Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 417
are the gas prices you yetPage 22 of 27    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27)

Hardly. Just pointing out realities.

Lets see now....... Mr. Howdy Doody wants to CONTROL the MARKETS by issuing a scary decree, and spending $52M. to enforce it................

I think that trying to manipulate markets is one of the things that a marxist would do because he is not happy with how it is turning out on its own, hence the name.... "free market"........... Sort of like not enough "re-distributin' " goin' on there..............


Pointing out realities?

Are you saying that the oil markets controlled by the oil corporations are "free markets"? Is that one of your realities?

The oil markets are easily manipulated by those who are in the game of making obscene profits at the expense of the consumers. President Obama's is trying to curb down the amount of money being syphoned out of our pockets by the oil corporations and their lackeys.

Is $52M too much money in trying to keep the gasoline price from skyrocketing. Look at it this way: there are +/- 200 million drivers in the USA alone. If President Obama's initiative saves every driver just $10.00 a month which is $120.00 per year, then you are talking about a savings of $24 billion for the American consumers. The cost of the initiative per consumer is about $.25. I say, Mr. President, you can spend my quarter dollar. That is a great investment.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 420
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/18/2012 8:10:14 AM
So, I just read that little exchange...and thought...one poster cannot remember what he wrote not so long ago...about how President Obama should control the oil market and determine oil prices...that very same poster had not one word to say when asked if he was against free market capitalism.

There once was a time when oil futures determined the price of future delivery....people actually bought oil for future delivery at the commodity and futures market...much like all other commodities...now-a-days it's the speculator that is bidding up the price of oil futures and is someone who never expects to take delivery of anything other than money.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 423
view profile
History
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/19/2012 3:57:12 PM
Since the 2008 gas spike, speculators have doubled their control of the market to up to 80% of the current market. It has gotten so bad that even the MSM is acknowledging it. It ain't supply and demand. It is greed and demand.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/opinion/sanders-gas-speculation/index.html

The "blame Obama" crowd 4 years ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o&feature=player_embedded

Cal Thomas:

"...the facts are... no President has the power to increase or to lower gas prices; those are market forces."

Cheryl Casone:

"...it really is tough for this president, I have to be honest with you- because he really does not have any control over what will happen, with the markets and with the economy; and with oil prices and supply and demand and gasoline, it really is out of this president's hands."

Bill O'Reilly:

"...gasoline has hit a record high, and politicians can't do a thing about it... so the next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices, understand it's complete BS. If Americans want lower gas prices, cut back... that's what the candidates should be saying."

Greta Van Susteren:

"...one statistic I was given was that if we drilled in ANWAR, we would get 4% of our daily consumption of oil... it looks like we need to curb our appetite..."
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 424
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/19/2012 6:08:19 PM
Our head of the Bank of Canada released a report yesterday that gives a pretty strong indication of why there's such a big push to get a pipeline from the tar sands to the refineries in the Gulf.

It seems that right now there's too much oil going there and Canadian oil has to be discounted by up to $30 a barrel. So the oil companies are buying crude at discounted prices now, and selling it as if this wasn't happening. Putting a pipeline down there would mean they'd get it even cheaper - increasing the supply means the price goes down. But don't expect that to get passed on to the consumer - it's not happening now, and won't happen in the future.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 425
view profile
History
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/19/2012 6:27:18 PM
If this administration can't control energy prices, what use are the policies Mr. Obama and Mr. Chu have talked about? Just yesterday, I heard tapes of them both, at various times, talking about purposely increasing the cost of energy to decrease the amount we consume. I don't believe for a moment that the federal government could not take effective steps to make all fuels cheaper, including gasoline.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 426
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 5:43:14 AM

Just yesterday, I heard tapes of them both, at various times, talking about purposely increasing the cost of energy to decrease the amount we consume.


Well, this is old ground...Mr Chu's statements were made before he was made energy secretary, since he has been energy secretary he has followed Presidential policy, and President Obama's has never advocated raising prices to lower demand....POST the link to prove me wrong...or just go back and read the thread to find what I've written has been addressed.


. I don't believe for a moment that the federal government could not take effective steps to make all fuels cheaper, including gasoline.


WTF, the free market capitalist wants the government to manipulate/mandate prices and drive oil company profits down???My eyes decieve me.
 VF102
Joined: 7/14/2009
Msg: 427
view profile
History
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 8:40:00 AM
No, because me and my honey drive what we can afford.

02 Gallant 4 cyl. 29mpg
03 Neon R/T 40mpg (but uses 89 octane)
06 Scion xA 40mpg

And of course we are pulling down about a buck fifty a year so gas could go to $8 a gallon and we would get by just fine (it's nice having a CPA for a wife).
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 428
view profile
History
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 9:25:58 AM

WTF, the free market capitalist wants the government to manipulate/mandate prices and drive oil company profits down???


How you contrived that from what I said, or why, only you know. It's as close to a law as there is in economics that in any free market, profits tend toward zero. No one can favor free markets, as I do, and also favor government intervention designed to increase profits for corporations. And I do not.

It's revealing that at the mention of taking steps to make fuels cheaper, your mind should light on price controls. That's how people who like totalitarian government think. To the rest of us, it's clear the federal government could do a great deal to reduce fuel prices just by standing aside--by relaxing or removing the countless regulations which are thwarting domestic energy production. It is government intervention itself that is strangling our economy.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 429
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:27:40 AM

--by relaxing or removing the countless regulations which are thwarting domestic energy production. It is government intervention itself that is strangling our economy.


Remove regulations that thwart domestic energy production---Deepwater 1 wasn't enough?

Ah hah...we can drill our way to energy independence can we....we can pipe tar sands oil to the gulf and achieve energy independence can we (or maybe get it there for distribution to the rest of the world)....we can hydro-frac our way to energy independence can we....perhaps we could start a war with Saudi Arabi and just take their oil....because until we start that next oil war...these other measures are woefully short of creating energy independence...but, I do love it when that God fearing spokesperson for the GOP says: "Drill Baby Drill"...even in the face of all the factual evidence that drilling alone will neither lower prices nor will create energy independence...
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 430
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:29:44 AM
You're already oil independent. Under this administration the US is a net exporter of oil for the first time in decades. You're going to have to change your talking points.
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 431
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 4/20/2012 10:37:11 AM

You're already oil independent. Under this administration the US is a net exporter of oil for the first time in decades. You're going to have to change your talking points.


LOL...yes, this is actually true...but, let me pose this question....if we produce so much oil that it exceeds consumption...then why do we import oil???
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 436
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 6/4/2012 1:23:46 PM
Funny, the rwingnut evangelical fascist rightwingers spout all about free markets...yet, want President Obama to somehow influence the oil industries access to free market pricing....I'm just surprised they haven't derided President Obama for not socializing our petroleum resources.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 437
view profile
History
are the gas prices you yet
Posted: 6/4/2012 4:02:59 PM
Most of the current price decline is due to the global and national economic meltdowns. The price though lower now, is still high considering the economic well being of people new vs. pre-oil wars years.

Record domestic drilling, record exports, record fracking, record oil sands and other environmental catastrophes, do help but at a price to be paid for by untold generations hence. The record speculation on oil prices drove it to a peak until it was outed in the MSM. These are the good old days, as prices will continue to climb in the foreseeable future as peak oil plays out.

