Taking Aim at Oil's Riches

[gr8fuldaniel]

OK, I finished Osborns post, I have a little trouble with longer posts, my mind drifts some. Its a great post and not in the least boring, (it really is me ).(ADHD?). Basically it says corporations dont necessarily have a right to life. They are not natural living beings. They can be terminated if they try to consume people. If they only benefit a very few people at the extreme expense and detriment of the many, they should be dissolved. Thats my take and I agree completely.

Quote by: brien You blind hatred tends to disqualify you from objective viewpoints.

Blind? I assimilate facts to arrive at conclusions. "Hate" is a pretty strong term that should be reserved for mass murderers and crime syndicates and slave drivers and other scum, like thieves. I try to not let "hate" ruin my life, and it can. I know because I used to be ruled by my hate. Nowadays I try not to be what I hated, and pray for those who are.

Quote by: brien I will blame Americans for doing nothing when they were made aware of the oil situation in the 70's.

Then you always vote the Green Party ticket? BRAVO!! Good for you!

There is a lot to respond to here, but it will have to wait a while. I want to check out other stuff and then get away from the puter for a while.

[Compugasm]

Anyone have an idea why there are still signs for "Self Service" on gas pumps? It's been 25yrs since I've seen any station with full service.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Compugasm Anyone have an idea why there are still signs for "Self Service" on gas pumps? It's been 25yrs since I've seen any station with full service.

Ha!
In Oregon all they have is full service, like the olden days. And no sales tax. Too bad its so damn rainy

[Livemike]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: brien Are the oil companies "allowed" to make a profit? Absolutely. And Enron was allowed to make a profit too. Until they abused the privelege/right. Their monopoly on the California energy market pretty much gave them the PIN number to everycitizen in California. If we didnt pay their asking price, no problem... Rolling Blackout Time. No Problem? That all came about because of deregulation.

No it came about because of hyper-regulation that was called "deregulation" in
the face of all availible evidence. Enron was able to manipulate the market because
the guns of government set up rules that made collusion and price manipulation
profitable. Enron wouldn't have been solved by arbitrary restrictions on maximum
profits without destroying far more beneficial investment.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: brien I spend the money to lease or purchase the land, to drill the well and bring the water to the surface and it doesn't belong to me? Sounds very Communist in theory to me. Well, we need to draw the line somewhere, imo. At what point should the fed step in and say "ENOUGH, it has become extortion" ? We dont have a Free Market as long as the oil cabal artificially jacks prices using their own greed as the only guidelines for regulation.

How can it be extortion without someone threatening something? The difference
between extortion and legitimate profit isn't the amount of money received it's
how it was recieved. The oil companies aren't extorting money, they're selling
for what people are willing to pay. If people weren't willing to pay enough to cover
the companies expenses then they'd be stuffed. In fact the real price of oil typically
goes down until the US does something stupid in the middle east.

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Quote by: brien It is like blaming the drug producer and dealer for the drug addict's dependency upon addictive drugs Not really. The drug addict only "thinks" he needs the product. Even if both his body and mind concur, it doesnt make it true. In todays society they pretty much have us over a barrel. Since we cannot just return to the land as hunters and gatherers, without paying huge licenses, fees, permits, wilderness passes and/or rent/purchase land. Until those government controls are lifted, we have to have affordable fuel to survive as citified folk.

And what qualifies as "affordable"? Half the price you would have paid in 1900?
Considering that you're much richer than you would have been then that seems
affordable to me.
[/quote]
Meanwhile, subsisting on Waldon Pond, I would still suffer from the smog produced by big oil even though I am not consuming their product. And the government is allowing it because they have an ego-centric, immoral, idiot planted in the White House to lock in and insure unfettered greed to rob the American citizens of their bank accts.
[/quote]

It should be noted here that the oil companies usually make less than market ROI.

[Livemike]

Quote by: Milton Bradley You cannot boycott these guys by going to a local Mom, and Pop refinery, there is no such option left.

Because they found Standard Oil could make the product for 25% less and
consumers didn't want to pay 20% more for the warm and fuzzies that buying
from a big corporations instead of a really big one provides. In any case there
are still several companies to buy from, all of them cheaper than a "mom and pop
refinery" would be.

