherent in the running of any corporation. The mentality of management at Big Oil is not appreciably different from that at any other major corporation: concentrate all your efforts on having a good next couple of Quarters so that your stock options increase in value. And as far as the long-term problems are concerned: the current management expects to be long retired by the time the proverbial sh*t hits the fan.  

No, I don't trust Big Oil to do the right thing when it comes to planning for the future.

I'm sure you're right about the tax subsidies for oil.  Alternatives do not receive anything like the same level of subsidy, which is why we don't have serious private investment to ditch oil (and also why we waste so much of it).

Shifting taxes from income to fuel was part of my SinceSlicedBread proposal for exactly that reason.

EP: Your sliced bread post is excellent. Many good ideas there. The hard part is manipulating other people (other members of our vast sheeple herds) to begin to start accepting your concepts.

On the electrified railroads concept, I think we can do better than merely returning to 19th century technology. Surely there must be a way electro-magnetize our roadways in a safe way rather than forcing all vehicles into a single guage format (a single roadway width that accepts only one kind of wheel and wheel format).

Keep up the good work.

Converting to a magnetic-levitation system is a can of worms I'm just not willing to propose for the next 10 years.  The problems begin with the inconvenient fact that we have no infrastructure and go from there.

A freeway has a capacity 1500 to 2000 vehicles per hour per lane.  A single "lane" of rail moving at 55 MPH with 5 foot separation could move 3400 80-foot semi-trucks per hour or 11,600 20-foot cars per hour.  I think that would keep us long enough to invent and test some ideas for the thing to replace it.