I know you are tired of high gas prices too!

Demiurge

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

I am not a leftist hippy DEMI.

I belive you are wrong in your assumption of my motive. I never said punish the gas companies.

Each pay period and every time we put gas in our cars WE AMERICANS are paying elected officials to manage this country and our interest abroad. They seem blind to all that is going on.

If in theroy the protest worked there would be BIG MONEY talking, yelling and screaming for change and working ALTERNATIVES.

Money is the only thing that talks any more. If you disrupt the money flow then change is sure to come.

Doesn't matter what you are or aren't, and I didn't call you any names. Just said you're not making any economical sense.

Your last line is partially right, however who is in charge of disrupting the money flow? Government or the citizens of this country? For me, it's not the government. I don't want Socialism or Communism here, and going down that path is exactly what that will bring.

The bottom line is that we really don't mind paying $3.00 for a gallon of gas. Maybe $5.00 will be the breaking point, I don't know. I'll wait for the market to correct itself naturally. It always does.

All of this green activism and trying to get government to step in to do something is only going to have grave consequences on our economy. Why on earth are there tax breaks for using alternative energy sources? The government shouldn't be giving incentives for people not to patronize various businesses.

If even half the people bloviating about how everyone needs to do this that and the other thing practiced what they preached I bet we'd actually see more of a change than we have so far.

Bottom line is that until a company designs something that the general public actually wants and is economically viable nothing is going to change. Now is one of the best times to be an entrepreneur.

jdhdiggs

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

I can agree with a lot of what you are writing. However, Getting soccer mom to buy a smaller car is not going to help spur creation of real alternatives to our current problem. The politicians need to be forced to focus. Oil has big money to defend.

Hmm, yes, reducing the demand of of gasoline by ~15% wouldn't impact the price at all. Yup, your right....

Oh, and damn the free market for creating this mess! (Wait, what do you mean it was governments interference that's causing the shortage....?)

SLOCOOKN

Demiurge wrote: »

Doesn't matter what you are or aren't, and I didn't call you any names. Just said you're not making any economical sense.

Your last line is partially right, however who is in charge of disrupting the money flow? Government or the citizens of this country? For me, it's not the government. I don't want Socialism or Communism here, and going down that path is exactly what that will bring.



This is one of the fundamental changes in people that I think is sad DEMI.

You ARE the government. You only elect someone to REPRESENT you!
It is not "THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY". It is YOUR (our) MONEY!
We NEED change. The oil companies are given millions in subsidies.

I would be OK if OUR government wanted to help spur invention.

Look at the internet. Granted a military invention but now look at it.

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Hmm, yes, reducing the demand of of gasoline by ~15% wouldn't impact the price at all. Yup, your right....

Oh, and damn the free market for creating this mess! (Wait, what do you mean it was governments interference that's causing the shortage....?)

Government is not causing the shortage. Oil companies have lobbies and the lobbyist get a lot of influence on certain things with the amount of money they can throw at certain situations. This ensures a most favorable operating environment for them.

tommyboy

jdhdiggs wrote: »

QUIT VOTING MORONS INTO OFFICE!!!

Haven't you ever seen the south park episode with the giant **** and **** sandwich;)

I can remember just 5 years ago only paying 1.10, where have those good days gone...

bobman1235

Where is this THREAD going? This argument seems all over the place and about nothing.

SLOCOOKN

bobman1235 wrote: »

Where is this THREAD going? This argument seems all over the place and about nothing.

This is a large and complex issue. There are several factors and their repercussions are important as well.

What is on your mind?

jdhdiggs

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

Government is not causing the shortage. Oil companies have lobbies and the lobbyist get a lot of influence on certain things with the amount of money they can throw at certain situations. This ensures a most favorable operating environment for them.

Seriously, where the hell do you get your information from? If an O&G company want to open a new refinary or drill but can't because of the government, it isn't the governments fault? How does that work?

Favorable operating environment? Yeah, beholden to Arabs and a communist outside of this country and environmentalist whack jobs inside the country making less profit margin than virtually ever other major industry (Except automotive but there it's the employees stealing your money). Hell yeah, we all could only hope to have such advantages.... :rolleyes:

Again, where do you come up with this?

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Seriously, where the hell do you get your information from? If an O&G company want to open a new refinary or drill but can't because of the government, it isn't the governments fault? How does that work?

Favorable operating environment? Yeah, beholden to Arabs and a communist outside of this country and environmentalist whack jobs inside the country making less profit margin than virtually ever other major industry (Except automotive but there it's the employees stealing your money). Hell yeah, we all could only hope to have such advantages.... :rolleyes:

Again, where do you come up with this?

How many U.S. Based oil companies are drilling in the United States right now?

jdhdiggs

Right now? I can name at least 2 dozen off the top of my head, however, they are only active in land "set aside" by the govenrment for exploration. Most of which are going into existing fields or dry holes. The larger oil fields are currently off limits based soley on the US Governments rules.

The bigger problem is only the really BIG companies can even go after these fields for a couple reasons: One is the cost to drill. The second is the need to lobby the piss out of people and do all kinds of impact studies and appease the government. Again, government interference causing a decrease in supply...

SLOCOOKN

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

How many U.S. Based oil companies are drilling in the United States right now?

Still waiting for you to finish google. In the mean time look at this:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/224/index.html

jdhdiggs

Wow, a PBS special. Sorry, I much better sources than that lobbyiest group.

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Right now? I can name at least 2 dozen off the top of my head, however, they are only active in land "set aside" by the govenrment for exploration. Most of which are going into existing fields or dry holes. The larger oil fields are currently off limits based soley on the US Governments rules.

The bigger problem is only the really BIG companies can even go after these fields for a couple reasons: One is the cost to drill. The second is the need to lobby the piss out of people and do all kinds of impact studies and appease the government. Again, government interference causing a decrease in supply...

I hope you looked at the like I have provided. You are clearly on one side of the fence.

I am just worried. I do not want to get to the " BREAKING POINT" of the conflict. Too many people will be hurt over this in the long run and there is no good reason for it.

Demiurge

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

This is one of the fundamental changes in people that I think is sad DEMI.

You ARE the government. You only elect someone to REPRESENT you!
It is not "THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY". It is YOUR (our) MONEY!
We NEED change. The oil companies are given millions in subsidies.

I would be OK if OUR government wanted to help spur invention.

Look at the internet. Granted a military invention but now look at it.

You're all over the place, guy....

The government has a different role than the rest of society. Yes, it's made up of elected and appointed citizens of said society, but they are quite different in their roles.

Some people want them to be mommy and daddy to us all, which is the problem. I don't want that, but you seem to based on your comments. What you're proposing isn't Capitalism.

Subsidies? In this case they're usually given as an investment when the return is supposed to outweigh the initial cost. Beyond that, the government also taxes the **** out of business and places restrictions on them that force them overseas. You just want to see one side of it apparently.

Hey, let a handful of companies like Exxon-Mobil take a nice loss next year and tell me how well that worked for moving forward. Businesses are in business to make money -- but you seem to want government to step in and help prevent certain businesses you don't like from doing so.

Demiurge

Oh, one more thing, cut us off of oil in the way you want to and you can bet your pale white **** that China (who isn't held to the moronic standards we are) will kick our nuts all over the globe in every single way.

jdhdiggs

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

I hope you looked at the like I have provided. You are clearly on one side of the fence.

I am just worried. I do not want to get to the " BREAKING POINT" of the conflict. Too many people will be hurt over this in the long run and there is no good reason for it.

Breaking point? I'm right, your full of bad information. I'm just trying to educate you.

Here's a question: When was the last time you, or someone close to you tried to get permission to drill a well offshore? How about onshore? How about to uncap a dry well? Do you have any idea of the reality of any of those situations?

krabby5

Demiurge wrote: »

You see 40 billion in profits, but miss the 480 billion in expenses.

that's a weird sentence....if yer gonna mention the 480 billion in expenses, what about the 520 billion in revenues?

last i checked revenue - expense = profit..

SLOCOOKN

Demi, What comment did I make that made you you think I wanted to be mommied or daddied by the government. I run a small business I know about taxes, licenses fees, state inspections and all.

jdhdiggs

krabby5 wrote: »

that's a weird sentence....if yer gonna mention the 480 billion in expenses, what about the 520 billion in revenues?

last i checked revenue - expense = profit..

Wow... Ok, the pint is everyone gets freaked out when someone says "They made $40 Billion dollare, that's too much, their ripping us off!!!" Demi's point, if I may be so bold, is to point out that getting $40 Billion when you had to spend $480 Billion to get it is a meager profit margin. Far lower than virtually every major industry. The profits are so large ONLY because the scale of business is so large and not because they are "ripping us off".

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Breaking point? I'm right, your full of bad information. I'm just trying to educate you.

Here's a question: When was the last time you, or someone close to you tried to get permission to drill a well offshore? How about onshore? How about to uncap a dry well? Do you have any idea of the reality of any of those situations?

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

I under stand the impact study and all the channels that must be traveled. I may not now the direction or all the turns, but I am sure it is a long road. I will not doubt that.

Fossil fuel is a 100+ year old technology. It is now time to part way with it. It is apparently it has become so expensive that OIL COMPANIES CANNOT EVEN MAKE A DECENT PROFIT ANY MORE!

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

Wow... Ok, the pint is everyone gets freaked out when someone says "They made $40 Billion dollare, that's too much, their ripping us off!!!" Demi's point, if I may be so bold, is to point out that getting $40 Billion when you had to spend $480 Billion to get it is a meager profit margin. Far lower than virtually every major industry. The profits are so large ONLY because the scale of business is so large and not because they are "ripping us off".

No other company has ever made 40 billion.

Its not the point of they made 40 billion. Its so much money you cannot even comprehend it.

Its the fact the we are going to ruin the economy if prices continue to rise. And the price will continue to rise.

We need another alternative and there is not one. We have been in bed with oil for a long time. It is time to wake up to a change.

If your industry is dying take your 40 billion and put it elsewhere!
Gotta love that free market!

jdhdiggs

I can comprehend $40 Billion just fine. My last job I had to control a $1 Billion dollar budget (Ok, it was only $984Million...). I understand the scale quite well thank you. No oil company has ever made so much because: 1). No oil company has ever been as big. 2). Demand has never been higher.

Don't you think the companies should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their profit? If they want to sit on it and not innovate then they'll die. They can't make a decent profit because the market is too competitive for them to fix prices at higher rates... Kind of counter to conventional wisdom eh?

The point I was trying to make is that you are only seeing one side of the issue and not the reality of it. My wife lives it daily, as do most of her friends and about a third of mine. They have to deal with the obstructionist government getting in the way and watching Cuba and Venezuala swoop into and take your field while your stuck in red tape litigation. They get to listen to people cry that they make too much profit all while drinking a $5 cup of Starbucks that cost $0.34 to make and not understanding anything about an accounting sheet.

Long term, Alternative is the way to go but there is enough resource here and now for us to not have to pay $3/gallon for gas. There are enough resources to push the decline date 30 years into the future. The problem is that the government prevents oil from doing that and somehow "big oil" is the problem?

jflail2

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

WTF ask some one in NY to grow there own Fruits and veggies?

WHERE would they do that. If you live in NY most likely you already walk or take the sub.

I live in a rule part of the country. If commerce is to exist we must move freely about.

Localization dosen't allow for growth.

Holy Christ, that's where the IF YOU CAN part came in to play........and that response is alllllll over the place. I assume rule=rural??

Either way, run with your looney-bin theory all you want; I'm done in this thread.

liordra

How ever you're looking at it, its running out. five, ten , twenty years and its all gone. so I am pretty certain that whomever you boycott, in the not so far future, we're all going to miss todays gas prices.
by the time ethanol or what ever other biofuel technology production level catches up with demand (if ever), electricity is the only realistic answer.
The porblem is that natural ways of producing electricity are not enough.

what is the most probable solution? more and more nuclear power station.
not an ideal solution, (especially when characters the like of Homer Simpson are employed there as technical supervisors) but the most available and realistic one.

now ... I like hugging trees as much as the next guy, but I see no other alternative.

Demiurge

krabby5 wrote: »

that's a weird sentence....if yer gonna mention the 480 billion in expenses, what about the 520 billion in revenues?

last i checked revenue - expense = profit..

What's the profit margin? Hope you see my point now if Jame's didn't already explain it well enough above.

If I sold 5 TVs at $1,000 each and took $5.00 in profit for each one I have $25 in profits at the end of the sale.

Cost = $4,975.00

Profit = $25.00

If I sold 5,000,000 TVs at $1,000 each and took $5.00 in profit for each one I have $25,000,000 in profits at the end of the sale.

Cost = $4,975,000,000

Profit = $25,000,000

The profit margin is **** in both examples, but obviously $25,000,000 looks real impressive when that's all you see, especially compared to $25.00. When you don't see that the expenses were 199 times more than the profits it paints a completely different picture than if you saw that.

So the next time you want to bag on businesses for making a profit do a little math and see how much they're really making for the risk.

markmarc

First of all, we need to understand that China and India are now big importers of oil and increasing each year at double digit levels. That did not exist 5 years ago, therefore supplies have tightened considerably driving up prices.

Two, actual refineries have decreased considerably during the late 70's & 80's due to industry consolidation. It just didn't pay to have extra refineries running, it only kept prices too low for the oil industry. Current refineries have been expanded and continue to be enlarged, however, it is only keeping pace with the increasing needs of more cars being on the road. Therefore, drilling offshore and in Alaska (we currently send excess oil to asia because of a lack of refineries on the west coast) doesn't help the situation.

What can we do: Drive smarter and drive less, period! If we reduce our driving by 3% as a nation that would create excess supplies and drop the prices.
Secondly, demand that GWB follow thru on his promise in the latest State of the Union address, to increase CAFE standards and support alternative fuels. I know a couple of you free market only believers don't like any sort of gov't intervention, but this is a national security issue. detroit can easily meet a 1 mpg increase a year standard over the next 15 years. The technology exists right now.

