|
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message m... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Failure of those *minor parts* (LOL) do not belong in a fluff review. It is all about "going fast and looking good" to at least on person here when doing a review. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message om... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Failure of those *minor parts* (LOL) do not belong in a fluff review. It is all about "going fast and looking good" to at least one person here when doing a review. edit: "one" person. |
Jack Goff wrote:
"Don White" wrote: If every American trashed their gas guzzling SUV's and purchased a Honda Civic or smaller, that would make up for China's demand. There's no shortage of big 4x4s or SUV's in Canaduh, Don. What's in your.. oops, your mom's driveway? It's my driveway, thank you! |
Bert Robbins wrote:
The child, Don, is exerting his independence and he can't handle it yet! How about you? I posted a few notes to correct your buddy Ernie...I mean JimH, and I was waiting for you to pipe up. Since you didn't stick up for him, does this mean your 'special friendship' is over? |
Around 6/25/2005 5:56 PM, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? Of course. Ford hasn't put a carb in a car since the mid-1980s I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Oh, heck yeah. The standard 4.6L GT (aluminum block) is good up to around 450-500 IIRC on stock internals, IIRC. You can push a 4.6L Cobra (iron block, underrated at 390) with stock internals to about 600-650 without too much trouble. Change the stock blower pulley, some custom intake and exhaust work, and a custom chip is about all it takes. -- ~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat" "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." -Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:58:24 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message om... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Failure of those *minor parts* (LOL) do not belong in a fluff review. It is all about "going fast and looking good" to at least on person here when doing a review. With my GT, it *is* all about going fast and looking good! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:46:48 -0400, John H
wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:40:17 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:25:37 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:56:10 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. Jim beat me to it, but yeah, with a couple or three or four thousand dollars, the thing can be taken to 500 or so hp without too much trouble. Of course, the warranty may not be worth much. Well, it's rated at 300 hp at 6000 - I'm not sure how much of that 300 is usable. My truck develops 500 ft lb of torgue at 1600 rpm with 235 hp stock. Of course, it's not stock. :) The folks on the Mustang sites who put the thing on dynamometers (sp?) say it's only about 280 hp at the rear wheels. But that's still plenty for a car that size. I was just curious because, for a stock engine, that's a lot of horse power right out of the box. In a practical sense, with that kind of power curve, you really only have 250 horses. I can't speak to it though because I don't know what the dyno figure it. I can jack up the horsepower and torque on my pickup with a handy dandy little gizmo I bought and get about 280 hp at some ridiculous number of torque (can't remember at the moment), but that's for extreme conditions - like pulling down houses or ripping out stumps. You can do a lot with 250 horsepower with proper gearing. |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 11:01:01 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:46:48 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:40:17 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:25:37 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:56:10 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. Jim beat me to it, but yeah, with a couple or three or four thousand dollars, the thing can be taken to 500 or so hp without too much trouble. Of course, the warranty may not be worth much. Well, it's rated at 300 hp at 6000 - I'm not sure how much of that 300 is usable. My truck develops 500 ft lb of torgue at 1600 rpm with 235 hp stock. Of course, it's not stock. :) The folks on the Mustang sites who put the thing on dynamometers (sp?) say it's only about 280 hp at the rear wheels. But that's still plenty for a car that size. I was just curious because, for a stock engine, that's a lot of horse power right out of the box. In a practical sense, with that kind of power curve, you really only have 250 horses. I can't speak to it though because I don't know what the dyno figure it. I can jack up the horsepower and torque on my pickup with a handy dandy little gizmo I bought and get about 280 hp at some ridiculous number of torque (can't remember at the moment), but that's for extreme conditions - like pulling down houses or ripping out stumps. You can do a lot with 250 horsepower with proper gearing. That *is* a lot of hp right out of the box, but that's one reason the new GT is getting all the rave reviews. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? Tom, here's what I'm looking forward to in a couple years: http://www.stangnet.com/2005-Mustang...00-by-SVT.html -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:58:24 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message m... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message news:85vrb19mapgng3gfeo3c1g2nsqqbfpgvod@4ax. com... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Failure of those *minor parts* (LOL) do not belong in a fluff review. It is all about "going fast and looking good" to at least on person here when doing a review. With my GT, it *is* all about going fast and looking good! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Don't you ruin that illusion once you get into the car? Just kidding John. ;-) |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
m... But, you may want to be careful about pushing this theory any further. The origins come back to bite the last 3 presidents right in the ass. ...then goes right back out. It's not a "theory" that the Chinese are increasing their usage of petroleum at a rate far surpassing any other countries. OK...let me lead you gently by the nose, moron. Their petro demand has increased because they have cash to buy cars that use petro. They have this cash because.....??? It's the end of June, moron. Parents (again) are saying the NY State Regents exams are too hard for their babies. Can you complete THIS essay question? |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:50:01 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:58:24 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message ... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "John H" wrote in message om... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:10:29 -0400, "*JimH*" wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message news:85vrb19mapgng3gfeo3c1g2nsqqbfpgvod@4ax .com... On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 20:46:06 -0400, John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:50 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:58:39 -0400, John H wrote: On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:23:32 GMT, Don White wrote: John H wrote: Better let Harry do the talking, and you do the follow up. Works better that way. Ok...let's substitute 'high powered yellow Mustang' for SUV.... make more sense? I'm getting over 21mpg in the Mustang. Not bad. It's not really high powered though, only a 4.6L. I thought your Mustang was a GT? It is. The GT has a 4.6L V-8, with an advertised 300hp. I don't do a lot of drag racing though. (Although, I *know* it'll do 110mph in 3rd gear - without redlining.) I've only done that once. That was enough. Fuel Injected? I didn't know you could push the Ford standard 4.6 L to 300 hp without altering something major. Supposedly this is Ford's standard engine package across the product line. Interesting. http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...05/244450.html http://www.fast-autos.net/ford/05fordmustang.html And you can push it to 500 hp http://www.tuningnews.net/news/04110...g-projects.php Thanks for the URL's, Jim. All that good news fluff makes me feel better about spending the bucks on my toy! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." The fluff did it's job! Not a bad word to say about the Mustang. I am sure you would agree that there are absolutely no down sides to the car to report to would be buyers. Heck, it is all about "looking good and going fast".......sort of like a certain *review* on a SeaRay posted here. ;-) Well, I have had a new transmission and a new gas tank put in the thing. But that's minor, and the dealer gave me no squawk about it. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Failure of those *minor parts* (LOL) do not belong in a fluff review. It is all about "going fast and looking good" to at least on person here when doing a review. With my GT, it *is* all about going fast and looking good! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Don't you ruin that illusion once you get into the car? Just kidding John. ;-) Hell no! I put on my black "Mustang GT" cap with the pony on it, my driving gloves, some big sunglasses, and no one can see my gray hair and wrinkles! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:05:10 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... But, you may want to be careful about pushing this theory any further. The origins come back to bite the last 3 presidents right in the ass. ...then goes right back out. It's not a "theory" that the Chinese are increasing their usage of petroleum at a rate far surpassing any other countries. OK...let me lead you gently by the nose, moron. Their petro demand has increased because they have cash to buy cars that use petro. They have this cash because.....??? It's the end of June, moron. Parents (again) are saying the NY State Regents exams are too hard for their babies. Can you complete THIS essay question? They have the cash because they are selling things? Have you been to WalMart lately? And it's not (yet) autos that are using petro at such high rates, it's used to manufacture all that stuff that we used to make that Clinton outsourced! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John H wrote:
Tom, here's what I'm looking forward to in a couple years: http://www.stangnet.com/2005-Mustang...00-by-SVT.html Yep...live it up till the oil runs out! Should make a great lawn ornament after that. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote: OK...let me lead you gently by the nose, moron. Their petro demand has increased because they have cash to buy cars that use petro. They have this cash because.....??? Like I said befo "How in the hell do you think they manage to make *everything* that Wal-Mart sells? By rubbing two sticks together? Sheeesh..." Nearly everything that is manufactured requires petroleum, and plenty of it. All of this manufacturing that China is doing is using more petroleum, and is also providing jobs. Those jobs provide income, which lets their workforce acquire cars and all the other trappings of a modern society for the first time. Then they use even more petro for their own manufactured goods and gas for their cars. You're the one who asked: "Please indicate specifics as to WHERE you believe this increased demand is coming from. If you choose to repeat "China...", as others have, please provide data." I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? Last chance... If you disagree that it's China, feel free to provide links and specific data that support your opinion of where the increased demand is coming from. |
"ed" wrote: In some engines you can obtain a higher horsepower by inserting a bigger micro chip. I know they do this on the big rigs via the ecm. Dont know if this is how ford does it or not. Back in the old days you would have to get a bigger cam, run solid lifters and machine the head to obtain that kind of horsepower. I guess it depends on what time period you define as "the old days", but it wasn't difficult at all to get 300hp in the late '60's through '71. My 1970 M-code 351 Cleveland 4V was factory rated a conservative 300hp with cast iron exhaust manifolds and hydraulic flat tappet cam and lifters. The factory cam had a slight burble, but no big lope and it had great vacuum (something a large, lopey cam does not). It *did* have 11.5:1 compression, so it required premium fuel in 1970! Unfortunately, today's premium in nowhere near as good... so it's octane booster or racing gas when I drive it now. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
m... I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? We are their biggest market. If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the dangers of this arrangement to your president. Naturally, the common people do not want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country. -Herman Goering |
Old days is before 1974. With your 351 cleavlend, it came with a 4 bolt main
and is rated for 300+ hp. The newer engines, ones that has ECM's can increase hp by simply installing a new computer chip. On Cummins we did this several times to trucks, hooked it up to the computer and increase hp in it. Ed "Jack Goff" wrote in message m... "ed" wrote: In some engines you can obtain a higher horsepower by inserting a bigger micro chip. I know they do this on the big rigs via the ecm. Dont know if this is how ford does it or not. Back in the old days you would have to get a bigger cam, run solid lifters and machine the head to obtain that kind of horsepower. I guess it depends on what time period you define as "the old days", but it wasn't difficult at all to get 300hp in the late '60's through '71. My 1970 M-code 351 Cleveland 4V was factory rated a conservative 300hp with cast iron exhaust manifolds and hydraulic flat tappet cam and lifters. The factory cam had a slight burble, but no big lope and it had great vacuum (something a large, lopey cam does not). It *did* have 11.5:1 compression, so it required premium fuel in 1970! Unfortunately, today's premium in nowhere near as good... so it's octane booster or racing gas when I drive it now. |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? We are their biggest market. If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the dangers of this arrangement to your president. Naturally, the common people do not want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country. -Herman Goering Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your argument? You, Kevin, and Harry are one and the same. Goodbye. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"Doug Kanter" wrote: We are their biggest market. If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the dangers of this arrangement to your president. I don't disagree that the fact that we are buying tons of Chinese crap is a problem. I would also hope that you understand that the problem did not start under *your* President Bush (he is your President as well, unless you do not live in the US) , and will not end under him either. You do realize that is not the question you were asking, right? You were doubting everyone that place the location of the "increased demand on oil" as China. You never asked *why* that happened, you only asked that people back up *where* they said it was happening. You really need to work on your communication skills, as you seem to be having a hard time relating to everyone. We are not mind-readers. |
"John H" wrote: Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your argument? You, Kevin, and Harry are one and the same. Goodbye. Interesting hypothesis. It may have some merit. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message m... I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? We are their biggest market. China on global hunt to quench its thirst for oil - Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, June 26, 2005 Move over, Big Oil. There's a new oilman on the world stage -- China. China's takeover bid for Unocal Corp. makes clear to sticker-shocked Americans that the 1.3 billion Chinese people are demanding an ever-larger supply of the world's energy to fuel their booming economy and are willing to get it wherever necessary. From Central Asia to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and even Canada, Chinese firms are pumping oil and natural gas in many areas that the United States was counting on to meet its own record-high demand. "We need to supply our people, and like every country we need to buy oil from around the world," said Zhou Dadi, director general of the Energy Research Institute, the central government's main policy agency on the subject. "This is part of globalization. It is a strategy of sustainable development. It is part of a historical process." While China's supply network does not yet rival the global clout of U.S.- based oil corporations, the shift raises concerns of politicians and analysts in the United States and Southeast Asia who see China as a future global giant motivated by the same powerful self-interest as American Big Oil. China's thirst for energy has been a major factor driving up the international price of oil. Light, sweet crude closed at $59.84 a barrel Friday, the fourth record-high day in a row and a sign that American motorists will feel increasing pain at the pump in coming months. Chinese petroleum imports are expected to rise by about 8 percent this year -- accounting for about one-third the total worldwide consumption increase, as it has in recent years. Because China's domestic oil production is in a long-term decline, its imports are expected to surpass the U.S. import levels within two decades. U.S. officials have been increasingly uneasy as China has signed major deals with Iran, Sudan, Burma and Venezuela, all countries that have strained relations with the United States. While the Bush administration tries to build international pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70 billion long- term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran government. China has also signed agreements to develop heavy oil reserves in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez has emerged as one of Washington's most vocal opponents. Even in Canada, the top U.S. oil supplier, Chinese firms have signed three deals this year to tap Alberta's vast oil-sands reserves and to join a pipeline venture to bring crude to the Pacific coast, where it can be shipped to China. In many of these new deals, the webs of alliances and rivalries are overlapping. CNOOC Ltd., the 70 percent state-owned company that last week offered $18.5 billion for Unocal, is scheduled to begin imports of liquefied natural gas next year from Australia, in a project that CNOOC co-owns with Chevron, its rival suitor for Unocal. CNOOC also is involved with Chevron in offshore oil production in the Bohai Bay of northeast China. Western energy analysts in Beijing say that as the government-owned Chinese oil firms scour the globe for deals, they often have a leg up on the likes of Chevron and ExxonMobil, which are privately owned. Because about 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of governments, which usually prefer to deal with other state-owned enterprises, Chinese firms can gain favor, said Gavin Thompson, China country manager for Wood Mackenzie, a British energy consulting firm. Although Chinese companies cannot offer the same high-tech methods for exploration, drilling and extraction as the U.S. majors, they gain a negotiating edge by being willing to assume unprofitable side deals that function basically as development aid. In 2003 and 2004, for example, the Chinese firm Sinopec signed a series of deals with Saudi Arabia to develop natural gas fields. Sinopec's investment, which ultimately could be worth $4 billion, commits the firm to a wide variety of welfare-state activities, such as building sewage treatment plants and schools. Some analysts say this broad brush has served Beijing's foreign policy needs rather than the companies' bottom line. "China's acquisition strategy is that it can go anywhere and buy almost anything," Thompson said. "But as a consequence, its asset portfolio has become quite random and scattered." Throughout East Asia, even close allies of Beijing show nervousness about its energy appetites. China has been wrangling with Japan over natural gas reserves in the East China Sea, and with Vietnam over suspected oil deposits near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, setting off worries that such conflicts could turn violent. "Throughout all of East Asia, there is a rising new concern about energy security," said Chin Kin Wah, deputy director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, a government-backed think tank in Singapore. "From Russia to China down to Indonesia, there is a new generation of possible conflicts." Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sounded a warning at a Kuala Lumpur energy conference June 14: "As governments and companies continue to pour in more and more money to secure additional oil and gas assets, some of these assets may also, unfortunately, lead to various geopolitical maneuverings, disputes and conflicts." Chinese officials say that no matter how rich and powerful their country becomes, their need for oil will never turn into U.S.-style gunboat diplomacy. "You must realize that China will never be expansionist for the reason of oil," said Xie Feng, a deputy director-general for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs who is in charge of North American relations. "It will never act like a superpower. "It might become a regional power. In all its history over the past thousands of years, China has never sent troops abroad, to have colonies, to seize resources. This is not part of the Chinese character. You must understand our culture. We are not like that." |
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:47:31 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message m... I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? We are their biggest market. China on global hunt to quench its thirst for oil - Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, June 26, 2005 Move over, Big Oil. There's a new oilman on the world stage -- China. China's takeover bid for Unocal Corp. makes clear to sticker-shocked Americans that the 1.3 billion Chinese people are demanding an ever-larger supply of the world's energy to fuel their booming economy and are willing to get it wherever necessary. From Central Asia to Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and even Canada, Chinese firms are pumping oil and natural gas in many areas that the United States was counting on to meet its own record-high demand. "We need to supply our people, and like every country we need to buy oil from around the world," said Zhou Dadi, director general of the Energy Research Institute, the central government's main policy agency on the subject. "This is part of globalization. It is a strategy of sustainable development. It is part of a historical process." While China's supply network does not yet rival the global clout of U.S.- based oil corporations, the shift raises concerns of politicians and analysts in the United States and Southeast Asia who see China as a future global giant motivated by the same powerful self-interest as American Big Oil. China's thirst for energy has been a major factor driving up the international price of oil. Light, sweet crude closed at $59.84 a barrel Friday, the fourth record-high day in a row and a sign that American motorists will feel increasing pain at the pump in coming months. Chinese petroleum imports are expected to rise by about 8 percent this year -- accounting for about one-third the total worldwide consumption increase, as it has in recent years. Because China's domestic oil production is in a long-term decline, its imports are expected to surpass the U.S. import levels within two decades. U.S. officials have been increasingly uneasy as China has signed major deals with Iran, Sudan, Burma and Venezuela, all countries that have strained relations with the United States. While the Bush administration tries to build international pressure against Iran over its nuclear aspirations, China has signed a $70 billion long- term oil and gas supply deal with the Tehran government. China has also signed agreements to develop heavy oil reserves in Venezuela, where President Hugo Chavez has emerged as one of Washington's most vocal opponents. Even in Canada, the top U.S. oil supplier, Chinese firms have signed three deals this year to tap Alberta's vast oil-sands reserves and to join a pipeline venture to bring crude to the Pacific coast, where it can be shipped to China. In many of these new deals, the webs of alliances and rivalries are overlapping. CNOOC Ltd., the 70 percent state-owned company that last week offered $18.5 billion for Unocal, is scheduled to begin imports of liquefied natural gas next year from Australia, in a project that CNOOC co-owns with Chevron, its rival suitor for Unocal. CNOOC also is involved with Chevron in offshore oil production in the Bohai Bay of northeast China. Western energy analysts in Beijing say that as the government-owned Chinese oil firms scour the globe for deals, they often have a leg up on the likes of Chevron and ExxonMobil, which are privately owned. Because about 80 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the hands of governments, which usually prefer to deal with other state-owned enterprises, Chinese firms can gain favor, said Gavin Thompson, China country manager for Wood Mackenzie, a British energy consulting firm. Although Chinese companies cannot offer the same high-tech methods for exploration, drilling and extraction as the U.S. majors, they gain a negotiating edge by being willing to assume unprofitable side deals that function basically as development aid. In 2003 and 2004, for example, the Chinese firm Sinopec signed a series of deals with Saudi Arabia to develop natural gas fields. Sinopec's investment, which ultimately could be worth $4 billion, commits the firm to a wide variety of welfare-state activities, such as building sewage treatment plants and schools. Some analysts say this broad brush has served Beijing's foreign policy needs rather than the companies' bottom line. "China's acquisition strategy is that it can go anywhere and buy almost anything," Thompson said. "But as a consequence, its asset portfolio has become quite random and scattered." Throughout East Asia, even close allies of Beijing show nervousness about its energy appetites. China has been wrangling with Japan over natural gas reserves in the East China Sea, and with Vietnam over suspected oil deposits near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, setting off worries that such conflicts could turn violent. "Throughout all of East Asia, there is a rising new concern about energy security," said Chin Kin Wah, deputy director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, a government-backed think tank in Singapore. "From Russia to China down to Indonesia, there is a new generation of possible conflicts." Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi sounded a warning at a Kuala Lumpur energy conference June 14: "As governments and companies continue to pour in more and more money to secure additional oil and gas assets, some of these assets may also, unfortunately, lead to various geopolitical maneuverings, disputes and conflicts." Chinese officials say that no matter how rich and powerful their country becomes, their need for oil will never turn into U.S.-style gunboat diplomacy. "You must realize that China will never be expansionist for the reason of oil," said Xie Feng, a deputy director-general for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs who is in charge of North American relations. "It will never act like a superpower. "It might become a regional power. In all its history over the past thousands of years, China has never sent troops abroad, to have colonies, to seize resources. This is not part of the Chinese character. You must understand our culture. We are not like that." Well, a little more proof. Now you'll have earned the right to join the 'moron' pool with the rest of us. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Jack Goff wrote: "John H" wrote: Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your argument? You, Kevin, and Harry are one and the same. Goodbye. Interesting hypothesis. It may have some merit. Hehe! If you really think that's an "interesting hypothesis", you're easily amused. |
John H wrote: On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 18:36:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... I've lead *you* by the nose, provided specifics, and you still don't seem to get it, moron. Do you *now* understand *where* the increased demand for petroleum is coming from? Or are you stupid? We are their biggest market. If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the dangers of this arrangement to your president. Naturally, the common people do not want war, but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country. It works the same in every country. -Herman Goering Doug, why do you find name-calling necessary? Do you feel it legitimizes your argument? You, Kevin, and Harry are one and the same. Goodbye. -- John H Gee, John, would that be the same as you calling Harry a "****ing liar" hundreds of times in a couple of days? |
1 Attachment(s)
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om... "Doug Kanter" wrote: We are their biggest market. If you have a moment, perhaps you could explain the dangers of this arrangement to your president. I don't disagree that the fact that we are buying tons of Chinese crap is a problem. I would also hope that you understand that the problem did not start under *your* President Bush (he is your President as well, unless you do not live in the US) , and will not end under him either. You do realize that is not the question you were asking, right? You were doubting everyone that place the location of the "increased demand on oil" as China. You never asked *why* that happened, you only asked that people back up *where* they said it was happening. Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. If you need your farm stand to produce X dollars per season, and something wipes out 1/3 of your tomatoes before they ripen, you may raise your prices a certain amount to get you closer to "X". The key word here is YOU. YOU raise the price, not some speculator halfway around the globe. This is quite different from the oil situation we're discussing. You and others are making a DIRECT, CAUSATIVE connection between China and current prices. Read: http://money.excite.com/ht/nw/bus/20...n27319237.html By Richard Mably LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices hit a new record above $60 a barrel on Monday, driven by demand growth resilience in the face of high fuel costs and worries about oil policy under Iran's new hardline president. U.S. August crude traded as high as $60.64 a barrel and by 1200 GMT was up 55 cents at $60.39. U.S. crude is above $60 for every month until August 2006 with December 2005 setting a peak $61.90 a barrel. London Brent set a record $59.21 a barrel before easing to $58.91, up 55 cents. "The market is testing higher to see what price levels this demand can endure," said Naohiro Niimura, vice president at the derivative products division of Mizuho Corporate Bank. Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. While high prices are eroding some strength from the world economy, the overall growth picture remains solid, central bankers meeting in Switzerland said at the weekend. "There was a general consensus that we will have high oil prices for at least the next two or three years," said Martin Redrado, Argentina's central bank governor. That economic resilience has encouraged speculators to test consumers' ability to absorb higher costs, with only a significant pull-back in demand from an economic slowdown seen likely to tame prices. Victory in Iran's presidential election for ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also helped support prices. Ahmadinejad has vowed to flush out corruption from the country's oil sector and favor domestic investors, although analysts do not expect a big shift in production policy. "We don't know in practice yet what Ahmadinejad means for foreign oil policy or Iran's role in OPEC but there could well be months of uncertainty which will further delay progress on production capacity," said Iranian consultant Mehdi Varzi. Held back by U.S. sanctions, Iran has struggled to lift output capacity with foreign investment still severely restricted. "I think Iran's capacity is actually falling," said Varzi. "It will take time but Ahmadeinejad may be able to streamline policy decisions which would encourage foreign investors." The president-elect said his nation would press ahead with its controversial nuclear program, which the United States sees as part of an effort to build atomic weapons. That is likely to stir geopolitical worries on oil markets sensitive to the chance of output disruptions when spare capacity is limited to small unused volumes in Saudi Arabia. Dealers see tight market conditions running for at least another year, especially for distillate products such as heating oil and diesel. Over the past four weeks, demand for distillates in the United States has risen nearly 7 percent from last year while gasoline consumption is up 2.5 percent. The growth in distillate usage reflects strong consumption in the industrial and transport sectors, particularly in the trucking business used to ferry goods around the United States. Dealers were undeterred by OPEC's largely symbolic output hike earlier this month. Now producers are consulting on another modest increase of 500,000 barrels a day, cartel president Sheikh Ahmad al-Fahd al-Sabah said on Saturday. Saudi Arabia, the only OPEC producer with any spare capacity, says it is already meeting customer demand for crude. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? |
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. |
Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal.....
|
"Tim" wrote in message oups.com... Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... If that's allowed to happen, we should reinstate the firing squad as a method of justice. But, that would empty out the Senate completely. Hmmm.... |
The global wealth is spreading..
You americans still pay 1/2 - 1/3 of what the rest of the world is paying for gasoline.. Your economy is crumbling, your President Bush has in a few years put your "world-wide reputation" in a bottom-low position, far lower than it was in the Vietnam conflict. (probably a world record for PR decline) You are likely to shortly face a 3- 5 time increase in gasoline/oil prices. Do you think that you are able to take down the Chinese economy by military power ?? Nah, you are going down, down, down. What you seed is what you get... On 27 Jun 2005 09:38:26 -0700, "Tim" wrote: Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message om... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. Your explanation is the reason so many other things have been sold to you with little foundation beneath them. |
China is an oil importer! They require oil to supply the factories that
produce all that made in China stuff. Is why they bid an extremely high price for Unocal Oil. 1% if Unocal's oil reserves are US based, the other 99% are in Asia. Now tell me why oil is increasing because of Bush and not the old supply and demand curve? We and China have fairly strong economies. And add India to the mix. wrote in message oups.com... *JimH* wrote: wrote in message oups.com... That's: Bad for Bush Bad for the US Bad for boating. :-( I agree. And what exactly did Bush have to do with this? Here you go Jim: Don't Blame OPEC; Higher Gas Prices Are Almost Entirely Bush's Fault Dave Lindorff, ILCA Associate Member What is making oil so expensive is not energy policy or even SUV's, dangerous as those are for the environment. It's Bush's massive deficits and his willful destruction of the US dollar that has gas selling at $2.30 a gallon and rising. There's been a lot of hand-wringing going on among economists and politicians, and a lot of fuming at the gas pump by consumers over the soaring price of oil over the last two years. Increasingly, concern is being expressed by treasury officials and economists about the negative impact soaring oil prices and related gas prices could have on the overall economy. Politicians--especially Republicans--are also fretting, since the thousands of extra dollars consumers are now spending on electricity, home heating and gasoline have, for all but the wealthiest taxpayers, more than cancelled out any minimal benefits they saw from the president's tax cuts. What's wrong with this picture? The focus of all this anger and angst is oil prices. As a result, everyone is looking at culprits in the wrong place, blaming wasteful energy use, OPEC production quotas, monopolistic oil companies and/or conniving oil traders. In fact the real culprit behind these higher oil prices is the Bush Administration, which, thanks to its massive deficits and tax give-aways to the rich and corporations, to its war spending, and to its failure to combat unprecedented and ever-larger trade deficits, has been causing the dollar to plunge in value. Oil is a commodity and it is priced in dollars. If dollars decline in value, then the price of oil will rise in inverse proportion. One need only look at Europe to see what this means. Over the period from February 1, 2003, just before the start of the Iraq War, when oil prices began to rise in earnest, to Feb. 1, 2005, the price of a barrel of oil in dollars rose about 30 percent, from $30.13 a barrel to $42.91 a barrel. But over that same period of time, the Euro, Europe's new combined currency, rose 21 percent against the U.S. dollar, from .93 Euros to the dollar in February, 2003 to just .77 to the U.S. dollar in February, 2005. For Europeans, then, the net rise in oil prices over the two years of the Iraq War has been just 9 percent, or less than 5 percent per year--hardly the kind of energy inflation that would cause economic problems. And this situation is likely to get only worse. Some Wall Street oil industry analysts are now predicting that oil could, before too long, hit $100 a barrel. What they are saying really is that the dollar is likely to fall in value by 50 percent. Should that happen, though, the OPEC states would likely at some point along the way decide that it is ridiculous for them to continue pricing oil in dollars, since the piles of dollars filling their bank vaults will be losing value faster than their oil wells are being drained. At some point, the oil producing states, including Russia and Norway, will inevitably switch to pricing their oil in a basket of currencies--a basket that would prominently feature the Euro and probably the Japanese Yen. At that point there would be little left to prop up the dollar, and it could end up becoming little better than a Third World currency. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Jack Goff" wrote in message om... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message Prices have risen as investors bet refiners and producers will struggle to meet winter demand in the fourth quarter. Duh! Why do you think demand is increasing? (and it's not just a one-time quarterly surge) Hint: Is it just US demand? Duh? "As investors bet....". The key word is "bet". The price hike is not related to the REALITY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSETS THEMSELVES. So you're saying that the rise in price has nothing to do with the increase in demand, and the fact that there is virtually no excess production available to meet that demand? That if we were rocking along, no increase in demand, and plenty of excess production, that this big price increase would still be happening? BS!! They are able to pull off these big increases *BECAUSE* there is a huge demand, and everyone wants all the crude they can get, but there's no excess. If there were less demand, and excess production, there would be players in the market that would have excess and would be willing to sell it at a lower price. The price hike is possible BECAUSE of the reality of the (limited) physical assets. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. Supply and demand. The supply has been relatively stable. China is the biggest reason for the increased demand. Doug, maybe there's a community college around you somewhere that offers an Economics 101 class. Your explanation is the reason so many other things have been sold to you with little foundation beneath them. *Your* referenced article provides all the proof I need. It states what I did above, but you seem unable to grasp it. "Oil prices hit a new record above $60 a barrel on Monday, driven by demand growth resilience in the face of high fuel cost..." "The market is testing higher to see what price levels this demand can endure," "...with only a significant pull-back in demand from an economic slowdown seen likely to tame prices." "spare capacity is limited to small unused volumes in Saudi Arabia." Your own article proves you wrong. You didn't read for content, you just keyed in on part of one sentence. The article is making the case that the oil prices are being raised because the market conditions of "demand growth" and "tight supply" exist, thereby enabling the higher prices. For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. |
"Jack Goff" wrote in message
om... For the last time, where is this "demand growth" coming from? Class is out. The price is not connected with the physical reality of the supply. It is being determined by traders who bet on things that have not happened yet. Do you understand the futures market? Do you know what it is? Zzzzzzzzzz........... |
1 Attachment(s)
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... If that's allowed to happen, we should reinstate the firing squad as a method of justice. But, that would empty out the Senate completely. Hmmm.... White House says procedures in place to vet CNOOc's Unocal bid Last Update: 4:16 PM ET June 27, 2005 WASHINGTON (Marke****ch) -- The Bush administration said Monday that there is an established procedure for reviewing the security implications of any successful bid by China's CNOOC Ltd. (CEO) for Unocal Corp. (UCL). "If it (the bid) were to go through, like all foreign-based transactions, there is a regulatory process that will be followed to address any national security concerns," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. "In other words, there are procedures in place and if a bid goes through, then we would expect the appropriate procedures to be followed," he added. CNOOC has said it would be willing to pay $18.5 billion for Unocal, outbidding U.S. oil company Chevron Corp.'s (CVX) $16 billion-plus offer. CNOOC is 70% owned by the Chinese state. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Tim" wrote in message oups.com... Just whatch what happens when the Chinese buy out Unocal..... If that's allowed to happen, we should reinstate the firing squad as a method of justice. But, that would empty out the Senate completely. Hmmm.... Bush expects review of China oil bid W. House wants security review for proposed deal to buy Unocal; Chinese firm vows to keep U.S. jobs. June 27, 2005: 3:19 PM EDT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration expects an appropriate national and economic security review if China's CNOOC Ltd. is the winning bidder for Unocal Corp., a White House spokesman said Monday, while CNOOC vowed to keep U.S. jobs if it should acquire the oil company. "There are procedures in place, and if a bid goes through then we would expect the appropriate procedures to be followed," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. He said the White House was following the issue closely. Such transactions are typically reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which determines whether a deal in which a foreign company buying an American company poses risks to national or economic security. CNOOC offered $18.5 billion in cash last week to acquire the U.S.-based Unocal (up $0.29 to $65.97, Research), a richer bid than the $16-billion plus cash and stock offer it already has accepted from Chevron Corp. (up $0.37 to $57.06, Research) Chevron is pushing for an August vote on its offer. Separately, CNOOC reiterated Monday its commitment to not only retain the jobs of "substantially" all of Unocal Corp.'s staff, but also keep its U.S. oil and gas production output in the United States, according to a letter submitted members of Congress. The CNOOC letter came in response to a letter from more than 40 U.S. lawmakers urging the Bush administration to take a closer look at the bid. "We had planned for and want to participate in a (government) review of the transaction as soon as possible," CNOOC Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Fu Chengyu said in a statement. "We believe it is vital to the success of the possible merged company." Executives from CNOOC are headed to the United States this week to discuss the bid with Unocal, a person familiar with the matter told Reuters Monday. CNOOC has said all along it welcomed a review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, a body chaired by the secretary of the Treasury that reviews acquisitions of U.S. companies by foreign concerns where there could be national-security implications. |
How much you wanna bet the deal goes through, and your moron president
announces a short list of absurd reasons why it's a great idea? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com