Discussion:
DEMOCRATS AGAIN PREVENTING AMERICA FROM DRILLING FOR OIL!!
(too old to reply)
Screen Ranger
2008-06-25 08:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Yup.........The Disgusting Democrats are Trying To KILL
America........Donchaknow..........

"House fails to move gas bill

Wed Jun 25, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect a bill
to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to block
Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea gaining in
popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.

Action on legislation that would assure continuation of the ban on oil
and natural gas drilling in most of the country's coastal waters was
put off until later this summer after it became increasingly clear
that Republican lawmakers may have the votes to lift the drilling
moratorium.

Republicans charged that they were being blocked from getting a vote
on whether to end the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Bob Eld
2008-06-26 02:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Screen Ranger
Yup.........The Disgusting Democrats are Trying To KILL
America........Donchaknow..........
"House fails to move gas bill
Wed Jun 25, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect a bill
to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to block
Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea gaining in
popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.
Action on legislation that would assure continuation of the ban on oil
and natural gas drilling in most of the country's coastal waters was
put off until later this summer after it became increasingly clear
that Republican lawmakers may have the votes to lift the drilling
moratorium.
Republicans charged that they were being blocked from getting a vote
on whether to end the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Total bull shit. Most oil company leases are UNDRILLED. Let them drill
what's on their plate first before opening more regions for drilling.

Secondly there's no way in hell they are going to drill in California or
Florida because the people in those states don't want it.

Thirdly, no amount of drilling will end the current situation. At best it
gives a couple of more years against the inevitable, the end of oil.

Now is the time to quit jacking off and begin the inevitable switch to
alternatives. Sooner or later we HAVE to do it anyway, it might as well be
now!
Spaceman
2008-06-26 02:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Now is the time to quit jacking off and begin the inevitable switch to
alternatives. Sooner or later we HAVE to do it anyway, it might as
well be now!
I totally agree.
The faster it gets going, the faster we become independant
of others.
and...
There is this silly little paper that I happen to love..
It is called the...
"Declaration of Independance."
We seem to have lost that independance especially when
it comes to oil.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Screen Ranger
2008-06-26 12:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Screen Ranger
Yup.........The Disgusting Democrats are Trying To KILL
America........Donchaknow..........
"House fails to move gas bill
Wed Jun 25, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect
a bill
to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to
block
Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea
gaining in
popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.
Action on legislation that would assure continuation of the
ban on oil
and natural gas drilling in most of the country's coastal
waters was
put off until later this summer after it became increasingly
clear
that Republican lawmakers may have the votes to lift the
drilling
moratorium.
Republicans charged that they were being blocked from getting
a vote
on whether to end the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Total bull shit. Most oil company leases are UNDRILLED. Let
them drill
what's on their plate first before opening more regions for
drilling.
Secondly there's no way in hell they are going to drill in
California or
Florida because the people in those states don't want it.
Thirdly, no amount of drilling will end the current situation.
At best it
gives a couple of more years against the inevitable, the end of oil.
Now is the time to quit jacking off and begin the inevitable
switch to
alternatives. Sooner or later we HAVE to do it anyway, it might as well be
now!
Why Don't We Create a Drilling Religion? Wouldn't that make it
more Sacred?.........Heeheee.........
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-26 12:52:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Screen Ranger
Yup.........The Disgusting Democrats are Trying To KILL
America........Donchaknow..........
"House fails to move gas bill
Wed Jun 25, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect a bill
to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to block
Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea gaining in
popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.
Action on legislation that would assure continuation of the ban on oil
and natural gas drilling in most of the country's coastal waters was
put off until later this summer after it became increasingly clear
that Republican lawmakers may have the votes to lift the drilling
moratorium.
Republicans charged that they were being blocked from getting a vote
on whether to end the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Total bull shit. Most oil company leases are UNDRILLED. Let them drill
what's on their plate first before opening more regions for drilling.
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
Post by Bob Eld
Secondly there's no way in hell they are going to drill in California or
Florida because the people in those states don't want it.
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
Post by Bob Eld
Thirdly, no amount of drilling will end the current situation. At best it
gives a couple of more years against the inevitable, the end of oil.
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
Post by Bob Eld
Now is the time to quit jacking off and begin the inevitable switch to
alternatives. Sooner or later we HAVE to do it anyway, it might as well be
now!
We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
Bob Eld
2008-06-26 19:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
So, you are claiming that the oil companies have explored and drilled all of
their present leases and that they have no more places to drill without
opening up the US coast line. Do you really believe that? If so please
site.
Post by Monkey Clumps
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
The Chinese are NOT drilling off of the coast of the US or Cuba. That was a
bogus report allegedly from Dick Cheney and has been debunked.
Post by Monkey Clumps
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
By all accounts it would take 10 years to bring any new oil drilled in these
zones to production, so how much time do we buy? The amount of new oil found
, world wide keeps dwindling. The last time drilling outstripped demand was
in the 1960's!

\> We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
Post by Monkey Clumps
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
The 10 year delay in bringing any new oil on line is plenty of time to make
a significant transition into alternatives. Of course we won't replace all
petroleum in 10 years, but, if we could get to the 20% level, we would
control the 800 gorilla with our clout.

Also bringing new oil into the mix is just exacerbating the other main
problem, CO2 release. That MUST be addressed and now is the time to do it,
since we are running out of oil anyway.

Aside from conservation, the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation. One thing would be to eliminate
buying oil futures on 5% margin as can be done now. Make the speculators put
up real money, that would change things overnight.
Eeyore
2008-06-26 21:51:08 UTC
Permalink
If so please site.
CITE.

Grahama
Damon Hill
2008-06-26 23:15:38 UTC
Permalink
If so please site.
CITE.
Isn't it fascinating how we can all speak the same language,
and still can't understand each other?

--Damon, who stayed awake through must of his gamma glasses (zzzZZZzzz)
Bob Eld
2008-06-27 03:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eeyore
If so please site.
CITE.
Grahama
Ok jaqass. Sew sioux mee. Pendejo
Eeyore
2008-06-27 13:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Eeyore
If so please site.
CITE.
Grahama
Ok jaqass. Sew sioux mee. Pendejo
Is that supposed to be an insult ?

I asked for a CITE.

Graham
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-27 13:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
So, you are claiming that the oil companies have explored and drilled all of
their present leases and that they have no more places to drill without
opening up the US coast line. Do you really believe that? If so please
site.
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
The Chinese are NOT drilling off of the coast of the US or Cuba. That was a
bogus report allegedly from Dick Cheney and has been debunked.
OK. Not that it really changes the relevant issues.
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
By all accounts it would take 10 years to bring any new oil drilled in these
zones to production, so how much time do we buy? The amount of new oil found
, world wide keeps dwindling. The last time drilling outstripped demand was
in the 1960's!
This is the lamest argument ever. We haven't found an infinite source
of oil so why bother drilling any of it? The scarcity of oil is why
it is so important to drill what we know is there. Its true that it
takes years to get production going. By your argument, we have
Clinton's shortsighted policies that banned drilling to thank for
today's shortages. That doesn't we should continue down that path.
Post by Bob Eld
\> We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
Post by Monkey Clumps
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
The 10 year delay in bringing any new oil on line is plenty of time to make
a significant transition into alternatives. Of course we won't replace all
petroleum in 10 years, but, if we could get to the 20% level, we would
control the 800 gorilla with our clout.
Nobody is talking about not pursuing alternatives. However, there is
no replacement for petroleum on the immediate horizon so we need to
find and drill as much of it as possible.
Post by Bob Eld
Also bringing new oil into the mix is just exacerbating the other main
problem, CO2 release. That MUST be addressed and now is the time to do it,
since we are running out of oil anyway.
With China opening up coal-fired plants like its going out of style,
CO2 is going up whether gas in the US costs us $3 a gallon or $20 a
gallon. I prefer the $3 a gallon thank you.
Post by Bob Eld
Aside from conservation, the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation. One thing would be to eliminate
buying oil futures on 5% margin as can be done now. Make the speculators put
up real money, that would change things overnight.
Fine by me, but how do you plan to regulate international commodities
markets?
Bob Eld
2008-06-27 14:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....

Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.

Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101. Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite? Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.

Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-27 17:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*. Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
nospamplease
2008-06-27 19:30:46 UTC
Permalink
...snip
...snip... Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Ask Mexico and Venezuela how that's working out
for them.
gringo
2008-06-30 04:44:45 UTC
Permalink
....snip
...snip... Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Ask Mexico and Venezuela how that's working out for them.
I did. It's working quite well for the people of Venezuela, who pay an
average of 18 cents per gallon for gas. Their tremendous oil profits
are being used to provide Venezuelans with better health care, with the
opportunity to own the lands they've been working for rich overlords.


Mexico, now, is the standard 3rd world nation that is being run for the
benefit of their wealthiest 1/2 of 1%. It's the kind of nation
Republican neo-CONS are modeling their vision of America on.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Bob Eld
2008-06-27 19:33:55 UTC
Permalink
"Monkey Clumps" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3ef0e996-f783-4de7-b9ff-***@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Cut.....
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
Absolutely, that's the way important, extensive and costly things get done.
That's the way we went to the moon, developed the atomic bomb, built the
interstate highway system. Built the locks and dams on the rivers, built the
canals and water systems on and on. Major projects require government
intervention if they are to be accomplished. Private industry will not do
them unless there is a clear short term profit. In the case of energy
development, private industry would take thirty years to do what can be done
in ten with funding and direction. If we had waited for industry we NEVER
would have gone to the moon. If here is little profit in it so they won't do
it on their own.

Nobody is talking about socialism or nationalization, that your words.
Industry has a role to play, of course, but under contract to accomplish
specific tasks. They should not run "open loop" on important functions like
the nations energy policy.

I come back to the fact the oil in the ground belongs to ALL of us, not to
Exxon and that Exxon-Mobil is monopoly basically a re-put-together of the
original Standard Oil broken up in 1912. They control everything from the
ground through refining to final marketing and collude with OPEC to set
prices which is a true monopoly. Just giving them more of the pie is NOT the
answer.

You can roll your eyes if you want but if you want a Grand Coulee Dam,
government has to be involved.
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-27 20:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Cut.....
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
Absolutely, that's the way important, extensive and costly things get done.
That's the way we went to the moon, developed the atomic bomb, built the
interstate highway system. Built the locks and dams on the rivers, built the
canals and water systems on and on. Major projects require government
intervention if they are to be accomplished.
Government headed up those projects, but to a large extent private
contractors did the actual work.
Post by Bob Eld
Private industry will not do
them unless there is a clear short term profit.
Private industry was involved in most of those projects.
Post by Bob Eld
In the case of energy
development, private industry would take thirty years to do what can be done
in ten with funding and direction. If we had waited for industry we NEVER
would have gone to the moon. If here is little profit in it so they won't do
it on their own.
Oil companies have been successful at locating and producing oil for
decades. They have consistently advanced the technology to produce
deeper and more remote finds. They have a way better track record than
nationalized companies. Why would you want to let the government
screw it up?
Post by Bob Eld
Nobody is talking about socialism or nationalization, that your words.
Industry has a role to play, of course, but under contract to accomplish
specific tasks. They should not run "open loop" on important functions like
the nations energy policy.
If the government wants to head up some sort of alternative energy
initiative like the manhattan project, thats one thing. This thread
was about drilling oil, which private industry has been doing fine
with. They just need the government to open up promising areas.
Post by Bob Eld
I come back to the fact the oil in the ground belongs to ALL of us,
And the government *sells* the mineral rights to the companies, so
your are getting your share via the government. Also I read somewhere
that Exxon has paid four times more in taxes than it has maid in
profit over its history. This demonizing of oil companies is a bunch
of left-wing nonsense.
Post by Bob Eld
not to
Exxon and that Exxon-Mobil is monopoly basically a re-put-together of the
original Standard Oil broken up in 1912. They control everything from the
ground through refining to final marketing and collude with OPEC to set
prices which is a true monopoly. Just giving them more of the pie is NOT the
answer.
There is absolutely no indication that Exxon colludes with OPEC.
That's utter nonsense.
Post by Bob Eld
You can roll your eyes if you want but if you want a Grand Coulee Dam,
government has to be involved.
We already have the Grand Coulee Dam. What we need is more oil. So
the government needs to open up areas where the oil is located and let
the Exxons and Chevrons do their thing.
gringo
2008-06-30 05:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Cut.....
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
Absolutely, that's the way important, extensive and costly things get done.
That's the way we went to the moon, developed the atomic bomb, built the
interstate highway system. Built the locks and dams on the rivers, built the
canals and water systems on and on. Major projects require government
intervention if they are to be accomplished.
Government headed up those projects, but to a large extent private
contractors did the actual work.
:-D
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Private industry will not do
them unless there is a clear short term profit.
Private industry was involved in most of those projects.
;-)

you're a real smart guy.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
In the case of energy
development, private industry would take thirty years to do what can be done
in ten with funding and direction. If we had waited for industry we NEVER
would have gone to the moon. If here is little profit in it so they won't do
it on their own.
Oil companies have been successful at locating and producing oil for
decades. They have consistently advanced the technology to produce
deeper and more remote finds. They have a way better track record than
nationalized companies. Why would you want to let the government
screw it up?
Examine the history of Rockefeller's Standard Oil. He once owned or
controlled about 99.99% of all oil production worldwide. As early as
1939 he was hollering that the world was running out of oil. Shit, they
all whined "oil shortage" about a gazillion times in the past 80 years
in order to run the prices up.


When they saw huge profits to be made in Alaska, they first had to run
the prices up in order to justify the investments. so they invented
OPEC. In November 1973 Nixon signed into law authorization for the
pipeline project--a scant two weeks after OPEC began its oil embargo.
Long lines at our gas pumps, the oil prices went up up up.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Nobody is talking about socialism or nationalization, that your words.
Industry has a role to play, of course, but under contract to accomplish
specific tasks. They should not run "open loop" on important functions like
the nations energy policy.
If the government wants to head up some sort of alternative energy
initiative like the manhattan project, thats one thing. This thread
was about drilling oil, which private industry has been doing fine
with. They just need the government to open up promising areas.
They just need to uncap their existing wells and drill on the 68,000
acres of proven oil reserves they already have permits for.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
I come back to the fact the oil in the ground belongs to ALL of us,
And the government *sells* the mineral rights to the companies, so
your are getting your share via the government.
that's nonsense.

from politico.com:

Taxpayers Could Lose $53 Billion From Oil Leases

A new draft report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
estimates that the federal government could stand to lose $53 billion in
royalties from deepwater drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico. Politico
printed a story on the GAO's findings after reviewing the draft, which
is a revision of earlier GAO estimates.

The royalties in question concern leases issued by the Department of
Interior in the late 1990s after Congress passed the Deepwater Royalty
Relief Act in 1995. The law was intended to provide incentives for more
costly drilling in deeper areas of the Gulf by allowing companies to
avoid paying royalties for specific volumes when oil prices were below
certain thresholds. However, for leases issued in 1998 and 1999, the
price thresholds were errantly omitted, and the price of oil has since
increased dramatically, now surpassing four times the original thresholds.

_Once the threshold omissions were revealed_ publicly in 2006, Interior
sought to renegotiate the faulty leases with the oil companies. A small
number agreed, but the vast majority of them are holding out. Congress
has also made several attempts to address the issue but without much
success. This relative inaction is partly due to a lawsuit brought by
Kerr-McGee (now owned by Anadarko) in March 2006 against the Department
of Interior, which if won, could result in the government losing
royalties on virtually all deepwater leases. The federal court sided
with Kerr-McGee (pdf) in a ruling last year, but Interior has since
appealed.


From the leases given big oil and big ranching and big mining,
taxpayers don't receive a fraction of a fraction of a cent per dollar of
value received.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Also I read somewhere
that Exxon has paid four times more in taxes than it has maid in
profit over its history. This demonizing of oil companies is a bunch
of left-wing nonsense.
Grinning my ass off at your ignorance. Oil company current rant is, hey
if you tax us, it'll just be passed on to the consumer anyway!


When sitting before Congress, a trio of oil executives admitted that
they were earning so much money they had no idea how much they were
being paid. Exxon's last CEO was given more than $200 million in "thank
you" bonuses for his retirement.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
not to
Exxon and that Exxon-Mobil is monopoly basically a re-put-together of the
original Standard Oil broken up in 1912. They control everything from the
ground through refining to final marketing and collude with OPEC to set
prices which is a true monopoly. Just giving them more of the pie is NOT the
answer.
There is absolutely no indication that Exxon colludes with OPEC.
That's utter nonsense.
Your doubting of that collusion is utter willful ignorance.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
You can roll your eyes if you want but if you want a Grand Coulee Dam,
government has to be involved.
We already have the Grand Coulee Dam. What we need is more oil. So
the government needs to open up areas where the oil is located and let
the Exxons and Chevrons do their thing.
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-06-30 05:28:16 UTC
Permalink
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp
"The 1870s was a decade of gigantic growth for the Standard Oil Company. In
1870, it was refining fifteen hundred barrels per day-a huge amount for the
time. By January 1871, it had achieved a 10 percent market share, making it
the largest player in the industry. By 1873, it had one-third of the market
share, was refining ten thousand barrels a day and had acquired twenty-one
of the twenty-six other firms in Cleveland. By the end of the decade, it had
achieved a 90 percent market share."

Pinko the ubercommie failes to mention that while Rockefeller was increasing
his share of the market from 10% to 90% the prices he charged were falling
from 26 cents per gallon to 10 cents per gallon. That Bastard!

