$39.5 billion in earnings (this is unbelievable)

[mik]

And we like idiots keep paying the price so they can keep posting these profits.

Can we please pick a major gasaline giant and boycott it to get our point accross!

39.5 Billion in profit is uncalled for and uneccessary. Paying 2.70 plus a gallon for no reason at all.

U.K. I apoligize and I'm not sure where u guys stand but from my understanding 2.70 would be cheap to u guys. But this is starting to hit the U.S. household in the pocket.

I say we all use Sunoco only/Hess only

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html?cnn=yes (Exxon Mobile)

[cowpoke]

Just make your own then, It's legal.:happy26:


http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/making_high_proof.jpg
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

[AAD]

Thanks for that interesting link Cowpoke...:wave:

[aares]

Yes we are idiots, and we will continue to be idiots because it would be nearly impossible to have the amount of people needed in on the boycott to do anything.

If we could have a national boycott, that would rock. Give it a couple of weeks to a month to get spread, then initiate the boycott. You would have to include all petro companies instead of just Exxon Mobile.

[mik]

Just make your own then, It's legal.:happy26:


http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/making_high_proof.jpg
http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/

What r the chances I will blow myself -up? slim moderate or likely gots a wife and kids don't want to take em w/ me.

[eatrocks]

yes, but there is a reason to raise the price.....because they can

and cause the war, they can charge more...

even though we have never imported oil from Iraq due to sanctions for years but maybe it was resold to us

they never produced that much anyway.....i think they drilled 5% of what they could

[AAD]

What r the chances I will blow myself -up? slim moderate or likely gots a wife and kids don't want to take em w/ me.

I'm sure your answer will be at that website or you can also send them an email...

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id5.html

[TimP]

One needs to remember that these are large multi-national companies. The business is world wide and profit numbers like that should not surprise anyone.

If we were to compare the profit margin to operating costs I have learned that it is not that unsusal. It just because the numbers are so big to begin with that throws folks.

A boycott here is the USA would not even make a dent in their business. First thing to consider is that not everyone would take part. Then how do you decide who gets the business and who does not?

We could make a bigger inpact by exploration and development of our own resources...but unfortunately the forces of "enviormental protection" and weak kneed politicians would, and do, stop us dead in our tracks.

[MHouse]

I'm not into big government, but when it's a monopoly and it's needed to live, then I'm all for the government stepping in. But when they do, it's just a slap on the wrist, because all the lawmakers ride in limo's where the gas is paid by US anyway. So we're paying for theirs and ours. We can live without Walmart and others big corporations, but we can't function without gas. (get to work, deliveries, planes, trains, chain saws, all run on gas) Is this only a "quaraterly" profit? Chevron announced last quarter a 15 billion profit (x4=$60 billion)

[Garf]

In comparison, we Aussies at the moment are paying about $1.20 a litre. That's the low point of the current weekly cycle (it goes up to $1.30 from mid-week until Sundays).

Now I saw the AUD was at a sixteen year high against the greenback at 1:1.202. Even so, this would make the US $2.70 gallon worth $3.25 AUD... approx $0.81 AUD a litre !

Wish we were paying that !!

[mik]

Sunoco and Hess get the buisness just because they are random and all others loose out. Maybe it won't be a dent but at least some stood up for a point and who knows maybe it will catch maybe it won't but we tried we can say we tried.

[MHouse]

By the way, Bush put an energy package on the lawmakers desk 6 years ago and they have yet to address it. It included all the exploration efforts needed for alternate options, yet it just sits there. Amazing.

[The Sultan of Sod]

And we like idiots keep paying the price so they can keep posting these profits.

Can we please pick a major gasaline giant and boycott it to get our point accross!

39.5 Billion in profit is uncalled for and uneccessary. Paying 2.70 plus a gallon for no reason at all.

U.K. I apoligize and I'm not sure where u guys stand but from my understanding 2.70 would be cheap to u guys. But this is starting to hit the U.S. household in the pocket.

I say we all use Sunoco only/Hess only

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html?cnn=yes (Exxon Mobile)

It's 3.75 where I live. I would love 2.70 again!

[AAD]

It's 3.75 where I live. I would love 2.70 again!

Ah, yes expensive northern California $3.75+ sound about right...

[NewIraqiDinar]

Where I live I don't have access to a Sunoco to boycott! I mostly purchase my gas at the local Indian Reservation, at least I can save on taxes.

[Weston]

95%o f the Oil and Gas reserves in the World is controlled by Government-owned oil Companies. Foreign Owned Companies, Saudi/Iran/Russia/Kuwaiti/Mexico/Malayasia etc you get the point. Exxon mobile 15th on the list has reserves around 25 billion. Saudi Aramco/NIOC(Iran)/Qatar Petroleum have over 150billion in reservers


Our Oil is traded on the NYmex, blame the people who bid it up to buy the contract, Yeah it sucks gas is expensive its what happens when you have a free market. China getting more industrialist and having a larger middle class like india is only going to make it more expensive.

