Options
Exxon posts second highest profit ever
Rushlimbo
Posts: 832
Exxon Mobil profit surges on high oil prices
Second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by public U.S. company
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:58 a.m. CT July 27, 2006
DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. said Thursday it earned $10.36 billion in the second quarter, the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.
The earnings figure was 36 percent above the profit it reported a year ago. High oil prices helped boost the company’s revenue by 12 percent to a level just short of a quarterly record. Its shares rose to a new high in morning trading.
Exxon Mobil’s report comes as many drivers in the U.S. are paying $3 for a gallon of gas — increasing the likelihood of further political backlash in Washington.
But the company isn’t alone. Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Thursday that second-quarter earnings jumped 40 percent to $7.32 billion as high oil prices offset production difficulties in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico.
Other oil companies reported big numbers for the quarter this week as well. BP PLC reported its quarterly profit rose 30 percent to $7.3 billion and ConocoPhillips said its earnings rose 65 percent to $5.18 billion.
Chevron Corp. will round the field of five majors when it reports its second-quarter performance Friday.
These five were expected to earn an estimated $33.6 billion, or a 32 percent boost, according to analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial. Already the first four have reported earning $30.16 billion.
Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company by market capitalization, said earnings amounted to $1.72 per share in the April-June quarter compared with a profit of $7.64 billion, or $1.20 per share, a year ago.
The results topped Wall Street expectations but came in behind Exxon Mobil’s record profit of $10.71 billion set in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected the company to earn $1.64 per share.
Revenue rose to $99.03 billion from $88.57 billion in the prior-year quarter. That was short of Exxon Mobil’s record third-quarter revenue of $100.72 billion — which also stands as record revenue generated by any U.S. public company ever in a single quarter.
Exxon Mobil said it spent $4.9 billion on capital and exploration projects during the quarter, up 8 percent from a year ago, while distributing $7.9 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Congress has been urging the big oil companies to put more of their profits toward boosting the supply of energy for consumers.
The company made more in all parts of its business.
By segment, exploration and production earnings rose sharply to $7.13 billion, up $2.23 billion from the second quarter of last year, a reflection of higher crude and natural gas prices. Production increased 6 percent from a year ago and 9 percent if the impact of divestments and entitlements are excluded.
The company’s refining and marketing segment reported a $264 million earnings increase to $2.48 billion, the result of stronger refining margins, slightly offset by weaker marketing margins.
Exxon’s chemical business saw earnings rise $26 million to $840 million.
The company said its average sale price for crude oil in the U.S. during the quarter was $63.84 a barrel, compared to $45.85 a year earlier. Internationally, however, Exxon said the average sale price for oil was $65.12 compared to $47.55 a year ago.
Exxon also sold natural gas in the U.S. for $6.39 per 1,000 cubic feet, compared to $6.45 during the same period a year ago. Non-U.S. sales for natural gas however, rose from $5.25 a year ago to $6.67 per 1,000 cubic feet.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14056592/
Second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by public U.S. company
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:58 a.m. CT July 27, 2006
DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. said Thursday it earned $10.36 billion in the second quarter, the second largest quarterly profit ever recorded by a publicly traded U.S. company.
The earnings figure was 36 percent above the profit it reported a year ago. High oil prices helped boost the company’s revenue by 12 percent to a level just short of a quarterly record. Its shares rose to a new high in morning trading.
Exxon Mobil’s report comes as many drivers in the U.S. are paying $3 for a gallon of gas — increasing the likelihood of further political backlash in Washington.
But the company isn’t alone. Royal Dutch Shell PLC said Thursday that second-quarter earnings jumped 40 percent to $7.32 billion as high oil prices offset production difficulties in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico.
Other oil companies reported big numbers for the quarter this week as well. BP PLC reported its quarterly profit rose 30 percent to $7.3 billion and ConocoPhillips said its earnings rose 65 percent to $5.18 billion.
Chevron Corp. will round the field of five majors when it reports its second-quarter performance Friday.
These five were expected to earn an estimated $33.6 billion, or a 32 percent boost, according to analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial. Already the first four have reported earning $30.16 billion.
