Odl Dan , How ?

So what you are saying is that you should be able to use the infrastructure built by others to transmit your energy and make money? You are saying that other energy providers cannot? Now thats a grim picture you paint!! Maybe we should move to Denmark!! Well...WAIT!! thats exactly what you CAN do here in Texas. I just recently switched from TU electric to Green Mountain here in Houston...same power lines...different company. There are several electrical providers in my area...If another company can start up, they most certainly ARE allowed to become providers...same with cable TV...but apparently not for water...there is only one place I can get my water, maybe you should look into that. So you CAN set up your windmills and solar power cells and start providing energy to a few houses but you better have a lot of land because it take a lot of windmills and solar cells are still very inefficient...but Shell Oil is doing a lot of research and development on them and have made a lot of advances in that area...

Exactly what I have been saying. Oil companies keep our civilization going and In fact they ARE heavily regulated and the government can dictate to them as they please like anything else, and do... I think what you might be looking for is for them to became state run and as you know, that is almost never the best thing, even Norway, the socialist paradise has begun to privatize the state oil business there...Private business not only is better, it seems to do a great job considering the system they have set up and the Herculean task they accomplish every day getting 20 million barrels of oil into this country but oddly you seem to be so put of by the government, its hard think that you would see more government intervention as the key. Myself, I see our government as wasteful and borderline criminal in its incompetence, never would I think it should be handed complete control over oil, and its hard for me to believe anyone would be for more taxes when so much of our taxes are wasted by our government already.

I have never been fond of analogies, they are often dishonest looking to paint something in a way that person wishes to be painted and have never seen the need for them, one can do well without them and simply discuss the reality and facts of the situation. I dont think any of us ar3 children that can not grasp any of the concepts being put forth here. The reality of oil is that in billions of years waste has turned to oil, there is a massive amount of this and contrary to what you are saying, it is neither cheap or easy to retrieve and process for use. Systems have been put in place by private business in the last hundred years that has made it go smoothly but as I painted in a previous post, the process is complicated and expensive which means we rely more on those systems already set up rather than setting up new ones (drilling new wells) because the price for drilling new wells and setting up new systems is a gamble taken on by business requiring billions of dollars of investment and no assurance to pay off. If you need an analogy that is more correct: indeed the ingredients for the cookies are there...but nature has placed those ingredients behind a brick wall many miles thick (or under the ocean floor)...one must break through that brick wall (or find a way to dig into the ocean floor) and once this has happens you now have the ingredients but now you must build ovens to cook the cookies and the people who are wanting those cookies are across the ocean so you must build many cookie transport vessels...you must do all this BEFORE anyone will buy the cookie and if you fail, all the money you spent retrieving the cookie is lost. You must also do this while fighting anti-cookie legislation and people who vilify you for providing the cookies in the first places...but they will still eat the cookie

Well, being cost effective is a concern, an important one...for economic reason it needs to not only be cost effective but it needs to be as efficient as petroleum. It needs to be able to propel a plane over the ocean, a car at 70 MPH for a long amount of time, etc...to date that has not been achieved. It needs to be cost effective and can be. You see something people like you either do not realize or do not want to mention as it doesnt fit into your vilify the oil industry agenda is that when the company that finds the ingredients, bakes and delivers the cookies and makes a profit, they invest hundreds of millions into new ways of making cookies. As I have said before, nobody is more aware of the finite nature of oil than the oil companies...do you honestly believe that huge companies that make their money off oil are not aware and doing everything in their power to be the first people to perfect a new system? Or do you think they just sit on a pile of money all day.

Indeed most major break through are funded by energy concerns...the further development of the solar cell (shell oil), wind and water (exxon/mobil), and even other type such as the hydrogen fuel cell, volcanic power, harnessing plate tectonics. At the alternative energy convention in San Fran they showed how they are starting to push these technologies, they showed a roof tile with solar cells people can choose to pay to have on houses that will help run the house and cut down on fuel consumption 70% at some times...they ARE investing money, time and energy to finding new ways. Its a matter of great importance not only to society but to their own existence as companies.

The smart people, the people who are doing something about it are the scientists and researchers who do not go out an picket oil conventions, do not sit on the internet telling everyone how evil the oil companies are. They are the people who are working WITH the oil companies. Start research and development companies funded by oil money (or any money) to develop and new ways, or to make existing ways viable. Like you say...Our economy and our whole way of life is now set, unless we want to take drastic steps backwards, we must accept this and work to support this and not simply stop using energy. Sure there are people who use petroleum for useless things like bickering about Muslims and the oil industry on line, but there are also people out there using large amounts of energy providing very real products and services, research, etc...There are people out there driving gas guzzlers and driving around just for fun but there are also truck drivers driving big rigs delivery the goods you need to live...You take the good with the bad...the government can and should take some steps...but in the end, in a free society, a capitalist society, it is up to the people and business to lead by example...and many do. I wouldn't want it any other way.

 

Moen,

I'm not trying to convince you or Tom. I'm writing more for the other readers so that they have access to both sides.

I don't consider my characterization of the $14bllion tax increase a "twist of logic." It would make sense to reduce taxes on the production of a vital commodity. It would even make sense to subsidize it. It makes no sense to penalize it, then expect to get more of it.

You comment that incentives to explore for oil makes the price at the pump increase seems like a scare tactic to me. It's difficult to make a cause and effect connection between the two, so I can't comment on it.

You ask about "new" oil companies as if there aren't any. There is a pretty active venture capital market where a lot of private companies are formed to explore new locations. Some end up as IPOs but most probably sell out to midsized firms, which sell to large firms, etc. There is a pretty active capital recycling program out there. If you watch the American Stock Exchange and NASDAQ websites, you can catch the new public companies if that interests you. I did a quick count and yahoo lists data on 131 publically traded exploration and production companies on US exchanges. This does not include any of the majors, oil service companies, or pipeline operators. It's a pretty competitive and diverse industry, for now. A lot of people would prefer to see this replaced by a single state sponsored oil company so it could be operated "for the benefit of the people." It amazes me that there are folks out there educated in American schools who actually believe them.

I don't know what "excess profits" are. The higher the profit, the greater the amount of capital attracted to the sector. People obsessed with preventing wealth creation will be opposed to it. I know of no way to solve that problem other than through economic education. Perhaps it would clarify it if the more accurate term "cost of capital" was used. Large, complex, risky projects have a higher cost of capital. The easy oil and gas has been found. If the government prevents companies from earning the higher cost of capital in places such as offshore Nigeria where oil company employees are sometimes kidnapped or killed, then you can't expect the price of gasoline at the pump to continue to be lower than the price of bottled water. Sorry, but that's economics. Even the communists couldn't repeal the law of supply and demand. Congress won't be able to either.

Anyway, thanks for asking.

 

Long but interesting insight in the "free market". :headbang:

By Bob Williams and Kevin Bogardus

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2004 — Koch Industries could be the biggest oil company you have never heard of—unless, that is, you hang around the halls of government in Washington.

Koch Industries (pronounced "coke") is a huge oil conglomerate controlled by brothers Charles and David Koch, two of the country's richest men and among the biggest backers of conservative and libertarian causes. With estimated revenue of about $40 billion last year, Koch is bigger than Microsoft, Merrill Lynch and AT&T.

Koch is the leading campaign contributor among oil and gas companies for the 2004 election cycle, giving $587,000 so far. Next came Valero Energy at $568,000.

Since 1998, Koch is the fourth biggest campaign oil and gas industry giver, behind ChevronTexaco, El Paso Corp. and Enron Corp.

Despite its size and political largesse, Koch is able to dodge the limelight because it is privately-held, meaning that nearly all of its business dealings are known primarily only by the company and the Internal Revenue Service. In fact, it is the second largest private company in the country, trailing only food processing giant Cargill.

Koch also prefers to operate in private when it comes to politics and government.

Although it is both a top campaign contributor and spends millions on direct lobbying, Koch's chief political influence tool is a web of interconnected, right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups funded by foundations controlled and supported by the two Koch brothers.

Among those groups are some of the country's most prominent conservative and libertarian voices including the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, Citizens for a Sound Economy and the Federalist Society. All regularly beat the drum in official Washington for the causes the Koch's hold dear—minimal government, deregulation, and free market economics.

For the Kochs, conservative and libertarian views are a family tradition. Fred Koch, who founded the company's predecessor in 1940, helped establish the ultra right-wing John Birch Society.

Some of Koch's other political activities have been less exotic, but no less controversial.

For example, Charles Koch found himself under investigation by the U.S. Senate for his alleged role in funding so-called "issue ads" that helped conservative Republican congressional candidates in 1996.

Even critics seem awed by the Kochs' ability to shape policy so effectively without drawing much attention to themselves.

"It's astounding that so few people have ever heard of a family this rich and powerful and aggressive when it comes to policy and politics," says Jeff Krehely, deputy director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, who co-authored a recent study on conservative think tanks, including those funded by the Kochs. "When you talk about Koch, most folks think you are talking about the soft drink company."

Koch Industries did not respond to repeated phone calls and emails requesting interviews for this report.

David Koch, who ran for vice president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980, in an interview with National Journal, has described his philosophy this way: "My overall concept is to minimize the role of government and to maximize the role of the private economy to maximize personal freedoms."
Navigating Troubled Waters

Koch has had plenty of run-ins with government regulators and other legal problems in recent years. Through it all, the company has shown a remarkable knack for getting criminal charges dropped and huge potential penalties knocked down.

In late 2000—as the Clinton Administration was preparing to leave office—Koch was hit with a 97-count indictment for covering up the discharge of more than 15 times the legal limit of benzene, a carcinogen, from a refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The company faced penalties of more than $350 million. Four Koch employees were also charged individually and faced up to 35 years in prison.

Three months after the Bush administration took office—and just before the lawsuit went to trial—the Justice Department abruptly settled the case. Koch agreed to pay $20 million and plead guilty to a single count of concealment of information. In return, the Justice Department dropped all criminal charges against Koch and the four employees.

In another case, Koch was sued by the government in 1995 and 1997 over a reported 300 oil spills at pipelines owned and operated by the company. Those lawsuits sought from $71 million to $214 million in penalties for the spills, which dumped an estimated three million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in six states.

On January 13, 2000, the government settled that case for $35 million in fines.

The Kochs were also sued by their own brother several years ago in a case where the company was accused of stealing millions of barrels of oil from federal and Native American lands.

Bill Koch, best known for bankrolling a yacht racing team that won the 1992 America's Cup, and another plaintiff filed the suit under the False Claims Act, which allows private plaintiffs to sue on behalf of the government companies and individuals that are defrauding it. Plaintiffs get to keep a part of any money recovered in a successful suit.

In a settlement of that case in May 2001, the company agreed to pay $25 million to the U.S. government to dismiss charges of false claims estimated at about $170 million in oil purchases on federal and Native American lands. The company had faced potential penalties of $214 million in the case.

Bill Koch and his co-plaintiff shared $7.4 million; Koch told reporters that Koch Industries would also pay his legal fees.
Koch's Campaign Contributions

All told, Koch and its employees have made about $3.9 million in campaign contributions for national offices since 1998.

By comparison, ChevronTexaco—which had revenue of almost $121 billion last year—topped all oil and gas companies with campaign contributions of about $4.6 million since 1998. ExxonMobil—which with revenue of $242 billion is about six times the size of Koch—gave about $3.8 million.

About 79 percent of Koch's contributions went to Republican candidates, totaling roughly $3 million for the GOP compared to about $694,000 for Democrats, in transactions where a party affiliation could be identified.

Koch has rained the most campaign cash, almost $121,000, on Rep. Todd Tiahrt, a Republican who represents Wichita, where Koch is headquartered. Next comes Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C. ($115,000); President George W. Bush ($109,000); Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. ($64,000); and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas ($53,000).

Only one of the top 20 recipients of Koch campaign cash was not a Republican—Democrat Rep. Cal Dooley, who represents the lower San Joaquin Valley in California, got roughly $26,000.

While many donors have given much more in campaign cash to Bush, Koch has not given any money at all to presumptive 2004 Democrat Presidential Candidate John Kerry.

Koch has also discovered the newest trend in campaign financing, so-called 527 committees.

Named after the section of the Internal Revenue Service code under which they're organized, these political committees can raise unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. They are also allowed to claim tax-exempt status as political committees while at the same time avoiding regulation by state or federal election authorities.

David Koch has given $165,000 to such committees, dividing the money between three Republican groups: the Republican Governor's Association, Americans for a Republican Majority and the Majority Leader's Fund.

Koch Industries gave a total $138,200 to 527 committees. Of that amount, $82,200 went to Democratic groups that mostly support moderate and conservative candidates, while $56,000 went to Republican groups.

Koch Industries has spent another $2.4 million* lobbying* on more than 50 pieces of legislation before Congress, helping shape the debate on everything from limiting class action lawsuits to repealing the estate tax.
When You Lose, Change the Rules

Koch has also shown a remarkable ability to get rid of or modify environmental policies and other government rules it doesn't like.

After facing the spate of government lawsuits brought by the Clinton Administration, Koch cranked up its policy influence machine to gut sections of federal environmental laws causing the company problems.

Koch's primary weapon in that battle was—and remains—the cadre of think tanks and other advocacy groups it finances. The brothers or their representatives usually sit on their boards, taking a hands-on approach to make sure the groups push the company's interests.

All of those groups are libertarian or conservative, pushing heavily for deregulation of industries and minimal government. They are also highly effective, particularly since Republicans took over the White House and Congress.

The largest recipient of the Koch's policy influence grants is George Mason University, which has received more than $23 million from the family's foundations between 1985 and 2002, according to the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.

The Fairfax, Va.-based school hosts several Koch funded institutes and think tanks. Richard Fink, a director and executive vice president at Koch, serves on the university's board of visitors. An economics professor at the university, he helped found another Koch-funded think tank called Citizens for a Sound Economy in the mid-1980s.

One of the groups housed at GMU is the Institute for Humane Studies, which offers scholarships to students interested in libertarian and free-market ideas.

Charles Koch has provided major funding for this group and the institute's scholarships are named for him. The institute's outstanding alumni award is also named for him.

On its Web site, the institute says its "perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony" are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."

Another Koch group housed at GMU is the Mercatus Center.

Koch family money was used to support Mercatus in the mid-1980s and still finances the organization today. Charles Koch and Richard Fink are on the Mercatus board of directors.

Situated at GMU's Law School in Arlington, Va., Mercatus defines itself as "an education, research and outreach organization."

"Outreach" in Mercatus's case includes an intense lobbying blitz of the federal government, including Capitol Hill breakfasts and luncheons hosted by deregulation scholars.

Mercatus has been effective in its political goals—and those of Koch Industries.

In a December 2001 report, the White House's Office of Management and Budget singled out eight major Environmental Protection Agency rules for review. Five of them, including a linchpin of the Clean Air Act called the New Source Review, came from public interest comments filed by the group.

John Graham, once an advisory board member of the Mercatus Center, is now a senior OMB official. His office has been particularly receptive to Mercatus's public comments.

According to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office, the think tank submitted more comments than any other organization for OMB's review. OMB marked 23 suggestions as "high priority," the majority of which were submitted by Mercatus, essentially guaranteeing their passage into White House policy.

The Kochs also control or hold substantial sway at many of the country's other leading right-wing and libertarian advocacy groups.

Among them:

* The Cato Institute. Charles Koch was a co-founder of this libertarian think tank in 1977. Koch foundations have helped fund Cato since then. David Koch is on the board of directors of Cato.
* Tax Foundation. Koch group money rescued this financially-troubled think tank in 1989. Charles Koch received the group's Distinguished Service Award in 2000.
* Institute for Justice. Charles Koch provided the seed money to start this libertarian legal foundation in 1991 and the brothers have provided additional funding since then.
* Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment. Koch family foundation money provides significant funding for this group, which holds free seminars for federal judges at its ranch near Big Sky, Mont.
* Federalist Society. Koch provides substantial funding to this group which says its purpose is to create a "conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community."

Charles and David Koch practice an economic philosophy at the company dubbed market-based management, which is based on the premise that societies which encourage entrepreneurship and individual responsibility will create vast wealth.

The brothers have made no secret that they feel such principles should be adopted by government and society at large, and have spent millions of dollars of their money to help make it happen.

David Koch says he supports the think tanks and advocacy groups to achieve the goals of limiting the role of government and maximizing the private sector to maximize personal freedoms.

"I am trying to support different approaches to achieve those objectives," he told the National Journal. "It's almost like an investor investing in a whole variety of companies."
Incestuous Relationships

The think tank that appears to have the most incestuous relationship with Koch is the Washington-based Citizens for a Sound Economy.

CSE was founded in 1984 by Charles and David Koch and Richard Fink, the group's first president.

Fink would go on to become a director and executive at Koch.

Reagan Office of Management and Budget Director James Miller became a board member of CSE in 1988. Wayne Gable, who replaced Fink as CSE President in 1989, is now Managing Director of Federal Affairs at Koch.

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, is the current co-chairman of CSE.

The other co-chairman is C. Boyden Gray, who was counsel to George H. W. Bush, during his terms as president and vice president. He was also counsel to the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief during the Reagan Administration.

In 1999, Gray prepared an amicus brief that underpinned a decision by a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington that suspended air quality regulations issued by the Clinton-Gore administration in July 1997. CSE says it helped fund Gray's brief.
Drafted Legislation for Bob Dole

That paled in comparison to what Gray and then-Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., tried to do on Koch's behalf several years earlier, however.

In 1995, Koch was facing a $54 million lawsuit filed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Coast Guard, and the Justice Department. It was basically the same oil spill case that Koch settled on such favorable terms in early 2001.

At the request of Dole, Gray drafted a bill which the senator introduced called the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act of 1995. Dole said the legislation was an "effort to inject common sense into a federal regulatory process that is often too costly, too arcane, and too inflexible," according to The Buying of the President.

As Dole began pushing the bill through the Senate, a clause was inserted that would have allowed companies being sued to challenge the government by finding a conflicting or contradictory rule and to prove that the regulation had not been enforced uniformly.

If any companies had gotten leniency in the past on any regulations, companies such as Koch facing big government lawsuits could use the proposed law to make sure they weren't given tougher sentences or higher fines.

The legislation died on the Senate floor later that year.
Nader lovers?

CSE has found itself in hot water in recent weeks over charges it has been working illegally to get consumer activist Ralph Nader on the presidential ballot in Oregon.

On June 30, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that groups, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Bush/Cheney campaign and the Nader campaign, had violated federal campaign laws through the use of prohibited in-kind contributions.

In its complaint, CREW said CSE directed employees to call members, using prepared scripts, to encourage them to sign a petition that allowed Ralph Nader to put his name on the November ballot in the presidential election. According to CREW, CSE's script stated "Liberals are trying to unite in Oregon and keep Nader off the ballot to help their chances of electing John Kerry. We could divide this base of support."

Since CSE is a corporation, it is prohibited from making contributions to federal campaigns, CREW said in its complaint. The costs of creating the scripts as well as the costs of the telephone calls constitute prohibited in-kind contributions.

CREW said the Oregon situation is part of a "pattern and practice of using tax-exempt corporations to provide substantial illegal assistance to presidential campaigns. As the names of the donors to tax exempt organizations are not reported, this allows campaigns to avoid the transparency called for by the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act."
Senate Investigation on Issue Ads

The recent Oregon case isn't the first time that Koch-backed organization has been accused of playing fast and loose with campaign finance laws.

