Those who want to know why oil companies executives should be questioned can read the WaPo article by Steven Mufson, May 25.

To Berrymonster

Your comments merely serve to underline the points made in my earlier post. The National Oil Companies of the countries you mention (Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Brazil or Russia ) are, due to their ownership, able and indeed required, to operate in the pursuit of political objectives and, due to their vast resources can, on occasion, afford to ignore market prices. Thus, if their governments choose to subsidize gas for their electorates then this is what will be done. They know that American customers will continue to fill up their coffers in order to satisfy their oil addiction

By comparison, the western oil majors, with their far smaller reserves, are constrained by their requirement to satisfy their stakeholders, in particular, shareholders. For them, price is a function of supply and demand and the need to pay a dividend.

America's problem is not that gas prices are now so high but that they have been taxed so lightly for so long. As a result, the economy has become unhealthily dependent upon foreign petropowers.

Regarding my comment about American politicians and their electorate: Hmmm.........

Okay, you're "stumped" along with the anonymous "experts" about constantly rising oil prices. Blame China, India, global warming, sunspots, lunar tides, but not Big Oil. RIIIIIIIIGHT. Who's raising the prices at the pump? The cost of gasoline that's already been refined and delivered is rising daily. Big Oil is recording record profits, getting huge tax breaks, sheltering profit in offshore bank accounts, fighting alternative energy while raking in subsidies to develop it, and whining about fairness when their executives are receiving payouts equal to the GDP of countries. Yep, Andres, I can see why you and your "experts" are stumped. That check arrive yet from the API?
Free markets are wonderful if you own one.

Wow, Andres Martinez, are you like dumb or what? But a perfect WAPO reporter, that is for sure! I like the way you have zero facts and have done zero research to come to a rightwing conclusion - rather like the WAPO editorial board!

Now, to help you out, I'll do some research. Hey, this should help you if the Post kicks you out of a job and you have to, like, find work. There's this thing called Google. You can like look up things on it. I know! It is almost like getting up from your desk and doing something! Except don't worry, you can still eat twinkies and if you get bored reading all that "serious" stuff that you are supposed to be "informed" about when you can just listen to Rush tell you all about it, you can always look up porno.
Anyway, go to Business Week. That's a magazine. It is about business. Wow, now we are getting somewhere! Look up an article about Exxon's March meeting with analysts - oh, that sounds so boring, I know! Okay, look up Britney nude pics first, then yank yourself to the BW page. Here is the link:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/
mar2008/db20080319_269345.htm?chan=search

Now, as an utterly stupid person, you probably have never had to read all that prose before. But you should try. Look it won't hurt you. Let's go through the second through fourth paragraphs. I'll hold your hand. Don't be scared!

"... it helps to listen in to ExxonMobil's (XOM) presentation to analysts in New York City in early March. Halfway through the three-hour meeting, Exxon management flashed a chart that showed the company's worldwide oil production staying flat through 2012.

The Calculus of "Acceptable Investment Return"

Ponder that for a minute. Texas-based Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion on sales of $404 billion last year. Yet even with prices at the pump near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year. That means the company's oil output won't even keep pace with its own projections of worldwide oil demand growth of 1.2% a year.

Imagine a chief executive of another growth company making a similar announcement to Wall Street as Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson. What if Steve Jobs said Apple (AAPL) wasn't going to sell any more iPhones than it did in 2007? What if Howard Schultz said Starbucks' (SBUX) latte production would stagnate, at least until the next U.S. president embarked on his or her reelection campaign? Shares of both companies would plummet."

Exactly. Now, how do you get more oil if you are an oil company. Think real hard! Time's up. Stop looking at Britney. You do it by investing in exploration. To invest a lot in exploration might require that you stop buying back stock - oh noes! That would mean upper management Exxon types, who make much more from their stock than from mere compensation, would face stock that actually might go down! But, luckily, because stupid people like you in the press no diddly but do like to spout off rightwing opinions, paid for by Exxon Mobile, they don't have to worry about anybody looking at the percentage of company earnings going to research and development over the past couple of decades. Funny how, as that goes down, Exxon's profit goes up, and oil prices skyrocket. I can't figure it out!
Now, go back to your Britney pics. When WAPO finally runs out of subscribers completely, due to tripe like yours, you can always find a job at people magazine.

G-O-U-G-I-N-G

big oil is to blame

One way or another we are all tithing at least one-tenth of our income to OPEC and U. S. petroleum executives. However, there are junior executives making only one million dollars a year. Most Petro execs are making at least $10 mil a year and have $100 mil golden parachutes. So when a $1 mil jr exec walks into the club he is shunned as though he had just dropped out of a religious cult.

Why is it that the discussion never covers the extreme difference between the cost of production vs market price when talking abot oil?Delivered cost of oil is nowhere delivered price.That's where greed takes over.I don't know who gets the money but I know nobody talks about it.Go to west Texas and ask a low level producer what he gets per barrel.

The greed of depraved man is the reason why gasoline is so expensive and the Arabs hatred of Israel. The Arab is gearing up for a fight but they will get stomped. I look forward to the stomping.

To berrymonster:

The price of gas goes up with inflation. Visiting my wife's family in Iran I saw that gas was $.28 a gal in 2002, today it's $.65 a gallon (she just visited). Bread cost $.30 then and $.85 now and meat has more than doubled in price. In 2002 gas was under $1.50 in the US, today it's just over $4.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mg_tt_usw.htm

FACT: big money is in bed with Congress... Read David Cay Johnston.

Congress mainlines cash from big oil, votes down for 30 years any increase in fuel economy, invites ceo's to sit and be "grilled" about prices and price fixing (never any found)... It's a bloody game you morons... big oil said last month they're slowing down the refineries (no one asked why) which is a major cause of gas price hikes... MUST READ: David Cay Johnston (google his name).

One: The price of gas is not determined by supply and demand. This recently in a statement from one of the Saudi big shots.

Two: CEO's sitting on each others' boards of directors doling out obscene salaries and bonuses do not conform with freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. Raw Capitalism is just as dangerous to the people as raw Socialism. The same types rise to the top in either case. Our Constitution is supposed to protect us from these abuses and we are sitting on our bu-toxes watching ball games, the boob tube, and other garbage that I refer to as the "Roman Games." This stuff is designed to distract you from the really important stuff. As a result, you are just as guilty as those at the top who regard our Constitution as a scrap of paper to be used when convenient and disregarded when not. Don't complain when your children and grandchildren ask what you did to prevent the collapse of this country.

Three: It irritates the hell out of me whenever I hear some political or media hack speak sneeringly of populism. If you don't like it, go to China, the Middle East, or any number of other countries where your viewpoint will be shared by most of their leaders.

Brian E:

Your post is nonsense. Have you been to Venezuela, Mexico, Iran, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Brasil or Russia recently? Gasoline prices have been UNCHANGED over there for years!!!

Yes. While Americans now pay $4 per gallon of gasoline, Venezuelans keep paying a few cents per gallon.

While Americans keep debating how smart or how silly a gasoline-tax holiday would be, the Brazilian government has already changed gasoline-taxes to compensate for semi-private Petrobras's costs, so that consumers don't feel any increase at the pump.

Dear Francis:

Are you kidding? What does PEMEX has to do with BIG OIL American companies?

Let me tell you a little story:

Once upon a time, there was a man by the name John D. Rockefeller, an accountant, who became the world's wealthiest man by applying complex anti-competitive practices in order to turn his company, Standard Oil, into a huge corporation that controlled almost all oil businesses in the United States and around the world.

Standard Oil was broken up into several smaller companies by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the provisions of the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act.

One century later, the U.S. government has allowed oil companies to do the same, again. Instead of having dozens of oil companies competing against each other, now we have four or five megacorporations working together to squeeze every cent from motorists' pockets.

