posted July 03, 2008 11:33 AM            

Well, I guess we're all pretty relieved we didn't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back in 2002. What a disaster that would have been.

The vote on ANWR was almost entirely along partisan lines, with all Republicans, except a handful of "moderates," voting for drilling, and all Democrats, except a handful of sane Democrats like Zell Miller, voting against drilling.

John McCain opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because he polled soccer moms and found out they were against drilling. They thought it sounded too much like going to the dentist. McCain wanted to ensure that he remained beloved by the two pillars of his base: "centrists" and New York Times reporters.

Even Sen. Chuck Hagel voted for drilling in ANWR. But John McCain, "our" candidate, voted against it.

I guess we're beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of "centrists." These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They're the ones who check the "not sure/no opinion" box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism.

You can't blame them: They're not being paid to know something about national issues. Those people we call "senators" and "representatives."

But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah ... Drill! Drill! Drill!

Consequently, McCain recently switched his position to go along with the centrists. See, that's the downside of having chosen all your political positions by polling centrists: The moment they acquire any knowledge, they'll realize you're an idiot.

It's always the same argument. Year after year, the "moderate Republicans" so respected at The New York Times harangue us to dump the Christians, the conservatives, the Swift Boat Veterans, the "right-wing extremists," the gun-and-God clingers and the fanatical pro-lifers from our party so we can repel every American who voted for Ronald Reagan in order to win the votes of people like Christine Todd Whitman.

Yes, by all means let's clear out all that deadwood and pave the way for a 49-state landslide! (For the Democrats.)

McCain followed the Times' strategy to a T. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." He called the Swift Boat Veterans "dishonest and dishonorable." He has denounced every Christian minister who tries to endorse him. Over the years, McCain has ostentatiously attacked every issue of importance to conservatives and embraced every crackpot liberal idea, including the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming."

Two weeks ago, McCain skipped the capitol prayer breakfast in California, instead appearing with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an environmental event in nearby Santa Barbara. Schwarzenegger's absence marked the first time a governor skipped what has come to be known as "the governor's prayer breakfast." I guess in the world of moderate Republicans an environmental event qualifies as a religious observance.

The keynote speaker at the breakfast, Hollywood producer Mark Joseph, quoted a recent cover article in Christianity Today by professors Daniel Taylor and Mark McCloskey that said:

"In premodern times, the courage of a leader often had to be physical. In the last 500 years it is more often moral. Moral courage is the ability to do what's right even when it is deeply unpopular, even dangerous. Courage is only found where there is the genuine possibility of loss -- loss of friends, reputation, status, power, possessions or, at the extremes, freedom or life."

No wonder McCain and Schwarzenegger skipped it.

Moderate Republicans like McCain have taken to heart liberals' admonition that Ronald Reagan's appeal had absolutely nothing to do with his conservative philosophy. Don't be like him! You'll lose the soccer moms! Liberals assure us that Reagan won landslide elections because Americans were mesmerized by his sunny disposition and corny jokes. If that's true, why isn't Al Roker president?

The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.

Not being ignorant "centrists," we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he's cute.

How many times do we have to run this experiment?

Taking the advice of Democrats, Republicans ran "moderates" for president in 1944, 1948, 1976, 1992 and 1996. All lost. Republicans also ran a "moderate" for president in 1988, but that was unwittingly -- both to us and, fortunately, to the voters. In other words, in the language of the market, the best tip on "moderate Republicans" is: SELL!

But now, apparently, we have to run the experiment again. This year, moderate Republicans have hit the jackpot. John McCain is the Platonic ideal of a "moderate Republican."

posted July 03, 2008 01:04 PM            

So, what do you think the democrat party is going to do with that information?

posted July 03, 2008 01:35 PM            

This is an explosive issue and the more Americans who find out the US is sitting on top of the largest cache of energy resources of any nation on earth and that democrats refuse to let us explore, drill, mine and use existing technology to bring them to market, the more outrage there's going to be.

This is Harry Reids take on coal and oil. http://youtube.com/watch?v=SqR0Ui0g3wI

posted July 09, 2008 07:15 PM            

But, there's no reason to be deceived. These lying demoscats don't really intend to let new coastal areas out to lease...now. If you notice the qualifier thrown into the mix, you will realize the chair warming moronic do nothings want oil companies to spend billions drilling a series of dry wells in existing leased areas BEFORE they open up new areas for lease. As if the oil companies don't already know there's no oil to be recovered from those existing leases.

Top Democrat may back new offshore drilling: report
Wed Jul 9, 2008 9:43am

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A top U.S. Democratic senator said in a newspaper interview published Wednesday that he would consider supporting opening up new areas for offshore oil and gas drilling.

"I'm open to drilling and responsible production," Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin told The Wall Street Journal, adding that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could also support the move.

posted July 10, 2008 10:38 AM            

In a remarkably short time the public has changed from supporters of environmentalism to advocates of drilling for oil and natural gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and/or in the ocean. For the first time since the 1970s liberals in both parties have found themselves responding to significant demands for drilling. Their responses are meant to confuse the electorate in order to turn public opinion back to their position on the environment.

