Democrat Maxine Waters calls for nationalization of the Oil industry.

Originally posted by Devil King
Oh, I have no doubt they intend to aquire and resell every drop of oil on Earth before they start any real focus on their investments in alternatives. But they've laid the groundwork for their own futures. It's a long term win/win.

But, do feel free to research away. And while you're at it, post a few links about the oil companies shit-canning the public transit system.

I don't disagree at all, and in fact, I'm very unconcerned with oil from a production/sales side of things, as, like you said, the corporations will always have something to sell.

I'm particularly worried about big oil becoming big "alternative energy". Lots of the problems with the oil industry stem from the fact that we, as a society and as individuals, require electricity. The same laws that allow oil companies to, and this might be hyperbole, but not by much, essentially run the government will be in place to allow whichever major companies control other energy sources to have the same controls. While oil has specific problems that may have a win/win solution with investment into alternatives, there are some other structural things that I really dislike.

anyways, the Moyers thing was wrong. Not the factoid, just where I got it from. Its probably democracy now, which is way more leftist, and is daily so im not going to try and find it in the transcripts.

Other research:

Congress lays into Oil execs over profits, investments

from Article
Other lawmakers were far less sympathetic to the executives.

Markey hammered Exxon's Simon over the company's investment in renewable energy. "Why is Exxon Mobil resisting the renewable energy revolution?" asked Markey.

Simon said Exxon has given $100 million to Stanford to study renewables. "$100 million?" said Markey. "But you made $40 billion last year."

When pressed, Simon said Exxon believes the current generation of renewable energy options will not be able to significantly meet demand.

Referring to reports showing that low income people are paying 10 percent or more of their income on gas Markey said, "So your message to them is you can't do anything for them," he said.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/01/news/companies/oil_hearing/index.htm?cnn=yes

How Much Are Oil and Gas Companies Investing in Clean Alternative Fuels?

from Article
President Bush’s budget choices have deprived the Treasury of the funds we need to invest in a better, more sustainable energy policy, and his friends in the oil and energy industry have failed to fill the void by investing in alternatives to oil.

As both energy prices and industry profits have risen, the oil and gas industry has touted its investment in new sources of energy. Given its record-breaking profits, the industry certainly has capital to invest in renewable fuels and energy sources that can reduce our dependence on oil. Unfortunately, the industry is investing negligible amounts in renewable energy sources and is undermining service stations’ efforts to provide renewable fuels for consumers.

...

Rhetoric: Industry says it is investing heavily in renewable and alternative technology. The American Petroleum Institute (API) has claimed that, “In North America over the last five years, the oil and gas industry has invested almost $100 billion on renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies.” (API letter to Members of Congress, 3/30/07)

Reality: Industry is hardly investing in renewable, non-petroleum energy. When the industry breaks down investment in what it terms “renewable, alternative and advanced emerging energy technologies,” very little of the $98 billion spent on these technologies was invested in renewable or alternative energy sources. Only $1.2 billion of the $98 billion advertised by the industry as investment in renewables and alternatives was actually spent on renewable sources of energy between 2000 and 2005. This funding was not spent on renewable fuels but on production of electricity from wind, solar, geothermal, and landfill gas. (American Petroleum Institute, “Facts on Fuel”)

The oil and gas industry has invested heavily ($86 billion over five years) in refining heavier sources of petroleum, including tar and oil sands and oil shale, and on turning waste and residue hydrocarbons into usable products. The industry has also modestly invested ($11 billion) in combined heat and power and vehicle fuel efficiency technologies. The amount invested in the next generation of energy is a tiny fraction of investment and an even smaller fraction of industry profits that could be invested in clean technologies.

When asked to provide their companies’ investment in non-petroleum energy supply and production during a November 2005 hearing, the CEOs of the five largest oil companies reported little investment. Exxon reported investing a “negligible amount” in non-petroleum energy, and ChevronTexaco included coal and natural gas investments in its tally. (ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco responses to Questions from the Record of Joint Committee Hearing regarding Energy Pricing and Profits, Senate Energy and Natural Resources and Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committees, 11/9/05)

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-110-1-64
**there are some good figures on this page, though it is, from its appearance, from the Democratic party (I did 0 looking into that fact), so maybe be careful...

Great American Streetcar Scandal

I didn't know anything about the public transit v. oil companies thing. Unfortunatly the best I could find is a wiki about something from mid-century. Highly relevant, but not necessarily as current as it could be.

from Article
The Great American Streetcar Scandal[1] was the sequence of events in which General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum formed the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, which acquired most streetcar systems throughout the United States, dismantled them, and replaced them with buses in the mid 20th century. It is alleged by historians that NCL's companies had an ulterior motive to forcibly gain mass use of the automobile among the U.S. population by buying up easy-to-use mass light rail transportation countrywide and dismantling it, leaving populations with little choice but to ride their buses.

Convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, GM was fined $5,000 and each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1 for a conspiracy to force the streetcar systems to buy GM buses instead of other buses (but not for dismantling the streetcar systems, which were also being dismantled by non-NCL owned systems).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

and one about "Big Alternative Energy"

Big Oil Steps Into Brazilian Ethanol

*somewhat selectively quoted from an obviously biased site*

from Article
[BP] announced that it will purchase a 50% stake in Tropical BioEnergia SA, a joint venture established by Brazil's second-largest sugar cane and ethanol producer, Santelisa Vale and Maeda Group, one of the world's largest cotton producers. The joint venture (JV) is building a 435 million liter per year (US 115 million gallon/year) ethanol refinery in Edeia, a town in Brazil's Goias State, and planning a second.

BP plans to make an initial investment of some $100 million reais (US $59.8 million) in return for its 50% equity stake, assuming all required approvals are obtained, and provide additional funding that will bring the total to approximately R $1.66 billion (US $1 billion).

...

Further supporting the latter aim, BP last year invested US $500 million to launch the Advanced Energy Institute, a biofuels research program that is being carried out at the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and where research is under way aimed at producing ethanol from plant waste and woody biomass — lignocellulosics — and biobutanol, as well as other advanced biofuels.

"By using the bagasse as an energy source, the lifecycle of the process looks considerably better than corn ethanol produced today where natural gas is used to power the plant. This makes a huge difference. Better yet would be for them to use the entire sugar cane plant - the cellulosic portion - to produce additional liquid fuels," Prof. Blaschek told RenewableEnergyWorld.com.

...

BP disputes these claims. According to company statistics, BP's biofuels sales accounted for some 10% of the global market in 2007, a year in which it blended and distributed 763 million US gallons of ethanol and about 1 million US gallons of biodiesel. In Europe, the multinational energy major sold 344 million liters of ethanol and 847 million liters of biodiesel in 2007.

...

BP isn't the first prominent multinational to invest in Santelisa Vale's ethanol business, which ranks in size only behind Cosan, Brazil's largest ethanol producer. New York-based investment bank Goldman Sachs' commodities trading arm last summer announced that it would invest US $210 million (B $400 million) in the company.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=52475&src=rss

sure, someone has to do it, but is it really in the best interests of the consumer or nation to switch from one cabal of elitists who control government to another? Or worse, to let those who already control the nation gain yet another mechanism which can be used to get their way?

Obviously, those are all liberal lies from the socialist who can't stand that companies like Exxon made just a little extra profit.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm particularly worried about big oil becoming big "alternative energy".

Yup, that is exactly my point.

Originally posted by inimalist
Its probably democracy now,

See, I told you there was something pretty faggy about your math. Now you're citing an organization that actually spoke to Hugo Chavez? Again, clearly you are with the terrorists.

But, it was a very good post inimalist.

As for the NCL issue, that little oil secret has been going on for a very long time. People who have been raised in a world that thinks public transport is limited to larger metropolitan areas are less likely to cry out for an over haul in the way things are done.

Originally posted by Robtard
Basically, yes. We're grown dependant on their product, so now they set the terms. It's like the dynamic between drug-dealer and the addict.

I don't know how viable that air-car is, maybe for short range driving and not hauling a lot. There was a company that built a car which ran on liquefied air in the early 1900's, it didn't take though.

We've had electric cars since the late 1800's. Yet the EV1 was a flop. Designed to be from the start.

Hybrids, the rage of today aren't new either. There were several hybrids that saw road use between the late 1800's and early 1900's.

Cars getting 30+ mpg were around since the 70's, maybe even earlier. So that 2008 Honda Civic that get's a whopping 30+ mpg really isn't an improvement either.

Besides paying our politicians, Big Oil also pays to suppress technology of alternative fuels. I know interest in alternatives fuels lost drive once the gasoline engine became more dependable, but still in all those years, we've barely improved the technologies?

In line with what you said above and what inimalist posted...

Imagine a vehicle with nothing under the hood (or bonnet), no gearbox, no transmission, no carburetor or other fuel feeds. Yet it converts virtually all the energy fed to its motors into actual motion. With the elegance of absolute simplicity, this concept makes traditional internal-combustion cars look like the Rube-Goldberg contraptions they are: using way too many parts and stages to do what is really a simple task.

All we have to do is to get wheels to turn, preferably with as little wasted motion and energy as possible.

By comparison, the traditional car’s engine uses up to about 65% of the energy potentially available from the fuel, just to move all its parts such as pistons and cams, plus what is wasted generating excess heat. Then the transmission uses 6%, the accessory load 2% and idling losses come to about 11%, leaving about 16% of the energy actually engaged in making the wheels turn. Because of the weight of all these structures, the engine block, crankshaft, gears, transmission, etc., that 16% of the energy is having to move a vehicle weighing perhaps a ton and a half – which may have only one person sitting in it, weighing only 150 lb.

There is a lot wrong with that 100-year-old picture. It should be laughed off the road as unsuitable for the 21st century.

In Melbourne, Australia, an Italian-born mechanical engineer named Angelo Di Pietro has been experimenting for many years to find a more efficient design than the traditional reciprocating combustion engine. Inspired by his earlier work on Wankel rotary engines at Mercedes Benz in Germany, he pursued the notion of a rotary engine with fewer parts. Since his 1999 breakthrough, Di Pietro has been testing and perfecting his unique design which also eliminates traditional pistons and their housings. Though it weighs only 13 kilograms (28.6 lb), this rotary air motor is capable of powering a car without creating any pollution.

...

When envisioning this stripped-down power system, it’s not hard to imagine the reduction in cost to manufacture and ship vehicles with dipietro motors in them. Far fewer parts are needed to begin with, and those that are used will last much longer. Because of the lighter weight, for example, tires that, on a current car weighing two tons would last only 3 to five years, might end up lasting for a couple of decades, depending on factors such as climate and driving habits.

http://pesn.com/2006/05/11/9500269_Engineair_Compressed-Air_Motor/

Read the entire article. The guy who designed this engine is working on a large design that could be used in large vehicles. Why in the hell aren't auto makers pursuing this motor left and right? Simple....it drastically reduces the amount of parts needed to drive a car and it seem much too simple to be attractive enough. I have seen his working designs in motion on his "small" version of the motor. Just insane to compare the power put out by the small flat motor next to a much larger fuel burning motor.

Robtard, here is a video on the "air cars".

YouTube video

Simply awesome. I wish some big car manufacturer would poor a hundred mil into the development of the Di Pietro motor and get me and air car by 2015.

Sadly, it probably won't happen. 🙁

If Gas theft is happening here in the States:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gastheft28-2008may28,0,3350362.story

Can't imagine how it must be in nations were they pay more money for a gallon of gasoline. ermm

The scum, make someone pay around $400 for a repair and they stole what, around $80.00 worth of gas? I doubt this will be an epidemic though.

The oil giants know that gas will be obsolete in the near future, so they want make as much money as possible before that happens. Makes sense actually.

If vegetable oil becomes the alternative, I wonder if that will make farmers the next evil tycoons.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The oil giants know that gas will be obsolete in the near future, so they want make as much money as possible before that happens. Makes sense actually.

If vegetable oil becomes the alternative, I wonder if that will make farmers the next evil tycoons.

All you have to do is make someone a tycoon, then evil will follow in the next few generations.

Ok, Gandhi.

major food and grain companies are showing windfall profits in light of the recent shortages of food

my thoughts are yes, if there was an industry around vegitable oil, those in the business of making it would profit from it as much as possible

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Ok, Gandhi.

At least then I wouldn't be on this damn diet.

Originally posted by Devil King
See, I told you there was something pretty faggy about your math. Now you're citing an organization that actually spoke to Hugo Chavez? Again, clearly you are with the terrorists.

well, as far as I know, I'm either with your guy or with them... 😉

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The oil giants know that gas will be obsolete in the near future, so they want make as much money as possible before that happens. Makes sense actually.

If vegetable oil becomes the alternative, I wonder if that will make farmers the next evil tycoons.

If vegetable oil were the next big alternative, you'd see oil companies investing in it, reducing it's progress and preparing to take advantage of the fact 30 years from now. Just as they are doing with current, supposedly, aternative fuels.

And if farmers were to become the source of ever-expanding revenue and profit, I can fully see them sabotaging other industries in favor of their product. As it is though, they are being subsidized by both parties to not grow crops. Which, reflects another reason the world sufffers from food shortages and high food prices.

Diesels would have to gain popularity in the US for veggie-oil to be the next big thing. With the price of diesel now being about a $1.00 more than gasoline, it seems diesels are trying to be made less and less desirable to the US market.

There are a few companies like VW that plan on bringing a few of thier diesel engines (which are a hit in Europe) up to us emission specs, but it isn't a whole lot.

Originally posted by inimalist
So does Canada

Originally posted by Strangelove
It's also a socialist state.

not our gas baby!

but yes on virtually every other account....

not dentistry either oddly

how much is gas in canada?

On a side note, I think it's ****ed up that the only reason it seems Americans care about Iraq (or the media even discusses it anymore) is because of gas prices.

Americans are so damn numb.

Yeah. Pointless, too. We only get a relatively small part of our oil from the Middle East; the majority is from Canada.

Originally posted by chithappens
how much is gas in canada?

right now? lots. We will run out of easily accessible oil soon (natural gas is already approaching this, where we are over the "hump" in peak production and spending increasing amounts just to maintain a production plateau). We have enough for our own domestic supply probably until the early 30s, though it might take some form of nationalization to prevent it from all being exported south.

After that we have as much gas as any major middle east producer (actually, it gives us reserves second only to Saudi Arabia in the world), it is just all tied up in the Alberta tar sands. Basically it is low quality oil that is bound to shale. The big problem with it is this: In Saudi Arabia during the 50s, when it was the "oil rush", you could drill a well and get about 100 barrels per 1 barrel of expense. In oil sands, for that same barrel of production costs, you are only getting about 2 barrels back. So, we have lots of oil, although to get it will cost massive hydrocarbon pollution.

references:

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/823
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands#Estimated_oil_reserves

Originally posted by chithappens
On a side note, I think it's ****ed up that the only reason it seems Americans care about Iraq (or the media even discusses it anymore) is because of gas prices.

Americans are so damn numb.

Its not just Americans. Up here it almost exactly the same with global warming, though I think it is just a natural human trait to not worry or act until something is very apparent and effects your day to day life. As per global warming, the idea that the only reason to reduce pollution or to cut back on gas is to prevent global warming, I find to be idiotic.

But ya, to agree with you more, its the whole "Don't sacrifice, keep shopping, buy that Canyonero [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoPon3xuCjE]" thing. Can you imagine during WW1 or 2 people being told not to sacrifice for the war effort? How important can this "war on terror" be if it isn't important enough for me to stop eating overpriced and under nutriated mcDonald's 6 days a week. (that actually isn't my diet... just an example)

Originally posted by Strangelove
Yeah. Pointless, too. We only get a relatively small part of our oil from the Middle East; the majority is from Canada.

Really? not the middle east part, but I though america produced at least 30% domestically... what about Mexico? I really just don't know, although the last I heard was we send 2 000 000 barrels a day to the US

EDIT: lol, did my own research

9.5% from Canada
9.0% from Mexico
8.4% from Saudi Arabia
7.2% from Venezuala
6.1% from Nigeria

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=18&article_id=3434

and it does look like the vast majority is US domestic production

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4032