Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on March 7, 2015
Industry response to peak oil not enough long term
President and Vice President, 
Illinois Renewable Energy Association
We were asked recently if peak oil remains an issue. Just as cold weather stimulates doubt regarding climate change the current low price of oil stimulates doubt about peak conventional oil. Such short-term anomalies confuse the public and bring out a new round of denials regarding the existence of these long-term trends.
Researchers documenting peak conventional oil provide data indicating it occurred around 2005. Since then the production of conventional oil has been virtually flat. The dramatic increase in the production of oil shale in the United States obscured recognition of the long term implications of the drop in conventional oil supplies.
As major independent oil companies such as Exxon Mobil and Shell spent more money on developing new sources of oil the actual amount of oil secured per capital expenditure declined. In response, oil companies cut back on expenditures and sold off part of their assets in order to pay down debt and pay dividends.
This trend of rising costs to secure new oil supplies is also true for countries which own their oil supplies. With declining revenues the countries will have less money for social expenditures necessary for the needs of their citizens.
Rather than sell their oil into global markets, some of them have developed bilateral agreements which direct the oil to their partners. China has developed such agreements with Saudi Arabia and Russia which bypass the major independent oil companies. National oil companies are also using more of their oil internally to meet the needs of their own citizens.
With the high cost of oil consumers began to resist the higher prices. Oil consumption in the United States fell as young people in the 18 to 39 age range were driving less. Their unemployment represented 80% of the reason for less driving, according to a study by Michael Sivek.
The rise in U.S. oil production was hailed as our having the potential of our becoming energy independent. As our production rose Saudi Arabia chose to hold their production at existing levels producing a global oil glut that collapsed the price of oil.
The low cost of oil will further slow the effort to find and develop new sources of oil. When combined with the higher cost of finding new sources, it suggests the price of oil will again rise.
What is happening with oil supplies and prices is consistent with what was predicted with the arrival of the peak in conventional oil. Now that oil prices have collapsed, consumption is expected to increase leading to higher prices which reach a point where consumers cut back on consumption.
As pointed out in the book, “The World After Cheap Oil,” without cheap oil the global economy in its current form would no longer exist. Yet there is very little discussion regarding the implications of peaking conventional oil as it is assumed that the massive resources in oil sands, oil shale and shale oil will be sufficient to meet our needs well into the future if we ignore the adverse environmental impacts of their development.
40 Comments on "Industry response to peak oil not enough long term"
Rodster on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:36 am
It’s currently IMPOSSIBLE to stop this fast moving freight train headed straight for the side of a mountain. They have to keep BAU going as long as they can because the central planners have boxed themselves in to our financial system which cheap oil supports.
They don’t want to lose control and power so they keep extending the obituary of industrial civilization.
I don’t expect any changes in BAU until it’s too late.
Plantagenet on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:40 am
Oil is cheap right now. The oil glut has finally brought down oil prices low enough that economies have a chance to grow again.
This is exactly what Colin Campbell predicted—-cycles of high oil prices leading to economic recessions, followed by collapse in demand and oil price, followed by another cycle of low oil prices and economic growth.
MSN fanboy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:53 am
I take a bow Plant, you actually do some research. It will continue to cycle, however in each cycle the high price will be lower, the low price will be lower and debt shall increase evermore. Right up to the dead state, of course my optimism hopes bau makes it that far. You will all miss her when she’s gone.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 11:59 am
Oil is not cheap right now. It is cheaper than it was three months ago. It is still more than twice as expensive as it has been on average, for the last 130 years.
planter and research, should not be used in the same sentence.
dave thompson on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 12:26 pm
In dollars oil could be deemed “cheap”. From the Physics side of EROEI, we are screwed, starting……………………………………………….. 10 years ago.
Tom S on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 12:45 pm
Plant:
“This is exactly what Colin Campbell predicted—-cycles of high oil prices leading to economic recessions, followed by collapse in demand and oil price, followed by another cycle of low oil prices and economic growth.”
Was that sarcasm?
What has happened bears no resemblance to what Colin Campbell predicted. Instead, this small doomsday group tries constantly to re-write its own history and just erase the long series of badly failed predictions. That is even worse than just being constantly wrong.
