wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Yeah, another urban myth resurfaces. The tankers waiting offshore
myth was widely circulated, investigated and dismissed as nonsense 3
decades ago. There was gas everywhere again when the Arabs lifted
the embargo. Simple as that.

... and that happened the same day the government lifted price
controls. The gas was here the next day. I suppose they air freighted
it in.

It's possible. We were working in Abu Dhabi, and the well casing was
figured wrong, and we were one joint short. So, they air freighted one
sixty foot long thirty six inch diameter one and one half inch wall
thickness piece of well caisson from Houston to Abu Dhabi.. It's possible
to air lift just about anything.

Steve.

But I don't think they air freighted the gas you mentioned.

On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:
Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

.. . .

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

.. . .

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Edward Markey, and others, voted for HJ RES
114, the Iraqi War Resolution. As a result, George Bush destroyed
Iraq's government and it's infrastructure and took them back to the
stone age, thus insuring that Iraqi will not be able to develop it's
vast oil resources for a long, long time to come. And also insuring
that Bush and his oil Nazis will be laughing all the way to the bank
for a long, long time to come.

The biggest joke of all didn't occur on April Fool's day. It occurred
on October 10, 2002 when Rep. Edward Markey voted for the Iraq War
Resolution.

On Apr 5, 7:16*am, mg wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:



Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

. . .

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

. . .

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Edward Markey, and others, voted for HJ RES
114, the Iraqi War Resolution. As a result, George Bush destroyed
Iraq's government and it's infrastructure and took them back to the
stone age, thus insuring that Iraqi will not be able to develop it's
vast oil resources for a long, long time to come. And also insuring
that Bush and his oil Nazis will be laughing all the way to the bank
for a long, long time to come.

The biggest joke of all didn't occur on April Fool's day. It occurred
on October 10, 2002 when Rep. Edward Markey voted for the Iraq War
Resolution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, after all the emotion, time for a reality check. Iraqi oil output
is now in the range of 2.3 to 2.5mil barrels per day. Before the war,
it was at 3mil and their record was 3.5mil. Hardly the picture
painted above, so who's the biggest joke now? Also, it's quite
amusing how Bush gets blamed by the loonies for having sinister
motives for everything. In the case of oil, it's now Bush's fault
both ways. Usually, it's that the motive for the Iraq war was to get
their oil. This time, it's that it was to eliminate their oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm

Iraq oil output hits a new high

Iraq is aiming to overtake rival oil producer Saudi Arabia
Oil production in Iraq has hit its highest level since former leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in 2003.
Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from a
steady 2 million bpd during the US-led invasion, Iraq's new oil
minister said.

Hussain al-Shahristani added that production was expected to rise to
2.7 million bpd by the end of the year.

"We have been able to break records," he said of the government, which
has been in place for just over a month.

Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record
of 3.5 million bpd.

wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:16 am, mg wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:



Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

Oil at $100 a barrel (42 gals), thats about 2.50 before transportation,
refining, and in NY about .85 tax.
the 3.35 we currently see seems a bargain.

Actual costs Gallon of Gas (California) for March 31, 2008:

Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.06
Crude Oil Cost $2.42
Refinery Cost and Profits $0.48
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.01
State and Local Sales Tax $0.27
State Excise Tax $0.18
Federal Excise Tax $0.18

Retail price $3.61
Net Profit $0.49

Profit Margin 13.5%

If you want to talk about actual "costs" it's an entirely different
animal. Crude prices are drive by commodity rates. Pump prices include
that and taxes, and different levels of profit and labor costs.
If you assume reasonable labor rates along the way, .50 gallon is
probably a realistic cost estimate.

neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...

On Apr 4, 1:52*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...





On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. *DOUBLED. *Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. *You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...10.aspx?Countr...

Year * *Net Inc. * * * *Margin
1998 * *6,370 * 5.41%
1999 * *7,910 * 4.26%
2000 * *17,720 *7.61%
2001 * *15,320 *7.18%
2002 * *11,460 *5.60%
2003 * *21,510 *8.72%
2004 * *25,330 *8.50%
2005 * *36,130 *9.75%
2006 * *39,500 *10.46%
2007 * *40,610 *10.04%

I'll post it again for your stupid ass. *Do try to decipher this
time.

It is now at 10% isn't excessive, only the Socialist. I posted that
said Mobil-Exxon made the most profits of the of *Fortune 500
companies, but was 127th in gross profit margin. Overhead costs
increased every year also which accounts for their increased profits.
You gotta stop being influenced by Liberal Dummycrat talking points.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Overhead costs increased every year also which accounts for their
increased profits"

So tell us, retard, how does increasing overhead costs lead to
increased profitability?

I'll tell you reason why. It appears people are focusing on 4th
quarter sales in 2007 which were lower than
the previous three quarters. The drop in the 4th quarter, doesn't
decrease the profits made in the first 3 quarters. I could explain it
in burger flipping terms, which you may have a better understanding of
the situation, are would you prefer fries with that explanation?

Liberals always skew reality to fit their whine. Example: One year a
previous government entitlement program is increased by 7%, but the
following year Congress wants to increase it by 5%. Liberals will
circle the wagons and whine about a cut in the entitlement.


Please, if you don't know what the **** you're talking about, I
suggest you don't even try.



