Are oil companies making too much money? ⁠80%

By Noel S. Williams⁠99%

8/4/2026, 9:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Politically Right Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 33.9% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 1,347 faulty-reasoning hits from 499 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (5,968 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.30% of the article peer group.

Thanks partly to factors beyond their control -- e.g., the Iran war -- oil companies are raking in the dough. 
Chevron and Shell, for example, just reported record and near-record quarterly profits, respectively. 
When some idiot reporter (looking to spark controversy and add to his C.V., no doubt) asked President Trump about this at a White House event, he expressed concern, saying they're making "too much money," and that, "I don't like it." 
Actually, a free-market capitalist may indeed like it! 
While I admit it gives the Dem commies another talking point as gas prices remain elevated, one must be careful about imposing artificial constraints on the (mostly) free market -- there is no evidence that the major oil companies are currently gouging. 
In fact, market forces are determining the price of gas, diesel, and related products. 
These forces are time-asymmetric, meaning it takes time for reduced oil prices to translate into lower prices at the pump. 
What is the alternative to allowing our companies to thrive in a boom cycle -- a windfall tax? 
That's what Democrats are proposing, so common sense immediately requires suspending disbelief. 
Indeed, when the Euro-peons inflicted a windfall tax, it actually penalized businesses. 
The CEO of ExxonMobil, for example, stated that "We canceled investments that we had planned for Europe based on the last time they passed a windfall profits tax." 
A windfall oil tax was imposed on oil companies in the U.S. in 1980 -- it wasn't successful, either. 
This is not the time to penalize energy production. 
Instead, the Dems should reconsider their exorbitant clean energy taxes. 
The average price of gas and diesel in Democratic mismanaged jurisdictions is artificially high. 
If anyone is engaging in gouging, it is the discredited Greenies. 
Companies are frequently subjected to exogenous forces -- for better and worse -- that aren't directly related to their innovation or operational performance. 
Good for them! 
"Luck" seems to knock on the door of those best prepared. 
There are bust cycles, but when business booms they should not be subjected to penalizing windfall taxes concocted by socialist redistribution agents. 
That Bark Hussein Obummer character once mused over the question of when someone has made enough money. 
Absent price gouging or operations and products that violate safety, security, and health rules, the answer is very rarely. 
Nowadays, Dems like Bernie and his gang don't even need to muse. 
Even though they've never had a proper job or had to meet payroll, they already know -- and the threshold is continually lowered. 
Threatening accusations about oil companies making too much money is fraught with socialistic ramifications, potentially providing justification for a windfall tax, which can have negative impacts on industry dynamics. 
No, the oil companies aren't making too much money. 
But hey, if they leak or otherwise ruin our pristine locales, then they will pay a hefty price, as British Petroleum discovered with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 
Image: 
lalabell68 " src="https://images.americanthinker.com/imported/2023-10/249686_640.jpeg" width="500" /> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Noel S. Williams: 7.0%American Thinker: 9.8%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.7%American Thinker: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Noel S. Williams: 3.5%American Thinker: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.6%American Thinker: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.4%Noel S. Williams: 0.4%American Thinker: 1.2%Hindsight Bias2.4%This article: 4.6%Noel S. Williams: 2.5%American Thinker: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 1.6%Noel S. Williams: 4.4%American Thinker: 6.4%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 5.6%Noel S. Williams: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 4.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.4%American Thinker: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Noel S. Williams: 1.4%American Thinker: 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.8%This article: 19.2%Noel S. Williams: 20.2%American Thinker: 11.7%Negativity Bias19.2%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 17.0%Noel S. Williams: 11.0%American Thinker: 2.7%Fundamental Attribution Error17.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Noel S. Williams: 6.7%American Thinker: 3.4%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 6.8%Noel S. Williams: 17.9%American Thinker: 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 3.3%American Thinker: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 1.5%American Thinker: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Noel S. Williams: 1.1%American Thinker: 1.1%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 2.4%Noel S. Williams: 0.6%American Thinker: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Noel S. Williams: 26.4%American Thinker: 5.1%Ad Hominem18.2%This article: 8.2%Noel S. Williams: 3.8%American Thinker: 3.7%Straw Man8.2%This article: 5.6%Noel S. Williams: 2.7%American Thinker: 4.1%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 9.4%Noel S. Williams: 3.3%American Thinker: 4.2%False Dilemma9.4%This article: 4.4%Noel S. Williams: 3.2%American Thinker: 3.2%Slippery Slope4.4%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.0%American Thinker: 0.3%Circular Reasoning8.4%This article: 9.2%Noel S. Williams: 23.3%American Thinker: 15.1%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.4%Noel S. Williams: 9.6%American Thinker: 8.0%Appeal to Emotion10.4%This article: 4.2%Noel S. Williams: 2.6%American Thinker: 2.3%Begging the Question4.2%This article: 15.8%Noel S. Williams: 2.9%American Thinker: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.8%This article: 3.4%Noel S. Williams: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.4%Tu Quoque3.4%This article: 8.4%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 1.4%Burden of Proof8.4%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.8%American Thinker: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.5%American Thinker: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.2%Noel S. Williams: 3.3%American Thinker: 3.3%Anecdotal10.2%This article: 6.2%Noel S. Williams: 1.8%American Thinker: 0.4%No True Scotsman6.2%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 1.5%American Thinker: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.6%Noel S. Williams: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.1%Middle Ground1.6%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.4%American Thinker: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.0%American Thinker: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Noel S. Williams: 1.1%American Thinker: 2.6%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.6%American Thinker: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.0%Noel S. Williams: 38.9%American Thinker: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice16.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 6.8%American Thinker: 5.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.2%American Thinker: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 33.9%Noel S. Williams: 22.4%American Thinker: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias33.9%This article: 0.0%Noel S. Williams: 0.1%American Thinker: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

499 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.6%attributed speech471writer words
Selected voice

ExxonMobil

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ExxonMobil: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -35.9 ptsWriter: 35.9%ExxonMobil: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.0 ptsWriter: 17.0%ExxonMobil: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.