Toward that end liberals have come up with two mantras which we hear on every talk show, in every press conference and in every speech addressing the high cost of gasoline. The first mantra is that it will take at least 10, maybe 30 years before we see a drop of oil coming from the ground at the aforementioned sites.***A lie** The second mantra is that greedy oil companies already have 86 million acres of leases provided by the Federal Government. They only want more leases to satisfy their greed.***Another lie***

On the first point, correspondent Ken Wood pointed out that Larry Kudlow recently featured on his television show James T. Hackett, President and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Company. Whereas some liberals are saying it could take 30 years for the oil to be available, Hackett said it would take two or three years, depending upon where the oil was drilled. Indeed, I saw one oil exploration expert on Fox News Channel who said that if the right equipment were available it would take only one year to get the first oil since the oil companies know exactly where the oil is located in the outer Continental Shelf. One oil shale expert told proponents of drilling in the House of Representatives that the first 800 million barrels of oil from shale could be available in two or three years. The remaining estimated two trillion barrels of oil from shale would take longer to have ready because they would be more difficult to extricate. But the initial 800 million barrels would help the U.S. economy.

On the second point, I received two different answers. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who used to be in the oil business, said the reason oil companies are not drilling on the 86 million acres is that there is no substantial oil available on those lands to make drilling economically viable. He said the government only permits exploration on those leased lands, so oil companies have explored them and found that they would produce little. The second answer came from Hackett. He said the Federal Government is, in effect, guilty of fraud. They accept the lease money and the annual rents but have refused to grant permission to drill there. He implied that some oil had been found that would be worthwhile to extract but since they cannot drill the consumer sees no benefits. Either way, to accuse oil companies of greed is an unfounded assertion.

Neither liberal argument can be sustained if pro-drilling forces launch a campaign to educate the public. Thus far they have done an inadequate job explaining the real answers to these leftist fallacies. I am told by people from around the country who respond to my commentaries that Americans do not want to talk about anything other than the high cost of gasoline. Not Iraq. Not healthcare. Not even change, whatever that means. The only topic these days is $4 to $5-per-gallon gasoline.

That being the case, pro-drilling Members of the House and Senate should issue special orders on the chamber floors. They would be seen on prime time television and possibly would be picked up by the mainstream networks. They should hold daily press conferences. They should appear on national talk shows and talk radio every day. Each Senator should appear on local talk radio in his state and each House Member should do the same with talk radio in his district. They should arrange for editorial board meetings with national and local newspapers. They should organize volunteers to go door-to-door to ensure that everyone knows each side of the issue and which position would be best for the American economy and American consumers.

Given the opinion of the electorate and her own contrary ideological position, it is no wonder Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has pulled measures lifting the ban on drilling from the House calendar. My understanding is that the Democratic Majority Whip’s count demonstrated that the pro-drilling forces had enough votes to lift the ban. That would be a terrible embarrassment to the anti-drilling forces and the environmentalists.

Since the House and Senate Leadership do not want to help Americans, pro-drilling Representatives and Senators should initiate discharge petitions. Maybe, just maybe, a majority of legislators would be willing to ignore the Majority Leadership. If they can force a vote and pass pro-drilling legislation, President George W. Bush will sign it into law. If the anti-drilling forces triumph in the 2008 elections, which seems likely, it may be too late; for another generation we will be forced to use less oil and gas because of the high cost. We will be voting to make ourselves miserable and poorer unless we act now.

posted July 11, 2008 03:54 AM            

quote:

---

Either way, to accuse oil companies of greed is an unfounded assertion.

---

You'll forgive me if I don't accept Republican-oil-man's assertion that the most profitable company in the history of capitalism isn't greedy. Get out Exxon's top executives payroll record, and we can have a conversation.

posted July 11, 2008 02:39 PM            

acoustic, if I were the manager of your team, I'd be forced to sit your rear on the bench. You do have a history of striking out every time you come to the plate. I hereby dub you "King of Whiff".

Perhaps you just need your prescription changed acoustic.

The guy who said this: "Either way, to accuse oil companies of greed is an unfounded assertion" is not connected in any way to Exxon Mobile. His name is James T. Hackett and he's President and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Company. How do you know Hackett is a Republican?

However, overlooking your obvious inability to read with comprehension, let's discuss profits. Not from the perspective of the mavens of the socialist bubble world where all profits are evil and represent the oppression of the working class by greedy capitalists but rather from a real world perspective where profits reflect a job well done and reward for supplying something of value to the world and consumers at large.

In that world...the real world, 8 cents a gallon profit on a product selling for $4 represents a profit of only 2%. On the other hand, the US government share of every gallon of gas sold in the United States is 18.3 cents, a profit to the federal government of 4.5% for which they do nothing but sit on their bloviating, dead, chair warming as$es.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who the greedy bast@rds and biatches really are. The question acoustic is...why are you unable to connect the dots?

You inability to connect the dots is compounded when it's realized that not only is the US government making more than 2 times what oil companies make off the sale of a gallon of gas but the same government bloviating, finger pointers are also charging oil companies rent on leased parcels after having charged the same oil companies billions for the leases upon which these morons refuse to let oil companies drill for and produce oil for gasoline.

Now, as to your contention that salaries are an indicator of greed, let's discuss the relative worth of Chief Operating Officers.

Call this: The Tale of Two Companies.

First company is the New York Times Company, run by an out and out Socialist ideologue, Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger. A position to which he was appointed...NOT ELECTED...by his family after the death of his father. Of the number of outstanding shares of the New York Times Company, 93.2% are floated in the public equity markets. Float, meaning shares owned by individuals and institutions and not owned by the company itself. Of that 93.2% of floating shares 83% are held by institutional investors...mutual funds, pension funds ect. New York Times Company pays a dividend of 92 cents per share...and that dividend payment is in jeopardy of not being paid at all.

Second company is Exxon Mobil run by Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ELECTED by shareholders of Exxon Mobil. Of the shares outstanding of Exxon Mobile, 99% are floating shares owned by individuals and institutions and not owned by Exxon Mobile, the company. Of those floating shares, 52% are owned by institutional investors...mutual funds, pension funds, ect. Exxon Mobile pays a dividend of $1.40 on every share of Exxon Mobil stock outstanding to shareholders.

Now, let's discuss performance of these 2 Chief Operating Officers and how they have or have not made money for their shareholders/investors...which is the sole reason investors risk their capital in the first place.

Money is made in 2 basic ways in the equity (stock) markets by investors. First and primary way is by a rise in the share price of the stock. A rise of $30 in the share price of a stock above what was paid is a $30 profit to the investor. Secondary money is made by payment of a dividend from the profits of the company operations.

In 2002, NYT...New York Times Company hit a high of $53 per share. NYT has fallen to $14 per share and a Lehman Bros analyst has revised the target price of NYT to fall to $8 per share. There are 143,780,000 shares outstanding of NYT class A stock.

Using the higher price..today's price of $14 per share, the Socialist, Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger has lost $39 per share for NYT investors...which include the retirement funds of investors who invested in Mutual Funds and Pension Funds which bought NYT stock.

That $39 per share fall in the stock price of NYT represents a loss of FIVE BILLION, SIX HUNDRED SEVEN MILLION, FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND DOLLARS...$5,607,420,000 for NYT investors.

By comparison:

In 2002, Exxon Mobile stock was selling for $30 per share. There are 5,331,550,000 shares of Exxon Mobil stock outstanding. Exxon Mobil..XOM is selling for $85 per share today. That's a gain of $55 per share in Exxon Mobil stock since 2002.

That's a gain of TWO HUNDRED NINTY THREE BILLION, TWO HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE MILLION, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS...$293,235,250,000 for Exxon Mobil investors.

So, is Rex W. Tillerson making $100 million a year? Give him a raise to $200 million. Is he making $200 million? Give him a raise to $300 million...because he's proved he's worth every penny.

On the other hand, what's the Socialist Arthur (Pinch) Sulzberger, who lost NYT's investors more than $5 billion dollars since 2002 worth?

Nothing and if NYT investors could have, they would have booted his Socialist ass out of the NY Times building long ago. However, his family controls the Class B voting stock and investors can't give him the sack. Smartest thing for the Sulzberger family to do would be to unappoint Pinch and install a capitalist as publisher and Chief Operating Officer. Someone who knows newspapers are supposed to tell the truth, someone who would go through the staff reporters and opinion writers and clean house, giving the boot to the lying leftists who infest the NY Times.

posted July 11, 2008 03:18 PM            

quote:

---

8 cents a gallon profit on a product selling for $4 represents a profit of only 2%.

---

This figure has not been supported by ANY documentation since we've started talking about oil. Therefore, it will continue to be a misrepresentation of the actual profit made. Documentation has been provided to suggest that the actual figure is around 8%, and further we've also looked at documentation that Exxon regularly adjusts it's price according to what the gas stations sell it for. Further, we KNOW that profit is what's left over after all the bills have been paid, and since Big Oil has discretion over how much money it wants to spend on overhead it is very easy to manipulate what is deemed as profit. If they feel that it would be a publicity nightmare to show too much profit, they have a number of things that they can throw money at in order to keep the public believing it's not making an unreasonable amount of profit. You take their word for it hook, line, and sinker; and by doing so prove that you don't have the critical mind you believe yourself to have.

_______________________

As to your tale of two companies, there is nothing in your comparison of management that speaks to whether or not they're greedy. Yes, Tillerson has made money. Who wouldn't make money for their investors when they're selling the most valuable commodity in the world? The New York Times has nothing to do with a discussion on whether Big Oil is greedy.

posted July 11, 2008 09:08 PM            

What was shown here is that oil companies make an overall profit of about 8% for all oil company operations...which includes the refining and sale of distillates to chemical companies for manufacture of plastics, fertilizer, nylon fiber and a multitude of other products..other than gasoline.

Gasoline is the least profitable, percentage wise of all the manufactured products oil companies make.

I'm not going to quibble with you over a penny or 2 of per gallon profit.

This is an article by Dr. Mark J. Perry M.A, PhD, an economist and professor at University of Michigan. He says 10 cents a gallon profit and I'm not going to argue with him. You may if you are that foolish.

That makes the profit percent on gasoline at $4 per gallon 2.5% instead of 2%.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Gasoline Taxes vs. Profits

After crude oil costs, gasoline taxes are the second largest contributor to the price paid at the pump. Together Federal and State excise taxes on fuel account for an average cost of approximately 62 cents per gallon. That's a combined tax of about 20% per gallon of gas.

The federal tax per gallon is 18.4 cents per gallon, see the history of federal gasoline taxes here, and the state tax per gallon varies by state, see the complete list of state gasoline taxes here.

Average profit per gallon of gas for oil companies: 10 cents according to the EIA.

Quote: "The government collects far more in taxes on every gallon of gasoline than the oil companies collect in profits. If oil company profits are "obscene," as some politicians claim, are the government's taxes PG-13?"
~Thomas Sowell
http://bp1.blogger.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/RlRQh64kL6I/AAAAAAAABac/GryUW-3UOco/s400/oiltax.bmp

You don't get to decide what's a misrepresentation acoustic. That's determined by facts; facts, those pesky little details which get in the way of leftist bullshiit.

You're the one who brought oil company executives salaries into the converstation acoustic...remember? Here acoustic, let me refresh your poor memory.

"Get out Exxon's top executives payroll record, and we can have a conversation."...acoustic

No doubt you wished to show the greed of oil execs by pointing to their salaries. But, when a CEO makes almost $300,000,000,000 for investor shareholders in about 6 years, he's worth whatever he's being paid...and more.

On the other hand, the grubby little socialist Pinch Sulzberger lost more than $5,000,000,000 for NY Times investors over the very same period of time with the company motto..."All the leftist lies that are fit to print".

posted July 12, 2008 04:39 PM            

quote:

---

No documentation has been presented here to show oil companies make 8% profit on sales of gasoline.

---

Was referenced here: http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/004239.html

Your blogger, Dr. Perry, did provide a link for that source. It wasn't the EIA, though. It linked to Conoco Phillips. The graph isn't representative of the EIA's graphs and charts either. I've been searching EIA for some time, and I've not found where the EIA says anything about the actual profit oil companies are making.

quote:

---

You don't get to decide what's a misrepresentation acoustic. That's determined by facts; facts, those pesky little details which get in the way of leftist bullshiit.

---

I do get to decide whether information presented is supported or not. When you post something that you can't verify, the assumption is that it's unsupported until such a time as you decide to get off your lazy ass and find some substance. Actual substance, not bloggers who are as inept as you are at finding the information they're looking for.

quote:

---

No doubt you wished to show the greed of oil execs by pointing to their salaries. But, when a CEO makes almost $300,000,000,000 for investor shareholders in about 6 years, he's worth whatever he's being paid...and more.

---

Yes, I did say let's get out their payroll. I reject, however, your contention that he's worth whatever he makes simply because he turns a profit. If he turned a profit while also increasing oil supply, and lowering prices then we could safely say that, no, he's not greedy. That's not the case, though, is it?

quote:

---

On the other hand, the grubby little socialist Pinch Sulzberger lost more than $5,000,000,000 for NY Times investors over the very same period of time with the company motto..."All the leftist lies that are fit to print".

---

posted July 14, 2008 03:10 PM            

You might want to go look up the meaning of "Consolidated".

When Exxon, Shell and most other corporations report their earnings...to government, to the SEC or publish their annual reports to shareholders....they issue a bottom line "Consolidated" earnings report.

What you don't seem able to understand is that Exxon Mobil has different divisions dealing with different product lines. Exxon Mobil even has joint ventures with other oil companies, LLCs and perhaps even governments.

Exxon Mobile does business in more than 150 nations. They sell gasoline to dealers, sell gasoline directly through their own stations, sell natural gas to distributors and sell a broad line of petrochemicals to chemical companies and other manufacturers. All these profit centers are consolidated in Exxon Mobil's bottom line profit of about 8% net profit on sales.

If anyone is saying Exxon Mobil...or any other US oil company is making 8% profit on sale of gasoline, it's you and only you.

Attempting to lump gasoline in with sale of oil and declaring Exxon makes 8% off the sale of gasoline isn't going to cut the mustard...nor does the chart you posted show that. Included with gasoline in that chart is the sale of oil...to other parties, oil lubricants and oil for production of fertilizer and a host of other consumer products. Also included in that chart under oil and gasoline are transportation profits. Exxon Mobil doesn't cart those products around for free because every division of Exxon Mobil is expected to make a profit off whatever they do...except for R&D and exploration.

These are some of the divisions and LLCs of Exxon Mobil.

Aera Energy LLC
Esso Petroleum Company Limited
ExxonMobil Chemical Company
Infineum International Limited
ExxonMobil International Limited
ExxonMobil Pipeline Company

Each division of Exxon Mobil is responsible for producing a profit which goes on Exxon Mobil's "Consolidated" earings reports.

A 10 year old would readily get all this acoustic. Why can't you?

posted July 14, 2008 05:34 PM            

I do know how diversified Exxon is across a range of related industries.

I would also agree with you that my chart doesn't say Big Oil makes 8% per gallon of gas. The chart I posted doesn't say that at all.

However, we are still here without any verification whatsoever that your 8 - 10 cent per gallon figure is accurate. This is the salient point. This is what I will continue to see as a fallacy until you come up with something credible that says otherwise.

posted July 14, 2008 05:53 PM            

Exxon Mobil is listed in as an "international integrated energy company".

