Gas is gettin' crazy high.

[CoffeeDude]

LOL! Ah yes 'spin doctors'. Isn't that bureaucracy speak for 'liar'?

 

[Michaelson]

[huh] Regards! Michaelson

 

[android]

Part of the profit increase is justifiable. Investors expect a certain return on their money. Let's look at a very simple case. I'm a coffee wholesaler and I sell my product for 25% more than I pay for it after I roast and grind it.

Last year coffee bean were $100 / bag, so I sold it for $125 / bag. Say I sell 1000 bags which makes my profit for the year $25,000.

Now coffees gone up to $150 / bag. I now sell it for 187.50 / bag. I'm not a very good businessman, so I haven't expanded my business at all, so I still sell 1000 bags. But my profit this year is $37,500. Oh, I must be price gouging, I made record profits. Well, not really, the percentage on investment was the same. Also, the price of everything else is going up too, so the increase in profits would have to be inflation/cost of living adjusted as well.

I suppose some would want me to maintain a set $25 profit per bag, but if I did that, my ability to purchase good would diminish over time. Not very smart in the long run.

Also, profit without a bunch of other numbers is meaningless.

If I said I had a business and I made $1M, you have no way to tell if I'm doing well or poorly. If the investment to make $1M was $5M, that's pretty darn good. If the investment was $1B, that's not near so good and and investors would drop my stock like a hot potato.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Going down in Houston...back to around $2.80. I look for it to go back to $2.00 sometime soon.

 

[CoffeeDude]

I'm certainly not against increases in profitability, but to tell consumers they're raising prices because of cost increases and then announce record profits smells a bit fishy. Of course, after being a GE 'peon' (there should be an additional 'e' in that), and the current value of my stocks in enron and worldcom cetainly doesn't help having warm fuzzies toward big business and their supposed ethical business practices.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Conoco Phillips PROFITS not gross were up 56% last year and they're getting along with other big oil a 6 billion dollar tax break. I guess thats what happens when you have Ken Lay in the early days helping Uncle Dick make energy policy for the White House.

 

[Dismuke]

Going down in Houston...back to around $2.80. I look for it to go back to $2.00 sometime soon.

I think that this is probably correct . And in the very long run, I think energy prices will become considerably lower provided that the politicians and environmentalists - the ones who are most responsible for the current high prices in the first place - stay out of the way.

I, for one, hope the oil companies make HUGE profits. Consider the alternative. Imagine what a pickle we all would be in if the oil companies were insolvent and on the brink of bankruptcy. If the oil companies are not in a financial position to discover and exploit new sources of supply who will? The same politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists who have done everything they can in order to prevent new sources of supply from coming on line? Give me a break.

Here is a very good example of why I want the oil companies to make huge profits. It looks very much like Shell has discovered a process by which to extract oil from shale - a technology that the government tried to subsidize a couple of decades ago with the predictable level of failure one can usually expect from a government program. Shell, on the other hand, using its own money with the primary purpose of enriching its coffers with even larger profits, has seemingly developed the technology in such a way that it would be profitable even with oil in the low $30 per barrel range. If this pans out, the oil shale deposits in Colorado would make that state one of the biggest energy producers in the world.

You can read more about this very promising development in an article from the Rocky Mountain News at this link: http://ww2.scripps.com/cgi-bin/archives/denver.pl?DBLIST=rm05&DOCNUM=20000

 

[shamus]

what a fasinating article.

so instead of pumping oil out of the gound through one hole. Shell has come up with a way to drill a thousand holes, and then pump chemical refridgerant down into it to freeze the water, then drill more holes and put heaters down there to heat it up to 700 degrees, melt the rock, and collect the oil and gas.

but they're worried about all that loose chemicals down and molten rock so they dump water in it, let it steam, pump up the dirty water, dump it on the ground, dump more water on it, and continue till the water's clean. Then they pick up and move on to the next piece of land and do it all over again.