Colin Campbell consistently predicted absolute declines of all hydrocarbons (including gas and unconventional oil) starting well before 2010. He has graphs in 100 newsletters showing precisely that. Nothing like that has occurred. Even regular, conventional oil has not followed anything like the trajectory which Campbell predicted. Note that Campbell also anticipated terminal declines in oil production from Saudi Arabia and the Middle East, before 2010, and that obviously has not happened.
With regard to natural gas, predictions from peak oilers have been so far off that it was much worse than just guessing.
Bear in mind that I’m ignoring the doomsday cult for a moment. Even the more serious predictions from Colin Campbell were still wrong.
-Tom W
Plantagenet on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 12:53 pm
Tom S:
Of course Colin Campbell predicted cycles of boom and bust in the economy.
https://skepteco.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/colin-campbell-interviewed/
Campbell foresaw that high oil prices would produce economic slowdowns when demand would drop and the price of oil would fall as a result. The low oil prices would facilitate another economic boom.
Campbell’s prediction of absolute peak in oil prediction in 2005 was wrong, but he was right about that being the peak in conventional oil. Even though unconventional oil is being produced at higher rates then Campbell predicted, it is much higher priced then conventional oil, and Campbells prediction of economic cycles driven by oil prices is playing out right in fromt of our eyes.
Cheers!
ghung on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:15 pm
Tom S (W?): “Bear in mind that I’m ignoring the doomsday cult for a moment.”
You ignore a lot of things, Tom, like the reality that if you double the price of anything and provide virtually free money to go after more, someone will find a way to produce more of it, temporarily at least.
You ignore that oil companies wouldn’t need to use EOR and take greater risks, financially and technologically, if, overall, petroleum availability is not in decline.
Quite simply, you ignore that the easy oil is largely gone, and without injections of trillions of dollars by central banks, economies wouldn’t have been able to afford the levels of production we’ve seen recently. You ignore externalities, and do so intentionally, IMO.
As you said: “That is even worse than just being constantly wrong.”
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:32 pm
Thank you planter,
For actually posting something that makes sense.
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 1:36 pm
Now plant,
When you finally come to the understanding that unconventional oil production was a result of those high prices that have caused economic decline, you will finally understand that the ‘glut’ that you constantly speak of, is of the stuff that our economies can’t afford.
BobInget on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:05 pm
Demand for crude oil continues to grow.
Modestly:
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
Supply has fallen BELOW WW demand.
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/currentreport/
Excerpt: (read all above link)
Global supplies fell by 235 kb/d in January to 94.1 mb/d on lower OPEC and non-OPEC production. Reductions in capital expenditures have cut projected 2015 non-OPEC supply growth to 800 kb/d. US 2015 production is seen 200 kb/d lower than in last month’s Report, at an average 12.4 mb/d, with most of the cuts in 2H15.
Neither IEA or EIA because they are attempting
to be non political, dare not mention oil ‘fueled’ conflicts in the MidEast and Africa and Asia
“Ten oil wars to watch”.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/02/10-wars-to-watch-in-2015/
(Foreign Policy Mag)
The Arab world’s turmoil deepened: The Islamic State captured large swathes of Iraq and Syria, much of Gaza was destroyed again, Egypt turned toward authoritarianism and repression, and Libya and Yemen drifted toward civil war. In Africa, the world watched South Sudan’s leaders drive their new country into the ground. The optimism of 2013 faded in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ebola ravaged parts of West Africa, and Boko Haram insurgents stepped up terrorist attacks in northern Nigeria. The international legal order was challenged with the annexation of Crimea by Russia, and war is back in Europe as fighting continues.
Brewing in Asia:
China’s relations with its neighbors also remain tense and could lead to a crisis in the East or South China Seas. The struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia shapes the contours of violence between Sunnis and Shiites across the Middle East. Major Sunni powers are themselves divided: The contest between the Saudis, Emiratis, and Egypt on the one hand, and Qatar and Turkey on the other, plays out across North Africa. Elsewhere on the African continent, powers jostle in Somalia and in South Sudan’s increasingly regionalized war; and the DRC has long been a venue for its neighbors’ competition over influence and resources.
Why, when most here predicted there would be
conflict over the world’s remaining resources,
the denial?
Like Climate Change, supply interruptions, due to active conflicts, evidence is palpable, clear and reported and denied.
What’s largely unreported? Combined forces,
US and coalition, Iraqi and Iranian military
are probably CONSUMING at minimum, one million barrels P/D. (aircraft carriers are nuclear,
jet aircraft, support armadas are oil powered as are ground fighting vehicles. As we speak, 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian troops are fighting for
cheap oil. Like folks who flip home light switches, military expectations, lights will go on, diesel will be there for battle.
This blogger called the board’s attention to
America’s forth largest oil import contributor,
Venezuela. Unlike other’s debt crisis, Venezuela
is sitting on one of the world’s biggest stashes
of acknowledged oil reserves. Because of this engineered ‘glut’ (in name only) oil prices in Venezuela have fallen below cost. China intervened. Not with carriers, bombers and drones but fat US dollar check-books.
Consequently:
Even, by some miracles, peace comes to the ME, poverty is eliminated in Africa, China hands over Deep China Sea oil and gas to its neighbors, Brazil and Columbia and Ecuador
and Argentina become net exporters.
Israel hands over or shares natural gas with indigenous Palestinian populations.
The US will need to do Without Venezuelan Imports. Does anyone here understand those repercussions?
toms2 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:12 pm
Plant,
Did you read the date of the article you linked to? That was in December of 2011, AFTER the financial crisis had occurred. He is “predicting” something in retrospect. In order for something to be a prediction, it must come beforehand.
His actual predictions before the fact were just wrong.
In that interview, Campbell also predicts an imminent massive famine in China. These new predictions were only 3 years ago, so we’ll see how they play out, but so far his predictions aren’t looking very good.
“Campbell’s prediction of absolute peak in oil prediction in 2005 was wrong, but he was right about that being the peak in conventional oil.”
Campbell’s predictions about conventional oil were nowhere near correct either. He expected absolute declines of conventional oil at a few percent per year, starting around 2006 or so. By now, conventional oil production was supposed to have declined by more than 15%.
-Tom S
toms2 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:15 pm
ghung:
“Tom, like the reality that if you double the price of anything and provide virtually free money to go after more, someone will find a way to produce more of it, temporarily at least.”
“You ignore externalities, and do so intentionally, IMO.”
That’s just changing the topic. We were discussing whether Colin Campbell’s predictions (and those of peak oilers more generally) were correct. They were not. There may be externalities, but still, the predictions of peak oilers were not correct.
-Tom S
ghung on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:19 pm
What? Are you guys twins? [changes subject again]
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 2:37 pm
Because every single prediction by every single prominent peak oiler has not come to pass at a 100% accuracy rate that means you get to ignore all obvious trends and go back to sleep. Tell yourself.
Davy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:01 pm
Tom, you are hilarious. Do you think a few short years matters with a prediction like this. A few short years is nothing in the history of modern man and his use of oil. We are not talking a bet at the casino here. We are not talking pick the exact date and you win type wager. We are talking the end of the world as we know it. Take your stupid blinders off and see the writing on the wall. Your argument is as lame as I have heard here for some time. What friggen denial.
toms2 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:29 pm
Apneaman,
“Because every single prediction by every single prominent peak oiler has not come to pass at a 100% accuracy rate that means you get to ignore all obvious trends and go back to sleep.”
You’re apparently having some kind of reading comprehension problem. I pointed out that peak oilers have nearly a 0% accuracy rate over decades. That is nowhere close to “every single prediction with 100% accuracy”.
“ignore all obvious trends and go back to sleep.”
The trends are not even pointing in the direction which peak oilers said they would.
-Tom S
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:46 pm
Tom,
You are in a complete state of denial.
Spend some time contemplating the fact that you are going to die. Once you have overcome your fear of death, come back and join the rest of us here in discussing the most important issues that the human race will ever face on this planet. Up to, and very possibly including, a global mass extinction event.
Otherwise you are wasting your time here, and the time of others who have progressed past their own states of denial. Speaking for myself, and I am sure most others on this site, the journey to get to this point has not been an easy one. If you are able to get out of the way of your own fears, it does get easier as time goes on.
toms2 on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 3:46 pm
Davy,
“Do you think a few short years matters with a prediction like this.”
Yes, because Hubbert curves etc, which have always been the basis of peak oil ideology, predicted a specific date. We are now ten years past when absolute declines of all hydrocarbons was supposed to begin. We are way outside any reasonable margin of error, which means that those ideas were WRONG, or at least that there is something seriously wrong with them.
Charles Hall and many others predicted that “net energy” was supposed to have declined almost to zero, many years ago. Instead, the trend has been in the opposite direction.
If you respond to failed predictions by just picking a new date for the end of the world, over and over again, every few years, for decades, then your ideas are not falsifiable and do not satisfy the most elementary criterion of a valid theory. You’re just using the typical tactics of doomsday groups after their predictions have failed.
“What friggen denial.”
Davy, if there’s anyone in denial, it’s you. The predictions just keep failing, over and over again, year in and year out, decade in and decade out, and you just don’t ask any questions about that. It causes no doubt in you whatsoever. You are more in denial than anyone I have ever encountered. Almost everyone else in the world would at least LOOK AT the failed predictions, and start asking a few critical questions. In fact, almost everyone else did that: most people abandoned the peak oil doom movement years ago when they figured out it was wrong, but you and a few others are still here. Davy, you are the one in denial and you need to crank up the critical thinking a LOT.
-Tom S
Davy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:25 pm
Denial is denial does Tommy. You are the poster child for the denialist.
Plantagenet on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:27 pm
TomS
Colin Campbell has retired and now quietly lives in a “transition” village. I linked to one of his mostt recent available interviews — and it confirmed what I said and falsified what you said. Its not my fault you are unaware that Campbell has presented this same view for years.
Cheers!
Plantagenet on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:33 pm
Hi TomS
You make a valid point that the predictions of global peak oil in 2005 were wrong. However, for some reason you think that this means the earth will never hit peak oil.
Of course we will hit peak oil—its inevitable because the supply of oil on earth is finite. If you don’t know what the word “finite”means then look it up—-all will then be clear to you.
Cheers!
Apneaman on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:52 pm
Sure Tommy boy, the petroleum industry is healthier than ever- just look at all the oil they have banked. And the Gahwar, barely even skimmed the surface. I here the remaining frackers are looking for investors, so save up your allowance, birthday and paper route money and buy in all the way.
shortonoil on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 4:58 pm
Yes, because Hubbert curves etc, which have always been the basis of peak oil ideology, predicted a specific date.
Hubbert wasn’t wrong. It was his mathematics that was in error. The reason his math was in error was because the mathematics that he needed for the problem had not yet been invented. The cumulative production distribution (CDF) that he founded his model on was a logistic function. The actual function is a skewed logistic function, and a skewed logistic function must be described with Quantile Statistics. It has no explicit mathematical function to describe it. Quantile Statistics wasn’t know until 1979 when Parzen published his first work on the subject. Even if Hubbert had known of QS he could not have used it. All quantile functions must be solved numerically, and the computer power to do so was not available in 1956 when he published his paper. We do it now daily on a lap top. Below is the graphs of world production described as a normal logistic function, and as the skewed function. The skewness in the function moves the Peak ahead about five years.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_013.htm
Because the EIA was also using the normal logistic function to model production, there was no way to “see” the skewness in the modeling until the Peak was actually reached. That was in 2005 by the EIA’s method of calculation (the EIA reports year end, our model shows the beginning of the year) so it is 2006.
In our 57 page report, “Depletion: A determination for the world’s petroleum reserve” we cover the subject extensively. Campbell and Laharrere also ran into the same situation. It must also be understood that what all these researchers were examining was conventional crude. Petroleum extracted from high permeability rock, and not high test camel pea extracted from a brick yard. The latter is a totally different subject, and substance which is soon to come back to bite the world on its butt.
All in all, Hubberts work was brilliant. We could seriously use a few more of them today to get the world ready for the wake up call in process!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 5:18 pm
“The End of Cheap Oil”
“Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within the next ten years.”
by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrère
March 1998
http://nature.berkeley.edu/er100/readings/Campbell_1998.pdf
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 5:34 pm
planter,
You’re doing better today than most.
There is hope for you yet!
Please read the title of the above article (at least)before continual saying that Campbell predicted the peak in all oil production only, instead of predicting the peak in CONVENTIONAL oil production.
Cheers
MSN Fanboy on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 5:56 pm
What a difference a day makes: LOL
Planters back on the right side of the argument now? 😛
I suppose it takes someone like TOM.S to make you realize what true denial is. Planter has his head remarkably straight, at least today.
Tom is correct however in saying the GREAT MAJORITY of peak oil predictions were rubbish, can we really defend that point of the argument chaps? really….?
Yet its as Rockman says and Shorts mathematics point out, the POD doesn’t really matter. What matters is the energy available to society.
The Dead state is around 2030, lets just hope our financial system can keep pulling the preverbal white rabbit out of the hat.
shortonoil on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:41 pm
The Dead state is around 2030, lets just hope our financial system can keep pulling the preverbal white rabbit out of the hat.
They have already pulled that rabbit out of the dam old hat so many times its ears are getting bare!
GregT on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 6:47 pm
MSN,
I’m kind of new to the game. Ten years ago I was still in a complete state of denial, somewhat like Tom still is today. Except that I bypassed the violent opposition stage. Everyone is different I guess.
It would have served humanity much better, IMO, if people had of refrained from predicting dates.
There is no doubt in my mind where we are headed, it is only a matter of when. Predicting dates has done little more than allowed the denial to continue. It is very easy to ignore the dates that were correct, and to focus on the dates that were not.
We have already entered into an entirely different economic reality, and that reality will continue to become more difficult to deny.
The Toms of this world are ignoring that reality, and are focused on the dates of the predictions that were premature.
Many of those predictions have already come true, but it is much more comfortable to focus on the ones that have not. Yet…..
Perk Earl on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 7:07 pm
“The Dead state is around 2030”
I’m sure the math runs to that point in time, short, however it would seem probable end game will occur sometime on the way there. I’m actually leaning towards 2018-2020, but that’s just a dart toss in the dark. Nothing like reality to find out when it actually happens.
BobInget on Sat, 7th Mar 2015 7:51 pm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
“predictions, especially in the future are difficult”
I won’t use the “Black Swan” argument here.
Why?
Because when nearly half the planet’s nations are involved, in some capacity, battling for remaining (crude oil) resources it should be no surprise. Except perhaps to those with Idee Fixe (fixed idea) of how this lovely world comes to a premature end.
Argument over mathematical formula as to the exact end of ‘Conventional’ oil supplies is no longer the point. WE know when conventional
oil peaked. This latest take-down of oil prices
proves as much.
Two thirds of posts here are wrestling ghosts.
We are Already There, boys and girls.
No more predictions needed.
One final future fact; (another friggin prediction)
When the fighting ends..(someday, it will)
“Every liter of conventional oil will have been spent” in vain efforts to capitalize on misery.
The next morning, so to speak, humans begin belated working on Climate Changes.
Dredd on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 5:38 am
“The Peak Poison Song”
One Hundred barrels of poison on the wall, one hundred barrels of crude.
Take one down pass it around,
Ninety nine barrels of poison on the wall …
Whhheeeeee poisoning the Earth and counting on it is mavericky.
shortonoil on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 8:38 am
I’m sure the math runs to that point in time, short, however it would seem probable end game will occur sometime on the way there.
2030 – 2035 is derived from a calculation. That calculation tells us when the “average” barrel of petroleum will no longer be able to act as an energy source. It does not tell us when the process will actually stop; it just informs us that there is a point for which it can not go past. It states a boundary condition that the laws of physics says can not be violated.
The Etp Model is not a prediction. It is a measurement! It is like getting a ruler out, and measuring the length of a board. You don’t predict that the board is six feet long, it just is! We know that there is a margin of error in the calculation, and that error is ±4.5%. We know that there is a 99.97% chance that our board is between 68.76″ and 75.24″ long. Debating whether the oil age will end on a Tuesday, or a Thursday is just academic nonsense. It will end within the life time of most people living today, and trying to adjust to that after the fact is going to be a fools errand.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
rockman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:29 am
Davey – “Tom, you are hilarious. Do you think a few short years matters with a prediction like this. A few short years is nothing in the history of modern man and his use of oil.” You and others make the typical valid points. But in doing so you get sucked back into the meaningless, IMHO, predictions of dates and volumes.
