Jump to content

The Unintended consequences of the BP Oil Disaster


Recommended Posts

So even though, I just got done showing you facts, facts that clearly show the commercial hedging demand far outpaces investor speculative positions, you still are going to want the blame the oil companies for market prices? Let's be real here, you already had a preconceived, ill informed opinion, and you are beholden to your beliefs, no matter what the facts belie. That's the reality.

 

As if the Oil companies were fixing the price. Yup, it's got nothing to do with the market. :devil:

 

Your question is why would they want higher prices. I guess you could have asked them in the congressional hearings that Ted Stevens refused to swear them in for. They loved the higher prices. JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your question is why would they want higher prices. I guess you could have asked them in the congressional hearings that Ted Stevens refused to swear them in for. They loved the higher prices. JMO

 

But WHY is that?

 

Hint: look into supertanker financing and shipping contract rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question is why would they want higher prices. I guess you could have asked them in the congressional hearings that Ted Stevens refused to swear them in for. They loved the higher prices. JMO

It's like talking to a wall. I've explained this to you at least a few different times and nothing, zilch, nada. FYI, the largest purchasers of Oil? Drum roll please

 

The commercial hedgers, the one's that use the oil, the refineries. Why would the companies that profit off of a lower price of crude, bid up the prices? You still havn't answered that question yet. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like talking to a wall. I've explained this to you at least a few different times and nothing, zilch, nada. FYI, the largest purchasers of Oil? Drum roll please

 

The commercial hedgers, the one's that use the oil, the refineries. Why would the companies that profit off of a lower price of crude, bid up the prices? You still havn't answered that question yet. Why?

 

Because it makes them record profits. I'm not saying they were involved, it hasn't been proven, but they sure made out like bandits when oil prices were ludicrous before. JMO

 

Are you denying that the best profits the oil companies ever made were when oil prices were sky high?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it makes them record profits. I'm not saying they were involved, it hasn't been proven, but they sure made out like bandits when oil prices were ludicrous before. JMO

 

Are you denying that the best profits the oil companies ever made were when oil prices were sky high?

You still don't get it. I just told you, which is verified in the commitment of traders report, that the largest buyers of crude are the refineries. The Oil companies don't buy the oil, they sell it.

 

The Refineries lose money, that's right, lose money with the high price of crude. Check out Valero's or Tesoro's stock, and see what the stock was doing in July of 2008. I can tell you right now, they were losing money, stock was waaaaay down.

 

Let me make it easy for you. You know in that COMMITMENT OF TRADERS, Valero and Tesoro was in that group classified as Commercial hedgers. They were the one's buying the Crude. In the beginning of 2008, Valero symbol VLO was trading at $80, by July of 2008, when crude was at a record high, the stock was down to $30.

 

Why would that be?

 

The record high oil prices had just about NOTHING to do with the Oil companies. There never was any credible claims for price fixing or collusion amongst the oil companies to distort the market. The only way they could influence the price is by withholding oil from the markets. OPEC does it, and that makes prices go higher.

 

But I can assure you, that when Oil prices were up over a $100 a barrel, they were selling as much of it as they could possibly could, to lock in those fat profits. That's not the oil companies fault, the fundamentals suggested higher prices, the market got ahead of itself, and then eventually corrected. Oil in my view, during that period of time, with a record low dollar, a record high demand, with added shipments going to China because of the Chinese Olympics, should of been somewhere around $100-$115 a barrel.

 

Since then, the dollar has strengthened considerably, and oil demand has fallen off sharply, and speculative froth has been taken off, hence $70-$75 crude.

 

Rest assure, prices will head back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, what's asinine is believing anything they tell you. When they pack up and leave talk to me then, but it won't happen. You just sit there and believe anything your told and that's exactly what the oil companies want you to do. They pull off one of the biggest avoidable mistakes ever and somehow they've convinced you that they're not responsible for lost jobs in the industry. It's the big bad government making sure that things like this won't happen again that's the problem.

 

If BP had "policed itself" to the point where this never happened there would be no deep government involvement going on now. The problem is that the industry can't police itself. They can't stop people from doing stupid things in order make money. They got all impatient because the well was taking too long to get working and cut corners that cost people their lives, the worst environmental disaster ever and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs and yet they are crying about having to leave because of the government. They're lying to you and your buying it. You are the perfect shill, just accept what they say and question nothing.

You are so desperate to have this government good/oil companies bad argument that you make the most idiotic mistake of assuming what I was saying came from the oil companies. It did not. It was from Bobby Jindahl. He's the one fighting for the jobs not to leave. You know, Jindahl. From the Louisiana government. Of course, he's from the wrong side of the government, so that's probably just as bad in your mind.

 

So I guess I'm just a big old dummy for not believing that a private company will just sit around, leaving all that equipment idle and leaving everyone on payroll and doing absolutely nothing to generate an income in hopes that the WH will speed things up. I mean, what's six months without doing anything billable? After all, all those big, greedy private companies are downright bloody from all the paper cuts they get rolling around in the cash they keep on hand, so they can afford to sit around and wait, and not do anyting to create income.

 

Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are so desperate to have this government good/oil companies bad argument that you make the most idiotic mistake of assuming what I was saying came from the oil companies. It did not. It was from Bobby Jindahl. He's the one fighting for the jobs not to leave. You know, Jindahl. From the Louisiana government. Of course, he's from the wrong side of the government, so that's probably just as bad in your mind.

 

So I guess I'm just a big old dummy for not believing that a private company will just sit around, leaving all that equipment idle and leaving everyone on payroll and doing absolutely nothing to generate an income in hopes that the WH will speed things up. I mean, what's six months without doing anything billable? After all, all those big, greedy private companies are downright bloody from all the paper cuts they get rolling around in the cash they keep on hand, so they can afford to sit around and wait, and not do anyting to create income.

 

Jesus.

 

I'd never make the argument Government Good/ Oil companies bad- I'd make the argument Oil companies bad/ government owned. We don't need new regulations we need existing regulations enforced- we probably need whole sale change at a lot of regulatory agencies to get out the corporate cronies. We need to change corporate law, I don't mind a corporation having limits on liability when they are in compliance with regulations and using best practices- but when corporations start cutting corners to save a few bucks then I think liability should be unlimited and that managements personal wealth should be at stake- recent incidents with our many financial institutions, and energy corporations like Massey energy, and BP, seem to suggest that there is too great an incentive for management to take risks for bonuses, and not enough disincentive because losses tend to go to institutional shareholders and tax payers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magox, your being extremely naive. Back when California was going through the brownouts the sheeple accepted that the power problem was due to higher demand and the inability of power plants to meet it. I did not because I don't believe what people tell me without questioning it. Common sense dictated something was going on. Could I prove it? No, but I didn't have the resources to prove it. Gray Davis had the resources but not the common sense and it cost him his job. It wasn't until the collapse of Enron that a conspiracy was provable.

 

Like any crime you start with who stands to benefit the most from the crime. If a man is murdered and a month before his murder his wife increases his life insurance from $100,000 to $3,000,000 I can pretty much tell you that the vast majority of the time the wife had a hand in his death. Who benefited the most from the high oil prices two to three years ago? That's your main suspect.

 

If the refining companies got !@#$ed in the whole thing then closer examination needs to be made of them to see if any individuals in the company benefited from it. Were there payoffs, extortion or other means used to get what those who ended up benefiting the most wanted? We'll probably never know for sure. If Enron hadn't collapsed we wouldn't know about the California conspiracy. You're assuming that because their stocks suffered that it was a bad deal for those running the company and it may not have been at all. Those guys only care about stock price when it can cost them their jobs or affect them financially. They don't give a **** about the little investor. If you believe they do your blinders need to be removed.

 

Why do companies keep doing things like this? Because they can. Sheeple keep defending them because if they say they didn't do anything wrong they must not have. Using that logic we should empty the prisons of all of those who say they're innocent. Often when they are caught nobody does significant jail time. I'm sure those in the oil industry were more than sure that Bush and Cheney weren't going to launch any serious investigations. Under Sarbanes Oxley (more government involvement) that might change and more convictions may come about. The whole "I'm just the pathetic dimwit running the company" excuse is gone. To my knowledge nobody directly involved in the California energy scandal has been prosecuted or convicted of anything related to that crime. A bunch of sicko's who laugh about stealing money from grandmothers were the culprits. (Anybody in California reading this should realize they were laughing at your grandmother, even if her name isn't Millie.) They don't care about anything except lining their pockets. There is a lot more of that going on than you seem to realize or want to admit.

 

If an in depth government investigation had been launched into the whole thing then we'd know a lot more than we do now. All I know is Ted Stevens had no intention of swearing in the oil execs and got very mad and refused to answer when asked why. There's another clue Skooby.

 

It's sheeple like you that keep these guys in business. Nobody seriously questioned Bernie Madoff and he got away with things for years. He was stealing from charities, he didn't give a flying !@#$. His houses his bank accounts and his abilities to hide the truth in his dealings were all he cared about. Nothing more. It only takes a few people to pull these things off. 5 guys in a company can do a lot of things that nobody finds out about. There is prevailing pressure against snitches so it's not really hard to do. There is so much more of these kinds of things going on than you're business apologists mind wants to believe.

 

Use your common sense and it's very easy to see that something very fishy was going on. It wasn't China and it wasn't corn, what it was I don't fully know but I believe a full investigation is more than warranted.

 

I have yet to see an industry get de-regulated and somebody not taking advantage of it in an immoral if not illegal way.

 

The sad part is that the majority of businessmen behave in a mostly ethical way and are subjected to restricting laws due to the few who don't. Unfortunately that's how it has to be. There are many laws on the books that restrict me unnecessarily because a lot of people have to be restricted from them because they lack the common sense.

 

On a side note if you believe that product liability caps are a good idea they're not, IMO. They're not if you value human life more than money. A cap on product liability will lead to doing what the Ford Motor Company did with the Pinto. Sit down and figure out the cost to fix the problem vs. the amount of money that would be lost in liability cases. Whichever one is more economical they'll go with that.

 

 

LA, You are being really naive if you think Jindal's comments were made without hearing from the oil companies first. BTW, how do you feel about what the guys at Enron did to your utility bills?

 

 

Question authority people, question authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magox, your being extremely naive. Back when California was going through the brownouts the sheeple accepted that the power problem was due to higher demand and the inability of power plants to meet it. I did not because I don't believe what people tell me without questioning it. Common sense dictated something was going on. Could I prove it? No, but I didn't have the resources to prove it. Gray Davis had the resources but not the common sense and it cost him his job. It wasn't until the collapse of Enron that a conspiracy was provable.

 

Like any crime you start with who stands to benefit the most from the crime. If a man is murdered and a month before his murder his wife increases his life insurance from $100,000 to $3,000,000 I can pretty much tell you that the vast majority of the time the wife had a hand in his death. Who benefited the most from the high oil prices two to three years ago? That's your main suspect.

 

If the refining companies got !@#$ed in the whole thing then closer examination needs to be made of them to see if any individuals in the company benefited from it. Were there payoffs, extortion or other means used to get what those who ended up benefiting the most wanted? We'll probably never know for sure. If Enron hadn't collapsed we wouldn't know about the California conspiracy. You're assuming that because their stocks suffered that it was a bad deal for those running the company and it may not have been at all. Those guys only care about stock price when it can cost them their jobs or affect them financially. They don't give a **** about the little investor. If you believe they do your blinders need to be removed.

