Yes, I agree. There is a wide divide between the print and TV media. It seems newspapers are becoming the equivalent of classical music: for a small number of eggheads only.
I tried to talk to my coworkers this morning about oil prices. All they did was rant about the outrageous profits of Exxon. This from people who all voted for Bush in the last election.
The exorbitant profits of the oil companies can't be denied. But why are they able to make exorbitant profits? Because their monopoly is increasingly strengthened by the growing difficulty and expense of extraction. The monopoly profits need to be taxed and spent on public transporation and other needed measures. What's hard to sell is that further taxes on gas consumption are also needed.
Justice demands a way of protecting those at the bottom from being driven under by these added taxes. It would be nice if there were people in OUR gov't that would take a hint from Chavez, who, as we know, hates America, but doesn't let that stop him from lending a helping hand to the poor. We need more of that kind of hate and less of the neo-con love.
Hmmm. What's your definition of "monopoly" exactly? Usually, "monopoly" implies a singler player controlling the market. That's obviously not what you mean by the term...
Perhaps you mean "cartel", and are referring to OPEC?
Oligopoly. But the term is often used (or mis-used) in the the way I have. It's rare to have a monopoly in the purest and strict sense of the word. But the effects of monopoly are felt well before reaching that. If there are a few big players, one doesn't need a cartel or any kind of explicit agreement for monopoly effects to take place. And you see it: you see the result in ExxonMobil's bottom line, you see it Microsoft's bottom line. If there were real competition you would an altogether different profit situation.
My recollection is that Exxon produces about 3% of the worlds oil ... correct me if I'm wrong ... so that doesn't seem to be anywhere close to monopoly or controlling level. And the other IOCs get smaller fast, and all together I don't believe the IOCs are up to 30%. Even oligopoly is stretching it for the IOCs. Maybe for the NOCs.
About Venezuela's Chavez -- he has for years been one who pushed ever higher oil prices. His little effort in the N.E. U.S. is small change compared to what he has made from those same people over the years due to his pricing strategy.
According to CNBC the other morning, Microsoft, Citicorp and Pfizer all have higher profit margins than Exxon. So I would assume you would suggest taxing them as well?
The average person just doesn't seem to understand that Exxon has to invest many billions to reap those profits, whereas Microsoft certainly does not. I saw it on Jon Stewart last night. He was interviewing someone from The Wall Street Journal who was explaining the situation, and he said "I hear you, but it just feels like we are being screwed. I am paying $3.00 for gasoline, and they are making record profits." Unfortunately, this seems to be the general level of understanding of this issue.
Is that "has to invest billions" or "had to invest billions?" XOM is collecting a lot of money right now as an ROI from sunk costs. What evidence do you have that XOM is investing those profits to increase reserves? By the way, I don't consider buying out another oil company to be a legitimate way to do that. Why isn't XOM taking out full page ads in WSJ touting all they ways they're spending their new profits to find and mine more oil? I have to conclude they would if they were.
If oil companies were finding new oil reserves with their recent profits I think the public would be a bit more understanding. Instead they give Raymond a 400 million dollar goodbye present and the public is understandably PO'd. That's a serious amount of cash even today.
This issue isn't about reasonable vs: unreasonable profit. It's about how that profit should be invested. What does an oil company do with a windfall when their geologists haven't found large new oil deposits in years? The give it as a nice going away present to an ex-CEO. Talk about a waste of money!
The public has been indoctrinated with the idea that if they just let the "free market" do its thing then everything will come out allright. Even the average american idiot driver can sense the problem with taking their gas money and giving it to some retiring CEO rather than investing it in new exploration. Even it the results were dry holes, XOM could at least justify the effort as a reasonable use of money.
I really think TOD contributors have gotten caught up in the aroma of their own arguments - peak oil and all that - to the exclusion of a perfectly reasonable outrage on the part of the driving public about how the fuel premium they are now paying is being used.
Is that outrage being dealt with politically in an appropriate manner? Of course not! When was the last time public outrage was channeled by a fair-minded political intelligence?
Peak oil and public outrage are two separate issues.
The public outrage component is focused on the failure of the mechanism of our free market economy to provide the stability americans think is their due. It's a rage against the propaganda they've been fed for years. And that rage is fueled by a deep, pervasive addiction to all our transportation machines. I'm sure that's what Cheney was alluding to when he said the American Way of Life is not negotiable.
