Big Oil

Reflection

2008-04-15T08:28:00.000-07:00

I am glad that I started this project. I have learned a lot about an industry that I truly knew very little about to begin with. Yet I feel that I am only scratching surface of the seemingly private world of Big Oil; one that affects each of us daily.

Not only do the industry giants affect us; we affect them. Our demand for this resource grows and our dependence is increased daily. I might not agree with the decisions of the Big Oil companies, but my choices each day strengthen their hold on my life and my pocket book.

It seems that the only way to better my situation and that of those I am around is to lessen my personal use. I have learned that there are more ways to lessen my personal impact on the impending oil crisis; more ways than I previously knew.

I vow to decrease my daily usage by:
1. Using less electricity in my home (by turning down the heat and air conditioning when I am not home and never leaving unnecessary lights on)
2. Buying more energy efficient appliances
3. Washing all my clothes in cold water
4. Carpooling at least once a week
5. Keeping my car tires pumped up (I was surprised to learn that this could increase my car's fuel efficiency drastically)

These are simple changes I can make in my own life and I will challenge those around me to make some personal changes as well.

For information about what you can do to decrease your personal energy usage, below are some excellent resources.

http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/20/

http://www.greenteamutah.com/main.html

http://www.utahcleanenergy.org

Exxon Valdez

2008-04-14T19:28:00.000-07:00

I am currently enrolled in a Crisis Communication class that covers widely accepted and successful Public relations practices when dealing with an organizational crisis.

Of course of the list of examples of what not to do, the Exxon Valdez oil spill is at the top. Since starting this Blog, I have wanted to post on this case. Can you believe that it is nearing 20 years since the disaster happened and ExxonMobil is still fighting when it comes to taking the blame?

In a February 2008 press release from the Exxon website, the representative stated that the ongoing "case before the Supreme Court is not about compensating people for actual damages. All such claims have been resolved. Rather, the case is about whether further punishment is warranted..."

http://www.exxonmobil.co.uk/Corporate/about_issues_valdez_sc_022708.aspx

According to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, work to restore the beautiful Prince William Sound is still an ongoing, daily struggle. Why would a company, who made a profit of $40bn in 2007 alone, feel that the $3.5bn they have thus far put into cleaning up the disaster (for which they are fully responsible) truly be enough?

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/

It is my opinion, and I believe this to be true from a PR standpoint, the company should support the restoration of the sound until it is in as good of a condition than it was before the spill. If ExxonMobil would step up and take full responsibility for this crisis, it could help their image in the eyes of the American people. But if they haven't been willing to do that in the past, could it ever really happen?

Oil Crash

2008-04-14T19:12:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching a documentary titled "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash".

The film, documenting our society's addiction to oil because of it ease, availability, and inexpensive cost (all qualities of the oil industry that are quickly fading), is an extremely intelligent and moving work. I am again convinced that our inability to see the coming oil crisis could be our demise. Our society, built on cheap and readily available oil, must be completely re-imagined and re-engineered.

Since I can't include the whole film, I decided to post the first three minutes of the film found on YouTube. Let me know what you think.

The Price at Peak

2008-04-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

Anyone who has filled up at the pumps the last couple days knows that the price of oil has again hit record highs. The cost per barrel is currently at an astonishing $110. Very few people would argue that we are nearing a very serious oil crisis but you would never be able to tell by the way we as Americans are reacting to it. You would never know there is any concern by the way that Americas highways are crowded with gas guzzling SUVs and flashy sports cars.

I believe that oil is still inexpensive enough for most Americans to even consider conserving at this time; a gallon of gasoline is still less than a bottle of water in most cases.

Imagine a time when availability is no more.

In an article for National Geographic, Tim Appenzeller, stated that the end of this cheap energy source is coming to an end. Oil is becoming harder and harder to drill and many companies see the exploration as a money and life risking gamble they are unwilling to make.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

Oil field service companies are doing the majority of the new technology research as well as the new exploration, while Big Oil sits back and reinvests in their own companies to assure tighter hold on their current reserves. There's been speculation that the Big Oil companies have stopped spending money looking for new oil, since there's not much left, and they wouldn't be able to control it as in the good old days.

With current wells drying up and less money going back into the development of cheap energy, we are surely close to the end of this easily accessible energy. I fear that it will take much more than just these definite warning signs to get us to cut back on our consumption. The end of our dependence is no where in site.

Exxpose

2008-04-12T08:32:00.000-07:00

Environmentalists are furious that strategically donated research money to institutions such as Stanford and Berkeley is giving "Big Oil", in the shape of ExxonMobil and BP, the opportunity to "greenwash" their images in the US.

At Stanford, environmentalists have been concerned about the university's relationship with ExxonMobil since it was announced in 2002 that the company would donate $100m over 10 years to fund research.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/index.html

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_climate_actions_gcep.aspx

The money from the deal goes to the university's Global Climate and Energy Project, which also includes General Electric, Schlumberger and Toyota as corporate sponsors.

One aspect of the deal that galled opponents is the fact that the oil company reserves five-year, exclusive rights to any discoveries resulting from the research it funds. Another was the fact that the oil company also receives - for what environmentalists regard as a pittance - the ability to trade off the independent reputation of Stanford to promote itself as environmentally responsible - ExxonMobil recently announced 2007 profits in excess of $40bn, the most ever recorded by a single company, and has reportedly funded the efforts of global warming sceptics in the media.

Exxon Mobil earned more than $1,287 of profit for every second of 2007.

The company's renewable research investment of a mere $100m over a spans of ten years pales in comparison to the billions spent by the company each year scouting out new oil drilling locations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/01cnd-exxon.html

In 2005, a environmental coalition was formed calling for a boycott of the company's products and stocks and a reform of Exxon's corporate behavior. The campaign is called ExxposeExxon and features campaigners from 12 of America's largest public interest/environmental groups. "For years, ExxonMobil has intentionally put its own profits above a clean environment and the health of America’s families. As a result, we are asking all Americans not to accept a new job at ExxonMobil, invest in the company, or to buy ExxonMobil’s gas and products," stated the ExxposeExxon coalition in a letter sent to ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond.

http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=44179&keybold=GCEP

I personally agree with the environmentalists on this concern. It appears that Exxon is more interested in the way the investment in the GCEP can improve their scarred image as opposed to improving the scarred environment.

We can...

2008-04-08T12:11:00.000-07:00

We are bombarded daily by advertisements everywhere we go and learn to "tune-out" much of what we see and hear in response. I think that each person is different as to what draws his or her attention in a particular advertisement. For example I am typically drawn to images of sexuality and those that evoke emotion. Another person may be attracted to images of power and another may be drawn by humor.

In a previous Blog entry, I introduced the "We" campaign. Currently, there is an advertisement running on television for the campaign that features the voice of William H. Macy. I feel that the ad creates a strong emotional reaction and stirs up desire in me to learn more about their campaign. After seeing the advertisement, I went to their website and was impressed with the information supplied and the simple suggestions given by the campaign for each of us to make a difference in the current climate crisis. It presents a seemingly unsolvable problem and compares it to the drive of the American people in overcoming past obstacles.

Below is the ad and the link to the "We" campaign's website. I encourage all of you to view the information with an open mind.

http://www.wecansolveit.org

Please comment with your reaction to the ad as well as any information you viewed on the campaign's website.

I wonder if I would be as impressed with the information I found if I wasn't already researching this topic. Do you feel that I am biased as to the effectiveness of the advertising campaign? If you were to compare this ad to the one I previously posted from the Chevron Corporation, do you feel that either of the organizations produced a more stirring presentation?

Lashing from Congress

2008-04-02T20:35:00.000-07:00

Executives from Chevron and four other Big Oil corporations met with Congress yesterday to defend their record breaking profits of during this time of economic turbulence. The executives argued that the painful costs at the pump aren't their fault (instead blaming rising costs on the rapid development in India and China and the weak American dollar) stating that their profits are in line with other industries.

