Down with the evil Gas lords. (yes, i am brave enough to post another from myspace)

[Kaak]

Kontiki: do you?

Oil companies either buy mineral rights, in which case they don't pay royalties, or they set up long term contracts where royalties are paid. The royalties in these long term contracts don't vary with the price of crude.

As for the 1 billion barrel figure, you're right. It was a little over 900 million, and I got it from their annual report. That's why I qualified it with *almost*.

*edit: obviously, new contracts are going to have higher royalties, and I don't know what percentage of their contracts are new.

Listen, you guys can justify and rationalize it all you want to. The fact is, in 1998 I was paying 85 cents a gallon for gas. If you think that some how costs have risen almost 4 fold in less than ten years, then be my guest

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Bingo. And I'm convinced that OPEC is trying to put on a friendly face (as well as slam the US for its talk of invading the 4th largest oil producer in the world). If it wanted to, it could release more oil to get the price to where they think it should be. Though they aren't going to do it.

The Saudis don't have all that capacity. With the price this high everyone is producing at near full capacity.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The Saudis don't have all that capacity. With the price this high everyone is producing at near full capacity.

At least according to what they say full capacity is .

[Kidlicious]

The're saying that they have a lot more capacity, but that there isn't refinery demand for it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The're saying that they have a lot more capacity, but that there isn't refinery demand for it.

Ah, now that maybe true. Although, I must admit, I am not all the familiar with the refinery situation (aside from Katrina and the Gulf Coast refineries).

[KrazyHorse]

The royalties in these long term contracts don't vary with the price of crude.

Wrong.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak


http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/sto...0512430251.htm

Of course they do. The current price of gas is making non-OPEC oil competitive, even bringing more and more alternative sources online. That's bad for OPEC as it decreases their power base.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
Darius - it is true that Exxon controls almost a Billion gallons of oil from the time it is in the ground until it hits your gas tank. Which would also make it true that the price of crude doesn't significantly affect exxon's expense for these 1 billion gallons.

Kaak.

The world pumps about 90 million barrels a day.

Exxon's yearly production accounts for 10 days of global production. That leaves 355 days (365-10) worth of shortfall. We know the American companies can't make it up - they do less than 10 days of global oil production in a single year.

So where does Exxon get the market power to force prices higher when they are dependent on other companies to provide the 97.3% percent of market demand that they (Exxon) is unable to provide?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kaak
Kontiki: do you?

Oil companies either buy mineral rights, in which case they don't pay royalties, or they set up long term contracts where royalties are paid. The royalties in these long term contracts don't vary with the price of crude.

Yes, I do. And I'll answer for you. You don't.

Mineral rights and royalties are not mutually exclusive. I haven't researched every jurisidiction in the world, but I can tell you that Alberta charges both. Don't believe me? http://www.capp.ca/raw.asp?x=1&dt=NTV&e=PDF&dn=100066

As for royalties themselves, they generally work on a pretty basic formula: amount of production X royalty rate X price of resource. Do you see that third variable there? Take another look, just in case you missed it the first time. Now, some highly advanced logic:

If the price of the resource goes up, what happens to the amount paid in royalties? If this amount goes up, what happens to the expenses of the producer?

[Kaak]

JOHN - I DO NOT GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT WORLD PRODUCTION. EXXON IS THE LARGEST US COMPANY, AND MOST OF THE OIL THEY PUMP IS SOLD HERE. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS COMPLETELY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS DISCUSSION. I UNDERSTAND THE MARKET FOR OIL IS GLOBAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THE ~ 1 BILLION BARRELS + WHAT THEY BUY IS ENOUGH TO MAKE THEM THE LARGEST US COMPANY.

Gaaaah.

that still doesn't change the fact that the oil they are bringing to market isn't all that affected by crude oil rates.

I never said they were forcing prices higher. I'm sure they are happy that the prices are high, and are perfectly fine with selling it at market value. I was only suggesting that they have a lot of room to cut prices *if they HAD to*.

[Kaak]

Kontiki: I'll save you the research. PM me and i'll give you my buddy Eric's phone number. His job is buying/dealing with mineral rights.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
Listen, you guys can justify and rationalize it all you want to. The fact is, in 1998 I was paying 85 cents a gallon for gas. If you think that some how costs have risen almost 4 fold in less than ten years, then be my guest

The 1998 price of oil was woefully underpriced, so much so that pretty much caused the Russian currency devaluation and bond default of that year. So your pegging your floor at the lowest nominal price that oil has achieved in, what, 25 years, and declaring that the standard?

Puh-leeze.

[Kaak]

Holy ****. this is comical. People are having their eyes gauged (sp??) out at the pump, and you guys are lining up to defend the oil companies

[Kaak]

John, underpriced, overpriced, whatever. the point is that the oil companies were able to sell if for that and not lose their shirts.

[Kontiki]

Why would I want to talk to your buddy Eric? Does he have the inside scoop that various governments are lying about how they generate oil revenue?