PDA

View Full Version : Why is oil $50 per barrel?


Pages : [1] 2

Skip Towne
10-15-2004, 08:42 AM
Usually we get some bullshit reason like a strike or a shortage. But I haven't heard the latest bullshit excuse. Anybody know?

ROYC75
10-15-2004, 08:49 AM
Thats because some basturd thought $ 49.95 was too low .

dirk digler
10-15-2004, 08:51 AM
Usually we get some bullshit reason like a strike or a shortage. But I haven't heard the latest bullshit excuse. Anybody know?


You are just asking for trouble aren't you Skip?

Spott
10-15-2004, 08:53 AM
Because we have 2 big oil executives running the country.

dirk digler
10-15-2004, 08:56 AM
Because we have 2 big oil executives running the country.

Here we go, see what you started Skip. Damn you.

Spott
10-15-2004, 09:00 AM
Here we go, see what you started Skip. Damn you.

Sorry about that. That's as close as I'll get to talking about the P word anymore.

Skip Towne
10-15-2004, 09:05 AM
Here we go, see what you started Skip. Damn you.
I had to do it. I'm the Planet's official shit stirrer.

dirk digler
10-15-2004, 09:11 AM
Sorry about that. That's as close as I'll get to talking about the P word anymore.

That's ok Skip is just trying to stir the pot.

dirk digler
10-15-2004, 09:12 AM
I had to do it. I'm the Planet's official shit stirrer.


ROFL

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:13 AM
Because we have 2 big oil executives running the country.
Exactly, but some only see what they want to see.

sd4chiefs
10-15-2004, 09:14 AM
Because Soccer Moms are driving around in big ass SUV's that get 12 miles per gallon.

KCTitus
10-15-2004, 09:18 AM
Rising demand from China
Heating Oil demand starts to affect the market
supply from the Gulf is still out of commission due to Ivan

--just to name three--assuming you actually wanted a real answer.

Donger
10-15-2004, 09:18 AM
Usually we get some bullshit reason like a strike or a shortage. But I haven't heard the latest bullshit excuse. Anybody know?

Increasing demand without increasing refining capacity.

Winter's coming.

Slow recovery of oil production in the Gulf of Mexico following Hurricane Ivan.

The just-concluded oil workers' strike and threats of rebel attacks in Nigeria, Africa's largest producer.

Sporadic attacks by militants on Iraqi pipelines.

Unrest in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest producer, where extremists have vowed to clear out foreigners who run the production facilities there.

The on-again, off-again tax battle between the Russian government and oil giant Yukos.

Political tensions in key OPEC producer Venezuela.

alpha_omega
10-15-2004, 09:19 AM
Because of China!

dirk digler
10-15-2004, 09:19 AM
Because Soccer Moms are driving around in big ass SUV's that get 12 miles per gallon.

Yep. To many freakin SUV's on the road.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:19 AM
Michael Moore.

Donger
10-15-2004, 09:19 AM
Exactly, but some only see what they want to see.

Yeah, those facts can be pesky when compared to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.

Braincase
10-15-2004, 09:22 AM
Yep. To many freakin SUV's on the road.
Tell you what though, I was really glad to be riving my Expedition when I got broad sided by the blue hair in 2000. Two daughters in the back seat were safe, and that gal's Intrepid was totalled.

Skip Towne
10-15-2004, 09:25 AM
Tell you what though, I was really glad to be riving my Expedition when I got broad sided by the blue hair in 2000. Two daughters in the back seat were safe, and that gal's Intrepid was totalled.
We pay a lot for oil cause you're a shitty driver? :p

Brock
10-15-2004, 09:26 AM
Exactly, but some only see what they want to see.

How ironic.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:27 AM
Auto companies keep developing bigger engines with more power. Do they become more fuel efficient? Nope. Amazing that we have come so far in the auto industry, yet can't make an engine powerful AND efficient.

GM and Ford offer the same BS excuse everytime. "Our customers need more power to assist in their recreational and business activities such as towing, off road driving, etc etc.."

Lzen
10-15-2004, 09:28 AM
Rising demand from China
Heating Oil demand starts to affect the market
supply from the Gulf is still out of commission due to Ivan

--just to name three--assuming you actually wanted a real answer.

Heh, apparently not. They would just prefer whatever the DNC tells them.

Because we have 2 big oil executives running the country.

And I find this quote to be ironic.
:rolleyes:

Exactly, but some only see what they want to see.

Baby Lee
10-15-2004, 09:28 AM
I had to do it. I'm the Planet's official shit stirrer.
You're mememe's alarm clock?

Donger
10-15-2004, 09:31 AM
Auto companies keep developing bigger engines with more power. Do they become more fuel efficient? Nope. Amazing that we have come so far in the auto industry, yet can't make an engine powerful AND efficient.

GM and Ford offer the same BS excuse everytime. "Our customers need more power to assist in their recreational and business activities such as towing, off road driving, etc etc.."

Are you suggesting that the auto companies are shoving large engines down people's throats, and that the consumers would rather be driving cars powered by 1 liter four-bangers?

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:32 AM
Yeah, those facts can be pesky when compared to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.
So you don't think the guys in office actually have an interest in seeing oil prices rise? If not, I think you are being naive. They have a vested interest in seeing oil prices up. I don't think it is the sole reason, they're are many reasons the prices are up, but the Prez is thinking long term hence the tax break for the wealthy. Have fun supporting those that get rich off of your dedication, when your paying how much for insurance?

KC Jones
10-15-2004, 09:34 AM
You charge what the market will bear.

We've had it artificially good for a long time here. Gasoline prices have not kept pace with inflation.

You're dealing with a finite limited supply commodity and increasing demand as the world's economies develop. The cost will only continue to rise and it will rise sharply. Because we have such a geographically dispersed nation and have invested so much in automotive transportation, we will end up paying a lot more per capita when it comes to the costs for running our economy than other nations.

We need to have cheap teleportation devices invented immediately!

Donger
10-15-2004, 09:35 AM
So you don't think the guys in office actually have an interest in seeing oil prices rise? If not, I think you are being naive.

I have no idea.

They have a vested interest in seeing oil prices up.

Why?

I don't think it is the sole reason, they're are many reasons the prices are up, but the Prez is thinking long term hence the tax break for the wealthy.

Huh?

Have fun supporting those that get rich off of your dedication, when your paying how much for insurance?

Insurance?

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:35 AM
How ironic.And you aren't opinated, are you? Geez, because somebody differs in opinion, they must be wrong-yea right.

Brock
10-15-2004, 09:36 AM
So you don't think the guys in office actually have an interest in seeing oil prices rise?

yeah, that's a real sound reelection strategy. :rolleyes:

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:37 AM
I have no idea.



Why?



Huh?



Insurance?

If you have no idea, then maybe you shouldn't chastize those that actually do know how Bush and Cheney are affiliated with big oil business.

Donger
10-15-2004, 09:38 AM
If you have no idea, then maybe you shouldn't chastize those that actually do know how Bush and Cheney are affiliated with big oil business.

Enlighten me, please.

Braincase
10-15-2004, 09:38 AM
We pay a lot for oil cause you're a shitty driver? :p

100% her fault. 83 year old lady runs a red light in downtown Wichita at 5:00 in the afternoon. WTF was an old lady from rural Kansas doing driving in downtown Wichita at rush hour is beyond me.

I haven't had a ticket in over 10 years now...

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:40 AM
Are you suggesting that the auto companies are shoving large engines down people's throats, and that the consumers would rather be driving cars powered by 1 liter four-bangers?
I'm suggesting that

A) Auto companies are not focusing on producing powerful, efficient engines.
B) Customers are being lulled into a false sense of "need". Does the average customer need a 350HP engine to drive their children to school?

There is some balance here. Auto companies are slowly developing hybrid vehicles that make sense, but its taking awhile. I believe there IS a way to have both a powerful engine, fuel efficient engine.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:41 AM
yeah, that's a real sound reelection strategy. :rolleyes:
You know what I find funny is how those that actually stay tried and true to their political party regardless of the issues at hand. I try and be open-minded and vote for who I think will do a better job and who is more in touch with the issues, regardless of their political affiliation. BTW, where in the hell did I suggest a reelection strategy? Like I said some only see or hear what they want to see or hear. Your post is a prime example of that.

KC Jones
10-15-2004, 09:41 AM
Are you suggesting that the auto companies are shoving large engines down people's throats, and that the consumers would rather be driving cars powered by 1 liter four-bangers?

I wouldn't suggest that, but automotive companies did use what many would consider unethical business practices to drive mass transportation programs out of business. We do also have tax and other laws set up to artificially cheapen the cost of owning less efficient vehicles such as SUVs.

However one need not look much further than the popularity of the new hybrids to see that as fuel prices increase consumers will make decisions that increasingly take into account the costs of driving their vehicles.

Brock
10-15-2004, 09:43 AM
You know what I find funny is how those that actually stay tried and true to their political party regardless of the issues at hand. I try and be open-minded and vote for who I think will do a better job and who is more in touch with the issues, regardless of their political affiliation. BTW, where in the hell did I suggest a reelection strategy? Like I said some only see or hear what they want to see or hear. Your post is a prime example of that.

As yours is a prime example of a complete lack of logic. IE, how do high oil prices help Bush get re-elected? What kind of sense does this make? Why don't you think things through before posting this nonsense?

TheNextStep
10-15-2004, 09:44 AM
Sorry about that. That's as close as I'll get to talking about the P word anymore.

Sorry for being crass here, but what have you got against pussy?

Fat Elvis
10-15-2004, 09:44 AM
Rampant market speculation

JimNasium
10-15-2004, 09:44 AM
It's because you drive a van that gets 5 miles to the gallon. The oil supplying nations have it out for DTV technicians such as yourself. BTW, when did you become a whiny assed mangina?

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:45 AM
As yours is a prime example of a complete lack of logic. IE, how do high oil prices help Bush get re-elected? What kind of sense does this make? Why don't you think things through before posting this nonsense?
Sweet. A full paragraph.

Braincase
10-15-2004, 09:47 AM
Is't there some huge tax break for buying SUV's Durango size or larger? I thought that you could get something like a 35k tax break if you bought a new Escalade or some shit.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:48 AM
Is't there some huge tax break for buying SUV's Durango size or larger? I thought that you could get something like a 35k tax break if you bought a new Escalade or some shit.
Something like that. They are considered farm vehicles (IIRC). Its a loophole.

Brock
10-15-2004, 09:48 AM
Is't there some huge tax break for buying SUV's Durango size or larger? I thought that you could get something like a 35k tax break if you bought a new Escalade or some shit.

A pickup truck or SUV. I availed myself of that last year. You have to own a small business.

Spott
10-15-2004, 09:48 AM
Sorry for being crass here, but what have you got against pussy?

ROFL

I thought the same thing right after I wrote it. The only thing I have against it is notting getting enough of it. :)

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:49 AM
Hahahaha. I'm the dude, man.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 09:51 AM
Auto companies keep developing bigger engines with more power. Do they become more fuel efficient? Nope. Amazing that we have come so far in the auto industry, yet can't make an engine powerful AND efficient.

GM and Ford offer the same BS excuse everytime. "Our customers need more power to assist in their recreational and business activities such as towing, off road driving, etc etc.."

Well, at least your not spouting off about a subject you don’t know.
Can you tell me how many big block motors were built into vehicles in ’04?

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:53 AM
Well, at least your not spouting off about a subject you don’t know.
Can you tell me how many big block motors were built into vehicles in ’04?
Sure can't. Of course, size doesn't matter...its all about MPG.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 09:54 AM
I'm suggesting that

A) Auto companies are not focusing on producing powerful, efficient engines.
B) Customers are being lulled into a false sense of "need". Does the average customer need a 350HP engine to drive their children to school?

There is some balance here. Auto companies are slowly developing hybrid vehicles that make sense, but its taking awhile. I believe there IS a way to have both a powerful engine, fuel efficient engine.

Yet another one, how many SUV’s produced in '04 have power plants rated at or over 350 HP?

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:54 AM
Enlighten me, please.
Dick Cheney was the PRESIDENT of Halliburton. It has also been suggested he has received kick-backs for the work Halliburton is doing in Iraq.

Condeleeza Rice-The US oil company Chevron - where Mr Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was a director throughout the 1990s - is deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company, Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California) signed a contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.



Bush is a known OIL-Man...Comedian Jon Stewart once joked that watching President George W. Bush pick his White House staff was like watching "the old band get back together." It’s true that many of Bush’s choices for his incoming cabinet and top White House posts come from former Republican administrations, going all the way back to Gerald Ford. But what’s notable about this administration is not only the bona fide government credentials that the staff sports—it’s also the corporate connections they bring into the White House.

George Bush, of course, is a Texas oilman, although not a very successful one. His company, Arbusto, merged with Spectrum 7 in 1984 as it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Spectrum was bought out by Harken Energy in 1986, giving Bush a seat on Harken’s board, some stock options and a $120,000 consulting contract. As the first president to have an MBA, Bush has surrounded himself with people with similar (and more successful) corporate backgrounds. Vice President Dick Cheney was, until last year, the CEO of Halliburton, the world’s largest oil field services company. Halliburton, through its European subsidiaries, sold spare parts to Iraq’s oil industry, despite U.N. sanctions. The Bush administration is already considering whether or not it should alter the sanctions policy against Iraq, hinting that it might allow for more normalized trade with the country.

Of course, everyone knows that the U.S. oil industry has a secure foothold in the White House. But when he handed out cabinet posts and picked his top advisors, Bush left no industry out in the cold. From old school automobile manufacturers to fledgling biotech companies, just about every sector was covered. Below is a list of the corporations represented in the Bush White House. You won’t find every cabinet member or senior adviser listed here. Education Secretary Rod Paige, for example, was a school superintendent in Houston before coming to Washington. Senior adviser Karl Rove and counselor to the president, Karen Hughes, have political backgrounds. Environmental Protection Agency head Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor, raised most of her campaign money within the state. But those on Bush’s staff who don’t have extensive corporate connections are the exception, not the rule:


President Bush's Incoming Cabinet
Cabinet Position Cabinet Official Corporate Connections*
Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman ® ®
Attorney General John Ashcroft ® ® ®
Commerce Secretary Don Evans ®
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ® ® ®
Education Secretary Rod Paige
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham ® ® ®
Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson ® ® ®
Homeland Security Tom Ridge
Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson

Interior Secretary Gale Norton ® ® ®
Labor Secretary Elaine Chao ® ® ®
Secretary of State Colin Powell ® ®
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta ® ® ®
Treasury Secretary John Snow ® ®
Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi ® ® ®


President Bush's Advisors

Position
Advisor
Corporate Connections*
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card ®
Director of the Office of Management and Budget Josh Bolten
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice ® ® ®
Director National Economic Council Steve Friedman

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 09:55 AM
Sure can't. Of course, size doesn't matter...its all about MPG.

That’s not what you just posted. You said engines are getting bigger when in fact they’re getting smaller and more efficient all the time.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:56 AM
Yet another one, how many SUV’s produced in '04 have power plants rated at or over 350 HP?
I couldn't tell you. Answer me this, how many SUV's were produced in '04 that get under 15 MPG?

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:57 AM
That’s not what you just posted. You said engines are getting bigger when in fact they’re getting smaller and more efficient all the time.
I don't believe they are getting more efficient. Look at MPG ratings from vehicles 20 years ago and today.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:58 AM
That’s not what you just posted. You said engines are getting bigger when in fact they’re getting smaller and more efficient all the time.
A 5.4 liter V8 isn't that small.

Brock
10-15-2004, 09:58 AM
A 5.4 liter V8 isn't that small.

4.6 liter is. And it makes more power than a lot of larger engines.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
I couldn't tell you. Answer me this, how many SUV's were produced in '04 that get under 15 MPG?

A guess would be around 50%, probably slightly under, but this isn’t what you were crying about just a little bit ago.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
Engine Axle Ratio GCWR Max. Trailer Weight: Transmission:
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 3.73 13,000 6,100 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 4.1 14,500 7,600 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton®V8 (4x4) 4.1 14,500 7,200 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 3.73 17,000 10,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 3.73 17,000 9,600 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.0L (363) Triton® V8 Power Stroke® Diesel (4x2 and 4x4) 3.73 20,000 11,000 automatic

Skip Towne
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
It's because you drive a van that gets 5 miles to the gallon. The oil supplying nations have it out for DTV technicians such as yourself. BTW, when did you become a whiny assed mangina?
I am SO going to get you for that. You had better stay alert. I strike when least expected.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
As yours is a prime example of a complete lack of logic. IE, how do high oil prices help Bush get re-elected? What kind of sense does this make? Why don't you think things through before posting this nonsense? I never suggested anything about it helping him get re-elected. Again, you are seeing what you want to see, instead of what is actually being said. This has nothing to do with being re-elected and everything to do with helping those special interest groups while in office. It also has been set-up so if and when Bush is out of office, his oil interests will be protected and he can continue to reap the rewards of being alligned with big oil buisiness.

Cochise
10-15-2004, 09:59 AM
Yet another one, how many SUV’s produced in '04 have power plants rated at or over 350 HP?

Oh, what do you mean, all of them are packing 350 horses :rolleyes:

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 10:00 AM
I don't believe they are getting more efficient. Look at MPG ratings from vehicles 20 years ago and today.

Believe what you want, but engines like the LS1 or Northstar didn’t exist “20 years ago”.

Cochise
10-15-2004, 10:00 AM
Engine Axle Ratio GCWR Max. Trailer Weight: Transmission:
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 3.73 13,000 6,100 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 4.1 14,500 7,600 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton®V8 (4x4) 4.1 14,500 7,200 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 3.73 17,000 10,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 3.73 17,000 9,600 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.0L (363) Triton® V8 Power Stroke® Diesel (4x2 and 4x4) 3.73 20,000 11,000 automatic

There a lot of SUV's with that Triton V10? :hmmm:

KC Jones
10-15-2004, 10:01 AM
That’s not what you just posted. You said engines are getting bigger when in fact they’re getting smaller and more efficient all the time.

Yep. I've got a V8 in my Lincoln and get (just barely) better mileage than I did out of my old 4 cylinder Camry. The increases in efficiencies are amazing.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 10:01 AM
A 5.4 liter V8 isn't that small.

Its no 7.2 liter big block either.

Brock
10-15-2004, 10:01 AM
I never suggested anything about it helping him get re-elected. Again, you are seeing what you want to see, instead of what is actually being said. This has nothing to do with being re-elected and everything to do with helping those special interest groups while in office. It also has been set-up so if and when Bush is out of office, his oil interests will be protected and he can continue to reap the rewards of being alligned with big oil buisiness.

Again, a complete lack of logic. Wouldn't his "big oil business buddies" lower the price of oil until AFTER the election? So they could squeeze us for ANOTHER 4 YEARS? Try not to strain yourself with that one.

Cochise
10-15-2004, 10:02 AM
Believe what you want, but engines like the LS1 or Northstar didn’t exist “20 years ago”.

They're also doing more things like the Hemi engine does, where it basically turns the engine into a 4-cyliner during normal cruising. I dont know much about engines so I can't recite the gory details but that is how it's been described to me.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 10:02 AM
There a lot of SUV's with that Triton V10? :hmmm:
Its an option for the Excursion.

Swanman
10-15-2004, 10:02 AM
DAMNIT CARL! :cuss:

Lbedrock1
10-15-2004, 10:02 AM
Exactly, but some only see what they want to see.
Well, do you see both sides or do you just see what you want to see? If we could see both side we might be able to fix most of our major problems. We all must sacrifice for our fellow American.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 10:03 AM
DAMNIT CARL! :cuss:
Finally, an answer we can all agree with.

Spott
10-15-2004, 10:03 AM
DAMNIT CARL! :cuss:

Nice avatar dude!

Cochise
10-15-2004, 10:03 AM
Its an option for the Excursion.

Exceptions don't prove overgeneralization wrong.

Spott
10-15-2004, 10:04 AM
We all must sacrifice for our fellow American.

Anyway we could sacrifice my ex-wife for a fellow American?

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 10:04 AM
Engine Axle Ratio GCWR Max. Trailer Weight: Transmission:
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 3.73 13,000 6,100 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton® V8 (4x2) 4.1 14,500 7,600 automatic
5.4L (330) SEFI Triton®V8 (4x4) 4.1 14,500 7,200 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 3.73 17,000 10,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x2) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 3.73 17,000 9,600 automatic
6.8L (415) Triton® V10 (4x4) 4.3 20,000 11,000 automatic
6.0L (363) Triton® V8 Power Stroke® Diesel (4x2 and 4x4) 3.73 20,000 11,000 automatic

Just FYI but 5.4 liter engines are small blocks and the Power Stroke you mentioned is a Diesel, which BTW will get around 20 MPG.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:07 AM
Again, a complete lack of logic. Wouldn't his "big oil business buddies" lower the price of oil until AFTER the election? So they could squeeze us for ANOTHER 4 YEARS? Try not to strain yourself with that one.
AGAIN, why would they do that? It's about making more money. Why lower the price when you are already making more profit? Your personel attacks on it "straining" my mind to keep up is a direct result of you not being able to defend your position, so in true fashion it is easier and makes you feel better to go the attack route to somehow(in your mind) discredit me. Stick to the facts and lose the attacks.

Brock
10-15-2004, 10:09 AM
AGAIN, why would they do that? It's about making more money. Why lower the price when you are already making more profit?

So they would choose to make money for the next month, instead of choosing to make money for the next 4 years. Nothing personal, but I hope you don't run your own business.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 10:10 AM
They're also doing more things like the Hemi engine does, where it basically turns the engine into a 4-cyliner during normal cruising. I dont know much about engines so I can't recite the gory details but that is how it's been described to me.


Yes, I’m not a Mopar/Dodge/Hemi guy but I’ve heard of it. At partial throttle / cruising, it cuts the ignition and fuel injection to four of the eight cylinders and can get fuel efficiency closer to that of a four banger while maintaining the torque of a V-8. Daimler-Chrysler execs say they dare anyone to claim they can feel when the engine transitions from full V-8 to more efficient 4 cylinder mode.

Saulbadguy
10-15-2004, 10:11 AM
They're also doing more things like the Hemi engine does, where it basically turns the engine into a 4-cyliner during normal cruising. I dont know much about engines so I can't recite the gory details but that is how it's been described to me.
I heard something about that a couple of months ago. Is it actually being implemented now?

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:12 AM
Well, do you see both sides or do you just see what you want to see? If we could see both side we might be able to fix most of our major problems. We all must sacrifice for our fellow American.
Nobody is perfect, but I do try and see both sides. I don't follow one political party blindly just becuase they are a certain party. I think both sides can bring something to the table, but I would prefer to see a 3rd political party that is on the same-playing field as the other two.

Radar Chief
10-15-2004, 10:12 AM
I heard something about that a couple of months ago. Is it actually being implemented now?

Yes, it's in production now.

Donger
10-15-2004, 10:13 AM
Dick Cheney was the PRESIDENT of Halliburton. It has also been suggested he has received kick-backs for the work Halliburton is doing in Iraq.

"Was" would be the key word in that sentence. And "suggested?" You're not suggesting that that's speculation, rumor and innuendo, are you?

Condeleeza Rice-The US oil company Chevron - where Mr Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was a director throughout the 1990s - is deeply involved in Kazakhstan. In 1995, another US company, Unocal (formerly Union Oil Company of California) signed a contract to export $8 billion worth of natural gas through a $3 billion pipeline which would go from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan.

1995? I thought Condi came on board when Bush was elected. You know, in 2000.

Bush is a known OIL-Man...Comedian Jon Stewart once joked that watching President George W. Bush pick his White House staff was like watching "the old band get back together." It’s true that many of Bush’s choices for his incoming cabinet and top White House posts come from former Republican administrations, going all the way back to Gerald Ford. But what’s notable about this administration is not only the bona fide government credentials that the staff sports—it’s also the corporate connections they bring into the White House.

Jon Stewart? The comedian? Wow.

Of course I'm familiar with the fact that members of the Bush administration were affiliated with oil companies. That's not the issue. The issue is that you seem to be implying that they are benefitting from the current high price of crude.

If so, your reasoning and/or evidence?

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:16 AM
So they would choose to make money for the next month, instead of choosing to make money for the next 4 years. Nothing personal, but I hope you don't run your own business.
Why are you disregarding the first 3 1/2 years? It's not like they just started to make a profit in the last month. Also, the tax breaks are already in place whether Bush gets re-elected or not. Congress would have to "UNDUE" what has already taken place. Plus, it's not like Bush isn't doing everything in his power to be re-elected, right? Their plan is to be re-elected and all of the policies are already in place, so I don't think your argument holds any water.

Hoover
10-15-2004, 10:18 AM
If Bush was this evil oil guy you all talk about, gas would be cheap because its an election year, then it would jump in Feb.

Brock
10-15-2004, 10:20 AM
If Bush was this evil oil guy you all talk about, gas would be cheap because its an election year, then it would jump in Feb.

No shit. Try explaining it to BCF.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:21 AM
"Was" would be the key word in that sentence. And "suggested?" You're not suggesting that that's speculation, rumor and innuendo, are you?



1995? I thought Condi came on board when Bush was elected. You know, in 2000.



Jon Stewart? The comedian? Wow.

Of course I'm familiar with the fact that members of the Bush administration were affiliated with oil companies. That's not the issue. The issue is that you seem to be implying that they are benefitting from the current high price of crude.

If so, your reasoning and/or evidence?


Cheney Made Millions As Halliburton CEO. Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of Texas-based Halliburton from 1995-2000. In addition to providing a massive salary and bonus for only eight months of work in 2000, Halliburton's board of directors voted to give Dick Cheney a $20 million retirement package when he resigned. Cheney's compensation for the eight months of 2000 he served as CEO of Halliburton, according to the Associated Press, was "$4.3 million in deferred compensation and bonuses, and $806,332 in salary." (New York Times, 8/12/00; Los Angeles Times, 7/24/00; Associated Press, 7/18/02)

As Vice President, Cheney Has Received $2 Million From Halliburton. In his retirement package from Halliburton, Cheney was granted deferred compensation, which paid out his bonus and his salary from 1999 over a five-year period. So far as Vice President, Cheney has received nearly $2 million from Halliburton, and is expected to receive additional deferred compensation in 2004. ("Income: Type and amount," Schedule A, Standard Form 278, Richard B. Cheney Personal Financial Disclosure, 5/15/02; 5/15/03; Cheney Income Tax Returns; Associated Press, 6/15/04)

Congressional Research Service Said Cheney's Deferred Compensation Is Financial Interest. Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert that, "since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interests. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had now for over three years." But, just days later, the Congressional Research Service released a report saying that federal ethics laws consider both Cheney's deferred compensation and his unexercised stock options as a lingering financial interest in the company. (NBC News, Meet the Press, 9/14/03; Washington Post, 9/26/03)

NO-BID CONTRACTS "COORDINATED" WITH DICK CHENEY'S OFFICE

Halliburton's No-Bid Contract in Iraq was "Coordinated" with Dick Cheney's office. In March 2003, the Pentagon awarded a subsidiary of Halliburton a no-bid contract worth up to $7 billion to help rebuild Iraqi oil fields. According to Time, an internal Pentagon e-mail said "action" on the contract was "coordinated" with the Vice President's office. A senior political appointee in the Defense Department acknowledged that he selected Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction work. Before awarding the contract, the official briefed White House staff, including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's top aide. Los Angeles Times, 5/7/03; Washington Post, 2/10/04, 6/14/04)

SEVERAL CRITICAL AUDITS HAVE CRITICIZED HALLIBURTON'S WORK IN IRAQ

Halliburton Has Had Eight Critical Audits and a Criminal Investigation on Its Work In Iraq and Kuwait. Halliburton has had eight critical audits performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency, the Coalition Provisional Authority's Inspector General and General Accounting Office into its work in Iraq and Kuwait. (Associated Press, 2/9/04; Rep. Waxman Letter, 8/24/04)