In 1997, the Kochs were investigated by the Democratic staff on the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for their alleged funding of so-called "issue ads" during elections the previous year.

The investigation involved a for-profit corporation called Triad Management Inc., which was owned by Carolyn Malenick, a Republican fundraiser.

In 1996, according to The Buying of the President 2000, Triad was responsible for pro-Republican advertising in 26 House races and three Senate races. Triad was connected to two not-for-profit organizations, Citizens for Reform and Citizens for the Republic Education Fund. Neither group had a staff or office, but they ran $3 million in television ads paid for by Triad-related entities in the closing days of the 1996 campaign.

More than half of the Triad-connected money—$1.79 million – came from a group called the Economic Education Trust, which the Democratic Staff of the Senate committee suggested had been funded by Charles and David Koch.

The Senate investigators found that much of the money spent by Triad and another group called the Coalition for Our Children's Future helped Republican candidates in states where Koch has refineries, pipelines, or offices, including Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota and Oklahoma.

While the Senate committee did not officially charge Koch with campaign law violations, the investigation did uncover a $2,000 Koch Industries corporate check made out to Triad.

In 1998, the Wall Street Journal reported that it had discovered documents the paper said confirmed a direct link between Charles Koch and the ads.

Specifically, the Journal report said Republican political consultant Kenneth Barfield, who was on Koch's payroll in 1996, relayed information between Triad and the Economic Education Trust, which ultimately financed the ads.
The Koch revolving door

These days, Koch's sphere of influence also reaches directly into the White House and other parts of the executive branch.

Once an in-house lobbyist for Koch, Elizabeth Stolpe is now an associate director at the White House's Council on Environmental Quality.

Stolpe as well as Graham were copied on an e-mail sent to the White House by Bracewell & Patterson, a K Street lobby shop pushing for reform of the New Source Review section of the Clean Air Act. In fact, the White House team behind Clear Skies included Graham and Stolpe, as well as valued Bush advisors Karen Hughes and Karl Rove.

Another Koch employee has recently gone through the revolving door at the Pentagon.

Last December, Alex Beehler left Koch to become assistant deputy under secretary of defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health. In his new role, Beehler will be a top advisor on environmental, safety and occupational health policies and programs throughout the Defense Department.

A Pentagon press release said those programs include "clean-up at active and closing military bases, compliance with environmental laws, conservation of natural and cultural resources, pollution prevention, environmental technology, fire protection, safety and explosive safety, and pest management and disease control for Defense activities worldwide." While at Koch, Beehler served as director of environmental and regulatory affairs and concurrently served at the Charles G. Koch Foundation as vice president for environmental projects.

Prior to joining Koch, Beehler served in the Department of Justice as a senior trial attorney for environmental enforcement and at the Environmental Protection Agency as a special assistant for legal and enforcement counsel.

 

The company I work for was started in the early 80's, its first year it made maybe a million in profits and it had one product (we are an oil service and tool company). Now it has locations in Scotland, Norway, Brazil, Singapore, China, Australia, Nigeria, etc.. and made about 400 million in profits (is worth about 1.5 billion) and has turned into a full service company that makes parts for every part of the well. The owners used to work for another company and went out on their own...now they rival that other company...New companies start up all the time and either make it, fold, our get bought up...

 

My real point wasn't to challenge your assertions but to look at this from a practical perspective. With all the tax incentives the oil industry was given are we better off now or before the incentives? I'm simply looking for some results here. Have any new large oil reseves been found and used that have decreased out dependence on foreign oil?

I was listening to an interview today with an oil rep at the petroleum institute and he said the same thing Drus is saying. The oil companies are the largest investors in alternative fuel sources. Not only is that sad to hear but it is also like putting the fox in charge of keeping the hens from being stolen. If you tell the fox that no more than 3 chickens can be lost per day, you can bet that he'll be having chicken for breakfast, lunch, and dinner each day. What is their incentive to undermine their own prosperity by rolling out a product that will effectively kill their other business. He also said that our only course of action is to protect our oil supplies. How self-serving is that statement? Protect with American military power, American lives, American tax money, America's reputation around the world. I'm not sure we can afford oil anymore.

There is so much double-speak around the public discussion of energy policy that we might as well not say anything. At least that way we'd be honest with ourselves. I don't believe that there is an honest word being spoken in the public debate or an idea out there that has any basis in reality. We will only know the truth of the situation after we begin to pick up the pieces that are left of our world. It's a grim assessment of our future but probably an accurate one as well.

 

Yes but you are not an oil company. Your company only services the larger machine. Name a new oil company or even the most recent oil compnay that has not been taken over by the big guys.

 

Moen,

I would say that it is entirely possible that there are no more large undiscovered oil fields left to be found. There are many small, complex, high cost fields that unfortunately seem to be concentrated in some of the most dangerous and inhospitable parts of the world. If we want them developed, we have to pay up. If we don't pay up, in a decade or two we might be wishing for $5 gasoline. I think it is a lot cheaper in dollar and standard of living to let the oil industry bring product to market than to try to secure supplies through military action. I'm also not sure why investments in alternative energy by oil companies is a bad thing. Nobody else is doing it even though there are basically no barriers to entry. Thankfully, someone is investing in the research, and if the profit motive is left in place, the new technology will be brought to market when it is cost-competitive with oil and gas. That's how things are supposed to work.

