Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Has anyone seen my eyeballs?...
​

 

[treedancer]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

At least when I post, its not a big orgy of purple pixels, its bite size and you can go get a cup of coffee and come back and see where you are.

 

[tomatolord]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

One thing that people really ignore is that american oil companies have to compete on a world stage not just here in the U.S.

Word wide the american companies only have 30% or so market share and they have to bid and build and remain competative against much larger govt run organizations.

Now - a fair question to ask is what are the profits of these other (lukoil, venezuala etc ) oil companies

Should chevron be more like hugo chavez and reduce their profits by building homes for poor people?

The oil companies will be doing SOMETHING with these profits, that is the american way, earn revenue, make profits, invest profits, make more revenue, sort of the cycle of life.

Now right the oil companies are not "doing" much with these profits, because if they were spending the profits their costs would be going UP thus reducing their profits.

What I see happening is that the oil companies will buy ALL of these ethanol producing plants that are sprouting up, as they go bankrupt becuase of speculation, they will step in and buy them for cash for pennies on the dollar.

Who says the oil companies have to build GASOLINE producing plants, these ethanol plants seem to have NO ONE complaining about being built.

Tomatolord

 

[treedancer]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Quote tomatolord


<<What I see happening is that the oil companies will buy ALL of these ethanol producing plants that are sprouting up, as they go bankrupt becuase of speculation, they will step in and buy them for cash for pennies on the dollar.>>

Good post tomatolord concise, too the point, bite size pieces. On your statement that they have a competitive market overseas was off of my radar, will look into that. I wonder if there is a shortage of refineries in the over seas markets as they have here?

Another thing that comes to mind is they have much higher prices in other countries, and here comes the paranoia creeping out of me, but could it be that they are trying to jack our prices up too the levels that they have in other countries? Just a thought, of course it is coming from a paranoid truck driver that sometimes burns 300 gallons of diesel fuel a week .

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Quote Omer


Management must weigh what Liberal Democrats might do, (they work very hard to deny increase in domestic supply, [THE PRIMARY REASON PRICES ARE HIGH RIGHT NOW]; they attempt to raise taxes and 'confiscate profits' at any opportunity, [JUST LISTEN TO THE DEMOCRAT FRONT RUNNER]; they require complicated fuel formulations: (different in many areas); and they pass very nasty and punitive environmental laws). Management must also survey the temperment of the masses. There are a lot of people out there who are not nearly as informed as you are, (if you had finished high school you might even be dangerious). (35% of the modern Democrats think that President Bush knew the 9/11 attacks were going to happen prior to the actual attack), I bet you know that is not likely: ZmOz.

,>>
I think I will try your tactic JR, Put the blame in Conservative Republicans for every ailment from scratched car paint, too to my arthritic elbow. If liberal Democrats are the reason that no refineries have been built, explain to me, why have no new refineries have been built in spite of so far, 14 years, and climbing of Republican Presidents, plus the last six years of a Republican President, and Republican controlled house and Senate? Ill tell you, its because Conservative Republicans, are looking out for one of their biggest campaign contributors.

. Over the last quarter-century, the number of refineries in the United States dropped to 149, less than half the number in 1981. The decline in refineries began when the Conservative Republican, President Reagan, was elected in 1981,He had eight years too build some refineries, wonder why none was built?

The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976. Using JR reasoning,must have been because of Conservative Republicans. Let?s fast forward too the year 2000, Lo and behold we had a whole flock of Conservative Republicans Land on us, not only the President, there is the House, and Senate,. Populated by Conservative Republicans, You would think that we could at least get a refinery, or two, built seeing as the President had experience in the oil business. Just maybe, that is the reason we don?t have any. You think? Anybody beside myself, starting to see a trend between Conservative Republicans, and refinery decline?


Seems he had other priorities, such as cutting the taxes for the wealthy, and cut aid to the poor, uninsured, hungry and homeless as Conservative Republicans, are inclined to do.

Would you guys please stop talking about the NUMBER of refineries. The number is meaningless. It is the amount of PRODUCTION that is important.

If you think PRODUCTION has not increased over the last 20 years, you are living in a dreamland.

Fewer refineries making more gasoline. Read my post on the privous page where the refinery in Port Arthur is planing to nearly DOUBLE thier output.

Ken

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Originally Posted by ZmOz

What they mean to say is, "if we built another refinery then what excuse would we use to charge so damn much?"

Omers answer too ZmOz (condensed version)

Management must weigh what Liberal Democrats might do, (they work very hard to deny increase in domestic supply, [THE PRIMARY REASON PRICES ARE HIGH RIGHT NOW];

Democrats n' Libs are clearly responsible for raising risks for domestic investment in the oil business. That is a fact that you may choose to ignore if you wish. Respectfully


Omers answer when I responded to that post

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Mr. Tree I thought Oil companies built refineries, I did not know Republican Presidents would do such a thing, nor am I aware of Congress people or Senators building refineries. Most of the means of production in this great Country are owned by private entities


It seems liberal Democrats are capable of stopping a Republican controlled Senate and House, don’t think so.

Murky's reply: I guess ya missed my whole point: Mr. Tree. Government does not build refineries nor do they have the authority to order private companies to build them. The private companies assess demand and make an investment decision base on an examination of the risks. One of the huge risks is a political one. Even though the Democrats corntrol both houses: zero significant legislation has passed into law since 11/2006. The majorities of either party have been slim and when the Democrats were in the minority they effectively blocked lots of things. You also are underestimating the hard left very anti business MSM and achedemia, most of whom hate oil companies, SUVs n' boats for the Proletariat, (except their own personal rich Lib toys that they buy Algores' carbon credit schemes to make themselves feel better about). Do you worship the government Mr. Tree? You seem to give them far toooooooooo much credit for their role in business. They can and do stop additional oil supply by blocking drilling in ANWAR and off shore, but they DO NOT ENGAGE IN PRODUCTIVE THINGS. They can and do require special formulations in the fuel, and assess huge clean-up penalties, (which are a BIG risk to doin' bidness if they label you a big something: [oil, pharma, insurance, tabacco). They, (government) are much more like a leech or parasite to productive activity. (BTW: the blood the leech sucks does the 'good works' projects for the snooty Liberals n' Democrats, that don't have the time or inclination to do those things on their own dime).


Quote Omer

WE HAVE HIGH PRICES DUE TO LIMITED SUPPLY. If your brian works, ya must know that limiting supply does cause higher prices.

Yes my brain is functioning pretty well, so are my eyes, putting the two together means every time I fill up at three dollars plus, sure shows that the Conservative Republicans have reduced the supply, by limiting the ability to refine fuel.

Please show me where the Cornservative Republicans EVER reduced supply or limited the ability to refine. I thought ya gave up smokin' Mr. Tree. Me thinks ya been nippin' at Rolmops' or PW2s' stash, where can Murky get some? I wanna see the world through yer eyes fer a minitue or so. Is it psychedelic hootch????? Must be!!!!

<<My quote
Ill tell you, its because Conservative Republicans, are looking out for one of their biggest campaign contributors.>>

Hmmmmmmmmmm, major mind read here. Please prove it!

OK

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/ExxonMobil_politics.html

You can bet not much of that billion plus went to the Democrats.

Wrong Mr. Tree, If you get the stats I bet you find the Oil guys pay the Dems nearly as much as the Republicans, (I don't want to bet anything). Bill Gates learned what happens when ya don't pay the politicians in this Country. Oil companies have been around much longer and have learned to pay lawmakers. Were is the Quid Pro Quo, these fancy pie charts may look good when yer all smoked up but prove nothing. You make a specific claim that remains to be supported. It is easy to just make things up about an unpopular industry and throw a lot of unrelated garbage you dig up on the internet that hurts Bro Haut's eyes, but your claims are meritless.

Quote Omer

I sure don't follow you here. Is this logic Mr. Tree?

Well i,m not trying to confuse you, I’m blaming the conservative Republicans, the Bush Administration, in particular, for constricting the flow of oil, because they are not trying just a little bit, too get the refineries built, I know your following the party line, parroting that it is the environmentalist, anybody with a functioning g brain cell would know that when you control both houses of government you can get pretty well what you want, passed.


I don't want my brain cell to function in that way 'cause yer WRONG Mr TREE. Show me the legistation that the Dems who corntrol both houses since 11/2006 have done. BTW: they promised to do a lot of legislating in the first 100 days if yer memory still works after all that smoke.

Quote Omer

Show me where President Bush cut aid to the poor, uninsured, hungry and homeless. That is a false statement. Same kinda carp George Soro's moveon.org spreads.


