On Tuesday’s "Good Morning America," co-host Diane Sawyer and reporter Claire Shipman hyperbolically investigated "soaring" gas prices. After noting that oil companies have been publically presenting their explanations, she wondered, "But are they true? We put them to the truth test."
Apparently, it's ABC that needs the "truth test." Diane Sawyer’s intro included this comment from Gulf Oil President Joe Petrowski’s May 14 interview with CNN:
Diane Sawyer: "And all day yesterday, executives from Gulf and Shell for 24 hours have been giving the reason. They blame refineries. Listen"
Joe Petrowski (President & CEO, Gulf Oil): "Refinery utilization has been particularly awful this spring and that’s been a huge contributing factor, probably thirty to forty cents in the price of gasoline."
Correspondent Claire Shipman, as she began her segment, proceded to claim that "what you didn't hear those CEOs talk about is those refineries, and the people who own them, are reaping windfall profits right now because of the higher prices." Video (0:41): Real (1.10 MB) or Windows (1.25 MB), plus MP3 (448 kB)
Apparently, Sawyer and Shipman must not have listened to the entire CNN segment, because Petrowski, the Gulf executive, said exactly that in his interview with "American Morning" :
Joe Petrowski: "It is refining profits that are at absolute record levels. Normally, a refining margin to turn the crude into refined products is between 15 and 20 cents a gallon."
CNN host Kiran Chetry: "You guys don't get money off of refining?"
Petrowski: "We don't refine. We just distribute and store oil. We run terminals and downstream distribution. But the integrated majors, there's been a lot of consolidation in the oil business in the last few years, and there are probably five or six major refiners worldwide who control the brunt of refining and those margins are at absolute all-time record levels to a degree that's 80 cents a gallon to put it in perspective which..."
Earlier in the GMA piece, the following graphic appeared onscreen: "Highest Gas Prices Ever: Are Americans Being Lied to?" This is also misleading. As Brent Baker noted on Monday, prices, after being adjusted for inflation, are actually lower than they were in 1981.
After Shipman’s comments about oil executives, she claimed that the problem might have been fixed with "a little more advance planning":
Shipman: "And there’s a serious sense that this problem could have been solved with a little more advance planning. The problem this year is what's between crude oil, and the consumer. The refineries, 149 of them across the country, turning oil into gasoline. Already, in 2007, a fifth of them suffered serious breakdowns, everything from fires to equipment failures, to, in one case. a squirrel who sabotaged a refinery control room. Those breakdowns, together with the time consuming switch over from winter to summer fuel and increased demand, have created a perfect storm, according to refinery executives."
However, Ms. Shipman waited until the end of the segment to discuss the real problem with oil refineries: Nobody is building new ones. It was at this point that she also admitted there isn't a quick solution to this problem. That fact, however, might not be as sexy as talking about "truth tests" and wondering if the oil companies are lying to the American public:
Shipman: "The solution, make refineries bigger or build new ones. But oil companies face countless restrictions and no one wants one a new refinery in their own backyard."
Red Cavaney (President, American Petroleum Institute): "People say we need new refineries, or we could use that extra capacity. But then when you go to a specific local, or a specific community and you start to talk about trying to bring that in, people say no, no, no. I don't really want that. I'd rather have that produced somewhere else and brought here."
Shipman: "This is a problem with no quick fix. You need a long lead time. And in fact, there is a plan in place to increase capacity at the nation's refineries by 2011. So for the next few years we are likely to continue to see these sorts of spikes, Diane, when there’s huge demand."
Finally, Sawyer, in on last stab at class warfare, ended the report by actually mentioning a proposed gas boycott that has been circulating the internet. The GMA co-host helpfully called the plan a "diesel protest" and asserted, "a lot of consumers have decided they’re going to fight back." ABC went so far as to feature an excerpt of the e-mail onscreen:
[E-mail appears onscreen while Sawyer closes the segment, but not read aloud]:"It has been calculated that if everyone in the United States did not purchase a drop of gasoline for one day and all at the same time, the oil companies would choke on their stockpiles."
