Wow…a guy leaves for the weekend and….
This will probably end up LONG and ramblin but WTF...no one has to read it.
Anyway, to not address the pissing match but to give my thoughts, Buzz you’re right and your wrong to some degree (I know you hate that word, but I’m entitled to my opinion, least that’s what I learned in collage

) Fact is this hasn't caught me by surprise- it’s a sector (energy) I deal with everyday, and I hate many/most of the “incentives” (I call them subsidies) afford by the gubbmint for NEARLY ALL of our industries. Be it farming, big oil, or ???? I’m more of a let the chips settle and you (the company) bear the burden kinda guy- I think there are SERIOUS flaws in the energy sector and the whole “give them a break so they will expand and explore” thing is a definite fallacy. If I can produce a product that I can make a decent percentage return on, why should I be paid by a third party (and that is what these “incentives” amount to) to locate and produce more of what I’m already being (well) paid to do by the consumer? Expansion should already be part of my business plan! If the low fruit is picked, then charge more BUT continue to go up the tree.
Secondly, I do think there needs to be a degree of windfall profit taxation when the industry cannot prove it is adequately putting funds back into the infrastructure and or exploration ON THERE OWN. There is (market wise) nothing wrong with periods of above-average profits in a highly cyclical industry. But the profits are now at a point where they more than compensate for the risk and cost of capital to replace the oil being pumped. This is what economists call rents and the ability to sustain rent-like profits is a pretty good symptom of an imperfectly competitive market. And re-opening old fields just because you’ve driven up the price enough to make them affordable IS NOT new exploration and that is a serious fuggin loop-hole IMHO.
People talk about the oil and gas markets as if they were really free markets. They're not! Most of the world's oil is still being controlled by government-owned oil monopolies, which conspire with each other to fix the world price. The downstream market has become highly concentrated, giving way to oligopolistic behavior we all now see. The government has all sorts of incentives it gives the industry, and sets royalties for publicly owned oil and gas. US oil companies made billions over the first quarter but have yet to build a “new” refinery in over 20 years, which of course continues to limit supply. It’s not to say that they haven’t been getting more production out of existing facilities through expansion (which is a lot easier and cheaper than building a whole new refinery) but it sure wouldn’t hurt us consumers if a few new refineries were built. The market demand is certainly there.
But with what I have read and what I see (again, note the word “I” MY opinion) you can be pretty sure the big refiners understand that THEIR top priority is to keep the supply side tight. If a 5 percent increase in regional supply results in a 30 percent decrease in price, and somebody has a 35 percent market share, it’s not a particularly good deal for THEM to build a refinery! Also the crack spread (spread between crude oil and the equivalent price of a gallon of gasoline) has been over 50 cents (historically it’s about 20 cents). That tells me that crude prices aren't the only thing driving gas prices and the refinery shortage is now as much, or greater, part of the problem.
This all being said, I don’t think (My
ORIGINAL premise behind the post) a change in POTUS is going to change the fact that the industry has an extremely aging infrastructure and that the lack of attention to this is going to bite us in the ass (both financially and environmentally). Sorry but it dates back preBush, the
average age of offshore rigs is 25 years, and subsea systems may be even older. Of the more than 3,800 offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico, nearly 2,000 are operating beyond their original design life. Hell the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in Prudhoe Bay is some of the “newest” infrastructure in the industry and BP evidently felt it more prudent slap on a new coat of primer and pay $20 million in fines and restitution than to have a decent preventative maintenance program! So yeah, it burns my butt that companies would rather shell out $$ due to enforcement under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act than to step up and do something that would be beneficial for THEM and the consumer in the long run. The near-term-profit focus of oil industry management will be biting us all hard and that’s far beyond that $4+ a gallon I was talking about.
Soapbox surrendered…..
