Down with the evil Gas lords. (yes, i am brave enough to post another from myspace)

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


I just checked. Oil prices are around $69/barrel. I used to know how many gallons/barrel but that info is gone. 66 gallons/barrel? 44?

If it's 44, crude oil prices are $1.57/gal., not $1.65.

I'm probably answering something that was answered later, but one, if my memory serves, gets about 19 gallons of gasoline from 1 barrel of Saudi crude.

[JohnT]

Wealthiest Corp in the world: Exxon Mobil
Wealthiest Country in the World: UAE.

Cite?

In terms of assets, Citicorp is worth $1 trillion more than XOM.

In terms of sales, they've been swapping the #1 spot with WMT the past few years.

In terms of profitablity, they earned a 10.6% margin, nowhere near the top.

[Kaak]

John, once again, world supply, etc, is irrelavent. Domestic is all that matters in this particular situation I think. Like i said in the only post in which i actually gave my opinion on the matter, I'm not saying this would work. I don't know if it would have any affect at all, but it would be interesting to see what Exxon would do if it weren't selling any gas.

FYI- we don't have Aramco stations in Texas, and comparatively few Citgo stations.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
Imran, you fool...They are the ones getting paid the 1.65 a gallon. They don't have to pay it. The phrase "bring to market" Means to find it, take it out of the ground, transport it to a processing facility, process it, and transport it to a gas station.

Exxon produces very little of its own oil, and never really has. They tend to enter into agreements with oil producing states/companies, buy their oil, and then transport it.

It's been that way since Rockefeller: he did not care to get into the production of oil, he just wanted to refine and transport it.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
If you think Exxon doesn't influence OPEC, and consequently the price of oil, then i don't even know why i'm talking to you. The oil may be comming from those countries, but the Big Oil companies find it, Drill for it, ship it, process it, and sell it. If you go to africa and stand on a rig, You will see a familiar name, whether it's exxonMobil, Texaco/Shell, ConocoPhillips or whatever. And if it isn't one of their rigs, it is a company contracted by them, not by an individual opec nation. Opec may say how much can come out of the ground, but besides lining their pockets, that's about where their involvement ends.

That's not at all true. The Saudi Oil Company, Aramco, is responsible for oil exploration, drilling, and etc for all Saudi Oil. Exxon only does what it does with Saudi oil with the approval of the Saudi national government.

[Kaak]

JohnT, from one of KH's links, there was a figure that said that Exxon was producing almost 800 Million gallons a year in '98. It also gave projected growth charts.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
Good point KH, and excellent supporting argument. Like I said, I'm sure your experience here is much greater than mine, so I defer to your wisdom. Your absolutely right, so feel free to hit that ignore button

Your "experience", as noted by you in this thread, is based upon Dad's experience.

Hardly makes you an expert, you know?

[Kaak]

John, clearly saudi arabia is the exception. They also ignore Opec production limits.

[Kaak]

I never claimed expertise john, merely that my experience, even second hand, is > KH's experience.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4544390.stm

Take a look at the article. Talking about Venezuela giving Exxon an ultimatum. Seems like that never would have taken place since Exxon isn't really there in the first place since Venezuela is an opec nation. Oh, it mentions something else in the headline about Exxon being the world's biggest oil company, but i guess that isn't true either since you said they were 5th or 6th in the production of oil.

Thanks for proving that most of the things you say come flying out of your ass without any basis in reality

Exxon is the largest private oil company (it or BP), and the largest in America.

Many people don't consider state-run enterprises when thinking about large private corporations. But they should.

[Kaak]

John, once again, the focus here is america, which makes the others kind of a moot point.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
John, once again, world supply, etc, is irrelavent. Domestic is all that matters in this particular situation I think. Like i said in the only post in which i actually gave my opinion on the matter, I'm not saying this would work. I don't know if it would have any affect at all, but it would be interesting to see what Exxon would do if it weren't selling any gas.

FYI- we don't have Aramco stations in Texas, and comparatively few Citgo stations.

No, you can't discount the world just because you want to and/or it makes your argument work (better). Exxon works in an global market, so saying that the domestic market is the only one that matters is incorrect. That's GM-type thinking!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Kaak
John, once again, the focus here is america, which makes the others kind of a moot point.

Saying the same thing twice, but since we're talking international businesses and markets, you cannot discount the entire globe as being moot.

[Kaak]

*sigh*.... As i've said, I don't know if it would work or not. The point is this: Since Exxon controls oil from it's extraction to its sale, Exxon mobil has plenty of profit cushion to be able to reduce prices and still make a healthy profit. Would a boycott work? Who knows with out seeing it happen. I'm pretty sure i've stated that a couple times in this thread.

[Arrian]

Kaak, you're wrong. Very wrong. In the parlance of the internet, PWND, even.

Leaving aside the other issues (KH, John and others have done enough pwnage there), a boycott is a temporary measure that isn't going to have any real long-term effect. A sustainable reduction in demand might, but again oil is a global market, and the price fluctuates due to global concerns (such as China's consumption). A sustainable reduction in demand (or, perhaps more likely, a reduction in the growth of demend) would require that Americans take public transit, buy more fuel efficient cars, improve insulation in their homes (less use of heating oil), etc. In other words, it requires an actual change in lifestyle. And like I said, even then, its a global market.

-Arrian