Halliburton Hasn't Accounted for Almost Half its Work in Iraq and Kuwait. According to a report by Pentagon auditors, Halliburton has not adequately accounted for more than $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait, representing 43 percent of the $4.18 billion that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has billed the Pentagon so far. The Wall Street Journal reported "the latest Pentagon audit report underscores that KBR's billing problems remain widespread and could pressure Army officials to begin withholding substantial sums from the company." (Wall Street Journal, 8/11/04)

Pentagon Auditors Said Halliburton Overcharged Government by $186 Million. During congressional testimony, William Reed, director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency, said Halliburton overcharged the government by $186 million for meals than were served to troops in Iraq. Four former Halliburton employees issued signed statements charging that Halliburton among other things, had paid $45 apiece for cases of soda and $100 per bag of laundry, and had abandoned nearly new, $85,000 trucks in the desert for lack of spare parts. (Houston Chronicle, 6/16/04; New York Times, 6/16/04)

Halliburton Gouged The U.S. Government For Oil And Troops' Food. The military investigated Halliburton and found that it overcharged for gas it imported into Iraq from Kuwait by as much as $61 million. In March 2003, the Pentagon announced it would withhold nearly $300 million in payments to Halliburton due to the company's overcharging on food contracts. (AP, 2/9/04, 3/17/04; Reuters, 2/23/04)

Pentagon Opened A Criminal Investigation into Halliburton. Pentagon auditors asked the Department of Defense to investigate Halliburton's activity in Kuwait, and in December 2003 the military ended its contract to with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root to import oil. On February 23, 2004 the Pentagon opened a criminal probe into Halliburton's price-gouging. (Associated Press, 2/9/04, 11/5/03; Reuters, 12/11/03, 2/23/04; New York Times, 12/10/03; Washington Post, 1/16/04, 12/31/04; Wall Street Journal , 8/3/04)

HALLIBURTON UNDER CHENEY BEING INVESTIGATED

Halliburton Is Under Investigation By Justice Department for Overcharging in the Balkans Under Cheney. Halliburton acknowledged in its quarterly filing that it is under investigation by the Justice Department over possible over billing on government services work done in the Balkans from 1996 through 2000, when Cheney was the Halliburton's CEO. The charges stem from a General Accounting Office report that found in 1997 that Halliburton billed the Army for questionable expenses for work in the Balkans, including charges of $85.98 per sheet of plywood that cost $14.06. A follow-up report by the GAO in 2000 found inflated costs, including charges for cleaning some offices up to four times a day. (New Yorker, 2/16/04; Associated Press, 4/9/03; New York Times, 8/6/04)

Justice Dept. Issued Subpoena Seeking Information of Halliburton's Role In Iran Under Cheney. Halliburton received an inquiry in 2001 from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Treasury Department inquiring about operations in Iran by a Halliburton subsidiary. In July 2004, OFAC transferred the case to the Justice Department and a federal grand jury issued a subpoena to Halliburton seeking information about its work in Iran. Government officials told the Washington Post such cases are referred to the Justice Department only when there is evidence "intentional or willful" violations have occurred. (Houston Chronicle, 12/15/03; Halliburton Co. 10-Q, 5/7/04; Reuters, 7/19/04; Washington Post, 7/21/04)

SEC And Justice Department Investigating Halliburton Bribery Charges During Cheney's Tenure. A French judge is looking at whether Vice President Dick Cheney may have been responsible under French law for at least one of four bribery payments exchanged between a Halliburton subsidiary and Nigerian officials to obtain contracts for liquefied natural projects. Under French law, "the head of a company can be charged with 'misuse of corporate assets' for bribes paid by any employee -- even if the executive didn't know about the improper payments." Furthermore, the SEC, the Justice Department and the Nigerian government are also investigating the bribery charges against Halliburton. (Dallas Morning News, 1/25/04, 2/10/04; Associated Press, 2/4/04, 2/5/04, 2/6/04; Houston Chronicle, 2/7/04)

Halliburton Agreed to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle SEC Probe into Cheney-Era Accounting Practices. Halliburton agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a SEC probe of the company's accounting during the tenure of Dick Cheney. Halliburton failed in 1998 to disclose a change in the way it accounted for revenue from some construction work, the SEC said in a statement. The SEC said "the company misled investors and violated federal securities laws." (Bloomberg News, 8/3/04; Complaint of SEC vs. Halliburton Company and Robert Charles Muchmore Jr. 8/3/04)



Make your own conclusion.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:24 AM
If Bush was this evil oil guy you all talk about, gas would be cheap because its an election year, then it would jump in Feb.
The prices will jump up. There is no sign of as slow-down. In fact, all indications are that oil prices will continue to rise.

Donger
10-15-2004, 10:32 AM
Make your own conclusion.

Based on that? Okay. No where did I see any evidence that Cheney is presently benefitting from the high price of crude.

If I missed it, please point it out.

BigChiefFan
10-15-2004, 10:39 AM
Based on that? Okay. No where did I see any evidence that Cheney is presently benefitting from the high price of crude.

If I missed it, please point it out.
Yea, based on the facts... imagine that. If you didn't see several indications that Cheney has benefitted on the oil-business while in office than you just didn't read the article. If you aren't going to be objective and read what is being presented than it's obvious you only see what you want to see. How about actually refuting what is being said in the article and doing some of the leg-work yourself? I've presented instances that back my argument. All you have done is call me out, without any substance. It's easy to second-guess-let's see you present some facts to dispute what I'm saying.

David.
10-15-2004, 10:46 AM
wow donger wayta throw out a good arguement. :rolleyes: I think your responses have gone as follows:

what?
prove it?
where?
how?
where am I?
wtf?

amazing job

Donger
10-15-2004, 10:50 AM
Yea, based on the facts... imagine that. If you didn't see several indications that Cheney has benefitted on the oil-business while in office than you just didn't read the article. If you aren't going to be objective and read what is being presented than it's obvious you only see what you want to see. How about actually refuting what is being said in the article and doing some of the leg-work yourself? I've presented instances that back my argument. All you have done is call me out, without any substance. It's easy to second-guess-let's see you present some facts to dispute what I'm saying.

No, I honestly did not see any evidence in your post that Cheney is presently benefitting from the high price of crude which is your assertion.

Again, please point it out.

KingPriest2
10-15-2004, 10:55 AM
Associated Press
Greenspan Not Worried About Energy Prices
Friday October 15, 12:44 pm ET
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer
Surge in Energy Prices Likely to Have Less of an Impact Than in the 1970s, Greenspan Says


WASHINGTON (AP) -- This year's surge in energy prices is likely to have far less of an impact on the economy than the oil shocks of the 1970s, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.
Greenspan predicted that the global economy will adjust to the recent surge in prices, which has seen oil topping $50 per barrel, by boosting energy exploration and production and by increasing fuel efficiency. But he conceded that the transition period could feature unexpected bumps.

ADVERTISEMENT


"We and the rest of the world doubtless will have to live with the uncertainties of the oil markets for some time to come," Greenspan said in remarks to the National Italian American Foundation in Washington.

Oil prices closed at a record of $54.76 per barrel on Thursday as fears about supplies in the United States and the possibility of attacks on oil pipelines in the Middle East have sent the price of crude to record levels in dollar terms.

Greenspan, however, noted that even with the recent jump, energy prices are still only three-fifths as high, after adjusting for inflation, as they were at their all-time peak in February 1981.

He said this means that the overall impact on the economy should be lower this time around than during that period, when the oil shocks of the 1970s and early 1980s were enough to push the country into a series of recessions.

Greenspan said that so far this year, the rise in energy has probably trimmed the gross domestic product by about 0.75 percentage point, far less than the shocks of two decades ago.

However, Greenspan warned, "Obviously, the risk of more serious negative consequences would intensify if oil prices were to move materially higher."

However, he said he believed that existing technology and improvements spurred by the increase in prices should be sufficient to "ensure the needed supplies (of energy) for a very long while."

Greenspan in his comments Friday made no reference to the Fed's current drive to raise interest rates to make sure that a rebounding economy does not generate unwanted inflationary pressures.

The central bank has boosted its key policy instrument, the federal funds rate, from a 46-year low of 1 percent to 1.75 percent currently, making quarter-point moves at its meetings in June, August and September.

Analysts believe the Fed will keep raising rates at a moderate pace for the rest of this year.

Greenspan, a conservative economist who sets great store in the power of free markets to govern the economy, said he believed that market forces would act as they did in the 1970s to buffer the economy from the shocks of rising prices.

"Although OPEC production quotas have been a significant factor in price determination for a third of a century, the story since 1973 has been as much about the power of markets as it has been about power over markets," Greenspan said. "The signals provided by market prices have eventually resolved even the most seemingly insurmountable difficulties of inadequate domestic supply in the United States."

Greenspan did not make any comments on current economic conditions although he said last month that he believed the economy had "regained some traction" after a slowdown in activity in late spring that he blamed on this year's sharp spike in energy costs.

KCTitus
10-15-2004, 10:59 AM
While we can disagree, Cheney's compensation from Halliburton is deferred compensation from 1999. Further, and this article didnt say this, but Cheney is donating the remaining proceeds from his stock options he still holds to charity.

This has zero to do with the price of oil and as per ususal, the reality of the situation is ignored.

Again, since you all missed it:

Demand from China
Heating Oil demand
Hurricane Ivan

Also, realize the price being traded today is a FUTURES contract for delivery at a later date.

ENDelt260
10-15-2004, 11:01 AM
Why is oil $50 per barrel?

Because people will pay it.

Dartgod
10-15-2004, 11:08 AM
Stick to the facts and lose the attacks.
Who the f*** is this guy? Johhny Cochran?

Donger
10-15-2004, 11:14 AM
While we can disagree, Cheney's compensation from Halliburton is deferred compensation from 1999. Further, and this article didnt say this, but Cheney is donating the remaining proceeds from his stock options he still holds to charity.

This has zero to do with the price of oil and as per ususal, the reality of the situation is ignored.

Again, since you all missed it:

Demand from China
Heating Oil demand
Hurricane Ivan

Also, realize the price being traded today is a FUTURES contract for delivery at a later date.

You only beat me by a few seconds.

:)

Iowanian
10-15-2004, 11:21 AM
Skip.............There are labor disputes in Nigeria and ?(escapes me right now)......Unrest in Iraq fueling stress in the market on future production, multiple Hurricanes smashing US refineries and oil rigs in the gulf....OPEC trying to drive up prices to influence the election in the US, market demands............Environmental regulations on Refineries....

Lots of things.

Over-Head
10-15-2004, 06:00 PM
I'll admit I never read all the responses, but at times like this ( the price of mid-grade just hit $0.966 per liter…3.8 liters in a US Gallon....YOU DO THE MATH! :mad: ) I can only think of one thing.
That scene in the Lethal Weapon movie where Joe Pecchi starts screaming "THEY FU@K YA AT THR DRIVE THROUGH!"
:cuss:

Skip Towne
06-28-2005, 08:17 AM
I just heard on the radio that oil went past $60 per barrel yesterday. Does anyone know what is driving this? Oil was $10-12 forever before all this started.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 08:21 AM
What an interesting thread.

Donger
06-28-2005, 08:30 AM
I just heard on the radio that oil went past $60 per barrel yesterday. Does anyone know what is driving this? Oil was $10-12 forever before all this started.

Significantly increased demand (us and China mostly) with virtually no worldwide increase in refining capacity.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 08:32 AM
Usually we get some bullshit reason like a strike or a shortage. But I haven't heard the latest bullshit excuse. Anybody know?
Because $51 is just too high.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 08:37 AM
this is my guess:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/bush.100/images/cut.row2.col4.bush.pic.jpg

sd4chiefs
06-28-2005, 08:38 AM
If you can't beat them, join them. I put 10K into this a couple of weeks ago.


http://finance.yahoo.com/q?d=t&s=FSENX


It's going to be a wild ride. I hope I don't lose my a$$.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 08:38 AM
this is my guess:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/bush.100/images/cut.row2.col4.bush.pic.jpg
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

Donger
06-28-2005, 08:43 AM
this is my guess:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/bush.100/images/cut.row2.col4.bush.pic.jpg

How's that?

oldandslow
06-28-2005, 08:54 AM
Donger is right about one thing.

Bush has nothing to do with this.

Demand has outstripped supply. Besides the obvious gas guzzlers it is quite ironic that we give our dollars to WalMart so they can ship them to China so China can subsidize its factories with oil that we need.

We will see price fluctuations for a while, but oil is not ever going to be "cheap" again.

And if price gets too high, the consequences are truly frightening.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 08:59 AM
I hope the price gets astronomically high. Maybe we as a country, and world, will learn that we can't rely on a non-renewable resource such as oil for so many things.

Brock
06-28-2005, 09:05 AM
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!

DING! FRIES ARE DONE!

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:05 AM
I hope the price gets astronomically high.

If the price of oil goes through the roof, virtually everything else will to.

Maybe we as a country, and world, will learn that we can't rely on a non-renewable resource such as oil for so many things.

Actually, we don't have a choice right now. For example, what renewable resource should I substitute for gasoline in my car?

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:09 AM
Besides the obvious gas guzzlers
Why exactly DO people buy Hummers anyway...?

It can't be for their looks.

If I wanted to invade a small country I'd just buy a tank.

jspchief
06-28-2005, 09:09 AM
I hope the price gets astronomically high. Maybe we as a country, and world, will learn that we can't rely on a non-renewable resource such as oil for so many things.Great solution! I don't think you're aware of how many things in your life require oil. I guess you don't mind the costs of those things skyrocketing as well.

Besides that, the notion that no one is looking for alternates is silly. The alernates are out there, but no one wants to pay the price for them.

bringbackmarty
06-28-2005, 09:10 AM
Noone has touched on the real reason oil is $50 a barrel, a few have hinted, but put simply, we are running out.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:11 AM
Actually, we don't have a choice right now. For example, what renewable resource should I substitute for gasoline in my car?
That's why we should be creating and using more alternative fuels and such... BUT NOOOOOOOO that wouldn't go over well with our Arab butt buddies.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:11 AM
If the price of oil goes through the roof, virtually everything else will to.



Actually, we don't have a choice right now. For example, what renewable resource should I substitute for gasoline in my car?
In your car? Good luck. I still don't think enough money is being pumped in to R&D to develop vehicles that don't use oil, and use some other form of renewable resource. Hybrid vehicles are still to expensive, and people are still buying large gas guzzling vehicles.

I understand that if oil goes through the roof, everything else will too. I just think a full-scale crisis will be the only thing that will wake our asses up and get vehicles on the road that don't rely on oil.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:12 AM
Great solution! I don't think you're aware of how many things in your life require oil. I guess you don't mind the costs of those things skyrocketing as well.

Besides that, the notion that no one is looking for alternates is silly. The alernates are out there, but no one wants to pay the price for them.
I'm quite aware. A gallon of milk would likely cost up to 5-6 bucks. A box of cereal? Probably around 8 bucks. Everything will cost more to transport. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:13 AM
In your car? Good luck. I still don't think enough money is being pumped in to R&D to develop vehicles that don't use oil, and use some other form of renewable resource. Hybrid vehicles are still to expensive, and people are still buying large gas guzzling vehicles.

I understand that if oil goes through the roof, everything else will too. I just think a full-scale crisis will be the only thing that will wake our asses up and get vehicles on the road that don't rely on oil.
I agree with you... even though you are a K-State fan...

KCTitus
06-28-2005, 09:13 AM
LOL...no, we're not running out.

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:13 AM
Noone has touched on the real reason oil is $50 a barrel, a few have hinted, but put simply, we are running out.

Really? How did you reach this conclusion?

Brock
06-28-2005, 09:17 AM
I'm quite aware. A gallon of milk would likely cost up to 5-6 bucks. A box of cereal? Probably around 8 bucks. Everything will cost more to transport. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.


Soo, basically, you'd like to see a worldwide depression. That's brilliant.

jspchief
06-28-2005, 09:18 AM
I find it interesting that so many people are concerned about Oil but don't seem too concerned about other resources that are rapidly depleting.

Who here is concerned that discovery of iron deposits has almost come to a halt? Anyone bitching about the rising cost of steel? Is that Bush's fault too?

KCTitus
06-28-2005, 09:18 AM
In your car? Good luck. I still don't think enough money is being pumped in to R&D to develop vehicles that don't use oil, and use some other form of renewable resource. Hybrid vehicles are still to expensive, and people are still buying large gas guzzling vehicles.

I understand that if oil goes through the roof, everything else will too. I just think a full-scale crisis will be the only thing that will wake our asses up and get vehicles on the road that don't rely on oil.

America's love of 'gas guzzlers' has little to do with the large oil demand. The largest demand is coming from China and their double digit growing economy.

I do enjoy how other affluence and choice of car is allways pointed to as the culprit however.

Wishing for crisis is silly. The market will respond. Allways has and we're seeing the intial steps into hybrids which still are not cheaper to operate than a it's counterpart.

KCTitus
06-28-2005, 09:20 AM
That's why we should be creating and using more alternative fuels and such... BUT NOOOOOOOO that wouldn't go over well with our Arab butt buddies.

Ever consider what the fed/state has to say about losing out on Gas taxes? Think maybe they might have some influence on what is developed?

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:20 AM
In your car? Good luck. I still don't think enough money is being pumped in to R&D to develop vehicles that don't use oil, and use some other form of renewable resource. Hybrid vehicles are still to expensive, and people are still buying large gas guzzling vehicles.

I understand that if oil goes through the roof, everything else will too. I just think a full-scale crisis will be the only thing that will wake our asses up and get vehicles on the road that don't rely on oil.

I take it you drive a hybrid vehicle?

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:21 AM
I find it interesting that so many people are concerned about Oil but don't seem too concerned about other resources that are rapidly depleting.

Who here is concerned that discovery of iron deposits has almost come to a halt? Anyone bitching about the rising cost of steel? Is that Bush's fault too?
Everything is Bush's fault. EVERYTHING!










levity people.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:22 AM
Soo, basically, you'd like to see a worldwide depression. That's brilliant.
Drastic times call for drastic measures. I think our reliance on oil, especially foreign oil in this country, is dangerous. What if the supply from the ME would be cut off? I'd much rather vie for the graceful "weening", but I don't see it happening at the rate we are going.

Of course, i'm probably wrong, and the answer will be somewhere in the middle, as always.

jspchief
06-28-2005, 09:23 AM
I take it you drive a hybrid vehicle?He also doesn't use natural gas in his home and doesn't have asphalt shingles on his roof.

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:23 AM
I find it interesting that so many people are concerned about Oil but don't seem too concerned about other resources that are rapidly depleting.

Who here is concerned that discovery of iron deposits has almost come to a halt? Anyone bitching about the rising cost of steel? Is that Bush's fault too?

People don't put iron deposits or steel into their cars. And, people tend to have emotional reactions when it comes to the price of a gallon of gasoline.

redbrian
06-28-2005, 09:24 AM
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3947

June 27, 2005


Oil Prices: Cause and Effect
by Alan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and a nationally syndicated columnist.

Why is crude oil so expensive? Why does it matter?

The price of crude didn't rise from $12 in early 1999 to nearly $60 because the world suddenly ran out of oil. On the contrary, the world supply of petroleum has risen 10 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), from 65.8 million barrels a day in 1999 to 72.5 million in 2004. Cambridge Energy Research Associates estimates global oil production capacity will increase at least twice that rapidly over the next five years -- by as much as 16 million barrels a day by 2010.

Oil prices did not quintuple after 1999 because Americans suddenly switched from mini-cars to SUVs. On the contrary, if all passenger cars, pickups and SUVs were replaced with bicycles, the United States would still import a lot of oil.

We import nearly 58 percent of all petroleum, yet only 45 percent of each barrel is used to produce gasoline, and a significant portion of that gasoline is used in delivery vans and taxis. Commuter and leisure driving accounts for little more than 40 percent of the oil we consume -- far less than the amount we import. The rest of each barrel of crude is used for heating oil and diesel fuel for trucks, busses, farm machinery and ships (23 percent), petrochemicals (17 percent), jet fuel (9 percent), asphalt (4 percent) and propane (4 percent).

U.S. industries use petroleum to produce the synthetic fiber used in textile mills making carpeting and fabric from polyester and nylon. U.S. tire plants use petroleum to make synthetic rubber. Other U.S. industries use petroleum to produce plastic, drugs, detergent, deodorant, fertilizer, pesticides, paint, eyeglasses, heart valves, crayons, bubble gum and Vaseline.

When the cost of oil goes up, production costs are increased and profits reduced for industries that depend on oil. Producer costs -- not consumer gasoline costs -- are the reason high oil prices threaten to shrink industrial production of goods directly affected and also of energy-intensive products such as aluminum and paper. This threat affects all new and old industrial economies, whether those nations import or export oil. The United States may be least vulnerable because of superior energy efficiency and a larger service sector.

Of these many uses of oil in industry and commercial transportation, gasoline demand among ordinary consumers may be the least sensitive to price. That is why the relatively invariable demand of motorists cannot possibly account for the wide cyclical variations we observe in crude prices. It's the other 60 percent of the barrel that matters most, at the margin.

The U.S. index of industrial production peaked at 116.4 in June 2000 and then fell to 109.1 by December 2001; the price of West Texas crude simultaneously fell from $32 to $19. U.S. industrial demand for petrochemicals declined, and so did the related need for fuel used to transport industrial supplies and products.

Similar effects were magnified worldwide. Falling industrial production in any region has the same effect on oil prices, so crude fell from $25 to $12 in the wake of the Asian currency crisis of 1997-98.

It is commonplace to blame rising oil prices on industrial expansion in China, but that is a misleading exaggeration. Long before China's rediscovery of capitalism, earlier Asian Tigers accounted for a rising share of world petroleum demand. From 1978 to 2004, oil consumption rose 28.6 percent in the world but only 8.9 percent in the United States. That difference was exemplified by a 344 percent increase in South Korea's oil demand.

The United States still accounts for 25 percent of world oil consumption, but a declining 10 percent share of oil production. China accounts for 8 percent of consumption and 4 percent of production. China looms much larger, however, in terms of the incremental increase in demand. The IEA estimates China will account for 25.8 percent of this year's increase in demand and the United States will account for 14.6 percent. This leaves nearly 60 percent of the year's added demand coming from the rest of the world. Or maybe not.

Just as oil market pundits typically ignore the 60 percent of petroleum not going into passenger cars, they likewise ignores the 60 percent of incremental oil demand not coming from China and the United States.

Recall how regional industrial contraction collapsed the oil price in 1998 and 2001, then examine the last pages of The Economist to see what happened to industrial production over the latest 12 months. U.S. industrial production looks strong -- up 2.7 percent in May -- but that same figure a year earlier was up 4.8 percent. For Japan, industrial production is up only 0.6 percent, though a year ago it was up 8.3 percent.

Countries that were experiencing industrial increases of 12 percent to 22 percent a year ago -- such as Taiwan, Brazil, South Korea and Singapore -- are now up only 1 percent to 4 percent. For the Euro area, industrial production is down 0.1 percent. For Britain -- which exports oil -- it is down 1.9 percent. For Mexico -- which exports oil -- it is down 4.7 percent.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tracks all major economies plus one mid-sized economy (Mexico) that accounts for 13.7 percent of U.S. exports. A six-month trend of the OECD leading indicators was up 7.5 percent at the start of 2004, but has since fallen to minus 0.5 percent this April.

Want the bad news first? High oil prices have already slowed industrial production in many countries, even China and the United States to a lesser extent. Leading indicators point to wider and deeper trouble ahead.

The good news is that oil prices have proven very sensitive to industrial production, so this problem is self-limiting. Cost-squeezed industrial firms -- not necessarily in the United States -- will be reducing production and thereby reducing world oil demand and prices.

Meanwhile, some clueless senators are oddly eager to push the Chinese currency up, which would make oil cheaper for Chinese industry and more expensive at home. The White House seems oddly eager to enact more tax-financed subsidies for those who buy Japanese hybrid cars, German diesels and ethanol made from corn or sugar. It is difficult to imagine a more irrelevant "energy policy."

The only policy that might actually shrink the "fear premium" in oil prices (estimated at $10 to $20) is to use the strategic petroleum reserve strategically -- to quell panic during hurricanes, strikes, wars and the like. But the United States has instead imported oil to add to the reserve whenever oil prices were unusually high (1981 to 1985 and now) and sold oil when the price was low (1997).

Nobody in Washington shows the slightest awareness of the global nature of the oil market, of the fact that industrial damage from high oil prices has nothing to do with whether a country imports or exports oil, or even the fact that there is a crucial two-way linkage between worldwide industrial production and worldwide oil prices. When it comes to causes and effects of high oil prices, nobody in Washington shows much interest in logic or facts. It might be sad if it wasn't so pathologically pathetic.

This article originally appeared on Townhall.com on June 23, 2005

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:24 AM
I take it you drive a hybrid vehicle?
Nope. I'm as big of a part of the problem as the rest of the world. And an idealist. :)

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:24 AM
Drastic times call for drastic measures. I think our reliance on oil, especially foreign oil in this country, is dangerous. What if the supply from the ME would be cut off? I'd much rather vie for the graceful "weening", but I don't see it happening at the rate we are going.

Of course, i'm probably wrong, and the answer will be somewhere in the middle, as always.

So, you suppport drilling ANWR?

Fat Elvis
06-28-2005, 09:24 AM
If the price of oil goes through the roof, virtually everything else will to.



Actually, we don't have a choice right now. For example, what renewable resource should I substitute for gasoline in my car?

Biofuels such as ethanol and biodeisel. Really, they are our only alternative. The infrastructure is in place for the delivery of these fuels unlike hydrogen, and it would be easier to convert cars over these fuels than hydrogen.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:25 AM
Ever consider what the fed/state has to say about losing out on Gas taxes? Think maybe they might have some influence on what is developed?
Oh like they can't tax alternative fuels too.. hell I'm surprised they haven't started taxing the air we breath yet.

Of course making a widespread switch to another form of fuel/transporation would be difficult... but who ever said anything worth doing was gonna be easy. It would take years no doubt and money would be lost. One day we may not have a choice though... might as well get started imo.

Goapics1
06-28-2005, 09:26 AM
I'd like to see cars run on urine. That would solve a few problems right there.

Brock
06-28-2005, 09:26 AM
Drastic times call for drastic measures.

How many people are going to lose their lives because of your "drastic measures"? Why not wish for a nuclear holocaust while you're at it?

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:27 AM
Nope. I'm as big of a part of the problem as the rest of the world. And an idealist. :)

That's lovely.

You want the price of oil to reach astronomic levels to teach the world a lesson about the need to drive more efficient vehicles while not taking advantage of the current alternatives.

There's a word for that, and it isn't 'idealist.'

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:27 AM
So, you suppport drilling ANWR?
Yes, as long as it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I don't see how we can do it cheaply, though. I really don't care about spotted owls. They don't do anything for me.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:28 AM
I'd like to see cars run on urine. That would solve a few problems right there.
YES! The beer industry would quadruple in size!!!!


:clap: :clap:

jspchief
06-28-2005, 09:29 AM
So, you suppport drilling ANWR?We should have been there a long time ago.

Talk about progress held back by emotion and ignorance...

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:29 AM
Yes, as long as it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I don't see how we can do it cheaply, though. I really don't care about spotted owls. They don't do anything for me.
Little ****ers will eat the fish in your ornamental pond too... bastards.

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:31 AM
Biofuels such as ethanol and biodeisel. Really, they are our only alternative. The infrastructure is in place for the delivery of these fuels unlike hydrogen, and it would be easier to convert cars over these fuels than hydrogen.