 

Try this link. This only includes new public companies and not private ones funded by venture capital firms. It's silly to believe there are no new companies in the energy industry.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ipo/indg_n.html

...and this.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ipo/indg_o.html

 

The oil industry is one big chain...the big 'monsters' you speak of are little more than project managers, investors, and retailers. They employ thousands of smaller companies to do the work.

Lets say shell is wanting to find a new oil reserve. They will employ smaller companies to do so. When that oil reserve is found they will then employ construction firms, oil engineer firms, oil tool companies, service companies, shipping companies, etc.. to do all the work. They basically fund, manage, and invest. All the way down this chain including the large investors there are new companies being created. Some of them are corporations like shell, some are groups of companies, some of them are state run oil companies like Petrobras (of Brasil).

The same way you can paint a negative spin to the oil industry being the main investors in alternative energy, you can also spin it positively. Again...shell is not doing much of the work, they are investing in smaller companies to do the research and development for them. This not only creates new companies and jobs but it also means they are not in sole ownership of what is developed. They do not have any incentive to block new developments in such a climate. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Like anyone else they are aware that they cannot be oil producers forever and the faster they are able to perfect this new technology, the faster they will be the leaders in this new technology and can begin to switch over. Of course they DO want to be the ones to make the break through and they DO want to be the one to control it...this is business.

While you may paint business in a negative light and in many cases it can be cut throat and dirty, the plain fact of the matter is that big business provides jobs and provide REAL services and products, advancements, new breakthoughs (or develop them) and supports this economy and without it there will be BIG trouble.

There ARE many new oil reserves found all the time, they are not tapped mainly for the reasons I have listed, it is easier to buy from already established oil producers than to invest in new reserves. These are being tapped here and there like the new finds in the Gulf, China, Kazakhstan and other places.

Also, when someone says to protect our oil interests, I am not sure what that man meant, but there has only been ONE war to protect our oil interests and that was the defense of SA and Kuwait from the invasion of Iraqi forces. This current war does not concern our oil interest whether one would like to paint it as so or not. While it would be great to fully tap those reserves, the fact is that we protect SA, Kuwait, the UAE and some other places. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was not based on oil...there is more than enough oil to supply the US without Iraq. This war was and entirely different monster. Why shouldn't we protect SA and Kuwait, why shouldnt we protect our national interests? We are not the only ones...every nation protects their interests...they are allies who have a long standing history of cooperation with us and supply us with much of the oil we need thus allowing US to keep much of our own untapped supplies in reserve? In this way, by buying the oil of others and not relying on our own huge resources we ARE protecting our own reserves. Norway is a huge producer of oil, I am sure if someone threatened that, they would protect it...and would like help doing so.

It is not just the oil industry that is guilty of double speak, there is a lot of hostility and misinformation on both sides I find. Crooks in the industry should be punished but the industry should also not be vilified, the only way to solve any problems is with cooperation in my opinion, not antagonism. I DO find the antagonism seems to come largely from people who seem angered when anyone gets what they feel to be too much money. A trend to vilify anyone who is highly successful and very wealthy. Wal-mart, Microsoft, etc...That is (with some exception) EVERY CEO of EVERY large company and that is just the way it is and that is what makes the system run, the wish to better ones lot in life and the freedom to do so...Like your opinion that wealthy people should somehow be obligated to pay more taxes...basically punishing people who are successful. Even the people who run the big companies in Norway make huge profits that place them in much higher earning brackets... The answers are not in antagonism but cooperation on both sides, not the government and not higher taxes...taxes already constitute HALF the price of a gallon of gas and what has that solved...

 

From the Koch article... Is the reader supposed to draw the conclusion that there is something wrong with this???? Is this supposed to somehow demonstrate that the politicians accepting campaign contributions are more trustworthy than those making the contributions???? I know nothing about the company or family, but I support their Consitutional right to use their wealth for any legal purpose they choose, and expect them to be punished by the legal system if they step over the line. This is hardly a case to demonstrate the need for government regulation of anything.

"Charles and David Koch practice an economic philosophy at the company dubbed market-based management, which is based on the premise that societies which encourage entrepreneurship and individual responsibility will create vast wealth.

The brothers have made no secret that they feel such principles should be adopted by government and society at large, and have spent millions of dollars of their money to help make it happen.

David Koch says he supports the think tanks and advocacy groups to achieve the goals of limiting the role of government and maximizing the private sector to maximize personal freedoms."

 

All right! Some very good points here. Without addressing each point specfically, I keep getting the feeling that many of the counterpoints assume a perfect world with no malicious intent on the part of any large corporations. We all have enough experience with the tobacco industry, the Enrons, the pharmaceutical industry, the savings and loan collapse, and countless other corrupt institutions to at least entertain the possiblity that we are being screwed by yet another faceless conglomerate only interested in their corporate bottom line. The corporate environment is secretive and answers only to those that pull their purse strings. Seldom are any executives held accountable for the crimes committed in the name of corporate greed.

Given all that, why do you assume that these organizations are completely honest and do everything legally and by the book? I've worked for companies that flouted the law openly and without fear of being caught. Everytime some company is nailed for something or another you can't seriously believe that it is an isolated incident. I usually assume they were just to darn stupid to get away with whatever they tried to pull. That's where I am coming from. What makes you guys so confident in corporate America's integrity?

 

It's funny, but I have the same feeling that many of your counterpoints assume a perfect world with no malicious intent on the part of government. I trust people who operate to make money and create wealth slightly more than I trust people who are in it for the power it gives them over people. Regarding tobacco, the government could outlaw it at any time, but since the industry is one of the largest taxpayers in the nation, government greed trumps public policy. Enron, is a non-issue. Badly managed companies go out of business and shareholders lose their investment. That's the way the system is supposed to work. Badly managed government goes on forever. Regarding pharmaceuticals, the industry has been more of a blessing than a curse. If you're looking for perfection, it won't be found this side of the grave. The savings and loan collapse was largely engineered by the government when bad monetary policy pushed short term interest rates far above long term rates, making an entire industry insolvent because government regulation of the industry didn't permit them the flexibility to respond. Of course a few crooks took advantage of the chaos, but lets not forget that it was the government that created the chaotic environment. The corporate environment is far less secretive than government. Massive amounts of information are available to the public for free on the Edgar website about every public company for anyone who cares to read it. It isn't a perfect world out there, but it is much easier to find out what is going on with the money flowing through Wal-Mart than it is to find out what HUD does with the money they are given.

I doubt that anyone believes that corporations are completely honest. If they were, we wouldn't need a legal system. I worked a long time ago for a government agency which was denied permission to construct a new building, then went ahead and built it anyway with taxpayer money and reported the expenditure as routine maintenance expense. At least when corporations attempt this stuff, there are audit committees and other controls to prevent outright fraud like this. It's interesting that you are upset that corporations are "nailed" for their improper activities, and are completely satisfied that hundreds of billions of dollars are misappropriated by government without detection. Out of sight, out of mind I guess.

The bottom line is that I think corporate America is far more accountable than government. Neither institution is populated by saints and expecting saintly behavior is a doomed world-view. I can't understand people who feel the need to be "ruled" and have every aspect of their lives regulated out of fear that someone, somewhere might take advantage of them. Americans used to be satisfied with personal liberty and a "buyer beware" attitude. Now, they would just rather stand in the herd with the other sheep and say, "baaaaa!" Personally, I think the change is sad to see.

 

All good points Cloudy. I think you overestimated my trust of the government though. I do disagree that the accounability is greater in the private sector. I don't get to vote anyone in or out office in the private sector while the likelihood of voting someone out of public office is slightly higher. Of course politicans that do lose elections go straight into the private sector and are rewarded with huge salaries for the favors they did while in office. My point is that there isn't much difference between government corruption and private sector corruption. I really have no love for either group but I entertain the illusion that I still own at least some remnant of the political sphere of this country.

Our nation is becoming more corrupt than the worst third-world countries because we are so much better at concealing the corruption. Our business leaders and our political leaders are spearheading the charge towards the point of absolute corruption in which hiding their deeds will no longer be necessary. This is the kind of behavior that makes popular peoples revolutions into reality. The elite believe that they can manage the fallout from their behavior and that nobody cares but suddenly the fuse is lit and we all suffer a huge societal setback and nobody wins in the end.

The more we treat our citizenry like stupid cattle the more we move towards the certainty of a two-class society that is unpalatable to those on the bottom. When you have nothing to lose and no future, revolution looks awfully good to some. Revolutions have happened again and again throughout history. Why would we be an exception? Class warfare happens every day in this country on a subtle level. It is part and parcel of societies but isn't overtly obvious until overwhelming numbers of people start dying in the streets. The system of checks and balances may not be enough to prevent this from occurring unless we have the political will to hold both the private and the public sector leadership accountable for their behaviors and institute new checks and balances as needed with an eye on excessive regulation.

 

I see things differently than you do. I see quite a lot of turnover in the corporate world based on performance. High ranking government bureaucrats are not subject to election, and generally serve as long as their political patrons permit it regardless of performance, unless they are led away in handcuffs. I agree that the same sort of person inhabits the halls of power in government and the private sector. If that is the case, I prefer to have individual liberty and a free market so that at least the corruption isn't institutionalized. Others disagree. Everyone can choose for themselves, which is the purpose of this discussion. It's a marketplace of ideas out there.

 

I in no way think these organizations are completely honest...I have even said in one of my rambling posts that I dont think these companies are beyond reproach and innocent little lambs. But one could draw the same conclusion from your posts that you automatically assume a corporation is dishonest and evil and anyone with money has somehow committed despicable acts to get it

I simply think that oil companies aren't Satan incarnate and that they do a lot of good in many ways....this doesnt mean they arent also self serving in many ways or that they can do no wrong...lets not devolve into black and whites here...the world is full of shades of grey. If ANY company has committed crimes then they should pay for those crimes, but I find some people simply default to vilifying the whole industry when in fact that industry, if you look closely, does great things, employs millions all around the world and makes it possible to do and have the things we need. Maybe its that dependence that breeds contempt. We want and need want what they offer but resent it.

I simply think there needs to be a good balance between business and government controls along with cooperation on all parts to find alternatives. I dont think antagonism will get the job at hand done. We all must realize that this goes above and beyond mere business and effects our way of life and continued survival and advancement. This isnt dominoes pizza we are talking about, society as we know it can survive without dominoes.

 

I try to think about corporations in terms of their employees. Corporations aren't making America great, it is the working men and women of this country that go to work everyday, break their backs, sweat and toil to earn a decent living that garner my respect. Without the American worker, corporations wouldn't be where they are today. I just hope that they don't forget this fact.

 

I agree, but it cant be denied that those people would have no jobs without the corporation...its a 2 way street. If one simply looks to vilify and topple corporations, one is also harming those who they employ.

 

I saw a program the other day that had Bill Gates and Warren Buffett talking to college students about business and it's responsibilities to society. Buffett said that of the wealthies men he had met, only a handful really were successful because they had managed to succeed while earning the respect of those that surrounded them. They were liked by the people they employed and people wanted to do whatever they could to insure their companies success. Bill Gates had similar stories of leaders that had the character and charisma to be business successes and responsible citizens of the country that they made their fortunes in. I respect leaders like these and wish we had more of them.

 

Gates & Buffett

I would look a little further on Gates and Buffett. They both have some past items that are soon glossed over.

 

An Inconvenient Truth

Look guys, we can argue til the end of time about whether the government is more honest than the corporations. (but do remember that... at least theoretically... the government is US... of the people, by the people, and for the people)

But the issue was about what to DO about the current situation... specifically war. I suggested that the war is about oil and therefore one very powerful action would be to reduce our use of oil. Surprisingly... President Bush called for a 20% reduction of fuel use by the year 2025. This was a surprising turnabout for a president who has thus far dug in his heels at any suggestion of conservation. He also suggested raising car mileage standards... also surprising seeing as he has resisted that effort throughout his entire presidency thus far. So... apparently the concept of conservation is now being adopted by the Republican party... and none too soon.

The suggestion has been made here that the "free market" using the power of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" will solve all problems of price and supply. Well... Adam Smith gave us the Trail of Tears, the horrific conditions of the early mines, the beatings and killings of striking workers, and the Nazi Holocaust among other things. The free market decimated the whale population, and destroyed the Atlantic cod fishery, caused the dust bowl, and now it's giving us Global Warming... perhaps a final gift to usher us out the door.

If the free market is going to save us from ourselves... it will only be because enough good people stand up and do the right thing even though others do not. And that's what I was suggesting... that we each set aside a significant portion of income (I was tying it to gasoline consumption to try to make it less painful) and put that to work to reduce our own energy footprint.

I've heard people laugh about solar panels not being efficient. The information those opinions are based on is antiquated. I have not seen any decent American made panels for sale lately, but there are plenty of Japanese and British ones available right now. The solar industry has matured, and entire homepower systems are now available off-the-shelf. Sure, it will cost you as much as a new car or a new boat... but instead of using yet MORE energy... you will be starting to wipe the slate clean.

People say it's boring... a new boat would be much more fun. But perhaps they've never appreciated the very deep pleasure of watching an electric meter sit there and spin because the sun is shining on your array of panels. Honestly, it's quite a thrill! (simple pleasures....)

And I hope everyone has seen and appreciated Al Gore's film AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH. I have spent several years involved in the doctoral level Environmental Dynamics program at the University of Arkansas. As part of that program I personally read most of the primary research journal articles that were the source for Gore's arguments. Folks... it's true... he's not spinning a tale here. If I have any criticism of Gore's presentation it is that he tends to sugarcoat things a bit. Global warming is for real, and the effects are difficult to predict... but climate modelers have done a lot. It's no longer a matter of whether we can do this without dmaging our economy... it's whether we can fail to do this and remain alive.

I anticipate a flurry of pooh-poohs here, from people who have their minds so set on their own agenda that they cannot imagine that the world has changed out from under their feet. Well... too bad. If the free market is going to save us it had darn well better get busy. In the meantime all we can do is try to do what we can ourselves.

For starters, I suggest divesting of any island or beachfront property, or land lying below about 10 meters above sea level. If you live in an area with water sources based on deep aquifers or long aqueducts (like Phoenix or Los Angeles) you might consider relocating. On the other hand... land in Canada and especially around the Great Lakes will be relatively protected from the worst of things.