Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price of gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

Doug Kanter wrote:


There was one from Ford which showed a lady driving an Explorer on
an unplowed highway it what looked like 3 feet of snow. THAT is what I
meant. Neither type of commercial conveys an accurate message, really.



Not accurate? I think they shot that footage of me, this winter. Not
accurate? Horse****.

Which, BTW was the big worry at the turn of the last century. Edwardian
alarmists fretted that we would all be up to our necks in horse**** by
now if nothing could be done about the proliferation of horses on city
streets. I guess, in a metaphorical way, they were right.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...


So, in between an Escalade and a hybird, there are no in-between
solutions?


Yes, common sense. If hybrids and being politically correct floats
your boat, do so without preaching.

You are very defensive about all this. It's not absolutely NOTHING to
do
with being politically correct. Nada. Zip.

Not defensive at all. I have nothing to be defensive about. I don't
have to burn up fuel in low MPG autos to still enjoy them.

If an Escalade floats your boat, do so, responsibly. The same
applies
for everything in between.

Correct. It applies to everything in between. But, if your daily
routine
(work, shopping) can't be altered, and sometimes it can't, there is a
floor - a minimum below which you cannot go, in terms of using a
vehicle.


I have a question for you. Do you believe that to an extent, the
prices
of commodities are determined by demand?


Of course they are, as you say, "to an extent". But prices are also
determined by other factors as well, such as inflation, rising costs of
production, quality, etc.

RCE


If you personally have the ability to influence one of those factors,
and
you are bothered by rising prices, do you think it makes no sense at all
to do your part to effect a change? I'm curious, because I'll bet you
call
yourself patriotic.


*Effect* a change?

You start. Sell your boat, cars and other equipment powered by gasoline
engines. Let us know when are done with that simple task.



Of course you are being facetious. But it does not take a lot to effect
change - IF everyone just does a little bit.
I have driven a pickup truck for everything and everywhere since 1997 (prior
to that had one that sat most of the time) it gets about 18 MPG. I switched
to a car that I bought as a hobby (turbo convertible) that get 28 MPG.
Boating - well we have always drug the kids around doing what we call
"extreme tubing" for hours - now they go for a about half hour and are done.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with Sudan.
This may not blow over.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and everything
is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of insight
and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got twice the
fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

More gas on gas
 

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 13:41:09 GMT, Ignatius Thistlewhite
wrote:

You wrote:

"While the oil companies deny any manipulation, public confidence was
eroded at the recent report that exiting Exxon Mobil executive Lee
Raymond was getting a 400 million dollar retirement package."

If you do not like the fact that ExxonMobil used part of its 9 cents per
gallon profit to compensate a retiring executive, patronize another
supplier of the company's products.

If you do not like the fact that government taxes account for 40 cents per
gallon, well, there's nothing you can do about that.

From where comes the 9 cents a gallon figure and the 49 cents a gallon
figure?
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John,

The 40 cents a gallon tax figure is easy to find. Just google it. The
federal tax per gallon is $0.184, while the state taxes range from
$0.10 - $0.33 per gal, with an average of $0.22/gallon of gas. That
would make the total average tax in the US per gallon of gas
approximately $0.40.

The $0.09/gallon profit figure is a little more difficult to track
down. Doing a google, I found ranges from $0.09 to 0.99.

The one reasonably reliable source for the $0.09/gallon profit was from
the Heartland Institute's Environment and Climate News.

I did find ranges stating things like: Exxon made $0.49 or $0.99 in
profit for every gallon of gasonline the produce. When you take figures
like the $0.99 profit per gallon produces, what they appear to have
done there is take Exxon's gross profits and divide it by Exxon's
gasoline producing in gallons.

These gross profits consist not only of gasoline profits, but of
profits generated by other petroleum and chemical derivatives and
products. Additionally, gross profits are typically calculated as total
sales by cost of production and supply. These profits are typically
pre-tax profits and do not consider other overhead expenses such as
employee benefits, pensions, administrative costs, delivery and
distribution costs...

Now I'm not saying Exxon hasn't made a lot of money. Of course it has,
but:

1) The facts are being distorted by those with an anti-business agenda
2) People not liking the price of gas are buying into the hype eagerly
3) Businesses are in business to make a profit. (Now or course all you
socialist types out there won't like that fact).

Actually, we should consider ourselves lucky. In the UK, the tax on a
gallon of gasoline is in excess of $3.00/gallon (that's just the tax).

Till

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower
prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would
block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and
everything is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of
insight and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got
twice the fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

The missing variable is that if the price dropped, I suspect people might
drive more. There are certainly trips I'm not taking lately, simply because
of the price of the fuel.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower
prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price
of gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of
it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would
block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and
everything is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of
insight and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got
twice the fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

The missing variable is that if the price dropped, I suspect people might
drive more. There are certainly trips I'm not taking lately, simply
because of the price of the fuel.


Assume driving habits stay the same .....

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

Hugh wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:

I drive a 6-cylinder Totota pickup, about 30 miles per week. My ex drives a
Subaru 4-cylinder.

I drive a Ford Excursion V10 (gas). When I'm driving it, I think of
Douglas Kanter, and all the fuel he is saving with his vehicles so I can
have enough fuel for my huge vehicle.

Tick tock, tick tock...

It takes a complete imbicile to actually, truly think like that.....

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hugh wrote:
Doug Kanter wrote:

I drive a 6-cylinder Totota pickup, about 30 miles per week. My ex
drives a
Subaru 4-cylinder.

I drive a Ford Excursion V10 (gas). When I'm driving it, I think of
Douglas Kanter, and all the fuel he is saving with his vehicles so I can
have enough fuel for my huge vehicle.

Tick tock, tick tock...

It takes a complete imbicile to actually, truly think like that.....


Back to your old ways Kevin?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

On 25 Apr 2006 06:26:17 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 24 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


RCE wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



How about this: "I own a Hummer just because I can." Does that strike you
as a good idea, since this country really does need to lower its demand
for oil? Or, is this not your country?


I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's
freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't
understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a
military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids
play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you
pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot.

RCE

I agree, aside from being butt ugly, they are too wide and
unmaneuverable for todays parking lots and streets. I watched some fool
with his penis, I mean Hummer trying to park at an office complex. He
was there when I got there, I parked, got my briefcase out of the back,
while talking on my cell phone, and he was still parking when I went in!

Yeah, but weren't all the girls standing around his Hummer, just waiting
for him to get out so they could ogle his manliness?
--
'Til next time,

John H


Uh, yeah...sure..... He probably doesn't have much in the pants to
ogle....hence the Hummer!

Hey, bk! It took this time. Thanks!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower
prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price
of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of
it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would
block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and
everything
is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of
insight
and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got twice the
fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

The capitalist law of supply and demand says that the price would drop. But
of course as long as the government is in league with oil monopolies, you
are probably correct the price would go up....

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

JohnH wrote:
On 25 Apr 2006 06:26:17 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


JohnH wrote:
On 24 Apr 2006 15:45:22 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


RCE wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...



How about this: "I own a Hummer just because I can." Does that strike you
as a good idea, since this country really does need to lower its demand
for oil? Or, is this not your country?


I have to admit, a Hummer is where I draw the line. I support everyone's
freedom of choice to buy what excites them, but for the life of me I don't
understand the fascination with a 1500 GM pickup truck chassis and a
military, "Terminator" sheet metal body. Reminds me of those toys the kids
play with --- "Transformers" or something like that .... the ones that you
pull on the doors or whatever and it turns into a Robot.

RCE

I agree, aside from being butt ugly, they are too wide and
unmaneuverable for todays parking lots and streets. I watched some fool
with his penis, I mean Hummer trying to park at an office complex. He
was there when I got there, I parked, got my briefcase out of the back,
while talking on my cell phone, and he was still parking when I went in!

Yeah, but weren't all the girls standing around his Hummer, just waiting
for him to get out so they could ogle his manliness?
--
'Til next time,

John H


Uh, yeah...sure..... He probably doesn't have much in the pants to
ogle....hence the Hummer!

Hey, bk! It took this time. Thanks!
--
'Til next time,

John H

My pleasure, John. I sincerely mean that, good luck.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

basskisser wrote:
Hugh wrote:

Doug Kanter wrote:


I drive a 6-cylinder Totota pickup, about 30 miles per week. My ex drives a
Subaru 4-cylinder.

