Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SirLoin on April 28, 2005, 11:01:05 AM
-
Makes you think...
Price of Oil before first Gulf War..$14 a barrell
After two Bush administrations(and 2 wars).....$50+(and climbing)
-
i say we rip Alberta apart and turn the spigots on.
-
how dare a company post a profit, i demand a congressional investigation.
-
Exxon won't be alone :) I predict an enormous ****strom, political grandstanding, investigations with the usual findings... all on the up and up. The oil industry operates as it can in a free capitialistic market. To change that would require some sort of socialist government regulation, and nobody wants that :)
A bit further downstream, Bush's talk about opening retired military bases to new refiner construction is amusing. Refinery operators are making a good buck now, but the difference between a good buck and margin killing oversupply is so small that it is hard to see the industry willingly creating potential overcapacity, since the current situation works so well... smoke and mirrors, like 90% of the rest of the energy bill.
[edit: Keep in mind too that the marketers/retailers usually get shafted when prices rise with an inverse profit situation compared to the Majors upstream who suck it out of the grouns and sell the crude. Gasoline is almost not worth selling, except for its usefulness at drawing people to the C-store. Also, the credit card companies take about 1/2 the existing profits (even more as prices rise and the average spend on the purchase increases beyond various thresholds) out in transation fees to the merchants, and they have a monoploly situation that easily allows them to say FU to just about any merchant. Don't like the fees... don't take credit and watch your volume evaporate. #2 cost of doing business in the industry today.]
Charon
-
Exxon has still not paid the 4.5 billion punitive damage judgement against it due to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Prince Edward Sound more than 15 yrs ago - apparently it continues to appeal the award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill)
btw re Bush's energy plan, how does building more refineries reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn't we have to import more oil to keep the new refineries supplied?
-
Stop making sense oboe, you are confusing the yokels!
;)
-
btw re Bush's energy plan, how does building more refineries reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn't we have to import more oil to keep the new refineries supplied?
It doesn't really. It potentially addresses another issue -- price volatility. The refining industry operates at about 98 percent of capacity during peak demand months. Therefore, whenever there is a refinery fire or any other form of infrastructure disruption you can get short-term price spike considerably above the basic market price with is largely set by OPEC (and others). More refineries would mean more capacity and less impact from disruption and less volatility.
However, when the industry had much more capacity at the end of regulation in 1980, it raced to shed refineries and get to exactly where it is at today. It is hard to see a too many operations taking advantage of the "new opportunities" since even a slight change in demand or can mean vastly reduced profits. They would have to gamble on demand in the US continuing to increase even as prices work against increased demand. Maybe that will be the case. It’s notable, that the majors, who make most of their tremendous profits from exploration and production, are busy selling off much of their refinery capacity (with its lower profits and higher risks) to independents.
Charon
-
So perhaps Bush's intention is to make refining less risky and more profitable for the majors by giving them land (military bases) and tax incentives and outright subsidies?
I don't know, its strikes me as trying to solve a crack addict's problems by attmepting to lower the price of crack, and making sure the pushers and produces make more mony on it.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Exxon has still not paid the 4.5 billion punitive damage judgement against it due to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Prince Edward Sound more than 15 yrs ago - apparently it continues to appeal the award.
Their appeal of the punitive damages is spot on IMO. It was the Alyeska Pipeline Corp's failure to have their spill containment/cleanup equipment in good working order that slowed the response to the spill. Most of their containment boom was unusable and their skimmers in disrepair along with a lack of training exercises in their use made for an initial response effort that was a dismal failure. That wasn't Exxons fault, all the companies who ship oil from the pipeline contribute to the spill cleanup fund managed, more correctly, mismanaged by the Alyeska Pipeline Co.
Also, the Alaska DEC made the situation far worse when they forced a series of dispersant tests before allowing it's use, the emergency plan was in place for the dispersant's use but the DEC's interference caused the window of opportunity to be lost during the first four days where the sea conditions were ideal for dispersant use. They also obstructed the use of insitu burning of contained oil until the sea conditions made that a useless tactic for mitigating the shoreline impact.
I helped document all aspects of that spill in video and still images starting on March, 25 10 AM when we were the first pro film crew allowed onboard the Valdez. My involvement ended in 1995 after a series of wildlife and shoreline surveys.
-
There is no impetus for any U.S. oil company to do anything. They are making more money than ever (read net profits are at an all time high).
Our system works as long as corporations do the right thing (whatever that may be), but when greed supplants doing the right thing, the fundamental flaw in our system is revealed.
How many times in the last decade have large corporations laid off thousands of employees and then turn around and pay huge bonuses to the board of directors?
It is all about greed, and this is where our system breaks down.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Their appeal of the punitive damages is spot on IMO.
Sorry MrLars, I have to strongly disagree. It's like shooter is appealing his life sentence claiming medics are responsible for victim's death arriving too late on the scene and not the shooter who shot the victim in the first place.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Sorry MrLars, I have to strongly disagree. It's like shooter is appealing his life sentence claiming medics are responsible for victim's death arriving too late on the scene and not the shooter who shot the victim in the first place.
Was the shooting an accident or done on purpose?
The punitive fine is way out of line considering that this was an accident.
-
only one person is at fault for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill , the 1st mate who was in command of the bridge when it hit the reef. But of course he dosn't have 4.5 billion so we have to look for the "deep pockets".
-
Seems like only yesterday that gasoline was a useless byproduct of making lamp oil and was gotten rid of by dumping it into streams. good thing the profit motive put an end to that.
The drunk captain on the Exon Condolica Rice, opps the Exon Valdez had nothing to do with the oil spill.
-
dont buy gas from Exxon..Shell..
where is the american gas !!??
btw..
I see Capt Hazelwood driving ur Cvs almost daily..
lololol
-
the captain was off duty at the time and in his cabin, but it dosn't matter , he did not have 4.5 billion either.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
There is no impetus for any U.S. oil company to do anything. They are making more money than ever (read net profits are at an all time high).
Our system works as long as corporations do the right thing (whatever that may be), but when greed supplants doing the right thing, the fundamental flaw in our system is revealed.
How many times in the last decade have large corporations laid off thousands of employees and then turn around and pay huge bonuses to the board of directors?
It is all about greed, and this is where our system breaks down.
Agreed. Too many times to count. My own former company did it, and they were a Christian not-for-profit fraternal benefit society. Greed know no boundaries I guess, though people really ought to know better.
-
john9001,
The company was well aware of the captain being an alcohol abuser, yet they left him in command of the vessel anyway. To me that shows a certain amount of culpability on Exxon's part.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Was the shooting an accident or done on purpose?
Accident caused by?
National Transportation Safety Board is pretty clear about cause.
If airlines would be allowed the same, we would see those giant birds falling off the sky every freakin day.
And they don't have the profit margins as oil industry does.
-
Originally posted by oboe
btw re Bush's energy plan, how does building more refineries reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn't we have to import more oil to keep the new refineries supplied?
It would reduce the amount of imported *refined* oil, aka the end product of oil.
I hear theres a big lack of refining capability in California and refined fuel is imported even from Finland.
-
So perhaps Bush's intention is to make refining less risky and more profitable for the majors by giving them land (military bases) and tax incentives and outright subsidies?
That may be the angle. It would fit with the rest of the energy bill :) Still, I think the assumptions about current demand and current prices continuing into the future would have to be fairly well established to make long-term sense. ChevroTexaco is basically trying to buy Unocal's oil reserves through their proposed merger based upon the assumption that at least the price part of the equation will stay significant. It's all a balance though, and the ChevronTexaco move is likely safer than new refinery construction given current crude prices.
I'll have to ask around a bit and check the details, since it doesn't make much sense otherwise except as a feel good "doing somthing" throwaway measure, IMO.
Charon
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Makes you think...
Price of Oil before first Gulf War..$14 a barrell
After two Bush administrations(and 2 wars).....$50+(and climbing)
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2003/02/chp1pdf/Fig1_22.pdf (http://)
According to the link in constant 2002 dollars, oil is less expensive (even at $55) than it was in 1979 - '85 and better than most experts' predictions.
-
It would reduce the amount of imported *refined* oil, aka the end product of oil.
It would do that in the near term, but again, demand drops or prices drop or both and it represents overcapacity. The industry could add capacity today, if it really wanted to, without the govt. support and regardless of the "tree huggers."
Charon
-
Anyone else think the high barrel price is why we got invade Iraq without a huge middle eastern uprising? Maybe a little behind closed doors discussion? Or is it in retaliation? Sorry but I am not buying the rise in demand in china has caused it.
