Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Civilized Debate Civilized Debate
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > > >

Are we being taken again by oil companies?


(!)

Gibble's Avatar
Member with 27,087 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Striking or Scoring
Experience: The Alpha and Omega
25-Apr-2006, 11:43 AM #46
Quote:
Originally Posted by compushlep
Does this chart support your argument? Good proverb btw

Here's the problem with that graph.

I don't know what they are measuring?

avg mpg per passenger?
avg mpg per registered vehicle?
avg mpg per vehicle available for sale in America?


WHAT?
TooBad's Avatar
Member with 2,049 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Experience: Intermediate
25-Apr-2006, 11:49 AM #47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibble
Here's the problem with that graph.

I don't know what they are measuring?

avg mpg per passenger?
avg mpg per registered vehicle?
avg mpg per vehicle available for sale in America?


WHAT?
Not only that, but these are all future projections. And we all know how accurate those are!
BanditFlyer's Avatar
Member with 12,552 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: BOT бaHДиT
Experience: (50-6) 44ko, one earlobe
25-Apr-2006, 11:53 AM #48
Quote:
Originally Posted by compushlep
Does this chart support your argument? Good proverb btw
Actually, I was thinking something more along these lines:


Edit: Hope that clears things up for you Gibble. Glad I could offer some assistance!
compushlep's Avatar
Member with 2,436 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: BC, Canada
25-Apr-2006, 12:03 PM #49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibble
Here's the problem with that graph.

I don't know what they are measuring?

avg mpg per passenger?
avg mpg per registered vehicle?
avg mpg per vehicle available for sale in America?


WHAT?
Going from memory it's the fuel economy of the combined car and light truck fleet. Unfortunately I have problems accessing the site at the moment ... I'll try later to confirm.

It is a projection but when compared to EPA trends (US only) the chart is fairly close to cars (would that exclude SUV's and p/u trucks?). Can't confirm the other countries' figures except for Canada--have seen similar figures before.



http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s05001.htm
Attached Thumbnails
Are we being taken again by oil companies?-adjfuel.jpg  
Lpar's Avatar
Lpar Lpar is offline Lpar has a Profile Picture
Senior Member with 682 posts.
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
25-Apr-2006, 12:19 PM #50
Over the last 10 years or so 24 refineries in this country have been shut down. The question is why? Answers are likely that the oil companies could keep tighter control over the supply thereby raising profits, they could lower their costs by shutting down the refineries and laying off workers, and all that pesky having to keep in line with Federal guidlines for clean air (we are talking about 10 years- so there was some accountability to the Clean Air Act). So lack of refineries is just another way for the oil companies to reap profits.
linskyjack's Avatar
Member with 22,807 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
25-Apr-2006, 12:24 PM #51
Absolutely---why make the huge capital investment if you can find your profits without them?
compushlep's Avatar
Member with 2,436 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: BC, Canada
25-Apr-2006, 12:27 PM #52
Quote:
Originally Posted by TooBad
Not only that, but these are all future projections. And we all know how accurate those are!
All right then, just look at the graph till 2005 . Those figures are known already so that part is not a projection but a record. Do you still dispute the accuracy? If so, look at the numbers from EPA which do confirm the accuracy for the time period. This should alleviate your mistrust somewhat, one would hope
compushlep's Avatar
Member with 2,436 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: BC, Canada
25-Apr-2006, 12:36 PM #53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanditFlyer
Actually, I was thinking something more along these lines:


Edit: Hope that clears things up for you Gibble. Glad I could offer some assistance!
Oh I see ... you meant to say superficial. But why put down in one word what you can neatly express with a diagram, right?
BanditFlyer's Avatar
Member with 12,552 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: BOT бaHДиT
Experience: (50-6) 44ko, one earlobe
25-Apr-2006, 04:24 PM #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by compushlep
Oh I see ... you meant to say superficial. But why put down in one word what you can neatly express with a diagram, right?
It was a chart taken from satirewire.com's collection of charts, and no, I meant tangential, as in thread-hijacking, or making remarks not relevant to the discussion at hand, shooting off on a tangent, etc.