I drive a Ford Excursion V10 (gas). When I'm driving it, I think of
Douglas Kanter, and all the fuel he is saving with his vehicles so I can
have enough fuel for my huge vehicle.

Tick tock, tick tock...


It takes a complete imbicile to actually, truly think like that.....


..........and a pointy head like yourself to actually, truly respond.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

I think Richard was suggesting that your recent confrontational approach to
all your posts, has a tendency to turn a reasonable discussion into silly
name calling. I think he was suggesting that you find another thread to
destroy, but I could be wrong.

I do know he is smart enough to know this is a non moderated group, but he
was enjoying the discussion in this one.

--

Reggie


" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...




You made no such proposal. I made one to you however.

You want to effect a change. Go ahead and start by doing what I
suggested. ;-)


Jim, we are having a friendly, philosophical discussion here.
Please don't screw it up ....... yet.



I did not know you owned this discussion Richard.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

I am sure he also meant as the cost of crude rises, it becomes economical
vialbe to extract oil from less desirable and thus more expensive oil
fields, such as many oil fields in the SW and the shale oil fields.

If he didn't mean that, he should have.

--

Reggie


"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was an article in the latest Economist about this. Here's
a little of it:

As oil production slows,
prices will rise up and down the futures curve, stimulating new
technology and conservation. We might be running low on $20 oil,
but for $60 we have adequate oil supplies for decades to come."


----------------

$60/bbl for "decades to come"? How far from the wastebasket does one
need to stand to score 3 points with a paper wad?


According to his theory, $100/bbl will add a couple of more decades of
availability.

RCE

I don't know when that theory was expounded, but that $60/bbl oil
lasted maybe a few weeks or months. Certainly not "decades". We're
closing in on $80.


Chuck, the author was not claiming that a certain price would last for
decades. His point was that the higher the price, the longer remaining
oil supplies will last.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Reginald P. Smithers" ThatsMyStory.com wrote in message
...
I think Richard was suggesting that your recent confrontational approach to
all your posts, has a tendency to turn a reasonable discussion into silly
name calling. I think he was suggesting that you find another thread to
destroy, but I could be wrong.

I do know he is smart enough to know this is a non moderated group, but he
was enjoying the discussion in this one.

--

Reggie


I don't think that is what he meant. But what business of yours is it
anyway?

Regardless, the day I take your advice on anything is the day gas is once
again selling for $1/gallon.

See ya.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

What makes you think I was giving you any advice?

--

Reggie


" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"Reginald P. Smithers" ThatsMyStory.com wrote in message
...
I think Richard was suggesting that your recent confrontational approach
to all your posts, has a tendency to turn a reasonable discussion into
silly name calling. I think he was suggesting that you find another
thread to destroy, but I could be wrong.

I do know he is smart enough to know this is a non moderated group, but
he was enjoying the discussion in this one.

--

Reggie


I don't think that is what he meant. But what business of yours is it
anyway?

Regardless, the day I take your advice on anything is the day gas is once
again selling for $1/gallon.

See ya.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"Gorf" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower
prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The price
of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off of
it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would
block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity
market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with
Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and
everything
is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of
insight
and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got twice the
fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

The capitalist law of supply and demand says that the price would drop.
But
of course as long as the government is in league with oil monopolies, you
are probably correct the price would go up....



I am sure it would double quickly, but not for government reasons.

Large, public corporations are controlled by the stockholders. By
stockholders, I don't mean John Q. Public's personal investments, but by
major institutional investors managing big money market and retirement
accounts.
These investors are as much interested, or more so, in revenues and the
steady growth of .... than in the minor quarterly swings in profits.

If the segment of oil company's revenues that are derived from gasoline
sales suddenly dropped by one half, these investors would be screaming for
the revenue deficit to be made up immediatately. The big oil companies
cannot afford to lose confidence in the investment banking community, and
would raise prices to make up the revenue deficit.

So, switching to high mpg cars may make you feel good, and, if you believe
the world is about to run out of oil you could convince yourself that you
are doing some good, but if you think it's going to control the price of a
gallon of gas, you are really misguided.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...

