don't mind, considering your business background. I've read several articles that the majority of the oil we import comes primarily from Canada and Mexico. There are other countries that sell oil to the USA, but those two are our major sources. In your experience, is that true? Also, what the hell is up with that 9/10 price, such as $2.89&9/10 a gallon, added on at every pump since gas has been sold here. Never could figure that out. Do you know why it is priced that way? Just curious.
The top oil exporting countries to the US changes monthly, but to the best of my knowledge, Canada and Mexico have been in the top 2 spots for a while now.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Prices are usually set at "9's" to give consumers the perception that the price is lower than it is. If you want 2 bucks you charge 1.99. Consumers will look at the first number first since we read left to right.
At least that's my understanding.
-- Modified on 2/25/2011 12:33:08 PM
went up nearly 10% today?
Let's hope St. Croix is equally as wrong about Duke.
merger with HOC, higher oil prices, stock market gyrations, etc., FTO closed down $0.09 for the week. I just think there are better ways to invest than just a pure refiner play. If you like refiners, go with Marathon. At least they are a bit more diversified. You also mentioned Canada and the oil sands. A great play is Suncor.
My prediction - Duke gets bounced in the round of 16.
10% the day after MISSING Wall Street estimates?
FTO was 4 cents per share SHORT of what the street expected and still blasted into nearly a double digit day. I don't ever recall that happening.
Valero went up 6% and Tesoro 5% on day great for refiners. But that is a 4 to 5% difference which reinforces my best of breed thesis.
And Duke's second team could win in the round of 16.
I'll leave you with one word for both Duke and FTO-opTOEmistic.
Seriously, good luck on FTO and Duke.
I probably own some Boeing through an ETF, but what do you think of the Air Force awarding the $35B tanker deal to Boeing? I hate to say this, but EADS (Airbus) got screwed.
Think about it. EADS had already won the contract back in the Bush Administration with Northrup as a sub. Boeing filed a protest, which they can do. EADS clearly had the superior proposal. EADS was going to build the new tanker in the South and create approx 48K jobs.
Hmmm, Boeing is based in Chicago. Who else is from Chicago? Boeing is viewed as an American company vs EADS, so I doubt "buy American" and protectionism came into play. No jobs for Alabama and Mississippi....hmmm. Boeing is retrofitting the old Boeing 767 to be used as the new tanker.
I'm sure there will be payback for any U.S. defense manufacturer selling stuff to anyone in the EU.
Airbus has one fatal flaw. In an abnormal situation, the plane's computers take control. It defaults to the computer programmimg. With Boeings, in an abnormal situation, the computers default to the pilots. They are in control, and not HAL 9000. If you remember many years ago. at the Paris Airshow, the chief test pilot of Airbus was flying a demonstration flight. The approach was made in the landing configuration, but the pilot wanted to do a low and slow flyby for the crowd. The A-300 started descending to land, but the pilot was trying to tell it to go-around. The plane said , fuck you, I'm configured to land and that's what I'm gonna do, and it did. Crashed into a forest off the end of the runway. Big fire, and several killed in the plane.
I know at least 200 pilots flying the Airbus, and they all say it is the most glitch ridden aircraft they've ever been in. Having flown air-refueling on the receiver end of the boom, (C-141), I can honestly say there are situations in which you definitely don't want to be trusting a computer. Emergency break-away, for example, when something goes wrong. You want a pilot's hands on the control yoke doing the flying, not a computer. Automation is great, until the shit hits the fan.
Another example....The Airbus that ditched in the Hudson, flown by Capt Sullenberger, and FO Skiles. After the geese were ingested in both engines, the compressor section of each was damaged to the point that both engines were severally vibrating, about shake themselves off the wing. The computer said, enough of that shit, and shut them down. There is no direct linkage connection between the engines and the cockpit power levers on an Airbus. The power or thrust levers are only a switch, a potentiometer that sends an electrical signal to the computer which adjust the fuel control settings on the engine.
Boeings, on the other hand, have computer settings to adjust the fuel control, but there is also a direct linkage connection from the thrust levers to the fuel control unit to use in emergencies if needed. In other words, had that been a Boeing, the pilots would have had the engines running, even after the geese ingestion, because the computer defaulted back to them, and probably been able to return to LGA, or EWR.
Question re the Hudson incident: had one or both damaged engines actually shaken itself off the wing wouldn't that probably have damaged to control surfaces to the point where the plane would have been unflyable, or at least unable to clear the GW bridge and make a safe water landing? My guess is it's not possible to say. But one aviation writer (I forget his name but he wrote a book about this) actually gave more credit to the Airbus' computers than to Sully. I never bought it but it's a very different way to look at what happened.
in which a jet has literally lost an engine. First one that comes to mind is the American Airlines DC-10 that lost the left engine. Maintenance used inproper procedures during engine installation, one of the mounting fixtures broke in-flight, and the engine departed the wing. Went up and over the top of the wing causing enough damage wherein the airplane was uncontrollable, and crashed.
But there have been other instances where jets have lost an engine, and landed safely. A B-747 encountered severe clear air turbulence over the Rockie Mountains, the #1 engine, ( left wing-outboard), shook itself off the wing. Another B-747 lost an engine over Lake Michigan when it encountered severe clear air turbulence. They had divers locate the engine. Plane landed safely in Toledo. So there is no hard and fast rule. Well, I guess maybe there is, stay away from clear air turbulence.....if you know where it is, lol.
You're technically correct, but only the corporate HQ is in Chicago and it's only been there a few years. Boeing's manufacturing is still centered in Everett, WA, with another big plant in St. Louis (where McDonnell-Douglas used to be before Boeing bought them). In fact, Washington's Senator, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, used to be known as "the Senator from Boeing." So trying to find Obama's fingerprints on this is a bit of a stretch. I do think you're right that EADS had the superior proposal. Certainly, that's what the military wanted FWIW. Another big loser in this is GE, which was going to make the engines for the EADS tanker. This is all about cronyism in the procurement biz.
North Charleston , SC also makes cutting edge Boeing 787 jets and are being manufactured in SC because we have no unions 
-- Modified on 2/26/2011 1:49:42 PM
Aren't those the ones that are so "cutting edge" Boeing keeps delaying delivery? BTW, I'm not suggesting it has anything to do with union or non-union issues.
Quote :
The glitch involves the horizontal stabilizers manufactured in Italy by Alenia Aeronautica, a subsidiary of Finmeccanica SpA, a company that has caused Boeing supply headaches in the past.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575327480901961078.html
Quick google found above so maybe this was one of the reasons for delay . Maybe jerseyflyer knows more as I admit I do not keep up with airplane design.
-- Modified on 2/26/2011 2:54:33 PM