I think an argument can be presented that we were nervous about Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and the potential of an "Iran" happening -- at least according to the good folks over at "The Project for a New American Century." Good chance to stick it to the lukewarm allies the Saudies as well. It is helpful to have the 2nd largest oil reserves under your control if the largest is disrupted. Similarly, there is a lot of money being made, and potentially to be made, getting those oil fields back online and producing. However, IMO that wouldn't be the core reason (again, see PNAC) but a fringe benefit. Iraq really represented a "win/win" for a variety of special interests (with a strong influence in the current administration) even if you accept the WMD talking point as gosple.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is all about greed, and this is where our system breaks down.
and so it goes back to morals .. or the decay of them ...
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Makes you think...
Price of Oil before first Gulf War..$14 a barrell
After two Bush administrations(and 2 wars).....$50+(and climbing)
The sad part is that there is no economic relation to increased price..well...unless you consider greed as a factor.
On a related sad note, at some point we will need that crude oil to control desert spread. It is the only thing we know of that can promote flora in the desert.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I think an argument can be presented that we were nervous about Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and the potential of an "Iran" happening -- at least according to the good folks over at "The Project for a New American Century." Good chance to stick it to the lukewarm allies the Saudies as well. It is helpful to have the 2nd largest oil reserves under your control if the largest is disrupted. Similarly, there is a lot of money being made, and potentially to be made, getting those oil fields back online and producing. However, IMO that wouldn't be the core reason (again, see PNAC) but a fringe benefit. Iraq really represented a "win/win" for a variety of special interests (with a strong influence in the current administration) even if you accept the WMD talking point as gosple.
the obvious and sad truth, packing a helluva fringe benefit
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It is all about greed, and this is where our system breaks down.
Greed is good. Greed works. - Gordon Gecko
-
Capitalism would never work without a fair bit of greed. Neither would communism or alcoholism.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Our system works as long as corporations do the right thing (whatever that may be), but when greed supplants doing the right thing, the fundamental flaw in our system is revealed.
How many times in the last decade have large corporations laid off thousands of employees and then turn around and pay huge bonuses to the board of directors?
Well said. My country has the worst of the both worlds; We have high taxes and in many cases the markets are goverment controlled. Most of the markets are free however, but they are full of price cartels. The law enforcing is a joke too; If they manage to crack a cartel the companies are only given relatively small fines, the management is not held responsible at all.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
There is no impetus for any U.S. oil company to do anything. They are making more money than ever (read net profits are at an all time high).
Our system works as long as corporations do the right thing (whatever that may be), but when greed supplants doing the right thing, the fundamental flaw in our system is revealed.
How many times in the last decade have large corporations laid off thousands of employees and then turn around and pay huge bonuses to the board of directors?
It is all about greed, and this is where our system breaks down.
you GD Liberal....:rofl
-
Not true Nilsen. Ambition is but one of the traits which makes capitalism work. Greed is one of the few traits which could destroy it.
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
you GD Liberal....:rofl
I dunt even know what you are talking about. I get tagged with everything imaginable. You'd go nuts trying to keep up. :D
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Not true Nilsen. Ambition is but one of the traits which makes capitalism work. Greed is one of the few traits which could destroy it.
Ambition and greed goes hand in hand and is often the same. Very few if anybody that really succeeds in any business venture does so without wanting to get plenty of something in return.
You do not have to be greedy for money either, it can be for recognition or fame.
-
what skuzzy said.
:cool:
-
Originally posted by oboe
Exxon has still not paid the 4.5 billion punitive damage judgement against it due to the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Prince Edward Sound more than 15 yrs ago - apparently it continues to appeal the award.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill)
btw re Bush's energy plan, how does building more refineries reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Wouldn't we have to import more oil to keep the new refineries supplied?
My Cod Oboe:)
It is not about dependence it is about the titans of industry having enough money to keep the rest of us off there property:)
-
Originally posted by john9001
only one person is at fault for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill , the 1st mate who was in command of the bridge when it hit the reef. But of course he dosn't have 4.5 billion so we have to look for the "deep pockets".
you forget when the oil companies were lobbying for the terminals they guaranteed that a spill like the exxon valdez was impossible... GREED BABY> FEEL THE GREED.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2003/02/chp1pdf/Fig1_22.pdf (http://)
According to the link in constant 2002 dollars, oil is less expensive (even at $55) than it was in 1979 - '85 and better than most experts' predictions.