OK

Published on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 by the Associated Press
Congress Seeks to Cut Food Aid for Poor
by Libby Quaid

<<Under orders to cut agriculture spending by $3 billion, Republicans in Congress propose reducing food programs for the poor by $574 million and conservation programs by $1 billion, The Associated Press has learned.>>
<< The $574 million cut in food stamps would come from restricting access to this benefit for certain families that receive other government assistance. The restriction would shut an estimated 300,000 people out of the program.>>
Copyright ? 2005 The Associated Press

Hmmmmmmm, Are you cornfused who Mr Bush is? (BTW: he is the President not Congress) Yer liberal MSM quote, (BTW: the hard left MSM always finds things to distort about Republicans throwin' momma off the train), may not stand up to an examination but I chose to ignore it, as I don't care to waste more time on this garbage. Believe the worst about Cornservatives n' Republicans n' of course: President Bush. After all, it is a free Country: Mr Tree.


Quote Omer


Democrats n' Libs are clearly responsible for raising risks for domestic investment in the oil business. That is a fact that you may choose to ignore if you wish. Respectfully, JR


Looks too me that your engaging in a bit of mind reading yourself JR, You haven’t showed me any thing that has changed my mind that the Bush Administration isn’t behind the present run up in fuel prices.

I can't possibly compete with Rolmops' n' PW2s' smoke Mr. Tree. You will believe those evil cornservative Republicans or Mr Bush does all things you judge as bad regardless of what I or anyone else says, n' yer precious Dems only help us poor stupid folk by makin' gas prices high so we can blame the Republicans n' feel real good. I guess we can agree to disagree Mr. Tree, but I do want to try that smoke sometime, must be powerfull stuff.

It is a masterful plan, as they can always say that they can’t do anything because of environmental reasons, but you can,t convince me an Administration that can go too war, on flawed evidence, Cant overcome some environmental regulations too get a refinery built.

Mr. Tree, Bro Haut wants the government to build refineries, (kinda like the ol' USSR), but that does not happen here in America. Respectfully JR

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Mr. Tree, Bro Haut wants the government to build refineries, (kinda like the ol' USSR), but that does not happen here in America. Respectfully JR

HMMMMMM......
I think the gubmint should drill their own Anwar oil & refine it n' help ease the burden & sufferin' of those poor over-worked oil companies........ ​

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Would you guys please stop talking about the NUMBER of refineries. The number is meaningless. It is the amount of PRODUCTION that is important.

If you think PRODUCTION has not increased over the last 20 years, you are living in a dreamland.

Fewer refineries making more gasoline. Read my post on the privous page where the refinery in Port Arthur is planing to nearly DOUBLE thier output.

Ken

Agreed Ken. Mr. Tree is full of Kool Aid n' projectin' all the Democrats' anti business deeds on the Republican's as Bro Haut had done quite effectively: previously. Most iboats posters are aware of the world, (except ZmOz), n' can see through the smoke unless they choose to inhale some of it themselves, (but now ya can see why 35% of the Democrats believe Mr Bush knew about 9/11 prior to the fact), they are just upside down n' through the lookin' glass. Is Liberalism a mental disorder?

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Mr. Tree, Bro Haut wants the government to build refineries, (kinda like the ol' USSR), but that does not happen here in America. Respectfully JR

HMMMMMM......
I think the gubmint should drill their own Anwar oil & refine it n' help ease the burden & sufferin' of those poor over-worked oil companies........ ​

Ya miss the good ol' USSR Bro Haut?

 

[bekosh]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Here is an excellent article on the subject of oil company profits.
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/05/16/no_such_thing_as_obscene_profits

No such thing as obscene profits
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, May 16, 2007

