Wolf Leverich wrote:
> On 2008-08-04, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>> On 2008-08-04, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2008-08-03, Ben Wade <three@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Wolf Leverich wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, if you want to blame someone for the short-term run-up
>>>>>>>>>>> in oil prices, blame Republicans.
>>>>>>>>>> You stupid bastard, that's the dumbest thing you said all day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bugger off, liar.
>>>>>>>>> Um, which part was inaccurate?
>>>>>>>> All of it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ###
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The industry is having a feeding frenzy?
>>>>>>>> On what?
>>>>>>> Consumer dollars.
>>>>>> Do tell...so DEMAND drives profits...who knew....
>>>>> So does supply restriction in inelastic markets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you say "OPEC"?
>>>> Indeed, the cartel has far too much pricing power, so?
>>> Then talking about demand driving prices in a cartelized
>>> market is meaningless.
>> Wrong.
>>
>> Any perceived increase in NON-cartel production (Brazil, USA, Canada)
>> will impact future prices.
>>
>> Stop lying.
>>
>> It already happened.
>
> Actually, the increase in NON-cartel production has to be
> larger than the amount that the cartel is believed to be
> willing to restrict production to have any price impact at all.
Dead wrong.
You really are a total and complete LIAR!
> And it's absurd to believe that anything that will affect
> production a decade from now will immediately affect current
> prices.
It's not a "decade".
That bull**** number came from Bill Richardson, you s***sucking
dog-****er.
Industry experts put the real world dates from 3-6 years tops.
Stop ****ing LYING!
> What's going on is that the current economic news has been
> worsening, oil inventories have been growing, and the
> speculative component of the current price is becoming
> unstable.
That's a blatant unprovable LIE.
>
>>> ###
>>>
>>>>> Can you say "American oil companies restricting
>>>>> refinery capacity"?
>>>> No, but I can say enviroweenies obstructing new refinery permitting
and
>>>> construction:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/us/31refinery.html?ref=us
>>>>
>>>> Chicagoans Protest as Indiana Lets a Refinery Add to Lake Pollution
>>> So?
>> I made my point, ecoweenie.
>>
>> This has been a 30 year trend.
>>
>>
>>> The fact that you can find NIMBYism here and there
>> You lost the point, be honest.
>>
>> ALL refinery expansions in the past 30 years have been protested.
>
> So?
Oh there we go, thanks for admitting you ecoweenies are the real
impediment to new refineries.
> Dirty long-haired hippies used to protest outside my office
> at RAND every week, but that didn't keep me from "planning
> the nuclear slaughter of our children".
More useless and irrelevant obfuscation.
You're a poor debater, a mendacious asshole, and a waste of time and
keystrokes.
> Protesting tells you nothing.
It managed to get the permitting delayed or ended.
Stop the ****ing LYING.
> There's no question, though, that Shell was trying to close
> a perfectly good refinery in Bakersfield,
It wasn't "perfectly good" - it was 73 YEARS OLD!
Damn you are al iar.
> and was refusing to
> sell it to interested parties.
WRONG!
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/11/BUGQ9AO59V1.DTL&type=business
Flying J Inc. of Ogden, Utah, has signed an agreement with Shell to buy
the 73-year-old refinery in the next three months pending the approval
of federal regulators, the two companies said Monday.
> It took the threat of anti-
> trust action to force them NOT to close the refinery.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/11/BUGQ9AO59V1.DTL&type=business
Shell initially planned to close the plant last fall, saying it no
longer made sense to operate a refinery in an area of declining crude
oil production.
> The refinery shortage is a choice made by the industry.
That's a blatant lie.
Was Bakersfield's declining oil production a "choice" too?
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All the majors are re****ting record profits.
>>>>>>>> Yet the profit margins remain the same - 8%.
>>>>>>> First, if it were true, it would be irrelevant.
>>>>>> Oh my, would it now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You poor stupid bastard, you walked right into that:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/120.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Industry Center - Major Integrated Oil & Gas
>>>>>> Market Capitalization: 1,629B
>>>>>> Price / Earnings: 9.6
>>>>>> Price / Book: 2.8
>>>>>> Net Profit Margin (mrq): 8.8%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/821.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Industry Center - Application Software
>>>>>> Market Capitalization: 488B
>>>>>> Price / Earnings: 19.6
>>>>>> Price / Book: 17.9
>>>>>> Net Profit Margin (mrq): 23.2%
>>>>> So?
