I have only one word for our politicians:

Feh!

While they bicker, we have several hundred million gallons of biodiesel refineries under construction. We have a coal industry ramping up production and proposing large numbers of CTL plants. We have increasing private investment in algal oil.

I'd pay $4 a gallon for a reliable domestic energy source.

It's my view that we cannot depend on government to get us out of this mess. Doubly so in an election year. We see progress on the alternative energy front every day here on this blog.

Typical enviro-leftish "get people out of their cars" BS.

Only a sentence or two of leftish.much of the body of the story on alternatives could be termed security rightish.The main point is the two parties are full of crap on the issue.Like a bunch of chimps winging excrement at each other.We need to insist on leadership and results from them,not gotcha politics.Left and right must tell thei reps they dont want to line up behind them for a partisan food fight.Tell your reps{left and right}that you want a roadmap to independent and clean power.their fingerpointing about prices usually leads to a bandaid over a festering sore.Im sick of it,how about you?

Perhaps the tone of the discussion would change if the cost of the war in Iraq were at least partially chalked up to the fact that it happens to be the only country in the world today that has oodles of easily recoverable oil that isn't being produced - and that this was a major (if unspoken) reason for toppling Saddam.

Even a fraction of the $250 billion tab would have bought an awful lot of alternative fuel R&D + initial production capacity.

Andrey - not sure what you are referring to, neither the article nor any of the comments suggested getting people out of their cars. We all know that for reasons both practical and emotional, cars will remain the #1 mode of personal transportation for the foreseeable future.

Leftish? When did it start being Right/Moderate to endorse the current cash flow to the middle east?

I'm sorry but those are the choices, consume less oil, or put more checks in the mail.

Oh, and Andrey, I don't think it would have been picked up by Pajamas Media if it was "lefty"

http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/04/oil_the_discourse_must_change.php

Regardless of how or how much the Big Oil companies are contributing to the rise in gasoline costs. The preception given out by the Big Oil companies is GREED.

At a time when Americans are paying record prices for gasoline a Big Oil executive gets a whopping retirement package - more money than most Americans make in a lifetime. And the published profits of the Big Oil companies are is gross disproportion to the plight of the everyday American.

Most Americans just believe that the excessive amount of profits Big Oil is making in a time of war and global terror is just not right. Americans that everyone should sacrifice not just the consumer. Motor fuel is not an option - people must get to work. Lower income Americans are taking a hit just trying to get to work in the morning.

Gasoline is not in the same category as toothpaste, donuts, and kids toys - gasoline is a necessity of life - no work - no money - no food.

If Big Oil doesn't want the 'Black Eye' from the American public - they should reconsider their retail pricing. It does not have to be as high it is. If margins were as thin as pretended - there would not be record profits. Thin margins and record profits are not compatible.

Excellent editorial! Both Dems and Republicans are engaging in stupid short term thinking. Eliminating the gas tax has got to be the stupidest idea yet. Yeh, lower the prices so we can ensure no conservation or alternatives. That's the ticket.

And since when did conservation become leftist? Get it? Conservatism and conservation, same root.

Someone please tell me why it's a bad idea to conserve oil and other resources for that matter. The greens and the neocons are together on this matter. Nothing wrong with mutuality of interests.

And further. Don't tell me if it's lefty or righty. Tell me what's wrong with it. Labels just lead to knee jerk thinking.

Two things:
odograph: You apparently didn't even read the article.

t: knee jerk "thinking" isn't thinking at all.

I agree with a primarily free market solution to energy problems. Not bandaids, and not myopic government subsidies.

Actually, I did.

"A plague on both your houses" would be meaningful if "both houses" had power. The fact is that Republicans control the government absolutely, get almost all of the oil money going into politics, and "coincidentally" we see huge spikes in gas and natural gas prices during the time they're in power?

Are there many factors which lead to the current situation? Of course. But intentional neglect is one of them, and no one forced Republicans to start a war with Iraq, threaten to nuke Iran, and actively encourage problems in Venezuela. And one of the main reasons that China and India are booming to the extent they are is because we're the ones giving them the money to do it.