The U.S. government should have started an inquiry into anti-competitive practices by all those BIG OIL companies, instead of inviting them to Congress and asking them why they are making so much money.

Have you seen anything more ridiculous than that absurd group of American politicians grandstanding through their questioning of oil industry management in an attempt to find anyone or anything to blame for the difficulties of relatively high gas prices for American motorists other than US government policies over the years.

It would be comical were they not so tragically ill informed. 16 of the world's 20 biggest oil companies are National Oil Companies. The so-called "Big Oil" majors (Exxon, Chevron, Shell, BP, Conoco and Total) control less than 10% of the world's oil and gas reserves. The Saudi Aramco, alone, has ten times the oil reserves of Exxon.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see Vladimir Putin in front of this pompous bunch of clowns. His response, I'm sure, would be a choice two word phrase using some of the following words: yours, up, off and expletive deleted.

Americans are paying the price for the complete failure of their politicians to work out a coherent energy policy over the past 25 years. Sadly, to read some of the ill informed comments on the many blogs on this subject, it seems that the American public has the politicians it deserves

It is true that BIG OIL re-invests some of its profits, but much of that reinvestment gos into lobbying and payments to politicians who are on their side and in their pocket.

We do indeed live in a socialist society where wealth is being redistributed. It is being redistributed from the pockets of the poor and the middle class into the pockets of BIG OIL. This must be a happy time for them -- they are making tons more money for the same amount of effort.

If the redistribution were going the other way, Republicans would be howling "socialism!!!". But as long as it is the result of the "moral market" it is okay.

Oil Company execs deserve their pay considering how difficult it is to overcome NIMBY to provide a prosperous life for the western world.

Dear Berrymonster:

The "Big oil" you refer to are comprised of big nationalised government oil companies that could not find their bums with both hands like PeMex. That' why the government of Mexico is entertaining taking Pemex public and turning it over to private enterprise. Pemex is a disaster like so many government run Companies in all the natural resources around the world. No one gains but the corrupt. ...and it is costing you money! Competition weeds out the weak.

Robert Fulford on Canada's biggest mistake: Anti-business cynicism
Posted: April 12, 2008, 2:07 AM by Marni Soupcoff
Robert Fulford
Friedrich von Hayek, the great Austrian economist who wrote The Road to Serfdom and won the Nobel Prize in 1974, never expressed any interest in Canada. In my view, however, he understood us better than we understand ourselves. Had we consulted his work, he could have told us why Canadians show an aversion to business even as we depend on it.
For generations, Canadians have regarded free enterprise as a necessary evil at best. In private, we may regard it as a positive good, but just about no one outside the business world takes that position in public. This seems to me a fundamental mistake. It distorts the operation of governments, the use of tax powers, the treatment of disadvantaged regions and much more.
Capitalism creates most of our jobs and we would all be desperately poor without the entrepreneurs who keep the economy alive and the financiers who invest in our corporations. But that's no reason, as Canadians see it, to look upon business with anything but suspicion.
Of course, only a few Canadians will declare themselves anti-business, and an even smaller minority will argue for replacing free enterprise with a command economy directed by bureaucrats and politicians. But we tolerate business rather than admiring it.
We do not rejoice in the successes of the business class. We applaud them not for what they do best, building the corporations that make us relatively rich, but for what we see as commendable activities, the donation of money
to hospitals, universities and other good causes.
We believe passionately that we must control business and we act as if business will flourish no matter how much we burden it with regulations -- or how much we tax it. In the Canadian view, business exists to be taxed. We
assume it is a cow we can milk forever. Business will always be there, will always succeed and therefore will always be available to provide us with jobs and money for whatever social purposes we decide.
Friedrich Hayek explained much of this, most eloquently in a little book he wrote late in life, The Fatal Conceit. It comes down to an issue of pride.
He argued that while socialism flatters intellectual pride, capitalism insults it. Socialism requires complicated thought but capitalism seems to function according to its own evolved rules without direction from bureaucrats and without high-level planning. The "fatal conceit" in Hayek's title is the belief that "man is able to shape the world around him according to his wishes."
People in government who pride themselves on being expert in "public policy" love to organize social institutions according to the best theories. They have an idea of how things should work. When the world works otherwise, the public-policy bureaucrats feel intense disappointment.
Aside from encouraging the thicket of regulation that surrounds every kind of enterprise, our anti-business cynicism undercuts the possibility of thinking seriously about society and has a demoralizing effect on our national spirit. We are all in business, or dependent on business, yet we regard the business world as in many ways alien, a place of unbridled greed.
In a sense, we dislike ourselves, and for no reason except an outdated ideology.
Deirdre McCloskey, in her book The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce, says we must somehow "regain a virtuous respect for who we are." She claims that capitalism (and only capitalism) gives people the time and
resources that make intellectual and moral growth possible. Wealth gives us the chance to develop our finer feelings; to cultivate friendships and families, to fall in love, to enlarge our knowledge of the world. Seen that
way, capitalism is the least oppressive system invented so far.
Few of our politicians, over the last three generations, have ever had much that was good to say about business. The chief political hero of the late 20th century, Pierre Trudeau, never uttered one kind word about business, so far as I recall -- and nobody thought that odd. His father's business made Trudeau personally rich and business generated vast fortunes for Ottawa to spend. This contradiction never interested Trudeau. He was exceptional in many ways but in his attitude to business he was a typical Canadian.