By the way, retard, only silly neophytes actually try to compare
margins (gross margin, profit margin, etc.) across industries. They
teach you that in any high-school-level business course.

The way it looks, Dummycrats want to go the Hugo Chavez route by
nationalizing oil companies so all profits will go to the central
government.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Jesse wrote in crayon...


Actual costs Gallon of Gas (California) for March 31, 2008:

Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits $0.06
Crude Oil Cost $2.42
Refinery Cost and Profits $0.48
State Underground Storage Tank Fee $0.01
State and Local Sales Tax $0.27
State Excise Tax $0.18
Federal Excise Tax $0.18

Retail price $3.61
Net Profit $0.49

Profit Margin 13.5%

If you want to talk about actual "costs" it's an entirely different
animal. Crude prices are drive by commodity rates. Pump prices include
that and taxes, and different levels of profit and labor costs.
If you assume reasonable labor rates along the way, .50 gallon is
probably a realistic cost estimate.

Raw costs takes up most of the cost when you get to the pump. Where
did you come with .50 a gallon "realistic cost estimate?"

Government does drive up the cost of gasoline.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

wrote in message
...
| On Apr 4, 10:08 pm, wrote:
| On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:54:46 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
| Yeah, another urban myth resurfaces. The tankers waiting offshore
| myth was widely circulated, investigated and dismissed as nonsense 3
| decades ago. There was gas everywhere again when the Arabs lifted
| the embargo. Simple as that.
|
| ... and that happened the same day the government lifted price
| controls. The gas was here the next day. I suppose they air freighted
| it in.
|
| More nonsense. The price of gasoline shot up dramatically during the
| Arab oil embargo, while at the same time there were lines, shortages
| and rationing. I was there, I remember and it's well recorded
| history. It wasn't a price problem, it was a pure supply problem.
| The reference below does a pretty good job at explaining what
| happened. The Arabs cut off 25% of the west's oil supply and you
| attribute gas lines and shortages to a mythical fleet of tankers,
| lurking off shore? The shortages ended in the Spring of 74, when
| the Arab oil embargo ended. BTW, how big of a fleet of tankers do
| you think there is in the world, capable of holding so much oil. An
| endless supply to just store oil in? And your reference for this
| mythical fleet of tankers is?
|
| http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/Hist...ton/horton.htm
|
| "In October of 1973 Middles-eastern OPEC nations stopped exports to
| the US and other western nations. They meant to punish the western
| nations that supported Israel, their foe, in the Yom Kippur War, but
| they also realized the strong influence that they had on the world
| through oil. One of the many results of the embargo was higher oil
| prices all throughout the western world, particularly in America.
|
| The immediate results of the Oil Crisis were dramatic. Prices of
| gasoline quadrupled, rising from just 25 cents to over a dollar in
| just a few months. The American Automobile Association recorded that
| up to twenty percent of the country's gas stations had no fuel one
| week during the crisis. In some places drivers were forced to wait in
| line for two to three hours to get gas (Frum, p.320). The total
| consumption of oil in the U.S. dropped twenty percent.re nonsense. "

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

A few years ago Shell oil announced it was closing a California
refinery on the grounds that it was not economically feasible to
continue operations. They also refused bids from potential buyers until
they were faced with investigations from the FTC and the state
attorney-general.

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

On Apr 5, 8:06 am, wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:16 am, mg wrote:



On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:

Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

. . .

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

. . .

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Edward Markey, and others, voted for HJ RES
114, the Iraqi War Resolution. As a result, George Bush destroyed
Iraq's government and it's infrastructure and took them back to the
stone age, thus insuring that Iraqi will not be able to develop it's
vast oil resources for a long, long time to come. And also insuring
that Bush and his oil Nazis will be laughing all the way to the bank
for a long, long time to come.

The biggest joke of all didn't occur on April Fool's day. It occurred
on October 10, 2002 when Rep. Edward Markey voted for the Iraq War
Resolution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, after all the emotion, time for a reality check. Iraqi oil output
is now in the range of 2.3 to 2.5mil barrels per day. Before the war,
it was at 3mil and their record was 3.5mil. Hardly the picture
painted above, so who's the biggest joke now? Also, it's quite
amusing how Bush gets blamed by the loonies for having sinister
motives for everything. In the case of oil, it's now Bush's fault
both ways. Usually, it's that the motive for the Iraq war was to get
their oil. This time, it's that it was to eliminate their oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm

Iraq oil output hits a new high

Iraq is aiming to overtake rival oil producer Saudi Arabia
Oil production in Iraq has hit its highest level since former leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in 2003.
Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from a
steady 2 million bpd during the US-led invasion, Iraq's new oil
minister said.

Hussain al-Shahristani added that production was expected to rise to
2.7 million bpd by the end of the year.

"We have been able to break records," he said of the government, which
has been in place for just over a month.

Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record
of 3.5 million bpd.

Iraq, by some estimates, has as much or more oil reserves as Saudi
Arabia and as long as the Bush family has it's way, Iraq will never
get the chance to develop and produce that oil in high quantities.

Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?
You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

Can you support it?

George Grapman wrote:
A few years ago Shell oil announced it was closing a California
refinery on the grounds that it was not economically feasible to
continue operations. They also refused bids from potential buyers until
they were faced with investigations from the FTC and the state
attorney-general.