Of course, Sawyer provided some cover by quickly noting, "economists say it rarely works 'cause people fill up the day before or the day after and don't really save the gas."
Perhaps the chain e-mail will be as effective as GMA’s "truth test?"
For an excellent analysis of the media's handling of gas prices, head over to Reason magazine.
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:11am on May 15, follows:
7am tease
Diane Sawyer: "And, news for the road. As gas prices reach the record, oil companies give their reasons. But are they true? We put them to the truth test."
7:11
ABC Graphic: "Highest Gas Prices Ever: Are Americans Being Lied to?"
Diane Sawyer: "And now we turn to gasoline prices in this country. And those soaring prices they are! Gas now at $3.10 a gallon, the highest ever, up a whopping 94 cents in the last 15 weeks alone. And all day yesterday, executives from Gulf and Shell for 24 hours have been giving the reason. They blame refineries. Listen."
Joe Petrowski (President & CEO, Gulf Oil): "Refinery utilization has been particularly awful this spring and that’s been a huge contributing factor, probably thirty to forty cents in the price of gasoline."
Sawyer: "We wondered about that and, of course, Shell weighed in too, saying, ‘We are trying to produce everything we can produce. There have been a couple of fires in refineries which have aggravated the situation.’ So, we started making some phone calls, wondering how in America can refineries be out of commission for so long? Senior national correspondent Claire Shipman has some answers this morning. Claire?"
Claire Shipman: "Good morning, Diane. Let me tell you, with prices like these, people are looking for answers. And here's what we found. Those CEOs are right on one count: There are huge problems with the nation's refineries right now, huge bottle necks there. But what you didn't hear those CEOs talk about is those refineries, and the people who own them are reaping windfall profits right now because of the higher prices. And there’s a serious sense that this problem could have been solved with a little more advance planning. The problem this year is what's between crude oil, and the consumer. The refineries, 149 of them across the country turning oil into gasoline. Already, in 2007, a fifth of them suffered serious breakdowns, everything from fires to equipment failures, to, in one case. a squirrel who sabotaged a refinery control room. Those breakdowns together with the time consuming switch over from winter to summer fuel and increased demand have created a perfect storm, according to refinery executives."
Lynn Westfall (Chief economist, Tesoro Corporation): "We’re finding more oil every year. We simply can't keep up with demand growth. Even one refining incident is felt in the market place."
Shipman: "But consumer advocate Mark Cooper says the refineries should have been prepared."
Mark Cooper (Consumer Federation of America): "They are guilty of mismanaging this business. Predicting demand? Hey, that's their job and it’s pretty constant. Having spare capacity so you don't run out? That's their job."
Shipman: "The average refinery shutdown this year? 40 days. Why so long when so much is at stake?"
Westfall: "Before you can get into the units to figure out what is going on, they have to spend several days cooling down, depressurizing. And once you get inside, there may be some damage that requires long lead time equipment."
Shipman: "The solution, make refineries bigger or build new ones. But oil companies face countless restrictions and no one wants one a new refinery in their own backyard."
Red Cavaney (President, American Petroleum Institute): "People say we need new refineries, or we could use that extra capacity. But then when you go to a specific local, or a specific community and you start to talk about trying to bring that in, people say no, no, no. I don't really want that. I'd rather have that produced somewhere else and brought here."
Shipman: "This is a problem with no quick fix. You need a long lead time. And in fact, there is a plan in place to increase capacity at the nation's refineries by 2011. So for the next few years we are likely to continue to see these sorts of spikes, Diane, when there’s huge demand."
Sawyer: "That’s something. Well, if the squirrel eats your refinery, that's a new one for me. Okay, thanks Claire. As you know, a lot of consumers have decided they’re going to fight back. Those e-mails have been going out, you might have seen them, calling for a gas out. In fact, doing it today. It’s a kind of a diesel protest and the idea is to turn the tables on the oil companies by boycotting the pump for one day. But, even though today is that day, economists say it rarely works 'cause people fill up the day before or the day after and don't really save the gas."
E-mail appears onscreen while Diane closes the segment (but not read aloud): "It has been calculated that if everyone in the United States did not purchase a drop of gasoline for one day and all at the same time, the oil companies would choke on their stockpiles." - Chain e-mail proposing National "Gas Out" day.
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
liberals
May 15, 2007 - 12:26 ET by iveseenitallA "truth test"??? Liberals searching for the "truth"? Impossible! And the only "Gas Out" day that makes any sense is for people to turn off the MSM for a day (or more).
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Here is the response I got fr
May 15, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Sick-n-TiredHere is the response I got from a friend who recieved one of these "gas out/boycott" emails; he puts it quite well I might add.
"??? Your kidding right? How about we boycott the government. Taxes are 1/3+ of the cost at the pump. Lets also boycott corn growers. Ethanol adds a premium to gas prices due to the fact it takes more energy to distill ehtanol than the energy it provides. Lets also boycott the traders on Wall Street. They are all candy asses that "run and hide" any time Osama farts further jacking up prices. Oh and MOST IMPORATANTLY, lets boycott the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. of whom themselves boycott and protest any ideas/proposals for the BUILDING OF NEW REFINERIES. That is the real bottleneck in this whole scenario---no new refineries built in 30 years. No how many new cars do you think have hit the road in the last 30 years?
But instead of hearing these truths in the news/mainstream meida, all you get in explantion of higher gas prices is that big ol' mean Exxon-Mobil is the guilty party... Yeah, right."
Actaully, according to API, you are only paying 18-20% in taxes at the pump, not 33%. Still more than I want to chip in....
The leftists and RINO's are t
May 15, 2007 - 12:36 ET by bigtimerThe leftists and RINO's are to blame for the prices.
Drill Often....Drill Everywhere.
We need self-dependency.....
Yesterday would of been nice.
I pray we get a strong conservative to make it a national emergency under national security, make it an executive order.... and begin the drilling.
I only buy gas once a week, s
May 15, 2007 - 12:41 ET by general companyI only buy gas once a week, so technically aren't I boycotting them 6 days out of the week already?
I thought Pelosi was going to straighten them out anyway?
A comment
May 15, 2007 - 13:21 ET by goldenthroatGC, have you forgotten that President Pelosi has been too busy saving the world by shmoozing with middle east dictators?
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
Stupid me, I forgot. Your rig
May 15, 2007 - 14:22 ET by general companyStupid me, I forgot. Your right saving the world is more better. What I really love are the folks suggesting we should tax gas more, to discourage folks from using so much. So what is the difference if the Oil co. raise it or the Fed's? I guess I think to much?
I am thinking of a green charity called Gas Tax, just give me your money so you cant spend it on gas!!
"what you didn't hear
May 15, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Dave in Texas"what you didn't hear those CEOs talk about is those
refineries, and the people who own them, are reaping windfall profits
right now because of the higher prices."
Wow, imagine that. There are people who operate facilities that are in huge demand, and that allows them to make lots of money. Is this the first time in history that something like that has happened?
The next time ABC airs the superbowl, I hope they are ready to explain why they are gouging people on the price for advertising time.
Sweet Jesus, not the inflatio
May 15, 2007 - 14:05 ET by ferrarimanf355Sweet Jesus, not the inflation excuse again. You can only use that excuse for so long, until gas prices shoot up again. Can we find another excuse?
Uzumaki/Ayanami '08. Because a ninja and an Eva pilot can govern the nation better that what we have now...
Ok....supply and demand
May 15, 2007 - 14:11 ET by RJok....supply and demand.
The left has done eveything it can to prevent the building of new refineries....hence short supply. The left has done everything it can to prevent exploiting existing American oil and gas deposits....hence short supply. Meanwhile the world's growing economies are demanding more and more energy......hence more demand.
Short supply....more demand.....higher prices....get it?
Well put RJ. Supply and deman
May 15, 2007 - 15:58 ET by mulerider24Well put RJ. Supply and demand is obviously the most important variable in the ever-changing gas issue. But I do find it humorous when the left pretends certain economic "excuses" like inflation become so cliche' we should stop talking about them. I wonder how they would react if we brought the "CO2... not that lame excuse again!" to the global warming debate.
So ferretman, if we are guilty of using the inflation card every time gas prices spike up, what is the appropriate excuse for when prices spike downward? Do you just chalk it up to the evil oil executives getting so fat on their profits that they "allow" us a reprieve? Heaven forbid that the same variables (geo-political risk, seasonal supply and demand, refining capacity and efficiency) that actually cause a spike upward might actually work in reverse as well. But that makes for a pretty crappy lead story.
Journalist only distinguish between real and nominal figures when it suits their cause. Nowhere is that more evident than quoting historical economic figures.
hey I wouldn't mind
May 15, 2007 - 17:06 ET by UndercoverConservativeI wouldn't mind a little leftist charity rubbing off on gas prices. I mean, we're already paying welfare, health care, defense, and infrastructure taxes for illegal immigrants, self-pitying minorities, the blatantly lazy, and the criminal. Maybe for once, they could kick some of that towards us poor working, law abiding and tax paying folk, in the form of a gasoline subsidy...
I know, dream on. It's more important to pander to folks who have nothing to do all day but protest and show up at the polls three or four times a day.:P
Funny you should mention that, UC
May 15, 2007 - 17:19 ET by RJFunny you should mention that, UC.
Here in CT, the governor has suggested the State should rescind part of the gas taxes for the summer, but the Liberally controlled Legislature has said "hell no!"
This, in the face of our MORE THAN ONE BILLION STATE SURPLUS!
Not only that, but the Legislature is looking for ways to RAISE our taxes! Liberals....sigh....I wish we could send them all to Europe. They don't deserve this country.....
Rescinding part of the gaso
May 15, 2007 - 18:20 ET by ChumlyRescinding part of the gasoline taxes would be the same as subsidizing the oil companies even more. We already subsidize them enough, with the billions they receive for R&D and exploration. Can't they just use those massive profits for their R&D and exploration??
Those liberals who oppose further subsidies are watching your back.
No Chum,Can't they just use t
May 15, 2007 - 18:38 ET by BlondeNo Chum,
Can't they just use those massive profits for their R&D and exploration??
No, no, no, no, no.
What do you not understand about investing?
People buy oil stocks to get a return on their investments, either in the form of dividends or increased stock value due to profits.
You and Hillary are not entitled to "take those profits" for your own personal agendas. They don't belong to you, keep your filthy little liberal hands off.
If you want to determine how oil companies "reinvest" their profits, buy some stock, and vote your shares.
Otherwise, you'd be advised to be quiet.
Tell me more, Chumpster
May 15, 2007 - 20:37 ET by RJDon't cut taxes because the mean corporations would take it? Spoken like a true socialist. Tell me more, Chumpster, so I can pass the word along and make the citizens of this state with the HIGHEST gasoline tax in the country understand that it's for their own good.
As for oil exploration, there is plenty of known oil and gas available. As a matter of fact, there are enough known gas reserves in America to supply our needs for the next 100 years. But.....oh wait....the liberal enviros won't let us get it.....
Bad, RJ.You did a Blonde. R
May 15, 2007 - 20:45 ET by BlondeBad, RJ.
You did a Blonde. Responding to the wrong post. LOL.
Guess we're even on this one....
Still...the little libs want to "take those profits"....like the good little socialists they are. All the while decrying the unfairness of high oil prices, yet screeching about how there should be no more exploration (in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance) and no building of refineries (that would be bad, bad, bad for the environment).
Sheesh!
Hi Blonde
May 15, 2007 - 20:51 ET by RJHi Blonde. No that's what I intended.....wanted to include your response to Chumpster's socialist foolishness, too. But it doesn't matter, 'cause he never responds on point anyway.
RJ,Why is it these trolls nev
May 15, 2007 - 20:57 ET by BlondeRJ,
Why is it these trolls never stick around?
I guess I've just had a bit of a difficult day....sometimes I come here just to post and have friendly (and interesting...even educational) posts with others here. And then I run into the trolls....remind me about that, kindly.