Couple that with policies which reward waste (like the 6,000+ lb SUV tax benefits), then it's pretty clear how things come about. This didn't happen overnight, but there's plenty of things that could have been done before to keep it from happening. And now several trillions in windfall profits are being made in energy, so it's pretty naive to chalk it all up to the "invisible hand".

It's good to focus on solutions, but one part of good solutions is knowing where the problems are actually coming from and why.

Let the market work and it will. As noted above, there are numerous examples in this site of industry moving to deal with the situation -- from developing new fuels and technologies to adopting the use of hybrids and EV's.

The public will be slower to change, and the Government just makes things worse by trying to scapegoat the oil companies. Of course this is really just slight-of-hand as they know he investigations will show nothing. The reality is that the big profits are not due to operating margins or tax fraud, but gains on assets -- you know, like capital gains that we want to give favorable tax treatment to.

In any event, we need not blame the politicians. They are all just lawyers. They don't understand Econ 101, or anything else, except how to get elected. Why are we not blaming the Media for failing to educate the public? It seems to me that is their role. Both parties have become pretty useless when it comes to vision and problem-solving, so we should just hope the price of gas keeps rising. If it does, the solutions will emerge, and the "Invisible Hand" will save us. Or was that Intelligent Design?

Gasoline is not in the same category as toothpaste, donuts, and kids toys - gasoline is a necessity of life - no work - no money - no food.

You believe that without gasoline (and a car) you'd die?

Look down. See those two things at the end of your legs? They're called feet. Over billions of years of evolution (or instantaneously if you're a creationist) you were given the ability for mobility through walking. The fact that people choose to be dependent on cars and gasoline doesn't change the fact that there is no existential need for either one, considering how humanity and the planet survived perfectly well for billions of years without them.

Car and oil dependence are the result of choice.

Look "market" guys, I might be closer to you than you think ... but the thing you should seen in "A Plague o' Both Your Houses!” is that both parties are pushing "statist" (to use the lingo) solutions.

When The Oil Drum makes the "lefty" recommendation that "Government should be focused on helping us cure our 'addiction to oil.'” they don't name any particulars that have not been put forward by congressional Republicans and/or the President.

I mean, I am actually an old-line conservative, who thinks government should fund basic research, and leave product development and deployment to private companies ... but who was at a freaking R&D facility for hyrogen cars this week? That's right, GWB.

The problem is that this has (as The Oil Drum says) a mess of government mismanagement coming from all points of the political compass.

Pfft. Maybe you want to say from your keyboard that we should go "free market" - well, point me to ANY national politician that is doing that.

Let the market work and it will.

Anyone who has actually taken economics courses would know that that statement is one of the biggest myths ever perpetuated. There is no "free market" - never has been, never will be. And it's because of "market failures", mostly, that people intervene to deal with problems that arise (eg, pollution, food safety, etc).

The key is not relying on the "invisible hand" but knowing how to make the best influences on prices to get the right outcomes. Are politicians to be trusted to do that? Of course not - there's plenty of corruption and stupidity to go around. But there are also plenty of examples of intelligent policy which has led to outcomes the "free market" would have never achieved on its own (the Internet which we're all using to bloviate about this being one example).

Not to worry -- High prices will make ALTERNATIVES competitive -- that's what we want/need -- there will just be a small hiccup before we get there -- there as in -- wind, solar, biofuel, ethanol, hydrogen, and fuel cell future (plus all the others - can't think of them all now but if you read this site you know what they are). Some day OPEC will wake up and say why do they (left-e, right-e, green-e) hate us and then it will become a religious profiling thing but then ,hey, who cares -- we'll be well on the road to producing a cleaner, carbon free and sustainable future!!

JJ, don't forget feet and bicycles.

(Both Kerry and Bush ride, so bicycles must be politically neutral ;-)

"Both Kerry and Bush ride, so bicycles must be politically neutral"

And the President walks to work.

