southsider2k5

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 06:05 PM) How do you write up a piece on BMac and talk only about his curve? I still think his change is his nastiest pitch. Actually I wasn't talking about Brandon, I was referring to Kenny Williams at the end of the first paragraph. I never got into the stuff of Brandon, as I wanted to leave that to the experts. I focused mainly on the adjustment from starting to relieving, and imparticular some of the possible problems Bmac could have had going to the pen.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) So, on the other hand, your model doesn't predict growing profit margins, which according to Bloomberg have gone up by more than a factor of 2 in the past 2 years? What happens in that case, or in the case when costs of production are increasing faster than sales, as they are in this case according to the data I presented earlier? But see I answered both them. using the number you posted from Bloomberg the gross profit margins stayed the same, while the profit per barrel increased. Also you never adressed how much of production is affected by the cost increases you are talking about. You also never adressed the savings of plant closings, increased effeciencies, not to mention all of the tax breaks and subsidies which you guys have brought up. I really didn't to spend the day here arguing something that will never change anybodies mind anyway, so enjoy the rest of this... I give.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) Bloomberg, last August. Edit: found a more recent Bloomberg. The profit margin is even higher now. Still more fun math tricks there. Guess what. Follow my example I posted before I even saw this and look at the gross margin, which miraculously stays consistant. They are still making the same profit margin per barrel. Bigger numbers mean bigger numbers, but the percentages haven't changed at all... even though the total price has gone up. 100=I 80=C 20=profit 25% Year 2 110=I 88=C 22=p 25% Year 3 121=I 96.80=C 24.20=p 25% Year 4 133.1=I 106.48=C 26.68=p 25% Year 5 146.11=I 117.12=C 28.99=p 25%

Heck you can even play with the numbers with increasing costs and still have profits increase. Watch assuming a 10% production increase and a 10% cost increase. Guess what you still get increasing profits. Year 1 100=I 80=C 20=profit Year 2 110=I 88=C 22=p Year 3 121=I 96.80=C 24.20=p Year 4 133.1=I 106.48=C 26.68=p Year 5 146.11=I 117.12=C 28.99=p in 5 years you have a 70% increase in profits over year 1, and that is with the costs increasing exactly as fast as the production increases.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 02:17 PM) But 2k5, the cost of producing a barrel of oil has actually not dropped in recent years. Rather, as oil has become more scarce and harder to get out of the ground and refine, the cost of production per barrel has actually gone up. From 2002-2004, the cost of finding 1 new barrel of oil went up roughly 10%. The "lifting" costs, the costs of operating the rigs and using them to get oil out of the ground, also went up by over 10% in that time window. The amount of money spent by oil companies on refining, marketing, and transportation jumped by like 50% over that time period (probably dominated by the increased cost of transportation due to high fuel costs). So the costs of finding a barrel, getting it out of the ground, refining it, and transporting it have all gone up significantly in the past few years. Yet the rate of increase of oil company profits have blown away those increases. So to use your analogy, the cost of doing business would not have dropped to $90, it would have jumped to $110. But instead of the company maintaining a constant profit of $10, the company raised its prices, such that it made a $30 profit anyway. Again, bald numbers mean nothing. How much of the increase in production is from new wells? The cost of new wells can triple, but if it is a fractional part of total production, it has a marginal effect on total cost. Again, you yourself have preached to us about the oil companies shutting down facilities all over the country. This means that they are actually not just producing more oil with the same amount of capital, but they are actually producing even more oil with less capital (which mean less operating costs)you have also kept us well informed of all of the subsidies, tax breaks, and pork projects that are putting money into the pockets of the oil companies, and the monies given to them for alternative energy resources, which allows them to keep and make more of their own profits as well. How exactly do those new costs that you outlined, factor against the new savings that you have outlined prior to this? And finally even if you are right, you still haven't oroved your point that the MARGINS on a barrel of oil have changed at all within all of that. If the oil companies are producing more and keeping the same gross margin per barrel, they will still have more revenues. You still haven't shown anywhere that the gross margins per barrel have increased or decreased at all, which is the core of the arguement. Because profits are always going to be less than revenues, even a small move in revenue can trigger a huge percentage move in profits. And until you can actually show that the companies are making more per barrel, and not just more total, there is no reason to believe that the profits of the oil industry are anything but logical.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 01:18 PM) I'll grant you that in theory you should be correct, and for the most part you are...we're just sort of splitting hairs compared to what the folks in Saudi Arabia are earning, but the fact is that the bolded statement just isn't correct. It's been proven again and again and again over the last few years that as oil prices have gone up, the oil company profits have gone up. I understand this is different from revenues and revenues should go up as the price goes up, but the fact is that profits have gone up as well. In fact, when you just read some random press report about the profits of any oil company in any quarter, they include something like this: I understand the position you're trying to argue, and it makes sense from a hypothetical and economic standpoint. The oil company shouldn't want oil prices to go up, because they should be able to sell more oil and earn a higher profit at lower oil prices. However, that's simply just not what the last 5 years have taught us. As oil prices have gone up, the growth in oil demand has in fact started to slow a little bit, but the rate of increase of oil company profits has been divorced from the growth in sales. The only thing it has correlated with is the increase in price. And the more the price has gone up, the higher their profits have gone. As far as I can tell, I can account for nothing other than the price which would have driven the massive increases from profits on the $10 billion scale in roughly 2001 to profits on the $100 billion scale in 2005. Subsidies haven't been raised nearly that much, demand has not grown that much, there haven't been major innovations or mergers which would come close to accounting for that. The only variable left in this whole mess is the price, and everything we've seen since 2001 suggests that as the price of oil goes up, the profits of oil companies go up. Yes, revenues go up as well, but that's to be expected. What shouldn't be expected is the increase in profits. If revenues go up, why wouldn't profits go up, if costs are essentially fixed, to actually declining??? You, yourself have mentioned companies closing down facilities by the oil companies repeatedly. You have also mentioned that production is up across the board, so companies are making more oil into finished products with less capacity, which means less total costs, and way less costs per barrel. You have also mentioned increasing subsidies and tax breaks for the oil companies. Let me show you a number example, maybe that will help. An company has total revenue of $110. They also have costs of $100 so they have a $10 profit. The next year, they make more product and have total revenues of $120. This company manged to close one of their production facilities which cost them $10 a year to operate, while simultaniously having their other branches pick up the production slack, so that there actually maintaining their overall production increase company-wide. So now the company reports a $30 profit with a 9% increase in revenues, a 10% decrease in cost, and reports a tripling of profits to their customers. Its not some big conspiracy, its simple math and all of the news that you have been reporting to us for months on a stage of billions of dollars.

QUOTE(fathom @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 11:42 AM) He used to have a very good arm, but by last season, his arm was awful. If you didn't know better, you'd think he thought the goal was to try and hit the back of the pitcher's mound on every throw home. He also had a terribly long release on his throws. Since this is bash Rowand time, I'll repeat this....he'd be the perfect 4th outfielder for a team to have. He would be a great platoon guy vs LHP. I wouldn't even call it bash Rowand time. I think everyone has given the guy his due, we are just comparing the tools of each guy... which is pretty fair giving that one was the CF last year, and one is this year.

You are still comparing apples and oranges. Profits and revenues are two very different things. You are talking about increases in profits and increases in revenues as if they are the same thing... They are not. Realize that you can have a revenue increase and loss of profits. You can also have an 8% revenue gain and a doubling of profits. Profits are revenues minus costs. Revenues are net intakes... There is a BIG difference between the two. The oil industries costs are pretty close to fixed. The pipelines are there, as are the gas stations, refinaries, tankers etc. Their costs do not change based on the price of crude oil. (That is an important thing to note right there) The only people who benefit from the increased costs of oil directly are the people who ACTUALLY own the oil coming out of the ground. For the most part the oil companies do not OWN the oil fields. Many within the US are owned, but I can't imagine any of the middle eastern companies selling us their oil fields. Its just like a grocery store passing on a price increase in lettuce to the consumer. The grocery store takes whatever price that they receive, mark it up 10 cents, and sell it to the consumer. The one difference is that for whatever reason, energy is completely contra to economic common sense, and dispite price increases, demand is still rising, so instead of making less revenue like they should, they are making that same margin, more times than they were before. Throw on top of that, a reduction in costs, some government tax breaks and subsididies that you have even repeatedly mentioned, and it doesn't have to be a felony for them to have record profits. Granted it's contra to common sense and economic law, but it is plausible. To be honest if the oil companies weren't making record profits we would be in real trouble because that would mean supply was shrinking, and if you added that increasing demand... well lets just say todays scary prices would be tomorrows riots in the streets.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 11:50 AM) Wow. That's some trick of engineering if they can pull that off. I'll have to go see if I can scam up that NatGeo article. It sounds cool. Its the April issue FWIW, its has an earthquake article on the cover. Also it is estimated at 700 million dollars to do, today...

