On 29 Jul 2005 11:28:28 -0700, " wrote:


John H. wrote:
On 29 Jul 2005 10:56:56 -0700, " wrote:


Mr Wizzard wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
news Mr Wizzard wrote:

Well, if this "mysterious insertion" broke laws,
then yeah, there should be outrage. However,
as presented, its clearly not that it was inserted
that is being focused on, its that fact that it was
the `OMFG, it was *Halliburton*!` mentality.
I'll bet if if was some Clintonesque social program
that was mysterious inserted, it wouldn't be an
issue for you. Ok, ok, maybe that was a cheap
shot, but again, look at how this article is/was
being presented: "Republican Pigs are at it again",
and Halliburton. If the origanl author was truely
even keeled, and concerned about the PROCESS,
then it would have read more "neutral" - something
like: "Mysterious provision shows up in energy bill"


No offense, but Halliburton and most of the rest of the companies
involved in "Big Oil" are a big part of our problem in terms of oil
prices and our situation in the Middle East. They're no different than
Enron was.

Whoa! - there is a *BIG* difference, Halliburton
isn't breaking any laws. How are companies
involved in "Big Oil" part of the problem in
terms of oil prices? I'd like to know this.
further, what wertern country has the cheapest
oil prices? Lets see, England its like $9/gal,
Eurpope $5, right? Other places? chart please ?



BIG OIL is involved in oil prices at least two different ways.

1) The reason we just sat back and said "OK, that will be fine" when
the Arabs nationalized all the oil fields 30-40 years ago is that BIG
OIL still holds 49% shares in that oil production. It's a deal made in
heaven,
the price of oil goes to $60 a bbl, $29 of that finds its way to Exxon,
Chevron, or Bush Energy Co, and the "Arabs" get all the blame.

2) Once OPEC announces a gouging price hike, American companies pumping
oil in the US waste *no time* jacking the prices for domestic crude up
to the level set by our "terrorist enemies" in Arabia.

BIG OIL has a huge upside, and almost no downside (at least for now)
with skyrocketing prices. As the prices shoot upward, oil pumped by
existing infrastructure (with a stable production cost) can be sold for
a lot more money.

The downside to increased prices is often decreased demand. That has
not proven to be true for oil producers so far. They have yet to raise
the price high enough to where they aren't able to sell every drop they
can pump and refine. Until prices get so high that a decrease in volume
more than offsets an increase in gross margin, they will continue to
climb.

BIG OIL is enjoying record-smashing profits at present. You would have
to hunt long and hard to find a BIG OIL exec who isn't elated every
time the price of oil goes up another couple of bucks a bbl.

It would seem like the appropriate response for Democrats such as yourself would
be to buy up the shares of Exxon and make your own decisions about the greater
good. You could even make some money in the interim.

Do no Democrats own shares of big oil companies? Are only Republicans and Bush
able to buy shares of Exxon? Hell, for a mere $60 you'll get invited to the next
share-holders' meeting where you can suggest that all shareholders forfeit any
profits.

:)

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD


C'mon John.

Do you dispute my answer about the relationship between BIG OIL and
high oil prices? Looks like no, but you don't pass the opportunity to
make a snide remark about how I should buy stock in Exxon. Whazzup with
that?

FYI- I'm *not* a democrat. In fact, I'm not affiliated with any
political party.

Change references to Democrats to liberals. My point is that liberals tend to
shout about BIG OIL and how bad it is. My question is, "Do no liberals own
shares in Exxon?"

If they *do* own shares in Exxon, and they feel they are making too much money,
why are they not stating same in shareholders' meetings. That would certainly
make the news!

--
John H.
On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD