oil companies

[redcannon]

Do you think that oil companys are behind certain actions like GM destroying its fleet of electrice cars, or perhaps other ways of discouraging alternative fuel uses?

[RASHskins]

Of course they are. And they are also buying out alternative fuel companies so that once fossil fuels run out they own it and continue to control.

[SPK]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:50 pm
Of course they are. And they are also buying out alternative fuel companies so that once fossil fuels run out they own it and continue to control.
Yep. Shell and BP, despite being two of the world's biggest old-line oil firms, are also two of the largest alternative energy developers. In wind power, for example, they are among the top-five generators in the usa -- most other companies in this field are very small. They're just taking care of future profitability, because they know that oil will eventually run out or become too costly to pull out of the ground.

They're also taking advantage of generous corporate welfare programs: tax breaks are currently being given by the amerikan government to companies building wind power infrastructure. So there is an element here of largesse here -- state functionaries for the bourgeoisie throwing tax money at their capitalist sponsors.

Of course, many other oil firms won't touch renewable or alternative energy sources. Exxon Mobil is notorious for having almost zero investments in this area and also -- not coincidentally -- for having funded so-called "scientists" and "research institutes" who deny the reality of global warming.

[ExpansiveThought]

A very wise teacher of mine once told me that in 1955 a scientist developped a hydrogen powered engine but the CIA or some such mafackas bought him out for like a million dollars which was like beyond peoples wildest dreams back then. Needless to say, they smashed everything and burnt the mafuggin place to the ground. I dont know what source he got this from but it sounds plausible. Regardless, it seems apparent to me that this conspiracy goes beyond the companies to the highest levels of government on a scale constituting a fascist regime.

That being said in canada you can produce your own ethanol given you have the space to grow fields upon mafuggin fields of corn. You also have to include an additive which will make the fuel toxic for human consumption. Thats not really alternative but if you can do it it saves a fortune and you dont have to put money in the feathery pockets of oil thirsty vultures. course you can always just ride a bike.

[Kia]

I voted No.
While the oil companies may not want it to suddenly all shift renewable resources, everybody knows that just isn't happening. It'll take a very long time before oil becomes a minimal part of the energy industry, they know that they can still make billions of dollars up till that point and even afterwards.
In the past I'm sure that they did do everything in their power to stop the renewable energy push and discredit it as much as possible; but things have changed today. The oil companies are evil geniuses at making profit, they know that by shifting support to renewable resources they can make profit both know and in the future. The renewable resource movement has moved far enough along and become prominent enough that only an idiot would try to completely discredit it. By supporting the movement they are able to gain tax breaks (as SPK said) and support from the government for funding. They'll be able to generate just as much profit in the future as they are now by controlling renewable resources.

In the past my answer would have been yes, with todays current majority view on the subject..it has to be no.

[RNK]

I'd still say yes. The contradiction comes in the fact that oil companies do not hold any monopoly over alternative fuels. Infact, I'd predict that there is high contention between oil companies and automobile manufacturers; in the latter's case, they're beginning to understand the profit they can make, but I know the oil companies are still fighting. They have to. Their stocks are in oil, not in corn. Alternative fuel is their proverbial casket.

[Inithias]

it's kinda logic uhu..

if they would courage the alternative energy, they wouldn't make as much money as they do now

[razboz]

oil companies are very smart. They have some very good scientists working for them. They cannot ignor the fact that they will rn out of fossil fuels relatvely soon (maybe even in our liftimes, depending on your age). So they could ignore the fact that if their companies are outstripped by smaller competitive alternative fuel companies in terms of key developments in renewable energies they will not enjoy any kind of monopoly. They must develop renewable energies or risk losing key markets early on. If you look at new technologies the companies that benefit the most are those that can gain control of the most important technologies early on (like Microsoft or Sony).

like i said any other strategy of sabotaging research would be useless to them because eventual they will need this research to gain control of the market.Sp they may as well develop it themselves and control it, then watch as others do so and hen find that they are bankrupt.