Quote by: Milton Bradley Probably the single biggest contributor to the problems we suffer today is allowing these corporate giants, annd multinationals to trade on the Stock Exchange. When profit became the single goal, operating a corporation that is actually beneficial to community became a page in the history books.

Actually there are plenty of corporations that are actually beneficial to the community.
They are beneficial because they provide what you want at the price at which you
want it? I mean what else is that but a benefit?

Quote by: Milton Bradley When was the last time citizens dissolved a business that did not meet community standards other than bible thumpers going after pornography outlets? I know I cannot offer a single example.

Companies go broke all the time, that's "citizens dissolv[ing] a buisness that did
not meet community standards" of quality and cost. What other standards does the
"community" have a right to impose? Given that the "community" in this context
effectively means the government it has no rights to dictate who people associate
with in buisness. In any case corporations chartered to do something in the
"community" interest were generally corrupt creations of politicians who wanted
to give special priveleges to some organisation to loot the treasury or other citizens.
It is no bad thing that such justifications have died out, if not down.

Quote by: Milton Bradley I am not suggesting that dissolving the oil companies this late in the game is the answer. Just more, or less pointing out how the option has been lost to posterity, and the concept seems foreign to most people today.

And why the hell should you have the right to disolve a relationship you are not a
party to? Who died and made you king? If they are trading peacable then they
have the right to continue doing that as long as people want to trade with them.
Screw you if you don't like the results, I don't butt into your business and tell you
you make too much money.

[Livemike]

Quote by: brien Well there is alot to respond to here. I will keep it short. The main point of my view is that Americans want someone to blame here. And you seem to hate GWB so much you want to hang him with 30 years of indifference by every president who occupied the White House.

For most of those 30 years the price of oil went DOWN, so apparently indifference
was the proper policy. In fact Carter's attempt to manage "energy" was the prime
cause of the gas queues and dispruption. The thing that tends to lift oil prices is
idiotic US intervention in the middle east (is there any other kind?) so yes, we blame
the Shrub.

Quote by: brien You blind hatred tends to disqualify you from objective viewpoints. I think Americans should look in the mirror. When I said for Californians to"shut up already" I meant that they should quit complaining. If they have done everything you say they have done, then all well and good, but maybe it wasn't enough, was it? What is the saying: "Lead, follow or get out of the way." Ted Turner, I believe. As for your comparison to Edison, that is a Red Herring. Americans were warned 30 years ago and they did NOTHING. They had the knowledge, the tools, the incentives and all they lacked was the will. There is no way around it. I refuse to blame anyone for market conditions. I will blame Americans for doing nothing when they were made aware of the oil situation in the 70's. People should hold their politicians responsible when, or if, they used public pressure for alternatives to oil.

Why should the politicians be in charge of deciding what alternatives we use? Do
they have any special knowledge or insight into the economics of energy supply?
If they did what are they doing going into public service when they could make a
mint developing better alternatives?

Quote by: brien Otherwise, shame on us for not repsonding properly to the oil crisis of the 70's. If you were alive then, you know what I mean. If not, well then I suggest you read about it because it was scary enough to predict what is happening today. This is not an individual states problem in oil production. This is an American problem. It doesn't matter where the oil comes from in a world market. I didn't introduce California's problems into the argument, someone else did. I commented on them and I stand by my comments. California knew it needed water since Los Angeles was first developed and the state should have taken steps to insure the proper levels and quality of its water. California can purchase its water from other venues. But they will have to pay for it. Same for electric. That is the part that everyone gets all screwy about, purchasing it. I know nothing about California's water/electric problems but I do know that the state doesn't exist in a vacuum. It must have known that it needed water and electricity to sustain its growth. Any logical person moving into the state must make themselves aware of the problems associated with living there. I, as a East Coaster, know that if I move to LA there is a good chance I will be in a earthquake someday. So I must prepare for that circumstance. And if I don't , who am I going to blame? Me, that's who. If I move into the desert and don't find potable water whose problem is it? Mine, not yours. If California can't provide the basic necessities of life, why do they continue to allow growth? I would say that is quite irresponsible. They need to place a moratorium upon growth until these problems are corrected. But no, the greedy government sees tax dollars that come along with its endorsement of irresponsible growth. If that is what is happening out there, then whose fault is that now? The greedy electric companies, the worn out water companies? No, it is the fault of the government for allowing the growth and the those who participate in such risky development ventures. So big oil polluted the coastline. It has been cleaned up and regulations are in place to safeguard the enviornment, correct? If they aren't, them get them in there. So if Californians hold your opinion that they produce enough oil for themselves, good for them. But who do they sell it to now? To the highest bidder, that is who. Californians are no more entitled to that oil than the Chinese because PRIVATE INDUSTRY leased the land, drilled the well, and refined the products. If the Chinese are willing to pay $80 a barrel, and Californians opt out at $60, then why would you blame the producers for selling to the Chinese? If I drill a water well, and wish to sell my water to the highest bidder, then what right has the government to tell me who I can sell it to, except for reasons of National Security. Sorry you get so defensive about California, but this is really an American problem, not just a Californian one. In summary, all I am writing is that Americans have to be responsible for our own society. We can't depend upon government to protect us from everything in life that is big bad and ugly. Especially economic situations like the current one. Government can play a role but it certainly shouldn't be one like it demonstrated in the tobacco companies transfer of wealth from Corporate America to the state legislatures to line the pockets of crooked politicians. We, as Americans, must hold our legislators accountable for responsible alternative energy development. We must hold them responsible for introducing incentives to produce and refine more oil products to responsibly satisfy demand. We must hold them accountable to set up incentives to responsibly develop, supply and deliver alternative energy. And we need to QUIT assigning blame through blind hatred and political partisianship to a situation that should have been remedied over the last 30 years. Punishing the big oil company solution is wholly anti capitalistic, and even if it were a viable solution, it is 30 years too late.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Alternate Energy Not in Cards at ExxonMobil By James R. Healey, USA TODAY (Yahoo copy) Fri Oct 28, 7:14 AM ET ExxonMobil, which stunned Americans on Thursday by reporting nearly $10 billion in profit for the third quarter, says it has no plans to invest any of those earnings in developing alternative or renewable energy - something other oil companies do. "We're an oil and gas company. In times past, when we tried to get into other businesses, we didn't do it well. We'd rather re-invest in what we know," says Exxon spokesman Dave Gardner. Neither will Exxon significantly step up how much money it puts into finding oil or refining it into gasoline, which could help ease tight supplies that have driven oil and gasoline prices to records this year.

Looks like they only have their own, self-centered greed to guide them.

Everything's just fine (for them) as long as there's no competition.

[bishop]

Quote by: Compugasm Anyone have an idea why there are still signs for "Self Service" on gas pumps? It's been 25yrs since I've seen any station with full service.

they're all full service in jersey and most of massachusetts.

the first time i had to pump my gas was in nyc.. and it was pathetic, because i didn't know what to do at first. heh, but it wasn't all that difficult to figure out either.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I assure you, as soon as they figure a way to install a meter on sunlight, within a week they will have solar cars rolling out of Detroit.

[Osborn F Enready]

gr8fulDaniel said:
OK, I finished Osborns post, I have a little trouble with longer posts, my mind drifts some. Its a great post and not in the least boring, (it really is me ).(ADHD?). Basically it says corporations dont necessarily have a right to life. They are not natural living beings. They can be terminated if they try to consume people. If they only benefit a very few people at the extreme expense and detriment of the many, they should be dissolved. Thats my take and I agree completely.

I say:
And isn't that what this whole argument is about. Monopolization of corporations overtaking citizens needs and wills, at the citizens expense?

That is my whole point.

If people understood that the ROOT of the problem, which is that incorporation USED TO BE at the MERCY of the people, until changed by LAW, we wouldn't be here today.

People need to again, take this decision to court, overturn it, and put corporations BACK in the hands of the citizens, and not the Fed.

The whole point is, honest, forthright corporations would still thrive and exist even better than they do now, but corporations like Wal-Mart, ALL of the oil companies, power companies, etc..... would be at the mercy of the CITIZENS they serve, in regards to the rights of being incorporated.

TIME TO TAKE THEM BACK.

Organize, petition, and rally your local citizens to ADDRESS the real issue. The courts won't listen, nor will your representatives unless you address the REAL problem.