Actauly the oil companies are making soo much money right now because they must in oder to pay for the changes they will need to make in the next 10-30 years to still provide all of us with some sort of fuel for our cars.

Its gonna cost trillions over all to convert and they know it. Some are starting right now while others are planning to make a killing on oil for as long as possible then buy into whatever comes out as the dominent fuel afterward.

As for iraq its main purpose was always to provide a war we couldnt lose but couldnt easily win either. A test to see what broke down when fighthing such a war so it doesnt happen a few years from now when the REAL wars start breaking out and millions instead of thousands of lives are on the line.

Due to the iraq war we have learned a ton about what we have that wasnt working and what we can make and how to make it so we are better at fighthing such wars.

In the end the iraq war prolly saved a million us lives overe the next 50 years by getting our combat act together before it was too late.

Its all just one big ass training exercise because we are fat and sloppy and out of shape.

ODOGRAPH -- GOOD POINT !!! BICYCLES !! I FORGOT BICYCLES !! NOTE: I hace 157,000 miles on my bicycle and only 7000 miles on my car and it's a 2003 model which means I average just about 2300 miles per year in my car!! GOOD POINT

Wintermane makes a good point. However, oil companies will only invest in alternatives to drilling if (a) there is a perceived demand for the alternative products and (b) they run out of new places to drill in.

At current prices and given the precarious politics of several key oil producing nations, (a) may apply for a subset of consumers (less so for corporate customers).

However, the US oil industry has not yet conceded point (b). The Bush administration has made it easier to drill on public land in the lower 48 by granting a $7 billion tax break to the oil & gas industry. There are also frequent attempts to open up the ANWR to drilling, to expand tar sand and oil shale exploitation etc.

Beyond government policy, this is driven by the market requirement to maintain or expand "proven reserves", a measure of the total volume of oil a company expects it can *economically* bring to market in future years. In other words, the lowest price is king.

Those record profits would go into alternative fuel R&D quick smart if the definition of "proven reserves" were changed appropriately, e.g. by capping the emissions of GHG and nuclear waste tied to the energy contained in the products delivered plus the energy required to bring them to market. That would do wonders for xTL, biodiesel, ethanol, biomass methanol, biogas etc.

Here is what the market has been doing.

"Again, from 2/10/06 to 4/7/06, total net petroleum imports into the US dropped 13.2%, which corresponded to a 20% increase in light, sweet crude oil prices. There is one market for light, sweet crude oil (at least when the US government is not putting oil into the strategic petroleum reserve): refineries. If refiners don't need the imports, why are they bidding up the price of light, sweet crude oil?"

above quote from - http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/

My impression is that capital expenditures are not very well correlated with profits. Furthermore, giving ex CEOs 400 million retirement packages probably doesn't do a great deal for production.

In any event, the classic economic argument is that we shouldn't mess with the oil companies or that would restrict production. This might hold some water but all the profits in the last several years have done nothing to increase refinery capacity.

And, besides, I don't have a problem with a cut in production, as this will only hasten the day when we move away from dependence upon oil.

If we truly have or will reach peak oil, we don't need incentives to just steepen the curve on the back end.

Oil and gasoline prices are so competitive (in our so-called free market) that all gas stations (regarless of the Brand) raised the retail price from $1.05 to $1.15 per liter, at exactly the same time last week. This has been going on and on for years. We're told that this is definately NOT price fixing. Just plain repetitive coincidences. We're supposed to beleive that B.... and we do.....

Some 100 years ago, a US built car could travel about 40 miles on a gallon. Today, you're lucky if you get 20 miles per gallon on the average US made car or light truck. Don't you think that, with normal technological progress, todays cars should go at least 100 miles/gal.

What happened to reverse the normal progress trend? Is it due to a collusion between major players? Is it our own fault for not demanding more efficent vehicles and buying all those hugh 4 x 4 and pick-ups gas guzzlers? Did the government play a role, with special incentives for the purchase of unwarranted large vehicles? Is overly cheap oil/gas (specially in USA and Canada) one of the main reason? Is our lack of respect for the environment part of the problem? Did we abdicate our basic citizen reponsabiity and fall in too easily to the Big Three propaganda that Bigger is Better and Safer?

