|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM pdq, American companies are pumping oil in locations- 'foreign lands'- around the globe. The practice, however, is to use citizens of the country involved as employees and managers wherever possible. Most of the oil in Canada is 'pumped' (Hibernia, e. g.) or mined (tar sands) by American companies and partners, but the employees and management are Canadian; e. g., affiliates such as Imperial Oil Ltd, or Syncrude (with partners) where Exxon Mobil is the owner of Imperial. Other companies such as Royal Dutch Shell have set up similar affiliates in Canada, staffed by Canadians. BP Canada Energy Co., ConocoPhillips Canada, Chevron Canada Resources, etc. China has not bid or applied for Canadian tracts, although their two major companies have expressed interest. The Canadian government would set the rules of operation. Chinese operators, if they stayed in Canada, would come in as landed immigrants. BP and Royal Dutch Shell have U. S. organizations for the U. S.; policy at the highest level may be set in London or the Hague, but employees and management in the U. S. is nearly all American, not UK or Dutch. Major integrated petroleum companies, regardless of where ownership resides, use local employees wherever possible, and mostly have set up affiliate companies for management and direction, under the laws of the countries involved. Such is necessary when operations must be global. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Teribus Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:20 PM The international oil & gas industry is structured in a such a way today that field developments are very rarely single company efforts. For quite a few years now any development of a new field will be a collaborative effort involving a number of partners - doing that optimises resources, defrays costs and reduces risk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:35 PM I don't see how pointing out that someone makes 32 times more money than a person you claim makes too much money Proves your point. Exxon produced a product and sold it. Soros produced nothing and the people received nothing in exchange for their money due to his currency manipulations. George Soros Financed Peru Riots In July 2000 By Richard Deegan http://educate-yourself.org/rfp/reportsperusorosfinancedriots7may01.shtml May 7, 2001 A stunning admission was finally forced from the empire of the New World Order's George Soros that, indeed, he had contributed millions of dollars to the political campaigns of Alejandro Toledo Manrique in Peru, included $1,000,000 specifically for Toledo's "March from the Four Winds" that resulted in six dead and multi-million dollar damage to government and private buildings and property (the specifics of these riots were the subject of a previous Report). Smoking Fax Obtained from Toledo Camp Defector The admission came in the form of a fax from international currency speculator Soros' Open Society Institute in New York, issued by Director Michael Vachon. The fax was intended to serve as a clarification after Toledo (who had previously denied receiving money from foreign interests) acknowledged receiving a million dollars from Soros specifically for the July 26-27-28 2000 series of demonstrations and attacks in the heart of Lima. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 06 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM George Soros is not an investment broker. George Soros is an economic terrorist who causes the stocks he "sells short" to drop. He and John Paulson broke Bear-Stearns and made 2-3 billion each in the process. US taxpayer foot the bill. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM Soros has had his ups and downs with his funds. He did well beating down the British pound, but lost heavily in the Russian money crisis of 1998, and later his Quantum Fund lost one-third of its value (2000), down from $10 to $6 billion. He switched investments mostly to technology, a field that has been doing well. His Quantum Fund has grown strong and larger than ever. His 1994 book, "The Alchemy of Finance," has classic status; one of its predictions was the the mortgage crash. His new book, "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means," should be required reading for all bank and fund managers, In 2008, be is investing in Indian stocks, among others. Larger funds are Goldman-Sachs and others in the news recently. The accusation that Soros and Paulson caused the collapse of Bear-Stearns is nonsense; they knew when to get out before the walls came tumbling down- and he told the public what would happen in his 1994 book. A good survey of the plus and minus of hedge funds, which have been in existence for 60 years, here: Hedge All I know about the funds is what I have read; they have little to do with the petroleum industry. Soros books are authoritative, by a man who knows his subject from the inside. |
|
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? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM pdq writted: I have not seen convincing evidence that BP actually did divest the ARCO leases as was suggested. I don't like BP or any other foreign-owned company pumping oil from United States lands. I also liked the concept of 9 or 10 companies bidding for the leases, all US-owned. That is how I feel. {Your milage may vary.} ARCO's Kuparuk properties were sold to Phillips, a then much smaller American petroleum company, as a condition of the BP purchase. This happened about the turn of the millenium. It was a condition imposed by the FTC. I think in this case the US government agencies worked properly and were good for both the industry and the nation. As for foreign ownership of American resources, there has never been a minute of US existence without considerable foreign ownership of American resources, particularly British. Capitalism, like Democracy, can be a messy business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:31 PM Have I demanded windfall profits? From anyone? >>Exxon makes it's money by making a product and selling it for 10% more than it cost them.<< That is not true by any realistic measure. If you want to know why, learn the difference between markup and net profit. I don't think the law should allow Soros to do what he did. But he did it and it was legal so legally and morally, its his money. I believe in regulating business. You don't. The system you support allowed Soros to do that. I have already explained that Soros gambled his own money while a CEO is paying himself someone else's money. If you can't see the difference, I won't bother explaining it again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM >>From: robomatic Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM pdq writted: --- As for foreign ownership of American resources, there has never been a minute of US existence without considerable foreign ownership of American resources, particularly British. Capitalism, like Democracy, can be a messy business.<<< Good points robomatic! pdq There are countries that insist on local ownership, like Russia and Venezuela. Perhaps you could emigrate? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM pdq: I DID emigrate....to Alaska! ;-)& |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM Yeah!! Good one! I was talking about pdq moving to a country that enjoys companies from that country owning the oil reserves. Sorry I wasn't clearer. It was just a joke, not well told. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:02 PM So JTS is not in favor of a windfall profits tax? profit, markup. Wordgames. Exxon gave people something in return for the money they made. Soros did not. The CEO of Exxon made money and Soros makes 32 times more than he did. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:12 PM Soros- Nothing to do with Exxon Mobil or the other petroleum corporations. Quantum (Soros and Rogers) fund's money is made by investing worldwide in companies and funds, buying and selling, much like other funds such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc. Quantum's operations are often a gamble, much more so than other funds, and it has sustained severe ups and downs. Since it is a foreign company registered in Dutch Netherlands Antilles (Curacao), little is known of the actual holdings. It is thought that Quantum holds 10% of Apex Silver Mines, a Bolivian mine partly owned by Sumitomo of Japan, but this does not reflect the sweep of the holdings accurately. Rogers, co-founder with Soros, says that they are heavily invested in China. His book, "A Bull in China," suggests that one's children learn Chinese, which will become "the most important language of their lifetimes" (also briefly reported in USA Today, 12/16/2007). The company is not registered in the U. S., thus a 'windfall profits tax' (which really is a tax on all investors in a company, decreasing their dividends) is not a possible avenue for the U. S. since the company, which is closed, is registered as a Dutch concern. Both Soros and Rogers have contributed to the Democratic party, and Soros has long called for the defeat of Bush and the Republicans (several stories on the net, some in The Financial Post, etc., I am not qualified to comment on them). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:21 PM LOL you are a funny poster! profit, markup. Wordgames. No they are specific business terms that one of us knows how to define. :-) I never said whether or not I was for a windfall profits tax. But it was pretty funny for you to assume that I am. Your question was also very funny on another level which Q just explained to you. We don't tax foreign companies on money made outside the United States. Keep up the good work! I am amused! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: DougR Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:23 PM Bert: I wasn't aware that McCain had blamed the oil crisis on Obama. If he did, it was not a very bright thing to say. Were he to blame Obama and his fellow Democrats for blocking legislation that would lift the restriction on drilling off-shore, or building more nuclear plants, or developing clean coal, or drilling in Anwar, however, I would applaud him. The only proposal Obama and his crowd have recommended is developing alternate replacements for oil that it probably will take twenty years or so to successfully develop. The alternatives should consider to be developed, but the only short term solution to freeing ourselves from foreign oil sources is to drill our own natural resources. Oops. I forgot that Obam did sugggest keeping the tires in our cars inflated to proper levels which, in his opinion, would solve the oil crises. I can't believe he said that with a straight face. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM The oil in the ground under US land owned by the Bureau of Land Management or other government entity is the property of the citizens of the US. I want that oil pumped out by American companies and I want them to pay us, the citizens of the US, a fair price. I stand behind that statement. It has very little to do with general investemnt in the US. Two or three people have re-invented what I said or have made up their own statements and credited them to me. Nothing new here. As far as Soros and Exxon-Mobil, he has never had a thing to do with the company directly, at least that is what I believe to be true. Again about Soros, he has a personal fortune of 8-10 billion dollars and has never prouuced a product, delivered a single kilowatt or grown an ounce of food. He is an economic parasite and all "short trading" should be ended since the investor is hoping for that company's fortunes to drop. In Soros case, he causes them to drop simply by wielding about 200 billion in client's assets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 06:59 PM >>Bert: I wasn't aware that McCain had blamed the oil crisis on Obama. If he did, it was not a very bright thing to say. He specifically blamed the high price of gasoline on Obama, and Obama only, in an ad. I don't think it was bright either, but the pundits say it swayed some voters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:03 PM >>I forgot that Obam did sugggest keeping the tires in our cars inflated to proper levels which, in his opinion, would solve the oil crises. No he said that it would make a bigger difference than the offshore oil + ANWAR. He did not say it would solve the oil crisis and he did not offer it as a solution in his energy plan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM "one of us knows how to define" Which one? I never mentioned a markup. You say it is OK for Soros's company to do what ever he want to with his money [like financing riots where people are killed] but it is not OK for a CEO to make 1/32 of what Soros makes. This is not making sense to me. If you are going to go after the biggest this or that looks like Soros should be gone after before Exxon. I don't recall mentioning markup and did I say that you demanded windfall profits? Ceo's don't assign themselves "nine figure pay" Corporations have Boards that must approve the CEO's compensation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: MaineDog Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:46 PM Several companies in Maine have folded recently because the price of oil has gone too high. Ditto others whose raw materials have gotten too expensive. However, the OIL companies do much better when the price of their raw material goes higher. Something is very wrong here. We should treat the whole energy business as infrastructure, and regulate it. We don't let the toll bridges and highways rip us off to the extent that no one can travel, why should we let oil companies do that? We protect and regulate financial institutions because we know that we need them. So also should we regulate and protect our transportation system, oil companies as well as railroads and airlines, and car makers. A free market is great where there is true elasticity, but in the case of "monopolies" or cartels, we can't let things go where the plutocrats will take them, or we will all suffer. MD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 06 Aug 08 - 07:52 PM "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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Aug 08 - 08:36 PM Soros-Rogers assets are closer to $20 billion than $200 billion. In 1998 they hit $22 billion approx., then dropped a few billion. [Now they seem to be up again] (NY Times). Assets In June 2008, Soros testified before the U. S. Congress on the reasons for the oil 'bubble. His four factors: 1. "Increasing cost of discovering and developing new reserves, and the accelerating depletion of existing oil fields as they age." 2. "Backwards-sloping supply curve." "As the price of oil rises, oil-producing countries have less incentive to convert their oil reserves underground, which are expected to appreciate in value, into dollar reserves above ground, which are losing their value." 3. "the countries with the fastest growing demand, notably the major oil producers, China and other Asian exporters, keep domestic energy prices artificially low by providing subsidies, therefore rising prices don't reduce demand as they would under normal conditions." 4. "both trend-following speculation and institutional commodity-index-buying reinforce the output pressure on prices. Commodities have become an asset class for institutional investors and they are increasing allocations to that asset class by following an index-buying strategy. Recently, spot prices have risen far above the marginal cost of production and far out forward contracts have risen much faster than stock spot prices." What Soros outlined in his talk is that "Real-world circumstances have created a mismatch between supply and demand, which sets the stage for a speculative frenzy." From an article by Andrew Leonard, "How the World Works," June 3, 2008: Soros testimony |
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 07:31 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 - 07:37 PM Are you saying that trees make good pets? |
|
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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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,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,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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
