#2 2008-06-11 01:46:06

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but if taxes are increased on the oil companies "they will get exactly what they don't want. The bill will raise taxes, increase imports."

Stupid dick.  If he were any real kind of legislator, he'd know to make it specific to oil companies and put huge penalties on those trying to pass it on as a cost of doing business.  Better still would be to stick it to the speculator crowd making a fuckin' fortune off our suffering.

Offline

 

#3 2008-06-11 02:04:48

Haven't the oil companies suffered enough? Can't you open your heart enough to see how profoundly pained petrol-CEOs are when they look out onto the majesty that is American car culture and see their own role in its creation. The guilt, the regret; haven't they endured enough pain? Your callousness and cynicism disappoint me.

Offline

 

#4 2008-06-11 02:20:42

Oh, Taint, don't you remember? .gov means never having to say you're sorry...

Offline

 

#5 2008-06-11 07:46:05

icangetyouatoe wrote:

Oh, Taint, don't you remember? .gov means never having to say you're sorry...

I thought that was menopause.

Offline

 

#6 2008-06-13 16:06:03

I can't remember if it was Phred or someone else who was gassing off about O'Really versus Olderman, on the theory that higher ratings somehow indicates which of the halking teads is better, but I thought this little piece was apropos.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/1 … 06298.html

Offline

 

#7 2008-06-13 16:44:44

You liberal airheads should study up a little on basic economics.  About 75% of the cost of gasoline is the price of crude oil.  If you confiscate 100% of the profits of the oil companies you would reduce the cost of a gallon of gas by about 20 cents.  Meanwhile $3.00 is going to some raghead or to Hugo Chavez to finance terrorism.  Liberals have prevented us from drilling our own oil, building refineries, and utilizing nuclear energy.  So don't whine about having to pay the costs for the seeds your buddies have sown.

Offline

 

#8 2008-06-13 17:11:57

god bless you, Phredd, but you are the most predictable person on the board.  Of course, I love the petroleum companies.  They make me hard.

Offline

 

#9 2008-06-13 17:21:08

Fled wrote:

god bless you, Phredd, but you are the most predictable person on the board.  Of course, I love the petroleum companies.  They make me hard.

When you're fighting ignorance on a massive scale, almost by yourself, you sometimes need a firehose.  And, I don't consider myself predictable at all.  I'll wager that the sum of my core beliefs on social issues differ far more from any mainstream norm (left or right) than just about anyone else on this board.

Offline

 

#10 2008-06-13 18:45:35

Well it is just silly to tax all the profits, but I do believe we should confiscate the Billions the oil companies have recieved for splashing and dashing.

It turns out that if you fill up a supertanker with biofuel in Brazil, stopover in Lousiana and add a few drops of diesel, then send the tanker on to Europe you get to collect $1 dollar per gallon of taxpayer subsidy designed originally to support US farmer production of blended biofuels.

And for good measure we should put in stocks astride the public square and confiscate all the property till the bill is repaid of all the politicians, lobbiests and oil company executives who have worked year after year to prevent a vote to change this loophole.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-13 19:19:28)

Offline

 

#11 2008-06-13 20:14:34

Just keep patting yourself on the back Phwedd, it is so endearing.

Offline

 

#12 2008-06-13 23:22:26

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

god bless you, Phredd, but you are the most predictable person on the board.  Of course, I love the petroleum companies.  They make me hard.

When you're fighting ignorance on a massive scale, almost by yourself, you sometimes need a firehose.  And, I don't consider myself predictable at all.  I'll wager that the sum of my core beliefs on social issues differ far more from any mainstream norm (left or right) than just about anyone else on this board.

Yes, you're right, Phwedd.  We're all just sheeple, waiting to be enlightened.  Turn your firehose of truth upon us!

Offline

 

#13 2008-06-13 23:58:46

Oil isn't expensive. It just used to be cheap, and and nobody would listen to the Chicken Littles, and now everyone's pissed off at anyone but themselves. "They made me buy this SUV, I swear!" "The Planning Commission approves this 2000 unit subdivision on prime agricultural land outside Nowhereville even though the jobs are all 100 miles away in Gotham City."  "Nobody wants to ride busses. Lets build light rail instead, even though it costs 10 times as much, because it sounds cool in Chamber of Commerce brochures." "High speed passenger trains are for the French."

I moved to where I could walk to work over 10 years ago. But I'm a geologist, and could see this coming.

I feel your pain. Sure I do.

