LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Want proof of market manipulation in the oil industry? Here it is.

amicus said:
I can only proceed on what you offer on this forum, but it seems to tend towards a command type economy in which private enterprise is highly controlled and regulated.
Click to expand...

Ah, so your mistake is in assuming that everyone is as blindly doctrinaire as you are, then.
 
sr71plt said:
I answered all of that way up the line too. They are manipulating SUPPLY, which is much broader than manipulating price. And they are doing what every other intelligent government is doing--just like the United States. It's practically the Saudi's only cash crop; there is nothing sinister about them controlling it to their best advantage (global economics 101)--and to make theirs last as long as possible. Your "sinister" is self-centered Jingoism based on your own self-centered concept of what you need and are entitled to--and you brush aside any pointing to the United States doing exactly the same thing. And you understand nothing about national sovereignty. It's their oil; they don't have to either make any of it available to you or play to your preferred "rules" of global economy. (and the United States imports a whole hell of a lot more food than it exports by the way--to pick up on another loose string you dropped).

Again you are engaging in avoidance of reality and logic. The United States has reserves and it hasn't dipped into them at all--while putting all of its efforts into using everyone else's reserves. Like, Duh, on the reality charts.

And you are pissing in the wind, anyway. When the Saudis do sell, they now have much more lucrative and solid markets than the United States--China and India. Their managing of their oil no longer has much to do with the United States. Unless we invade them, as Rox notes, it's no longer oil coming exclusively to the United States. (And the United States can't even make that work--we've taken over Iraq, but we're not getting their oil--certainly not at any better price than from anywhere else.)

And, as I already noted. the control on the availability of gasoline is refineries, not oil supply--at any price. And the United States hasn't bothered to up its refinery capacity along with demand.

And all of this is irrelevant to whatever point you thought you were trying to make in the first place. The factor in the price of oil that is making havoc at the moment has little to do with the availability of oil or price manipulation by the oil suppliers. It's mostly a function of the stock market paper speculators who don't actually handle a drop of oil. Have you been under a rock that you haven't absorbed this?
Click to expand...
Actually, Einstein, if you had taken the time to read my other threads on here, I have a whole thread talking about oil speculation's effects on oil prices.

Do you always suffer from this kind of puerile lack of tolerance for people who disagree with you? Man, you must be one unpleasant character to hang around if you pop off like this every time someone questions your delusions of omniscience.

Especially considering your entire rant and rave is undone by one big critical error that threads itself through your entire post - supply manipulation is market manipulation. Unless you're going to screech next that supply is not a part of the market equation. So, by your admission, the Saudis ARE manipulating the supply in the global economic system, and thus by extension the market itself. Oh no wait, supply isn't a factor in a market now. Got it. :rolleyes:

And yes, the US inadvertently does it, too, but that argument of yours does not counter mine.

Next time when you respond to me use less froth and more thinking capacity.

champagne1982 said:
Which government subsidizes the internet? And what does it (the net) need a subsidy to do?
Click to expand...
I said the Government subsidized the internet in the beginning. It's far less subsidized now. The internet would not have even existed without DARPA funding.
 
I thought you said people on the AH love you.

This looks like a typical Lt thread on the GB.
 
Oh look, Bronzeage is following me around again.

Hey dude, notice how nobody here hurls racial slurs or death threats at me like you people do on the General Board?

Go away.
 
Le Jacquelope said:
Oh look, Bronzeage is following me around again.

Hey dude, notice how nobody here hurls racial slurs or death threats at me like you people do on the General Board?

Go away.
Click to expand...

Try flooding their threads with cheap porn and see what they do.
Or, maybe post your ignore list. That's always a good way to counter an argument.


It looks like they have the same opinion of you as the rest of the world.
 
SavannahMann said:
The United States, as though it's a national plan not to use the supplies it has. Who opposes the drilling off the coasts of the United States, both coasts? Is it the Oil Companies? No, it's the Environmentalist Nuts who scream we'll be destroy millions of baby seals if we drill. They predict and promise huge environmental disasters if we allow drilling, utterly ignoring the modern technology which is now going into that activity. Katrina wiped out New Orleans, shut down how many oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, and how much oil was lost and caused what environmental disaster? Oh that's right NONE.

Yet it's the socialists like yourself who demand we not drill because it's bad for the environment and we'll all die if we drill. Throw the money at alternative energy sources, which is of course, how we have always created new energy sources right?