Dear Stupid:

Had you attended Economics 101 you would have learned about something called MONOPOLY, i.e. a company with the power to set prices at will. When a few companies share that power, it is called OLIGOPOLY.

In a competitive market, with many sellers, there's very little room for any of them to set higher prices than the rest, as buyers would run to buy from other sellers at lower prices. The fewers the sellers, the easier for them to set whatever price they like.

Now, look at who is selling gasoline in the U.S. today: Exxon__Mobil, Chevron__Texaco, Conoco__Phillips, BP__Amoco__Arco. As you can see, all those companies are the results of previous mergers involving already huge corporations.

Journalists, pundits, and even congressmen are scratching their heads: Why is oil so expensive? Why is gasoline so expensive? Why are those oil companies making so much money? What can we do? What can we do? What can we do?...

It looks like nobody has attended Economics 101 anyway.

Look it is all very simple. If I have something that you want, I can charge to high heaven whatever I want for it. If you really want or need it, you will pay whatever I ask. Our modern society has become completely dependent on oil, pure and simple, and they have it and we don't! They can charge anything they want, we must pay it because we have no alternatives. That is what a free market is all about, he who owns the oil makes the rules.

Same goes on the national level with oil companies and the price of gas. Why shouldn't I charge $4/gal or even $5/gal if I can. Hey, they are and Americans are paying it and not doing anything to conserve or curtail their driving. They are still out there buying SUVs and big horsepower gas guzzlers hand over fist. They still take that big gas guzzler out every day and get the mail, or drive three blocks to store or wherever. Americans are addicted to their cars and oil. Just like the heroin junkie and his supplier, they have a relationship that is difficult to break.

Why is there almost no mention here of the effect of a declining dollar? We import most of our oil, and a weakening dollar means that oil will cost more. Demand has not increased by 2x in the last 12 months, nor has supply declined by half. The dollar's value plays a huge role in commodity prices - just look at food.

And I don't recall Congress calling the oil executives to Capitol Hill to offer support over the 20 years following the early 80's bust. If they could just set the prices wherever they wanted, why was the U.S. energy a wasteland for so long?

The reason for current prices is simple - increasing global demand, a weak dollar and a U.S. refusal to drill its own resources. Oh, and no refineries have been built because it is impossible to get one permitted - not because of some global conspiracy.

