Just a note on oil prices

I've opened this post a few times and each time I see that one word I have a chuckle. You're priceless, Bonz.

thanx

should read "did not"

Had you have, you would be able to buy a new set of tyres every trip Willem.

Hahahahah Yes but I doubt it

Footy

If you don't make a profit, you don't survive. I cannot follow your line of thinking

I think there's a difference between fair trading and making a profit, and holding nations to randsom for obscene profits. It's a moral thing Willem.

What has morality got to do with it.

Its an engineered market driven phenomenon.

Anyway I dont want to hi jack this thread. We could argue this privately...lol

Willem, I found out long ago that some people don't discuss or debate, they just argue. No point in trying to change their point of view as they simply don't listen.
So while I may discuss it privately with you, I won't argue :))

I believe Bonz is sorry because he is the Minister for Everything... He had no choice but to honour your request...

THAT made me laugh hahahahahahahaha

Blue, thanks for that. I had forgotten .... being a banana bender and not a Mex .....it's really quite funny if I think about it.
If he's the Minister for everything then he's ultimately responsible for everything....poor sod...bet he cant sleep at night worrying about who'l type what :))))))

Lucky he's good natured about his role...lol Imagine if he was a worry wart or predisposed to a bit of hatin'...

Don't mind me, I finished night shift this morning and haven't been to bed yet...

Take up thy bed and lie down . Hope you dont have to go back tonight :((

No not working tonight Footy... Had to stay awake 'cause I had the kids all to myself... This way i'll get about 8hrs and be ready to face another day with them...

The only comment I can make is that they're worth it in the long run. In the short run we both know it's usually easier to be at work...unless you're a teacher in which case you wouldn't have time for your own kids :((

Oh yeah, they're worth it... I don't and haven't missed out on much... Aside from a recent spate of extra shifts, I essentially only do 3 shifts a week. Plenty of time to relax and enjoy watching the little b@$tards grow...lol

Now I have read this I am REALLY sorry hahahahahah you guys make me laugh out loud, my family think I am cracked

Bonz, I'm sorry.

Hey, thats MY line. Its do get my goat that we have parity pricing tho

Last time I looked you had given the goat away Bonz!

Ahh Infidel ! You assume I have only ONE goat! There are goats for us all

Ahhh, here we go. A price apologist. The sort of guy who says well if you don't like it, go elsewhere.
Sounds like someone with an interest in the industry ?
I don't like the tax scales , or crime and corruption or political idiots either. So I guess I don't try and bring anyone's attention to these things, I just emigrate. Shoot the fourth estate.
Yes, infrastructure costs are mind boggling. The same money spent on renewable energy sources would go a long way. And not all of the money comes from the oil companies. They get handsome tax breaks courtesy of the taxpayer.
The Qld Govt even subsidises diesel fuel.
By the way, you must be talking 20% PA, not over the life of the plant. Many businesses do better. And many do a great deal worse.
Sadly I can't go elsewhere. My vehicle runs on dino fuel. Even if I were to make bio diesel, the clowns would slap a tax on me.
So I go elsewhere ..maybe Iran where diesel is cheap. But only to the locals. Hang on, don't the oil companies have to charge market prices there to cover their investment.
Yeah, right.

Emo, that is simplistic and an insult; (if you don't like it, don't buy their product). We don't really have any choice.

Arguing that it is 'OK' because other businesses do it is pathetic. The world is in the mess it is in because the dollar is the bottom line instead of ethics, values etc.

Check out thread 38900 by Bonz about 'Two Wolves' and stop and take a breath for a minute.....

You all need to grow up and understand that this is the way that it is. You can whinge and bitch all you like but it isn't going to change anything. The world is the way that it is it is. I'm sorry but your concerns are insignificant.

Oil companies don't get tax breaks courtesy of the Government, the consumer does. Why is petrol significantly cheaper in Queensland that it is in NSW? Government tax. No tax breaks.

Oh, you can't go else where, can you walk? No one forces you to buy a vehicle or buy fuel.

You are upset because you are stuck in a situation that you have no control over. That is understandable. Sorry, that is the way of the world. Australia is pi$$ant in the world oil market so we have to just best bend over and hope they use lube.

I own a 1993 4.5l Landcruiser running with a lift running 33' tyres. Do you want to talk to me about fuel economy. I get about 23l / 100km. I recently converted to LPG. I get about 30l / 100km on LPG but at 45.9cpl I don't care.

It seems that some of you are just not happy unless you are bitching about something. Well go ahead, but you know that the reality is, you'll change nothing because no one really cares about your opinion.

Emo, if I understand you, what you're saying is that one voice can't be heard. Correct, it achieves little by itself. 1 vote, however can change EVERYTHING. And if that vote just happens to be an informed vote....well there you go.

The Berlin Wall didn't just fall down. As well as a host of other factors, it was people power that did it. The 20th and 21st centuries have seen unheard of changes due largely to education, mass communication and organization of and by the little guys. Greenpeace comes to mind, there are many more.

None of these things come about by accepting the status quo.
Take Brazils use of ethenol for example. They thought outside the box because they had to. Australia didn't think at all because "she'll be right mate".

Only recently have our elected representatives accepted bloody climate change. People whinging and organizing (and a dose of reality) could see us actually try and do something about it.

Emo, 30 years ago the idea was that if you didn't like the status quo then you went somewhere else (sound familiar ?).

These days we're a bit smarter.
One dissenter might just be enough to make a thousand people think.
And that can't be a bad thing.

Emo, telling people to grow up is very condescending.

I grew up, didn't like it so I'm going to grow down in future :)))

Hello, Emo,
'It seems that some of you are just not happy unless you are bitching about something. Well go ahead, but you know that the reality is, you'll change nothing because no one really cares about your opinion'.

I care about yours (opinion) and that it where it starts.

BWare, I like that ! I really like that. Well said.

Emo,
"Oh you can't go elsewhere, can you walk? No one forces you to buy a vehicle or buy fuel" - I suppose I could buy a vehicle and NOT buy fuel LOL
But seriously, If I didn't have a vehicle I would be 'forced' to move to a location with public transport and pay more rent. An optimist may call this 'having choices'. LOL

Taking this argument to the extreme - if I don't agree with anything to do with our modern world I could go elsewhere? I would be 'forced' to buy land and be self-sufficient yet still 'forced' to pay rates therefore 'forced' to have an income therefore 'forced' to get a job in the world that I want nothing to do with. Or 'forced' to live illegally on land that I don't own to avoid rates.

footy, in your opinion, what is maximum % profit before tax, before one (YOU) consider it to be legal highway robbery?

Good question, as there's no way of answering that without looking silly. Far too many variables.

I *think* it would depend upon industry figures amongst other things.
Also how much market domination you have.
If your customers have a viable alternative then it's no contest.
If you have a monopoly on goods or services then it becomes more difficult.
Perhaps that's why some countries have nationalized some industries.

In short, you're fishing.
And I'm not biting :))

me go fishing...nah............
let us all make our own minds up.
mine is....your commo ideals are not my ideals

An interesting insult. "Commo" eh ? Not exactly anywhere near "my ideals". I don't subscribe to common ownership. I do subscribe to social responsibility.
Perhaps you subscribe to the "greed is good" end of town ? Just don't get caught.

insult...no not at all...my opinion of your ideals may be...but as some one said to me recently..if it fits wear it

assuming your still in the work force...then your working neighbour (who might just happen to earn 50% of what you take home might be, no, would be in your eyes, justified subscribing to your "I do subscribe to social responsibility"

so give him half…. you pirate…ooops wrong burglar…..highway robber!

You've misconstrued what I've posted in a big way.
But apart from that, exactly what are your ideals that you speak of ?

have I

then maybe i am having troble by not being to follow what your trying to say

"I think there's a difference between fair trading and making a profit"

fair trading is legal and making a profit is legal highway robbery?...now your not suggesting that all profits earned have been done under the table so to speak are you?...if so then I am Ned Kelly

ooops forgot to clarify....left out obscene

whats your definition of obscene profits....look no bait...straight out question

Fair enough. I missed out a word, "obscene", but referred to it later in follow up posts.
I make profits. But I don't rip anyone off, and the profits I make are in line with the profits of others. For example I don't make 14 million a year. I consider , within context, this sort of individual reward to be obscene.

Do you make profits ?

Ok obscene profits.
"Obscene", repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles (Websters)
"Profit" Under capitalism, profit is a positive return made on an investment by an individual or by business operations.

I would define obscene profits as those profits made with a crass disregard of moral or ethical principals.

hold on what is the % net profit that the 14mil? represents.....
lots of co's spend lots more than this and may get a ROI or ROCA similar but different (but guides to performance) of say 3%, some less and some lots more.....

take a look at a exploration co...dont make profits for years, some dissolve along with shareholders), some go on to riches...is a big strike which sets their net profits soaring to 100% or more obscene?...so where does it stop beofre it is and who is involved...is it just big co's and or does it include the sole operators and small business as well...i can only assume you must include all, as there are a lot of individuals out there who have put their money to good use and who are now multimillionaires and earning the type of profits in $'s you state......oh well i aspire to these days..hint hint

it really irks me that people expect a mark up on goods to be 10% ... if it was you'd wouldnt have started a business would you...oh what % markup do you put on parts material etc?......just exactly who are the others...similar organisations?...your real name greg norman?

oh and before your wages to yourself/spouse, payments to super or family trusts and before tax's what is your % net return...$profit divided by $turnover (expressed as a percentage) this way its not divulging your wealth to anyone.
i dont expect you to answer that.....but just when does it, the profit, become obscene... give us a percentage point...ie is it 10%, 20 or 90 net profit? now this would put it in context...expressed as $$$'s is not realistic

and YES, i do else i'd go stick my assetts elsewhere

its a legal form of gambling, not highway robbery
work smarter not harder!

14 mill was obscene ...but its not the amount of profit..... its how they get it?
or is it both
does every one work this way

Bill Gates has a huge amount of money at his disaposal. That's not obscene. We didn't have to buy Microsoft programs. They didn't stuff the environment. etc etc. So in that regard, he (they) worked for it. Good on him (although Microsofts competitors might not agree).
So in that regard ,it's how they get it.
But being paid $14mil a year seems obscene when it comes out of the dividends of others who invest from much lower incomes. How can CEO's earn that much money when their workers earn on average, say, $50k pa ? I see that as being an obscene amount, especially if the company isn't making huge profits for its shareholders.
So in that regard, it can be an amount.

Obscene profits in regard to the oil companies is a little more complex. It involves being a monopoly and manipulating prices. This in turn affects countries economies and in the end, the little people. Like me ! :)
When they have a 48% increase in profits in a year through doing this, instead of working harder/smarter/injecting more capital (which probably happened but its not the major contributor), then I call it an obscene profit because its ripped off the poor motorist who has few alternatives to buying from them. Its a moral thing .
Yes I've thrown a few loose facts and ideas around, but only for brevity.
Perhaps I'm wrong. If I am I'd like to know why.

I have to admit that I set myself up. There are plenty in here with hidden agendas. Being open and honest usually sees me getting the raw end of the pineapple. But , been there done that. If I dish it out, then I have to be prepared to take it :))
Can't understand anyone actually agreeing with me. Even Willem wanted a duel to the last Coopers tyre LOL

Footie, every time we post here we set ourselves up.

'Being open and honest......' what is the alternative; being a sheet-head and a wanker?

Just to be politically correct; sheet- head has no relation to Islamic Fundementalists; it means poo-poo-head. LOL

Hey I can get into enough strife without going there LOL
Actually the only one of those I know is actually a very nice bloke. Dunno how he puts up with all of the happenings in that area here and o/s. I don't think he's into the politics much.
Bit like saying that if you're a Tyke then you have something to do with their recent problems I guess.
Oops I did say I wasn't going there ....:)))

Nothing like a bit of perspective...
Without a home loan, we pay more for fuel in a week than we pay in bank fees in a month (including credit card interest :-((( )

It seems that you guys are comparing apples and oranges here ?
On one side of the fence we have a businessman trying to make a dollar. Some of his private expenditure can be written off his tax(fuel ?) ...of course he has to make enough to pay the tax in the first place. Its a tough life, running a business and having to provide for everyone else. Even "normal" costs can be more for a business.
On the other side of the fence we have the private individual who has to pay for things after tax has been ripped from him. He probably can't claim a cent off his tax for his fuel. He can't increase his wages easily. If he works harder and longer the tax goes up and he gets nowhere.
Have I got it right ?
Been in both camps and neither are easy.
But I can't see how either can point the same bone at fuel prices and fees and charges ?

Footie, you may not see how we point the same bone but we just did ;-))))
Personally I like Granny Smiths :-))))

You are totally correct. I only responded because gmd's figures seemed outrageous without stating it was business figures; I assumed he had a massive mortgage.

GMD, you are right except for one small detail. A business can often pass along sa portion of its costs in higher prices.
Of course this is easier for a large firm or a monopoly.
An individual has less scope for higher wages.
They all have a problem.

Higher prices and fees hurt everyone.

Part of the problem is the particular philosophy the current fed govt has. It has devolved itself from many services that individuals now have to pay for, without a corresponding reduction in the tax take. User pays is fine and dandy if the user has the dough. The sick and elderly are users but hey dont worry about them, they don't produce taxes.
I don't care what flavour of politics govern. Is there much difference between them for the "average" Ozzie ?
Everything has been reduced to a dollar value. Life itself now has a dollar value. The all important dollar. Most of us are rats on a wheel chasing it. Greed is good. The only commandment is don't get caught.
Is it any wonder that tradional values like a fair go and fair play died along the way ? Isn't road rage just a manifestation of our helplessness ?
Would Labour be much different ? I suspect not.
It's just the way the world has gone, sadly. You aren't a human being any more, just a labour cost. A production unit.
So raise the stars and stripes and lets have another Maccas :(((

You invest in them. So do many others.
Did your investment strategy consider companies with a commitment to social and environmental responsibility ? I thought not, just a maximum return. Ever wondered what sort of world that strategy is leaving for your grandkids ?
Some have, and if you check prospectus for various companies times are changing, slowly but surely.
Some people don't want to invest in companies that don't care how they get their profits.
You might support OPEC, I don't do it voluntarily.
I care how I make my money, do you ? Or is it a matter of greed is good, just don't get caught ?

Well said Footloose bilbo might want to look at Geodynamicks GDY on ASX there doing some good.

BBB

Thanks BBB but I don't delight in it. A mans investment decisions are his own, but I hope that we're becoming smarter investors. Not only in the returns we hope for, but also how the companies we invest in make those returns.

FL,

How dare you judge me. How dare you. You know nothing about me. If you knew my life and background, my current financial state, you'd wouldn't be implying that I am greedy and possibly criminal - "just don't get caught ?

As for you saying,"Thanks BBB but I don't delight in it.", I think deep down inside that you do delight in pontificating and making sweeping assumptions and generalisations about others. You seem to take pleasure in assuming that your view is the only view and everybody else should obey you and do what you want. This is very easy to do from the camouflage of the internet.

Footloose, take yer opinions and shove 'em where the sun don't shine.

Bilbo

Bilbo, I'm sorry you feel that way. However it was you that said "Oil companies? Banks? Love 'em. I invest in 'em,,,,,,,,,,"
How dare I imply that you are greedy etc...? I didn't. I ASKED. Why ? Because you support companies that exhibit those characteristics.
Now had I called you a greedy SOB who was morally corrupt, your reaction would have been a fair one.
I challenged some of your opinions. Rather than justify them you became indignant. Thats your prerogative. It's a public forum.

Anyone with superannuation is investing heavily into all these sectors on a daily basis. How do the morally just reconcile that?

By ignoring it.

It's called a lack of choice in my case. But I do have some control over other investments and I use it .

>It's called a lack of choice in my case.

Although I have no doubt you will be refusing to accept such dirty money when payout time arrives.

Mike, you're fishing but I'm not biting.
Why don't you tell us your financial arrangements so that you can prove a point ?

FL,

You're not sorry at all. You enjoy every pompous minute of moralising. I could go on but then, I'd be as bad as you.

I agree with Mike Harding. I'm 60 years old and a self funded retiree. I need a return of 6% to 8% on my self managed super in order to live. I draw a modest pension that, after the last Minimum Wage Case is now less than the Australian Minimum Wage. I cannot get a return of 6% to 8% out of companies such as Geodynamics. Just the same as anyone that has superannuation - working or retired.

What do I live on FL?? I can't work. My body is well past it's used by date. How am I supposed to survive on woolly, warm fuzzy, chitty nappy feeling of investing in green companies that aren't yet making returns? Your charity, your taxes?? I'm sure that if I chose not to look after myself financially and instead lived from a governement handout you'd be screaming about that too.

When green companies start making 8%,. I'll be the first in the queue. However, I can't afford to wait 10 or 15 years to get a return. With my family history I'm afraid I'll prolly be dead by then. I'm sure you'll appreciate having one less "greedy bastard" off the planet.

Until then FL,why not write a book, "The Footloose Answer to Everything".

Bilbo

PS - here's another one that I've been watching - Jackgreen. ASX Code is JGL

BBO, actually I was. But you were too busy trying to get up my nose to notice.
Maybe I am pompous and moralize, but apart from the usual mafia and friends, you're the first to mention it. So maybe its your perception.
You agree with MH, which bit ? The bit where he has a go at anyone he feels like at the time ? The bit where he just attacks people instead of sticking to the topic ?
(I've expressed these views publically before), or the bit where he doesn't answer any question ? You're entitled to agree with whoever you want to.
Investment wise, if you've only been earning 8% return over the past couple of years thats only a bit above inflation. That's terrible. I'd be seriously looking for a new financial advisor. My returns are much better than that, and I'm no stock market whiz.
If you don't have any option in where you put your money, and obviously you don'y have much, then why didn't you read my posts properly ? Did I not say that a mans investment decisions are his own ? Some things we can control and some things we can't. But we CAN be aware, even if we can't do anything about it.
Profit is good. Obscene profits are bad. Companies that don't give a s*it are bad, no matter how big the returns. But as an investor you can't do much except be aware and try and do what you can.
Now thats not being pompus (verbose, yes :), nor is it trying to make everyone do anything my way. I'd be pretty silly to think I could do that. But you did ask me to explain what I was on about.
That's my point of view, and I'm entitled to it, as you are to yours.

FL,

You said,,,,,,"Rather than justify them you became indignant.,,,,,," Me? Justify my investment decisions to you~!. Who the hell do you think you are? Jesus Christ's older brother, the Pope's Dad??!! When someone implies that a person is immoral or criminal, I reckon anyone would get upset. I do not accept that you meant no harm with your comments. If you meant no harm by them, then I suggest you take a course in writing.

You said,,,,,"You agree with MH, which bit ?,,,,". Answer - the superannuation investment bit. As for those other "bits of MIke H" that you mention, I wouldn't have a clue. I've never noticed 'em.

You said,,,,,,,,"You're entitled to agree with whoever you want to.,,". Oh thank you my lord. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I tugs me forelock to you, yer a real toff sir, so ye are.

You said",,,,,,,,,,Investment wise, if you've only been earning 8% return over the past couple of years thats only a bit above inflation. That's terrible. I'd be seriously looking for a new financial advisor. My returns are much better than that, and I'm no stock market whiz.
If you don't have any option in where you put your money, and obviously you don'y have much, then why didn't you read my posts properly ? Did I not say that a mans investment decisions are his own ?,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

See? You're doing it again! ",,,,,,,,,,and obviously you don't have much,,,,,,,,". Much of what? Money or options? I've got plenty of both thanks. But moving along, I said I NEEDED 6 to 8% to live on, I didn't say I was GETTING 6 to 8% did I? I could be getting 25%, 50% 100%. You're always right aren't ya FL? You're always the biggest, best and brightest. Somehow, you remind me of soapowder or a plasma telly.

You said ",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,That's terrible. I'd be seriously looking for a new financial advisor.,,,,,,,,,,"

That'd be a bit hard. I AM the financial advisor.

You said",,,,,,,,,,,,and I'm no stock market whiz,,,,,,,,,,"

I am. As a consequence of a failed "sea change" decision, I was broke in 1997. I'm now retired. Ask yourself how I did it. It certainly wasn't by using managed funds or out of the money "green" stocks.

So now lets look at your track record on "morals". Below are some quotes from your previous posts in this thread:-

"I have the odd share or two myself. Since they're managed funds I don't know if I have any oil ones. Financially I hope so. Morally I hope not"

Now, if you were really, really concerned about the moral aspects of your managed funds investment, you will be studying the reports they send you every few months and seeing where they've put your money. If you then find thier investment choices reprehensible and you simply can't live with them, then you can pull your money out of those managed funds. A simple answer to your moral dilemma. Secondly, you hope financially that you DO have oil stocks but morally you hope you haven't!! Oh for crying out loud FL that's pathetic bearing mind how much you scream about oil company profits.

"I think there's a difference between fair trading and making a profit, and holding nations to randsom for obscene profits. It's a moral thing Willem."

Yes, it's a moral thing FL and from what I can see you have yours a bit mixed up at the moment.

"In short, you're fishing.
And I'm not biting :))"

No FL. You're the one that's fishing here. You came in with a big bait knocking oil company profits. I bit, and here we are.

"When they have a 48% increase in profits in a year through doing this, instead of working harder/smarter/injecting more capital (which probably happened but its not the major contributor), then I call it an obscene profit because its ripped off the poor motorist who has few alternatives to buying from them. Its a moral thing ".

See? Moral. There's that word again. It's a shame you keep using it because it means different things to different people. It's a bit like philosophy, religion or economics - it's not a finite science.

"It's called a lack of choice in my case. But I do have some control over other investments and I use it ."

So FL, you've come on here screaming about morality, when you don't know where your money is invested, you haven't bothered to check it out. It could be invested in this company - Metalstorm listed on the ASX, or it could be bio tech company that makes abortion drugs or carries out stemcell research or a cosmetics company that puts drops in little dogs eyes until they go blind, or a clothing company that has it goods made in Chinese sweatshops OR GOD FORBID - Exxon-Mobil!!. Everyone has a choice of where they place thier money. Whether it be personal investment or super. If you don't like where you super is being placed then start your own fund. I did.

"Mike, you're fishing but I'm not biting.
Why don't you tell us your financial arrangements so that you can prove a point ?"

See above for point one. Well FL, you started this moralising off with your opening thread message. How about you tell us your financial arrangements first? Show us all how moral you are. Then we can dissect you. Just like you would love to dissect others.

FL, you are no different to the rest of us. We are all "green" & moral until we need the money, then it's every man for himself. Hypocrites, all of us.

Bilbo

You lost it Bilbo LOOLoolLOlLOOloolll

Richard,

Sorry, but "lost" what?

Bilbo

It

It like mojo you know..

I certainly did, Richard, I certainly did. I don't think it did either of us any good.

Perhaps that's why, when I lose IT, insurance companies PAY UP,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;)

And I do have a tremendous loyalty to the oil industry and the people that work in it, in spite of all of its faults.

Take care,

Bilbo

Billy, he's right. You lost it. You've tried everything to try and prove that I'm being accusational and hypocritical.
You've taken bits from everywhere , put you're interpretation on them and then called me hypocritical.
You've become indignant and accused me of behaving like JC.
And because I haven't responded in kind, you've lost it.
In trying to justify the obscene profits ripped from the pockets of the motorists by the oil companies, you've lost it.
PS Your mates are being investigated by the Feds. Of course they're blameless, aren't they ?

Footloose

I’ll buy into this, rightly or wrongly so!

From the outset you took the moral high ground by condemning the 46% increase in profit recorded by the oil companies. There was no doubt the number was headline grabbing, however a comparison of return on capital over a longer period, say 5-10 years would have kept the result in context, rather than isolating one year to suit your purpose and initial point.

There is no doubt the oil companies have made hay while the sun has shone, and they are not the only ones that could be accused of that, but it should have been kept in perspective by looking at the result over a longer period. Had you done that you would have seen the oil industry had made returns well below what was adequate, by any measure, for a return on capital over many years. I’m not defending, or berating them, but it is fair to say they need to get a return commensurate with their investment. Otherwise capital would eventually be diverted to more profitable returns and that could be to the detriment of all.

I have no problem respecting the views of others, especially where good arguments are made for them, however you lost all credibility when you said, quote “I have the odd share or two myself. Since they're managed funds I don't know if I have any oil ones. Financially I hope so. Morally I hope not" unquote”.

Personally, I would have congratulated you had you said that you invested in oil companies as a hedge against rising fuel prices as that would seem a rather astute move.

However, you took the moral high ground when you initiated this thread by condemning the 46% increase in profit, but admitted you hoped you benefited financially from it. With a foot in both camps it is difficult to assign you any credibility this time around.

Landy, you've bought into it, fair enough. But you're now in a game where interests have been declared. Perhaps you should declare yours. What is your association with the oil industry ? Do you invest in them? Where do your figures if any come from ?

Hi Footloose

I don't consider myself in any game here. My only interest is to see a sense of fairness here; I haven't hence my comment.

Your questions neatly create a diversion from my point, but I'll indulge you in any case.

I buy fuel, there is my association with the fuel industry....

Do I invest in them? Most likely via a supernanuation fund.....

Where do my figures come from? Independent and publically available sources......

I'll restate my point and simply leave you to your game........

"However, you took the moral high ground when you initiated this thread by condemning the 46% increase in profit, but admitted you hoped you benefited financially from it. With a foot in both camps it is difficult to assign you any credibility this time around".

I've no axe to grind beyond this; so I'll move on.

Landy, when declaring that I lack credibility, it's wise to read all that I wrote, not just parts.

Including that bits about one's abilities and inabilities to invest in,
benefit from and be aware of such things.

Therein lies the answer to differences in our necessities and moral awareness.

For example, few Australians would disagree that vehicles produce emissions that aren't good for anyone. Yet we continue to use them, because of the necessity.

If we're in a position to do so, and care about the morality of the situation. we buy cars that emit less of those emissions.

If we're not morally aware we still use cars but we don't take such things into consideration.

I can't see your problem.

Hi Footloose

Yes, I read the entire thread, with interest, and that lead me to the opinion I formed – that ‘in this instance’ you lack credibility. I see a lack of credibility on two fronts; you didn’t provide any detail on the analysis you may (or may not have) done, simply a grab of a headline.

Secondly, you took the moral high ground on a number of occasions, but openly confessed that you hoped you personally benefited from this increase in profit. I doubt I am the only person at odds with that position. Let’s face it, the Greenies can hardly condemn the seal hunters if they are going to wrap themselves in fur coats to stay warm……… (It’s an analogy – let’s not go there!)

However, going back to your very original post – the originating comment……

The statement tells you no more than a simple fact, that they increased the dollar value of profits by US$36 bln and that this represented an increase of 46% on the previous year. The statement alone gives you little basis to form an opinion that the profit increase was ‘obscene’ a claim you made more than once.

If your opinion was formed simply on the basis of that statement alone then it is ‘potentially’ flawed. Can you give provide the analysis you made that led you to form the view that the profit was obscene?

I did say I have no axe to grind, and that remains the case. However, I can’t help but feel that many of us, myself included, fall victim to sensational media headlines such as this from time to time. The headline told you little, but was merely designed to invoke a particular response – it appears to have achieved that!

No, FL, I maintain that you’ve read Richard Kovack incorrectly At best you’ve interpreted Richard’s words to suit your own argument. Richard said I lost my cool, my "mojo" as he puts it. He didn’t say that I’d lost the debate.

Now let's see:-

"Billy, he's right. You lost it. You've tried everything to try and prove that I'm being accusational and hypocritical."

I think I managed to prove that you are “being accusational and hypocritical.” You didn’t just point the finger at me, you pointed the finger at a few others as well. Remember, FL, when one points a finger at someone, you often find there is a dozen fingers pointing right back. FL, you've been done like a dinner. Hoist on your own petard. You just don't realise it yet.

