But doesn't it stand to reason that in these areas are unstable the costs to operate them are going to go up? I mean if you are running oil in a country that could blow up at any minute it seems pretty reasonable that it is going to cost more to get people to work there, it is going to cost more to get equipment delivered there, it is going to cost more to insure your holdings and so on.
they don't care ... the people they have to pay to handle all these issues are also posting record profits ... the thing is they wouldn't have access to this oil without these wars ...
they don't care ... the people they have to pay to handle all these issues are also posting record profits ... the thing is they wouldn't have access to this oil without these wars ...
That doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think oil companies would prefer to work in unstable areas rather than areas of political stability (if that was the case how do you explain the Alberta oil sands and Canada being the US's biggest oil supplier)? The lack of stability has to cost them more and cut into their profits.
That doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think oil companies would prefer to work in unstable areas rather than areas of political stability (if that was the case how do you explain the Alberta oil sands and Canada being the US's biggest oil supplier)? The lack of stability has to cost them more and cut into their profits.
they don't care about instability ... it's the price they pay to have oil at $90 a barrel ... it's not that they choose unstable ones over stable ones ...
look at why the US overthrew mossadegh in iran ... it was because he nationalized their oil ... oil companies want access to oil - plain and simple ... saddam nationalized the oil ... guess what? ... more instability ...
the article lays it out ... exxon posts record profits due to the price of crude oil ... the price of crude doesn't get so high without the instability in the region ...
Sprawl is a function of two things. First and foremost, it's a function of the market. White flight, desire for big yards, perceptions of bad schools, the relative ease in the 1950s to get anywhere by car without parking and traffic problems (a thing of the past now), etc. I hear you on the cost of housing comment. Lending practices are also pro-sprawl, unwittingly. They do not take into consideration the reduced travel expense of living in the City--If a 2-car family can be a one car family and drive a quarter of the miles, there are a lot of savings there, but from what I am told, that is not recognized at the banks. The second thing is that federal government practices have a very sprawl inducing history. The homeownership programs after WWII were very suburban-oriented and generally were anti multi-family house. Tack on the immediate love affair with the automobile and the highways that the government funded, ignoring transit, and you have a recipe for sprawl. (I toook some of this, and recommend, "Inside Game, Outside Game" by David Rusk).
And the problem with Transit now is that the development is so spread out that it just cannot efficiently cover the suburbs. My City, Minneapolis, has bus service to the suburbs, but it gets inefficant in a hurry.
Nevertheless, we continue to make choices. Developers continue to develop strip development that is conducive to the car. State DOTs (at least one in another state I used to work in) continue to have anti-sidewalk rules because we like low taxes. The market (i.e. the choices we continue to make to this day) continues to do things that lead to oil dependancy, and the government continues only to make marginal improvements (when not screwing it up, particularly at the federal level). All you and I can do is examine our own behaviors and do our best minimize our dependance. Every time I see a Ford Expedition owner whine about the price of gas, I have to try had to contain my laughter--but our behavior (and I am guilty of some bad convenience-driven behavior myself) is as important as our chosen vehicle.
Edit: Misread your housing comment. You were talking about selling your house. I was thinking about the cost difference in the City vs. the suburbs. Well my point stands about the lending practices. As for selling your house, now's probably not a great time, but you did make a choice to live there. Do the oil companies exploit that? Sure. But most companies can be counted on to exploit what they can to make money.
Good stuff, probably a stupid question from me here kind of along the same lines.... how come renters can't take the cost of renting off thier taxes? More people in the city rent. Why isn't that worthy of a tax right off I'm still out the money?
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Good stuff, probably a stupid question from me here kind of along the same lines.... how come renters can't take the cost of renting off thier taxes? More people in the city rent. Why isn't that worthy of a tax right off I'm still out the money?
That I don't know the answer to. I suspect it is because government tends not to want to do things that provide incentives to rent.
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
More often than not, I agree with your politics more than Jlew's, but this smart-ass comment is in response to a smarmy, yet totally relevant question of "do you drive a car?" At the risk of putting words in his mouth...think of your own behavior when you are unhappy about gas prices and Exxon profits. It's not truely whether you drive, but what kind of car, do you drive two blocks to visit your buddy, do you know the little rules of gas saving (i.e. trip-chaining), do you forgo some of that convenience in order to save on gas.
Perhaps it is YOUR attitude that is awsome.
im not unhappy about gas prices.. you are aware you are paying over 7 dollars a gallon right now though right?
8.29.00-4.29.03-4.30.03-5.2.03-7.2.03-7.3.03-7.8.03-7.9.03-7.11.03-9.28.04-9.29.04-10.1.04- 10.2.04-10.3.04-5.12.06-5.24.06-5.25.06
...i know all the rules but the rules do not know me, guaranteed...
Everyone needs energy so what is so surprisong about this? Their in a high (highest) demand industry so good luck to them. Besides, every single person on this board has contributed to this profit at some point.
Everyone needs energy so what is so surprisong about this? Their in a high (highest) demand industry so good luck to them. Besides, every single person on this board has contributed to this profit at some point.
Nothing surprising about this. Its not about luck. Every single persons contribution has more to do with the lack of competition in the industry than tacit irrevocable approval as it seems you are suggesting.
As you point out, the demand curve for this industry is relatively inelastic. This leaves it vulnerable to supply side manipulation. A noncompetitive supply side facilitates this. The lack of refinery capicity is no accident. It has been orchestrated deliberatly to maximize profits of big oil at your expense.
Our national energy policy was drawn up in closed door meetings with big oil and the vice president. And they lie to congress about it. The influence of big oil has led to disasterious policy consequences from middle east instability to the manipulation and retardation of scientific understanding of climate change.
But doesn't it stand to reason that in these areas are unstable the costs to operate them are going to go up? I mean if you are running oil in a country that could blow up at any minute it seems pretty reasonable that it is going to cost more to get people to work there, it is going to cost more to get equipment delivered there, it is going to cost more to insure your holdings and so on.
US tax dollars paying marines and blackwater for protection of oil facilities takes the bite off. And menial labor becomes cheap when you obliterate a country into massive unemployment.
Also the increase in the price of oil benefits big oil producers in Texas. The US is the third largest oil producing nation behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, producing almost twice as much oil as the fourth, Iran.
People in politics are in business with the oil companies. Is that true? Isn’t that corrupt? Why can’t anybody blow the whistle on them? DON’T ELECT PEOPLE TIED TO OIL COMPANIES!
*~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*
We get to choose between A or B and there are no real differences between the condidates. In the US foreign policy hasn't changed in 60 years, economic policy pretty straighforward, give it all to companies involved with the military. And so on...
People in politics are in business with the oil companies. Is that true? Isn’t that corrupt? Why can’t anybody blow the whistle on them? DON’T ELECT PEOPLE TIED TO OIL COMPANIES!
All of our politicians are tied into some industry, some with big donations from insurance companies who have far greater profit margins than energy companies others financal groups or otherwise. It'd be nice to say the general attitude is towards "getting the bastards" out but it's not. The country want's pork in it's budget, they hate special interests but only the ones that don't directly benifit them.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
Nothing surprising about this. Its not about luck. Every single persons contribution has more to do with the lack of competition in the industry than tacit irrevocable approval as it seems you are suggesting.
As you point out, the demand curve for this industry is relatively inelastic. This leaves it vulnerable to supply side manipulation. A noncompetitive supply side facilitates this. The lack of refinery capicity is no accident. It has been orchestrated deliberatly to maximize profits of big oil at your expense.
Our national energy policy was drawn up in closed door meetings with big oil and the vice president. And they lie to congress about it. The influence of big oil has led to disasterious policy consequences from middle east instability to the manipulation and retardation of scientific understanding of climate change.
The global petroleum industry is hardly lacking competition- their are literally hundreds of companies competing for limited exploration licenses available. For example Shell, Chevron, Woodside, BHP, BP are all enormous companies competing with Exxon. Of course Exxon may be the largest but the industry is far from a monopoly as you suggest. People also seem to forget that less than 10 years ago the industry was laying off hundreds of experienced employees because the oil price was so low. So I guess a short memeory is fine for people who like to bitch about the cost of petrol now but forget how good they have had it in the past.
With regard to servicing companies such as Haliburton, than yes there is a serious lack of competition-the only other major company is Schlumberger. However with regrd to middle-east politics I think that Haliburton stood to gain more through its defense contracts with the US government than from oil.
again ... profits is not bad nor evil ... generating those profits by an illegal war is! ... reaping those profits from the bodies of innocent people is!!
again ... profits is not bad nor evil ... generating those profits by an illegal war is! ... reaping those profits from the bodies of innocent people is!!
Maybe not evil.
But having selfishness behind the motivation for labor isn't the ideal situation for society...crime is a byproduct, for example...consumption a must, degradation of the environment another product and so on.
Comments
they don't care ... the people they have to pay to handle all these issues are also posting record profits ... the thing is they wouldn't have access to this oil without these wars ...
That doesn't make any sense. Do you actually think oil companies would prefer to work in unstable areas rather than areas of political stability (if that was the case how do you explain the Alberta oil sands and Canada being the US's biggest oil supplier)? The lack of stability has to cost them more and cut into their profits.
they don't care about instability ... it's the price they pay to have oil at $90 a barrel ... it's not that they choose unstable ones over stable ones ...
look at why the US overthrew mossadegh in iran ... it was because he nationalized their oil ... oil companies want access to oil - plain and simple ... saddam nationalized the oil ... guess what? ... more instability ...
the article lays it out ... exxon posts record profits due to the price of crude oil ... the price of crude doesn't get so high without the instability in the region ...
Good stuff, probably a stupid question from me here kind of along the same lines.... how come renters can't take the cost of renting off thier taxes? More people in the city rent. Why isn't that worthy of a tax right off I'm still out the money?
Correct me if I'm wrong (anyone)
But Exxon REFINES oil. They don't sell oil.
$90 a barrell is the cost Exxon has to PAY for oil. It's not the cost it RECEIVES for oil.
I'm thinking Exxon would benefit from high oil prices the way McDonald's would benefit from high beef prices.
But, again, correct me if I'm wrong.
for the least they could possibly do
no ... they are in the extraction business ... see article - record profits due to high prices of crude ...
Exxon recorded the highest profit by a company EVER. Haven't checked lately but I think it was $35 billion in a year.
That I don't know the answer to. I suspect it is because government tends not to want to do things that provide incentives to rent.
im not unhappy about gas prices.. you are aware you are paying over 7 dollars a gallon right now though right?
No I am not aware of that. Explain.
...i know all the rules but the rules do not know me, guaranteed...
No, you needed to buy their stock last year, when it was $20 cheaper per share ... buy low, sell high
for the least they could possibly do
Nothing surprising about this. Its not about luck. Every single persons contribution has more to do with the lack of competition in the industry than tacit irrevocable approval as it seems you are suggesting.
As you point out, the demand curve for this industry is relatively inelastic. This leaves it vulnerable to supply side manipulation. A noncompetitive supply side facilitates this. The lack of refinery capicity is no accident. It has been orchestrated deliberatly to maximize profits of big oil at your expense.
Our national energy policy was drawn up in closed door meetings with big oil and the vice president. And they lie to congress about it. The influence of big oil has led to disasterious policy consequences from middle east instability to the manipulation and retardation of scientific understanding of climate change.
US tax dollars paying marines and blackwater for protection of oil facilities takes the bite off. And menial labor becomes cheap when you obliterate a country into massive unemployment.
Also the increase in the price of oil benefits big oil producers in Texas. The US is the third largest oil producing nation behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, producing almost twice as much oil as the fourth, Iran.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
We get to choose between A or B and there are no real differences between the condidates. In the US foreign policy hasn't changed in 60 years, economic policy pretty straighforward, give it all to companies involved with the military. And so on...
Its a 1 party system, the definition of fascism.
All of our politicians are tied into some industry, some with big donations from insurance companies who have far greater profit margins than energy companies others financal groups or otherwise. It'd be nice to say the general attitude is towards "getting the bastards" out but it's not. The country want's pork in it's budget, they hate special interests but only the ones that don't directly benifit them.
The global petroleum industry is hardly lacking competition- their are literally hundreds of companies competing for limited exploration licenses available. For example Shell, Chevron, Woodside, BHP, BP are all enormous companies competing with Exxon. Of course Exxon may be the largest but the industry is far from a monopoly as you suggest. People also seem to forget that less than 10 years ago the industry was laying off hundreds of experienced employees because the oil price was so low. So I guess a short memeory is fine for people who like to bitch about the cost of petrol now but forget how good they have had it in the past.
With regard to servicing companies such as Haliburton, than yes there is a serious lack of competition-the only other major company is Schlumberger. However with regrd to middle-east politics I think that Haliburton stood to gain more through its defense contracts with the US government than from oil.
Maybe not evil.
But having selfishness behind the motivation for labor isn't the ideal situation for society...crime is a byproduct, for example...consumption a must, degradation of the environment another product and so on.