New Oil Theory

[TM7]

I remember hearing about this 'science' 35 years ago as a college kid. This time two reputable researchers put forth the concept again. Jerome Corsi and Craig Smith explode the myth of fossil fuels and explain the current war, actually an economic war. Dr. Corsi is the author of "Unfit for Command";  Craig Smith is a well known investor analyst and economic journalist.  Together they have written a new book exploding some myths. Here is a synopsis of "Black Gold Stranglehold."

http://www.craigrsmith.com/ExecutiveSummaryBGS.pdf

......TM7

[Lone Star]

The referenced "paper" is poorly researched and makes incorrect assumptions based on limited facts.   As an oilfield engineer and geologist, I find the paper hilarious!  Yes, facts are stated - but conclusions are badly flawed.  The paper is obviously presented to inflame the uninformed, it is a political piece.  No problem with that of course, as long as readers understand that fact.  What can be expected from an author who wrote the patently political Unfit for Command?  That book had plenty of facts, but was politically motivated.  Same here.    Caveat Emptor.



.

[mikedb]

It is great to run across another geologist.  I have been doing geo work for about 28 years and love it.  I even started to teach part time at a community college.  I really cant think about retirement.  It would be like not shooting anymore.

[NONYA]

these guys write this crap TO SELL BOOKS not to reveal hidden agendas..

[NONYA]

The problem with "thier" solution is THAT ITS ALL BEING DONE RIGHT NOW....man they were ahead of thier time,NOT!

[dukkillr]

In an era when Exxon Mobile posted the largest gains in world history, more tax breaks for oil companies/exploration is not likely. 

[Dee]

And the EPA has made it economicly impossible to meet their new standards on building new refineries. Has one been built in over 25 years?

[Lone Star]

Don't worry, EXXonMobil pays plenty of taxes.  I own stock and read the yearly stockholder reports.  Can't remember the exact amount, but it would fund a moderately sized country - in excess of $100 billion (on ca. $400 billion in 2006 total revenues).  The IBC  remark is another myth spread by the leftist enemies of profitable businesses. 


.

[mikedb]

in addition to all the taxes they pay lookhow many people are employed in good paying jobs.  Nobody was around when oil was in the dumper in the late 90s saying we need to help the oil companies.  There is great risk in the oil business.  Not every hole makes money.  I have seen multi-million dollar holes get plugged.  Then the risk in developing countries of being nationalized. 

[Lone Star]

That's ridiculous and paranoid...nobody begrudes a business a fair profit,,,

Now who's being rediculous?  The majority of Congress does; if history is any indication just wait and see how they plan to punish the profitable. 

Your comments implied that EXXon (with the highest revenues of any private company) may have somehow  avoided paying taxes.  That sounds like paranoid leftist thinking to me; I did not mean to demean you and appologize if you took it that way.    You mentioned profit?  EXXon posted less than $40 billion in profits, yet paid over $100 billion in taxes.  Who's screwing whom?   

I'm certainly not an appologist for the oil companies, but like Mikedb stated - those who depend on oil always seem to forget about the several times when over 150,000 oilfield employees have lost their jobs due to low prices, and the losses that oil companies posted.  But let just 10,000 UAW jobs be lost due to mismanagement and you'd think that the world was coming to an end.  I have no patience for that kind of narrow, uninformed thinking. 

.

[Casull]

Earlier it was stated that Ex-Mo payed in excess of 100 billion on 400 billion total revenues in 2006....which is a net effective tax rate lower than mine.

Come on TM7, you know that total revenue is not equal to profit.  They had sales of 400 billion dollars and made a profit of just under 40 billion dollars.  And, I'm pretty sure that they paid about 100 billion dollars more in taxes than you did.

Wouldn't this mean they operated at a serious serious loss? And so stockholders might want take a hard look at their holdings if this be the case. And they might want to look at their stock if petroleum trade shifts primarily to the Euro or Yan. Would you take a check from a serial debtor?

Again, you must understand the concept of "after tax profit".  Pretty easy to see your disdain for big business here - condemn them if they make too much money or don't pay enough taxes, and condemn them if they lose money.  Ridiculous.

[Casull]

Casull,,,In the first part of my reply it was said by a poster that they paid 100 billion taxes on 400 billion total revenues....I maintain their net effective tax rate is less than mine as an individual.

Again, I don't see how you're missing the point.  Revenues do not equal profits.  If a company has 400 billion in revenues (sales), but it costs them 360 billion to produce their product, their profit is only 40 billion dollars.  If you are self-employed, you must understand this.  If you are not self-employed and are talking about your inability to deduct costs, then you are also off the mark when you say that their effective tax rate is less than yours.  If the before tax profit was 140 billion, and the after tax profit is 40 billion, then the effective tax rate was 71%.  If you are looking at 100 billion in taxes on 400 billion in revenues, then you are looking at the wrong numbers, but even that would be 25% which if we count the value of any benefits you receive (assuming you are a wage earner) would surely exceed your effective rate, since you are not taxed on those benefits (which can nearly equal the salary you receive).  As for getting off topic, I'm just responding to your statements.