I may be way off base but somehow I think that it is the Saudis that are instrumental in the spike in oil prices. I believe that they are not happy with our middle east policies, namely the Iraq war and our presence in that area. Also our skewed diplomatic policy in the Israel-Palestine conflict is not not helpful. In their own way they are destroying our economy and this will continue until we recognize this. Militarily we are second to none. What better way to cause us to change our policies by bankrupting our country and causing much hardship to our citizens as a result of the Saudi reaction to our middle east policy.

Everyone is blaming everyone else, but if you follow the money, there is no denying that both OPEC Members and The Oil Companies are profiting BIG TIME! And we know who the OPEC Members and Big Oil players are. However, we don't seem to know who the BIG Speculators are--and they certainly must be getting filthy rich from the game they are playing. Remember the Energy Traders who joked about ripping off California Grandmothers a few years ago--well, it seems they're at it again. They're ripping off the world, and they need to be stopped! Who are these guys??? What checks and balances, what form of meaningful oversight is there over these commodities trading activities??? Who profits??? And, who pays when they "speculate wrong???"

"Big Oil" only has 7% of current resources in the world, and the rest are in the hands of inefficient and unwieldy "Big Government" oil companies, the usual suspects: Russia, Venezuela and our other friends in OPEC. We and 'big oil' are in for a fight. The ironym is that all politicians know the truth about CO2 and the petition of 31,000 scientists who agree that CO2 is beneficial to life on the planet (released Monday at the Washington Press Club), and moreover, that Kyoto would severely impact prosperity for the poor and those on fixed incomes. But real scientists with Ph.D.s (Doctor of Philosopy degrees) is not a constituency and this is an election year. Pols now cater to an humanist educated mass of humanity who are lured by demagogues and driven by fear or (left agendae: The worst case fictional scenario). Pray for a short summer and long winter to swing the vote. May winter start in October prior to the November election...May your politicians chose the high road and cut the Gordian knot on anthropogenic global warming.

The footprint on the Environment and Natural Resources:

British Columbia: The prosperity of BC and the world has been enormously assisted by copper mining. The mines in British Columbia have a footprint of 0.06% (6/10,000s) of the total land area of the Province.

Oil sands: considering that the oil sands outcrop and bleed into the river in the summertime, Suncor and the others are cleaning up one of the largest (natural) oil spills on the planet. At the present time, after 30 years of mining the footprint of open pit mining in the oil sands is 0.06%; the pits will be backfilled and reclaimed with clean sand. The rest will likely be developed by underground thermal methods. The Alberta-Saskatchewan tar sands spill may ultimately have an equilibrium foot print (mining and reclamation) of 0.10% but will ultimately be 100% reclaimed (provided the government of Alberta does not destroy the revenue needed to protect the environment).

Montana: The palladium/platinum mines of Montana have a footprint of 640 acres. That is (1/147,165 square miles) 0.00068% of Montana.

Alaska: Thanks to horizontal drilling, The 2000 acres of Alaska requested from the ANWR have a footprint of 4.7 x 10-4 % or 0.00047% of Alaska.

The risk:reward ratio of these projects is de minimus.

De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, which is used mostly as part of de minimis non curat praetor or de minimis non curat lex, to say that the law is not interested in trivial matters. De minimis, in a more formal legal sense, means something which is unworthy of the law's attention. In risk assessment, de minimis refers to a level of risk which is too small to be concerned with. Some refer to this as a "virtually safe" level.[1]

Fran Manns
Artesian Geological Research
Toronto Ontario
M1N 2S6
[1] Wikipedia

"Wind turbines which are supposed to be a clean source of energy chop up thousands of birds each year with their massive blades."

Why is it okay when markets lead to prices declining but not okay when it leads to prices rising? The highest price of oil in the 90s was $41 before dropping to $10. Perhaps the oil companies should have charge more and not followed the market.