Offline

 

#14 2008-06-14 02:21:35

sigmoid freud wrote:

Oil isn't expensive. It just used to be cheap, and and nobody would listen to the Chicken Littles, and now everyone's pissed off at anyone but themselves. "They made me buy this SUV, I swear!" "The Planning Commission approves this 2000 unit subdivision on prime agricultural land outside Nowhereville even though the jobs are all 100 miles away in Gotham City."  "Nobody wants to ride busses. Lets build light rail instead, even though it costs 10 times as much, because it sounds cool in Chamber of Commerce brochures." "High speed passenger trains are for the French."

I moved to where I could walk to work over 10 years ago. But I'm a geologist, and could see this coming.

I feel your pain. Sure I do.

Only if by cheap you mean "Much lower than the price that it can be raised to before people decide to abandon it."  Don't believe the liars that tell you that this is what capitalism is all about.  That is only one of the so-called "market forces".  Capitalism also depends on easy market entry, good information to the consumer, and availability of resources.  There is no natural shortage of oil, and access is restricted to a very few.  We really are getting screwed.

Offline

 

#15 2008-06-14 14:50:57

Discounting Tojo's good point, oil is very expensive today when compared to what drove the price point just a few years ago.

The price of oil, and to an even greater extent gasoline, has been decoupled from actual supply and demand. While the increasing worldwide demand, typical policies of constraining production by Opec and pressures of market uncertainities like the continuing war in oil producing areas do account for some of the rise in price, they are not the cause for the majority of the current situation. Probably only accounting for the increase from a previous high of $40 /brl to $60 or $70 /brl.

IMHO, the rest of the rise to $140 /brl is due to a change that occurred in the commodities market in 1999, when the speculation in oil futures was liberalized. Before this trading in oil futures was very limited beyond companies that could take oil contracts for delivery. Now it is open and ripe for a free for all for speculators who only intend to trade up the paper and not commercialize the commodity itself.

In addition the margin required to trade oil futures is in general 10 times less than stocks. This make it very cheap for speculators to engage in this market as they need to put up much less to enter and exit positions.

The liberalization of the oil commodities market was intended to make the market more open and enable easier market entry for everyone especially financiers and oil businesses needing to secure capital investment. Therefor tieing the oil market to wider market forces that regulate the prices in other exchanges.

Unfortunately the current situation shows that the oil market has not become more open and the deregulated system put relatively recently put in place is more ripe for distortions of the price and huge speculative bubbles. The fallout from the inevitable periodic collapsing of poorly regulated and distorted markets imposes great risk to our society's economy.  Much further than affecting a few traders and hedge fund managers. As the collapse of Enron and others has shown.

While I see the need that opened the oil commoddities market up, so as to make capital investment more availiable to a wider range of players,  the actual deregulation put in practice has been a failure for the world economy. I do not know what the happy balance is, but if we rolled back the rules on speculation to what they were a few years ago the price of oil would fall in half.

Unfortunately very few of the commentators or  politicians discuss the nature of the oil futures market or the effect of the deregulation changes that have occured.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-14 15:17:41)

Offline

 

#16 2008-06-14 15:27:24

A gallon of anything should cost $4.50.  If there was a facet of making money in the oil industry that was different from any other industry, then our hard working congress Democrats would get to the bottom of it. 

People are going to have to accept the fact that pulling a liquid up from 5000 feet below the earth's surface, transporting it to a refiner where the composition is meticulously refined and analyzed, then trucked to a station a mile from your house where they charge 4 fucking dollars is not a bad deal at all.

Offline

 

#17 2008-06-14 15:38:43

benzene wrote:

A gallon of anything should cost $4.50.  If there was a facet of making money in the oil industry that was different from any other industry, then our hard working congress Democrats would get to the bottom of it. 

People are going to have to accept the fact that pulling a liquid up from 5000 feet below the earth's surface, transporting it to a refiner where the composition is meticulously refined and analyzed, then trucked to a station a mile from your house where they charge 4 fucking dollars is not a bad deal at all.

That is so much bulloney Benze and ignores what has driven the price up in the last few years.

I will give it to you though that  oil was  cheap for a long time.  For awhile the price did not follow other inflationary pressures. Even the temporary  surplus in the 1980s was called the "oil glut." Though of course it always remained  more expensive than the price before the "Energy Crisises" even when worldwide demand fell and production hit new highs.

