Tim McG

They *haven't* tripled their profit margin. It's remained steady at 8.5%. 8.5% of $4.50/gallon is nicer than 8.5% of 2.80, I'll agree with you on that. But their margin has remained the same at 8.5%, and I'm sure their stockholders expect that sort of return to remain. OPEC + speculators are the primary culprit for the rise in pump prices. Be mad at them. They have tripled their profits, Aggie. Not the profit margin. Because they maintain this magical 8.5% margin it does not take into account the fact they are charging more at the pump. The more they charge the more they make irrespective of whe 8.5% numer you keep hanging your argument on. Let's put it this way: If a gallon of gas costs $1.00 8.5% gives you an net profit of 8.5 cents. If a gallon of gas costs $5.00, 8.5% nets you five times that amount at 42.5 cents. Now do the math, Aggie. If you multiply that figure by $1.5 TRILLION dollars of fuel sold in the last quarter you get obscene amounts of money. Aggie, the more they charge, the more they make. And since they aren't reinvesting back into the business, it becomes free and clear profit. What part of this equation aren't you understanding?

I can almost guarantee you that when the DOE releases their figures for 2008, the % of the total that equals "refining costs and profit" will remain the same, despite the increase in the cost at the pump. The prices are going up because the cost of a barrel of oil coming into the country is higher than it was before, not because U.S. oil companies randomly decide to increase it. Your vitriol is misdirected. edited to remove Goodspeak's random extra blank lines. That is total bullshit, Aggie. Note: I do blank lines because that is my chosen style of posting. It sets me apart from the rest just like a golfer who wears red every day he plays a Final round. It is my "signature" if you will. It is what I do. Now then, when DOE [a government agency controlled by our pinhead prez] releases said report it will not take into account the pumped up numbers the oil companies say they have relative to actual cost of refining vs. actual profit. Dude...they make more and more money each and every time OPEC raises their crude oil prices. How in the hell can you tell me this is a result of a fair market or an 8.5% profit margin? It is total bullshit, Aggie. Name one business that has tripled it's profits due to that ridiculous "supply and demand" bullshit. Name ONE, Aggie....just one. Either you work for the government or you are a beneficiary of the oil companies greed relative to the stock market, Aggie. The third choice is you just plain don't get it. Tell me I'm wrong.

At $2.80 a gallon, there is nothing wrong with it. But there is just one problem: I paid $4.46 at the pump today. Now that would be a much higher figure than what you quoted, wouldn't it? There is absolutely no justification for cranking up the prices at the pump like that and for gas that has not yet been refined and made ready for sale. Gouging is gouging, Aggie. Time to come to terms with that $125 Billion dollar quarterly profit figure...triple that of eight years ago. No sale.

Tonight we are going Japanese-American: Beef and vegetable Teppanyaki....cooked in a Wok, though [sorry]. My apologies to you purists ot there.

Oooo. I want that recipe!

Marc Ecko is, indeed, an idiot. Agreed. But what can you expect from a friggin' fashion designer anyway? I vote we asterisk his di-, er...forehead.

As compared to what? You haven't responded to my previous posts, Aggie. In our previous discussions on this BBS that usually means you're purposely ignoring them to set up a strawman debate [relative to your 8.5% figure] or you don't want to acknowlege that you're wrong here. Your point was my $18 Billion dollar figure was a shared profit among all oil companies. That was incorrect. It is more like $125 Billion dollars in shared profits. My piont is that it makes absolutely no sense that with each increase in crude oil the oil companies have tripled their profits since 2000. Any reasonable thinking man would see that with each increase comes a fair and higher price passed onto the consumer to balance profit against payouts. That is simply not the case here. The oil profits have far outstripped the cost of doing business. You need to be more specific about that 8.5% mark you're bandying about, er...that is, to quote a recently popularized phrase.

Here is yet another article, Aggie. The oil companies are drowning in greed sponsored profits. To wit: "Since January of 2002, the price of crude has tripled, leaving oil producers awash in profits. During that period, the top 10 major public oil companies have sold some $1.5 trillion worth of crude, pocketing profits of more than $125 billion." Source: Oil awash in record profits That is $125 BILLION total free and clear profits, Aggie. That would be the figure you need to consider relative to shared profits amounts between the oil companies.

Actually, it doesn't matter WHERE the money comes from. Better to impose a "windfall tax", which our government did about ten years ago, and cop a few hundred billions to fund those developments than get the money from some other source, I say. All alternative energy sources have their environmental downsides. I've never seen - but I can't say I follow this assiduously - any report that seriously compares the environmental and other costs of different methods of producing energy. But clearly, if this had been done, we'd know what development path to follow. Since we appear not to know this, I guess no one's done it. But it seems a pre-requisite. Not doing it before has landed us where we are. MG Good point....and you're right, MG. All I'm saying is here in America we have a pretend president and former oilman turning a blind eye to oil company manipulation of the market and price gouging.

That would be wrong, Aggie. The $18 Billion refers to one oil company profit: Shell Oil, I believe. Exxon cleared $11.7 Billion Source:Exxon Profits BP $6.53 billion....and this was back in 2005. [source:Washington Post ] The profits have nearly tripled since then, Aggie. I could go on... Now how do you balance that with the rising cost of crude oil? It simply does not stand to reason. And let us take a look at that figure. Even if it is shared among what, five Big Oil companies, that would still calculate out to obscene profits by anybody's standard....but you'd have to go back five years to see that. The so-called invisible hand of the marketplace is morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt. This isn't capitalism, it is out and out greed. They can't justify it and neither can you, my friend. And I'm not really sure how that compares organization with a philanthropic owner like Microsoft which, BTW, has no real competition in the software market. Apples and oranges.

The problem is the cost per barrel simply does not translate to 20 and 50 cent price spikes at the pump. Secondly, how can the oil companies justify that price hike on oil already refined and in the underground tanks at the gas station? The hike in price should come after the higher priced oil has been refined then shipped out for consumption. In effect, we are paying in advance for price increases not yet realized by the refineries. As to profit, that $18 Billion dollar figure is based upon free and clear profit, Aggie. That means money left over after everybody has been paid off and services have been rendered. The oil companies are making themselves and their stockholders multi-millionaires while we all suffer for it. That is just plain greed. Make no mistake. From the Dept of Energy (here): If you look at this, the "refining costs/profits" portion of what you pay at the pump essentially hasn't changed. As a business, the Exxons and Shells aren't taking MORE percentage of profit than they were before the prices started going crazy. And I'm quite sure as a company dependant on making a return on investment, they're not going to be willing to cut their profits in half (and alienate all their shareholders and disrupt the stock market even further), just because somebody thinks they're greedy. And if you don't think companies should be trying to make a return on investment, what would their purpose be in a capitalist society? So you believe it isn't a case of greed when the oil companies are clearing record profits? $18 Billion dollars every quarter isn't exorbitantly high to you? The chart explains the process but it sure as hell does not explain the obscene profits, Aggie. $2.80 is a far cry from $4.50. And screw the stockholders. What do I care if a few filthy rich greedheads make less on their investments when your Average Joe trucker or market is getting pushing out of business? Besides, this is a government study from the very same government allowing big oil to get away with price gouging murder. It is the same weak argument the insurance industry had about doing business in California. That whole we are going to sell and leave you without insurance because it costs too much to insure Californians, oh-boo-hoo-bullshit-hoo was crap. It was just a scare tactic. They're still here aren't they. My feeling is the same here with oil stocks. Let them sell, Aggie. That will spread the stocks around to more and more folks and there goes their monopoly on the oil market. Same argument, different industry. In short, I've got three words for the oil companies and their investors: Wah, wah, wah. What the hell are you talking about? First off, there is no oil market monopoly. Unless your idea of a monopoly is hundreds of oil companies in the business of oil production and sales. Plenty of competition from not only private and public held companies, but also governments as well. That my friend is no monopoly. If you had the cash, you could get into the business yourself, no? You most certainly can buy stock with no one being able to stop you from doing so. Do you have a 401K? How about an IRA or any type of mutual fund? If the answer is yes, you may already be in the oil business. I was refering to Aggie's coment about how investors would further spook the economy by selling off their oil stock. I say let 'em.

The problem is the cost per barrel simply does not translate to 20 and 50 cent price spikes at the pump. Secondly, how can the oil companies justify that price hike on oil already refined and in the underground tanks at the gas station? The hike in price should come after the higher priced oil has been refined then shipped out for consumption. In effect, we are paying in advance for price increases not yet realized by the refineries. As to profit, that $18 Billion dollar figure is based upon free and clear profit, Aggie. That means money left over after everybody has been paid off and services have been rendered. The oil companies are making themselves and their stockholders multi-millionaires while we all suffer for it. That is just plain greed. Make no mistake. From the Dept of Energy (here): If you look at this, the "refining costs/profits" portion of what you pay at the pump essentially hasn't changed. As a business, the Exxons and Shells aren't taking MORE percentage of profit than they were before the prices started going crazy. And I'm quite sure as a company dependant on making a return on investment, they're not going to be willing to cut their profits in half (and alienate all their shareholders and disrupt the stock market even further), just because somebody thinks they're greedy. And if you don't think companies should be trying to make a return on investment, what would their purpose be in a capitalist society? So you believe it isn't a case of greed when the oil companies are clearing record profits? $18 Billion dollars every quarter isn't exorbitantly high to you? The chart explains the process but it sure as hell does not explain the obscene profits, Aggie. $2.80 is a far cry from $4.50. And screw the stockholders. What do I care if a few filthy rich greedheads make less on their investments when your Average Joe trucker or market is getting pushing out of business? Besides, this is a government study from the very same government allowing big oil to get away with price gouging murder. It is the same weak argument the insurance industry had about doing business in California. That whole we are going to sell and leave you without insurance because it costs too much to insure Californians, oh-boo-hoo-bullshit-hoo was crap. It was just a scare tactic. They're still here aren't they. My feeling is the same here with oil stocks. Let them sell, Aggie. That will spread the stocks around to more and more folks and there goes their monopoly on the oil market. Same argument, different industry. In short, I've got three words for the oil companies and their investors: Wah, wah, wah.

They are all real to me, Joe. The only regret I have is that we don't have a government with the huevos to stand up to the oil greedheads and to encourage non-oil money funded alternative/renewable energy sources. There should be far more hydrogen/electric/alcohol/solar fueled vehicles on the road then we have now. I say cut the oil bastards off at the knees and take away their tax subsidies then solely and wholly promote non-oil dependent technologies with the vigor it deserves. That's how we can be independent of foreign oil.

I recently broke off a tooth and cracked another. Two crowns later and the first tooth is still giving me fits. God....I sincerely hope I don't need a root canal done.

The problem is the cost per barrel simply does not translate to 20 and 50 cent price spikes at the pump. Secondly, how can the oil companies justify that price hike on oil already refined and in the underground tanks at the gas station? The hike in price should come after the higher priced oil has been refined then shipped out for consumption. In effect, we are paying in advance for price increases not yet realized by the refineries. As to profit, that $18 Billion dollar figure is based upon free and clear profit, Aggie. That means money left over after everybody has been paid off and services have been rendered. The oil companies are making themselves and their stockholders multi-millionaires while we all suffer for it. That is just plain greed. Make no mistake.

Commodities futures markets - I assume that's what you're talking about - have never operated on the assumption that traders would take physical delivery. But yes, speculation can influence price. It's the same thing that causes 'bubbles' whether tulips* or natural gas. * Perhaps the most famous of speculative bubbles in history. Correct! Oh, c'mon. The oil companies are taking full advantage and it has little to do with outside influences. Why, then, can't they charge $2 bucks a gallon instead? Answer: Because they know they can get away with unchallenged price gouging right now given today's market climate and a pinhead oilman for a president.

Indeed. But the bottom line is greed. No more, no less.

I understand. IMHO, I think if the oil companies made $100 Million clear profit every quarter nobody would care....but $18 BILLION? And every four months? That's just plain obscene, Joe. That whole "what the market will bear" routine is just another way of justifying greed. The so-called "invisible hand of the marketplace" is morally corrupt and ethically bankrupt. This is a money suck in the cynical category of a grab all you can while you can philosophy. There simply is no justification for charging upwards of $4 bucks a gallon. Personally, I think it all comes down to motive [they want our coastlines and Alaska] and an oilman president who is allowing them to squeeze us all until we say yes to their drilling demands. Pure and simple.

Just an obsevation on my part, but get rid of that silly DH rule and we'll see what happens losing-wise, my friend. My point is I just get a little tired of the East dominating the conversation around here is all. And even when the East does tank, you guys don't stop talking about them, right? So the West is stinking up the joint right now. So what? Still a lot going on pitching-wise out here and the trade deadline looms large. The MidWest gets some mention so long as they are AL teams playing the AL East but the West, even the A's who have played out of their collective spikes the last couple seasons, rarely get mentioned. My Giants suck, no doubt about that. But all's I'm saying is there is more to the MLB than just Eastern baseball. Make sense?

Joe Williams Andy Williams Serena Williams

Right. That $18 Million is free and clear profit, BeBop. That means after all their expenses are paid. Possible? Dig deep into your Thesaurus, BeBop. see also; probable likely obvious I can't believe you said that OMG

And that would be this year, yes? Do you guys stop talking Eastern baseball when your teams suck?

Oh! That was cold... true, but cold. I'd like to talk about the Dodgers... but, really... why? San Diego was just outscored by a tee-ball team... San Fran - Barroid* is rather... eh... bland? I mean, one of the flying Molina brothers was batting cleanup last I saw... Seattle... let's not be mean, we'll just leave them out... I hate Scocia, so I refuse to discuss his team (though I have two of his pitchers on my fantasy squad)... Oaktown? Nah. Really, what do you want to discuss? Why don't we just wait till October when the Sox wipe the smirk off Scocia's face... again. :rsmile: We could talk West Coast basket... oh, wait... nevermind. Righty-O. Colorado was in the WS last year and the NL/AL West has provided quality playoff teams in the ALCS and NLCS for the last several seasons. How soon we forget how AZ kicked the smug Yankees' butts in the 2001 WS. Your precious Boston couldn't do it until after the D'Backs did. Eastern arrogance knows no bounds, apparently.

We also talk about midwestern baseball, specifically the Cubs. We might care about Western baseball when there is a team in the NL West when there is more than one team over .500. I see. So winners are all you guys are about then, eh? Which NL Division provided two treams to the playoff the last two years, eh? Who was the runner-up in last year's WS? And who knocked off the arrogant Yankees in a WS? That would be the NL West. Tell you what, I'll be glad to remind you all of that when your guys suck....you know, like not winning a World Series in over a million years. Bank on it.

Cool, Brooks. My buddy who lived in SF [now New Zealand] told me his Prius got 40 mpg in The City.