Oil company reports record high profits thanks to GWB

Hummers do not get any tax breaks. That was a loophole in the tax law that was supposed to apply to trucks used in a business, but gave the same break to hummers. That loophole has been closed.

So maybe you can explain exactly what Bush did to increase profits for the oil companies? He wants to drill in Northern Alaska, which will increase supply and decrease prices. But the Dems have opposed that at every turn. So blame the left wing for high oil prices.

You're right about the loophole, I believe there was some sort of break on taxes that went along with that loophole, though.

Way off base here. The left has been pushing for restrictions on SUV gas guzzlers but the Right so far has refused to push the issue, with the exception of a hand full of reps. If you wanted to actually clean up the air and pay less at the pump this is your solution, something the auto makers are more than capable of but are just now being forced to proceed with because of basically greed, Toyota has been one of the few automakers really pushing for higher standards.

Even Cheney has confessed that CAFE standards have been a success. The Bush administration is directly responsible for preventing the higher CAFE standards, hoping that the NAS panel will prevent this, which is full of former Mobil and Shell officials. The conversion would provide the savings of over 1 million barrels of gas per day, that's 4 times as much as drilling anywhere in the US /and/ a permanent solution unlike drilling in the artic with the benefit of cleaning up the air.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's 19 million acres comprise one of the last places on earth where an intact expanse of arctic and sub arctic lands remains protected. a.. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge can't make even a small dent in meeting America's energy needs. U.S. Geological Survey scientists estimate that there is very likely only enough oil to supply America's needs for six months. And oil companies admit that, even that, won't be available for at least 10 years. a.. An irreplaceable natural treasure, the Arctic Refuge is home to caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, golden eagles, snow geese and more. Millions of other birds use the Arctic Refuge to nest and as a critical staging area on their migratory journeys. a.. Of course, the Arctic Refuge supports more than wildlife. For a thousand generations, the Gwich'in people of Northeast Alaska and Northwest Canada have depended on it and lived in harmony with it. To them, the Arctic Coastal Plain is sacred ground.

ROFL

You lefties believe in 'freedom'...right?

ROFL

Josh

Your left ism shows thru...

-- Scott in Florida

"Scott in Florida" ROFL

giggling school girl again!

Your moronic noecon ways show through, congrats.

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:36:08 GMT, Scott in Florida

Gary L. Burnore wrote in news:d2seou$l9a$ snipped-for-privacy@dimpledchad.databasix.com:

There has not been a refinery built in the US since 1976. At least a couple have even closed in the meantime. Demand continues to grow as the economy and the population grows.

The main reasons for the lack of new refining capacity are environmental regulations that make it nearly impossible to build, and NIMBY-ism by those who live somewhere near where a proposed new refinery.

Since it is difficult to find refining capacity in the US, it is increasingly common to have refided gasoline base stock imported by tanker, rather that crude. Base stock sells for more than crude and carries a higher margin.

The effect of all the above is to cause artificial shortages of gasoline, with the attendant escalating prices that shortages cause.

In the 1970s, the shortages and high prices were caused by Nixon's price controls. The shortages and high prices ended quite abruptly when Reagan finally removed the price controls in 1982. These days, it's environmental laws accomplishing exactly the same thing.

Economically, Bush has been one of the worse Presidents, but blaming Bush for this is like blaming wet streets for making it rain.

The ecomomy isn't growing.

Nearly? Hardly. The billions in profits could have been used to build eco-friendly refineries. Better yet, the money could be used to find better ways to run our economy. Instead, it lines the pockets of bush supporters.

Bush could do something. He won't. Yes, I blame Bush. He'd take the credit were there any to take and you'd joyously assist.

Gary L. Burnore wrote in news:d2sl7i$gsu$ snipped-for-privacy@shpxurnq.databasix.com:

Oh, it is.

US population 1980:

226,545,805 US GDP, 1980: $2,784200,000,000 in 1980 dollars (roughly $5,289,980,000,000 in 2004 dollars)

GDP per capita 1980: roughly $23,349 in 2004 dollars

US population in 2000:

281,421,906 US GDP in 2004: $10,637,748,046,800

GDP per capita 2004: $37,800

Real productivity has grown about 60% in 24 years, reflecting more efficient production and manufacturing methods, transportation, use of labor, etc.