Exxon Mobil, the world’s largest oil company by market capitalization, said earnings amounted to $1.72 per share in the April-June quarter compared with a profit of $7.64 billion, or $1.20 per share, a year ago.
The results topped Wall Street expectations but came in behind Exxon Mobil’s record profit of $10.71 billion set in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Analysts polled by Thomson Financial expected the company to earn $1.64 per share.
Revenue rose to $99.03 billion from $88.57 billion in the prior-year quarter. That was short of Exxon Mobil’s record third-quarter revenue of $100.72 billion — which also stands as record revenue generated by any U.S. public company ever in a single quarter.
Exxon Mobil said it spent $4.9 billion on capital and exploration projects during the quarter, up 8 percent from a year ago, while distributing $7.9 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Congress has been urging the big oil companies to put more of their profits toward boosting the supply of energy for consumers.
The company made more in all parts of its business.
By segment, exploration and production earnings rose sharply to $7.13 billion, up $2.23 billion from the second quarter of last year, a reflection of higher crude and natural gas prices. Production increased 6 percent from a year ago and 9 percent if the impact of divestments and entitlements are excluded.
The company’s refining and marketing segment reported a $264 million earnings increase to $2.48 billion, the result of stronger refining margins, slightly offset by weaker marketing margins.
Exxon’s chemical business saw earnings rise $26 million to $840 million.
The company said its average sale price for crude oil in the U.S. during the quarter was $63.84 a barrel, compared to $45.85 a year earlier. Internationally, however, Exxon said the average sale price for oil was $65.12 compared to $47.55 a year ago.
Exxon also sold natural gas in the U.S. for $6.39 per 1,000 cubic feet, compared to $6.45 during the same period a year ago. Non-U.S. sales for natural gas however, rose from $5.25 a year ago to $6.67 per 1,000 cubic feet.
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14056592/
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
By TOBY STERLING, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 27, 8:27 AM ET
Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Europe's second-largest oil company, said Thursday its second-quarter earnings jumped 40 percent as high oil prices offset production difficulties in Nigeria and the Gulf of Mexico.
Net profit rose to $7.32 billion from $5.24 billion a year earlier. Sales rose less than 1 percent to $83.1 billion from $82.6 billion.
Chief Executive Jeroen van der Veer said in a statement the earnings were "underpinned by overall good operational performance and not simply high energy prices."
Still, the main reason for the increase was higher oil prices, with earnings at Shell's oil exploration and production arm leaping to $4 billion from $2.75 billion, despite an 8 percent drop in production to 3.25 million barrels a day.
Prices for benchmark North Sea Brent crude averaged $69.51 a barrel in the quarter, compared with $51.65 a barrel a year earlier.
That was in line with other major oil companies reporting results this week. BP PLC said its second-quarter profit rose 30 percent to $7.3 billion, while ConocoPhillips reported a 65 percent increase to $5.18 billion. Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is due to report its earnings later Thursday.
Keith Bowman, equity analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown Stockbrokers, said it was "good news" that Shell had beaten forecasts, in contrast to BP.
"But going forward, high oil prices will not continue to mask" if Shell's management makes mistakes, he said.
Shell said that excluding the damage caused by militant attacks on its operations in Nigeria and the fallout from hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf of Mexico, production would have been flat.
Shell is missing around 180,000 barrels per day in Nigeria because of recent attacks, and said Thursday it couldn't confidently predict when production will resume.
Van der Veer said that despite a pipeline rupture this week, possibly due to an attack by militants, the company has no intention of scaling back operations in the West African nation. "We are not afraid to invest in Nigeria," he said.
The Niger Delta region has been the scene of frequent disputes for years between oil companies and communities that demand a greater share of the wealth of Africa's largest crude producer. At least 31 expatriate workers have been held hostage by a variety of militant groups so far this year.
Shell's results Thursday beat earnings estimates compiled by Dow Jones, which had predicted a 17 percent rise in earnings, helped by strong refining margins. Shares rose 2.5 percent to 28.05 euros ($35.43) in Amsterdam trading.
At Shell's second-biggest division, which refines oil and sells it to consumers at the pump, profits increased 13 percent to $3.02 billion.
"Higher earnings due to stronger refining margins particularly in the United States, and increased trading profits from a positive trading environment were partially offset by the impact of lower retail marketing margins and reduced refinery utilization mainly in Europe," Shell said.
Shell's 2004-2005 accounting scandal, in which it was forced to repeatedly reduce the size of its proven oil reserves, continued to affect the company's earnings and prospects.
The company said Thursday it had reserved $500 million in the second quarter to pay shareholder class action lawsuits.
Shell has also been spending heavily to restore reserves, planning investments of $19 billion in 2006, and $21 billion in 2007, most of it in exploration and production.
But in 2005, the company pumped more oil than it added to proven reserves, and in Shell's 2005 annual report those reserves stood at around 11.5 billion barrels.
With Thursday's earnings, Shell said it has added "at least" 48 billion barrels of oil to unproven reserves via acquisitions in Canada in the first half of 2006, at a combined cost of some $2.6 billion.
In a conference call, Chief Financial Officer Peter Voser repeated that the company has a "fair prospect" to replace as much as it pumps between 2004-2008 as a whole.
"But we will not be shy to delay projects or even cancel projects because of the economic situation, cost inflation, and delay the recognition of proved reserves if that is the best economic outcome" for the company, he said.
While production in 2006 has been below analysts' expectations, he repeated that Shell's production is expected to rise to 3.5 million to 3.7 million barrels per day in 2007.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
So what? As Know1 said, if it were just about any other company, it would be applauded.
Gasoline is a product. We have allowed ourselves to become dependant on it. "Gas is different because it is so important." Well the only reason that is is because we have allowed ourselves to develop based on what's convenient--i.e. the automobile. And now gasoline is still in high demand (thanks to our development that completely lacked vision) and it is their right to charge for it. The price is a function of supply and demand (as well as a number of other things going on in the middle east).
If we did not demand it so much, it would be less precious and therefore, cheaper.
And the answer to that "so what?" is that in all this turmoil in the middle east somehow they're managing to do better than ever.. there's a lot of fishy activity in the oil business.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Supply and Demand, that's pretty much how it goes.
It's our own fault prices are so high.
it's not because people are buying more gas - it is because the price of oil is at $70 a barrel ... and why is it at $70 a barrel ... because of middle east instability ... mainly a war in iraq ... and why is there a war in iraq??
we know it isn't because of WMD or making life good for iraqis ... understanding ALL the ties to the oil industry withink this administration - isn't it obvious who has benefited from a fabricated war?
Nice post.
Another nice post.
http://zmagsite.zmag.org/JulAug2004/gupta0804.html
Z Magazine Online
July/August 2004 Volume 17 Number 7/8
Economy
Manipulation of Gas Prices
By Arun Gupta
If you think surging gas prices is another case of OPEC sticking it to the Great Satan, think again. While prices of crude oil hover around $40 a barrel and gasoline above $2 a gallon, it’s the oil companies who are making out like bandits. The oil industry and its supporters point to the summer driving season, environmental regulations for reformulated gasoline, surging demand in China and the United States, and a shortfall of crude oil production as the factors underlying this year’s ballooning gas prices.
But consumer groups, government agencies, and internal documents from the oil industry reveal that the gasoline market is being deliberately manipulated to boost profits. Tyson Slocum, research director of Public Citizen’s Energy Program, says, “The scarcity is manufactured. These companies act as if the summer driving season snuck up on them.” Slocum points to consolidation within the oil industry during the last decade as the underlying reason for repeated spikes in gas prices. As a result, “America no longer has access to adequately competitive gas markets.” Slocum states the problem is not so much with crude oil supply, but with the “downstream component” of refining and marketing. Public Citizen released a report in March authored by Slocum that noted five of the largest oil companies now control 50 percent of U.S. refinery capacity (versus 34 percent in 1993) and 62 percent of the retail gasoline market (versus 27 percent a decade ago).
This gives the oil industry unprecedented ability to manipulate the market. After a spike in gasoline prices in the Midwest in the summer of 2000, the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation. It released a report in March 2001 that concluded the price increases were due in part to “decisions by firms to maximize their profits” by such methods as “curtailing production [and] keeping available supply off the market.”
Even more damning, the FTC report stated that one unnamed oil company executive “made clear that he would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower margin.” The federal government could force prices down, but with a White House soaked with more oil than Prince William Sound, it’s taken to blaming “environmental extremists” for the crisis. Since 2000, the oil industry has pumped out more than $68 million to politicians—80 percent of that going to Republicans. Every penny increase in gas prices costs U.S. consumers more than $1 billion. Since January 2000, consumer groups estimate that increasing prices for gasoline and natural gas have cost consumers $250 billion. Even before the latest price surge, household energy expenditures increased by an average of 35 percent, or $500, from 1999 to 2003.
If the oil industry “were simply passing on higher costs, their profit margin wouldn’t change,” Slocum says. In 2003, the five largest oil companies operating within the United States—ExxonMobil, Chevron-Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Royal Dutch Shell—raked in more than $60 billion in after-tax profits. And 2004 is shaping up to be Big Oil’s best year ever. For the first three months:
* ChevronTexaco’s profit jumped 33 percent to $2.56 billion and profits for its U.S. division for oil refining quadrupled from the same period last year to $276 million this year
* ConocoPhillips, the biggest refiner and fuel marketer in the United States, also had a profit increase of 33 percent to $1.62 billion
* ExxonMobil, the world’s largest corporation, raked in profits of $5.44 billion from January to March 2004, more than its entire 2002 total
A study by the Consumer Federation from October 2003 notes that in the last 15 years about 75 refineries have closed. So, in 1985, refinery capacity was equal to the daily consumption of petroleum products, whereas by 2000, “daily consumption exceeded refinery capacity by almost 20 percent.” (Not only are U.S. oil imports increasing, so are imports of refined fuel products.) Gasoline stocks have also declined precipitously since the early 1980s, from ten days above minimum operating needs to just two days by 2003. A New York Times article from June 15, 2001, quotes a document from Chevron written in November 1995 that spelled out the strategy: “If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery profits.” The result, according to the Consumer Federation, is that operating income in the refining and marketing sectors has gone from about $1 billion in 1995 to $19 billion in 2003.
California Scamming
It’s no coincidence that today’s gas crisis seems similar to the California electricity scam of 2000- 2001. Slocum of Public Citizen says now, as then, “The ability of individual companies to manipulate supplies for their own profits is widespread.” He notes that some of the same culprits are involved, such as BP, which “has a subsidiary called BP Energy that was fined $3 million for intentional manipulation of the California energy market.” The tactics are also similar: consolidate control over a market, tighten supplies, and then wait for a small disruption. In California, electricity companies deliberately idled plants while supplies were tight and then waited for prices to skyrocket on the spot market. In transcripts of telephone conversations, energy traders called their successful attempts at manipulation “exciting,” “cool,” and “fu-un.” In the gasoline market, refinery capacity has declined by 20 percent since the 1980s. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that refining capacity will continue to decline by 50,000 barrels per year until 2007. The result is high rates of refinery utilization—96 percent by early May—leaving them susceptible to accidents.
This may be part of the oil industry’s strategy because, “Every accident or blip in the market triggers a price shock and profits mount,” observes the Consumer Federation of America. Thus, “A pipeline breaks here, a refinery goes out there, or a blackout shuts down production for a day someplace else. Because stocks are so tight, prices shoot up, and stay up for an extended period of time.” Californians are feeling the brunt of this energy crisis with the nation’s highest gas prices, nearly $2.50 per gallon in southern California as of early June. Analysts predict the price may hit $3 this summer. Only 13 refineries controlled by a handful of oil companies feed the state’s supply. That’s down from 37 refineries in 1983. Now Shell is planning to demolish a refinery in Bakersfield, California that supplies two percent of the state’s gasoline and six percent of its diesel, despite the fact that it has the highest profit margin of any of Shell’s U.S. refineries. The oil companies can manipulate the markets because, says Slocum, “Political contributions buy you a certain amount of immunity from prosecution and investigation.”
The Bush administration is also using the same political strategy it developed during the California electricity crisis. It argued that environmental regulations caused the tight supplies. Its solution was to gut clean air laws to allow more power plants, a position quietly abandoned once Enron went belly up. Now the Bush administration is saying the only thing that can alleviate high gas prices is to drill for oil—in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Gulf of Mexico, and national parks and monuments across the country. Bush also wants his energy bill passed, which doles out more than $7 billion to Big Oil. Yet prices are likely to drop on their own by the fall. Key to the oil industry strategy is price volatility. If prices stayed high, consumers would demand the development of cheaper sources of energy. Addi- tionally, the oil industry knows that with a presidential election looming, cheaper gas prices beforehand will help propel the Bush administration to another oil-friendly term.
To bring down gas prices, some Democrats have said, President Bush should release crude from the strategic petroleum reserve, which holds 660 million barrels. Few analysts expect that doing so would reduce gas prices by more than a few pennies and some suggest the Democrats are just proposing the easiest thing to do because, “it’s not going to ruffle the feathers of any powerful interests.” Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries supply about 2 million of the 10 million barrels of oil the U.S. imports daily. As the strategic petroleum reserve has enough oil to make up a disruption from the Middle East for more than 300 days, observers say the Bush administration could stop adding to the reserve—which it is doing at the rate of 100,000 barrels a day—if it were serious about increasing supplies of crude oil.
A more effective solution is for the federal government to mandate that refiners increase their supplies of gasoline and release it into the market when prices increase, thereby limiting price-gouging. Longer-term suggestions include increasing fuel-efficiency standards, which dropped during the Clinton administration and are lower now than in the 1980s. Oil consumption would drop by one- third, almost 7 million barrels per day, if passenger vehicles had to average 40 miles per gallon.
There is general agreement that alternative energy sources need to be developed, but there is no easy solution. Hydrogen-based fuel cells are no panacea. Sources for the hydrogen include: natural gas, an already over-tapped energy source; coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels; or radiation-spewing nuclear power plants.
Wind, tidal, and geothermal energy are cleaner sources of electricity, but battery-powered vehicles generate just as much pollution as gas-powered ones. The difference is, the pollution is in the form of solid waste from the batteries rather than air pollution from hydrocarbons. Oil junkies want to develop marginal sources, such as Canada’s vast fields of tar sands that may hold more than 1 trillion barrels of oil—more than all known reserves in the Persian Gulf. But tar sands require tremendous amounts of water to process and natural gas to heat and extract the oil, and leave behind enormous environmental damage from the waste. Ultimately, the problem is not so much fossil-fuel powered vehicles as the single-passenger vehicle. It’s inherently wasteful to have two-ton machines carrying a single person to the store for a quart of milk.
A real solution would involve robust networks of bus and rail—with suburbs, towns, and cities redesigned for walking and biking. An impressive model is the Brazilian city of Curitiba, which uses extensive bus networks, pedestrian walkways, bike paths, and planned growth to limit car usage, with the result that its residents use 30 percent less gasoline on average than 8 other Brazilian cities. But such planning would strike at the heart of the over-consumptive U.S. way of life and our car- and oil-driven economy.
A.K. Gupta is an editor at the Indypendent, the newspaper of New York City Indymedia. He was also an editor at the Guardian Newsweekly from 1989-1992.
Can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would go on right now if we were asked to ration ANYTHING?
I do think that one issue with the current generations under 50 or so is that we've really never had to suffer through anything where any type of real sacrifice was made.
It made the preceding generations tougher and built character.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What's surprising about this? This is the exact pricing model that lots of goods use. In economics it's called the theory of price elasticity. A lot of booze is priced this way, same with cosmetics. Hell, the philosophy where I work is to produce one less than there is demand for.
What's wrong with this business philosophy? What's damning about?
Just because we've built our lives around a relatively scarce good that is sold on the private market does not make the businesses evil. It just makes us stupid. Use less gas and you won't care nearly as much. Start caring about your carbon imprint.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Plus it helps if the war is supported widely by the people like WW2 if you're planning on rationing anything.
Cmon, laying off the gasoline would be nothing but beneficial to us, but we don't make the effort because we're lazy :rolleyes:
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Another nice post. Very good eye.
Actually I agree with this. I'm not absolving the oil companies, but I'm saying that they are no more evil than other companies in other economic sectors. Oil is a bit touchier because as far as I know, no country has ever gone to war over $2 tillamook cheese or brazilian beef.
If people are pissed about oil (or any other company) is to remember that we have consumer choice at least to a degree. Quit driving, look to oil alternatives for heating etc... It may not be as convenient but we DO have choice most of the time.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
um...so the prices are not due to supply issues, per se, but manipulation of the supply...oh, I see...
listen, if those who support the oil companies are happy with paying 3 bucks a gallon at the pump, that's super duper...
as for building our lives around this scarce good...I suppose I should have been aware of this when I was a kid and made changes accordingly...I do wonder how easy it would be to live a life "free" from oil....
as for my car...my diesel jetta has been running nicely (knock on wood) on biodiesel...of which I hope to be making my own very soon...
So, surferdude, let me ask you... when you hear Mike McCready tearing out the National Anthem on his guitar...do you really think about logical numbers and business theories? Or do you think about blood being spilled in Iraq? That's what's damning about it.
If we lived our lives based on clean and precise numbers and made our sole ("soul") focus the bottom line, we'd all be computers... not human beings.
One more question for you all: How much of this money is going right back into the Republican machine? It's times like this that I don't think our species has a chance.
*
If the Iraq war is about oil, then the American revolution was about tea.
Why would you ever want the government to step in and do what you are just too lazy and risk averse to do for yourself?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Because only through the use of the state do they have the ability to force someone to do it for them at the point of a gun.
we are several years into this war now ... much of the facts are out ... nothing - absolutely nothing points to any moral justification ... you can't increase pentagon spending without instability and threat and you cannot charge $70 a barrel unless supply is threatened ...
look at all the other favourable policies by this administration that favour big oil ... from enviro deregulation to the non effort on climate change ...
I admit it was a simplistic explanation, but a valid one. What in your opinion is this war being fought for?
Fear. Blind, idiotic fear.
Look...when this war started the "No Blood For Oil" crowd was running around saying that the war was about lowering the price of oil to $10/g so that we could all pay $.50 for gas. Now that they're seeing how wrong they were they're all running around saying that the war was found to send oil up to $70/g so that the oil execs could get rich.
Oil certainly plays a role in this conflict. But it ain't the reason. We all would have been better off with "No Blood for Fear" t-shirts.
so you are happy with paying 3 bucks a gallon...I see...
I'm unsure where I made mention of gov't intervention...any hoo, as for buying oil fields, I think that's a great idea, I'll start combing the local real estate classifeds...
I still wonder how easy it would be to life a life "free" of oil...can any one help me out with this one...? oh yeah, one final question, the price of gas...is it due to supply and demand or manipulation of supply...? if it's supply and demand, I would tend to agree with those who side with the 5 major oil companies...if it's manipulation of a product that is the life-blood of the economy of the US, I would have to question that practice....but, hey, that's just me...
keep paying those prices and be happy about it...:)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a person who is slowly realizing why capitalism works.
Start by lowering your dependence on oil. If it's less than 20 miles start biking. If you are in any kind of shape you should be able to knock off 20 miles in less than an hour. Take as much public transportation as possible. When you feel you reaaly have no alternative but to drive carpool.
"oh yeah, one final question, the price of gas...is it due to supply and demand or manipulation of supply...?"
Does it matter. It's not illegal or unethical to manipulate supply. No more so than it is illegal or unethical for consumers to manipulate demand.
"if it's manipulation of a product that is the life-blood of the economy of the US, I would have to question that practice...."
Well if I was the US economy I'd start diversifying my source of energy. Putting all your eggs in on ebasket is just plain stupid.
"keep paying those prices and be happy about it..."
Why would I let things I have no control over upset me? Things I have no control over can either make me happy (a nice sunset) or I accept and get on with my life.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley