Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Oil Price... It's Bush's Fault?  
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23480167/

VIENNA - OPEC on Wednesday accused the U.S. of economic “mismanagement” that it said is pushing oil prices to new record highs and rebuffed calls to boost output, laying the blame on the Bush administration.

Somehow, I want to believe OPEC on this one.. Considering how Bush ran every business he ever ran into the ground, it looks to be that way for his running the country. >.<

66 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

Let see the price of a barrel of oil was $36 at the start of the Iraqi war, and now at $104, not that one this one factor is responsible for the price increase. Just pointing out the price change.

User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1914 times:

In that the Bush Administration did not put checks on American oil companies setting record profits quarter after quarter (as much as the Administration could) and not sounding as gung-ho about finding alternatives to oil. As you know, I am not a fan of the Bush Administration, but I would not lay the blame for high gas prices entirely at the feet of the Bush Administration. They do have their hand in it, but there are others to blame.


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1897 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Somehow, I want to believe OPEC on this one..

And to a degree they are right. There is a surplus of oil above ground right now. Stocks in the U.S. alone are well above average.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 1):
Just pointing out the price change.

Due to three major factors, increase in demand from emerging countries, speculative price wars, and the fall of the U.S. dollar. I agree that this President has done a horrible job of reigning in government spending as did the last Republican controlled Congress. Unfortunately the latest Democratic led Congress is not any better. Until we get the cost and size of government under control, the dollar will have a hard time recovering and the price of everything will get more expensive.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):
They do have their hand in it, but there are others to blame.

Somebody needs to sit the commodities traders down and have a talk with them. They are one of the prime movers in the price change and expert after expert has been mystified at their actions. There is plenty of oil above the ground. Blaming the oil companies makes no sense. They have consistently made around 10% in profits and that's nothing to get all worked up about.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1887 times:

No, it is not his fault. I think the war in Iraq has been a factor in the rise in prices, as well as the tension with Iran, which is Iran's fault more than the U.S., imho.

But simply, it is not George Bush's fault, period.


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1884 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 3):
Blaming the oil companies makes no sense. They have consistently made around 10% in profits and that's nothing to get all worked up about.

How often have we heard "XYZ Oil Company has made record profits last quarter?" I think it is something to get worked up over. I agree that the oil companies are only part of the equasion. OPEC is another part.

One thing I don't get is Venezuela said it will not sell oil to Exxon. Fine. Open market, free trade and all that. We in the Pacific Northwest are told we have nothing to worry about with prices because we get our oil from Alaska. All of a sudden, we are paying 50 cents more a gallon because supposedly the refinery in Anacortes is undergoing scheduled maintenance. So, can we expect prices to drop 50 cents a gallon when the Anacortes facility is back? No. Prices *may* drop 10 or 15 cents a gallon. And I predict more record profits for the oil companies. Some group somewhere should be able to keep all that in check, right?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1880 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):

I'd agree, it's partially the fault of the Bush administration.

Mostly, however - the fault lies with

a) The insufferable amount of time and cost involved in building new refineries where we can refine the surplus of crude we already have. IF we could cut out the red tape, reduce the burdensome Environmental  redflag  required to even dig a hole in ground, and reduce the cost of procurring the land, eliminate the NIMBYs that don't want a refinery anywhere in a hundred miles radius of themselves, we could refine more fuel.

b) Big Oil. They are making record profits and laughing all the way to the bank. They don't want lower prices and they don't want more refining capability, they like the $$$$.

c) OPEC. They are just like Big Oil. Everything said above regarding big oil applies to OPEC.

d) Commodities Brokers are also making a killing. Again, it's all about the $$$$.

There's more . . . but most folks have already covered it.

It's NOT solely the fault of the PotUS no matter how badly BR715-A1-30 wants it to be.


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon these days, everyone is trying to trace everything back to Bush.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):
In that the Bush Administration did not put checks on American oil companies setting record profits quarter after quarter (as much as the Administration could)

This is the most ridiculous argument I always hear. You think prices will go down if the government restricts corporate profits? That makes sense.  Yeah sure

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 5):
How often have we heard "XYZ Oil Company has made record profits last quarter?" I think it is something to get worked up over. I agree that the oil companies are only part of the equasion. OPEC is another part.

