Gas prices...
04-26-11, 08:06 PM
#211
Again with you not reading the article? I was not commenting on the SEC regulated reserve valuation, nor did I even bring up the SEC. Don't try to skew it to make your invalid assertions look correct. I was commenting on the information in the article. Maybe now that will sink in.
Yes, it is. It isn't the top 3, but it's a pretty decent amount - especially as locating it becomes more challenging.
What?? How can anyone misconstrue that as ambiguous?
No, as I explained above, your misunderstanding and unwillingness to read the article and understand that my comments are based on the information within is where the issue is.
Don't you ever equate me to that idiot again. I take that as a personal insult.
Really? I implied that? No, I most certainly did not. And as a matter of fact stated the opposite was my opinion:
Really? I implied that? No, I most certainly did not. And as a matter of fact stated the opposite was my opinion:
I never said they could just uncork the wells. I am well aware that the oil reserves would still need to be refined in order to hit the market, but if there is no oil to be refined, it's rather pointless to consider. And no, it is not false - they have a reserve for a reason. Profit. It's not a bad thing, nor illegal, but it is a strategy they stated they employ. Why you feel that the company's own statements are something not to believe or choose to disagree with in the hope of proving your mistaken and false points are where the concern is.
I don't agree with the idea that the companies are gouging, but I also don't agree with many of the statements you made:
1. They lose money more often that not and on one knows or complains when that happens.
B. They don't charge for oil.
3. They have no cost containment, so their costs skyrocket as the market price increases.
That's the top 3. And I think I did a pretty decent job of correcting most of your erroneous assertions. You can continue to make them, but it doesn't make them true any more than the assertions of people who figure the companies that are profiting are gouging. I won't give an economic basic like supply/demand, etc., since I'm sure most people get it already.
1. They lose money more often that not and on one knows or complains when that happens.
B. They don't charge for oil.
3. They have no cost containment, so their costs skyrocket as the market price increases.
That's the top 3. And I think I did a pretty decent job of correcting most of your erroneous assertions. You can continue to make them, but it doesn't make them true any more than the assertions of people who figure the companies that are profiting are gouging. I won't give an economic basic like supply/demand, etc., since I'm sure most people get it already.
#2. Again, pedantic, and this time out of context. They are paid market rate, there is no MSRP.
#3. Costs lag 1 year behind with some exceptions, so when prices go up, they earn more money. When prices go down, they lose money with costs that haven't yet fallen. The point is that most people unfamiliar with economics don't realize the inflexibility of energy company costs, especially when activity is high.
I do agree with you that the companies are not gouging, so let's just leave it at that.
04-27-11, 07:09 AM
#212
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Price of gas
If I recall gas was $1.89 when Obama took office.
There goes our plans for a 2012 Lexus.
There goes our plans for a 2012 Lexus.
04-27-11, 07:20 AM
#213
as long as Bernanke's magical money helicopter keeps raining dollars, gas will continue to go up. Countries around the world printed tons of money since 2008, now we are seeing the result. Its not just gas: gold, silver, wheat, sugar, corn, soybean, oranges, metals, cotton, and many other things have gone up as a result of this print fest.
And its not helping that Obama and his Administration is blocking further drilling and exploration in the Gulf and Arctic Ocean. Yet strangely foreign companies have been getting permits in the Gulf. Now hes talking about removing the $4B "subsidy" for oil companies because of their record profits. Its not a subsidy first of all its a tax deduction on the expenses for drilling and exploration. The profits of which take many years to realize. So guess what will happen to gas prices if these companies have a brand new $4B expense. It's going to go up. Now how did that actually help? But it made great political fodder and demagoguery.
And its not helping that Obama and his Administration is blocking further drilling and exploration in the Gulf and Arctic Ocean. Yet strangely foreign companies have been getting permits in the Gulf. Now hes talking about removing the $4B "subsidy" for oil companies because of their record profits. Its not a subsidy first of all its a tax deduction on the expenses for drilling and exploration. The profits of which take many years to realize. So guess what will happen to gas prices if these companies have a brand new $4B expense. It's going to go up. Now how did that actually help? But it made great political fodder and demagoguery.
Last edited by 4TehNguyen; 04-27-11 at 07:24 AM.
04-27-11, 05:00 PM
#214
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, that one. Glad that finally sunk through the concrete. The article referenced that XOM does not use the SEC method when discussing reserves such as these was the point I was making. Thank you for finally proving you managed to read it.
I said one of the largest costs. (Who is being pedantic again?) If it's in the top 5, that's a good sized chunk, and for most companies it is.
I need to define most profitable? Really? You are really playing up the pedantic angle here. Not sure why. How about this? To the best of their ability to use the crystal ball, they strategically release oil into the markets as prices climb to maximize profits. Is that better for you? 
You were talking about the SEC method, I was not. You assumed it. I did not. I referenced the article so you could see what I was speaking about. You still didn't see it. As I said, it's nice to know it finally got through the concrete when I pointed it out directly as opposed to thinking you could associate one with the other. I suppose that falls on me for making the leap - something I won't do again when discussing something with you if the opportunity arises, I assure you.
Circular arguments amuse me. Clearly not as much as they amuse you, but I digress...
My statement that I didn't say gouging was the case was very clear to virtually everyone who read it. That it wasn't the case for you. Bummer.
You mean there is no spigot at the end of a pipe to just fill up them thar barrels with the bubblin crude??? (I kid, I kid 
)
You definitely inferred that the majority of people think oil companies make money hand over fist at all times, good pricing or bad. But I do agree - very few people ***** when it drops down under $2 a gallon, yet there are how many thousands of people who pay $5 for a 20 oz cup of coffee?
Again, not pedantic at all (nice try, but please do stop, it's getting tired), since they do, in fact, charge for oil. Your statement remains false since I never put in a price floor, ceiling, or any other specific guarantee of a price point.
And yet I've never stated anything contrary to it. I say they do their best to control and anticipate them, but if the price falls and the contract is in place, the above statement is basic economics and contract theory. So we agree.
Oh come on, that's not the first thing. We are very similar in opinions on things. You have a bit of a roundabout way of thinking about it IMO, but we arrive at similar conclusions. I even pointed a few out for you above. Happy re-reading!
Big Mack
My statement that I didn't say gouging was the case was very clear to virtually everyone who read it. That it wasn't the case for you. Bummer.
)#3. Costs lag 1 year behind with some exceptions, so when prices go up, they earn more money. When prices go down, they lose money with costs that haven't yet fallen. The point is that most people unfamiliar with economics don't realize the inflexibility of energy company costs, especially when activity is high.
Oh come on, that's not the first thing. We are very similar in opinions on things. You have a bit of a roundabout way of thinking about it IMO, but we arrive at similar conclusions. I even pointed a few out for you above. Happy re-reading!
Big Mack
04-27-11, 08:44 PM
#215
Driver School Candidate
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's get back to the objective of the topic....
Don't carry around oil companies inventory, let it sit in their tanks not on your tank!!!
04-27-11, 09:20 PM
#216
This is the point of your misunderstanding. You are confusing methodology with the measuring metric.
04-28-11, 07:31 AM
#217
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-28-11, 08:56 AM
#218
Dysfunctional Veteran
Yikes.
At $4.10 a gallon, a full tank costs me: $106.60 (26gal x $4.10)...
Congragulations. You probably did the right thing. I'm a firm believer in getting out of debt as soon as possible. Yes, your bank account may have gotten socked, but the truck is all-yours now, and the repos can't come and get it.
This probably goes without saying, but if you cut back on Big Blue's usage to save on gas, make sure you drive it enough times (and long enough) to get the engine hot and keep the fluids circulating and the battery charged.
You probably did the right thing. I'm a firm believer in getting out of debt as soon as possible. Yes, your bank account may have gotten socked, but the truck is all-yours now, and the repos can't come and get it. This probably goes without saying, but if you cut back on Big Blue's usage to save on gas, make sure you drive it enough times (and long enough) to get the engine hot and keep the fluids circulating and the battery charged.
.
04-28-11, 10:49 AM
#221
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 2,439
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Southern California Chevron is around $4.37 for regular, I saw a 76 have it around $4.47...
04-28-11, 03:00 PM
#222
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Filled up today with Premium @ $4.05/.
04-28-11, 03:06 PM
#223
Guest
Posts: n/a
I wonder when the 18 wheelers are going to protest....they must be getting killed again....
04-28-11, 03:24 PM
#224
Lexus Test Driver
How many of you guys actually have reduced the amount of driving?
My driving schedule is basically set in stone--and I've roughly have done the same amount of driving for the past 4 years (counting singular miles per week in differences).
My driving schedule is basically set in stone--and I've roughly have done the same amount of driving for the past 4 years (counting singular miles per week in differences).
04-28-11, 03:27 PM
#225
Lexus Fanatic
Fortunately, there are plenty of local Shell stations (another exellent brand) to compensate. And we get Shell gas-price discounts with the local Giant Supermarket bonus-cards (normally 10-40 cents a gallon, but no limits with more points).
BTW, Shell regular, in my local area, without the Bonus-Card discounts, is now $4.04-$4.09, and premium around $4.39-$4.40. The average for regular in VA is now $3.89.
Last edited by mmarshall; 04-28-11 at 03:34 PM.