| Kris |
Interesting case.
BP achieves record profit last few years.
CEO and shareholders (sorry, profit takers!) are happy.
Maintenance budget gets cut as it is unnecessary expense.
Pipeline condition deteriorates to the extend that needs to be shutdown.
Of course it creates shortages.
Prices of oil jump.
More profit for BP.
CEO will get nice bonus.
Wall street will be happy.
We, consumers will pay for it and be happy that prices jumped only 20%.
What am I missing? I do not get this pictures….somehow it is not logical….someone screws things up and get awarded for it? Must be B….and his friends………or am I mistaken.......... |
|
|
| Sharlin |
quote:
Originally posted by Kris
Interesting case.
What am I missing? I do not get this pictures….somehow it is not logical….someone screws things up and get awarded for it? Must be B….and his friends………or am I mistaken..........
A. Intelligence?
Let's see. BP shuts down an oil pipeline. What comes out of that pipeline? Uh, OIL.
So if the price of oil goes up and the oil cannot get from the field to the refinery because the pipeline is not working....
First, the profits of oil companies are far different than the profit margins. However parrots in the media and those in forums never realize this. Second those profits go to the shareholders. Those shareholders happen to be people like me (through a 401k that is heavily diversified), teachers, firefighters, charities, and heaven forbid rich people.
Yet the media and some left wing whackos know that many people are ignorant, many people are looking to blame someone else for their issues, and that something as big as an oil company is great for their cause.
If you have enough money for morning coffee, eating out for lunch or dinner daily, a xthousand minute cell phone plan, satellite or cable, then you have enough money for a necessity like gasoline. Drop the non-necessities. Too many people don't even realize how much money they waste on all these "monthlies" they obligate themselves too.
The real criminals in the oil industry are the politicians. The government takes far more money. Figure at $3 a gallon, 9% profit margin, that means 27 cents per gallon possible profit for the gas company. The government meanwhile takes 40-90 cents per gallon in visible taxes and another 25-32 in embedded taxes.
Now who is doing the gouging? Oh, price of gas goes up the government gets more in taxes. Nice huh? |
|
|
| Stoker |
quote:
Originally posted by Kris
Interesting case.
BP achieves record profit last few years.
CEO and shareholders (sorry, profit takers!) are happy.
Maintenance budget gets cut as it is unnecessary expense.
Pipeline condition deteriorates to the extend that needs to be shutdown.
Of course it creates shortages.
Prices of oil jump.
More profit for BP.
CEO will get nice bonus.
Wall street will be happy.
We, consumers will pay for it and be happy that prices jumped only 20%.
What am I missing? I do not get this pictures….somehow it is not logical….someone screws things up and get awarded for it? Must be B….and his friends………or am I mistaken..........
Kris
You are correct as during the last ten years when oil prices where below $20/ barrel, alot of companies cut cost and maintenance was always the first thing that was cut as it was cheap and easy. Unfortunately the people that made those decisions are by in large no longer in those positions.
I have a saying when it comes to maintenance, either in a plant or your own vehicle. Pay me now or pay me later and get your name in the paper. I am sure that heads will roll at BP once they do a root cause analysis as to what happen. Though some of the info I have read indicates that there was no state regulations on how a pipeline should be inspected our when. In Alberta we have time tables for inspection that have to be met regardless of the companies business plans, you will shut down to inspect at certain intervals. This started about 10 years ago after it was determined there was and upswing in pipeline anomaly's being reported.
Interestingly enough that one pipeline that we fed ethane into that Amoco owned before it was bought out be BP, was inspected after BP bought out Amoco they discovered that the line had not been inspected for 18 years and when they did they found issues that required large sections of pipe to be replaced.
I found that the statement from the operations folks that they were shocked that there was severe corrosion in the Pruduoe Bay pipeline and that they had not done a smart PIG( Pipeline Internal Gauge) inspection in a long time and only had done one after your Transportation Safety Board had asked for one after that large leak last spring on the same line. A smart pig electronically inspect the pipeline internal wall to check for wall thickness loss and they found it in spades. Chances are real good that there was water in the oil that had dropped out of the oil and started to corrode the pipe lining. Unless you do a smart pig run every two to 3 years you will not get a actual reading on what goes on inside a pipe. It is expensive but I believe it needs to be down on a regular basis especially if the pipe is still in operation after its expected life. This pipeline was designed for 25 years and was still operating after 29 years.
To close it off we will probably find that the corrosion was caused by either CO2 or water. |
|
|
| njjoe |
Kris-
Most of the items in your list are most-likely true. However, I think "More profit for BP" and "CEO will get nice bonus" are not happening anytime soon. This will be a short-term PR nightmare for BP.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Stoker |
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlin
A. Intelligence?
Let's see. BP shuts down an oil pipeline. What comes out of that pipeline? Uh, OIL.
