And the profits grow

[Tris]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Ya know, if high crude oil prices were really that tough on big oil, big oil couldn't turn those kind of numbers. I know Exxon missed profit estimates, but still, appx. $1,490 profit per second is a bit much.

[--Pete]

Hi,

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Ya know, if high crude oil prices were really that tough on big oil, big oil couldn't turn those kind of numbers. I know Exxon missed profit estimates, but still, appx. $1,490 profit per second is a bit much.

The number is just a reflection of the size of the company. The actual profit is about 8%; not bad but nothing exorbitant. Quit buying into the ignorant media's bs and use those pounds between the ears.

High oil prices? Yeah, China and India have discovered the free market. Consider their population and per capita energy usage. The consider the same for us in the USA. Now project what it will be when they achieve our standard of living. Gasp, we might almost have to pay as much for gas as the Europeans do (presently we pay about 40% as much).

Quit griping, get a Vespa.

-Pete

PS No, I did not forget the smileys.

[eppie]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/31/news/compa...dex.htm?cnn=yes

Ya know, if high crude oil prices were really that tough on big oil, big oil couldn't turn those kind of numbers. I know Exxon missed profit estimates, but still, appx. $1,490 profit per second is a bit much.

I am not known for my 'pro big business' points of view, but I don't see the problem.

There is no tendency in the west to buy cars that consume less and there is no tendency to don't drive when not necesarry. People can pay these prices without problems, they just whine a bit. If I would be an oil company I would charge even more.

[FireIceTalon]

I am not known for my 'pro big business' points of view, but I don't see the problem.

There is no tendency in the west to buy cars that consume less and there is no tendency to don't drive when not necesarry. People can pay these prices without problems, they just whine a bit. If I would be an oil company I would charge even more.

Dont be so sure.

Reports show that when gas hit 3.50 a gallon last year, it had virtually no effect on the consumer, so prices kept going up. But once it hit over 4.00/gallon, people began taking a stand. In the last month or so, gas prices have come down at least .50 cents a gallon, cause less people are buying it do to finding other means of transportation (car pooling, walking, bus, etc).

The whole thing is one big scheme to rip us off and anyone who says otherwise is blind to the facts. You'd raise prices even more then they are now if you were an oil company? No you wouldnt, cause then no one would buy your sh!t. Speaking for myself and others I know, people will drive ON FUMES that extra mile to go to the cheapest gas station. I bet the prices drop even more once the Repubs are out of office.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The whole thing is one big scheme to rip us off and anyone who says otherwise is blind to the facts.

Only in you uninformed, stupid, USA centric opinion.

--Pete

[Jester]

Dont be so sure.

Reports show that when gas hit 3.50 a gallon last year, it had virtually no effect on the consumer, so prices kept going up. But once it hit over 4.00/gallon, people began taking a stand. In the last month or so, gas prices have come down at least .50 cents a gallon, cause less people are buying it do to finding other means of transportation (car pooling, walking, bus, etc).

The whole thing is one big scheme to rip us off and anyone who says otherwise is blind to the facts. You'd raise prices even more then they are now if you were an oil company? No you wouldnt, cause then no one would buy your sh!t. Speaking for myself and others I know, people will drive ON FUMES that extra mile to go to the cheapest gas station. I bet the prices drop even more once the Repubs are out of office.

I'm very confused by this post. Who is organizing this "rip off"? How is it being done? Why will it drop once the Republicans are out of office?

I think Pete has it more or less correct. Demand is up worldwide, and supply can't grow like it used to. Price goes up, every economist in the world would tell you this is a no-brainer.

-Jester

[Tal]

The whole thing is one big scheme to rip us off and anyone who says otherwise is blind to the facts.

Got a source for these facts I'm blind to?

[Kevin]

I'm very confused by this post. Who is organizing this "rip off"? How is it being done? Why will it drop once the Republicans are out of office?

I think Pete has it more or less correct. Demand is up worldwide, and supply can't grow like it used to. Price goes up, every economist in the world would tell you this is a no-brainer.