Next time you take a drive down a street filled with retail commerce in any of the modern American suburbs or exurbs, entertain yourself by determining what percentage of those businesses are directly involved with either cars or motorcycles or boats. I refer to repair shops, tire shops, body shops, auto dealerships - everything. The message of expensive energy is the death knell of the American Dream. Hilda Hummer and Dickie Dodge know that subliminally and underneath the rage they're scared out of their, for lack of a better word, wits.
Next time you are in a position to eavesdrop in a public place, listen to the conversations. If your experience is what mine has been, most are about cars, trucks and motorcycles.
The scope of change coming to America is just unbelievable. We're about to lose our position in the world as well as having to replace a good deal of our inner psychic life with something not nearly so nice.
I was raised on a farm. About the time I was ready to go out into the fields with my dad he traded in his horses for an Oliver tractor. He never looked back. I never, ever heard him talk about the good ole days of horses. That almost everyone in America can afford a car and gasoline is the touchstone of our freedom. Just as my father wouldn't give up his tractor, few in any country I know of would happily give up the freedom of a car once they've experienced it. We're not plants, we're animals and the car is our freedom to move.
My conclusion is that the only way for the political system to keep a lid on this situation is to show every aggressive instinct consistent with getting as much oil for this country as possible - and to hell with the consequences. People who have the "wise government leading us into a new paradigm" delusion need to quote some examples. Cuba is about the only one I can think of and Cuba was forced to go cold turkey over a period of months. Castro had no choice but to decentralize in a hurry or his country would have imploded. I don't think the US will go that path. Different country, different social system, different intelligence level. Cuba has an intelligent, literate population.
Yes I believe oil demand has permanently outstripped supply - at least until the next depression. Whether that's "peak oil" or not is irrelevant, really. What's important is that the world's Railroad Commission (OPEC) no longer has much reason to exist. There is no swing producer and demand will bid the price of energy up to whatever level it can. What price that may be no one yet knows.
Realistically there ain't much to do about it except batten down the hatches and get ready for a big storm. Dinosaurs don't have the option to wish themselves into mammals.
This issue isn't about reasonable vs: unreasonable profit. It's about how that profit should be invested.
Exactly. I posted earlier today on another thread that XOM is essentially returning its windfall to its shareholders in a process of "gradual liquidation." This is because it continues to use a relatively low oil price when evaluating new projects.
XOM is now in a bind. Its $8.4 billion first quarter profit "was high enough to heat up political criticism of Big Oil in Washington but too low to meet Wall Street's bullish expectations" (quoted from a story in today's WSJ).
What to do with the windfall? Reinvest it in your oil and gas business, invest it in alternative energy projects (e.g. BP), or return it to shareholders (who will then reallocate it in other investments, possibly in alternative energy).
XOM pointed out in their press release that, of the money they made in the first quarter - $8.4 billion, $4.8 billion was reinvested back into the business. So, they are investing billions, still. For ConocoPhillips, they earned $3.3 billion and invested $4.65 billion back into the business. It looks to me like they aren't just sitting around counting their money.
All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change the fact that Big Oil costs a lot of money to operate, and they are still reinvesting billions into the business.
I don't know for sure; I would guess borrowed money. Debt at the end of the quarter was $32.2 billion, but a lot of that was due to the acquisition of Burlington Resources. You can see the complete financials here:
More seriously, why do we have progressive taxes on individuals? Why don't we determine the "profit margin" of a farmer relative to a dry cleaner? Maybe because the raw numbers, total profit, matter?
As a side note, and as someone not terribly motivated by the Exxon Mobil profits, or the calls for taxation ... I do wonder how much they really made. We know corporate accountants have great flexibility in the way they report numbers. We know that a large multinationa company has a lot of options when to comes to "book" numbers. Now, part of the time that flexibility is used to "make the numbers" and come up with income for analysts and investors. I wonder though, now, when everyone is hopped up about gas prices, how creative XOM has been about underreporting ...
We know that a large multinationa company has a lot of options when to comes to "book" numbers.
True. Back in 1992 when I was a contractor for British Airways, one of their internal auditors told me that management decided what the annual profit was going to be; the figures were reworked to give that profit figure. This surprised me at the time; now it doesn't.
So I would assume you would suggest taxing them as well?
Works for me. Probably works for for businesses like grocery stores with 2-3% profit margins. It's hard to be really impressed when an oligarchy's problem is that it's profits are lower than other oligarchies.
"As a result of recent mergers, the five largest oil companies operating in the United States now control 61% of the domestic retail gasoline market, 47% of the domestic oil refinery market, and 41% of domestic oil exploration and production. The five corporations are: Exxon-Mobil(Irving,TX), BP Amoco-Arco (London, England), Chevron Texaco (San Francisco, CA), Phillips-Tosco (Oklahoma), and Marathon (Ohio)."
See this and the rest of the executive summary in:
"As a result of recent mergers, the five largest oil companies operating in the United States now control 61% of the domestic retail gasoline market, 47% of the domestic oil refinery market, and 41% of domestic oil exploration and production. The five corporations are: Exxon-Mobil(Irving,TX), BP Amoco-Arco (London, England), Chevron Texaco (San Francisco, CA), Phillips-Tosco (Oklahoma), and Marathon (Ohio)."
See this and the rest of the executive summary in:
Here is a bit of a story I pulled out of the newspaper a few days ago:
There were more than 2,600 mergers in the oil industry in the 1990s, according to James Wells, director of natural resources and the environment for the Government Accountability Office. A study by the GAO, Congress' research arm, found that concentration of market power may have added as much as 7 cents to the price of fuel, he said.
As much as 7 cents due to the mergers. I don't believe that's the problem, Dave.
Also, oil and gas are global commodities, and their cost in the U.S. is not any greater than it is anywhere else, indicating again that it isn't mergers driving costs up. It is supply and demand.
There is a wide divide between the TV and the print media, other than the tabloids, and there is a further divide between the print media and the alternative media on the internet mostly. TOD is part of that alternative media. So is the 9-11 stuff, plus a lot more. Some of the alternative stuff is looneytunes, but a lot isn't.
To a great extent the gov't is able to outflank the readers of the NYT, WSJ, etc. with the TV. They just say whatever they want, uncontradicted for the most part. People are not yet at the point where they will pay much attention to anything else. The literate print media is read by "eggheads" as you say. But here there's another message: incompetence, gross incompetence, and this is discussed and whined about endlessly. It is only in the alternative media, part of it, that further possibilities are raised: that these issue is one of pursuing an agenda, that the agenda is world domination through monopolization of the oil, and that big capital and its profits stands behind all of it, that we perhaps no longer really have a democracy, and so forth and so on. This wing is regarded as looney by the "responsible" print press.
But in extreme times, extreme views are sometimes closer to the truth that the more "balanced" and nuanced ones of the literate wing of the MSM. It was an extreme view to say that the Nazis were gassing the Jews for a certain period.
The response you got from your co-workers is illustrative of a problem that concerns me about how people will react to the 'ambassadors' of Peak Oil, when they begin to arrive. What I mean is, who will they blame for vastly increased energy prices and 'shortages? This may turn out to be a really fundamental, political, question. It also relates to our chances of dealing with and ameliortating the effects of Peak Oil in the short, medium, and long term. If we start to blame the wrong people/institutions/countries, we could end up wasting a lot of energy and opportunities, and go in a totally wrong direction. The whole history of 'scapegoating' in times of fear, uncertainty, and scarcity, makes me feel slightly nervous.
Yes, I agree. It could get nasty, as this editorial points out:
If all the posturing seems inevitable, it is because the truth -- that everyone will need to adjust to a new reality -- is politically unpalatable.
The rich are getting richer, everyone else is getting poorer. That makes for an explosive situation.
In a society with acute differences of wealth, it's not hard to see other economic developments becoming political flashpoints.
...Demagogic politics go hand-in-hand with class division. And those divisions are bad and getting worse. According to a Federal Reserve study last month, the 56 million households that make up the bottom half of the economic ladder owns just 2.6% of the nation's wealth. That's down from 3.6% a decade ago. The top 10%, meanwhile, accounts for almost 70% of the wealth.
This probably isn't as constructive a comment as I'd like it to be. Maybe there's a dark cloud, looming on the horizon and it's giving me a chill. Let's call this, a naive, thought experiment, from a foreigner, who doesn't know any better.
I think it would be great if we could magically substitute; all the talk about Iran we've been hearing for months; and will hear even more about in the future; with debate and information about peaking oil production, and the recomendations of the Hirsh report. Now, in an ideal world, wouldn't this be true politics, and responsible government? Wouldn't this show real statesmanship and prudence? A real leader, with real Presidential style, could pull this off. A guy who really sounded like he cared about the future of the America; and the kind of world our children will live in. People in America seem to talk a lot about 'human nature' and how short-sighted and selfish we are; but isn't it also part of our 'nature' to care for our children, love them, and nuture them? Don't we spend a lot of time considering their futures, and paying for their futures? Having kids is expensive, surely we want to protect our investment? Aren't these real, positive, and conservative, values, and attitudes? So use that 'positive' feeling constructively against the 'negative' aspects of our 'nature.' Isn't this a strong foundation to build on?
Wouldn't 'levelling' with the American people about Peak Oil, show courage; and a kind of honest, levelheaded pattiotism, that people would respond to positively. Isn't speaking to people honestly and treating them as adults; a way to show them that your respect them? Isn't a true leader, also a kind of 'teacher'? A person who isn't afraid to tell the truth, isn't this the essence of true leadership, and what we so desperately need in these times? Someone who will enlighten us, rather than confuse us?
Neil Young, on his new recording, has a song which touches on this question. He wonders if somewhere outhere there is an unknown and untainted person, black or white, a man or a woman, who is the leader with the qualities we need. Is some guy walking around in the desert somewhere; someone with the rare ability to speak the truth?
But I suppose this 'thought dream' only shows how lost we really are; and how far we have to go in a completely different direction; and force through a radically different 'discourse.' All this stuff about Iran is a kind of distracting. Of course, this could be the whole point behind the 'Iran Scare.'
I know there are those of you that always bring up Jimmy Carter and his 'sweater speech' in relation to 'levelling' with the public. I think it's too easy and too pessimistic. It's also too old. Forget Carter, think of tomorrow! That was then; and this is now. Carter was already in trouble when he made that speech, so I'm not sure how relevant his example is, certainly not in relation to where we are now, and where we seem to be going.
I think the 'idea' was good, but the presentation was awful, really lousy. In another life, I was involved in marketing, selling, and advertizing. I also have some small experience with political propaganda. Sometimes I feel like was born to take on Carl Rove, and whip his ass!Carter's speech was a mistake. You don't pull a 'rabbit' like that; out of a 'hat' like that; in that way. The guy should have made the speech in Texas standing beside a dry oil well, and taken the American people on a little walk around the country; shown people suburbia, the freeways around L.A., refineries, and lots of other stuff. You drag people out of their little lives, and out of their sofas. One doesn't appeal to their intellects alone, you show them images, and appeal to their emotions as well.
Today, I would tell the President to make a video, and ask Speilberg to direct it. This kind of message; the message about Peak Oil; isn't told from the oval office, sitting behind a desk; wearing a sweater. That is such a passive image and dull a ditchwater. No, you get out from behind the damn desk, and get out into America and walk around with your shirtsleeves rolled up; and talk to folks about how much oil there was in Texas and Oklahoma in the old days; and where it all went; and where the oil comes from now; and what this mean for America today, and tomorrow. This story needs to be told from the Heartland, and from sea to shining sea, not from Washington!
See, I'm talking about another type of leader here. Maybe people weren't so media savy in the days of Jimmy Carter? But that's not really true is it? What people in the Whitehouse lacked was not intelligence, but imagination, vim, and daring. The ability to break the mould and think outside the box. The 'discourse' is about telling a different and powerful story, in a new way. It isn't a hopeless cause, because people are bored to death with the old story, and ready and willing to hear a new one, given half a chance. If we don't believe that much, we might as well roll over a give up now!
Carter should have made several speeches working his way around the issues and the country, and then, made the Big One about energy. It was the wrong guy, with the wrong speech, at the wrong time! That kind of message needs a really gifted speaker, someone like a Bill Clinton or a Tony Blair. Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter just wasn't in their league.
Even today, when so much of our media is so crass and ignorant, it still isn't too late, to tell the real story. The real story has power, precisely because it is the truth, ans it isn't a lie! The only reason we've allowed a gang of liars to hijack the country, is because for some strange reason we've forgotten how to tell the truth properly. Once we remember how to do that, real and lasting change is possible!
Believe me: The Earthmarines will self-arise if we can get the IOCs to choke production, but keep profitably looking for more detritus, combined with a severe energy tax on the addicts to shift billions to building large biosolar habitats-- nothing more than leveraging Jevon's Paradox to Powerdown.
I think writerman has many good things to say. Unfortunately I can't seem to grasp his use of semicolons. I always thought you use semicolons to separate potentially standalone but intimately related sentences. On the other hand, he uses them to separate phrases and sentence fragments, so I find the effect jarring and tinny to the ear.
Normally I wouldn't criticize, but the guy does call himself "writerman", and I would like to find what he knows about English grammar that I don't.
I believe you can file this under "two countries separated by a common language." IME, the British use of semi-colons is quite different from the American.