Thanks for that one, RJ. It was pretty funny, as Chumpy's foolishness is usually inane, in the extreme.
The last gunfighter
May 15, 2007 - 21:06 ET by nkviking75Blonde, remember those old westerns where the old gunslinger wants to retire, but he can't because young bucks keep challenging him? You're sorta the old gunfighter around here. Actually, I think of you more as our Xena than an old grizzled gunfighter, but the analogy wouldn't have worked as well. :-)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Gee, thanks, NK.On that note,
May 15, 2007 - 21:15 ET by BlondeGee, thanks, NK.
On that note, I think I shall have to revamp my image, a la Hillary. Perpetual motion.
Whom shall I be this week?
I'm thinking Linda Carter and Wonder Woman...but I'm sure there are more apt descriptions of troll warriors.
Wonder Woman works for me
May 15, 2007 - 21:19 ET by nkviking75Wonder Woman seems an apt comparison. I can picture you deflecting bullets with your magic bracelets. Now if you only had that lasso that forces people to tell the truth....
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
and i hear the invisible plan
May 15, 2007 - 21:23 ET by botgand i hear the invisible plane is eco-friendly
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Watching the debate now...Too
May 15, 2007 - 21:30 ET by BlondeWatching the debate now...
Too early for all of this earnestness.
it is too early, i'll check o
May 15, 2007 - 21:37 ET by botgit is too early, i'll check out some of it, but the only thing that can really happen is for some to eliminate themselves through bad comments. eeeeeeeyyyyaaaaahh!
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
It seems that you all have
May 15, 2007 - 21:53 ET by ChumlyIt seems that you all have either misconstrued or taken most of what I have said out of context. I was talking about the oil companies receving billions in taxpayer dollars for their R&D and their exploration. Tax payer dollars. That is my point. They should use their own money for their exploration, and not the tax payer's money. If they use our money for their exploration, I would expect some return on my investment. It is common knowledge that they receive that money from US tax payers.
Oh, and I see that you all are still abusing people who disagree with you. Not the American way people...
What is it about you people...name calling, denigrating...very childish.
Oil companies get tax dolla
May 15, 2007 - 22:03 ET by lnthompOil companies get tax dollars? That's news to me. I know about 60 cents per gallon collected at the pump is taxes that go to the Federal or State governments (more or less, depending on your state), but I'm not aware of any of that being fed back to the oil companies.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Still not able to respond on point, I see, Chum
May 15, 2007 - 22:09 ET by RJWhy is it that you're unable to respond on point, Chum? The post you answered said that the governor of CT wanted to remove gasoline taxes for the summer, and you went off on an inane riff about government subsidy, R&D, and oil exploration.
With that kind of a response, you deserve abuse.
Chum,Try again. What "
May 15, 2007 - 22:05 ET by BlondeChum,
Try again.
What "billioins of taxpayer dollars for R&D?"
Are you a teenager, or just reading impaired? Please provide a reference for these "tax-payer dollars".
I personally recieve a nice little nut from one of the evil oil companies.
BTW....what is up with your big whine?
"You people" is a not very nice appelage that the left uses, often.
Try again.
inflation is correct enough
May 15, 2007 - 14:17 ET by tumbler_2007When gasoline was around a buck a gallon, we could buy a Corvette off the showroom floor for about $7,000 --
You know what even a Toyota costs now; why should you demand dollar a gallon gas ? Life must go on. Mexicans have this saying:
Si quiere azul celeste,
Que le cueste !
Roughly translated; if it's Celestial Blue for you,
The price is high but not Too High for you.
Pay up.
Great point! But I can go t
May 15, 2007 - 17:14 ET by BruzillaGreat point! But I can go to Saudi Arabia, where oil is pumped, refined, and sold by a government-controlled oil production and distribution network, with no shortages or limits, for about $1.25 a gallon today. I can go to Venezuela, which has the same system, and is run by a living Loony-Tune, yet I can get gas for about .75 a gallon today. So why in the US, where we pump about 55% of our oil, and refine 100%, domestically, should we accept all gas at $3.00 or more a gallon? In any other retail market, we expect to pay much less for a product that is grown or developed locally than one that is imported from around the world, yet we are expected to pay the same for a gallon of gas regardless of if it's made from oil from Alaska or Saudi Arabia. Now why is that???