"You've taken bits from everywhere , put you're interpretation on them and then called me hypocritical".

No, FL, I used YOUR words. I quoted you. Your interpretation. I KNOW I'm hypocritcal when I put fossil fuel in my tank. We all are.. Such is life these days. You, on the other hand, just won't admit it.

"You've become indignant and accused me of behaving like JC.
And because I haven't responded in kind, you've lost it".

Yes - it can be construed that I lost my "mojo", but did I? Who looks the fool, me or you? Who shot himself in the foot, you or me?


"In trying to justify the obscene profits ripped from the pockets of the motorists by the oil companies, you've lost it."

Nowhere did I try & justify the “obscene profits” (your words, not mine) that oil companies make. Nowhere. I did however support profits (note the omission of the word ‘obscene’) made by oil companies by making comparisons with other industries that make similar profits in a much easier way. I asked you to consider these other companies as part of your moral crusade.

“PS Your mates are being investigated by the Feds. Of course they're blameless, aren't they ?”

Investigated? Are they really?. Then they would join the ranks of many other companies that are regularly questioned by the Federal Police. ASIC, ASX, CCC, etc. But please, let’s wait & see if there was actually any wrongdoing before we hang ‘em.

FL, you're beginning to remind me of The Black Knight in the Monty Python film, “Search for The Holy Grail”. You are gradually losing limbs and still looking for a fight. Just the head on the ground, lacking all limbs or a torso and yet still screaming “Come out and fight, I’ll give you a fight you,you, you,,,,,,”.

You look increasingly foolish each time you post on this topic.

Bilbo

Landie, firstly its nice to see someone at least trying to think before they react.
Lets have a look at my supposed lack of credibility. (and whats credibility in your world anyway ?)

"I see a lack of credibility on two fronts; you didn’t provide any detail on the analysis you may (or may not have) done, simply a grab of a headline."

No I didn't provide any analysis. I didn't mean to. Look at the second part and you'll see why.

A 46% increase in the last 12 months when consumers have been suffering what amounts to an oil price shock. Spin doctors have told us its because of the Alaskan pipeline, the hurricanes, and the last increase was from "worry about a war with Iran" All of these things supposedly made the stuff more costly to the producers and hence the consumers.

And yet the oil companies made a 46% profit in that year. Check the price of oil flunctions against the prices at the pump and a similar picture emerges. Except when the price of oil goes down they don't make a huge loss.

"Secondly, you took the moral high ground on a number of occasions, but openly confessed that you hoped you personally benefited from this increase in profit."

I've already addressed this a number of times.

Simply ignoring my thoughts and saying I have a lack of credibility because of this can lead one into a particularly nasty mode of thinking which involves others, one I'd rather not.

Billy, now I'll point the finger.

Whatever I refute using logic and reason, you're not going to agree with or even debate because you can't see the wood for the trees.
You have mates in the oil industry and by God you'll not let anyone talk like that about em, eh ?
I suspect that it's all a bit much for you. Argue all you like. Have a go as much as you like.
It won't change the facts.

Sorry Billy but there's no second prize.

Credibility in my world is backing your case with a well researched and defined argument. To back a notion, as you have, without the provision of any supporting evidence and campaign on its accuracy is simply not credible.

If you didn’t do any research than you had no basis on which to stake a claim that the profit was ‘obscene’? You could spend some time researching the industry’s increased profit and present your findings. That would give you some credibility, even more so if the findings support your view. You could start by defining just who the term ‘oil companies’ was meant to include. Did it include producers, did it include refiners, or was it meant to only include producers who are refiners also? You see determining whether the profit was fair and reasonable or obscene and unjust would have its origins in whom the statement was actually meant to include.

You commented on daily price changes. The price fluctuations that occur at the pump on a daily basis have little to do with the daily change in the price of crude oil or the exchange rate and more to do with marketing discounts being applied and removed. This is a well understood concept. To gain a better view of what the price change means to the retailer and refiners alike you would need to look at what the average price was over a period of time, as sometimes the price will be below the cost of production and other times it will be above. I can’t help you any more on this point, however it appears to be something that is misunderstood and misinterpreted by many, including yourself, judging from the comment you have made.

I have no control over your thoughts, be them nasty or good. What I can say is that I have simply taken the comments you made and highlighted them as not being credible. Notably, that you hope you profit financially from the oil companies increased profit. Feel free to retract your comment if you didn’t intend to make it, but it is your comment! As I said earlier, the Greenies can hardly condemn the seal hunters if they are going to wrap themselves in fur coats to stay warm……… (It’s an analogy – let’s not go there!)

Footloose, I intend to move on from this – if you present some research now or in the future, let me know as I’d be interested to review it.

Enjoy your evening.

Landy, a well researched and defined arguement was not the intention of my original post. However, I have had reason to explain, justify and now you need figures for me to have any "credibility".

Really ?

I've yet to see a post here that quotes accurate and varifiable facts and figures and their sources. And that includes any of yours. So ipso facto, you don't actually have any credibility either, nor do 99% of posters.

I posted that it was an obscene profit. I then defined it. I spoke of the moral aspect, and then had to explain my personal problems with investing in companies that exhibited such behaviour.
Then I had to explain it again. And defend it. And then defend it again from those who hadn't even read or understood it.

"The price fluctuations that occur at the pump on a daily basis have little to do with the daily change in the price of crude oil or the exchange rate and more to do with marketing discounts being applied and removed."
Correct, as far as it goes. It doesn't mention why those discounts are applied or removed, and how, in a monopolistic market, this affects pump price.

