Friday, December 5, 2008

Archive for June 7th, 2008

The truth about oil prices

Posted by Vincent Gioia On June - 7 - 2008

The price of oil is given by the cost of one barrel of oil. A barrel of oil is 42 gallons. At an oil price of $138 a barrel, the price of oil is $3.29 a gallon. Yet we wonder why gasoline costs $4 a gallon.

With gasoline prices in the range of $4 a gallon, this leaves about $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon for oil to be processed into gasoline and other derivative products and for gasoline to be delivered and sold at the local gasoline station. Costs that must come out of the $0.70 include transportation to oil refineries, actual oil processing in accordance with environmental regulations, delivery to the gas station and ultimately to the pump.

Taxes also are part of the price of gasoline at the pump. To begin the tax calculation, the federal tax on gasoline is $0.184 per gallon (18.4 cents). State taxes vary from state-to-state, from a low of $0.08 a gallon in Alaska to a high of $0.32 per gallon in Wisconsin. Gasoline taxes in most states are in the 18 to 25 cents a gallon range but New York state gasoline tax is 32 cents a gallon and in Pennsylvania the gasoline tax is 31 cents a gallon.

Now recall that we started with $0.70 (70 cents) a gallon over the oil price for processing, etc. the oil and for bringing gasoline to the pump at the gas station, and all together the gasoline price of $4.00 a gallon includes state and federal taxes for a total of $0.27 per gallon in Alaska to $0.51 in Wisconsin. This leaves a potential “profit” maximum of $0.33 (33 cents a gallon) in Alaska and $0.19 (19 cents a gallon) in Wisconsin.

The profit for the oil company and the gas station must come out of the 33 cents or 19 cents. However both the oil company and gas station have costs that must be added to costs they incur before setting the gasoline price to you at the pump. These costs vary but there isn’t a lot of room for oil company stockholders and gas station owners to reap the benefit of their investments.

The obvious question then is how come oil companies are reporting such large profits if the numbers show the profit potential per gallon of oil to be so relatively low. The answer is volume.

Huge amounts of oil are needed to fuel the economic engines of all countries and the demand for oil continually grows. The latest forecast from the International Energy Agency calls for global oil demand of 87.2 million barrels a day this year. That would be an increase in consumption of 1.3 million barrels a day from 2007 despite a U.S. economic slowdown and soaring oil prices.

Just when oil is getting more expensive to produce, the oil industries in three key countries, Mexico, Russia and Nigeria, lack the money or will to maintain or increase levels of oil production and global oil production in general is headed into a decline.

The Russian oil industry, for example, announced that production had fallen 1% in the first quarter of 2008. According to the Russian energy ministry, oil production for the full year could be lower than in 2007. Any decline would mark a huge reversal. Russian production has grown steadily over the past 10 years, and in its supply-and-demand projections the International Energy Agency has been counting on growth in Russian production of 5% by 2012 to offset big declines in older fields in the North Sea and Mexico.

The International Energy Agency now estimates that worldwide production from older existing fields is now falling each year by about 4.5 million barrels a day. To stay even, let alone to meet rising demand from the new automobile drivers of Russia, China and other countries, the world has to increase annual production by 4.5 million barrels a day.

While all this is happening Democrats in government and environmentalists are standing in the way of the United States’ ability to increase the supply of oil. Left-leaning politicians and, unfortunately too many Republicans, are more concerned with erroneous beliefs in man-made global warming to focus on the real needs of our country. As we switch light bulbs, create a huge additional bureaucracy for cap-and-trade “carbon credits, and make inferior additions to dilute the gasoline fuel, our economy will undergo an enormous destructive effect and our way of life will be irreversibly altered for the worse.

The United States is blessed with an almost limitless capability to produce oil but we are prevented from recovering and producing it. Proven technology can be harnessed to extract oil from abundant coal reserves and large amounts of oil in place remain untapped. Americans have proven to be able to rise to national emergencies and overcome all obstacles by unleashing a market economy on any problem but American success is artificially thwarted by socialists masquerading as environmentalists.

The only thing that can be done is for Americans to waken to the threats we face and take all possible action to change the direction our leaders are taking us; God help us all if we don’t.

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net.

Seeing through the candidates

Posted by Felicia Benamon On June - 7 - 2008

As you can imagine, the end of the Democrat primary is the talk of the town.There is talk of how great it is that history is being made in that we have the first black presidential candidate representing a major party. Also that Hillary Clinton made history in her own way. To me, that isn’t a reason to celebrate.

A candidate for president should not be celebrated simply because of skin color or gender. That isn’t a reason to pat ourselves on the back.

What is even more disgraceful is that some Americans are judging the presidential candidates on their appearance.  I’ve heard the candidates scrutinized by their looks during my visit to a hair salon on Thursday. One woman characterized Barack Obama as looking good in jeans and that he dresses “sharp.”  

As I think of her comment, I’m reminded of one of the best presidents America has ever had.  Ronald Reagan was a great president who inspired many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum. I cannot imagine looking at him in terms of how “fine” he is, only that he is an excellent leader and has the ability to communicate his true intentions and communicate to others who he is. 

While some are dwelling on such nonsense as who may be the more fashionable candidate, the arrogance level… the plotting and maneuvering among the candidates continue to progress. 

In Chicago, Obama claimed, “…in 2016, I’ll be wrapping up my second term as president.” Wishful thinking…as if he has the nomination already secured for two terms. The American public should decide that.

