Joe Miner

Their motives are too control oil prices. They can't control the high end of the price like they used to be able to do, but they can obviously still control the low end. With global production levels where they are, the Saudis can't close the tap to spike prices anymore. They can open their taps, flood the market, and lower production by making the price low enough to force these newer producers, not just American companies, to close their taps. Everyone knows the world has more oil than it needs right now. The Saudis are saying !@#$ you to everyone, and trying to force production cuts from everywhere else. By bringing production levels to where they want, they can regain better control of the total price. But we'll have to see who can weather these prices better. OPEC countries rely on oil to fund their govt programs. From what i understand, most of those countries, Saudi Arabia included, need $90+/barrel to keep their govt programs up. The prices stay low enough long enough, and laid off American workers will pale in comparisons to the uprisings and revolutions that will take place in other countries.

Your cat deserves free birth control.

Assuming employment doesn't also drop as a result of the increased cost to do business.

That word should be ok here. It's not like there are any real women on the internet to offend.

I might pay $170 to watch a cat die. !@#$ing cats.

Stick to comedies, dramas aren't your strong suit.

Maybe. But are the lower energy prices stable enough for other industries' investment to make up the difference? Or will those lower prices be seen as too volatile for real investment? My guess is that much like anything else, companies won't feel secure enough about energy prices next year to make real investments. Long term this could work out just fine. I'm just expecting a rough 2015.

Whether companies go out of business, or are bought out, you are looking at a reduction in jobs. Even at $60/barrel you are looking at a lot of held assess that will no longer be produced at those prices. Lower production means fewer jobs not just for the E&P companies, but for all the associated businesses as well. One way or another, expect to have a reduction in the work force of the energy sector. That has been one of the major sectors that has been propping up an already ****ty recovery we are experiencing.

It will have an affect. Just because some operators can be profitable in some areas at those prices, many operators can't. What was a major industry that was helping this anemic recovery will be taking a serious blow. Capital spending from E&P companies will be way down next year. Rig counts for next year are plummeting. We'll have to see who blinks first, OPEC nations or American companies. But I'm sure our foreign relations are such that this administration can help protect America's interests diplomatically. Expect more out of work people in 2015.

Is he related to Cutler?

This kinda gives a new meaning to Black Friday.

If they do indict him, will there still be protests?

Plus a guy gets totally smoked by a canon if I remember it correctly.

No it doesn't. It's a paper that spends the bulk of it's time discounting the Perryman study that it confesses never releases the details of how it was put together. So it's a paper that discounts 1 study based on results of different studies, outside observation, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. It does not counter the Perryman study with its own calculations of how many jobs would be created, and the reasoning and data behind it. Whenever it's specific on job numbers it's pulling that info from another source. The entire 4 sections on how it could cost more jobs than it creates is extremely weak and full of speculation and conjecture. I'd be ashamed to read that if I was from Cornell. They lay out a premise of 4 ways it could cost jobs, and then don't actually substantiate that premise with anything other than conjecture about a worst case possible spill or leak. I'm not saying it's totally wrong or that it doesn't bring up several good points. I highly doubt that the pipeline will create thousands of jobs, or that a large number of those jobs won't be temporary. But it's a paper that's definitely written with a slant and an agenda. The conclusion that it will only result in 30 permanent jobs and that it's a "bad deal for Americans" are disingenuous statements.

So you quote a bloomberg article that lists varying numbers for created jobs and then decide to preach on the one that best suits your position. Not too mention that nowhere does it go into any details on how the numbers were derived. In not saying it will create 20,000 jobs, but to preach 30 based on one person's opinion seems just a bit disingenuous. Almost like you're not really interested in having an actual discussion.

A quick Google search will tell you what's going on with oil prices.

Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!

I've got a roll of dimes I'd let her get her hands on.

Doesn't this kid have crabs?

I've only seen the preview a time or two, but shouldn't the Liam Neeson movie be called Taken 3?

Anything in a can that can tell me if the beer is cold. What a life saver. Am I right guys..?

Could be the new theme of PPP. Wake up, shut up, or die you idiot.

Who gets Nessy in the divorce?

Clearly you missed the word "funny" in the thread title.

Mmm.. Young Kim Basinger