PDA

View Full Version : Behind the lies, a true reason why shrub/dickhead started a war in Middle East



boutons
10-30-2004, 11:17 AM
The oil company's had war-induced windfall profits in the 10's of $B in 1967, 1973, 1979, 1990.

The oil men who started this bogus war on false pretenses knew the oil company profits would explode again with a new war.

===================================

The New York Times
October 29, 2004
Higher Energy Prices Help Chevron Earnings
By REUTERS

Filed at 5:28 p.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - ChevronTexaco Corp.(CVX.N), the No. 2 U.S. oil company, rode the wave of record oil prices to post a 62 percent rise in quarterly profit on Friday, but it fell below Wall Street forecasts due to hurricane disruptions.

In particular, the company felt the pinch from lower refining and marketing margins in the United States and production shutdowns from hurricanes that swept through the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean late in the third quarter.

But record oil prices -- which have shot up 60 percent this year -- fueled results at exploration and production operations and higher margins boosted results at international refining and marketing businesses.

Partly helped by asset sales, net income in the third quarter jumped to $3.2 billion, or $1.51 a share, from $2 billion, or $1.01 a share, in the year-earlier quarter.

But excluding gains of $486 million, or 23 cents a share, related to the sale of assets, profit was below Wall Street expectations of $1.36 a share, according to Reuters Estimates.

``It obviously was not a quarter you write home about,'' said Oppenheimer & Co. analyst Fadel Gheit, noting the hurricanes were a double whammy since they hurt both production and refining operations.

``It was not a stellar performance, but they are on the right track longer term because they are shedding assets that are high cost and taking advantage of higher oil prices.''

MORE DISRUPTION AHEAD

ChevronTexaco, the last U.S. integrated oil major to report results this quarter, fared worse than peers because of its limited exposure to the stars of the past year -- the chemicals and international refining and marketing businesses, said Jacques Rousseau, analyst with Friedman Billings Ramsey.

Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM.N) and ConocoPhillips (COP.N), the largest and third-largest U.S. oil companies, both reported sharply higher profits earlier this week thanks to soaring oil prices, but also blew past Wall Street forecasts.

Earlier in the day, U.S. independent oil and gas producer Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC.N) also reported higher quarterly profit that beat Wall Street estimates but concerns about output at a new Gulf of Mexico oilfield took away some of the shine.

At ChevronTexaco, worldwide oil and gas production declined about 6 percent from year earlier levels, largely because it sold off properties, but hurricanes and higher prices on production sharing contracts also had an impact.

Damage from Hurricane Ivan in September is expected to restrict production in the fourth quarter by about 50,000 to 60,000 barrels per day, the company said.

That would mean about $100 million in foregone after-tax profits while casualty losses, repairs and maintenance costs could easily top $50 million, it said on a conference call.

Total revenues jumped to $40.72 billion from $30.84 billion a year earlier.

Capital spending in the quarter was up to $1.91 billion from $1.63 billion in the year-earlier quarter. On a conference call, the company said it is maintaining its capital spending forecast of $8.5 billion for the full year.

It also suggested capital spending would rise in coming years, with spending in 2005 likely near the midpoint of its spending in the past five years, which has ranged from a low of a little over $7 billion to a high of $12 billion.

In a research note, Credit Suisse First Boston said it interpreted that as capital expenditures rising from $8.5 billion this year to closer to 10 billion in 2005 and for a couple of years thereafter.

Shares closed up 59 cents, or 1 percent, at $53.06 in New York as crude prices rebounded after a recent fall.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Ltd.

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-30-2004, 12:07 PM
Don't forget to wear your tin foil cap.

boutons
10-30-2004, 02:37 PM
always substantive replies without personal attacks, just like Fox and Repugs in general.

whottt
10-30-2004, 02:51 PM
You get the replies you deserve for being the voice of Michael Moore's ass.

Lame. Terrorist lover. You fool no one.

boutons
10-30-2004, 03:20 PM
"Terrorist lover."

another substantail post.