Your explanation is glib but incomplete and lacking in depth, or verifiable figures. In other words it's not, by your definition, credible.

It doesn't justify a YEARLY increase profits by 48% at the expense of others. The price of crude ex the Singapore refinery should be graphed against the pump prices over a period of time and variations noted.

Now IF you think that there are occasions where the price of production has been below the price of production, perhaps you'd be good enough to provide verifiable facts and figures.

I'll bet you can't.

So much for credibility.

Have a pleasant evening.

>Now IF you think that there are occasions where the price of production
>has been below the price of production, perhaps you'd be good enough
>to provide verifiable facts and figures.

Well… I thought you were a little… emmmm… confused with previous aspects of your posts but, I must say, you have certainly exceeded yourself here.

Mike Harding

In what way have I exceeded myself Mike ?

A few of us have been wondering when you'd come out of the woodwork. Your mates have been busy little B's, haven't they ?

Hi Footloose

I won't speak for the other 99% of people in here, something you appear to have taken upon yourself to do, but which specific posts of mine are you referring to that are inaccurate or don't have verifiable facts, figures and their sources?

If you refer to the pump pricing issue, there is plenty of data available from many brokerage houses covering the oil and petroleum industries. The prices surveillance authority have covered it ad nauseum over the years. Federal Parliamentary committees have looked at it and received submissions from many with vested interests – Hansard records will assist you here. Glib, perhaps, but I didn’t intend to write anything weighty on it, just to point out the salient factors at play. If this could be taken off line I would be more than happy to discuss the finer points of the matter with you as I have a sound and unbiased understanding of the issue.

I certainly wasn’t endeavouring to use it as an explanation or justification for the increase of 46% (not 48% as you quote) as I have no reason to justify it nor condemn the profit increase. Besides, you are getting so caught up in this that it appears you are overlooking the fact that you are the one making the claims, not me.

Additionally, you talk of the ‘price of crude ex-Singapore refinery’. Do you mean the price of refined fuel? Refineries refine crude into fuels, not crude into crude? Crude is pumped out of the ground and shipped to refineries for refining. You appear to becoming more muddled as this thread wears on.

But let's not get distracted here, you simply, by your own admission, cannot provide a basis for the statement that this profit increase is obscene other than say it is a notion you have. In fact, you haven’t even qualified who it was actually referring to. A notion you have, that is fair enough, but it doesn't make it a 'credible' statement just because you have endorsed a news headline designed to provoke emotion.

Also, not forgetting you have admitted that you hope you have profited financially by these 'obscene' profits. I'll keep taking you back to this point as it makes the post you initiated hypocritical and leaving your credibility wanting, especially in the light of some of the responses you have made.

Hi Landy
An excellent try but once again you missed your mark on most occasions.

Lets see; "I won't speak for the other 99% of people in here, something you appear to have taken upon yourself to do"

By defining credibility in that manner you automatically ascribed a lack of it to most posters, as extremely few can be creditable by your definition. A huge mistake, even if its only by oversight.
Strike 1

"If you refer to the pump pricing issue, there is plenty of data available from many brokerage houses covering the oil and petroleum industries. The prices surveillance authority have covered it ad nauseum over the years. Federal Parliamentary committees have looked at it and received submissions from many with vested interests – Hansard records will assist you here"

Hmm..are these the verifiable figures that you're using to debate a point ? I can't see any here, just an assurance that they're out there somewhere.

Hang on, when I said that you told me it was a lack of credibility, right? Oh, it only works for me ..so sorry.

Strike 2

My original post used the word obscene. I was then taken to task, and defined, expanded and defended the term ad nauseum.
Now if you don't belive that such a huge increase in profits during a year of world oil price shocks are obscene, fair enough.
But wait, there's more.
If you don't believe that increases in the oil industy's revenue mirror price increases at the pump, do a Google. The spin doctors are all over it with the *truth*
What they don't tell usabout is;

Oil and politics

Differential pricing used to force smaller operators out of business. How many small independant servos are there now ? Funny how they became uneconomic when the big companies across the road are economic.

Why fuel prices in one town are so much higher than one within say 50km. (e.g. Herevey bay and Mryborough, Gympie and anywhere else, Darwin and Katherine...sorry, demand and transport don't cut the mustard any more)

Why the weekly variation in prices has almost stopped just after questions were asked in Fed Parliament and, if my memory serves me, Dpt of Fair Trading were given the teeth to investigate and prosecute if necessary.

Why fuel prices at a servo are changed within minutes of other servos....the word collusion comes to mind.

And this is an Ok industry ?

They also don't tell us why fuel prices have come down. The Chinese aren't buying any more cars ? maybe the Yanks arent using diesel for heating this winter ? Did peace break out ?

Now lets speak of being hypocritical.
"Also, not forgetting you have admitted that you hope you have profited financially by these 'obscene' profits. I'll keep taking you back to this point as it makes the post you initiated hypocritical and leaving your credibility wanting"

Let me spell it out again.
"For example, few Australians would disagree that vehicles produce emissions that aren't good for anyone. Yet we continue to use them, because of the necessity.

If we're in a position to do so, and care about the morality of the situation. we buy cars that emit less of those emissions. If we're in a position to do so, and care about the morality of the situation. we buy cars that emit less of those emissions.
"
So Landy, are you a hypocrit or is there some necessity involved in your vehicle choice ? As you can see from the above example, the two are not mutually exclusive. Life's not all black or white. You don't have to think oil companies are great just because they make you a lot of money. There's a thing called choice and a thing called necessity.
e.g. If you were a Centrelink customer , must that automatically bar you from suggesting that their service was lousy ? They are your source of income, so that makes you a hypocrit doesn't it ? You can't criticize them because you benefit financially from them. That's fuzzy logic.

