http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761 &nbsp; THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW May 16, 2008&nbsp; Gas Prices and the Blame Game By Ed Feulner With fill-ups routinely costing $60 or more, cost- conscious drivers naturally look for someone to blame. And just as naturally, politicians are happy to blame others. Enter &quot;Big Oil,&quot; the demagogues' favorite villain. Gas prices soaring? It's because oil companies want &quot;excess profits,&quot; as Barack Obama puts it. Right? Wrong. The truth is more complicated. Let's look to California, driving capital of the world. Officials there watch gas prices carefully. During March and April, a state analysis found that &quot;distribution costs, marketing costs and profits&quot; made up about 10 cents of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, which ranged from $3.46 to $3.89. Notice that that dime is less than 3 percent of the total retail cost, and profits account for only part of it. So those &quot;excess profits&quot; are actually well below 3 percent of retail costs. Of course, that's little comfort to tapped-out drivers. And the big oil companies are certainly making big money -- Exxon Mobil alone earned $40.6 billion last year. But such profits follow naturally when a company sells a product that so many people want to buy. Some recent history offers us a bit of perspective. In 1998, a recession in Asia created an oil glut. Prices plunged to historic lows (near $10 a barrel), and American drivers reaped the benefits, with gas dipping below $1 per gallon. So how did Exxon fare in those days of low prices? According to Forbes magazine, Exxon earned more in profits than any other American company in 1998. Sales increased 3 percent over 1997 and profits jumped 12.6 percent, to $8.4 billion. Again, remember: Oil was remarkably cheap that year, yet Exxon earned double-digit profits. Few complained then. The lesson is simple: When a company sells a product people want, it tends to make money, in good times and in bad. For years, oil has remained a product that Americans want -- and today's high prices have done little to change that. It's also worth noting that oil companies are probably the most investigated companies in America. Every few years, outraged legislators demand that the Federal Trade Commission determine whether oil companies are colluding to inflate prices. Repeatedly, federal regulators find that they aren't. A few months ago the FTC said this about high gas prices: &quot;All of the increase can be attributed to increased crude oil costs, because gasoline inventories are as ample as they have been for several years, gasoline consumption is declining to a near-record extent, and refining margins -- the difference between the cost of crude oil and the wholesale price of gasoline -- have fallen.&quot; So who's making the big money? The countries that produce crude oil. Crude represents more than half of the cost of each gallon of gasoline sold. Federal, state and local taxes represent another fifth. Yet some insist we punish &quot;big oil.&quot; During one pres- idential debate, Hillary Clinton announced that &quot;the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund.&quot; But confiscating oil company profits is a lousy idea. Profits are what keep them in business. It allows them to invest in refining and delivery systems, and search for new deposits of petroleum. Profits fuel our capital- ist system as surely as petroleum fuels our national economy. Plus, &quot;big oil&quot; returns billions to stock- holders through dividends, and millions of Americans own its stock through their mutual funds and 401(k)s. The best way to cut prices in the long run would be to increase supplies. Policymakers could help do this if they would allow drilling off-shore and in a tiny section of Alaska's barren Artic National Wildlife Refuge. It makes no sense to keep so much domestic oil off- limits, especially with prices climbing. As long as we do it, we'll pay more than we need to for each gallon of gasoline and keep sending big profits overseas. Let's stop stalling -- and start drilling. &nbsp; THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW May 16, 2008&nbsp; Gas Prices and the Blame Game By Ed Feulner With fill-ups routinely costing $60 or more, cost- conscious drivers naturally look for someone to blame. And just as naturally, politicians are happy to blame others. Enter &quot;Big Oil,&quot; the demagogues' favorite villain. Gas prices soaring? It's because oil companies want &quot;excess profits,&quot; as Barack Obama puts it. Right? Wrong. The truth is more complicated. Let's look to California, driving capital of the world. Officials there watch gas prices carefully. During March and April, a state analysis found that &quot;distribution costs, marketing costs and profits&quot; made up about 10 cents of the cost of a gallon of gasoline, which ranged from $3.46 to $3.89. Notice that that dime is less than 3 percent of the total retail cost, and profits account for only part of it. So those &quot;excess profits&quot; are actually well below 3 percent of retail costs. Of course, that's little comfort to tapped-out drivers. And the big oil companies are certainly making big money -- Exxon Mobil alone earned $40.6 billion last year. But such profits follow naturally when a company sells a product that so many people want to buy. Some recent history offers us a bit of perspective. In 1998, a recession in Asia created an oil glut. Prices plunged to historic lows (near $10 a barrel), and American drivers reaped the benefits, with gas dipping below $1 per gallon. So how did Exxon fare in those days of low prices? According to Forbes magazine, Exxon earned more in profits than any other American company in 1998. Sales increased 3 percent over 1997 and profits jumped 12.6 percent, to $8.4 billion. Again, remember: Oil was remarkably cheap that year, yet Exxon earned double-digit profits. Few complained then. The lesson is simple: When a company sells a product people want, it tends to make money, in good times and in bad. For years, oil has remained a product that Americans want -- and today's high prices have done little to change that. It's also worth noting that oil companies are probably the most investigated companies in America. Every few years, outraged legislators demand that the Federal Trade Commission determine whether oil companies are colluding to inflate prices. Repeatedly, federal regulators find that they aren't. A few months ago the FTC said this about high gas prices: &quot;All of the increase can be attributed to increased crude oil costs, because gasoline inventories are as ample as they have been for several years, gasoline consumption is declining to a near-record extent, and refining margins -- the difference between the cost of crude oil and the wholesale price of gasoline -- have fallen.&quot; So who's making the big money? The countries that produce crude oil. Crude represents more than half of the cost of each gallon of gasoline sold. Federal, state and local taxes represent another fifth. Yet some insist we punish &quot;big oil.