Third, bio-fuel is actually not as energy negative as originally thought, especially when all the side uses are factored in it becomes energy neutral. Therefore, it makes sense to go with an 85-15 gas/bio mix. That would further reduce oil consumption.

Where would you prefer to send your fuel money? I for one would much rather give farmers the money than send it to the Middle East

SLOCOOKN

jdhdiggs wrote: »

I can comprehend $40 Billion just fine. My last job I had to control a $1 Billion dollar budget (Ok, it was only $984Million...). I understand the scale quite well thank you. No oil company has ever made so much because: 1). No oil company has ever been as big. 2). Demand has never been higher.

Don't you think the companies should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want with their profit? If they want to sit on it and not innovate then they'll die. They can't make a decent profit because the market is too competitive for them to fix prices at higher rates... Kind of counter to conventional wisdom eh?

The point I was trying to make is that you are only seeing one side of the issue and not the reality of it. My wife lives it daily, as do most of her friends and about a third of mine. They have to deal with the obstructionist government getting in the way and watching Cuba and Venezuala swoop into and take your field while your stuck in red tape litigation. They get to listen to people cry that they make too much profit all while drinking a $5 cup of Starbucks that cost $0.34 to make and not understanding anything about an accounting sheet.

Long term, Alternative is the way to go but there is enough resource here and now for us to not have to pay $3/gallon for gas. There are enough resources to push the decline date 30 years into the future. The problem is that the government prevents oil from doing that and somehow "big oil" is the problem?

Government can incur on business that is a fact.
Comparing a 5.00 cup of coffee to gas that I "need" to get back and forth to work to keep the economy going is not valid.
I can make coffee at home. I can even import my own beans and grind it my-self.

I can't do this with gas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/

This was in 2005 :eek:

jdhdiggs

liordra wrote: »

How ever you're looking at it, its running out. five, ten , twenty years and its all gone. so I am pretty certain that whomever you boycott, in the not so far future, we're all going to miss todays gas prices.
by the time ethanol or what ever other biofuel technology production level catches up with demand (if ever), electricity is the only realistic answer.
The porblem is that natural ways of producing electricity are not enough.

what is the most probable solution? more and more nuclear power station.
not an ideal solution, (especially when characters the like of Homer Simpson are employed there as technical supervisors) but the most available and realistic one.

now ... I like hugging trees as much as the next guy, but I see no other alternative.

Yup, exactly. Personally, I don't understand why we can't have it both ways... Open the flood gates on O&G and they'll find ways to be ever more and more productive and gas will stay relatively inexpensive. In the mean time some inventor will develop the next energy break through. (For cars, I'd guess CNG for the coasts and fuel cells elsewhere since the US has most of the worlds reserves of natural gas) and nuclear for other need. By the time that is no longer feasible, the theoretical Tokamak (sp) reactors should be online and that should get us to the point where we have already killed ourselves or are colonizing other planets....

SLOCOOKN

Demiurge wrote: »

What's the profit margin? Hope you see my point now if Jame's didn't already explain it well enough above.

If I sold 5 TVs at $1,000 each and took $5.00 in profit for each one I have $25 in profits at the end of the sale.

Cost = $4,975.00

Profit = $25.00

If I sold 5,000,000 TVs at $1,000 each and took $5.00 in profit for each one I have $25,000,000 in profits at the end of the sale.

Cost = $4,975,000,000

Profit = $25,000,000

The profit margin is **** in both examples, but obviously $25,000,000 looks real impressive when that's all you see, especially compared to $25.00. When you don't see that the expenses were 199 times more than the profits it paints a completely different picture than if you saw that.

So the next time you want to bag on businesses for making a profit do a little math and see how much they're really making for the risk.

I am not banging on them for the money!!!!!!!!!

Second how much risk is there when you say the demand is so high it is driving up the price.....RISK??????? I don't think so!

I would gladly spend 520 billion to PROFIT 40 billion if that is what you are asking!

How many people do you see putting 40 tv sets a week in their car?

jdhdiggs

SLOCOOKN wrote: »

Government can incur on business that is a fact.

WTH does that even mean?

Comparing a 5.00 cup of coffee to gas that I "need" to get back and forth to work to keep the economy going is not valid.
I can make coffee at home. I can even import my own beans and grind it my-self.

I can't do this with gas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8646744/

This was in 2005 :eek:

Why do you need gas? Don't you have a bike? Are you really telling me that there is no place to live within one mile of both your work and a grocery store? Really? Actually, with in home delivery, all you need to be is within a mile or two of your work for an easy commute. Most of the worlds population don't use motor vehicles and they survive. Gas is a luxury, not a need.

Edit: Why do you keep posting links written/created by morons with political axes to grind?