However, according to the San Fransisco Chronicle, "the five biggest oil companies made $123.3 billion last year, the five biggest pharmaceutical companies earned $48.2billion and the top five defense contractors earned $15.5 billion." Does it really seem like Big Oil's profits are in line with other industries?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/04/02/MNU7VU217.DTL

In a time of economic hardship for the average American, and with analysts predicting oil to reach $4 per gallon before the summer driving season, I sincerely doubt that the public is going to believe that Big Oil has the consumer in mind at all. I agree with Congress Representative, John Larson, when he said that the "whole situation has been nothing more than manipulation around greed."

Congress challenged the industry giants to commit a fraction of their enormous profits to funding research and development of oil alternatives. The answer came back that this wasn't an endeavor they wanted to pursue until renewable energy was a more economically competitive market.

The small glimmer of hope in this situation was the praise Chevron received from the lawmakers about the money they have invested in geothermal energy. Until more of the sky high profits are spent on lessening our dependency on oil, instead of padding current stock prices to increase the gain for Big Oil investors, the geothermal pursuits will not be enough.

Below is a current television ad being run by Chevron. Do you think that the ad is accurate according to their current stand on the pursuit of renewable energy resources? Should their minimal investment (when compared to the staggering profits) really be something to brag about?

From an advertising standpoint the Human Energy ad is impressive, but I have to wonder how much is truly Chevron and how much of what the ad says is just what they think the public wants to hear.

Will Ferrell as George W. Bush

2008-04-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

In my first blog entry, I promised to try to make this blog entertaining as well as informative. Consider this a break from the serious discussions.

Hey, it's all in good fun. It will definitely make you laugh!

"We"

2008-04-02T12:58:00.000-07:00

The Deseret Morning News had an article yesterday about a new three-year, climate protection campaign formed to educate individuals on the dangers of greenhouse gases and climate change. The Alliance for Climate Change's campaign, called "We", is headed by Al Gore (who admirably donated his proceeds from the book and film "An Inconvenient Truth", his portion of the Nobel Peace Prize money and a personal donation to match towards the cause).

The Deseret News article shined a positive light on the alliance. The campaign already shows strong bipartisanship support. The head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lee Thomas, was quoted in the article as saying, "This is not only an environmental issue. It's an issue of energy independence and it's an issue of national security. We need to all come together on this and the time to move on it is now, not later."

http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695266402,00.html

I truly believe that a campaign like this could make a huge difference in our current environmental downward spiral. The alliance's advertising campaign will compare the climate protection movement to other great movements in American history (such as the human rights movement). We are the ones who are going to make the difference; the campaign will get the issue heard by government and the Big Oil leaders.

Below is a clip from 60 minutes. Al Gore went on the program to talk about the environmental campaign. I truly have a new found respect for this man and feel that he is in the fight against climate change for the right reasons (it should be obvious now that his involvement in educating the public on this issue isn't to turn a profit).

"Green" Man Group

2008-03-31T20:48:00.000-07:00

YouTube is a cultural phenomenon of the current generation. Information on any subject is available in a split second. One needn't wait to hear about an event on the news; a desired video can be viewed at any hour of the day or night with just the touch of a button. YouTube opens the doors for anyone with a home video camera and computer to get their face seen or their opinions heard.

The posted YouTube video tackles the serious subject of Global Warming with an entertaining twist that may reach a different audience than would a more serious version of the same subject produced in a different medium.

I think that this short video is done is a way that it can be used to educate a younger generation on the pressing issue of global warming. I applaud the Blue Man Group for using their celebrity and talent to spread the word on this serious concern. I would describe this type of YouTube video as a public service anouncement for the internet age.

It is entertaining and has educational value. What's not to like?

Tax Cuts

2008-03-26T12:50:00.000-07:00

We are currently smack-dab in the middle of tax season. Understandably, the topic is on most of our minds.

Senate is currently debating a proposed bill that will roll back nearly $18 billion in tax breaks for large oil companies pushed through in 2005. The bill has already passed in Congress however, President Bush has already voiced intention to veto such a bill if it passes.

The Clean Air Act of 2007 languished in the Senate when the GOP opposed it. As the price of oil continues to climb, sentiments may be changing.

The revenues from the repeal of the breaks given to the oil companies (almost $18 billion over 10 years)would be used for tax incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources.

Big oil, in a second year of record breaking profits, has been busy lobbying against the bill in Congress and the Senate. It appears they’ve already won over the White House.

Shouldn't an industry, whose five biggest producers generated $145 billion in profits in 2006, be able to sacrifice $1.7 billion in annual tax breaks to help develop the cleaner fuel alternatives our country needs?

In a 2005 address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Bush spoke forcefully of the need for an energy strategy that looked to the long term and emphasized conservation and renewable fuels. Of the oil and gas industry, he said pointedly: “I will tell you with $55 oil we don’t need incentives to the oil and gas companies... There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.”

I would like to pose a question then: If President Bush felt this was true while the cost of crude oil was $55 a barrel, isn’t it even more valid and urgent at $100 a barrel?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050414-4.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

My reaction to "An Inconvenient Truth" with Al Gore

2008-03-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

First of all, I am glad that I was given this assignment; otherwise I would have possibly never viewed this documentary. I remember hearing about it when it was first showed as part of the Sundance film festival, from friends who had later watched it in the theater or on DVD, and then when it received the academy award. I had honestly thought that a film about Al Gore talking about the environment would have been “boring”. I was wrong; this was not a boring film. Gore used words, images and concise facts to build a film that is fascinating and relentless to the cause.

It was very easy for me to forget that Al Gore had ever run for office or had been a politician. The film shows a personal, sometimes humorous, and passionate side of the man. Gore appears to be but a concerned citizen warning his fellow citizens of impending crisis. The documentary is based on a speech that Gore has been developing for many years. He stands before an audience of what appears to be college students, before a large screen that he uses to support his points with dramatic visuals. The visuals start with the famous “Earthrise” photograph, then later a series of space photographs that clearly show that glaciers and lakes are diminishing, shorelines are retreating, and the snows are melting.

A particularly significant part of the film for me was when the “debate” of Global Warming was discussed. "There is no controversy about these facts," he says in the film. "Out of 925 recent articles in peer-review scientific journals about global warming, there was no disagreement. Zero." And although there is "100 percent agreement" among scientists, a database search of newspaper and magazine articles shows that 57 percent question the fact of global warming, while 43 percent support it. These figures are the result, he says, of a disinformation campaign started in the 90s by the Big Oil industries to "reposition global warming as a debate." It is the same strategy used for years by the defenders of tobacco. Mr. Gore told the story of his father who was a smoker who died of lung cancer during times when the link between smoking and lung cancer was still "debatable". This comparison is profound. We still have time to react to the warnings, to save the “life” of the future.

I appreciate that Gore isn’t pessimistic about the situation. He isn’t presenting this as a political issue, but instead as a moral issue. Examples of what we can all do were given at the end of the film. We can switch to and encourage development of alternative energy sources (solar, tidal, wind). Move toward more energy efficient cars (especially electric and hybrid), and invest in more energy efficient appliances. We can vote to pour more money into public transit. The easiest of the recommendations was to save energy in our own houses. I did something funny after seeing this film; I went through my home, turning off all of the lights.

Below is the link to the official website for the documentary.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

"None Like It Hot"

2008-03-19T15:01:00.000-07:00

I recently watched the documentary "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. My thoughts on the film will come soon. I enjoyed this cartoon clip titled "None Like It Hot", from the television show "Futurama", shown in Gore's presentation and thought it might be entertaining to all of you as well. Let me know what you think.

To War or not To War...

2008-03-18T14:27:00.000-07:00

After reading the comment last posted by Mark, I had to question why we tend to point the finger of blame in the direction of (as Mark put it)"George Bush and his 'Buddies in the Oil Industry'". Is there some truth behind this reaction? Or are those who would place blame in this direction just "left leaning" individuals in need of a "reality check"?

For me personally, it is hard to trust that President Bush's motives are for the greater good and/or for the safety of our society. Report after report of kick-backs and tax-cuts given to his supporters in the Big Oil Industry after being elected president couldn't be without strings attached. Even more incriminating were the statements made by Alan Greenspan(R)who is widely admired for his long run as the head of the Federal Reserve critisizing Bush's ecomonomic policies and what he sited as the real reason for invading Iraq in 2003. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," Greenspan said.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

Just as Mark stated, we didn't go to war on "terrorism" against Saudi Arabia and continued to "play nice" with this foreign government that we have come to rely on so heavily for oil. As Greenspan believed, "Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East," and that was why we invaded Iraq. If our government leaders were willing to fight (or not fight) to protect our claim to the world's oil, who's to say where they would draw the line in the future when the reserves continue to shrink and new oil is harder and more expensive to find? Brant's comments might be viewed as "left leaning" but it seems like a very possible scenario when we are already risking American life to protect this commodity now.

I am sure that we all agree with Mark when he stated, "It’s important that refineries continue to develop new methods of being cleaner and friendlier to the environment." However,who will mandate this profit-cutting regulation when Bush's administration's response to rising oil costs in the past has merely been a cut in clean-fuel standards that made it easier for Big Oil to produce larger ammounts of green-house gas producing, dirty oil? Bush's reaction to the state of the oil industry in 2006 was publicly critisized by democrats and republicans alike. Senator Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said big oil companies are the culprits behind runaway gas prices which he says go "way beyond what supply and demand would merit."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/26/politics/main1549350.shtml>

Oil prices are even higher now and relief for this strain on the american families budget is no where in sight. The US economy is in a vulnerable position and complaints of the increased financial on the American consumer are voiced daily. The end of oil may be in sight, but the effects of this on the economy are only beginning.

Apocalypse

2008-03-12T10:26:00.000-07:00

Nightly, local and national news programs discuss the rising fuel costs in America and around the world. One local news program I viewed last night reported that oil prices in Utah are consistent with the current national average; around $3.20 per gallon. Reasonably, the drastic rise in the cost of oil is blamed on the decrease in supply (I only took one economics class during my educational career,however I remember my professor talking about the importance of a successful balance of supply and demand). What happens when the demand for a resource is significantly higher than the supply on hand? In addition to this inequality in supply and demand, the supply of oil is unlike other products we have come to rely on; it is irreplaceable.

Besides the personal burdens each of us may feel due to these prices, economics experts are declaring the supply and demand imbalance a serious cause for global alarm. I recently rented a documentary titled "OIL APOCALYPSE" from Los Angeles-based filmmaker Martin Kent. In the film, Mr. Kent calls for "a wake up call," about the world’s energy crisis. saying, "My hope is that upon seeing this film, everyone will be inspired to become an energy activist -- instead of sitting back and hoping that the scientists and leaders will somehow pull everything together and fix this in the eleventh hour. The time to act is now." He presents a terrifying sequence of possible scenarios. The film warns that we are fast approaching the breaking point, when the imbalance could destabilize the economies and infrastructures of virtually every nation on the planet.

(For more information on "Oil Apocalypse" or Martin Kent, view his website www.martinkentproductions.com)

One of the energy experts appearing in the documentary was author Richard Heinberg. Mr. Heinberg is a respected American Journalist who is known for his works on the subject of peak oil. Peak oil is defined as "the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum production is reached, after which the rate of production enters its terminal decline. If global consumption is not mitigated before the peak, an energy crisis may develop because the availability of conventional oil will drop and prices will rise, perhaps dramatically."

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

According to Heinberg and other industry and economic experts, peak oil is no longer a worry of the distant future; it is now. I was shocked to hear predictions of $300 barrels of oil (national news headlines recently reported the price rising about $100 per barrel). Below is an interview posted on YouTube of an interview with Richard Heinberg (parts one and two).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHXdS9XYVs8&eurl=http://www.indymedia.ie/article/85156

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osbQ9UHMAvY&feature=related

Clearly this is a problem. Are there any solutions? According to "Oil Apocalypse" there may be. The film refers to a "plan B" stating a coordinated system of alternative energies (laid out in his film), could replace our addiction and dependence on oil, if society mobilizes quickly to make it happen.

It’s long been known that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, that pollutes the environment, and now mankind is coming to realize that it is also most likely causing climate change.

What are our noble Big Oil Giants doing in preparation? I searched press releases from every major website and found that they all had two things in common. One, the problem was presented as less pressing or severe. Two, just like Chevron, all claim to be doing their part in the search for an oil replacement.

In a press release on ConocoPhillips' website, I found the more interesting of the possible solutions: "In April 2007, ConocoPhillips announced its alliance with Tyson Foods, Inc. to produce the next generation of renewable diesel fuel from beef, pork and poultry fat. The alliance will create a transportation fuel that contributes to America’s energy future, helps address climate change concerns, and helps supplement the traditional oil-based diesel fuel supply. The company also said it will establish an eight-year, $22.5 million research program at Iowa State University dedicated to developing technologies that produce bio renewable fuels."

http://www.conocophillips.com/social/engagement/Conversation+on+Energy/2007+Public+Outreach+Tour/Event+Highlights/San+Antonio/sanantonio-community.htm

Sounds interesting. Could their record in this matter be cleaner (or greener?) than that of Chevron?

So far I haven't found any incriminating evidence to prove either way. The project is still running and findings may not be available for at least three years. According to an article titled "Bioprocess For Monomer From Cellulosic Materials", on a website devoted to green technology, the study looks promising.

http://www.greentechnolog.com/2007/04/

I will continue to look into it. Being the skeptic that I am however, I forecast that the world's energy problems will take much more than the chicken fat to solve.

I Want to be an Oil Tycoon When I Grow Up!

2008-03-11T08:37:00.000-07:00

Did you know that there is a PC video game that came out in the second half of 2006 titled Big Oil? Below is the description provided to "gamers" interested in purchasing the game online.
Description: BIG OIL leads you into times of the oil industry pioneers. Start your career in one of the historical scenarios or face the challenge of modern times. Found your very own company and lead it to the biggest oil emporium on earth.

Would this game be the equivalent of Monopoly for future oil tycoons? Do you think that a video game about Big Oil would show the industry in a positive light?

Since I am not very experienced in video games. I thought I would rely on the reviews of others with more experience in the video game world.

Reviewed by: Greg Mueller Reviewed on 9/7/06
Game Release date: 7/31/06 "Crude oil is some nasty stuff even in virtual form, as evidenced by the ugly mess that is Big Oil: Build an Oil Empire, the latest economic strategy game from Tri Synergy. You might hope that a game that puts you in the role of an oil baron would attempt to capture the excitement of striking oil and making it big or negotiating high-stakes business contracts for mind-boggling sums of money around the world. Instead, Big Oil lends the sensation of trying to coax a sluggish tanker with an inebriated captain at the helm through an endless gauntlet of piercing icebergs. This game is slow, ugly, and poorly designed, and it isn't entertaining in the least... Big Oil is a failure in almost every regard... There are dozens of better economic strategy games available for the PC, most of which will probably end up costing you less than Big Oil. No matter how much you thirst for a taste of the Texas tea, you'll want to avoid this game."

After sifting through hundreds of online reviews, I have come to the conclusion that even in the fantasy world, Big Oil isn't fun or entertaining. The game may have tried to make light of a very serious industry... and failed. I don't think that the video game masterminds could erase the fact that Big Oil is "nasty" and an "ugly mess". Even the gamer in his review above, pointed out the driving force of the Big Oil Industry... Money, lots of it.

Did the part where the reviewer described the "sluggish tanker with an inebriated captain at the helm" remind the rest of you of any occurrence in particular? That's right, the Exxon Valdez disaster. If I remember the details of the disaster correct, wasn't the captain of the involved oil tanker intoxicated at the time?

Global Warming? Nope, Climate Change

2008-03-06T15:27:00.000-08:00

In hopes of finding some information for MollySue's comment about Italians paying nearly $8 per gallon recently, I started researching the nature of the industry in Italy. So far I haven't found an answer to her inquiry. I have come across some other interesting information however.