Which proves nothing.

Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?
You can support this claim?
Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..
I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

In this thread, I have expressed no opinion, rather I am seeking
information.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

The please provide the support.

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In article ,
Kurt Lochner wrote:


Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In otherwords, no you can't. And do a very nice job of trying to
deflect the question back.

On Apr 5, 4:12*pm, Jesse wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 5, 7:16 am, mg wrote:
On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:

Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

Oil at $100 a barrel (42 gals), thats about 2.50 before transportation,
refining, and in NY about .85 tax.
the 3.35 we currently see seems a bargain.

When you consider that the best grade of oil will produce less than 21
gallons of gasoline from each barrel the price isn't so bad. If the
oil companies had not found so many different products that could be
produced from crude oil, the price would be much higher. The
unfortunate part is that when the price of crude goes up so too does
the price of virtually every other product made from oil byproducts.

In article ,
Kurt Lochner wrote:

Blurt Nullman writhed in denials when:

Wut a maroon.



There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

Yep. Especially since Enron

In article ,
Kurt Lochner wrote:

Blurt Nullman writhed in denials when:

Is this the best you can do? Wut a maroon.


Kurt Lochner restored the following quotes:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits
on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check
the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to
be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most
went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have
any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and
TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported
oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In otherwords, [..]

There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

Nope. Since Enron wasn't in play during the time of the initial
statement that all of this oil was sitting in tankers during the energy
crisis that occurred WAY before it appeared. Also, Enron has nothin' to
do with oil. (See above)
Rather hamhanded, and rather lame attempt to move the discussion
into left field (or heck probably completely out of the ballpark.
Especially since the question wasn't asked of you in the first place.

On Apr 6, 11:45*am, Kurt Lochner
wrote:
David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. *Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. *Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. *Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. *HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in *La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. *Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are many factors in the refinery capacity equation that are not
entirely within oil company control. Federal and State regulations
have made it almost impossible to build new refineries or in some
cases add capacity to existing units. Refineries are very dependant
on specific grades of crude oil and are not easily addaptable to
differing grades. When the specific crude grades are not available,
the refinery can not operate. Now we are seeing requirements for
different formulations in different parts of the country that make it
even more difficult for the refinery to produce at capacity. Add to
that the "Not in my backyard!" mentality of the public throughout the
country and we are getting what we asked for.

On Apr 6, 11:31*am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. *Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. *Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. *Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. *HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in *La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?
You can support this claim?
Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..
I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

In this thread, I have expressed no opinion, rather I am seeking
information.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. *Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

The please provide the support.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Can't say that I agree with the "corrupt business practices" statement
but there have been some isolated cases. More to the point might be
some really bone headed business decisions. Shell Oil is a good
example of that very point. Few years back Shell decided that the
West Texas Gathering system was on the decline and it would be an
advantagous time to unload it while they could maximize the value.
The West Texas Gathering system (pipeline) was the primary source for
their Deer Park Refinery. Deer Park was dependent on a light sweet
crude that was the main product of west Texas.

The CEO of the pipeline division decided it would benefit the company
(or was it to benefit his retirement?) to unload this pipeline which
he did. What he didn't think about was what would happen to the
feedstock that Deer Park was dependent on. The new ower of the
pipeline and gathering system immediately pulled the operations and
accounting out of Shell. It also hooked up a new pipeline to its own
refinery in another part of the state and subsequently shut down the
flow to Deer Park. The end result...Deer Park had to be shut down for
quite a while and major modification made to try and revamp the
refinery for a different crude.

Dumb business decisions are not corrupt business practices just dumb
and all companies make them. For the most part, oil companies are
just organizations made up of thousands of honest people trying their
best to do a good job. Within every organization there will be a few
bad apples that can give the entire organization a bad rap. Enron was
just such an organization. The majority of employees at Enron were
honest hard working employees that didn't deserve what happened to
them. They were just as much victims as were the consumers that the
were victimized by the actions of a few.

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

In this thread, I have expressed no opinion [..]

If you were actually 'seeking information' you would find it,
yet I've some cause to doubt your word on that matter..

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

The please provide the support.

I don't have to, as it's a matter of hearings and court records..

--Which you cannot disprove..

Blurt Nullman writhed in denials when:

Kurt Lochner restored the following quotes:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In otherwords, [..]

There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

"David Hartung" wrote in message
. ..
| NotMe wrote:
|
| It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
| decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the
jump in
| the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
| beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for
dead
| storage of fuel.
|
| More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
| left to store the output.
|
| Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into
the
| Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil'
that
| was not under price controls?
|
| You can support this claim?

Personal observation. At one time I had the electronic navigation logs
which were given to the feds.

Kurt Lochner wrote:
Blurt Nullman writhed in denials when:
Kurt Lochner restored the following quotes:
David Hartung wrote:
Kurt Lochner wrote:
David Hartung wrote:
NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?
You can support this claim?
Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..
I don't know that he can't, I am asking.
I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?
To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..
In otherwords, [..]

There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

Which has nothing to do with the 70s oil shortages, which I believe is
what we have been discussing.

NotMe wrote:
"David Hartung" wrote in message
. ..
| NotMe wrote:
|
| It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
| decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the
jump in
| the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
| beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for
dead
| storage of fuel.
|
| More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
| left to store the output.
|
| Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into
the
| Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil'
that
| was not under price controls?
|
| You can support this claim?

