Today, the House of Representatives, in committee voted to hold onto the ban on oil drilling within the 50- 200 mile limit. Democrats voted no. Republicans voted yes.
A Pennsylvania Congressman told Jim Cramer of Mad Money, that the cost of natural gas for Dow Chemical to run there plants in the US has risen from 32 million dollars per year, to 32 million dollars per qtr. They are now 65 percent of operations are overseas, where the cost of natural gas is cheaper. The US is paying the highest price for natural gas. Other companies will follow suit and move operations off shore to control the cost of natural gas.

Meanwhile they talk about weaning the US off of foreign oil.
Meanwhile the US imports 67% of the oil used here.
Meanwhile Americans are driving to Mexico for gas under 3.00 per gallon, which keeps demand artificially high.
Mexico, China and other countries are subsidizing the true cost of gasoline.
(note to those who want subsidized health care) The cost is shifted somewhere else.
Mexico is our #2 source of oil. Canada #1 Venezuela # 3 (who is arguing with Exxon)
Meanwhile Cuba is drilling 45 miles off the coast of florida.
Canada is drilling in Lake Erie.
Its only going to get worse. Figures are each amercian used 25 barrels of oil per year. China residents and India use about 2 barrels of oil per year.
The market is betting on more expensive natural gas the rest of this year and next.
Wind, solar etc make up 1% of the energy needs. Govt wants to subsidize wind power and send you the bill.

You dont have to join anything to write to your congressman or woman.

Its your paycheck against the environmental lobby. American companies will be drilling in the ocean, in front of a foreign nation and they wont own the oil.

Your on the menu. Environmental groups are in control of some politicians.

Actually Bush cut the size of the area for leases in Florida because his brother was up for re election.

http://www.factcheck.org/environmental_groups_ad_distorts_bushs_record_on.html
The Bush administration in 2001 backed off a proposal to allow drilling in the Gulf of Mexico in an area that came as close as 16 miles to beaches in Florida's panhandle. What the Bush administration approved instead keeps drilling at least 100 miles from the coast. But an ad airing in Florida by the League of Conservation Voters gives a different -- and misleading -- impression.
This misleading ad may be a payback for an attack last month by Bush's brother Jeb, who falsely claimed Kerry favors drilling off the Florida coast.

Analysis
Bush's record on Florida offshore drilling is summed up in this Interior Department map: Lease Sale 181 Area
Source: Minerals Management Service, US Dept. of Interior

The area outlined in pink is Lease Sale 181 Area -- a tract of 5.9 million acres first proposed for oil and gas leases in 1997 during the Clinton administration with the actual leasing to begin in December 2001. When Bush took office his Interior Secretary Gail Norton expressed support for going ahead with the sale. But because the extreme northeastern tip of the area reaches to within 16 miles off the coast at a point west of Pensacola, the President's brother Jeb, who was up for re-election as Florida's governor, protested. So the administration retreated, and approved only the smaller area shaded in green. It comes no closer than 100 miles from the Florida coast and, at less than 1.5 million acres, is about one-quarter the size of the original tract.

Yeah, the "environmental lobby" is in complete control of this country. I just hope big oil and the multi-national corporations can raise enough money to fight them off!

The enviro lobby does hold considerable control over the country. They dont do it so much through the lobby of politicians(they do this too though) but they use the courts to file lawsuits, block this or that and hold up anything they dont like. All they have to do is file in San Fran and it will be in the system for years before people loose interest and give up.
Stever,
factcheck.org is a relatively good org but if you think that Kathleen Jamieson and Brooks Jackson dont have political leanings you are drinking far more "kool-aid" than you accuse others of. They tell the facts as best as they can find them but if you read there book you will see where their pollitics lie. They take on more conservatives and lean their reporting. As do most of these groups. It is all about what they decide to pay attention to and what they "dont have time to check out".

Docspud,

You are correct that environmental groups attempt to use the courts... mainly because they have very few other effective options.

This seems to be another constant Dem/Repub debate. Then it is "activist judges" and "trial lawyers" wanting to ruin the country. Of course lawyers are making money but many of the lawsuits are indeed necessary. What should be done when the EPA (the agency RESPONSIBLE) for public health and environmental regulations fails to fulfill their mission? What about the WDFW failing to protect fish or protect stocks when federally mandated to do so? The only thing you CAN do is sue them. Do you actually think that companies would do a good job of things like policing their own emissions? The courts are setup to establish a third party that can decide these things.

Repubs tend to blame the "trial lawers" for bringing the case and the "activist judges" for deciding it against business. I guess if you are lookign to take a side, you can either blame the people filing the suit or those that made it necessary to file.

Yeah pursuing clean water, clean air, protecting National parks, protecting fish and rivers and the sound and oceans and trying to ensure the taxpayer doesn't end up footing the bill on yet another superfund cleanup and all of that crap is just criminal. Why they ought to hang those do gooders who get in the way of fat cats lining their sweaty palms with all of that cash. The nerve.

I am an equal oppor blamer Kaiser. They all suck. But things in my oppinion should be voted on not rammed down our throats by unelected "officials". I agree completely that suits are some times needed to stop bad policy when no one has stepped up like they should and when this started years ago it was probably a good thing but........As with all good things, they are abused. It is terrible how teh courts have hijacked the job of the elected officials. They are there to follow teh constit not rewrite it. I am a believer in the consitit by the way. i do not think it should evolve but I like the arguement that it should(though wrong).
"Laws" should be voted on unless they are "rights" which are set out in the bill of rights. They are pretty clear in there as to what we get as rights. Interpret laws...dont make laws, that should be their job though some dont think so.

Stlhead,
I agree again that they do some good things but these are still things that should be done by our elected officials. If the elected officials dont do it then they should be voted out and others in. The "do gooders" often go way overboard and abuse the system as bad as the "fat cats" do. Lastly, the tax payer always foots the bill. Any large lawsuit verdict gets past right on to higher prices we pay. The only people who benefit are those on the winning end of the suit.......not the public. They use up the court time that we pay for and whatever they get comes out of the publics pockets(directly often but if not, then indirectly).

