Gee, I wonder why they say 60 million vehicles for 60 years, rather than the more realistic 250 million vehicles for almost 15 years?

Maybe it's because most voters plan on being alive and driving in 15 years, so would see that as a non-starter.

When the truth conflicts with the myth, sell the myth.

Let me see if I understand this. Slick messages,wrapped in comfortable mythology, without any context or contrary information is what the oil companies are using to sell the public on continued dependence on oil. Sounds like a winner!

The oil companies have an immutable obligation to maximize profits. The government is supposed to protect the people by insuring that the oil companies respect the limits that the law places on their ability to destroy the land the people live on to achieve these profits. So of course they're going to do a propeganda push so that governments who let them get away with murder won't be at risk from those nasty voters.

You are considered a consumer first, a citizen last, by both the oil companies and your government.

Most people currently prefer to be an active consumer than an active citizen. $400/barrel oil may change that.

Actually, I think that only people like to think of people as consumers, oil companies prefer to think of people as gullible little revenue streams.

There are currently some 58 Million acres in off shore leases being sat on by those that hold them. It's been admitted that the combined total of oil that might be brought to market from ANWR and additional offshore would only reduce the price at the pump by 3.5 cents and that supply would take anywhere from 10-30 years to hit the market. The race is against depletion, and depletion WILL win. This stat is profound: During the reign of George W. Bush, the world has used 10% of its total hydrocarbon endowment--10% in just 8 years. And it's likely we'll use the next 10% over the next 6.5 years, even at current prices. But unless something is done, price will accelerate to a point where it will generate even more recrimination and war.

The only sane way to go forward is through the enactment of The Oil Depletion Protocol, or someting similar to it. If the Saudis would only man-up and admit to Peak, like King Abdullah saying that T. Boone Pickens is correct and 85Mbpd is the most we'll ever get. That would provide the cold slap in the face to the US Congress that we need to get on with the business of moving away from oil-based transport fuels and the wasting of money and blood to continue that paradigm.

Note to Kurt Cobb:

Water-powered vehicles are hardly a 'fantasy.' Here's the story from Reuters:

Water-fuel Car Unveiled in Japan
Reuters
June 13, 2008

Jun. 13 - Japanese company Genepax presents its eco-friendly car that runs on nothing but water.

The car has an energy generator that extracts hydrogen from water that is poured into the car's tank. The generator then releases electrons that produce electric power to run the car. Genepax, the company that invented the technology, aims to collaborate with Japanese manufacturers to mass produce it.

Copyright 2008 Reuters.

See video here.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

What is done with this new technology remains to be seen, but it does exist.

Has anyone computed what Big Oil would have to charge for a gallon of gasoline, to make a profit, if they had to raise and fund their own army to invade Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't it be more cost effective if everyone just got a gun and held-up their local gas station?

The proce of oil is due to speculation, not a lack of supply.

Feed the oil ceo's to the polar bears!

The "powers that be" have to put a spin on things. If the masses actually knew just how dire the energy problems going forward really are they would be rioting in the streets.

Another classic bit of deceit in API's propaganda campaign is their series of print ads employing the Plain Folks fallacy, depicting middle-class families as the main beneficiaries of oil company profits and as the losers from increased government regulation or higher taxes. One ad, titled "Do You Own an Oil Company?" shows a pie chart indicating the relative number of stockholders in different social groups. It appears as though the vast majority of stock is owned by mutual funds, pension funds, IRA's, and "individual investors," while "corporate management" owns only 1.5%. Careful reading, however, confirms that these percentages indicate only the number of people in each category, not the relative percent of stock owned by any category or individual. The key question is what percent and dollar amount is owned by that 1.5%, with their multimillion-dollar salaries and stock options. Nor is "individual investors" (23%) broken down by the percent or dollar amount within that category owned by individuals at different levels of income or net worth, including a sizeable bunch of billionaires and multimillionaires.

"June 21 (Bloomberg) -- Libya may reduce its oil production because there is more than enough supply in the market, Oil Minister Shokri Ghanem said."

I wonder what the Ministry of Truth will say about this - Memory Hole no doubt.

