But........When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must press oil producing nations and persuade them to increase production. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel.  Today, it's about $128 a barrel, and the pressing of  the Saudi regime had zero effect.

It's simple. Too much demand with China and now India jamming the roads. The oil won't last forever, and if we don't start making real efforts for alternative fuels, not only will gas continue to skyrocket, the quality of our air will continue to get worse. As long as Exxon actually uses a large portion of those profits to diversify energy sources, they get no sympathy from me. And....as long as they drill domestically in an environmentally sound way, I have no problem. But...we must keep a large domestic reserve in place for our military.

Roy, thanks for the article. I find a couple of problems with the analysis. It doesn't matter what the supply is when only a few players control the flow. Drilling for more in a world sworn to reduce carbon emissions to continue to profit  this cartel controlled industry won't make the slightest bit of difference in what the price of  this commodity is. If we have historically high supplies why does that not have an effect on our current market? The oil companies refuse to invest in refinery improvements and expansion at that intersection of the the pipe because that would actually increase the supply in the marketplace.

The idea that our government is taxing too much is simply incorrect. The actual taxes in California amount to 50 cents per gallon. This is both federal and state taxes combined. This translates to a little more than 13% tax on the product. That is chump change for the oil companies. 

A lot of the oil business is remarkably similar to the food business. Our farmers have shown the amazing capacity to continually gain higher and higher yields for their crops. It has not meant very much for most of them in the commodities markets where prices are all controlled by a few processors, who set and fix the prices of wheat, corn and soy. Farmers have been folding while food processors thrive. There is a glut of the product but none of that glut makes it into the marketplace until it has been processed, or refined.

This is a feudal system, from my perspective, where barons of commodities allow serfs the privilege of toiling or mining the fields. There is no competition in the strictest sense of the free capitalist rhetoric one always sees to describe our economy. In other countries there are controls in place to  regulate and  allow for more competition within the marketplace. Not here. Do you really believe Chevron-Texaco is in competition with Exxon, or Shell, or British Petroleum? If, as the author states, the only winners are the countries who produce the oil, why don't we nationalize  the oil business like everyone  else in the world  and pass the  benefits on to society at large?

Thanks for the post and the article. It is food for thought.

Anti.  What!  You comment makes no sense whatsoever.

 Saudi Arabia raises oil output

Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, has increased its output to meet rising demand and to compensate for declining production from other countries.

Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, said on Friday that from May 10 the kingdom had raised supplies by 300,000 barrels per day.

Oil for arms, Arms for profit, BushCo will never disappear ,only hide behind a new puppet....

Really????

It doesn't make sense that we need alternative fuels. It doesn't make sense to drill in an environmentally sound way.

OH...you mean it doesn't make sense that a President scolds another President for high prices, then can't make his own advice happen when oil is 5 times higher.

adam.  I agree that we need more refineries.  The problem is the environmentalist and the NIMBY situation.  The U.S has not built a new refinery for over a decade.  I am all in favor of alternative fuels but we need more drilling and refining capacity until a viable alternative is available.

Well, it's not as if the high oil prices (Iraq War, dollar devaluation, economic instability)  were his fault...oh, wait.  They are.

I don't agree that we need more refineries.  We need less consumption.  The problem is not NIMBY/environmentalists, it's that more refinery construction would cut into the oil company profits.  They like things the way they are.

Maggie.

Looks like Bush had some luck in increased oil production.  Don't  that just frost you?

Bush had nothing to do with the May 10th increase.

O.K. RF. Build a truck that runs like a peddle car and break out your bicycle and practice what you preach,

General Motors had a viable alternative 8 years ago, the oil companies destroyed it, no profit there. Europe has many "viable alternatives " on the road.....France makes a car that runs on compressed air and Denmark has placed a huge order to replace all the goverment vehicles with this technology in 2009

And the prices have dropped also, good ole BushCo, He probably dropped in on Halliburton headquarters(in tax cheater heaven) and scooped up some cash while over there....

Roy, environmentalists are a very small piece of the obstruction to refineries. Yes, the NIMBYs certainly spring up in areas where more refining makes sense, but the biggest block to more refining capacity are the oil companies. It is no coincidence that most of our state's refining capacity went away with the clean fuel act. The only companies who made the switch over to meet the new regulations were the major oil companies who took advantage by halving the amount of refineries in the state, if my memory serves me in this instance. We saw the amount of independent stations evaporate faster than spit on a Bakersfield sidewalk in July when all those refineries were shuttered. To the author's point, just nationalize the oil industry.

If only the nation had listened to Jimmy Carter--a far better president than any Republican in the past 40 years.

.

(Just tossed that in to p!ss off Roy...)

Fisrt Chaney asked the King to open up the tap,and we got nothing coming...Now Bush asks the King to open up the tap, and still we have nothing coming...The World must be laughing their butts off...no respect for 'Twidle Dee and Twidle Dum'....

 whether gas is .50 or 5.00... people still need to commute to work, school ect, everyone can get pissed and say they are not going to drive anymore. but they will, and they do. i am one of those that said if gas gets over 3.50 ill walk blah blah blah and paid 51.50 to fill my car up, which when i bought it only cost 30 or so. Truth is, gas prices are going to change. and thats how it will always pay, one two, or hundreds of people isnt going to change that. so just roll with the punches.

Bush fails to win Saudi help on gas prices

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — President Bush failed to win the help he sought from Saudi Arabia to relieve skyrocketing American gas prices Friday, a setback for the former Texas oilman who took office predicting he would jawbone oil-producing nations to help the U.S.

Bush got a red-carpet welcome to this desert kingdom, home to the world's largest oil reserves, and promised to ask King Abdullah to increase production to reduce pressure on prices, which soared past $127 for the first time Friday. But Saudi officials said they already were meeting the needs of their customers worldwide and there was no need to pump more.

"Supply and demand are in balance today," al-Naimi told a news conference, bristling at criticism from the U.S. Congress. "How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed.