Re: Fox News sinks to new low

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:23:56 GMT, "Octopus Ride"
<davko58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Carlisle" <carrie-cox@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0d39fd95-87f6-48a1-8001-e14f9c99ebfa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Big and integrated sounds bad. Record profits sounds real bad. Are US
oil companies making anymore of a profit on the margin than any other
privately held concerns? Granted they should not have this "cozy
relationship with the feds". Perhaps the sites they currently hold
leases on have no oil or they haven't found any yet, why else would
they not fully utilize them? Tax subsides? Do away with them then!
C'mon!

Apparently you didn't read my post prior to responding.

There is nothing wrong with big integrated oil companies. There is nothing
wrong with record profits. There is a lot wrong with the big integrated
oil companies that receive huge corporate welfare tax subsidies to explore
and drill, and yet do very little of either. The lease sites they control
are the prime sites; yet the small oil prospector/driller companies produce
far more on a percentage basis on their less viable sites. That's because
they DRILL. They don't spend all their money buying back their own stock.
And, not coincidentally, their stockholders are making FAR more money than
the poor suckers who buy and hold companies like XOM. Oil drilling is good
for stockholders; but XOM executives are bonused not on stock price, but on
dollar profits. Its easier to make huge dollar profits trading your own
stock.

There is no reason an oil company should receive a corporate welfare tax
subsidy that other industries don't receive. Why should an oil company that
refuses to drill get a tax subsidy when a mining company that actually mines
doesn't get one? You ask why they wouldn't drill? Again, you apparently
didn't read my post. Companies like XOM aren't in that business; they're
in the stock trading business. And why should they drill? That costs
money. Its easier to issue massive amounts of stock then buy it back and
then issue more stock. The number of shares is so gigantic that a couple
of pennies of manipulated profit dwarfs anything they could make drilling
for oil. But the biggest reason they don't drill is because not doing so
adds to the perception (some would say reality) that we have an oil
shortage. That perception drives up the price of the old legacy oil they
still pull out of the ground from old wells. They make more money jacking
up the price of that than they could if they exploited new sources. That
would increase the supply and drive the price down, reducing profits.


All right, let the smaller prospectors have a go at it. Thing is, who
has the infrastructure to do what would need to be done in the most
environmentally safe manner? I mean hell are we talking about a
potential anti-trust case here? I would think it common sense to
increase domestic supply when and where possible and yes my friends
this includes alternatives and conservation.

I happen to believe that we should find new sources and drill, including
offshore (no need for ANWR, too miniscule). But the devil is in the
details, and neither the current administration nor McCain in his much
touted energy speech have given any indication that they would handle new
leases any differently than leases have been handled in the past. Why give
away this resource to stock traders who, in the BEST case scenario, might
deign to charge exorbitant sublease fees to the companies who actually DO
drill for oil? Shouldn't the US taxpayers get that money?

Well, let's not "lock up leases" for no good reason then. That
shouldn't be a deal breaker.

If ANWR was opened tomorrow the process, and the results, would be the same.
Why should we do that? What is there to gain?

First it's 10 years now we're up to 50. It's better than saying it
will never be used, yes sir.

Once a tract is leased, its up to the oil company. Why give them a
national resource to either sit on or screw their competition with? I
thought the idea was to get more oil out of the ground.

I'm not sure that all your hypothesis are gospel gold. Let's say they
are and you know ALL about how the energy and oil business works and
have no political agenda here whatsoever. The problems you present are
things our country should deal with, rectify, try and solve what have
you so we are not literally in some cases sitting on natural resourses
which could empower the US to be less dependent on foreign sources
like OPEC. I will say and I've criticized him a lot, John McCain has
come around to a few key points in this last address of his. I know
he's the guy to be against now because of all things considered but if
he has some good ideas, we should be able to say so--

McCain has no idea how any business works. His ignorance on that front is
mind boggling. His energy speech was nothing but political platitudes and
pandering to voters paying $4.50 a gallon. Nothing he proposed would
impact those prices, and he hasn't even thought of the consequences of yet
another give away to the big integrated stock trading, er, oil companies.

First thing to do: end the special tax subsidies these companies receive
that no other company receives. Next, find a new, creative way to issue
leases without risking monopolization, idle tracts, and profiteering on sub
leases. Ensure environmental safety, and get drilling.

Unfortunately all I've heard from McCain is the last two words. He's a
buffoon when it comes to complex issues.

OR

I hope you realize you're wasting your time here. You may as well
explain all this to a tree. Actually, the tree is probably smarter.

JimK
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: gasoline
    ... "Big oil" can only drop the price of gas about 10¢ a gallon ... recorded the biggest profits in human history since the election ... for the oil companies, just in the US, and just for gas) ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • John R. Lott, Jr. - No Profits, No Oil
    ... You would think that the answer is pretty obvious: No profits, no oil. ... To encourage more production, companies need to think that there are ... on oil companies, no one wants to admit what profits do. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: RV Fuel
    ... of Caribou is worth more than a barrel of oil; ... "Windfall Profits Tax" on oil companies. ... 19% - Refining costs AND profits ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: OT Gas Prices.
    ... XOM makes its money trading its own stock. ... a whole 10% pop while oil literally exploded in an exponential frenzy ... price increases to return the type of profits they should be returning. ...
    (alt.vacation.las-vegas)
  • Becareful of Outsourcing
    ... How the energy-rich rely on Schlumberger ... Andrew Gould is quietly becoming one of the most powerful men in the oil ... cannot and would not replace what oil companies do with things we can?t do,? ... international oil companies, returned 155 per cent. ...
    (soc.culture.singapore)
Loading