His company also changed the industry from one of many small inefficient
producers transporting oil in expensive, unreliable wodden barrels to large
effcient rail cars and eventually pipeline. From an industry wasting the
40% of crude oil that could not be refined into kerosene into a mature
industry that was using that waste to make new products and satisfy consumer
demand.
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
gringo
2008-06-30 20:39:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp
"The 1870s was a decade of gigantic growth for the Standard Oil Company. In
1870, it was refining fifteen hundred barrels per day-a huge amount for the
time. By January 1871, it had achieved a 10 percent market share, making it
the largest player in the industry. By 1873, it had one-third of the market
share, was refining ten thousand barrels a day and had acquired twenty-one
of the twenty-six other firms in Cleveland. By the end of the decade, it had
achieved a 90 percent market share
Pinko the ubercommie failes to mention that while Rockefeller was increasing
his share of the market from 10% to 90% the prices he charged were falling
from 26 cents per gallon to 10 cents per gallon. That Bastard!
how did he gain that 90% control? He attacked wildcatters with his army
of thugs; he destroyed competing refineries. All these things lowered
supplies on the market, which forced prices up. Then with his increasing
control he sold well below market value--below his own production
costs--in order to kill competition. Once he had that control, he
raised the prices again.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E0DE6DF1239EF3ABC4C52DFB1668389639EDE&oref=slogin
Post by tscottme
His company also changed the industry from one of many small inefficient
producers transporting oil in expensive, unreliable wodden barrels to large
effcient rail cars and eventually pipeline. From an industry wasting the
40% of crude oil that could not be refined into kerosene into a mature
industry that was using that waste to make new products and satisfy consumer
demand.
oh, he was very good for himself. Swift et al want to do the same thing
for the trucking industry. Get rid of all those small inefficient
fleets and independent owner/operators, build themselves another
250-room mansion on million-acre estates.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
I'm the last person to criticize someone for shooting at strikers, so I fail
to see why you thought that would be a negative against him.

Rockefeller was more efficient and more risk-taking than anyone else in the
industry. He was visionary and saw that determined efficiency and economies
of scale would pay off. Nobody in the industry spent more on research or
innovated half as much as Rocky and he just kept plowing his profits back
into more research, more innovation, and more acquisitions. Most all of his
competition was short-sighted using low-grade equipment to distill marginal
kerosene for the least effort. Rockefeller bought out competitor after
competitor and put them in charge of their area of operation. His usual
business tactic was to offer to buy a competitor and if rejected he would
show his competitor the books of Standard Oil and how much money SO was
making while the competitor was losing money.

The fact of the matter his efficienies are what caused the price of his
products to be cut in half even while his market share tripled, tripled, and
tripled again. Only for a commie-lib would giving the people what they want
at half the price be seen as a bad thing. Go hug Stalin you envy-freak.
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
Post by gringo
Post by tscottme
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-summer/standard-oil-company.asp
"The 1870s was a decade of gigantic growth for the Standard Oil Company.
In 1870, it was refining fifteen hundred barrels per day-a huge amount
for the time. By January 1871, it had achieved a 10 percent market share,
making it the largest player in the industry. By 1873, it had one-third
of the market share, was refining ten thousand barrels a day and had
acquired twenty-one of the twenty-six other firms in Cleveland. By the
end of the decade, it had achieved a 90 percent market share
Pinko the ubercommie failes to mention that while Rockefeller was
increasing his share of the market from 10% to 90% the prices he charged
were falling from 26 cents per gallon to 10 cents per gallon. That
Bastard!
how did he gain that 90% control? He attacked wildcatters with his army
of thugs; he destroyed competing refineries. All these things lowered
supplies on the market, which forced prices up. Then with his increasing
control he sold well below market value--below his own production
costs--in order to kill competition. Once he had that control, he raised
the prices again.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E0DE6DF1239EF3ABC4C52DFB1668389639EDE&oref=slogin
Post by tscottme
His company also changed the industry from one of many small inefficient
producers transporting oil in expensive, unreliable wodden barrels to
large effcient rail cars and eventually pipeline. From an industry
wasting the 40% of crude oil that could not be refined into kerosene into
a mature industry that was using that waste to make new products and
satisfy consumer demand.
oh, he was very good for himself. Swift et al want to do the same thing
for the trucking industry. Get rid of all those small inefficient fleets
and independent owner/operators, build themselves another 250-room mansion
on million-acre estates.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-01 02:41:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
I'm the last person to criticize someone for shooting at strikers, so I fail
to see why you thought that would be a negative against him.
lapdog, you admit your ass kissing right up front. Bet you wouldn't say
that to the families of the people killed in the illegal strike
breaking. You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Post by tscottme
Rockefeller was more efficient and more risk-taking than anyone else in the
industry. He was visionary and saw that determined efficiency and economies
of scale would pay off. Nobody in the industry spent more on research or
innovated half as much as Rocky and he just kept plowing his profits back
into more research, more innovation, and more acquisitions.
yeah? like that 250-room mansion in Asheville?
Post by tscottme
Most all of his
competition was short-sighted using low-grade equipment to distill marginal
kerosene for the least effort. Rockefeller bought out competitor after
competitor and put them in charge of their area of operation. His usual
business tactic was to offer to buy a competitor and if rejected he would
show his competitor the books of Standard Oil and how much money SO was
making while the competitor was losing money.
sorta the way the cattle kings "bought out" smaller ranches in the 1800s?
Post by tscottme
The fact of the matter his efficienies are what caused the price of his
products to be cut in half even while his market share tripled, tripled, and
tripled again. Only for a commie-lib would giving the people what they want
at half the price be seen as a bad thing. Go hug Stalin you envy-freak.
Send our jobs to china, import into walmart. Works great right
now--those who still have jobs get cheap chinese goods. and fuck you if
your job is the next to go. When that super highway from mexican docks
directly into the heart of america is completed, a mexican or a
pakistani just might take that shorthaul job you love. But I realize
that I'm playing your game here. You're willfully ignorant and demand
the right to remain so.

you're a slimy, wet, stinking pile of pig dung.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 16:23:35 UTC
Permalink
Just as the strikers that shoot people crossing picket lines have zero
sympathy for their victims. The job belongs to the business owner not some
thug that won't go to work. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the
line of fire.

The rest of your evasion has been duly noted. Rockefeller cleaned up the
industry, cut prices drastically, made energy cheap enough for the common
man, and made a bundle by serving his fellow man. That's they way we should
all work. If it just so happens to cause hert failure in the do-nothing,
all whine all the time crowd, that's just a bonus.
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
Post by gringo
Post by tscottme
I'm the last person to criticize someone for shooting at strikers, so I
fail to see why you thought that would be a negative against him.
lapdog, you admit your ass kissing right up front. Bet you wouldn't say
that to the families of the people killed in the illegal strike breaking.
You are a pathetic excuse for a human being.
Post by tscottme
Rockefeller was more efficient and more risk-taking than anyone else in
the industry. He was visionary and saw that determined efficiency and
economies of scale would pay off. Nobody in the industry spent more on
research or innovated half as much as Rocky and he just kept plowing his
profits back into more research, more innovation, and more acquisitions.
yeah? like that 250-room mansion in Asheville?
Post by tscottme
Most all of his competition was short-sighted using low-grade equipment
to distill marginal kerosene for the least effort. Rockefeller bought
out competitor after competitor and put them in charge of their area of
operation. His usual business tactic was to offer to buy a competitor
and if rejected he would show his competitor the books of Standard Oil
and how much money SO was making while the competitor was losing money.
sorta the way the cattle kings "bought out" smaller ranches in the 1800s?
Post by tscottme
The fact of the matter his efficienies are what caused the price of his
products to be cut in half even while his market share tripled, tripled,
and tripled again. Only for a commie-lib would giving the people what
they want at half the price be seen as a bad thing. Go hug Stalin you
envy-freak.
Send our jobs to china, import into walmart. Works great right now--those
who still have jobs get cheap chinese goods. and fuck you if your job is
the next to go. When that super highway from mexican docks directly into
the heart of america is completed, a mexican or a pakistani just might
take that shorthaul job you love. But I realize that I'm playing your
game here. You're willfully ignorant and demand the right to remain so.
you're a slimy, wet, stinking pile of pig dung.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-02 04:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
Just as the strikers that shoot people crossing picket lines have zero
sympathy for their victims. The job belongs to the business owner not some
thug that won't go to work. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the
line of fire.
Wrong. The police, the private armies--the guns--were all behind the
fence. Strike breakers were armed with ball bats and pipes. The
violence was not one-sided. But the workers were clearly justified in
standing up for their rights.

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/flintstrike.html


You can thank unionism for the FDA, for Child labor laws, for the fact
that you earn a livable wage. Wait-- you'd be an exception, you earn
yours on your knees beneath the boss' desk.
Post by tscottme
The rest of your evasion has been duly noted. Rockefeller cleaned up the
industry, cut prices drastically, made energy cheap enough for the common
man, and made a bundle by serving his fellow man. That's they way we should
all work. If it just so happens to cause hert failure in the do-nothing,
all whine all the time crowd, that's just a bonus.
Evasion, my ass. Your defense of rockefeller was easily refuted. The
man was a robber baron.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
JerryD(upstateNY)
2008-06-30 09:16:30 UTC
Permalink
gringo" (WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT CORPORATION TAXES) wrote stupid shit in a
message


I'm grinning my ass off at YOUR ignorance.

It's not a RANT, it is a fact.
No corporation has EVER paid any taxes.
Taxes are just a part of the cost of doing business.
The cost is ALWAYS passed on to consumers.
It amazes me that no Democrat is smart enought to understand this.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

"
Grinning my ass off at your ignorance. Oil company current rant is, hey
if you tax us, it'll just be passed on to the consumer anyway!
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-30 12:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.

You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
gringo
2008-07-01 01:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.


Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.


For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.

If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-01 13:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
gringo
2008-07-01 15:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
Just as I figured. You're too fucking retarded to understand the
interconnectivity of all of society. It's not rocket science, monkey.
It's called maximizing profits: it's what people do.
It's not grilling hamburgers at a McDonald's, doofus; oil isn't pumped
and sold 30 seconds later. Drive through Texas sometime, notice the
thousands of rusting--but still pumping--oil wells. Oil in the ground
is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of
the last month alone!



Monkey Chump, conducting research:

--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-01 17:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
Just as I figured. You're too fucking retarded to understand the
interconnectivity of all of society. It's not rocket science, monkey.
It's called maximizing profits: it's what people do.
It's not grilling hamburgers at a McDonald's, doofus; oil isn't pumped
and sold 30 seconds later. Drive through Texas sometime, notice the
thousands of rusting--but still pumping--oil wells. Oil in the ground
is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of
the last month alone!
Monkey Chump, conducting http://youtu.be/4FX3SnVG-2A
You are one stupid motherfucker aren't you? This is the deal. Oil
companies want to produce more but can't because they have maxed out
their current production wells. Read this article about how Exxon's
share price is taking a hit because their production volume is
dropping. Are you going to tell me they want that to happen?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af6218e-1784-11dd-b98a-0000779fd2ac.html

Production volume is dropping because they don't have access to drill
where the oil is (ANWR and offshore). Venezuela kicked them out, so
that hurt them as well. This idea that they are purposely holding
back oil production is such a pile of crap. I challenge you to find a
single cite that even suggests that oil companies are purposely
holding back production. If you can't find a legit cite then please
feel free to shut the fuck up.
gringo
2008-07-02 04:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
Just as I figured. You're too fucking retarded to understand the
interconnectivity of all of society. It's not rocket science, monkey.
It's called maximizing profits: it's what people do.
It's not grilling hamburgers at a McDonald's, doofus; oil isn't pumped
and sold 30 seconds later. Drive through Texas sometime, notice the
thousands of rusting--but still pumping--oil wells. Oil in the ground
is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of
the last month alone!
Monkey Chump, conducting http://youtu.be/4FX3SnVG-2A
You are one stupid motherfucker aren't you? This is the deal. Oil
companies want to produce more but can't because they have maxed out
their current production wells. Read this article about how Exxon's
share price is taking a hit because their production volume is
dropping. Are you going to tell me they want that to happen?
yes, hell yes, you idiot! They are not researching new forms of energy,
new oil fields with their record profits--they are buying back their own
stock. THEY WANT THE PRICE OF THEIR STOCK TO GO DOWN.
Post by Monkey Clumps
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af6218e-1784-11dd-b98a-0000779fd2ac.html
Production volume is dropping because they don't have access to drill
where the oil is (ANWR and offshore).
horseshit. Drilling on their existing permits would keep them busy for
the next 30 years.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Venezuela kicked them out, so
that hurt them as well. This idea that they are purposely holding
back oil production is such a pile of crap. I challenge you to find a
single cite that even suggests that oil companies are purposely
holding back production. If you can't find a legit cite then please
feel free to shut the fuck up.
of course Venezuela kicked them out: they are using oil profits to
benefit the majority of their own citizens.


monkey chump, back up through the threads and you will indeed find all
the cites you want that back up my point. Stop sniffing your butt,
monkey, actually research the subject. It'll help your education if you
read material that differs from your preconceived, canned Fox News'
opinions.


While I'm at it, I challenge you to provide a cite that proves that the
oil companies are doing every single thing they can to help end the
rip-off of the world's citizens by THEMSELVES and their sister speculators.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-02 12:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
Just as I figured. You're too fucking retarded to understand the
interconnectivity of all of society. It's not rocket science, monkey.
It's called maximizing profits: it's what people do.
It's not grilling hamburgers at a McDonald's, doofus; oil isn't pumped
and sold 30 seconds later. Drive through Texas sometime, notice the
thousands of rusting--but still pumping--oil wells. Oil in the ground
is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of
the last month alone!
Monkey Chump, conducting http://youtu.be/4FX3SnVG-2A
You are one stupid motherfucker aren't you? This is the deal. Oil
companies want to produce more but can't because they have maxed out
their current production wells. Read this article about how Exxon's
share price is taking a hit because their production volume is
dropping. Are you going to tell me they want that to happen?
yes, hell yes, you idiot! They are not researching new forms of energy,
new oil fields with their record profits--they are buying back their own
stock. THEY WANT THE PRICE OF THEIR STOCK TO GO DOWN.
Post by Monkey Clumps
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af6218e-1784-11dd-b98a-0000779fd2ac.html
Production volume is dropping because they don't have access to drill
where the oil is (ANWR and offshore).
horseshit. Drilling on their existing permits would keep them busy for
the next 30 years.
I'm sure it might keep them busy, but its not going to get us the oil
we need. Obviously the current leases do not hold the sort of
deposits that are to be found at say...ANWR. Unfortunately, you are
just too stupid to understand that.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Venezuela kicked them out, so
that hurt them as well. This idea that they are purposely holding
back oil production is such a pile of crap. I challenge you to find a
single cite that even suggests that oil companies are purposely
holding back production. If you can't find a legit cite then please
feel free to shut the fuck up.
of course Venezuela kicked them out: they are using oil profits to
benefit the majority of their own citizens.
Chazev is using the money to pay for his dictatorship. Meanwhile the
Venezuelan oil industry is running itself into the ground through
socialist mismanagement. It sounds like the sort of clusterfuck that
people like you would cheer on.
Post by gringo
monkey chump, back up through the threads and you will indeed find all
the cites you want that back up my point.
I've read your posts and you haven't provided shit.
Post by gringo
Stop sniffing your butt,
monkey, actually research the subject. It'll help your education if you
read material that differs from your preconceived, canned Fox News'
opinions.
Meanwhile there are no journalists that would support your kooky
views. I'm sure the lefty New York Times would love to run a story
about oil companies pricing fixing and hoarding oil. But even they
have journalistic standards to consider.
Post by gringo
While I'm at it, I challenge you to provide a cite that proves that the
oil companies are doing every single thing they can to help end the
rip-off of the world's citizens by THEMSELVES and their sister speculators.
Sorry Gringo, my argument is supported by common sense. Oil company
shareholders demand that the companies maximize profit in the near
term, which means maximizing output when prices are at a historical
high.