We already are using ethanol. Something like 3 billion gallons last year.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:33 AM
How many people are going to lose their lives because of your "drastic measures"? Why not wish for a nuclear holocaust while you're at it?
OK...I admit I'm missing the point on this one. Why will people lose their lives creating alternative fuels or drilling untapped sources?

I'd think it would actually save lives if we didn't have to "fight for oil." Yes... I said it... fight for oil... I'm one of those, so what.

And how exactly did you pull nuclear holocaust out of your butt?

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:34 AM
We should have been there a long time ago.

Talk about progress held back by emotion and ignorance...
As a democrat I'm ok with drilling there....

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:36 AM
... and how on earth has this thread not been moved to dc yet?

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 09:37 AM
That's lovely.

You want the price of oil to reach astronomic levels to teach the world a lesson about the need to drive more efficient vehicles while not taking advantage of the current alternatives.

There's a word for that, and it isn't 'idealist.'
I've got a sick mind. :D

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:37 AM
... and how on earth has this thread not been moved to dc yet?

Because this issue has nothing to do with partisan politics, despite the attempts of some members to make it so.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 09:39 AM
Because this issue has nothing to do with partisan politics, despite the attempts of some members to make it so.
uh huh...

Brock
06-28-2005, 09:40 AM
Because this issue has nothing to do with partisan politics, despite the attempts of some members to make it so.

They have Bush on the brain. They can't help it. ROFL

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:46 AM
uh huh...

What? You really think that partisan politics has something to do with the present high price of oil?

TEX
06-28-2005, 09:52 AM
Let's see - the price of Gasoline RISES as OPEC increases production? I finally understand the meaning of "Fuzzy Math." :hmmm:

Donger
06-28-2005, 09:57 AM
Let's see - the price of Gasoline RISES as OPEC increases production? I finally understand the meaning of "Fuzzy Math." :hmmm:

You're apparently not taking into consideration that the price of oil is speculative, and that that price depends on many factors beyond simply pumping it out of the ground.

nolimitpk
06-28-2005, 09:57 AM
Actually this surge in oil has several factors. Bush is one of the major ones. The war in iraq is wasting alot of oil. Im not sure if any of you know this but in iraq we pay for the oil they are getting right now. We transport it in. We are paying about $8 a gallon and charging them like $.89 a gallon. Not only that but by keeping the prices high this neocon government can control this country. We rely on that oil so much that if tommarow it was gone we would be gone as well. Eventually we will have to fight China for the oil due to the continuous growth of their economy. Now about the MPG with SUVS. THEY ALL ARE GAS GUZZLERS. YOU THINK BECAUSE A SUV HAS A 4.6 LITER THAT ITS MORE EFFECTIVE. FACT IS THAT YEAH ITS MORE EFFECTIVE BUT A 4.6 V8 CARRYING AROUND A 6000 POUND SUV ISNT. ESCALADES AND HUMMERS GET ABOUT 9MPG. THEY ARE RIGHT ON THE VERGE OF NOT EVEN BEING LEGAL DUE TO THEIR EMMISION REQUIREMENTS. MORE AND MORE SUVS. FORD, CHEVY, TOYOTA ALL HAVE 6 OR MORE. THATS ALOT, A WHOLE HELL OF ALOT. YES THE PRICE IS RISING AND WE ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. OUR PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY DOESNT CARE BECAUSE HE HASN'T TRIED TO FIX IT. BACK IN NOVEMBER I SAID "I'M JUST GOING TO SIT BACK AND LAUGH AT THE IDIOTS THAT VOTED HIM IN WHEN THEY START COMPLAINING ABOUT GAS PRICES."

THE TIME HAS COME AND MY ASS IS NO LONGER ATTACHED.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:00 AM
Actually this surge in oil has several factors. Bush is one of the major ones. The war in iraq is wasting alot of oil. Im not sure if any of you know this but in iraq we pay for the oil they are getting right now. We transport it in. We are paying about $8 a gallon and charging them like $.89 a gallon. Not only that but by keeping the prices high this neocon government can control this country. We rely on that oil so much that if tommarow it was gone we would be gone as well. Eventually we will have to fight China for the oil due to the continuous growth of their economy. Now about the MPG with SUVS. THEY ALL ARE GAS GUZZLERS. YOU THINK BECAUSE A SUV HAS A 4.6 LITER THAT ITS MORE EFFECTIVE. FACT IS THAT YEAH ITS MORE EFFECTIVE BUT A 4.6 V8 CARRYING AROUND A 6000 POUND SUV ISNT. ESCALADES AND HUMMERS GET ABOUT 9MPG. THEY ARE RIGHT ON THE VERGE OF NOT EVEN BEING LEGAL DUE TO THEIR EMMISION REQUIREMENTS. MORE AND MORE SUVS. FORD, CHEVY, TOYOTA ALL HAVE 6 OR MORE. THATS ALOT, A WHOLE HELL OF ALOT. YES THE PRICE IS RISING AND WE ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT. OUR PRESIDENT OBVIOUSLY DOESNT CARE BECAUSE HE HASN'T TRIED TO FIX IT. BACK IN NOVEMBER I SAID "I'M JUST GOING TO SIT BACK AND LAUGH AT THE IDIOTS THAT VOTED HIM IN WHEN THEY START COMPLAINING ABOUT GAS PRICES."

THE TIME HAS COME AND MY ASS IS NO LONGER ATTACHED.


Wow. Nice diatribe.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 10:00 AM
Gas really isn't that expensive anyways. My vehicle gets good gas mileage, and a tank costs about 20 some bucks. Thats less than a decent meal for 2.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 10:04 AM
Sauldo isn't going to get upset with Oil prices until Astroglide goes to $40/oz, and he's getting dry-sanded by gochiefs....

Boyceofsummer
06-28-2005, 10:05 AM
You charge what the market will bear.

We've had it artificially good for a long time here. Gasoline prices have not kept pace with inflation.

You're dealing with a finite limited supply commodity and increasing demand as the world's economies develop. The cost will only continue to rise and it will rise sharply. Because we have such a geographically dispersed nation and have invested so much in automotive transportation, we will end up paying a lot more per capita when it comes to the costs for running our economy than other nations.

We need to have cheap teleportation devices invented immediately!

that makes you TELEPATHETIC.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 10:06 AM
What? You really think that partisan politics has something to do with the present high price of oil?
No... this thread became partisan...at least to a degree...when the pic of Bush was posted. That's what I was reffering to.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:07 AM
No... this thread became partisan...at least to a degree...when the pic of Bush was posted. That's what I was reffering to.

Actually, it became politicized much earlier than that. The first page, IIRC.

Edit: Post #4.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 10:11 AM
Actually, it became politicized much earlier than that. The first page, IIRC.

Edit: Post #4.
well then there you go... I didn't read it all. THAT'S why I said I was surprised the thread hadn't been moved to dc yet... and YOU said it wasn't about partisan politics.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 10:12 AM
Sauldo isn't going to get upset with Oil prices until Astroglide goes to $40/oz, and he's getting dry-sanded by gochiefs....
You seem to have quite an obsession with butt sex. Is there something you'd like to tell us?

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:15 AM
well then there you go... I didn't read it all. THAT'S why I said I was surprised the thread hadn't been moved to dc yet... and YOU said it wasn't about partisan politics.

Like I said, this issue has nothing to do with partisan politics, despite the attempts of some members to make it so.

Perhaps the Omnipotent Overlords recognized this fact, and therefore chose not to move it to DC because of a few people's misguided efforts.

TEX
06-28-2005, 10:15 AM
You're apparently not taking into consideration that the price of oil is speculative, and that that price depends on many factors beyond simply pumping it out of the ground.

The word "speculative" is speculative. This is pretty simple, when production increases, price shouldn't.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:18 AM
This is pretty simple, when production increases, price shouldn't.

Extremely simple.

What you say is correct, if you ignore all the other market forces and considerations.

Brock
06-28-2005, 10:18 AM
The word "speculative" is speculative. This is pretty simple, when production increases, price shouldn't.

Unless demand increases accordingly.

nolimitpk
06-28-2005, 10:19 AM
Bush and his comrades have no vested intrests? Pathetic to think not. Look at the first paragraph in this whole store. This is from Fox News so here it is, the pot calling the kettle black. EAT IT!

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,160878,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate overwhelmingly approved energy legislation embraced by both Republicans and Democrats Tuesday, but hard bargaining looms with House GOP leaders who favor measures more favorable to industry.

After finishing most work on the bill late last week, the Senate approved the sweeping legislation 85-12. It includes a proposed $18 billion in energy tax breaks, an expansion of ethanol (search) use and measures aimed at increasing natural gas imports to meet growing demand.

But lawmakers acknowledged that the measure would do little, if anything, in the short run to stem the soaring cost of energy including oil that this week has eclipsed $60 a barrel and gasoline that last week averaged $2.22 a gallon at the pump, according to the Energy Department.

"We still have many hurdles to overcome," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (search), D-N.M., who led the Democrats in fashioning the massive bill. The bill passed by the House in April differs sharply from the Senate legislation over oil production and the degree of emphasis on conservation.

Sen. Pete Domenici (search), R-N.M., said the Senate bill would usher in "a new policy for the United States ... that energy should be clean, renewable and that we have conservation" to curtail energy demand. He said it would help assure a broad mix of energy sources in the future from nuclear power to wind energy.

But the Senate deliberately skirted some of the most contentious energy issues facing Congress.

The legislation says nothing about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search) in Alaska, although that's a top priority of the Bush administration. The House-passed bill calls for developing the refuge and assumes $2.6 billion over 10 years in federal revenue from refuge oil lease sales.

And unlike the House bill, it is silent on giving aid to larger oil companies and refiners who want protection against environmental lawsuits because one of their products, the gasoline additive MTBE (search), has contaminated drinking water in hundreds of communities. House leaders have insisted an MTBE waiver be part of energy legislation.

The Senate twice before in the last four years has passed energy legislation only to see the effort fall apart without a final agreement. Both GOP and Democratic lawmakers predicted that if a compromise is to be reached with the House and also be acceptable to the Senate, it will require in the close involvement of the White House.

President Bush has called on Congress to give him an energy bill by August. Most senators believe that is unrealistic, given the expected difficult discussions still ahead.

More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the House in April, the Senate measure would funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and biomass (search). The Senate bill also would try to reduce energy consumption through tax incentives for efficient appliances and homes and for gas-electric hybrid cars.

Other fights are expected with the House over how much corn-based ethanol refiners would have to use — 8 million gallons a year in the Senate version vs. 5 million under the House bill — and whether utilities should have to produce at least 10 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.

The cost of the Senate package also is expected to be an issue.

It would cost $16 billion over 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, compared to about $8 billion for the House bill. The White House wanted a $6.7 billion price tag. The House version is somewhat misleading, however, since it relies on $2.6 billion in revenue, not yet certain to be approved, from oil leases in the Alaska wildfire refuge.

"It's going to be a tough conference [with the House]," said Domenici, who as the bill's floor leader had seen months of tough negotiations go for naught two years ago.

The Senate also passed energy legislation in 2002, when Democrats were in the majority, but saw efforts to get a compromise with the House evaporate when Republicans regained their majority in the Senate.

The Senate bill, cobbled together during months of behind-the-scenes discussions and two weeks of floor debate, was viewed by its supporters as an attempt to expand and diversify the country's energy supply and reduce its reliance on oil.

oldandslow
06-28-2005, 10:21 AM
The world is not running out of oil...

however, we have reached a point where demand is outstripping supply.

And that is not likely to change...

China is part of the problem...but we also must share the blame.

beavis
06-28-2005, 10:23 AM
that makes you TELEPATHETIC.
Who knew Beyonce was one of the great minds of our time. Well done.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:24 AM
Bush and his comrades have no vested intrests? Pathetic to think not. Look at the first paragraph in this whole store. This is from Fox News so here it is, the pot calling the kettle black.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,160878,00.html

WASHINGTON — The Senate overwhelmingly approved energy legislation embraced by both Republicans and Democrats Tuesday, but hard bargaining looms with House GOP leaders who favor measures more favorable to industry.

After finishing most work on the bill late last week, the Senate approved the sweeping legislation 85-12. It includes a proposed $18 billion in energy tax breaks, an expansion of ethanol (search) use and measures aimed at increasing natural gas imports to meet growing demand.

But lawmakers acknowledged that the measure would do little, if anything, in the short run to stem the soaring cost of energy including oil that this week has eclipsed $60 a barrel and gasoline that last week averaged $2.22 a gallon at the pump, according to the Energy Department.

"We still have many hurdles to overcome," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman (search), D-N.M., who led the Democrats in fashioning the massive bill. The bill passed by the House in April differs sharply from the Senate legislation over oil production and the degree of emphasis on conservation.

Sen. Pete Domenici (search), R-N.M., said the Senate bill would usher in "a new policy for the United States ... that energy should be clean, renewable and that we have conservation" to curtail energy demand. He said it would help assure a broad mix of energy sources in the future from nuclear power to wind energy.

But the Senate deliberately skirted some of the most contentious energy issues facing Congress.

The legislation says nothing about drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (search) in Alaska, although that's a top priority of the Bush administration. The House-passed bill calls for developing the refuge and assumes $2.6 billion over 10 years in federal revenue from refuge oil lease sales.

And unlike the House bill, it is silent on giving aid to larger oil companies and refiners who want protection against environmental lawsuits because one of their products, the gasoline additive MTBE (search), has contaminated drinking water in hundreds of communities. House leaders have insisted an MTBE waiver be part of energy legislation.

The Senate twice before in the last four years has passed energy legislation only to see the effort fall apart without a final agreement. Both GOP and Democratic lawmakers predicted that if a compromise is to be reached with the House and also be acceptable to the Senate, it will require in the close involvement of the White House.

President Bush has called on Congress to give him an energy bill by August. Most senators believe that is unrealistic, given the expected difficult discussions still ahead.