"RCE" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Gorf" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"RCE" wrote in message
...
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an
article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom
arguments.

The hell with "the peak". How about just doing our part to lower
prices?
Or,
are Americans too friggin' busy, lazy or stupid to make the
effort?



Just like the tech bubble, the real and the estate bubble. The
price
of
gas
is high right now because of speculators hoping to make money off
of
it.
Because Bush has threatened Iran, and Iran has said that they would
block
the straight of Humus if attacked. Speculators on the commodity
market
are
driving up the price. Add to this artificial shortages due to the
implementation of "ethanol based" fuel.
If the Iran issue blows over, prices will plummet.

Why don't you buy a small fuel efficient car?





Iran just said they intend to share their nuclear technology with
Sudan.
This may not blow over.


Assume for a minute that political influences on the price of oil were
suddenly gone ... OPEC resumed setting reasonable oil prices and
everything
is hunky-dorey with the world.

Then, assume everybody that drives a car in the world got a flash of
insight
and traded in their current vehicles for replacements that got twice
the
fuel mileage.

What would happen to the price of gas? Go up, down or stay the same?

I say it would double in price.

RCE

The capitalist law of supply and demand says that the price would drop.
But
of course as long as the government is in league with oil monopolies,
you
are probably correct the price would go up....



I am sure it would double quickly, but not for government reasons.

Large, public corporations are controlled by the stockholders. By
stockholders, I don't mean John Q. Public's personal investments, but by
major institutional investors managing big money market and retirement
accounts.
These investors are as much interested, or more so, in revenues and the
steady growth of .... than in the minor quarterly swings in profits.

If the segment of oil company's revenues that are derived from gasoline
sales suddenly dropped by one half, these investors would be screaming
for
the revenue deficit to be made up immediatately. The big oil companies
cannot afford to lose confidence in the investment banking community,
and
would raise prices to make up the revenue deficit.

So, switching to high mpg cars may make you feel good, and, if you
believe
the world is about to run out of oil you could convince yourself that
you
are doing some good, but if you think it's going to control the price of
a
gallon of gas, you are really misguided.

RCE

Nope. You make the false assumption that the "big" oil companies are
colluding in setting prices. In reality, simple economics dictate
price.....supply and demand.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

I am sure it would double quickly, but not for government reasons.

Large, public corporations are controlled by the stockholders. By
stockholders, I don't mean John Q. Public's personal investments, but by
major institutional investors managing big money market and retirement
accounts.
These investors are as much interested, or more so, in revenues and the
steady growth of .... than in the minor quarterly swings in profits.

If the segment of oil company's revenues that are derived from gasoline
sales suddenly dropped by one half, these investors would be screaming for
the revenue deficit to be made up immediatately. The big oil companies
cannot afford to lose confidence in the investment banking community, and
would raise prices to make up the revenue deficit.

So, switching to high mpg cars may make you feel good, and, if you believe
the world is about to run out of oil you could convince yourself that you
are doing some good, but if you think it's going to control the price of a
gallon of gas, you are really misguided.


Your logic is flawed, Richard. Just how flawed depends on whether you
believe the oil companies are guilty of collusion and anti-trust law or
whether you believe that free markets are at work. The oil companies have
no direct control of the price of crude, which is the primary driver of the
price of refined products such as gasoline. World markets set the price of
crude not the oil companies. Just as a meat processor doesn't have any
direct control of the price of beef or pork. As with any commodity, current
prices are set by current conditions of supply and demand. Now it becomes
reasonable to ask if supply is being tinkered with. Reducing supply would
be the most effective way of influencing market prices. But if we're
talking about crude, then OPEC is who you want to look at as far as the
ability to tinker with supply. That is done through production quotas and
limits. But OPEC and the oil companies are not synonymous.

Now if you're talking about the supply of refined products, then that is
most certainly the oil companies rice bowl, assuming an adequate supply of
crude. But since it appears that all refining facilities are running at
capacity, it doesn't look like there's any effort to reduce supply by
running refineries at reduced volume. You could ask why the oil companies
haven't built any new refining facilities in the last 30 years, but I
suspect that has more to do with the difficulty of getting approval to build
such a facility than it does with the lack of desire to build one.