So if the price of oil goes up and the oil cannot get from the field to the refinery because the pipeline is not working....
First, the profits of oil companies are far different than the profit margins. However parrots in the media and those in forums never realize this. Second those profits go to the shareholders. Those shareholders happen to be people like me (through a 401k that is heavily diversified), teachers, firefighters, charities, and heaven forbid rich people.
Yet the media and some left wing whackos know that many people are ignorant, many people are looking to blame someone else for their issues, and that something as big as an oil company is great for their cause.
If you have enough money for morning coffee, eating out for lunch or dinner daily, a xthousand minute cell phone plan, satellite or cable, then you have enough money for a necessity like gasoline. Drop the non-necessities. Too many people don't even realize how much money they waste on all these "monthlies" they obligate themselves too.
The real criminals in the oil industry are the politicians. The government takes far more money. Figure at $3 a gallon, 9% profit margin, that means 27 cents per gallon possible profit for the gas company. The government meanwhile takes 40-90 cents per gallon in visible taxes and another 25-32 in embedded taxes.
Now who is doing the gouging? Oh, price of gas goes up the government gets more in taxes. Nice huh?
Sharlin
You are quite correct about taxes, my last fill up cost 1.15/liter or $5.175 CDN/imperial gallon which I think breaks down to $4.47/ USD gallon. In Canada the gov't takes 50% of the cost of gas in Taxes |
|
|
| Gonzo |
As much as I don't like the gas prices or profits going back to uppers, I must say I can't complain look at what I'm driving. We are contributing to the demand and use.... we are increasing their revenue by simply consuming more.
As much as I love the MO, I think my next car will not be a SUV/Cross over. Of course I'm hoping that will not be for another 10 years.... so.... I'm back to square one... keep my mouth shut. :4: |
|
|
| GripperDon |
1. BP states an inspection "Pig" has never been run thru the pipeline. (must be beacuse of lack of funds)
2. More generally The government should prohibit all oil speculation ie. no entity not involved in the direct chain of supply can buy or sell oil. This would eliminate oil speculation that only makes profit for those wonderful mutual fund owners at the expense of the whole country. IMO speculation of most types makes artificial pricing of whatever the subject is at the expense of someone. It does not only apply to oil but oil is the single most damaging to the USA at this time.
3. We all understand the difference between income and profit. If the cost of any feed stock goes down and the efficiency of the operation remains the same the $ amount of the profit should remain relative the same. "Unless the markup is a percentage of the commodity' It that case they want the feed stock price to go up and they do.
4. In general (there are a few exceptions) the board of Directors and Offices of most major US companies are extremely overpaid and set a very bad example.
5. I am in favor of conservation and efficiency ie Disel hybrid.
6. I am very in favor of ethanol and other bio based fuels. These will provide great income to famers, allow more of own products to be used at home and not depend on expoort them and most importantly reduce imports and help correct thebalance of trade.
7. Using Bio fuels will also reduce the cost of oil kill speculators in oil and make a major portion of oil based products cheaper, paints, epoxies, etc. The lower cost of enery will also help lower cost of metal patricular Aluminum all these will help lower the cost of living. |
|
|
| Nomad33fw |
The price you pay at the pump is simply supply & demand...
I am a Deputy Sheriff, with a modest income, but through a 401k, and other deferred compensation funds I am an oil investor. So if they profit I profit. Early retirement would be nice!
Now lets talk about the real problem, something you will never see in the media. We in the USA use more oil then any other country on the planet. However we have not built a new oil refinery in 30 years!!! The ones that we do have operating are inefficient, and many need maintenance due to age and damage from storms.
There are new demands put on the world's oil supplies that have never been there before. China is one of the new demands, as their economy explodes they are demanding more and more oil; therefore the price for oil will rise. This trend will continue and get worse after the 2008 Olympics that are to be held there.
Some how I doubt that B has much control over the worlds demand for oil.
A solution....
First America must become less dependent on foreign oil, we have our own.
Cut the red tape and assist US companies in meeting the EPA rules for building some new efficient refineries.
Bring American Oil production up to full speed.
Instead of going back to the Moon, or a trip to Mars, we need a 10-year deal to develop a renewable energy source. Hydrogen, Hybrids, Solar, or something that none of us have ever imagined.
Give companies incentives to produce these new vehicles at a price that the masses can afford.
Improve our transportation infrastructure with intelligent roadways.
Thus reducing our demand for oil. Refill our strategic oil reserve. Then tell OPEC to screw off. Scale our oil production back to its current levels and tell the world it’s for sale.
Just my .02 |
|
|
| Kris |
I guess I have “sparked” an interesting discussion.
- there is no need to bring “leftists” or “right wing” to the discussion. It has nothing to do with the case
- I have seen many companies and most of them see only short term results. Long term future is for “somebody else” to take care of.
- Maintenance budget is this days “expense” and gets cut more often that not
- Yes, I am “maintenance expert” or so some think and I do advise companies on maintenance and do know how it works
- Don, you are right, we know what revenue and profit are. And we do not mix them up
- PR disaster – when maintenance budget gets shafted nobody thinks about it.
- Yes, I am for diesels (especially after driving some of them recently) and bio fuel.
- Yes, I am for energy independence
- Yes, I am for free market
- But I am against speculations
Maybe it sounds bad but I am supporting regulations in some areas. It simply ensures our safety, health, environment. Forget the spill abut self regulations. This is just a BS.
I just hope that there will be an investigation into this incident and a root cause is found. Not just a poor, maintenance guy who supposed to do something but…….did not have money to do so.
The issue is not a simple one. But needs to be discussed not only from BP or oil companies point of view. We need to make sure that us, as society (is this left or right wing?) rely les on foreign sources of energy. And there is nothing wrong with that. Oh, yes, there is - less opportunities for speculations.... |
|
|
| GripperDon |
Just had to add one more.
Can you imagine speculation on Medicines so to drive prices of them up even more so some could make a profit. Well that is what oil speculation does robs from the poor so some can make more profit. People need to get to real work. Freedom brings the responsibility to use it honestly and morally not take advantage of it.
There are enough speculators around, drones that don't do work just profit over creating financial troubles for others.
There are fair profits for fare work and then there is greed. (spelled both ways)
Anyway this IMO |
|
|
| Eric L. |
It is indeed unsettling how oil companies apparently drive up profits by allowing prices to rise, not based on actual supply fluctuations, but rather due to rampant speculation.
But I don't want to bring politics into this.
It is ironic however, that the amount one can gain from my energy investments (including oil) more than offsets any rise in gasoline prices. Profiting from necessary evils, thats capitalism for you.
MOD: I edited my own post, realizing I might have said something mean. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by GripperDon
:confused:
Sorry about that. Edited to be more friendly. Eric L. = teh n00b :2: |
|
|
| goldmu |
Just a bit of a different perspective on this:
Imagine one's salary being at around 200US/month. Then the price of oil spikes due to some trying to maximize short-term profits. The price of oil affects every other price in these countries (bread for example) because everything is transported using oil. So while maximizing profits and speculation may be good for some it affects the basic needs of poor people worldwide. |
|
|
| Nomad33fw |
It is nice to see that everyone here can have a civil discussion about such things regardless of there personal political views. I am sure we are a pretty diverse group. It is too bad that a lot our politicians cannot discuss and work out solutions. It would be interesting to see or here the back grounds of our members.
I am pretty much a semi-educated 'grunt'
Grew up as an Air Force brat, lived in the Philippines, Italy, England, & Korea.
8 years active duty Air Force as an Aircraft Maintenance Manager
6 Years Air Force Reserve Special Ops (Combat Communications)
A Deputy Sheriff for 11 years now,
6 Years of patrol
5.5 Years as an Auto Theft Detective
.5 Years in my current assignment as a Tactical Flight Officer/Pilot in Training.
Happy owner of an 06 Merlot SL |
|
|
| hfelknor |
BPs percentage of profit is less than your banks.
Why don't people get upset about that?
(Hint - It's because the percentage of profit is not that great)
(This is addressed to all who think BPs profit is too large.....) :2:
Homer |
|
|
| goldmu |
I work in IT (software development) as a middle manager. My background is in electronics engineering.
On my previous comment: I was born and raised in Eastern Europe and spent my first years in communism. So I know how it's like to queue half day to get the bread ratio. :3:
Gas used to be cheap (subsidized) but one could get only 40 liters a month...
Grateful now to live in North America and drive a cool car. |
|
|
| Kris |
| Indeed interesting article. It confirms BP negligence.....they just assumed without real scientific data.....somebody wanted to save pennies....hence the lack of inspections. I mean real inspections..... |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| I woul like to see ALL the oil companies broken up. |
|
|
| Sharlin |
quote:
Originally posted by GripperDon
I woul like to see ALL the oil companies broken up.
and the result would be a disaster. Just what good would breaking up oil companies? Not all companies are the same structurally.
