I know they make alot of money from it, dispite how risky it is, and that the risk is lowered by merging, such as did ExxonMobile.

They don't set their own prices? If they wanted to dip into their own take-home pay I assume they can; if not then I know they relish the laws that ensure they focus on profits for shareholders- just reinforces their own postition.

Convienient excuse to focus on the little guy, while doing your best to line your own pockets . If you care about your workers you're a dying breed, in a culture that focuses on capital- like that litigation you mention no-doubt.

Great an American Petroleum Institute study, that makes a nice argument for the petroleum industry- not exactly idependant huh? Leaving that aside, this is an example of influence money gives you over public debate.

So the article itself. I don't know where the raw data is, but the language itself is tricksy.

"...In reality, across the oil and natural gas industry only 1.5 percent of shares of public companies are owned by company executives..."

Technically could mean total numbers of shares, so varying numbesr between companies would warp this, doesn't mention any ties with say family members/friends or links to other sectors. At face value, doesn't mean it isn't concentarted in someones' hands. Said by someone who used to work in governmet, now in the Lobbysphere- not comforting either when one of my main premises is the corruption engendered. Does this not concern you?

"...The data show that ownership of industry shares is broadly middle class, with the majority of industry shares held by institutional investors, often on behalf of millions of Americans through mutual funds, pension funds and individual retirement accounts."

Too many caveats- "broadly middle class" how does he define that? Whats a majority devided by "often"? I'd need to see the data myself, I'm not sure how to/if I can get to it.

"...Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700..."

Implies but doesn't out-right say that 55 million accounts have stakes in the oil/gas sector. The use of median allows for the larger amount of poorer accounts to mask the higher ones. All this says is that the majority of shareholders, in the market, are poorer compared to the lower number of rich ones, as I believe to be the case.

"...Twenty seven percent of shares are owned by other institutional investors like pension funds. In 2004, more than 2,600 pension funds run by federal, state and local governments held almost $64 billion in shares of U.S. oil and natural-gas companies. These funds represent the major retirement security for the nation’s current and retired soldiers, teachers and police and fire personnel at every level of government...."

We keep losing numbers to attrition here. We start with 27% but that "like pension funds" loses us an unknown amount. Why is a 2007 study using 3 year-old data(Is there a census I'm not aware of?)? Doesn't say howmuch of that 64 billion these fine people get of it. Surely there must be others involved in these pensions?

"...Fourteen percent of shares are held in IRA and other personal retirement accounts. Forty five million U.S. households have IRA and other personal retirement accounts, with an average account value of just over $22,000..."

Same slippery language as before. Doesn't say that its the 14% spread amongst the 45million, just that these two numbers have some sort of relationship. Saying average drives the numbers down again, with any potential ballooning at the top masked by greater numbers of poor investors.

Currect me if I'm wrong lousiana, but that only accounts for 85.5% of the shares. What happened to the rest?

I've seen too obvious messing with stats when I looked into Florida 2000 to trust a biased source with interpreting numbers; without the base data, this article is pretty worthless. I know its not your burden to provide me with the data, but otherwise theres not much point to posting this article.

Thankyou, that was rather enlightening- as you have noted I know little about the industry.

I will note though that he says it will have a "limited effect" if they drop their own prices- I know an opponent would go into numbers, to see just how minimal that really is, and to the poor any numebr might be significant. If its an issue of litigation, that is something that is ultimately changeable- maybe these are bad laws?

I couldn't see any good news in it tbh, seems to make a glaring point that the only one with any power in the issue are foreign countries. Thats kinda depressing.

To whomever made the cool-aide rep comment- please look to history, any/all of it, and to other countries. The rich and powerful often take the opportunity in government and in whatever power they have over government to make money as a 1st priority. Conspiracys are hardly an outlandish idea.

I am currently reading a book by Guy Pearce "High and Dry" which details his inside-track knowledge regarding Oil company's, notably ExxonMobile's, influence over public debate and governmental response to climate change, in my country and around the world. Yes I assume he is dismissed by other sources, feel free to post em too. His site for the interested:

http://www.guypearse.com/

Why that question?

Obama won in states like Wyoming, Iowa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Vermont.... all predominate white states.

Why ask about blacks? If it were only blacks that intended to gain something from Sen. Obama's run, then I doubt he'd still be in the race...

__________________

Why do you think we went to the moon before? What was the purpose for the U.S.? Do you know?

__________________
Support Your Local Oil and Gas Companies and the Industry. Invest in Oil & Gas Futures.

Take your Kids Hunting and Fishing.

First, Let's talk about what I dislike about Hillary.
-She has accepted more special interest money than almost anyone else which means nothing will be done. Just like Obama said, "Washington is where good ideas go to die."
Second, she used a scorched earth policy against another democrat. She and her campaign fund raiser did not stay on the issues. They could not win with the issue so they attacked.

Third, she has not quit yet which is helping the republican. It was ok win she was winning, but now that she is losing. She acts as if the democratic nomination belongs to her. She attacked Obama just a republican would do, and helped McCain.

Four, she cheated by defying the rules that she agreed to regrading Michigan, and Florida.

What no love for Ronin, Lousiana? At least comment on that.

He is probably asking this question based on a few states where he gained slightly over 90% of African-American voters. Given the numbers and the history of support for the Democratic party, it is probably relating strictly to race. I remember watching the Texas debate some weeks ago. These two candidates are hardly different, and on the things they do disagree with it was either minor or made to look as a major difference as a political move to gain more support.

Look up the former DC mayor Marion Berry. This guy was involved with scandal after scandal, bled the city dry of money to who knows where, and was abusing crack/cocaine and who knows what else. This guy was elected for a second term even after his first term of a degrading city. The reason was mainly due to scare tactics that a white person in office would for lack of better words "keep the man down". It is no secret that many African-Americans segregate themselves because they believe that white people are still out for them. They identify heavily with race, and hence the votes you see.

A chance to own the bus company instead of riding in the back ( simbolically speaking ).

__________________
"Oh bury me, then rise ye up,And break your heavy chains, water with the tyrants' blood, The freedom you have gained." Тарáс Григóрович ШевчéнкоT.Shevchenko- Poet of Ukraine

Hey Oilman, you seem to have a negative view of Black people and want to dwell on the negative reasons and look at other races in a deragatory way. Is it not enough that someone votes based on personal Pride? As we would support any American fighting against a non-American. Is it incomprehensible and ignorant to think that you can't support someone of your own race or your own religion, etc.

If you want to attack Obama, you can say he lacks experience. But there are millions of people who like Obama because he is anti-DC, anti-old govt in his rhetoric. Many politicians have used these phrases - Dubya said he wanted to "restore the dignity in the White House."

In addition, since you are not a Democrat, then your opinion on the Democratic Primary is really of no importance. Many Democrats are anti-Hillary and anti-old Clintonian politics. They want to look into the future instead of the past.

Sometimes its not the man, not the man's color, but the Ideas.