Personal observation. At one time I had the electronic navigation logs
which were given to the feds.

I see.

Why should I believe you?

On Apr 5, 4:07*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...





On Apr 4, 1:52*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...

On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. *DOUBLED. *Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. *You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...10.aspx?Countr....

Year * *Net Inc. * * * *Margin
1998 * *6,370 * 5.41%
1999 * *7,910 * 4.26%
2000 * *17,720 *7.61%
2001 * *15,320 *7.18%
2002 * *11,460 *5.60%
2003 * *21,510 *8.72%
2004 * *25,330 *8.50%
2005 * *36,130 *9.75%
2006 * *39,500 *10.46%
2007 * *40,610 *10.04%

I'll post it again for your stupid ass. *Do try to decipher this
time.

It is now at 10% isn't excessive, only the Socialist. I posted that
said Mobil-Exxon made the most profits of the of *Fortune 500
companies, but was 127th in gross profit margin. Overhead costs
increased every year also which accounts for their increased profits.
You gotta stop being influenced by Liberal Dummycrat talking points.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Overhead costs increased every year also which accounts for their
increased profits"

So tell us, retard, how does increasing overhead costs lead to
increased profitability?

I'll tell you reason why. It appears people are focusing on 4th
quarter sales in 2007 which were lower than
the previous three quarters. The drop in the 4th quarter, doesn't
decrease the profits made in the first 3 quarters. I could explain it
in burger flipping terms, which you may have a better understanding of
the situation, *are would you prefer fries with that explanation?

Liberals always skew reality to fit their whine. Example: One year a
previous government entitlement program is increased by 7%, but the
following year Congress wants to increase it by 5%. Liberals will
circle the wagons and whine about a cut in the entitlement.



Please, if you don't know what the **** you're talking about, I
suggest you don't even try.

By the way, retard, only silly neophytes actually try to compare
margins (gross margin, profit margin, etc.) across industries. *They
teach you that in any high-school-level business course.

The way it looks, Dummycrats want to go the Hugo Chavez route by
nationalizing oil companies so all profits will go to the central
government.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

God what a convoluted, imbecilic response. 4th quarter sales? Hugo
Chavez? Entitlement programs? Focus, you ****ing illiterate. F-O-C-U-
S.

I wasn't focusing on any particular quarter, nitwit. I was providing
ANNUAL profitability margins for XOM. Annual profitability margins
(ROE, Net Income Margin, etc.) have doubled in the last 10 years. You
keep missing that point nitwit.

You are however, the first person in recorded history to claim that
increased overhead costs lead to increased profitability. You even go
the extra step of (feebly, haphazardly, tangentially) trying to back
that claim up.

neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...

On Apr 5, 4:07*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...





On Apr 4, 1:52*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
neoconis_ignoramus wrote in crayon...

On Apr 3, 4:41*pm, VRWC Destruction Machine
wrote:
George Grapman wrote in crayon...

SteveB wrote:
The oil companies make 8 cents a gallon. *Various governments tax it over a
dollar a gallon. *Do the math, you ****ing genius.

Steve

* So why do the companies show record profits?

Record sales, you idiot. If you flipped 50 Burgers on your shift one
day and you flipped a 100 burgers the next day. It stands to reason
your fast food restaurant made more the second day. The reason why you
don't know that you might not have been elevated from the take out
window.

It's a shame your lemonade stand didn't make any profit, Curious
George.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

Um, nitwit, as I posted earlier, XOM's profit margins have almost
doubled in the last 10 years. *DOUBLED. *Know that that means,
nitwit?

Oh, as an added bonus, Operating Margin and ROE have MORE THAN DOUBLED
in that same timeframe. *You have any clue what that means, nitwit?
Why, of course you don't.

Your assertion that XOM's profts are a result of more sales is
patently ****ing false, but then again, most everything you write is
false, because it's based on uninformed kook conjecture or factoids
spewed from your repuke sources of "information".

http://quicktake.morningstar.com/Sto...10.aspx?Countr...

Year * *Net Inc. * * * *Margin
1998 * *6,370 * 5.41%
1999 * *7,910 * 4.26%
2000 * *17,720 *7.61%
2001 * *15,320 *7.18%
2002 * *11,460 *5.60%
2003 * *21,510 *8.72%
2004 * *25,330 *8.50%
2005 * *36,130 *9.75%
2006 * *39,500 *10.46%
2007 * *40,610 *10.04%

I'll post it again for your stupid ass. *Do try to decipher this
time.

It is now at 10% isn't excessive, only the Socialist. I posted that
said Mobil-Exxon made the most profits of the of *Fortune 500
companies, but was 127th in gross profit margin. Overhead costs
increased every year also which accounts for their increased profits.
You gotta stop being influenced by Liberal Dummycrat talking points.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Overhead costs increased every year also which accounts for their
increased profits"

So tell us, retard, how does increasing overhead costs lead to
increased profitability?

I'll tell you reason why. It appears people are focusing on 4th
quarter sales in 2007 which were lower than
the previous three quarters. The drop in the 4th quarter, doesn't
decrease the profits made in the first 3 quarters. I could explain it
in burger flipping terms, which you may have a better understanding of
the situation, *are would you prefer fries with that explanation?