I mean, at first, it was sail power that propelled man across the seas, wind and wooden ships. Then it was coal fired steamers. More reliable than wind. It quickly became the standard, and what do you know, would be in use today as the international standard except one thing. Oil fired steam propulsion was more efficient, and faster. From there we went to Diesel engines, and then Gas Turbine engines. Nuclear is very efficient, requiring fuel only once every twenty years or so, but that is just so horrible isn't it?

So now, we're screaming about the costs versus the profit for the little guy, the little truckers who take the cargo from the dock to the desitination. What about them you say? Well, most of them have the option of saying NO, I won't carry cargo for that price. You see, as a Trucker myself, with experience driving over the road, kind of how I ended up running heavy equipment. I can tell you that every trucker knows that his or her truck is going to get six to seven miles to the gallon of Diesel. Knowing also the cost of a gallon of Diesel, any trucker with a pencil and a piece of paper, and most of them are actually smart enough and experienced enough to do these calculations in their head on the fly, they know the difference between a profitable load, and a loss load. They calculate out the cost of fuel versus the miles traveled and the costs you don't know anything about as a ranting socialist like road use taxes, tolls, harassment stops by the police every single state has in place to keep truckers in line. Truckers are the only group in our society where every single state, plus the Federal Government, have a police force dedicated to them. Truckers call these cops Diesel Cops, or just DOT, for Department of Transportation. Having been through inspections in Ohio, Kansas, New York, California, and let's not forget my own Georgia, I can tell you that they really are harassing the truckers.

So the independent trucker looks at a load, and knows that the price offered is not enough to make any profit, and he passes it up. That happens all the time by the way. Larger companies have contracts which includes the diesel offset clauses, which allows the company to increase the fee on the load based upon fuel costs.

Again, if you really wanted to help the truckers, then you would be screaming for the Government and the Environmentalist nuts to stop blocking drilling. Only with a greater supply will the truckers have a lower cost, and thus more profit. Yet for some reason, you aren't calling for drilling. If Gas and Diesel go up another dollar here in the US, there are a lot of people who would be willing to drill in Babies if that meant gas would go down.

There isn't a secret shadowy figure somewhere that controls these things just to screw the people. While that makes a good movie, and I admit, one of my own stories, it doesn't happen. I know how much that upsets you, but it's true I'm sad to say.
Click to expand...
Okay, now that all of you have had your piece to say about how environmentalists are behind the lack of new refineries, allow me to dash this myth back to the pieces it came from.

Why is it that from 1975 to 2000, the EPA received only ONE permit request for a new refinery? Why is it that oil companies regularly apply for and receive permits to modify and expand existing refineries?

Source: Committee on Government Reform Hearing, “Potential Energy Crisis in the Winter of 2000” 106th Congress, (Sept. 20-21, 2000).


Does anyone have an answer to this, or are sr71plt and co. feeling too ashamed of the froth-at-the-mouth name calling mixed in with the abysmal errors in their "facts" to speak up now?



Oh and Bronzeage, I bet you didn't answer my question - why do you guys hurl racial slurs and threats, and these guys don't? I certainly bet you didn't answer that... am I wrong?
 
SavannahMann said:
Again, if you really wanted to help the truckers, then you would be screaming for the Government and the Environmentalist nuts to stop blocking drilling. Only with a greater supply will the truckers have a lower cost, and thus more profit. Yet for some reason, you aren't calling for drilling. If Gas and Diesel go up another dollar here in the US, there are a lot of people who would be willing to drill in Babies if that meant gas would go down.
Click to expand...

Drilling for oil is not a one-dimensional cost/profit issue. The more oil we use, the more we hasten global warming, and the sooner we get to the bottom of the oil supply. What do we do then, when there's no more oil? Until we have a plan, wouldn't it be prudent to conserve what's left?

This conservation thing is not whacky socialism, it's common sense. I realize common sense can sometimes fly in the face of a preferred ideology, but eventually, every ideology will have to pass the common-sense test if it's going to survive.
 
DeeZire said:
Drilling for oil is not a one-dimensional cost/profit issue. The more oil we use, the more we hasten global warming, and the sooner we get to the bottom of the oil supply. What do we do then, when there's no more oil? Until we have a plan, wouldn't it be prudent to conserve what's left?

This conservation thing is not whacky socialism, it's common sense. I realize common sense can sometimes fly in the face of a preferred ideology, but eventually, every ideology will have to pass the common-sense test if it's going to survive.
Click to expand...
Woah woah woah wait a minute there. Oil is an infinite resource. Only socialists say otherwise!

(just kidding - I'm parodying the responses you might get to that post, lol!)
 
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/05/news/economy/refining_investments/index.htm?postversion=2007060517

Why no one's making more gas
Refineries are making money like never before, so why aren't more people getting in on the action?
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
June 5 2007: 5:25 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Motorists must get tired of hearing how refinery problems are causing high gasoline prices.

In a free-market economy, if there really was such a shortage (most experts say there is), and refining profits are so high (any oil company earnings report will attest they are), then why aren't people building more refineries?

The oil industry has long said refineries are too expensive, too hard to get a permit for, aren't necessarily needed when the government is calling for a reduction in gasoline use, and take so long to build that gasoline prices could collapse by the time one comes online. Instead, they are boosting output through expansions at existing refineries.

Consumers don't necessarily buy this, instead thinking the industry is in cahoots to restrict supply and reap massive profits.

But it's not like oil companies are the only ones who could build refineries. After all, the technology isn't particularly complex. And with everyone from investment banks to insurance companies to private equity firms, chasing high returns in an era of low global interest rates, there's a ton of cash out there just looking for a place to go.

So why hasn't anyone plunked it down to make more gas?
Money to be made

The refinery shortage, cited by experts as a main culprit behind the recent record high gasoline prices of over $3 a gallon, has been a windfall for the oil industry.

Exxon Mobil (Charts, Fortune 500) made nearly $2 billion profit in worldwide "downstream operations," which include refining, in the first three months of 2007 alone.

The difference between what refiners pay for a barrel of oil and how much they can sell the products for, known in the industry as "crack spreads," has tripled in the last 12 months, according to Antoine Halff, head of energy research at Fimat in New York.

"Refinery profits have really been ballooning over the last few years," said Halff.

The cash bonanza has generated some interest.

"I get calls from everyone in the universe," said Peter Beutel, an oil analyst at the consulting firm Cameron Hanover.

But he said so far he hasn't heard of anyone building a new refinery.

A call to the Environmental Protection Agency, which is involved in the permitting process for new refineries and refinery expansions, didn't turn up any evidence of a new refinery permit. A spokesman there said refinery expansions are more likely, although the agency was still searching its database at the time of this article.

Louisiana, a state long friendly to oil and gas interests, is actively seeking a new refinery.

Marathon Oil (Charts, Fortune 500) has built a $3.2 billion refinery expansion, Valero (Charts, Fortune 500) has a $1 billion expansion, and the state is in talks with the Kuwait national oil company for a massive new 500,000-barrel-a-day facility, said Michael Olivier, secretary of Louisiana Economic Development.

But even in Louisiana, where Olivier said the Marathon expansion permit was approved in less than a year, no completely new refinery has been built nor are there solid plans for one.

"I've heard a lot of people thinking about it," said Mike McKee, a Dallas-based director at KPMG corporate finance, the banking arm of the consultancy KPMG. "But it's a pretty daunting task."

McKee said investors outside the oil industry have the same fears as the oil firms, plus one other.

"Margins are better now than they have been in 20 years," he said. "But as an investor, you'd be looking at jumping in at a historic peak, and it gives you pause."

In short, investors, like the oil industry itself, are concerned that refining will one day revert to being a barely profitable business.

"These guys don't want to put money into a business that's historically cyclical," he said.

Over the last 25 years, McKee said the S&P 500 has generated percentage returns somewhere in the low teens, while refining has returned about half that.

"There's a good reason there's been some discipline in the capital markets," he said. "It's been a pretty tough story over a long period of time." Top of page
 
Anybody who states that petroleum refining technology isn't complex displays a profound ignorance and immediately loses all credibility. As the average barrel of petroleum has gotten heavier (i.e., more viscous) over time, refining complexity has grown. Extremely high temperatures and pressures are required to "crack" today's average barrel into the lighter components (i.e., gasoline and aviation fuel) which are in demand and to reduce sulphur and volatile organic compounds. Hydrocracking and catalytic cracking allow higher yields of premium fuels. Refineries also produce the aromatic and olefin feedstocks for the entire petrochemical manufacturing chain that underlies everything from plastics to lubricants. Adding to the nightmarish complexity of refinery operations and logistics are the multiple grades of gasoline required by various states and localities and seasonal environmental requirements that necessitate the blending of oxygenates (such as MTBE— which was mandated by the U.S. Congress several years ago). Seasonal factors affect refinery operations as heating oil inventories must be built each summer in anticipation of winter, while gasoline inventories are required to meet summer demand for gasoline. Catalysts must be periodically recharged requiring that refineries be taken offline.

Historically, refining has not been a very profitable undertaking. Margins are extremely volatile and a refining operation has little-to-no control over either imput costs (i.e., crude) or product revenues (i.e., wholesale prices for heating oil, gasoline, diesel fuel or aviation fuel).

A longer view of the 3-2-1 crack spread:
http://futuresource.quote.com/chart...14*HO)-CL&o=&a=M&z=800x550&d=medium&b=bar&st=

Motiva, for example, is in the midst of a multi-year project to add 325,000 barrels per day of new capacity (essentially, a doubling of capacity) to its existing Port Arthur (Texas) refinery. Port Arthur expansion cost: $17,000,000,000 (a/k/a SEVENTEEN BILLION dollars). Chevron is also expanding capacity at its Pascagoula (Mississippi) refinery by ten percent.

There's a simple reason there haven't been any "greenfield" refineries built in over twenty years; it is absolutely and utterly impossible to get permits. It is much easier and more efficient to expand existing refinery capacity. This is a business that requires enormous amounts of capital and there are undeniable economies of scale.

A rough approximation of the current "3-2-1 crack spread:"
$138.54 Nymex Crude Future ($/bbl.)
$3.30 Nymex Crude Future ($/gal.) = $4.53 Retail ($/gal.)
$3.97 Nymex Heating Oil ($/gal.)
$166.91 Nymex Heating Oil ($/bbl.)
$3.55 Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future ($/gal.) = $4.18 Retail ($/gal.)
$149.02 Nymex RBOB Gasoline Future ($/bbl.)

3-2-1 Crack Spread:
$16.44
(lest one jump to inaccurate conclusions, the crack spread is enormously volatile and one would be delusional to base gargantuan capital expenditures on an assumption of continuation of any particular level)



 
trysail said:
Anybody who states that petroleum refining technology isn't complex displays a profound ignorance and immediately loses all credibility.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was not complex? I certainly did not say that.

What I did say was that given that Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, their manipulation of the oil supply - and thus the oil market itself - must at least be approved by OPEC.

As the average barrel of petroleum has gotten heavier (i.e., more viscous) over time, refining complexity has grown.
Click to expand...
Yes, light sweet crude is not easy to find anymore.

There's a simple reason there haven't been any "greenfield" refineries built in over twenty years; it is absolutely and utterly impossible to get permits.
Click to expand...
That statement is a myth. I pointed you to documentation - a Congressional committee report - refuting that already. I also showed you a CNN article about it.



And, sr71plt, do note that I at least can talk to people in a civil manner. :rolleyes:
 
Le Jacquelope said:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/06/05/news/economy/refining_investments/index.htm?postversion=2007060517
...But it's not like oil companies are the only ones who could build refineries. After all, the technology isn't particularly complex...
Click to expand...

Le Jacquelope said:
Where did I say it was not complex? I certainly did not say that.
Click to expand...

trysail said:
Anybody who states that petroleum refining technology isn't complex displays a profound ignorance and immediately loses all credibility.
Click to expand...


You're right. You didn't say that refining wasn't complex. You simply found someone else who said it and then went on to post an article full of misinformation written by a bozo "journalist" who clearly doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground— the article itself is a half-right, half-wrong mishmash.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I (or anyone with a grain of sense) accept anything emanating out of CNN as authoritative. The particular article was the normal assemblage of filler, pap and gossip slapdashed together by a half-wit on deadline— in other words, standard CNN fare specifically prepared for consumption by morons.


 
trysail said:






You're right. You didn't say that refining wasn't complex. You simply found someone else who said it and then went on to post an article full of misinformation written by a bozo "journalist" who clearly doesn't know his arse from a hole in the ground— the article itself is a half-right, half-wrong mishmash.