Breaking up corporations should only be done when it can be proven they control so much of a given market and its proven to be harmful to the consumer.
Considering that there are many many oil companies your statement is pretty much ignorant.
Then again, you didn't even attempt to state why but that should be expected of people willing to make such a statement. |
|
|
| GripperDon |
You manners need attention, I will not post on the subject again.
Some of the many reasons are (which I mistakenly thought would be self evident ) include:
1 Diversify and decentralize greatly the middleman (refiners etc.) decreasing for collusion and price manipulation.
2. Allow local stations to again be owned by many more individuals to reduce control and lack of price competition. ( the great buy back and elimination of private ownership during 70's thru 90's would be reversed)
3. Greatly enable the sale of E85 ethanol in the USA. Being stifled in the USA with only 600 out of the 176,000 offering it, mainly as a result of Exxon, BP, Citgo and Shell resistance.
4. Reduce the ability of speculators to manipulate prices.
5. Get Citgo out of the ownership of the Venezuelan government. ( don't thik that supporting his government is good for us after he took over american property in that count and has just made a vast arms deal with russia. |
|
|
| njjoe |
Gripper Don is one of the most intellectual and accomplished members of this forum. Ignorant? That's not even worth defending.
-njjoe |
|
|
| Eric L. |
| Moved to off-topic forum. Should have done this earlier. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlin
Then again, you didn't even attempt to state why but that should be expected of people willing to make such a statement.
And you didn't explain why you think breaking up the oil companies would be a disaster. Don't you hold yourself to the same standard you hold others? Or maybe only us "ignorant" people need to explain our positions. :rolleyes:
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlin
Breaking up corporations should only be done when it can be proven they control so much of a given market and its proven to be harmful to the consumer.
You're shooting yourself in the foot here. A scant few corporations control the vast majority of the oil industry, and their actions have caused tremendous harm to the consumer (witness the greed of BP in not checking the viability of their pipeline). Thus, by your standard, the oil companies should, indeed, be broken up.
As compared to AT&T (which was domestically owned), the oil companies are, by and large, international companies. I'm not an expert here, but I don't think that our government has the clout to break up the oil companies like they did Ma Bell. I wish they did, though, and I agree with Don's reasoning on the matter. I would hope, though, that the oil companies would remain broken up instead of reconstituting after a few years, as has been the case with the Bells. |
|
|
| Sharlin |
obviously the clique runs to the rescue.
His follow up post does nothing to support his claim that we need to break up the oil companies.
while he might know a lot about the Mo it does not mean he knows jack about the oil industry or world markets.
half of his tripe is nothing more than the parroting of some of the tin foil hat websites.
1. Price is more affected by demand and competeing environmental regulation than anything else. Having to support multiple blends of fuel because the national government won't step in and set a single standard is not the fault of refineries.
2. Define local ownership? A great many stations in my area are owned by non-oil company conglomerates. Should we stop them from selling gasoline? What about non-traditional sellers like Wal Mart and Home Depot?
3. E85 isn't a solution. The primary reason it does not work here but elsewhere is because of the protection given to the sugar market. Grain based E85 is not price competitive without subsidies. Its not being held back by the oil companies, its being held back because its not viable in its current form. Combine with the fact that the majority of cars cannot use it without destroying their fuel systems and you can tell why car manufacturers are not willing to put more of them out there.
Get the protections off of sugar so we can import it dirt cheap and E85 might take off. The oil companies are more than willing to sell it, trouble is no one makes enough of it to matter at a good price.
5. Yeah like that is going to happen. Citgo being owned by VZ hasn't harmed anyone yet has it? While I don't care for it and never buy Citgo gas, the owernship in itself has no effect on what we pay for gasoline or oil products.
I have yet to see one reason that validates your claim oil companies need to be broken up. I have seen nearly every claim you made paraded around on nutter websites though.
TexInFla
Sorry, but when someone makes a statement it is up to the person first making it to state their claim, not the responsiblity of those asking them to put up for shut up. Simple fact of debates.
Sorry, governments control far more oil than any group of corporations. Corporations only have rights to known oil that governments permit. Those same governments can just up and say "Thanks for finding it, now get lost".
Want a cookie?
the only thing you were right about is that your no expert. |
|
|
| Papermaker |
| Beer and milk cost more per gallon. Funny how the gas prices change from day to day but heating oil does not. The oil companies are supposed to put some of their profits into new refining capacity. No different than the way Walmart is hurting our country. They just do it with lower prices. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by Papermaker
Beer and milk cost more per gallon. Funny how the gas prices change from day to day but heating oil does not. The oil companies are supposed to put some of their profits into new refining capacity. No different than the way Walmart is hurting our country. They just do it with lower prices.
