Friday Open Thread

[Editor's note]"The Politics of Oil: The Discourse Must Change" is under the fold of this post. Our position paper is also available as a PDF press release. Please take this .pdf and print it out/give it to others, or send this link (right click here for initial post address) to anyone you think needs the information contained therein. Politicians, media, blogs, you name it...it all helps. It is only through these small actions that the discourse can be changed. Thank you.

[editor's note, by Yankee] Also, several bloggers have been covering the Energy Solutions conference in New York over at TOD:NYC. There's an introduction to the meeting by The Interloafer, a summary of the first set of speakers by Baloghblog, and a summary of the afternoon speakers by me.

Leaders of both political parties are expressing concern about the high price of gasoline. President George Bush announced yesterday that he was suspending deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to make more oil available to consumers as well as putting on hold the traditional regulations requiring additives to make fuel burn cleaner during the summer driving season.

Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have had their own response to rising gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has announced his support for the Menendez Amendment, which would "provide more than $6 billion in relief directly to the American people by eliminating the federal tax for both gas and diesel for 60 days." Senator Charles Schumer recently called for a federal investigation to determine whether oil companies are withholding gasoline production, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has blamed high gas prices on the administration's cozy relationship with the oil companies, price gouging, and royalty relief.

The editors of The Oil Drum are ideologically diverse. Over the last year, we have created a forum at www.theoildrum.com to encourage an open, rational, and fact-based discussion of energy issues. While individual editors frequently express an opinion on a subject, we have never felt it necessary to take a unified position on any specific issue. That is, until today.

We strongly feel that the leaders of both political parties are not only headed in the wrong direction with respect to gas prices, but we also worry that they fundamentally misunderstand the factors behind the current situation at gasoline stations around the US.

Public statements by political figures over the past several days would seem to suggest that oil companies and their record profits are the sole factor determining the price of gasoline. Not only is this untrue, but it is dangerous to give the American people the impression that only oil companies are to blame. The American people need to understand that the phenomenon of high gas prices cannot be attributed to a single source. They also need to understand that no one political party will be able to fix our current woes.

The major factor that determines gas prices is the price of crude oil from which gasoline is derived. When crude oil prices are high, so are gas prices. The following are just a few factors that affect the price of a barrel of oil:


  1. Oil companies do not single-handedly determine the price of oil. The price of oil is set on the crude oil futures market. Simply put, these prices are affected by supply and demand because, at present, oil trades in a global commodity market where increased demand or reduced supply in one place instantly translates into price shifts everywhere. A variety of publicly available information sources show that supply is relatively static at the moment, while world demand continues to grow as economies grow.
  2. We have provided evidence many times at The Oil Drum that the output of major oilfields is declining and that we may now have reached a peak or plateau in global oil supply. Oil companies have not been able to increase production for a number of years, and it is unclear that OPEC is accurately reporting their reserves. Even if there were significant sources of high quality oil remaining, it is getting increasingly difficult and expensive to drill. These factors, along with aging infrastructure for oil exploration and a retiring workforce are also contributing to high oil prices.
  3. The geopolitical situation is volatile, and an astute citizen may notice that every time there is news from Nigeria or Iran, the price of oil goes up because of the potential and real effects of these situations on world oil supply. Again, oil traders are fearful that the supply will not remain stable forever.
  4. Countries like China and India are industrializing at a great pace, and while we are accustomed to obtaining oil at a comfortable quantity and price, it will be impossible (and immoral) to deny similar resources to these countries. China is working furiously to secure new oil supplies, and they're content to negotiate with countries we're reluctant to deal with, like Iran and the Sudan.

These points demonstrate that disruptions in the supply of oil that affect the price of gasoline at the pump are not just a temporary glitch. For various reasons--decreased discoveries of new oilfields, geopolitical instability, international competition for oil supply--we can no longer assume that we will be able to consume as much oil as possible, or ever get it again for $1.50 a gallon.

Demagoguery and grandstanding are not strategies for addressing our energy problems. As an alternative, the editors of The Oil Drum put forth the following recommendations:


  1. It is nonsensical for political leaders of both parties to eliminate the gas tax temporarily or permanently as this will only worsen our dependence on oil by disincentivizing the innovation of oil alternatives and oil conservation efforts.
  2. Both mainstream American political parties are doing their country a disservice by accusing convenient scapegoats of price gouging or price fixing instead of educating the public about how the price of gas is actually set.
  3. Right now, governments should be focused on helping us cure our "addiction to oil." The answer does not lie in lowering gas prices, which will only encourage people to drive more and further waste our valuable resources. As the Department of Energy funded Hirsch Report on Peak Oil laid out, the consequences of not taking steps to transition away from oil could be dramatic to our economic system. Appropriate solutions include large-scale research, development, and implementation programs to improve the scalability of alternative sources of energy, other projects geared towards improving mass transit and carpooling programs across the country, providing incentives to buy smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, and promoting a campaign to increase awareness about conservation.

The political discourse on this topic is simply so devoid of fact, and constructive discourse so buried and out of the mainstream, that we felt we needed to raise a voice of reason. Public officials will continue to misinform and obfuscate if we allow it.

The only solution is to educate the public about the most important problem we face as a generation. We, the citizens of the US and the world, must move our attention to this the issue of energy more than any other. We must hold our representative governments accountable for having an open and honest debate on the subject.

Simply put, we must learn more about where our energy comes from.