Sure, most of us can afford to pay $3.00 a gallon for gasoline, just as most of us can afford to pay twice as much for cola, electricity, or tap water., but does that mean we should accept paying that? I thought the consumer was supposed to be king in the business World? If Coke wants to charge $5 for a 2 ltr bottle of product to up their profits, I can drink Pepsi. If all the cola makers collude and charge $5/bottle to up their profits, I can drink tea, juice, water, etc. If the electric or water company decides to double their prices to increase profits, the government steps in (in most places) and says "oh no you don't". If the oil and gasoline industry wants to charge $3.00 or more for gasoline to up their profits, I'm pretty much stuck paying whatever they charge and they know it.
In any other area of business the customer is king, and the business must balance how much profit they can make against how how much they can charge their customers before they bail and use something else. For gasoline there is nothing to switch to, so the oil and energy companies can charge whatever they like. This is exactly the same situation that the electric and water companies face, yet across the country these companies are tightly regulated, and in many cases are controlled by, local municipal governments or co-ops. This keeps the prices low, and the companies still make a decent profit while providing excellent service. So why would it be such a horrible thing to treat gasoline the same way, and demand that $1 a gallon for gasoline the way we demand low per-kWH hours of electricity or per 100/gals of tap water charges?
those countries don't have to
May 15, 2007 - 17:41 ET by Conservative Voicethose countries don't have to pay for ethonel, nor do they have to pay for lobbyists, and they can drill where they please. When was the last time we opened a new well?
Also those places do not have as much demand, as they don't have that many cars.
But I can go to Saudi Arabi
May 15, 2007 - 18:02 ET by GregABut I can go to Saudi Arabia [and buy gas] for about $1.25 a gallon today. I can go to
Venezuela [and] get gas for about .75 a gallon today. So why in
the US...should we accept all gas at $3.00 or more a gallon?
Because those governments you mention have vast oil profits from the government-siezed and -owned oil assets and directly subsidize the retail cost of fuel so their "subjects" can pay less.
You really should do your homework before making silly replies like that...
The same for Iran and Mexico
May 16, 2007 - 09:40 ET by dscottThe same for Iran and Mexico as well, they heavily subsidize the price of gasoline to their consumers and they also restrict auto imports to cap the fuel consumption otherwise their governments would go bankrupt. Of course to Bruzilla and Chumly this is to be overlooked. Remember, it's the seriousness of the charge that is of the issue not the facts.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
Good point Bruzilla. Most
May 15, 2007 - 18:15 ET by ChumlyGood point Bruzilla. Most people on this topic are ignoring that. Most of the people here helped to vote the oil industry into the White House. What really boggles my mind is that they did so against their own best interest. Most of them do not benefit from their decision. Only the very wealthy benefit from their decision. The people on this blog put the oil industry in control of our country.
Remember those secret energy policy meetings with Cheney, soon after Cheney was put in office?? Why do you think Cheney is protecting the identity of the people who shaped our current energy policy (as well as perhaps, our foreign policy (War))? Is it because allowing private, for profit companies make important public policy for our country is against our Constitution and would appear to be a Major conflict of interest???
What I suspect is occuring with gas prices is the consolidation of political power. They are grabbing all they can get while they are in power. Money buys power. Money buys a lot of advertising. The kind of advertising that was used to bend the minds of the sheep that voted against their own best interest, and put the current leadership into the White House. The astronomical profits that they are reaping now will help buy A LOT more political power.
A looter
May 16, 2007 - 05:44 ET by UnsaneSo, what's your solution?
STEAL profits,of course, as you are nothing more than a pathetic looter...
Childish name calling? I see you getting ready to whine that tired whine. Hardly. What I have called you is dead-on accurate...