Good post stever, I did forget about that. I was thinking in the moment, but would have to put him on the list. Gee the oil buddies must be mad.

Stlhd, you make a good point. Why the sarcasm? Trial lawyers have gone overboard. Thats what Tort law is all about. We dont sue utensil mfg for making people fat. yet.

I'm not sure that the "the public" doesn't win in some of these suits even IF costs get passed on. The fact that a large company would lose a lawsuit by definition makes them liable.

Take the Ford Explorer rollover issue. I could give a shiat because I don't own a Ford. But if your family was killed in a rollover incident that Ford could have predicted but covered up, wouldn't you feel like they were liable? Or what about tobacco companies saying they have no data that would indicate tobacco is addictive? Or is that just liberal trial lawyers acting up again? Do you see my point? I realize that people can go over the top with lawsuits but I'd say a lot of that is spin and using the exception to the rule to make a point.

I guess people just have a lot more faith in the government and the private sector than I do. There is a book called "What's wrong with Kansas" that many would benefit from reading.

By the time elected officials fail and are replaced the permanent damage would already be done. Exactly the type of system those whom rape and pillage the environment want.

Until this admin the judicial branch was a third and equal branch of the govt. The judicial branch interprets laws and even the constitution. Congress passes laws and then the courts, via lawsuits, interpret them. The way it's always been.

I'd like to see all of those who bash trial lawyers and are caught with their hand in the cookie jar refuse to hire a defense attorney and instead defend themselves.

I hate to have to interject some facts into this discussion...but here goes.

The Republicans will tell you that the Democrats and the enviro lobby are responsible for a lack of new oil drilling leases.

Sounds good to the right wing whack jobs, especially those who get their "news" from Rush or from FoxNews, but the actual fact is that the last 10,000 approved oil drilling leases HAVE NOT BEEN DRILLED.

Why?

Because the oil companies are sitting on them to keep the supply lower.

But we don't have enough refineries to refine more oil, anyway, and that's the fault of the Democrats and enviros, too!

Really?

Well...no. There has been a grand total of ONE application made for a new refinery in the past several years...and, it was APPROVED.

Why haven't there been more applications to build more refineries so that we can refine more oil domestically? Because the oil companies want to keep the supply down.

How many refineries were there ten years ago? How many are there now?

Yeah...look it up...the oil companies have voluntarily closed refineries...lots of them.

Why? Must be the Democrats an the enviros again, right?

Yeah...it was the oil companies...again.

For those of you who get your news from Rush Limbaugh, and consider hearing it the next day on FoxNews to be "research into the facts", then you are idiots. You get the high oil prices you deserve.

You are being screwed by the oil companies...period.

They own thousands of drilling permits that THEY ARE NOT USING.

They have not applied for ANY NEW REFINERIES...except for one, which was APPROVED.

They have voluntarily closed dozens of their refineries here in the States...VOLUNTARILY.

The next time you have to pay $4.50 a gallon for gas, thank Exxon-Mobile, Shell, British Petroleum, and their handpicked cronies in the Bush Administration.

Don't believe what I've said? Fine...look it up.

As with most everything, it's public record, and you don't hear the truth on Fox or from Rush.

Fish on...

Todd

Gee Todd, way to be a spoil sport.

But yeah, it always seems to come back to "When Corporations Rule Government."

Sg

If you own 15 stocks and two mutual funds, Fox and Rush are a complete waste of time. The oil companies dont spend much time on wallstreet, so if they are fooling wallstreet and cnbc, then Im going down with them. Your better off with financial reports. Rush wont make you rich. IF the oil companies are pulling one over on congress, we need a new congress.


Ok democrats are perfect. I dont get paid for this info, I no longer care.
I wont change the election. Oh ya Todd is always right. alwasys.

I love when the left wing loons call the right wingers nut jobs. Kind of like Carvelle telling Gingrich he not centrist enough. Makes for fun politics.

Wow I didn't now a presidental canidate of the other party had so much power. Now it's all Al's fault. Just imagine how much higher gas would be if a non oil man was the president for the last seven years. Just think by not being elected Al Gore has singlehandedly brought this upon us.
SHAME ON YOU AL GORE. Oh yea he is alsoresponsible for global warming and the Lindberg kidnapping.

Aunty,

Are you serious? You think that because Al Gore knows that high prices will reduce consumption that he has caused prices to be high?

Really?

How the hell did he pull that off?

Any of you RWWJ's checked my facts yet? The ones about the ten thousand UNUSED drilling permits for drilling here in the USA? The one about ONE SINGLE APPLICATION being made for a refinery, when refinery space is what they keep telling us is the problem?

Probably not...call in and ask Rush about it this morning.

Fish on...

Todd

http://www.dnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/NEWS01/80612033/1002

Gordon: Oil companies should use drilling permits or lose them


WASHINGTON – In an effort to provide relief to consumers struggling to cope with high gas prices, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon is urging Congress to require oil companies to use their drilling permits or lose them.

Gordon cites a report from the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources that says the federal government has issued thousands of leases that oil and gas companies are not using to drill on public land. According to the report, it is estimated from today’s production rates that the 68 million acres of federal land that is leased but not drilled could nearly double total U.S. oil production and could increase gas production by more than 50 percent.

“If companies used the permits they are holding and increased domestic production, the United States could cut oil imports by one-third,” said Gordon. “Congress needs to send a message to oil companies and tell them they can’t just stockpile leases to artificially inflate oil prices. We need legislation that will force companies to use their drilling permits or lose their leases and let someone else drill on that land.”

Gordon said he is hopeful that legislation will be introduced in the coming weeks to require the “use it or lose it” stipulation on drilling permits

Myths and Facts about Oil Refineries in the US

The Bush administration and some members of Congress blame environmental rules for causing strains on refining capacity, prompting shortages and driving up prices. But in reality, it is uncompetitive actions by a handful of companies with large control over our nation’s gas markets that is directly causing these high prices.

Myth 1: Oil refineries are not being built in the U.S. because environmental regulations, particularly the Clean Air Act, are so bureaucratic and burdensome that refiners cannot get permits.

Fact: Environmental regulations are not preventing new refineries from being built in the U.S. From 1975 to 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received only one permit request for a new refinery. And in March, EPA approved Arizona Clean Fuels’ application for an air permit for a proposed refinery in Arizona. In addition, oil companies are regularly applying for – and receiving – permits to modify and expand their existing refineries.[1]

Myth 2: The U.S. oil refinery market is competitive.

Fact: Actually, industry consolidation is limiting competition in oil refining sector. The largest five oil refiners in the United States (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Valero and Royal Dutch Shell) now control over half (56.3%) of domestic oil refinery capacity; the top ten refiners control 83%. Only ten years ago, these top five oil companies only controlled about one-third (34.5%) of domestic refinery capacity; the top ten controlled 55.6%. This dramatic increase in the control of just the top five companies makes it easier for oil companies to manipulate gasoline supplies by intentionally withholding supplies in order to drive up prices. Indeed, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices—all as a “profit-maximizing strategy.” A May 2004 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report also found that mergers in the oil industry directly led to higher prices—and this report did not even include the large mergers after the year 2000, such as ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. Yet, just one week after Hurricane Katrina, the FTC approved yet another merger of refinery giants—Valero Energy and Premcor—giving Valero 13% of the national market share. These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been challenged by the U.S. government.

Myth 3: The United States has maxed out its oil refining capability.

Fact: Oil companies have exploited their strong market position to intentionally restrict refining capacity by driving smaller, independent refiners out of business. A congressional investigation uncovered internal memos written by the major oil companies operating in the U.S. discussing their successful strategies to maximize profits by forcing independent refineries out of business, resulting in tighter refinery capacity. From 1995-2002, 97% of the more than 920,000 barrels of oil per day of capacity that have been shut down were owned and operated by smaller, independent refiners. Were this capacity to be in operation today, refiners could use it to better meet today’s reformulated gasoline blend needs.

Profit margins for oil refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, for every gallon of gasoline refined from crude oil, U.S. oil refiners made a profit of 22.8 cents. By 2004, the profits jumped 80% to 40.8 cents per gallon of gasoline refined. Between 2001 and mid-2005, the combined profits for the biggest five refiners was $228 billion.

Gutting environmental laws for oil refinery siting will not solve the high gas prices.

So what should be done?

Improve regulations over the over-concentrated oil industry
The most effective way to protect consumers is to restore competitive markets. Congress should limit the financial incentives oil companies have to keep gasoline supplies artificially tight by mandating minimum storage of gasoline, reevaluating recent mergers, investigating anticompetitive practices, and re-regulating oil trading.

Adopt tougher fuel economy standards
In 2004, the EPA found that the average fuel economy of 2004 vehicles is 20.8 miles per gallon (mpg), compared to 22.1 mpg in 1987—a six percent decline. This decline is attributable to the fact that fuel economy standards have not been meaningfully increased since the 1980s, while sales of fuel inefficient SUVs and pickups have exploded: in 1987, 28% of new vehicles sold were light trucks, compared to 48% in 2004. Billions of gallons of oil could be saved if significant fuel economy increases were mandated. Improving fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles from 27.5 to 40 mpg, and for light trucks (including SUVs and vans) from 20.7 to 27.5 mpg by 2015 would reduce our gasoline consumption by one-third. Dramatic reductions in consumption will not only reduce strain on America’s refinery output, but also on Americans’ pocketbooks.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Committee on Government Reform Hearing, “Potential Energy Crisis in the Winter of 2000” 106th Congress, (Sept. 20-21, 2000). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/..._house_hearings

http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Release/20080529.cfm

More than 44 Million Acres under Lease for Oil and Gas in U.S.
New analyses shows unprecedented drilling boom, tremendous surplus of undrilled leases, and errors in recent BLM oil and gas assessment

WASHINGTON (May 29, 2008) – More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold. [View the detailed analysis]

“We are seeing gas drilling on public lands at a magnitude greater than anything we’ve experienced, and it threatens to forever damage many of our most treasured Western places if not done carefully,” said Dave Alberswerth of The Wilderness Society. “Oil and gas development is a legitimate and important use of our public lands, but it is equally important to have oil and gas program that is balanced with other uses of those lands, such as protecting fish and wildlife, cultural values, and the air we breathe and the water we drink.”

Summary: Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs)
Approved by BLM, 2001-2007

Colorado: 2,909
Montana: 843
New Mexico: 7,606
Utah: 2,955
Wyoming: 18,613
Rocky Mtns: 32,926
Nation-wide: 35,106

The vast acreage under lease and huge increase in drilling permits contradicts the Interior Department’s assertions that it has inadequate access to federal lands. On May 21, 2008, the Bureau of Land Management released “EPCA III,” its latest inventory of oil and gas resources on more than 279 million acres of federal land. In the report, BLM emphasized the amount of oil and gas resources off limit to development. But another Wilderness Society analysis shows that the report manipulated data and was rife with errors.

“As they did with the 2006 version of this report, the Bush administration and BLM again manipulated data to reach a predetermined conclusion that supports the oil and gas industry’s desire to open more public lands to drilling,” said Nada Culver of The Wilderness Society’s BLM Action Center. “This time, however, they have gone through even greater gyrations in an attempt to create data that supports their position, including defining as ‘impediments’ such basic values as keeping our water and air clean, ensuring wildlife can survive, and protecting treasured wild lands.”

The Wilderness Society’s analysis shows that report categorizes as “inaccessible” lands that the BLM knows are available for leasing, including lands undergoing resource management plans and lands covered by “no surface occupancy” (NSO) stipulations, which can be accessed via directional drilling techniques. The report lists all of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska’s Northeast Planning Area in the “no leasing” category, even though the area has already seen two lease sales, with a third scheduled for October. The report lists existing laws to protect clean air, clean water, and wildlife habitat as “impediments,” and includes in its inventory National Parks, National Monuments, Wilderness areas, Wilderness Study Areas, Inventoried Roadless Areas, National Conservation Areas, such as Glacier National Park, the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Area. [View the detailed analysis]

“The Bush Administration keeps telling the American people that the answer to high energy prices is more drilling on federal public lands, with fewer measures to protect the environment,” said Eleanor Huffines, director of the Wilderness Society’s Alaska office. “But recently released U.S. Energy Information Administration data indicates that even if commercial quantities of oil were discovered in the Arctic Refuge, the effect at the gas pump would be just a few pennies per gallon at peak production. And the increased drilling and leasing of public lands elsewhere by the Bush Administration has not decreased energy prices.”