(3) 60 million cars sounds like a lot, but that represents only a fraction of the more than 250 million highway vehicles currently registered in the United States.

Maybe they're thinking of only 1% that will be able to afford to buy the gas. You know, the 1% that got all the tax breaks.

I have my father who is a republican on one side whose only reason for voting republican is because he doesn't want a democrat...

...and my brother on the other side who is only voting democrat because he doesn't want a republican.

Both are against the war, both would like to see corporation corruption prosecuted, both want to see the US acting as protectors of freedom and liberty, and both are honest decent people.

When I mention Ralph Nader to them they both vehemently oppose the prospect of his presidency or even talking about his platform.

Of course, if I can't provide good arguments to my own family members to have them consider the possibility of voting outside the 2 mainstream party, I realize the obstacle to have it happen on a national level.

But what I also see in both their cases is a disconnect from what they want, and who they support.

The corporate structure (elite class) will continue to use propaganda, lies, fear to ensure that people will vote for one of the two choices, and marginalize those that are working for a third party.

From slavery, serfdom, capitalism to whatever the next regime will be called, the masses have been controlled by the elite few to their own detriment, and they go along willingly. Oppression can come in many forms, including democracy.

And while none of us are perfect, there are many who are not willing to kill, cheat and lie to get what they want.

First and foremost, human rights for all. Any business or political or social decision that goes against basic human rights should be viewed as unacceptable in a society based on peace and justice.

Oh yeah, one more thing, Ralph Nader for president.

A strange view of private property rights, huh?
Profits and greed ahead of the well being of most Americans and our national security. What were the anti-trust laws all about? Should our fate be in energy executives hands? I say, NO! The oil companies should be democratized.

Ariel_Sharon June 21st, 2008 3:06 pm

Absolutely correct. And our refineries are running under capacity (and not because they are being cleaned or changing over)

The Polar bears might get sick from tainted food.

Glad Kurt Cobb disected these ads. While watching them, I used to wonder how much BS and hype was used.

Here in Texas, they got Tommy Lee Jones pushing urban drilling of the Barnett Shale for natural gas and some oil "in our own backyards" and promising that "a little inconvenience now is worth a secure energy future."

A little inconvenience, like screwing land and home owners out of mineral rights, confiscating land illegally, thousands of wells in neighborhoods from Dallas to Ft. Worth, etc.

Guess TLJ needed another paycheck, and Big Energy needed a "trustworthy" celebrity with a southern accent (TLJ doesn't live in the DFW area.)

Bottom line: Big Energy and "our" government are now one-in-the-same. We shouldn't even waste more time trying to stop the inevitable - we all know that, eventually, they'll drill it all, everywhere.

And did you hear? Not one drop of oil was spilled when Hurricanes Katrina and Rita rolled through the Gulf of Mexico in 2005! Not a single, solitary drop! (I heard it on FOX news.)* Why, it was almost a miracle! So how could you possibly be against drilling offshore now? Of course, it might take a while, but we have to get started now. That's what the polls say, anyway.

Of course, I don't know why the oil companies are not drilling the 68 million acres offshore they already have under lease, and that are aleady permitted for drilling. Hmm. But then again I never understood why they shut down some of their most productive refineries, too. (I read about one in California, but I am assuming it was not the only one.)

I guess -- unlike "W." -- I just don't understand this oil bidness.

* Sometimes people are careful to say that no oil came "from the rigs" (over 100 platforms were destroyed), because they were shut down before the storms hit. But the oil put into the Gulf from busted underwater pipes and onshore refineries was in the tens of millions of gallons, second only to the infamous Exxon-Valdez spill. ("Not one drop!)

The yucks will suck it up, as usual.

Although written at 2006's beginning, this is one of the best displays and discussion of refinery capacity. As you can see, global refining capacity was growwing, not shrinking, and more refineries continue to come online and existing refineries continue to be expanded. The problem is noted by one of the first commenters to the linked item that what is lacking are refineries to process heavy and heavy-sour crude that are now an ever larger % of oil available because light and light-sweet crudes have peaked. That is why we've seen refining capacity use in the USA below 90% for sometime despite the onset of the Summer Driving Season. Inported gasoline has also dropped, which can be seen in the tables and charts at the bottom of the link, which will also provide you with even more data.

Playing the simplistic Blame Game with such a sophisticated topic doesn't solve anything, and indeed worsen's the abilty to take the right steps to adjust to the problem. The Peaking of oil and the other fossil fuels (NatGas is $13/1000BTU) will require massive adaptations. For the cultures of Canada and United States, learning how to do with less while that less costs more is the first big step.

It really irritates me when some oil company propagandist tries to justify obscene profits or price gouging because pension funds hold stock in the corporation. Gasoline has increased from $1.40 to $4 a gallon. But my pension hasn't increased a dime. So much for the advantages of being a captive stockholder.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was mostly OK. I opposed it primarily because it compelled my pension fund managers to invest in the stock market. A super majority of workers oppose forced investment for the same reasons we oppose forced labor. But Congress enacted forced investment anyway and called it retirement security. Ask the Eron workers, Airline workers or steelworkers how secure their pensions were.

The most efficient means of producing electricity is at the point of use. For most people that will mean solar cells on the roof and a plug-in electric car. Centralized production of electricity - whether by the state or a corporate creature of the state is the least efficient, most insecure means of producing electricity. And it is so 19th century.

Please tell your congress critters to allow pension funds to forgo stock investment - if the fund invests in alternative energy production facilities in the continental U.S.

Once again this author too has closed his eyes to the fundamental fact that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries will continue to need hydrocarbons for a long time to come. Instead he rants and gets all worked up about the red herrings of "cars" and "energy". I have said this before and will not get tired to say this again. On the day that the last electricity producing plant, the last car, the last plane, and the last ship are off natural oil/gas, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries will continue to need huge amounts of hydrocarbons to make what is commonly known as "plastics". These hydrocarbons can only come from natural gas and oil or synthetically from coal. The synthetic process costs very much energy because all of the chemical reactions involved are endothermic. If natural oil and gas remain in the hydrocarbon mix the most rational global strategy is to have the largest number of wells across the Earth produce at their lowest rates for two well-understood reasons. For once their lifetimes will increase and for a second their recovery percentage will also significantly increase. The author states "Only of fraction of those oil and natural gas resources are ever likely to be recovered for both economic and technical reasons." Sure, but known recoveries from limestones are typically between 30 and 40% and can be much larger from from sandstone formations and "economic reasons" are yet another red herring.
I am not interested in the number of cars that can be driven for how many years with US off-shore oil. I agree that these fields must not be drilled now but for a completely different reason than the author. They must be kept "in reserve" until the time when the chemical and pharmaceutical industries need an ample supply of hydrocarbons and at least some of it must come from natural sources. Then they MUST be drilled.
I do not hesitate to call this author and those who agree with his myopic analysis the "Pied Pipers of Energy who can only lead us back to the era of horse-and-buggy. Is that what the author wants? Is he prepared to give up plastic-containing amenities in his house (TV, refrigerator, air conditioning), his car, his camera, his computer, electrical insulation, plastic bottles, plastic wraps and many more? How does he propose that the hi-tech instruments of hosptals be constructed in the future? From metal, glass, and wood only? Get real.
In the "new hydrocarbon world" it makes no sense to load oil and liquefied gas of the producing countries into dangerous tankers and sail these to the chemical and pharmaceutical plants elsewhere in the world. Such plants must be built near the oil and gas producing fields and the solid "plastics" must be shipped around the world.
I am squarely for developing alternative and environmentally friendlier methods to produce energy and to propel our cars, planes, and ships.
How soon will we have to cross the bridge to the "new hydrocarbon world?" I do not know for sure but my educated guess is: within the next 50 years. Since 50 years is around the corner we must begin preparations now. With regards to the "off shore oil/gas fields" our government must pay for the drilling of a substantial number of test wells (in a "Manhattan Project"-style cooperation of drilling companies and the US Geological Survey) in which rock cores are recovered for study, the results of which will allow a better estimate of "reserves" and "probable recovery." Yes folks, off-shore drilling must begin NOW but no for oil/gas production, yet.

Anyone remember the cigarette adverts, for 'Craven A' I think it was (what sort of name was that anyway?), that claimed they soothed your throat?

What scares me is that I suspect the heads of the oil and similarsuch big companies that put these ads out there believe them. If I thought they were cynical scoundrels, laughing up their sleeves at the gullible public, I would think there might be a smidgen of hope of turning things around. But I think they believe their own propaganda -- "not corporate titans but men and women of vision". Just as all the crooked accounting firms, Enron et al, couldn't believe their own criminality so the energy company executives are incapable of believing that their actions could lead to horrible consequences.

dlazare: I looked into your claim on the number of owners vs. the number of shares, but it looks like the 1.5% designates the number of outstanding shares owned by management. http://energytomorrow.org/economy/Do_You_Own_an_Oil_Company_.aspx

Do you read this differently?

Dear Poopdeck: oil is oil. There are companies currently making plastics and fabrics out of plant oils.

there is only one thing that needs to be done to stop this ... impeach George W Bush and select members of his administration who have brought this environment of lies upon us ... unless the US Congress does its duty in light of all the evidence and the recent proposals presented to it, nothing anyone says or thinks is going to make any difference ... there is only one way to stop all this deceit ...

Solar Thermal Technology is being built today with the capability of supplying eventually the whole US, including after dark storage supply. So eventually by necessity, most US energy will be renewable. The oil in Iran and Iraq is not and never has been essential for US energy security, or for personal life and liberty of US citizens, and it has never been really necessary to kill Iraqis and Iranians for the US to be safe from whatever US governments are always afraid of.

However it has been deemed by the US rich rider class to be essential to invest their huge amounts of money for huge profits based on future oil shortages. It is the ultimate stock market futures game. Invest in your oil companies, then stage a war to make the companies and themselves very rich. No doubt the US rich rider class will always find a new bogeyman, namely the people standing in the way of their next desire. The war criminals are the very rich in the US, standing behind their government stooges.

I hope that there is some sort of international 'make america go broke on gas prices' conspiracy at hand, by non-warmongering countries. I can only hope they are onto something.

Ya think if we stop bombing and threatening to bomb everybody, then gas prices might go back to $2/gallon? Things that make you go "hmmm".

fakedemocracy June 22nd, 2008 7:05 am
~~I hope that there is some sort of international 'make america go broke on gas prices' conspiracy at hand~~

Really? Well, then, could I interest you in a made-in-the-usa conspiracy to make america go broke so that it's government could be drowned in a bathtub?

Just look at the way the government is making the oil companies go broke, not letting them drill in the national wildlife refuges and such.

Oh, wait, no, sorry, maybe it was OBL who figured the government of the US would bankrupt itself in a blizzard of ill-considered high-tech destruction.

Also, there are right now curiously well-timed ADS on "ad-free" PBS, sweetly narrating how environmentally wonderful offshore drilling is (oh, the fortunate reefs), and how fantastic our energy future will be if we would just make the last of the people's finite resources open to poor old big oil, along with boosting their value on the books (and stock values) once that prize is in hand.

Climate? Not part of this canned message.

poopdeck-read it again. Number 4 points out that burning oil to power vehicles is NOT the most effective use of these energy stocks. I agree with you that we should use them to produce things that make our life better. Overpackaging all consumer goods in plastic, using disposable containers instead of reusable, plastic bags, plastic diapers, etc., I consider just as wasteful as burning oil. Recycling as much plastic as possible would also help. Drilling offshore or in Alaska is unnecessary if we conserve and reuse and stop burning right now.

Skinnycat, workers now have a lot of money tied up in 401Ks. We have no control over it, nor do I know where Vanguard invests my money. I oppose forced subsidy of the stock market also, and I think that the explosion in speculation since the 90s was fueled by workers supplying part of their paychecks to the gamblers on Wall Street. Yet workers believe that their 401Ks are making them rich, while their tax money is making them poor. (And now that the government is openly looting the Treasury to enrich the war profiteers and construction companies, while cutting back on public benefits, I tend to have sympathy for this idea).

