All Hank, all the time.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Why? Is that supposed to hurt my feelings or something?

Translation: I am crying fat, hot, salty tears of burning shame right now. Boo. hoo. boohoohoo.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
Boxer called me last week and said she was afraid of what you'd say if she showed up in a Prius. Some days it seems like she just can't win with you no matter what she does.

BTW, since I'm here among the experts, is it a sign of my limousine liberalism that I found it hard to empathize with the Texas college student on the news this morning who was complaining about how rising gas prices made it oh-so-much-more expensive for her to wait in the McDonalds' drive through line in her idling Chevy Tahoe?

"The gas cost more than my meal," she lamented. I can only imagine what her degree is costing.

I was getting in truck yesterday as a man was getting in his Prius next to me. We exhanged quick glances. Normally, I'd say "Hi," because I'm all about being friendly, but in this instance, we just looked at each other and got in our vehicles quietly. It was clear we both realized that the only badges defining us at that moment painted us in very opposed positions. I honestly couldn't care less what he drove, and he probably couldn't care what I did. But neither of us said anything for fear the other was a true believer.

I was also kind of drunk, so this may all be riduclous conjecture.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I was getting in truck yesterday as a man was getting in his Prius next to me. We exhanged quick glances. Normally, I'd say "Hi," because I'm all about being friendly, but in this instance, we just looked at each other and got in our vehicles quietly. It was clear we both realized that the only badges defining us at that moment painted us in very opposed positions. I honestly couldn't care less what he drove, and he probably couldn't care what I did. But neither of us said anything for fear the other was a true believer.

I was also kind of drunk, so this may all be riduclous conjecture.

He was thinking, "I must get home and get my children inside before this drunk asshole runs them down in his gas-guzzling S.U.V. I bet he just had a steak dinner with the steak appetizer, too."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No. It's just informative.

Somewhat seriously, how is it that prices and profits are going up at the same time for ALL oil companies? It seems . . . coincidental. OTOH, people seem to want the gas enough to pay the price. Of course, any real change in consumer behavior is going to be delayed because lots of gas is used for commuting, and changing your job, your home, or your car is time-consuming and has high transaction costs. So demand may not be sending the right signals.

Sux for people who drive everywhere. I drive maybe 30 or 40 miles a week, absent a road trip.

I see a lot of Porsches in the train station parking lot. Fucking strivers. If you can't afford the fucking gas, you insecure prick, doesn't that indicate maybe... just maybe... buying that dick-substitute isn't fiscally prudent?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Yeah, cutting a bazillion checks for $100 each sounds like a great way to manage oil prices.

It's in the NYT. Senate proposal from the Republicans.

Why aren't the oil companies trying to undercut each other at the pump? It seems like it's a good time to do that, what with all the profits and stuff. Increase market share. Compete. Stuff like that.

This is conceivably the dumbest proposal I've ever heard of.

But note that it's tied to drilling in the ANWR. Me, I could care less about the ANWR.... but the notion of bribing the public to support it is a little icky.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
He was thinking, "I must get home and get my children inside before this drunk asshole runs them down in his gas-guzzling S.U.V. I bet he just had a steak dinner with the steak appetizer, too."

I was not visibly drunk. I was accpetable-driving drunk, and I live in the burbs. I could drive those roads on hallucinogens if circumstances dictated so.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ironweed
Boxer called me last week and said she was afraid of what you'd say if she showed up in a Prius. Some days it seems like she just can't win with you no matter what she does.

BTW, since I'm here among the experts, is it a sign of my limousine liberalism that I found it hard to empathize with the Texas college student on the news this morning who was complaining about how rising gas prices made it oh-so-much-more expensive for her to wait in the McDonalds' drive through line in her idling Chevy Tahoe?

"The gas cost more than my meal," she lamented. I can only imagine what her degree is costing.

I am also not sympathetic to Barbara Boxer or any california politician. That state's gas prices are the product of an overzealous environmental policy totally out of touch with the car-happy population.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Why aren't the oil companies trying to undercut each other at the pump? It seems like it's a good time to do that, what with all the profits and stuff. Increase market share. Compete. Stuff like that.

you say that like there's a profit margin to be reduced. The primary driver of prices is the price of oil, which is set by someone other than the oil companies. They aren't going to start selling at a loss. the margins in the business are about 2c/gal at retail

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I am also not sympathetic to Barbara Boxer or any california politician.

Not even Ahnold? Isn't he going to terminate high gaz prizes?

That state's gas prices are the product of an overzealous environmental policy totally out of touch with the car-happy population.

Or the product of an overzealous car-happy policy totally out of touch with the environmental concerns of the population, depending on your POV. Get gas up around $7 per gallon and we'll see if this trip is really necessary.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I was not visibly drunk. I was accpetable-driving drunk, and I live in the burbs. I could drive those roads on hallucinogens if circumstances dictated so.

Ummmmmmmm, where do you live? Because I don't want you hallucinating that my car is a ghost car, and you can just go on through, and running into me. Or that it's a weird-shaped oil stain on the road, or spilled paint, or something.

For Burger, I guess I'm going to have to look at the (sigh) earnings statement release by whoever to see where their 7% increase came from, since you seem to be saying it didn't come from increased prices at the pump.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
you say that like there's a profit margin to be reduced. The primary driver of prices is the price of oil, which is set by someone other than the oil companies. They aren't going to start selling at a loss. the margins in the business are about 2c/gal at retail

Retail meaning, the guy at the gas station sells the fully refined product at $.02/gallon more than he pays for it?

I am more interested in the interim markups. I mean, a lot of shit seems to go on from the point the gunk that comes out of the ground and the point it's pumped into your car. It's not like the retailers are buying crude.

ETA here's the first paragraph of the chairman's statement on estimated 1st Q earnings from ExxonMobile:

ExxonMobil's Chairman Rex W. Tillerson Commented:

ExxonMobil's first quarter earnings excluding special items, were $8,400 million, up 14% from first quarter 2005. Higher crude oil and natural gas realizations and improved marketing margins were partly offset by lower chemical margins. Net income for the first quarter was up 7% from 2005.


Off their website.

What's an improved marketing margin?

EATA and I need to find out what "upstream" means, and "downstream":

"Upstream earnings were $6,383 million, up $1,329 million from the first quarter of 2005. Earnings from U.S. Upstream operations were $1,280 million, $73 million lower than the first quarter of 2005. The combination of a litigation item and higher tax expenses reduced results by over 4 cents per share. Non-U.S. Upstream earnings were $5,103 million, up $1,402 million from 2005. Higher realizations were partly offset by negative foreign exchange impacts."

"Downstream earnings excluding special items, were $1,271 million, up $128 million from the first quarter 2005, primarily due to higher marketing margins, improved refining operations and positive foreign exchange effects. Petroleum product sales were 7,865 kbd, 364 kbd lower than last year's first quarter, primarily due to lower refining throughput and divestments.

"U.S. Downstream earnings were $679 million, up $34 million. Non-U.S. Downstream earnings of $592 million were $94 million higher than the first quarter of 2005. "

[ltl/fb]

MSN says "Anadarko Petroleum Corp. on Thursday said increased oil and gas prices pushed it to a sharply higher first-quarter profit, although the results missed analysts' expectations," but I'm not seeing it on Anadarko's website.

Their call thingy with analysts or whatever isn't until tomorrow.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Retail meaning, the guy at the gas station sells the fully refined product at $.02/gallon more than he pays for it?

I am more interested in the interim markups. I mean, a lot of shit seems to go on from the point the gunk that comes out of the ground and the point it's pumped into your car. It's not like the retailers are buying crude.

they won't tell you. the way you could figure it is to see who has the most profits, and whether they're integrated cos. (i.e., have crude oil) or don't. ExxonMobil has the most crude of any company, so they're the most profitable.

yes, 2c at the pump. then there's the terminals guy, who earns a bit, and the pipeline earns a bit, and the refiner earns a bit. Only about 30% of the price of gas is determined by refiner and retailing costs and profits, the rest is taxes and crude oil. it's a very competitive industry. the reason prices are where they are relates to the high price of crude and the fact that demand for gasoline is highly inelastic, not because of a lack of competition.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
they won't tell you. the way you could figure it is to see who has the most profits, and whether they're integrated cos. (i.e., have crude oil) or don't. ExxonMobil has the most crude of any company, so they're the most profitable.

yes, 2c at the pump. then there's the terminals guy, who earns a bit, and the pipeline earns a bit, and the refiner earns a bit. Only about 30% of the price of gas is determined by refiner and retailing costs and profits, the rest is taxes and crude oil. it's a very competitive industry. the reason prices are where they are relates to the high price of crude and the fact that demand for gasoline is highly inelastic, not because of a lack of competition.

They seem to be telling us. What with it being that time of the year when 1Q earnings are released.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
They seem to be telling us. What with it being that time of the year when 1Q earnings are released.

I suppose I need to review why ExxonMobil can't undersell OPEC on crude.