pan6467

What if everything we knew about all the oil was actually controlled for the purpose of greed?

If we can't drill Anwar, who makes more money because of "limited supplies"?

If we can't drill off the Gulf Coast, who makes money because of "limited supplies"?

If we can't build more refineries, who makes more money because of "limited supplies"?

Who makes more money when the oil compaies have to switch their formulas every year, because "it limits supplies"?

The oil companies and OPEC.

So what if all these "environmental" issues as far as the drilling and the refineries and so on goes make them mre money, would they truly lobby for these things that would increase supplies and lower prices?

I wonder if we truly checked on these "environmental" lobbyists if we'd find that OPEC and the oil companies were somehow bankrolling them.

Same with almost all utilities, electric.... no new more efficient power plants being built because of "environmental issues", and so on.

Just curious if anyone else can see this and what they think.

Is it possible that we are being lied to?

Before you start, yes, I do believe climates are changing and that there maybe some form of global warming, but... is it us or is it just a natural progression, we can't change or a combination?

It may not have anything to do with "pollution" caused by fossil fuel exhaust and so on but because we have destroyed too much of the rainforest and watersheds due to population needs.

__________________
Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.
Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted. You're just left with yourself all the time, whatever you do anyway. You've got to get down to your own God in your own temple. It's all down to you, mate.
I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.
JOHN LENNON (1940-1980)

ASU2003

The oil companies benefit from any reduction in supply, if demand stays at or around the current level. But, at the same time, they make money by not having to change and build new drill rigs and refineries. They use the stuff they currently have and watch their profits go up.

I was going to post the question of why aren't we off middle eastern oil yet? Are we worried that it would raise the price (it went up to $3.50/gal from $1.20/gal on 9/11) Are we worried that China/India/Russia would be able to get cheap gas now that the US wasn't buying it? Are we worried that US oil companies would lose money? If we are so at war with 'terrorism' why are we giving the these countries our money? Are we trying to use up all the oil they have? Then we will be able to set the price for the world when we drill in anwar, dakota (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...hePlains.aspx), or the gulf/CA coasts.

I also think a lot of the price increase has to deal with oil now being a commodity that investors can buy and hold. It isn't very common that oil is found, and it takes quite a few years to go through the process of actually getting oil out of the ground. So, I think all of the investors/hedge funds/retirement account managers have basically taken their money and jumped from tech in 2000 to housing in 2004 to oil in 2007. They have enough money to be able to increase demand by holding on to the supply and not selling it until it makes 20% or more.

Or it is just the oil companies working together and knowing that they can set a price and most people will pay it.

But, I'll say that as an armchair environmentalist, it is a good thing that gas prices have gone up. I just wish they would go up a lot more. If it will eventually get people to use something besides oil/coal/or any other polluting fuel. But, I don't worry about C02 that much, I worry about other emissions more.

samcol

The reason for going into Iraq was oil, but not to pump oil rather it was to stop the flow of oil. Gas was like $.90 when Saddam was pumping oil now it's $3.50.

I love how the neo-cons always say 'OH WE WENT INTO IRAQ FOR OIL LOL, WHY IS GAS $3.50 THEN?'

And obviously the oil companies benefit from the global warming thing and enviornmentalism. Wouldn't suprise me at all if they are bankrolling enviornmental groups.

__________________
These are the times that try men's souls.

Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.

ottopilot

Ah yes ... the big picture is very big. I think logic has more to do with most of these conclusions than paranoia.

__________________
"All the leaders of groups tend to be frauds. If they were not, it would be impossible for them to retain the allegiance of their dupes" - H.L. Mencken
"continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." - George Washington on political parties

Ustwo

For the first part of your post, its an interesting take. Its possible, maybe even plausible, but without proof its a good 'what if'. Sometimes things do work out for your benefit without being planned by you. Its part of how we think to always look for a cause and effect. If you are walking down a trail and a large rock falls from above, narrowly missing you, you always first look to see if it was pushed before thinking it was just coincidence. If you saw a man up there, you would initially assume he had something to do with it. Its a safer way to think, but it can lead to wrong conclusions. I think this had a lot to do with the 9/11 conspiracies. Since it 'helped' out Bush's agenda, it MUST have been planed by him, that sort of thing.

So while its possible they are bankrolling the environmental movement at some level, I wouldn't be horribly shocked, I think its more a convenient coincidence for them. Having done my time with environmentalists and seeing whos on what side, it would be incredibly Machiavellian if it turned out the movement was funded by the oil industry. Would make a good book though.

I've made my position clear that I don't think our CO2 contribution is enough to matter in other posts, but I think this too is a searching for a directed cause problem of the human brain. Yes we have destroyed some rainforest's, yes we have changed watersheds, but its impossible to say if there is a true global climate effect or not. Even if it changed some rainfall patterns or the like, is that enough to cause a rise in global temperatures? I don't think so personally. We have been in a VERY stable climate period for the last 8000 years or so, some credit it for allowing us to finally form civilizations, but that in itself has been unusual. It WILL change, things will get more chaotic again, we will have another ice age eventually, and all that would happen even if we all volunteered to take cyanide tomorrow.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

It's probable. Considering skyrocketing gas prices and record profits? It's kinda a no brainer.

Still, I've seen the raw data concerning climate change and the science is sound. We do seem to be having an effect.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

samurai_x44

I'm surprised that I'm writting this but... I agree with Ustwo... even 100% agree with Ustwo. I also don't think our current CO2 levels are enough to cause global warming (look at the CO2 levels during the jurassic period to compare; it was much higher then).

I also think that sulfur emissions from burning oil is a much bigger problem than CO2 emission and that sadly the 'environmental' movement's current concentration on CO2 levels is taking attention away from more important issues such as deforestation and overpopulation (that might not be a problem for long with our current food crysis)

__________________