Its irrelevant to compare beer and milk costs to gasoline. You drive to work, you use several gallons of gas per day. I don't know anyone who drinks several gallons of milk (or even beer) each day. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
| It's a shame, Sharlin, that you seem to be incapable of having a civilized discussion about a controversial issue without throwing out ad hominem attacks. You might actually have a valid point or two, but they're obscured by the hostility and aggression in your posts. Too bad. |
|
|
| Papermaker |
| It's still cheaper by the gallon. If gas use is an issue then why don't people buy fuel friendly vehicles, walk, carpool, or what not. I know everyone doesn't have these options, but milk and beer are still cheaper by the gallon no matter how much you use. The easy oil has been used up and it is going the cost the companies more money to get what is left so I think the prices are here to stay. Have a nice day!! |
|
|
| Sharlin |
quote:
Originally posted by TexInFla
It's a shame, Sharlin, that you seem to be incapable of having a civilized discussion about a controversial issue without throwing out ad hominem attacks. You might actually have a valid point or two, but they're obscured by the hostility and aggression in your posts. Too bad.
well, when ya'll decide to use facts instead of hearsay let me know. I know you will call it an attack as you don't have anything to back yourself up other than attack me on grounds other than the facts.
Face it, people who don't have facts go emotional, and that is exactly what your doing.
Claiming to be a victim, that I am being mean.
Nothing is more stupid than claiming that breaking up the oil companies will make things better.
FACT IS THE NUMBER ONE REFINER IS NOT A OIL COMPANY.
Hell, quite a few of the top 10 do nothing more than buy oil.
Whats next? Call me a nazi? C'mon, its a short trip for some of ya'll. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
| Mod: Alright folks lets try to be nice here. Its ok to have a difference of opinions, in which case you can agree to disagree. But lets not escalate this to name calling. |
|
|
| TexInFla |
The only name calling that has gone on here has come from you, Sharlin. If you can't conduct yourself in a mature manner, then perhaps you shouldn't be posting on a controversial topic.
Frankly, I would suggest that this thread be locked. I think the topic has reached its saturation point with the opinions already expressed, and allowing additional responses would just perpetuate its deterioration. |
|
|
| njjoe |
WASHINGTON - The former head of pipeline-corrosion monitoring for BP in Alaska refused to testify under oath Thursday as outraged lawmakers grilled company officials over the causes of a massive oil spill earlier this year.
Richard C. Woollam, who was transferred to BP's Houston offices amid concerns that he intimidated potential whistleblowers, invoked the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution in refusing to answer all questions from a House subcommittee. "Based upon the advice of counsel, I respectfully will not answer questions," said Woollam, who was placed on paid leave.
Other BP executives apologized and pledged to fix operational lapses on the North Slope that led to the region's biggest ever oil spill in March and the partial shutdown last month of the country's largest oil field.
In March, more than 200,000 gallons of oil leaked from a 34-inch pipeline that crosses the Alaska tundra. Follow-up inspections mandated by federal investigators led to the discovery of another much smaller leak, as well as "significant" corrosion, according to BP, which briefly shut down the entire Prudhoe Bay field on Aug. 6.
Marshall conceded that Woollam's "abrasive nature" and "intimidation" may have silenced workers. Woollam took counseling and was later transferred to a non-supervisory job in Houston.
Until last month's partial shutdown, Prudhoe Bay had been producing roughly 400,000 barrels per day, or 8 percent of total U.S. output. BP is currently pumping 220,000 barrels a day and has given no timetable for when it expects to be back to normal levels.
BP officials said early tests show that oil-eating bacteria may have contributed to the Alaska pipeline corrosion. Excrement from the bacteria inside the pipes produces an acid that eats through carbon steel. |
|
|
| mgthe3 |
quote:
Originally posted by Sharlin
obviously the clique runs to the rescue.
the only thing you were right about is that your no expert.
Sharlin, it is no clique, it is more like a brotherhood. We have been together for years, which, (you should know) in internet terms, is a long time. We've seen family tragedies, marriages, births and rejoice and console with each others lives. 'Tis very rare on the internet.
This forum is one of the tightest knit forums on the internet. I've had my licks here, but in the end, we forgive and forget. Please try not to escalate. If you have been around the net for even a short time you should realize the lack of tonal inflection and facial expression in this medium makes even slightly harsh words much nastier. I've seen a bazillion flame wars elsewhere erupt for that very reason.
Here, it is a much more understanding place....well, it is till you refer to one of our long time brothers who is quite intelligent as being ignorant.
Chill d00d, you won't regret it. |
|
|
|
