| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" |
| Date: |
06 May 2007 12:26:01 AM |
| Object: |
NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
The oil companies have crossed the line from reasonable
profits to obscene profits and price fixing and gouging!
The price of a barrel of oil has been about the same for
the past year, yet gas prices have shot up 33% since January
and are expected to reach $4 a gallon this summer, while oil
remains at around $60-$70 a barrel!
Venezuela just nationalized their oil companies and it's
time for us to do the same here in the United States!
It's time to stop these gluttonous pigs from destroying this
country!
.
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
06 May 2007 12:22:04 PM |
|
|
Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
The oil companies have crossed the line from reasonable
profits to obscene profits and price fixing and gouging!
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/05/ftc_gas_prices.html
The Federal Trade Commission has reported only 15 examples of gasoline
price gouging after Hurricane Katrina and the agency says there is no
widespread effort by the oil industry to illegally manipulate prices,
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/katrinagasprices.shtm
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time periods
but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale, or retail
level that fit the relevant legislation’s definition of evidence of
“price gouging.” Other factors such as regional or local market trends,
however, appeared to explain these firms’ prices in nearly all cases.
Further, the report reiterated the FTC’s position that federal gasoline
price gouging legislation, in addition to being difficult to enforce,
could cause more problems for consumers than it solves, and that
competitive market forces should be allowed to determine the price of
gasoline drivers pay at the pump.
The price of a barrel of oil has been about the same for
the past year, yet gas prices have shot up 33% since January
and are expected to reach $4 a gallon this summer, while oil
remains at around $60-$70 a barrel!
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/07/gaspricefactor.shtm
FTC Releases Report on “Gasoline Price Changes: the Dynamic of Supply,
Demand, and Competition”
The Federal Trade Commission today issued a report entitled “Gasoline
Price Changes: The Dynamic of Supply, Demand, and Competition.” The
Report analyzes the many factors that influence fluctuations in the
prices that U.S. consumers pay for gasoline at their local gas station.
It examines a wide range of gasoline price factors – including the cost
of crude oil, increasing national and international demand, and federal,
state, and local regulations – all of which influence the prices
consumers pay at the pump. One of the Report’s conclusions is that over
the past 20 years, changes in the price of crude oil have led to 85
percent of the changes in the retail price of gasoline in the U.S.,
while other important factors have included increasing demand, supply
restrictions, and federal, state, and local regulations such as “clean
fuel” requirements and taxes.
The FTC’s Report furnishes detailed information about the factors that
lead to gasoline price spikes and other price changes. It also provides
general conclusions about the larger factors that result in such
changes, including the following:
Worldwide supply, demand, and competition for crude oil are the most
important factors in the national average price of gasoline in the
United States. Over the past 20 years, changes in crude oil prices have
explained 85 percent of the changes in the prices of gasoline
nationwide. Since 1973, according to the Report, production decisions by
OPEC have been a significant factor in the prices that refiners pay for
crude oil. The demand for crude oil has grown significantly over the
past two decades, as well, leading to higher prices at the pump.
Gasoline supply, demand, and competition produced relatively low and
stable average real U.S. gasoline prices from 1984 until 2004, despite
substantial increases in U.S. gasoline consumption. The Report indicates
that U.S. consumer demand for gasoline has risen substantially,
especially since 1990. Since 1984, increased gasoline supplies from U.S.
refineries and imports helped meet increasing demand and kept gasoline
prices relatively steady. For most of the past 20 years, real average
retail gasoline prices in the United States, including taxes, have been
at their lowest levels since 1919, with U.S. refiners adopting more
efficient technologies and business strategies that have allowed them to
produce more refined product for each barrel of crude they process. And
despite a somewhat different trend in the last few years – with the
average U.S. retail price for a gallon of gasoline increasing from $1.56
in 2003 to $2.04 in the first five months of 2005 – it is difficult, if
not impossible, to predict whether this sharper rate of increase
represents the beginning of a longer-term trend.
Regional differences in access to gasoline supplies and environmental
requirements for gasoline affect average retail prices and the
variability of regional prices. Different regions of the country differ
in their access to gasoline supplies, and these differences affect
gasoline prices. Gasoline prices on the East Coast, in the Midwest, and
in the Rocky Mountain states are significantly more variable than Gulf
Coast gasoline prices, due to the availability of excess refining
capacity along the Gulf Coast. In addition, regional environmental
requirements for “boutique” fuels, such as CARB gasoline requirements in
California, can limit substitute gasoline supplies and can thus lead to
cost increases during supply shortages.
Venezuela just nationalized their oil companies and it's
time for us to do the same here in the United States!
Any idea why the price of crude stays up?
Hint - VEnezuela is a memeber of....OPEC!!!!
It's time to stop these gluttonous pigs from destroying this
country!
It's time for hysterical pantywaists like you to be humiliated with a
dose of reality:
http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm
How do oil profits compare with those of other industries?
The oil and gas industry is one of the world’s largest industries, and
as a consequence its profits are often greater than many other
industries. However, merely comparing the size of profits among various
industries doesn’t indicate how profitable a particular industry may be.
A more useful tool for comparison is profit margin (calculated by
dividing net income by total sales). When this measure is applied, the
profitability of the oil and gas industry frequently falls below that of
other major industries.
As indicated in the graphic, the profit margin of U.S. oil and gas
companies was slightly above that of all industry in the third quarter
of 2006. However, the industry's profitability remained below the profit
margins of other industries such as pharmaceuticals, electrical
equipment and computers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ms Devils Advocate" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
06 May 2007 12:54:09 PM |
|
|
surfside7th <van@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation’s definition of
evidence of “price gouging.”
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
--
Devil's Advocate
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
06 May 2007 04:59:53 PM |
|
|
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <van@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation’s definition of
evidence of “price gouging.”
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
If anything they are enlarging and modernizing the refineries they have.
The Enviros won't let them permit new ones without massive EIS fights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
06 May 2007 06:18:30 PM |
|
|
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
If anything they are enlarging and modernizing the refineries they have.
Really. The industry was spending (allegedly) $20B on refineries last
year.
Approximately a THIRD of their profits. And they refuse to release any
information to anyone, including their stockholders (me), about what
they
are spending it on. Refineries damaged by hurricanes, and other
natural
disasters would likely eat up half of that.
The Enviros won't let them permit new ones without massive EIS fights.
Really. So how do you explain the fact that there are LESS refineries
over the last 20 years? Nobody has shut them down from outside...
The oil and gas industry is populated by a bunch of slimey greedy
jerks.
They laid off all of the people that would have been helping now back
in
the 80s. I was there, were you?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
06 May 2007 11:18:43 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
If anything they are enlarging and modernizing the refineries they have.
Really. The industry was spending (allegedly) $20B on refineries last
year.
Approximately a THIRD of their profits. And they refuse to release any
information to anyone, including their stockholders (me), about what
they
are spending it on. Refineries damaged by hurricanes, and other
natural
disasters would likely eat up half of that.
So?
The Enviros won't let them permit new ones without massive EIS fights.
Really. So how do you explain the fact that there are LESS refineries
over the last 20 years?
Consolidation leads to economies of scale. larger facilities produce
larger quantities and technology streamlines processing.
Where's all your evidence of evil-doing?
CITE!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 07:34:32 AM |
|
|
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
If anything they are enlarging and modernizing the refineries they have.
Really. The industry was spending (allegedly) $20B on refineries last
year.
Approximately a THIRD of their profits. And they refuse to release any
information to anyone, including their stockholders (me), about what
they
are spending it on. Refineries damaged by hurricanes, and other
natural
disasters would likely eat up half of that.
So?
Sigh.
The Enviros won't let them permit new ones without massive EIS fights.
Really. So how do you explain the fact that there are LESS refineries
over the last 20 years?
Consolidation leads to economies of scale. larger facilities produce
larger quantities and technology streamlines processing.
Of course. So, the refineries are being shut down, but its bad because
they
aren't building new ones. That makes sense.
Where's all your evidence of evil-doing?
I didn't say there was "evil-doing". I said they were not TRYING to
build
any new refineries, so that entire line was a non-sequitir.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 02:51:50 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
Cuz if not , STFU with you lies.
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/05/katrinagasprices.shtm
During the time period examined, the Commission found:
No evidence to suggest that refiners manipulated prices through any
means, including running their refineries below full productive capacity
to restrict supply, altering their refinery output to produce less
gasoline, or diverting gasoline from markets in the United States to
less lucrative foreign markets. The evidence indicated that these firms
produced as much gasoline as they economically could, using computer
models to determine their most profitable slate of products.
No evidence to suggest that refinery expansion decisions over the past
20 years resulted from either unilateral or coordinated attempts to
manipulate prices. Rather, the pace of capacity growth resulted from
competitive market forces.
No evidence to suggest that petroleum pipeline companies made rate or
expansion decisions in order to manipulate gasoline prices.
No evidence to suggest that oil companies reduced inventory to increase
or manipulate prices or exacerbate the effects of price spikes
generally, or due to hurricane-related supply disruptions in particular.
Inventory levels have declined, but the decline represents a
decades-long trend to lower costs that is consistent with other
manufacturing industries. In setting inventory levels, companies try to
plan for unexpected supply disruptions by examining supply needs from
past disruptions.
No situations that might allow one firm – or a small collusive group –
to manipulate gasoline futures prices by using storage assets to
restrict gasoline movements into New York Harbor, the key delivery point
for gasoline futures contracts.
The Commission also determined that, in light of the amount of gasoline
production and pipeline capacity eliminated by Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita – which is detailed in the report – and the typical inelastic
response of consumer demand to gasoline price changes, the
post-hurricane gasoline price increases at the national and regional
levels were approximately what would be predicted by the standard
supply-and-demand model of a market performing competitively. The
conduct of firms in response to the supply shocks from the hurricanes
was consistent with competition. In particular, firms diverted supply
from lower-priced areas to higher priced areas, firms drew down their
inventories, refineries not affected by the hurricanes increased output,
and gasoline imports increased.
As directed by Section 632, the Commission also examined gasoline prices
after the hurricanes to search for any instances of price gouging as
defined by that legislation. In its examination of price-gouging
evidence, the report analyzed financial data for 30 refiners, 23
wholesalers, and 24 single-location retailers. The report found that 15
of these firms – seven refiners, two wholesalers and six retailers – had
higher average gasoline prices in September 2005 compared to August, and
that these higher prices were not substantially attributable to either
higher costs or to national or international market trends. Accordingly,
there was evidence of price gouging, as defined by Section 632, for
these firms. Additional analyses, however, showed that other factors,
such as regional or local market trends, appeared to explain the pricing
of these firms in nearly all cases.
Policy Implications
The final section of the report discusses policy implications and
recommendations generated by the Commission’s investigation. The report
discusses the important role of the antitrust laws in protecting
consumers by ensuring they are offered competitive market prices. It
describes the roles of the FTC and Department of Justice in maintaining
competitive markets through antitrust enforcement, including actions to
investigate and prevent collusive conduct. The report also presents the
Commission’s merger enforcement work related to crude oil and gasoline,
as well as its law enforcement actions involving conduct by market
participants such as Union Oil Company of California (Unocal).
The report also examines state and federal perspectives on price
gouging, describing investigative activities by particular states and
the effects of state price gouging laws on gasoline retailers. It
concludes by presenting the FTC’s views on calls for federal gasoline
price gouging legislation, describing the challenges of crafting a price
gouging statute and the difficulty of distinguishing “gougers” from
those who are reacting in an economically rational manner to the
temporary gasoline shortages resulting from an emergency such as a
hurricane. After discussing the critical role of prices in market-based
economies, the policy section concludes that if natural price signals
are distorted by price controls, consumers ultimately might be worse
off, as gasoline shortages could result.
Structure of the Report
The report begins with an introduction and executive summary describing
its structure and primary findings. Part I examines refinery production
and the transportation of bulk supplies of gasoline, along with
inventory practices and other issues related to potential gasoline price
manipulation. Part II focuses on the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita on the United States’ gasoline markets, describes the wholesale and
retail price increases seen in the wake of these storms, and assesses
whether price gouging, as defined, occurred. Finally, Part III addresses
a number of important policy issues arising from the investigation and
presents Commission recommendations related to this issue.
The vote to release the report, which is available now on the FTC’s Web
site, was 5-0, with Commissioner Jon Leibowitz issuing a separate
concurring statement. The investigation resulting in the report was
mandated by Section 1809 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Section
632 of the FTC’s fiscal year 2006 appropriations legislation.
Copies of "Investigation of Gasoline Price Manipulation and
Post-Katrina Gasoline Price Increases" are available from the FTC’s Web
site at http://www.ftc.gov and also from the FTC’s Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
If anything they are enlarging and modernizing the refineries they have.
Really. The industry was spending (allegedly) $20B on refineries last
year.
Approximately a THIRD of their profits. And they refuse to release any
information to anyone, including their stockholders (me), about what
they
are spending it on. Refineries damaged by hurricanes, and other
natural
disasters would likely eat up half of that.
So?
Sigh.
No point then, as I suspected.
The Enviros won't let them permit new ones without massive EIS fights.
Really. So how do you explain the fact that there are LESS refineries
over the last 20 years?
Consolidation leads to economies of scale. larger facilities produce
larger quantities and technology streamlines processing.
Of course. So, the refineries are being shut down, but its bad because
they
aren't building new ones. That makes sense.
Got a cite for how many have been shut down?
Do ya *****?
BP closed some Alaskan capacity to redo leaking pipelines.
New refineries are being proposed even as we speak:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/08/18/ndrefinery/
A proposed oil refinery in North Dakota is generating opposition and
skepticism. It would be the first new refinery in the United States in
decades. Tribal leaders in western North Dakota believe the refinery
will provide economic stability. Skeptics argue the refinery will only
bring environmental damage and economic ruin.
There - see what happens!
Where's all your evidence of evil-doing?
I didn't say there was "evil-doing". I said they were not TRYING to
build
any new refineries, so that entire line was a non-sequitir.
YOU ARE FULL OF *****!
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DE1E3DF932A05754C0A964958260
A Chevron Corporation unit plans to spend $750 million to upgrade its
San Francisco-area refinery. The majority of the upgrading, to occur
during the next four to five years, is designed to bring the refinery
into compliance with Federal and state air pollution regulations. The
project is expected to create about 1,000 construction jobs. Chevron
holds 16.8 percent of the California gasoline market and is the
second-largest marketer, said Ron Londe, an analyst with A. G. Edwards &
Sons. California is one of the largest gasoline markets in the world, he
said.
http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=930459&highlight=
Chevron Seeks Permit for Refinery Expansion to Increase U.S. Gasoline
Production
PASCAGOULA, Miss., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
today announced it has submitted an environmental permit application to
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for the construction
of a major gasoline production unit, along with other minor units, at
its refinery in Pascagoula, Miss., that could potentially further
increase gasoline production at the refinery by roughly 15 percent.
According to refinery General Manager Roland Kell, the new Continuous
Catalyst Regeneration (CCR) unit would update important refinery
technology by replacing two process units constructed more than 30 years
ago. "The CCR project would increase the Pascagoula Refinery's ability
to provide reliable supplies of gasoline to key markets in the eastern
United States," Kell said.
Chevron has contracted WorleyParsons to complete engineering for the CCR
project, Kell said, and if approved, project construction would likely
begin sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
http://www.refineryreform.org/more_money_than_god.html
Gulf Coast Gasoline Alley
Refinery Survey Finds Expansions
Without Environmental Protections
The review reveals that eleven refineries (84%) had carried out major
expansions in at least one key refinery area while the other two
refineries are conducting expansions, which means that all thirteen-
100%-will have expanded in the last decade.
A brief review was conducted of a key refinery rating factor -
atmospheric crude distillation capacity in barrels per day - at thirteen
Texas-Louisiana refineries between 1993-2001 (comparing January 1, 1993
National Petroleum Refiners Association data to January 1, 2001
Department of Energy data; 1, 2), since an upgrade in this area has the
potential to trigger New Source Review (NSR) requirements by
significantly increasing criteria and toxic air emissions. The review
reveals that eleven (84%) had carried out major expansions in at least
one key refinery area while the other two refineries are conducting
expansions, which means that all thirteen -100% -will have expanded in
the last decade. Certainly, other refinery production areas may have
been expanded at the same time as the atmospheric crude distillation
units, but the other areas were not evaluated here. Major refinery NSR
modifications have probably occurred prior to 1993 which needs to be
evaluated further, since U.S. refinery capacity has increased by 27%
since the 1970's without any new grassroots refineries being built in
the last 20 years.
Seven of nine Houston-Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas refineries made
significant atmospheric crude distillation expansions in the 1990's and
increased capacity by an average of 16% for a combined total of 320,000
barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and all four Lake Charles-Norco,
Louisiana refineries expanded the same crude units by an average of 15%
for a 103,500 bpd total.
http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/faq.htm
What is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma?
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is a company dedicated to producing the
cleanest burning gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be produced in
the United States today. To this end, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma is
building a refinery in Arizona which, when completed, will be the most
advanced fuel refinery in North America.
Where will the refinery be built?
The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is planned for a remote area about
100 miles southwest of Phoenix in Yuma County just off Interstate 8.
What do you mean when you say the "cleanest fuel"?
The fuels produced at the proposed refinery will burn cleaner and
pollute less than the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in use in Arizona
today. These ultra clean burning fuels allow for the introduction of the
new generation gasoline and diesel engines that operate virtually
pollution free. In addition, the gasoline produced at the plant will not
need MTBE as an additive. In light of recent California evidence of MTBE
caused pollution to lakes and ground water, this is good news and part
of our 'clean fuels' strategy.
What will this refinery mean to me in Arizona?
Arizona consumers are presently at the mercy of refineries that operate
in California or Texas. This leads to price and supply fluctuations that
negatively affect Arizona drivers. The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery
will go a great distance toward correcting this problem, acting as a
ready supply for Arizona. But that's not the best news. The clean fuels
produced at the refinery will mostly be purchased and used by drivers of
cars and trucks on the roads of Arizona. The net effect of a cleaner
burning fuel being used in our state means tons of exhaust pollution
that would have gone into the air, instead will not go into the air.
Indeed, as recent experience proves, people are not ready to give up the
freedom that comes with the automobile… and big trucks will continue to
roll down the highways delivering goods to their final destinations. In
light of these facts, a cleaner burning fuel is the most powerful and
practical weapon that we have to fight for clean air in Arizona. And the
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is being built for that purpose.
How big is it?
The plant is a huge economic investment. Owners of the project (many of
whom call Arizona home) are planning to spend well over two billion
dollars constructing the refinery. When complete, the plant is expected
to employ hundreds of people and pay tens of millions of dollars
annually in taxes - Even more if you count the businesses that will be
created and employees hired as a result of the ripple effect the
refinery will have on the local economy. The site covers approximately
1,400 acres of land with an additional 155 acres of land area
surrounding the facility that will be used as a buffer zone and for
additional offshoot industries.
How much fuel will it produce?
The plant will be able to supply approximately one-half of the gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel demand for the state of Arizona.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_May_1/ai_85366745
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 1, 2002
Conoco (NYSE:COC) will spend $146 million to upgrade the company's Ponca
City, Okla., refinery to manufacture gasoline that meets the low-sulfur
gasoline standards required by the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Tier 2 rules. Beginning Jan. 1, 2004, the amount of sulfur in
gasoline sold in the U.S. must be reduced, reaching no more than 30
parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2005.
"The Ponca City refinery upgrade is the first step in our long-term
strategy for producing low-sulfur gasoline at all four of Conoco's U.S.
refineries," said Jim Nokes, executive vice president, refining,
marketing, supply and transportation. "The project is consistent with
our objective to optimize low-sulfur gasoline investments, to maintain a
robust and sustainable motor fuels business within the U.S. and to
provide our customers with cleaner-burning, low sulfur gasoline," he added.
Included in the upgrades to further reduce the sulfur content of
gasoline produced at the 190,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Ponca City
refinery will be a hydrotreater to reduce gasoline sulfur, an
isomerization unit to enhance octane and an associated hydrogen plant to
produce supplemental hydrogen supplies.
http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/NR_2002-01-10.htm
San Antonio, TX January 10, 2002 Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO)
today announced a major upgrading project at its Texas City refinery.
The company intends to construct a new 45,000 barrel-per-day (BPD)
delayed coker facility that will greatly improve the refinery’s overall
profitability and allow the refinery to process a heavier, more sour
crude oil feedstock slate. Completion of the project is expected by
January of 2004 at a cost of approximately $300 million. Company
officials also announced that they have entered into a long-term supply
contract with P.M.I. Comercio Internacional, S.A. de C.V. (PMI) for
90,000 BPD of Maya crude commencing upon completion of the coker project.
“Once we complete this project, the Texas City refinery will be a
world-class facility with more than 260,000 BPD of throughput capacity,”
said Bill Greehey, chairman of the board and chief executive officer.
“When we bought the Texas City refinery from Basis Petroleum, we paid
less than ten cents on the dollar of replacement cost. One of the
biggest reasons for the very low purchase price was its limited ability
to upgrade bottom-of-the-barrel refined products. The coker project will
resolve this limitation by allowing us to upgrade residual fuel oils
rather than selling them at discounted prices in the market or
transporting them to our Corpus Christi facility. The other big benefit
is that we’ll be able to process a heavier, more sour feedstock slate
which should lower the refinery’s feedstock costs by as much as $1 per
barrel.”
“Our contract with PMI is also very significant since it secures a
reliable source of heavy, sour crude and reduces our dependency on
long-haul crudes such as those out of the Middle East. This new contract
also expands our relationship with PMI by increasing our total crude
commitment to more than 170,000 BPD,” said Greehey.
Valero Energy Corporation is a Fortune 100 company based in San Antonio,
with more than 20,000 employees and annual revenues of more than $30
billion. The company currently owns and operates 12 refineries in the
United States and Canada with a combined throughput capacity of
approximately 2 million BPD, making it one of the nation’s top three
refiners of petroleum products. Valero is also one of the nation’s
largest retailers of petroleum products with nearly 5,000 retail outlets
in the United States and Canada under various brand names including
Diamond Shamrock, Ultramar, Valero, Beacon and Total.
NOW STOP THE FUCKING LYING!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 05:57:52 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
No, I find anecdotal evidence to be worthless. Now, answer the
question
please?
Cuz if not , STFU with you lies.
Right, ad hominem attacks, always a good way to make your point. Most
people understand that once you reach this level, you've already
admitted
defeat.
Thanks anyway, though, I'll just toss you in the bucket of people not
to be
believed.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 06:24:06 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
No, I find anecdotal evidence to be worthless. Now, answer the
question
please?
So you just have animus and rumor, OK.
Cuz if not , STFU with you lies.
Right, ad hominem attacks, always a good way to make your point.
I made it with evidence you deleted, as you _always_ do.
You're a rotten little dishonest piece of ***** mattie, a real
scumfucking liar.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DE1E3DF932A05754C0A964958260
A Chevron Corporation unit plans to spend $750 million to upgrade its
San Francisco-area refinery. The majority of the upgrading, to occur
during the next four to five years, is designed to bring the refinery
into compliance with Federal and state air pollution regulations. The
project is expected to create about 1,000 construction jobs. Chevron
holds 16.8 percent of the California gasoline market and is the
second-largest marketer, said Ron Londe, an analyst with A. G. Edwards &
Sons. California is one of the largest gasoline markets in the world, he
said.
http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=930459&highlight=
Chevron Seeks Permit for Refinery Expansion to Increase U.S. Gasoline
Production
PASCAGOULA, Miss., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
today announced it has submitted an environmental permit application to
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for the construction
of a major gasoline production unit, along with other minor units, at
its refinery in Pascagoula, Miss., that could potentially further
increase gasoline production at the refinery by roughly 15 percent.
According to refinery General Manager Roland Kell, the new Continuous
Catalyst Regeneration (CCR) unit would update important refinery
technology by replacing two process units constructed more than 30 years
ago. "The CCR project would increase the Pascagoula Refinery's ability
to provide reliable supplies of gasoline to key markets in the eastern
United States," Kell said.
Chevron has contracted WorleyParsons to complete engineering for the CCR
project, Kell said, and if approved, project construction would likely
begin sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
http://www.refineryreform.org/more_money_than_god.html
Gulf Coast Gasoline Alley
Refinery Survey Finds Expansions
Without Environmental Protections
The review reveals that eleven refineries (84%) had carried out major
expansions in at least one key refinery area while the other two
refineries are conducting expansions, which means that all thirteen-
100%-will have expanded in the last decade.
A brief review was conducted of a key refinery rating factor -
atmospheric crude distillation capacity in barrels per day - at thirteen
Texas-Louisiana refineries between 1993-2001 (comparing January 1, 1993
National Petroleum Refiners Association data to January 1, 2001
Department of Energy data; 1, 2), since an upgrade in this area has the
potential to trigger New Source Review (NSR) requirements by
significantly increasing criteria and toxic air emissions. The review
reveals that eleven (84%) had carried out major expansions in at least
one key refinery area while the other two refineries are conducting
expansions, which means that all thirteen -100% -will have expanded in
the last decade. Certainly, other refinery production areas may have
been expanded at the same time as the atmospheric crude distillation
units, but the other areas were not evaluated here. Major refinery NSR
modifications have probably occurred prior to 1993 which needs to be
evaluated further, since U.S. refinery capacity has increased by 27%
since the 1970's without any new grassroots refineries being built in
the last 20 years.
Seven of nine Houston-Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas refineries made
significant atmospheric crude distillation expansions in the 1990's and
increased capacity by an average of 16% for a combined total of 320,000
barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and all four Lake Charles-Norco,
Louisiana refineries expanded the same crude units by an average of 15%
for a 103,500 bpd total.
http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/faq.htm
What is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma?
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is a company dedicated to producing the
cleanest burning gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be produced in
the United States today. To this end, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma is
building a refinery in Arizona which, when completed, will be the most
advanced fuel refinery in North America.
Where will the refinery be built?
The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is planned for a remote area about
100 miles southwest of Phoenix in Yuma County just off Interstate 8.
What do you mean when you say the "cleanest fuel"?
The fuels produced at the proposed refinery will burn cleaner and
pollute less than the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in use in Arizona
today. These ultra clean burning fuels allow for the introduction of the
new generation gasoline and diesel engines that operate virtually
pollution free. In addition, the gasoline produced at the plant will not
need MTBE as an additive. In light of recent California evidence of MTBE
caused pollution to lakes and ground water, this is good news and part
of our 'clean fuels' strategy.
What will this refinery mean to me in Arizona?
Arizona consumers are presently at the mercy of refineries that operate
in California or Texas. This leads to price and supply fluctuations that
negatively affect Arizona drivers. The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery
will go a great distance toward correcting this problem, acting as a
ready supply for Arizona. But that's not the best news. The clean fuels
produced at the refinery will mostly be purchased and used by drivers of
cars and trucks on the roads of Arizona. The net effect of a cleaner
burning fuel being used in our state means tons of exhaust pollution
that would have gone into the air, instead will not go into the air.
Indeed, as recent experience proves, people are not ready to give up the
freedom that comes with the automobile… and big trucks will continue to
roll down the highways delivering goods to their final destinations. In
light of these facts, a cleaner burning fuel is the most powerful and
practical weapon that we have to fight for clean air in Arizona. And the
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is being built for that purpose.
How big is it?
The plant is a huge economic investment. Owners of the project (many of
whom call Arizona home) are planning to spend well over two billion
dollars constructing the refinery. When complete, the plant is expected
to employ hundreds of people and pay tens of millions of dollars
annually in taxes - Even more if you count the businesses that will be
created and employees hired as a result of the ripple effect the
refinery will have on the local economy. The site covers approximately
1,400 acres of land with an additional 155 acres of land area
surrounding the facility that will be used as a buffer zone and for
additional offshoot industries.
How much fuel will it produce?
The plant will be able to supply approximately one-half of the gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel demand for the state of Arizona.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_May_1/ai_85366745
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 1, 2002
Conoco (NYSE:COC) will spend $146 million to upgrade the company's Ponca
City, Okla., refinery to manufacture gasoline that meets the low-sulfur
gasoline standards required by the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Tier 2 rules. Beginning Jan. 1, 2004, the amount of sulfur in
gasoline sold in the U.S. must be reduced, reaching no more than 30
parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2005.
"The Ponca City refinery upgrade is the first step in our long-term
strategy for producing low-sulfur gasoline at all four of Conoco's U.S.
refineries," said Jim Nokes, executive vice president, refining,
marketing, supply and transportation. "The project is consistent with
our objective to optimize low-sulfur gasoline investments, to maintain a
robust and sustainable motor fuels business within the U.S. and to
provide our customers with cleaner-burning, low sulfur gasoline," he added.
Included in the upgrades to further reduce the sulfur content of
gasoline produced at the 190,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Ponca City
refinery will be a hydrotreater to reduce gasoline sulfur, an
isomerization unit to enhance octane and an associated hydrogen plant to
produce supplemental hydrogen supplies.
http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/NR_2002-01-10.htm
San Antonio, TX January 10, 2002 Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO)
today announced a major upgrading project at its Texas City refinery.
The company intends to construct a new 45,000 barrel-per-day (BPD)
delayed coker facility that will greatly improve the refinery’s overall
profitability and allow the refinery to process a heavier, more sour
crude oil feedstock slate. Completion of the project is expected by
January of 2004 at a cost of approximately $300 million. Company
officials also announced that they have entered into a long-term supply
contract with P.M.I. Comercio Internacional, S.A. de C.V. (PMI) for
90,000 BPD of Maya crude commencing upon completion of the coker project.
“Once we complete this project, the Texas City refinery will be a
world-class facility with more than 260,000 BPD of throughput capacity,”
said Bill Greehey, chairman of the board and chief executive officer.
“When we bought the Texas City refinery from Basis Petroleum, we paid
less than ten cents on the dollar of replacement cost. One of the
biggest reasons for the very low purchase price was its limited ability
to upgrade bottom-of-the-barrel refined products. The coker project will
resolve this limitation by allowing us to upgrade residual fuel oils
rather than selling them at discounted prices in the market or
transporting them to our Corpus Christi facility. The other big benefit
is that we’ll be able to process a heavier, more sour feedstock slate
which should lower the refinery’s feedstock costs by as much as $1 per
barrel.”
“Our contract with PMI is also very significant since it secures a
reliable source of heavy, sour crude and reduces our dependency on
long-haul crudes such as those out of the Middle East. This new contract
also expands our relationship with PMI by increasing our total crude
commitment to more than 170,000 BPD,” said Greehey.
Valero Energy Corporation is a Fortune 100 company based in San Antonio,
with more than 20,000 employees and annual revenues of more than $30
billion. The company currently owns and operates 12 refineries in the
United States and Canada with a combined throughput capacity of
approximately 2 million BPD, making it one of the nation’s top three
refiners of petroleum products. Valero is also one of the nation’s
largest retailers of petroleum products with nearly 5,000 retail outlets
in the United States and Canada under various brand names including
Diamond Shamrock, Ultramar, Valero, Beacon and Total.
NOW STOP THE FUCKING LYING!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 06:28:01 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
No, I find anecdotal evidence to be worthless. Now, answer the
question
please?
So you just have animus and rumor, OK.
No, I have a question, which you are studiously ignoring.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 06:53:23 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
No, I find anecdotal evidence to be worthless. Now, answer the
question
please?
So you just have animus and rumor, OK.
No, I have a question,
No, you have a hanging charge with NO substantive evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 06:55:45 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, English and a few other
languages.
None of which explain what you are talking about. If you think the SEC
somehow checks to see if your accounting is correct, you are quite
wrong.
I suggest you look up a good CPA and tell them your tale of woe. The
FTC,
of course, manages interstate trade, which would be where price fixing
problems might occur.
Do you have a PERSONAL TALE to tell mattie?
No, I find anecdotal evidence to be worthless. Now, answer the
question
please?
So you just have animus and rumor, OK.
No, I have a question,
No, you have a hanging charge with NO substantive evidence.
I haven't made a single charge. I've simply asked a question. Are you
feeling guilty?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 07:00:04 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 07:07:05 PM |
|
|
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
You don't seem to listen too well. Cursing, ad hominems, all they
accomplish
is to prove you are losing the argument.
It really wasn't a terribly complicated question. Do you have any
evidence
outside of the politically motivated FTC, that shows what you claim is
true?
Surely, there must be some.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
07 May 2007 10:52:05 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
You don't seem to listen too well.
YOU DON'T SEEM TO LIKE THE FACTS!
***** YOU TO HELL!!!!!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
08 May 2007 07:27:50 AM |
|
|
On May 7, 9:52 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
You don't seem to listen too well.
YOU DON'T SEEM TO LIKE THE FACTS!
***** YOU TO HELL!!!!!!!!
Ooo, that was scary.
So, are you going to provide the answers, or should I just write you
off?
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
08 May 2007 10:57:10 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 9:52 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
You don't seem to listen too well.
YOU DON'T SEEM TO LIKE THE FACTS!
***** YOU TO HELL!!!!!!!!
Ooo, that was scary.
So, are you going to provide the answers
You stupid mincing piece of *****, you have your answers *****, now
I'll just use your replies to bulk post - ENJOY!
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/120qpmu.html
Chevron Corp. (CVX) %10.18
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) %10.64
ConocoPhillips (COP) %8.58
Healthcare Information Services %27.00
Application Software %23.70
Security Software & Services %23.00
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DE1E3DF932A05754C0A964958260
A Chevron Corporation unit plans to spend $750 million to upgrade its
San Francisco-area refinery. The majority of the upgrading, to occur
during the next four to five years, is designed to bring the refinery
into compliance with Federal and state air pollution regulations. The
project is expected to create about 1,000 construction jobs. Chevron
holds 16.8 percent of the California gasoline market and is the
second-largest marketer, said Ron Londe, an analyst with A. G. Edwards &
Sons. California is one of the largest gasoline markets in the world, he
said.
http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=930459&highlight=
Chevron Seeks Permit for Refinery Expansion to Increase U.S. Gasoline
Production
PASCAGOULA, Miss., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
today announced it has submitted an environmental permit application to
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for the construction
of a major gasoline production unit, along with other minor units, at
its refinery in Pascagoula, Miss., that could potentially further
increase gasoline production at the refinery by roughly 15 percent.
According to refinery General Manager Roland Kell, the new Continuous
Catalyst Regeneration (CCR) unit would update important refinery
technology by replacing two process units constructed more than 30 years
ago. "The CCR project would increase the Pascagoula Refinery's ability
to provide reliable supplies of gasoline to key markets in the eastern
United States," Kell said.
Chevron has contracted WorleyParsons to complete engineering for the CCR
project, Kell said, and if approved, project construction would likely
begin sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
http://www.refineryreform.org/more_money_than_god.html
Gulf Coast Gasoline Alley
Refinery Survey Finds Expansions
Without Environmental Protections
The review reveals that eleven refineries (84%) had carried out major
expansions in at least one key refinery area while the other two
refineries are conducting expansions, which means that all thirteen-
100%-will have expanded in the last decade.
A brief review was conducted of a key refinery rating factor -
atmospheric crude distillation capacity in barrels per day - at thirteen
Texas-Louisiana refineries between 1993-2001 (comparing January 1, 1993
National Petroleum Refiners Association data to January 1, 2001
Department of Energy data; 1, 2), since an upgrade in this area has the
potential to trigger New Source Review (NSR) requirements by
significantly increasing criteria and toxic air emissions. The review
reveals that eleven (84%) had carried out major expansions in at least
one key refinery area while the other two refineries are conducting
expansions, which means that all thirteen -100% -will have expanded in
the last decade. Certainly, other refinery production areas may have
been expanded at the same time as the atmospheric crude distillation
units, but the other areas were not evaluated here. Major refinery NSR
modifications have probably occurred prior to 1993 which needs to be
evaluated further, since U.S. refinery capacity has increased by 27%
since the 1970's without any new grassroots refineries being built in
the last 20 years.
Seven of nine Houston-Beaumont-Port Arthur, Texas refineries made
significant atmospheric crude distillation expansions in the 1990's and
increased capacity by an average of 16% for a combined total of 320,000
barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil, and all four Lake Charles-Norco,
Louisiana refineries expanded the same crude units by an average of 15%
for a 103,500 bpd total.
http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/faq.htm
What is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma?
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is a company dedicated to producing the
cleanest burning gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be produced in
the United States today. To this end, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma is
building a refinery in Arizona which, when completed, will be the most
advanced fuel refinery in North America.
Where will the refinery be built?
The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is planned for a remote area about
100 miles southwest of Phoenix in Yuma County just off Interstate 8.
What do you mean when you say the "cleanest fuel"?
The fuels produced at the proposed refinery will burn cleaner and
pollute less than the gasoline, diesel and jet fuel in use in Arizona
today. These ultra clean burning fuels allow for the introduction of the
new generation gasoline and diesel engines that operate virtually
pollution free. In addition, the gasoline produced at the plant will not
need MTBE as an additive. In light of recent California evidence of MTBE
caused pollution to lakes and ground water, this is good news and part
of our 'clean fuels' strategy.
What will this refinery mean to me in Arizona?
Arizona consumers are presently at the mercy of refineries that operate
in California or Texas. This leads to price and supply fluctuations that
negatively affect Arizona drivers. The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery
will go a great distance toward correcting this problem, acting as a
ready supply for Arizona. But that's not the best news. The clean fuels
produced at the refinery will mostly be purchased and used by drivers of
cars and trucks on the roads of Arizona. The net effect of a cleaner
burning fuel being used in our state means tons of exhaust pollution
that would have gone into the air, instead will not go into the air.
Indeed, as recent experience proves, people are not ready to give up the
freedom that comes with the automobile… and big trucks will continue to
roll down the highways delivering goods to their final destinations. In
light of these facts, a cleaner burning fuel is the most powerful and
practical weapon that we have to fight for clean air in Arizona. And the
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is being built for that purpose.
How big is it?
The plant is a huge economic investment. Owners of the project (many of
whom call Arizona home) are planning to spend well over two billion
dollars constructing the refinery. When complete, the plant is expected
to employ hundreds of people and pay tens of millions of dollars
annually in taxes - Even more if you count the businesses that will be
created and employees hired as a result of the ripple effect the
refinery will have on the local economy. The site covers approximately
1,400 acres of land with an additional 155 acres of land area
surrounding the facility that will be used as a buffer zone and for
additional offshoot industries.
How much fuel will it produce?
The plant will be able to supply approximately one-half of the gasoline,
diesel and jet fuel demand for the state of Arizona.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_May_1/ai_85366745
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 1, 2002
Conoco (NYSE:COC) will spend $146 million to upgrade the company's Ponca
City, Okla., refinery to manufacture gasoline that meets the low-sulfur
gasoline standards required by the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Tier 2 rules. Beginning Jan. 1, 2004, the amount of sulfur in
gasoline sold in the U.S. must be reduced, reaching no more than 30
parts per million (ppm) of sulfur in 2005.
"The Ponca City refinery upgrade is the first step in our long-term
strategy for producing low-sulfur gasoline at all four of Conoco's U.S.
refineries," said Jim Nokes, executive vice president, refining,
marketing, supply and transportation. "The project is consistent with
our objective to optimize low-sulfur gasoline investments, to maintain a
robust and sustainable motor fuels business within the U.S. and to
provide our customers with cleaner-burning, low sulfur gasoline," he added.
Included in the upgrades to further reduce the sulfur content of
gasoline produced at the 190,000 barrel-per-day (bpd) Ponca City
refinery will be a hydrotreater to reduce gasoline sulfur, an
isomerization unit to enhance octane and an associated hydrogen plant to
produce supplemental hydrogen supplies.
http://www.valero.com/NewsRoom/NewsReleases/NR_2002-01-10.htm
San Antonio, TX January 10, 2002 Valero Energy Corporation (NYSE: VLO)
today announced a major upgrading project at its Texas City refinery.
The company intends to construct a new 45,000 barrel-per-day (BPD)
delayed coker facility that will greatly improve the refinery’s overall
profitability and allow the refinery to process a heavier, more sour
crude oil feedstock slate. Completion of the project is expected by
January of 2004 at a cost of approximately $300 million. Company
officials also announced that they have entered into a long-term supply
contract with P.M.I. Comercio Internacional, S.A. de C.V. (PMI) for
90,000 BPD of Maya crude commencing upon completion of the coker project.
“Once we complete this project, the Texas City refinery will be a
world-class facility with more than 260,000 BPD of throughput capacity,”
said Bill Greehey, chairman of the board and chief executive officer.
“When we bought the Texas City refinery from Basis Petroleum, we paid
less than ten cents on the dollar of replacement cost. One of the
biggest reasons for the very low purchase price was its limited ability
to upgrade bottom-of-the-barrel refined products. The coker project will
resolve this limitation by allowing us to upgrade residual fuel oils
rather than selling them at discounted prices in the market or
transporting them to our Corpus Christi facility. The other big benefit
is that we’ll be able to process a heavier, more sour feedstock slate
which should lower the refinery’s feedstock costs by as much as $1 per
barrel.”
“Our contract with PMI is also very significant since it secures a
reliable source of heavy, sour crude and reduces our dependency on
long-haul crudes such as those out of the Middle East. This new contract
also expands our relationship with PMI by increasing our total crude
commitment to more than 170,000 BPD,” said Greehey.
Valero Energy Corporation is a Fortune 100 company based in San Antonio,
with more than 20,000 employees and annual revenues of more than $30
billion. The company currently owns and operates 12 refineries in the
United States and Canada with a combined throughput capacity of
approximately 2 million BPD, making it one of the nation’s top three
refiners of petroleum products. Valero is also one of the nation’s
largest retailers of petroleum products with nearly 5,000 retail outlets
in the United States and Canada under various brand names including
Diamond Shamrock, Ultramar, Valero, Beacon and Total.
NOW STOP THE FUCKING LYING!!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
08 May 2007 11:27:49 AM |
|
|
On May 8, 9:57 am, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 9:52 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 3:59 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Ms Devil's Advocate wrote:
surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote :
In its investigation, the FTC found no instances of illegal market
manipulation that led to higher prices during the relevant time
periods but found 15 examples of pricing at the refining, wholesale,
or retail level that fit the relevant legislation's definition of
evidence of "price gouging."
I'm wondering why the oil industry seems to be manipulating the refineries
to limit their own supply and keep prices and profits higher than they
should be.
They aren't.
No? Hm. You ever work in the industry? I have.
Then maybe you should talk to the FTC, in 40 years of studying this not
once have they come up with substantive evidence to that end.
I asked if you had any evidence of this. The FTC, in 40 years, has
never
actually requested the books of the oil and gas folk, or done any
digging
into refinery building.
The FTC has comprehensively investigated the market conditions and the
oil companies and found NO evidence of price fixing - PERIOD.
You mentioned that before. I asked another question, which you seem to
have ignored.
Is the FTC the SEC?
The SEC manages stocks, the FTC manages trade. Care to tell me
what you are talking about?
The SEC investigates accounting, not the FTC, capisce?
Um, I speak
You have your answer shitface - roll in it till you understand it.
You don't seem to listen too well.
YOU DON'T SEEM TO LIKE THE FACTS!
***** YOU TO HELL!!!!!!!!
Ooo, that was scary.
So, are you going to provide the answers
You stupid mincing piece of *****, you have your answers *****, now
I'll just use your replies to bulk post - ENJOY!
Hey! Look, he answered me. Not bad.
http://biz.yahoo.com/p/120qpmu.html
Chevron Corp. (CVX) %10.18
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) %10.64
ConocoPhillips (COP) %8.58
Healthcare Information Services %27.00
Application Software %23.70
Security Software & Services %23.00
I'm really not sure what this was supposed to prove. But ok.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DE1E3DF932A05754...
A Chevron Corporation unit plans to spend $750 million to upgrade its
San Francisco-area refinery. The majority of the upgrading, to occur
during the next four to five years, is designed to bring the refinery
into compliance with Federal and state air pollution regulations. The
project is expected to create about 1,000 construction jobs. Chevron
holds 16.8 percent of the California gasoline market and is the
second-largest marketer, said Ron Londe, an analyst with A. G. Edwards &
Sons. California is one of the largest gasoline markets in the world, he
said.
Totally cool! Except, of course, they might not...
http://goldsea.com/Asiagate/704/17refinery.html
A top Chevron Corp. executive said Tuesday the push to displace as
much as a fifth of the country's gasoline with ethanol will make it
less likely the industry will build new domestic refineries.
http://investor.chevron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=130102&p=irol-newsArticle...
Chevron Seeks Permit for Refinery Expansion to Increase U.S. Gasoline
Production
PASCAGOULA, Miss., Nov. 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
today announced it has submitted an environmental permit application to
the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality for the construction
of a major gasoline production unit, along with other minor units, at
its refinery in Pascagoula, Miss., that could potentially further
increase gasoline production at the refinery by roughly 15 percent.
This would be good.
According to refinery General Manager Roland Kell, the new Continuous
Catalyst Regeneration (CCR) unit would update important refinery
technology by replacing two process units constructed more than 30 years
ago. "The CCR project would increase the Pascagoula Refinery's ability
to provide reliable supplies of gasoline to key markets in the eastern
United States," Kell said.
Chevron has contracted WorleyParsons to complete engineering for the CCR
project, Kell said, and if approved, project construction would likely
begin sometime during the first quarter of 2008.
http://www.refineryreform.org/more_money_than_god.html
Well, its hardly a good source, but I found the information elsewhere.
Is there
some reason you tend to stick with industry news? Its notoriously
inaccurate.
You do realize that spending $150 million on anything for Chevron is
basically
not spending anything at all, right?
Gulf Coast Gasoline Alley
Refinery Survey Finds Expansions
Without Environmental Protections
The review reveals that eleven refineries (84%) had carried out major
expansions in at least one key refinery area while the other two
refineries are conducting expansions, which means that all thirteen-
100%-will have expanded in the last decade.
Um, a "major expansion in at least one key refinery area" is
accomplished
by the requirement that they conform to Clinton-era EPA restrictions.
Not
exactly a very thrilling statement.
http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/faq.htm
What is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma?
Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, LLC is a company dedicated to producing the
cleanest burning gasoline, diesel and jet fuel that can be produced in
the United States today. To this end, Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma is
building a refinery in Arizona which, when completed, will be the most
advanced fuel refinery in North America.
Where will the refinery be built?
The Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma refinery is planned for a remote area about
100 miles southwest of Phoenix in Yuma County just off Interstate 8.
You do realize you are doing your own case no good? This is an
approved
NEW refinery. So... tell me again how they are not building new
refineries
because they can't get permits?
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_May_1/ai_85366745
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 1, 2002
Conoco (NYSE:COC) will spend $146 million to upgrade the company's Ponca
City, Okla., refinery to manufacture gasoline that meets ...
Well, this would be more impressive if the article weren't from 2002,
and the
upgrade still hadn't been done...
Still, you answered the question. Thanks.
Matt
.
|
|
|
| User: "surfside7th" |
|
| Title: Re: NATIONALIZE THE OIL COMPANIES! |
08 May 2007 12:00:23 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
On May 8, 9:57 am, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 9:52 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 6:00 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:53 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 5:24 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 7, 1:51 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
Matt wrote:
On May 6, 10:18 pm, surfside7th <v...@boom.boom> wrote:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