More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the House in April, the Senate measure would funnel 40 percent of some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable energy sources such as wind and biomass (search). The Senate bill also would try to reduce energy consumption through tax incentives for efficient appliances and homes and for gas-electric hybrid cars.

Other fights are expected with the House over how much corn-based ethanol refiners would have to use — 8 million gallons a year in the Senate version vs. 5 million under the House bill — and whether utilities should have to produce at least 10 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or other renewable energy sources.

The cost of the Senate package also is expected to be an issue.

It would cost $16 billion over 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, compared to about $8 billion for the House bill. The White House wanted a $6.7 billion price tag. The House version is somewhat misleading, however, since it relies on $2.6 billion in revenue, not yet certain to be approved, from oil leases in the Alaska wildfire refuge.

"It's going to be a tough conference [with the House]," said Domenici, who as the bill's floor leader had seen months of tough negotiations go for naught two years ago.

The Senate also passed energy legislation in 2002, when Democrats were in the majority, but saw efforts to get a compromise with the House evaporate when Republicans regained their majority in the Senate.

The Senate bill, cobbled together during months of behind-the-scenes discussions and two weeks of floor debate, was viewed by its supporters as an attempt to expand and diversify the country's energy supply and reduce its reliance on oil.

Heh. I wasn't aware that Bush was a member of Congress.

EAT IT!

Thanks for feeding me that information

beavis
06-28-2005, 10:26 AM
THE TIME HAS COME AND MY ASS IS NO LONGER ATTACHED.
TYPING IN ALL CAPS ALWAYS MAKES YOUR POINT LESS ASININE.

beavis
06-28-2005, 10:27 AM
Heh. I wasn't aware that Bush was a member of Congress.
He controls both houses. The courts too.

Soupnazi
06-28-2005, 10:29 AM
Bush and his comrades have no vested intrests? Pathetic to think not. Look at the first paragraph in this whole store. This is from Fox News so here it is, the pot calling the kettle black. EAT IT!

Since you're so brilliant about the commodities markets, would you care to opine about the recent price jumps of commodities other than oil?

Or are you only about spoon-fed talking points?

Saggysack
06-28-2005, 10:34 AM
You seem to have quite an obsession with butt sex. Is there something you'd like to tell us?

:LOL:

Hey, keep that shit confined to PM's please. I think I will speak for the majority and say not many of us want to hear about Iowomans butt sex adventures

nolimitpk
06-28-2005, 10:39 AM
Since you're so brilliant about the commodities markets, would you care to opine about the recent price jumps of commodities other than oil?

Or are you only about spoon-fed talking points?

Well I am in the moving/shipping industry and yes I can tell you exactly why. 2 years ago fuel surcharge was an amazing 3%. Right now its about 19%. Do the math. The price of everything will go up and thats a fact.

Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.

chiefs4me
06-28-2005, 10:43 AM
Well I am in the moving/shipping industry and yes I can tell you exactly why. 2 years ago fuel surcharge was an amazing 3%. Right now its about 19%. Do the math. The price of everything will go up and thats a fact.

Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.





ROFL.......hey....he is alot of things, but dumb isin't one of them... please find yourself someone else to spar with.....he's mine.:harumph:

Soupnazi
06-28-2005, 10:43 AM
Well I am in the moving/shipping industry and yes I can tell you exactly why. 2 years ago fuel surcharge was an amazing 3%. Right now its about 19%. Do the math. The price of everything will go up and thats a fact.

Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.

Nope. Try again. Tell me why the base levels (price per unit), independent of shipping charges, of commodities like grain, copper, zinc, steel, beef, coal etc. etc. has gone up over the last couple of years. And it's a lot more than 19%.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:44 AM
Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.

No offense, but all of this has been covered here ad nauseum during the election, so if you've got nothing other than empty rhetoric, you might want to save it.

By the way, it's "you're just as dumb" not "your." It's called a contraction.

Donger
06-28-2005, 10:45 AM
Well I am in the moving/shipping industry and yes I can tell you exactly why. 2 years ago fuel surcharge was an amazing 3%. Right now its about 19%. Do the math. The price of everything will go up and thats a fact.

Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.

Oh, one other thing, if you want to have a political discussion, please start a thread in the DC forum. Politics belong there, not here.

Brock
06-28-2005, 10:46 AM
Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.

I challenge you to prove what you are saying. If you can't, you're just another squawking DNC parrot. I realize your high level job at UPS probably qualifies you to explain the commodities market to the rest of us dummies, and here is your chance to prove it.

gblowfish
06-28-2005, 10:52 AM
This discussion may belong in DC forum, but here's my take.

Expensive oil is not the fault of China, or the Iraq war, or SUVs. It's a systematically planned market effect orchestrated by big oil by reducing REFINING CAPACITY in the US over the past 20 years. Our country has gone from a PRODUCER to a CONSUMER of oil.

"And when the producer names the tune, the consumer has to dance. That's the way it is."-Gil Scott-Heron.

Here's a great article from the front page of last Sunday's KC Star about refining capacity in the US, and how big oil has trimmed refining capacity to boost demand in the US marketplace. Also note that Big Oil profits are at an all time high. It's all planned, and these guys call it "The Golden Age of Refining."

Posted on Sun, Jun. 26, 2005
A Star Consumer Watchdog Report

Big squeeze by big oil

The U.S. oil industry, wanting to drive up profits, shuttered dozens of refineries over the past quarter century. You feel the pinch at the pump every time you fill up.

By STEVE EVERLY
The Kansas City Star

ARKANSAS CITY, Kan. — The dormant complex here at the edge of Kansas is a weathered still-life of a bygone era.


Remnants of rusty pipes and storage tanks hint at the oil refinery that once hummed here on the banks of the Arkansas River.


Property that could produce enough gasoline to satisfy half the state’s thirst for the fuel is now overrun with prairie grass. Abandoned buildings sit with plywood-shuttered windows.


It’s a fate few here thought possible. Even nine years after the refinery closed, some former employees still can’t believe what happened to the economic lifeblood of the community since 1918. They still ponder how a deal to sell the refinery fell apart.


So does Malcolm Turner. He led a group that wanted to buy the refinery. They offered the owner, Total Petroleum Ltd., $37 million and thought they had a deal. But Turner said Total backed out at the last minute — offering scant explanation.


Seeking answers, Turner hopped on a flight from Dallas to Total’s North American headquarters in Denver. Over a round of golf with Total executives, the discussion finally got to the question: Why would Total walk away from $37 million and prefer to sell a perfectly good refinery for scrap?


“They finally said by closing the refinery it would tighten up the market,” Turner recalls. “They thought they would benefit.”


At the time, Total told employees the sale fell through and the company was closing the refinery for business reasons. The company has declined repeated requests for more comment on its decision-making process.


Turner, a decades-long veteran in the oil industry, was dumbfounded that the company shut the plant. But similar stories have been quietly playing out across the country — wiping out thousands of good-paying jobs, devastating communities and, ultimately, squeezing consumers at the gas pump.


Drawing from dozens of interviews and previously undisclosed government documents, The Kansas City Star has discovered a largely untold story of a rapidly consolidating industry that has clamped down on refining capacity to drive up profits. Now, as retail gas prices routinely surge to more than $2 a gallon, what started as a legitimate business concern about overcapacity has become a recurring theme that has limited refining capacity in the world’s largest oil-consuming nation.


The refining issue now occupies the world economy’s center stage.


The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which itself has been under fire for high oil prices, has criticized the shortfall in U.S. refining capacity. In April, the foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah said additional supplies of crude oil to the U.S. would “make no difference” because we lack the refining capacity to make it into gasoline.


Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently called our domestic refining capacity “worrisome.”


President Bush proposes using former military bases as sites for new refineries. Others urge a streamlining of environmental regulations to make it quicker to gain the necessary permits to build refineries. Still others argue for fewer types of environmentally friendly reformulated gas to eliminate production bottlenecks.


But such proposals miss a central question: Does the oil industry even want to significantly increase refining capacity?


ExxonMobil Corp., the world’s largest oil company, last year had a return on investment of about 25 percent on its refineries. Its 2004 earnings were $25.3 billion, a record for a public company. The company now has a cash horde of more than $20 billion. But while the company is using some of its extra cash to buy its own stock, it doesn’t have plans to build another U.S. refinery.


“You won’t see our investment spending swing with changes in near-term commodity prices,” Exxon CEO Lee Raymond recently told investors at the company’s annual meeting.


Over the past 25 years, 176 refineries have closed in the United States — including refineries in Sugar Creek and Kansas City, Kan. A new U.S. refinery hasn’t been built since 1976. Even with upgrades and expansions at the remaining refineries, domestic capacity is down 9 percent since 1981, while demand for gasoline has increased 38 percent


Today this country, which once had far more refining capacity than it needed, can no longer depend on its own refineries for all its fuel needs — even when they run virtually at full speed. Imported gasoline now accounts for 10 percent of supply, and that number is expected to grow.


The industry’s refining margins, the difference between crude oil and wholesale gas prices, have doubled and tripled at times to nearly 60 cents per gallon. Refinery and marketing profits, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, were up 292 percent for the last quarter of 2004 when compared with the same period the previous year.


The refinery squeeze already has contributed to some of the most volatile gas prices in memory. Indeed, the gasoline market now is so tight, say industry executives, that any demand spike, refinery outage or pipeline shortage can easily cause prices to soar.


Refining margins were a big topic at an oil industry conference held last fall at a resort near Las Vegas.


“Any little thing that happens, prices shoot up,” Bill Greehey, chief executive officer of Valero Energy Corp., told the audience.


Greehey, in a remarkable moment of candor for an often tight-lipped industry, dubbed this the “Golden Age of Refining,” saying “the best is yet to come.”


Rooted in crisis


It took ages to reach this point.


Two 1970s oil crises orchestrated by OPEC left consumers with indelible images of long lines at gas stations and high prices at the pump. But they also marked a turning point for Big Oil that set a course for today’s higher refinery profits.


A detailed portrayal of that turnabout is contained in a previously undisclosed 393-page document, assembled by Federal Trade Commission lawyers as part of an antitrust suit that was pending before an administrative law judge that was later dismissed.


As countries around the globe nationalized their oil industries, the domestic oil industry increasingly looked to refining for profits. In some instances, according to the FTC document, the oil companies cooperated among themselves to reduce refinery capacity.


“It’s not happenstance that we’re short of refining capacity,” said David Haberman, a retired former antitrust lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. “I really thought it could end up like it is today.”


Haberman was one of 19 lawyers who spent nearly a decade compiling a case which has been largely forgotten. The case, which was before an administrative law judge within the FTC, was dismissed in the early days of the Reagan administration. But it created a treasure trove of more than 500,000 pages of documents within the FTC archives that offer a rare glimpse inside the industry.


The FTC, replying to requests by The Kansas City Star, so far has refused to release most of those documents after initially saying they could not be located. The federal agency now says that it is required to get the approval of the oil companies that authored the memorandums and other documents before they can be released.


But the FTC’s “Complaint Counsel’s First Statement of Issues, Factual Contentions and Proof” obtained by The Star offers some details of the government’s investigation of eight major oil companies. The FTC has confirmed that the document, which is dated Oct. 31, 1980, and summarizes the FTC’s case, is legitimate — even as it refuses to release other supporting documents covered under the newspaper’s request.


The FTC’s lawyers found that Big Oil was turned on its ear by the nationalization of Mideast oil. The industry had relied on the vast supplies of Mideast oil for much of its profits and plenty of refinery capacity was crucial in being able to process it all.


But the loss of control of Mideast oil, according to the FTC report, meant the end of the old system. The major oil companies increasingly viewed refineries as having a new role — a stand-alone business that needed to be profitable.


The FTC document said the industry turned its attention to making that happen, alleging:


? Competitors were kept out by refusing to sell refineries to them.


? In other instances, if an independent company was looking at land to build a refinery, the site was purchased to prevent it from being built. If there was still investment interest, oil companies would temporarily reduce wholesale gasoline prices in that territory to convince the would-be buyer that it would be unprofitable.


? In addition, refining capacity among the companies was controlled by sharing information on gasoline production. One company’s memorandum to another company that discussed plans to shut down a refinery included instructions to destroy the document after it was read.


At one point, according to the FTC report, the companies thought demand would increase significantly. But the companies “contrary to their individual business interests, did not expand refining capacity or take other actions to meet anticipated demand” — delaying or canceling refinery projects.


? The companies also sought to keep from dumping too much gasoline on the market by following the “leading firm” in each market regarding how much gas to refine to sell to that market.


“The system worked in firming up prices,” concluded the FTC document.


During and after the FTC’s investigation, the oil companies denied the allegations that they worked together to restrict capacity. Some argued that the government was merely looking to blame the industry for high energy prices. They contended that business decisions were individual responses to the pressures of a competitive free market, not an organized effort to use their market power to thwart competition.


Shortly after Ronald Reagan became president, in September 1981, the FTC withdrew its case, saying further proceedings were “not in the public interest.” At the time, the commission noted that the decision to dismiss did not represent a decision on the merits of the case, and it left open the option of addressing competition in the industry at a later date. The case, which alleged some specific examples of “collusive” actions, was the largest ever brought by the FTC.


A generation later, the oil industry sees the dismissal as exoneration of the antitrust allegations.


“There have been numerous claims but there has never been a finding of collusion,” said Edward Murphy, group director of refining and marketing for the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil companies. “The fact is this has been and continues to be a very competitive industry.”


Cutting capacity


To be sure, Big Oil has at times had a legitimate reason to be concerned about overcapacity.


Even as the industry sought to reduce capacity, an unprecedented slump in demand during the recession-ridden early 1980s meant that U.S. refineries could make far more gasoline than needed.


But that didn’t last. U.S. refinery capacity dropped from 18.6 million barrels of oil per day in 1981, to 15.7 million barrels a day in 1998, as demand soared.


The domestic refining industry, which used as little as 70 percent of capacity as recently as the early 1980s, in recent years has reached as much as 97 percent of capacity — effectively operating at full steam because some capacity is always down for maintenance or retooling. And that lack of spare capacity makes prices more volatile.


Edward Galante, a senior vice president for ExxonMobil, speaking at an energy conference in Houston in February, said a “dramatic” spike in global demand for gasoline in 2004 made the market tight.


“And in tighter markets, one can expect higher margins,” he said.


But Galante said it was unlikely that any company would invest the billions that it takes to build more refineries in the United States. He argued that there is still the possibility that demand could decline and refinery margins would follow. Building more capacity, he said, could contribute to another surplus, returning the industry to the darker days of the early 1980s.


“Some say we have entered a ‘Golden Age of Refining.’?” Galante said. “Of those I ask: How long is an age?”


Clearly, free-market adjustments explain some of the decline in capacity. Inefficient small refineries, for example, were among those closed. But other forces, say some critics, were also afoot.


“This is an industry rigged for profits,” said Jamie Court, president of The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.


“People think it is OPEC that’s the reason for high gas prices, and it just isn’t so.”


The concern about surplus refining capacity remained a recurring theme in the industry, even as use pushed past 90 percent.


In a 1995 internal memo obtained by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, whose office has investigated the industry in recent years, Chevron discussed an industry meeting at which an analyst warned that if capacity wasn’t reduced further, there would be no substantial increase in refining margins.


In a 1996 internal memo, Mobil officials called for a “full court press” to stop an independent company from restarting a refinery in California that might reduce gas prices by 3 cents per gallon. The effort was successful.


Company officials say such efforts reflect legitimate business strategies. “There have been various investigations that have concluded there has been no wrongdoing by the oil companies and the industry in general,” said Carolin Keith, a spokeswoman for ExxonMobil.


And a Texaco memorandum, also in 1996, stated too much capacity was hurting refinery profits.


“Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline,” according to the document.


A spokesman for Chevron, which later acquired Texaco, said the company has continuously upgraded and expanded existing refineries. He referred to a recent speech by a Chevron executive for the company’s position on building new refineries.


Patricia Woertz, executive vice president of Chevron’s downstream operations, said expansion of the nation’s refining infrastructure would seem an obvious solution. But Woertz said any company would be hard pressed to find a community that would welcome a new refinery.


“Even if you believe the investment economics have become more favorable, other discouragements remain,” she said at an industry conference in San Francisco.


End of an era


Employees at the Arkansas City refinery first realized their futures might be in jeopardy in 1996.


Total’s parent company, based in Paris, France, said it no longer wanted the 56,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Arkansas City. But the company said it hoped to find a new owner.


The refinery had been upgraded over the years and employees had been told by management that it was profitable. So the workers were optimistic that an industry that had been in Arkansas City for nearly a century would continue to be a fixture.


“Many thought it was a done deal,” said Jerry Walker, who was one of the refinery’s supervisors.


But Walker was skeptical.


Recently sitting in his white-frame house just blocks from where the refinery stood, Walker remembered a trip in 1994 that suggested what was good business for the company wasn’t always good for the workers.


Total executives had asked him to accompany them to a refinery in Wynnewood, Okla., that was for sale. After the inspections, the executives and Walker gathered to discuss the day. Walker recalls that one of the executives said Total should buy the refinery, explaining that if it didn’t work out they could still close it and take it off the market.


“I think I heard something I wasn’t supposed to hear,” Walker said.


Still, the future of the Arkansas City refinery seemed secure. Gary Jones, president of Total Petroleum’s North American business, visited the refinery in July 1996 and told the employees that a sale was likely.


But on Aug. 12, 1996 — known as Black Monday in Arkansas City — the company gathered the refinery’s nearly 200 employees and told them the refinery would be closed. A company spokeswoman told the local newspapers that the sale had fallen through.


“We empathize with the employees who will be laid off as a result of our decision to discontinue crude oil processing at the Arkansas City refinery,” Jones said in a prepared statement released when the closure was announced. “This action will, however, make Total Petroleum a stronger company by allowing us to focus our capital and human resources on other areas of the company with a higher profit potential.”


Turner, considered one of the country’s top refinery experts, was in his Dallas office the day the Arkansas City employees were told that the refinery would close. He said he got a call from a Total executive telling him that the company no longer wanted to sell and the deal was off. Turner said the sales contract was on his desk when the call came in.


“We were on the 5-yard line but they turned us down,” he said.


The Arkansas City Traveler newspaper called the refinery’s closing “disastrous.” Over the years, the community watched as the refinery was dismantled and its parts sold. Today the site is home for a small asphalt and loading business.


Ten months after the Arkansas City refinery closed, Total reported financial results for its North American unit for the quarter ending June 30, 1997. The company singled out strong operations in the Midwest as a reason for a 61 percent increase in operating income for its refineries.


Eventually, Total sold most of its remaining U.S. refineries. Another unit, Total Petrochemical, continues to have an interest in a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.


Jones took another job with Total overseas. Total executives declined to discuss the Arkansas City closure, or allow Jones to comment.


For many of the refinery’s employees, the closing was financially disastrous. Employees who were not at least 55 years old received only a fraction of the projected value of their pensions.


Donald Bruce was 53 and had a full pension estimated to be worth $207,000. He received $70,000. Another employee was just weeks away from reaching 55 when the refinery closed. Other employees offered to donate vacation time so he would qualify for his full pension. The company refused.


“It doesn’t make any sense,” Bruce said.


A few years after the refinery closed, Greg Kent was still sorting through its remnants.


Kent, the appraiser for Cowley County where the refinery was located, has been in a dispute over the amount of property taxes that should be paid after it was closed. The proceedings have included subpoenas for some of Total’s records.


One day Kent was thumbing through records when he was stopped cold by one of the documents. The document revealed that there had been three serious bids for the refinery. Kent said he was “beside himself” as he absorbed what he read.


“Why didn’t they take the $37 million and run?” Kent asked. “This was a catastrophe that shouldn’t have happened.”

To reach Steve Everly, call (816) 234-4455 or send e-mail to severly@kcstar.com

beavis
06-28-2005, 10:57 AM
Well I am in the moving/shipping industry and yes I can tell you exactly why. 2 years ago fuel surcharge was an amazing 3%. Right now its about 19%. Do the math. The price of everything will go up and thats a fact.

Donger, Bush has control of it all, really its more like he is controlled, the neocons have their dirty hands in everything that is wrong and use him like a puppet. Sounds like you voted for him which is expected after reading your comments. Not sure why people like to be represented by a man of such stupidity. Too many reasons to start listing why he is stupid and if you cant see for yourself, well, your just as dumb.
Yeah, he's stupid, and your dumb, and if you can't understand that, well, you're dumber! ROFL

Nice to have you back B@S.

StcChief
06-28-2005, 11:03 AM
Because of supply and demand.

Chinese are using more and more oil, supply is not as plentiful. No new refineries in US in years.

Summer time more driving/vacations eats more supply.

Get over it, ride a bike, stay home.

It's still a bargain factoring inflation.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 11:09 AM
I find it interesting that so many people are concerned about Oil but don't seem too concerned about other resources that are rapidly depleting.

Who here is concerned that discovery of iron deposits has almost come to a halt? Anyone bitching about the rising cost of steel? Is that Bush's fault too?

How did the Bush family make their money again?

Brock
06-28-2005, 11:12 AM
How did the Bush family make their money again?

Uh, the same way the Hunt family did? By working for it? Or are they a bunch of thieving bastards too?

Ultra Peanut
06-28-2005, 11:13 AM
BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!

chiefs4me
06-28-2005, 11:16 AM
BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!




ROFL.......did you see the pay per view sunday night? Triple H didn't get the title back.........ROFL

ILChief
06-28-2005, 11:17 AM
Uh, the same way the Hunt family did? By working for it? Or are they a bunch of thieving bastards too?

way to avoid the question

RedThat
06-28-2005, 11:19 AM
BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!

You forgot something, I'll care to add------- AND THAT'S THE BOTTOMLINE BECAUSE STONE COLD SAID SO!

Brock
06-28-2005, 11:31 AM
way to avoid the question

Speaking of dodging questions, when you are going to answer any of the many questions posed to the Bush blamers in this thread? Try to be specific if it isn't too much trouble.

go bowe
06-28-2005, 11:40 AM
I had to do it. I'm the Planet's official shit stirrer.official shit stirrer, huh?

i thought c4me was the official shit stirrer...

or mememe?

or tace?

surely you don't put yourself in with THAT crew, do you? :shrug:

Skip Towne
06-28-2005, 11:48 AM
official shit stirrer, huh?

i thought c4me was the official shit stirrer...

or mememe?

or tace?

surely you don't put yourself in with THAT crew, do you? :shrug:
No, of course not. I just stir it to get it going then pull up a chair and watch the shit fly.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 11:50 AM
Speaking of dodging questions, when you are going to answer any of the many questions posed to the Bush blamers in this thread? Try to be specific if it isn't too much trouble.

specifically, which industry did the Bush family make their fortune in? You made it sound as if Bush didn't make any money off high oil prices which is BS. That would be like if the price of Cheese went from $2 a block to $8 a block and 99% of the people had to have cheese to work, travel, anything. there is no way around it, so saying "no one would buy cheese" isn't applicable. You don't think dairy farmers would be rolling in the dough?

Brock
06-28-2005, 11:53 AM
specifically, which industry did the Bush family make their fortune in? You made it sound as if Bush didn't make any money off high oil prices which is BS. That would be like if the price of Cheese went from $2 a block to $8 a block and 99% of the people had to have cheese to work, travel, anything. there is no way around it, so saying "no one would buy cheese" isn't applicable. You don't think dairy farmers would be rolling in the dough?

They made their money in oil. Now please answer any of the several questions that were posed to people who think like you.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 11:55 AM
You seem to have quite an obsession with butt sex. Is there something you'd like to tell us?

Tina, you fat lard, eat your food.

No queerme...I still won't go out with you. Everyone knows I'm not a butt trencher, but you're questionable...

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:00 PM
Tina, you fat lard, eat your food.

No queerme...I still won't go out with you.
There you go talking about being queer again. I swear every post you make has some type of reference to homosexuality. nttawwt I guess.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 12:02 PM
They made their money in oil. Now please answer any of the several questions that were posed to people who think like you.

Well, i went through 5 pages and saw two questions so I'll try to answer them:

First, you asked me if the Hunts were thieves like the Bushes? Well, I never said Bush was a thief. He makes alot of money from oil. Everyone has to have gasoline, so the higher the price the more he makes. Simple logic. As a result, I don't think he's doing much to lower the costs. I'm not saying he can flip a switch and gas prices go down to $1/gal, but come on. We've got a huge strategic reserve we could use. The picture of him holding hands with that Saudi jackass says it all.

The only other question I saw was from Soupnazi, I believe, asking why other commodites (corn, grain, whatever) have went up. The answer to that is simple, not as many people are farming as used to. As a result, prices are higher because supplies are shorter.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:02 PM
You seem awefully concerned with my preferences....almost hopefull.

If I were a trencher of the anus, which I am not, I surely woudn't be into fat, mulleted' 3 jowelled cats like you.

No luck here Sally.

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:04 PM
They made their money in oil. Now please answer any of the several questions that were posed to people who think like you.

I suppose it depends on how you define the Bush's fortune.

It started with President Bush's great-grandfather, who owned a steel mill in Ohio. His grandfather made a ton of money in the financial world.

They were already a very wealthy family long before George HW Bush began in the oil business.

I'm sure ILChief knows all of this, however.

BigMeatballDave
06-28-2005, 12:05 PM
Alot of crying from the Bush bashers on here. If we are gonna blame Bush for high fuel prices now, we may as well blame Clinton for high fuel prices in 2000. Funny, oil prices in Dec. '03 were right around $30/barrel. Why weren't we patting Bush on the back then?

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:06 PM
I'm not saying he can flip a switch and gas prices go down to $1/gal, but come on. We've got a huge strategic reserve we could use.

Yes. And, there's a reason why it's called The STRATEGIC Petroleum Reserve.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 12:06 PM
Alot of crying from the Bush bashers on here. If we are gonna blame Bush for high fuel prices now, we may as well blame Clinton for high fuel prices in 2000. Funny, oil prices in Dec. '03 were right around $30/barrel. Why weren't we patting Bush on the back then?

they were never this high in 2000

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:07 PM
I were a trencher of the anus,
there you go again.

ILChief
06-28-2005, 12:07 PM
Yes. And, there's a reason why it's called The STRATEGIC Petroleum Reserve.

what is the strategy? to gouge everyone out of all their money?

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:07 PM
The only other question I saw was from Soupnazi, I believe, asking why other commodites (corn, grain, whatever) have went up. The answer to that is simple, not as many people are farming as used to. As a result, prices are higher because supplies are shorter.

Wrong.

There may not be as many family farmers as there used to be, but back in those days, each one farmed 160 acres...now, even though farmers are fewer in numbers, they farm closer to 600-1000 acres, and instead of alot of farmers raising 100 head of hogs and 20 head of cattle.......MORE hogs are raised in confinement facilities, and more cattle fattened in feed lots.

When Fuel prices go up, so do the costs of production, processing, delivering thos products. There is also a growing world population that depends on US food production, which creates demand. As for Prices on Corn going up, with rare exceptions, a buschell of corn sells for the same or less than it did at WWII.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:08 PM
Well, i went through 5 pages and saw two questions so I'll try to answer them:

First, you asked me if the Hunts were thieves like the Bushes? Well, I never said Bush was a thief. He makes alot of money from oil. Everyone has to have gasoline, so the higher the price the more he makes. Simple logic. As a result, I don't think he's doing much to lower the costs. I'm not saying he can flip a switch and gas prices go down to $1/gal, but come on. We've got a huge strategic reserve we could use. The picture of him holding hands with that Saudi jackass says it all.

The only other question I saw was from Soupnazi, I believe, asking why other commodites (corn, grain, whatever) have went up. The answer to that is simple, not as many people are farming as used to. As a result, prices are higher because supplies are shorter.

HOW IS BUSH RESPONSIBLE FOR HIGH OIL PRICES? That succinct and clear enough for you?