That problem, Gary, is that oil companies find it impossible to build ANY kind of refinery AT ALL. EVERY application is shot down in flames.

The thorny thicket of legal, regulatory and activist obstruction is impenetrable. And so no new refineries have been built in the US since

1976.

As far as profits go, you're way off base. ExxonMobil, for instance, even now makes about 9% net margin on their entire gross. Better than a grocery store, but worse than a good software company. 9% is not a barn-burner stat by any means.

Some other companies: Petro-Canada revenues 2002: 1.024 billion. Profit: 974 million. Margin: 9.5%. Not too bad, but hardly Microsoft.

Shell revenues 2002: 7.314 billion. Profit: 561 million. Margin: 7.67% Don't buy shares in Shell!

Imperial Oil Canada (Esso/Exxon) revenues 2002: 16,890 billion. Profit: 1.21 billion. Margin: 7.1%. Buy PetroCan shares!

Now let's try Microsoft (US dollars): Microsoft revenues 2002: 28.365 billion. Profit: 7.829 billion Margin: 27.6%

A company is doing very well if its margin is over 15% or so.

He tried. He tried to give America more crude by opening the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve to drilling. I seem to recall he met with some rather stiff environut opposition. Of course, a healthy supply of crude is nothing if you can't make it into gas, and...

...the environut opposition is even stiffer when it comes to opening new refineries. Would you like Georgie to simply issue an Executive Order allowing oil ccompanies to bypass all the laws and restrictions pertaining to new refinery construction and operation? He could, you know.

Productivity is growning because companies are forcing fewer workers to do the same amount of work as when there were more. I should have said the economy isn't growing at a proportionate rate to the rise in oil/gas prices.

So that justifies them raising prices and putting it in the pockets of the shareholders and CEO's. Neat.

ExxonMobile reported the largest profit of any company in U.S. history a couple of days ago. Of course, they won't mention THAT on their website.

Post 2005 numbers. You're three years off. Three years ago gas wasn't 2.35/gallon.

He lied.

Simple fact: The amount of oil in the ANWR wouldn't make a dent. Simple fact: Alternative sources are ignored and frowned upon by the Bush Administration. Taking away tax credits for alternative fuel vehicles is one example of that.

Hardly true. Many states would welcome the income they'd bring in.

Why not. He does it with everything else.

He could also sign an order requiring companies to find better ways of powering our nation. That'd piss off republican donors so he won't.

Gary, you'd better stick to running a news service.

The history of the entire Western World has been one of finding ways of using fewer workers to more things. That's called "productivity gain", and is the sole reason for mechanization. Ever heard of Allen Ludd?

Well, of course not. Few other things are subject to the same market distortions as oil is currently subject to. Things that are subject to special pressures do not follow current trends.

In 1979, the economy wasn't growing in proportion to the rate of increase in the price of gold, either. But that was due to heavy Federal Reserve currency debasement, not anything to do with gold itself. Gold was then just a thermometer, just as it is now. Notice how pricy gold is in US dollars? It's budged hardly at all in other currencies.

You misunderstand: When you force a shortage in anything that is in high demand, buyers bid prices up. It's a standard mechanism that works absolutely everywhere, from commodities to prostitution to socialist economies.

Oil has been forced into a shortage situation through no effort of the oil companies, not even OPEC. Oil is expensive because of that.

Drugs have enormous profit margins in them, on the order of 10,000%. That is solely due to the prohibitions. Of course, this means that if you are a sizeable dealer, you will be very rich indeed. But you're not rich because of the drug, which costs pennies to make, but because artificial circumstances have imbued your product with healthy margins.

Give me your source.

And is that gross sales, or net profit?

2005 figures aren't available yet. We're only 3 months into the year, you know.

ExxonMobil was at 8% two years ago. The increase in pump price has resulted in slightly under one percent gain, which I rounded up to an even 1%.

You could easily look the stats up yourself, you know. I've already done much more research than you have.

And that justifies prohibiting it? Non sequitur, Gary.

Alternative sources are very expensive and require subsidies to be viable. George is not averse to subsidies. He's already done that for softwood, steel, and a number of other industries. There might be another reason.

Many environut activists and lobbyists override state desires.

Your statement is incomplete. Please give sources of Republican Party funding. A tidbit: Labor unions are the #1 source of Democrat funds.

