NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:47 PM) Did you read the whole exchange? Nuke quoted an oil executive, and then said "Thats 86 billion dollars invested by the industry as a whole to keep oil and gas flowing and keep America moving." As if Exxon executives are up there saying, 'How do we keep America working?' instead of 'Where should we put a refinery so as to make the most money we can?' He also said "I also dont remember anyone doing anything to help these guys out 10 years ago when oil was 9 dollars a barrel and they were losing money hand over fist." I pointed out that they never were "losing money hand over fist". Not that we owe them "help" anyway. And then you jump all over me, announcing that I said all oil companies should not be allowed to make any profits. Where the f*** did you get that from? All I said was that what the oil companies are saying is bulls*** ('it's all input prices & competitive market'), and that investments are self serving. Nowhere did I say profit is wrong. I'll chill when you learn to read. Wow. :rolly I'm just saying, I think someone might need a nap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackie hayes Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 08:03 PM) Wow. :rolly I'm just saying, I think someone might need a nap. If after that your attention span will be more than one post, I can wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:21 AM) Ugh. I hope not. Ethanol still requires oil, not just in substance but to produce it. And the prices are still naturally higher than regular gas - they are propped up with subsidies. Or at least they were a few years ago. Maybe that's changed with the higher gas prices. If so, it does make a nice bridge. So do hybrid cars. LAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) Wow, I actually agree with you! I'm generally a free-market guy, but the (small number of) oil corporations are working together to keep prices and it's at the expense of the rest of the economy. I wouldn't mind seeing the Fed put a price cap in place. Scary, innit? It's not about a hard price cap - but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the fed government could place a cap on profit margin... like for example, an oil company could not charge more than a 30% markup on necessary items like gas or home heating oil. I'm sure this is way more simplistic than what would really be necessary, but something along those lines. It would be a solution that would allow oil companies to profit and profit well... but also a solution to help protect taxpayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 03:20 PM) LAT Thanks for the info. I'm all for it, if its done right (like the researchers said). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 01:35 PM) Scary, innit? It's not about a hard price cap - but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the fed government could place a cap on profit margin... like for example, an oil company could not charge more than a 30% markup on necessary items like gas or home heating oil. I'm sure this is way more simplistic than what would really be necessary, but something along those lines. It would be a solution that would allow oil companies to profit and profit well... but also a solution to help protect taxpayers. Something along those lines might be appropriate. I'm all for the oil companies making money as the law allows them, but reasonably-priced energy is absolutely essential to all areas of our economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Something along those lines might be appropriate. I'm all for the oil companies making money as the law allows them, but reasonably-priced energy is absolutely essential to all areas of our economy. And oil is never again going to be reasonably-priced energy. It won't go down in price significantly. It's a limited resource that we are slowly exhausting, and the region we get most of it from won't be peaceful for some time (if ever). Maybe the solution here is to incentivize the energy companies to invest more in alternative sources, by way of tax breaks of some kind. Or mandate a certain percentage of net income be reinvested into non-fossil fuel energy development. Its in those companies' best interests in the long run anyway, if they want to be in business in 50 years. Unfortunately, most current executives could care less about 50 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:49 PM) And oil is never again going to be reasonably-priced energy. It won't go down in price significantly. It's a limited resource that we are slowly exhausting, and the region we get most of it from won't be peaceful for some time (if ever). I'm sure that people were saying the same thing back in the '70s. The political instability may go on forever (as it did back in the '80s and '90s), but that doesn't necessarily mean that oil will be super-high-priced forever. Growing demand from China and India concerns me more. At some point, though, I believe that the regime in Iran will be overthrown and that will drop the price significantly (i.e., American companies will be able to [legally] do business with them). Maybe the solution here is to incentivize the energy companies to invest more in alternative sources, by way of tax breaks of some kind. Or mandate a certain percentage of net income be reinvested into non-fossil fuel energy development. Its in those companies' best interests in the long run anyway, if they want to be in business in 50 years. Unfortunately, most current executives could care less about 50 years from now. I know first-hand that ExxonMobil doesn't give a rat's ass about alternative energy. Then again, it appears that some companies are finally coming around. But it'll take a while. If it took 15 years for HDTVs to become commercially-available in America, hydrogen fuel cells in a large percentage of