That?s certainly the case with the words ?obscene profits? --- regularly applied to the recent success of the big oil companies.
We?ve all heard the protestations by various poseurs and politicians, who want to investigate or restrain or regulate or apply punishing taxes to the ?obscene profits? of big oil.
The best response to these demagogues and lunatics would be a flat-out declaration: profits are never obscene.
Losses, on the other hand, can be obscene ? disastrous, damaging, deadly to employees, stockholders and, ultimately, the public.
Auto companies have suffered major losses --- obscene losses, if you will ? so does that make them more virtuous than oil companies?
Profit isn?t a shameful accident for corporations --- it?s their very reason for being. Big profits help them do more of what they did to make the profit in the first place. In the case of oil companies, that means more exploration, development, drilling, pumping, refining, transporting and marketing of the oil that fuels every aspect of our economy. Their profitability indicates that they?ve done an excellent job of doing what the public needs and wants, just as the losses by American auto makers suggest that they?ve done a terrible job at giving the public cars we want to buy.
Why should commentators and politicos abuse companies that do an outstanding job, and call for more support for those corporate citizens that do a lousy job? If we punish success and reward incompetence, that constitutes a sure-fire formula for more incompetence and less success.
Of course, some leftist might say that the profitability of oil companies is no more praiseworthy than the success of drug dealers, tobacco companies, the makers of fattening junk food, and other enterprises that feed damaging addictions.
But sane citizens ought to laugh at the ridiculous idea that the organizations that produce fossil fuel to feed our cars and our industrial base deserve derision as ?oil pushers.? Energy companies provide an essential service for the entire society, and for all its members who happen to enjoy the highest standard of living, with the greatest freedom of choice, in the whole history of humanity.
Of course, at the moment it?s frustrating to pay more at the pump, but oil profits aren?t the culprit, nor would punishment of the energy companies help to bring down the cost of fuel. When businesses pay a heavier burden in taxes, it doesn?t make prices go down; it generally forces prices to go up, whenever companies can pass on the cost to the consumer. The idea that ?windfall profit taxes? would cause oil companies to charge less flies against every rule of economic reality. If you add to the cost of production with new levels of governmental taxation or regulation it means that either prices go up or else profits go down ? meaning less incentive for production, less production and, inevitably, higher prices.
Moreover, any attempt to ?cap? the price of gas at the pump in the US would prove massively counterproductive. If oil companies receive less money for their products from American consumers than they do from consumers in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, isn?t it obvious that they?ll divert most of their production to those economies where they receive the best prices? In other words, if energy companies couldn?t sell their products in the US for market prices, they?d send them to hungry, surging markets in the rest of the world for top dollar, creating a US gas shortage that would prove far more damaging than even $3.50 a gallon. Despite the disruption of war and hurricanes and capricious government regulation, big oil companies have managed to insure the steady, uninterrupted supply of energy that fuels every aspect of our personal and business lives. The profits they?ve generated while answering these needs hardly count as ?obscene.? The only real obscenity involves the inane liberal conviction that companies or individuals engaged in legal, constructive endeavors should ever feel ashamed or apologetic about their success.

 

[oddjob]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Gee wheez!..if I had known Reagan was supposed to build refineriers, why I'd said something about that.....man!...I cant believe Ronny let us all down....wait!....oh yeah he had big oil man VP in the white house so theres really no excuse at all. "

lets talk about kriptonite instead shall we fellas?

 

[treedancer]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Quote Omer


: <<I guess ya missed my whole point:>>
No I didn?t miss your point at all, just as you are ignoring my point of the oil companies constricting the flow of oil, too keep the price jacked up. You state < Government does not build refineries nor do they have the authority to order private companies to build them> Right on the first point, wrong no the second one.

I stated that the Bush Administration has had six years of control of all three branches of government; with enough clout too start a bogus war in Iraq. Your saying that they don?t have clout enough, to talk the oil companies into building at least one new refinery? The President was/is a member of the fraternity. Give me a break JR, you keep saying you want some smoking dope that somebody has, believe me you would do a lot better getting out and do some hiking, .get a little more oxygen into that brain cell, do it a world of good.

Now let me get this right, I don?t want anyone taking this out of context here is your quotes< the Democrats were in the minority they effectively blocked lots of things.
You also are underestimating the hard left very anti business MSM and achedemia, most of whom hate oil companies, SUVs n' boats for the Proletariat, Do you worship the government Mr. Tree? You seem to give them far toooooooooo much credit for their role in business. >

Government does not build refineries nor do they have the authority to order private companies to build them. >Answer me this JR how is it that the dreaded MSM, achedemia, paraphrasing your words ,most of whom hate oil companies, suvs and boats. Explain to me how they can block oil refineries from being built, if the President wanted to build it would have been built. That some group can?t stop a war, in JR, s eyes they must have more power than the government. By the way President Bush, could if he desired, could create legislation ordering energy companies to reinvest high profits back into refineries.

< Do you worship the government Mr. Tree? You seem to give them far toooooooooo much credit for their role in business. >The Democratic minority President Bush?s agenda, in spite of the fact that they were the minority for six years, the MSM and achedemis?? Helped them, along with I guess ...the proletariat?

< Even though the Democrats corntrol both houses: zero significant legislation has passed into law since 11/2006>JR it takes a while too undo the harm that this band of fools have done, but there working on it, going to take more than more than six months thou. There rather busy getting some integrity back in government.



According to Ken, what we are discussing is moot anyway, it seems that the refineries are getting more efficient, and getting more bang for the buck.