You can't equate the size of the profit with the profit margin. They have nothing to do with each other (i.e. higher profit don't necessarily mean higher profit margins).



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

High oil prices are good for you. They are not nearly high enough. When they are so high that conservation becomes a necessity rather than dalliance, then they'll be high enough.

It isn't Bush's fault, although he more than anyone is responsible for the rather dramatic decline in the value of the US dollar (which is a piece of the oil price rise). We're all at fault. Look in the mirror for the culprit.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1860 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 5):
How often have we heard "XYZ Oil Company has made record profits last quarter?"

Sure, but look at the volume of business they are doing. That is where the record profits come from. When you factor out the cost of doing business, what is left is profit and that has consistently been in the 10% range which is not unacceptable, even for the church. Record profits does not mean they are spiking the price and raking in the excess.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 5):
Some group somewhere should be able to keep all that in check, right?

Yes, it was called the Soviet Union, and in todays world it's called the Peoples Republic of China. You want to live as a communist?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
b) Big Oil. They are making record profits and laughing all the way to the bank. They don't want lower prices and they don't want more refining capability, they like the $$$$.

See above, as to refining capacity they might like to add more but as you correctly pointed out, the cost of building won't justify the return. It's still cheaper to refine it overseas and ship it in.


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1857 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 8):
High oil prices are good for you. They are not nearly high enough. When they are so high that conservation becomes a necessity rather than dalliance, then they'll be high enough.

It may help conserve a bit, but not as much as some people think. People are still going to have to drive places, and for the most part they are stuck with whatever gas prices they are given. People have to drive to work, bring kids to school, shop for groceries, etc. Add onto that the cost to the economy, as higher gas prices lead to higher prices for everything else, due to higher transportation and other costs, and it is certainly not a good thing.



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1852 times:



Quoting AirCop (Reply 1):
Let see the price of a barrel of oil was $36 at the start of the Iraqi war, and now at $104, not that one this one factor is responsible for the price increase. Just pointing out the price change.

Using that logical, what was the price of oil before Nancy Pelosi took office? What is it now? Just pointing out the price change.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1848 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
OPEC on Wednesday accused the U.S. of economic “mismanagement”

Kinda like Hitler calling out Churchill on human rights abuses...

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Thread starter):
Somehow, I want to believe OPEC on this one..

You would.

Look. Simple maths.

In 2000, world oil consumption was about 70 million bpd (of which the US was about 20 mbpd). Production capacity was about 75 million bpd. A surplus, ergo, low prices.

Today, world consumption is about 81 million bpd (of which the US was about 20 mbpd, just a fraction more than before). Production capacity is only 79 mbpd.

See the problem? The rest of the world grew demand faster than the US, and we passed the threshold where capacity has been overtaken. Anybody with a 3rd grade knowledge of supply and demand and elasticity will recognize that $100 per barrel oil was bound to happen around the time it did - Nothing Bush or even Clinton could have done to prevent it - apart from allowing us to drill where we need to drill and build new refineries.

You want someone to blame for high gas prices? Blame the environmentalists. They may not be completely responsible, but they are far more responsible than any president.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11718 posts, RR: 15
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1834 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 9):
Sure, but look at the volume of business they are doing. That is where the record profits come from. When you factor out the cost of doing business, what is left is profit and that has consistently been in the 10% range which is not unacceptable, even for the church. Record profits does not mean they are spiking the price and raking in the excess.



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12):
In 2000, world oil consumption was about 70 million bpd (of which the US was about 20 mbpd). Production capacity was about 75 million bpd. A surplus, ergo, low prices.

Today, world consumption is about 81 million bpd (of which the US was about 20 mbpd, just a fraction more than before). Production capacity is only 79 mbpd.

Over the past 8 years, oil companies have recorded record profits, even with capacity going up only 4 MBPD over 8 years and consumption going up 11 MBPD. What does the Church have to do with it? Tithing 10%? I don't get that part. But, I still think something less extreme than a Communest regeme should be able to get gas prices down.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineBlrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

If the Iraq war had not been started, the prices would have been more reasonable around $60-70 per barrel. When the Iraq war started, there were too many speculators driving up the prices in the market, and the sabre-rattling with Iran didn't help either.

User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1823 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
But, I still think something less extreme than a Communest regeme should be able to get gas prices down.

But what do you suggest then? Regulating profits certainly isn't the answer.



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1813 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
Over the past 8 years, oil companies have recorded record profits, even with capacity going up only 4 MBPD over 8 years and consumption going up 11 MBPD.

Again, look at what it costs them to do business. Subtract that from the overall income, and you are left with the profit. The profit for these companies has not exceeded 10% (actually a little less) which is normal for any business. The oil comanies do not set the price of oil, the cartels and commoditties brokers do.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 13):
What does the Church have to do with it? Tithing 10%?

Yes, even Jesus doesn't demand more than 10%

Quoting Blrsea (Reply 14):
If the Iraq war had not been started, the prices would have been more reasonable around $60-70 per barrel. When the Iraq war started, there were too many speculators driving up the prices in the market, and the sabre-rattling with Iran didn't help either.

That in itself is speculation. But you are correct that speculators are driving the price, not supply since there is plenty of oil in stocks already pumped.


User currently offlineVonRichtofen From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 4629 posts, RR: 36
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1798 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
which is Iran's fault more than the U.S., imho.

Oil shot up today because the US dollar tanked again against the Euro forcing traders to dump their US dollars and buy into commodity's like oil, pushing the price up. This spike, has nothing to do with Iran.

Whether it has anything to do with Bush? I'm not sure, can the tanking of the USD be put on him?



Word
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1769 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
I think the war in Iraq has been a factor in the rise in prices



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4):
But simply, it is not George Bush's fault, period.

You kind of contradict yourself there...

The War in Iraq WAS George Bush's fault. He lied about the reason we went in there, and for some reason he is not yet impeached. Perhaps the next time a president goes to war with another country, he/she should state the reason under oath. Originally, we went into Iraq because of WMDs... We didn't find them, so now Bush says it was to "secure a democracy in Iraq" which frankly was none of his damn business. I can understand the WMDs, I mean, hell, if they were there, I'd have said "More power to ya." But he knew they weren't there, he lied, and went anyway. Daddy's Vendetta.


User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1766 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 18):
He lied about the reason we went in there, and for some reason he is not yet impeached.




Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1751 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 2):
did not put checks on American oil companies setting record profits quarter after quarter

What manner of ridiculous BS statement/justification is that?!


User currently offlineFlanker From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1744 times:

ahhh simple ignorant

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 20):
What manner of ridiculous BS statement/justification is that?!

Lets redistribute wealth and go after those big evil oil companies for making too much money!! Thats liberalism for you.  mad 



Calling an illegal alien an 'undocumented immigrant' is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1731 times:

The war in Iraq, along with other instability in the region does help to bump up the price of oil. Iraq is pumping out less than in Saddam's day by at least 1 million bbls./day. The oil-for-food program discouraged production under Saddam, production facilities and investment declined and were not maintained to keep up production. Traders add a 'war premium' to oil as who knows when a major attack will affect supplies. To some extent, Pres. Bush's decision to go into Iraq just made a declining situation much worse. In total the war/war premium probably adds $20/bbl to today's price.
Perhaps more critical is rising demand by India and China, that have limited oil from within their own borders along with insatable demand in the USA.


User currently offlineN776AU From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 765 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1729 times:



Quote:
It's Bush's Fault?

Isn't everything though?



Careful, Doors Are Closing And Will Not Reopen. Please Wait For The Next Train
User currently offlineLufthansa411 From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 692 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1719 times:

Although I strongly believe that Bush has mismanaged the economy to the point of near collapse, he is not the only culprit.

Here are what I see as the 3 biggest contributors to the increase in the price of oil:

1. Instability in Nigeria
2. The value of the dollar
3. The Iraq War


China buys a large share of it's oil from Nigeria. During the elections last year and the resulting instability including riots etc. oil refineries were destroyed causing China to find other more stable sources to purchase oil from. That made oil prices shoot up.

Since oil is traded in $, and the value of the $ has declined so much, the price of oil elsewhere (not in the US) has remained relatively constant while in the US it has skyrocketed because it costs "more" per barrel to purchase to for a US consumer. My brother who lives in Prague has not really been effected, as the rate that oil has gone up has been relatively close to the Kc/$ exchange rate fluctuation.

The Iraq war has give a justification ethical or not for prices to increase. Just because demand increases doesn't mean supply has to. Its not like we have anyone else but ourselves to blame either. We made ourselves dependent on oil. OPEC may control the resource, but we control our demand.

I think OPEC is correct. George Bush has directly and indirectly caused oil to increase. The NY Times quoted Goldman Sachs as saying that businesses had about a month worth of reserves, by far enough to not be worried. The concern is more that Bush with screw things up more than he has and destroy the last hope we have of restoring relations with other countries-and finding solutions to oil dependence.


Lufthansa411



Nothing in life is to be feared; it is only to be understood.
25 Newark777 : The President really gets too much credit when the economy is good, and too much blame when it is poor. What, in your opinion, has he specifically do
26 Arrow : 1. Spent billions on a pointless and totally unjustified war. 2. Borrowed those billions (through the friendly finance folks in China, India, etc.) t
27 Post contains images EA CO AS : I believe MSFT made something like a 23% profit margin last year. Why aren't you screaming about being "gouged" by them, then? I've read reports show
28 L-188 : Got to agree with you on there, it is just the lefties trying to blame everything on Bush, Truely spoken like somebody who never has had to actually
29 Post contains links Leskova : Bush's fault? I wouldn't say he's blameless in this, but he's certainly not the only one. The fact that several nations, not only the US, seem to thin
30 Newark777 : The executive branch's fiscal policy doesn't have as big an effect on the economy compared to the monetary policy enacted by the Federal Reserve. The
31 Arrow : You're joking, right? I've paid heating bills in places where winter temperatures would hit -40 and stay there for a while. Note the flag on my posts
32 Newark777 : But again, do you expect people to stop heating their homes? Stop going to work? Most people need to carry out these activities on their lives, and t
33 MaverickM11 : Of course. Everything is Bush's fault and/or global warming, which is also Bush's fault.
34 WildcatYXU : Well, that's perfectly OK, all they need to change is what to drive places. Whatever that has less than 6 cylinders and 3 liters of displacement is n
35 Newark777 : Cars coming out now already incorporate a good deal of energy efficiency, compared with a few years ago. Change is happening. And not everyone can dr
36 Arrow : Of course not, that's a stupid proposition -- but I do expect them to spend a little on better insulation, turn the thermostat down a few degrees (mi
37 Post contains images Tom in NO : You sure about that? Check out his accomplishments as Managing Partner of the Texas Rangers Tom at MSY
38 Newark777 : But as I was saying, the economic impact of that happening is not worth the meager savings it would create in the grand scheme of things. A better id
39 WildcatYXU : The efficiency of NA cars is incomparable to the EU models. And as far as the rest is concerned, the number of people who really need a vehicle capab
40 Newark777 : The United States is far less densely populated than Europe, with far less public transportation opportunities than Europe. Because of this, people a
41 WildcatYXU : Thank you for the sociology lesson. Let me remind you, that all this can be done in a G5/Corolla/Sentra sized car with 120bhp 1.4l engine. With the s
42 Arrow : OK -- just got back from running an errand (grocery shopping). I got caught in a 3-light-change traffic jam right around the local junior high school
43 Halls120 : Everything bad is Bush's fault. The weak dollar, the poor economy, the price of oil, food shortages, AIDS, global warming, the disappearance of honey
44 Post contains images AirCop : Especially Donald Trump's comb over..
45 Post contains images Newark777 : Admitting hypocrisy doesn't help your cause. I'm cool as a Canadian. And of course you can fit lots of people in the cars, just make sure not to brin
46 Post contains images BR715-A1-30 : Not everything, but 99% of it. After all, it wasn't his fault that my foglight burned out 3 months ago..... Or was it
47 Dreadnought : Are you saying Europeans have smaller families and don't need to move stuff around? NOT! That's bull. Recently I sat in the back of a European Honda
48 Newark777 : And the trunk was the same size? That's amazing efficiency!
49 WildcatYXU : Let's call it a start. Ignorance at it's best. No, I have an idea what would save fuel without a dramatic change in our lifestyle, with existing tech
50 CaptOveur : They are making record profits because of record demand. The refiners all want more refining capacity but keep getting cockblocked by the EPA. That i
51 Newark777 : Government rebates for purchasing cars with better fuel economy standards, since the technology is out there, and the car companies just need an ince
52 WildcatYXU : I think we have a tax rebate program up here. However, I don't know if it works or not.
53 Dreadnought : How often does a normal family fill put 5 people plus baggage in the car. A few times a year, maybe, to drive to gramma's. You can rent a minivan for
54 Newark777 : That's incredibly inconvenient, even if it's only a few times a year.
55 Post contains links Platypus : It should not be surprising oil companies have recorded record profits this decade. The world economy has been on a tear since emerging countries lik
56 Post contains images Dreadnought : Call Enterprise Rent-a-car. They will come pick you up at your house with your rental car. Drop off their guy and the signed papers at their offices
57 Baroque : Nice post Leskova, in the old sense of the word nice, precise. Well mostly it is not Bush's fault, but you do have to subtract about 1.5 mmbpd that e
58 Gosimeon : Totally agree. Oil is a weird thing. It's price is never decided by supply and demand. The US Government has mismanaged alot of things economically,
59 Baroque : As they say, wanna bet? Renewable for the most part equals costly.
60 Newark777 : Yes, I do think that's inconvenient, and it's one of the most ridiculous solutions I've seen yet. If I can afford a bigger car, I'm not going to depe
61 Gosimeon : Really? Wind costs as much as oil? Anyway you're missing the point that is most important. Renewable energy is just that; renewable. It won't sun out
62 Baroque : No, I don't think I miss the point, but evidently you do. I was just gently introducing you to the era of REALLY expensive energy. Beyond the wildest
63 Francoflier : Good. Now you know how the rest of the world feels. I agree. The huge increase in global demand is mostly to blame, and especially its effect on spec
64 Post contains links EA CO AS : It won't get too much worse though. Oil shale/sands are profitable at the $75 to $95.00/bbl level and above - meaning that as long as the introductio
65 Post contains images Baroque : Don't believe everything you read in Wiki or at least do not take all the upsides and neglect the conditional statements. From that Wiki entry: "is u
66 Baroque : There was a joke in Rifle (nearest "town" to Colony) that the only person to have made money out of the Green River Formation (GRF) oil shales, was th
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Good Old Days. Bad Today: Oil Price posted Mon Jul 17 2006 15:41:04 by TACAA320
Senseless Death, Is It My Fault? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 08:45:40 by AR385
PETA: "Avian Flu: It's Your Fault" posted Thu Mar 30 2006 18:16:09 by Ilikeyyc
What Country Will Handle Oil Price Explosion Best? posted Tue May 17 2005 21:27:59 by YAK42
Oil Price Hits New High! posted Wed Mar 16 2005 17:10:12 by ACAfan
Oil Price Reached $50 Per Barrel posted Tue Sep 28 2004 04:43:15 by StudentFlyer
Oil Price Misconceptions posted Thu Jun 3 2004 20:48:56 by Cba
What's Driving The Price Of Oil? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 11:46:39 by Dougloid
Russia Doubles The Price On The Energy It Sells. posted Sat Dec 23 2006 06:57:13 by FXramper
Brain Exercise For You: Who's Fault Is It? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 20:03:26 by Matt D