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:09 PM
Yes. And, there's a reason why it's called The STRATEGIC Petroleum Reserve.
right... the stategy is to leave it alone so the Bush's can keep raping and pilaging...


ROFL

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:09 PM
what is the strategy? to gouge everyone out of all their money?

The SPR was created to utilized in the event of a strategic national crisis.

This isn't it.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:09 PM
there you go again.

What a clever retort, dp4me. Top notch threadwrecker quality and creativity.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:10 PM
what is the strategy? to gouge everyone out of all their money?

To supply the military with oil in the event of a catastrophic war. Ever considered the possibility?

jspchief
06-28-2005, 12:10 PM
specifically, which industry did the Bush family make their fortune in? You made it sound as if Bush didn't make any money off high oil prices which is BS. That would be like if the price of Cheese went from $2 a block to $8 a block and 99% of the people had to have cheese to work, travel, anything. there is no way around it, so saying "no one would buy cheese" isn't applicable. You don't think dairy farmers would be rolling in the dough?What percentage of oil price increases over the last ten years has been strictly profit?

What percentage of the world oil business belongs to the Bush family?

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:10 PM
right... the stategy is to leave it alone so the Bush's can keep raping and pilaging...


ROFL

You're just making yourself look like an idiot, beer me.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:12 PM
Lets just keep overlooking the fact that OPEC production limits, and lack of refineries being constructed to keep up with demand, since the 1970's due to restrictive environmental regulations imposed by liberals, and the demand of other consumers(nations) have caused the prices to skyrocket, when you can just blame Bush...brilliant.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:12 PM
I gotta say between Iowa's lust for man-ass and and others' desperation to defend the undefendable.... this is one of the most entertaining threads of the past month.

It's all so sad and tired though at the same time.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:13 PM
OK...I admit I'm missing the point on this one. Why will people lose their lives creating alternative fuels or drilling untapped sources?

I'd think it would actually save lives if we didn't have to "fight for oil." Yes... I said it... fight for oil... I'm one of those, so what.

And how exactly did you pull nuclear holocaust out of your butt?

Uh, moron....if you were following the conversation, Sauldo said that a worldwide depression brought about by skyrocketing fuel costs would be a great thing, because it would force people to develop alternatives. While that might be true, it doesn't take much brain activity to imagine that people might starve to death and/or freeze to death by the thousands while we wait around for that alternative.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:14 PM
I gotta say between Iowa's lust for man-ass and and others' desperation to defend the undefendable.... this is one of the most entertaining threads of the past month.

It's all so sad and tired though at the same time.

You are a very simple-minded fool.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:14 PM
You're just making yourself look like an idiot, beer me.
darn.... and I was so hoping for everyone's approval today.

Don't you all ever get tired of this circle-jerking pointless bullshitfest?

Chiefs Planet...Where braincells go to die...

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:15 PM
You are a very simple-minded fool.
ROFL

BigMeatballDave
06-28-2005, 12:15 PM
They were never this high in 2000Gasoline, in my area, topped $2/gallon. Right now, I'm looking at 2.20...

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:16 PM
darn.... and I was so hoping for everyone's approval today.

Don't you all ever get tired of this circle-jerking pointless bullshitfest?

Chiefs Planet...Where braincells go to die...

No. I enjoy educating liberals.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:16 PM
Don't expect beerme to keep up with the adult conversation Brock, he's pretty consumed with jokes about wanting my man-banana......yet another comodity he can't aquire, due to Bush Limits.

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:17 PM
they were never this high in 2000

No. They were, however, a lot higher in the 70s.

Damn. I always knew that Carter was in the pockets of the evil big oil companies.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:17 PM
Don't expect beerme to keep up with the adult conversation Brock, he's pretty consumed with jokes about wanting my man-banana......yet another comodity he can't aquire, due to Bush Limits.

Maybe he'll be headed to the remote at the new car wash grand opening soon. Don't get too hot out there, mullet boy!

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:18 PM
back to topic

Whats funny, is that there are MANY alternative fuel projects happening in Iowa, and other states. Soy Diesel and Ethynol Plants in the works and production, Pellets made from switchgrass for electric generation, and wind turbine farms.

What type of things are getting in the way? Financing, engineering, natural resources? No....Its nutjob liberals like beerme, crying about the windfarms, and how the turbines might squish a pidgeon.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:19 PM
Maybe he'll be headed to the remote at the new car wash grand opening soon. Don't get too hot out there, mullet boy!

He got canned from that job.......Probably from gobbling the phallic shaped Microphone, and muffling his voice clarity on the air.

Its just as well, the excess hot air gurgling from his jibblets was contributing to global warming, melting the icecaps, threatening California's coast line and depleting the home of penquins accross the globe.

Why try to make a valid point or arguement, when you can blame the president, make a peepee joke and call everyone who doesn't agree with your stupid?

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:20 PM
back to topic

Whats funny, is that there are MANY alternative fuel projects happening in Iowa, and other states. Soy Diesel and Ethynol Plants in the works and production, Pellets made from switchgrass for electric generation, and wind turbine farms.

What type of things are getting in the way? Financing, engineering, natural resources? No....Its nutjob liberals like beerme, crying about the windfarms, and how the turbines might squish a pidgeon.

Yep. "Not in my backyard" is rather common when it comes to the energy world. For example, Ted "Aqualung" Kennedy opposes a massive windfarm of the coast of Martha's Vineyard (I think).

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 12:21 PM
Were people saying it will not get cheaper in the 70's too?

(Wasn't alive in the 70's..honest question)

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 12:22 PM
My girlfriends dad is a farmer. Farms soy, wheat, and sells seed. Occasionally i'll be on the shitter and i'll read a High Plains journal. Pretty interesting stuff about Soy Bio-Diesel.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:22 PM
Uh, moron....if you were following the conversation, Sauldo said that a worldwide depression brought about by skyrocketing fuel costs would be a great thing, because it would force people to develop alternatives. While that might be true, it doesn't take much brain activity to imagine that people might starve to death and/or freeze to death by the thousands while we wait around for that alternative.
Uh moron... the point of the conversation was that the alternatives have been being developed and can continue to be developed and actually UTILIZED if the government would have the sack to do it... but instead we'll just continue consuming and becoming more and more reliant on the same old ways of doing things... the same old fuels... the same old problems... because that's the way we've always done it and because it lines pockets.

The spirit of Saul's arguement was that we don't WANT to go into a world-wide depression.... but that it's sad that it will probably take something like that for us to open our eyes.

Apparently all lot of people don't get a concept if it's too simple.

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:23 PM
Were people saying it will not get cheaper in the 70's too?

(Wasn't alive in the 70's..honest question)

Not that I recall. People were afraid that there wouldn't be any to buy, preiod. And that did happen, of course.

Very different set of circumstances, however.

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 12:24 PM
One of the ideas I've heard out of the sitting administration, was to use some of the large(area wise) closed military installations to construct additional(new) refinery operations..........because noone wants those in their back yard either.

I'm sure if it happens, its just another ploy to make money on Oil.......

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:25 PM
No. I enjoy educating liberals.
How mighty charitable of you. You deserve a medal or something for your willingness to share your all-knowingness with everyone.

Thank you Donger.... thank you so much.

btw... I'm not a liberal... just a democrat.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:26 PM
The spirit of Saul's arguement was that we don't WANT to go into a world-wide depression.... .

You're wrong, unless the "spirit" of his words were 180 degrees from the actual meaning of his words.

Saulbadguy
06-28-2005, 12:27 PM
I don't buy the "Bush" theory. Gas prices were steadily raising in 99-2000, before Bush. Plus he isn't smart enough to pull off anything that clever (heh). I think its as simple as not enough production, (NOT supply), too much reliance on OPEC, and not enough PUBLIC FUNDING towards R&D towards alternate fuels and energy sources. And of course increased demand.

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:27 PM
BTW, President Bush has suggested that we build new refineries on closed military bases. I think it's part of the energy bill now in Congress.

Also, I just talked to my brother, who's in the oil industry. Here are some scary figures:

There are 149 oil refineries operating in the US right now, fewer than half the 325 refineries operating in 1981, while gasoline demand is 20 percent higher than it was three decades ago.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:28 PM
Don't expect beerme to keep up with the adult conversation Brock, he's pretty consumed with jokes about wanting my man-banana......yet another comodity he can't aquire, due to Bush Limits.
speaking of adult conversations... do you think you'll ever be a part of one mr. man-banana "I can't form a sentence that doesn't refer to my homosexual tendancies?"

Donger
06-28-2005, 12:28 PM
How mighty charitable of you. You deserve a medal or something for your willingness to share your all-knowingness with everyone.

Thank you Donger.... thank you so much.

btw... I'm not a liberal... just a democrat.

You're welcome.

It's always amusing how quiet liberals get after they learn how the Bush family made their money originally.

Please feel free to ask if I can help with anything else.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:30 PM
You're wrong, unless the "spirit" of his words were 180 degrees from the actual meaning of his words.
wwwwwwweeeelllllllllllllllllllllll of course I'm wrong.......... no one but the conservative cirlce-lerkers are ever right in this place.

Pennywise
06-28-2005, 12:30 PM
speaking of adult conversations... do you think you'll ever be a part of one mr. man-banana "I can't form a sentence that doesn't refer to my homosexual tendancies?"
Someone needs to pop your whiny ass in the mouf.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:30 PM
You're welcome.

It's always amusing how quiet liberals get after they learn how the Bush family made their money originally.

Please feel free to ask if I can help with anything else.
can you tell me why Iowa won't stop referring to my butt...?

beavis
06-28-2005, 12:31 PM
Please feel free to ask if I can help with anything else.
Can you make him un-ghey?

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:32 PM
Someone needs to pop your whiny ass in the mouth.
ooooohhhhhhhh but I'm just having FUN!!!! You know, just like the others do........

Everyone is so sensitive today.

Soupnazi
06-28-2005, 12:32 PM
The only other question I saw was from Soupnazi, I believe, asking why other commodites (corn, grain, whatever) have went up. The answer to that is simple, not as many people are farming as used to. As a result, prices are higher because supplies are shorter.

I suspect you know that a lack of farmers doesn't cause coal prices to rise. I suspect you also know that a lack of farmers doesn't cause steel and copper to rise as well.

Commodities in general have been on a tear over the past few years. Aluminum has gone from 60 to 82 from 2/03 to 6/05. Copper went from 70 to 167 (2/03 to 6/05). Coal has gone from 28 to 60 (2/03 to 6/05). Gee, does that look anything like oil's pattern? China has gone from consuming 0.3 barrels/person/year 5 years ago to ~ 0.7 barrels/person/year today. Multiply that by each person in China and you'll begin to get an idea what that could do to the oil market.

The reality is that commodities required for economic growth tend to go higher when in demand. Demand increases when the US economy grows, China grows, India grows etc. Unfortunately, you don't still put coal into the steam engine of your car, or you'd be blaming some once-coal-businessman in some administration for your ills.

Then again, maybe all the energy traders at the NYMEX are engaged in some self-induced conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of oil for George's benefit. Or perhaps it has to do with the lack of coal farmers, who knows?

Goapics1
06-28-2005, 12:33 PM
This thread is going too fast, I can't keep up.

Brock
06-28-2005, 12:33 PM
wwwwwwweeeelllllllllllllllllllllll of course I'm wrong.......... no one but the conservative cirlce-lerkers are ever right in this place.

What a poor victim you are.

beavis
06-28-2005, 12:33 PM
wwwwwwweeeelllllllllllllllllllllll of course I'm wrong.......... no one but the conservative cirlce-lerkers are ever right in this place.
You are a tool of epic proportions.

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:37 PM
What a poor victim you are.
ROFL

ok, whatever....

Dr. Facebook Fever
06-28-2005, 12:38 PM
You are a tool of epic proportions.
ROFL

nice.... well this has been fun. Gotta go back to work. Miss me.

Fat Elvis
06-28-2005, 12:52 PM
No. They were, however, a lot higher in the 70s.

Damn. I always knew that Carter was in the pockets of the evil big oil companies.

Everyone knows that OPEC and the oil embargo was an artifice created by Carter to get the country dependant upon deisel fuel. Why? Because Rudolph Deisel first demonstrated his engine running on PEANUT OIL!





















Hey, if we're throwing out conspiracy theories, why not?

KCTitus
06-28-2005, 12:53 PM
Then again, maybe all the energy traders at the NYMEX are engaged in some self-induced conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of oil for George's benefit. Or perhaps it has to do with the lack of coal farmers, who knows?

LOL...either it's the coal farmers or corn miners, I dont know which, but it's one of 'em.

nolimitpk
06-28-2005, 01:20 PM
I never blamed Bush directly for rising fuel costs. He is a major factor in it though. Along with growing economies and instability in the Middle East. Lack of production or just refusal of production. Bush is in the bed with the Saudis like Michael Jackson with a 5 year old boy. He might not even benefit from the prices directly, but I promise you this, his friends in Texas that he owes favors do. He owed alot of people after all his failed business ventures. This is his payback to them.

Donger
06-28-2005, 01:22 PM
I never blamed Bush directly for rising fuel costs. He is a major factor in it though.

Ok, which is it?

And, as to the rest of your speculations, do you have any evidence whatsoever to back the up?

Soupnazi
06-28-2005, 01:23 PM
He owed alot of people after all his failed business ventures. This is his payback to them.

I never blamed Bush directly for rising fuel costs.

:hmmm:

Iowanian
06-28-2005, 01:32 PM
speaking of adult conversations... do you think you'll ever be a part of one mr. man-banana "I can't form a sentence that doesn't refer to my homosexual tendancies?"

Interestingly enough, I scanned the thread, and I see posts from iowanian about Energy consumption, alternative fuels, alternative energies, reasons why prices are high, support for higher levels of alternative renewable fuel uses(ethynol and soydeisel)....and not one mention of anything related, until you started walking too close for comfort and trying to map my stinkstar in brail.

You're a idiot and a C@nt. Typical lib....all bitch, no sollution.