A third Wilderness Society analysis shows that the BLM continues to grant “exceptions” from lease terms meant to protect natural resources, and is aggressively using five new “categorical exclusions” created by Section 390 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to exempt permits to drill from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act. [View the chart of categorical exclusions]

“The BLM has issued guidance to require aggressive use of these loopholes and is even preventing field offices from considering whether there may still be significant damage to the environment requiring review or additional protection measures,” said Culver. “What this means on the ground is that at a place like Utah’s Nine Mile Canyon, renowned for its spectacular pictographs and wilderness qualities, BLM’s guidance essentially directs field offices to use these loopholes even if they believe there could be significant damage to natural and cultural resources.”

A final new analysis by The Wilderness Society provides more evidence of the administration’s rush to lease by showing that selected Resource Management Plans in CO, WY, UT, NM, and MT would open more than 43 million acres to oil and gas development.

The Wilderness Society analyses cited above are all available at: http://www.wilderness.org/NewsRoom/Teleconference_DrillingBoom.cfm

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3325.shtml

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More on the real reason behind high oil prices
By F. William Engdahl
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jun 3, 2008, 00:24

Email this article
Printer friendly page


As detailed in an earlier article, a conservative calculation is that at least 60 percent of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny.

US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the NYMEX by having to pay only 6 percent of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population.

The hoax of Peak Oil -- namely the argument that the oil production has hit the point where more than half all reserves have been used and the world is on the downslope of oil at a cheap price and abundant quantity -- has enabled this costly fraud to continue since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the help of key banks, oil traders and big oil majors. Washington is trying to shift blame, as always, to Arab OPEC producers. The problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact the world is in oversupply now. Yet the price climbs relentlessly higher. Why? The answer lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled oil price manipulations.

World oil demand flat, prices boom . . .

The chief market strategist for one of the world’s leading oil industry banks, David Kelly of J.P. Morgan Funds, recently admitted something telling to the Washington Post, “One of the things I think is very important to realize is that the growth in the world oil consumption is not that strong."

One of the stories used to support the oil futures speculators is the allegation that China’s oil import thirst is exploding out of control, driving shortages in the supply-demand equilibrium. The facts do not support the China demand thesis however.

The US government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its most recent monthly Short Term Energy Outlook report concluded that US oil demand is expected to decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008. That is mainly owing to the deepening economic recession. Chinese consumption, the EIA says, far from exploding, is expected to rise this year by only 400,000 barrels a day. That is hardly the "surging oil demand" blamed on China in the media. Last year, China imported 3.2 million barrels per day, and its estimated usage was around 7 million b/d total. The US, by contrast, consumes around 20.7 million b/d.

That means the key oil consuming nation, the USA, is experiencing a significant drop in demand. China, which consumes only a third of the oil the US does, will see a minor rise in import demand compared with the total daily world oil output of some 84 million barrels, less than half of a percent of the total demand.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has its 2008 global oil demand growth forecast unchanged at 1.2 mm bpd, as slowing economic growth in the industrialised world is offset by slightly growing consumption in developing nations. OPEC predicts global oil demand in 2008 will average 87 million bpd -- largely unchanged from its previous estimate. Demand from China, the Middle East, India, and Latin America is forecast to be stronger but the EU and North American demand will be lower.

So the world’s largest oil consumer faces a sharp decline in consumption, a decline that will worsen as the housing and related economic effects of the US securitization crisis in finance de-leverages. The price in normal open or transparent markets would presumably be falling not rising. No supply crisis justifies the way the world's oil is being priced today.

Big new oil fields coming online

Not only is there no supply crisis to justify such a price bubble. There are several giant new oil fields due to begin production over the course of 2008 to further add to supply.

The world’s single largest oil producer, Saudi Arabia is finalizing plans to boost drilling activity by a third and increase investments by 40 percent. Saudi Aramco's plan, which runs from 2009 to 2013, is expected to be approved by the company's board and the Oil Ministry this month. The Kingdom is in the midst of a $50 billion oil production expansion plan to meet growing demand in Asia and other emerging markets. The Kingdom is expected to boost its pumping capacity to a total of 12.5 mm bpd by next year, up about 11 percent from current capacity of 11.3 mm bpd.

In April this year, Saudi Arabia's Khursaniyah oilfield began pumping and will soon add another 500,000 bpd to world oil supply of high grade Arabian Light crude. As well, another Saudi expansion project, the Khurais oilfield development, is the largest of Saudi Aramco projects that will boost the production capacity of Saudi oilfields from 11.3 million bpd to 12.5 million bpd by 2009. Khurais is planned to add another 1.2 million bpd of high quality Arabian light crude to Saudi Arabia's export capacity.

Brazil’s Petrobras is in the early phase of exploiting what it estimates are newly confirmed oil reserves offshore in its Tupi field that could be as great or greater than the North Sea. Petrobras says the new ultra-deep Tupi field could hold as much as 8 billion barrels of recoverable light crude. When online in a few years, it is expected to put Brazil among the world's "top 10" oil producers, between those of Nigeria and those of Venezuela.

In the United States, aside from rumors that the big oil companies have been deliberately sitting on vast new reserves in Alaska for fear that the prices of recent years would plunge on oversupply, the US Geological Survey (USGS) recently issued a report that confirmed major new oil reserves in an area called the Bakken, which stretches across North Dakota, Montana and south-eastern Saskatchewan. The USGS estimates up to 3.65 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken.

These are just several confirmations of large new oil reserves to be exploited. Iraq, where the Anglo-American Big Four oil majors are salivating to get their hands on the unexplored fields, is believed to hold oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. Much of the world has yet to be explored for oil. At prices above $60 a barrel, huge new potentials become economic. The major problem faced by Big Oil is not finding replacement oil but keeping the lid on world oil finds in order to maintain present exorbitant prices. Here they have some help from Wall Street banks and the two major oil trade exchanges -- NYMEX and London-Atlanta’s ICE and ICE Futures.