In a New York Times interview published in November 2006, Paolo Scaroni , the chief executive of Eni of Italy (one of the world's largest oil companies) spoke candidly (rare for a Big Oil executive) about the industry and spoke openly about his opinion on oil prices and the American consumer. In Scaroni's opinion, American consumer's have the strongest effect on the rising oil prices and the increasing consumption. A statement I believe that most of us wouldn't dare disagree with due to the fact that we (American's in general) seem accustomed to a certain way of life and often appear unwilling to reduce our consumption. Two of Eni's chief executives comments I couldn't so quickly accept, were his denial that prices are too high and denial that the Big Oil companies are making as much profit as the general public assumes them to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/business/07interview.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

If the oil giants aren't making as much profit as we think, why are profits significantly rising with each passing year? According to CNN Money, in 2007 "ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is within striking distance of setting an all-time profit record - again." The previous record was from 2006. CNN reported expected annual earnings for ExxonMobil for 2007 are a whopping $39 billion - or about $106 million a day, $4.4 million an hour and $73,000 a second.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/23/news/companies/exxon_profits/index.htm?cnn=yes

The February 27, 2008 publication of International Herald Tribune countered what Paolo Scaroni had stated a year earlier. Based on numbers released by the Energy Department, and analyzed by industry experts, US consumption (more than any other country relying on petroleum as a main means for energy) has considerably slowed. The spike in oil prices "could not come at a worse time for the economy. The effect of high oil prices today could be the difference between having a recession and not having a recession," said Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/business/26gasweb.php?page=1

Where are all these profits going? To research renewable energy resources in preparation for the foreseen oil crisis? To mitigate the effects of oil pollution on the environment? To find solutions to Global Warming?

Probably not.

According to a press release found on ExxonMobil's official website, Global Warming, termed Climate Change, is a "complex area of scientific study" and however important the subject was, the release reminded consumers to keep "in mind the central importance of energy to the economies of the world." What are they saying? That energy and it's convenience should be valued over the health of the planet? The press release went on to state that in the future ExxonMobil would continue to do it's part in the research to reduce the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on the Climate, but only when the efforts fit into the organizations policy options. Some of the factors for analyzing options were listed in the statment including:

consider priorities of developing world

minimize complexity and administrative costs

Does it really sound like they intend to sacrifice some of their enormous profits on Climate Change research? Why do Big Oil companies use the term Climate Change? The term sounds less menacing to me. Sounds "greener", don't you think?

A Game of Follow the Leader

2008-03-06T09:10:00.000-08:00

I read an article today that dared ask the question "Is Greenwashing Good for you?" The author described Greenwashing as a corporate "bandwagon" of sorts. Something that many major company's Advertising and Public Relations Professionals participated in, including Home Depot, Walmart, Chevron, and Ford. So, everyone is doing it? Remember what our parents used to tell us when we were children, "Just because everyone else is doing it, doesn't make it right."

The article agreed that this form of "disinformation" could be seen as "polishing up the public image of big polluters or convincing people that an environmental problem is being solved by industry when it isn't", then went on to argue that it could be seen as positive because, "huge corporate ad campaigns help cultivate a green-conscious public that doesn't stop at voting with their dollars but also votes its greenness at the ballot box, we have a better chance of moving sustainable policies forward."

http://www.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2007/05/25/is-greenwashing-good-for-you

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the idea of environmentally conscious companies doing their part to contribute to the overall public awareness. Based on the definition this particular article gave for greenwashing (siting the Oxford English Dictionary as the source),"Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image", I would have to disagree with the idea that this type of dishonest advertising could really ever benefit society.

The "...Greenwashing...Good..." article referenced a national print ad for Shell Oil that made the claim, “We use our waste CO2 to grow flowers”. Hmmm... I am intrigued. I have to know more.

A quick Google search brought up thousands of documents siting this specific advertisement. I wasn't surprised to learn that the ad was quickly banned from the newspapers it was ran in. Advertising "watchdogs", such as the National Advertising Division (part of the Better Business Bureau) and the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK, said the ad and it's "environmental claims were likely to mislead readers".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659526/

The response from Shell representatives was surprising. They stated the ad wasn't meant to mislead audiences about their waste or contribution to the environmental problems at hand, but instead a "creative and striking way of drawing attention to the problem of waste disposal."

Creative? I wonder if this was one of the "good" effects the other article was referring to.

"Greenwashing" Wizzes

2008-03-04T16:17:00.000-08:00

It definitely didn't take me long to decide which controversial turn to first take my blog. A significant portion of my eight week coverage of the Big Oil Industry will contain my comparisons of green advertisements and press releases by various industry giants to that of other environmentally conscious organizations.

What is greenwashing? The U.S.-based watchdog group CorpWatch defines greenwashing as "the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment." This definition was shaped by by the group's focus on corporate behaviour and the rise of corporate green advertising. CorpWatch, along with other environmental coalitions (such as saveourenvironment.org and oilwatchdog.org), will be a main source for my research as their primary focus is to educate the public on how corporations actions affect the environment.

http://www.corpwatch.org/

On the Chevron website (http://chevron.com/), the company boasts about it's involvement and financial support for a Texas biodiesel producer. It is my opinion, the company's PR experts wanted to make sure that every energy reporter and much of the public knew about Chevron's dazzling green commitment.

On May 29, Chevron issued a press release about the plant's opening, preening over its commitment: "Chevron's investment is a tangible manifestation of the company's strategy to invest in renewable energy technologies," said Donald Paul, vice president and chief technology officer, Chevron. "Biofuels are playing an increasingly important role in diversifying our nation's energy portfolio. With growing demand, the nation needs all the sources of energy to contribute to supply. Our involvement with BioSelect Galveston will allow us to apply our world-class capabilities in transportation fuel manufacturing and distribution while expanding our knowledge and experience in large-scale biofuels production."

http://www.chevron.com/news/press/Release/?id=2007-05-29b

Only a few short months following this release, Chevron pulled out of the project and cut all funding to the biofuel research. Did the Big Oil company have true interest in the research? Or was the involvement just an excuse to look better as it turned its back? Lawsuits were filed against Chevron accusing the company of "fraud and misrepresenting its financial commitment to the plant". According to the Galveston Daily News ("Texas" Oldest Newspaper'), "Standard Renewable Energy Group and BioSelect Fuels, two members of a partnership that in December filed the lawsuit, stand by their claims that Chevron abandoned the Galveston Bay Biodiesel plant...The partnership accuses Chevron of using its participation in the project to convince shareholders, customers and financial analysts 'it was farsighted enough to invest in alternative fuels.' "

http://www.galvnews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=8833a31c1210163f

My First Blog

2008-02-21T14:03:00.000-08:00

So... I have never Blogged before. I hope that what I create will be educational and universally significant, as well as somewhat interesting and entertaining.

I chose the subject of Big Oil because it affects each of us daily. I admit that I have seen the price of gasoline rise and rise and have blindly paid the outrageous prices without learning more about the industry giants and what is driving the prices up, up, up.

I can still remember filling my first tank of gas, in my first car, when I was 16 years old. The price at that time was under a dollar a gallon. When I filled my tank this morning I was pleased to only pay $2.85 per gallon (because unfortunately I have paid higher prices in the recent past). In only ten years, the price has tripled! What is going on within the Big Oil Companies to cause this? Or is it truly just our consumption that is creating this economic distress?

I read an article in the May 15, 2006 issue of "Business Week" on the subject of Big Oil and the surprisingly weak nature of the industry. The article stated that the world consumes oil at more than twice the rate of development and discovery (that can't be good).

One section in particular caught my attention. It reads, "Big Oil, that clutch of oil and gas giants in the U.S. and Europe, has big problems. Yes, we know it sounds ridiculous. ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM ) has been reporting the lushest earnings in the history of the business, notching up $8.4 billion in its latest quarterly report. Combine the forecasted 2006 earnings of BP, Royal Dutch Shell (RD ), Chevron (CVX ), Total (TOT ), ConocoPhillips (COP ), and ExxonMobil, and you get roughly $135 billion, a sum greater than the gross domestic product of the Czech Republic or Israel. These companies, moreover, enjoy huge political clout in their home countries, have spotty environmental records, and staunchly defend outrageous prices at the gasoline pump. Why worry about them?

"Well, you don't have to love the big oil companies to worry about their ability to provide us with the energy we need. That job is getting difficult, thanks to huge technical challenges, competition from national oil companies, and demanding, even hostile foreign governments."

In my Blog, I am going to search all media outlets for reports on the Big Oil industry, compare each article with press releases from the individual company, and try to make sense of it all. Wish me luck!