Writerman,
Very well done! This summarized things I had thought for awhile but not articulated. Surely there is someone out there who can tell people not what they want to hear, but the unvarnished truth about our energy problems. The optimist inside believes that one will appear, the pessimist sees the latest "response" and says thats all there is. Thanks for the hope...
i like that, it's nice. but here's the problem. we (USA) have a highly dysfunctional press now. chances are good they won't like this candid messenger, not necessarily for any substantive reason. more like a whim. they they will relentlessly mock him or her, fabricate stories and fake facts to support their canned scripts (candidate A always exaggerates, candidate A is out of touch with regular people, candidate A is boring, candidate A is a phoney) and they'll start repeating these scripts and accompanying fake facts relentlessly. it will all be about "earth tones" and "invented the internet" and "who amongst us doesn't love NASCAR." all fabricated and fake quotes. repeated relentlessly. and candidate A will lose.
that's how it works now. the daily howler has lots of details, going back 8 years. for a small taste, google search: maureen dowd site:www.dailyhowler.com [paste the italicized words into the google search box and hit enter]
in between blaming republicans, democrats, SUV-drivers, and consumers in general (and they all deserve plenty), i think it's important to spare a whole lot of blame for the press, at least in the USA, because they truly, madly, deeply, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!!!!!!
I remember hearing a leader once, who had the guts to stand up and say to his people in a real tough situation "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat"
The issue of BLAME is central. Especially when (not if) gasoline prices go higher this summer.
Because people will be angry and need someone to blame. Politicians, on the eve of elections, will need someone to PUNISH. Who will that be? China? Iran? Exxon? The Democrats? The Republicans? The enviros? Incumbents and oil companies working mightily to set up someone else. Anyone else.
Needless to say, this is not a matter of actually understanding the real cause. It's about power.
Yes, it is all about power. But this power needs to be clearly divided up so America can choose between 'Nuke their Ass--I want Gas' and 'No Thanks--I like Empty Tanks'. Punishing anybody is counter-productive, but building Powerdown biosolar habitats should be the goal as it best incorporates a proactive response to detritus entropy by ramping up biosolar energy and biodiversity. Otherwise, TPTB just have to bide their time until the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario asserts itself.
I tried to talk to my coworkers this morning about oil prices. All they did was rant about the outrageous profits of Exxon. This from people who all voted for Bush in the last election.
Justice demands a way of protecting those at the bottom from being driven under by these added taxes. It would be nice if there were people in OUR gov't that would take a hint from Chavez, who, as we know, hates America, but doesn't let that stop him from lending a helping hand to the poor. We need more of that kind of hate and less of the neo-con love.
Perhaps you mean "cartel", and are referring to OPEC?
About Venezuela's Chavez -- he has for years been one who pushed ever higher oil prices. His little effort in the N.E. U.S. is small change compared to what he has made from those same people over the years due to his pricing strategy.
2.6 BP
2.5 Exxon 3%
2.2 Shell
1.7 Chevron
1.6 Total
1.1 ENI
1.0 COP
.7 STAT
.6 Reposal
.4 Occidental
Top four 9 mbpd 10.6%
Top ten 14.4 mbpd 17% of world production
The top 4 combined is unabe to match the production of Gazprom - the equvelent of 9.5 mln.bpd! Anybody know where I can buy Gazprom shares?
I covered the story here:
I'm Being Gouged!
The average person just doesn't seem to understand that Exxon has to invest many billions to reap those profits, whereas Microsoft certainly does not. I saw it on Jon Stewart last night. He was interviewing someone from The Wall Street Journal who was explaining the situation, and he said "I hear you, but it just feels like we are being screwed. I am paying $3.00 for gasoline, and they are making record profits." Unfortunately, this seems to be the general level of understanding of this issue.
RR
If oil companies were finding new oil reserves with their recent profits I think the public would be a bit more understanding. Instead they give Raymond a 400 million dollar goodbye present and the public is understandably PO'd. That's a serious amount of cash even today.
This issue isn't about reasonable vs: unreasonable profit. It's about how that profit should be invested. What does an oil company do with a windfall when their geologists haven't found large new oil deposits in years? The give it as a nice going away present to an ex-CEO. Talk about a waste of money!
The public has been indoctrinated with the idea that if they just let the "free market" do its thing then everything will come out allright. Even the average american idiot driver can sense the problem with taking their gas money and giving it to some retiring CEO rather than investing it in new exploration. Even it the results were dry holes, XOM could at least justify the effort as a reasonable use of money.