-Jester

Pretty much. Though I really do wonder what the market would be like if the US had done like Brazil and mandated all the infrastructure for ethanol back when Brazil did. Not saying the energy market in Brazil is an ideal case, but I've often wondered about that. I'm not sure how trustworthy http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_...oil-consumption is (though it's pretty close to https://www.cia.govbrary/publications/th.../2174rank.html) but the US is still the biggest consumer in the world. If you are curious about production https://www.cia.govbrary/publications/th...r/2173rank.html lists that. The US produces about 40% of what it consumes. I didn't realize that the European Union only produced about 20% of what it consumed. But the US still chugs about 25% of all the oil produced in the world. It just makes me wonder where agricultural prices would be if we had done what Brazil had done. They still use a lot of oil and even if we didn't use it as a consumer fuel we would still use a lot for other industrial processes, but I do wonder.

I'm aware that Brazil gets most of it's ethanol from sugar cane and that the process is cheaper and faster for production than it is for corn, but after about 3 decades the country is pretty much energy independent last I checked. I can't imagine the US would be, and I don't know how well it would go over using flex fuel cars here (though many of the Brazilian flex fuel vehicles are manufactured by American companies, and much of the initial tech used for it was developed by the US manufacturers, which surprised me). Maybe our consumption would be down to 12 bbl/day instead of 20 bbl/day. Of course I'm not sure ethanol fuel prices would be lower.

It just feels to me like a case where over riding the free market to get results in the pipeline sooner would have been better. The US is now behind and paying more for it than planning ahead. It's one of the things I would have liked the government to have stuck it's nose in and there are a lot of other things it could have kept its nose out of to provide the resources. :)

I've been following the idea of using steam from nuclear plants for ethanol production a bit as well. It's already used in Canada for this purpose, and Russia and Switzerland have used steam from nuclear power plants for heating of local districts and other industrial applications. Not so much in the US because our nuclear plants are generally in rural areas, but if we are planning out ethanol production then that helps for that application since transporting corn gets expensive so building the ethanol plant near the existing nuclear plant helps. It's my understanding that around 50 of the US nuclear plants would meet the logistical requirements. It's an interesting proposal that since it has the world nuclear in it probably won't see the light of day.

And of course skipping the whole ethanol fuel and going right to fuel cell energy may prove to be a better long term option and Brazil may pay for that, but I don't think, that transition will take a long time as well and being energy independent during that time frame could prove hugely valuable. I know India and China are following in Brazil's footsteps on this a bit.

Oh well. Just an tangent to run this thread off into. I thought about getting into the Biofuels thread a bit with it, but I'm actually more interested in the higher level aspects.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It's an interesting proposal that since it has the world nuclear in it probably won't see the light of day.

Yeah. Just like NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) had to be changed to MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) before people would accept it, in spite of the fact that, under either name, there is no radiation involved (unlike CT, CAT, or even x-rays).

And of course skipping the whole ethanol fuel and going right to fuel cell energy may prove to be a better long term option . . .

You know, affordable fuel cell technology is "just a few years out" and has been since (at least) the '70s. I lump it in with true AI and workable fusion (both "about 10 years out" since the '50s or '60s) as one of those not quite within our capability items. Long term solutions work better for long term problems, not for short term "crises".

--Pete

[FireIceTalon]

Hi,
Only in you uninformed, stupid, USA centric opinion.

--Pete

No, not just in my uninformed, stupid, usa centric opinion as you so elequently put it. More like in the opinion of 200 mill+ Americans perhaps??

Just 10 years ago gas prices were around 1.30 a gallon, you mean to tell they've trippled in the last 10 years due to supply and demand all the sudden?? I dont buy that. But if you want to believe into all the hype and think that, be my guest. I bet you voted for Bush, didnt you? :rolleyes:

[FireIceTalon]

I'm very confused by this post. Who is organizing this "rip off"? How is it being done? Why will it drop once the Republicans are out of office?

I think Pete has it more or less correct. Demand is up worldwide, and supply can't grow like it used to. Price goes up, every economist in the world would tell you this is a no-brainer.