Nevertheless, it is clear that oil companies are doing everything they
can to maximize oil production, including making risky investments in
unstable parts of the world. If more of the US was opened up they
wouldn't have to waste their time in Fuckistan or wherever.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d508108e-47d0-11dd-93ca-000077b07658.html

You are the one with the conspiracy theory that oil companies are
hoarding oil supplies, capping productive wells and holding back from
extracting large deposits from leases they hold in this time of
extreme high prices. Its all a bunch of lefty nonsense and the burden
of proof falls on you to provide evidence for these idiotic claims.
So far you haven't provided shit, so its probably time for you to fuck
off.
gringo
2008-07-03 05:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
FIRST, they need to uncap existing producing wells and begin to drill in
land they're already permitted to drill on.
Its pretty clear from this statement that you have no idea what you
are talking about. "Uncap existing producing wells"? Are you
actually suggesting that oil companies have shut down existing,
producing wells with oil prices above $140? That's laughable. Let's
see some cites.
You probably think offshore leases come equipped with pre installed
well heads and production platforms, each with a guaranteed amount of
oil and gas. All the oil companies have to do is flip a switch and
count the money, right? Why don't you take a step outside your
fantasy world and get back to us when you have some fucking clue about
reality.
You're thinking present tense; Big Money thinks long-term.
Much of the oil being pumped in the US now comes from wells drilled
20-50 years ago. When first tapped that oil was worth a few cents per
gallon. Today, that same oil is worth a few dollars per gallon.
Tomorrow, that same oil will be worth, what, $20 per gallon??? All
without one red cent in additional cost. So, there certainly is
incentive for them to hold onto their assets.
For the self-same reason, people collect cars, stamps, coins, guns,
paintings--all manner of things, tucking them away sometimes for a
lifetime, knowing that their value will increase a hundred-fold.
If you can't understand what I'm talking about, you are dumber than a gnat.
Oil companies are not stamp collectors, you moron. They are public
corporations owned primarily by pension funds and mutual funds. They
are in a highly competitive market and they have to produce profit to
satisfy their shareholders and fund future projects. When prices are
high they have to maximize production. If they don't, they know their
competitors will and they will unable to compete against them in the
future. They will be out of business if they don't make hay while the
sun shines. This idea that they would purposely sit on known
producing sources in hopes of higher prices 50 years later flies in
the face of reality. Sure prices will probably continue going up, but
thats not the deciding factor. The current management wants to
maximize profits *now*, not 50 years down the line, dummy. You left-
wingers really don't understand shit about how business works, do
you?
Just as I figured. You're too fucking retarded to understand the
interconnectivity of all of society. It's not rocket science, monkey.
It's called maximizing profits: it's what people do.
It's not grilling hamburgers at a McDonald's, doofus; oil isn't pumped
and sold 30 seconds later. Drive through Texas sometime, notice the
thousands of rusting--but still pumping--oil wells. Oil in the ground
is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of
the last month alone!
Monkey Chump, conducting http://youtu.be/4FX3SnVG-2A
You are one stupid motherfucker aren't you? This is the deal. Oil
companies want to produce more but can't because they have maxed out
their current production wells. Read this article about how Exxon's
share price is taking a hit because their production volume is
dropping. Are you going to tell me they want that to happen?
yes, hell yes, you idiot! They are not researching new forms of energy,
new oil fields with their record profits--they are buying back their own
stock. THEY WANT THE PRICE OF THEIR STOCK TO GO DOWN.
Post by Monkey Clumps
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2af6218e-1784-11dd-b98a-0000779fd2ac.html
Production volume is dropping because they don't have access to drill
where the oil is (ANWR and offshore).
horseshit. Drilling on their existing permits would keep them busy for
the next 30 years.
I'm sure it might keep them busy, but its not going to get us the oil
we need. Obviously the current leases do not hold the sort of
deposits that are to be found at say...ANWR. Unfortunately, you are
just too stupid to understand that.
Prove it.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Venezuela kicked them out, so
that hurt them as well. This idea that they are purposely holding
back oil production is such a pile of crap. I challenge you to find a
single cite that even suggests that oil companies are purposely
holding back production. If you can't find a legit cite then please
feel free to shut the fuck up.
of course Venezuela kicked them out: they are using oil profits to
benefit the majority of their own citizens.
Chazev is using the money to pay for his dictatorship. Meanwhile the
Venezuelan oil industry is running itself into the ground through
socialist mismanagement. It sounds like the sort of clusterfuck that
people like you would cheer on.
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3121/1/160/
Venezuela Oil Profits for Venezuela

By Prensa Latina


click here for related stories: Venezuela
04-04-06,9:39am

Caracas, Apr 3 (Prensa Latina) The creation of new companies to replace
oil agreements guarantees Venezuela?s sovereignty over its hydrocarbon
resources, Energy and Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez stated Monday.


Interviewed on the Venezolana de Television program "En Confianza",
Ramirez ratified Friday the constitution of 30 joint companies instead
of 32 service agreements signed during the so-called oil opening started
last century, which are basically considered covert privatization.

He explained that unlike the old days with the State only getting a cut
of 33% per barrel, the new rules give Venezuela 80%. [contrast that to
the 12% of royalties Bush & Co are trying to force Iraq to accept for
their oil.]

Only the Italian company ENI-Dacion and French TOTAL did not accept
changes and both were out of the possibility to set up as joint
companies, said the minister.


He indicated the Venezuelan state has 60 percent of the companys? shares
and the final calculation leaves the country with an 80 percent minimum
of each oil barrel.
mh/iff/ml/mf


Venezuelans pay 11 cents per gallon for gas.


From ABC News:


Chavez Uses Oil Profits to Build Political Power
Venezuela's President Uses Oil Money for Health Care and Aid for the Poor
By JIM SCIUTTO
CARACAS, Venezuela, May 25, 2006


On nearly every corner of the capital Caracas, today's Venezuela
overflows with energy and pride.

Venezuela is home to the richest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere
and the source of 11 percent of U.S. oil imports.
(ABC News)

Travel hundreds of miles west to Maracaibo, and you'll find the secret
of this country's remarkable rise, the richest oil reserves in the
Western Hemisphere and the source of 11 percent of U.S. oil imports.

One advantage of these fields is the shallow oil deposits, just about 60
feet below the surface. The oil literally comes right out of the ground.
And that means cheap production costs averaging just a few dollars a barrel.

With $1 billion a month in state oil profits, Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez has converted cash into political clout.

The self-appointed champion of anti-Americanism has publicly labeled
President Bush an imperialist, an assassin and a donkey.

It is more than rhetoric.

Chavez has given significant financial support to like-minded Latin
American leaders, and he has signed arms deals with Russia.

"In the past, we simply exchanged oil wealth for imported cars from the
U.S., fancy fabrics from France ... superficial things with no value,"
said Rafael Quiroz, the former director of the state oil company.

Profits Fuel Social Programs

Venezuela's oil wealth has largely missed the vast majority of its
population. In Caracas, 3 million of the city's 5 million residents live
in deep poverty.

Today Chavez has used oil money to win over the poor. Thousands of new
state-funded cooperatives offer free health care and discounted groceries.

But drivers may enjoy it most. Gas sells for just 11 cents a gallon
here, the world's cheapest. Still, many Venezuelans we spoke with,
especially the wealthier ones, criticize Chavez for extending state
control over the economy and wasting oil money simply to boost his profile.

The future may lie under the Orinoco River in southern Venezuela.

If these fields can be exploited efficiently, they'd give Venezuela the
world's largest reserves and the United States a powerful rival to the
south for many years to come.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
monkey chump, back up through the threads and you will indeed find all
the cites you want that back up my point.
I've read your posts and you haven't provided shit.
you haven't looked very hard, monkey clump.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Stop sniffing your butt,
monkey, actually research the subject. It'll help your education if you
read material that differs from your preconceived, canned Fox News'
opinions.
Meanwhile there are no journalists that would support your kooky
views. I'm sure the lefty New York Times would love to run a story
about oil companies pricing fixing and hoarding oil. But even they
have journalistic standards to consider.
LOL. Hey ,don't blame me: Congressional hearings have said the same
things about the greed of oil companies. Go ahead, look it up. Prove me
wrong.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
While I'm at it, I challenge you to provide a cite that proves that the
oil companies are doing every single thing they can to help end the
rip-off of the world's citizens by THEMSELVES and their sister speculators.
Sorry Gringo, my argument is supported by common sense. Oil company
shareholders demand that the companies maximize profit in the near
term, which means maximizing output when prices are at a historical
high.
precisely what control of a corporation do you suppose the thousands of
small investors have, hmmm? You seem to believe that if you buy, say,
100 shares of exxon, you can go sit at the table and argue with the man
who owns 50,000,000 shares.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Nevertheless, it is clear that oil companies are doing everything they
can to maximize oil production, including making risky investments in
unstable parts of the world. If more of the US was opened up they
wouldn't have to waste their time in Fuckistan or wherever.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d508108e-47d0-11dd-93ca-000077b07658.html
You are the one with the conspiracy theory that oil companies are
hoarding oil supplies, capping productive wells and holding back from
extracting large deposits from leases they hold in this time of
extreme high prices. Its all a bunch of lefty nonsense and the burden
of proof falls on you to provide evidence for these idiotic claims.
So far you haven't provided shit, so its probably time for you to fuck
off.
Evidence of that has been given before Congress. Oil company execs
answer when asked how much their personal earnings were: "I don't know."
I myself have provided these threads with evidence enough to convince
cheney that he is indeed a scumbag. What you choose to ignore is your
business. But remember, "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant."
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-03 16:38:10 UTC
Permalink
<SNIP> loving tribute to Gringo's hero: Dictator Hugo Chazev
Post by gringo
Evidence of that has been given before Congress. Oil company execs
answer when asked how much their personal earnings were: "I don't know."
I myself have provided these threads with evidence enough to convince
cheney that he is indeed a scumbag. What you choose to ignore is your
business. But remember, "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant."
Interesting that you change the subject to executive compensation,
which has nothing to do with the rest of this thread. I guess you've
given up trying to defend your crackpot conspiracy theories about oil
companies hoarding oil. That's probably for the best because only the
most braindead of liberals would buy into that load of bullshit.
gringo
2008-07-06 02:34:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
<SNIP> loving tribute to Gringo's hero: Dictator Hugo Chazev
Post by gringo
Evidence of that has been given before Congress. Oil company execs
answer when asked how much their personal earnings were: "I don't know."
I myself have provided these threads with evidence enough to convince
cheney that he is indeed a scumbag. What you choose to ignore is your
business. But remember, "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant."
Interesting that you change the subject to executive compensation,
which has nothing to do with the rest of this thread. I guess you've
given up trying to defend your crackpot conspiracy theories about oil
companies hoarding oil. That's probably for the best because only the
most braindead of liberals would buy into that load of bullshit.
Duplicitous that you accuse me of changing the subject. Everything
connected to the oil business is relevant to a thread about the oil
business. But here:

Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.* It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres they have already
leased. Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-07 00:08:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
<SNIP> loving tribute to Gringo's hero: Dictator Hugo Chazev
Post by gringo
Evidence of that has been given before Congress. Oil company execs
answer when asked how much their personal earnings were: "I don't know."
I myself have provided these threads with evidence enough to convince
cheney that he is indeed a scumbag. What you choose to ignore is your
business. But remember, "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant."
Interesting that you change the subject to executive compensation,
which has nothing to do with the rest of this thread.  I guess you've
given up trying to defend your crackpot conspiracy theories about oil
companies hoarding oil.  That's probably for the best because only the
most braindead of liberals would buy into that load of bullshit.
Duplicitous that you accuse me of changing the subject.  Everything
connected to the oil business is relevant to a thread about the oil
This is not a thread about "the oil business", its a thread about
"Democrats Again Preventing America From Drilling for Oil", dumbass.
Can't you read?
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.*
Wrong, fool. The USGS has reported on ANWR, the oil companies have
not drilled it. If they had been allowed we would have a much better
idea of exactly how much oil is there.
 It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres  they have already
leased.  
After they leased the 68,000 acres they probably did do thorough
exploratory drilling, and found out there wasn't much there, which is
why that area is not being put into production.
Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
Dumbass, those 68,000 acres do not hold anywhere near the deposits of
ANWR and nobody who knows anything about oil is saying otherwise. If
they did, they would be in production right now. That's just the way
it is. If we want more domestic oil, we need to open up the areas
where the oil is. Places like ANWR. Period. The 68,000 acres crap
is just a red herring that the democrats have thrown out in
desperation since they know they are on the wrong side of this
argument.
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
The only "proof aplenty" that we have is that you are a complete
idiot.
gringo
2008-07-13 01:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
<SNIP> loving tribute to Gringo's hero: Dictator Hugo Chazev
Post by gringo
Evidence of that has been given before Congress. Oil company execs
answer when asked how much their personal earnings were: "I don't know.."
I myself have provided these threads with evidence enough to convince
cheney that he is indeed a scumbag. What you choose to ignore is your
business. But remember, "ignore" is the base for the word "ignorant."
Interesting that you change the subject to executive compensation,
which has nothing to do with the rest of this thread. I guess you've
given up trying to defend your crackpot conspiracy theories about oil
companies hoarding oil. That's probably for the best because only the
most braindead of liberals would buy into that load of bullshit.
Duplicitous that you accuse me of changing the subject. Everything
connected to the oil business is relevant to a thread about the oil
This is not a thread about "the oil business", its a thread about
"Democrats Again Preventing America From Drilling for Oil", dumbass.
Can't you read?
listen up, monkey. Stop licking monkey shit off your fingertips long
enough to pay attention. Oil is business--I mean, when was the last
time that an oil company gave away an ounce of gas?
I understand that the intelligence quotient of you monkeys is lower than
my toddler grandson's, but Christ, monkey, don't you ever stop to think?
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.*
Wrong, fool. The USGS has reported on ANWR, the oil companies have
not drilled it. If they had been allowed we would have a much better
idea of exactly how much oil is there.
Wrong, doofus, but right at the same time. They have not drilled--but
they did not have to. Oil leases cost money, and drilling permits cost
money. They have invested in both in that 68 million acres. Ergo, they
have confirmed the presence of oil. Otherwise, little spider monkey,
they'd be leasing oil and mineral rights to my backyard.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres they have already
leased.
After they leased the 68,000 acres they probably did do thorough
exploratory drilling, and found out there wasn't much there, which is
why that area is not being put into production.
"probably," you say. That 68,000,000 leased acres (that they have paid
out good money for)? If only 1/10 of 1% contains a pocket of oil, that's
68,000 wells that are being left untapped.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
Dumbass, those 68,000 acres do not hold anywhere near the deposits of
ANWR and nobody who knows anything about oil is saying otherwise. If
they did, they would be in production right now. That's just the way
it is. If we want more domestic oil, we need to open up the areas
where the oil is. Places like ANWR. Period. The 68,000 acres crap
is just a red herring that the democrats have thrown out in
desperation since they know they are on the wrong side of this
argument.
No, doofus, that is not the way it is.


All over the globe, productive oil fields are being virtually ignored.
All over Texas, oil well pumps have been shut down. The pipelines and
storage tanks are full, the refineries that haven't been torn down by
their owners the oil companies are working at a percentage of capacity
"for safety reasons."
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
The only "proof aplenty" that we have is that you are a complete
idiot.
you are even dumber than tscottie, the corporate lapdog.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
JerryD(upstateNY)
2008-07-02 02:21:03 UTC
Permalink
gringo" wrote in message
Oil in the ground is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will
just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of the
last month alone!


And the biggest reason this is happening is because the DEMOCRATS haven't
allowed any exploring for oil...........in the last 20 years or so.
First their policies caused the price of EVERYTHING to go up and then they
try to blame everyone but themselves for the results.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
gringo
2008-07-02 18:00:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JerryD(upstateNY)
gringo" wrote in message
Oil in the ground is growing in value as we speak. Consider if you will
just how many
extra billions the oil companies have made from the price increases of the
last month alone!
And the biggest reason this is happening is because the DEMOCRATS haven't
allowed any exploring for oil...........in the last 20 years or so.
First their policies caused the price of EVERYTHING to go up and then they
try to blame everyone but themselves for the results.
horseshit. Jerry, if you had ever traveled beyond NY you'd know that as
we speak, new oil wells are being sunk here inside the lower 48. LOL.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Eeyore
2008-06-27 20:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Cut.....
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
Absolutely, that's the way important, extensive and costly things get done.
That's the way we went to the moon, developed the atomic bomb, built the
interstate highway system. Built the locks and dams on the rivers, built the
canals and water systems on and on. Major projects require government
intervention if they are to be accomplished. Private industry will not do
them unless there is a clear short term profit.
<snip for brevity>

You make a very valid point.

One way we in the UK have partly managed to get round this for big
infrastructure projects is through 'public-private partnerships'.

It's hasn't worked perfectly but then it's a newish idea. Basically the gov't
wants something done and wants the private sector to finance it instead of
through increased taxes. In return it underwrites the contractors against loss
and I presume also assures a reasonable return on their investment.

Graham
gringo
2008-06-30 04:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
that is their rant. Not true.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
there is a finite demand. If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
would go down down down.

In a related aside, a bevy of economists reported on CSPAN the other day
that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
world economics is light years beyond yours.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
and the other pirates are already meeting the demand. Dumping any more
oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
international, they are corporate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
price--and profits--would drop.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-30 13:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
that is their rant. Not true.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks the Soviets won the cold
war.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
there is a finite demand.
This shows you have no understanding of supply and demand. Demand is
not finite and fixed. If price drops demand will increase (people
drive more, fly more, buy bigger less fuel efficient cars etc.)
Post by gringo
If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
would go down down down.
Well yes and most people expect that prices will eventually go down,
but probably not to any level close to what it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, oil companies have a huge incentive to bring more oil to
market right now. They want to sell with the price high.
Post by gringo
In a related aside, a bevy of economists reported on CSPAN the other day
that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
Yeah lots of people have been complaining that the Fed has not
supported the dollar. Do you have any more irrelevant facts to add?
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
world economics is light years beyond yours.
Its pretty clear that you are in no position to judge. You sound at
least as clueless as Bob.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
and the other pirates are already meeting the demand.
Demand varies with the price point you clod.
Post by gringo
Dumping any more
oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
No shit sherlock. It is still in each oil company's best interest to
bring as much of their product to market now to take advantage of the
high prices. Will that increase supply and eventually lower prices?
Yes, thats how markets work you dolt. But, individual companies
aren't going to hold back to keep prices high.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
international, they are corporate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
price--and profits--would drop.
Your idea of demand as a fixed number shows your lack of understanding
of basic economic concepts. Demand moves with price. Nevertheless, you
are correct that as supply increases, prices will tend to drop. What
you don't comprehend is that individual players will always act in
*their* best interest, which is to sell as much as possible with
prices high. How do you think oil prices dropped below $20 in the
90s? Oil producers were going bust, do you think they wanted that to
happen? If the whole industry colludes to inflate prices as you
propose, how did that ever happen?

The reason prices are high now is that the oil simply is not available
to put on the market. That is why new sources must be opened up or
this situation will just keep getting worse. The fact that the US
government prohibits offshore drilling for a large portion of our
coast and the frozen wasteland known as ANWR is asinine. We are now
reaping the rewards of that foolish policy. Idiots like you blame the
oil companies. The real blame goes to politicians and environmental
lobbyists who block drilling.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
And this is relevant how?
gringo
2008-07-01 02:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
that is their rant. Not true.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks the Soviets won the cold
war.
we the working class sure as hell didn't win anything there. While the
soviets were a threat...able to stir up the poor folk who break their
backs planting crops on mountainsides for wealthy foreign masters,
capitalists had to rein in their greed, and at least give lip service to
taking care of the people who perform all the labor.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
there is a finite demand.
This shows you have no understanding of supply and demand. Demand is
not finite and fixed. If price drops demand will increase (people
drive more, fly more, buy bigger less fuel efficient cars etc.)
Of course it is. When one's appetite is sated, one refuses a third
helping of roast beef. Commonsense.