&quot; During one pres- idential debate, Hillary Clinton announced that &quot;the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits, and I want to put them into a strategic energy fund.&quot; But confiscating oil company profits is a lousy idea. Profits are what keep them in business. It allows them to invest in refining and delivery systems, and search for new deposits of petroleum. Profits fuel our capital- ist system as surely as petroleum fuels our national economy. Plus, &quot;big oil&quot; returns billions to stock- holders through dividends, and millions of Americans own its stock through their mutual funds and 401(k)s. The best way to cut prices in the long run would be to increase supplies. Policymakers could help do this if they would allow drilling off-shore and in a tiny section of Alaska's barren Artic National Wildlife Refuge. It makes no sense to keep so much domestic oil off- limits, especially with prices climbing. As long as we do it, we'll pay more than we need to for each gallon of gasoline and keep sending big profits overseas. Let's stop stalling -- and start drilling. en-us <p>&nbsp;</p> <p class="textBodyBlack">But........When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must&nbsp;press oil producing nations and persuade them to increase production. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel.&nbsp; Today, it's about $128 a barrel, and the pressing of&nbsp; the Saudi regime had zero effect.</p> <p class="textBodyBlack">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&nbsp;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.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239152 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239152 <p>&nbsp;</p> <p class="textBodyBlack">But........When Bush first ran for president in 2000, he criticized the Clinton administration for high fuel prices and said the president must&nbsp;press oil producing nations and persuade them to increase production. At that time, oil was nearing $28 a barrel.&nbsp; Today, it's about $128 a barrel, and the pressing of&nbsp; the Saudi regime had zero effect.</p> <p class="textBodyBlack">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&nbsp;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.</p> <p>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&nbsp; this cartel controlled industry won't make the slightest bit of difference in what the price of&nbsp; 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.</p> <p>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.&nbsp;</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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&nbsp; regulate and&nbsp; 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&nbsp; the oil business like everyone&nbsp; else in the world&nbsp; and pass the&nbsp; benefits on to society at large?</p> <p>Thanks for the post and the article. It is food for thought.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239160 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239160 <p>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&nbsp; this cartel controlled industry won't make the slightest bit of difference in what the price of&nbsp; 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.</p> <p>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.&nbsp;</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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&nbsp; regulate and&nbsp; 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&nbsp; the oil business like everyone&nbsp; else in the world&nbsp; and pass the&nbsp; benefits on to society at large?</p> <p>Thanks for the post and the article. It is food for thought.</p> <p>Anti.&nbsp; What!&nbsp; You comment makes no sense whatsoever.</p> <br /> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239164 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239164 <p>Anti.&nbsp; What!&nbsp; You comment makes no sense whatsoever.</p> <br /> <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;Saudi Arabia raises oil output</span></p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Since Bush's last visit in January, oil prices have jumped nearly $30, to a record high of $128 a barrel.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">The recent price increases have fuelled&nbsp;US fears of recession and mounted political pressure on the White House in a year when voters will pick Bush's successor. <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">King Abdullah will likely be looking for reassurances on Bush's commitment to push a $1.4 billion&nbsp;arms sale through&nbsp;the US Congress, which&nbsp;is led by the political opposition.&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Democrats have threatened to block the deal in order to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to increase oil output.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Opec members have blamed high oil prices on speculators, saying it is not due&nbsp;to shortage of supply.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana"><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/178CBACD-78AA-4B90-A393-27E17F76642F.htm">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/178CBACD-78AA-4B90-A393-27E17F76642F.htm</a></div> </div> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239166 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239166 <p><span style="font-size: small">&nbsp;Saudi Arabia raises oil output</span></p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Since Bush's last visit in January, oil prices have jumped nearly $30, to a record high of $128 a barrel.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">The recent price increases have fuelled&nbsp;US fears of recession and mounted political pressure on the White House in a year when voters will pick Bush's successor. <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">King Abdullah will likely be looking for reassurances on Bush's commitment to push a $1.4 billion&nbsp;arms sale through&nbsp;the US Congress, which&nbsp;is led by the political opposition.&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Democrats have threatened to block the deal in order to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to increase oil output.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">Opec members have blamed high oil prices on speculators, saying it is not due&nbsp;to shortage of supply.</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana">&nbsp;</div> <div style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana"><a href="http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/178CBACD-78AA-4B90-A393-27E17F76642F.htm">http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/178CBACD-78AA-4B90-A393-27E17F76642F.htm</a></div> </div> <p>Oil for arms, Arms for profit, BushCo will never disappear ,only hide behind a new puppet....</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239171 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239171 <p>Oil for arms, Arms for profit, BushCo will never disappear ,only hide behind a new puppet....</p> <p>Really????</p> <p>It doesn't make sense that we need alternative fuels. It doesn't make sense to drill in an environmentally sound way.