I really think TOD contributors have gotten caught up in the aroma of their own arguments - peak oil and all that - to the exclusion of a perfectly reasonable outrage on the part of the driving public about how the fuel premium they are now paying is being used.
Is that outrage being dealt with politically in an appropriate manner? Of course not! When was the last time public outrage was channeled by a fair-minded political intelligence?
Peak oil and public outrage are two separate issues.
The public outrage component is focused on the failure of the mechanism of our free market economy to provide the stability americans think is their due. It's a rage against the propaganda they've been fed for years. And that rage is fueled by a deep, pervasive addiction to all our transportation machines. I'm sure that's what Cheney was alluding to when he said the American Way of Life is not negotiable.
Next time you take a drive down a street filled with retail commerce in any of the modern American suburbs or exurbs, entertain yourself by determining what percentage of those businesses are directly involved with either cars or motorcycles or boats. I refer to repair shops, tire shops, body shops, auto dealerships - everything. The message of expensive energy is the death knell of the American Dream. Hilda Hummer and Dickie Dodge know that subliminally and underneath the rage they're scared out of their, for lack of a better word, wits.
Next time you are in a position to eavesdrop in a public place, listen to the conversations. If your experience is what mine has been, most are about cars, trucks and motorcycles.
The scope of change coming to America is just unbelievable. We're about to lose our position in the world as well as having to replace a good deal of our inner psychic life with something not nearly so nice.
I was raised on a farm. About the time I was ready to go out into the fields with my dad he traded in his horses for an Oliver tractor. He never looked back. I never, ever heard him talk about the good ole days of horses. That almost everyone in America can afford a car and gasoline is the touchstone of our freedom. Just as my father wouldn't give up his tractor, few in any country I know of would happily give up the freedom of a car once they've experienced it. We're not plants, we're animals and the car is our freedom to move.
My conclusion is that the only way for the political system to keep a lid on this situation is to show every aggressive instinct consistent with getting as much oil for this country as possible - and to hell with the consequences. People who have the "wise government leading us into a new paradigm" delusion need to quote some examples. Cuba is about the only one I can think of and Cuba was forced to go cold turkey over a period of months. Castro had no choice but to decentralize in a hurry or his country would have imploded. I don't think the US will go that path. Different country, different social system, different intelligence level. Cuba has an intelligent, literate population.
Yes I believe oil demand has permanently outstripped supply - at least until the next depression. Whether that's "peak oil" or not is irrelevant, really. What's important is that the world's Railroad Commission (OPEC) no longer has much reason to exist. There is no swing producer and demand will bid the price of energy up to whatever level it can. What price that may be no one yet knows.
Realistically there ain't much to do about it except batten down the hatches and get ready for a big storm. Dinosaurs don't have the option to wish themselves into mammals.
Exactly. I posted earlier today on another thread that XOM is essentially returning its windfall to its shareholders in a process of "gradual liquidation." This is because it continues to use a relatively low oil price when evaluating new projects.
XOM is now in a bind. Its $8.4 billion first quarter profit "was high enough to heat up political criticism of Big Oil in Washington but too low to meet Wall Street's bullish expectations" (quoted from a story in today's WSJ).
What to do with the windfall? Reinvest it in your oil and gas business, invest it in alternative energy projects (e.g. BP), or return it to shareholders (who will then reallocate it in other investments, possibly in alternative energy).
All the rhetoric in the world doesn't change the fact that Big Oil costs a lot of money to operate, and they are still reinvesting billions into the business.
RR
COP 1st Quarter Earnings
RR
More seriously, why do we have progressive taxes on individuals? Why don't we determine the "profit margin" of a farmer relative to a dry cleaner? Maybe because the raw numbers, total profit, matter?
As a side note, and as someone not terribly motivated by the Exxon Mobil profits, or the calls for taxation ... I do wonder how much they really made. We know corporate accountants have great flexibility in the way they report numbers. We know that a large multinationa company has a lot of options when to comes to "book" numbers. Now, part of the time that flexibility is used to "make the numbers" and come up with income for analysts and investors. I wonder though, now, when everyone is hopped up about gas prices, how creative XOM has been about underreporting ...
True. Back in 1992 when I was a contractor for British Airways, one of their internal auditors told me that management decided what the annual profit was going to be; the figures were reworked to give that profit figure. This surprised me at the time; now it doesn't.
Works for me. Probably works for for businesses like grocery stores with 2-3% profit margins. It's hard to be really impressed when an oligarchy's problem is that it's profits are lower than other oligarchies.