-Jester

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

They will more then likely keep decreasing, and if Obama gets in office (and he more then likely will, since Mccain is even losing in his OWN State) and his proposed Tax plain of cutting tax breaks for the big oil companies when oil reaches over $80 a barrel, they will drop yet even further. This same crap happened (though to a lesser degree) in the gulf war of 91'.....gas prices were high, food prices rose, yada yada.....then they went back to normal when Clinton took office. Same sh!t will happen here, mark my words.

[Tal]

No, not just in my uninformed, stupid, usa centric opinion as you so elequently put it. More like in the opinion of 200 mill+ Americans perhaps??

Just 10 years ago gas prices were around 1.30 a gallon, you mean to tell they've trippled in the last 10 years due to supply and demand all the sudden?? I dont buy that. But if you want to believe into all the hype and think that, be my guest. I bet you voted for Bush, didnt you? :rolleyes:

I suggest you start doing some research in Oil trends.

[Jester]

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip.asp

I don't think anyone would claim that, in every week, month, and year, oil prices will climb forever and ever without dropping. There are all sorts of things that cause short-term downward movement: revisions in reserve estimates, changes in the futures markets, speculator enthusiasm cooling off, changes in consumption patterns. What matters is the long term trend, which is clearly going to be towards higher prices. Short-term fluctuations are just so much noise.

They will more then likely keep decreasing, and if Obama gets in office (and he more then likely will, since Mccain is even losing in his OWN State) and his proposed Tax plain of cutting tax breaks for the big oil companies when oil reaches over $80 a barrel, they will drop yet even further. This same crap happened (though to a lesser degree) in the gulf war of 91'.....gas prices were high, food prices rose, yada yada.....then they went back to normal when Clinton took office. Same sh!t will happen here, mark my words.

Oh, I have no doubt many here are marking your words.

McCain is up by 10 in Arizona. http://www.electoral-vote.com

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

I don't think anyone would claim that, in every week, month, and year, oil prices will climb forever and ever without dropping. There are all sorts of things that cause short-term downward movement: revisions in reserve estimates, changes in the futures markets, speculator enthusiasm cooling off, changes in consumption patterns. What matters is the long term trend, which is clearly going to be towards higher prices. Short-term fluctuations are just so much noise.
Oh, I have no doubt many here are marking your words.

McCain is up by 10 in Arizona. http://www.electoral-vote.com

-Jester

Wow, he finally took back his own state, whattya know. Not that it matters, since hes still down by 100 pts, rofl.

[Jester]

Wow, he finally took back his own state. Not that it matters, since hes still down by 100 pts, rofl.

As best I can tell, he never lost it. Do you have a poll showing otherwise?

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres...hs/arizona.html

-Jester

Edit: Found one! Zogby apparently did an internet poll that showed Obama marginally ahead. I don't think Zogby is terribly reliable at the best of times, the internet polls raise a lot of eyebrows. Still, one poll with Obama up, amongst a sea of polls showing McCain winning handily.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/az/08-az-pres-ge-mvo.php

Even Zogby is still calling it for McCain:

http://www.zogby.com/50state/index.cfm

[Kevin]

No, not just in my uninformed, stupid, usa centric opinion as you so elequently put it. More like in the opinion of 200 mill+ Americans perhaps??

Just 10 years ago gas prices were around 1.30 a gallon, you mean to tell they've trippled in the last 10 years due to supply and demand all the sudden?? I dont buy that. But if you want to believe into all the hype and think that, be my guest. I bet you voted for Bush, didnt you? :rolleyes:

Our consumption has increased by about 3,000,000 bbl/day in the last 10 years. US production has decreased by about 1,000,000 bbl/day in the last 10 years. So that means 4,000,000 bbl/day more oil needs to be imported to the US in the last 10 years.

Where does that oil come from then? Mostly from the OPEC nations. And what have the OPEC nations been doing? In general they have tried to keep prices around $25 a barrel by using production quotas. The other benefit of this is that they maintain a surplus production capacity, which can be turned on pretty quickly in order to help meet demands. Of course OPEC nations don't always obey the quotas and the market still bounces around and OPEC doesn't forecast the future any better than anyone else. They under estimated the Asian market demand. Of course there are some non OPEC nations that are major producers. Russia is the 2nd largest producer in the world, but it's taken them the last 6 years to get back to 9,000,000 bbl/day capacity they were putting out over 14,000,000 bbl/day in 1975. That has an effect and OPEC tries to deal with it as well.