Of course it does.

Adjusted for inflation, gas is still cheaper today than in 1981.

Debating the libs is like talking to a programed record player.

Therein lies the problem.

The purpose of business should be to provide jobs for people so they can support their families, not to provide bucks for CEOs so they can drive their hummers.

You mean like Milk at 4 bucks a gallon (because of high gas prices) schools shutting down field trips (because of high gas prices) towns laying off cops (because of high gas prices). Wouldn't you rather see the money go to keeping the price low instead of to paying the shareholders of ExxonMobile record profits?

Dodge the issue all you want. Bush & Cheney are allowing their buddies to get rich at your expense. Blindly follow. Go on, you know you must.

I, on the other hand will continue to complain about it. It's just not right.

That line doesn't cut it. Fuel prices of all kinds have shot up at frightening rates. The money isn't going to companies to pull it from the ground like it did in 81. It's going to shareholders and CEO's.

Yet another PKB. Your latest talking point comes right from the GOP website, dumbass. Try thinking on your own. Oh wait, you can't.

Sounds like the smart money would be buying stock in those outrageously profitable companies.

Gary L. Burnore wrote in news:d2u227$s9v$ snipped-for-privacy@astroconsulting.databasix.com:

Then I sugggest you move to a country that uses large amounts of low-paid labor to produce tiny output. Vietnam, China, Zimbabwe all come to mind.

I'm sure you'll enjoy the benefits of low wages and tedious, repetitive, mind numbing, low-output work.

You're telling me that companies should operate themselves as *charities*?

Gary, you're in business. How long would you stay in business if you spent more than you took in? For that mattter, how long would you stay personally financially solvent if you spent more than you took in?

Absolutely. So let's fix it by making it easier for oil companies to build more refineries so the price of gas can go down.

Gary L. Burnore wrote in news:d2u2fe$s9v$ snipped-for-privacy@dimpledchad.databasix.com:

Yes, because of environmental laws.

There's also a strong speculative component in there. Money is flooding into oil because money is flooding into oil. It's a lot like what happened to gold ten years ago when Bre-X was king.

Somebody's gonna lose big-time once that bubble pops.

Of course, because of environmental laws and speculation.

I still have all my old gas fillup books.

May 1981: I paid the equivalent of about $1.11US per US gallon here in Canada. Since spending power has declined some 150% since then what with inflation, taxes and all, that's like $2.78 per gallon now.

May 1982: I paid $1.11US/gal at an Arco across the border in New York.

April 1983: I paid $0.89US/gal, just after Reagan's deregulation took effect. That's about $2.20/gal in today's dollars.

May 1984: $1.19US.

May 1985: $1.60US. What happened in one year?

May 1986: $1.65US. Whatever happened last year is sticking around.

Aug 1987: $1.62US.

May 1988: $1.68US

I see a Michigan fillup in August 1988: $1.10US

May 1989: $1.90US Wow! Is that the effect of the Gulf War?

Now keep in mind those prices after 1983 still need adjustment for inflation and taxes.

"Mark" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

They are. That's part of the problem. Speculators and day traders are climbing on top of the oil bubble just like they did in the heyday of gold ten years ago.

And just like with the gold bubble, a lot of people are going to get hurt when the bubble finally pops, which it probably will eventually.

I'd prefer to see the US as it was even ten years ago. But that won't happen.

You mean instead of becoming one of those unemployed by layoffs so CEO's can get a bigger check?

Cherities? No. Places for people to _EARN_ a living, yes. That worked for a couple hundred years here in the US (excepting slavery of course)

Some times that happens, unfortunately. But the real question is, should I take HUGE pay increases by letting people go? I say no.

Spending less is an option in that case. Picking up extra contracts is what I usually do.

That'd work if the price of gas was high because of the lack of refineries. That's not why it went up so fast. They claim is demand causes the increases but when demand is low, the price doesn't EVER go back down to where it was. The Oil Companies are all reporting record PROFITS. They're not spending the money on ways to make safer, more environment friendly refineries, they're lining their pockets.

Were an oil company to want to build a refinery in my town (doubtful given there's no direct access to a coastline), I'd be all for it and do what I could to make it so.

But I'm also an advocate for finding alternatives to fossil fuels. That's something Bush is dead set against. What reason, other than greed, could there be for such a position?