Drill baby drill?

[Odin]

Originally Posted by tim3058

So texaco can only be lying, just because there trying to make money? and whoever's on the other side of the courtroom isnt trying to rake in billions of dollars as well? Chevron's statement may have the same merit as the villagers statement (consider the remote villagers know only what their gov't has told them about the spills - the gov't has just as much reason to lie as Chevron, and conveniently is running the court too).

Wiki may or may not always be reliable, and the one line relating to EVs doesnt quote facts, just an authors opinion. Buying out your competition is nothing new... or evil.

You trust an oil company who's goal is to make as much money as possible (that is how a large corporation works) over a web site which is known for accuracy maintained by thousands of dedicated individuals and who's main goal is simply the truth. Kinda illogical dude. besides look up the reference- the info came from direct interviews and patents (read the book). you can look up the patents its not hidden info. They expire in 2015 which a lot of company's are waiting for

besides "buying the competition" is more commonly called monopolizing which last time i checked is Illegal- hrm shady illegal acts, sounds evil to me
are you working for chevron or what?

[SoobieOut]

Chevron has a horrible track record. Here in Utah they have had 2 major oil leaks on the same 60 year old crude pipeline in the past year!

Both leaks came dangerously close to trashing the drinking water for a million people.

They bribed the Federal politicians to reopen the pipeline. Local Mayor did not want it to reopen.

Idiots did not even have a leak detection system, they had to walk 6 miles of the pipeline to find the leak!

[d0sitmatr]

Originally Posted by MorphDaCivic

Chevron has a horrible track record. Here in Utah they have had 2 major oil leaks on the same 60 year old crude pipeline in the past year!

Both leaks came dangerously close to trashing the drinking water for a million people.

They bribed the Federal politicians to reopen the pipeline. Local Mayor did not want it to reopen.

Idiots did not even have a leak detection system, they had to walk 6 miles of the pipeline to find the leak!

I believe most of this, but the bold txt is just hearsay without proof of any kind

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by d0sitmatr

I believe most of this, but the bold txt is just hearsay without proof of any kind

I wonder, is there such a thing a "pre-bribe"? You know, like making election campain contributions in the last election. I am amused by the US supreme court desision that a limit on political campain contributions would amount to an empedement to free speach. It would seem that we are as free as our cash flow will allow.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Odin

You trust an oil company who's goal is to make as much money as possible (that is how a large corporation works) over a web site which is known for accuracy maintained by thousands of dedicated individuals and who's main goal is simply the truth.

Do I trust the corporation? No. Do I trust the corporation - whose motive (making as much money as possible) I know - over liability lawyers and political activists with axes to grind? You bet I do!

The battery thing has never made sense to me. Chevron is in business to make money, no? So it could obviously make tons of money from selling batteries, in addition to the money it makes from selling oil, because A) it'd take the world decades to ramp up to full EV penetration; B) even in a full EV world, there are plenty of uses for oil; C) there are other, better battery technologies that can be (and have been) developed; and D) their management aren't idiots, and obviously know all about Peak Oil.

So knowing all that, why would I buy into a conspiracy theory?

[Odin]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Do I trust the corporation? No. Do I trust the corporation - whose motive (making as much money as possible) I know - over liability lawyers and political activists with axes to grind? You bet I do!

The battery thing has never made sense to me. Chevron is in business to make money, no? So it could obviously make tons of money from selling batteries, in addition to the money it makes from selling oil, because A) it'd take the world decades to ramp up to full EV penetration; B) even in a full EV world, there are plenty of uses for oil; C) there are other, better battery technologies that can be (and have been) developed; and D) their management aren't idiots, and obviously know all about Peak Oil.

So knowing all that, why would I buy into a conspiracy theory?

because it isn't a conspiracy theory. They want to run gas as long as possible because there isn't near as much money with EV tech, sure you have the battery and all initial costs but after that they can go a long time needing very little major work. Chevron basically admitted to it anyways when they sued Panasonic over use of their batteries which for several years were the only ones that were viable and still are the most practical. Every time someone tries to buy from them and they say yes they always cancel the orders. There is more money in the fuel industry thus oil company's will try very hard to keep EV's out. You guys act like major corporations all act as logically as possible without looking at a track record that shows the opposite.

[redyaris]

[QUOTE=jamesqf;222364]Do I trust the corporation? No. Do I trust the corporation - whose motive (making as much money as possible) I know - over liability lawyers and political activists with axes to grind? You bet I do!

How is an axe ground for profit different than an axe ground for liability cases or political actavism. What would make one more trust werthy than the other? I would suggest to you that the range of trust werthyness is the same for all three groups.

[Odin]

are you saying we should trust large billion dollar corporations who's goal is money the same as the farmer who just wants the oil off of his field?

[Cd]

Originally Posted by tim3058

Excellent work Cd, thanks for the link.

There's two sides to the story...

Yes. There may be two sides to this story, but I'd actually like a third.

One that is unbiased on both ends.

Investigating all the facts is the proper way to go about things, but in the case of the oil companies, all i have to do is look at companies such as Exxon and BP.
You don't have to do much research at all to plainly see the evil.
You have to be truly blinded by greed to not see the obvious corruption and lack of respect for human life and the Environment that these corporations are guilty of.

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by Odin

are you saying we should trust large billion dollar corporations who's goal is money the same as the farmer who just wants the oil off of his field?

Are you saying that there are no untrust werthy farmers? Are farmers any less interested in makeing money. The diference is in the means at there disposal. In a dispute between a farmer with oil on his fields and a large billion dollar corporations the outcome is determined by who has the most money for aternies, ie exxon vadies & BP in the golf.