![]() | DrumBeat: November 16, 2006 | The Oil Drum | IHS Data Suggest Kuwaiti and Global Proved Oil Reserves Significantly Lower Than BP Estimates | ![]() |
198 comments on DrumBeat: November 17, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
198 comments on DrumBeat: November 17, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
- The Future of European Transport: iTREN-2030
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It takes as much energy to wish as it does to plan.”
—Eleanor Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I think this is likely with the new political climate, but this is very short-sighted. What they don't seem to realize is that if prices are frozen during a Katrina-like crisis, then rationing is the only other option. I think most people would prefer to pay more for their gas (rationing by price) than for everyone to be told they are only getting 75% of the gas they would like.
In fact, the same story warns of this:
Testifying in May before the Senate Commerce Committee, Majoras said retailers might let the gas run out rather than raise prices and risk facing prosecution. She noted the price spikes after Hurricane Katrina last year resulted in more fuel getting to market.
The outcome was as described in the RR blockquote. Gas prices did not rise; there was also no gas available anywhere on the island and no plans to import any.
The legislation was repealed.
Cheers!
In all fairness to Big Oil, though, the Democrats are obviously pandering to the high level of antipathy among the general public toward Big Oil and will milk this issue for all it's worth.
There appears to be no sane middle ground: the Republicans are in bed with Big Oil; the Democrats want to paint Big Oil as the Prince of Darkness.
The question that remains to be answered is this: In the long run, will Big Oil be part of the solution or part of the problem? For me, the answer is by no means obvious.
If Big oil continues to insist that we really don't have an imminent and serious supply problem and that global warming is just a lot of nonsense stirred up by a bunch of granola-crunching nervous-nellies, then they will be part of the problem. But if they start investing their enormous capital in alternative energy (excluding ethanol), then they could be part of the solution. However, my gut feel tells me that pressure from Wall Street will force them to continue the status quo as long as they possibly can.
The only thing I can be certain of is that it is a very fluid situation.
Another use of Big Oil's enormous capital would be to return it to the shareholders in the form of dividends and share repurchases. This is in fact what ExxonMobil and perhaps others have been doing with part of their recent windfalls. It is not the worst thing to have happen (it's better than investing in corn ethanol, for example). The returned capital will be reinvested to its best use in the judgment of its owners, and some of it will presumably make its way to alternative energy firms. Nothing wrong with that.
ExxonMobil, by the way, has come in for a lot of criticism for doing this. If I recall correctly, they were admonished at their last congressional grilling to invest their windfall profits in new projects to help increase the fuel supply. Analysts and pundits are also noting that they are returning the money to shareholders because they can't find enough worthwhile projects to fund (e.g. High Profits, Sluggish Investments, by Floyd Norris, New York Times, Feb. 3, 2006).