And the best part, is they'll do it on Government owned land! So Shell won't have to pay a dime and they'll destroy every living thing growing on it for what they said for 10,000 acers in Colorado.

That sure sounds like a great idea to me! Forget solar, wind, and hydrogen, power. Lets put our money into squeezing the earth for every last drop.

 

[Dismuke]

what a fasinating article.

And the best part, is they'll do it on Government owned land! So Shell won't have to pay a dime and they'll destroy every living thing growing on it for what they said for 10,000 acers in Colorado.

Actually, being on government owned land is actually one of the big problems in my view. That will make it much easier for Leftists of the environmentalist variety who value rocks and trees more than they do the welfare and standard of living of actual individual human beings, to once again stand in the way and prevent new sources of practical, usable energy from coming to market.

That sure sounds like a great idea to me! Forget solar, wind, and hydrogen, power. Lets put our money into squeezing the earth for every last drop.

It would make no difference if such technologies were discovered. The Leftists environmentalists would still find some excuse to oppose it as their REAL motivation is a hostility towards capitalism.

For example, there are parts of the country now where it is actually economical to use wind power to help supplement the overall production of electrical power. As a result huge windmill farms have sprung up. And the response of the environmentalists who praised wind energy to the hilt back when it was NOT practical and useable? They denounce it because windmill farms are a "blight" on pretty scenery and because birds can fly into and be killed by the windmill blades. Same holds true for nuclear energy which is much safer and cleaner than fossil fuel alternatives. But that is meaningless to the environmentalist Left which has successfully prevented new nuclear power plants from being built for decades.

As for solar and hydrogen power - there is absolutely no basis at the moment for any belief that they will be able to supply a substantial portion of our energy needs for a very long time, if ever. Until such technologies come about, the fact is we NEED oil and lots of it - and evading that fact is not going to make it go away. If the environmentalists got their way and we all went "back to nature" the results would be DEATH on a massive scale. Just look entire regions of the Gulf coast to see what happens when "evil" oil and "evil" technology and "evil" capitalism break down for just a few days: Old people die because they cannot take the heat, people in hospitals and nursing homes die - and, if it continued on a wide enough scale for long enough, lots of healthy people would die too as our economy's ability to feed, shelter and take care of the physical needs of hundreds of millions of people depends entirely on a technologically advanced division of labor society - which just so happens to be fueled by oil.

There once did exist a human society without technology and which did not exploit the "environment" - if you wish to call such an existence "human." People back then lived in caves and primitive huts. They lived a horrifying, brutish day-to-day existence and, if they were fortunate, they lived to the ripe old age of 30 when they would finally pass away from complications of tooth decay which was the leading natural cause of death for Stone Age people. Human existence began to rise out of such hideous conditions when people learned that, instead of living "in" nature like dumb animals, they could REARRANGE nature and EXPLOIT it to improve the length and quality of their lives. Yet it is this very process that the Leftist environmentalists oppose any chance they get.

Environmentalism holds that the earth and "nature" are an end in themselves and, therefore, have intrinsic value independent of the needs and well being of humans. I consider such a philosophy to be hideously evil and dangerous - and to the degree it is implemented, the results are human suffering and eventually wholesale death.

So, yes, I will trade 10,000 acres or even a million acres in Colorado or anyplace else in order to continue to live in a technologically advanced, industrial society where it is possible for hundreds of millions of people to live happy, healthy, productive, fulfilling and rewarding lives lasting many decades. Such a trade is a bargain.

I for one hope the environmentalists continue to very loudly call for more controls against energy exploration and production now that the American public is finally beginning to feel in very personal ways the actual and inevitable consequences of such a philosophy and the policies they have successfully agitated for over the past few decades. Maybe people will begin to wake up about the true nature and motives of environmentalism and begin viewing it as something more than a bunch of people who claim to enjoy clean air and pretty trees.

What a lot of people may not realize is that, ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a good portion of the environmentalist movement consists of "watermelons" i.e. Green on the outside, Red on the inside. For decades, the communist Left denounced capitalism on grounds that only the universal sacrifice of everyone to everyone else known as Socialism would be able to produce prosperity and universal abundance and that it was only a matter of more time and a few more sacrifices before the socialist world would overtake the capitalist world economically. Well, eventually, the reality of the situation became SO obvious that even most Communists in the USSR no longer believed it. So did these the Communists and their Leftist sympathizers learn their lesson and become enthusiastic capitalists? A few did, perhaps. But the reaction of most to the fact that their ideology cannot produce economic prosperity was to denounce economic prosperity. So they changed tactics and blamed capitalism for the fact that some countries are richer than others and that it destroys rocks, scenery, trees, snail darters, etc.

The good news is I think ordinary people are finally beginning to realize that the environmentalist movement's agenda is NOT a about a rational concern that dirty air, dirty water and such will somehow have an adverse impact on the standard of living of human beings but is, instead, motivated by an actual contempt for everything which makes a high standard of living possible, i.e. technological progress along with political and economic freedom, all of which the environmentalists have been rabidly hostile towards for decades.

Hopefully the Greens will end up on the same "ash heap of history" as did their Red brothers and predecessors.

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Dismuke,

Well said, you are very articulate.

 

[shamus]

Dismuke,

Let me guess you work for the oil industry don't you?

I don't have hours to respond to this so I'll just respond a little.


Us "Leftists" without the rocks and trees you don't have a standard of living. Where do you think all that "air" that you breath comes from? A chemical company? No, it comes from what you view as evil.. nature!

Now you refer to the "Human Society" that lived before Oil. You said they lived a horrifying, brutish day-to-day existence and lived in caves! Oh my!

So really the "Oil Industry" really has only been around for what 100 plus years. Hmmm. So you would say from say 1890 or so, that everyone lived in caves and huts, lived to be 30 and had an awful life until the God Shell Oil appeared.

Now you compair the Hurricane in New Orleans to what would happen if you loose oil? My God if I run out of gas in my car you're saying that a huge storm will blow away my roof, then a magical levy will appear and then break and flood my house, and people will spoil the water so I can't drink it and I'll have to wait 5 days to be rescued?

I don't know if you're familar with a group of people living right here in the good ol' US of A called the Amish.

They live in caves and primitive huts you know because they don't have Oil...

They only live to be 30 too, if tooth decay doesn't get em' first.

 

[android]

The Leftists environmentalists would still find some excuse to oppose it as their REAL motivation is a hostility towards capitalism.

The good news is I think ordinary people are finally beginning to realize that the environmentalist movement's agenda is NOT a about a rational concern that dirty air, dirty water and such will somehow have an adverse impact on the standard of living of human beings but is, instead, motivated by an actual contempt for everything which makes a high standard of living possible, i.e. technological progress along with political and economic freedom, all of which the environmentalists have been rabidly hostile towards for decades.

Hopefully the Greens will end up on the same "ash heap of history" as did their Red brothers and predecessors.

The problem with capitalism as currently practiced invites this hostility.

A true capitalist believes that the cost of a service or product should reflect all of the costs associated with producing that product.

One of those costs includes cleaning up afterwards. The problem is that when a company pollutes, somebody else, usually the taxpayer, get stuck with the cleanup. They run off with profits that were artificially inflated due to taxpayer subsidization.

Or another example from south Texas. A power company lobbied to the death to fight having to spend a few million dollars on putting a filter on their smoke stack. They won and now thousands of people's health expenses are increased because of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The cost to these people is many times what it would have cost for the filters. The capitalistic thing to do would have been to install the filters and pass the costs along to the people that actually use the power.

Capitalism doesn't mean that I can pass every price increase along to the consumer and then complain and get a government subsidy when some expense comes along that cost too much or wasn't expected. But that's what happens a lot today and that's why "Big Business" is seen with such contempt.

 

[jake431]

So, yes, I will trade 10,000 acres or even a million acres in Colorado or anyplace else in order to continue to live in a technologically advanced, industrial society where it is possible for hundreds of millions of people to live happy, healthy, productive, fulfilling and rewarding lives lasting many decades. Such a trade is a bargain.

And hey, so long as you don't look down, it even seems like flying!

-Jake

 

[Biltmore Bob]

I'm on Dismuke's side.

 

[jake431]

Whoopee!

I don't think oil is a bad thing, but I think that using it relentlessly without pause or concern or even attempting to find alternate sources of energy is stupid.

It's bad enough that American's (for the most part) are utterly oblivious to the damage our consumption does to the rest of the world - but to be aware of it and not care is even worse.

Some people, (obstensibly) Christians, seem to have forgotten that Gluttony is a sin.

-Jake

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

The problem is that we do have alternate sources of energy but they are impractical either from an technological standpoint or a political one.

Hydro power for instance is one of the most efficient and cleanest ways to generate electricity. But environmentalists oppose the construction of new dams because they endanger certain entirely forgettable forms of river lifeforms.

Nuclear power is also a safe and efficient choice but environmentalists hate this one even more, both because of an irrational fear of nuclear power and also because they don't like the idea of nuclear waste being dumped somewhere.

Wind power is borderline impractical from a technological standpoint. Wind turbines generate very little electricity and from a cost/benefit analysis are not very good. In certain regions they work reasonably well because of the terrain and wind patterns. But as has been said, people still oppose the damn things because they are ugly and kill birds and such.

Solar, geothermal, ocean tide power and the like are largely experimental and inefficient. Environmentalists LOVE solar power because they think it is free. They conveniently ignore the massive costs of constructing solar cells, a cost almost always paid for in fossil fuels. Solar power is just not a practical option at this point, and very likely it will never be one. Geothermal works well enough for places like Iceland but it is not a workable solution worldwide. Same with using ocean tides to run hydro turbines.

Basically we are stuck with fossil fuels for the moment unless people are willing to make the political sacrifices necessary to invest in one of the alternatives (hydro, nuclear, etc) and that isn't going to happen. People would rather bitch and moan about how technology sucks and how they saved the lives of five redwood trees because they used organic recycled toilet paper.

 

[android]

Some people, (obstensibly) Christians, seem to have forgotten that Gluttony is a sin.
-Jake

Well, Genesis says to dominate and subdue all the creatures of the earth.

And we're going to be raptured any minute now, so it doesn't matter how big a mess we leave behind.

 

[jake431]

Well, Genesis says to dominate and subdue all the creatures of the earth.

And we're going to be raptured any minute now, so it doesn't matter how big a mess we leave behind.

Thanks for letting me know, I feel much better now. :cry:

 

[SappySwami]

This is from a Christian Stewardship website. Thought it was fascinating.

Human Responsibility Toward Creation ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù Humans have a very special and exalted place within creation (Genesis 1:26-28, Psalms 8:3-8, Matthew 10:31). However, Scripture provides us with no mandate or calling to destroy; our commission is to serve as stewards of creation (Genesis 1:28, 2:15). Genesis 1:28 is a strong passage that refers to ruling over creation. The ancient Hebrew word is redah and it generally is used to describe the righteous and loving rule of a good and kindly king. Genesis 2:15 describes how this rule is to be carried out. The two key words in Genesis 2:15 are "till" (abad in Hebrew) and "keep" (samar). In other texts, abad is translated to "serve."

 

[Biltmore Bob]

Hey, Jake...I'm an oil glutton alright, got a whole underground tank full of the stuff. The US has the cleanest environment in the world, so quit complaining. You gonna judge Christians now? Vlad and Dismuke have not even refered to Jesus in their discussions. Fact is we need oil. How'd y'all get to work this morning? It would get pretty darn cold this winter in your Chicago apartment without oil.

Andy...Glad you realize just how close we are to the end. And, it ain't gonna be us that destroys the planet...

I'm still on Dismuke's side.