Then why do prices still rise?

There is growing evidence that the recent speculative bubble in oil, which has gone asymptotic since January, is about to pop.

Late last month in Dallas Texas, according to one participant, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists held its annual conference where all the major oil executives and geologists were present. According to one participant, knowledgeable oil industry CEOs reached the consensus that "oil prices will likely soon drop dramatically and the long-term price increases will be in natural gas."

Just a few days earlier, Lehman Brothers, a Wall Street investment bank had said that the current oil price bubble was coming to an end. Michael Waldron, the bank's chief oil strategist, was quoted in Britain's Daily Telegraph on Apr. 24 saying, "Oil supply is outpacing demand growth. Inventories have been building since the beginning of the year.”

In the US, stockpiles of oil climbed by almost 12 million barrels in April according to the May 7 EIA monthly report on inventory, up by nearly 33 million barrels since January. At the same time, MasterCard's May 7 US gasoline report showed that gas demand has fallen by 5.8 percent. And refiners are reducing their refining rates dramatically to adjust to the falling gasoline demand. They are now running at 85 percent of capacity, down from 89 percent a year ago, in a season when production is normally 95 percent. The refiners today are clearly trying to draw down gasoline inventories to bid gasoline prices up. ‘It’s the economy, stupid,’ to paraphrase Bill Clinton’s infamous 1992 election quip to Daddy Bush. It’s called economic recession.

The May 8 report from Oil Movements, a British company that tracks oil shipments worldwide, shows that oil in transit on the high seas is also quite strong. Almost every category of shipment is running higher than it was a year ago. The report notes, "In the West, a big share of any oil stock building done this year has happened offshore, out of sight." Some industry insiders say the global oil industry from the activities and stocks of the Big Four to the true state of tanker and storage and liftings, is the most secretive industry in the world with the possible exception of the narcotics trade.

Goldman Sachs again in the middle

The oil price today, unlike 20 years ago, is determined behind closed doors in the trading rooms of giant financial institutions like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank or UBS. The key exchange in the game is the London ICE Futures Exchange (formerly the International Petroleum Exchange). ICE Futures is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Georgia International Commodities Exchange. ICE in Atlanta was founded in part by Goldman Sachs which also happens to run the world’s most widely used commodity price index, the GSCI, which is over-weighted to oil prices.

As I noted in my earlier article, (Perhaps 60 percent of today’s oil price is pure speculation), ICE was focus of a recent congressional investigation. It was named both in the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations' June 27, 2006, Staff Report and in the House Committee on Energy & Commerce's hearing in December 2007 which looked into unregulated trading in energy futures. Both studies concluded that energy prices' climb to $128 and perhaps beyond is driven by billions of dollars' worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE. Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the Bush administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the USA. And at Enron’s request, the CFTC exempted the Over-the-Counter oil futures trades in 2000.

So it is no surprise to see in a May 6 report from Reuters that Goldman Sachs announces oil could in fact be on the verge of another "super spike," possibly taking oil as high as $200 a barrel within the next six to 24 months. That headline, "$200 a barrel!" became the major news story on oil for the next two days. How many gullible lemmings followed behind with their money bets?

Arjun Murti, Goldman Sachs' energy strategist, blamed what he called "blistering" [sic] demand from China and the Middle East, combined with his assertion that the Middle East is nearing its maximum ability to produce more oil. Peak Oil mythology again helps Wall Street. The degree of unfounded hype reminds of the kind of self-serving Wall Street hype in 1999-2000 around dot-com stocks or Enron.

In 2001 just before the dot-com crash in the NASDAQ, some Wall Street firms were pushing sale to the gullible public of stocks that their companies were quietly dumping. Or they were pushing dubious stocks for companies where their affiliated banks had a financial interest. In short, as later came out in Congressional investigations, companies with a vested interest in a certain financial outcome used the media to line their pockets and that of their companies, leaving the public investor holding the bag. It would be interesting for Congress to subpoena the records of the futures positions of Goldman Sachs and a handful of other major energy futures players to see if they are invested to gain from a further rise in oil to $200 or not.

Margin rules feed the frenzy

Another added turbo-charger to present speculation in oil prices is the margin rule governing what percent of cash a buyer of a futures contract in oil has to put up to bet on a rising oil price (or falling for that matter). The current NYMEX regulation allows a speculator to put up only 6 percent of the total value of his oil futures contract. That means a risk-taking hedge fund or bank can buy oil futures with a leverage of 16 to 1.

We are hit with an endless series of plausible arguments for the high price of oil: A "terrorism risk premium;" “blistering” rise in demand of China and India; unrest in the Nigerian oil region; oil pipelines' blown up in Iraq; possible war with Iran . . . And above all the hype about Peak Oil. Oil speculator T. Boone Pickens has reportedly raked in a huge profit on oil futures and argues, conveniently, that the world is on the cusp of Peak Oil. So does the Houston investment banker and friend of Dick Cheney, Matt Simmons.

As the June 2006 US Senate report, The Role of Market Speculation in Rising Oil and Gas Prices, noted, "There's a few hedge fund managers out there who are masters at knowing how to exploit the peak oil theories and hot buttons of supply and demand, and by making bold predictions of shocking price advancements to come, they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy."

Will a Democratic Congress act to change the carefully crafted opaque oil futures markets in an election year and risk bursting the bubble? On May 12, the House Energy & Commerce Committee stated it will look at this issue in June. The world will be watching.

F. William Engdahl is author of "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" (PlutoPress), and "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" (Global Research). He may be reached at info@engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

There's a ton more of it out there, too...and just like every other time, my recommendation will be to find out what the hell you are talking about, especially before repeating anything whatsoever you hear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or on FoxNews...if you don't, then you risk sounding as uninformed and stupid as them.

It's your choice.

Fish on...

Todd

Seems some don't remember Clinton releasing oil from the strategic oil reserves causing Bush Jr to have a tantrum.