The fact Exxon Mobil makes different percentages of profit off different product lines continues to evade you. This is no different than Coke or Pepsico or Best Foods or any other diversified company with different divisions which all contribute to their bottom line profit...or loss.

The bloviating leftist moron chairwarmers in Congress failed in their attempt to demonize US oil companies and got their sorry as$es kicked royally in the recent hearings. Fully 70% of Americans want the Congress and President to open up ANWAR and the US coastlines for oil exploration, drilling and oil production. Americans get it. The leftist morons in Congress don't get it. The President gets it and today recinded the Executive Order forbidding drilling off US coasts.

Yes, I know the idiotic moron Harry Reid wants oil companies to drill where they already have leases...where oil companies have already concluded there isn't sufficient oil to recover.

I also know the Botox Queen Nancy Pee-losi says the offshore drilling argument is a hoax but then Pee-losi couldn't find her ass with both hands on most any subject.

Between these 2, Reid and Pee-losi, they've driven the demoscat job approval numbers down to 9%.

posted July 14, 2008 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

The fact Exxon Mobil makes different percentages of profit off different product lines continues to evade you.

---

As much as you'd like it to, that fact doesn't remotely escape me, and I likely know about where their oil revenue is coming from than you do, but then... I do research.

quote:

---

Yes, I know the idiotic moron Harry Reid wants oil companies to drill where they already have leases...where oil companies have already concluded there isn't sufficient oil to recover.

---

Yeah, that's a ***** isn't it? "Where oil companies have already concluded there isn't sufficient oil to recover." Nice line, but if that were true then why would oil companies keep those leases up? Big Oil actually does produce on 20% of the land they lease, and they could produce more on the over 68 million acres that they currently lease.

quote:

---

About 570 million acres of federal land in the continental U.S. and Alaska are open for oil and gas leasing -- an area of land about the size of all 12 states included in this investigation: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. http://www.ewg.org/oil_and_gas/part2.php

---

posted July 16, 2008 12:09 PM            

Gee, I dunno acoustic. Perhaps the 68 million acres you question is WHERE THE OIL IS.

As a researcher...and analyst acoustic, you're an abject failure. You say you know more about the subject than I do but you persist in claiming Exxon Mobil makes a uniform profit percentage across all their product lines and divisions. Your statements can't be taken any other way...since you continue to insist that Exxon Mobil makes 8% profit on their sales of gasoline in the United States...which just happens to be the profit percent Exxon Mobil claims on their Consolidated operating reports.

On a different subject...oil prices, I told you the day Congress lets permits to drill offshore..right now, oil companies own the drilling rights...BUT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES WON'T LET THEM DRILL AND PRODUCE OIL ON THE ALL THE ACREAGE THEY LEASED....the day Congress gets off their as$es and out of the way of energy production in the United States...is the day oil prices will fall like a rock.

Bush recinded the Executive Order moratorium on offshore drilling and said..drill, drill, drill. The next day oil futures prices fell $9 per barrel...and no new leases were even let, no permits for nuclear power plants were approved..just Bush saying drill and lifting the prohibition.

You, of course and as usual, resisted that logic which says the perception of foreign producers and oil speculators is that they have America over the barrel because the leftist demoscat morons in Congress are not going to let America become self sufficient in energy. I told you perceptions drive prices in stock markets and commodity markets. You disagreed.

"Bush says drill...and oil contracts for future delivery of crude oil plummets $9 per barrel"

Update, oil prices fell another $5 in today's trading...based on Bush saying Drill, Drill, Drill.

Of course, you wouldn't know Bush had anything to do with it...according to the morons at Associated Press. They wrote the story but never so much as mentioned Bush...or the rising American sentiment that America should open up coastal areas for drilling and also ANWAR.

posted July 16, 2008 04:00 PM            

quote:

---

Perhaps the 68 million acres you question is WHERE THE OIL IS.

---

"where oil companies have already concluded there isn't sufficient oil to recover." - Jwhop

So. If there is indeed oil out there, why is it unreasonable that some in Congress would want them to go ahead and produce from what they've already got?

quote:

---

but you persist in claiming Exxon Mobil makes a uniform profit percentage across all their product lines and divisions.

---

No...I don't. Nor do I know exactly how much they're making per gallon. If I did, I would have posted it.

I did just (right now) find EIA's word on the subject, though.
Primer On Gas Prices
Suppliers like Exxon are capable of making money in all three non-tax-related segments of the total breakdown. They make money based on the cost of crude, they make money refining, and they make money in distribution and marketing. There is a graphic that shows how these variables can change between years. I have a difficult time believing that these oil companies can only squeeze 8 - 10 cents a gallon of profit out of the three separate entities they collect money on in this chain, especially with crude prices soaring like they are.

quote:

---

I told you perceptions drive prices in stock markets and commodity markets. You disagreed.

---

I don't recall disagreeing with such a statement. Many things including consumer confidence are driven by perception.

quote:

---

AP attributes the fall in oil prices to rising stocks...but there has never been a shortage of crude oil...never, ever. There has been a blockage in the moronic demoscat controlled Congress that America shouldn't become energy independent.

---

Other entities (WSJ, Guardian) suggest that there's been an unexpected leap in crude supplies, and that is why oil is down.

posted July 16, 2008 06:09 PM            

Get this acoustic, certainly, I hope you will be able to get it right this time.

There is no shortage of oil in the world, none whatsoever.

There is a shortage of domestically produced crude which means we must purchase about 60% from foreign suppliers....and they get to charge us whatever the traffic will bear. Since the morons in the demoscat party won't let oil companies drill and produce the most abundant supply of energy resources in the entire world, it means the rest of the world can charge us what ever the hell they want to charge and we must pay. We must pay because our economy is energy driven.

Why should any company produce more domestic crude when it can't be refined. domoscats have also blocked the building of any new refineries for the last 30+ years. That needs to change quickly.

However, I told you foreign oil producers and holders of long oil contracts would wet themselves if it looked like we were getting serious about increasing our own domestic oil supplies.

That's happened. Now, it remains to be seen what the bloviating chair warming demoscats will do. If they don't follow through and also lift the congressional prohibition on offshore drilling, prices will soar right back up...and beyond.

The demoscat morons are deliberately attempting to shut America down. We are sending about three quarters of a trillion US dollars out of the country every year to pay for foreign produced oil.

posted July 16, 2008 06:57 PM            

quote:

---

That conversation centered around the leftist news media and brain dead leftist congressional members talking the economy down. I also distinctly recall you disagreeing with me about perceptions driving the economy and markets.

---

Oh yes, I remember that one. The only thing is, the data came before the talk, so your assertion that their talking down the economy was causing the economy was BS.

quote:

---

Since the morons in the demoscat party won't let oil companies drill and produce the most abundant supply of energy resources in the entire world, it means the rest of the world can charge us what ever the hell they want to charge and we must pay.

---

Only that's patently untrue, and when Democrats tried to push the issue and have oil companies drill on the land they already have leased, Republicans blocked it.

quote:

---

Why should any company produce more domestic crude when it can't be refined. domoscats have also blocked the building of any new refineries for the last 30+ years. That needs to change quickly.

---

Wrong again. Refining capacity has been expanded, and Democrats back further expansion.

"Since 1985, refining capacity has increased by 20 percent even though we have 57 fewer refineries." - American Petroleum Institute

"The oil companies could avoid the tax by using their "windfall" to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions, they [Democrats] said." Link

Both of these pieces of information have been previously posted.

quote:

---

However, I told you foreign oil producers and holders of long oil contracts would wet themselves if it looked like we were getting serious about increasing our own domestic oil supplies.

That's happened.

---

posted July 17, 2008 12:31 PM            

quote:

---

Oh yes, I remember that one. The only thing is, the data came before the talk, so your assertion that their talking down the economy was causing the economy was BS. ...acoustic

---

Oh NOT acoustic, the data did not come before the talk. Exactly ass backward on that statement. The demwits and their willing accomplices in the demwitted leftist media have been talking about the poor economy, the slow economy, the under performing economy for more than 5 years and even threw in comments about an economic depression in America. All this while the economy was booming. At a time when unemployment was down, inflation was down and was better than the average of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Further, because of the Bush tax cuts, the revenues...taxes paid into federal government coffers were 15-18% higher than they had been under the leftist hero...Kommander Korrutption.

quote:

---

Only that's patently untrue, and when Democrats tried to push the issue and have oil companies drill on the land they already have leased, Republicans blocked it....acoustic

---

Of course Republicans blocked the demwitted bonehead legislation. Why would oil companies drill where there isn't sufficient oil to bring to market. A demwitted ploy to avoid bringing more US oil to market. But acoustic, these demwits are going to lift the ban on offshore drilling or they're going to suffer the consequences in November. Far too many people now know the US has more energy resources than most of the rest of the world combined. They also know demwits in Congress are blocking it's production and use. Something else far too many Americans know is that Cuba is negotiating with communist China to drill off the coast of Florida. Get this, these demwits have put a drilling exclusion which extends out to 200 miles off coastal America. In the meantime Cuba is letting contracts to drill about 60 miles off the coast of Florida. Of course, the demwit's communist friends in communist China are far more capable of protecting the sensitive ecology...than say...American oil companies.

quote:

---

Wrong again. Refining capacity has been expanded, and Democrats back further expansion.

"Since 1985, refining capacity has increased by 20 percent even though we have 57 fewer refineries." - American Petroleum Institute...acoustic

---

Demwits have blocked the building of any new refineries. NONE have been built in more than 30 years. Our refining capacity is running at more than 95% of capacity. When one goes down, even for a few days, it's a disaster and consumers pay the price. Demwits are lying through their teeth about wanting to expand refining capacity.

quote:

---

Don't fool yourself. That hasn't remotely happened. Foreign producers won't be selling any less as a result of Bush talking....acoustic

---

posted July 17, 2008 02:54 PM            

quote:

---

Why would oil companies drill where there isn't sufficient oil to bring to market.

---

Why would they hold on to land that has insufficient oil? Why should they be allowed to?

quote:

---

NONE have been built in more than 30 years.

