Big Oil

[FPENA98]

I'm just interesting in everyone's opinion on Big Oil, this is partly a loaded question as Big Oil is as likable as the tobacco industry, however, right now it is especially hated due to the high price of gasoline and the billion of dollars in profits that they are making.  (ExxonMobil alone made $36 billion last year)  It is easy to attack these companies and here in California there's a ballot initiative to impose a tax on oil extracted in California supposedly to raise $4 billion for alternative energy, however, it seems that part of the reason the initiative is on the ballot now is to take advantage of  big oil's unpopularity and high profits.  Is it in all our best interest when government and prominent politicians go after these companies and their profits, after alll they claim that those profits are necessary to operate in a business that requires huge capital investments and to survive in those years when the companies are making less profits or no profits at all 

[Maximus]

I think that Big Tobacco really is a Big Evil, while Big Oil is merely a business.  Yes, oil-based fuels have polluted our planet, but it has been the only viable energy source for cars, planes, and any non-sailing vessel for quite some time.  Oil is the lifeblood of the economy, and even the companies that supply this lifeblood deserve to profit on occasion.  As FPena has previously pointed out, oil companies took a bath years ago, losing profits hand over fist.  So now they're making huge  profits.  It won't last.  But in the meantime, I'm not certain that bringing politics into the equation does any good for the average consumer.  Politicians' feigned interest in the burden of high gas prices seems farcical to me.

Big Tobacco has a shameful record of deceipt and manipulation, and the suppression of evidence which might have saved lives. 

[Josh]

I'm a big believer in finding an alternative to oil to power the world. I don't hate oil companies or think that they're gouging us for profit, they're running a business and aren't doing anything illegal. The exceedingly high dependence on oil is what worries me though. There is a very high likelihood that the world's oil supplies dwindle near to nothing in my lifetime, seeing as I'm not yet twenty. Projections as to when this will happen are wide ranging, but I think it's safe to say an alternative will have to be found before the end of the century. I know it makes sense that not too many people are worried about this at the moment...after all, the world still has enough oil to last us awhile yet. But not forever. I just know I'd feel much better if there was real effort, and more money being spent on research into other fuel sources. Anything our government does in this area always seems to be somewhat halfhearted, more hedging their bets than a real concerted effort. Odds are gas prices will eventually get so high that it'll be cheaper to fund research in those areas rather than continue to pay for oil. That's just how the economy works, I guess.

[udo]

I tend to go to BP.  Their prices are the lowest in a town on my way to work; typically 5c less.  When the Alaskan BP pipeline news came out, their prices stayed planted--the other gas stations raised their prices.  Gas has gone down 20c/gal since then for all these stations.

I do think that these companies have done some price gouging.  Then again, they're charging what the market will bear---we did pay it, didn't we?

The tobacco companies, however, know that their product can lead to cancer, emphysema, etc.  And they continue to produce their product on some sweet farming land.  Further, they seem to make no effort to reduce the carcinogens and debilitating chemicals in their product.  That, IMO, is stating 'we really don't care about our consumers.' Yet they too can say "but you guys still buy the product, don't you?"  And they get new converts continually.  They're not going anywhere.

[Firefly]

i align myself with josh on this one.  big oil is not evil per se.  they are simply squeezing the last drop of profit out of an unfortunate situation, which is how capitalism works in many ways.  i'm not saying that's either right or wrong.  but i strongly agree with josh that we need to look for new sources of energy.  i believe this needs to a priority starting right now, not sometime in the future.

[MotherEarth]

Yes, it is big oil...the world is run by the product.

Check out the "owners" of the oil companies and you will see they are mostly
foreign owned.  But I don't see us getting "old Nellie" for the farm any time
in the future.

[FPENA98]

I heard this comment yesterday that really made me smile.  British Petroleum (BP) claims to be the most environmentally friendly oil company in the world, as least if we believe their advertisements, however, in reality they're probably the most environmentally destructive, their oil pipeline in Alaska is about to burst out of neglect and there have been recent spills that have caused thousands of barrels of oil to be spilled into the environment, I guess paid advertisements are not always true!

[udo]

Maybe all that is true and BP is still the most environmentally-friendly.  yikes!

[Maximus]

Given their profit margins, I think strict accountability plus massive penalties for any environmental clean-up should be the norm for oil companies.  The economic costs of letting a pipeline rust out and then cleaning up the ensuing mess has to made greater than the savings from ignoring the situation.  Nothing compels action like the almighty dollar! 

[FPENA98]

I agree, if a company pollutes it should be fined  this is actually an example where the market functions better than government.  We have countless examples, including Mexico which i'm most familiar, where state owned oil companies are essentially immune from any type of sanction if they pollute the environment.  The Mexican national oil company is notorious for shoddy maintenance primarily because the government sucks resources away for general government spending but also because there are no sanctions that can be imposed because the same entity that supposed to do the sanctioning, the government, owns the company it's supposed to sanction.  In Mexico many rivers have been polluted and people have actually died due to lack of maintaining some of the company's pipelines and storage tanks.  One example, in 1984 an accident near Mexico City resulted in the deaths of about 500 people, imagine if an ExxonMobil accident or BP accident would have claimed 500 lives!

[FPENA98]

Now that the price oil is coming down and consequently the price of gasoline I think I'm going to write to my congressman, congresswoman actually, and complain that she is not NOT complaining enough, in other words, she's not praising the oil companies enough because thanks to their massive investments (around $270 billion a year in capital expenditures during the past few years of high oil prices) the supply of oil is rising and will continue to rise for the coming years and the price of gas should trend downward.  These politicians are quick to pounce and criticize the companies when prices rise surely now she's ready to pounce once again and praise them for a job well done!  I'm presuming of course that politicians have some sense of consistence and don't do thinks simply for political gain, silly me!

[udo]

I'm going to reply in an odd fashion, FPena:

In the music world, songs that are somewhat unpleasant are more likely to be hits in the short term, but songs that are more "happy" tend to be more endearing to us, the listeners.
I'm sure it's just like that in the political world: constituents are more likely to vote for the politician that has more compaining to do than the one with more praising to do.

[FPENA98]

Udo, I know what you mean, however, it would be beneficial to everyone I think if politicians would not pander and would be truthful with their constituents.  For example, when the price of something goes up, it is suually not because the producers of that something woke up one day and decided to raise prices just for the heck of it. Usually there are market reasons.  I heard very few politicians tell their constituents that the best thing they could do to help the high price of oil was to cut back on consumption/increase conservation.  There were politicians who said this but usually it was followed after a long tirade against the evil oil companies as if they were responsible for every whacko in the world and every act of god that struck their facilities.  I'm a Democrat and understand the market and its forces and most of the politicians I heard moaning and whining when oil was high tended to be Democrats and not Republicans.  I'm sure there were some Republicans who pandered but it just seemed to me that Democrats seem to do more of this.  It is quite disappointing and embarassing for this Democrat to hear our supposed leaders continue to ignore the realities of life in this type of economy and hear them do nothing but pander.

[Maximus]

How to stop pandering?  Sadly, it's built into our system of government.  If it seems fashionable to vilify Big Oil, you can count on a large number of politicians to jump on the band wagon and do exactly that.  I also find it disappointing that the Democrats seem more prone to pandering in this instance, although I imagine it's because their ties to Big Oil aren't as strong as those between the Republicans and Big Oil.

[FPENA98]

I would just find it refeshing and indeed inspiring to some extent if many of our so called "leaders" actually came out and I don't know, acted in a way that is characteristic of a real leader.  Someone who tells us what we have to do and not what we want to hear or don't want to hear.