See this and the rest of the executive summary in:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments/report53001.PDF
This doesn't completely rescue me, but I think it gives a some more complicated picture than the 3pct.
See this and the rest of the executive summary in:
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/gasconf/comments/report53001.PDF
Another one along the same lines:
http://www.citizen.org/documents/oilmergers.pdf
Neither completely rescues me, but I think they gives a somewhat more complicated picture than the 3pct world production figure for EM.
There were more than 2,600 mergers in the oil industry in the 1990s, according to James Wells, director of natural resources and the environment for the Government Accountability Office. A study by the GAO, Congress' research arm, found that concentration of market power may have added as much as 7 cents to the price of fuel, he said.
As much as 7 cents due to the mergers. I don't believe that's the problem, Dave.
Also, oil and gas are global commodities, and their cost in the U.S. is not any greater than it is anywhere else, indicating again that it isn't mergers driving costs up. It is supply and demand.
RR
To a great extent the gov't is able to outflank the readers of the NYT, WSJ, etc. with the TV. They just say whatever they want, uncontradicted for the most part. People are not yet at the point where they will pay much attention to anything else. The literate print media is read by "eggheads" as you say. But here there's another message: incompetence, gross incompetence, and this is discussed and whined about endlessly. It is only in the alternative media, part of it, that further possibilities are raised: that these issue is one of pursuing an agenda, that the agenda is world domination through monopolization of the oil, and that big capital and its profits stands behind all of it, that we perhaps no longer really have a democracy, and so forth and so on. This wing is regarded as looney by the "responsible" print press.
But in extreme times, extreme views are sometimes closer to the truth that the more "balanced" and nuanced ones of the literate wing of the MSM. It was an extreme view to say that the Nazis were gassing the Jews for a certain period.
The response you got from your co-workers is illustrative of a problem that concerns me about how people will react to the 'ambassadors' of Peak Oil, when they begin to arrive. What I mean is, who will they blame for vastly increased energy prices and 'shortages? This may turn out to be a really fundamental, political, question. It also relates to our chances of dealing with and ameliortating the effects of Peak Oil in the short, medium, and long term. If we start to blame the wrong people/institutions/countries, we could end up wasting a lot of energy and opportunities, and go in a totally wrong direction. The whole history of 'scapegoating' in times of fear, uncertainty, and scarcity, makes me feel slightly nervous.
The rich are getting richer, everyone else is getting poorer. That makes for an explosive situation.
Peak oil is not going to improve things.
I think it would be great if we could magically substitute; all the talk about Iran we've been hearing for months; and will hear even more about in the future; with debate and information about peaking oil production, and the recomendations of the Hirsh report. Now, in an ideal world, wouldn't this be true politics, and responsible government? Wouldn't this show real statesmanship and prudence? A real leader, with real Presidential style, could pull this off. A guy who really sounded like he cared about the future of the America; and the kind of world our children will live in. People in America seem to talk a lot about 'human nature' and how short-sighted and selfish we are; but isn't it also part of our 'nature' to care for our children, love them, and nuture them? Don't we spend a lot of time considering their futures, and paying for their futures? Having kids is expensive, surely we want to protect our investment? Aren't these real, positive, and conservative, values, and attitudes? So use that 'positive' feeling constructively against the 'negative' aspects of our 'nature.' Isn't this a strong foundation to build on?
Wouldn't 'levelling' with the American people about Peak Oil, show courage; and a kind of honest, levelheaded pattiotism, that people would respond to positively. Isn't speaking to people honestly and treating them as adults; a way to show them that your respect them? Isn't a true leader, also a kind of 'teacher'? A person who isn't afraid to tell the truth, isn't this the essence of true leadership, and what we so desperately need in these times? Someone who will enlighten us, rather than confuse us?
Neil Young, on his new recording, has a song which touches on this question. He wonders if somewhere outhere there is an unknown and untainted person, black or white, a man or a woman, who is the leader with the qualities we need. Is some guy walking around in the desert somewhere; someone with the rare ability to speak the truth?
But I suppose this 'thought dream' only shows how lost we really are; and how far we have to go in a completely different direction; and force through a radically different 'discourse.' All this stuff about Iran is a kind of distracting. Of course, this could be the whole point behind the 'Iran Scare.'