I’m sure you know where I’m going: the POD. OTOH while it’s fair game for folks like Tom to point out inaccuracies it also allows them to ignore the totality of our predicament. PO dates etc do not impact our lives…the POD does. Our lives are dominated by the POD because the POD is no less then our lives. Debating individual components of the POD while ignoring others as Tom et al try does nothing to further the conversation IMHO.
rockman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 11:43 am
And as far as the title: “Industry response to peak oil not enough long term”. Well, double Da!. The oil patch, especially the pubcos, has never been nor every will be responsible for the long term energy situation. In fact, federal law via the SEC requires the pubcos to max the relatively short term benefits to their shareholders. And that’s despite the silly promos Chevron et al put out there.
And then there’s the privcos like the Rockman’s company: it has no obligation to society to do anything to benefit it long term. If that hurts anyone’s feeling that’s too bad but that’s the reality of the dynamics. If the responsibility of long term goals falls under anyone’s watch it’s that of the governments of the world. The governments who hold that power with the support of their citizens.
Davy on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 12:10 pm
Yea Rock, most people are living in their best interest with little regard for others or the commons. Very few live at a higher level of compassion for others and the environment. Why the frig would a corporation be any different.
We as the people allowed the corporations to be what they are and the system self organized through human nature into them. Most who criticize this situation IMA rightly, are themselves living in glass houses unable to live up to their criticism and who if they could would be robber barons.
rockman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 1:39 pm
Davy – “…most people are living in their best interest with little regard for others or the commons…” long those lines it’s good to remember that the majority owner of the public oil companies are tens of millions of US citizens. Much of that ownership is held in their retirement accounts. And that includes millions of US union members.
The corporations are PEOPLE…not some letters of incorporations. And those people are the shareholders…the public. Just take a poll of union members who have a good bit of their retirement funds in oil patch stock: would they be willing to reduce the income from their holdings if those monies were directed to “long term responses”.
Apneaman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 3:46 pm
Spoken like a true share owner and first class asshole. “People” who commit crimes and are caught often go to jail. Share holders who constantly pressure management to increase profits never go to jail when the corporations commit crimes to increase profits even when their actions kill people. Assholes like rockman need to believe in such bullshit “corporations are people” so he can sleep at night. Obviously it is not working since he is spending a lot of time lately defending the indefensible. Grow a pair.
Davy on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 5:37 pm
APster, I like you cause you tell it like it is. You are not ashamed to qualify you are down on America. You even pull punches on Canada and your ancestral Ukrainian home. I like a honest straight forward guy.
Ap, I like Rock. He delivers consistent hard hitting oil patch experience to counter the nonstop horrendous reporting of the MSM and anti-MSM. His opinions count here. Rock, like you Ap, tells it like it is with no bull shit. So asshole is excessive and extreme even from you.
rockman on Sun, 8th Mar 2015 7:57 pm
Davy – Ap doesn’t tell it like it is. For one thing the Rockman doesn’t own stock in any corporation. Rockman doesn’t even draw a salary from a public corporation. I wonder if Ap can say the same: who pays his salary? does he have any of his retirement tied up in corporate stock? Even more pertinent: what has he sacrificed for future energy consuming citizens?
It easy to cast stones when you keep your glass house out of view. And he needs to clarify: corporations are the body and soul of those PEOPLE who own the stock of every corporation. The nature of any entity is based upon who’s in control. And all public owned corporation are owned, and thus controlled, by millions of PEOPLE.
“Share holders who constantly pressure management to increase profits never go to jail when the corporations commit crimes to increase profits even when their actions kill people”. So Ap apparently believes the tens of thousands of British citizens who own BP stock should go to jail because of the Macondo blowout.
I suspect Ap’s belligerence is just one more case of guilt denial of his position in the COLLECTIVE that produces the vast majority of GHG that’s creating climate change. All he can do is take the offense to avoid acknowledging his culpability. Nothing new there: I’ve run across many who are too cowardly to admit they’re part of the problem.