"You fool no one."

how conveniently vague, about what?

smeagol
10-30-2004, 03:48 PM
You get the replies you deserve for being the voice of Michael Moore's ass.

Lame. Terrorist lover. You fool no one.

Whottt:

Being against the war in Iraq does not equal being a terrorist lover. I, for one, hate terrorist as much as you do, but do not agree with the reasons the US went to War with Iraq (I agree with the War against the Taliban, I agree wit the first war against Saddam).

On the other hand, I find quite myopic (if that is a word in English?) and plain stupid, to think the US went to war against Iraq for the oil.

Boutons:

The way you titled your thread is extremely missleading. The NY times article simply talks about the 3Q results for a number of oil companies.

Spurminator
10-30-2004, 03:56 PM
The Democrats can thank people like boutons if Kerry loses the Election.

mouse
10-30-2004, 04:23 PM
Rack The tin Foil reset that was fresh, And I must say the Bush Lovers seem to have their Smack Talk going on I must say,


Trust me I live for smack, But one thing that puzzles me is this...The person who made this topic showed me in writing the facts and It must really bother most of you that even though Bush might win? .....Kerry was the better man for the job. and that is the Bottom-Line

How am I going to take any of you serious if you don't meet me 1/2 way?

whottt
10-30-2004, 04:31 PM
Trust me I live for smack, But one thing that puzzles me is this...The person who made this topic showed me in writing the facts and It must really bother most of you that even though Bush might win? .....Kerry was the better man for the job. and that is the Bottom-Line

How am I going to take any of you serious if you don't meet me 1/2 way?


You want some facts Rat? I'll give you some facts.

What boutons bin laden said:

The oil company's had war-induced windfall profits in the 10's of $B in 1967, 1973, 1979, 1990.

He seems to be stating this as an indictment of the Republican Party and the Bush administration...

Let's see..

1967 - Democractic President, Democrat controlled congress.
1973 - Republican President, Democrat controlled congress.
1979 - Democratic President, Democrat controlled congress.(And BTW, I must have missed the war we fought in 1979)
1990 - Republican President, Democrat controlled congress.

What is the common denominator there? Remember...the President in most cases(like everyone listed above) requires the approval of congress to take us into a war.

You want another fact Rat?

Ask the terrorist lover if he drives a car...Cars use oil you know. I'll respect someone bashing big oil if I know they don't drive, out of choice. Otherwise I'll just chalk them up as being a whining complainer who does nothing to solve the problem.

And one last fact Rodent...

Pot kills brain cells. It does not enhance political insight :).

whottt
10-30-2004, 04:42 PM
Whottt:

Being against the war in Iraq does not equal being a terrorist lover. I, for one, hate terrorist as much as you do, but do not agree with the reasons the US went to War with Iraq (I agree with the War against the Taliban, I agree wit the first war against Saddam).




At the time..Osama mentioned 4 things that were his justification behind 911.

1.That our military was an occupation force in Saudi Arabia.
2.Our support of Israel.
3.The Persian Gulf War.
4.The UN Sanctions being levied against Iraq.

3 of those 4 grievances were directly related to Iraq.

All of his grievances were distortions or lies by the way.

Yonivore
10-30-2004, 04:47 PM
always substantive replies without personal attacks, just like Fox and Repugs in general.
You get thoughtful, substantive replies when you make thoughtful, substantive posts. All you did was repost a newspaper article...from the "seig heil wing" of the Left-Liberal media...The New York freakin'-I've-got-your-missing-explosives-right-here Times.

Garbage out...garbage thrown back in your face.

dcole50
10-30-2004, 06:16 PM
Being against the war in Iraq does not equal being a terrorist lover.Exactly. I don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand.

whottt
10-30-2004, 06:59 PM
Exactly. I don't see why this is so hard for some people to understand.


You don't see a whole lot of things...but what you do seem to see often is someone insuting you directly, when it in fact has not occurred.

It's getting old repeating this every time I am arguing with someone other than you.

Were you and smeagol in this thread at the beginning? No you were not. Yet you jump in like it is you being attacked when it was clearly Buton who was being insulted. And he deserves it. He makes 50 million "shrub dickhead" posts and you do not seem to notice that...you only seem to notice the responses he garners by that approach and then you jump in acting like you are being the one personally attacked...

And furthermore...

Did you read the transcript of Osama's interview?

Let's see what Osama talked about...

Bush taking an incredible 7 minutes after hearing of the terror attacks...even thought there was absolutely nothing Bush could have done in 7 minutes to change the outcome of 911...even though there were people in the US government assessing the situation at that time.

And what was the other thing? War for Oil...

Support of dicatators?

Who does that sound like to you?

smeagol
10-30-2004, 07:36 PM
Were you and smeagol in this thread at the beginning? No you were not. Yet you jump in like it is you being attacked when it was clearly Buton who was being insulted.

I'm very much aware it was not me who you were insulting, it was Boutons. I haven't pissed you off as much as other posters have, so I'm assuming I don't deserve the insult . . . yet. :spin

My point is: If the US attacks Iraq with the information it had about WMDs (which time proved it was, at best, incomplete, and which even Republicans say it was not enough to justify the war) and using the Al Queada linkage (again, not been proved), then, going forward, the US will justify a premptive attack on almost any country in the World.

I firmly believe war should be avoided at all costs. War has to be the last resort. When everything else fails, you go to war. I don't think this was the case in the war with Iraq.

whottt
10-30-2004, 07:51 PM
SO what should we have done Smeagol?

Continued with sanctions? Osama's main recruiting tool? As terrorism and Saddam grew ever closer?

Lifted the sanctions? Even though Saddam had violated every condition of the peace agreement? Even though the Dueffler report has stated they weren't working and that Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs very quickly after they were lifted?

Rely on the UN? The UN that was bought and paid for by Saddam?

What would you have done?

Everyone from Jaques Chirac to Bill Clinton to John Kerry to John Edwards to Tony Blair had said Saddam had WMD...going as far back as 1998.

In the Persian Gulf War we knew Saddam was developing WMD...but what we didn't know....even with good intelligence...was how far along his WMD programs were...we underestimated his WMD capabilities then...and that was when we had strong mid east intelligence.

Now it had been 4 years since weapons inspectors had stepped foot in Iraq and they themselves believed Saddam was hiding WMD.

So what was our alternative when we know we are under attack? And both Saddam and Usama hate the USA?

And then there's the simple fact that the Iraqis were being starved by Saddam to get the sactions lifted...there's the fact they lived under a dictator...Did you see them fighting us when we took Saddam out of power? I think they were quite happy to see him go. Now we are trying to prevent a militant islamic group from siezing power and imposing their will on the Iraqis.

I don't see what the big issue is here...The world is a better place now, it is a safer place...no it isn't paradise and no it isn't safe...just better...1 less place of opression...1 less place where terrorism can marry with WMD.

dcole50
10-30-2004, 08:37 PM
I just assumed all non-Bush supporters were being addressed since I've been told by you (if not by you, then I apologize) that we "hate America."

And, for the record, I don't even read most of what boutons posts. I don't think I've agreed with anything he has posted here ever. It's bullshit and lies and I skip over it in the same fashion I do when someone associates Kerry with the Viet Cong or something to that extent.

smeagol
10-30-2004, 08:49 PM
Look, I agree with almost everything you say. I'm just not comfortable with the idea of one super-power talking the matters in their own hands when it comes to matters as important as this one.

What would I have done? Worked with the rest of the World. In 1990, it was a true coallition declaring war on Saddam (by the way, why the hell wasn't he deposed then? We could've avoided avoided all this mess).

Aggie Hoopsfan
10-30-2004, 08:54 PM
using the Al Queada linkage

Smeagol, Bush never used AQ linkage as a precursor for war. He said we needed to get rid of Iraq's leadership, and WMDs before they had a chance to form an alliance and pass them on.