But then again at that time vast quantities of the highest grade, read more valuable product for cost of refiening, easily recoverable, read vastly cheaper to extract, was pumped in great quantities from already developed feilds, read vastly cheaper to transport.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-14 16:07:08)

Offline

 

#18 2008-06-14 19:22:22

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Discounting Tojo's good point, oil is very expensive today when compared to what drove the price point just a few years ago.

The price of oil, and to an even greater extent gasoline, has been decoupled from actual supply and demand. While the increasing worldwide demand, typical policies of constraining production by Opec and pressures of market uncertainities like the continuing war in oil producing areas do account for some of the rise in price, they are not the cause for the majority of the current situation. Probably only accounting for the increase from a previous high of $40 /brl to $60 or $70 /brl.

IMHO, the rest of the rise to $140 /brl is due to a change that occurred in the commodities market in 1999, when the speculation in oil futures was liberalized. Before this trading in oil futures was very limited beyond companies that could take oil contracts for delivery. Now it is open and ripe for a free for all for speculators who only intend to trade up the paper and not commercialize the commodity itself.

In addition the margin required to trade oil futures is in general 10 times less than stocks. This make it very cheap for speculators to engage in this market as they need to put up much less to enter and exit positions.

The liberalization of the oil commodities market was intended to make the market more open and enable easier market entry for everyone especially financiers and oil businesses needing to secure capital investment. Therefor tieing the oil market to wider market forces that regulate the prices in other exchanges.

Unfortunately the current situation shows that the oil market has not become more open and the deregulated system put relatively recently put in place is more ripe for distortions of the price and huge speculative bubbles. The fallout from the inevitable periodic collapsing of poorly regulated and distorted markets imposes great risk to our society's economy.  Much further than affecting a few traders and hedge fund managers. As the collapse of Enron and others has shown.

While I see the need that opened the oil commoddities market up, so as to make capital investment more availiable to a wider range of players,  the actual deregulation put in practice has been a failure for the world economy. I do not know what the happy balance is, but if we rolled back the rules on speculation to what they were a few years ago the price of oil would fall in half.

Unfortunately very few of the commentators or  politicians discuss the nature of the oil futures market or the effect of the deregulation changes that have occured.

On top of the aforementioned issues, another thing that has skewed the oil speculation market is that people can buy large quantities of oil futures on margin, another thing that used to be regulated.

Offline

 

#19 2008-06-14 19:39:25

benzene wrote:

A gallon of anything should cost $4.50.  If there was a facet of making money in the oil industry that was different from any other industry, then our hard working congress Democrats would get to the bottom of it. 

People are going to have to accept the fact that pulling a liquid up from 5000 feet below the earth's surface, transporting it to a refiner where the composition is meticulously refined and analyzed, then trucked to a station a mile from your house where they charge 4 fucking dollars is not a bad deal at all.

Bull-fucking-shit.  The inherent costs haven't changed, and in fact have become more efficient as new technologies are developed.  Profits have blown away anything ever seen before, and are being pocketed rather than spending money on increased refinery capacity.  The investment in petroleum-based technologies has made demand inelastic, and that's why they're able to just keep dumping their money into profits rather than passing it on to consumers or investing more in the business.  Eventually they'll really hurt their industry, and people are already in the process of changing their dependence on oil, but it will take a long time, and the people at the top have plenty of money, so they'll be fine.

I just heard a story that the 3-cylinder Geo Metros are selling for almost their original price of $7000 now.  I used to have one.  It was my favorite car of all of the ones I've owned.  Insane gas mileage, and actually quite roomy inside.  Of course, acceleration was shit, and if you hit anything hard enough to set off the airbag  you're pretty much dead.

Offline

 

#20 2008-06-14 19:51:34

Meanwhile, back here in the reality based world, Monkeyboy writes:

If Obama really had any intention of rocking the boat, he'd have got the Kucinich and Paul treatment, marginalized and labeled a 'kook' or worse, locked out of debates and made the butt of smear campaigns. 

And if he later shows any inclination to undo the damage of the last 8 years, he'll find himself taking an everlasting dirt nap, after eating a hollow point lunch delivered by a 'crazed lone assassin'.

No, 2008 is just a whistle stop on the train ride to hell. The engineers don't give a good flying fuck which one of the porters we elect to run the club car.  They all work for the same railroad, and braking on this ever-steeper grade is just wishful thinking. Obama was on TV just the other day, publicly sucking Israeli dick.

If you think he has any intention of disarming the Patriot Act, disbanding 'Homeland Security' or restoring our Bill of Rights, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Think of the tolls you'll collect!

Offline

 

#21 2008-06-14 20:33:38

tojo2000 wrote:

Bull-fucking-shit.

This link should clean all that up. 

Notably, as of June 9, crude costs $3.20.  The distribution end has been losing money.  The refiner has been making $0.71 per gallon.  Considering most of the Big Oil companies do both, they are making $0.52 per gallon profit off a $4.43 gallon.  That's a 11.7% pre tax profit margin. 

The government on the other hand gets $0.64per gallon.  That's 14.4%.  And congress has the nerve to talk about windfall profits!

Newspapers, who tirelessly editorialize against the supposed windfall profits experienced by Big Oil earn on average a 17-18% pre-tax profit margin.

In any case, I am not shedding tears for the fat cats; They make lots of money and should get a good railing every once in a while.  But like I said, if things were amiss in the oil sector, our hard-working Democrats in congress would have gotten to the bottom of it - with determination and urgency.

Offline

 

#22 2008-06-14 20:57:16

benzene wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Bull-fucking-shit.

This link should clean all that up. 

Notably, as of June 9, crude costs $3.20.  The distribution end has been losing money.  The refiner has been making $0.71 per gallon.  Considering most of the Big Oil companies do both, they are making $0.52 per gallon profit off a $4.43 gallon.  That's a 11.7% pre tax profit margin. 

The government on the other hand gets $0.64per gallon.  That's 14.4%.  And congress has the nerve to talk about windfall profits!

Newspapers, who tirelessly editorialize against the supposed windfall profits experienced by Big Oil earn on average a 17-18% pre-tax profit margin.

In any case, I am not shedding tears for the fat cats; They make lots of money and should get a good railing every once in a while.  But like I said, if things were amiss in the oil sector, our hard-working Democrats in congress would have gotten to the bottom of it - with determination and urgency.

Does it, really?  What you've shown is that the federal government gets a flat rate of $0.184 per gallon and the sales tax on gasoline is lower than anything else we buy.  You've also shown that marketing and distribution are losing a little money, but only on unbranded gasolines, and that even this is  massively overshadowed by the ballooning profits on refining.  In short, costs have remained steady while profits are growing at a dramatic pace, and your numbers prove it. 

This also ignores the fact that some of the largest companies also drill for oil, so the crude oil costs aren't necessarily what they look like on paper.

On top of all of that, percentage isn't everything.  I'd gladly take .01% of what Exxon makes in a quarter over 100% of what I make in a year.

QED, bitches!

Offline

 

#23 2008-06-14 21:06:52

benzene wrote:

But like I said, if things were amiss in the oil sector, our hard-working Democrats in congress would have gotten to the bottom of it - with determination and urgency.

You seem to be forgetting that the current state of the government is such that nothing can be passed without a 60% majority due to the obstructionist tactics of the Republicans.  In the past two sessions they've broken all records for filibustering and blocking legislation by well over double.

Offline

 

#24 2008-06-14 21:54:39

tojo2000 wrote:

What you've shown is that the federal government gets a flat rate of $0.184 per gallon and the sales tax on gasoline is lower than anything else we buy.

The total combined state and federal take in California is $0.63 per gallon, currently 14.4%.  That tax rate is higher than any sales tax in the country. 

tojo2000 wrote:

You've also shown that marketing and distribution are losing a little money, but only on unbranded gasolines

Branded gasoline profits for the same period were $0.53 per gallon.  One penny different the the figure I initially gave you.

tojo2000 wrote:

and that even this is  massively overshadowed by the ballooning profits on refining.

Big Oil has not been able to build a new refinery in 29 years.  I think increased profits from more efficient processing while using what they have is the least we can allow.

tojo2000 wrote:

In short, costs have remained steady while profits are growing at a dramatic pace.

As of June 9, the cost of crude was $3.20 per gallon.  This number is higher than the entire retail average in America this time last year.  This implies that costs have increased for both refiners and distributors. 

tojo2000 wrote:

This also ignores the fact that some of the largest companies also drill for oil, so the crude oil costs aren't necessarily what they look like on paper.

Then what are they, exactly?  Give me the percentage that Big Oil makes of crude oil drilled out of an in-house venture.  This debate would have been over, congress would have exposed the oil company "crimes" and we'd be paying how much less for gas? 

tojo2000 wrote:

On top of all of that, percentage isn't everything.  I'd gladly take .01% of what Exxon makes in a quarter over 100% of what I make in a year.

If you are implying that a small percent is still an exorbitant amount of money and should be adjusted, then certainly you'd apply this logic to the top 5% earners in this country who pay 90% of the taxes.  Shouldn't they, then pay less because ...percentage isn't everything.

tojo2000 wrote:

QED, Bitches!

I don't know what this means, but if it means that if you cant afford gasoline at $4.50 per gallon, ride a fucking bike, then you got me.

Offline

 

#25 2008-06-14 22:01:11

benzene wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

QED, Bitches!

I don't know what this means, but if it means that if you cant afford gasoline at $4.50 per gallon, ride a fucking bike, then you got me.

It just sounded right.

Offline

 

#26 2008-06-15 17:43:03

benzene wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

Bull-fucking-shit.

This link should clean all that up. 

Notably, as of June 9, crude costs $3.20.  The distribution end has been losing money.  The refiner has been making $0.71 per gallon.  Considering most of the Big Oil companies do both, they are making $0.52 per gallon profit off a $4.43 gallon.  That's a 11.7% pre tax profit margin. 

  But like I said, if things were amiss in the oil sector, our hard-working Democrats in congress would have gotten to the bottom of it - with determination and urgency.

So what, you are completely ignoring the rest of the profits from other sectors in the vertical intergration of the oil companies bussiness. Their margin in other sectors is quite sufficiant. And if the margin in some sectors has fallen this year, it was quite larger at the point in the cycle 2 through 6 years ago during the run up in price. Overall giving them a 5 year margin that was at the top range of historical records. As was stated by an API rep on the news today defending the nuances of the same points you make.

The market price of crude oil also includes its own share of costs and profits. In the case of a vertically integrated oil company, the same company that owns and operates the oil field also owns and operates the refinery. Several vertically integrated oil companies operate in California including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-15 21:36:57)

Offline

 

#27 2008-06-15 18:16:47

benzene wrote:

The total combined state and federal take in California is $0.63 per gallon, currently 14.4%.  That tax rate is higher than any sales tax in the country.

Don't conflate the general sales tax with the fed and state excise fees. CA actually has some of the lowest excise taxes in the nation and hasn't raised them since 1994. Furthermore as the price goes up as a percentage we pay less of these excise taxes than before. General sales tax sucks but it applies to every dollar yopu spend on stuff. Heck in SF any dollar you want to spend on whatever only has $0.915 buying power.



benzene wrote:

Big Oil has not been able to build a new refinery in 29 years.  I think increased profits from more efficient processing while using what they have is the least we can allow..

I am not necesarily in favor of returning to the windfall tax on oil profits which was the norm till it was phased out by Reagan in 1988, and while I give them kudos for efficiency I am not inclined to praise or reward them for the way they have taken advantage of not investing in refinery capacity to artificially manipulate gas prices. The CA commision who investigated them returned an opinion that the refeiners were working in collusion to coordinate shutdowns that served to jack up the pricees in the 1990s and early 2000s. They just couldn't find the quality of evidence that would enable an anti-trust action.

They found that even without the collusion the artificial restriction of supply while not exactly illegal under current laws was troubling for society since there was no other suppliers, foreign or domestic  that could enter the market to compete in delivering refined gas.

benzene wrote:

As of June 9, the cost of crude was $3.20 per gallon.  This number is higher than the entire retail average in America this time last year.  This implies that costs have increased for both refiners and distributors.

Benze, call me dense but I am not sure what you mean by this and how it relates.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-15 18:52:08)

Offline

 

#28 2008-06-15 18:27:56

Benze, I usually take you for being smarter then the average bear and am sure you could make good arguement against windfall taxes, but in regard to your  posts justifying the cost of oil you have been drinking the koolaid. Maybe my suspicians about you are correct and you are actually a Chevron drone bee and have been inhaling too many fumes in the lab.

Even the Saudis just anounced that they thought the price was artificially high and have decided to unilaterally increase their production to record levels.

Of course they readilly admit that they don't want a reapeat of the factors that happened in the 1980s. They stated that too high a price, as it is now, is bad for them as it would ultimately decrease demand too far as energy diversification occurred to non-oil sources.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-15 18:29:05)

Offline

 

#29 2008-06-15 21:22:31

JR -I didn't read any of that shit, but I hope it was therapeutic for you.

Offline

 

#30 2008-06-16 00:07:32

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Even the Saudis just anounced that they thought the price was artificially high and have decided to unilaterally increase their production to record levels.

Really?

In 2004,  "Matthew R. Simmons...(argued) that Saudi Arabia's oil fields now are in decline, that the country will not be able to satisfy the world's thirst for oil in coming years and that its capacity will not climb much higher than its current capacity of 10mbd. Considering the growth in demand, this could easily spark a global energy crisis.

Simmons analyzed 200 technical papers on Saudi reserves by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his work was peer reviewed by a dozen senior technical experts. What he discovered tells a different story than the conventional wisdom. "

Offline

 

#31 2008-06-16 02:40:45

sigmoid freud wrote:

Johnny_Rotten wrote:

Even the Saudis just anounced that they thought the price was artificially high and have decided to unilaterally increase their production to record levels.

Really?

In 2004,  "Matthew R. Simmons...(argued) that Saudi Arabia's oil fields now are in decline, that the country will not be able to satisfy the world's thirst for oil in coming years and that its capacity will not climb much higher than its current capacity of 10mbd. Considering the growth in demand, this could easily spark a global energy crisis.

Simmons analyzed 200 technical papers on Saudi reserves by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and his work was peer reviewed by a dozen senior technical experts. What he discovered tells a different story than the conventional wisdom. "

Yes really,
The Saudis said they are  increasing production significantly in an attempt to lower the  price. Although what he says may be true, and others have speculated they are near capacity, it appears they are not quite at max yet. Heck even Bush gave them a little public dig about doubting their capacity when they rebuffed his groveling for more production last month.

The Saudis are anything but transparent about what they have or can pump. They keep it as tight as the Manhatten project. Leaving the rest of us to just guess.

That they, or any of the other middle east Opec members have much more than half of what they claim in proven reserves has long been in doubt. Although it is what they can pump that matters more in the current price than size of reserves.

Opec went to a system of production allotment that ties the claimed size of the reserves to how much they are allowed to deliver for sale.. This was done in the 1980s to counter the tendancy to pump more as the price fell. To meet OPEC quota rules the only way to pump more is to discover new untapped oil. But no one audits the claims.

So in the years following the new rule, the Opec nations have actually doubled the size of their "proven" reserves, in spite of 20 years of pumping. Every year Suadi "discovers" the exact amount of new oil that they wish to sell. As such their claim  260 billion barrels of proven oil reserves has only increased from previous years.

To justify this new production announcement they have stated that they have "discovered" much more oil in a new feild.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-16 02:58:11)

Offline

 

#32 2008-06-16 04:23:20

You know what we haven't heard much more about is that huge oil reserve they just discovered off the coast of Brazil.  Theoretically it will be the third largest in the world once the infrastructure is set up to get it out.  Then there's the fields underneath the arctic circle that nobody's properly sized as far as I know, but that I doubt Russia wants to keep to itself.

Offline

 

#33 2008-06-16 14:28:51

You do not hear so much because it has not yet reached the classification  of a proven undeveloped reserve. It is estimated that it will take till 2015 and high expense to get he Tupi feild up to peak 1 million barrels / day. Which considering  just the USA's current usage of about 20 million barrels / day is  just a splash in the bucket.

The area could reach a peak of 1 million b/d, and 500 MMcf/d to 1.0 Bcf/d as early as 2015, according to Chapman.

The nature of the speculative oil futures market means it reacts much quicker to bad news and uncertainity then any long term good news.

While the offshore Brazillian Tupi feild is big at 5 to 8+ billion barrels when developed it will still be dwarfed by individual feilds in the middle east which currently produce up to to 9 times as much per day as the high estimate for the Tupi.

Last edited by Johnny_Rotten (2008-06-16 14:34:00)

Offline

 

#34 2008-06-19 13:15:46

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India.

Gee I for one am sure glad at least someone is getting a good return on the trillions of our taxdollars spent. I wonder if they will do a blessed thing to pass such good fortune on to those who made it possible and ease our burden at the petrol pumps.

Offline

 

#35 2008-06-19 16:52:45

in the late 90's I had 3 friends with electric cars, and they were selling by the thousands in SoCal. By 2002 they were all gone.Two of my friends were "strongly encouraged" to trade their car in for a gas model. The other one had his "repossessed", even though he was never behind on payments.

good stuff -

read the book - much more info

Last edited by outhere (2008-06-19 16:53:54)

Offline

 

Board footer

cruelery.com