EDIT
[img]http://www.marriedtothesea.com/092906/fossil-fuels.gif' alt='' width='425' height='500' class='attach' /> (http://www.marriedtothesea.com/092906/fossil-fuels.gif)

[Fawkes]

I think it is pretty much a given that oil companies oppose the use of alternative forms of energy --- at least at this time. If you were a CEO of a company that made chairs and another company came along and made more comfortable chairs than you that people would be more likely to buy, would you support the use of those more comfortable chairs? The answer is an obvious no. They will most likely stay against the use of alternative forms of energy until --- like RASHskins said --- they have control over the alternative energy business.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:03 am
I think it is pretty much a given that oil companies oppose the use of alternative forms of energy --- at least at this time. If you were a CEO of a company that made chairs and another company came along and made more comfortable chairs than you that people would be more likely to buy, would you support the use of those more comfortable chairs? The answer is an obvious no. They will most likely stay against the use of alternative forms of energy until --- like RASHskins said --- they have control over the alternative energy business.
That makes sense. Except that for there to be a demand for their product they need to create a demand for it. this means they must encourage the expantion of alternative energies. Then when oil runs out they can take over on their own.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

It's kind of ridiculous to assert that generally speaking oil companies are against the use of alternative energy. Some oil companies are also alternative fuel companies. I buy my ethanol and gasoline from the same company.

[Sentinel]

Well it may be the same companies selling some alternative fuels, but isn't oil worth so much more, as it is quite a lot harder to get your hands on? In other words the capitalists still have a material class interest in discouraging alternative fuel usage.

This is a prime example of why capitalism has to go down the drain, it's become increasingly counterproductive to human progress, or rather, mankind has grown out of it through both technological and intellectual progress.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Petroleum will always be worth more than distilled plants. We still use petroleum for many things aside from just fuel.

I buy my gasoline and ethanol from Petrobras, who produces nearly half of the ethanol fuel in the world. I'd say they value that product quite a bit.

I think it's very naive of you to assert that capitalism cannot adapt itself to new forms of energy.

[Sadena Meti]

Far more interesting than actions to oppose alternative energy, OPEC has stated openly that they don't want the cost of petroleum to go too high, as that would encourage people to start looking at alternative energy.

I read this in an official press release and was shocked. I mean, they should really lie to us, and not be so bloody obvious. But no, they said this out in the open, totally nonchalant.

I buy my petrol from Citgo, and my ethanol from Everclear :)

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 11, 2007 12:22 am
Petroleum will always be worth more than distilled plants. We still use petroleum for many things aside from just fuel.

I buy my gasoline and ethanol from Petrobras, who produces nearly half of the ethanol fuel in the world. I'd say they value that product quite a bit.


Of course they value it, I'm not saying they don't. Obviously the capitalist class needs a 'plan B', to keep monopoly as a class over energy no matter what.. and no matter how the power 'stays on', the individual capitalists will simultaneously keep on a) conspiring among themselves over the 'right' to control it's distribution, and b) unite as a class whenever that's needed to suppress threats to their hegemony (like a communistic revolution).


I think it's very naive of you to assert that capitalism cannot adapt itself to new forms of energy.

I'm not saying it can't at all. It just delays progress and keeps obsolete crap in use as long as there are profits to squeeze from it, instead of hasting the development like communism would, increasing living standards so much faster. No doubt the capitalist class can, unfortunately, adapt to a lot and learn to control and use most future inventions for it's own benefit and against us. :(

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

You still haven't explained how oil companies who sell millions of liters of ethanol want to discourage its use.

[Sentinel]

By promoting the usage of petroleum before ethanol they passively discourage it's usage -- at the expense of the environment -- because petroleum is a more lucrative business. These companies work and cooperate actively to preserve petroleum's status as a major energy source because it's more profitable for them, a better source of income, than ethanol. See rev_stoic's post.

Simultaneously the capitalist class tries to ensure monopoly over alternative energy sources too. This to ensure contineud profits the day when every last drop of petroleum is squeezed from the earth and transformed into money on their bank accounts.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Could you provide some kind of evidence for your claim that selling petroleum-derived fuel is more profitable than selling ethanol?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Dr. [email protected] 12, 2007 09:55 pm
Could you provide some kind of evidence for your claim that selling petroleum-derived fuel is more profitable than selling ethanol?
Well ethanol is relatively cheap and easy to make, to the extent that nearly anyone could "cook some up" at home. Whereas petroleum is a finite and, most importantly scarce resource that cannot be "produced" like ethanol. It would therefore be easy to see how, in the current price system petroleum is more profitable - the more scarce a product the more expensive it becomes to the consumer, but - as with any naturally occurring resource - it is no more expensive to drill the oil from existing reserves. So, oil a scarce resource in a scarcity driven economy that has a fairly constant cost but a rising price must be more profitable than ethanol which is low cost, abundant and low price.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In Brazil, ethanol is about the same price as gasoline per kilometer.

[piet11111]

one look at the pricetag of a car that uses alternative fuel should be enough evidence to say they discourage the use of alternative fuels by the masses.

another thing diesel engine's like they where decades ago could run on all sorts of stuff but today they fine-tuned the engines so much that it can only run on diesel fuel (though they are cleaner and more efficient with diesel then they used to)
but still you cant use alternative fuels like alcohol (is alcohol green ? i dont know)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Hybrid cars are expensive, but ethanol cars are as cheap as normal engine cars. Because they're both practically the same thing.

[Inithias]

so what's the best ?

[Sentinel]

I've been doing some research and apparently the reason for high ethanol prices is that the production of ethanol at the moment requires a lot of energy itself -- according to the US Department of Energy 1.3 units of energy are received for every unit put into the production.

But let's not forget that the oil profiteers can always also use to the bourgeois state to get their will through in matter such as this one -- in the US which happens to be the worst polluter of all countries, they are the government. They support the oil business while not supporting other forms of energy enough. Considering all their 'effort' to ensure hegemony over oil resources they most likely don't want to see it replaced as fuel anytime soon -- they want their oil sold.

Brazil on the other hand seems to be a forerunner in the usage of ethanol as a fuel, Dr Rosenpenis. Perhaps partly as the ethanol is produced of sugar cane which is cheaper. Brazil also requires cars to be suitable for fuel blends with 25% ethanol and is a leading producer of it in the world.. Perhaps the Brazilian bourgeoisie wants to be ahead of time and secure as well a good position on the world ethanol market for themselves as well as a high ethanol price levels.

But I'm still quite baffled over the current extremely high ethanol prices -- how can they be like that? Like Jazzratt said, ethanol is relatively easy to produce, by any logic oil should cost much more than it.

Although initial costs such as the building of plants and equipment propably stand for some of it one simply has to suspect that the market ethanol prices are unproportionally high -- likely a conscious method to, yeah, discourage ethanol use and promote that of Petroleum.. They can thus both keep selling their naturally more profitable product, petroleum, and get unproportional profits from the ethanol they actually sell. This situation is of course unnatural and unbearable in the long term but propably works just fine as long as oil remains as the main energy source and ethanol a secondary one for the areas they're used in.

Anyways I'll do some reading on this -- I'm far from an expert and feel like I'm doing a lot of guessing. :unsure:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:49 pm
Brazil also requires cars to be suitable for fuel blends with 25% ethanol and is a leading producer of it in the world.

The gasoline here actually consists of about 25% ethanol. The ethanol is pure ethanol. You can choose to fuel your car with whatever blend you want. Per kilometer, they're about the same price.

[Soterios]

they have no reason not to oppose alternative energies.

[Lenin II]

I cannot believe there is even a debate on this anymore. Even the right-wingers who are not completely braindead (in other words, the minority) think that the oil companies have sabotaged alternative energy. Every president has completely fucked over what limited programs were set up, and have prevented anything else from growing again. The time will come when they are forced against the wall.

[socialistfuture]

once the oil runs out they want to move onto the next fossil fuel - coal, then biofuel if they have to move off coal at some point do to co2 emissions. the oil companies are working with coal companies on technologies like coal sequestration.

of course it is in the interests of oil companies to have control of energy and fuel sources.

[socialistfuture]

just look at the economies and technology of europe, and asia - even america and yet they spend so much on mining fossil fuels like coal, and extracting oil.

they dont want to change, and if they do they will try to get monopolies on renewable energies I'd say. BP does a limited amount of solar in NZ. They also rebranded as Beyond Petroleum - (they're first name was British Petroluem).

[redcannon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 09:41 pm
once the oil runs out they want to move onto the next fossil fuel - coal
god cars will look like they did before the internal combustion engine.

[The Advent of Anarchy]

Originally posted by redcannon+June 29, 2007 10:48 pm--> (redcannon @ June 29, 2007 10:48 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2007 09:41 pm
once the oil runs out they want to move onto the next fossil fuel - coal
god cars will look like they did before the internal combustion engine. [/b]
Damn it. I love those Ferraris.

Figure out how to use greenhouse gases as an energy source.

[socialistfuture]

we could harvest the hot air of climate deniers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I didn't vote because it depends on which oil companies:

Statoil chief sees strategic alliances with state-owned oil companies (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/07/06/afx3888606.html)

I have so many links and so many comments that will figuratively exhaust me to death, but there's a 30-year paradigm right now that is in favour of state-owned hydrocarbon (oil and gas) companies. :)