Demand for oil in Europe has dropped precipitously due to the price
increases; China's demand this year was expected to rise 5.5%; it has
risen so far only 7/10 of 1%.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
would go down down down.
Well yes and most people expect that prices will eventually go down,
but probably not to any level close to what it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, oil companies have a huge incentive to bring more oil to
market right now. They want to sell with the price high.
nonsense. "Most people" do not expect that prices will eventually go
down. Experts are telling us just the opposite. That we can expect
$200 per barrel before the year ends.

They will lower the prices a bit, however. When the get them well above
what will incite riots around the world and demands to nationalize and
otherwise punish the greedy bastards, they will back off a bit, and stay
there for another decade or so. But it will not drop below, say, $100
per--double what world demand says it ought to be.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
In a related aside, a bevy of economists reported on CSPAN the other day
that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
Yeah lots of people have been complaining that the Fed has not
supported the dollar. Do you have any more irrelevant facts to add?
why is the value of our dollar irrelevant to anything we buy in the US?
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
world economics is light years beyond yours.
Its pretty clear that you are in no position to judge. You sound at
least as clueless as Bob.
that you would say that in the face of Bob's proven superior knowledge
demonstrates your own ignorance.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
and the other pirates are already meeting the demand.
Demand varies with the price point you clod.
to a minute degree, doofus. your argument implies that if the price
drops a few cents we suddenly
feel empowered to drive the long way to work.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Dumping any more
oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
No shit sherlock. It is still in each oil company's best interest to
bring as much of their product to market now to take advantage of the
high prices. Will that increase supply and eventually lower prices?
Yes, thats how markets work you dolt. But, individual companies
aren't going to hold back to keep prices high.
sonny, to this point I've talked to you as if you are an adult. I've
refuted your points without attacking you personally. Okay, you're not
adult. fine. Let's play in the mud, monkey.

In a true free market, your latter point would be true. The oil market
is not a free open market. It is controlled by 3-4 huge companies (who
undoubtedly own huge blocks of one another's stock) working in tandem
with a few oil-producing countries.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
international, they are corporate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
price--and profits--would drop.
Your idea of demand as a fixed number shows your lack of understanding
of basic economic concepts. Demand moves with price. Nevertheless, you
are correct that as supply increases, prices will tend to drop. What
you don't comprehend is that individual players will always act in
*their* best interest, which is to sell as much as possible with
prices high. How do you think oil prices dropped below $20 in the
90s? Oil producers were going bust, do you think they wanted that to
happen? If the whole industry colludes to inflate prices as you
propose, how did that ever happen?
Your comments ably demonstrate your unwillingness to consider any fact
that contradicts the conservative Party line. Commonsense is all it
takes to understand what is going on.


OPEC was getting what it wanted, wasn't it. Clinton wouldn't play the
games they wanted, so they kept on our good side till the Saudis
business partners bush and cheney took control.
Do you seriously believe that demand has increased 600% in a decade????
Post by Monkey Clumps
The reason prices are high now is that the oil simply is not available
to put on the market. That is why new sources must be opened up or
this situation will just keep getting worse. The fact that the US
government prohibits offshore drilling for a large portion of our
coast and the frozen wasteland known as ANWR is asinine. We are now
reaping the rewards of that foolish policy. Idiots like you blame the
oil companies. The real blame goes to politicians and environmental
lobbyists who block drilling.
stop shining, monkey. I've already related the facts concerning this
drilling. Back up a few posts and reread. Here's a hint: 68,000 leased
and permitted acres in proven oil fields in which to drill.

Idiots like you always lick the privates of those who are slinking up to
your bare backsides.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
And this is relevant how?
Plainly relevant to the comment I was referring to, to anyone of average
intelligence.
Repeated once again for your perusal.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-01 12:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
that is their rant. Not true.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks the Soviets won the cold
war.
we the working class sure as hell didn't win anything there. While the
soviets were a threat...able to stir up the poor folk who break their
backs planting crops on mountainsides for wealthy foreign masters,
capitalists had to rein in their greed, and at least give lip service to
taking care of the people who perform all the labor.
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
there is a finite demand.
This shows you have no understanding of supply and demand. Demand is
not finite and fixed. If price drops demand will increase (people
drive more, fly more, buy bigger less fuel efficient cars etc.)
Of course it is. When one's appetite is sated, one refuses a third
helping of roast beef. Commonsense.
You may be sated but the fat fuck next to you is happy to have thirds
and fourths. And he's going to be telling his fat friends about the
cheap dinner, so you will be seeing more of them. Demand fluctuates.
Its not fixed and there is no ceiling to it.
Post by gringo
Demand for oil in Europe has dropped precipitously due to the price
increases; China's demand this year was expected to rise 5.5%; it has
risen so far only 7/10 of 1%.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
would go down down down.
Well yes and most people expect that prices will eventually go down,
but probably not to any level close to what it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, oil companies have a huge incentive to bring more oil to
market right now. They want to sell with the price high.
nonsense. "Most people" do not expect that prices will eventually go
down. Experts are telling us just the opposite. That we can expect
$200 per barrel before the year ends.
They will lower the prices a bit, however. When the get them well above
what will incite riots around the world and demands to nationalize and
otherwise punish the greedy bastards, they will back off a bit, and stay
there for another decade or so. But it will not drop below, say, $100
per--double what world demand says it ought to be.
Tell me, where do they have the secret meeting where they determine
global oil prices? Is that during a skull & bones meeting with Dick
Cheney presiding? I'd love to learn more about your fascinating
conspiracy theories.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
In a related aside, a bevy of economists reported on CSPAN the other day
that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
Yeah lots of people have been complaining that the Fed has not
supported the dollar. Do you have any more irrelevant facts to add?
why is the value of our dollar irrelevant to anything we buy in the US?
Who said it was? Its irrelevant to this discussion about oil
drilling.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
world economics is light years beyond yours.
Its pretty clear that you are in no position to judge. You sound at
least as clueless as Bob.
that you would say that in the face of Bob's proven superior knowledge
demonstrates your own ignorance.
Dude the only thing thats been proven is that you are a conspiracy-
theory toting usenet marxist with an axe to grind with anything
resembling capitalism and an extremely weak grasp of how markets
work.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
and the other pirates are already meeting the demand.
Demand varies with the price point you clod.
to a minute degree, doofus. your argument implies that if the price
drops a few cents we suddenly
feel empowered to drive the long way to work.
Demand is always going to be "met" fool. If supplies can't go up due
to scarcity, then the price goes up until demand is lowered to match
supply. Conversely, if supply is suddenly increased, then the price
drops until demand has increased to match supply. Your view of demand
as some sort of fixed number demonstrates your ignorance.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Dumping any more
oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
No shit sherlock. It is still in each oil company's best interest to
bring as much of their product to market now to take advantage of the
high prices. Will that increase supply and eventually lower prices?
Yes, thats how markets work you dolt. But, individual companies
aren't going to hold back to keep prices high.
sonny, to this point I've talked to you as if you are an adult. I've
refuted your points without attacking you personally. Okay, you're not
adult. fine. Let's play in the mud, monkey.
In a true free market, your latter point would be true. The oil market
is not a free open market. It is controlled by 3-4 huge companies (who
undoubtedly own huge blocks of one another's stock) working in tandem
with a few oil-producing countries.
So this is what it boils down to. Your assertion that oil is not a
true market commodity but rather the price is fixed by a handful of
large companies and countries. Thats a bold assertion my friend. One
with no evidence to back it up (I have trouble imagining the CEO of
Exxon meeting with Chavez, the Iranians and the Russians to discuss
pricing, but that's just me). Do you want to provide some cites or
should we just take your word on it?
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
international, they are corporate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
price--and profits--would drop.
Your idea of demand as a fixed number shows your lack of understanding
of basic economic concepts. Demand moves with price. Nevertheless, you
are correct that as supply increases, prices will tend to drop. What
you don't comprehend is that individual players will always act in
*their* best interest, which is to sell as much as possible with
prices high. How do you think oil prices dropped below $20 in the
90s? Oil producers were going bust, do you think they wanted that to
happen? If the whole industry colludes to inflate prices as you
propose, how did that ever happen?
Your comments ably demonstrate your unwillingness to consider any fact
that contradicts the conservative Party line. Commonsense is all it
takes to understand what is going on.
OPEC was getting what it wanted, wasn't it. Clinton wouldn't play the
games they wanted, so they kept on our good side till the Saudis
business partners bush and cheney took control.
Do you seriously believe that demand has increased 600% in a decade????
You never answered my question. If the oil industry colludes and
fixes the price, why did they let the price get so low in the
nineties? Don't have an answer? Let me help you. Your make-believe
collusion is just a bunch of Marxist bullshit.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
The reason prices are high now is that the oil simply is not available
to put on the market. That is why new sources must be opened up or
this situation will just keep getting worse. The fact that the US
government prohibits offshore drilling for a large portion of our
coast and the frozen wasteland known as ANWR is asinine. We are now
reaping the rewards of that foolish policy. Idiots like you blame the
oil companies. The real blame goes to politicians and environmental
lobbyists who block drilling.
stop shining, monkey. I've already related the facts concerning this
drilling. Back up a few posts and reread. Here's a hint: 68,000 leased
and permitted acres in proven oil fields in which to drill.
Which probably don't have significant deposits, or they can't be
produced economically.

Your argument is that the current leases hold all the oil we need and
oil companies are sitting on it just to push the price of oil up
higher? Sorry gringo thats just a bunch of left-wing nonsense and no
one with a brain is going to buy it. Take a hike.
Post by gringo
Idiots like you always lick the privates of those who are slinking up to
your bare backsides.
I'll ask you not to project your sick fantasies on the rest of us.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
And this is relevant how?
Plainly relevant to the comment I was referring to, to anyone of average
intelligence.
Repeated once again for your perusal.
Gringo, your whole argument boils down to this: There is collusion
in the global oil industry. They are fixing prices. Oil companies
don't need access to more area because they have all the oil we need
within their current leases, but they are purposely sitting on it to
prop up prices. Thats a bunch of left-wing conspiracy theory bullshit
that might fly with your Marxist friends but it ain't gonna fly here
unless you come up with some really good cites. So come up with the
cites or hit the highway, gringo.
Zeke
2008-07-01 13:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
That is an understatement.
gringo
2008-07-01 17:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeke
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
That is an understatement.
stop squealing, zeke.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 17:44:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Zeke
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
That is an understatement.
stop squealing, zeke.
Yeah Zeke it distracts Pinko while he's masturbating.
--
Scott

Liberals' goal is to damage the country and make it weak and dependent like
Europe so its enemies can have a fair chance of killing Americans.
gringo
2008-07-02 04:50:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
Post by gringo
Post by Zeke
Post by Monkey Clumps
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
That is an understatement.
stop squealing, zeke.
Yeah Zeke it distracts Pinko while he's masturbating.
tscottie, you type really well while sucking the boss man's dick.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Zeke
2008-07-02 11:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
tscottie, you type really well while sucking the boss man's dick.
You really do have some issue with being gay, don't you? Don't fight it
Gringo, embrace you're perverted side. You know you want it up the ass.
gringo
2008-07-03 05:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeke
Post by gringo
tscottie, you type really well while sucking the boss man's dick.
You really do have some issue with being gay, don't you? Don't fight it
Gringo, embrace you're perverted side. You know you want it up the ass.
[z]EEK, you take it up the ass every time you choose to take me on.
Tell me, EEK!, don't you think your favorite "troll" is lonesome for
you. That is all you're good for isn't it, flaming rocky, etc, even
when they're trying to provide help to someone?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-01 17:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
So what are you suggesting, that oil companies should be
nationalized? That has been happening actually. Look at Venezuela.
The nationalized, kicked the private companies out and are now in the
process of running their industry into the ground through gross
incompetence. Private companies have always been far more efficient
than government companies.
that is their rant. Not true.
You sound like the kind of guy who thinks the Soviets won the cold
war.
we the working class sure as hell didn't win anything there. While the
soviets were a threat...able to stir up the poor folk who break their
backs planting crops on mountainsides for wealthy foreign masters,
capitalists had to rein in their greed, and at least give lip service to
taking care of the people who perform all the labor.
Oh shit, it sounds like "gringo" is a usenet Marxist.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101.
Maybe with a monopoly, which the oil industry hardly is. In an open
market rising prices tend to cause supply to increase. That's how the
system self-regulates. When prices are high there is an incentive to
sell. Haven't you heard sell high, buy low? With oil prices at an
all-time high, every oil company wants to sell as much oil as they can
suck out of the ground. That's economics 101.
You've got it only half right. As there is a finite supply of oil,
there is a finite demand.
This shows you have no understanding of supply and demand. Demand is
not finite and fixed. If price drops demand will increase (people
drive more, fly more, buy bigger less fuel efficient cars etc.)
Of course it is. When one's appetite is sated, one refuses a third
helping of roast beef. Commonsense.
You may be sated but the fat fuck next to you is happy to have thirds
and fourths. And he's going to be telling his fat friends about the
cheap dinner, so you will be seeing more of them. Demand fluctuates.
Its not fixed and there is no ceiling to it.
Post by gringo
Demand for oil in Europe has dropped precipitously due to the price
increases; China's demand this year was expected to rise 5.5%; it has
risen so far only 7/10 of 1%.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
If OPEC upped production, if a magic wand
were waved forcing our oil companies to start pumping from their
thousands of capped wells, demand would increase minutely and the price
would go down down down.
Well yes and most people expect that prices will eventually go down,
but probably not to any level close to what it was a few years ago.
Nevertheless, oil companies have a huge incentive to bring more oil to
market right now. They want to sell with the price high.
nonsense. "Most people" do not expect that prices will eventually go
down. Experts are telling us just the opposite. That we can expect
$200 per barrel before the year ends.
They will lower the prices a bit, however. When the get them well above
what will incite riots around the world and demands to nationalize and
otherwise punish the greedy bastards, they will back off a bit, and stay
there for another decade or so. But it will not drop below, say, $100
per--double what world demand says it ought to be.
Tell me, where do they have the secret meeting where they determine
global oil prices? Is that during a skull & bones meeting with Dick
Cheney presiding? I'd love to learn more about your fascinating
conspiracy theories.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
In a related aside, a bevy of economists reported on CSPAN the other day
that Bush's appointee to the FED caused the current situation when he
clued the world in advance that he was about to lower the FED interest
rates, thereby lowering the value of our dollar.
Yeah lots of people have been complaining that the Fed has not
supported the dollar. Do you have any more irrelevant facts to add?
why is the value of our dollar irrelevant to anything we buy in the US?
Who said it was? Its irrelevant to this discussion about oil
drilling.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite?
Dude, do you understand how markets work? You seem very confused.
You could stand to take a few lessons from him. His understanding of
world economics is light years beyond yours.
Its pretty clear that you are in no position to judge. You sound at
least as clueless as Bob.
that you would say that in the face of Bob's proven superior knowledge
demonstrates your own ignorance.
Dude the only thing thats been proven is that you are a conspiracy-
theory toting usenet marxist with an axe to grind with anything
resembling capitalism and an extremely weak grasp of how markets
work.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible.
High prices are a massive incentive for Exxon to produce and sell as
much oil as they possibly can *right now*.
Let me try to explain this to you in the simplest terms possible. Exxon
and the other pirates are already meeting the demand.
Demand varies with the price point you clod.
to a minute degree, doofus. your argument implies that if the price
drops a few cents we suddenly
feel empowered to drive the long way to work.
Demand is always going to be "met" fool. If supplies can't go up due
to scarcity, then the price goes up until demand is lowered to match
supply. Conversely, if supply is suddenly increased, then the price
drops until demand has increased to match supply. Your view of demand
as some sort of fixed number demonstrates your ignorance.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Dumping any more
oil on the market would in fact lower the demand--and the prices.
No shit sherlock. It is still in each oil company's best interest to
bring as much of their product to market now to take advantage of the
high prices. Will that increase supply and eventually lower prices?
Yes, thats how markets work you dolt. But, individual companies
aren't going to hold back to keep prices high.
sonny, to this point I've talked to you as if you are an adult. I've
refuted your points without attacking you personally. Okay, you're not
adult. fine. Let's play in the mud, monkey.
In a true free market, your latter point would be true. The oil market
is not a free open market. It is controlled by 3-4 huge companies (who
undoubtedly own huge blocks of one another's stock) working in tandem
with a few oil-producing countries.
So this is what it boils down to. Your assertion that oil is not a
true market commodity but rather the price is fixed by a handful of
large companies and countries. Thats a bold assertion my friend. One
with no evidence to back it up (I have trouble imagining the CEO of
Exxon meeting with Chavez, the Iranians and the Russians to discuss
pricing, but that's just me). Do you want to provide some cites or
should we just take your word on it?
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Exxon doesn't control oil
prices. Its not even close. The Saudis try to but even they don't
have enough market share. Since Exxon doesn't control the price, they
want to max out production and sales when the price is at $140 not
years down the road where thing may have settled and the price might
be $50.
pure propaganda. The oil companies are not American; they are
international, they are corporate and therefore their "patriotism" is to
their profits. They sell everywhere, including to China.
If they maxed out production they would exceed current demand, and the
price--and profits--would drop.
Your idea of demand as a fixed number shows your lack of understanding
of basic economic concepts. Demand moves with price. Nevertheless, you
are correct that as supply increases, prices will tend to drop. What
you don't comprehend is that individual players will always act in
*their* best interest, which is to sell as much as possible with
prices high. How do you think oil prices dropped below $20 in the
90s? Oil producers were going bust, do you think they wanted that to
happen? If the whole industry colludes to inflate prices as you
propose, how did that ever happen?
Your comments ably demonstrate your unwillingness to consider any fact
that contradicts the conservative Party line. Commonsense is all it
takes to understand what is going on.
OPEC was getting what it wanted, wasn't it. Clinton wouldn't play the
games they wanted, so they kept on our good side till the Saudis
business partners bush and cheney took control.
Do you seriously believe that demand has increased 600% in a decade????
You never answered my question. If the oil industry colludes and
fixes the price, why did they let the price get so low in the
nineties? Don't have an answer? Let me help you. Your make-believe
collusion is just a bunch of Marxist bullshit.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
The reason prices are high now is that the oil simply is not available
to put on the market. That is why new sources must be opened up or
this situation will just keep getting worse. The fact that the US
government prohibits offshore drilling for a large portion of our
coast and the frozen wasteland known as ANWR is asinine. We are now
reaping the rewards of that foolish policy. Idiots like you blame the
oil companies. The real blame goes to politicians and environmental
lobbyists who block drilling.
stop shining, monkey. I've already related the facts concerning this
drilling. Back up a few posts and reread. Here's a hint: 68,000 leased
and permitted acres in proven oil fields in which to drill.
Which probably don't have significant deposits, or they can't be
produced economically.
Your argument is that the current leases hold all the oil we need and
oil companies are sitting on it just to push the price of oil up
higher? Sorry gringo thats just a bunch of left-wing nonsense and no
one with a brain is going to buy it. Take a hike.
Post by gringo
Idiots like you always lick the privates of those who are slinking up to
your bare backsides.
I'll ask you not to project your sick fantasies on the rest of us.
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
Oh geez. We're facing an energy crisis that requires innovation and
efficiency to get through and you suggest we solve the problem with
socialism and government intervention, a guaranteed destroyer of
innovation and efficiency. Sounds like a brilliant plan. *roll eyes*
I'll remind you that it was government working with private enterprise
(universities) that developed the internet. That most of the scientific
advances during the past 50 years came about through government funding
(NASA, etc). That universities and NIH laboratories discovered most of
the miracle drugs now being sold for exorbitant profits by private
pharmaceutical companies.
And this is relevant how?
Plainly relevant to the comment I was referring to, to anyone of average
intelligence.
Repeated once again for your perusal.
Gringo, your whole argument boils down to this: There is collusion
in the global oil industry. They are fixing prices. Oil companies
don't need access to more area because they have all the oil we need
within their current leases, but they are purposely sitting on it to
prop up prices. Thats a bunch of left-wing conspiracy theory bullshit
that might fly with your Marxist friends but it ain't gonna fly here
unless you come up with some really good cites. So come up with the
cites or hit the highway, gringo.
I m a pragmatic Liberal who understands life as it is.


Ask and ye shall receive, Monkey Chump.

First cite:

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/July97/299at.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1997 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTS TO STOP COLLUSION AMONG THREE OIL TRADERS


Settlement will Keep Firms from Exchanging Broker
Commission Information


WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Department of Justice reached a
settlement today with three major oil trading firms that will
prohibit the companies from exchanging broker commission
information involving contracts for Brent blend crude oil--a
crude oil produced in the North Sea.

The three colluding firms--AIG Trading Corporation, BP
Exploration & Oil Inc. and Cargill International S.A.--discussed
the information in order to lower the commissions they paid to
brokers in the U.S. for these contracts, the Department said.

As a result of today's settlement, the firms will no longer
be able to conspire to reduce broker commissions.

Joel I. Klein, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge
of the Department's Antitrust Division, said, "This case
demonstrates the Antitrust Division's continuing commitment to
investigate and prosecute agreements in the financial markets
that violate the antitrust laws."

A Brent spread contract is the simultaneous purchase and
sale of two contracts, for different months forward, for Brent
crude oil. A contract for difference, or CFD, is a commercial
transaction based on the difference between the current published
price for loaded Brent crude oil and the future price for Brent
crude oil to be loaded on an unspecified future date. The
trading firms had been paying separate full commissions to the
brokers for both paired contracts and wanted to reduce the amount
they paid. Broker commissions are paid for arranging the
purchase and sale of Brent spread contracts and contracts for
differences.

The Department's Antitrust Division filed a civil complaint
today against the companies in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in Manhattan. At the same time,
the Department filed a proposed settlement that would resolve the
lawsuit if approved by the court.

The complaint alleges that AIG, BP, Cargill and others
conspired from July 1992 through May 1993 to exchange current and
prospective brokerage commission information on Brent spread
contracts and CFDs in order to lower brokerage commissions paid
to brokers in the U.S. Representatives of the companies carried
out the conspiracy by telephone and in meetings in Europe and the
U.S.

Today's settlement prohibits AIG, BP, and Cargill from
agreeing with any other trader to fix, lower, raise, stabilize or
maintain any brokerage commission for Brent spread contracts and
CFDs or exchange any information for these purposes.

The companies will also be prohibited from requesting or
advising other traders to lower, raise or change any brokerage
commissions for Brent spread contracts and CFDs.

AIG Trading Corp. is a subsidiary of AIG Trading Group Inc.,
which is a subsidiary of American International Group Inc.
American International Group and its subsidiaries comprise a
large diversified financial service organization operating in 130
countries and jurisdictions. AIG Trading is headquartered in
Greenwich, Connecticut.

BP Exploration & Oil is headquartered in Cleveland.
Cargill International is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.

As required by the Antitrust and Procedures and Penalties
Act, the proposed stipulation and order will be published in the
Federal Register, along with the Department's competitive impact
statement. Any person may submit written comments concerning the
proposed decree during a 60-day comment period to Ralph T.
Giordano, Chief, New York Office, U.S. Department of Justice,
Antitrust Division, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 3630, New York, New
York 10278, 212-264-0390.

At the conclusion of the 60-day comment period, the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York in
Manhattan, may enter the consent decree upon finding it serves
the public's interest.
###

A lesson for you, monkey.

Like all other meat sources, the cow is not consumed the moment she is
killed. Upon birth, she is husbanded by the rancher till she is grown.
When there is a place for her in the food pipeline--and the prices are
right--the lowly cow is shipped off to a feedlot, there to be fed all
she will eat to fatten her up and increase her value. After being
slaughtered, she is hung for weeks in coolers and/or freezers. She may
not be consumed for a year or more after being harvested.


An oil well is drilled, oil is found. It isn't pumped into a waiting
Schneider, monkey. Oil in the ground must first be refined. If the
refinery is already at peak production, the oil must be either left in
the ground (CAPPED) or stored somewhere till needed. Water in the well
in your backyard sleeps peacefully until a faucet releases it for usage.
It doesn't spoil while waiting in the ground or in a storage tank. Oil
in the ground has been in the ground for, oh, a million years or so; it
can remain in the ground for another few years, it will not spoil, it
merely increases in value. Oil in the ground back in the 1930s was worth
a few pennies per gallon: that very same oil is now worth dollars per
gallon! You keep spouting your understanding of economics, why do you
have such a problem comprehending this very basic tenet of economics?
Perhaps if you stop sniffing your ass, Monkey Clump.

A diamond also forms over millennia. DeBeers has a virtual monopoly on
diamond production. It buys them, "refines" them, then stores them
for...millennia. They sell those diamonds at a carefully considered rate
in order to keep their profits astronomically high. Likewise with oil
companies.
#####

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1531

On the supply side of the equation, as a result of mergers, the five
largest oil companies operating in the United States _now control 61
percent of the domestic retail gasoline market, 48.5 percent of the
domestic oil refinery market and 50 percent of domestic oil exploration
and production. ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell
also control 15 percent of the world's oil production. These top five
corporations now produce more oil everyday than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Yemen combined._


"It is no surprise that gasoline prices are skyrocketing," said Wenonah
Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program. "This is what you get when you have a handful of
mega-corporations dominating the market, and it is what we predicted
when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allowed massive consolidation of
the oil industry in 1999 and 2000."


These new mega-corporations are involved in all facets of the oil and
gas industry: exploration, production, refining, transportation and
retail sales. This vertical integration has resulted in a handful of
corporations controlling a substantial chunk of the domestic oil and gas
market, allowing them to artificially inflate prices and take advantage
of any supply disruptions by gouging consumers.


In March 2001, the FTC reached a curious conclusion about high gasoline
prices in the Midwest. While it claimed that no collusion had taken
place under current law, it found that "conscious (but independent)
choices by industry participants" to intentionally withhold supplies
resulted in artificially high prices. The report, however, did not
publicly name the names of the companies it alleged to have inflated
prices, since the FTC considered the information proprietary.
###

Tacit collusion occurs when cartels are illegal or overt collusion is
absent. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy
without explicitly saying so. This is also known as price leadership, as
firms may stay within the law but still tacitly collude by monitoring
each other's prices and keeping them the same. Usually, this occurs when
a firm emerges to set the general industry price and other firms follow
suit. oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive
advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten
rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion).
A price leader will then emerge and sets the general industry price,
with other firms following suit. For example see the case of British
Salt Vs Salt Union (Competition Commission report which concludes price
leadership and a lasting collusive agreement between the two firms).


So, they were definitely doing that since the break-up of Standard Oil.
To stifle criticism of their price setting schemes, they /tacitly/
employ speculators. But it matters not to the oil giants why the price
gets higher, the seller benefits enormously when a large percentage of
his product was drilled and stored decades ago when his production costs
were pennies on the dollar.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-01 17:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Gringo, your whole argument boils down to this: There is collusion
in the global oil industry. They are fixing prices. Oil companies
don't need access to more area because they have all the oil we need
within their current leases, but they are purposely sitting on it to
prop up prices. Thats a bunch of left-wing conspiracy theory bullshit
that might fly with your Marxist friends but it ain't gonna fly here
unless you come up with some really good cites. So come up with the
cites or hit the highway, gringo.
I m a pragmatic Liberal who understands life as it is.
Ask and ye shall receive, Monkey Chump.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/July97/299at.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1997 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTS TO STOP COLLUSION AMONG THREE OIL TRADERS
Settlement will Keep Firms from Exchanging Broker
Commission Information
The complaint alleges that AIG, BP, Cargill and others
conspired from July 1992 through May 1993 to exchange current and
prospective brokerage commission information on Brent spread
contracts and CFDs in order to lower brokerage commissions paid
to brokers in the U.S. Representatives of the companies carried
out the conspiracy by telephone and in meetings in Europe and the
U.S.
Wow, traders discussing broker commissions. That's quite a global
conspiracy you found there. Where's Exxon and Dick Cheney?
Post by gringo
A lesson for you, monkey.
Like all other meat sources, the cow is not consumed the moment she is
killed. Upon birth, she is husbanded by the rancher till she is grown.
When there is a place for her in the food pipeline--and the prices are
right--the lowly cow is shipped off to a feedlot, there to be fed all
she will eat to fatten her up and increase her value. After being
slaughtered, she is hung for weeks in coolers and/or freezers. She may
not be consumed for a year or more after being harvested.
An oil well is drilled, oil is found. It isn't pumped into a waiting
Schneider, monkey. Oil in the ground must first be refined. If the
refinery is already at peak production, the oil must be either left in
the ground (CAPPED) or stored somewhere till needed. Water in the well
in your backyard sleeps peacefully until a faucet releases it for usage.
It doesn't spoil while waiting in the ground or in a storage tank. Oil
in the ground has been in the ground for, oh, a million years or so; it
can remain in the ground for another few years, it will not spoil, it
merely increases in value. Oil in the ground back in the 1930s was worth
a few pennies per gallon: that very same oil is now worth dollars per
gallon! You keep spouting your understanding of economics, why do you
have such a problem comprehending this very basic tenet of economics?
Perhaps if you stop sniffing your ass, Monkey Clump.
That's all very interesting. Now where's the evidence that oil
companies are storing oil right now rather than selling it? Otherwise
your post isn't really relevant is it?
Post by gringo
A diamond also forms over millennia. DeBeers has a virtual monopoly on
diamond production. It buys them, "refines" them, then stores them
for...millennia. They sell those diamonds at a carefully considered rate
in order to keep their profits astronomically high. Likewise with oil
companies.
#####
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1531
I'm sure this organization has no political bias.
Post by gringo
On the supply side of the equation, as a result of mergers, the five
largest oil companies operating in the United States _now control 61
percent of the domestic retail gasoline market, 48.5 percent of the
domestic oil refinery market and 50 percent of domestic oil exploration
and production. ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell
also control 15 percent of the world's oil production. These top five
corporations now produce more oil everyday than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Yemen combined._
You think they can corner the market with only 15% of the worlds
production? What a dope.
Post by gringo
"It is no surprise that gasoline prices are skyrocketing," said Wenonah
Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program. "This is what you get when you have a handful of
mega-corporations dominating the market, and it is what we predicted
when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allowed massive consolidation of
the oil industry in 1999 and 2000."
These new mega-corporations are involved in all facets of the oil and
gas industry: exploration, production, refining, transportation and
retail sales. This vertical integration has resulted in a handful of
corporations controlling a substantial chunk of the domestic oil and gas
market, allowing them to artificially inflate prices and take advantage
of any supply disruptions by gouging consumers.
Didn't congress investigate this and found... wait for it....
NOTHING. Just another liberal pipe dream.
Post by gringo
In March 2001, the FTC reached a curious conclusion about high gasoline
prices in the Midwest. While it claimed that no collusion had taken
place under current law, it found that "conscious (but independent)
choices by industry participants" to intentionally withhold supplies
resulted in artificially high prices. The report, however, did not
publicly name the names of the companies it alleged to have inflated
prices, since the FTC considered the information proprietary.
###
Tacit collusion occurs when cartels are illegal or overt collusion is
absent. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy
without explicitly saying so. This is also known as price leadership, as
firms may stay within the law but still tacitly collude by monitoring
each other's prices and keeping them the same. Usually, this occurs when
a firm emerges to set the general industry price and other firms follow
suit. oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive
advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten
rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion).
A price leader will then emerge and sets the general industry price,
with other firms following suit. For example see the case of British
Salt Vs Salt Union (Competition Commission report which concludes price
leadership and a lasting collusive agreement between the two firms).
So, they were definitely doing that since the break-up of Standard Oil.
To stifle criticism of their price setting schemes, they /tacitly/
employ speculators. But it matters not to the oil giants why the price
gets higher, the seller benefits enormously when a large percentage of
his product was drilled and stored decades ago when his production costs
were pennies on the dollar.
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
gringo
2008-07-02 05:12:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Gringo, your whole argument boils down to this: There is collusion
in the global oil industry. They are fixing prices. Oil companies
don't need access to more area because they have all the oil we need
within their current leases, but they are purposely sitting on it to
prop up prices. Thats a bunch of left-wing conspiracy theory bullshit
that might fly with your Marxist friends but it ain't gonna fly here
unless you come up with some really good cites. So come up with the
cites or hit the highway, gringo.
I m a pragmatic Liberal who understands life as it is.
Ask and ye shall receive, Monkey Chump.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/July97/299at.htm
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 1997 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACTS TO STOP COLLUSION AMONG THREE OIL TRADERS
Settlement will Keep Firms from Exchanging Broker
Commission Information
The complaint alleges that AIG, BP, Cargill and others
conspired from July 1992 through May 1993 to exchange current and
prospective brokerage commission information on Brent spread
contracts and CFDs in order to lower brokerage commissions paid
to brokers in the U.S. Representatives of the companies carried
out the conspiracy by telephone and in meetings in Europe and the
U.S.
Wow, traders discussing broker commissions. That's quite a global
conspiracy you found there. Where's Exxon and Dick Cheney?
you choose to remain clueless, your business, monkey butt.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
A lesson for you, monkey.
Like all other meat sources, the cow is not consumed the moment she is
killed. Upon birth, she is husbanded by the rancher till she is grown.
When there is a place for her in the food pipeline--and the prices are
right--the lowly cow is shipped off to a feedlot, there to be fed all
she will eat to fatten her up and increase her value. After being
slaughtered, she is hung for weeks in coolers and/or freezers. She may
not be consumed for a year or more after being harvested.
An oil well is drilled, oil is found. It isn't pumped into a waiting
Schneider, monkey. Oil in the ground must first be refined. If the
refinery is already at peak production, the oil must be either left in
the ground (CAPPED) or stored somewhere till needed. Water in the well
in your backyard sleeps peacefully until a faucet releases it for usage.
It doesn't spoil while waiting in the ground or in a storage tank. Oil
in the ground has been in the ground for, oh, a million years or so; it
can remain in the ground for another few years, it will not spoil, it
merely increases in value. Oil in the ground back in the 1930s was worth
a few pennies per gallon: that very same oil is now worth dollars per
gallon! You keep spouting your understanding of economics, why do you
have such a problem comprehending this very basic tenet of economics?
Perhaps if you stop sniffing your ass, Monkey Clump.
That's all very interesting. Now where's the evidence that oil
companies are storing oil right now rather than selling it? Otherwise
your post isn't really relevant is it?
Commonsense requires at least average intelligence, which you obviously
lack.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
A diamond also forms over millennia. DeBeers has a virtual monopoly on
diamond production. It buys them, "refines" them, then stores them
for...millennia. They sell those diamonds at a carefully considered rate
in order to keep their profits astronomically high. Likewise with oil
companies.
#####
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1531
I'm sure this organization has no political bias.
how would you know since you obviously haven't read a word of the
material. Why do you fear the truth? are you afraid that becoming
knowledgeable about this subject would require you to change your
cherished opinions?
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
On the supply side of the equation, as a result of mergers, the five
largest oil companies operating in the United States _now control 61
percent of the domestic retail gasoline market, 48.5 percent of the
domestic oil refinery market and 50 percent of domestic oil exploration
and production. ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell
also control 15 percent of the world's oil production. These top five
corporations now produce more oil everyday than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Yemen combined._
You think they can corner the market with only 15% of the worlds
production? What a dope.
Monkey, chump, you haven't a clue. Back up a bit and reread the
definition of tacit collusion. It's in the best interest of
speculators, refiners, oil companies, OPEC, Bush & Cheney and investors
in all of the above to restrict production, thereby keeping the price
artificially triple the justified price.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
"It is no surprise that gasoline prices are skyrocketing," said Wenonah
Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program. "This is what you get when you have a handful of
mega-corporations dominating the market, and it is what we predicted
when the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allowed massive consolidation of
the oil industry in 1999 and 2000."
These new mega-corporations are involved in all facets of the oil and
gas industry: exploration, production, refining, transportation and
retail sales. This vertical integration has resulted in a handful of
corporations controlling a substantial chunk of the domestic oil and gas
market, allowing them to artificially inflate prices and take advantage
of any supply disruptions by gouging consumers.
Didn't congress investigate this and found... wait for it....
NOTHING. Just another liberal pipe dream.
another facet of this subject you should research--or remain willfully
ignorant. But wait, I'm once again assuming you have the intellectual
capacity to learn.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
In March 2001, the FTC reached a curious conclusion about high gasoline
prices in the Midwest. While it claimed that no collusion had taken
place under current law, it found that "conscious (but independent)
choices by industry participants" to intentionally withhold supplies
resulted in artificially high prices. The report, however, did not
publicly name the names of the companies it alleged to have inflated
prices, since the FTC considered the information proprietary.
###
Tacit collusion occurs when cartels are illegal or overt collusion is
absent. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy
without explicitly saying so. This is also known as price leadership, as
firms may stay within the law but still tacitly collude by monitoring
each other's prices and keeping them the same. Usually, this occurs when
a firm emerges to set the general industry price and other firms follow
suit. oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive
advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten
rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion).
A price leader will then emerge and sets the general industry price,
with other firms following suit. For example see the case of British
Salt Vs Salt Union (Competition Commission report which concludes price
leadership and a lasting collusive agreement between the two firms).
So, they were definitely doing that since the break-up of Standard Oil.
To stifle criticism of their price setting schemes, they /tacitly/
employ speculators. But it matters not to the oil giants why the price
gets higher, the seller benefits enormously when a large percentage of
his product was drilled and stored decades ago when his production costs
were pennies on the dollar.
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage. But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording. It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-02 12:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage. But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording. It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil. Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.

