Not unless you had a typo in your numbers.

Iran would have minimal effect because we don't import a lot of oil from them, but Venezuela would have a huge initial effect as we get substantial oil from them (4th largest importer to the USA). I suspect that what would happen, at least in today's market, is that the market would redistribute itself. Venezuela still needs to sell it's oil, so they will find another big buyer - probably China or Brazil. <<snippage>> </font>[/QUOTE]One last question for Micah: doesn't Venezuelan oil require a different type of refinery due to its lower purity, or something? I thought the US was one of the few with refineries that could handle their oil? Or is that just "they need us more than we need them" American ego?

And, to get this thread more or less back on track, anybody hear anything about the "hypermilers"? These guys, just by driving both e-x-t-r-e-m-e-l-y conservatively and borderline crazy (taking 25mph curves at 50 to maintain momentum), can routinely double a car's mpg. The guy considered the world's best hypermiler, Wayne Gerdes, took a Honda Insight to 150mpg. This article, This Guy Can Get 59 MPG in a Plain Old Accord. Beat That, Punk. was a pretty good read.

Don't be such a tool. Those % were done quickly. The point is that they still reinvest over 100% of their net income. Sheesh. Nitpicking! Aw just believe what you want to believe.


Venezuelan crude is indeed ultra heavy. It's almost tar like in quality and is much more costly to refine. I can't answer the second part of the question though, as to whether the US is the only country that can handle that type of oil or not. Probably not, but the capacity to handle the quantity that is produced in Venezuela may be the significant issue.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programing. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 07-31-2007, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

I am not being a tool. 963 million is not even close to 100% of 629 billion dollars. In fact, if I round the 963 up to the closest billion, it's only going to knock 1 billion off the amount, leaving a difference of 628 billion. I suggest you read what you posted before you accuse me of being a tool. Math is best done with a calculator, but even without one, I can see the discrepency in what you posted, and what is claimed.

Is reading comprehension a lost art?

963 divided by 628 is actually 153.34394% so I rounded that to 150%

650 divided by 518 is actually 125.4826255% so I rounded that to 120%

I said "That's a reinvestment rate of 120 to 150% of net income" so without a calculator that's pretty close. It was late, I did it quickly and I still got within 5.5 percent.

You STILL miss the big picture and are simply nitpicking numbers Robert. The previous poster claimed that there was NO reinvestment. I just showed that not only IS there reinvestment but it exceeds net income. Instead you want to focus on a trivially small differnce in percentages. Give me a break!

Evidently it is. My issue is with the difference between 963 million and 629 billion. It doesn't seem to matter how I slice it, I can't come up with the percentages you posted, unless, of course, I cut all the zeros out, as you just did.

My understanding is this, if I make one dollar, and invest 1.50 back, then I invested 150% of my income. The example you gave doesn't equal that.

It should have read 963 BILLION. Since those numbers were intended to show the difference between the top 5 and the top 25 companies and the top 5 invested 600+ BILLION dollars, it should have been obvious that the investment numbers for the top 25 couldn't be less. But yeah, that was a typo.

[ 07-31-2007, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]

Clears that right up, thanks...