Argument against high gas prices

gatt wrote:

The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the
world. All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that
America isn't the loser.

Do you know the difference between a "profit" and a "profit margin"?

Or do you just puke back the MSM/Public School drivel?

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
gatt wrote:

The oil industry is making record profits in the history of the
world. All anybody is asking them to do is not make so much so that
America isn't the loser.
The oil industry is never the winner.

-c

The point is they aren't asking them in the right way. All they have to do
is reduce demand.
Fine! First, we nuke China....

gatt wrote:

At what point do we say "It's not the oil company's job to keep oil
prices as low as possible, but it's America's job to protect its own
economy instead of letting Exxon make record profits while the entire
US economy suffers?"

The economy is suffering? The DJIA is in record territory.

Hey, how about you quit sucking the gub'mint peepee and have them give up
their 45 cents a gallon for sitting there and doing nothing (and, yes, half
of fuel taxes goes into the general toilet...I mean general fund; the vast
majority otherwise goes to prok-barrel projects, such as freeways to no
where in Wet Virginia, or bridges to no where in Alaska)



If you guys want to get Draconian about it, I think it's perfectly
fair for Uncle Sam to push back. Don't Tread on Me, et al.

Thug!

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
gatt whined...and whines...and whined:


It's when the government gets involved that everything will get really
screwed up.

Every time, in every way.

The only surpluses that government creates are parasites, elsewise, they
only create shortages.

This, one can thnk for mental midgets like "gatt" and a couple generations
of publik skool grauites. For this, Walter Williams must explain it using
terms and concepts a ten yeaar-old can grasp...sometimes.

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:735c640ba893b@uwe...
gatt wrote:

I don't defend Enron, but am also not entirely sympathetic to those who
"lost their whole retirement nestegg". I saw a lot of news stories
about
these unfortunate folks, but never heard a reporter ask them the obvious
question. "Why would a sane person invest their entire retirement nestegg
in
one company's stock?". Enron employees were not required to buy Enron
stock in their retirement plans. They did so because of one reason.
Greed.
They wanted to make high double and triple digit returns on their
investments
and threw caution and common sense out the window.

Enron was most definitely a scam, but common sense goes a long way
towards
minimizing the effect of any one bad apple on one's retirement portfolio.


Enron was hoping to corner the Carbon Credits market, and, as such, were BIG
promoters of Kyoto and it's biggest US champion (guess who).

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 7, 10:32 am, "gatt" wrote:
"M" wrote in message

oups.com...

I agree with you that high gasoline price maximizes oil company
profit. However as a pilot you can easily hedge on that by buying oil
company stock,

And if you pay the mob, thugs won't keep trashing your store.

I'm quite certain that I made far more from the oil companies than what
I
paid
extra for the fuel, and I only have a small part of my 401k in the
energy sector.

I have an ethical problem with the idea that the way to combat corrupt
practices and preditorial pricing--which hurts the American economy--is
to
invest in it.

Sorry. My conscience prevents me from doing that.

-c

There's nothing predatory about it. We have about the cheapest gas in
the developed world, by far.

And the "high profits" go a long way to insure we continue to have "cheap
gas".

They don't come get your money--you drive to them and willingly give
it to them, generally in an inefficient car that has more available
horsepower than a small airplane and more cupholders than a country
bar.

I use my SUV to go to the corner store to buy tooth picks...one at a time.


The American economy has been hurt by its becoming drunk on cheap
energy instead of learning to do things efficiently, in terms of
outright efficiency as well as lifestyle.

In the US, fuel consumption per GDP is down; everywhere else it's UP.

Hangovers hurt, but they do
serve their purpose.

Maybe to go and get more petrol.

We could produce ten times more than we could "conserve".

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: "gatt"

Ah, yeah. All the people talking about it all the time aren't really
concerned.

No they're not.
****ing and moaning has become the National Hobby.

And making excuses is becoming it's most prolific National Industry.

Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
true.

Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?

Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
nearby oilbearing strata.

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

Paul kgyy wrote:
Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
true.

Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?

Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
nearby oilbearing strata.

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

No, but with increases in drilling technology that number might well be 100
years.

On Jun 8, 1:54 pm, Paul kgyy wrote:
Will it really peak in 5 years? I think not. Google Thomas Gold and
non-biogenic oil and you will find that the party line may not be
true.

Not sure about the peak - depends on how good the reserve estimates of
the Saudis are, but then we know they never lie, do they?

Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle were astronomers who between them came up
with a number of pretty wild ideas, one of which was that Venus would
turn out to be solid petrocarbons. So far, apparently Sweden has
actually found 80 barrels of oil in their test of Gold's hypothesis
after spending $$millions of dollars drilling in crystalline rock.
But the source of that 80 barrels might just be percolation from
nearby oilbearing strata.

Would you feel any better if production peaks in 10 years instead of 5
in the face of increasing demand?

The amount of oil wasn't the point, the fact that there were 80
barrels of oil in what has been considered non-oil bearing rock
(granite) at a depth where it shouldn't be is a strong support for the
non-biogenic theory. Russia looked at the results of this experiment
and decided to explore the Dneiper river basin, a place where
conventional theory said oil wouldn't be likely. That basin is now
the largest oil producing field in all of Russia. There is a
technical paper written by a couple of Russian petroleum engineers on
this topic that I have read, it is very interesting.

Western oil companies continue to publicly poo-poo the non-biogenic
theory, but the Russians seem to have adopted it.

Coal is clearly biogenic, but there is a lot of coal in the world
which can account for ancient plant and animal life trapped in the
earth. Oil comes from very deep down, and it is harder to believe
that dead plants and animals could be responsible for all that oil at
such great depths. The recent findings that the oil in one of the
Gulf of Mexico fields was being replenished from a deeper source via a
fault line (reported in the Wall Street Journal) also tends to support
this theory.

Thomas Gold was right about the composition of the surface of the
moon, and of the nature of pulsars, and has been right about a lot of
other things that were initially considered far out. Time will tell,
but I think there is a lot of merit in the non-biogenic theory.

While people believe that the supply of oil is very limited, the
prices will remain high. If it is found that the supply is way
underestimated, the value of the oil will drop (standard commodity
rules apply) which is not in the best interest of the oil companies or
OPEC. I expect that we will be told that the oil supply will peak in
5 years for at least the next 100 years. It will just always be 5
years away from whatever day they happen to say it.