But there are 2 events that happened in 2003 that really messed things up for prices and things still aren't recovered. Venezuela which the previous years was producing around 3,500,000 bbl/day experienced a worker strike and production pretty much shut down for a few months. After the strike ended they've not gone above 2,600,000 bbl/day production. And in 2003 we invaded Iraq and shut down their oil production as well. They went from about 2,500,000 bbl/day to zero as well. So you have a growing market that suddenly has 6,000,000 bbl/day less production. The world chugs about 80,000,000 a day. So 7.5% of the worlds production shut off for several months. You think that won't have an effect?

So what happened, countries started to use their own reserves. So there is less buffer there now. So getting reservers back up as well as other issues with OPEC countries right now mean that while in the 90's OPEC used to be able to increase production over what they are doing by about 15,000,000 bbl/day, they now are able to only produce about 1,000,000 bbl/day more than they currently are. You think that won't affect prices? You think the fact that the US economy is weaker and the dollar is weaker won't affect prices?

If you really think this is the oil companies just screwing with us, then you need to get some more education. Am I saying that the oil companies don't do some manipulation? No. This is a free market they will do the best they can to make us pay as much as we can. But this is not some major collusion to get the prices jacked up, this is a real issue with supply and demand, and the US economy and other larger political issues. At least skim http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm and get some background information and google for some more.

If you don't want to believe anything from my sources give me some of your own that aren't covered in crap since you pulled them from your ass like your 200+ million.

I do believe prices will come back down in the future but I'm thinking a few years before we see any significant drops and I don't expect us to ever get back to a pre 2000 level.

[--Pete]

Hi,

No, not just in my uninformed, stupid, usa centric opinion as you so elequently put it. More like in the opinion of 200 mill+ Americans perhaps??

Yep. Thanks to an educational system that doesn't teach anything and a media more interested in whom Paris Hilton is screwing than what other nations are doing, there are at least 200 million ignorant Americans. Probably more like 250 million. You do know that there are nations called "China" and "India", don't you? That China, in effect, abandoned communism (it's an economic system, not a "godless evil empire" -- look it up) for the beginning of a free market in the 90's? That the Indian (no, not American Natives, buy an Atlas) government repealed a large number of restrictive socialist regulations in the last decade, in effect opening a free market there? That the population of those two nations outnumber that of the USA by about <strike>20</strike> 8.5 to 1? And that both those nations have a very rapidly growing economy and standard of living? And, no, it is not covered by Marvel Comics.

Bah! Why bother. Stick to the Ludlum world, it won't tax your mind. Yeah, it's all a conspiracy by the Illuminati working with the Republicans for Exxon.

By the way, that's "USA", not "usa", and get (and use) a spell checker, or I'll add 'wanker' to your attributes.

Just 10 years ago gas prices were around 1.30 a gallon, you mean to tell they've trippled in the last 10 years due to supply and demand all the sudden?? I dont buy that.

That's because, as I said, you're ignorant.

But if you want to believe into all the hype and think that, be my guest. I bet you voted for Bush, didnt you? :rolleyes:

No, didn't vote for that moron, voted for the other moron.

--Pete

[Jester]

That the population of those two nations outnumber that of the USA by about 20 to 1?

Isn't it more like 8.5 to 1?

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Isn't it more like 8.5 to 1?

-Jester

Depends on how you count Americans. I don't consider the 20 million plus illegals here to be Americans. Still, 2,3 billion to <strike>300</strike> 270 million is closer to your ratio. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole was being used to bludgeon an idiot. ;)

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Isn't it more like 8.5 to 1?

-Jester

Left off a zero or two :w00t:

Yeah, you're right. Since the point isn't how many there are but that they outnumber us by a bunch, I didn't check. Should have known better here in nit heaven. Thanks for the fix.:)

--Pete