In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook. Now please fuck off.
gringo
2008-07-03 05:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage. But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording. It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil. Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook. Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance. remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-03 12:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil?  Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage.  But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording.  It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil.  Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook.  Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance.  remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
I see you have given up attempting to defend your idiotic conspiracy
theories. Now excuse me while I laugh at you while you pontificate
about ignorance.
gringo
2008-07-06 02:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage. But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording. It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil. Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook. Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance. remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
I see you have given up attempting to defend your idiotic conspiracy
theories. Now excuse me while I laugh at you while you pontificate
about ignorance.
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.* It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres they have already
leased. Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.


Now go educate yourself.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-07 17:08:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil?  Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage.  But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording.  It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil.  Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook.  Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance.  remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
I see you have given up attempting to defend your idiotic conspiracy
theories.  Now excuse me while I laugh at you while you pontificate
about ignorance.
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.*
Wrong again 'tard. The US Geological Survey issued the estimates.
The oil companies have not been allowed in to "extensively explore"
Post by gringo
 It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres  they have already
leased.  
They probably have explored those 68,000 acres that are leased and
found them lacking.
Post by gringo
Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
The oil companies have limited manpower and resources so they are only
going to develop fields that have large deposits, to maximize their
production. Apparently much of the 68,000 acres does not fit the
criteria or else they would be drilling and producing. Telling oil
companies to go drill where there are no oil deposits that can
economically justify the expense and effort of production is just
plain stupid. Actually, its the of retarded policy that has made the
word "liberal" an insult in this country. It certainly not going to
help us out of this energy crisis.
Post by gringo
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
You're just all sorts of stupid, aren't you?
Post by gringo
Now go educate yourself.
This is like Stevie Wonder giving advice on painting.
gringo
2008-07-13 01:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil? Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage. But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording. It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil. Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook. Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance. remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
I see you have given up attempting to defend your idiotic conspiracy
theories. Now excuse me while I laugh at you while you pontificate
about ignorance.
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.*
Wrong again 'tard. The US Geological Survey issued the estimates.
The oil companies have not been allowed in to "extensively explore"
monkey shines, but once again demonstrating that monkeys are indeed
dumber than a two-year-old human.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres they have already
leased.
They probably have explored those 68,000 acres that are leased and
found them lacking.
refer to my previous in-depth reply.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
The oil companies have limited manpower and resources so they are only
going to develop fields that have large deposits, to maximize their
production. Apparently much of the 68,000 acres does not fit the
criteria or else they would be drilling and producing. Telling oil
companies to go drill where there are no oil deposits that can
economically justify the expense and effort of production is just
plain stupid. Actually, its the of retarded policy that has made the
word "liberal" an insult in this country. It certainly not going to
help us out of this energy crisis.
They don't lease acreage in your backyard, monkey. They lease where
they know they'll find oil. where they have in fact *already found oil*.

However, drilling for oil, in the already discovered oil fields within
the 68 million leased acres, in the prohibited areas--on the moon--will
not pull us out of this energy crisis. This energy crisis has been
created by the melding of a number of factors. Increased consumption in
China and 3rd world nations; the lack of patriotism and greed of oil
company executives and their minions within both political parties; the
blatant greed of speculators. We end the oil crisis by expanding
existing alternative energy sources. Blaming it on Liberals is pure
demagoguery.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
You're just all sorts of stupid, aren't you?
Stop sniffing your monkey clumps, monkey, sit down in a darkened room
for fifteen minutes, and for once in your life, THINK!
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Now go educate yourself.
This is like Stevie Wonder giving advice on painting.
There are none so blind as retarded CONservatives who choose not to
see. You're somethin', monkey clump. You sit on a stump wearing
blinders that allow you to see only to your right; you stuff one hand in
your mouth and one up your monkey butt--and when Billy O'Really gives
the signal, you switch hands.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-07-13 15:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by gringo
So where is the evidence that they are storing oil?  Is this the best
you can come up with?
Mutt, since no one gets a peek at DeBeer's vaults, no one can say for
sure that they do have bilions upon billions of carats of perfect
diamonds in storage.  But, since billions of carats of diamonds have
been dug out of the mines that have not been sold on the diamond market,
commonsense alone (that word again!) dictates that the oil producers are
in fact hording.  It certainly is FACT that the nominally American oil
companies have not exploited all the proven oil fields they control.
What DeBeer's may have or may not have done with regard to diamonds
has absolutely no bearing or relevance to oil.  Oil is a commodity,
diamonds are precious gems that can very easily be hidden. The fact
that you think that there is some connection between DeBeers and oil
companies or even that they are analogous in any way shows what a
complete and utter idiot you really are.
In any case, you have completely failed to provide any evidence that
oil companies are hoarding oil. Zero. Zilch. Nada.  Its clear that you
are a garden variety usenet kook.  Now please fuck off.
Your comprehension of the interconnectivity of all facets of economics
is, sadly based on ignorance.  remember what I told you about its root
word "ignore."
I see you have given up attempting to defend your idiotic conspiracy
theories.  Now excuse me while I laugh at you while you pontificate
about ignorance.
Oil companies know for a fact that oil exists in lands that Federal and
State regulations won't allow them to drill on *because they have
already extensively explored those lands.*
Wrong again 'tard.  The US Geological Survey issued the estimates.
The oil companies have not been allowed in to "extensively explore"
monkey shines, but once again demonstrating that monkeys are indeed
dumber than a two-year-old human.
Yet Gringo is dumber still. Notice that he is unable to defend his
position, that oil companies have extensively explored ANWR, because
it is clearly WRONG, much like everything he posts. He instead
reduced to throwing out insults, and he's not even good at that. What
a loser.
Post by gringo
Post by gringo
 It is logical, money clump,
don't you think, that if they have explored--and proved oil exists on
lands they are not permitted to use--then they have also explored and
proved the existence of oil on the 68,000 acres  they have already
leased.  
They probably have explored those 68,000 acres that are leased and
found them lacking.
refer to my previous in-depth reply.
Where would that be?
Post by gringo
Post by gringo
Therefore, doofus, my most relevant point is made, that they
should first drill on the 68,000 acres they have paid to lease and paid
to get permits for.
The oil companies have limited manpower and resources so they are only
going to develop fields that have large deposits, to maximize their
production.  Apparently much of the 68,000 acres does not fit the
criteria or else they would be drilling and producing.  Telling oil
companies to go drill where there are no oil deposits that can
economically justify the expense and effort of production is just
plain stupid. Actually, its the of retarded policy that has made the
word "liberal" an insult in this country.  It certainly not going to
help us out of this energy crisis.
They don't lease acreage in your backyard, monkey.  They lease where
they know they'll find oil. where they have in fact *already found oil*.
Do you think all oil leases are created equal? Do you think they all
come with a set amount of oil? An oil company has finite resources
and manpower. To justify an off shore production platform there has
to be a *lot* of oil. The 68,000 acres probably does have some oil,
but apparently not enough to justify the resources needed to put them
into production. Anyway offshore production is maxed out. There are
no drill rigs sitting idle. Day rates are at an all-time high.

Why do you think ANWR is such a big deal? Do you think oil companies
want to drill in frozen wasteland with temperatures of -50 F in the
winter? No, they want to do it because according to the USGS, that is
where they can find the most oil.
Post by gringo
However, drilling for oil, in the already discovered oil fields within
the 68 million leased acres, in the prohibited areas--on the moon--will
not pull us out of this energy crisis.  This energy crisis has been
created by the melding of a number of factors.  Increased consumption in
China and 3rd world nations; the lack of patriotism and greed of oil
company executives and their minions within both political parties;
The oil companies want to have access to drill where the oil is.
Politicians (mostly liberals) are the ones preventing that. Now oil
is scarce and you want to blame the oil companies. What a retard.
Post by gringo
the
blatant greed of speculators.  
Liberals love to blame speculators. Why don't you let an economic
professor explain how futures markets work:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams.html?columnsName=wwi

Notice the explanation at the end. If you want to see prices drop
*now*, open up exploration in the US. Open up oil shale extraction.
If politicians make that change it will put downward pressure on
futures prices, which lowers the spot price.
Post by gringo
We end the oil crisis by expanding
existing alternative energy sources.
That is easily said, but not easily done. The technology is just not
there yet. Technologically illiterate liberals and greens have a hard
time comprehending that, but of course the most radical of them would
like to see us all return to the stone age anyway. Meanwhile, in the
real world, research continues to find energy alternatives but we need
more oil now to keep the economy running.
Post by gringo
 Blaming it on Liberals is pure
demagoguery.
No its not. They are the ones most responsible for constricting our
domestic supply. Fuck them and fuck you.
Post by gringo
Post by gringo
That they will not proof aplenty that the oil companies are in fact
hoarding oil they could be pumping.
You're just all sorts of stupid, aren't you?
Stop sniffing your monkey clumps, monkey, sit down in a darkened room
for fifteen minutes, and for once in your life, THINK!
I'm thinking its a good thing most people aren't as STUPID as Gringo,
otherwise we'd be really fucked.
Post by gringo
Post by gringo
Now go educate yourself.
This is like Stevie Wonder giving advice on painting.
There are none so blind as retarded CONservatives who choose not to
see.  You're somethin', monkey clump.  You sit on a stump wearing
blinders that allow you to see only to your right; you stuff one hand in
your mouth and one up your monkey butt--and when Billy O'Really gives
the signal, you switch hands.
As with most everything gringo writes, he couldn't be more wrong. I
don't watch Fox News shithead.

gringo
2008-06-30 04:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Snip....
Yes well, that sums up one of the major problems doesn't it? Oil companies
are PRIVATE companies dealing in a very public national resource. One we
apparently know little about according to you. Furthermore, their end
products are commodities that are necessities. The idea that they are
altruistic benign entities always operating in the public interest is
absurd.
Furthermore it is absurd to believe that they will just drill for more oil
to make more money, when in fact, the opposite is true. It is in their
interest to keep supplies tight and that's exactly what they are doing. It's
economics 101. Why would any company want to increase supply when the MONEY
is in doing the opposite? Exxon made more money last year that any
corporation in HISTORY. Why the hell would they want to change that? "Oil
companies aren't fools" You said it! No, but we the people are.
Maybe it's time to revisit our anti trust legislation of the 1910's. Maybe
it's time to break up the vertical integration in the oil business and allow
more competition in the business. Maybe it's time to manage our NATIONAL
resources as though they belonged to the public and not to Exxon. Maybe its
time to look at petroleum supply and fuel as a public utility.
absolutely. Youi've said it well.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
nospamplease
2008-06-27 16:35:05 UTC
Permalink
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell
risk. This makes oil cheaper by making E&P
financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply
and demand. If you eliminate them, you get more
short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices. This is
just typical government bungling. Their next idea
will be a special tax on producers. Punishing
investors should spur production right?
gringo
2008-06-30 05:20:30 UTC
Permalink
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell risk. This makes oil
cheaper by making E&P financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply and demand. If you
eliminate them, you get more short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices.
This is just typical government bungling. Their next idea will be a
special tax on producers. Punishing investors should spur production
right?
exactly the point: they do not take delivery. They buy it from one and
sell it to another. What risk, exactly, are you referring to, hmmm? we
are talking oil here, aren't we? the oil that is in such short supply
that we need to drill on every square inch of Earth?


According to experts who've been on TV lately, if the oil brokers were
eliminated, prices would immediately drop to "a more reasonable" $40-$50
per barrel.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
h***@yahoo.com
2008-07-06 01:36:16 UTC
Permalink
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell risk. This makes oil
cheaper by making E&P financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply and demand. If you
eliminate them, you get more short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices.
This is just typical government bungling. Their next idea will be a
special tax on producers. Punishing investors should spur production
right?
exactly the point: they do not take delivery.  They buy it from one and
sell it to another.  What risk, exactly, are you referring to, hmmm? we
are talking oil here, aren't we? the oil that is in such short supply
that we need to drill on every square inch of Earth?
According to experts who've been on TV lately, if the oil brokers were
eliminated, prices would immediately drop to "a more reasonable" $40-$50
per barrel.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wow, sometthing like a 140 or so total responses to a query that could
have been anwered in two lines. This is perhaps a new record, still I
don't rembember the OP's qustion being directely answsered on this
newsgroup. I really don't even remember offhand what the OPs question
was.