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Inflation isn't an excuse,
May 15, 2007 - 14:17 ET by sarcasmoInflation isn't an excuse, it's a fact. Of course, I'm sure people like you as well as many on the right see no moral issues with central banking cronyism combined with a decade+ of lax regulation on the riskiest sector, hedge funds while the 'mainstream' media pay no heed... When not if one eventually fails, guess who's (coughtaxpayerscough) probably on the hook?
JMR
Cloak fully-deployed...
May 15, 2007 - 18:50 ET by sarcasmoCloak fully-deployed...
JMR
Hey Ferrariman...
May 15, 2007 - 14:26 ET by c5thenWhen comparing historical prices to today's prices, you have to use inflation to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.
In 1974, what did a gallon of milk cost? How much was the price of an average new car? What was the average income?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.
Stolen from somewhere:"H
May 15, 2007 - 16:13 ET by mulerider24Stolen from somewhere:
"Hollwood is an egregious offender (of the inflation rate game), proclaiming summer after summer that some mediocre film has set a new box office record. Comparing gross receipts in 2002 to gross receipts in 1970 or 1950 is a silly exercise unless they are adjusted for inflation. A ticket to Gone with the Wind cost 19 cents. A ticket to Dude, Where's My Car cost $10. Of course the gross receipts are going to look big by comparison."
ABC adding new News people
May 15, 2007 - 14:31 ET by LionKingABC should consider using these people to replace the existing journalists.
Just a thought.
LK...Yep, only problem is tho
May 15, 2007 - 14:36 ET by bigtimerLK...
Yep, only problem is those people would do a better job...
You know the phrase...so simple even a.......
LOL!
Here's what I find interestin
May 15, 2007 - 15:33 ET by BruzillaHere's what I find interesting. According to the oil companies it's the refiners, and not the oil companies, who are making all the money. We are also told that the price of a gallon of gasoline is directly tied to the price of a barrel of crude oil. No matter what your capacity for refining is, you still aren't going to get more than 20 gallons or so of refined gas from a 55-gallon drum of oil. Since prices really started climbing in 2003, there's been no openings or closing of refineries, but the price of oil has nearly doubled, and not coincidentally so has the price of gasoline. So if refining capability has remained constant, and the price of crude has doubled, I think it's pretty easy to see that it's the crude price that's driving pump price and not refining capability.
Also not mentioned is that there's no way you can double the price of raw materials without increasing the price of products made from those materials. So I think it's safe to say that while gross incomes of refiners may be at record levels, their net isn't anywhere near record highs due to their raw materials costs doubling. And who is it that controls the crude? Who is it that pumps it, ships it, stores it, and sells it to the refiners? Exxon/Mobil, Shell, Chevron, Citgo, etc. If the price of a barrel of oil goes up $1/barrel while an Exxon/Mobil super tanker holding 3.5 million barrels of oil is at sea, it is the oil company that makes an extra $3.5 million dollars, not the refiner. The refiner will buy the crude at the higher price from Exxon/Mobil, and then pass that cost to the wholesale market. The cost of refining, transporting, and storing the oil has stayed the same, but the profits have gone up. The same is not true for the refiners.
Lastly, it's a bit shady to say that oil companies and refiners are two different things. Valero Energy Corp is the largest refiner in the country, but they also own all of the Valero, Diamond Shamrock, Shamrock, Ultramar and Beacon gas stations in the US and globally. Citgo also owns all it's own refineries. In any other market, a "store brand" item costs considerably less than a brand name product, yet the price of a gallon of gas at a Valero station is about the same as the price at an Exxon station... and we accept that as being normal.
Two things you failed to ment
May 15, 2007 - 16:04 ET by Conservative VoiceTwo things you failed to mention. Iraq and Iran.
Bruzilla - I see what you're
May 16, 2007 - 14:43 ET by mulerider24Bruzilla - I see what you're saying but I'm unwilling to make the same assumptions as you. Let's stick to the basics - price of crude oil, taxes, and the refiner margin are the brunt of what goes into the cost of gasoline (there's also marketing margin and other smaller variables, but let's keep those out of this particular discussion). So if demand for oil has increased and our refining capability has remained constant, why would you say crude prices are the only thing driving prices at the pump? If our demand doubles and, like you say, we can still only squeeze 20 gallons of gas from a 55-gallon drum, what would it matter if all the oil producing countries in the world put their production on full throttle? We would have a increase in crude oil supply with no place for it to be refined.
I can shove all the contents of my refrigerator down the kitchen sink, but my food disposal will still only pass the same amount of waste through the plumbing before it clogs. I would focus your research on the refiner margin variable as it pertains to how oil companies and refiners differ in profits.
One other issue may be that major oil companies (Exxon) that have complete downstream capabilities have put all their capital toward exploration and production over the past 20 years. Valero saw the refining trend several years before all the big boys and made excellent acquisitions (Premcor) and improvements that not only added capacity but allowed them to take advantage of the "uglier" crude from South America and Middle East. If Valero can secure another $17 per barrel by refining Maya Crude from Mexico, that will obviously help out the bottom line.
Highest Gas Prices Etc.
May 15, 2007 - 15:37 ET by ChuchulainnAccording to conservative radio commentator (KGO AM 810, San Francisco) and real scientist Dr. Bill Wattenburg (Lawrence Livermore National Lab, Physics Division, Nuclear weapons Design) there is a solution to our gasoline crisis--but it would require obtaining most of our electric power from nuclear power plants as the French do now. According to Bill, nuclear power plants could produce abundant hydrogen, especially at night during times of low electrical demand, for fuel cell vehicles. Honda already has a demonstration fleet of such vehicles; they use hydrogen for fuel and water vapor comes out the tailpipe. Unfortunately, the American public is not ready to accept nuclear power at this time. In fact, in Sacramento, where I live, an operating nuclear power plant, Rancho Seco, was actually shut down in June 1989 by public vote. I voted for continued operation since I am a proponent of nuclear power, but the public disagreed with me.
For more info google: Dr. Bill Wattenburg; his site pushback.com; Honda Fuel Cell; and Rancho Seco.
I equate fuel cell cars with
May 15, 2007 - 15:54 ET by BruzillaI equate fuel cell cars with high-definition TVs. US broadcasters were supposed to be transmitting in high-def years ago, and still they are broadcasting in NTSC and high-def. Why? Because people cannot or will not pay $700-$3,000 for a new high-def TV when they can get an NTSC TV for $100. If you can't get folks to pony up $700 for a new technology TV, how are you going to get them to pony up $20,000 to $40,000 for a fuel cell car?
Or for that matter $100k for
May 15, 2007 - 16:41 ET by dscottOr for that matter $100k for an electric car like the tesla. Only the rich can afford such things, but then again they buy lots of stuff so sooner or later the cost of manufacturing comes down as the first cost of development is paid off during the initial years. BTW- 32" HD TVs now are selling for $800, thats come down from $5k just a couple of years ago, within a few more years, it will be down to $300. BTW- Feb 2009 your analog tv is going to go blank unless you are hooked up to cable or dish.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
or, it's hooked up to a D
May 15, 2007 - 17:11 ET by UndercoverConservativeor, it's hooked up to a DVD player and a Netflix account or a PC with broadband download;)
Damned if I'm gonna pay $50 or more a month for the priveledge of Comcast shoving propaganda and sewage into my house, aforementioned sewage then supposedly catering to the advertisers who supposedly paid for it. If that's the case, why am I paying *again*?
They can have my 32 inch NTSC , non DRM crippled, non RIAA controlled, no-V-Chipped analog tube television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
You're in luck
May 15, 2007 - 18:03 ET by c5thenAll that you will need in two years is an HDTV capable set (by then 32" will cost about $300-400) and a $20 pair of "rabbit ears" to recieve free over the air HDTV signals. If you want to keep your old analog set, you will need a $50 converter box to down-convert the 1080i (or 1080p) 16x9 format to 480i 3x4 format.
It's going to be like the 1950's all over again. ;-)
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
15 May
May 16, 2007 - 05:41 ET by UnsaneAh, the chain e-mail proposing National "Gas Out" Day...
In response, I topped off my tank on 15 May. :-)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)