commercial vehicles will take at least 50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 05:34 PM) I know first-hand that ExxonMobil doesn't give a rat's ass about alternative energy. Then again, it appears that some companies are finally coming around. But it'll take a while. If it took 15 years for HDTVs to become commercially-available in America, hydrogen fuel cells in a large percentage of commercial vehicles will take at least 50. That's why it might be a good idea to give them some sort of a nudge. American companies in general tend to be very short-sighted. I'm not at all surprised to hear that Exxon-Mobil could care less about alternative energy - that's because all the people running it will be dead by the time we start having real supply nightmares. The government can be longer-sighted here, on behalf of the country, and show them the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 02:35 PM) Scary, innit? It's not about a hard price cap - but I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that the fed government could place a cap on profit margin... like for example, an oil company could not charge more than a 30% markup on necessary items like gas or home heating oil. I'm sure this is way more simplistic than what would really be necessary, but something along those lines. It would be a solution that would allow oil companies to profit and profit well... but also a solution to help protect taxpayers. Price controls never worked and never will. Socialism is bad mmmmmmmkay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 Wow, I agree with Nuke. Nice. Price controls are particularly bad in this case as all that lowering the price of oil artificially through government action will do is give Americans less of an incentive to become more fuel efficient. Here's a hint...you think Exxon's profits are too high? Move closer to where you work. Don't drive to the grocery store for 1 little item if you could either wait or bike there. Bike or walk anywhere you possibly can. Turn down your thermostat a little bit more. Turn off the lights when you walk out of a room, or when you're sitting in a room not using that much light. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCSox Posted January 31, 2006 Share Posted January 31, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 04:05 PM) Wow, I agree with Nuke. Nice. Price controls are particularly bad in this case as all that lowering the price of oil artificially through government action will do is give Americans less of an incentive to become more fuel efficient. Here's a hint...you think Exxon's profits are too high? Move closer to where you work. Don't drive to the grocery store for 1 little item if you could either wait or bike there. Bike or walk anywhere you possibly can. Turn down your thermostat a little bit more. Turn off the lights when you walk out of a room, or when you're sitting in a room not using that much light. Etc. I agree that we definitely have to be more fuel-efficient, but turning down the thermostat isn't going to help the tens-to-hundreds of thousands that have been laid off due to high energy prices. When one industry posts astronomically-high profits at the expense of the rest of the economy, it's time for the government to consider stepping in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted February 2, 2006 Author Share Posted February 2, 2006 QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 31, 2006 -> 11:27 PM) I agree that we definitely have to be more fuel-efficient, but turning down the thermostat isn't going to help the tens-to-hundreds of thousands that have been laid off due to high energy prices. When one industry posts astronomically-high profits at the expense of the rest of the economy, it's time for the government to consider stepping in. http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ource=PA%20Feed Now its Shell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 QUOTE(jasonxctf @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 11:46 AM) http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/...ource=PA%20Feed Now its Shell. The interesting thing is that their US division profits actually fell vs the same quarter last year, despite an increase from $45 to nearly $70 in the price of crude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 If making 180 million than the same quarter last year is a decline, then you'd be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 2, 2006 Share Posted February 2, 2006 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Feb 2, 2006 -> 03:51 PM) If making 180 million than the same quarter last year is a decline, then you'd be right. Damn you're right That paragraph read really wierd... Anyways, just on a lark I googled record profits in the news to see when the next sets of congressional hearings were going to start and here is what I came up with before I got bored... Duechse Bank http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligen...02-105119-3542r Candian Pacific Railroad http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060131/b0131149.html Cummins Deseil http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../601300436/1003 Canon http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=...rticleid=262687 Catipiller http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...-1b27earns.html Sharp http://www.todayonline.com/articles/98837.asp Apple http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ss/13660814.htm Valero http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/pape...texanonline.com Wells Fargo http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll.../601180336/1033 Sony http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2882&date=20060118 Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://w...Q26JbQ7BGQ20Q27 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts