Anyone want a cut of 600 Billion Dollars?

John holmes didn't die as innocent bystander in order for porn companies to make more profit, plus with so much free sex he had, what a way to die.

 

Do you have a source for that number? Also, what oil companies are generating extra profit and how? There are lots of uninformed experts parading numbers these days in their quest to portray outrage over Iraq. Oddly enough, most don't care about what saddamn did to his people or what terrorists are doing, or whether the Coalition is rebuilding infrastructure that was ignored for years while saddam and his hinchmen masacred over a million people and lived the life of luxuary. Go figure

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1610143,00.html

I often wonder why those that seem to hate Bush so much, never seem to have any outrage at the terrorists that have come into Iraq and are killing Iraqis. Makes ya wonder...

 

Yeah well the Sunni's and the Shiite's will fight forever over the oil money Gtech...

Bush and Cheney are out in a few years.....

Wonder who will last longer GTech

 

Don't you read the posts? how is generating extra profit? uninformed experts?

My source was UNITED STATES ENERGI INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, you mean the goverment office is uninformed and you know more?

Here is the link to my original posting:

The biggest heist in history

Here is the calculation part agian, so may be you read it:

According to energi information administration

"During 2003, the United States produced around 7.8 million barrels per day"

According to telegraph the price of oil before the talk of war could be described as follows:

"When he indicated on Wednesday that war in Iraq was all but inevitable, the oil price climbed 48 cents a barrel to $28.27, a third higher than at the beginning of the year. The $18 to $25 a barrel range is considered ideal."

If we consider that the production will be the same and take that the price would have been in the higher range of $25, and today price at $50 Then a simple math shows us the war is generating:

(50-25)*7.8 Mil=$195 million extra profit every day just in domestic production or $71,175,000,000 /year for oil companies.

even the energy department acknowledges this for 2004 report:

"Financial Performance

Twenty-four major U.S. energy companies reported overall net income (excluding unusual items) of $16.7 billion on revenues of $213 billion during the second quarter of 2004 (2Q04). This level of net income represented a 67% increase relative to the second quarter of 2003 (2Q03) (see EIA's "Financial News for Major Energy Companies "). Domestic upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $6.3 billion of net income, with domestic refining and marketing operations also earning $6.3 billion. Foreign upstream oil and natural gas production operations accounted for $5.0 billion of net income, with foreign refining and marketing operations at $1.3 billion.

Independent oil and natural gas producers, oil field companies and refiner/marketers reported a sharp increase in net income (up 75%) during Q compared to Q (see EIA’s "Financial News for Independent Energy Companies"). This increase in net income was due primarily to large increases in the prices of natural gas and crude oil, and a rise in gross refining margins of 49% year-over-year. "

 

gworld, I was not very clear in my post. Do you have numbers to substantiate the 150,000 death toll claim? Because that number is incorrect which is why I posted the link below. I should have separated this sentence from the oil question because you seemed to skip right over the death toll number.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1610143,00.html

And on the oil question, I should have been clearer on it as well, because your outrage is over Iraq and you seem to be suggesting that we're getting rich off Iraqi oil. I'd like to know which companies.

 

The death toll number is based on study done by researcher from John Hopkins university and it is published in Lancet the English medical journal. it is estimate of dead civilian in Iraq but I am not sure if you count dead Arabs as people and therefore, for you the number can be lower.

I didn't say anything about outrage over Iraq war and didn't say a word about IRAQ oil. I am discussing the facts as reported by United State government agency. I am not suggesting anything either, the report and a simple math shows that war generates an extra 70,000,000,000 dollar profit in domestic production for oil companies (industry). The report mentions 24 major oil companies, so it pretty well covers the whole industry.

Can the reason for war was as simple as to push the price of oil up and make it more expensive. If you remember the oil bust in state in 1980's, the domestic oil production was not very profitable with low price of oil and high cost of production in America.

 

Considering I highly advoctate the freedom of Iraqis, where others (such as yourself and Anthony) are disappointed in their freedom, that's not a fair comment. I'll go with the UN Reported number that isn't exaggerated beyond belief. I didn't expect you would have a source for it, but thought I would ask and give you the opportunity to back it up.

 

Your sources are whatever is convenient and fits your beliefs. Last week the U.N. was the most evil, corrupt organization in the World.

BTW- your link is broken.

 

My sources disprove many "assumptions" made by the likes of "blame/hate America first" crowd. Which is precisely why you don't care for them.

The death toll has been assumed by many. There are some good resources for them here:

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2005/05/civilian_deaths.html

But those that prefer to blame America first, generally give Americans credit for the deaths caused by terrorists. After all, it's not the terrorists fault they are killing anything with a lung. They are just victims

 

It is funny that on one side government says that UN is a communist organization with crooks as leader and on the other side pro war people like you try to use it as source.

I told you that my estimate was form Lancet and you say that Lancet is not a source?

Lancet has been around since 1823, so I think it is a source, here you can learn about Lancet: Lancet

The article was also published in Washington Post (you know the small newspaper published in USA), here is the link to the article:

Civilian Death

Stop using words like freedom, democracy,... as a cover and discuss the issue. I didn't say one word about the war and if it is freedom or occupation, what I was discussing was the motive behind the war and how it was profitable for oil companies.
Stick to subject and answer the question, don't jump all over the map.

 

It's not an accurate source, but one that anti-war people will grovel at. The toll they estimated was 100,000, not the 150,000 you inflated it to for dramatic purposes.

But how was that report made? The 100,000 deaths claimed by a Lancet study was based on telephone surveys of 808 Iraqi households in 11 provinces. The UN survey is based on surveys of 21,600 Iraqi households in all 18 provinces.

The Lancet number is for all excess deaths (which includes the increase in murder, accidents and disease) while the ILCS number is for deaths directly related to the war (which just includes deaths caused by the coalition and the insurgents).

In other words, for dramtic purposes, ALL deaths, whether by disease, accident, natural death, or other, is factored into that number. Which makes it an inaccurate number to blame deaths on Americans for. It also does not account for the deaths of Iraqis PREVENTED by US Troops that Saddam would otherwise committed against his people. 50,000 people a year is what saddam was knocking off.

I'll use freedom and democracy any time. Because I support freedom for ALL PEOPLE, everywhere.

 

We can discuss the numbers for ever without getting anywhere and it is not the point either.

So I ask you a question, what is the reasonable number of Americans and Arabs who should die so the oil companies can make their extra profit?

Doesn't look to you suspicious the government which is closely associated with oil industry and military complex goes to a war that directly benefits these companies?

Can 70,000,000,000 dollars profit per year be a strong motive for some people to push the America to war?

Please do not insult my intelligence with your speech about freedom and your love of democracy and answer the questions.

 

I'm not the one that believes we are there for oil profit. Nor have I seen any valid investigative reporting by any news agency that lends credibility to that, or any republican or democrat that has put for any valid information to suggest this. Just because it's an assumption, doesn't mean it's true.

Having former ties with any industry whose profits increase doesn't mean anything. Many presidents have connections with people from many industries. Just because someone has a friend or friends with an industry that does well, does not make them a partner in their business succeeding or failing.

If there was a smoking gun here, our news media here in the US would be the first to be all over it. But all there is, is mere speculation by the fringe left and those who are looking for something that isn't there. Our news media here has no ethics or no boundaries with which they will report anything to damage our credibility, even if it's not true (as we see just this past week with NewsWEAKs flub). So, when you can move out of the conspiracy theories and show a credible report that lends truth to something that is marginally conspiratorial, let me know. Let everyone know!

I don't know. This is assuming your numbers and the information you are trying to use as justification is true. But from another perspective. Companies grow. Look at Google. One day they are worth what they have in their pockets, the next, they are worth billions. Is it a crime for a company to do well? When have oil companies NOT made a profit or increase in profits from year to year? I'm not concerned with what oil companies make. But if you find something more than wishful speculation that shows Bush/Cheney went to war for oil, do let me know. I suspect though, just like Anthony cannot, neither will you.

You flatter yourself with your own self-importance. My suggestion is to carry on a civil conversation and stop whining about how you *think* your intelligence is being insulted. After all, I'm not the one disappointed saddam isn't still in power and that Iraqis have freedom. That's your disappointment.

 

Obviously you know nothing about economy, finance or logic since you can not even make a difference between a company valuation such as Google and the real profit generated for the oil industry. My calculation were quite simple, an easy multiplication of numbers from energy department but it seems that is advanced math for you and it can not be trusted.

So I will argue this the way you do.

The sky is blue.

black hat SEO is bad.

Freedom is good.

nothing has got nothing to do with anything.

You are WRONG.

 

Yes, if only your magic forumula were accurate and accounted for profit/loss, acquisitions, and all the variables. If you think it's so accurate and so simple, submit it a a news source and see how many laugh back at you

But, just like your over-bloated 150,000 Iraqi dead statement (cushioned with your own 50,000 increase for dramatics), it's merely fabrication.

If economy, finance and logic mean fabricating your own numbers and padding them the way you did, then you are quite correct. I know nothing about it

 

GWorld, this question is based on your assumption that this is the reason. In the court of law this would turn into "objection sustained".

I am not saying this is not one of the reasons or a contributing factor but calling it THE reason, no, I do not believe it is.

 

"Thanks to crude prices that averaged $41 a barrel in New York last year, the world's ten biggest oil companies earned more than $100 billion in 2004, a windfall greater than the economic output of Malaysia. Together, their sales are expected to exceed $1 trillion for 2004, which is more than Canada's gross domestic product."

New York Times

Obviously New York Times is not laughing, if you like to learn about these things, you have to stop reading only comics and read the finance and news section.

 

I want 15 Keys of ICE!

 

Funny, folks like GTech who bury their heads in the sand, keep saying that rich investors do not benefit from high oil prices and war dollars spent by the USA to buy weapons and provide food and housing for the troops (Halliburton = Dick Cheney), GTech, you have no way of justifying your propaganda, we all know it is fraud like every word out of Bush and Cheney's mouth.

 

I'm not the one outraged at a company for making a profit. Nor am I disappointed saddam isn't still in power. These are your disappointments, for whatever reason.

Amazingly lacking from your disgust of oil riches, is your outrage over the OPEC cartels trillions of dollars in riches. Not a peep about all those countries saddam bought off with oil vouchers or those involved with the oil for food scandal. I guess oil outrage is conditional these days