"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
world supply...

That's maybe the saving grace ... the proven reserves we don't tap now
remain for more sane times, or for the Chinese when we're gone.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Leon wrote:

"Hank" wrote in message
. ..

I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
build
refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income
for
the year (past years).

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand.

OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
world supply...


Considering that Exxon estimates that we have only used 1/3 of the world
reserves I don't think I am going to be around to see us be in control.
We'll only be around to see us go broke.

On Apr 26, 8:30 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...



On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Leon wrote:

....

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand.

OTOH, if we burn everybody else's oil up first, we would control the
world supply...

Considering that Exxon estimates that we have only used 1/3 of the world
reserves I don't think I am going to be around to see us be in control.
We'll only be around to see us go broke.

What matters is not how much we've used, it's how fast we are using it
up.

Last I heard, the Canada tar sands alone were enough to keep the US
supplied at the present rate for 'a long time' (e.g. I don't remember
the
number, but it was like 50 years or more).

The OPEC quotas are based, at least in part, on each member nation's
remaining reserves, which encourages each to exaggerate those
estimates.

I wonder if there is any similar advantage for Exxon?

--

FF

"Leon" wrote in news:cEAQj.540$To6.404
@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net:


"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
the year (past years).


So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?




Absolutely not. But they didn't drill any; did they. Why do we have to pay
their 'oil depetion allowance'? Nobody pays my 'I had a ****ty year
allowance'.

Somebody wrote:

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
"Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
lifetime".

This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
patch".

I agreed.

Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.

The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
refinery.

As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.

Lew

Mark & Juanita wrote in
:

Leon wrote:


"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper.
Any profit over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income
for the year (past years).


So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to
let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience
some caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of
several million), or we might endanger some previously unknown
"endangered" microbe or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices
going up now because of the required cafe blends for each specific
city that requires refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
Only when people get angry enough at the shenanigans going on to
thwart production and distribution is this problem going to get
solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous earth-worshipping
luddites preventing progress and trying to force people to buy
indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the
problem. It will, however have the effect of providing lots of money
and power to the people espousing these policies (who, will of course
not alter their lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and
lower the quality of life and remove freedoms from the rest of us.
Until and unless people wake up to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for
a lot more of the same.



Yup. It's interesting that Cuba (with China's help) can drill on our
Continental shelf. Mexico can drill in the gulf and we can't. The aging
hippies and trust fund babies (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
country. Yes, conservation is a nice thing and everyone should own a Hybrid
Prius eventhough it's an ugly ****ing car and the price of the Prius over a
non-hybrid will take 4 or 5 years to reach the break even point between
price of car and gas price. I am going to sell my carbon credits so I can
buy a new truck. I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
project that changed their mind, over a vacant field.

On Apr 28, 12:08*am, Hank wrote:


I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
project that changed their mind, over a vacant field. * * *

Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
mower to cut it.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Somebody wrote:

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
"Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
lifetime".

This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
patch".

I agreed.

Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.

The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
refinery.

As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.

Lew
Damn 1 good lawyer in 10,000 now that's not likely to happen again.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586

Robatoy wrote in news:c0dca470-8712-456e-8c35-
:

On Apr 28, 12:08*am, Hank wrote:


I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
project that changed their mind, over a vacant field. * * *

Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
mower to cut it.


Yeah, and that lawn mower uses more gas than the Prius!

Puckdropper
--
You can only do so much with caulk, cardboard, and duct tape.

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.

the gist from the article:
"You see very time the Fed lowers interest rates, it weakens the
dollar and the Fed has been very active slashing these rates in order
to keep the big banks afloat. That dollar devaluation then raises
gasoline prices at the pump, about 8 cents per gallon per each 25
percentage point cut by the Federal Reserve.

Since September there have been 12 of these cuts made - eventually
costing America 96 cents extra for each gallon of gas."

entire article below

-R


The Fed pushes gasoline prices even higher
by Jackie Corr | April 23, 2008

Butte, Montana | As we well know the price of a gallon of gasoline
keeps going up. And nobody sees an end to this surge let alone a drop
in price. For just this past weekend the price of oil per barrel
jumped again to an all time record high of $117.01. The New York Times
commented that "what was striking about this latest milestone was what
didn't happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden embargo, no
exporter turning off its spigot."
But there is something going on and it means more bad news for the
American public. And that is the Fed's Ben Bernanke has been pulling
out all the stops to save Wall Street from paying for the mess they
made while keeping all the profits. On Sunday in the Washington Post,
the conservative writer George Will said Americans should tell the
congress the free ride is over and it is time to start dismantling
Wall Street Socialism.
In Will's words, "the Fed has no mandate to be the dealmaker for Wall
Street socialism. The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a
store of value by preventing inflation." But that is not the way that
George Bush, Treasury head Hank Paulson, Bernanke and most of the
congress see it.
You see very time the Fed lowers interest rates, it weakens the dollar
and the Fed has been very active slashing these rates in order to keep
the big banks afloat. That dollar devaluation then raises gasoline
prices at the pump, about 8 cents per gallon per each 25 percentage
point cut by the Federal Reserve.
Since September there have been 12 of these cuts made - eventually
costing America 96 cents extra for each gallon of gas. Between
September 18, 2007 and March 18, 2008, the Federal fund rate was
lowered from 5.25% to 2.25% and the discount rate was lowered from
5.75% to 2.50%.
Check the dates: In Butte on October 3, 2007 the price of a regular
gallon of gas was $2.80. On New Years Day $3.06. St Patrick's Day
$3.25. As of this writing the price is $3.50 ($3.49.9) a gallon and it
will go even higher in the coming weeks, roughly $3.75 a gallon, as a
result of the Fed's giving in to Wall Street.
Of course, the Fed has yet to mention this gasoline price surge in
statements concerning those rate cuts for Wall Street and for good
reason. As George Will pointed out, continued dollar deflation means
higher and higher prices for the American public and even more $
billions for Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs.
And there's more. Before the current Fed cuts in the interest and
discount window mentioned above run their course, regular gasoline
prices will have reached $3.76 per gallon according to the Fed
formula, nearly a dollar increase since last October. And like the
moon follows the sun, a higher price for gas further pushes up already
rising food prices.
So it's no wonder people want change and the hell with experience.
"Bailout Ben" Bernanke, Hank Paulson (a former Goldman Sach's CEO) and
of course, Alan Greenspan, the former Fed guy, are long on experience
and look where they got us. And we might also remember the present
disaster originated in the unregulated Wall Street investment banks
who were set free to plunder and loot after Bill Clinton and Robert
Rubin in 1999 deep-sixed the old New Deal banking law, Glass-Steagall.
And what have they learned? Needless to say, the Wall Street guys and
gals are still calling for more tax cuts even with a war going on that
is further bankrupting us.

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
$49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata


I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
income was $40 billion.

But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint.

R

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:34 -0500, Hank wrote:

Renata wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
.
com...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
are selling us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
of their $49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.

I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata


I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
net income was $40 billion.

But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".

Renata

You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
the year (past years).

" I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net."

30/40 = 75%

But, what I didn't take into account until I saw some financial tables
spelling this stuff out was that their profit was 72B - minus 30B
taxes. The tax rate is on the 72B, not the 40B remaining after taxes.
THAT was my error.

Renata

"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
country.

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
Who knew?

Dave in Houston

Renata wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
$49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata


I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
income was $40 billion.
But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint.

I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would cry publicly
as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
corporations. By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
(not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?

On Apr 28, 11:31*am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, *But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
* * Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
$49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
dollar. *The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
I seriously doubt Exxon is paying *$30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata

I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. *Their net
income was $40 billion.
But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? *Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. *Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days. *

Something smells funny here. *I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. *Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint. *

I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
is going to the slammer. *I also don't know why they would cry publicly
as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
corporations. *By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
(not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?

Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.

depictureboy wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
...
Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis are selling
us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk of their
$49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents on the
dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
Renata
I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their net
income was $40 billion.
But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.
Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint.
I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not, somebody
is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would cry publicly
as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for all big
corporations. By the time you add in federal and state gasoline taxes
(not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes), who do think is
making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business - Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?

Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.

That's what I was referring to when I mention "federal and state
gasoline tax" - currently averaging 47 cents per gallon. And since any
corporation figures income tax as a cost of doing business, we rather
than Exxon-Mobil pay their $30 billion income tax. If they get hit with
a "windfall profits tax", they will simply raise the price of their
goods and we will pick up the tab.

evodawg wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Somebody wrote:

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?
10 years ago, the VP of sales of one of my principles commented to me,
"Lew, we will never see another grass roots refinery built in our
lifetime".

This from a guy who had spent his career in and around the "oil
patch".

I agreed.

Today, if you decide you want to build a refinery in some location, it
will take 20 years to overcome the neighborhood objections and the
environmental impact studies, before you can start construction.

The refinery at Gaviotta, CA stood complete but not commissioned for
about 5 years before some smart young oil company attorney figured out
it was less expensive to fight in court than it was to let the
refinery stand idle, so the law suits be damned, they started the
refinery.

As far as I know, the lawsuits went away.

Lew
Damn 1 good lawyer in 10,000 now that's not likely to happen again.
Yuppers. It's the 97% that give the other 3% a bad name...

Dave in Houston wrote:


"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of this
country.

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
Who knew?

Dave in Houston

and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company declare
we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build more
refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?

Don't blame this @#$% on Cheney or the oil companies, they aren't the ones
screaming bloody murder when some arctic caribou gets inconvenienced by
having to walk around an oil derrick (that will take up less than a few
tenths of a percent of the total available land area in that region).


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:34 -0500, Hank wrote:

Renata wrote in
m:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
.
com...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
are selling us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
of their $49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.

I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata


I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
net income was $40 billion.

But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".

Renata

You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we
should stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any
profit over 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
income for the year (past years).

" I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net."

30/40 = 75%

But, what I didn't take into account until I saw some financial tables
spelling this stuff out was that their profit was 72B - minus 30B
taxes. The tax rate is on the 72B, not the 40B remaining after taxes.
THAT was my error.

Renata

You do understand the difference between net and gross, right?
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.


Uh, yes. Every spring at changeover time, gas prices have surged. Look
up comments last year at about this same time. In the past, there has
always been a run-up prior to Memorial Day and the summer driving season,
but with the advent of cafe blends, the runup has been larger and higher.




--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.


Uh, yes. Every spring at changeover time, gas prices have surged. Look
up comments last year at about this same time. In the past, there has
always been a run-up prior to Memorial Day and the summer driving season,
but with the advent of cafe blends, the runup has been larger and higher.

Surging since September (well, really, longer, but we'll just focus
here for the moment). We ain't seen surges like this for some time if
ever. Yet, we've had the annual, actually, bi-annual, blend
changeover for some time. Hmmm.

According to you, it's ALL the environmentalists' fault for wanting to
protect the caribou and have clean air.

Oh, and maybe if the oil companies would keep the refineries they
already have open (closed one recently in CA) they wouldn't need to
build new ones.

R

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:37:21 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 00:22:34 -0500, Hank wrote:

Renata wrote in
:

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
.
com...

Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the Saudis
are selling us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good chunk
of their $49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10 cents
on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.

I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.

Renata


I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross. Their
net income was $40 billion.

But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that they
paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on 72B gross
is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near 42% these days.

Something smells funny here. I see the numbers, I just want to know
the "rest of the story".

Renata

You might want to check your numbers. $30 billion is 75% (OK 3/4) of $72
billion? Try again. We live in a ' Capitalist Society'. Making a profit is
what all of us that wish to remain in business try to do. I think we
should stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any
profit over 5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
income for the year (past years).

" I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net."

30/40 = 75%

But, what I didn't take into account until I saw some financial tables
spelling this stuff out was that their profit was 72B - minus 30B
taxes. The tax rate is on the 72B, not the 40B remaining after taxes.
THAT was my error.

Renata

You do understand the difference between net and gross, right?

Nah. Why doncha 'splain it...

R

On Apr 29, 1:33 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Dave in Houston wrote:

...

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that regular-unleaded
has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to 4.10/gal and oil company
profits reach record highs every quarter (not to mention Halliburton).
Who knew?

...

and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company declare
we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build more
refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?

Probably right before the part about how we
were going to invade Iraq.

Of course since those meetings were secret,
and no one in the Justice Department has had
the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
Congress about attending them, we may never
know.

--

FF

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

Of course since those meetings were secret,
and no one in the Justice Department has had
the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
Congress about attending them, we may never
know.

Starting with Congress first would perhaps provide some incentive ...


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 3/27/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Renata wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.


Uh, yes. Every spring at changeover time, gas prices have surged. Look
up comments last year at about this same time. In the past, there has
always been a run-up prior to Memorial Day and the summer driving season,
but with the advent of cafe blends, the runup has been larger and higher.

Surging since September (well, really, longer, but we'll just focus
here for the moment). We ain't seen surges like this for some time if
ever. Yet, we've had the annual, actually, bi-annual, blend
changeover for some time. Hmmm.


The facts just don't bear you out. Looking at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html
and breaking down the data into weekly segments for each year, then
demeaning the data for each year shows a price band for each year that
stays within a band of 80% to 120% of average price for the year. Highest
price tends to be about week 22. Biggest "surge" actually occurred in
2005 with prices jumping to 135 percent of yearly average in week 36, a
true anomaly compared to the rest of the data. De-meaned weekly relative
changes have similar characteristics.

The "surging since September 2007 doesn't match the facts either. Gas
prices dropped from June to October, rose slightly from October through
December, dropped slightly from December through February 2008 and started
rising again through the present. I'll post the spreadsheet on abpww.

According to you, it's ALL the environmentalists' fault for wanting to
protect the caribou and have clean air.


I would lay 95% of this at the environmentalist's feet. Please, spare me
the idea that if people want fuel we want dirty air.


Oh, and maybe if the oil companies would keep the refineries they
already have open (closed one recently in CA) they wouldn't need to
build new ones.


Any idea why they closed the one in CA?



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:30:29 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.


Uh, yes. Every spring at changeover time, gas prices have surged. Look
up comments last year at about this same time. In the past, there has
always been a run-up prior to Memorial Day and the summer driving season,
but with the advent of cafe blends, the runup has been larger and higher.

Surging since September (well, really, longer, but we'll just focus
here for the moment). We ain't seen surges like this for some time if
ever. Yet, we've had the annual, actually, bi-annual, blend
changeover for some time. Hmmm.


The facts just don't bear you out. Looking at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html
and breaking down the data into weekly segments for each year, then
demeaning the data for each year shows a price band for each year that
stays within a band of 80% to 120% of average price for the year. Highest
price tends to be about week 22. Biggest "surge" actually occurred in
2005 with prices jumping to 135 percent of yearly average in week 36, a
true anomaly compared to the rest of the data. De-meaned weekly relative
changes have similar characteristics.


Interesting charts. What I noticed is that prices seem to reach a
high point around Sept., and either hold fairly steady or fall a bit
thru about March, when they start on the upswing again. Exceptions
are, for example, in 2003, presumably due to the run up to O.I.L.
This lines up with the increased demand during summer. However, this
past year, prices started rising and continued to do so. Yet, demand
is supposedly down.

When was the last time prices rose 100% over the course of a year?
Or, so abruptly in a few months?


The "surging since September 2007 doesn't match the facts either. Gas
prices dropped from June to October, rose slightly from October through
December, dropped slightly from December through February 2008 and started
rising again through the present. I'll post the spreadsheet on abpww.

According to you, it's ALL the environmentalists' fault for wanting to
protect the caribou and have clean air.


I would lay 95% of this at the environmentalist's feet. Please, spare me
the idea that if people want fuel we want dirty air.


I see. The dollar dropping 50-60% in value has nothing to do with it,
at all, at all? Agitating in the M.E. - nada? Seriously?


Oh, and maybe if the oil companies would keep the refineries they
already have open (closed one recently in CA) they wouldn't need to
build new ones.


Any idea why they closed the one in CA?

No. Heard it on one of the news broadcasts. Caught tail end of
story. Haven't been able to find anything about it on google (albeit,
a cursory search) so maybe the rest of the story was kinda important.

Renata

On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

news
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:

I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest I ever
paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54 if I
worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much different from
the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than today :-).

You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a minimum
of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was only available
in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
Amoco's primary selling point.

My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.

On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Leon wrote:

"Hank" wrote in message
. ..

I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they build
refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper. Any profit
over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my income for
the year (past years).

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil to let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience some
caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of several
million), or we might endanger some previously unknown "endangered" microbe
or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year. Only when people get angry enough
at the shenanigans going on to thwart production and distribution is this
problem going to get solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous
earth-worshipping luddites preventing progress and trying to force people
to buy indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the problem. It
will, however have the effect of providing lots of money and power to the
people espousing these policies (who, will of course not alter their
lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and lower the quality of life
and remove freedoms from the rest of us. Until and unless people wake up
to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more of the same.

--

Aw, c'mon, Mark. Didn't you hear that Gore put in solar panels on his
mansion? Dunno if he did the same on his jet, but...it always strikes
me as wonderful how much money these guys make out of telling the rest
of us to live frugally, green, and wipe our butts an extra stroke in
the process, without wasting paper.

There's a big "Save The Trees" movement against printed junk mail,
these days. I don't like junk mail, but I do realize that 90+% of the
paper that goes into it, and most other printed material, is
specifically planted and nurtured for just that purpose, to make
paper. We're not dealing with virgin forests, but, essentially, with
cropland.

But, hey, we don't want the natives getting restless. That would be
like wondering how Jesse Jackson, a preacher without any church,
always manages to make over a quarter million a year.

Many liberal policies make sense, but not even close to all.

Somebody wrote:

Oh, and maybe if the oil companies would keep the refineries they
already have open (closed one recently in CA) they wouldn't need
to
build new ones.

Somebody else wrote:

Any idea why they closed the one in CA?

Renata wrote:

No. Heard it on one of the news broadcasts. Caught tail end of
story. Haven't been able to find anything about it on google
(albeit,
a cursory search) so maybe the rest of the story was kinda
important.

Is this a reference to the refinery located in Bakersfield, Ca?

It is a small, out of date refinery once owned by Texaco.

If it was ever to become financially competitive, it would require a
large infusion of money.

When Shell attempted to close it after they bought Texaco, there was a
public out roar.

Shell ultimately sold it to Flying J, which to my knowledge is still
operating.

It is common knowledge that Shell is not really interested in the
refinery business in California.

Will have to wait and see what happens to the large Texaco/Long Beach
refinery Shell now operates.

Texaco was not famous for maintaining their facilities.

Lew

Puckdropper puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote in news:02608760$0$26905
:

Robatoy wrote in news:c0dca470-8712-456e-8c35-
:

On Apr 28, 12:08*am, Hank wrote:


I just sprinkled 70 lbs. of grass seed, I left over from a
project that changed their mind, over a vacant field. * * *

Aw man.... now some schmuck is going to start up his stinking lawn
mower to cut it.


Yeah, and that lawn mower uses more gas than the Prius!

Puckdropper

Yeah, but the lawn mower is better looking than that ugly ****ing Prius.

"Dave in Houston" wrote in
:


"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of
this country.

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
(not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?

Dave in Houston




Oviously not you. $.79 a gallon, 1979?, Must have been Cheney. It's really
sad that we pay less than half per gallon than most of the world (although
recently I think we are paying more than half). I don't think Hallburton is
into oil. They may transport it though.

Hank

Lets kill the rich, then we can work for the poor.

Hank wrote:

"Dave in Houston" wrote in
:


"Hank" wrote in message
.. .

. . . (Kennedys and Gore, although Al has been
cannonized recently) seem to be able to command the energy policy of
this country.

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door energy
policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
(not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?

Dave in Houston


Ummm, have you checked Exxon's latest quarterly profit? [hint: it wasn't
up] From Forbe's.com: "The latest results fell short of the record $11.7
billion in earnings Exxon Mobil reported in the fourth quarter of 2007."
Earnings for the first quarter were $10.9 billion.




Oviously not you. $.79 a gallon, 1979?, Must have been Cheney. It's really
sad that we pay less than half per gallon than most of the world (although
recently I think we are paying more than half). I don't think Hallburton
is into oil. They may transport it though.

Hank

Lets kill the rich, then we can work for the poor.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Fred the Red Shirt wrote in
:

On Apr 29, 1:33 am, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Dave in Houston wrote:

...

WOW! I never knew THEY were in those secret, closed-door
energy policy
meetings headed by President Cheney! It's no wonder that
regular-unleaded has gone from .79/gal to 3.50/gal and diesel to
4.10/gal and oil company profits reach record highs every quarter
(not to mention Halliburton). Who knew?

...

and just where in those "secret" meetings did Cheney and company
declare
we would NOT drill in ANWR, would NOT drill offshore, would NOT build
more refineries, would NOT exploit the North Dakota oil finds?

Probably right before the part about how we
were going to invade Iraq.

Of course since those meetings were secret,
and no one in the Justice Department has had
the balls to prosecute the attendees for lying to
Congress about attending them, we may never
know.

--

FF




Actully President Bush and his cabinet were quite open with their
intentions. Now that you have enlightened us. The USA should communicate
all its intentions and secrets to the rest of the world. If we have spies,
or wish to to invade a peaceful country or a non-peaceful country, we will
call CNN to broadcast to the world. Might kill a few troops, but what the
****. Actually, we should just tell congress; about the same.
I don't know who's lying and what they're lying about. There has been only
one convicted liar and his wife seems to be cast in the same mould
(****in' snipers all over the place).

Renata wrote in
:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires refinery
shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.

the gist from the article:
"You see very time the Fed lowers interest rates, it weakens the
dollar and the Fed has been very active slashing these rates in order
to keep the big banks afloat. That dollar devaluation then raises
gasoline prices at the pump, about 8 cents per gallon per each 25
percentage point cut by the Federal Reserve.

Since September there have been 12 of these cuts made - eventually
costing America 96 cents extra for each gallon of gas."

entire article below

-R


The Fed pushes gasoline prices even higher
by Jackie Corr | April 23, 2008

Butte, Montana | As we well know the price of a gallon of gasoline
keeps going up. And nobody sees an end to this surge let alone a drop
in price. For just this past weekend the price of oil per barrel
jumped again to an all time record high of $117.01. The New York Times
commented that "what was striking about this latest milestone was what
didn't happen: there was no shortage of oil, no sudden embargo, no
exporter turning off its spigot."
But there is something going on and it means more bad news for the
American public. And that is the Fed's Ben Bernanke has been pulling
out all the stops to save Wall Street from paying for the mess they
made while keeping all the profits. On Sunday in the Washington Post,
the conservative writer George Will said Americans should tell the
congress the free ride is over and it is time to start dismantling
Wall Street Socialism.
In Will's words, "the Fed has no mandate to be the dealmaker for Wall
Street socialism. The Fed's mission is to preserve the currency as a
store of value by preventing inflation." But that is not the way that
George Bush, Treasury head Hank Paulson, Bernanke and most of the
congress see it.
You see very time the Fed lowers interest rates, it weakens the dollar
and the Fed has been very active slashing these rates in order to keep
the big banks afloat. That dollar devaluation then raises gasoline
prices at the pump, about 8 cents per gallon per each 25 percentage
point cut by the Federal Reserve.
Since September there have been 12 of these cuts made - eventually
costing America 96 cents extra for each gallon of gas. Between
September 18, 2007 and March 18, 2008, the Federal fund rate was
lowered from 5.25% to 2.25% and the discount rate was lowered from
5.75% to 2.50%.
Check the dates: In Butte on October 3, 2007 the price of a regular
gallon of gas was $2.80. On New Years Day $3.06. St Patrick's Day
$3.25. As of this writing the price is $3.50 ($3.49.9) a gallon and it
will go even higher in the coming weeks, roughly $3.75 a gallon, as a
result of the Fed's giving in to Wall Street.
Of course, the Fed has yet to mention this gasoline price surge in
statements concerning those rate cuts for Wall Street and for good
reason. As George Will pointed out, continued dollar deflation means
higher and higher prices for the American public and even more $
billions for Wall Street investment banks like Goldman Sachs.
And there's more. Before the current Fed cuts in the interest and
discount window mentioned above run their course, regular gasoline
prices will have reached $3.76 per gallon according to the Fed
formula, nearly a dollar increase since last October. And like the
moon follows the sun, a higher price for gas further pushes up already
rising food prices.
So it's no wonder people want change and the hell with experience.
"Bailout Ben" Bernanke, Hank Paulson (a former Goldman Sach's CEO) and
of course, Alan Greenspan, the former Fed guy, are long on experience
and look where they got us. And we might also remember the present
disaster originated in the unregulated Wall Street investment banks
who were set free to plunder and loot after Bill Clinton and Robert
Rubin in 1999 deep-sixed the old New Deal banking law, Glass-Steagall.
And what have they learned? Needless to say, the Wall Street guys and
gals are still calling for more tax cuts even with a war going on that
is further bankrupting us.



Glad I'm not in Butte Montana with those fluctuating prices now. Beer was
pretty expensive there too (other than BUDMILLERCOORSMOLSON). I worked
there for a bit and really enjoyed it. Met really good people. Sang a
bit, danced a bit, drank alot and incline ramped my head off. Ah pre-
retirement. Screw the fluctuating prices, I'd go back in a New York
minute.

Renata wrote in
:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:39:12 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Renata wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:34:44 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:
-snip-
We have gas prices going up now because of
the required cafe blends for each specific city that requires
refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
-snip-

Uh,... nope. Cafe blends have been around for years. Prices hadn't
"surged" like they are these days.


Uh, yes. Every spring at changeover time, gas prices have surged.
Look
up comments last year at about this same time. In the past, there has
always been a run-up prior to Memorial Day and the summer driving
season, but with the advent of cafe blends, the runup has been larger
and higher.

Surging since September (well, really, longer, but we'll just focus
here for the moment). We ain't seen surges like this for some time if
ever. Yet, we've had the annual, actually, bi-annual, blend
changeover for some time. Hmmm.

According to you, it's ALL the environmentalists' fault for wanting to
protect the caribou and have clean air.

Oh, and maybe if the oil companies would keep the refineries they
already have open (closed one recently in CA) they wouldn't need to
build new ones.

R


Yer wrong. NIMBY. California is a different country. Our laws prevent the
building of new refineries and drilling for new oil. I don't know why the
refinery closed in Ca., but I'm sure it wasn't through choice.
If we allow unrestricted drilling, the way things are now, it would have no
bearing on our fuel price. The oil would simply go on the open market. If
we would allow new refineries, the price would lower, assuming local crude;
how much, probably very little. The International market drives oil prices.
The only way to affect our prices is to mandate to American companies their
price structure if they wish to sell in the USA. That'll work.
Senator Clinton said (last night) that, if she were president, she would
file suit against the oil companies and oil producers under what was once
called the Taft Hartley Act. To wit monopolies. That will surely work.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
:

depictureboy wrote:
On Apr 28, 11:31 am, Doug Winterburn wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 07:00:46 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 07:44:06 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Renata wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:
Dave in Houston wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in
message

oups.com...
Not all petroleum comes from OPEC nations, But enough
does that they control the price on the world market.
Which means that our patriotic American Oil companies are
selling us
their domestically produced crude for the same price the
Saudis are selling us theirs?
Which, if true, I suppose is where Exxon-Mobil makes a good
chunk of their $49 billion profit?
Actually, $40 billion on $400 billion total revenue - or 10
cents on the dollar. The also paid $30 billion in income tax.
I seriously doubt Exxon is paying $30B income tax on $40B net.
Renata
I didn't say net. They paid $30 billion on $72 billion gross.
Their net income was $40 billion.
But this seems to indicate that their accountants are so bad that
they paid 3/4 of their profit over to income taxes? Even 30B on
72B gross is way high. Corporate taxes these are nowhere near
42% these days. Something smells funny here. I see the numbers,
I just want to know the "rest of the story".
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
Yeah, I looked up some numbers too. Can't imagine that, if this is
the whole story, they're not crying publicly about how nearly 1/2
their mega, record setting profits are being turned over to the
guvmint.
I don't know why it wouldn't be the whole story - if it's not,
somebody is going to the slammer. I also don't know why they would
cry publicly as corporate income taxes run almost the same rate for
all big corporations. By the time you add in federal and state
gasoline taxes (not to mention Exxon-Mobil employees income taxes),
who do think is making the more money from Exxon-Mobil's business -
Exxon-Mobil or guvmint?

Well dont forget either that govt is also getting taxes at the pump
per gallon. I dont know the exact number but I had heard that govt
actually makes more per gallon from taxes than the oil company.

That's what I was referring to when I mention "federal and state
gasoline tax" - currently averaging 47 cents per gallon. And since
any corporation figures income tax as a cost of doing business, we
rather than Exxon-Mobil pay their $30 billion income tax. If they get
hit with a "windfall profits tax", they will simply raise the price of
their goods and we will pick up the tab.


The federal tax is $.18 per gallon. All other taxes are state and local.

Charlie Self wrote in
:

On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

news
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:

I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
today :-).

You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
Amoco's primary selling point.

My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.


Out of the showroom?

Charlie Self wrote in
:

On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

news
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:

I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
today :-).

You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
Amoco's primary selling point.

My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.


I could take most '57s. Couldn't take vettes that had a driver. A good '57
power pack with a driver could take me at least half the time (if not
more). I was running a '41 ford coupe, '48 59AB block Merc bored and
stroked. Had Edelbrock 10:1 heads, Fenton triple manifold, running
Strombergs. Had an Edelbrock 3/4 cam that I screwed around with. Polished
valves, and light springs. Was running a Linc Zepher trans with a 4:11
rear. ****ed me off when stuff out of the showroom was beating me. I guess
I ushered out the 'Flathead era'. Left me no choice, but to join the
crotch.

Charlie Self wrote in
:

On Apr 26, 1:34 pm, Mark & Juanita wrote:
Leon wrote:

"Hank" wrote in message
. ..

I think we should
stop subsidies to oil companies. They no longer drill nor do they
build refineries. Perhaps a windfall profits tax would be proper.
Any profit over
5% roi should be subject to an 80% tax. There goes most of my
income for the year (past years).

So you blame oil companies for not drilling or building refineries?

From ANWR to the North Dakota oil fields, there is sufficient oil
to let
us tell the OPECers to go pound sand. But ... we might inconvenience
some caribou (even though the plan is to use only 2000 acres out of
several million), or we might endanger some previously unknown
"endangered" microbe or left-handed kangaroo rat. We have gas prices
going up now because of the required cafe blends for each specific
city that requires refinery shutdown and reconfiguration every year.
Only when people get angry enough at the shenanigans going on to
thwart production and distribution is this problem going to get
solved. Instead, right now we have self-righteous earth-worshipping
luddites preventing progress and trying to force people to buy
indulgences to atone for peoples' environmental sins. Neither of
which is going to solve the needs and will only exacerbate the
problem. It will, however have the effect of providing lots of money
and power to the people espousing these policies (who, will of course
not alter their lifestyle -- that is for the "little people") and
lower the quality of life and remove freedoms from the rest of us.
Until and unless people wake up to this sham, I'm afraid we're in for
a lot more of the same.

--

Aw, c'mon, Mark. Didn't you hear that Gore put in solar panels on his
mansion? Dunno if he did the same on his jet, but...it always strikes
me as wonderful how much money these guys make out of telling the rest
of us to live frugally, green, and wipe our butts an extra stroke in
the process, without wasting paper.

There's a big "Save The Trees" movement against printed junk mail,
these days. I don't like junk mail, but I do realize that 90+% of the
paper that goes into it, and most other printed material, is
specifically planted and nurtured for just that purpose, to make
paper. We're not dealing with virgin forests, but, essentially, with
cropland.

But, hey, we don't want the natives getting restless. That would be
like wondering how Jesse Jackson, a preacher without any church,
always manages to make over a quarter million a year.

Many liberal policies make sense, but not even close to all.



Charlie, check Rev. Jackson and Rev. Sharepton again. A quarter of a
million to them is chump change. The Reverend Sharpton pays more for his
hairdo (whoops), I mean haircut, than President Clinton, Senator Kerry
and Senator Edwards combined. Up here in Windham, NY, I pay (still have a
pretty good head of hair) $12 and that includes a 20% tip.

On May 2, 1:24 am, Hank wrote:
Charlie Self wrote :



On Apr 24, 5:51 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message

news

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:18:55 -0500, Leon wrote:

I remember the gas wars also, those were good wars. The cheapest
I ever paid was 19.9 and I was making minimum at 1.65 in 1972.

In the mid '50s I was making the munificent sum of $48 a week - $54
if I worked night shift. I don't think the gas prices were much
different from the '70s then, but the octane sure was better than
today :-).

You got that right. My 72 Chevrolet Vega, what a POS, required a
minimum of 92 octaine fuel. Regular was normally 95, IIRC the 92 was
only available in unleaded. Premium was way up there.

In the '50s, unleaded was only available in Amoco stations. It was
Amoco's primary selling point.

My '57 Chev 283, dual 4s, Duntov cam, 10.5 CR, had to have Esso Extra
even then (my first new car), would probably blow up on today's fuel.
Diesel itself to death. I always felt it ran better on the Golden
Esso, advertised at 105 octane, but probably not.

I could take most '57s. Couldn't take vettes that had a driver. A good '57
power pack with a driver could take me at least half the time (if not
more). I was running a '41 ford coupe, '48 59AB block Merc bored and
stroked. Had Edelbrock 10:1 heads, Fenton triple manifold, running
Strombergs. Had an Edelbrock 3/4 cam that I screwed around with. Polished
valves, and light springs. Was running a Linc Zepher trans with a 4:11
rear. ****ed me off when stuff out of the showroom was beating me. I guess
I ushered out the 'Flathead era'. Left me no choice, but to join the
crotch.

I've had my flatheads--most recently (about 40 years ago), a '51 Ford
business coupe I'd love to get back.

Showroom stock super cars really began in '56, I think, with the Chev
power pack 265. The next year, the power pack 283 was a ****er, and my
'57 was the Urine 8 of them all, at least around where I lived (dear
old Westchester County, NY, a place I joined the crotch to leave). I
was paying $78.37 a month on that '57 when I went to Parris Island at
a munificent $78 a month (no uniform allowance that first 14 weeks).
Mom sold it. It was probably just as well. 1957 was the first year of
mandatory auto insurance in NY, with about a 65 buck premium. I think
within five years that had hit $200.