BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Peace
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:46 AM

Kids still need to eat.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: DougR
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:42 AM

Good for Exxon! My grandson is a Project Engineer with Exxon and he makes damn good money. The shareholders must be pleased.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 12:54 AM

With Exxon's record profits being made public, you'd think that somewhere you'd hear the cry of "Fowl" when they still refeuse to pay the fines levied against them more than 15yrs ago for the Valdez episode in Alaska.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:06 PM

Swiss oil trading firm Vitol SA pleads guilty in oil-for-food case, will pay $17.5 million
The Associated Press November 20, 2007

NEW YORK: Swiss oil trading firm Vitol SA pleaded guilty Tuesday to a larceny charge in connection with a scheme to pay secret kickbacks to the Iraqi government in exchange for oil under the United Nations' scandal-ridden oil-for-food program, state prosecutors said.

District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said the company pleaded guilty to a single count of grand larceny in the first degree in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.

Vitol will pay restitution of $13 million (€8.8 million) to the Development Fund for Iraq and will make a payment of $4.5 million (€3 million) to the city and state of New York.

"The Oil for Food Programme was established by the United Nations with the noble goal of providing for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people," Morgenthau said in a statement. "One outcome of this investigation, and last week's joint investigation involving Chevron, is to insure that illegal funds that were paid to Saddam Hussein's government are redirected to benefit the Iraqi people."

Prosecutors alleged that Vitol, through an associated entity or third parties, paid $13 million in kickbacks to Iraqi officials in connection with oil purchases under the program from June 2001 through September 2002, but allowed false representations to be made to the U.N. that no kickbacks were paid.
Today in Business with Reuters
Wall Street, unsatisfied, bids down stocks
Fed rescues AIG with $85 billion loan for 80% stake
Lloyds TSB in talks to buy HBOS

Vitol's case is one of several that are the result of a wide-ranging criminal probe into the oil-for-food program.

Last week, Chevron Corp. agreed to pay $30 million (€20.2 million) to settle civil and criminal charges related to secret surcharges paid by third-party merchants in exchange for oil under the program.

Nine people, including former Coastal Corp. Chairman Oscar S. Wyatt, have either pleaded guilty or been convicted of criminal charges in the case. Criminal charges are pending against six other individuals, including the program's former executive director, Benon V. Sevan.

In February, El Paso Corp. agreed to pay $7.7 million (€5.2 million) to settle civil and criminal charges that it indirectly paid $5.5 million (€3.7 million) in illegal surcharges to Iraq through purchases of crude oil from outside parties under the oil-for-food program.

The oil-for-food program was designed to allow the government of Iraq, which was facing international sanctions, to sell oil in exchange for food, medical supplies and other humanitarian needs."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/20/business/NA-FIN-US-Vitol-Oil-for-Food.php

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 12:02 PM

A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading
        
By David Cho
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A01

Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses.

But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators.
ad_icon

The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol's activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders.

Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer.

"It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner."

The CFTC, which refrains from naming specific traders in its reports, did not publicly identify Vitol.

The agency's report showed only the size of the holdings of an unnamed trader. Vitol's identity as that trader was confirmed by two industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil -- about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday.

The documents do not say how much Vitol put down to acquire this position, but under NYMEX rules, the down payment could have been as little as $1 billion, with the company borrowing the rest.

The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn...."

Much More at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Kevin Parker
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM

Interesting Statistics on US oil production/consumption on this page:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Hope it might illuminate the debate
cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 08:43 AM

"...paying the "world price" for every gallon of crude..."

Please cite where anybody but yourself has made such a claim.

"Hopefully some of these bastards have recently lost their shirts!"

Real nice guy, aren't you.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 08:22 AM

[That is still $2.145 per gallon of crude oil "as is, where is".]

It is a great mis-conception to believe that is the price actually paid for most of the crude . Much of it is supplied by themselves (big oil) to themselves and they only pay the higher spot market price to top up their supply. The USA may import a lot of crude but it also produces a lot more than that within it's own borders. It also has a stable supply from Canada.
The spot market price is driven by speculaters ( gamblers) who hope that the price will increase even more. Hopefully some of these bastards have recently lost their shirts!
Anyone who believes that Exxon is paying the "world price" for every gallon of crude is pretty gullable.
As Woody said: "Some will rob you with a six-gun; some with a fountain pen!"

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: pdq
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 06:21 AM

Brent "spot" price: $90.06 / barrel.

That is still $2.145 per gallon of crude oil "as is, where is". There is a lot of work required to refine and transport it before the gas stations fill their storage tanks. Also, a huge share of profit goes to the US government in taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 05:45 AM

$93.89 a barrel now JtS and dropping. Has that got anything to do with Bush/Cheney/Iraq War/"evil neo-con conspiracies"???

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 10:28 PM

Prospective leases sometimes sit idle until economic conditions are deemed favorable by the economic advisors in the companies.
The price per barrel is dropping fast, back to around $110-115,bbl., and some prospects which looked good three weeks ago, have been put back on the rear burner. No point in break-even or loss production.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 09:22 PM

Most N.M. Leases See Drilling

Monday, 11 August 2008, 15:00 CDT

Opponents of opening new areas offshore and in Alaska to oil drilling frequently cite the fact that millions of acres already leased by oil and gas companies sit idle.

Oil companies, they say, are hoarding and should drill these leases before potential new fields are opened.

But, in New Mexico, more than threefourths of leased federal acres are delivering natural gas or crude oil.

Some of the leases that aren't producing simply came up dry, and some others have been tied up by environmental and conservation groups opposed to drilling. Those include Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico and the Galisteo Basin north of Albuquerque and near Santa Fe.

The state's Oil Conservation Division, which regulates groundwater protection on state and federal land leased to oil and gas companies, has also blocked some new exploration on leases in Rio Arriba County.

Big picture numbers: The Bureau of Land Management has leased 5.4 million acres of federal land to oil and gas producers in New Mexico. Of that, about 3.9 million acres are in production, according to Tony Herrell, the BLM's state deputy director for minerals......

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:53 PM

API is a trade industry association, the information they present is totally biases, as it should be expected. They exist to promote the interests of the oil companies. With that is mind, they are a good website.

As Sawzaw's aim also seems to be the promotion of the interests of the oil companies, I thought that he should know about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 07:16 PM

The American Petroleum Institute has a very good website, but trying to educate the average American on energy may be a hopeless task. The facts brought up in the little API 'test' linked there has been considered in several threads here and the details behind the answers are available there. Neocomies posting here are economic dinosaurs, ignorant of the geopolitical considerations that have caused all progressive world economies to adopt the capitalist system, whether driven by the people or in part state directed from the top.

Unfortunately,the fundamentals of economics, geopolitics, wealth creation and capitalism are given little attention in North American schools, and the average person is too lazy to look beyond the nonsense spouted by bloggers.

The U. S. oil reserves are less that 3% of the world's total.
International oil companies control only 5% of estimated reserves. The rest are controlled by government owned companies.
The U. S. will depend more and more on government-owned petroleum reserves, and equitable contracts are needed.
Coal reserves are large, and will continue to be used for generation of electricity, but use and management of gases and other waste products should be a priority.
Other forms of generating energy- nuclear, solar, wind, fuel cell- all should have their place but implementation to serious levels will take a generation.

Drilling in new areas and development of infrastructure will not bring important quantities of new oil into the picture for 10 years-
provided that the pie-in-the-sky figures bandied about are even partly correct. There will be many disappointments because reservoirs may be tight, thermal conditions were unfavorable to the development of liquid hydrocarbons, development costs too high and many other factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 04:03 PM

Most N.M. Leases See Drilling

Monday, 11 August 2008

Opponents of opening new areas offshore and in Alaska to oil drilling frequently cite the fact that millions of acres already leased by oil and gas companies sit idle.

Oil companies, they say, are hoarding and should drill these leases before potential new fields are opened.

But, in New Mexico, more than three fourths of leased federal acres are delivering natural gas or crude oil.

Some of the leases that aren't producing simply came up dry, and some others have been tied up by environmental and conservation groups opposed to drilling. Those include Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico and the Galisteo Basin north of Albuquerque and near Santa Fe.

The state's Oil Conservation Division, which regulates groundwater protection on state and federal land leased to oil and gas companies, has also blocked some new exploration on leases in Rio Arriba County.

Big picture numbers: The Bureau of Land Management has leased 5.4 million acres of federal land to oil and gas producers in New Mexico. Of that, about 3.9 million acres are in production, according to Tony Herrell, the BLM's state deputy director for minerals.........."

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 15 Aug 08 - 12:02 AM

Sawzaw If you want oil company propaganda go here!

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 11:52 PM

Big Oil Not Sitting On Oil Acreage Despite Democrats' Claims
Roy Maynard
Congressional Democrats now have their unified response to increasing calls for oil exploration in Alaska and in the waters off our shores: The energy companies, they say, are already sitting on plenty of oil, refusing to recover it.

But is that true?

"Energy companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million acres of federal land under their control," claims Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat. "The fact of the matter is Congress has already allowed oil companies to drill, but those companies are refusing to drill because they want to lock up as much federal land as possible and wait for oil to rise to $200 or $300 a barrel so that they can make even greater profits than they are making now."

Therefore, the Democrats say, there's no need to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, despite the crippling rise of gasoline prices.

"Why should the U.S. government continue to give away precious acres of public land to massive energy companies when they've already demonstrated that they will just sit on those acres and not produce oil in a timely fashion?"

The party even advanced a bill last week they called "Use It or Lose It," which would deny energy companies additional leases until they "demonstrate that they are diligently developing" the leases they already have.

"If they were showing in good faith that they were drilling on some of the 68 million acres they have now, it might change some of our attitudes," says Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

Yet the unified response rings hollow   and untrue. Oil companies   in the business of finding, retrieving and selling petroleum   don't want to?

The best work debunking the Democrats' claim comes from the reliable Investors Business Daily.

"This is yet another slander of 'Big Oil' by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi   one that has become a major talking point for Democrats in Congress," the newspaper said in a July 3 editorial. "It's completely dishonest."

Oil companies are driven by profits, and they've already sunk billions of dollars into those existing leases. And they are drilling   an increase in activity of more than 66 percent since 2000, according to that editorial.

"They are searching for oil even as you read this," the Daily says. "Some parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some won't. But at $145 a barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of incentive to find it."

In fact, I have a friend who supplies oilfield equipment. He says he's now spending much of his time explaining to customers that he's having trouble meeting all their pipe needs   the demand is extremely heavy, and the supply is being further limited by a worldwide shortage in steel.

The Daily's helpful editorial goes on to dispel several more myths.

Can we drill our way out of the energy crisis?

"Actually, we can," it notes. "Conservative estimates put the total amount of recoverable oil in conventional deposits at about 39 billion barrels. Offshore we have another 89 billion barrels or so. In ANWR, 10 billion."

That's not counting the oil shale deposits with an estimated 1 trillion barrels, or natural gas.

As for those who claim additional drilling won't impact gas prices for years, remember: what's helping to drive prices upward is the oil futures market.

"Markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply," the Daily says. "That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop."

Congressional Democrats are already feeling the pressure to allow additional drilling, but so far they're not budging.

"This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax," Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday. "It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this Bush administration."

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 12 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM

"Solar and wind are the ultimate goal according to Pickens. You should pay closer attention."

I have said that the ultimate coal is wind and solar but there is something even better, fusion reactors.

Are you saying that several small trees are going to fit in the same space that the big tree occupied?

"Eventually the big tree will die and all its carbon will be released."

True but you would have to use only trees that die from natural causes to break even. You will still not reduce the existing CO2 in the atmosphere and you would not reverse global warming.

The only way to reverse Global warming is to quit burning fuel and leave the trees alone to do their job.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Peace
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM

But he's got

HIGH HOPES

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Barry Finn
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM

Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 04:13 AM

>>It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though.

There is always rubber band power.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 02:29 AM

>>From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM

>>How can a tiny tree absorb the amount of CO2 produced by burning a big tree? You haven't explained it yet.

The amount of CO2 converted by a large tree is much more than a small tree, over a period of time, the tiny tree can replace the big tree in it's capacity to convert CO2 into O2. In the mean time the amount if CO2 in the biosphere is increasing because you have replaced a big tree with a small tree.

If you leave the big tree alone to absorb the CO2 released from burning the fossil fuel, which by the way was originally trees and other organic matter, The tree will be there to absorb the CO2 produced.<<

Who said it had to be one tree? several small trees gave more surface area than one large one. Eventually the big tree will die and all its carbon will be released.

>>>Where are these trees going to grow. On cropland and raising food prices even more.

Where are trees growing now?

>>>How much as the corn ethanol program lowered the price of gas?

It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy you get out of it. It was feel good legislation and a boondoggle.

Maybe someday ethanol production will pay off but I think it is better to skip over all this cleaner fuels bandaid approach that still produce CO2 and concentrate on energy technology that does not depend on burning anything. In the meantime use up whatever gas and oil we can find here. I think that is what T Boone is saying. Solar wind and nuclear with oil and gas as a tide me over.<<

Solar and wind are the ultimate goal according to Pickens. You should pay closer attention.


>>>Hybrid cars should be replaced by totally battery powered vehicles with longer lasting more compact and lighter weight lithium batteries.

That is the goal of some car and battery makers. But Plug in hybrids presently give a better balance of weight and range. Supercapacitors are also a very promising technology. If they are based on carbon nanotubes, in the future they may be able to store more power per unit of weight than a battery and be charged in less time than it takes to fill a car with gas.

It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM

How can a tiny tree absorb the amount of CO2 produced by burning a big tree? You haven't explained it yet.

The amount of CO2 converted by a large tree is much more than a small tree, over a period of time, the tiny tree can replace the big tree in it's capacity to convert CO2 into O2. In the mean time the amount if CO2 in the biosphere is increasing because you have replaced a big tree with a small tree.

If you leave the big tree alone to absorb the CO2 released from burning the fossil fuel, which by the way was originally trees and other organic matter, The tree will be there to absorb the CO2 produced.

Where are these trees going to grow. On cropland and raising food prices even more.

How much as the corn ethanol program lowered the price of gas?

It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy you get out of it. It was feel good legislation and a boondoggle.

Maybe someday ethanol production will pay off but I think it is better to skip over all this cleaner fuels bandaid approach that still produce CO2 and concentrate on energy technology that does not depend on burning anything. In the meantime use up whatever gas and oil we can find here. I think that is what T Boone is saying. Solar wind and nuclear with oil and gas as a tide me over.

Hybrid cars should be replaced by totally battery powered vehicles with longer lasting more compact and lighter weight lithium batteries.

It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 04:36 AM

Various trees take different times to grow depending of conditions and the type of tree. The little trees take the place of the big trees. The amount of O2 is not an issue. it is removing the CO2, which is made more difficult by adding carbon from the ground.

You don't have to be a biologist to understand what I have been saying. You simply need to be able to understand simple arithmetic.

One doesn't need a license to talk down to someone who has had the same simple thing explained eight times and still doesn't get it. And who reacts sarcastically each time it is explained.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Barry Finn
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 02:54 AM

Maybe they're just betting on the better prospect

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 01:53 AM

Maybe the employees of the oil companies are voting for Obama because they know they're more likely to find themselves without health insurance if McCain gets elected than if Obama gets elected. And maybe they like Obama's plan to reduce taxes on their income bracket.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 10 Aug 08 - 01:02 AM

I realize that I did mention markup. I meant to say profit.

And I still want to know where Soros's money comes from since he is not producing a product for resale?

I suspect it comes from devaluation of the currencies he deals in and eventually comes out of everybody's pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM

So how long doe it take for those replanted trees to grow.

What take their place at converting CO2 to O2?

"trees are already part of the biosphere" So please don't cut them down and harm the biosphere like they do down in Brazil.

Is the "stuff in the ground" part of the Biosphere?

Now you know something about me. Tell us something about you. Are you real smart? A biologist or something? Somebody that has a license to talk down to people?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM

I have said the same thing to you about eight times. Everyone who has read it understands it but you. That should tell you something about yourself.

I'll repeat it once more. To fight global warming it is better to use trees than fossil fuels because the trees are already part of the biosphere. This is especially true if you replant the trees.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 09 Aug 08 - 10:37 AM

Are you saying that cutting trees does not have an impact on the environment?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM

>>>And the birds will be a lot happier.

If your point is that using energy has costs. I agree.

If you are saying that trees are not as bad as solar so we ought to use oil. That is definitely for the birds.

If you don't cut down every tree at once only a small minority of birds will even notice.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 08 Aug 08 - 12:43 AM

Let me see. You plant some trees and then you have to wait for them to grow before you cut them down and turn them into methanol.

That will take a while unless you cut down some trees that are already grown. The ones you cut down aren't converting any CO2 anymore and the replacements take a while to grow so you are putting CO2 in the air that is hot being converted until the replacement trees grow up.

Sounds to me like it would increase CO2 levels.

Why not plant trees, let them keep on growing and absorb the CO2 from fossil fuels. Then about when we run out of fossil fuels we will have non fuel burning energy sources.

And the birds will be a lot happier.

Where are all these trees going to go? How about the water and energy it takes to grow them, harvest them and convert them into fuel? Won't that make the whole process inefficient? How about the left over chemicals and stuff? will it pollute?

I need to know all these thing before I can decide if it is feasible or not.


A new study of the carbon dioxide emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of growing corn and sugarcane to produce fuel ethanol indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this energy resource on a large scale." The study, published in the July 2005 issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), uses the "ecological footprint" concept to assess needs for ethanol production from sugarcane, now widespread in Brazil, and from corn, which is increasing in the United States.

In the United States, ethanol yielded only about 10 percent more energy than was required to produce it.

Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power.

If you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ."

If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as Patzek's data suggests, what is the solution? The researcher sees several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, he says, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars.

For generating electricity on the grid, Patzek's "favorite renewable energy" to replace coal is solar. Unfortunately, he says that solar cell technology is still too immature for use in large power stations. Until it's ready for prime time, he has a suggestion that could raise even more controversy than his criticisms of ethanol additives.

"I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,NO DOUBT
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 11:04 PM

HOW ABOUT WE ALL TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILTY....... WE ALL BY THE SHIT

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 09:03 PM

>>How long does it take to grow a tree?
It's going to be a long time between fill ups.<<

Awesome insight there Saw.

Yep, Obama's whole energy plan revolves around buring one tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:59 PM

How long does it take to grow a tree?
It's going to be a long time between fill ups.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:13 PM

At the site which comes up, click on About OSI. Then click on 'more' under "Record of Achievement." This will get you to the 2008 report.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM

Soros and his Open Society Institute, and its accomplishments should be the subject of a separate thread, since there is no relation to Exxon Mobil or any of the other integrated petroleum producers.

A good place to begin is the OSI Brochure- "A Record of Achievement: 2008"
Record 2008
Click on the symbol of the pdf document. The report is 20 pages and may be printed easily.

The organization is open and liberal, it neither funds nor supports terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: DougR
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:58 PM

I heard a report on the car radio today that the employees of the major oil companies in the U.S. contributed considerably more to the Obama campaign for president than they did to McCain's campaign.

Suppose they have a death wish?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:49 PM

>>Are you saying that trees make good pets?

No, to me trees are just like spotted owls, a renewable source of energy and building materials.

>>If you cut down the trees, where are the birds gonna live?

In the new trees, the ones you plant. That's why they call it sustainable energy. Because it can be sustained. But if we have to, we can tide them over in temporary lodging. FEMA bird house.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:38 PM

If you cut down the trees, where are the birds gonna live?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM

Are you saying that trees make good pets?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:31 PM

Sawzaw,

You are making me laugh again!! Ha ha ha!!

Where are you getting this stuff?

>>Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.<<

James Hansen info

You think it would be a good thing that if Hansen had not been funded NASA would have been able to continue to lie?

What did he do to you? Try to kill your pet tree?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 05:42 PM

The Soros Threat To Democracy

George Soros is known for funding groups such as http://MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.

Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.

That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?

Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.

So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.

Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.

Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists.

OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.

They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?

It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?

OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism.

On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats…

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 07:54 AM

pdq,

Are you making a point? Assuming its even any of our business what Soros does in Hong Kong, assuming he is doing something morally wrong, what he has done has nothing to do with Exxon Mobil.

So what is up? Are you changing the subject?

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: pdq
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM

George Soros is a predatory investor who manipulates markets by playing with the emotions of investors, not by clever analysis of assets. His Quantum Fund has made 32% profit (on average) since 1969. Exxon-Mobil provides a real product and only gets 10% profit.


Soros manager regrets attack on HK dollar

Amy Nip

Thursday, July 05, 2007

An asset manager who represented George Soros, one of the predatory speculators who laid siege to the Hong Kong dollar and attempted to manipulate the stock and futures markets, has admitted making a blunder.

In an interview with mainland paper China Business News, Rodney Jones, the former managing director of Soros Fund Management in Hong Kong, admitted: "We made a mistake."

He said Wednesday the markets could have collapsed, "if the Hong Kong government hesitated any longer."

For two weeks beginning August 12, 1998, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority with the support of then financial secretary Donald Tsang Yam- kuen, waged war on currency speculators who were making a double play of dumping the Hong Kong dollar and shorting local stocks and Hang Seng Index futures.

In the end, the speculators were literally caught short with their short positions on HSI futures and short positions on the currency.

Soros and his flagship Quantum Fund bet heavily that Hong Kong would end up on bended knee, but it was not to be.

In 1996, Jones was stationed in Hong Kong and was researching Southeast Asian markets. He said he noticed the asset price bubble in the real estate market and yet banks continued to lend to developers who had difficulty paying interest on loans. In the circumstances, Jones said he recommended to Soros that he short-sell the Thai baht.

"We started preparations six months beforehand and built short positions gradually," he told the paper.

In January 1997, Soros and other global hedge funds began dumping baht in large quantities, putting the exchange rate under immense pressure.

"Capital started to flow out of Thailand in May and Thailand imposed capital controls," he recalled. "But at that time, we already knew the baht could not hold."

At the time, the Thai economy was in trouble, exports had slumped, there was excessive investment and the country was grappling with a yawning current account deficit. Speculators smelled blood, believing the baht was overvalued.

Hedge funds launched a second assault on the baht in June that year.

With forex reserves depleted, the Bank of Thailand caved in and devalued the currency. After causing immense grief and turmoil in Southeast Asia, with the poor hit the hardest, Soros set his eyes on Hong Kong.

Jones said there was a bubble in the stock and property markets at the time, "although not as bad as in Thailand."

He added: "And we thought in the beginning that the cost of maintaining the linked exchange rate would be too high for the Hong Kong government."

The funds mounted a three-pronged assault on the currency, futures and stocks.

But then they came up against a well-prepared HKMA, which left greedy speculators with a bloodied nose. Hong Kong intervened in the markets, although there was concern in some quarters that the government had dipped into the Exchange Fund.

In hindsight, Jones, said he felt otherwise.

"Government intervention raised public confidence in the market when it was near total collapse. It prevented a bigger crisis and saved the market."

Tsang declared at the time: "We have frustrated their plan. We are absolutely determined to use all means available to us to protect the stability and integrity of our currency and financial markets."

Even the Bank of China supported the counterattack on speculators.

Tung Chee-hwa, the chief executive at the time, warned speculators saying: "We will continue to do what is necessary."

Jones said: "We used to doubt if the HKSAR government's intervention would be effective or not, as timing and choice of strategies were of crucial importance. From what we see now, the HKSAR government chose the right time to intervene. We made a mistake at the time."

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor
Date: 07 Aug 08 - 01:20 AM

>>Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: GUEST,Sawzaw
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:49 PM

What I want to know is where does that money Soros makes come from?

Exxon makes it's money by making a product and selling it for 10% more than it cost them. Less of a mark up than other oil companies.

Soros's fund made $1.8 billion in one week by manipulation currency. What was produced? What did anybody receive in return for this money?


Where is your demand for a windfall profits tax on that corporation? <<

>>"one of us knows how to define" Which one? I never mentioned a markup.<<

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: pdq
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 11:09 PM

Please do not make that first line a quote from me. I was quoting Maine Dog as you can clearly see in my post and his. There is also no fucking way I said to "capitalistically nationalize American oil" since that phrase is meaningless and absurd. Please restate what you mean should you figure out what that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM

pdq having written:
"A free market is great where there is true elasticity, but in the case of "monopolies" or cartels..."

Then can we sorta agree that the Clinton era mergers reducing 9 major US oil companies to 4 or 5 was bad for competition. Perhaps that it has lead to higher pump prices? Just asking.

I think it is a question worth asking, but I don't think the contraction among some American oil companies had the negative effect you imply. I think it's important to realize that though these are large American companies, their reserves are far less than those of the Mideast and other government controlled oil companies such as Russia, China, possibly Mexico and Venezuela. And oil being 'fungible' means that the huge demands on oil posed by the expansion of industry in Asia and India have greater and longer lasting impact that would make it economically a non-starter for the United States to try and capitalistically nationalize American oil for the American people as you seem to wish. The almighty dollar may not be as almighty as it once was, but our Chinese friends have maybe a trillion or two of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM

How fast these funds can grow is illustrated by the Paulson example. Their fund was worth $6 billion in 2007 but reached $18 billion in 2007. Their funds, based on the credit market, returned 590% and 353% last year.

There are many of these funds, some independent and some tied to other investment funds, total value some $2 trillion under management.
Same NY Times article linked above, "Wall Street Winners."

Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM

According to the Canada Free Press, George Soros has raised $100 million through his Democracy Alliance for the Democratic Party through liberal non-profits, including $24 million of his own money, aimed at the defeat of Bush and the Republican Party.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1297.

From the NY Times-
In 2007, Soros and his team of investors made $3 billion, according to the ranking of hedge fund earners by Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine. His Quantum Fund returned 32%
Hedge fund manager James H. Simons and his Medallion Fund also made $3 billion and returned 73% (Mr Simons, a mathemetician and former Defense Dept. code breaker, uses complex computer models to trade. Paulson & Co. made $3.7 billion betting against certain mortgages and the complexes that held them.
Newcomer to the big time Phillip Falcone and his Harbinger Partners made $1.7 billion, returns 117%.

It is a gigantic version of Las Vegas, says the Brookings Institute economist Gary Burtless.

Balancing the winners were scores of losers, "wracked by bad investments, excess borrowing or leverage, and client redemptions-..."
Wall Street Winners

The NY Times title is wrong to an extent, much of the investment by Soros-Rogers and their Quantum Fund is not invested in Wall Street stocks and funds, but in other markets worldwide.