Meanwhile back at Fox Noise, they focus on revisionism to placate the sheeples. 4 years ago the narrative was the opposite of what it is today. Then calling for conservation to ease our way out of Bush oil prices, and today calling for socialized production price controls from the President's office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzEnKdBAb_o
 whiskeypapa
Joined: 5/19/2008
Msg: 438
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/4/2012 5:00:18 PM

It's horrible.
I have a fast car/gas hog.
I'm tired of 70 dollar fill ups.
You poor **stards, here in Alberta we are up to our armpits in the stuff yet we are paying 1.13 a litre A fillup costs 120.00
 Justmytypewriter
Joined: 2/8/2011
Msg: 440
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/5/2012 8:34:42 AM
Gas prices are still way too low. The higher they are, the more I save by choosing not to drive. I'd happily save $10 per gallon instead of the current $3.50 or so per gallon. :-) Besides, the higher gas prices are, the more people come to their senses and choose more responsible modes of transportation. So for the greater good of the environment, please increase gas prices. :-)
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 449
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/7/2012 6:44:18 AM
What really qualifies as a myth, is the concept that there is a perpetual supply of cheap oil and the president opposes this. Fox noise pundits were bending over backwards 4 years ago to argue what the IEA and other global resource experts have been saying. The era of cheap, readily available oil is over, we are riding on a plateau of production, new production is getting more expensive, and global markets and political instability now drive prices beyond any sort of domestic control.

If the US tried to socialize our domestic production to ensure state controlled gas prices, you can bet your bottom dollar that the right would be up in arms, funded by Mobil, Exxon, Shell and Chenaire. The world is willing to pay more for gas than we are and as a result last year we exported more gas than we imported for the first time since 1949.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/02/us-exported-more-gasoline-than-imported-last-year/1

The gas being drilled today is being done deeper, done further offshore, involves fracking and will include coalbed methane and tar sands. These desperation moves are extremely risky, dirty, and involve sacrificing groundwater supplies, surface water and air quality, and trashing out the fisheries off shore with every "little" oops moment like the BP spill, just one of many in the past and more to come. If you want to talk about who is imposing misery and austerity onto Americans, talk to folks in the fracking belts, or shrimpers and fishermen in the Gulf. The "free" market is imposing this with little environmental oversight to protect sacrificial communities.

For all the fracking mess being done, the US is poised to approve massive exports of LNG to help offset our national debt problems. The tar sands pipelines are being built for exports either from the Gulf Coast or theAtlantic and Pacific Coasts. With a "socialist" like Obama championing record drilling and exports, there is little doubt that a good capitalist like Romney would push exports even harder for his well oiled friends.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/energy-environment/inching-toward-energy-independence-in-america.html?pagewanted=all

Much of US energy policy is socialized already with the US military using more energy than any other sector, the failed multi-trillion dollar oil wars, and ongoing operations to destabilize then stabilize the middle eastern for our oil dependency there.

And if you really want to discuss misery and austerity, consider the generations from now dealing with wells pumped dry, lack of potable water, toxic ponds, rivers, lakes and oceans, soils depleted and forests squandered for bio-fools scams and ask them how special they think we were.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 452
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/7/2012 5:41:42 PM

Case in point, The Continental United State gets 3,900% MORE sun than Germany, yet Germany has 6000% more solar usuage than the USA. https://fbcdn_sphotos_f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/248164_10150944839359708_2114244524_n.jpg

But by all means, keep swallowing that Fox "news" propaganda.


Thanks for the simpleton unreferenced cartoon graphic, aimed at children, & those who cant read.

Hmmm...what does "6000% more solar usuage than the USA" mean??


The German solar PV industry installed 7.5 GW in 2011,[2] and solar PV provided 18 TWh of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

If we matched Germany, it would cost tens of billions of dollars initially, then tens of billions of dollars per year to maintain, would account for less than 1% of our total production, yet would nearly double everyone's electricity bills due to the exhorbitant cost of this not-nearly-perfected, highly expensive & technologically mediocre product .