On top of their deals with Nigeria:

Energy-hungry China clinches oil exploration pacts with Kenya

China inked oil exploration deals with Kenya as visiting President
Hu Jintao continued his African quest to quench China's near-insatiable demand for energy to fuel its booming economy.

Meanwhile:

Sky-high oil prices fuel ethanol mania in China

HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) - Record crude oil prices are fuelling ethanol fever in China, the world's second-largest oil consumer, despite Beijing's reservations in allowing more food grains to be used to run cars.

Beijing is reluctant to expand ethanol production from food grains as China will face a shortage of grains like corn or wheat possibly as early as next year, due to rising domestic demand brought on by higher affluence.

I saw the Chinese President on tv with Fidel Castro ... which made an interesting image.  On a practical basis, it's too bad we didn't give a congressional OK to XOM going down there to talk to him first.
China's ethanol boom, and the resultant grain shortage will be great news for me and my industry, the fertilizer industry!  More grain demand means more fertilizer, which means job security for me.
What do you make the fertilizer from?
I guy I used to work with told a funny story about growing up in China.  In his school one of the chores for students was to take the poop from the outhouses (in a bucket, on a pole, between the shoulders of two students) to fields.  Being teenagers, and not liking the chore, one of them said "let's ditch it here" and they dumped it into a public outhouse.  Except one of the teachers was in the next stall, and got splashed.  They got in trouble.

Picture a communist Chinese episode of "leave it to beaver" with an environmental message ;-)

Anyway, in China ... I think I know where fertilizer comes from.

While not specifically mentioning us, I think the MSM is starting to pick up on the pandering/misinformation theme. I see a large divide though between the print media (NY Times, WSJ, WaPo, etc) and TV media. TV news seems to lack any depth, just continuously showing clips of various grandstanding politicos and images of gas stations with three dollar plus regular...

But, I've also seen a lot of the "What did you drive to the gas price / oil industry bashing press conference?" or even better "How many SUVs were idling outside of the Capitol building?"

This Denis Hastert photo sequence is typical.

Great three picture sequence.  This captures the politics of oil oh so well :-(
At a glance, and I mean this in the nicest way, it looks like Hastert could stand to do a little walking instead.  But that isn't air conditioned...

Similarly, CNN covered Bill Frist 'walking' to a nearby capitol hill gas station and took note that his monster SUV was 'following' him (for security they said).  Like a gigantic puppy tagging along at the heels of its owner I suppose.

 

Heads are going to roll.

Hastert's minions failed on their #1 order:
"Make me look good."

In our FEMAcracy (not Democracy), appearance is everything.
Substance is of no redeemable "value".
And after all, we are a values worshipping society.

Yes, the fact that he looks both overweight and sneaky in the last frame is what makes it so classic ;-)
my thoughts also
Yes, I agree.  There is a wide divide between the print and TV media. It seems newspapers are becoming the equivalent of classical music: for a small number of eggheads only.

I tried to talk to my coworkers this morning about oil prices.  All they did was rant about the outrageous profits of Exxon.  This from people who all voted for Bush in the last election.  

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

There is a wide divide between the TV and the print media, other than the tabloids, and there is a further divide between the print media and the alternative media on the internet mostly. TOD is part of that alternative media. So is the 9-11 stuff, plus a lot more. Some of the alternative stuff is looneytunes, but a lot isn't.

To a great extent the gov't is able to outflank the readers of the NYT, WSJ, etc. with the TV. They just say whatever they want, uncontradicted for the most part. People are not yet at the point where they will pay much attention to anything else. The literate print media is read by "eggheads" as you say. But here there's another message: incompetence, gross incompetence, and this is discussed and whined about endlessly. It is only in the alternative media, part of it, that further possibilities are raised: that these issue is one of pursuing an agenda, that the agenda is world domination through monopolization of the oil, and that big capital and its profits stands behind all of it, that we perhaps no longer really have a democracy, and so forth and so on. This wing is regarded as looney by the "responsible" print press.

But in extreme times, extreme views are sometimes closer to the truth that the more "balanced" and nuanced ones of the literate wing of the MSM. It was an extreme view to say that the Nazis were gassing the Jews for a certain period.

Dear Leanan,

The response you got from your co-workers is illustrative of a problem that concerns me about how people will react to the 'ambassadors' of Peak Oil, when they begin to arrive. What I mean is, who will they blame for vastly increased energy prices and 'shortages? This may turn out to be a really fundamental, political, question. It also relates to our chances of dealing with and ameliortating the effects of Peak Oil in the short, medium, and long term. If we start to blame the wrong people/institutions/countries, we could end up wasting a lot of energy and opportunities, and go in a totally wrong direction. The whole history of 'scapegoating' in times of fear, uncertainty, and scarcity, makes me feel slightly nervous.

Yes, I agree.  It could get nasty, as this editorial points out:

If all the posturing seems inevitable, it is because the truth -- that everyone will need to adjust to a new reality -- is politically unpalatable.

The rich are getting richer, everyone else is getting poorer.  That makes for an explosive situation.  

In a society with acute differences of wealth, it's not hard to see other economic developments becoming political flashpoints.

...Demagogic politics go hand-in-hand with class division. And those divisions are bad and getting worse. According to a Federal Reserve study last month, the 56 million households that make up the bottom half of the economic ladder owns just 2.6% of the nation's wealth. That's down from 3.6% a decade ago. The top 10%, meanwhile, accounts for almost 70% of the wealth.

Peak oil is not going to improve things.