Reader comments
My view: U.S. oil industry is the target of much misinformation

GWB | 5:45 a.m. April 6, 2008

Great, an oil CEO telling us about oil problems and defending his industry.

What is next, allowing the CEO of Pfizer to tell us why health care policy that makes Pharmaceutical companies negotiate prices with the VA and Medicare bad.

I think the Des News will be publiching an article soon by a fox telling us that closing the hen house door is bad policy.

Backward-thinking | 7:13 a.m. April 6, 2008

Let's move into the future! Green, renewable, sustainable energy could be the biggest boon economically that the U.S. has EVER seen! Only "fearmongers" like our President want to make you believe that GREEN=BAD! What is so hard to understand? You like spending future generations money in Iraq? That's what's happening!

Dave | 8:14 a.m. April 6, 2008

Sounds like 'enviromental lobby' is running the country into the ground.

Comments continue below

Timj | 8:25 a.m. April 6, 2008

Myth: Drilling in Alaska, Florida, and elsewhere would solve all our problems.
Fact: Even if these statistics are correct, and there are 60 billion barrels of oil that we could drill in the US, and even if all of that oil is easily and cheaply obtainable, that number amounts to less than 200 barrels per person in the US.
200 barrels is the equivalent of 4000 gallons (different sources give me different info, but the barrel/gallon ratio is somewhere around 1 barrel to 20 gallons).
So if every person in the US used up a gallon a day, it would be gone in about eleven years. Half a gallon a day? Gone in twenty-two years.
And once it's gone, it's not coming back (at least for several million years).
Obviously, not a long term solution.

MEB | 9:09 a.m. April 6, 2008

There are two major problems, Don.

One - Why, when oil profits exceeded $120B last year, did they get $18B in subsidies?

Two - So, worst case it takes $20B over 10 years to develop oil shale production. That's $2B per year. Can't some of the $120B+ in profits be used to fund $2B per year in development? Must it all be taken home in the form of profits?

Oil is a commodity that is a necessity for every American. Oil should be treated as a utility rather than a commodity.

jackhp | 9:31 a.m. April 6, 2008

Myth: The U.S. could become de facto energy independent except that most of our remaining large reserves in Alaska, off the coast of California and off the coast of Florida (an estimated 60 billion barrels of oil) are locked up by the green lobby.

Fact: The US imports over 13 million barrels of oil a day. Your "estimated" 60 billion barrels that you cavalierly claim will create energy independence is only about 12-13 years of supply at our current consumption levels.

GeeBee | 9:38 a.m. April 6, 2008

GWB is spot on...Any industry that gives its CEO a 400 Million dollar retirement package (like Exxon), IS MAKING OBSCENE PROFITS!!! Go ahead and call me a socialist, but this industry needs to be nationalized. Extorting these kind of profits on a commodity that is FUNDAMENTALLY NECESSARY to the way of life of our nation is criminal at best.

Tiger | 9:54 a.m. April 6, 2008

The comments about oil shale are predictably bogus, blaming "the environmental lobby" for the problems. If by that you mean, "oil shale development will consume vast quantities of water needed for agriculture", and "oil shale will require the construction of multiple coal-fired plants just to provide the electricity to refine it", then of course he is right.
The problems with oil shale are intrinsic, inherent in an energy-poor, difficult and expensive to extract resource. But if you are an oil exec, diverting the blame to "environmentalists" (by that he means those of us who prize water and air quality) becomes second nature.

jackhp | 11:02 a.m. April 6, 2008

Timj,
Between this thread and the one about TRAX, you and I must be on the same wavelength today. You just got up a little earlier than me . . . ;)

Pete | 11:51 a.m. April 6, 2008

Actually pulled out of its Garfield County, CO oil shale project in 1982 when the federal government pulled the plug on the subsidies which were supporting this industry. Shell, which is furthest along in its oil shale R&D, still hasn't decided if oil shale is worth developing on a commercial scale. And although any one concerned about the environment has many legitimate concerns about oil shale--including how to produce the massive amounts of energy to produce this as-of-yet net energy loser, and where the likely new coal-fired power plants would be located. Then there are the water concerns, as all this development would occur in the Colorado River basin and would consume massive quantities of this already over-allocated river. So add to your list of the mythically all powerful environmental lobby, a sizable number of local governments, the State of Colorado, water districts, irrigators and conservancy groups, as those skeptical about the benefits of a new industrial commercial-scale oil shale industry, contributing immediately to climate change as several new coal-fired power plants are brought online as well as in the end product, devouring a sizable landscape to milk out a

Robert | 1:26 p.m. April 6, 2008

Regarding the comment about Exxon giving a "retirement package" to its former CEO amounting to $400 million, when he became the CEO the company's board of directors gave him a promise, approved by the company's shareholders, that he would receive a fixed number of shares at retirement if the company improved its financial performance over the years he served in the position. He did so well that the promised shares were worth that much money when he retired. But the shareholders -- including just about every retirement fund in America for teachers, government workers, the average joe -- improved by leaps and bounds under his leadership. That's why he got the "retirement package" he received, and for no other reason.

Joe Moe | 1:52 p.m. April 6, 2008

I agree there are problems with the our oil industry, but the idea of nationalizing it is bizarre to me. Do people REALLY think that gas and oil would be cheaper once under government was in control of it???

Anyway, we can Band-Aid this all we want, but at the end of the day, the only solution is alternatives to fossil fuels.

As a side note, it kills me that we can't get up the gumption as a nation to force the production of vehicles with higher efficiency. It's a no-brainer!

Thinkin' Man | 6:43 p.m. April 6, 2008

Why not use federal royalties from oil extraction (as Congress once proposed) in ANWR and elsewhere to fund research & development of alternative transportation fuels/sources? The royalties would be big enough to even subsidize alternatives. That way, as oil is on its inevitable way out, it funds the future.

P.S. Don't bad-mouth oil companies before checking your 401K or stock portfolio--you are likely a shareholder.

Jerry | 9:06 p.m. April 6, 2008

In hard economic times, the government and media will always look for a villain and "Big Oil" is an easy target.

In reality, we should complain about the government, not the oil companies. Of what we pay at the pump, only 8% goes to oil companies' profits while the government pockets more than 15% in taxes. As big as the profits were for Exxon Mobil this past year, they as a company paid even more in taxes. The question is what is our government doing with all this money? Why aren't they investing in alternative energy instead of forcing public companies to do it?

Ya Gotta Love Em | 8:49 a.m. April 7, 2008

Backward-Thinker: Okay, WHAT "green, renewable, energy" are you considering. The "environmentalists" fought geo-thermal in Utah: "...because it may disturb the local animal life and disrupt water-tables." The "environmentalists" fought wind-power, "because it may disturb wildlife and it is 'visual' pollution." The "environmentalists" fight hydro-electric, because it disturbs the natural flow of rivers and "endangers" fish. The "environmentalists" have long fought nuclear energy...because they saw Jane Fonda in 3-Mile Island--and have never been able to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

The ONLY "green, renewable, energy" I'm aware of that "environmentalists" haven't fought directly is solar power--the least practical...and I say directly because my father-in-law, who made solar panels, was constantly harassed by "environmentalists" about how the metals used in production were mined, how the plastics were manufactured, and the ecological impact of both the panel fabrication process and the lack of environmental friendly methods for recycling old panels (built by necessity NOT to easily break-down when exposed to water and sun-light).

It seems that oil & gas are bad (except when China, Venezuela or Russia do the drilling); and nothing is good. So, until the miracle of cold-fusion, what IS an acceptable "green" energy solution?

George | 11:42 p.m. April 10, 2008

Timj -as of now, the world only has about 16 years left of oil anyhow. Adding a couple more years to that would be helpful until we have enough technology for alternative fuel sources. Not to mention, if it would help us become less dependent on foreign oil, I can't see the harm.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.