This is a quote from Ken on the topic< The number is meaningless. It is the amount of PRODUCTION that is important. >Glad too see that they are getting their production up Ken, you think it will cover the closing of 24 United States refineries? Here it is the middle of May, and the refineries in the country are running at close too a hundred percent now. The oil companies have us just where they want us.Here comes the big squeeze.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Quote Omer


: <<I guess ya missed my whole point:>>
No I didn’t miss your point at all, just as you are ignoring my point of the oil companies constricting the flow of oil, too keep the price jacked up.

Mr. Tree, You tend to throw the kitchen sink at people when you debate, (I guess it is a strategy to wear them down). While it is possible that oil companies may juggle the maintenence of their refinery assetts to their advantage, (in a private business with the objective of profit it should shock someone like you with socialist instincts that a company would attempt to maximize those profits). That said, with all the political scrutiney, it would seem to be a very risky, (and for that reason: an illogical move), and the companies are making plenty of money at the current prices. It is impossible to disprove that type of allegation, so: think what you like. I plan to continue to ignore those type of unsupported allegations. Don't know if yer a Liberal: Mr Tree, but that type of snarky unfounded negative sling is the same thing nasty Libs do all the time.

You state < Government does not build refineries nor do they have the authority to order private companies to build them> Right on the first point, wrong no the second one.

I guess you realy think this is the USSR: Mr. Tree! If you think the government has the power to order a private entity to take their capital and build something with substantial risk against their will, where would that type of authority come from under our present system? Do you have even the faintest corncept of what this Great Republic is based on? PRIVATE PROPERTY. The Government can't order any entity to take privetly owned reasources and spend them in a certian way. The government can place regulations on the CONDUCT of said industry, but entry is VOLUNTARY. If you don't understand the basics it is very difficult, (and in fact: pointless), to discuss this matter any further.

I stated that the Bush Administration has had six years of control of all three branches of government; with enough clout too start a bogus war in Iraq.

Mr. Tree, please attempt to understand basic corncepts. The reason I have such contempt for the Democrats is the fact that President Bush could not have gone to war without Democratic support. THAT SUPPORT WAS OVERWHELMING. I don't let people skate by saying they are sorry for their vote for war, (the most important decision a public servant can make: IMHO). You lack a basic understanding of how the American government works, and the limitations imposed by the Cornsatutional system. This debate is pointless and just a waste of time if we can't agree on pedestrian corncepts that most Americans understand with a basic knowledge of the American system of government.

Your saying that they don’t have clout enough, to talk the oil companies into building at least one new refinery?

What a nutty statement.

The President was/is a member of the fraternity. Give me a break JR, you keep saying you want some smoking dope that somebody has, believe me you would do a lot better getting out and do some hiking, .get a little more oxygen into that brain cell, do it a world of good.

More oxygen would only cause greater consternation about yer lack of basis in yer arguments. Rolmops' or PW2s' smoke could potentially allow Murky to understand their, (and maybe your foolishness). The flaws in your positions are soooooo deep I'm not sure I could get yer points even if the ol' brain cell got all smoked up.

Now let me get this right, I don’t want anyone taking this out of context here is your quotes< the Democrats were in the minority they effectively blocked lots of things.
You also are underestimating the hard left very anti business MSM and achedemia, most of whom hate oil companies, SUVs n' boats for the Proletariat, Do you worship the government Mr. Tree? You seem to give them far toooooooooo much credit for their role in business. >

Government does not build refineries nor do they have the authority to order private companies to build them. >Answer me this JR how is it that the dreaded MSM, achedemia, paraphrasing your words ,most of whom hate oil companies, suvs and boats. Explain to me how they can block oil refineries from being built, if the President wanted to build it would have been built.

Mr. Tree this is again very basic. The President is a government leader not a God. This particular system has a hard left media and most universities are hard left as well. Politically: the system is closely matched, but the huge media and university advantage very much helps the Democrats. The Democrats have slight margins in both houses, as the Republicans had prior to 11/2006. The first President to actually win a majority of the votes since 1988 was Mr. Bush in 2004. The Democrats, and their buds the media generally act like they hate any American success in anything, (BLAME AMERICA FIRST). This poisonous environment makes it dufficult to make progress and easy to have gridlock. Some gridlock is very good: (the march to Socialism). Some is harmfull: rejection of the partial privitization of Social Security, drillin' in ANWAR, n' playin' politics with our soliders' lives. The oil companies are not stupid. They know the Democrats and media hate 'em. That keeps them very tentative about future investments, that contrary to your upside down views are private investment decisions in a very hostile environment.

That some group can’t stop a war, in JR, s eyes they must have more power than the government.

That "group" has effectively stopped the ability of America to prevail in any war, (or so it seems at this point unless Democrats wake up and send the charlatans packing). They have worked closely with America's enemies since John Kerry led the way to glory with the North Vietnamese almost forty years ago. Now our enemies know that all they have to do is bomb soft targets and the media and the Democrats will force our surrender by using the enemy's propaganda to bring us down. Mr. Tree, this is a Democracy, (of the people by the people and for the people). The government does not have anywhere near the power you think it does. Time for you to hit the books and learn about how your own Country works: Mr Tree.

By the way President Bush, could if he desired, could create legislation ordering energy companies to reinvest high profits back into refineries.

Hmmmmm, This is still the USA Mr. Tree. Show me where the founding fathers (in drafting their Cornstatution), allowed the government to mandate where someone must spend their own money. You are very cornfused, you may wish this were the Soviet Union but: it is not.

< Do you worship the government Mr. Tree? You seem to give them far toooooooooo much credit for their role in business. >The Democratic minority President Bush’s agenda, in spite of the fact that they were the minority for six years, the MSM and achedemis?? Helped them, along with I guess ...the proletariat?

Very cornfusing, and not worth a response.

< Even though the Democrats corntrol both houses: zero significant legislation has passed into law since 11/2006>JR it takes a while too undo the harm that this band of fools have done, but there working on it, going to take more than more than six months thou. There rather busy getting some integrity back in government.

Hmmmmmm

According to Ken, what we are discussing is moot anyway, it seems that the refineries are getting more efficient, and getting more bang for the buck.

This is a quote from Ken on the topic< The number is meaningless. It is the amount of PRODUCTION that is important. >Glad too see that they are getting their production up Ken, you think it will cover the closing of 24 United States refineries? Here it is the middle of May, and the refineries in the country are running at close too a hundred percent now. The oil companies have us just where they want us.Here comes the big squeeze.

OK Mr. Tree, I give up. I don't want to reply to all this foolishness you post on this particular thread anymore: as it does not help anyone. I started this tread to debunk myths, but you are doing yer best to cornfuse anyone who takes the time to read this junk. I think you are livin' in the wrong country unless yer just playin' with me, and I'm done playin'. JR

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Lot's of well articulated argument's in this thread,in the end it all boil's down to what is polictically correct and what is not. In the end the oil company's will be resticted wether by big government or by pressure from the public.

As we are posting in this forum GM,Ford and Chrysler are facing some very precarious situations's, there are airline's that are either in BK or facing the prospect. The housing ind is at it's worst in 20 year's and there's more to come, and if any one of these sector's fail.......... you wont have to worry about your portfolio it will be gone.

Two factor's are driving these trend's, high priced oil being driven up only by sheer speculation along with gas futures and high intrest rates trying to curb inflation. (oil induced inflation)

What i do find pecular, is for some reason people think it's a business god given or constitutional right to do business as they see fit, dunno of any right's the constitution give's to a business....

Just a opinion your milage may vary.......

 

[treedancer]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Just want to clear up some things Jr I don?t expect an answer

This quote from you,
< Mr. Tree, You tend to throw the kitchen sink at people when you debate, (I guess it is a strategy to wear them down). While it is possible that oil companies may juggle the maintenence of their refinery assetts to their advantage, (in a private business with the objective of profit it should shock someone like you with socialist instincts that a company would attempt to maximize those profits). That said, with all the political scrutiney, it would seem to be a very risky, (and for that reason: an illogical move), and the companies are making plenty of money at the current prices. It is impossible to disprove that type of allegation, so: think what you like. I plan to continue to ignore those type of unsupported allegations. Don't know if yer a Liberal: Mr Tree, but that type of snarky unfounded negative sling is the same thing nasty Libs do all the time.>
Followed this quote from me<No I didn?t miss your point at all, just as you are ignoring my point of the oil companies constricting the flow of oil, too keep the price jacked up.>

If you took that as being ?snarky?, whatever that is, when I suggested that you have been ignoring my point of view, so be it. But throwing the kitchen sink, that?s a bit of a stretch don?t you think?

I started this post as a sort of apology if I offended you, but after having a closer look at it, I have nothing too apologize about.