If the workers could tell the mutual fund controllers that we want our money invested in sound energy production instead of fueling market speculation, the country would be better off. I think that if everyone in my area could use their 401K money to build a solar panel factory or put up wind turbines, the area would be better off, it would provide employment, and the chances of actually seeing a return on our pension money would be more likely than if it is invested in credit derivatives, or whatever. People in other areas could invest in energy, or small farms, or electric cars or whatever. You can't use that money now for personal use, anyway. The government forces you to keep it in the stock market. What a scam! And they have their greedy eyes on Social Security to this day! But if they used Social Security funds for private gamblers, how would they offset the Federal budget with retirement funds? Such a dilemma!

My coworkers believe that they will have a million dollars when they retire because that is what the Vanguard rep tells them. Sad.

This whole discussion, while it is about deceitful ads by the oil companies, seems to have missed one point: we don't really need them.
1. Jimmie Carter raised energy issues to the forefront of American politics thirty years ago. If the transportation industry had been forced to do the right thing (health and safety should be a priority) we could have done away with the mess of riding around in automobiles. While cars were being obsoleted off the map, they could have been made more efficient. Meanwhile a mass transit system could have been built, connecting all major and minor population points on the map. Such a system could be and should have been already built; we would be have been using %60-%70 less oil meanwhile.
http://www.publictransportation.org/

2. A good chunk of oil use is for jets, cruise ships and over sized personal vehicles. How much real difficulty would municipalities, state legislatures and Congress have in doing the right thing by eliminating some of these? Meanwhile we could have been switched to public transportation that was better: cleaner, faster and more readily available.
http://inlove.blog.dada.net/post/617043/Public+Transportation

And where does the "energy generator" that turns water into electricity get its energy?

Plus, we have water shortages also. It seems that using water to power individual cars is like using food to do so.

greener - we have a windmill here in this town of 3 million people. Yeah, I know, we should have hundreds of them, but at least we have one so that wing-nuts like me can see what it does and rant about it. This baby can turn filthy water, that would kill you to drink, into hydroden for cars or whatever. Unlike an oil refinery, you don't need a million thirsty cars to justify the capacity in order to build one, and you don't need hundreds of tanker trucks shuttling the crap into the city for final consumption. If we had hundreds of windmills, and cars that could use hydrogen, it would make a big fat dent in the mess we're making.

Little sense in trying to edit a comment at this particular website, so, what I meant to type was "hydrogen".

I was wondering why these commercials feature a young lady who is in constant motion, always walking from one part of the screen to another. Now I know - she doesn't want to be pinned down, or present a sitting target!

Well, Big Money, that may be true. I kind of oppose cars, no matter how they're powered. There are nearly 50,000 people killed every year by cars (just in America), with hundreds of thousands more crippled. It is estimated that 1,000,000 animals are killed, which seems right to me. Everyday I see dead animals and birds on the road. The paving of Earth for roads and parking lots is wrong. I think that the obesity and heart disease in this country is partially caused by car-based transportation.

I really think that we should try to get away from cars. Compact cities, with public transportation would do a lot to get people away from cars. Plus, the isolation of people from their neighbors in this urban sprawl hell that we live in is dehumanizing

" For the cultures of Canada and United States, learning how to do with less while that less costs more is the first big step."

Wow ! the Big Oil apologists have even invaded "progressive" chat rooms with industry propaganda ! Get ready to pay more for less !

This is just like the talking heads of corporate TV telling us six months ago that gas will be $4.00 a gallon this summer. They condition the public to accept having their pockets picked.

The current inflated energy prices have little to do with the so-called laws of supply and demand. American consumer demand is down and prices continue to rise.

The two primary factors that have created current high oil prices are the deliberate devaluation of the dollar (by increasing the money supply) and the occupation of Iraq which has decreased Iraq's already reduced production. Hostile sanctions against Iran have also limited their production.

Then add in speculation (including unregulated and possibly illegal electronic futures trading) and you have even higher prices. And as the dollar falls a lot of investors are looking for a sure-thing commodity to hedge inflation like oil. Etc.

We may very well be experiencing a globalized ENRON type market manipulation.