It'll be a cold day in hell when I (or anyone with a grain of sense) accept anything emanating out of CNN as authoritative. The particular article was the normal assemblage of filler, pap and gossip slapdashed together by a half-wit on deadline— in other words, standard CNN fare specifically prepared for consumption by morons.


[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
Click to expand...
Okay, that one statement he made was wrong.

But the rest of what he said was backed up by a Government report says environmentalists are NOT the cause of new refineries not being built.

And if you refuse to accept anything from CNN, why should I or anyone else accept YOUR sources?

I've got a Government report that says you're wrong about why new refineries aren't being built. What do you have? Hearsay? The Limbaugh Letter? :rolleyes:
 
Oh those greedy Saudi market manipiulat... what? Increasing production? Oh, nevermind then.


----


UN chief: Saudi Arabia to boost oil production

World's largest oil producer expected to to increase output by 200,000 barrels a day through July, according to U.N. secretary-general Ban Ki-moon.

Last Updated: June 16, 2008: 7:19 AM EDT

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- Saudi Arabia plans to increase its oil production by 200,000 barrels a day next month, the kingdom's oil minister told U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon on Sunday, according to Ban's spokesman.

The U.N. secretary-general met with Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi in the port city of Jiddah during a one-day trip to the world's largest oil producer.

Farhan Haq, a spokesman who is traveling with Ban, said in an e-mail that the U.N. chief said al-Naimi told him Saudi Arabia would increase oil production by 200,000 barrels a day from June to July. In May, the kingdom increased its production by 300,000.

By July, production should be at 9.7 million barrels a day, Haq said.

Ban also said Saudi Arabia understands that the current price of oil, which topped $139 per barrel earlier this month, is not normal, according to the official Saudi Press Agency.

"The king believes that the current oil prices are abnormally high, and he is ready to restore prices to their appropriate levels," SPA quoted Ban as telling reporters in Jiddah. The report carried by SPA was in Arabic, and it did not say what language Ban spoke in.

Saudi Arabia is concerned that sustained high oil prices will eventually slacken the world's appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run.

The 200,000-barrel-a-day boost is not insignificant - it will raise Saudi Arabia's daily production by about 2%. But to a market that has been sending oil prices soaring to record heights due in part to strong global demand, the move might be seen as marginal.

The oil market largely ignored Saudi Arabia's 300,000-barrel-a-day output increase last month.

The kingdom has called for a meeting of oil producing and consuming countries on June 22 in Jiddah to discuss ways of dealing with soaring energy prices.

The New York Times reported on Saturday, citing unnamed analysts and oil traders briefed by Saudi officials, that a production increase of about 500,000 barrels per day was to be announced following the meeting.

On Saturday, al-Naim's adviser told The Associated Press that the minister would address the production increase reports the next day. But on Sunday, the adviser, Ibrahim al-Muhanna, said there was no meeting to address the reports scheduled.

Further attempts to reach al-Muhanna by phone later Sunday went unanswered.

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, is concerned that sustained high oil prices will eventually slacken the world's appetite for oil, affecting the kingdom in the long run.

Crude prices have reached record highs, surpassing $139 per barrel on June 6 after surging nearly $11 in the biggest single-day price leap ever.

The prices had receded by Friday, with the benchmark light, sweet crude for July delivery falling $1.88 to settle at $134.86 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. In London, July Brent crude lost $1.84 to settle at $134.25 on the ICE Futures exchange.

The current president of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Chakib Khelil, has said that the cartel will make no new decision on production levels until its Sept. 9 meeting in Vienna. OPEC ministers often follow the lead of the Saudis when discussing whether to increase production to take the pressure off rising prices.
 
Liar said:
Oh those greedy Saudi market manipiulat... what? Increasing production? Oh, nevermind then.
Click to expand...
Increasing production to manipulate prices (by manipulating supply) is still market manipulation (unless you're willing to argue that the supply isn't a factor in a market equation).

It's a positive form of manipulation depending on how you look at it. The way I see it, if they go far enough, driving gas prices way down, it will encourage more gasoline usage, which is bad.

I hope this sparks the day that gas guzzling cars and SUVs begin their descent into "extinct in the wild" status.
 
What an idiot, farmers produce more corn, wheat and oats and people eat better at less cost and this is market manipulation?

What an idiot!

Amicus...
 
Le Jacquelope said:
Increasing production to manipulate prices (by manipulating supply) is still market manipulation (unless you're willing to argue that the supply isn't a factor in a market equation).
Click to expand...
Every business desicion from every actor on the market, will orf course affect the market. And any good businessman on takes into account how it will affect the market and in turn how the affected market will affect him. Anything else is amateur work.

Does that make it market "manipulation"?
 
Liar said:
Every business desicion from every actor on the market, will orf course affect the market. And any good businessman on takes into account how it will affect the market and in turn how the affected market will affect him. Anything else is amateur work.

Does that make it market "manipulation"?
Click to expand...
You tell me.

Energy companies in California were convicted for shutting down plants to drive up the price of electricity. Supply manipulation, basically.

I am speaking with the backing of legal precedent here.
 
Le Jacquelope said:
You tell me.
Click to expand...
Ok.

No.
Energy companies in California were convicted for shutting down plants to drive up the price of electricity. Supply manipulation, basically.

I am speaking with the backing of legal precedent here.
Click to expand...
Wasn't that an illegal cartel thing? It wasn't that just one company closed down its own plant and raised its own prices, was it?

The saudi state is one actor making its own business desicions, and looks at long term market effects. Big shrug.
 
Liar said:
Ok.

No.
Wasn't that an illegal cartel thing? It wasn't that just one company closed down its own plant and raised its own prices, was it?

The saudi state is one actor making its own business desicions, and looks at long term market effects. Big shrug.
Click to expand...
Well, let's put it this way, if some American oil company decided to all but shut down in order to get better prices per barrel of oil, they'd get their ever loving asses kicked in court. Congress would be all up in their asses. Ain't no cartel there, but you betcha there'd be quite an ass kicking handed to them by the time it's over. Or a lot of execs would be swinging from trees for real. We're closer to Wild West vigilante action over this than you think.

Congress, right now, is looking for evidence of manipulation in the oil industry. The problem is not that there isn't - there is. It's utterly fucking rampant and America is paying a high price for it, and NOT because of environmentalist concerns (see the Congressional report I posted).

The problem is how much manipulation will we tolerate.

Manipulation is happening all over the place - the question is, how much will we accept?
 
Le Jacquelope said:
The problem is how much manipulation will we tolerate.

Manipulation is happening all over the place - the question is, how much will we accept?
Click to expand...
Actually, I see the question of how much crap we're willing to tolerate from environmentalists, while our economy is sinking deeper and deeper. Right now anyone can drill off our coasts but us. :rolleyes:
 
I hate to point something out. There is only one US owned and controled oil company in the world, Exxon. The rest we would think are oil companies are in fact either oil distributors, or US subside of a foreign company.

Also on the new refinery point, I would point out that the first requests are made to the FTC and that states EPA/FTC. Once it is ok'ed by those two or three organizations, the next step would be to an enivormental study, which could take years. Sending a formal application to the EPA is the last step. It is more or less asking the EPA to ok several years of work. I am not saying that the EPA is not talked to before that point, they are in on it at most steps. The problem is that stating that only one application made it to the final step is like saying that only one person won a foot race. It is true but not the whole picture. I am leaving the cost out of it at this point, but opening a new refinery could cost several billion dollars.
 
Le Jacquelope said:
Well, let's put it this way, if some American oil company decided to all but shut down in order to get better prices per barrel of oil, they'd get their ever loving asses kicked in court.
Click to expand...
1. If one company acted alone, shut down their production and hiked their price, would anyone buy their oil? Not unless all the other oil companies immediately followed suit. And if they do, we have at least cartel-like behavior.

2. Why would their get their asses kicked in court? Or rather - why, in your opinion, should they get their asses kicked?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Why is it not possible anymore to see the longer list of recently popular stories in any category?
Replies
24
Views
988
NuclearFairy
NuclearFairy
B
The following, while related to the election, transcends politics - it is a message of hope for all who seek unity and peace. Plus, there's a coupon.
Replies
7
Views
743
PaxNurgle
P
Counselor706
Keystone Pipeline cancellation was 'mistake,' economist under Obama, Clinton admits — and slowing oil permits, 'being hostile' toward natural gas
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
jaF0
jaF0
SugarDaddy1
The recession will hit in the first half of 2023 and the Dow is headed lower: CNBC CFO survey
Replies
2
Views
143
techiedude71
T
B
Trump will alter how the most toxic radioactive waste in the world is disposed of
Replies
0
Views
247
bodysong
B
Back
Top