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Just want to clear up some things Jr I don’t expect an answer

This quote from you,
< Mr. Tree, You tend to throw the kitchen sink at people when you debate, (I guess it is a strategy to wear them down). While it is possible that oil companies may juggle the maintenence of their refinery assetts to their advantage, (in a private business with the objective of profit it should shock someone like you with socialist instincts that a company would attempt to maximize those profits). That said, with all the political scrutiney, it would seem to be a very risky, (and for that reason: an illogical move), and the companies are making plenty of money at the current prices. It is impossible to disprove that type of allegation, so: think what you like. I plan to continue to ignore those type of unsupported allegations. Don't know if yer a Liberal: Mr Tree, but that type of snarky unfounded negative sling is the same thing nasty Libs do all the time.>
Followed this quote from me<No I didn’t miss your point at all, just as you are ignoring my point of the oil companies constricting the flow of oil, too keep the price jacked up.>

Mr. Tree I was not offended at all, I hope I did not offend you either as that was not my intention. Generally you are fun for me to debate and you tend to provide lots of mostly germain data to (somewhat) support your point(s). You state: "my point of the oil companies constricting the flow". I consider that: an unfounded allegation of a serious crime Mr Tree. Anyone can take negative unfounded shots at an unpopular industry or person, (like President Bush) and get applause from the 'peanut gallery' of 'non thinkers' who just drink 'Kool aid' from their point of view n' pat themselves on the back for being so hip with their crowd. I refer to that conduct as 'snarky', which is common here in Seattle. That's like kicking someone when they are down: no matter how unpopular they maybe. I don't like that type of discourse, and don't plan to further respond to it as it detracts from my purpose of clarifying issues about the price of oil on this thread.

If you took that as being “snarky”, whatever that is, when I suggested that you have been ignoring my point of view, so be it. But throwing the kitchen sink, that’s a bit of a stretch don’t you think?

No, I don't. You make flippant statements that President Bush can wave his magic wand and force Oil companies to do whatever he wants. You should know that is not true, and if you don't know that: you need to study more. It does cornfuse people and I plan to reply to one after this post. That is a distraction that I think you intended to obviscate the issue, but I maybe wrong, (I can't read minds), maybe you think we have a King or Dictator instead of a President of a Republic where ya have to go through due process prior to 'taking' peoples' or corporations' property.

I started this post as a sort of apology if I offended you, but after having a closer look at it, I have nothing too apologize about.

I agree: no harm no foul. I would ask that you use your considerable skills to try to help people understand contemporary matters instead of cornfusing them by throwin' the "kitchen sink" at 'em or me or whoever. It is a friendly request that you can ignore: obviously. Respectfully JR

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Lot's of well articulated argument's in this thread,in the end it all boil's down to what is polictically correct and what is not. In the end the oil company's will be resticted wether by big government or by pressure from the public.

Hey TG, I would disagree with your point to a degree. This is not about 'political correctness' it is about economics and envy. The oil companies are already restricted but can't be forced to do what Mr. Tree claims they can be forced to do.

As we are posting in this forum GM,Ford and Chrysler are facing some very precarious situations's, there are airline's that are either in BK or facing the prospect. The housing ind is at it's worst in 20 year's and there's more to come, and if any one of these sector's fail.......... you wont have to worry about your portfolio it will be gone.

Nope. Markets always fluctuate, that is why people diversify.

Two factor's are driving these trend's, high priced oil being driven up only by sheer speculation along with gas futures and high intrest rates trying to curb inflation. (oil induced inflation)

No again. These prices are the result of strong demand. The North American component of demand is fairly steady with modest growth, with a seasonal spike for the traditional summertime drive. The incremental demand largely responsible for the present price situation is China and India, (and the US has a very weak currency). The fact that the Democratic party is trying to force humiliation of the US in the Middle East while simaltaneously restricting potential significant domestic supply, (ANWAR), is another very large factor in the energy market psychology.

What i do find pecular, is for some reason people think it's a business god given or constitutional right to do business as they see fit, dunno of any right's the constitution give's to a business....

Clearly the government can regulate industry. So anyone who thinks domestic companies can iqnore regulations is wrong. It is a whole different matter to force a person or a corporation to do something with their own property. Mr. Tree seems to think we have a king here in America or Joseph Stalin, who can just order a company to invest their own money. He is wrong and I know that could have been cornfusing to some. Respectfully JR

Just a opinion your milage may vary.......

Yup

 

[Tail_Gunner]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

No again. These prices are the result of strong demand. The North American component of demand is fairly steady with modest growth, with a seasonal spike for the traditional summertime drive. The incremental demand largely responsible for the present price situation is China and India, (and the US has a very weak currency). The fact that the Democratic party is trying to force humiliation of the US in the Middle East while simaltaneously restricting potential significant domestic supply, (ANWAR), is another very large factor in the energy market psychology.


I will give you this, you are one hard headed sob... ... Now when Chevron shut down one of there refinery's in april for a "routine maintance" would you call that prudent on there part, to shut down production just prior to a peak season that is ................... Ummm or dirving up future's.... There getting so damm confident, they dont even give a damm about PR anymore.

As we are posting in this forum GM,Ford and Chrysler are facing some very precarious situations's, there are airline's that are either in BK or facing the prospect. The housing ind is at it's worst in 20 year's and there's more to come, and if any one of these sector's fail.......... you wont have to worry about your portfolio it will be gone.

Nope. Markets always fluctuate, that is why people diversify


OMR do you have a firm grasp here or are you just having fun, failure from anyone one of those company's would put us into a depression........

 

[OldMercsRule]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

No again. These prices are the result of strong demand. The North American component of demand is fairly steady with modest growth, with a seasonal spike for the traditional summertime drive. The incremental demand largely responsible for the present price situation is China and India, (and the US has a very weak currency). The fact that the Democratic party is trying to force humiliation of the US in the Middle East while simaltaneously restricting potential significant domestic supply, (ANWAR), is another very large factor in the energy market psychology.


I will give you this, you are one hard headed sob... ... Now when Chevron shut down one of there refinery's in april for a "routine maintance" would you call that prudent on there part, to shut down production just prior to a peak season that is ...................

I don't know all the facts here TG, and I make a practice of not mind reading. Chevron is a very well run company, (I had a position in that stock in my book of business). I doubt they would risk illegally manipulating the markets, (they know how unfaverable opinion about them is, and the Democrats would hammer em' if they gave them any shot). Even though they are a very big company, they are not that big in their world wide industry to where their sole actions on one of their refineries would cause the movement in prices we have experienced. With the demand of India and China, and a very strong North American economy producing all the wind in their 'sails' why would they take a refinery off line just to spike prices when they could be operating and make the money on the spendy production of the refinery? You are over estimating their impact on a very large global market. Many, (as you) are very suspiciuous of the oil industry and attribute the worst possible motives to a normal maintenence activity. The Democrats would luv to hand cuff the major oils, and then they would be shocked when they moved offshore and we did not have any US based oil companies. That would be real good: eh TG? I may seem to be "hard headed" because I understand business. I don't like oil prices where they are either. But when the Democrats vote consistently to restrict domestic exploration, undermine our efforts to stabilize the Middle East, and after a strong economic kick from both liquidity and tax cuts, (that they also voted against and worked hard to stop), they get to take shots at our sucessfull oil companies and attempt to harness that anger to cause real harm: it makes me grumpy. I know what I know. I am trying to share with others here so they understand how to bring prices down: FIRE EVERY DEMOCRAT THAT VOTED AGAINST OFFSHORE DRILLING AND ANWAR DRILLING. If the world thought the US was seriously increasing supply: prices would decline, I assure you.

Ummm or dirving up future's.... There getting so damm confident, they dont even give a damm about PR anymore.

I don't think they are stupid TG, you aparently do. I guess we will just have to differ.

As we are posting in this forum GM,Ford and Chrysler are facing some very precarious situations's, there are airline's that are either in BK or facing the prospect. The housing ind is at it's worst in 20 year's and there's more to come, and if any one of these sector's fail.......... you wont have to worry about your portfolio it will be gone.

Nope. Markets always fluctuate, that is why people diversify


OMR do you have a firm grasp here or are you just having fun, failure from anyone one of those company's would put us into a depression........

TG I totally disagree here. This Country is much stronger then you think. I remember how amazed I was on 10/19/1987 that we could take that kind of hit. Or 9/11? Or even Vietnam in 1975? I think you are wrong about an automaker causing a deflationary depression. If Hillary, Obama, or John Edwards nationalizes our healthcare industry, that will lead to a deflationary depression. I can explain that one on the telle if you PM me. No single company going down would cause the problems you state, (even Walmart or Exxon which are much bigger then GM). This is a very strong and remarkable Country. We prosper in spite of the modern Liberal Democrats, (who are working closely with our enemies without current political cornsequences). That is very dangerous for our long term survival. Respectfully, (I guess we will have to disagree) JR

 

[Gabby]

Re: Bro Haut vs Oil part 2

Bro Haut needs to take an economics class and learn a wee bit about that 5 letter word libs hate.

Facts.