It's not that some don't remember, it's that some don't care...it's easier to just repeat what the bobble-talking-head-dolls on the radio and on Fox say, and more fun that way, too.

Fish on...

Todd

Why would American oil companies drill and produce from their US leases when it costs $17 a barrel to get oil out of the ground in the US and it costs only $3.70 a barrel to get it out of the ground in places like Saudi Arabia?

The next best thing to a monopoly of a market is an oligopoly, which looks an awful lot like 5 companies controlling 50% of American refining capacity and 10 companies controlling 80%. What happened to the Sherman Anti-trust Act anyway? Isn't the gov't guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance to have allowed mergers of mega-sized oil companies in the first place? Hell back in the 30s the gov't forced Chevron and Standard Oil to break up for becomming too big, and they were tiny compared to today's oil giants.

And then we have hedge fund investing driving the "surge" in oil prices. It's been a lot more successful than Bush's surge in Iraq, but that's OK since Bush's buddies, you know, the "have mores", are all in the oil business.

And somehow this is all Al Gore's fault? Gore may be influential, but his influence isn't even a pitance compared to the above.

The point is that this thread started out with the Republican Talking Points for why gasoline costs so much here in the USA, taken straight from the mouths of dingbats like Rush and Hannity, but that the reality is so far from what they say that it's almost like it's a different reality.

OK...it's not almost like that, it is that. The "non-reality based" reality that the Bush Administration, their talking heads in the media, and apparently 28% of America likes to live in.

Fortunately the other 72% of us use our brains more than that, and can easily find the actual facts within a few minutes of looking...should we care to look, of course.

Non-reality based folks don't like to look much...it challenges their non-reality too much...I mean, how can good American patriots like Rush and Hannity be lying to us? They tell us how much they love America and how everyone who disagrees with them doesn't...why shouldn't we trust them?

Real Fact: Those who primarily get their news and information from FoxNews know less at the end of the broadcast than they did at the beginning...a net loss of anything close to "the truth".

It would be fun just to say stuff like that, since it's true and pisses off the 28% Non-Reality inhabitants, but there was an actual study done on it...FoxNews listners actually not only know far less than those who get their information from more and varied sources, but they actually kow less at the end of watching Sean Hannity than they did at the beginning of the show.

...the funny part is that the illustrious leaders of the non-reality based 28% of America like it that way. The last thing they need is you knowing their full of crap.

Fish on...

Todd

This is getting ridiculus.
Todd...Your research is clouded by your ideolory.
Who is blocking the drilling in teh refuge, great lakes, florida(not eight years ago but now), midwest. pretty much every where? Not teh republicans.
Are the oil companies Shiat....yes yes yes but this deal on how you present the Dems as the great guiding light and point the fingure always at the Rep is......well for lack of a better word coming ot me B.S. The rep have done it in the past and are just as to blame now but giving no respons to teh Dem, Wow. Here are some articles from teh last two weeks and I have work so this took about two seconds.

A House subcommittee on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to open up more U.S. coastal waters to oil exploration.
Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., spearheaded the effort. His proposal would open up U.S. waters between 50 and 200 miles off shore for drilling. The first 50 miles off shore would be left alone.
But the plan failed Wednesday on a 9-6, party-line vote in a House appropriations subcommittee, which was considering the proposal as part of an Interior Department spending package.
...
Most offshore oil production and exploration has been banned since a federal law passed in 1981.
"We are kidding ourselves if we think we can drill our way out of these problems," House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., said during the bill mark-up session.
For his part, Peterson said: "There is no valid reason for Congress to keep the country from energy resources it needs."
"I'm disappointed. I did not expect a partisan vote today. I felt we had a chance of winning this. A lot of Democrats have been talking favorably about my amendment. They know we have to do something. But today was an absolute show of Pelosi power, it was dealt from the top down," Peterson said later

Seattle PI
Cantwell vows Senate fight to stop oil drilling
Democrat may lead filibuster to preserve Arctic refuge


House Acts to Block New Oil Drilling in Great Lakes.
Byline: Mark Johnson

Jun. 29--The debate over oil and gas exploration under the Great Lakes intensified Thursday, as the U.S. House voted to block new drilling, while the governor's office in Michigan insisted the action would have no bearing on its plans to allow more drilling.

By a 265-157 vote, the House passed an amendment to an energy and water spending bill that would prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from issuing new permits for oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes.

"I'm glad we won," said Dave Obey, a House Democrat from Wausau. "Lake Superior and Lake Michigan are beyond a doubt the two most...

"Through a convenient regulation exception granted by the Bush administration in January 2006, the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, even though the ICE Futures US oil contracts are traded in ICE affiliates in the USA." I am sure this was just an oversite and not planned by Cheney with the help of the oil industry.

I've never known liberals to be associated with Laissez Faire economics.

So Laissez Faire is supported by everyone, then...........except Marxists and Communists.

Geez Todd you have a big of Hard on for Fox news then you do Gary Loomis.Let me guess...you think MSNBC is gospel ? I love the fact that Fox News gets you all hot and bothered..it just shows how narrow minded you are. When this is the only news station that is slanted to the right,and the rest are run and hosted by left wing nuts like yourself.

You have made some pretty damn arrogant statements on here to those people that don't agree with you're politics. There are ALOT of stations that I hate too, but not going to call people on here idiots for watching them.

what no one seems to says is that even if we allow drilling every where it would only drop the price of gas by about one cent per gallon. the only ones to make money on it would be the oil companies.
also why are the refiners in washington only running at around 80% and 20% percent of the gas refined here is ship over seas.
also why when a tanker pulls into seattle to pick up a load of gas, all brands of gas come from the same place, the drive has to punch in the zip code of the delivery town to decide the price and it is not the mileage that decides the price either a town further away may get a lower price than one closer.

SolDuc, I don't call people who watch FoxNews idiots for watching...I call them idiots for swallowing what they see there, hook, line and sinker. I watch it sometimes to find out what topic the Republicans are going to murder the truth with this week...

Whatever the Republican spin machine is going to go after this week first gets sent directly to Rush and Hannity, who tell us exactly the opposite of what the reality is regarding the issue...you know, "catapulting the propoganda"...right?

It's a great place to start the research, though...take the topic they are "discussing", ignore the "analysis", and go research the topic yourself...then you'll find the truth, which is usually directly counter to the story you're hearing on FoxNews.

Fish on...

Todd

It's classic Karl Rove...repeat it over and over and some will start to believe.

I wish we had a non-party affiliated commission who came up with a voter knowledge test every election. A four year election the test covers basic facts versus fiction over the last four years and a two year the last two years. If you can't pass the test you can't vote. If that were the case what would the repubs do in this election? Come out with a "here's the real truth behind the BS we've been feeding you" fact sheet in order to have some resemblance of a voter base?

He's more Arab than he is African. Let's put Al-Quida in the white house. Why the fuc% not. This country is nothing but a hypocritical buracracy of lies and purchased loyalty.

Sol I sense the anger coming back....
What's up?

Politics and religion, bro.

Aunty, hasn't GW proven that ANYBODY can be president?

Btw, the person you despise would have been the slam dunk...Al Gore.

I'm betting Osama will pick Gore as his running mate. That way Osama can capitalize on the Hitlary camp without having to get in bed with the Clintons.

Thats funny ! You just made Aunty's point... lol

Aunty,

Apparently I've been asleep at the wheel these nigh on nearly two decades. I've heard Gore's speil about global warming (some of it seems right and some of it seems wrong - pretty typical for politics). I'm not dialed in to Gore's two decade old social experiment plan to be achieved via high gas prices. I'd be interested in a good citation source or two.

Now it's pretty hard to complain about Obama's qualifications to be prez. He meets the Constitutional requirements, and Bush proves that any American born jackass over 40 years of age can be prez.

I'm not cheering or booing the high gas prices. I agree that we've needed something like this for a long time. The US is on an unsustainable energy path. But like Gore, I guess, I'd druther the higher prices be in the form of taxes to build a more sustainable transportaion infrastructure. The current prices are fueling off shore bank accounts and won't provide anything for improving infrastructure.

I do agree with you that the Democrats are engaging in an arrogance that could cost them the election. They seem so confident that the Republicans have screwed up so badly, that even a female or black Democrat can skate into the White House. Either confident or stupid. I'll vote for any Democrat just to be voting against the Republicans for inflicting Bush on me the last 8 years. However some Americans will vote for McCain simply because they will not under any circumstance vote for a black person. For the Democrats not to be giving that a major consideration in their electoral strategy reeks of incredible arrogance or major stupidity when every indicator is that the election will be close. If it's gonna' be close, only an idiot runs a candidate knowing he or she will alienate some percentage of the voters. Oh well.

Sg

Like Sg said, it's a far different situation to see hundreds of billions of profit come from $4.50/gal. gas, rather than see higher gas taxes leading to $4.50/gal.

At least with the hypothetical high gas tax the money could be used to develop alternative energy systems rather than buy yachts for bigwigs.

Fish on...

Todd

It's hard to argue against environmental communism, and then have any complaint with the price of gas. If you favor the governemt taking action, then that itself is something you'd expect from a socialist or communist regime, not a capitalist regime.

If the price of gas is too high, then stop buying so much. If it's too inconvenient to buy less, then the price isn't too high for you. That's the way capitalism works.........at any price, for any product, there is a price that's too high for some. If you're paying it, then the price isn't "too high".

And if you want to take a system that seems out of whack now and screw it up even further, then get the government involved......windfall profits taxes, rationing, ALL the kind of tinkering government can do will not solve the problem.

The only people that don't want lower gas prices are those that sell it, and those in competing industries. Anybody telling a different tale is full of sh!t. And the gov't can't tax, ration, drill, subsidize, or do anything to significantly change it. The only thing that will significantly change the price of gas is people finding ways not to use it........and only rising price will lead people to find ways.

Drill ANWAR, drill right off the coast......it won't change your price for a gallon of gas by any significant amount. All the extracted oil will go along with all the Saudi oil, the Venezuelan oil, the Mexican oil and the Canadian oil.......straight to whoever will pay the most per barrel for it. And the weak US dollar isn't helping any.

We'd probably better get used ot it, because all the sniveling in the world isn't going to change the price of oil.

Good post Dan !

+1

Um... OK? I guess I still don't understand the point you think you've made?


And, Dan, nicely put.

I think the point is still tht Obama sucks...

The bigger issue to high fuel prices isn't whether or not families have to decide if they are going to drive two vehicles to little Tommie's baseball game or just one. Or, how they're going to cut back their driving by 1/3 to offset the cost. More important is what's going to happen to all the businesses that have to transport goods or perform services at these prices? Not every business can "just pass on the cost to the consumer." End result is going to be more loss of jobs. That's not an inconvenience. It's a consequence that our economy can't really "afford" right now.

Let's be fair here. Bush's buddies are not all in the oil business. He has lots of friends that are defense contractors too.

Uh oh, Dan has put his economist hat on. (He's right, by the way.)

Again, the difference is HOW the fuel prices got high...high taxes that would limit consumption while providing funding for alternative fuel sources would something I would support...

Thesame high fuel prices fueled instead by greed, lying, and speculation is NOT something I support...unlike RWWJ's, and apparently the pseudo-centrist AuntyM, I do not think that the end justifies the means, either.

Fish on...

Todd

Marsha, I can't tell if you are missing the point, or purposely muddling it...

The price of fuel is what will drive consumption, no doubt. As the price increases, people will have to decided if it is worth it to them to buy fuel or not, or how much fuel they will buy, or how far they'll be willing to drive to work, etc.

The price of fuel, however, can be changed in many ways...two of the possible ways are increased fuel taxes sending billions of dollars to government research into alternative fuel technology, or in collusive and outright deceitful practices sending billions of dollars to offshore accounts and the treasure chests of big oil executives, who not only have no motivation to end our dependence on oil, but have the exact opposite motivation, to keep us hooked and using.

The biggest problem for us Americans with this, of course, is not only the money being generated in part through non-market forces, and that they are outright lying to you about it, but that Bush and his cronies are lying to us about it, too.