---

But many have been expanded.

quote:

---

Our refining capacity is running at more than 95% of capacity.

---

quote:

---

Demwits are lying through their teeth about wanting to expand refining capacity.

---

Giving the oil companies means of avoiding a windfall profits tax by expanding refinery capacity hardly sounds like Democrats are against it.

quote:

---

Oil markets respond by falling for 3 straight days...about $13 per barrel so far.

---

Due to more supply, and not due to Bush talking.

quote:

---

In the meantime demwits say no drilling, higher gas prices are the answer to conservation...and America says...up yours to the demwits...as they should.

---

posted July 17, 2008 04:39 PM            

No cause and effect there...huh uhhhh

NEW YORK (AP) - Wall Street surged Thursday, extending its rally into a second session as tumbling energy prices bolstered an already upbeat mood that followed stronger-than-expected quarterly reports from big names like JPMorgan Chase and United Technologies. The Dow Jones industrial average rose nearly 150 points.
Investors got a double dose of good news after weeks of angst about the economy. Light, sweet crude fell $5.31 to settle at $129.29 a barrel after dropping more than $10 in the previous two sessions.

Drill, Drill, Drill

Nice chart, however those capacity numbers are theoretical capacity numbers...ALL refineries running at 100% capacity.

However ALL refineries don't run at 100% capacity. Some are shut down for maintenance and some for breakdowns/repairs.

So, saying refineries are only running at 89% capacity is misleading...indicating they could be turning out more product...if they really wanted to do so.

This is a report showing breakdowns and scheduled maintenance. It shows the refiner, it's capacity, what happened and how long it was out of service or scheduled to be out of service. The history of refining in the US is that refineries run at about 95% of capacity and that's way too tight.

Another problem your chart doesn't speak to is the constant changover at this time of year to different blends of fuel. Theorethical capacity assumes one grade of gas is being produced and the refinery running at 100% capacity to produce that blend. In the real world, it's much, much different.

North American Refinery Shutdowns, Maintenance 2008-09 (Table Update)
2008-05-06 15:38 (New York)

By Robert Tuttle

May 6, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- The following is a table of scheduled and unplanned refinery shutdowns in North America. The list only
includes shutdowns that could be confirmed.
http://www.coking.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=1979

You must be one of the non thinkers who still believe corporations...including oil companies wind up paying taxes. Most people in the free world understand corporations pass along their tax load to comsumers in the form of higher prices, just like higher prices for the crude oil companies refine. So, when all you leftists stand up and cheer when the demwits in congress talk about taxing businesses and corporations, you're really cheering for a tax on yourselves.

The demwits need to get the hell out of the way of energy exploration, drilling for energy, mining for energy resources, refining product, pipelines and trucking for delivery of energy and go back to watching Days of Our Lives on their office televisions. That's about all they're qualified for.

posted July 17, 2008 05:50 PM            

quote:

---

Bush says...Drill, Drill, Drill and oil prices fall from $147 per barrel to close under $129 per barrel today.
No cause and effect there...huh uhhhh

---

Oil Falls More Than $5 as Natural Gas Tumbles, Economy Slows

By Mark Shenk

July 17 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell more than $5 a barrel, dropping below $130 for the first time in six weeks, as natural gas futures tumbled and global economic growth slows.

Natural gas dropped more than 7 percent after a government report showed that U.S. supplies rose a greater-than-forecast 104 billion cubic feet last week. Some users can switch between oil- based fuels and gas depending on cost. Oil also fell because of reports showing that the U.S. and Chinese economies are slowing.

``The rout in natural gas is pulling oil lower,'' said Addison Armstrong, director of market research at TFS Energy LLS in Stamford, Connecticut. ``The sheer weight of the decline is bound to impact all the energy markets. A consensus was already forming that prices were too high.''

Crude oil for August delivery fell $5.31, or 4 percent, to settle at $129.29 a barrel at 2:55 p.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest close since June 5. Futures are up 75 percent from a year ago.

Futures have dropped almost $18 from last week's record of $147.27 a barrel on signs that consumption in the U.S. is falling. Oil is down 11 percent since July 14, the biggest three- day drop since December 2004.

Prices closed below the 50-day moving average for the first time since Feb. 8, an indication that the bull market may be coming to an end. Traders use moving averages of different periods in conjunction with other statistical patterns for buying and selling decisions.

Oil also fell because August options expired at the close of Nymex trading today. August $130 puts, which represent the right to sell oil at that price, were the most actively traded options contract on the Nymex today.

Natural Gas

Natural gas for August delivery declined 86.1 cents, or 7.6 percent, to settle at $10.537 per million British thermal units in New York, the lowest close since April 17.

U.S. natural gas inventories were forecast to increase by 88 billion cubic feet in the week ended July 11, according to the median of responses from 22 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News.

Manufacturing in the Philadelphia region shrank in July for an eighth-straight month as orders and employment sank. The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's general economic index improved to minus 16.3 from minus 17.1 in June, the bank said today. Negative readings signal a decline. The measure averaged 5.1 last year.

The housing recession, now in its third year, has depressed demand for building equipment and materials and hurt consumer spending.