Liberals always skew reality to fit their whine. Example: One year a
previous government entitlement program is increased by 7%, but the
following year Congress wants to increase it by 5%. Liberals will
circle the wagons and whine about a cut in the entitlement.



Please, if you don't know what the **** you're talking about, I
suggest you don't even try.

By the way, retard, only silly neophytes actually try to compare
margins (gross margin, profit margin, etc.) across industries. *They
teach you that in any high-school-level business course.

The way it looks, Dummycrats want to go the Hugo Chavez route by
nationalizing oil companies so all profits will go to the central
government.
-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

God what a convoluted, imbecilic response. 4th quarter sales? Hugo
Chavez? Entitlement programs? Focus, you ****ing illiterate. F-O-C-U-
S.

I wasn't focusing on any particular quarter, nitwit. I was providing
ANNUAL profitability margins for XOM. Annual profitability margins
(ROE, Net Income Margin, etc.) have doubled in the last 10 years. You
keep missing that point nitwit.

You are however, the first person in recorded history to claim that
increased overhead costs lead to increased profitability. You even go
the extra step of (feebly, haphazardly, tangentially) trying to back
that claim up.

So it was 4th quarter sales that made the difference.

-

Mitchell Holman thinks he is the greatest thing on
Usenet since Muhammed al Gore invented the Internet.
If Usenet revolves around Mitchie-Boy Holman why
won't he answer a simple question?

Who gives a rat's ass who Mitchell Holman is?

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

Inert Dullman writhed in denials when:

Kurt Lochner restored the following quotes:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In otherwords, [..]

There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

Which has nothing to do with the 70s oil shortages,

History's lessons do seems missed upon you, David..

which I believe is what we have been discussing.

You mean "Oil chiefs say high prices not [their] fault"?

--See subject header for confirmation..

Inert Dullman defeated, deleted and bleated ignorantly at:

Kurt Lochner restored the original text/context deleted by:

Inert Dullman writhed in denials when:

Kurt Lochner restored the following quotes:

David Hartung wrote:

Kurt Lochner wrote:

David Hartung wrote:

NotMe wrote:

It was a manufactured shortage. Check the re-commission permits on
decommissioned storage tanks in closed services stations. Check the jump in
the number of fuel barges build for fuel transport. Happened to be FAR
beyond the number of boats available to move them. HINT most went for dead
storage of fuel.

More than one refinery almost closed because they did not have any place
left to store the output.

Want to guess how much crude was moved from terminals in La and TX into the
Gulf of Mexico beyond the 12 mile limit and returned as 'imported oil' that
was not under price controls?

You can support this claim?

Why do you think he can't, David?

--Hrmmm?..

I don't know that he can't, I am asking.

I see that you're again dodging a simple question about the basis
for your opinion(s) regarding this matter.

Can you support it?

To a certain extent, though 'resources' for that information
are somewhat limited. Unfortunately for you, the oil companies
have an established record of corrupt business practices by
energy companies, such as Enron, to 'artificially' inflate the
price of 'energy'..

--In particular, decreasing refinery capacity of late..

In otherwords, [..]

There's no "in other words" to it..

--Do I need to point you to the Enron case and court records?

Yep. Especially since Enron

http://www.chron.com/news/specials/enron/timeline.html

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/enron/

http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/13/news...ion=2006011818

--Get back to us when you've read some history..

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:18:45 -0600, Kurt Lochner wrote:

Jesus guys, can we elevate the discussion a little bit? If you guys would
swagger a little less, and put a little more effort into your research,
I'd find the discussion interesting (although off topic, what does this
have to do with home repair?).

Oil companies are thoroughly selfish entities, with a long standing record
of disregard for the law, not to mention human rights, the environment
(and the children who inherent the ****ed up planet their constructing),
etc. I completely agree.

On the other hand, if you make a claim, you should be able to back it up.
If you can't, you have to qualify your claims by saying that your sources
are unreliable (your personal human memory and judgement, like mine, are
unreliable). If you admit what parts of your argument are verifiable
fact, and what parts are conjecture, analysis, and conclusion, you improve
your own credibility, while at the same time you force yourself to look at
how sound your opinions and conclusions really are.

Is todays oil shortage manufactured? Well, it could be. I certainly
wouldn't put it past the oil companies. On the other hand I have yet to
see any convincing evidence to support the claim.

On a side note, I'm oh so tired of this "Al Gore claimed he invented the
internet" meme. If you pull that lame-ass joke, you are just showing that
you don't bother to research your claims. I was watching the political
campaign where that lie got propagated, so I can verify it first hand.
But since I'm not a reliable source, consider snopes.com:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

What Al Gore did say was:

"During my service in the U.S. congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole
range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's
economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in out
educational system".

Okay, his phrasing is crappy, but he's not saying he 'invented' the
internet. What he is claiming, and accurately, is that he was partially
responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for the technology
which makes up the internet. All the other bull**** political spin. It
amazes me that people are still willing to parade their willfull ignorance
in an attempt to further propagate this myth.

"glen stark" wrote in message

What Al Gore did say was:

"During my service in the U.S. congress, I took the initiative in
creating the Internet.