Also, a bit of a commetary on the lack of much meaning in your chart due to the concerns expressed ever more eloquently by Gibble.

But mostly just a thread hijack

But thanks for noticing!
__________________
Don't taze me, Bro!


(there's got to be a dance version of that somewhere - remember the old song "Don't hurt me"?)
GoneForNow's Avatar
Member with 12,427 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
25-Apr-2006, 07:10 PM #55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paquadez
Sorry, GB, I cannot actually understand your point. Did you actually make one? Or any?

Go study the Credit Illinois collapse and Volcker's comments at the time.

Or are you saying Volcker is an idiot? And his perspective on economics valueless?

Strange.......................

Paq.
Next time I'll dumb it down so you will understand.

Volker has turned into a whore, he'll write a position for any one who is willing to pay his fee.

You write an article predicting a retrenchment of the US dollar, when your prediction falls flat you attempt to save face by claim you said IF, a complete cop out. In other words,.....could, maybe, possibly....or there are the predictions that the mentally feeble lache onto (Bassetmen) such as the "the price of oil will fluctuate". No shat Sherlock. This prediction is in the same vein as predicting that the US dollar will retreat. No shat Sherlock, its called an economic cycle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassetman
Neither can the rest of us!
Sorry, I can never dumb it down enough for you to understand. Once we progress past "See Spot run Dick", you're lost.
__________________
The Democrats laughed. "I was talking about the minimum wage," Pelosi said. "The American people sent a message this past election, and that message was that they wanted their government to pretend there is no terrorist problem and instead focus on inane crap and entitlements... and who better to do that than we Democrats?"
Mulderator's Avatar
Member with 51,021 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
25-Apr-2006, 07:16 PM #56
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbrumb
Next time I'll dumb it down so you will understand.

Volker has turned into a whore, he'll write a position for any one who is willing to pay his fee.

You write an article predicting a retrenchment of the US dollar, when your prediction falls flat you attempt to save face by claim you said IF, a complete cop out. In other words,.....could, maybe, possibly....or there are the predictions that the mentally feeble lache onto (Bassetmen) such as the "the price of oil will fluctuate". No shat Sherlock. This prediction is in the same vein as predicting that the US dollar will retreat. No shat Sherlock, its called an economic cycle.
I think you and me (and most litigators) understand this much better because we actually see how easy it is to buy "expert" opinions. I don't hire an expert unless I know he's going to have a favorable opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gbrumb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassetman
Neither can the rest of us!
Sorry, I can never dumb it down enough for you to understand. Once we progress past "See Spot run Dick", you're lost.
__________________
Weapon of Mass Instruction!
plschwartz's Avatar
Member with 11,440 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I am a third generation New Yo
Experience: Intermediate
25-Apr-2006, 08:45 PM #57
While Republican leaders sharply criticize soaring gasoline prices and energy industry profits, GOP negotiators have decided to knock out provisions in a major tax bill that would force the oil companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes on their profits.
wapo
GoneForNow's Avatar
Member with 12,427 posts.
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
25-Apr-2006, 09:24 PM #58
Oil Industry Seeks to Cast Huge Profits as No Big Deal

By Terence O'Hara
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 28, 2005; D01

By most familiar comparisons, the $9.92 billion profit earned by Exxon Mobil Corp. in just three months is almost unimaginable. It would cover all Social Security benefit payments for three months. It would pay for an Ivy League education for about 60,000 kids. It would pay the average list price for more than 160 Boeing 737s. It would fund the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for more than two months.

Yet oil industry representatives and Exxon Mobil yesterday made a game effort to cast the record profit, earned during a quarter in which the Gulf Coast was shattered by hurricanes and gas prices rose well above $3 a gallon, as middling at best.

<SNIP>

Perhaps mindful of mounting anger over gas prices and calls by some Democrats in Congress to impose a "windfall" tax on oil company profits, it said its industry's profits over time were not as lucrative as those in banking, pharmaceutical and many other industries.

Such comparisons are Wall Street's standard tools for evaluating companies, taking into account a firm's level of capital investment and the risks involved in the business. After all, how much one company makes is meaningful only in relation to what another company makes when an investor is deciding which to invest in.

For instance, in 2004 Exxon Mobil earned more money -- $25.33 billion -- than any other company on the Fortune 500 list of largest corporations. But by another measure of profitability, gross profit margin, it ranked No. 127.


Jay Taparia, a lecturer in finance at the University of Illinois at Chicago and an expert on interpreting financial statements, said a quarterly profit or loss can only be judged in context, given the history of the company and its long-term prospects.

"People who are freaking out about Exxon's record profit are the same people who were freaking out about AOL Time Warner's record losses" of $98.2 billion in 2002, he said. "One quarter's net income or loss doesn't mean anything."

<SNIP>

Even so, many companies smaller than Exxon Mobil "earn" more, depending on what measure is used.

Most financial institutions, such as commercial banks, are routinely more profitable than Exxon Mobil was in its third quarter. For example, Exxon Mobil's gross margin of 9.8 cents of profit for every dollar of revenue pales in comparison to Citigroup Inc.'s 15.7 cents in 2004. By percentage of total revenue, banking is consistently the most profitable industry in America, followed closely by the drug industry.

Altria Group, the maker of Marlboro and other cigarettes, made 22 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004, and pharmaceutical company Merck made 25.3 cents for every dollar of revenue in 2004.


By other measures, such as profit per employee, return on invested capital and free cash flow, Exxon Mobil is nowhere near a standout.

Oil industry analysts yesterday also pointed out that while times are good for oil companies, one of the reasons is the huge American demand for gas at a time when supply is constrained. And the cost of extracting and refining oil in the coming years is only going to increase, requiring hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. Energy research firm John S. Herold Inc. last month predicted that despite short-term increases in profits, higher costs will probably make many U.S. oil companies less profitable in the next five years, even as their revenue grows rapidly.

"The industry has pressure points, which in time will likely impact its forward momentum," said Herold chief executive Arthur L. Smith.

<SNIP>

Remainder here>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102702399.html
Mulderator's Avatar
Member with 51,021 posts.
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
26-Apr-2006, 01:19 AM #59
Quote:
Originally Posted by plschwartz
While Republican leaders sharply criticize soaring gasoline prices and energy industry profits, GOP negotiators have decided to knock out provisions in a major tax bill that would force the oil companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes on their profits.
wapo

What's this have to do with anything? Are you contending that oil companies should pay more in taxes than other companies? Why are you not concerned with the bottled water where the profit margins are huge.

As usual, its your knee jerk liberal "oil companies bad" rhetoric. Let's hate the oil companies--let's hate profit (unless its for a good liberal cause!)
sglv's Avatar
Member with 3,277 posts.
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Experience: Beginner
26-Apr-2006, 01:37 AM #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by plschwartz
While Republican leaders sharply criticize soaring gasoline prices and energy industry profits, GOP negotiators have decided to knock out provisions in a major tax bill that would force the oil companies to pay billions of dollars more in taxes on their profits.
wapo
OK, I'm against the huge increases in the cost of gasoline; however, I fail to see how taxing the oil companies even more will cut down on the price I pay at the pump.

On numerous occasions over the last year or so, I have heard my politicians rant and rave about how the price of gas per gallon will be investigated only to be swept under the rug. Why is it swept under the rug? I'll tell you why, they find out that 90% of the cost of gas in each state is taxes! Yep, that's why the price varies from state to state. It depends on how much money goes toward taxes. That's why Nevada is high, California even higher. Midwest states are lower.

It's all about the taxes per gallon that each state has tacked onto the price of gasoline. They won't admit that though.

I've already sent a letter to my newspaper asking they expose the tax per gallon, opposed to the cost per gallon. I doubt I see an article on that.

We love to complain about the price per gallon, and trust me I'm not happy - my hubby drives all over town for a living - but the fact of the matter is, taxes are the deciding factor on who pays more per gallon in each state.
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


(clock)
THIS THREAD HAS EXPIRED.
Are you having the same problem? We have volunteers ready to answer your question, but first you'll have to join for free. Need help getting started? Check out our Welcome Guide.

Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