| Big Oil partnerships and boycotting one
- Click HERE for Original Thread
|
| mdxforever |
You all must be aware of that email floating about how boycotting one big oil company will result in breaking the gas price surge. What I'd like to know is which other smaller oils are in partnership with the big oil ? For example, conoco or phillips could still be affiliated or somehow connected to Mobil or Shell or Texaco, so even if you buy from 'xyz' the money somehow still reaches the pockets of big oil.
So anyone knows what are those partnerships ? |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by mdxforever
You all must be aware of that email floating about how boycotting one big oil company will result in breaking the gas price surge. What I'd like to know is which other smaller oils are in partnership with the big oil ? For example, conoco or phillips could still be affiliated or somehow connected to Mobil or Shell or Texaco, so even if you buy from 'xyz' the money somehow still reaches the pockets of big oil.
So anyone knows what are those partnerships ?
Oil and Oil Companies are a WORLD ECONOMY. There is no boycot of any one or any several companies that is going to have any effect on the price of gasoline.
The price of gasoline is driven by supply and demand. And of course there is also some effect of the spot market and oil traders. The socalled "big oil" is the effective combination of all oil companies the world over.
If you were to boycot one brand, you might hurt the owner of the local station, but the amount of oil/gasoline/oil derived products sold by the parent company would not change significantly. You just have to look at how gasoline is distrituted. All gasoline into this area comes by barge. This barge does not have a company label on the hull. When the gasoline is pumped from the storage tanks the specific additives for a branded labed are added. Before that it is just fuel in a tank. It matters not what company pumped it from the ground nor what company processed it through their refineries.
THE ONLY WAY YOU ARE GOING TO EFFECT GASOLINE PRICES IS BY REDUCING DEMAND OR INCREASING SUPPLE. Anything else is just a stopgap measure that at will only have a very small, temporary impact of the system.
The US has been negligent in keeping up with refinery requirements. All of our refineries are old and we do not have enough of them. We need to start updating refineries and building more. Katrina showed what happens when the gulf platforms have to shut down and the consequences of refinery shutdowns and damage along the coast.
The US needs to do everything possible to increase the availibility of our oil production. Whether that be by increased coastal drilling, drilling in Alaska or shale oil it has to be initiated now. The longer we wait the bigger the problem becomes. The current price of oil makes shale oil very attractive.
The world demand for fuel is increasing daily as countries such as China and India increase their demands.
The best thing that you can do to help with oil prices is to immediately contact your Senators and Congressman and tell them to get construction of refineries going and to increase the drilling and to encourage shale oil production. Of course any results of this action is many years away even if started now.
G |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Now that is really humorous.
G
How about this:
ExxonMobil Corp. reported $10 billion in net income in the third quarter, the largest ever by a U.S. energy company. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Now that is really humorous.
G
http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO.jsp
They are not going to suffer a loss in revenues if their supplies are short. And if they can save on transportation costs by filling up on stock gasoline at the trough along with the other brands
This dillution of product content, if you will, has been the bane of many boycotts with good intentions. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
How about this:
ExxonMobil Corp. reported $10 billion in net income in the third quarter, the largest ever by a U.S. energy company.
And did you notice that the profit was only 9%. Not many companies are happy with only a 9%profit. I know that I would have never made it when I was in business if my net profit was only 9%.
G |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
Not many companies are happy with only a 9%profit. I know that I would have never made it when I was in business if my net profit was only 9%.
G
I know mine won't.
Oil companies aren't to blame, sorry to break it to anybody who thinks they are. And that email has been floating around for at least 7 years. |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
And did you notice that the profit was only 9%. Not many companies are happy with only a 9%profit. I know that I would have never made it when I was in business if my net profit was only 9%.
G
Exxon, poured $4.8 billion into exploration and other capital spending, a 53% increase from last year -but still less than the company spent on share repurchases.
You can make your net whatever you want by share repurchases. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
Exxon, poured $4.8 billion into exploration and other capital spending, a 53% increase from last year -but still less than the company spent on share repurchases.
You can make your net whatever you want by share repurchases.
And your point is?
G |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
quote:
Originally posted by G. COLTON
And did you notice that the profit was only 9%. Not many companies are happy with only a 9%profit. I know that I would have never made it when I was in business if my net profit was only 9%.
G
They can adjust the bottom line. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
They can adjust the bottom line.
Not really. You need to do some reading on economics.
G |
|
|
| Ceenit |
I can't believe that I am writting this but...it is true, that oil companies and their wind-fall profits are not entirely to blame. They just happen to be in the enviable position of reaping huge benefits associated with a high demand-low supply inelastic product.
Cost is one of the few variables in play to help manage the supply and demand balance. And, while I don't like it one bit, the alternative is to keep prices low and have the gas stations run out of fuel in between fill-ups. Nope I don't like it one bit, but supply and demand economics is pretty straight forward stuff.
The Secretary of Energy was on Meet the Press last Sunday, and while he distanced himself and the current administration of any mishandling (of course); he did make a few good forward looking comments regarding 1) the use of alcohol mixture in fuel with increase to 30% of the gasoline usage over the next three years, this will assist in increasing the overall supply of usable fuel and, 2) By 2025 the government has a program in place that will extinguish the US dependency on any foreign oil.
There was some good banter on if a 'windfall tax' on the oil companies would do any good, but the general concensus on the panel was that it would not impact the supply, which is where the problem is. |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
| I guess I would ask everyone if they feel the huge profits are justified, even in a supply and demand type economy. Everyone on this forum is middle class and up so it’s still not a big deal, but is it ok? Certainly not on a moral level. I’m not naive to suggest capitalism is moral, but this product affects the entire economy across the board. I really don’t see how we are going to stop our foreign oil imports. |
|
|
| mdxforever |
| and increasing "in-house" supply and decreasing "dependency" won't affect anything either. Atleast not for a long time. Demand needs to reduce also to close the loop, otherwise its open ended. We will still find ourselves in the same position 10,15, or 20 years from now when the demand then would have saturated all those "local" sources of oil anyway. People need to think outside the box and look at the big picture rather then fixate themselves on "we need more refinaries". Yes we do need more refinaries but THATS NOT THE SILVER BULLET, it might help a little bit that too temperorily, but there's much more to it than that. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
Capitalism certainly is moral. It is the way our country is structured and is the best system by far of any that I have ever heard of. Profits also are moral as that is the way the capitalistic system keeps itself functioning. Most of the people in this country own stocks in some form or another. It may be directly or it may be in company funded and run retirment accounts. Profits are why companies exist. Profits are paid out to share holders and some are held to further the growth of the company.
The United States will NEVER be totally free of the need to import oil. However, that has nothing to do with refinery capacity. It is cheaper to import crude and refine it than to import refined fuel.
You are correct, refineries will not aleviate potention fuel shortages 20 or 30 years from now. However, they are needed NOW. We need to get the near term problems solved and then continue working on the long term solutions. AT THIS TIME we need more refining capacity and more domestic production. The production may come from either or both of increaded drilling or shale oil.
G |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
"Capitalism certainly is moral."
Maybe if you had your pension dumped, your stock in Enron, and your son killed in Iraq, you wouldn’t make such statements. But I’m sure you think God is on your side, until some of those things happen to you. |
|
|
| nightguy |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
"Capitalism certainly is moral."
Maybe if you had your pension dumped, your stock in Enron, and your son killed in Iraq, you wouldn’t make such statements. But I’m sure you think God is on your side, until some of those things happen to you.
Tell me more about this "pension" thing you speak of. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
"Capitalism certainly is moral."
Maybe if you had your pension dumped, your stock in Enron, and your son killed in Iraq, you wouldn’t make such statements. But I’m sure you think God is on your side, until some of those things happen to you.
If you do not think that capatiolism is "moral" than I think that maybe you should find a country to live that does not have capitalism as it economic mainstay.
I am sorry if your son was killed in Iraq. However, that has nothing to do with the morality of capitalism. Nor does having "your pension dumped, your stock in Enron." Have all three of these things happened to you?
G |
|
|
| Mr. Mom |
| I am thankful none of those things have happened to me, but they have happened to far too many. I thought the “love it or leave it” thinking was a lesson already learned, so funny to hear it once again. But enough of this already, I guess I should have purchased a Saturn. :) |
|
|
| keremoner |
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Mom
I guess I would ask everyone if they feel the huge profits are justified, even in a supply and demand type economy. Everyone on this forum is middle class and up so it’s still not a big deal, but is it ok? Certainly not on a moral level. I’m not naive to suggest capitalism is moral, but this product affects the entire economy across the board. I really don’t see how we are going to stop our foreign oil imports.
For the last time: 9% profit is not 'huge profits' unless one is a european style socialist. They are less profitable than just about any major bank, microsoft, etc, etc. I don't hear you complaining about them or the returns of your 401K thanks to oil company stocks. Oil companies have an obligation to their shareholders to make a decent profit. Also, their research and drilling costs are huge (like pharmaceutical companies, only worse) and they need to take risks that no other sector takes to make their dough. |
|
|
| G. COLTON |
quote:
Originally posted by JimH
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5102702399.html
Once you get past the Post's blustering headlines and first paragraph it is a pretty good article. Showing that Exxon was 127th in profitability should open some eyes.
G |
|
|
| Ceenit |
Capitolism in itself is neither moral or immoral. The 'values' by which businesses run which operate in a capitolistic economy can be deemed moral or immoral.
"For the last time: 9% profit is not 'huge profits' unless one is a european style socialist. They are less profitable than just about any major bank, microsoft, etc, etc. "
Not sure I agree with this statement, becuase there is a volume/total revenue factor that has to be taken into account. To difficult to explain easily, but with true competitive forces at play and if there were no supply side contraints, profit margins would be narrower with higher volume output.
According to CNN Money.com, Exxon the the most profitable company in the world by a margin of 50% over the next most profitable company Citigroup.
Microsoft, well that's another story, but they are down at #7 in terms of profit. But, there no way I'm defending them, becuase their prfits are very high given their revenues. This is a real example of poor market forces stabilizing price. |
|
|
| keremoner |
I agree that capitalism is not moral or immoral, it is the conduct of a company that makes them so. Regarding profitablity, going by profits/total revenue measure, they are behind approximately 530 companies in profitability. 9% profitability is not much considering their huge costs including exploration related uncertainties. And yes, you'll always have supply side constraints with commodities like oil.
Here is a link you may find helpful:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort...e500/full_list/
Just do the math: profits/total revenue
quote:
Originally posted by Ceenit
Capitolism in itself is neither moral or immoral. The 'values' by which businesses run which operate in a capitolistic economy can be deemed moral or immoral.
"For the last time: 9% profit is not 'huge profits' unless one is a european style socialist. They are less profitable than just about any major bank, microsoft, etc, etc. "
Not sure I agree with this statement, becuase there is a volume/total revenue factor that has to be taken into account. To difficult to explain easily, but with true competitive forces at play and if there were no supply side contraints, profit margins would be narrower with higher volume output.
According to CNN Money.com, Exxon the the most profitable company in the world by a margin of 50% over the next most profitable company Citigroup.
Microsoft, well that's another story, but they are down at #7 in terms of profit. But, there no way I'm defending them, becuase their prfits are very high given their revenues. This is a real example of poor market forces stabilizing price.
|
|
|
| Mahereb |
| I disagree that the price of gasoline is solely driven by the global supply and demand. Big oil companies should be blamed as well. Oil company CEO's tried to put the blame on the global market, saying that they just add a small markup of 10c per gallon over the the global pricing. The truth is not only they add a markup, they do share the gas revenue with the Middle East countries who are mostly not capable of searching, digging and producing oil on their own. The US economy needs a break or a windfall tax to compensate for the damage resulting from selling the gas barrel over $60. :3: |
|
|
|
|
|