We may all have some responsability for what is happening. We are overdue for an attitutde change. We the people...., can change the future by changing our behavior and stop buying those 2 to 3-ton monsters. We don't have to go back to horses and carriages or bicycles but a 40+ mile/gal car will get you from A to Z just as quickly than a huge 4 x 4. Our teenagers don't need a 2 1/2-ton 4 x 4 pick-up to go to school, an electric scooter would do the job just as well etc etc.

Let's wake up!!!

I'm with Harvey D. It's a voter and consumer choice world and we, as citizens, have the power to change the energy equation. Why wait for the government or the oil companies to fix the problem or "do what's right" ?

It's all about consumption. Surpisingly a parked SUV 4x4 uses the same amount of fuel as a parked Prius. So we can reduce fuel demand just by driving less even with gas guzzlers.

It's all about consumption. Surpisingly a parked SUV 4x4 uses the same amount of fuel as a parked Prius. So we can reduce fuel demand just by driving less even with gas guzzlers.

I agree that we have the power to make a difference, but the problem is that if people conserve a huge amount, then the prices will go down, which then will increase consumption. It's the same dynamic that occurs when people try to "solve" congestion. Take roads off cars = makes driving easier = makes people more likely to drive = more congestion.

The government plays a role in setting limits and boundaries. Without that, the stasis point remains the same.

Harvey D,

I agree with your basic assertions in your commentary, but I do not believe that in 1906 vehicles were getting 40 mpg. Please give evidence of your claim. The internal combustion engine is amazingly more sophisticated and efficient then it was 100 years ago. The problem is, most of those efficiency gains have been translated into increasing POWER rather then fuel economy. Look at the new Camry. The V6 gets something on the order of 60 HP more then the 2005 model and slightly better fuel economy. Imagine if Toyota would have designed the engine to get 10 extra ponies and a significant increase in MPG. Even toyota is more cooncened with power then efficieny. One high tech vehicle like the Prius does not make up for the rest of the fleet.

Peace,
Cosmo

The best way we could improve "our" world would to limit EVERY politician to ONE term in office!

Cosmo -- I think you got it backwards -- it's not that Toyota is interested in more HP -- it's the consumer who keeps wnating and buying more and more HP -- afterall, there are plenty cars with less HP and better effeciency then the Toyota yet the Camary is A BEST SELLER !!

"from 2/10/06 to 4/7/06, total net petroleum imports into the US dropped 13.2%, "

Guess how ?.

Many people bought portable electric heaters and wood stoves for home heating which should have cut fuel oil usage. Similarly Big SUV sales also fell.

1 good example is Dodge-Durango sales fell 57 % in Mar-2006.

Oil consumption will decline in USA this year and will be flat Worldwide.

In the end the iraq war prolly saved a million us lives overe the next 50 years by getting our combat act together before it was too late. Its all just one big ass training exercise because we are fat and sloppy and out of shape.
Nice try, wintermane!

Next: How Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy will save us from high oil prices!

Nobody plans that far ahead, least of all our so-called leaders. These guys are just greedy politicians, whose only priority is to save their own butts in the next election.

Proof: Look at all the nonsense they have been emitting about the high oil prices and how to fix the situation - the point of this article.

Guess how ?.

Oil consumption will decline in USA this year and will be flat Worldwide.

Transportation energy consumption is flat, not declining 13.2%. Same for residential petroleum consumption, despite it being a warm winter this past season.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec2_11.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec2_5.pdf

I said the market will work if you let it, not that we were letting it work -- and when it does work, it is not all that efficient.

odograph, the government should be working to ensure free markets, rather than screwing them up like they have done with oil. Why are we paying $20 a barrel to subsidize our imported oil through the war in Iraq? Because the politicians don't believe in free markets.

Joseph W, You make my point exactly. The Government is inept at best. So why do we keep expecting it to put incentives in the right place. Talk about believing in the Tooth Fairy!

Rafael, I disagree with one of your points. I think the oil companies have conceded that they have run out of places to drill. They just have not admitted that publicly, becuase if they do, how will they get Washington to subsidize their profits and fight their wars? If you take a look at their actions -- drilling activity and new refineries -- it is clear they know there isn't much more oil out there.

Harvy D is absolutely correct -- we have a choice. I ride my bike to work when weather permits and will do so more when gas goes up to $4. I hope that is soon, so other poeple will make choices, too.

Joseph W, You make my point exactly. The Government is inept at best. So why do we keep expecting it to put incentives in the right place. Talk about believing in the Tooth Fairy!

I didn't say I expected it to. I want it to. Government plays a unique and critical role which won't be played by other actors. More than most people I believe in doing what one can with what one is capable of doing. But as I pointed out about energy consumption and congestion, the perverse effect of reducing demand is that it just ends up increasing it elsewhere. Until people start being compensated for doing what's best for us all, instead of subsidizing those who do worse, then you're not going to get a good outcome.

It took me a long time to accept that difficult truth, but it's real.

And I'd like to add that "government" isn't inept by definition -- we make it that way. And we can choose to make it better.

But no matter what we wish, we aren't going to change the behavior of people who do awful things for their own benefit. That requires some degree of power parity, and only the government is capable of being that actor.

LOOK AT THESE DOCS, ITS ONE OF THE PROJECTS/TECHNOLOGIES THAT THOSE OIL COMPANIES ARE LOOKING AT. All of a sudden, oil could be plentiful (or at least $35-$60 range) again as more known, but unreachable reserves are tapped.

http://www.energy.gov/news/3291.htm
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/publications/eor_co2/C_-_10_Basin_Studies_Fact_Sheet.pdf

Rafael, Iraq has problems with its oil fields. The massive Kirkuk field in northern Iraq may have been overexploited and pernamently damaged. The practice of reinjecting heavy fuel oil back into oil fields around Iraq to increase yields (during Hussein's reign) may have gummed up some of the oil in the ground. Such problems might hinder the ability to recover some of the supposed 100+Bbl of oil in reserves.

Big oil is made up of shareholders.The majority of shares are owned by investment funds made up of peoples retirement funds.Windfall profits taxes or any such interference could do great damage to the average working stiffs 401k.The oil companies make nine cents per gallon and the government makes eighteen cents per gallon in taxes{plus state taxes}.Thats where they get the money for bridges to nowhere{earmarks}.When exxonmobil merged, the government regulators insisted that they divest themselves of refining assets.These assets are now held by smaller corperations that dont have the deep pockets to finance expansion that the biggies do.As for the internet,it started out as a military research project{darpanet}it was then applied to connect university research labs.It was when it was released to the business community that it exploded into the world wide web.The Iraq war has its roots in the first Iraq war.We liberated Kuwait but our true goal was to assure the free flow of oil{not to steal it but to make sure it is availlable to buy}The Sauds invited us onto their soil because they feared Saddam would come after them next.We have flexed our muscle over there for decades because oil is the lifeblood of our existence economicaly,militarily etc.If an antagonistic power were able to monopolize it we would be at their mercy.Our muscle flexing and our support of Israel has made us hated by the mideast and Islamist fanatics.We need a new energy system to survive without the oil nations.withdrawing support for Israel would be to feed them to the ovens of Islamist hatred{they will when able kill every jewish man woman and child}.If you look into the demographics of African nations torn by war you will invariabl find a population divided into muslim,christian,and indigenous africans.The wahab brand of Islam believes in its conquest of all others because they are superior due to allahs commisioning{sound like the nazi party and the superior aryan race?}.Read Future Jihad by walid Phares for a clear view on this by someone who grew up in the muslim world.Iran is run by a messianic figure who believes he can bring about the arrival of the twelfth Imam.They are pursuing full bore nuclear weapons which brings about the same problem of an atagonistic power in control of our lifeblood{oil}and dedicated to nuking every jew.We can in no way be dependent on this part of the world and do have to be on alert for their oil wealth looking to reach out and touch us through terror.