I know there are those of you that always bring up Jimmy Carter and his 'sweater speech' in relation to 'levelling' with the public. I think it's too easy and too pessimistic. It's also too old. Forget Carter, think of tomorrow! That was then; and this is now. Carter was already in trouble when he made that speech, so I'm not sure how relevant his example is, certainly not in relation to where we are now, and where we seem to be going.
I think the 'idea' was good, but the presentation was awful, really lousy. In another life, I was involved in marketing, selling, and advertizing. I also have some small experience with political propaganda. Sometimes I feel like was born to take on Carl Rove, and whip his ass!Carter's speech was a mistake. You don't pull a 'rabbit' like that; out of a 'hat' like that; in that way. The guy should have made the speech in Texas standing beside a dry oil well, and taken the American people on a little walk around the country; shown people suburbia, the freeways around L.A., refineries, and lots of other stuff. You drag people out of their little lives, and out of their sofas. One doesn't appeal to their intellects alone, you show them images, and appeal to their emotions as well.
Today, I would tell the President to make a video, and ask Speilberg to direct it. This kind of message; the message about Peak Oil; isn't told from the oval office, sitting behind a desk; wearing a sweater. That is such a passive image and dull a ditchwater. No, you get out from behind the damn desk, and get out into America and walk around with your shirtsleeves rolled up; and talk to folks about how much oil there was in Texas and Oklahoma in the old days; and where it all went; and where the oil comes from now; and what this mean for America today, and tomorrow. This story needs to be told from the Heartland, and from sea to shining sea, not from Washington!
See, I'm talking about another type of leader here. Maybe people weren't so media savy in the days of Jimmy Carter? But that's not really true is it? What people in the Whitehouse lacked was not intelligence, but imagination, vim, and daring. The ability to break the mould and think outside the box. The 'discourse' is about telling a different and powerful story, in a new way. It isn't a hopeless cause, because people are bored to death with the old story, and ready and willing to hear a new one, given half a chance. If we don't believe that much, we might as well roll over a give up now!
Carter should have made several speeches working his way around the issues and the country, and then, made the Big One about energy. It was the wrong guy, with the wrong speech, at the wrong time! That kind of message needs a really gifted speaker, someone like a Bill Clinton or a Tony Blair. Unfortunately, Jimmy Carter just wasn't in their league.
Even today, when so much of our media is so crass and ignorant, it still isn't too late, to tell the real story. The real story has power, precisely because it is the truth, ans it isn't a lie! The only reason we've allowed a gang of liars to hijack the country, is because for some strange reason we've forgotten how to tell the truth properly. Once we remember how to do that, real and lasting change is possible!
Same goes for me too--great word phrasing. Perhaps Chris Miller, the Maine candidate for Governor is your man--he talks Peakoil and biosolar habitats:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/yorkstar/03022006/news/90452.htm
Believe me: The Earthmarines will self-arise if we can get the IOCs to choke production, but keep profitably looking for more detritus, combined with a severe energy tax on the addicts to shift billions to building large biosolar habitats-- nothing more than leveraging Jevon's Paradox to Powerdown.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Normally I wouldn't criticize, but the guy does call himself "writerman", and I would like to find what he knows about English grammar that I don't.
:)
Very well done! This summarized things I had thought for awhile but not articulated. Surely there is someone out there who can tell people not what they want to hear, but the unvarnished truth about our energy problems. The optimist inside believes that one will appear, the pessimist sees the latest "response" and says thats all there is. Thanks for the hope...
that's how it works now. the daily howler has lots of details, going back 8 years. for a small taste, google search: maureen dowd site:www.dailyhowler.com [paste the italicized words into the google search box and hit enter]
in between blaming republicans, democrats, SUV-drivers, and consumers in general (and they all deserve plenty), i think it's important to spare a whole lot of blame for the press, at least in the USA, because they truly, madly, deeply, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!!!!!!
Because people will be angry and need someone to blame. Politicians, on the eve of elections, will need someone to PUNISH. Who will that be? China? Iran? Exxon? The Democrats? The Republicans? The enviros? Incumbents and oil companies working mightily to set up someone else. Anyone else.
Needless to say, this is not a matter of actually understanding the real cause. It's about power.
Yes, it is all about power. But this power needs to be clearly divided up so America can choose between 'Nuke their Ass--I want Gas' and 'No Thanks--I like Empty Tanks'. Punishing anybody is counter-productive, but building Powerdown biosolar habitats should be the goal as it best incorporates a proactive response to detritus entropy by ramping up biosolar energy and biodiversity. Otherwise, TPTB just have to bide their time until the '3 Days of the Condor' scenario asserts itself.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?