</p> <p>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.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239172 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239172 <p>Really????</p> <p>It doesn't make sense that we need alternative fuels. It doesn't make sense to drill in an environmentally sound way.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>adam.&nbsp; I agree that we need more refineries.&nbsp; The problem is the environmentalist and the NIMBY situation.&nbsp; The U.S has not built a new refinery for over a decade.&nbsp; I am all in favor of alternative fuels but we need more drilling and refining capacity until a viable alternative is available.</p> <br /> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239175 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239175 <p>adam.&nbsp; I agree that we need more refineries.&nbsp; The problem is the environmentalist and the NIMBY situation.&nbsp; The U.S has not built a new refinery for over a decade.&nbsp; I am all in favor of alternative fuels but we need more drilling and refining capacity until a viable alternative is available.</p> <br /> <p>Well, it's not as if the high oil prices&nbsp;(Iraq&nbsp;War, dollar devaluation,&nbsp;economic&nbsp;instability) &nbsp;were his fault...oh, wait.&nbsp; They are.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239176 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239176 <p>Well, it's not as if the high oil prices&nbsp;(Iraq&nbsp;War, dollar devaluation,&nbsp;economic&nbsp;instability) &nbsp;were his fault...oh, wait.&nbsp; They are.</p> <p>I don't agree that we need more refineries.&nbsp; We need less consumption.&nbsp; The problem is not NIMBY/environmentalists, it's that more refinery construction would cut into the oil company profits.&nbsp; They like things the way they are.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239180 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239180 <p>I don't agree that we need more refineries.&nbsp; We need less consumption.&nbsp; The problem is not NIMBY/environmentalists, it's that more refinery construction would cut into the oil company profits.&nbsp; They like things the way they are.</p> <p>Maggie.</p> <p>Looks like Bush had some luck in increased oil production.&nbsp; Don't&nbsp; that just frost you?</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239183 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239183 <p>Maggie.</p> <p>Looks like Bush had some luck in increased oil production.&nbsp; Don't&nbsp; that just frost you?</p> <p>Bush had nothing to do with the May 10th increase.</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239185 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239185 <p>Bush had nothing to do with the May 10th increase.</p> <p>O.K. RF. Build a truck that runs like a peddle car and break out your bicycle and practice what you preach,</p> <br /> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239186 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239186 <p>O.K. RF. Build a truck that runs like a peddle car and break out your bicycle and practice what you preach,</p> <br /> <p>General Motors had a viable alternative 8 years ago, the oil companies destroyed it, no profit there. Europe has many &quot;viable alternatives &quot; 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</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239191 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239191 <p>General Motors had a viable alternative 8 years ago, the oil companies destroyed it, no profit there. Europe has many &quot;viable alternatives &quot; 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</p> <p>And the prices have dropped also, good&nbsp;ole BushCo, He probably dropped in on Halliburton headquarters(in tax cheater heaven)&nbsp;and scooped up some cash while over there....</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239198 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239198 <p>And the prices have dropped also, good&nbsp;ole BushCo, He probably dropped in on Halliburton headquarters(in tax cheater heaven)&nbsp;and scooped up some cash while over there....</p> <p>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.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239215 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239215 <p>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.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>If only the nation had listened to Jimmy Carter--a far better president than any Republican in the past 40 years.</p> <p>.</p> <p>(Just tossed that in to p!ss off Roy...)</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239216 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239216 <p>If only the nation had listened to Jimmy Carter--a far better president than any Republican in the past 40 years.</p> <p>.</p> <p>(Just tossed that in to p!ss off Roy...)</p> <p>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'....</p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239239 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239239 <p>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'....</p> <p><span style="color: #993366">&nbsp;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.</span></p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239292 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239292 <p><span style="color: #993366">&nbsp;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.</span></p> <p></p> <h1><a id="title_permalink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html"><span style="font-size: small">Bush fails to win Saudi help on gas prices</span></a> <p><span style="font-size: small">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.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">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.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">"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?"</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html</a></span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed</span>.</p> </h1> <p> </p> http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239453 http://people.bakersfield.com/home/Blog/RoyTullis/26761/#c_239453 <p></p> <h1><a id="title_permalink" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html"><span style="font-size: small">Bush fails to win Saudi help on gas prices</span></a> <p><span style="font-size: small">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.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">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.</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">"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?"</span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small"><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/16/saudis-see-no-reason-to-r_n_102170.html</a></span></p> <p><span style="font-size: small">Their answer recalled Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia in January when he urged an increase in production but was rebuffed</span>.</p> </h1> <p> </p>