On Barr- and while were at it McCinny and Nader. I am a big a backer of any non 2 party candidate as you will find, they bring more integrity and ideas to the table then the D/R together. It would be nice to see them get = treatment by places like the post, who excludeds them all from the candidate section. I remember having delt with people there personally asking for the including of 3rd parties in the site and was told more or less to F*** off, that they will decide who is relevent. So Hopless doen't expect any reform from here.

Oil- well, I guess I was the only one in generation Y that saw this coming when I was 6 years old and our first grade teacher said we are going to run out of oil in 30-50 years. Its now 18 years later and what is happening? Sell your cars, move to a population centers, and burn down the suburbs for farm land. The 1950's Amrican dream was reckless. We are in a spot where some of us may not like the options available.

Stupid - er I mean stumped - corporate pay is an issue, as is the lack of investment by oil companies in drilling fields they already have contracts on - while these over-paid suits whine about how we need to open up ANWAR for drilling they just sit on 90% of their already existing leases to drill for oil, this props up their reserves number and gives them a higher stock price w/o the investment of actually drilling for oil - look it up - I guess they have figured out to make the big bucks they should not drill for oil, buck environmental legisation and block clean energy - when will people wake up and realize corporations are allowed to exist because they serve some common good (like drilling for oil) - they are not entitled to exist just for enrichment of a few.

Area 111 in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico is a perfect example why we are paying so much at the pump.

Two years ago, Pete Domenici, of New Mexico , rebuffed concerns that the drilling bill bans leasing within 100 miles of the Florida coast. Critics contend that the buffer is insufficient to protect the state's beaches from environmental harm.

"The risk to Florida is so minimal - if even existent - compared to the benefits," Domenici said.

The legislation specifically orders the Interior Department Secretary to open 2.9 million acres of a portion of the Gulf known as Area 181 within one year.

Domenici said the area opened by the bill holds an estimated six trillion cubic feet of natural gas - "enough to heat nearly six million homes for 16 years."

"This is the most significant American asset available that could reduce the price of natural gas or stabilize it," Domenici said. "It is so imminent and so large in quantity that it would have that effect." It did not even take into account the potential for oil for gasoline

The bill was killed and now we are paying the piper. If Congress wants to find out why gas is so high, look in the mirror.

The so-called law of supply and demand is not a law but a rough theory. Unfortunately, it has proven invalid in enough real world cases as to be considered a worthless predictor of market behavior, retaining value only as an excuse for market behavior and sop of hope for beleaguered consumers.

That the inverse of the theory has actually been documented to hold true ought to discredit it. Take the notorious case of medical services. The more MRI, CAT or other specific hi-tech machines are accessible to you, the more you will be charged per use. The more doctors, PTs, OTs, psychologists, dentists, veterinarians, and medical clinics and hospitals within reasonable driving distance to you, the more you will be charged. This is so well-documented that states and counties have set up licensing boards to limit the granting of licenses to areas in need, only to find them infiltrated by vested groups determined to thwart that goal. Northern Virginia is an area currently grappling with this very real problem contributing to soaring medical prices.

It's documented that oil prices do not go down in response to increased supplies and discovered oil. In my lifetime the price pattern has been to go up a lot and down just a little, but never to where the prices were.

People in a lot of other countries have been dealing with expensive gasoline since forever.

My brother bought a used 1995 Honda Civic hatchback for about a thousand dollars. It gets 40 mpg. He fills it up every two weeks or so; even now, he spends less than 60 dollars a month on gas.

His car doesn't look like much, but it sure makes him look smart to me. It's small but it has 4 seats for 4 people.

I don't drive anymore - it costs me 65 dollars a month for a bus pass that gets me to work and back. I take nice naps on an empty bus, or read a book, when the traffic is bad from all the people using 4000+ pounds of hardware to move only themselves a few miles.

No tired foot and calf muscles from braking, accelerating, and braking again.

My point is there are ways to get around 4.00 gallons of gas, and they're not so bad. They don't even have to involve shelling out to buy a Prius.

There are also things such as bicycles. And many people have these amazing built-in locomotive devices called legs.

Stumped is a good name for your column. You seemed stumped about issues that have obvious answers. "Don't blame the Oil Industry?" Are you kidding, they've not only not been responsible for developing alternative forms of energy, gamed current prices, and behaved irresponsibly with regards to oil policy versus politics, but they've ruined our foreign policy, spent years blocking alternative energy developments, and acted like an arrogant monopoly run by even more arrogant plutocrats. They even threatened Congress that if they even whispered a threat against their profits they'd retaliate.

I know, if you challenged shibolleths you'd get canned. I know I know.

Sorry

Chris

The cost of a gallon of gas increased from $3.73 a gallon to $3.89 a gallon between 4pm and 9pm last night. And, a $.20 increase within two days.

How much more evidence do you need that we are getting screwed every which way from Sunday? ... because they can.

It would be a conflict of interest to put oil companies in charge of alternative energy development. Most people, except for those getting ethanol subsidies, recognize that corn will not substitute petroleum. The "switchgrass" solution also reeks of a tax break scheme to subsidize purchase of grazing lands, and will never produce more than token ethanol at high direct costs and even higher indirect ones. Nuclear energy works, but no one will let new plants be built. Windmills produce no smoke or radiation, but people still holler and complain about them, and the real cost of the electricity is obscured by many factors. Coal and shale are rich in hydrocarbons, but require tearing up landscape and leave masses of slag that pollutes rivers and wrecks farmland. These are the real reasons why people will continue to prefer oil, and why prices will not fall. Supplies are not elastic. There is plenty of oil to extract, but at higher and higher costs. Yes, there might even be some under Capitol Hill, but the net cost per barrel would be almost high as an omnibus budget bill.

Just the same, I'd pay $15,000 for an all-electric car that got 100 miles per lithium ion recharge, provided it met safety standards and could seat four people and had a trunk big enough for groceries or two pieces of luggage. It need not qualify for drag races or NASCAR, just cruise at 60 on the highway or climb hills fully loaded at up to 40 mph. Why can't our marvelous market economy provide such a vehicle? Why do the start-up competitors never advance beyond pie-in-the sky prototypes whose cost per unit confine the market to the ultra rich? Why does the market provide us with tons of junk and gadgets galore, but not an alternative way to drive to work or go shopping?

Come the {bleep} on ... seriously? There wouldn't be any sport in bashing oil execs if they had a logical reason how it is possible that oil profits -- P-R-O-F-I-T-S -- have set record after record after record every fiscal quarter for the past eight years.

This phenomenon has absolutely zero to do with supply and demand and everything to do with the FACT that these crooks finally figured out they can set the price of gas however high they want because we, the American working class, have ZERO MASS TRANSIT OPTIONS. We are the only highly developed nation without a national mass transit system. AND, our leaders and execs want to keep it that way.

AGAIN excessive P-R-O-F-I-T-S are not reasonable when everyone else is getting hammered by cost-of-living increases. Have you thought to ask why the oil companies don't seem to be getting squeezed? If supply and demand and evaporating resources was really the issue ... How is it possible the oil companies have made so ridiculously much money? GREED.

Stop beating around the bush of BS issues and be honest for once. Cut the crap and realize we all aren't idiots.

I have no problem with Congress holding hearings with the Oil Barrons. I just have a problem with Congress not taking it further and taking the Barrons to the wood shed. There is no reason for the exorbit oil profits enjoyed by oil company's over the past several years and the receiving of Government blessings such as their current tax breaks.

So many excuses from these guys as they basicly thumb their noses at the American public and the Government. I believe Oil's pricing policy, in part, is to force the Government to open everything to oil exploration. Of course, something bush would do anytime if he had the backing. bush never seen an oil company he didn't like.

It's time for Congress take the energy groups out of the equation of creating energy policy and form those policys without the protectism rules, energy groups have been allowed to insert. Someone should have listened to Jimmy Carter's Presidency when he was critized for his energy statements. A little before his time but the iron grip and pricing control enjoyed by Oil over today's Americans certainly shows his stance was right.