2 years ago - $14 dollars a barrel
Today - $50+
Your link makes me feel so much better:)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Not true Nilsen. Ambition is but one of the traits which makes capitalism work. Greed is one of the few traits which could destroy it.
Isn't the ambition to make a lot of money the definition of greed?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Isn't the ambition to make a lot of money the definition of greed?
depends why you want money, if you want it as a means (which is what it is) and not an ends its not greed.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Isn't the ambition to make a lot of money the definition of greed?
excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
avarice: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins)
All we need is a gov that will actually police the corporations. But with the lobby system as it is that isnt happening anytime soon.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
depends why you want money, if you want it as a means (which is what it is) and not an ends its not greed.
Possibility #1
I want truckloads of money so that I can spend it on ocean view estates in tropical climates, skiing in St Moritz, a gulfstream 4 and half a dozen playboy bunnies to bring me expensive wine, cigars, and other pleasures.
Possibility #2
I want truckloads of money so that I can buy a wing on a hospital and set up a trust fund to pay for children's medical treatment. On the front of the building, it'll say in 4 ft (1.3 Meter) high gold letters, "Holden McGroin's Childrens Hospital Wing, donated by Holden McGroin."
In either case because I want the money as a means to that end, I am not greedy.
In either case I want it because I want to feel good, so I am greedy.
-
It costs $100 a week to fill up the SUV I drive to work every day, so I can't believe some people want to make SUVs subject to the gas guzzler taxes. It's already expensive enough as it is, especially with the 22" chrome wheels. They say it's not a truck, but I couldn't have brought home last year's christmas tree without it, so I do haul things and that's commercial use, right?
I buy so much gas, they should reduce the price because everyone knows that the more volume of something you sell, the cheaper you can make it. It's all the greed of Saudi Arabia, since even though they pump more oil, they still charge the same high prices. Don't they know that if the prices were lower then I could drive more and buy even MORE gas? Where does Exxon get off keeping prices high when they know that I HAVE to buy so much? Doesn't that make it a monopoly? A judge should call it a monopoly so they can force them to sell me gas cheaper. As it is, when gas goes up to $3/gal I'll be spending $150/week on gas and there's NOTHING I can do about it. Boosh did all this on purpose so he could get rich off of donations from both the SUV makers AND the gas companies. Now I might have to ask my wife to get a used excursion instead of a new H2. It has a smaller gas tank which will cost less to fill up so I'm doing my part for conservation.
My neighbor has one of those new hybrid hondas and I laugh at him because he pays the same amount per gallon as I do!!!1 What a sucker.
-
Holden, you are talking the end result. You are not talking about the actual path to get there. So would you take money from your employees to meet your personal goals?
If yes, then you are a greedy bastiage.
Or would you put that money in your employees pockets in the hope they will better serve the company so the company can grow and eventually build that hospital wing?
If yes, you are ambitious.
Ambition and greed are not the same by a long shot.
-
Lock the thread while you are ahead Skuzzy. il be back in the morning to argue with you over this unless you dont.
Better lock it Skuzz ;)
-
Nah,..I figure the next thing is to post Webster's defination of greed and ambition. I have just *assumed* everyone understood the difference. Bad assumption on my part.
Saying ambition and greed are the same (or related) would be tantamount to claiming courage and cowardice to be the same (or related).
Before blurbing how silly that comparison is,..think about it.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Accident caused by?
The accident was caused by the Third Mate, Gregory Cousins and helmsman Robert Kagan, and their failure to follow the specific instructions from Cpt. Hazelwood that called for a 20 degree starboard turn at a specific point to bring the Valdez back into the shipping lane after maneuvering to avoid floating ice. They, instead, made a 10 degree turn which wasn't enough at that specific point to avoid Bligh Reef.
National Transportation Safety Board is pretty clear about cause. [/QUOTE]
The NTSB laid blame at various feet. That is why that now a pilot is required to stay on the vessel well beyond Goose Island where as before he would exit the ship after navigating through the Valdeze Narrows and the Alyeska Pipeline Co. for not maintaining their emergency equipment to keep it in a state of readiness as they agreed upon in order to get the terminal built. They are now required to hold numerous training exercises a year with state and CG oversight.