Another multi-billion dollar goverment-subsidized program that would have virtually no impact whatsoever, other than making a few people feel good about going green while lining the bulging pockets certain selected multi-national pet corporations(think SOLYNDRA).
 BigBadNIrish
Joined: 1/31/2011
Msg: 458
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/8/2012 7:08:32 AM

1.5 million compared to 535 million


Apparently you have no concept of scale...the Mass budget for 2011 was nearly $30 billion while the federal budget was $3.8 trillion...making the comparision of $1.7 million Mass spent on a failed business, in scale, the same as $535 billion the feds spent on a failed company of a corporation....and while we're at it...what exactly was the difference from the feds supporting a business and the state supporting a business???
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 470
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/8/2012 7:18:20 PM
I got stationed in Japan, and I'm not allowed to have a car for the first 6 months that I'm here. Gas prices can be $100 a gallon for all I care. lolz
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 486
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 11:09:42 AM

First why don't we look at who is benefitting from "are the gas prices killing you yet":

In 2011 profits from the oil industry's first quarter is as follows, Exxon $10.7 billion, up 69%, Shell $6.3 billion, up 30%,Conoco Phillips $3 billion, up 43%, BP $5.48 billion, down .05%(oil spill related), Chevron $5.2 billion. In case you think this a fluke let's review first quarter 2012.

In 2012 Exxon $9.4 billion, Shell $7.7 billion, Conoco-Phillips $2.9 billion, BP $5.92 billion, Chevron $6.5 billion.

Now color me crazy, but almost all have made tremendous profits on oil. WHICH when oil prices are high, causes higher gasoline prices in the end.


Right there, right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing

Those are all pretty anemic profit numbers, considering what they spent in revenue. These profit numbers are normal for any successful business. This is typical historic fact.

Sorry to burst this often cherry-picked bubble, but Exxon & most other oil companies only makes 9-12% profit on sales....much like Wal-mart, Piggly-Wiggly, Kinko's or any other business out there. The reason for the billions in profits is because they sell hundreds of billions worth of product, FAR more than most any other entity in the world.





Most of Exxon's earnings are from oil and natural gas, not from selling gasoline.

Exxon's profit margins are below-average compared with others that have triggered no outcry. Exxon's first-quarter profit margin was 9.4%, meaning...

~Exxon kept 9.4 cents of every $1 in revenue.
~Microsoft kept 27.3 cents of every $1 in revenue
~General Electric, 11.4 cents of every $1 in revenue
~McDonald's, 12.3 cents of every $1 in revenue .

In fact, Exxon is below the 11-cent average of Standard & Poor's 500 companies, says analyst Howard Silverblatt.



Sources: the companies, Standard & Poor's Capital IQ

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2006-04-27-xom_x.htm
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 492
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/10/2012 1:01:30 PM
Oyvey...I appreciate your patience in trying to reason with the Fox Oil Trolls.
They scream "free market" but ignore the huge subsidies and the hidden subsidies of environmental destruction, human health consequences, and of course the millions of lives affected by the ongoing oil wars. Exxon, BP, and Shell don't have to shell out for these subsidies...we do. If full cost accounting was done for all the social, environmental, and financial subsidies we provide for that holy grail of cheap gas, solar, wind and other alternatives are already vastly cheaper. For all the focus on the Solyndra debacle, they totally ignore the elephant in the room of the nuclear debacle that will bankrupt us quickly as that fleet falls apart and we are left tending to the mess for hundreds of thousands of years of energy used for a generation or two.

Disturbing recent news that active duty suicides from our oil warriors is running one a day this year from repeated, long deployments and us being too cheap to get them help in a timely and effective manner. Ad this to the 6000 veterans a year committing suicide from previous resource wars, and those whining about gas prices are trivial in comparrison.

The dirty, "cheap" coal that we use today is leaving an environmental and social health cost that is killing communities and people. The coal fields and it's people are sacrificed so that there is "cheap" juice, most of it wasted with inefficiency and mindless consumption.
http://www.southernstudies.org/2012/06/institute-index-the-real-obscenity-of-mountaintop-removal.html
Minimum number of peer-reviewed scientific studies that have documented harmful human health effects from mountaintop removal mining: 21
Estimated number of people in whom mountaintop removal mining has caused cancer to date: 60,000
Percentage by which people living near mountaintop removal mining sites are more likely to die of cancer than those living elsewhere: 50
Percentage by which the rate of children born with birth defects in mountaintop removal mining areas exceeds that of other places: 42

The same thing is happening to people's health and communities in the boom-bust fracking areas. The human and environmental costs are bourne by the citizens there and generations to come as air pollution and water supplies are contaminated with impunity for generations to come. Subsidized "cheapness" that others pay for with their lives, cancers, destroyed infrastructure, collapses in home values, quality of life, etc. are already running into the hundreds of billions. Tar sands will prove to be even worse and even yet more subsidized by society at large to creat the illusion of cheapness.
http://www.propublica.org/article/the-other-fracking-north-dakotas-oil-boom-brings-damage-along-with-prosperi
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_20181438
• It takes 6 million gallons of water plus 60,000 gallons of chemicals to frack one well of thousands.

• Exploding high pressure, hastily built, frack-gas pipelines are regularly killing people.

• Cornell University finds frack gas more environmentally damaging than coal.

• Fracking's toxins, carcinogens and radioactivity routinely escape or are released to the environment and are currently getting into our fresh water supplies.

• Injection wells dump fracking's polluted water into deep subterranean cavities, thus permanently remove billions of gallons of water from the hydrologic cycle. It simply rains that much less.

• New York City is declaring its source of drinking water off-limits to fracking.

• Denver has already experienced a 4-level earthquake from injection wells. Victims currently have no legal recourse. Same for Ohio and Arkansas.

• Fracking is a "shock, drill and run" operation typical of irresponsible behavior. All of the shale gas potential equals only a few years of national supply.

• "Remediation" is nearly impossible on a water table polluted with toxic nondegradables and long-lived radioactivity. Frackers may be dumping toxic waste on open ground. Who is monitoring this?

• Natural gas has twenty times the greenhouse impact of CO2. We need to know the relative climate change effect of fracking's methane releases.

• Fracking is not now "economic." Indeed, it incurs social costs in the billions.

• Pavillion, Wyoming residents are cautioned to ventilate their homes when bathing because the fracking related methane in their water could cause an explosion.

• Wells routinely experience failed cement casings and other losses of containments allowing routine pollutions by toxic, carcinogenic, and radioactive fluids.

• Competent officials would require fracking fluid "tracers" and a "damage bond" — better yet, entirely cut off fracking's unconscionable amounts of water use, thus extensive pollutions.

• Gas and oil lobbyists have removed the Enviromental Protection Agency from any jurisdiction over fracking. Local officials have no authority over fracking, even within city limits.

The Rum One loves to believe that the BP spill and others have not affected the Gulf, failing to take into account that the only reason seafood from the Gulf is considered "safe" is because of political power and political detoxification that ignores science and the real human health costs and dangers.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103695
BP apologists also ignore the devastation to the economies of the fishing and tourism industries as well as their multiplier industries damaged because roughnecks are in over their heads in drilling too deep, and when safety is sacrificed for profit for the few.

I did notice that after Obama mainstreamed the problem of oil speculators in his April speech, that the****oaches seemed to have settled back into their cracks a bit and the price came down around 60 cents a gallon since. Coincidence...perhaps.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 495
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 6:33:05 AM

I guess all the people testing the seafood are in on this cover up?
Really y'all should lay off the kool aid.


" Some times people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed." Nietzsche

A few decades ago I was under the illusion that the government would not lie to us, that the Clean Water Act meant clean water, and that the EPA and FDA would protect us. Yes, I was among many on Gullibles Travels back then. In the course of 3 decades of citizen activism ranging from pesticides, community air emissions, toxic landfills, incinerators, acidic rain and runoff, etc. it was quickly apparent that what illusions we have of protection are quickly shattered when just a little bit of scrutiny is applied. While there have been gains in consumer and environmental protections, those gains are tenuous at best and increasingly subject to politics and corporate influence.

The BP spill was the poster child of how the revolving door between industry, regulators, lobbyists, politicians, staff and the media work in concert to fight science and pollute public opinion. The same things go on in all business and energy sectors. This series of VEEN Diagrams illustrates the problem.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/17561617164/mapping-out-revolving-door-between-govt-big-business-venn-diagrams.shtml

Powerful business interests have prevailed in the Gulf Spill and ensuing poisoning of the aquatic ecosystem and people. It takes other scientists to take up the slack where the corruption prevailed in the EPA and FDA. Since the abstract I posted apparently goes over the head of a few, try it this way.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/10/fda-overhyping-safety-gulf-seafood


Is Gulf seafood safe to eat in the wake of BP's massive oil spill last year? Absolutely, insists the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees the safety of the food supply.

But a recent study from Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) scientists casts serious doubt on that claim. A peer-reviewed article soon to be published in Environmental Health Perspectives (abstract here), concludes that the FDA's methods for gauging safety of Gulf seafood "significantly underestimate risk from seafood contaminants."

To assess risk of eating seafood that has been exposed to oil, the agency establishes a "level of concern"—the threshold above which contaminants pose unacceptable risks for seafood consumers—for a variety of oil-related substances. According to the NRDC team, the FDA is using outdated science to set those levels way too high—and as a result, the agency is promoting the consumption of seafood that in reality poses serious risk to consumers, particularly pregnant women and children.

Of particular concern are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which the authors call "known carcinogens and developmental toxicants." They develop in crude oil that has spent time in the ocean—and can accumulate in the flesh of fish. According to the NRDC team, the FDA is using "levels of concern" for these nasty substances that are hundreds of times higher than is justified by current science.

Here's how lead researcher Miriam Rotkin-Ellman summarized the research in a post on NRDC's blog:
FDA's "safe levels" were not safe for vulnerable populations because they allowed up to 10,000 times too much cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) contamination in Gulf seafood.

How is the agency so grossly underestimating risk? Rotkin-Ellman points to no fewer than six "major flaws" in the FDA's process:
Assuming everyone weighs 80kg (176 lbs), underestimating how much seafood Gulf residents eat, ignoring the cancer risk from naphthalene contamination, failing to address the increased vulnerability of pregnant women and children, allowing for a high level of cancer risk, and assuming that the contamination will only last five years.

Rotkin-Ellman writes that the FDA's dodgy safety-screening process has led it to conclude that 123,000 micrograms per kilogram of shrimp of naphthalene, a particularly toxic PAH, is safe for everyone to eat. But according to her team's assessment, healthy, nonpregnant adults should be exposed to no more 46.99 micrograms per kilogram. For pregnant women and children who eat a lot of seafood, the threshold should be no higher than 5.91 micrograms per kilogram. If the agency used proper thresholds for these contaminants, more than 50 percent of Gulf shrimp samples would pose significant risks to pregnant women who are heavy seafood consumers.

When BP's monumental oil spill finally ended last year, a lot of powerful players had an incentive to declare to seafood supply safe: BP, to limit its obligation to compensate the area's fishing industry; the Obama administration, to put an end to an embarrassing crisis; and the Gulf fishing industry, to protect a multibillion-dollar market. But the FDA doesn't exist to answer to those interests; it exists to protect the public interest. If the NRDC team is right, the agency has failed to do so in the case of post-spill Gulf seafood.


If BP, frackers, nuke poopers, and tar sands industries were forced by law to pay the full environmental and human health costs of their ventures, they could not compete in the free market.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 496
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 9:26:14 AM

My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before..that was the point, not their profit margin.


Right there, right there you demonstrate your lack of understanding of the business you are discussing.

Read this a million time until you understand WTF you posted:


My point was to show that beginning in 2011, their profits grew by 30+%, by the rise of oil prices, in Exxon's case it was 69%. So they are making more than double what they did the year before.


Then, read your other post(a million times if need be):


In 2011 profits from the oil industry's first quarter is as follows, Exxon $10.7 billion, up 69%, Shell $6.3 billion, up 30%,Conoco Phillips $3 billion, up 43%, BP $5.48 billion, down .05%(oil spill related), Chevron $5.2 billion. In case you think this a fluke let's review first quarter 2012.

In 2012 Exxon $9.4 billion, Shell $7.7 billion, Conoco-Phillips $2.9 billion, BP $5.92 billion, Chevron $6.5 billion.




LMAO!!!!! Your "stats" show they are making all making SLIGHTLY MORE, SLIGHTLY LESS, or ABOUT THE SAME $$ now than they did in 2011. All it shows is a fraction of a percentage point, or perhaps a full percentage point fluctuation in that boring yawn-inducing 9-12% profit margin. To quote the Cranberries..."in your head...in your head..zombie..."

It is all still within the normal everyday run-of-the-mill average 9-12% profit margin of any average business. 2011, 2012, 2006....doesnt matter. They make an average fluctuating profit of 9-12% of sales at about any given time period ....much like Walmart, Piggly-Wiggly,Kinko's or any other business out there. Heck...even Pepsi beats them with their 13.1% profit margin.

$11 billion profit is hard to fathom...especially when you ignore the fact that they are 10 times larger than most other mega-corporations & generate $100+ BILLION in revenue that creates that amount of profit, but its still less than a 10% return. . They're not doing anything different than any other business out there. They're just doing it on a much larger scale that you cannot fathom at all, obviously.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 505
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 2:04:52 PM
As gas prices go up, oil companies increase profit while reducing production, and rely more on exports to expand their record profits. At the same time government revenues from gas taxes go down in response to high prices and ensuing economic decline, conservation, efficiency, and reduced driving. The oil companies are like casinos..their house always wins. Our infrastructure however is crumbling and we are unable to maintain what we have. My sis just missed the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis a few years back, the collapse being an indicator of our aging highway infrastructure. The repubs are holding gas tax re-authorization hostage to diverting it toward more oil company subsidies for drilling offshore, while the Senate Dems want to move funding into infrastructure maintenance and repair. Corporate welfare on one side of the isle and responsible spending on the other. Hmm.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/03/21/Paltry-Gas-Tax-Drives-US-Roads-into-the-Ground.aspx#page1

Record profits, less production, more exports,shutting down refineries, cutting jobs, and a 30 to 1 return on lobbying efforts for tax breaks.
http://grist.org/oil/big-oils-banner-year-higher-prices-record-profits-less-oil/

That liberal commie scum magazine Forbes, has more on the subject.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/14/the-truth-about-obama-oil-and-the-gasoline-blame-game-part-i/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/17/the-truth-about-obama-oil-and-the-gasoline-blame-game-part-two/

Of course folks who eat a Gulf seafood diet rich in Napthalene and other Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons might find it hard to read things outside of their echo chambers, it will be difficult to convice of them of reality by using mere facts.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 518
view profile
History
are the gas prices killing you yet
Posted: 6/11/2012 8:45:19 PM
What'd be wrong with putting more diesel engines in vehicles? Diesel is more expensive but I think diesels get better mileage? I'm not sure about that but here is where I'm going.

I read, and saw some folks making a type of biodiesel out of algae. One guy was using sewage water to grow this algae. This stuff had more raw oil pound for pound in it than soybeans and other type of vegetable oil seedcrops used to produce biodiesel. Geez, I would think some entrepreneur out there would be able to combine biodiesel and the corn ethanol gasoline additives to possibly come up with a diesel that would be cold weather friendly?

These algae feedstocks could possibly be refined in our present refineries as would petroleum based diesel is currently? Saving having to use crude oil based feedstocks for the making of diesel?

I have a lot of question marks above because it's just an idea and I'm not even sure if it'll work. I work in refineries and I know a suitable feedstock, now crudeoil is needed. The algae idea is just another renewable source that could be used to make diesel.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  >