And why increase the money supply and create inflation ? How else to pay for a war when our government is already operating on deficit spending. Waging war without real funding always creates inflation.

And of course the goal of the American war crimes in Iraq is to "privatize" (or rather steal) Iraq's oil and have it monopolized by Big Oil. They can then extract Iraqi oil for $12 per barrel and market it for $150 !

Thus the MIC and Big Oil reap record profits at the expense of the entire planet !

Nothing quite like corporate socialism funded by human suffering !

For some very informative reading pick up a copy of "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast. The American crimes in Iraq appear to be designed to control or limit oil production while driving up prices.

Thanks to Madrone for the link to the API ad, which is different from the one I cited, an abridged version in The Weekly Standard. That one said only, "The majority of oil and natural gas company shareholders are 'middle-class U.S. households with mutual fund investments, pension accounts or other retirement accounts and small portfolios." The implication was that the percentages in the pie chart referred only to the number of stockholders in each category, not what share each owned. The longer version, however, does say, "Only 1.5 percent of company shares are owned by industry executives."

So the two versions are contradictory, and the longer version makes a whole set of equally questionable claims, which I hope readers here will continue to investigate.
Just off the top of my head, I would note the ambiguity of "industry executives." It is well known that these top executives are making multi-million-dollar salaries that keep going up each year, on top of their stock holdings and options. Also, 1.5 percent of total shares still amounts to millions or billions in a few individuals' hands, while many of the remaining 98.5 have relatively paltry holdings and profits. Likewise, as I noted before, the 23% of "individual investors" (whether interpreted as the number of people in that category or the amount of stock they own) includes multi-millionaires and billionaires whose individual holdings vastly exceed those of the "median income" small investors.

The long version of the ad further claims, "Almost 43 percent of oil and natural gas company shares are owned by mutual funds and asset management companies that have mutual funds. Mutual funds manage accounts for 55 million U.S. households with a median income of $68,700." These "asset management companies" include the hedge funds and equity funds whose executives have been in the news as being among the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans, at the multi-billionaire level. Moreover, as some respondents here have noted, those of us who have pensions like mine in the California Public Employees Retirement System receive a fixed income from them, with only small cost-of-living increases, while their investment managers' income, heavily invested in energy companies, has skyrocketed.

I find the author's logic to suffer from the same weaknesses of which he criticizes the oil lobby so roundly.

Yes it is true that the restricted areas have not been explored (after all, they're restricted), there is uncertainty as to how much oil and gas reserves they actually contain, and that they will require a significant time lag before they materially impact the US supply and demand equation.

Unfortunately the author decided not to make those same points about various alternative energies that we all hope will significantly replace oil and gas demand - whether it is solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels or whatever. Many are promising technologies, none are available in commercial quantities today and we are looking at years and decades for the technological advances and the mass commercialization required to make them available to the broad public.

Our energy problems are a three-legged stool and the solutions are going to require a combination of all three - more oil and gas supply, conservation (less oil and gas demand) and development of alternative energies to replace oil and gas demand. Ridiculing one for the benefit of the other two is pointless and misleading. I find the author every bit as deceptive as the oil industry lobby he rightfully skewers.

It's easy to hate the oil industry Mr. Cobb. Doesn't take too much courage or leadership to pile on. The question is does it benefit us to hate them ? Me thinks we need to spend our energies working all three legs of the energy stool.

Earth to Big Oil (and all humans): If your answer to satisfying energy demand is simply increasing conventional production and use of fossil energy, atmospheric CO2 and ocean acidity will ultimately be 5 times current levels. Offshore oil and all other fossil energy sources cannot be further exploited unless and until the cost/impact of the resulting CO2 release (or of its avoidance) is factored in.
Your humble info servant,
G

Mr. Cobb: Thanks for the critique of those ads. I have seen the lady in the suit one several times. Conservative syndicated columnists Will, Thomas and Krauthamer are also chiming in for drilling in Alaska and off the coasts.

Poopdeck: There will be oil in the ground for making stuff forever. Enhanced recovery techniques using steam and chemicals are used to extend the liftime of depleted wells. Once the energy cost of extracting the crude equals its energy value, its time to quit using that crude for energy. Those wells will be available for chemical feedstocks in the future.

Regarding input vs. output, the same could be said about corn based ethanol and Alberta tar sands. There isn't much of an energy gain from these. Corn ethanol energy inputs may actually exceed the energy its worth, and some estimates show 1/3 of tar sands energy is used just to get it on the way to a refinery. Both fuels produce tremendous environmental damage.

I hate to say this, but on the whole, drilling in Alaska and off the coast is more environmentally friendly than corn based ethanol or tar sands extraction.

There are three main problems. 1)Global Warming and climate change caused by fossil fuel use. 2) Imports of fossil fuel ruining our economy. 3) Marginally effective fuel sources such as biofuels and tar sands can also very hard on the environment. I hope Mr. obama has the stones to do what is necessary and fight for a hard cap and reduction plan on fossil fuel use and provide the resources necessary to accomplish the task.

As Per the Globe and mail some weeks ago, financial section.

Worldwide demand for oil went this year went up .4 percent. While China/India increased demand, North America and Europe actually consumed less.

Worldwide supply of oil increased 3.2 percent.

So supply far outstripped demand yet the prices rocketed up. The next time T Boone Pickens or other Oil execs predict 200 a barrel for oil keep in mind....If the people believe him he makes millions.

The fact is that an analyst, simply by stating ever increasing prices for oil will drive up the price for Oil and the same people that claim it a supply/demand issue and warn of shortages are the same ones sitting on oil shares.

Its a great big con game.

Yup, LIES, all lies and damned lies by the API.

On this Sunday morning's news, MTP had the API spokesman as a guest, who claimed that the US oil industry cannot find a drilling rig with which to drill the already approved US mainland oil, but in nearby Alberta Canada, 600 of 800 rigs stand idle. It appears that they know it is not worth drilling [and so the ads are a lie].

As for the oil corporation wealth and huge profits, of the $40B. that Exxon-Mobile raked in as profits last year, they plowed $32B. back into buying up their own shares - a sort of "savings account" tactic. Claims of excess profits going to the high costs of exploration are purely false.

I assume that what is happening is that for US oil corps., foreign oil is the best way to make profits - excessive profits by any standard - and so they just focus on importing foreign oil. Iraqi oil, for one, is very cheap to extract and tanker to USA ports where it is turned into $4/gal. gasoline or sold on the open market for $135/bbl. Does that sound right? Are you fed up?

And John McCain cast the deciding vote against renewable energy tax breaks at least twice in the past year - you can decide what that means when casting your vote this year.

Dear Madrone: I know that. I have seen the "raps" fields in Germany where that plant for producing diesel fuel via its oil is taking over the whole countryside where there was once wheat and corn for food. Now tell me how many acres of such and other "plants" does the world need and what percentage that surface is of all of the current global agricultural acreage to provide all the hydrocarbons that the chemical and pharmaceutical industries is likely to need (note carefully that I do not ask for "will need"), say, in 2030. If you cannot come even close to a rational number, you are just fantasizing or sucking your thumb. We need numbers, not hot air. Finally, one aspect that nobody that is wild about "plastics from plant oil" ever mentions is that "plastics" from plants is a NON-RENEWABLE, NON-REVERSIBLE process! Have you ever tried to make a 'rasp' plant from cellophane or Teflon? You will get a Nobel prize if you succeed. To me it looks like medieval alchemy. Forget the Nobel. At least the production of ethanol from corn for combustion is partially renewable via CO2 and H2O.

bbr-001: Please read "Twilight in the Desert" by Matthew R. Simmons to cure your wild, orgasmic fantasy that "there will be oil in the ground for making stuff forever." How do you know that? I shudder if you call yourself an oil/gas expert. Where did you learn about estimating "proven reserves?" I think you have learned it from voodoo. With regards to ethanol, it does not matter to me whether making it costs or generates energy. As long as there are hungry people on Earth, using food or taking away agricultural acreage to relive mine and obviously your need for cheap fuel is a serious crime against humanity. I do not want ethanol from food in my car!