Strike 3.

Have a good evening.

Richard, I knew what you meant. I just agreed, and then used the term in a different way. It wasn't meant to be a reflection of what you said mate. Sorry.
And you're 100% correct about the nit picking. I just felt like I didnt want my nits picked :))

Hi Footloose

Quite to the contrary, I have found many posts and their contributors informative and topics enlightening, that's what brings me to the forum. It wasn't me suggesting that they (99%) weren't credible, you put that spin on it.

I've formed an opinion and I am happy to defend it. However, I'm sure we have bored many to tears with our exchanges already. Best we either take it off-line and discuss it between ourselves, or heaven forbid, both agree to disagree and move on.....

You've proven to all on here that you are a hyprocrite. You've proven that you are willing to acccuse people, me, of immorality and criminality, without proof, to support your case. Thus, you've proven that you are immoral. Now before you go off crook, consider the point that YOU proved all of this for yourself, of yourself. You did it all by yourself. And up until the last few messages, you did without facts or figures!! Clever boy.

So it looks like Game, Set and Match to me and you walk away with nothing.

First prize was my integrity. I won that. As you say, there is no second prize, only, perhaps a sore bum.

I'll leave you to your friends.

CYA.

Bilbo

Hi Bilbo

Not only that, but Footloose's arguments are simply based on flawed assumptions, his last post highlights this extremely well. Mind you, he hasn't provided any facts or figures in any posts, but simply relied on a well-warn conspiracy theory.

His original post was ill conceived; suggesting a profit is obscene without even knowing the rate of return on capital is the logic of the talk-back radio set. The dollar value tells you nothing.

Footloose has used the popular media diatribe, rather than actually looking at the facts.

I'm moving on as it is futile debating someone who lacks a clear understanding of not only the issue...........but that he has been exposed and hung out to dry...

Cheers

And while you two are patting yourselves on the back for being such wonderful posters, exactly what did you achieve ?
Neither understood anything.
One became indignant and of course attacked me and lost it completely. Kinda shows what sort of person lies behind the keyboard, doesn't it.
The other tried to discredit my thoughts but his technique failed miserably because he couldn't understand what I'd written, and played by his own rules. Now he feels that he's finished the job he started out to do. Which basically was to shoot me down in flames.
Sadly his lack of reading and understanding is obvious to all, and he's been vanquished rather than vindicated.

Guys, you are a legend in your own lunchtime. The next time you try, read the manual first. Try to remain dispassionate, and don't play the person, play the ball. If , of course, unlike on this occasion, you can find it.

Have a nice day.

Hi Footloose

If you can't articulate an argument to back up your case, in a way that is understood by many, not just myself (looking at some of the responses), than you might want to choose topics that you have a better understanding on. This is a broad forum and many contributors have expertise in many areas, you picked one that I have a solid background knowledge in.

My offer to take this off-line and provide you with some facts stands. Contrary to your assertion, I've taken no delight in this exchange, in fact I'm beratting myself for getting sucked into it - so be it. I'll know better next time.

No malice intended on my part, and as I said, if you would like to understand the issue a little better, let me know.

Landy, I'll accept that I came to the wrong conclusion about your motives.
I am fully aware of the degree of expertise, and often lack thereof, that exists on this forum.
Now when I asked your relationship with the oil industry you indicated that you didn't have any. Now we find that you appear to have a solid knowledge of it. Strange. Very strange.
However, contrary to the opinions of some, I am always willing to listen and perhaps learn.
My email address can be extrapolated from this web page. home.iprimus.com.au/jimshire/
I must say in advance that the topic is not one that particularly excites me, and that I do not have a great deal of time to devote to it...normally.
It's time to take it offline.

Hi Footloose

Thanks. My intentions are solely to see balance on what is an important topic. If the arguments are wrong, then the solutions, if any, will also be wrong.

I have seen many of your posts and usually find them interesting, I felt you were less balanced here. I'm sure it was not your intention at the outset and finally it appears we simply got up each other's nose!

We move on.....My background is in financial markets with the investment banking arm of a major financial institution. I spend a lot of time researching specific industries, this is one of them.

Rather than continue on with what has been happening in the US, it is more appropriate to look at Australia. Specifically lets look at what is happening at the pump and why. This is the area that has created the highest level of angst amongst many, not just forumites, but the broader community.

Tragically, the mainstream media has done nothing but inflame the rage, rather than delving a little deeper and reporting the true position. I guess it doesn't sell newspapers.

In any case I have posted another thread (ACCC - Petrol Submission) that has a link to a recent ACCC submission. It is a comprehensive submission and whilst it may not 'quell' the disquiet, it at least provides the facts.

Best regards, keep up the posts!

Now that's an interesting statement. How do you figure that ?

Scuse me Mr Duh, but computers were around in WW2 !! Without the help of either Mr Gates or the oil industry !

"Aye, but they weren't computers as we know 'em, Jim"

Bilbo

Agreed, but they were computers. And who'se to say that the world wouldn't have been a better place without em :))

Jeez, all he said was that they're robbing ba$tards. Hard to disagree with.

There's a difference between a healthy profit and taking the pi$$ like the banks and oil co's are. We're getting shafted and it's getting worse. Some obviously enjoy it. They are both essential services we can do little without, and don't they know it?

Having said that, prices were 104c p/l today but you've gotta be quick. I wasn't.

:)

Yep, apologies. You wanna have a go at me too ? Come on, it's pick on Footloose day :))

Oh no, now I've done it. Jumped at my own shadow. Its a popular pastime on here but not usually played by me.
I think they're getting to me :)))))))

Sorry Steve.

are you starting or what?

:)

Not me boss, no sah !
:))