Harry C.
gringo
2008-07-06 02:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by gringo
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell risk. This makes oil
cheaper by making E&P financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply and demand. If you
eliminate them, you get more short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices.
This is just typical government bungling. Their next idea will be a
special tax on producers. Punishing investors should spur production
right?
exactly the point: they do not take delivery. They buy it from one and
sell it to another. What risk, exactly, are you referring to, hmmm? we
are talking oil here, aren't we? the oil that is in such short supply
that we need to drill on every square inch of Earth?
According to experts who've been on TV lately, if the oil brokers were
eliminated, prices would immediately drop to "a more reasonable" $40-$50
per barrel.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wow, sometthing like a 140 or so total responses to a query that could
have been anwered in two lines. This is perhaps a new record, still I
don't rembember the OP's qustion being directely answsered on this
newsgroup. I really don't even remember offhand what the OPs question
was.
Harry C.
They all get sidetracked from their arguments; threads spin off in all
directions. What they're interested in is ganging up against the only
person on this NG who will stand up to the right wingers.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Meta
2008-07-06 03:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by h***@yahoo.com
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell risk. This makes oil
cheaper by making E&P financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply and demand. If you
eliminate them, you get more short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices.
This is just typical government bungling. Their next idea will be a
special tax on producers. Punishing investors should spur production
right?
exactly the point: they do not take delivery.  They buy it from one and
sell it to another.  What risk, exactly, are you referring to, hmmm? we
are talking oil here, aren't we? the oil that is in such short supply
that we need to drill on every square inch of Earth?
According to experts who've been on TV lately, if the oil brokers were
eliminated, prices would immediately drop to "a more reasonable" $40-$50
per barrel.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wow, sometthing like a 140 or so total responses to a query that could
have been anwered in two lines.  This is perhaps a new record, still I
don't rembember the OP's qustion being  directely answsered on this
newsgroup.  I really don't even remember offhand what the OPs question
was.
Harry C.
They all get sidetracked from their arguments; threads spin off in all
directions.  What they're interested in is ganging up against the only
person on this NG who will stand up to the right wingers.
I'll stand up against the right wingers, and do everyday. I was
brought up in a right winger family but once I left the fold I was no
longer protected. That's when I learned how things "really" work in
the US of A. To surmise how the Republican administration is taking
care of our country, all one has to do is look at the state of our
economy right now, that pretty much says it all.
gringo
2008-07-06 05:57:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Meta
Post by gringo
Post by h***@yahoo.com
Post by gringo
...snip...
Post by Bob Eld
the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation.
Speculators don't buy & sell oil, they buy & sell risk. This makes oil
cheaper by making E&P financing cheaper. Speculators don't take
delivery, so they don't effect long term supply and demand. If you
eliminate them, you get more short-term volatility, and HIGHER prices..
This is just typical government bungling. Their next idea will be a
special tax on producers. Punishing investors should spur production
right?
exactly the point: they do not take delivery. They buy it from one and
sell it to another. What risk, exactly, are you referring to, hmmm? we
are talking oil here, aren't we? the oil that is in such short supply
that we need to drill on every square inch of Earth?
According to experts who've been on TV lately, if the oil brokers were
eliminated, prices would immediately drop to "a more reasonable" $40-$50
per barrel.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Wow, sometthing like a 140 or so total responses to a query that could
have been anwered in two lines. This is perhaps a new record, still I
don't rembember the OP's qustion being directely answsered on this
newsgroup. I really don't even remember offhand what the OPs question
was.
Harry C.
They all get sidetracked from their arguments; threads spin off in all
directions. What they're interested in is ganging up against the only
person on this NG who will stand up to the right wingers.
I'll stand up against the right wingers, and do everyday. I was
brought up in a right winger family but once I left the fold I was no
longer protected. That's when I learned how things "really" work in
the US of A. To surmise how the Republican administration is taking
care of our country, all one has to do is look at the state of our
economy right now, that pretty much says it all.
Amen, Meta.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-06-30 04:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
So, you are claiming that the oil companies have explored and drilled all of
their present leases and that they have no more places to drill without
opening up the US coast line. Do you really believe that? If so please
site.
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Oil companies are very good at keeping the price up. To do so, they
must encourage low production. I mean, consider the record. It's no
accident that they are making record profits on America's record misery.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
The Chinese are NOT drilling off of the coast of the US or Cuba. That was a
bogus report allegedly from Dick Cheney and has been debunked.
OK. Not that it really changes the relevant issues.
Sure it does. Y'all choose to believe the oil meister's propaganda,
although it is once again proven to be a lie. Seems that by now you'd
automatically doubt their veracity.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
By all accounts it would take 10 years to bring any new oil drilled in these
zones to production, so how much time do we buy? The amount of new oil found
, world wide keeps dwindling. The last time drilling outstripped demand was
in the 1960's!
This is the lamest argument ever. We haven't found an infinite source
of oil so why bother drilling any of it? The scarcity of oil is why
it is so important to drill what we know is there. Its true that it
takes years to get production going. By your argument, we have
Clinton's shortsighted policies that banned drilling to thank for
today's shortages. That doesn't we should continue down that path.
LOL. Clinton got a BJ; therefore, he is to blame for all of America's
ills! You've obviously reached the limits of your ability to counter
logical, fact-based arguments. If that oil in the ground stateside
actually belonged to the US, then I might consider siding you on this.
It does not. Oil they are taking out of wells drilled in 1930 when the
price was pennies on the barrel is now being sold at the broker's
criminal prices. Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to
use some of those billions in illegal profits to squeeze out the
brokers. They sure as hell have enough cash to buy directly from oil
producing nations. But it must be realized that oil executives are
themselves brokering and running up their own profits.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
\> We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
Post by Monkey Clumps
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
The 10 year delay in bringing any new oil on line is plenty of time to make
a significant transition into alternatives. Of course we won't replace all
petroleum in 10 years, but, if we could get to the 20% level, we would
control the 800 gorilla with our clout.
Nobody is talking about not pursuing alternatives. However, there is
no replacement for petroleum on the immediate horizon so we need to
find and drill as much of it as possible.
in ten-fifteen years 70% of Americans could be driving electric
cars...our demand could be decreased by 90%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/issues_trends/altfuelmarkets.html

Ethanol is not the only alternative.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Also bringing new oil into the mix is just exacerbating the other main
problem, CO2 release. That MUST be addressed and now is the time to do it,
since we are running out of oil anyway.
With China opening up coal-fired plants like its going out of style,
CO2 is going up whether gas in the US costs us $3 a gallon or $20 a
gallon. I prefer the $3 a gallon thank you.
Post by Bob Eld
Aside from conservation, the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation. One thing would be to eliminate
buying oil futures on 5% margin as can be done now. Make the speculators put
up real money, that would change things overnight.
Fine by me, but how do you plan to regulate international commodities
markets?
simple. Force the oil companies to buy direct from OPEC, squeezing out
the brokers.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Zeke
2008-06-30 05:46:48 UTC
Permalink
Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to use some of those
billions in illegal profits
idiot
tscottme
2008-06-30 06:17:16 UTC
Permalink
"Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?"
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
gringo
2008-07-01 02:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
"Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?"
oh, you mean like drilling off the coasts and Alaska? that quick fix?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 16:12:15 UTC
Permalink
Drilling in oil bearing regions is exactly the same fix that has produced
all of the oil in the world. So yes it will work, but if you hadn't decided
that the only source of oil info that can't be trusted are the ones that
produce the oil you wouldn't be so confused.
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
Post by gringo
Post by tscottme
"Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?"
oh, you mean like drilling off the coasts and Alaska? that quick fix?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-02 05:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
Drilling in oil bearing regions is exactly the same fix that has produced
all of the oil in the world. So yes it will work, but if you hadn't decided
that the only source of oil info that can't be trusted are the ones that
produce the oil you wouldn't be so confused.
They're welcome to ANWR and all the coastal regions...AFTER they prove
that the 68,000 acres they already are permitted to drill on aren't
worth the trouble. Why do you--and they--object to use-it or lose-it
legislation? After all, if it is worthless as you claim, what would it
cost them to give it up?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 16:19:12 UTC
Permalink
No, like suing OPEC, confiscating profits, and using corn for ethanol.
They've spent the last 3 decades saying it's no use drilling for oil, it
won't do any good for 5-10 years and now we see why not drilling for oil is
another failed liberal policy.

Liberals' goal is to damage the country and make it weak and dependent like
Europe so its enemies can have a fair chance of killing Americans.
--
Scott

"while there are Muslims who are moderate, there is no moderate Islam"
http://www.jihadwatch.org
Post by gringo
Post by tscottme
"Just once, why can't one of our poorly considered quick fixes work?"
oh, you mean like drilling off the coasts and Alaska? that quick fix?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-02 05:29:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
No, like suing OPEC, confiscating profits, and using corn for ethanol.
They've spent the last 3 decades saying it's no use drilling for oil, it
won't do any good for 5-10 years and now we see why not drilling for oil is
another failed liberal policy.
ethanol usage was promoted by Dubya and sure-shot Cheney.
BTW, scottie, we are saying just the opposite. We are all in favor of
drilling--but first in the 68,000 already permitted acres.
Post by tscottme
Liberals' goal is to damage the country and make it weak and dependent like
Europe so its enemies can have a fair chance of killing Americans.
ah, lapdog, just when I was beginning to like you.



The unadulterated truth is that your republiCON party has long desired
to load the nation with so much debt that we have to default on all
social programs...so that we have to privatize highways, prisons, fire
departments--even our national defense. Reagan doubled 200 years of
deficit spending in eight years. After the brief surplus years of
Clinton, along came George Jr, who has just about tripled it once
again. He--they--apparently, you too--want the nation to sink into a
full depression. For in a depression, the rich always benefit to the
detriment of the working poor.


Do yourself a favor, Sniffer, and actually study the economies of those
"commie" socialistic democracies of Europe. They outshine America in
every category--including personal freedom to run your own life without
interference of government.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Joyce
2008-07-02 21:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Scott,

Have faith,,,,if nothing else....what else
is left,,,,,drilling off shore,it would be too
late, how much more can we spend on
fuel...last year we spent $37,000 for fuel
for the year,,,and I believe we are getting
to that point and beyoned now this month.

And hiubby drives regional...Va, and NC
now. with his health problems, he has to
stay regional....

Everyone who went to Washington, didn't see anyone of importance,,,they
all left
D.C...too afried to face the trucker's

You go to Richmond, Va. and the same
thing,,,all bull.....and no fuel drop in
price,,,,

I have written a lot here about opening
up the old oil fields...why not??????

Maybe we could get some relief from
what is being played in D.C..dollars
in theirr pockets. and change in ours.

It isn't a matter of taking care of the
animals in the area's we need to
investigate, they were there before
I'm sure they were at the fields years
ago,,, I was three years old when my
parents took me to Houston, Tx. to see &
meet my grandfather who had land there.

I still have pictures of my parents and
grandfather and him holding me. and
the oil fields behind him.....back in
l938, I was four years old then..

I would like to know if the people in
charge in DC who have the use of
vehicles.....have to pay for their fuel,
or is it gratis...for them....

Anyone know the answer...and it also
means anyone of importance in high
places, has the use of vehicles. and
airplanes... do they have to pay, or do
we get the bill????????

Remmeber I wrote here, why not look
into the old oil fierlds ,,,,to see if they
are worth working again, we have to
become independent from those money
grubbing foreign countries that only wish
us the worst thing in life to be dependent
on them,,,or worse...

I have one more question , where does
HIGHWAY USE TAX...go? every reporter
on the Virginian Pilot I've asked to question the powers to be in
Richmond,
Va. or do a story on why and where it
is...........lots of truckers' and lots of money. oh where oh where
does it go???

No one has picked up the question to get
answers for me...I wonder why????

Oh well got to go and finish making dinner
be safe onthe road., remember you help
pay for that road.....

joyce.
gringo
2008-07-01 02:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to use some of those
billions in illegal profits
idiot
Ah, z[eek]e is getting all upset again.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Zeke
2008-07-01 04:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to use some of those
billions in illegal profits
idiot
Ah, z[eek]e is getting all upset again.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Are you still upset that I make a good living without the help of Liberals
or unions?
gringo
2008-07-01 07:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zeke
Post by gringo
Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to use some of those
billions in illegal profits
idiot
Ah, z[eek]e is getting all upset again.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we
Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets
and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Are you still upset that I make a good living without the help of Liberals
or unions?
eeke, you may find this hard to believe, but I don't give a shit about
you. But in one more effort to educate an imbecilic conservative, I
again state these truths: If the coal miners, if the auto workers and
steel workers and Teamster truckers had not had the balls sto stand
against the truncheons and tommy guns of the bosses, you'd be earning
less than a South American trucker earns. If Liberal Roosevelt had not
stood up and put some controls on unbridled capitalism, we'd never have
recovered from Conservative Hoover's Great Depression. If your bosses
manage to steal another election, John, George McBush's aging twin, will
soon sink this nation into another major depression (if he doesn't blow
up the world first).

We Liberals warned you fools about Dubya but you wouldn't listen. And
I'm pretty certain you lack the personal courage necessary to admit how
wrong you were.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
tscottme
2008-07-01 17:41:07 UTC
Permalink
Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted for a decade.
He didn't end the depression. It wasn't until 1941 that the country turned
around after it went to a war footing and production of war supplies made
full-employment which ended the depression. Roosevelt and the Fed raised
interest rates and increased taxes during a recession, added the harshest
trade pretection scheme in US history and then blamed Hoover when their
actions weakened the economy further.

If you'd read outside of the Soviet People's Talk Points you would be better
informed.
--
Scott

Liberals' goal is to damage the country and make it weak and dependent like
Europe so its enemies can have a fair chance of killing Americans.
JerryD(upstateNY)
2008-07-02 02:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Hitler put the whole world to work
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Post by tscottme
Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted for a decade.
He didn't end the depression. It wasn't until 1941 that the country
turned around after it went to a war footing and production of war
supplies made full-employment which ended the depression. Roosevelt and
the Fed raised interest rates and increased taxes during a recession,
added the harshest trade pretection scheme in US history and then blamed
Hoover when their actions weakened the economy further.
If you'd read outside of the Soviet People's Talk Points you would be
better informed.
--
Scott
Liberals' goal is to damage the country and make it weak and dependent like
Europe so its enemies can have a fair chance of killing Americans.
t***@aol.com
2008-07-02 04:08:30 UTC
Permalink
�Hitler put the whole world to work
And you were in Favor of what Hitler did?............
gringo
2008-07-02 18:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@aol.com
ï¿œHitler put the whole world to work
And you were in Favor of what Hitler did?............
well, he is in favor of George and Fearless Fos Dick Cheney, isn't he?

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism, because it is
a merger of state and corporate power."
-- Mussolini
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-02 05:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted for a decade.
He didn't end the depression. It wasn't until 1941 that the country turned
around after it went to a war footing and production of war supplies made
full-employment which ended the depression. Roosevelt and the Fed raised
interest rates and increased taxes during a recession, added the harshest
trade pretection scheme in US history and then blamed Hoover when their
actions weakened the economy further.
If you'd read outside of the Soviet People's Talk Points you would be better
informed.
godamighty! you aren't that stupid are you????? but never mind: you
truly are that dishonest. I'll try once again to educate you. Roosevelt
brought the nation out of the republicon incompetence of the Hoover years.

It was officially started on Black Tuesday of 1929. Hoover was president
with strong control of Congress.


FDR took office in 1933. It was clear that something had to be done. The
US was suffering from the previous crash in the stock market, the
earlier farm crisis, and the fact that the gab between rich and poor had
grown even more. FDR's answer to this is what we know as the New Deal.
It was a three-pronged strategy, often thought of as the three R's.
Relief Programs meant to ease suffering, Recovery Programs hoping to
rebuild the economy and finally, Reform Programs to prevent future
crises. Even though the New Deal didn't manage to fully overcome the
Depression, there is no doubt that it's programs and Act's changed
American society and government. There is zero doubt that Roosevelt's
actions prevented the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Americans.



Congress passed several relief programs, and one of the most significant
ones was the CCC, Civilian Conservation Corps, from 1933 to 1935. It was
meant to employ young men, by having them plant trees, set up
firebreaks, and build dams. In addition to this, the Corps offered
courses to workers which they could retrieve job skills from or a high
school diploma. This is one of the programs that truly was successful;
after 1941 2.5 million men had been involved with camps, and with that
gotten employed and educated. Together with this program, there also
followed others. One of the programs meant to give direct relief was the
FERA, Federal Emergency Relief Administration. It got 500 million
dollars to give to states, cities and towns. The head of FERA, Harry
Hopkins, wanted work programs to replace direct relief [work, instead of
charity]. He managed to get the CWA, Civil Works Adm., set up, a program
that eventually took over many of FERA's previous functions. By 1934, 4
million people had jobs in CWA, jobs including building roads, parks,
schools and even airports. The CWA has been criticized for it's
"make-work" projects, for example raking of leaves, just to get people
employed. The purpose was to get the moral up among unemployed by
employing them, and further more get money into economy as well as ading
individuals. [The same sort of program Carter proposed as a means of
ending the dependency of pure welfare. The plan was backed by
Republicons, who wanted to keep welfare intact as a bludgeon to use
against Democrats. For shame!]



Another problem besides unemployment was the housing industry. 1000
families was loosing their homes each day to foreclosures. Finally, in
June 16 1933, the HOLC, Home Owners Loan Corporation, was founded. This
corporation helped people by buying up mortgages from banks, and then
refinanced them so homeowner would be able to pay payments. When the
Depression came to an end, the HOLC had saved over 20% of the mortgaged
homes. Recovery Programs besides the HOLC included the AAA. In May 12
1933 the Agricultural Adjustment Act came and with that the Emergency
Farm Mortgage Act. They were meant to raise farm income, and give funds
to farmers so they would not loose land to foreclosure, and provide farm
subsidies (the goal was to lower production and raise prices). The AAA,
Agricultural Adjustment Adm., was the Adm. to aid the farmers. The
farmers could still feel the farm crises; it's impact continued. During
the spring the AAA and the farmers got together and sat up quotas over
how many acres of crop and livestock the US needed. The AAA would pay
farmers not to farm; to leave land lie fallow. The AAA defended this
policy by referring to the law of supply and demand. This turned out to
be the biggest problem to the AAA as they in 1933 plowed under millions
of corn acres, and slaughtered millions of pigs. Even tough, it worked,
and they saved the farmers from economic disaster. Within two years farm
income increased with more than 50%, even though 40 million acres of
land had been taken out of production.



The third part of the strategy was the Reform Programs. The most
dramatic change in economic policy was the decision to take the US of
the gold standard. The government would no longer pay gold in exchange
for dollars. Most of Europe had already gone off, and the US was loosing
gold through shipments to foreign investors. The President wanted to
stop the outflow of gold and raise prices. If the government quit using
the gold standard, they would have to print and circulate more dollars,
which would lead to inflation. The critics were sure that no one would
have faith in the dollar if it wasn't redeemable in gold. To FDR this
didn't really matter, all the world leaders were pleased with the
decision. He proved to be right, the prices went up and the faith in the
dollar remained the same.



The New Deal has been criticized, some of it with reason. The government
did what's called deficit spending, they spent more money than the they
raised in taxes, and left the US with 300 billion dollars in national
debt. Although, the New Deal made lasting effects on American life on
three major points: government more involved to help citizens, workers
and the environment and helped to preserve American democracy. To sum it
up, the New Deal had mixed success in fighting depression, but it
certainly eased personal suffering and preserved the nation's stability.


Roosevelt's policies were far superior to those of the Republicons
controlled by Hoover, who did nothing but wring their hands while Rome
burned and babies cried with malnutrition.



You said: "Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted
for a decade.
He didn't end the depression." tscottie, you really don't believe that
nonsense, do you? you're just tired and frustrated over the trouncing
I've given you, right?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-07-02 18:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tscottme
Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted for a decade.
He didn't end the depression. It wasn't until 1941 that the country turned
around after it went to a war footing and production of war supplies made
full-employment which ended the depression. Roosevelt and the Fed raised
interest rates and increased taxes during a recession, added the harshest
trade pretection scheme in US history and then blamed Hoover when their
actions weakened the economy further.
If you'd read outside of the Soviet People's Talk Points you would be better
informed.
godamighty! you aren't that stupid are you????? but never mind: you
truly are that dishonest. I'll try once again to educate you. Roosevelt
brought the nation out of the republicon incompetence of the Hoover years.