Just yesterday Bush made a big deal about ending the moratorium on new offshore drilling leases....while there are 68,000 acres of existing offshore drilling leases that the oil industry is purposely not drilling on RIGHT NOW.

Privileges granted to industries like Big Oil to extract a public resource from public lands for private profit who choose to not do so in order to artificially manipulate the market for that resource ought to have the privilege revoked and handed out to another who will use the privilege to benefit both themselves and the public.

Use it or lose it...those leases are given out so that oil companies can make a profit while providing the public with a necessary resource...they are not handed out to be used as pawn pieces to manipulate the not-free-at-all-market of gasoline and oil.

Bush lying to us about it...as usual...only makes it worse.

Fish on...

Todd

We've been investing even more in oil/gas via subsidies and look what that's done for us.

Marsha, the pathetic thing here is your continued farce of calling yourself a "centrist", and your continued name calling when you have nothing valuable to add to the conversation.

stlhead, giving those oil exploration leases, which are sitting idle, are subsidies for the oil companies...we're giving them acess to public resources on public lands because they are supposed to be providing a public benefit.

Instead they are sitting on 10,000 leases and NOT drilling, and instead are speculating on the value of the unused leases, and that is what is driving up prices.

I hope that the public will continue to use less and less oil and force the oil companies into actually providing the benefit for subsidy obligation that they entered in to, but that BushCorp. clearly has no interest in enforcing.

Fish on...

Todd

I still think we the tax payer should be in the oil business ouselves and cut out the middle man. In this instance I highly doubt the govt will be more expensive.

I mentioned oligopolies in a post above.

Bringing anti-trust suits against the companies that the gov't shouldn't have allowed to merge anyway, and breaking them up so that there are enough oil companies to actually compete against one another - like drill those friggin' leases - instead of the apparent collusion that's going on of late.

I think the gov't was sold the merger idea on the basis of increased efficiency of economy of scale. That works - up to a point. Then the allure of actually controlling and manipulating the market for even bigger profit intercedes. The too few oil companies are too big, and it's decreasing competition (via good ole capitalism), and we're paying for it.

Time to take 'em down a peg or two. Up the revolution!

Sg

A less friendly administration will result in a drop in prices. Big oil knows just how far they can push without going over the edge.

If you mean less friendly to the oil industry, then I think you are right...they didn't have to push BuchCorp. anywhere, just run around behind them while BushCorp pushed for them.

Fish on...

Todd

Seems like people have a pretty darn short memory. Remember back in the first year or so of Bush when California suddenly had an energy crisis? Remember how the whole thing was said to be caused by the environmentalists stopping new power plants from being built? Remember how it finally came out that Bushes buddy's were gaming the system and ripping the public off for some 18 billion or so? Ya,so now the enviros are causing high gas prices? .......Holy $hit!

Keta,

That's what a few of us have been saying in this thread...price manipulation by the industry.

Enron had plenty of electricity to sell during the "energy shortage" in California...they just banked it, and speculated on it instead, and got rich...while Californians got less power than they needed, and payed more for it.

This is the exact same scenario playing out again...the oil industry is purposely NOT using the 10,000 oil leases it already has, is not running its refineries at full capacity, is not looking to build any new refineries, and is trying to parlay this into an excuse, with BushCorp leading the way, to drill offshore and in ANWR.

They speculate on the oil futures to get rich, at our expense, rather than provide us with the public benefit we deserve in exchange for the private privilege we taxpayers give them to extract a public resource from public land for profit.

And BushCorp and Cheney, Inc., are leading the charge.

Fish on...

Todd

stlhead, giving those oil exploration leases, which are sitting idle, are subsidies for the oil companies...we're giving them acess to public resources on public lands because they are supposed to be providing a public benefit.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23051078/

Seven companies offered bids totaling nearly $3.4 billion. High bids added up to nearly $2.7 billion on 2.76 million acres.

Shell, bidding as Shelf Gulf of Mexico Inc., submitted 275 high bids adding up to $2.1 billion. Shell bid $105 million for one tract that worked out to be $18,497 per acre.

ConocoPhillips submitted 98 high bids adding up to $506 million and competed with Shell for dozens of other. ConocoPhillips was unsuccessful on 47 tracts for which it bid $593.6 million. Shell was unsuccessful on 27 tracts for which it had bid another $82 million.

Five other companies had high bids. Repsol E&P USA Inc. had 93 high bids that added up to $14.4 million. Eni Petroleum US LLC had 17 for $8.9 million and Statoil Hydro USA E&P, Inc., had 16 high bids for $14.4 million. Iona Energy Co. (US) Limited and North American Civil Recoveries Arbitrage had one each for $61,000 and $400 respectively.

Dan S-

I'll bet you're just the guy to help me convert grams to ounces and Canadian dollars to US dollars! "too high" - you're killing me!!!

Tod,
I can just imagine Cheney with his "secret energy meeting" pals ..."well,it's been about five years now let's rerun the blame the enviros line again, that worked until we got their money last time. Oh ya, looks like it's about time to bring back the old "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" line again too,that worked great!" If there ever is an accounting of what this administration has cost our country, I'm sure it will be hideous.

Oh ya, Exxon cant do anything without Dick Cheney. Cheney ran an OIL Services company. Eight years ago. Perspective helps.


http://www.halliburton.com/ps/ $50 per share

Proctor and Gamble $60.
Apple $175.00
Google $546.00 per share

XOM - EXXON MOBIL CORP. Trade
Last Trade: 85.10 [-] (Real-Time Quote) 06/20/2008 03:08pm
Change: -0.69 -0.80%
Volume: 22,254,652
Today's Market 06/20/2008 3:08:55pm

Last Change
DJIA 11,849.69 -213.40
NASDAQ 2,399.70 -62.36
S&P 500 1,317.90 -24.93
Russell 3000 772.34 -14.69


Company Description
Exxon Mobil Corporation engages in the exploration, production, transportation, and sale of crude oil and natural gas. It also engages in the manufacture of petroleum products, and transportation and sale of crude oil, natural gas, and petroleum production.