If airlines would be allowed the same, we would see those giant birds falling off the sky every freakin day. [/QUOTE]
I have no idea what you're trying to say here but it sounds to me like a stupid Greenpeace argument.
And they don't have the profit margins as oil industry does. [/QUOTE]
When oil tankers start transporting human's as their main cargo maybe their profit margin will decrease to a level acceptable to you...maybe.
-
I am proud to be a stock holder.
go XOM
-
Originally posted by oboe
john9001,
The company was well aware of the captain being an alcohol abuser, yet they left him in command of the vessel anyway. To me that shows a certain amount of culpability on Exxon's part.
Show me a tanker or freighter crew of the same time period where there are no crewmen with a booze problem. Did Hazelwood have an alcohol problem? Most likely, did that problem cause the Third Mate and Helmsman to dissobey the Captian's order for a 20 degree turn? Not very likely.
Infact, Captian Joe was aquitted of operating under the influence but was convicted on the much lesser charge of 'negligent discharge of oil'.
Now the law is different and because of the Valdez spill the likelyhood of a grounding caused by human error is greatly reduced, however, mechanical malfunctions will happen and the threat is still there for another spill.
-
Stop whining and do your part... ride a bike.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Holden, you are talking the end result. You are not talking about the actual path to get there. So would you take money from your employees to meet your personal goals?
If yes, then you are a greedy bastiage.
No, I would be a thief. As I see it greed is a want of more: the choice on how one gets it is just a matter of honesty. When someone collects more than he deserves then the term greed comes in, but more than one deserves is a matter of shades of gray.
The world average wealth is probably in the low thousands of dollars if it has broken through from the hundreds per annum.
That could mean that everyone above the world average is a greedy bastage by some measures.
-
An award of $287 million for actual damage and $5 billion for punitive damages was awarded by an Anchorage jury in 1994. Exxon appealed against the ruling and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the original judge Russel Holland to reduce the amount. On December 6, 2002 the judge announced that he had reduced the damages to $4 billion, which he concluded was justified by the facts of the case and not grossly excessive. Exxon's company position is that no punitive damages are justified because the spill was an accident. However in court it was argued that allowing a "known drunk" to captain the ship was reprehensible. Exxon sent it back to court, to be considered in regards to a recent supreme court ruling in a similar case, resulting in Judge Holland actually upping the punitive damages to $4.5 billion, plus interest. Exxon is again appealing, some fifteen years after the incident. The case currently sits in the 9th Circuit appelate court.
-
What is the entire fishing ecomomy of Alaksa for 10 years? Is it 4.5 billion? Are there any lasting effects of the spill 10 years later? Not that it was a good thing, but it as not the end of the world as we know it either. A bunch of animals died, the coast was ugly for a while and now it is back to normal. **** happens, deal with it and move one.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Makes you think...
Price of Oil before first Gulf War..$14 a barrell
After two Bush administrations(and 2 wars).....$50+(and climbing)
I can't believe none of the lemmings has cried "Ameristalker" yet.
(http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/04/25/bush.saudi/vert.bush.abdullah.mon.ap.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Lizking
What is the entire fishing ecomomy of Alaksa for 10 years? Is it 4.5 billion? Are there any lasting effects of the spill 10 years later? Not that it was a good thing, but it as not the end of the world as we know it either. A bunch of animals died, the coast was ugly for a while and now it is back to normal. **** happens, deal with it and move one.
Not sure on the fishing economy Liz but the story said some marine ecosystmes will take up to 30 yrs to recover. Hundreds of thousands of animals died. The Chugach Native American tribe was driven into bankruptcy. Worst environmental disaster evar...well, no, Chernobyl was prolly worse.
Hopefully it taught a lesson about spill recovery techinques and equipment and we'll be more successful in the early containment phase next time.
-
i don't mind companies making large profits, but the price volatility which occurs every thursday and only last till sunday morning, during the summer is complete bs.
do you think oil companies would have such large profits, if the policy makers of the times had a vested interest in the hemp industry, who's kidding whom here?
-
Relax, the 82nd is dropping on Exxon HQ tomorrow at 0400.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Relax, the 82nd is dropping on Exxon HQ tomorrow at 0400.
Then I better go gas up now before it rises another twenty five cents a gallon by tomorrow noon.