There's a nice little chart in forbes magazine pg33 April16/2007 showing the chart.

[irons]

One needs to remember that these are large multi-national companies. The business is world wide and profit numbers like that should not surprise anyone.

If we were to compare the profit margin to operating costs I have learned that it is not that unsusal. It just because the numbers are so big to begin with that throws folks.

A boycott here is the USA would not even make a dent in their business. First thing to consider is that not everyone would take part. Then how do you decide who gets the business and who does not?

We could make a bigger inpact by exploration and development of our own resources...but unfortunately the forces of "enviormental protection" and weak kneed politicians would, and do, stop us dead in our tracks.


There is more oil under Wyoming,Colorado and Utah than there is in the entire middle east.Why don't we just go get it??It makes no sence.:no:

Seebach: Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick
STORY TOOLS
Email this story (javascript:popup() | Print (javascript:popup()


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/images/columnists/r-linda-seebach.jpg (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/columnist/0,1299,DRMN_23972_115,00.html)
Linda Seebach
email (seebachl@rockymountainnews.com) | bio (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html#bio)
September 2, 2005
When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!
Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.
Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.
Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):
Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.
Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.
On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.
While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.
Wow.
They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.
And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.
But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.
Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.
That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.
Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).
Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.
The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.
Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.
I'll say it again. Wow.

Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the News. She can be reached by telephone at (303) 892-2519 or by e-mail at seebach@RockyMountainNews.com (seebach@RockyMountainNews.com).

About Linda Seebach

[DinarDummy]

This says it all...

[dinardude]

I am now putting roughly $800 per month into my tank. Now I am sure not everyone is having to pay this but I do or I don't eat. I am having a hard time with spending almost what I pay in rent on gas just so I can keep my job. I like my job and I will continue to spend the money on gas until I can't economically justify it any longer...beside why should I be forced to quit a job I like because of high gas prices? I will hold on as long as I can. It is disheartening to me and that is my problem with the high prices.:(

[msmill]

This says it all...


Sure does and we don't even get a kiss.

[AAD]

I am now putting roughly $800 per month into my tank. Now I am sure not everyone is having to pay this but I do or I don't eat. I am having a hard time with spending almost what I pay in rent on gas just so I can keep my job. I like my job and I will continue to spend the money on gas until I can't economically justify it any longer...beside why should I be forced to quit a job I like because of high gas prices? I will hold on as long as I can. It is disheartening to me and that is my problem with the high prices.:(

Sorry to hear about your situation, I hope this RV happens soon for all of us. Keep on holding on...:wave:

[dinardude]

Thanks AAD. It will all work out I'm sure.

I'm in sales as an independent contractor so as far as I know I will be able to claim what I'm spending on gas as well as get credit for my mileage. As anyone knows when it comes to sales, it is a hit or miss situation. When you are spending $800 a month in gas and sales are slow it creates a huge problem. I need one of those french fry oil cars...:)

[baz]

And we like idiots keep paying the price so they can keep posting these profits.

Can we please pick a major gasaline giant and boycott it to get our point accross!

39.5 Billion in profit is uncalled for and uneccessary. Paying 2.70 plus a gallon for no reason at all.

U.K. I apoligize and I'm not sure where u guys stand but from my understanding 2.70 would be cheap to u guys. But this is starting to hit the U.S. household in the pocket.

I say we all use Sunoco only/Hess only

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0704/gallery.F500_profitable.fortune/index.html?cnn=yes (Exxon Mobile) At todays price my local garage is selling unleaded 1 gallon just over $7.00 ( 94.99 per ltr )....but then we Brits like being screwed.

[Just_Sayin]

Why is profit bad?

Just_Sayin?

[TiredOfWork]

Why is profit bad?

Just_Sayin?

It's not at all, you're right. That's capitalism. Their profit MARGIN is in line with most successful companies. Talk about high risk - work on an oil rig. I wonder what their insurance premiums are each year? People talk about taking down the big corporations, but they are the ones keeping our investments growing. Where do folks think their mutual funds and 401K's and such are invested?

[opportunist]

The oil Companies do not set the market price of oil or gas.

Its guys like me who trade oil and gas futures on the Nymex that control the price.

But you guys just keep putting the heat on the majors. We future traders need to stay in the background un-noticed.

The oilman




95%o f the Oil and Gas reserves in the World is controlled by Government-owned oil Companies. Foreign Owned Companies, Saudi/Iran/Russia/Kuwaiti/Mexico/Malayasia etc you get the point. Exxon mobile 15th on the list has reserves around 25 billion. Saudi Aramco/NIOC(Iran)/Qatar Petroleum have over 150billion in reservers


Our Oil is traded on the NYmex, blame the people who bid it up to buy the contract, Yeah it sucks gas is expensive its what happens when you have a free market. China getting more industrialist and having a larger middle class like india is only going to make it more expensive.

There's a nice little chart in forbes magazine pg33 April16/2007 showing the chart.