[jmacdaddio]

I was thinking about this today ... Europeans living in the US (or at least the ones I know) take a while to adopt to the more relaxed way in which Americans make their plans for going out or meeting with friends. Instead of Thursday deciding "we'll meet you at the bar Friday at 7" it's "yeah, sounds cool, let's see what's going on" which translates to "one of my options is now meeting you at the bar at 7 on Friday". Our social rules in the US have become a game where the idea is to not commit to firm plans in order to be able to make the most desireable choice should it become available. Having a personal car ready to go allows us to switch gears altogether (pun intended) and decide to hit the new sushi place with the gang from Accounting instead of meeting the college friends at the new bar, or go to dinner with the work mates and meet the friends for drinks afterwards. Time and again I find myself jumping in the car to go somewhere for some fun which had just been agreed to not 30 minutes previously. If I had to make use of public transit or travel by bike to meet my friends instead of jumping in my car on a whim I think I would be more likely to plan things through.

Mobile phones have contributed to this syndrome as well -- meeting at 7 becomes "as long as I call you by 7:05 I'm not really late".

[FairMaiden]

Since automobiles have been around for 80+ years - I've have to contribute that attitude more to cellphones than cars. I hear ppl on public transit all the time calling up the gang and asking, "so what are you doing? Whats Tom doing? Whats Jack doing? OK - call Jack and call me back."

I don't have a cellphone and neither do most of my friends (I do have a car)...and when we say we'll meet you at 7 on Friday...you can guarantee we'll be there.

[gt1370a]

I'm working on a paper for a business ethics class, and I'd like to solicit opinions from the readers of this board. The topic is the social responsibilities of Big Oil, particularly, "Should oil companies have capped gasoline prices following Hurricane Katrina?" The companies did make disaster relief donations, but obviously it was not enough, and public perception of them has deteriorated significantly, nearing the point where it may hurt their profitability (Congressional hearings, talks of windfall profits tax, etc.). The consensus among the public seems to be that they are simply exploiting a disaster for profits.

So, from an ethical, legal, and technical aspect, what do you think? Should Big Oil have sold gasoline "at cost" to help consumers after Katrina?

Here is what I'm looking at so far:
Technical - (1) supply and demand created high prices; artificially holding them down might create shortages unless gas is rationed; (2) that's what the strategic stockpiles are for; (3) the gov. didn't lift gas taxes to provide consumer relief; (4) oil is fungible and Big Oil is small compared to OPEC; (5) high profits needed to fund new supply/alternatives.

Legal - they have a legal obligation to maximize profits for shareholders. Selling product at below-market cost might be illegal. However, the argument could be made that it would be a great PR move and have avoided the Congressional hearings and maybe eventually a windfall profits tax; thereby in the long run it would have been in the shareholders' best interest. Just saying that the argument could be made.

Ethical - Milton Friedman said that companies only have an obligation to shareholders; Edwin Freeman said that instead they also have an obligation to employees, the community, customers, etc. Almost everyone, including Congress and Big Oil themselves, seems to agree with Freeman (I have some quotes from Congressmen on this, and Big Oil provided disaster relief and employee assistance, etc.). Also, from an ethical standpoint, the use of profits to develop alternatives and the promotion of conservation campaigns like willyoujoinus.com could be discussed.

Your thoughts?

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', 'S')o, from an ethical, legal, and technical aspect, what do you think? Should Big Oil have sold gasoline "at cost" to help consumers after Katrina?

[NeoPeasant]

It's their gasoline and they are entitled to sell it for whatever the market will bear. It is the consumer's choice whether to continue to depend on it or not. There are millions in the US and billions elsewhere in the world who live perfectly satisfactory lives without depending on a car.
Those who consider themselves entitled to cheap energy are going to have a rude awakening.

[gt1370a]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '
')A corporation is a profit-oriented entity that exists to benefit the owners. Giving things away at cost, or making investments because they're "nice" does not fit. Making investments to generate further profits is entirely appropriate.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', 'Y')our thoughts?

[seldom_seen]

One other item, the only time I am aware of big oil lowereing their prices of gasonline was from A WSJ article (sorry don't have link) that said they were doing it to force independents out of the market.

[pup55]

1. Nobody volunteered to go the other way and have price supports in 1996 when the prices were so low.

2. If you determine that gasoline, like electricity and telephone service, is an "essential service" then you can set the nation's oil companies up to be regulated, like the utilities used to be, with rate increases approved by the government, and a price floor established so that they make enough money to give decent ROI in the lean times too.

3. Over the past 2 years, oil companies have been excellent investments. Over the past 10 years, oil companies have been mediocre investments. As long as oil companies have to compete with the Googles of the world for capital, they need to be able to make a competitive return, or compensate stockholders for the lean years as well as the flush years.

[MyOtherID]

You cannot talk about Big Oil's responsibilities without understanding the nature of a Corporation. I highly recommend this documentary called The Corporation.

Torrent ----> http://ts.searching.com/torrent/612314/The_Corporation

[Kickinthegob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MyOtherID', 'I') highly recommend this documentary

[Kylon]

I think that peak oil will basically make both the Democrats and the Republicans(probably the Republicans more than Democrats), disliked by the majority of people.

Voting is a record all time low, the Republicans stand for BS, and the Democrats are worse off: They don't know what they stand for, can't as easily get organized, and so they can't have that great of political power as the Republicans had.

Frankly, I think it's time for a( ) new political party(ies) to rise up and polarize the populace to action.

Anyway, please post your ideas for political parties, what they stand for, what you'd like in a political party ect...

[Novus]

Peak Oil could give the greens a lot of power. So far the only party that has actually come out and used the words "Peak Oil" is the BNP. There is a good chance the BNP could take over England with the greens being the minority party. America is in much worse shape politically. The low voter turn out tells me Americans don't really care who leads them. Post Peak America will likely be a dictatorship.

[petrojobrecruit]

Will Social Networking like Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Digg etc. have an impact on the way Oil & Gas industry does its business?

Social Networking has already had an impact in the following industries:-

1) Management Consulting
2) Trading
3) Broking
4) Recruitment
5) e-Commerce / e-Business

You will notice that the above industries are either heavily biased towards Human Capital or Intellectual Capital, and social networking being 'networking' driven these industries have already started adjusting to yet another new way of doing business (after internet).

The fact that Oil&Gas industry relies heavily on human capital (from design to operations), it is certain that Social networking will make an impact. Only that its too early to know how? That's why this question?

a) Will large Oil companies tap a 'possible' vast social network thru its employees to conduct UAI surveys for new product launches?
b) Will large Oil companies move from TV advertising to Social Network Advertising for the Corporate Identity and Brand Communication?
c) Will the large Oil companies start inviting Request for Quotations via the Social network to tap the unknown potential?

You can also visit the blog url: [i] Text deleted[/i]