Slowing Growth

China's economic expansion cooled to the slowest pace since 2005 as gross domestic product grew 10.1 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, down from 10.6 percent in the first quarter, the statistics bureau said today in Beijing.

``I think the demand story is starting to get traction,'' said Kyle Cooper, an analyst at IAF Advisors in Houston. ``Any sign of a slowdown in China or India will have a major impact on prices. If there are more signs of a BRIC slowdown prices could be headed for $100.''

The so-called BRIC nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China, accounted for almost half of global expansion last year, according to the International Monetary Fund.

Plans by a high-ranking American diplomat to take part in nuclear negotiations with Iran tempered speculation that the U.S. or Israel may attack OPEC's second-biggest oil producer in a dispute over its nuclear program. Concern about a possible attack helped push oil prices to a record last week.

Weekend Talks

Undersecretary of State William Burns will participate in the European Union-Iran talks this weekend in Geneva, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday without giving details. This is a shift in the U.S. position on talks with a government it has shunned since 1980.

The U.S. will announce in the next month plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran, the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper reported today, without citing anyone. The administration of President George W. Bush intends to set up a U.S. interests section in Tehran staffed by American diplomats, almost 30 years after severing ties with Iran, the London-based newspaper said.

Brent crude oil for September settlement declined $4.74, or 3.5 percent, to settle at $131.07 a barrel on London's ICE Futures Europe exchange, the lowest close since June 11. Prices climbed to a record $147.50 on July 11.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Shenk in New York at mshenk1@bloomberg.net.
Bloomberg article link

Nothing Bush said was mentioned as a reason for oil prices. So much for your understanding of the market.

quote:

---

Nice chart, however those capacity numbers are theoretical capacity numbers

---

They're actual numbers. Nothing theoretical about them. That chart gives you the Operable Capacity before giving the Percent Operable Utilization.

posted July 17, 2008 06:02 PM            

By Moming Zhou & Polya Lesova, MarketWatch
Last update: 3:21 p.m. EDT July 17, 2008SAN

FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil futures fell for a third day on Thursday, closing below $130 a barrel for the first time in more than a month, as worries continued that slower economic growth will curb oil demand.

Crude has lost nearly $16, or 11%, in the last three days. Meanwhile, natural-gas futures tumbled 7.6% Wednesday after government data showed U.S. inventories gained more than expected.

After rising $2.15 to an intraday high of $136.75 in early morning trading, crude for August delivery slumped $5.31, or 3.9%, to end at $129.29 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, the lowest since June 5.

"We have gasoline demand coming down, and that's putting pressure on the market," said Darin Newsom, senior analyst at DTN, a commodities information provider. "Bullish demand news just simply isn't there."

The Energy Information Administration reported Wednesday that over the past four weeks, U.S. motor gasoline demand has averaged 9.3 million barrels per day, down by 2.1% from the same period last year.

The EIA also said U.S. crude inventories rose 3 million barrels in the week ended July 11. Analysts surveyed by energy-information provider Platts were expecting a drop of 3 million barrels.

Crude's loss led broad declines in most commodities. The Reuters/Jefferies CRB Index (CRB), a benchmark gauging the prices of major commodities, fell 2.7% to 432.54.

August reformulated gasoline fell 3.5% to $3.16 a gallon and August heating oil lost 2.5% to $3.74 a gallon. Corn futures tumbled nearly 4% to the lowest in more than a month. Soybeans also fell. See Food Futures.

Bucking the trend, gold futures ended higher. See Metals Stocks.

Earlier rise

Crude was rising earlier as a weakening dollar pushed up dollar-denominated crude prices and a production suspension in Nigeria raised supply concerns.

The U.S. dollar changed course in afternoon trading, adding downward pressure to crude. The dollar index (DXY), which measures the buck against a trade-weighted basket of currencies, was up 0.2% at 72.20. See Currencies.

Eni SPA, Italy's biggest oil company, said it has suspended production of 47,000 barrels a day in Nigeria due to "a sudden drop of pressure" on pipelines. The causes of the incident were still unknown, Eni said. Shares of Eni (E) fell 0.7% in New York.

Nigeria, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, is the world's eighth-biggest oil exporter. It's also the fifth-largest foreign crude supplier to the U.S.

In other international news, the U.S. is reportedly considering establishing an embassy in Iran in the next month, according media reports. It would be the U.S.'s first diplomatic presence in Iran in 30 years. Signs of increasing stability in the recently troubled oil-producing nation could potentially underpin crude prices.

Natural gas

U.S. natural-gas inventories rose 104 billion cubic feet in the week ended July 14, the EIA reported Thursday. Analysts at Global Insight had been expecting a buildup of 86 billion cubic feet.

After the data, natural-gas futures for August delivery tumbled 86.1 cents, or 7.6%, to close at $10.54 per million British thermal units. Earlier, it fell to an intraday low of $10.46, down 8.2%.

At 2,312 billion cubic feet, natural-gas stocks were 361 billion cubic feet less than last year at this time and 49 billion cubic feet below the five-year average of 2,361 billion cubic feet, the EIA said.

Moming Zhou is a MarketWatch reporter, based in San Francisco.
Polya Lesova is a MarketWatch reporter based in New York.
MarketWatch Article