One of the things the NatGeo article talks about is the new "dome" they are going to build over it. Bascially they are going to build what looks like a domed baseball stadium on tracks, and when they finish it, they will roll it into place over the exsisting cover, and lock it into place. They then will go inside this structure and dismantle the old structure so that it doesn't collapse. Interesting stuff actually.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:47 AM) Thx, I'll have to look for that, is it on newstands already? Some of the most disturbing images I have ever seen are of still born children from women who were pregnant during the disaster. I don't know if it is out there still or not. I know I saw the May issue already at the magazine stands, so it might be gone by now. Try a grocery store or somewhere that takes a while to switch their mags.

QUOTE(rock1735 @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:22 AM) He has given up 4 unearned runs this year to date due to passed balls ( 2 at columbus, 2 vs toledo). It's touch to fault a pitcher..... Welcome to Soxtalk It seems like you get to watch the games, thanks for the info, and keep it coming

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) Ah, so you knew exectly the play I was talking about. All I could think was that Rowand would have had one of his classic play too deep plays, and let it bloop in front of him. Anderson covers ALOT of ground, even though it doesnt appear hes running that fast. Yeah it was a nice play, and it was noticable for me for the same reason you mentioned. It was the only area that Rowand never really excelled at, and that was the ball in front of him. He made the catches into the gaps, and over his shoulder as good or better than anyone in the game today... in front of him, he usually took the ball on a hop.

April's National Geographic has an EXCELLENT write up on this.

QUOTE(Felix @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) I sort of see the same thing with the Yankees/Mets, since the majority of people here are fans of both those teams. Even those fans however don't seem to hate each other. Its strange, back when the Mets sucked, every Yankee fan I know hated them. But now that the Mets are getting big names on their team (I think getting Pedro started it all, strangely enough), more and more of the Yankee fans I know are claiming that they like the Mets too (even though previously stating their hate for them). After they do that, they've basically lost talking privileges to me about baseball.. One big difference is the Sox and Cubs have about 5 generations of rivalry to fall back on with them having both been original league teams. The Mets didn't show up on the scene until the 60's (1964 I believe) and it is hard to build the same kind of rivalry. You can bet that if the Dodgers or Giants still were in NY those rivalries would be as intense and spiteful as the Sox/Cubs. Realize that Chicago is the only place that has had the same two baseball teams for all 105 years of MLBs official exsistance, no one else can say that... not even close.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) Anderson caught a shallow fly ball last night that Rowand never would have had, that should have shown you his value. And completely fooled one of the best baserunners in the game in Ichiro to get to the ball... and then Brian finished by doubling him off of first. The guy can play some defense. He gets excellent reads on the ball, and takes great routes as far as I have seen so far.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 09:04 AM) Ryan and Paula, allegedly In all seriousness... Does anyone else feel that the sparring that goes on is completely manufactured? It is so trite and annoying anymore, and you would have thought if it were true, the producers would have stopped it as it takes away from the show itself. It makes sense for them to do it on purpose as it gives peole something else idol to talk about.

Kat flash fever For those who are interested in the wardrobe malfunction, enjoy the tidy-whitees.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 12:58 AM) LeroySettles posse is looking for some dope young recruits... R U DOWN?

For the most part this week was a trainwreck. The contestants in general were really bad this week. I thought Kellie and Taylor were both awful, the worst I have seen them yet. I thought Kat was better than the judges did, but not great. Elliot had a really good week, and Chris was OK. Paris was very mediocre as well. My bottom 3 are Kellie, Kat, and Taylor with Kellie going home (FINALLY!)

Great SNL skit... that might have been the funniest thing I have seen on there is years... Well except Horacio Sanz career, but that's just sad-funny.

The Cars .... I am excited for no other reason than a group I had actually heard of got mentioned here!

QUOTE(Brian @ Apr 25, 2006 -> 09:29 PM) What do I win? A ride on the fee train

Great idea guys, we love highlighting the work of Sox fans, almost as much as we like making fun of Jason.

QUOTE(chitownsportsfan @ Apr 26, 2006 -> 12:25 AM) Yea, several nice catches in CF as well--the BA bandwagon might just be rollin' 3 deep now. Trust me, the real fans never got off the bandwagon... And I will tell you what, as long as the Sox are playing good ball, winning 60-65% of their games, and Brian Anderson is taking away hits and runs on defense, I don't give a s*** what he is hitting. Long term for me, his offense is the thing I am least worried about. It might take him as long as it took Joe Crede or even (cough) Aaron Rowand to understand hitting at the major league level, but with this kind of cast around him, it is worth it for him to mature here now, vs later.