It was officially started on Black Tuesday of 1929. Hoover was president
with strong control of Congress.


FDR took office in 1933. It was clear that something had to be done. The
US was suffering from the previous crash in the stock market, the
earlier farm crisis, and the fact that the gab between rich and poor had
grown even more. FDR's answer to this is what we know as the New Deal.
It was a three-pronged strategy, often thought of as the three R's.
Relief Programs meant to ease suffering, Recovery Programs hoping to
rebuild the economy and finally, Reform Programs to prevent future
crises. Even though the New Deal didn't manage to fully overcome the
Depression, there is no doubt that it's programs and Act's changed
American society and government. There is zero doubt that Roosevelt's
actions prevented the starvation deaths of hundreds of thousands of
Americans.



Congress passed several relief programs, and one of the most significant
ones was the CCC, Civilian Conservation Corps, from 1933 to 1935. It was
meant to employ young men, by having them plant trees, set up
firebreaks, and build dams. In addition to this, the Corps offered
courses to workers which they could retrieve job skills from or a high
school diploma. This is one of the programs that truly was successful;
after 1941 2.5 million men had been involved with camps, and with that
gotten employed and educated. Together with this program, there also
followed others. One of the programs meant to give direct relief was the
FERA, Federal Emergency Relief Administration. It got 500 million
dollars to give to states, cities and towns. The head of FERA, Harry
Hopkins, wanted work programs to replace direct relief [work, instead of
charity]. He managed to get the CWA, Civil Works Adm., set up, a program
that eventually took over many of FERA's previous functions. By 1934, 4
million people had jobs in CWA, jobs including building roads, parks,
schools and even airports. The CWA has been criticized for it's
"make-work" projects, for example raking of leaves, just to get people
employed. The purpose was to get the moral up among unemployed by
employing them, and further more get money into economy as well as ading
individuals. [The same sort of program Carter proposed as a means of
ending the dependency of pure welfare. The plan was blocked by
Republicons, who wanted to keep welfare intact as a bludgeon to use
against Democrats. For shame!]



Another problem besides unemployment was the housing industry. 1000
families was loosing their homes each day to foreclosures. Finally, in
June 16 1933, the HOLC, Home Owners Loan Corporation, was founded. This
corporation helped people by buying up mortgages from banks, and then
refinanced them so homeowner would be able to pay payments. When the
Depression came to an end, the HOLC had saved over 20% of the mortgaged
homes. Recovery Programs besides the HOLC included the AAA. In May 12
1933 the Agricultural Adjustment Act came and with that the Emergency
Farm Mortgage Act. They were meant to raise farm income, and give funds
to farmers so they would not loose land to foreclosure, and provide farm
subsidies (the goal was to lower production and raise prices). The AAA,
Agricultural Adjustment Adm., was the Adm. to aid the farmers. The
farmers could still feel the farm crises; it's impact continued. During
the spring the AAA and the farmers got together and sat up quotas over
how many acres of crop and livestock the US needed. The AAA would pay
farmers not to farm; to leave land lie fallow. The AAA defended this
policy by referring to the law of supply and demand. This turned out to
be the biggest problem to the AAA as they in 1933 plowed under millions
of corn acres, and slaughtered millions of pigs. Even tough, it worked,
and they saved the farmers from economic disaster. Within two years farm
income increased with more than 50%, even though 40 million acres of
land had been taken out of production.



The third part of the strategy was the Reform Programs. The most
dramatic change in economic policy was the decision to take the US of
the gold standard. The government would no longer pay gold in exchange
for dollars. Most of Europe had already gone off, and the US was loosing
gold through shipments to foreign investors. The President wanted to
stop the outflow of gold and raise prices. If the government quit using
the gold standard, they would have to print and circulate more dollars,
which would lead to inflation. The critics were sure that no one would
have faith in the dollar if it wasn't redeemable in gold. To FDR this
didn't really matter, all the world leaders were pleased with the
decision. He proved to be right, the prices went up and the faith in the
dollar remained the same.



The New Deal has been criticized, some of it with reason. The government
did what's called deficit spending, they spent more money than the they
raised in taxes, and left the US with 300 billion dollars in national
debt. Although, the New Deal made lasting effects on American life on
three major points: government more involved to help citizens, workers
and the environment and helped to preserve American democracy. To sum it
up, the New Deal had mixed success in fighting depression, but it
certainly eased personal suffering and preserved the nation's stability.


Roosevelt's policies were far superior to those of the Republicons
controlled by Hoover, who did nothing but wring their hands while Rome
burned and babies cried with malnutrition.



You said: "Roosevelt turned a recession into a depression which lasted
for a decade.
He didn't end the depression." tscottie, you really don't believe that
nonsense, do you? you're just tired and frustrated over the trouncing
I've given you, right?
--
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Monkey Clumps
2008-06-30 13:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by gringo
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
So, you are claiming that the oil companies have explored and drilled all of
their present leases and that they have no more places to drill without
opening up the US coast line. Do you really believe that? If so please
site.
That's not really the sort of thing you can get a CITE for since oil
companies are private. However, common sense suggests that if they
had access to large finds on areas they already lease, they would be
putting them into production now. Oil companies aren't fools. They
are very good at their business and their business is finding oil and
extracting it. The simple fact is this, if we want to increase
domestic production we need need to allow more area to be explored and
put into production. The democrats needs need to cut the obfuscation
and decide whether they are for increasing domestic production or
against it. If they are against it they should own up to the fact and
face the American public.
Oil companies are very good at keeping the price up. To do so, they
must encourage low production. I mean, consider the record. It's no
accident that they are making record profits on America's record misery.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
The Chinese are NOT drilling off of the coast of the US or Cuba. That was a
bogus report allegedly from Dick Cheney and has been debunked.
OK. Not that it really changes the relevant issues.
Sure it does. Y'all choose to believe the oil meister's propaganda,
although it is once again proven to be a lie. Seems that by now you'd
automatically doubt their veracity.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Monkey Clumps
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
By all accounts it would take 10 years to bring any new oil drilled in these
zones to production, so how much time do we buy? The amount of new oil found
, world wide keeps dwindling. The last time drilling outstripped demand was
in the 1960's!
This is the lamest argument ever. We haven't found an infinite source
of oil so why bother drilling any of it? The scarcity of oil is why
it is so important to drill what we know is there. Its true that it
takes years to get production going. By your argument, we have
Clinton's shortsighted policies that banned drilling to thank for
today's shortages. That doesn't we should continue down that path.
LOL. Clinton got a BJ; therefore, he is to blame for all of America's
ills! You've obviously reached the limits of your ability to counter
logical, fact-based arguments. If that oil in the ground stateside
actually belonged to the US, then I might consider siding you on this.
It does not. Oil they are taking out of wells drilled in 1930 when the
price was pennies on the barrel is now being sold at the broker's
criminal prices. Want to control prices? Force the oil companies to
use some of those billions in illegal profits to squeeze out the
brokers. They sure as hell have enough cash to buy directly from oil
producing nations. But it must be realized that oil executives are
themselves brokering and running up their own profits.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
\> We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
Post by Monkey Clumps
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
The 10 year delay in bringing any new oil on line is plenty of time to make
a significant transition into alternatives. Of course we won't replace all
petroleum in 10 years, but, if we could get to the 20% level, we would
control the 800 gorilla with our clout.
Nobody is talking about not pursuing alternatives. However, there is
no replacement for petroleum on the immediate horizon so we need to
find and drill as much of it as possible.
in ten-fifteen years 70% of Americans could be driving electric
cars...our demand could be decreased by 90%.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/issues_trends/altfuelmarkets.html
Ethanol is not the only alternative.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Also bringing new oil into the mix is just exacerbating the other main
problem, CO2 release. That MUST be addressed and now is the time to do it,
since we are running out of oil anyway.
With China opening up coal-fired plants like its going out of style,
CO2 is going up whether gas in the US costs us $3 a gallon or $20 a
gallon. I prefer the $3 a gallon thank you.
Post by Bob Eld
Aside from conservation, the best thing that can be done in the short term
is to tighten the rules on speculation. One thing would be to eliminate
buying oil futures on 5% margin as can be done now. Make the speculators put
up real money, that would change things overnight.
Fine by me, but how do you plan to regulate international commodities
markets?
simple. Force the oil companies to buy direct from OPEC, squeezing out
the brokers.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
gringo
2008-06-30 03:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Post by Screen Ranger
Yup.........The Disgusting Democrats are Trying To KILL
America........Donchaknow..........
"House fails to move gas bill
Wed Jun 25, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats failed Tuesday to resurrect a bill
to punish price gouging at the gas pump, while maneuvering to block
Republican attempts to expand offshore drilling, an idea gaining in
popularity amid $4-a-gallon gas prices.
Action on legislation that would assure continuation of the ban on oil
and natural gas drilling in most of the country's coastal waters was
put off until later this summer after it became increasingly clear
that Republican lawmakers may have the votes to lift the drilling
moratorium.
Republicans charged that they were being blocked from getting a vote
on whether to end the ban on offshore oil and gas drilling."
Total bull shit. Most oil company leases are UNDRILLED. Let them drill
what's on their plate first before opening more regions for drilling.
Sorry, thats just a red herring. Just because an oil company leased a
parcel doesn't mean there is enough oil to be worth setting up
production. Under the best circumstances only a fraction of the area
leased will be worth producing. Do think oil companies are so stupid
as to not bother drilling a huge find of oil that they already have
leased? Oil companies surely do exploratory drilling on the their
leased parcel and then decide whether there is enough oil there
justify the enormous expense of setting up a production platform. If
we want more domestic oil we have to open up more of our offshore for
them to explore.
the red herring is that they do want to increase oil supplies. Hint:
when oil supplies go up, oil prices come down. The sad fact is that on
the few thousand of the tens of thousands leased and permitted acres
that they drilled on, more than ten thousand oil wells were proven to
bear oil then they were CAPPED.

Oil-bearing lands leased to oil companies does NOT belong to the
American people: it belongs to the drilling oil company.


Use it/or lose it legislation is trying to make its way through. If it
passes they will either drill on what they have already been given or
they will lose the right to the oil.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Secondly there's no way in hell they are going to drill in California or
Florida because the people in those states don't want it.
We should let the states decide that, not the feds. Sounds like
Florida might have change of heart. After all the Chinese are already
drilling off their shore, why not let the Americans?
horseshit. if it is international waters, anyone INCLUDING American oil
companies already have the right to it. If it is American waters, no
one can drill it without permission from American government; farther
in, they cannot drill w/o permission of the individual state.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Thirdly, no amount of drilling will end the current situation. At best it
gives a couple of more years against the inevitable, the end of oil.
The difference is that if we keep finding more oil, we buy ourselves
more time. Right now alternative sources are not ready to fill in the
gap. Having our economy implode because of a scarcity of energy is
going to disrupt everything, including the development of alternative
technologies.
in ten years this country can accomplish technological miracles, as it
has countless times. When there is sufficient incentive to do so; right
now, there is sufficient profit motive to hold back the technology.
They sure as hell won't do it till the moment they have to.
Post by Monkey Clumps
Post by Bob Eld
Now is the time to quit jacking off and begin the inevitable switch to
alternatives. Sooner or later we HAVE to do it anyway, it might as well be
now!
We don't have the technology yet. Shutting down the oil spigot right
now will be disastrous. Even now, American industry is struggling to
adjust to the massive increase in oil and gas prices. Our assembly
lines are pumping out huge gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and you can't
just snap your fingers and change that output to subcompacts. It
takes years to retool. Ford and GM are screwed and they will need a
miracle to survive the next few years. What we are talking about is
the difference between a controlled transition and a crash. Not
opening up new sources of oil to compensate for the ones being used up
will be asking for a crash, and that will benefit no one.
By god, you just keep your eye on the rest of the world: if our big
business won't extend themselves, the Japanese, Chinese, Russians,
Indians (and some 3rd world midgets) damn sure will.
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Joyce
2008-06-30 10:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Screen Ranger,

Why didn't you think they would
stop it......they get great pay checks,
and probably have fuel for the vehicles
they ride around in paid by the People
do you think they are like us????hell no,

They take vacations, and travel all over the globe I don't think they
work at all.

just grab that hefty paycheck and laugh
at us.......I didn't vote for them....did you?

That's a democrat for you.......

joyce
gringo
2008-07-01 02:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joyce
Screen Ranger,
Why didn't you think they would
stop it......they get great pay checks,
and probably have fuel for the vehicles
they ride around in paid by the People
do you think they are like us????hell no,
They take vacations, and travel all over the globe I don't think they
work at all.
just grab that hefty paycheck and laugh
at us.......I didn't vote for them....did you?
That's a democrat for you.......
joyce
I beg your pardon. "That's a democrat for you......."
just where the hell did that comment come from?

Here's a clue: George Bush and the entire Bush clan are in partnerships
with the terroristic bin Laden family of Saudi Arabia (you know, the
country that provided all the 9/11 terrorists). Dick Cheney is in
cahoots with KBR and the rest of the Halliburton cabal, which has stolen
billions from America in Iraq. THAT's a republiCON for /you/....
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Joyce
2008-07-02 21:32:45 UTC
Permalink
Gringo,,,

Gee, I thought we were frieds..??????

Do you really believe that only one party,
does all this...they both do....I laughed
myself silly at Hillary,,,,and glad she is
gone.....don't look too good for the rest
of them...champing to win the top seat
in Washington,

I think they all got their hands in the pudding. not just one party.

I wouldn't trust any of them,,,they can't even get along with each
other.

So how are we to believe anything that
is said ........they all want the top job,
and the money, and power that goes
with it....I could just see Hillary with
hubby champing at her skirts,,,,and her
making him give her all the answers,
after all he was president...maybe in
the closet.....thank goodness she doesn't have to chanse after him, if
she were
president....no one would be in the office

joyce
,
gringo
2008-07-03 05:34:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joyce
Gringo,,,
Gee, I thought we were frieds..??????
Do you really believe that only one party,
does all this...they both do....I laughed
myself silly at Hillary,,,,and glad she is
gone.....don't look too good for the rest
of them...champing to win the top seat
in Washington,
I think they all got their hands in the pudding. not just one party.
I wouldn't trust any of them,,,they can't even get along with each
other.
So how are we to believe anything that
is said ........they all want the top job,
and the money, and power that goes
with it....I could just see Hillary with
hubby champing at her skirts,,,,and her
making him give her all the answers,
after all he was president...maybe in
the closet.....thank goodness she doesn't have to chanse after him, if
she were
president....no one would be in the office
joyce
,
Joyce, we are still friends. It just irks me no end when one as
openminded as you spouts the Republican Party line.

I have never once claimed that Democrats are blameless. That there are
no bad Democrats-- no human is perfect. The last perfect man lived a
long long time ago, and they killed Him on a wooden cross.

One vote really does make a difference. Barack is half black, but he is
also half white! and he was raised among his white half of the family.
He is also much smarter than McCain. Obama's healthcare plan would
definitely help you and hubby and all other self employed who can't
afford the current premiums along with the fuel. Obama wants to give you
and me a yearly $1,000 tax cut; McCain wants to give another
$300,000,000 tax cut to the very very rich. McCain and his kind wants
to keep America's boys and girls involved in wars for the rest of
eternity. There's a gazillion reasons to vote for Democrats and
absolutely no reason for a working man or woman to vote for John McCain.

I hope you and your husband do vote. And vote for the Democrats who
will do things to help you and not, like George Bush, continue to do
things TO YOU.

Still friends?
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Joyce
2008-07-02 21:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Gringo,,,

Gee, I thought we were frieds..??????

Do you really believe that only one party,
does all this...they both do....I laughed
myself silly at Hillary,,,,and glad she is
gone.....don't look too good for the rest
of them...champing to win the top seat
in Washington,

I think they all got their hands in the pudding. not just one party.

I wouldn't trust any of them,,,they can't even get along with each
other.

So how are we to believe anything that
is said ........they all want the top job,
and the money, and power that goes
with it....I could just see Hillary with
hubby champing at her skirts,,,,and her
making him give her all the answers,
after all he was president...maybe in
the closet.....thank goodness she doesn't have to chanse after him, if
she were
president....no one would be in the office

I don't think tht Hillary did anything for the
people she represented in NY....I don't
like her or him....
joyce


,
gringo
2008-07-03 05:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joyce
Gringo,,,
Gee, I thought we were frieds..??????
Do you really believe that only one party,
does all this...they both do....I laughed
myself silly at Hillary,,,,and glad she is
gone.....don't look too good for the rest
of them...champing to win the top seat
in Washington,
I think they all got their hands in the pudding. not just one party.
I wouldn't trust any of them,,,they can't even get along with each
other.
So how are we to believe anything that
is said ........they all want the top job,
and the money, and power that goes
with it....I could just see Hillary with
hubby champing at her skirts,,,,and her
making him give her all the answers,
after all he was president...maybe in
the closet.....thank goodness she doesn't have to chanse after him, if
she were
president....no one would be in the office
(see previous post for comment)
Post by Joyce
I don't think tht Hillary did anything for the
people she represented in NY....I don't
like her or him....
joyce
,
Clinton gave you and I a tax cut and he still produced a budget
surplus. Y and hubby were doing well while he was in office, weren't
you????
Hillary would have been a great president.

If you want to learn and not just vent your frustrations at all
politicians, visit the following website to learn just how good Hillary
has been for the state of NY.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/
--
"Sarah, if the American people had ever known the truth about what we Bushes have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
--- George Herbert Walker Bush, in an interview with Sarah McClendon, 1992
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...