No matter how much the presidential candidates say it, the presidential election isn’t about you the voter. It’s about them. A bit of humility is in order as one runs for president. But the top three candidates don’t know the meaning of the word apparently.

Where are the candidates who inspire? I’m talking of the candidate who knows the caliber of this nation and love it and its people to their very core.  Ronald Reagan was such a man.  I don’t see that distinctive quality in Barack Obama.  He is too busy trying to change America and our way of life.

Hillary Clinton is too busy conspiring on how to stay in the spotlight as she reluctantly concedes Saturday to Barack Obama.

“What does Hillary want?” 

“What…does…she…want?” Clinton asked, speaking to her supporters.

Sorry Hillary, but it’s not all about you.

The best question is what does the country want?

We want a fair election and candidates who will stick through the primaries ALL THE WAY THROUGH to the end…the kind of candidates who are not in it to benefit (and that’s why they continue to stay in the race) but agree to run to serve their country. The presidency should not be sought as some type of reward or for the perks.

The sad thing is, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, AND John McCain all feel they are entitled to the office of president. An entitled few the media ultimately has swooned over and picked for the American people to choose from.  Hardly the type of fair election I was expecting.

We are making history alright. History is being made in that the American people truly haven’t done their homework to see though the smugness and glam thrown around by Barack Obama. Many Americans still don’t see that Hillary Clinton wants to be president out of a lust for power. And too many Republicans are voting for McCain simply because they feel he’s their only choice.

We have to use that gray matter between our ears. Shun the two party system.  They have failed us.  We have a choice.

I wonder though, how much of a choice we will have in matters of our own lives once any of the three mentioned above becomes president. The mantra of change will manifest itself in a coercive way upon American citizens. We will find we must abide by the rules of change or suffer the consequences. Is that how Americans want to live their lives in the future? I’m not for change if it will limit my freedoms. But we are indeed headed that way.

When a politician seeks an office for selfish reasons, only the motives of a dictator can arise from it. No one benefits but them. One only needs to listen closely to what comes from the mouths of the media’s favorite three candidates to see that there only exists a greed for the presidency.

It’s all in the attitude.  Will each presidential candidate shown before us govern with wisdom and humility towards the American people and for their benefit, or will these candidates inwardly laugh as they seek to unravel all we have worked for as other nations rise to overtake us?

It’s a serious and necessary question to ask of ourselves. We have the power to either bring about our undoing or to save America. But it will take more than looking at how well a candidate for president dresses, how smooth he/she is, or how great a speaker the candidate is.

Related Reading

Will secret clubs pick next prez?

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58425

*Felicia Benamon is a conservative columnist who writes from a political perspective, but occasionally deviates to write about other concerns facing her country.  A patriotic American, Felicia hopes to motivate others to be more conscious of the current state of affairs in America, and to hold true to the wonderful traditions that make America great.Felicia comes from a military background and is proud to support the men and women who put their lives on the line daily to protect American citizens and who reach out to help those in need across the globe.

Write to Felicia at: FeliciasDesk@aol.com

Despite Obama, New Democrat Fundraising Just Like the Old

Posted by Warner Todd Huston On June - 7 - 2008

-By Warner Todd Huston

Now that Barack Obama is the presumptive Democrat Party nominee he has made his first move to try to put his imprint on his party by making a show of eschewing campaign donations from federal lobbyists. As the new head of the party, Obama might expect to have sway over the way the party does business. If Obama imagined that he would have such power, however, he seems to have been mistaken.

Obama announced his fundraising policy idea in Virginia on the 6th saying, “Today as the Democratic nominee for president, I am announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists.”

That same day, the Politico put a call into the DCCC if they were going to live up to Obam’s idealistic plan. Apparently they aren’t.

So much for “change” in Washington.

But, there is an underlying theme where it concerns his fundraising that the Obama campaign is flogging that is also untrue. The claim seems to be that Obama does not take money from big donors and that his entire campaign is floated by small donors. After Obama’s new policy was announced, campaign manager David Plouffe sent off a quick email to reiterate this claim.

“We need to respond quickly and show that we are ready to take on Senator McCain in the general election,” Plouffe wrote. “We are going to compete in the general election the same way we have all along_by depending on a movement of more than 1.5 million people giving only what they can afford.”

It’s a nice spin, but not really the whole truth. Obama has had plenty of big donors, PACS and lobbyists donating to his campaign. A quick check of donation reports on OpenSecrets.org that he has had some very large donations from bundlers who are directly associated with big businesses, universities, investment firms.

Goldman Sachs $571,330
University of California $437,236
UBS AG $364,806
JPMorgan Chase & Co $362,207
Citigroup Inc $358,054
National Amusements Inc $320,750
Lehman Brothers $318,647
Google Inc $309,514
Harvard University $309,025
Sidley Austin LLP $294,245
Skadden, Arps et al $270,013
Time Warner $262,677
Morgan Stanley $259,876
Jones Day $250,725
Exelon Corp $236,211
University of Chicago $218,857
Wilmerhale LLP $218,680
Latham & Watkins $218,615
Microsoft Corp $209,242
Stanford University $195,262

Again, so much for “change.”

Obama may find that it is harder to actually make change than to merely say it. So far, when it comes to change, his two cents seems to be worth just that much.

(Photo credit: Reuters)