>>>> So why aren't you *****ing about Microsoft or Symantec's profits?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This shows that margins on oil is lower than margins
>>>>> on software. That's meaningless.
>>>> Is it really?
>>>>
>>>> They're both bulk consumer staples, but somehow you take umbrage at
big
>>>> oil's profits and not big software's?
>>>>
>>>>> Margins vary by
>>>>> industry, and are driven by many factors.
>>>> But 8.8% is anything but usury, agreed?
>>> No, I don't agree.
>> Then you're a fool and a liar.
>>
>>> Suppose I did nothing, but positioned myself so I could
>>> skim 8.8% off every transaction in the economy.
>> "Did nothing"?
>>
>> So you claim big oil does no E&P?
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> ****ing A man, you're total liar.
>
> I'm second generation Shell E&P.
Oh, you're petroleum geologist are you?
I kinda doubt it.
> My father was an
> exploration geologist, and one of my first jobs was
> as a production engineer.
Do tell, where?
> E&P expenditures are tiny compared to revenues or,
> even, current profits.
As well they should be, fool.
Large integrated oil companies have a multitude of functions and
expenses to attend too, you lying asshole.
http://www.shell.com/home/content/eandp-en/about_shell/dir_about_shell.html
Shell companies have been finding and producing oil and gas around the
world for over a century. Today, we have interests in exploration and
production ventures in more than 39 countries and employ approximately
19,000 staff (not including contractors.)
http://www.shell.com/home/content/investor/financial_information/quarterlyresults/2008/q2/q2_2008_keyfinancials_31072008.html
Second quarter 2008 - Key Financial Data
$ million Revenue
2008 2007 %
131,419 84,896 +55
Capital Investment
2008 2007 %
7,995 5,824 +37
>>> It would
>>> look like I had a margin of 8.8%, but I'd be wildly
>>> profitable for no good reason at all.
>> You just made a claim you can not prove nor sup****t.
>
> Huh? In the hypothetical I just laid out, my business
> would have margins of 8.8% but profits that amounted to
> a twelth of the country's GDP. That's just arithmetic.
That's just obfuscation.
Why aren't you slamming software firms for their 23.2% profit margins, eh?
I mean in terms of products that touch all phases of daily life software
is right up
there with oil.
Yet somehow you gloss over it with relative impunity.
A bit of pure hypocrisy at work.
>>> A monopolist squatting on an inelastic good basically can
>>> do precisely that with their sector of the economy.
>> There is no domestic oil monopoly - stop lying.
>
> Huh? Remember your Ec 101 -- excess profits aren't possible
> in a competitive free market. ;)
I see no "excess profits" you lying marxist ass-weasel.
>>> Note that oil and gas are enjoying a 27.3% return on equity.
>>> Dunno about you, but I can't go to my bank and make that
>>> kind of money on my savings.
>>>
>>> 27.3% smells kinda like usury to me.
>> Sure you can do that, do a software startup.
>>
>> Nothing usury there.
>>
>> Why do you keep losing points and then shape ****fting the argument?
>>
>> You're a disgrace to that Sierra Club you front for, fool.
>
> Um, you can go to the bank and make 27.3%?
Um have you ever looked at what commercial real estate investors make?
The "bank" isn't the best place to appreciate a ****tfolio, you moron.
Banks offer safety in exchange for lower return.
That's kinda how THEY end up making money, you shape-****fing ass-monkey.
>>>>> ###
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Record
>>>>>>> profits -- profits that are approaching $1,000 a year for
>>>>>>> every man, woman, and child in America -- are, ahem,
>>>>>>> record profits.
>>>>>> And record demand in China and India are record DEMAND!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/content_8075648.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BEIJING, April 29 (Xinhua) -- Soaring oil prices have not slowed
China's
>>>>>> consumption of oil as statistics show that China's apparent
consumption
>>>>>> of crude oil and refined oil products both hit record highs in the
first
>>>>>> quarter of the year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to statistics released Tuesday by the China
Petroleum and
>>>>>> Chemical Industry Association (CPCIA), China's apparent consumption
of
>>>>>> oil products composed of gasoline, diesel and kerosene rose by 16.5
>>>>>> percent year on year to 52.73 million tonnes in the first three
months,
>>>>>> and crude oil, rose by eight percent to91.8 million tonnes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that's a nation of 1.3 BILLION people with at present only
33
>>>>>> MILLION cars.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DO THE MATH!