Well, WTF does that say? He's just another political buffoon trying to take
credit for everything that happened during his life.

glen stark wrote:
On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:18:45 -0600, Kurt Lochner wrote:

Jesus guys, can we elevate the discussion a little bit? If you guys would
swagger a little less, and put a little more effort into your research,
I'd find the discussion interesting (although off topic, what does this
have to do with home repair?).

Oil companies are thoroughly selfish entities, with a long standing record
of disregard for the law, not to mention human rights, the environment
(and the children who inherent the ****ed up planet their constructing),
etc. I completely agree.


Oil companies are no more (or less) selfish as an organization than
any other corporate or private entity that must compete to exist. The
environmental record of the oil companies is also a factor of the
competition and the very nature of the product. Worldwide though, the
worst environmental record for the oil producers can more often be
traced to the government operated oil producers that to the commercial
producers.

On the other hand, if you make a claim, you should be able to back it up.
If you can't, you have to qualify your claims by saying that your sources
are unreliable (your personal human memory and judgement, like mine, are
unreliable). If you admit what parts of your argument are verifiable
fact, and what parts are conjecture, analysis, and conclusion, you improve
your own credibility, while at the same time you force yourself to look at
how sound your opinions and conclusions really are.

Is todays oil shortage manufactured? Well, it could be. I certainly
wouldn't put it past the oil companies. On the other hand I have yet to
see any convincing evidence to support the claim.


There is still a tremendous amount of oil in the world, probably more
than enough to last a couple of hundred years IF all of it could be
recovered. The problem is not how much oil is left in the world, the
problem is recovering and using that oil. The cheap, easily
recoverable oil has been found and is being exploited already. Whats
left, and there is a lot of it, is not economically recoverable or
will require technology not yet developed to recover it. The cost of
recovery will not be cheap. There are dozens of finds in the Gulf of
Mexico alone that have been drilled, tested and capped because the
proven reserves available were not enough to justify the millions or
billions of dollars that would be required to produce from the find.
As the price of crude oil climbs those fields may yet find
justification for pruduction but only if the oil companies can expect
the price to remain stable.

On Apr 6, 1:46*am, mg wrote:
On Apr 5, 8:06 am, wrote:





On Apr 5, 7:16 am, mg wrote:

On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:

Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

. . .

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

. . .

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Edward Markey, and others, voted for HJ RES
114, the Iraqi War Resolution. As a result, George Bush destroyed
Iraq's government and it's infrastructure and took them back to the
stone age, thus insuring that Iraqi will not be able to develop it's
vast oil resources for a long, long time to come. And also insuring
that Bush and his oil Nazis will be laughing all the way to the bank
for a long, long time to come.

The biggest joke of all didn't occur on April Fool's day. It occurred
on October 10, 2002 when Rep. Edward Markey voted for the Iraq War
Resolution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, after all the emotion, time for a reality check. *Iraqi oil output
is now in the range of 2.3 to 2.5mil barrels per day. *Before the war,
it was at 3mil and their record was 3.5mil. * Hardly the picture
painted above, so who's the biggest joke now? * Also, it's quite
amusing how Bush gets blamed by the loonies for having sinister
motives for everything. * In the case of oil, it's now Bush's fault
both ways. * Usually, it's that the motive for the Iraq war was to get
their oil. * This time, it's that it was to eliminate their oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm

Iraq oil output hits a new high

Iraq is aiming to overtake rival oil producer Saudi Arabia
Oil production in Iraq has hit its highest level since former leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in 2003.
Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from a
steady 2 million bpd during the US-led invasion, Iraq's new oil
minister said.

Hussain al-Shahristani added that production was expected to rise to
2.7 million bpd by the end of the year.

"We have been able to break records," he said of the government, which
has been in place for just over a month.

Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record
of 3.5 million bpd.

Iraq, by some estimates, has as much or more oil reserves as Saudi
Arabia and as long as the Bush family has it's way, Iraq will never
get the chance to develop and produce that oil in high quantities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nonsense has been thoroughly discredited, but i see you're back.

Iraq had decades under Sadam to develop and produce all the oil they
could without anything at all to do with the USA. The most they
managed, was 3.5 mil brl/day. Right now, it's about 2.5. Yeah, I'm
sure with more development, they will eventually get the flow rate
up. But to attribute this to the Bush family is nonsense. The new
Iraqi govt is in charge of deciding how to share the oil and what to
do with it, not Bush. Most other kooks have been running around
for years claiming the war was to take their oil. This new one,
claiming Bush is preventing it from flowing, is totally baseless and
without evidence. Before the war, it was 3mil/brl a day and now it's
2.5. Big deal.

BTW, if Bush is so all powerful, why is it that we're not drilling in
ANWR or in 80% of the offshore USA?

In article ,
Kurt Lochner wrote:

gl
Well, I've had some 'luck' as regards finding proper 'cites'
into the "oil embargo" of the '70's, particularly the kinds
of instrumentation that was developed to catch 'cheaters'
so far as the storage systems involved..

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/inventions.html

1974
Method for remote inventory of oil storage tanks.
During the Arab oil embargo the oil companies were thought to be
hoarding gas and oil by fudging the inventory reports they had
to furnish to the government. Instead of the Energy Department’s
costly plan to send a thousand FBI agents to crawl inside the
tanks, Bill used an infrared video camera to measure the oil
level of tanks.
This said because it was thought he developed. Never said that he
actually found anything. Not really any more responsive than the other
replies.

On Apr 8, 8:24 am, wrote:
On Apr 6, 1:46 am, mg wrote:



On Apr 5, 8:06 am, wrote:

On Apr 5, 7:16 am, mg wrote:

On Apr 1, 6:34 pm, wrote:

Oil chiefs say high prices not our fault

By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

. . .

"On April Fool's Day, the biggest joke of all is being played on
American families by Big Oil," Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said,
aiming his remarks at the five executives sitting shoulder-to-shoulder
in a congressional hearing room.

"Our earnings, although high in absolute terms, need to be viewed in
the context of the scale and cyclical, long-term nature of our
industry as well as the huge investment requirements," said J.S.
Simon, senior vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp., which made a record
$40 billion last year.

. . .

On October 10, 2002, Rep. Edward Markey, and others, voted for HJ RES
114, the Iraqi War Resolution. As a result, George Bush destroyed
Iraq's government and it's infrastructure and took them back to the
stone age, thus insuring that Iraqi will not be able to develop it's
vast oil resources for a long, long time to come. And also insuring
that Bush and his oil Nazis will be laughing all the way to the bank
for a long, long time to come.

The biggest joke of all didn't occur on April Fool's day. It occurred
on October 10, 2002 when Rep. Edward Markey voted for the Iraq War
Resolution.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, after all the emotion, time for a reality check. Iraqi oil output
is now in the range of 2.3 to 2.5mil barrels per day. Before the war,
it was at 3mil and their record was 3.5mil. Hardly the picture
painted above, so who's the biggest joke now? Also, it's quite
amusing how Bush gets blamed by the loonies for having sinister
motives for everything. In the case of oil, it's now Bush's fault
both ways. Usually, it's that the motive for the Iraq war was to get
their oil. This time, it's that it was to eliminate their oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5117170.stm

Iraq oil output hits a new high

Iraq is aiming to overtake rival oil producer Saudi Arabia
Oil production in Iraq has hit its highest level since former leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in 2003.
Production has risen to 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) from a
steady 2 million bpd during the US-led invasion, Iraq's new oil
minister said.

Hussain al-Shahristani added that production was expected to rise to
2.7 million bpd by the end of the year.

"We have been able to break records," he said of the government, which
has been in place for just over a month.

Before the war, output was around 3 million bpd, peaking at a record
of 3.5 million bpd.

Iraq, by some estimates, has as much or more oil reserves as Saudi
Arabia and as long as the Bush family has it's way, Iraq will never
get the chance to develop and produce that oil in high quantities.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nonsense has been thoroughly discredited, but i see you're back.

Iraq had decades under Sadam to develop and produce all the oil they
could without anything at all to do with the USA. The most they
managed, was 3.5 mil brl/day. Right now, it's about 2.5. Yeah, I'm
sure with more development, they will eventually get the flow rate
up. But to attribute this to the Bush family is nonsense. The new
Iraqi govt is in charge of deciding how to share the oil and what to
do with it, not Bush. Most other kooks have been running around
for years claiming the war was to take their oil. This new one,
claiming Bush is preventing it from flowing, is totally baseless and
without evidence. Before the war, it was 3mil/brl a day and now it's
2.5. Big deal.

BTW, if Bush is so all powerful, why is it that we're not drilling in
ANWR or in 80% of the offshore USA?

"The Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), originally called the Turkish
Petroleum Company, had a virtual monopoly on all oil exploration in
Iraq in 1952. From the time that oil was discovered in Kirkuk in 1927
to the time that oil was discovered in Basra in 1938, very little
actual oil production was done. This was partially due to the low
global prices, and partly due to the fact that the multinational oil
companies that controlled the IPC (read, Texas Oil Companies) didn't
share Iraq's interests. It's this history of intentional oil
production suppression in Iraq that lends credibility to the claim by
Greg Palast that we didn't invade iraq to steal their oil, but instead
to keep it in the ground.
.. . .
By coincidence, the CIA tried to kill Qassim again this year. But then
Qassim took it a step further . . . In 1961 Qassim demanded an
increase to the government's share of profits and to allow the
government 20 percent participation share of the company. The IPC
refused both demands. In response Qassim nationalized 99.5% of its
concession areas in Iraq, leaving only actively oil producing areas in
company control. He also put in motion what would be the Iraq National
Oil Company. . ."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9...815/830/249370

"Oil Companies Hold Down Production in Iraq
By John M. Blair
The following is an excerpt from The Control of Oil (New York:
Pantheon, 1977).

In this excerpt, John Blair shows how the US and UK companies held
down production in their Iraq concessions, in order to maximize their
worldwide profits. In spite of protests from the Iraq government, and
opposition from their French partner, the Anglo-American companies
maintained this policy until nationalization in 1972. In the last part
of this excerpt, we see the active role of the US State Department in
defending the oil companies' interests. . ."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...76blairoil.htm
http://www.amazon.com/control-oil-Jo.../dp/0394725328

glen stark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:18:45 -0600, Kurt Lochner wrote:

Jesus guys, can we elevate the discussion a little bit?

Well, I've tried in the past..

If you guys would swagger a little less, and put a little more
effort into your research, I'd find the discussion interesting
(although off topic, what does this have to do with home repair?).

Well, I've had some 'luck' as regards finding proper 'cites'
into the "oil embargo" of the '70's, particularly the kinds
of instrumentation that was developed to catch 'cheaters'
so far as the storage systems involved..

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/inventions.html

1974
Method for remote inventory of oil storage tanks.
During the Arab oil embargo the oil companies were thought to be
hoarding gas and oil by fudging the inventory reports they had
to furnish to the government. Instead of the Energy Department’s
costly plan to send a thousand FBI agents to crawl inside the
tanks, Bill used an infrared video camera to measure the oil
level of tanks.

1973
Devised a computerized means of connecting potential car pool
riders with one another and called the idea "Dial-a-Ride".
While simple, almost free, and elegant, the idea was never used
because government agencies were already salivating over a promised
$50 million to create a similar (but far less-effective) system.

As regards alt.home.repair, I'm considering a new roof and the
possible installation of solar heating and photovoltaics as an
"improvement" on my house, but that's rather tangential..

On the other hand, if you make a claim, you should be able to back
it up. If you can't, you have to qualify your claims by saying that
your sources are unreliable (your personal human memory and judgement,
like mine, are unreliable). If you admit what parts of your argument
are verifiable fact, and what parts are conjecture, analysis, and
conclusion, you improve your own credibility, while at the same time
you force yourself to look at how sound your opinions and conclusions
really are.

Two words.. Choir loft..

Is todays oil shortage manufactured? Well, it could be.

The refinery capacity seems to have been left alone, if not left
"unimproved" for a variety of excuses, most of them 'economical'
as we stampede into the 'undiscovered country'..

I certainly wouldn't put it past the oil companies. On the other
hand I have yet to see any convincing evidence to support the claim.

And I have doubts that we'll see much of it on the Internet until
after it's too late.. So, I'm fixing up the house, replacing some
sockets (if I can find them today in the attic), most of the 'mouths'
I feed electricity to are now on switched outlets to reduce any drain
or 'keep alive' current, and some UPS stuff is finally getting hooked
up where I needed it..

On a side note, I'm oh so tired of this "Al Gore claimed he invented
the internet" meme.

Gads! Me too..

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

--'Nuff said..

Inert Dullman defeated, deleted and bleated ignorantly at:

Kurt Lochner restored the original text/context deleted by:

glen stark wrote:

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:18:45 -0600, Kurt Lochner wrote:

Jesus guys, can we elevate the discussion a little bit?

Well, I've tried in the past..

If you guys would swagger a little less, and put a little more
effort into your research, I'd find the discussion interesting
(although off topic, what does this have to do with home repair?).

Well, I've had some 'luck' as regards finding proper 'cites'
into the "oil embargo" of the '70's, particularly the kinds
of instrumentation that was developed to catch 'cheaters'
so far as the storage systems involved..

http://www.pushback.com/Wattenburg/inventions.html

1974
Method for remote inventory of oil storage tanks.
During the Arab oil embargo the oil companies were thought to be
hoarding gas and oil by fudging the inventory reports they had
to furnish to the government. Instead of the Energy Department’s
costly plan to send a thousand FBI agents to crawl inside the
tanks, Bill used an infrared video camera to measure the oil
level of tanks.

1973
Devised a computerized means of connecting potential car pool
riders with one another and called the idea "Dial-a-Ride".
While simple, almost free, and elegant, the idea was never used
because government agencies were already salivating over a promised
$50 million to create a similar (but far less-effective) system.

As regards alt.home.repair, I'm considering a new roof and the
possible installation of solar heating and photovoltaics as an
"improvement" on my house, but that's rather tangential..

On the other hand, if you make a claim, you should be able to back
it up. If you can't, you have to qualify your claims by saying that
your sources are unreliable (your personal human memory and judgement,
like mine, are unreliable). If you admit what parts of your argument
are verifiable fact, and what parts are conjecture, analysis, and
conclusion, you improve your own credibility, while at the same time
you force yourself to look at how sound your opinions and conclusions
really are.

Two words.. Choir loft..

Is todays oil shortage manufactured? Well, it could be.

The refinery capacity seems to have been left alone, if not left
"unimproved" for a variety of excuses, most of them 'economical'
as we stampede into the 'undiscovered country'..

I certainly wouldn't put it past the oil companies. On the other
hand I have yet to see any convincing evidence to support the claim.

And I have doubts that we'll see much of it on the Internet until
after it's too late.. So, I'm fixing up the house, replacing some
sockets (if I can find them today in the attic), most of the 'mouths'
I feed electricity to are now on switched outlets to reduce any drain
or 'keep alive' current, and some UPS stuff is finally getting hooked
up where I needed it..

On a side note, I'm oh so tired of this "Al Gore claimed he invented
the internet" meme.

Gads! Me too..

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

--'Nuff said..

This said because it was thought he developed. Never said[..]

Would you please translate your babbling into English..

--That might make it more cogent, though I have my doubts..

On Apr 6, 9:32 pm, Kunt Loadturd the returd Kunt
with tears falling ****:

[More "got nothing" from the descendant of Oklahoma retards flushed]

they don't call it Kunt Loadturd the returd for nothing...it drivels
on and on...

How many sockpuppets are you using today, loadturd?