[US Independent]

It is the companies right to make a profit, without profit we would not have gas. But when the gas companies charge consumers an inflated price on gas that they produced and sold at lower price, it becomes a very dangerous issue. For Example: The cost to make and sell oil and still make a profit is $1.75 The gas in those thousand gallon tanks under the gas station were bought at $2.10/gallon, a hurricane batters the coast the next day. The gas station raises their price to $3.00/gallon. There is a $0.90/gallon increase and that is stealing. They could make the same profit with the original price and consumers wouldn't have to eat the bill. It is interesting though, after Exxon, Conoco, etc. publicized their quarterly earnings, everybody got mad at them. In Forsyth, Montana where I live the gas just dropped 20 cents. Makes you wonder what those greedy corporate bastards are doing doesn't it?

[bishop]

as much as it's controversial, exxon isn't running a charity. and, i don't believe they've done anything particularly unethical against consumers in amassing this enormous quarterly profit.

nice that some in congress are trying to tell exxon how to spend its money, but i think it's highly unlikely that they'll build new refineries - particularly since they are notorious for hurting the company's bottom line. if congress really gave a shit, they'd eliminate the unnecessary tax cut gifts they gave exxon in the various bills they've passed (ex. the katrina relief).. they should treat suv's like cars, requiring them to acquiesce to higher cafe standards.. they should cut all the buillshit out of the budget and allocate a good amount to supporting research into renewables (and extending consumption-focused tax breaks)..

at the end of the day, it's a waste of time to concern yourself with the higher profits that any particular oil company made.. they're all making a shitload more than they were 2 years ago because crude's gone up so much. the issue is our dependency on oil - this has always been the real issue. going after a successful company rather than working on the real probelm is straight up retarded..

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop they're all making a shitload more than they were 2 years ago because crude's gone up so much.

Actually the supply has gone up with the new pipelines in afghanistan and the presidential free ride afforded the oil tycoons by EO 13303. When you say "crudes gone up" did you mean production? Because it sounds like you meant the value went up.

[bishop]

yeah.. the price has gone up..

supplies may have increased, but not nearly as fast as the rise in demand. plus, a good amount of newly pumped crude is dirtier/sandy and requires more refining, which drives up the costs. lots of water injection going on too.. so, production hasn't risen as fast as demand and it costs more to pump the oil and more to refine it..

been a while since a decent field has been discovered.. they're just trying to suck the bones dry. that said, we have tons of coal in our country and there's a process where we can liquify it and turn it into gas. i believe our tanks in ww2 used this stuff (although their emissions technology wasn't nearly what it is today).

there will come a point in time, though, when the costs of oil and renewables (like wind/solar) will intersect each other. at that point consumers will switch over. i think we can handle our energy needs when oil's done, but i'm not sure what we can do to replace our plastics and fertilizers.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: bishop and it costs more to pump the oil and more to refine it..

But, it seems like that would dip into their profits.

How would Katrina affect the price of fuel already shipped and in reserves? Seems like gouging to me.

I wouldn't really complain but this affects the price of basically EVERYTHING. Why should a few powerful men be allowed to jack the prices of my bread and butter? Or beef or paper goods? Every friggin thing. Its not just about this last bout either. What is to stop them from doubling petrol AGAIN, now that they know they have support in D.C.?

Good thing for them they got bush and cheney planted firmly as an unjust fulcrum.

[Boetie]

The oil companies is actually a person, because corporations have been ruled to be a legitimate person. Only an insane conservative court could come up with such a ruling.

This person, aka corporation, is either a good citizen or a bad citizen. A bad citizen creates a fake energy crisis for the sole purpose of getting a bad politician ie Cheney to pass a "gouge the taxpayer bill" aka energy bill. This energy bill doesn't solve any problem it just make the energy companies richer. One fails to see the genius in such a bill.

These energy companies are also, war profiteers, disaster profiteers, just plain bad all around. Then we are told by crappy politicians, such as Bush Jr, to sacrifice life and limp, make choices between eating or medicine, etc and we the citizens have yet to see corporations make a single sacrifice.

Instead the corporation gloat about profits they make without having to give to the community. The community which lost sons and daughters, life and limp, health and quality of life all in the name of making these oil companies rich. This sacrifice on the part of the citizens for the sake of making oil companies richer doesn't make sense, in fact it's plain stupid.

[bishop]

Quote by: dan But, it seems like that would dip into their profits. How would Katrina affect the price of fuel already shipped and in reserves? Seems like gouging to me. I wouldn't really complain but this affects the price of basically EVERYTHING. Why should a few powerful men be allowed to jack the prices of my bread and butter? Or beef or paper goods? Every friggin thing. Its not just about this last bout either. What is to stop them from doubling petrol AGAIN, now that they know they have support in D.C.? Good thing for them they got bush and cheney planted firmly as an unjust fulcrum.

oil's one of those things that because it's so inelastic and is a commodity, the costs are easily transferred onto the consumer. whatever costs more for exxon is transferred to the consumer. this is normal, though, and i don't particularly see any wrong in doing this. they're paying more for the stuff and it costs more to refine it.. like i said, they're a business, not a charity..

but, they definitely do not need ANY tax breaks whatsoever. (not to mention the fact that they're hiding billions in taxable profits in the camen islands.)

the federal government needs to get serious about finding an alternative to oil - rather than looking for alternatives to middle eastern oil. and states need to get their act together and begin to do some effective city planning so that we don't have all this ridiculous sprawl. i'm fortunate to live in a place with some incredible public transportation - the only place better is nyc imo. i drive an old beast of a car and i only have to fill my tank up every other week - solely because i use public trans. the europeans showed some real wisdom when they invested in their own public transit systems, too bad we didn't.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel OK, I finished Osborns post, I have a little trouble with longer posts, my mind drifts some. Its a great post and not in the least boring, (it really is me ).(ADHD?). Basically it says corporations dont necessarily have a right to life. They are not natural living beings. They can be terminated if they try to consume people. If they only benefit a very few people at the extreme expense and detriment of the many, they should be dissolved. Thats my take and I agree completely. Blind? I assimilate facts to arrive at conclusions. "Hate" is a pretty strong term that should be reserved for mass murderers and crime syndicates and slave drivers and other scum, like thieves. I try to not let "hate" ruin my life, and it can. I know because I used to be ruled by my hate. Nowadays I try not to be what I hated, and pray for those who are. Then you always vote the Green Party ticket? BRAVO!! Good for you! There is a lot to respond to here, but it will have to wait a while. I want to check out other stuff and then get away from the puter for a while.

You're correct, hate is too strong a word. But from what I read, it seems that GWB is taking the brunt of your frustration over the oil situation. I apologise.
No. I don't vote the Green ticket but I keep my votes to myself, thank you.

[brien]

Quote by: US Independent It is the companies right to make a profit, without profit we would not have gas. But when the gas companies charge consumers an inflated price on gas that they produced and sold at lower price, it becomes a very dangerous issue. For Example: The cost to make and sell oil and still make a profit is $1.75 The gas in those thousand gallon tanks under the gas station were bought at $2.10/gallon, a hurricane batters the coast the next day. The gas station raises their price to $3.00/gallon. There is a $0.90/gallon increase and that is stealing. They could make the same profit with the original price and consumers wouldn't have to eat the bill. It is interesting though, after Exxon, Conoco, etc. publicized their quarterly earnings, everybody got mad at them. In Forsyth, Montana where I live the gas just dropped 20 cents. Makes you wonder what those greedy corporate bastards are doing doesn't it?

I am a little confused here with what you write. You are taking the oil companies to task for a hypothetical situation you have created in your post. If the fuel station owner rasies his/her prices overnight upon speculation and the price of a regular gallon of unleaded increases from $2.10 per gallon to $3.00 per gallon, why are you blaming the oil company. It is the retailer, as you point out, that has bought at $2.00 per gallon, and raised the price on that same supply to $3.00 per gallon. How is the wholesaler repsonsible for this action?

Furthermore, Exxon Mobil earns 75% of their profits from sales abroad, so how do you assign the "gouge?" 25% of the profits should be windfall taxed and 75% is ok because it was not sold in the United States? How do you tax windfall profits upon BP? This type of kneejerk reactionary politics generates mistrust and will cause foreign suppliers to avoid the American market which will in turn backfire and cause ever tighter supplies. There are more reasonable answers rather than taxing "big oil" out of the market.

It is in uncertain times like these when the government and citizens get a little goofy and begin to look around for a bogeyman. Forget about it and get ready for $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Forewarned is forearmed.

[brien]

Quote by: Compugasm Anyone have an idea why there are still signs for "Self Service" on gas pumps? It's been 25yrs since I've seen any station with full service.

Go to NJ. It is mandatory for them to pump your fuel. Also, if you are disabled and can't pump your fuel anywhere in the US, the service station has to pump the fuel at the self service pump price. :)