 

Why do companies keep doing things like this? Because they can. Sheeple keep defending them because if they say they didn't do anything wrong they must not have. Using that logic we should empty the prisons of all of those who say they're innocent. Often when they are caught nobody does significant jail time. I'm sure those in the oil industry were more than sure that Bush and Cheney weren't going to launch any serious investigations. Under Sarbanes Oxley (more government involvement) that might change and more convictions may come about. The whole "I'm just the pathetic dimwit running the company" excuse is gone. To my knowledge nobody directly involved in the California energy scandal has been prosecuted or convicted of anything related to that crime. A bunch of sicko's who laugh about stealing money from grandmothers were the culprits. (Anybody in California reading this should realize they were laughing at your grandmother, even if her name isn't Millie.) They don't care about anything except lining their pockets. There is a lot more of that going on than you seem to realize or want to admit.

 

If an in depth government investigation had been launched into the whole thing then we'd know a lot more than we do now. All I know is Ted Stevens had no intention of swearing in the oil execs and got very mad and refused to answer when asked why. There's another clue Skooby.

 

It's sheeple like you that keep these guys in business. Nobody seriously questioned Bernie Madoff and he got away with things for years. He was stealing from charities, he didn't give a flying !@#$. His houses his bank accounts and his abilities to hide the truth in his dealings were all he cared about. Nothing more. It only takes a few people to pull these things off. 5 guys in a company can do a lot of things that nobody finds out about. There is prevailing pressure against snitches so it's not really hard to do. There is so much more of these kinds of things going on than you're business apologists mind wants to believe.

 

Use your common sense and it's very easy to see that something very fishy was going on. It wasn't China and it wasn't corn, what it was I don't fully know but I believe a full investigation is more than warranted.

 

I have yet to see an industry get de-regulated and somebody not taking advantage of it in an immoral if not illegal way.

 

The sad part is that the majority of businessmen behave in a mostly ethical way and are subjected to restricting laws due to the few who don't. Unfortunately that's how it has to be. There are many laws on the books that restrict me unnecessarily because a lot of people have to be restricted from them because they lack the common sense.

 

On a side note if you believe that product liability caps are a good idea they're not, IMO. They're not if you value human life more than money. A cap on product liability will lead to doing what the Ford Motor Company did with the Pinto. Sit down and figure out the cost to fix the problem vs. the amount of money that would be lost in liability cases. Whichever one is more economical they'll go with that.

 

 

LA, You are being really naive if you think Jindal's comments were made without hearing from the oil companies first. BTW, how do you feel about what the guys at Enron did to your utility bills?

 

 

Question authority people, question authority.

The sheeple calling someone else a sheeple.... Awesome! :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my best Dennis Hopper voice --------"You're freaking weird, man!"

 

I could see this scene playing out in Feynman's house:

 

Cop 1: "What is it you do for a living, Mr. Lebowski?"

 

The Dude: "I'm....unemployed."

 

Cop 2: "What's in that bag, there, Mr. Lebowski?"

 

The Dude: "Important documents....work...documents."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see this scene playing out in Feynman's house:

 

Cop 1: "What is it you do for a living, Mr. Lebowski?"

 

The Dude: "I'm....unemployed."

 

Cop 2: "What's in that bag, there, Mr. Lebowski?"

 

The Dude: "Important documents....work...documents."

 

Hey, just curious. How much money are you planning to send to the strapped oil companies who are suffering needlessly through this crisis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steely, you need help. This post is not a joke.

How could I not of known? :wallbash:

 

He sort of reminds me of ACORN, they were so damaged in the eyes of the public, that they are trying to rebrand themselves by simply changing their names.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How's that corn in the gas theory of yours working out. :wallbash:

 

You are an idiot. As I've posted before, I'm against corn-based biofuels...for reasons that are far sounder and much more coherent than yours would be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...