>>>>> Sure, and they didn't all just arrive yesterday and they
>>>>> are still a quite poor nation. Nothing's going on that
>>>>> would justify a sudden doubling or tripling of oil prices.
>>>> Wow, do you understand tyat markets are forward looking?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest you watch a few of the many programs on China available
now.
>>>>
>>>> Discovery and Ted Koppel had a great series, and CNBC has one out now
as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> After that you may come back and speak in a somewhat more clueful
manner.
>>>>
>>>> The Chinese auto industry is on a flat tear, as are the Chinese road
>>>> building projects,
>>>>
>>>> And that demand is what drives commodity price speculation increases.
>>> Markets are forward-looking? That was precisely my point.
>> So they measured demand.
>>
>> You didn't.
>>
>>> Nothing unexpected has happened this year. So why do we get a wild
>>> price swing?
>> Increased attention on China, fool.
>>
>> How stupid are you?
>
> Stupid enough that where we are in 2008 was obvious to me
> 5 to 10 years ago, when the business rags first started
> talking about China.
Marvelous, then why are you tap dancing all over the floor, shape ****fter?
> It's amazing to think that the markets are even more stupid
> than I am. Who wudda thunk?
The markets price in actuals with projections fool; did you have some
concrete point to make or any corroborative urls to offer?
No?
Mmmm hmmm.
>
>>>>>>> ###
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> {off topic partisan spin indictments deleted}
>>>>>>> Which part of record deficits devaluing our currency and
>>>>>>> driving up oil prices is partisan spin?
>>>>>> Which part of regular economic cycles do you not grasp, or do just
>>>>>> dislike us having stronger ex****ts?
>>>>> You want stronger ex****ts because your production
>>>>> facilities are more efficient than everyone else's,
>>>>> and not because you've debased your own currency.
>>>> You want strong ex****ts but are faced with a labor wagwe rate
imbalance
>>>> - what to do...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Stop obfuscating, asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> The record deficits are just a fact, like the sky is blue.
>>>>>> Big whoop.
>>>>> You're a Democrat, right?
>>>> You're an enviroweenie, right?
>>> Actually, I'm a mountain climber, if you're reading my sig.
>>> Prolly pretty much middle-of-the-road on environmental matters.
>> Unlikely.
>
> Which part?
"middle of the road"
> I've done over a thousand ascents, leading more than 200
> of them.
Do you think I give a flying ****?
> Most engineers, especially ones who grew up in the oil
> industry, are fairly reasonable on environmental matters.
So what happened to you?
>>> ###
>>>
>>>> You have a collectivist mentality and demonstrable intellectual
dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Stip wasting my time.
>>> Stip?
>> Oh my, the loser's hallmark, the sp. flame - again.
>>
>> Sorry I have large fingers.
>>
>> You ****ing asshole.
>
> Um, actually, I also make spelling errors. Twitting you
> on that is mainly interesting because you respond so nicely.
And hammering you with stats on an industry you _claim_ to have been
whelped in is pure pleasure.
>>> Accusing an old Goldwaterite of having a collectivist mentality is
>>> gut-rupturingly funny.
>> Claiming to be one is even more mirthful.
>>
>> Why do you lot try and play that 'outraged ex-R game' here?
>
> Because it's accurate. If you check my voter registration,
> you'll note I'm *still* a registered Republican.
Why would I check your registration?
If you have a claim to make, post the corroborative data, or be seen as
a likely liar.
>>> The interesting thing is that Bu****es (I refuse to defile the term
>>> "conservative" by applying it to them) are much, much closer to
>>> Communists than
>> Enough.
>>
>> You and your partisan haters can esad.
>
> You realize, of course, that it's gut-rupturingly funny having
> somebody accuse you of being a "partisan hater" in the same
> sentence that they suggest you go eat **** and die.
You realize of course that you obstructionist enviroweenies are part and
parcel of the problem and that your political capital has largely
eva****ated.
Enjoy being irrelevant.
|