Why is gasoline so expensive? The real reason, please! If you are stumped, could you dig into it a bit? I'm sure you can think up some relatively objective and knowledgeable people to talk to or send email to -- like maybe some faculty at local or non-local universities in business, economics, or petroleum engineering.

I know you have a job to do, but.... Hey, wait a minute ... this *is* your job!

I thought oil is artificially high because the oil producers keep supply low by not building refineries.

It's strange that Martinez responds to a question as to why oil prices are high by bringing up a congressional hearing, and that he singles out questions about the executives's salary as the worst of the hearings. Does anybody really think that these mens' salaries are determined by a free market? They have the power to set their own salaries, regardless of performance, and even as they complain that their companies are being squeezed by oil prices. Is it too much to ask that they spend a couple of days answering questions (not that they would answer truthfully)?

How does Martinez' ranting on this hearing answer the question of why oil prices are high?

Oil prices in the 1970's were not determined by a well-functioning free market, but by deliberate actions of OPEC and events in the Middle East. Thus it is reasonable to inquire whether some non-market factors are involved now.

We the consumers are responsible for the high consumption that controls the high price of oil.
It is significant that the heavy truckers have recognized the urgent
need to reduce fuel consumption, and have decided to voluntarily reduce
their speed on the highway.. It is even more significant, however, that
they have recognized high speed as one of the major causes of high fuel
consumption.
Their action to voluntarily reduce the speed of trucks on the highway
will be welcomed by the passenger vehicle drivers with whom they share the
highways.
More importantly, their voluntary action should serve as a model for
passenger vehicle drivers.
All passenger vehicle drivers should voluntarily reduce their speed
to match the speed of the truckers.
Drivers can effect an immediate reduction in fuel usage on the highway
by setting their cruise controls five miles an hour below the posted
speed limit.
This will not only result in reduced fuel consumption, but will also
make for safer driving conditions.

Want lower prices for oil?
1. realise every pol gets money from big oil.
2. outlaw boutique gas blends. use the cleanest.
3. remove ethanol requirements.
4. build 3 refineries East, Midwest, West.
5. Start making gas from coal.This is now cheaper and cleaner, we have tons of it.
6. Local govs should use bio diesel they can make at lower cost than diesel is today.
7. drill !!! Or at least say you are. This will scare opec,Canada and Chavez and force them to lower the price.

The market laws of supply and demand determine the pricing of everything including oil.

And the compensation of the oil co. CEO's is none of my business. Except when they expect me, the taxpayer, to subsidize their business.

No subsidies
Increased government sponsorship of alternative energy programs (The Manhattan Project for alternative energy.)
And increased drilling until we develop that alternative energy source.

"Hopeful in Ohio" asks bizarrely, "Aren't we still in a democracy where everyone has equal rights?" The false assumption that media coverage is a Constitutional right seems all the more strange in conjunction with concern for a libertarian candidate.

Price of oil. The oil company execs have consistently fought against alternatives. Ironically, they have the skills to really make a difference and could have owned that market too! Yet, they fought against virtually every meaningful program that has been proposed. BP makes solar panels in Frederick. Ask the BP exec in charge if its a good career move inside of BP to take that job (hint: NO)

Meanwhile, this administration has made continuation of oil for transport its central energy policy. If the goal of the Bush administration was to max out the profits of the oil companies, well, they can use that Mission Accomplished banner

Now the fraud is obvious even to those who couldn't figure out Cheney's secret meetings were not in the interest of the average citizen. Finally, this country showing a tepid response.

Just to predict the future, gas rises over the summer and then drops to a minimum, perhaps under $3/gallon, just in time for election day. Hoping to get Republicans into office. But if the Dems win big, expect the oil companies to show no mercy.

So most likely, its off to the races again. Same script the occurred in 2006, to those who paid attention.