What is Digg?297 Comments
- SickMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -11/+101BURIED! This is an infomercial brought to you by an energy industry lobbying group.
From Sourcewatch:
Institute for Energy Research
The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organization, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.
It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ... - xXRUSHXx, on 06/30/2008, -10/+61It's the devaluation of the dollar !
- SickMonkey, on 06/30/2008, -2/+25More info:
Institute for Energy Research has received $212,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$37,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: Institute for Energy Research website 5/04
2004
$45,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Climate Change and Energy Policy Issues
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ... - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -16/+38We have gone way past the point to where we can lower gas prices back down. We will have to abandon gasoline period. It is just too expensive.
- JJCDAD, on 06/30/2008, -1/+20Exactly! Let's print some more!
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -5/+24its propoganda.
The oil companies are sitting on top of 80+million acres of untapped leases that they can excersize at any point they want in the US. they only work 10 million acres.
There has only been 1 request for a lease in the last 40 years and it was granted. The refineries are working at 80% capacity. If it was an issue of supply and demand, these numbers would all be dramatically different.
Those leases are like money in the bank for them. They dont want the land so they can drill, they want the land so they can sit on it like cash in the bank for the future. They want to be sitting on those commodities.
The problem is the enron written speculation loophole laws that were pioneered by the finance head of mccain's campaign. There is no trade cap and the price can be artificially inflated however high they want it to go when they only require 5% of the actual value down.
Its amazing how when there was a housing crisis, everyone thought it was stupid.. no way is it supply and demand. As soon as oil comes into it, it MUST be supply and demand, there is no other possibility!
This video is propaganda. - rzxc, on 06/30/2008, -6/+25If this crap makes the front page, I'm going to be pissed. As other posters have mentioned, this is nothing more than a public relations effort from the oil companies to get the public to support new ways to make them money. Speculation is at the heart of the surge in oil prices. Don't believe me? Then ask Saudi Arabia.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25305036/
Don't believe Saudi Arabia? Then read this Business Week article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20080627/bs_bw/jun2008b ...
As the article notes, there is plenty of supply to meet the demand. That's why Saudi Arabia does not want to increase output. They fear an eventual crash in oil prices due to too much supply.
Here's the truth. Wall Street is trying to bail itself out of its financial woes by creating a huge commodities bubble. Did anyone notice that the recent spike in oil prices came right after the Fed left the Fed funds rate unchanged? On Wednesday, the Fed held its meeting. Then on Thursday, oil surged past $140. It's not a coincidence. The speculators waited until after the Fed meeting to drive up oil prices. Had they done their dirty work before the meeting, it might have convinced the Fed to raise interest rates. - BowZzer, on 06/30/2008, -0/+19Let's pull over a handful of dumbasses in front of a sign that says $4.11/gallon and ask them about a subject that they know nothing about to make it sound like offshore drilling is good idea.
Video produced by the Institue for Energy Research
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
To put it in perspective, this would be like a "factual" video about abortion released by the American Family Association.
The only solution is international oil regulation leading to the gradual weening of the infrastructure towards renewable fuel. Drilling off shore at best will freeze prices at where they will be in a few years and make these same problems surface in 20 years, only instead of $4/gallon, the prices will go up to $20/gallon (or more!) - tkeeley, on 06/30/2008, -7/+25It's funny how the argument for the problems with oil went from everyone blaming the oil companies for their profits, to now blaming the speculators. Do we blame the airlines for hedging their oil purchases next? Even if you want to blame speculators for the price, if you go after them in the oil markets, you might as well go after them in every commodity based market, since they've always been there, when the price was high and when the price was low. Nobody was complaining about them when the prices were lower.
The growth of emerging markets is by far the strongest traceable culprit for the rise in oil prices. - P8triot1, on 06/30/2008, -24/+39This seems like a whitewash of what's happening. We've already heard in Congressional hearings that "supply and demand" has nothing to do with the price of gasoline. It's the excess profits of the speculators who are risking things with no collateral, and no conscience.
- aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -5/+19Good video? I beg to differ. It start off talking about who controls the oil but fails to mention that oil companies in the US control the refining and distribution. What does it matter who controls the crude when we still need the middle man who picks our pockets clean.
Also, how does asking a lot of people who basically are responding to buzz words further the discussion? - ILoveBoobies, on 06/30/2008, -11/+24More propaganda.
Solution is not to create more supply but to reduce demand.
Next! - JayWTBF, on 06/30/2008, -0/+12Hi, meet me. I'm am someone who has cut out all excessive driving inluding vacation and driving the 40 miles to see my parents for the holidays or family get togethers. I bought airline tickets with southwest three months ago for my stepkids to visit thier dad instead of driving the 12 hours to get them there. All becuase gas to way too expensive. I was living comfortably one year ago (very comfortably two years ago), now we have to balance food and gas versus bills and house note.
Nice to meet you, now stop saying no one is hurting. - iancgi, on 06/30/2008, -10/+22Its the dollar dummies!
- inactive, on 06/30/2008, -2/+13You need to do some homework before you advocate drilling ANWR and sites off the coasts.
The problem with drilling for oil off the restricted coasts or in ANWR is that the oil reserves is a drop on the bucket compared to the total world market. Seriously, you can drill the sh*t out of it and it's only going to drop the price of a barrel of oil on the market by $0.70 at best, and it will take 10 years to get there.
Don't get me wrong, there's a butt load of money to be made off drilling in ANWR and off the coasts, especially with oil selling for over $130 a barrel, the problem is that you and I aren't going to see a damn difference when it comes to the prices at the pump.
In 2005 we consumed 7.5 billion barrels of oil. US consumption of oil per day in 2004 was 20 million barrels a day. Peak oil output from ANWR is 780,000 barrels a day, in 2027. 10 years just to get started and peak in 2027. If we could tap the entire field in one year, we'd burn through it in less than a year. We're talking about decades to tap this fuc*er and even longer for the off shore based rigs. It's a drop in the bucket. Our oil reserves are like 2% of the entire world. We've been in oil production decline for 30 years.
The only way to make the price of a barrel of oil go down is to find a deposit you can drill that has sufficient quantity that you can flood the market which makes the supply greater than the demand by a good bit. 4 billion in ANWR or 4 - 8 billion possibly on the coasts doesn't do that. It's peanuts, it's less than the total yearly consumption of the US. It's a lot of money, but it's only going to save you maybe $0.10 on the price of gas in 10 years. Why would you promote that? Promoting that policy just puts piles of cash in the pockets of the oil execs, who have already transfered most of their wealth abroad. They won't feel the pain of the US economy circling the drain as market demand exceeds global oil supplies. The problem with the collapse of mortgage backed financial instruments straining the dollar, combined with the intersection of oil demand approaching the limit of supply makes me wonder why any average guy would ever support the transfer of more wealth to the top 0.5%
It gets even worse when you see the subsidy packages being drafted in congress to pull this fiasco off by the so called "conservatives". Billions of tax dollars spent to offset the cost of the drilling to pull enough oil out of the ground to reduce the price of a gallon of gasoline by 2 cents. I hope people who support this have some stock in the right oil companies, lest you find out that after the subsidies you actually paid more for a gallon of gasoline than if you just left it in the ground. - NotOptium, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9You say that it's like telling a starving man he can't eat his way out of his problem. I say it's more like telling a starving man he can't eat ex-lax chocolate bars to solve his hunger problem. It might quell the hunger for a second when it gets down there, but in a few minutes it's going to be a ***** storm.
- Ratm22, on 06/30/2008, -2/+10Garbage Video. Propaganda to start drilling. DON't buy into it.
There is a reason we are not drilling its called the environment. ITS ***** UP RIGHT NOW. Drilling will not help it.
/Sarcasm ***** all the sea life to that oil has killed.
Its in the ground for a good reason. IT SUCKS. Leave it their!
Instead of wasting time drilling.
FIND A BETTER SOURCE OF ENERGY.
You want gas prices to go down stop ***** driving so much.
Use the buss or take a God DAMN walk.
Don't spend anymore money on gas it will only get worse.
Supply and Demand just like they said. No demand and the price will go down.
You don't need cars to live!!!! You need water and food.
***** CARS!!! - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Gas tax pays for roads, and is just about the most fair tax around.
How do you suggest we pay for roads? - inactive, on 06/30/2008, -1/+9Those of you who are digging tkeeley's comment are not in tune with commodities trading. Other commodities are not traded like oil and most require larger margins (increasing the investment risk). This is the only thing congress is going after - increased margins. Right now the margin is only 5% even on the short fund. The only argument presented against the margin increase is the threat of a short term rally. In fact many analysts believe part of the price we're seeing right now is based upon their mere discussion of margin increases by Congress.
If an actual margin increase was announced their could be a short term rally, prior to implementation, that would drive prices at the pump through the roof. The solution? Implement the margins with immediate effect and without public or media notice. It could happen.
Either way asking Joe Shmoe on the street why he thinks gas prices are so high is like asking him for the recipe for rocket fuel. People haven't got a clue how commodities or futures trading works so the investors will just sit back and love the fact that the masses and media yell "supply and demand" and "emerging energy markets". Unfortunately our policy makers don't have a clue either since they're bombarded by misinformation in addition to valid financial market claims. Raise the margins with immediate effect and the most skeptical commodity trading analysts agree the price at the pump could be reduced by almost 40% within a few months. That's the reality. - MacBigot, on 06/30/2008, -10/+18Obama says he's FOR developing nuclear energy once we solve the problem of waste disposal. The problem is, that's the same reason people cite for being AGAINST developing nuclear energy. In essence, Obama is lying by making a distinction without a difference.
Moreover, the problem of nuclear waste disposal has been solved. Ask the French. That's why France runs on 80% nuclear energy! - xekko, on 06/30/2008, -0/+8I'd recommend everyone here reads David Strahan's excellent book The Last Oil Shock: http://www.lastoilshock.com/
Transport, food, heating/cooling, plastic and pretty much everything we take for granted in the developed world is going to be dramatically strained by the exponential rise in oil prices over the next few years (which, today, have reached another record high of $143 per barrel). - Tomondigg, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8I understand that they are paid to promote the corporate agenda, but I'm not buying it.
We can't destroy the environment for a few years of oil for us, then let our kids and grandkids deal with a decimated planet. That would be wrong. - Minarchian, on 06/30/2008, -4/+11I think the "speculator cause" in high oil prices is a scape goat for the Federal Reserve printing fiat money like it mad men.
Sure. Speculating has a part in the high prices. But the fact that our dollar is declining in value plays a much bigger role. The same role it is playing in the rise in gold and other commodities. - LuxFX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Amazon says:
Other users that liked this video also liked:
- The Bomb is Still Out There: Scientific Validity of Post-WWII Propaganda, by George W. Bush
- Support Your Lobbyists, A Video Handbook
- Green: The Color of Evil (and other reasons why we don't really need polar bears), by Amoco, Inc.
- Guide to Effectively Using the DMCA, by the RIAA
--------- (add "How Copyright Works, by the RIAA" to this purchase and get a $10 discount!)
- Expelled
- Fox News - theberlindoctor, on 06/30/2008, -0/+7Wow, this sounds like it was produced by the oil companies. Notice how the entire message was "oil isnt bad, we can drill more, we're not to blame."
Snake oil salesmen trying to sell a sucker a smile.. - apollo168, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10Even if we drilled out all of ANWAR, it would reduce the cost of gasoline by an estimated $0.02 a gallon to $0.20 a gallon in anywhere from 6 years to 8 years. They didn't really mention that in the video.
- mrmontrose, on 06/30/2008, -2/+9Its a fondation backed by oil companies
Institute for Energy Research has received $212,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
2003
$37,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: Institute for Energy Research website 5/04
2004
$45,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving (a quarter of total revenue in this year)
Climate Change and Energy Policy Issues
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$65,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
{source http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ...
also the president was public relation manager at enron:
source : http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institu ...
CAN WE SAY PROPAGANDA? - aliengoods, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Feel safe is the optimal choice of words. A 55MPH impact is pretty bad regardless of the vehicle you drive. If that were a side impact, you likely would have rolled the vehicle.
- LuxFX, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8Cigarette ads are required by law to provide accurate health information. Before they were required to do this, their ads were full of "There is no known link between cigarette smoke and lung cancer." Despite decades of evidence contrary to that. There is no such regulation for Oil company ads, they say and/or spin things however they want.
- lukas88, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6The logic in the video is horrible. First it says that the price of oil is not controlled by the oil companies but by world demand, then it implies that we can lower gas prices by drilling offshore and in alaska. As if this "new" oil would not also be subject to the same influence on price. There is a quick blurb about not fueling the problem in the middle east, which is a valid concern, but the rest is about lowering the price. And Americans wonder why we get suckered into meaningless wars. It is because our *****-o-meter is broken and we will go for whatever carrot they dangle in front of us.
I would say that the worst part about the video is that it doesn't address environmental concerns about drilling (offshore and in alaska) and the main message is to put a bandaid on the problem by increasing supply for a short time. We don't need to use oil, it is out of laziness that we still do. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I don't see it as such a bad thing that there is now pressure to come up with a better way to get from point a to point b. - tokabowla, on 06/30/2008, -0/+6Pure propaganda.
- thcobbs, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Its also the rise of environmentalism in the USA.
Increased taxes on gasoline to discourage driving, preventing any new refineries from being built in the last 30 years, and boutique fuels are more of a cause than the cost of oil per barrel. - gyronic, on 06/30/2008, -9/+15Quote from YOUTUBE:
"Dumb Americans
STOP WASTING OIL = CHEAPER OIL
For godsakes you people take your cheap Wal-Mart shait home in BAGS MADE OF OIL. "
Couldn't say it better myself. American consumers are the problem not the "market" nor the "oil companies". - skipdog172, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9I'm sorry but if your concern was safety there are plenty of small cars with high safety ratings.
It does suck you got hit, but don't blame it on "you not having an SUV". There are plenty of safe small economy cars, you should've picked one, but the fact that you didn't means that safety must not have been on your mind. - acbrown, on 06/30/2008, -3/+9Excellent point. No one is saying that we should just expand drilling and cut off all research for alternative fuels. The smart option is to drill what we have to meet current needs while simultaneously encouraging research that will yield an alternative source of energy. It's not an "all or nothing" choice like the radical environmental lobby would have the public believe. In fact, if you approach any solution from an "all or nothing" mindset, then you probably haven't thought deeply enough about the problem.
One other point - the oil companies are a business and they want to be able to sustain that business well into the future. With that in mind, a person who really thinks about the current energy crisis (as opposed to one who follows along blindly with the reactionary environmental lobby) would come to the logical conclusion that it is actually in the best interests of the oil companies to invest in alternative sources of energy, and that the effort by some in government to place the blame entirely on the shoulders of the "evil" oil companies is simply dishonest political posturing. - requiem4dissent, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Buried. This is the oil companies talking, folks.
"The Institute for Energy Research (IER), founded in 1989 from a predecessor non-profit organisation, advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.
It is a member of the Sustainable Development Network. The IER's President was formerly Director of Public Relations Policy at Enron."
(from sourcewatch.org) - marx2k, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Less typing,more thinking.
- dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5I'm not sure what you're argument is. There is no reason to digg you down, because you're not really giving something to agree/disagree with. Spell it out, there is definitely a wide view of opinions here already, it's a good debate that sadly isn't had more.
- Makaveli5022, on 06/30/2008, -7/+12it's stupid that someone would ever purchase a SUV because it's safer. the logic that you kill them instead of them killing you is epic fail. if everyone drove sedans noone would get killed. as the accident, im sorry, it does suck, however i've never been in one to feel your pain.
- BrendanSheehan, on 06/30/2008, -1/+6Bush.
- tba2287, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7You're right...I would be paying $4.43 per gallon instead of $4.45!
- rl41, on 06/30/2008, -0/+5Related videos include "sexy babe oil wrestling"
Just thought it was funny - dilpil1, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Speculation IS supply and demand. Specifically, its demand.
The validity of that demand is questionable.
However, consider this. If speculators are the ones driving the prices of oil up so high, we are currently in the middle of an 'oil bubble'. Like all bubbles created by speculation, it will inevitably burst. If you believe this is the case, feel free to short oil futures and put your money where your mouth is.
Didn't think so. - dcrepublican, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7But it's OPEC that is controlling the production, the oil companies are only handling the refining and transport.
- RexxHavoc, on 06/30/2008, -4/+9great ...so next time you could be the one to inflict injury whilst you are persieving yourself to be safe
love the mentality
next time ride a bus if you are so insecure - eriku, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5That didn't explain anything and it sounds like a group made for oil companies to help spread the idea that off shore drilling will save the your wallet. HYBRID ELECTRIC CARS ARE STUPID! Gas engines have nothing to do with global climate change right!
- Wargalas, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6I call ***** on your *****.
Demand in the US has been steadily declining over the past 6 months and you're being lied to:
http://www.rightwinglunatic.com/2008/06/opec-is-ly ... - arjung, on 06/30/2008, -1/+5i guessed that as soon as i saw the video, but can you provide evidence of any misinformation or partial truths in the video that are not realistic/true?
- Stormwern, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4It's a combination
OPEC has increased the price of crude oil by ~2$, of which 50c is due to the dollar drop
The gas price has gone up by ~3$, 1$ more than the price of oil, the difference being cashed in by the oil companies. - mrfguitar, on 06/30/2008, -0/+4Did anyone else notice that this was propaganda by an oil company-based research institute?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 298 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is