So, in your premise that demand for gas drops by half, I believe it is
unreasonable to think that the oil companies would be able to double prices
as a response. Your scenario implies that the demand for gasoline is highly
elastic. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. But high
elasticity is the only thing that would allow for such a large hypothetical
reduction in demand. And if that were the case, then a further doubling of
price would only cause a further drop in the demand for gas due to the
highly elastic nature of the demand (in your hypothetical world). This
result is the exact the opposite of what the oil companies desired, assuming
they have that kind of pricing power, which they don't. In a case of demand
falling by half, prices would have to drop as a result of what would now be
excess capacity or supply. Ultimately gasoline prices would reach
equilibrium with the new realities of supply and demand.

In today's reality, what you have is a product with a very inelastic and
increasing demand and with a limited and ultimately reducing supply. The
combination of these two is a natural recipe for high prices.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
m...

I am sure it would double quickly, but not for government reasons.

Large, public corporations are controlled by the stockholders. By
stockholders, I don't mean John Q. Public's personal investments, but by
major institutional investors managing big money market and retirement
accounts.
These investors are as much interested, or more so, in revenues and the
steady growth of .... than in the minor quarterly swings in profits.

If the segment of oil company's revenues that are derived from gasoline
sales suddenly dropped by one half, these investors would be screaming
for the revenue deficit to be made up immediatately. The big oil
companies cannot afford to lose confidence in the investment banking
community, and would raise prices to make up the revenue deficit.

So, switching to high mpg cars may make you feel good, and, if you
believe the world is about to run out of oil you could convince yourself
that you are doing some good, but if you think it's going to control the
price of a gallon of gas, you are really misguided.


Your logic is flawed, Richard. Just how flawed depends on whether you
believe the oil companies are guilty of collusion and anti-trust law or
whether you believe that free markets are at work. The oil companies have
no direct control of the price of crude, which is the primary driver of
the price of refined products such as gasoline. World markets set the
price of crude not the oil companies. Just as a meat processor doesn't
have any direct control of the price of beef or pork. As with any
commodity, current prices are set by current conditions of supply and
demand. Now it becomes reasonable to ask if supply is being tinkered
with. Reducing supply would be the most effective way of influencing
market prices. But if we're talking about crude, then OPEC is who you
want to look at as far as the ability to tinker with supply. That is done
through production quotas and limits. But OPEC and the oil companies are
not synonymous.

Now if you're talking about the supply of refined products, then that is
most certainly the oil companies rice bowl, assuming an adequate supply of
crude. But since it appears that all refining facilities are running at
capacity, it doesn't look like there's any effort to reduce supply by
running refineries at reduced volume. You could ask why the oil companies
haven't built any new refining facilities in the last 30 years, but I
suspect that has more to do with the difficulty of getting approval to
build such a facility than it does with the lack of desire to build one.

So, in your premise that demand for gas drops by half, I believe it is
unreasonable to think that the oil companies would be able to double
prices as a response. Your scenario implies that the demand for gasoline
is highly elastic. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
But high elasticity is the only thing that would allow for such a large
hypothetical reduction in demand. And if that were the case, then a
further doubling of price would only cause a further drop in the demand
for gas due to the highly elastic nature of the demand (in your
hypothetical world). This result is the exact the opposite of what the
oil companies desired, assuming they have that kind of pricing power,
which they don't. In a case of demand falling by half, prices would have
to drop as a result of what would now be excess capacity or supply.
Ultimately gasoline prices would reach equilibrium with the new realities
of supply and demand.

In today's reality, what you have is a product with a very inelastic and
increasing demand and with a limited and ultimately reducing supply. The
combination of these two is a natural recipe for high prices.


Fortunately for my family, I was a better engineer than an economist.
My theory came from the experience of selling a small, private company to a
large, public one and the dramatic change that took place in terms of
emphasis on quarterly - actually monthly revenue reporting.
It was quite an eye-opener.

RCE

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Nope. You make the false assumption that the "big" oil companies are
colluding in setting prices. In reality, simple economics dictate
price.....supply and demand.

What makes you so sure they are NOT fixing prices?

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

"RG" wrote in message
m...

I am sure it would double quickly, but not for government reasons.

Large, public corporations are controlled by the stockholders. By
stockholders, I don't mean John Q. Public's personal investments, but by
major institutional investors managing big money market and retirement
accounts.
These investors are as much interested, or more so, in revenues and the
steady growth of .... than in the minor quarterly swings in profits.

If the segment of oil company's revenues that are derived from gasoline
sales suddenly dropped by one half, these investors would be screaming
for
the revenue deficit to be made up immediatately. The big oil companies
cannot afford to lose confidence in the investment banking community,
and
would raise prices to make up the revenue deficit.

So, switching to high mpg cars may make you feel good, and, if you
believe
the world is about to run out of oil you could convince yourself that
you
are doing some good, but if you think it's going to control the price of
a
gallon of gas, you are really misguided.


Your logic is flawed, Richard. Just how flawed depends on whether you
believe the oil companies are guilty of collusion and anti-trust law or
whether you believe that free markets are at work. The oil companies have
no direct control of the price of crude, which is the primary driver of
the
price of refined products such as gasoline. World markets set the price
of
crude not the oil companies. Just as a meat processor doesn't have any
direct control of the price of beef or pork. As with any commodity,
current
prices are set by current conditions of supply and demand. Now it becomes
reasonable to ask if supply is being tinkered with. Reducing supply would
be the most effective way of influencing market prices. But if we're
talking about crude, then OPEC is who you want to look at as far as the
ability to tinker with supply. That is done through production quotas and
limits. But OPEC and the oil companies are not synonymous.


True but how much is a manipulated or intentional shortage? Iraq has the
second largest oil reserves in the world, and production is less than it was
in 2002 - coincidence?

Now if you're talking about the supply of refined products, then that is
most certainly the oil companies rice bowl, assuming an adequate supply of
crude. But since it appears that all refining facilities are running at
capacity, it doesn't look like there's any effort to reduce supply by
running refineries at reduced volume. You could ask why the oil companies
haven't built any new refining facilities in the last 30 years, but I
suspect that has more to do with the difficulty of getting approval to
build
such a facility than it does with the lack of desire to build one.


A LOT of rhetoric has centered around the shortage of refineries. The
greenies have been blamed for that shortage, but who has profited from that
bottleneck - not the greens. EPA regulations are more strict than they were
20 years ago, but refineries can still be built. The oil companies just
like to use the refineries shortage as an excuse to boost their profit
margins.

So, in your premise that demand for gas drops by half, I believe it is
unreasonable to think that the oil companies would be able to double
prices
as a response. Your scenario implies that the demand for gasoline is
highly
elastic. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. But high
elasticity is the only thing that would allow for such a large
hypothetical
reduction in demand. And if that were the case, then a further doubling
of
price would only cause a further drop in the demand for gas due to the
highly elastic nature of the demand (in your hypothetical world). This
result is the exact the opposite of what the oil companies desired,
assuming
they have that kind of pricing power, which they don't. In a case of
demand
falling by half, prices would have to drop as a result of what would now
be
excess capacity or supply. Ultimately gasoline prices would reach
equilibrium with the new realities of supply and demand.

In today's reality, what you have is a product with a very inelastic and
increasing demand and with a limited and ultimately reducing supply. The
combination of these two is a natural recipe for high prices.



Agree - but I just saw a chart (I'll try to find it again) that showed the
disproportionate amount charged for gas versus oil. The price of oil has
gone up $10 per barrel in the last month or so, that should translate to
$.20 per gallon - but price has gone up $1 per gallon - price gouging??????

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:55:01 +0000, Gorf wrote:


A LOT of rhetoric has centered around the shortage of refineries. The
greenies have been blamed for that shortage, but who has profited from
that bottleneck - not the greens. EPA regulations are more strict than
they were 20 years ago, but refineries can still be built. The oil
companies just like to use the refineries shortage as an excuse to boost
their profit margins.

The refinery shortage is a canard. In point of fact, the oil industry has
been closing refineries to streamline operations, and increase
profitability. There is nothing wrong with that, but to hold refining
capacity as a bottleneck, is disingenuous. In truth, I have been unable
to find any verifiable attempt to build a new refinery in the past twenty
years.

Can't afford gas?
 

http://www.atomfilms.com/contentPlay...ant_afford_gas

Can't afford gas?
 

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:52:55 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

http://www.atomfilms.com/contentPlay...ant_afford_gas

I sent it to my brother, who got real ****ed at me for the last bit of
humor about Democrats that I posted for Doug. This will show him I'm fair
and balanced.

Thanks, I needed the help!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

More gas on gas
 

JohnH wrote:
If you do not like the fact that ExxonMobil used part of its 9 cents per
gallon profit to compensate a retiring executive, patronize another
supplier of the company's products.

If you do not like the fact that government taxes account for 40 cents per
gallon, well, there's nothing you can do about that.

From where comes the 9 cents a gallon figure and the 49 cents a gallon
figure?

Out of his ass. He leaves off how many billions of government dollars
are either given to or spent on the behalf of the fossil fuel industry,
particularly oil. He also seems not remember that gasoline taxes are
earmarked for highways.

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak

Peak Oil - counterargument
 

wrote in message
oups.com...
RCE wrote:
Again, stolen from another NG, the following is a portion of an article
published in the "Economist".

It seems to refute some of the Peak Oil doom and gloom arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak


Based on rigorous scientific research (i.e.: picking their noses while
taking a crap), some here don't believe *any* limited supply theories.

More gas on gas
 

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.8...
You wrote:

JohnH wrote:
If you do not like the fact that ExxonMobil used part of its 9 cents
per gallon profit to compensate a retiring executive, patronize
another supplier of the company's products.

If you do not like the fact that government taxes account for 40
cents per gallon, well, there's nothing you can do about that.

From where comes the 9 cents a gallon figure and the 49 cents a
gallon figure?

Out of his ass. He leaves off how many billions of government dollars
are either given to or spent on the behalf of the fossil fuel
industry, particularly oil.

Here is a link to ExxonMobil's SEC filings:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=XOM

Please identify the line items showing "billions of government dollars
given to" ExxonMobil.


Similar question: Are tax incentives mentioned in the financial statement?

April 27, 2006
Second Thoughts in Congress on Oil Tax Breaks
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MICHAEL JANOFSKY
WASHINGTON, April 26 - As anxiety spread in Congress on Wednesday over
soaring oil prices, lawmakers in both parties said they were ready to take a
tough look at oil and gas incentives they passed as recently as eight months
ago.

Citing record industry profits and huge executive pay packages, the top
Republican and top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee asked the
Internal Revenue Service to turn over tax returns for the nation's 15
biggest oil and gas companies.

Leading Republicans echoed President Bush's call Tuesday to trim about $2
billion in tax breaks Congress passed as part of the energy bill last
August. Several prominent Democrats, not to be outdone, pushed for repealing
oil and gas tax breaks worth more than $10 billion over the next five years.

"Nobody has any sympathy for oil companies on Capitol Hill right now," said
Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia and vice chairman of the
House Republican Conference. "You talk to someone driving to work in an
F-150 pickup and paying $75 to fill up his tank, and everybody's on his
side."

Both parties jockeyed for political advantage even as they were grasping for
ideas. Most experts contend that the government has few options that would
quickly reduce gasoline prices, and competing party agendas could block
Congressional agreement on any meaningful legislation.

Lawmakers have introduced more than 30 energy bills in the last several
months. But they reflect often -conflicting goals of reducing prices,
increasing production and soothing consumer anger about oil industry
profits.

Democrats called for a 60-day halt on collecting federal gasoline taxes,
which are 18.4 cents a gallon, but they were openly split about the more
radical step of imposing a windfall profits tax on major oil companies. For
their part, many Republicans are torn between wanting to show their sympathy
for consumers and maintaining their longstanding support for the oil
industry.

"Nobody's happy with gasoline prices being where they are," said
Representative Joe L. Barton, Republican of Texas and chairman of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, who last year championed scores of new tax
breaks for the industry.

Congressional Republican leaders are negotiating with White House officials
over a bill to expand on Mr. Bush's proposals for alternative fuels and
conservation, but disarray among lawmakers was evident across Capitol Hill.

The energy industry is also politically divided. Most big integrated oil
companies, like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, have shown no interest in defending
the $2.7 billion in tax breaks in last year's energy bill.

But the hundreds of smaller independent producers want to preserve as many
incentives as possible. In singling out tax and spending incentives to be
eliminated, Mr. Bush did not criticize a new expansion of tax write-offs for
smaller oil refineries.

"The big companies don't want them, don't need them and are not asking for
them," said J. Robinson West, chairman of PFC Energy, an oil industry
consulting firm. But the smaller independents, he said, "are not going to
give up easily."

The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated Tuesday that oil and
gas companies would receive about $10 billion in tax breaks over the next
five years that are specifically aimed at their industry.

Most of those tax breaks have been around for many years. They allow energy
companies to take substantial write-offs on their investments in new
equipment and hefty "depletion allowances" as companies use up the oil and
gas in a particular field.

Neither Mr. Bush nor Republican leaders in Congress have suggested an attack
on the industry's main tax breaks. Nor are they proposing to trim back tax
incentives written primarily for industry in general that also benefit major
oil companies.

One obscure tax cut, for example, included in a 2004 law to promote domestic
manufacturing, is expected to save energy companies at least $3.6 billion
over the next decade. ConocoPhillips, which earned $13.5 billion in 2005,
saved $106 million last year on that provision, which reduces the corporate
tax rate on profits on goods produced in the United States.

President Bush and Congressional leaders are focusing on about $2 billion in
tax breaks in last year's energy bill. Among other things, those tax breaks
let companies write off in just two years the geology studies associated
with exploration. For decades, the courts and the I.R.S. have said that
these are capital investments that can be written off only slowly, as oil is
produced from the fields.

Mr. Bush also called for repealing several hundred million dollars in
subsidies, also in the energy bill, for an industry-run deepwater drilling
research center in Sugar Land, Tex. That project's biggest champion was
Representative Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader whose district
includes Sugar Land.

Many Democrats had opposed the new tax breaks all along, and Senate
Democrats pushed for a provision that would trim them in a broader tax bill
that the Senate passed last fall. But that provision was not approved by the
House.

On Wednesday, leading Republicans made it clear they were now willing and
even eager to eliminate some of those tax breaks.

"I am happy to repeal tax breaks for the development of oil in foreign
countries," said Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico and
chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "I cannot
support the concept of tax breaks for oil companies while some American
families are searching their budgets for the extra cash they need to fill
their gas tanks."

But Republican lawmakers want to combine their seemingly tough new stance
with measures to increase production. High on the list is a new attempt to
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration.

Democrats are focusing more on taking things away from the industry. Senator
John Kerry of Massachusetts proposed legislation this week to repeal all tax
breaks for oil drilling and production - about $10 billion over the next
five years.

Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, proposed a measure to force energy
companies to pay royalties to the government on all oil and gas they produce
on federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico, if the price of crude oil is above
$55 a barrel. Some energy companies are now allowed "royalty relief"
expected to total about $7 billion over the next five years.

The mounting suspicion of oil companies was apparent in a letter to the
I.R.S. from Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman
of the Finance Committee, and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, the committee's
senior Democrat. They demanded that the I.R.S. let them review the past five
years of tax returns filed by the nation's 15 biggest oil companies.

The senators pointedly noted an "extremely lucrative retirement plan by one
oil and gas industry executive" - an allusion to Lee R. Raymond, former
chairman of Exxon Mobil, who received $398 million in compensation on
retiring last year.

"We're seeing record profits and significant executive compensation in the
oil and gas industry," Mr. Grassley said. "I want to make sure the oil
companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man."

Red Caveney, president of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents
the large oil companies, said his group would not fight to retain the newest
tax breaks.

"We understand the frustration that consumers have expressed about energy
prices," Mr. Caveney told reporters on Wednesday.

More gas on gas
 

"Ignatius Thistlewhite" wrote in message
.7...
You wrote:

Here is a link to ExxonMobil's SEC filings:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/sec?s=XOM

Please identify the line items showing "billions of government
dollars given to" ExxonMobil.


Similar question: Are tax incentives mentioned in the financial
statement?

1. You shall earn the right to ask question a question after you answer
those posed to you.

Your question beginning with "Please identify" was not directed at me.