The oil companies make nine cents per gallon and the government makes eighteen cents per gallon in taxes{plus state taxes}.

Huh? Where in the world did you get those numbers? It costs Exxon about $5 to get a barrel of oil and they're selling it for $75. The oil itself makes up about 60% of the cost of a gallon of gas at this point. Maybe a gas station owner gets nine cents, but the oil company as a whole is making getting about $1.80, not 9 cents.

When exxonmobil merged, the government regulators insisted that they divest themselves of refining assets.These assets are now held by smaller corperations that dont have the deep pockets to finance expansion that the biggies do.

That's not true, either.

http://exxonmobil.com/Corporate/About/OurActivities/NEW_Corp_OA_Downstream.asp

Actauly the huge ass payments to big oil leaders is a clear sign oil itself for those companies went from a long term future to a short term one.

Once they no longer needed to care about the long term they start to grab as much of the pie as they can so they can jump ship with money or jump to a new fuel source with money or run out the last days of oil with money.

As for the war it was just one of the factors that made the war a good idea at the time. But yes they did in fact think that far ahead and farther the plans and reasons for a war in iraq were around since before the first war. Saddam was always a useful target.

A dollar eighty per gallon?Gross,net?Their published profit margin{full page ads in ny times}are under ten percent.Your figure implies a margin closer to fifty to seventy percent.I believe the uproar is over net profits.They were divested of some refining capacity,that doesnt mean all.This is generally true in large mergers to avoid domination of a market.Regardless it is still true that the corp is made up of its shareholders and polital grandstanding will do more harm than good.Higher prices will lead to a drop in suv sales and an increase in sales of fuel efficient vehicles.So I say let the current market forces play out.

Their published profit margin{full page ads in ny times}are under ten percent.

So you're basing your numbers on full-page advertisements taken out by the companies themselves? Probably not the most unbiased source of information out there.

They were divested of some refining capacity,that doesnt mean all.

Well, you said "they were divested of refining assets [by the government] which are now held by smaller corporations". I see no evidence of that claim, nor what that statement implies.

Regardless it is still true that the corp is made up of its shareholders and polital grandstanding will do more harm than good.

That's pretty illogical. Most large firms are publicly held, and people and institutions who invest in them know that every business investment entails risk. There's no guarantees with an equity investment, nor should the government be in the business of guaranteeing exorbitant returns on specific equities. When a company is giving a guy a $400 million retirement package after 12 years at the company, while normal Americans are being pinched further every day while our government goes deeper into debt and war, something is seriously wrong.

Forgive me if I don't have too much concern that shareholders of XOM might take a small hit to their 76% increase in value during the time Bush has been in office compared to the -2% the S&P has done during the same time period.

Higher prices will lead to a drop in suv sales and an increase in sales of fuel efficient vehicles.So I say let the current market forces play out.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be better for $3/gallon gas to be composed of higher taxes and lower wholesale gas prices than lower taxes and higher wholesale gas prices? Either way, the price signal to the consumer is the same, but the economic effects of lower deficits, better funding for alternative transportation and fuels, and better air quality are superior to enriching a select number of actors, many of whom are not from this country?

I think it's a pretty obvious choice. The question is how to get to that point, and I think the best option is a cap-and-trade mechanism interacting with a dynamic fuel tax.

Free market theorist might say let the market work with no intervention. The President stated that oil companies "should" invest more of their profits. However, Exxon is buying back their stock, giving out dividends and paying their retiring Chairman a $400,000,000 going away package.

Actauly its simple math. The companies make about 9.5% profit and the cost of gas went way up so thier profits went way up because it stayed 9.5%.

But here is the kicker.. for every 20 bucks of fuel you buy... they get $1.90. And the gov gets about $4-5.

In case your wondering where the rest goes...

Someone has to pay the guy at the gas statio and the guy who owns the gas station gets something and the company that owns the line of stations get something and the guy that trucks the fuel in gets something and the state gets a fee from the transport of the fuel and rcently they replaced all thier storage tanks with new ones for enviro reasons.. thats about 2 mil per station WE are paying.. oh and your paying for the mtfb and the alchohol the company buys to mix into the gas and the transport of the oil and people who work on that transport and dso on and so on and so on.

On top of all that the company simply tacks on a 9.5 or so percent profit margin. Rather modest concidering the cost of the things an oil cpmpany needs to build these days... oh wait they charge that too...

But here is the kicker.. for every 20 bucks of fuel you buy... they get $1.90. And the gov gets about $4-5.

At last month's average price of $2.425, out of $20 of gasoline:

* $10.96 was for crude oil
* $4.34 was for refining
* $3.78 was for taxes
* $0.90 was for distribution and marketing

For January 2001's average price of $1.447, out of $20 of gasoline:

* $8.54 was for crude oil
* $5.84 was for taxes
* $3.56 was for refining
* $2.08 was for distribution and marketing

Of that roughly 98 cents of price increase from January 2001 to March 2006:

* 71 cents was for crude oil
* 27 cents was for refining
* 4 cents was for taxes
* -4 cents was for distribution and marketing

Naturally, with this month's price almost 50 cents higher than March's, the proportion of crude oil as a component of price is even higher.

So this belief that somehow fuel taxes are burdensome or large is laughable, as they remain relatively constant over time in currnet dollar terms, with the federal portion steadily decreasing in real dollar value since it hasn't been adjusted in nearly a decade.

To give you a sense of how well a company like Exxon did last year, they achieved 34% return on equity and 19% return on assets. Compare that to Microsoft, which achieved 29% return on equity and 16% return on assets.

And keep in mind that's at average crude oil prices of around $50/barrel, not $70-75/barrel we're seeing now.

Cut through the b.s. the oil companies like to feed you. They have a pretty large stake in keeping people misinformed.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gaspump.html
http://www.artba.org/economics_research/reports/gas_tax_history.htm
http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf

You still gfailed to get the fact that the taxes are far greater then what the company is making profit wise. So if you complain about the profit and not about the taxes you are ignored by many.

You still gfailed to get the fact that the taxes are far greater then what the company is making profit wise. So if you complain about the profit and not about the taxes you are ignored by many.

Why would I complain about a profit-making enterprise paying taxes? I have to pay taxes. Why shouldn't they?

What you're falling for is what my profs called "accounting magic". Just because what they report under accounting standards seems "reasonable", you need to dig deeper to see the kind of cash they're making.

You're dealing with a commodity with an essentially fixed cost of production, so every extra dollar of price on that commodity is pure profit.

Exxon was making a profit with $10-15 oil -- a healthy profit. Their net income per share has increased 240% from 2002 to 2005. Their share price is up over 70% compared to a flat S&P over the past 5 1/2 years.

What exactly is your motivation for defending the likes of Exxon when your country is now spending $300-400 billion more per year for petroleum than it was just a few years ago, when the $22-28 price band was seen as optimal by the Saudis and exorbitant by a certain person running for higher office in 2000?

Oh, and jus so you can correct another one of your misperceptions, their income taxes last year were $23.3 billion (and this is globally, not just the US) on net income of $59.4 billion. So both their pre- and after-tax net income exceeds their income tax.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/fo_2005.pdf

Why do you accept Exxon propaganda so readily?

Seems like somebody has been "gfailed" (sic) by their logic and fact checking-ability.

Let's not forget that the more money that goes to the Middle East, the more money goes to Osama et al. You would have thought that even the president would have understood that soon after 9/11.

Instead, there he was at his ranch in Crawford, kissing up to the then Crown Prince Abdullah. "Please, sir, can we have more oil?"

"Let me see, W, you want me to spend a bunch of money now, so that oil can be cheap and we make less money? I'll get back to you on that." (Winks to aid.)

Looking at the statements emitting from DC, few of our brave leaders get it.