Bringing Down The Middle East

[Setheus]

I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies Import Middle Eastern oil:

(The following, you want to avoid buying your gas from:)

Shell............................. 205,742,000 barrels

Chevron/Texaco......... 144,332,000 barrels

Exxon / Mobil............... 130,082,000 barrels

Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels

Amoco............................62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

(These are the companies you need to buy gas from:)

Citgo.......................0 barrels

Sunoco...................0 barrels

Conoco...................0 barrels

Sinclair...................0 barrels

BP / Phillips..........0 barrels

Hess........................0 barrels

ARCO.....................0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are

importing.

[yaanufs]

What a fantastic piece of investigative journalism produced those lists.

I don't want to do a Red Adaire and put out your fire but.......

Just for the record BP (who import 0 barrels) are actually the same company as Amoco (who import 62 Million barrels).

In additon ARCO are owned by BP so they also share in the import from Amoco as they are technically the same company.

CITGO is owned by the Venezuelan government. You'll probably find that in a few decades when the Middle East is off the radar the US president will be picking fights down in South America so you might want to think long term before you feed their economy

Sunoco and Sinclair are such small players in the oil and gas industry that they have barely moved out of their localised areas in the US, let alone ventured across the sea to exploit resources elsewhere.

Perhaps there is a reason the big multi-nationals import so much oil into the US, possibly because the demand significantly outstrips the demand available that the US can produce internally. Do you think but refusing fuel from the middle east the problems will go away there and the energy demands of the country will dissapear?

Why does the US government continually push the OPEC members to continually push up production, is it so the US can help the Middle East? Or is it self-serving?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 03:34 PM

CITGO is owned by the Venezuelan government.  You'll probably find that in a few decades when the Middle East is off the radar the US president will be picking fights down in South America so you might want to think long term before you feed their economy

Another "war for oil" accusation, along with an accusation that we are to be at war in South America. Convenient and witty, but inaccurate. If we went to war for oil, where is it?

Bear in mind that I've served in Iraq twice myself, so am less inclined to swallow the media version of the situation.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 03:34 PM

Perhaps there is a reason the big multi-nationals import so much oil into the US, possibly because the demand significantly outstrips the demand available that the US can produce internally.

Which begs the question of why we export US oil to other countries...

EDIT: We exported around 280 million barrels last year.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 04:24 PM

If we went to war for oil, where is it?

Give it a chance. Once the ungrateful locals and the cheap foreign mercenaries stop blowing up the pipelines and other oil and gas hardware then the democratic government can accelerate the process of oil production in the country.

Think slightly longer term than a couple of years, maybe 5-10.

And please don't down play Venezuela for the future. Venezuela has the largest hydrocarbon reserves in the Western Hemisphere.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 04:25 PM

Which begs the question of why we export US oil to other countries...

EDIT: We exported around 280 million barrels last year.

It is an interesting question. The wonders of modern commerce never cease to amaze.

Of course, wierd as it is that the US exports any oil, the net result is still a massive balance in favour of importing oil. Which no matter which accounting school you chose to go to, even those frequented by Enron executives, is not a sustainable plan in the long term.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 05:22 PM

Give it a chance.  Once the ungrateful locals and the cheap foreign mercenaries stop blowing up the pipelines and other oil and gas hardware then the democratic government can accelerate the process of oil production in the country.

Think slightly longer term than a couple of years, maybe 5-10.

And please don't down play Venezuela for the future.  Venezuela has the largest hydrocarbon reserves in the Western Hemisphere.

I don't see the Iraqi oil as a cause for the war. We were buying it from them already, and they stand to profit nicely when the fanatics stop sabatoging themselves. If we were going to profit from the oil, we'd have done so already just to save face.

I don't downplay Venezuela or their oil production, but I don't see the US declaing war to take it from them.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 05:25 PM

It is an interesting question. The wonders of modern commerce never cease to amaze.

Of course, wierd as it is that the US exports any oil, the net result is still a massive balance in favour of importing oil. Which no matter which accounting school you chose to go to, even those frequented by Enron executives, is not a sustainable plan in the long term.

Oil use worldwide can't be sustained indefinitely. I think we had a thread about this not long ago; the bottom line being that someone needs to come up with another source of energy, the sooner the better.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 05:55 PM

I don't downplay Venezuela or their oil production, but I don't see the US declaing war to take it from them.

Are you able to see 20 years into the future to predict the position of global politics?

Maybe the US will need to invade Venezuela to liberate it from a very, very naughty dictator.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 05:57 PM

the bottom line being that someone needs to come up with another source of energy, the sooner the better.

We have the ability now to duplicate the virtual limitless source of energy that powers the universe.

Yet people don't want it. They want to burn oil.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 06:41 PM

Are you able to see 20 years into the future to predict the position of global politics?

Maybe the US will need to invade Venezuela to liberate it from a very, very naughty dictator.

I doubt it, and Iraq needed liberating; few would dispute that.

Iraq was not about oil.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 07:06 PM

I doubt it, and Iraq needed liberating;

From what exactly?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs+Apr 18 2005, 08:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (yaanufs @ Apr 18 2005, 08:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Apr 18 2005, 07:06 PM

I doubt it, and Iraq needed liberating;

From what exactly?

Ummm, you have at least read about the condition of that country before the war? Check my web site for starters.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 18 2005, 06:43 PM

We have the ability now to duplicate the virtual limitless source of energy that powers the universe.

Yet people don't want it. They want to burn oil.

If you mean hydrogen or nuclear power, the safety risks have been a big stumbling block so far. Hydrogen has proven expensive to produce, and I think we're a long way from seeing a nuclear-powered car...

[Outshined]

On the subject of the thread, I don't think it matters much who you buy your gasoline from; they are all profiteers.

Oil prices go up, gasoline prices jump up. Oil prices come down, gasoline prices stay up, only to climb more when oil goes up again.

They charge the prices because we have to pay them. It has little to do with OPEC or any war. It is purely a profit-driven process of greed.

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 19 2005, 04:56 AM

They charge the prices because we have to pay them. It has little to do with OPEC or any war. It is purely a profit-driven process of greed.

That's capitalism for ya!

Maybe what the US needs is a nice communist government.

On the subject of Iraq. I look forward to the day when the US invades many countries in the world to effect a regime change due to human rights abuses by the leaders.

Once you justify a war using that reason it obviously indicates the US will not tolerate nasty, self serving dictators in charge of countries where abuses are widespread.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 19 2005, 03:56 AM

On the subject of the thread, I don't think it matters much who you buy your gasoline from; they are all profiteers.

Oil prices go up, gasoline prices jump up. Oil prices come down, gasoline prices stay up, only to climb more when oil goes up again.

They charge the prices because we have to pay them. It has little to do with OPEC or any war. It is purely a profit-driven process of greed.

Gas prices do come down when the market price of crude goes down. It just takes longer for prices to fall than for them to rise, because different mechanisms cause the rises and falls.

When the price of a barrel of crude goes up, all the gasoline in inventory immediately increases in value, even if it had been refined from cheaper crude. That's because if a seller expects the price of a commodity to be worth $2 tomorrow, he won't sell it for $1 today. He'll either hold it off the market and sell it tomorrow for $2, or he'll increase the price immediately.

When the price of crude falls, on the other hand, the only incentive the seller has to reduce his price is pressure from his competitor. If a local Chevron station lowers its price to $1, the Shell station down the street has to follow suit; nobody will buy $2 gas when he can drive a block and get it for $1. Since people will often alter their gas-buying habits for even a marginal savings, competition tends to drive the price down slowly, i.e., the Chevron station lowers its price from $2 to $1.90, the Shell station lowers its price to $1.85, the Chevron station lowers its price to $1.80, and so forth. It usually takes a few weeks for competition to get the price down.

The main reason gas prices can rise as fast as they do when the price of crude goes up is that people's gas-purchasing habits are remarkably little affected by the price of gas. People need to fill their tanks, generally speaking, and will do so (although with more grumbling) even if the price doubles. People have actually started modifying their consumption habits a little bit, for example by buying fewer gas-guzzling SUVs. (I'm planning to get a Toyota Sienna instead of the Sequoia I was thinking about.)

I'm not particularly incensed about a "profit-driven process of greed," if only because history convinces me that other systems perform worse. Look at Europe, for example, with a far more regulated economy than the American. Gas prices are around $5-$6 per gallon. The definition of "greed", it seems to me, is when the other guy wants more money. When I want more money, it's because I need it; when the other guy wants more, it's because he's a greedy bloodsucking profiteer. I'm certainly not going to ask for a lower salary than the market can bear lest I be thought greedy. And the nice lady down the street isn't going to sell me a house for $500,000, even though greed and speculation have driven the market price up to $800,000. (Grumble, grumble. Anyone who speculates in residential real estate ought to have his head stuck on one of his own For Sale signs.)

I happen to think the present skyrocketing of oil prices in the commodity market has more to do with speculation than with fundamentals. It's a bubble, like the coastal housing market, driven by expectation of further increases that can't continue. One of the drawbacks of having a free market -- generally the best mechanism for finding the best price in light of supply and demand -- is that occasionally irrational exuberance takes over and prices get out of line with fundamentals. That's still better than a command-and-control model, where prices are guaranteed to nearly always be out of line with fundamentals, but it still grates when you're locked out of a bubbling market in basic goods like housing.

[Outshined]

Originally posted by yaanufs@Apr 19 2005, 06:10 AM

On the subject of Iraq. I look forward to the day when the US invades many countries in the world to effect a regime change due to human rights abuses by the leaders.

Once you justify a war using that reason it obviously indicates the US will not tolerate nasty, self serving dictators in charge of countries where abuses are widespread.

And perhaps more countries will have the guts to take a stand with us...

[Outshined]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 19 2005, 11:27 AM

I'm not particularly incensed about a "profit-driven process of greed," if only because history convinces me that other systems perform worse.

I agree; I was simply clarifying my simplified view on the reason for gas price patterns in view of the accusations that the war caused the increase.

Greed does indeed play a part, but what can ya do?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Outshined+Apr 19 2005, 01:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Outshined @ Apr 19 2005, 01:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 19 2005, 11:27 AM

I'm not particularly incensed about a "profit-driven process of greed," if only because history convinces me that other systems perform worse.

I agree; I was simply clarifying my simplified view on the reason for gas price patterns in view of the accusations that the war caused the increase.

Greed does indeed play a part, but what can ya do?

Exactly. Basing an economic system on anything other than the realities of human nature, and making those traits work for you, is a prescription for a train wreck.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[yaanufs]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 19 2005, 02:17 PM

And perhaps more countries will have the guts to take a stand with us...

Unlikely. Jealousy of American power and wealth will prevent that happening.

Many countries want the US to fail, not because they are against democracy or freedom, but because unfortunately it is human nature to somehow believe that when a greater person falls short or fails that it somehow makes the lesser person feel better.

That simple logic is easily scaled up to country wide feelings. Many countries think that if the USA fails in it's quest, that it somehow makes their smaller, less globaly significant country appear to be slightly better than it was before.

The world is mad.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 19 2005, 01:53 PM

Would the early LDS Church in SLC be considered Communist? At least it must have been Socialist, right?

And what about Jesus' ideas (the rich should give up all they own). Isn't that sort of a Communist idea?

Not that I agree with Jesus or the early LDS Church in promoting Communism. I don't. It is obvious Communism does not work.

But I was just curious if you think that JS, BY and JC could have been Commies.

If so, its ironic, considering the corporate nature of Jesus's one true Church, no?

Interesting.

Technically, Jesus didn't issue a general teaching that the rich must give up everything they own. He made that challenge to one particular rich man -- to give up his possessions and follow Jesus during his mortal ministry. The man -- an extraordinarily righteous man by every other measure -- was shown by the challenge to have one spiritual weakness, his attachment to his possessions.

Jesus then remarked that it was harder for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus' disciples were "amazed" and asked "who then can be saved"? Jesus answered (I'm quoting from memory here) that with man it was impossible, but with God all things were possible.

I conclude from this that the whole episode of the young rich man was an object lesson, intended by the Savior to set up his final point: that without His atonement, nobody could be saved. Even the most apparently righteous person would ultimately have at least one weakness, and needed redemption.

This lesson has been turned into a kind of general condemnation by Jesus of wealth, most often by people whose political ideology in favor of confiscating others' wealth is rather stronger than their attachment to Jesus generally. I don't think the context supports this conclusion at all.

As for the communitarianism (not communism; the Church's communal economic experiments were based on free consent, not the compulsion that communism must involve) of the early Church, it was always a kind of mixed economy, with far more private enterprise than a true communist system, or even some of the nineteenth-century American socialist utopian projects allowed. The closest the Church ever got to a true communal system was the United Order, which didn't work very well.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!