This Will Be The #1 Issue in the 2008 Elections-- And, It Goes to Republicans
Over the past 30 years:
Which party blocked the development of new sources of petroleum?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling in ANWR?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the coast of Florida?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the east coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off of the west coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast?-- Democrat
Which party blocked building oil refineries?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean nuclear energy production?-- Democrat
Which party blocked clean coal production?-- Democrat
Republican Senator Craig gave this speech (and put together these charts/maps) in May 2006.
Nothing has changed since then:
We are experiencing higher gasoline, oil, and natural gas prices today because of decades of restricted development of new sources of petroleum.Democrats for the past 30 years have blocked every effort to responsibly develop the energy resources our country possesses.
From ANWR to off-shore development such as Lease Area 181 in the Gulf of Mexico, we have identified oil and natural gas reserves that can be developed and used responsibly. Yet time and time again efforts to increase supply, and reduce prices, are blocked. For instance, ten years ago President Clinton vetoed development in ANWR.
As Americans pay more for gas than ever under this Congress--
Democrats continue to vote against drilling and oil exploration.
Instead, Democrats believe taxing oil companies will somehow bring down gas prices.
Even, Jay Leno is mocking them.
Democrats like to attack evil American oil companies and block them from drilling off our coasts.
But, it doesn't seem to bother them when China starts drilling for oil in these same areas 50 miles from Key West.
Yesterday, with gas prices at an alltime high, Speaker Nancy Pelosi mocked Republicans for wanting to develop our reserves here at home.
Victor Davis Hanson wrote:
Nancy Pelosi chanted "Veto and Drill", "Veto and Drill" in caricaturing the threatened presidential veto of windfall oil company taxes and desire to drill in ANWR and elsewhere. But all that might sound, in fact, good to most Americans. With the world's largest reserves of coal, after creating the nuclear power industry ex nihilo, and with billions of oil still under our soil and waters, it makes no sense to produce less energy while blaming and taxing those who produce what we have, rather than drilling, digging, and saving, as we find ways to transition to the alternate energies. The problem is not just oil, but importing oil at $120 a barrel that is bankrupting us as much as it is enriching the wrong people.Well here's a start for Victor-- If we are importing 5,000,000,000 barrels of oil each year due to Democratic politics (from the above chart produced back in 2006)-- We are paying the oil producing regimes $600,000,000,000 this year for oil.
This would seem to be an explosive campaign issue (if the candidates disagreed), especially if someone could offer a rough estimate of how many billion barrels of oil are in no-go areas, times them by $120 a barrel, and then compute how many trillions in national wealth we leave untouched while we pay our enemies for the commensurate alternative. I could accept the argument that it will take years to get the oil out of Alaska, the coasts, or other federal lands and therefore is not worth it (the classic argument for stasis), if we could be convinced it will not take even a greater amount of time to get solar and wind technology cheap and efficient enough to produce the bulk of our energy needs.
But for some reason Democrats think taxing oil companies will fix this problem?
That is a death wish for America.
Previously:
Thanks to Democratic "No Zones", the US Is in Grave Danger
It's Official, Cuba Hires China to Drill Oil Off Florida Coast
Despite Oil Crisis, Democrats AGAIN Block US Firms from Drilling!
Democrats Crack Gas Jokes Then Vote Against US Oil Development
Union Protesters Get Lost, End Up at White House
Democrats Fail to Prevent Senate Oil Drilling Bill from Passing
Despite Global Oil Crisis, Dems Will Block Drilling & Exploration!
In First 100 Hours, Democrats Propose Ban on Oil Drilling
Democrats Force American Energy Companies to Flee
Americans Can No Longer Afford the Pelosi-Reid Gas Prices
Pelosi-Reid Congress Sets Another Record... In Gas Prices
House Dems Pass Massive Tax Hike on Oil Companies to Bring Down Price of Fuel
So Much For That Pelosi Plan to Cut Gas Prices
Dems Mock Bush-- Vow No New Drilling or Nuclear Plants!!
posted by Gateway Pundit at 5/08/2008 06:09:00 AM
56 Comments:
This FACT has pissed me off for years!
I want to kick every stupid democrat and environmentalistnazi right in the teeth.
I guess "energy independence" was never in their priorities!
Now WE reap what those stupid, moronic democraps sowed!
-Kastrioti
Kastrioti- Wait until gas gets to $5 or $6 a gallon this summer.
More people will start to see what democrats have been hiding for the past 30 years.
The U.S. gets a large portion of its oil from Canada, and the U.S. also owns a large portion of these companies in Canada. American oil companies are investing in the Alberta Tar Sands because Alberta and Canada's government is open to extracting oil; it seems rather idiotic to have American oil companies invest in another country rather than invest in their own - I would credit the environmentalists for this. Canada is happy to oblige though, unless you're talking to a Canadian east of Manitoba, minus the Maritimes.
"...the Alberta Tar Sands because Alberta and Canada's government 'is' open to extracting oil;..."
poor grammer - 'is' should be 'are'
I have been preaching this for years. It dawned on me back in the sixties, then I saw it in the seventies, and I've seen Congress continue to place our National Security in the hands of not so friendly nations. No one has listened. The silent majority sure hasn't tuned in; same way they didn't tune into the Nazis taking over Europe. Abet I'm retired military and spent my life defending this great Nation but something has gone awry and someone needs to knock heads and take names later.
Which candidate will continue to push the Annapolis track willing to sacrifice Israel in order to appease oil producing Arab/Muslim state? That'd be Mahmoud Abbas-praising, friend of Mideast Envoy/US Chamber Commerce Energy Institute CEO James Jones, John McCain. Obama (who recalls in his first book family experiences w/oil companies in Indonesia) consistently emphasizes energy independence and has the personal independence and energy to make it happen.
Ohhhhh Cindy,
Yes we Shall, Yes we Shall
YES WE SHALL, Heil CobraCommander! We are your blind sheep!
Cindy- Obama voted against ANWR.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052
++
flashback: just for the heck of it..
THE WAR AGAINST THE SAUDIS [1/23/02]
excerpts:
[TARGET: BUSH I
The interest of congressional Democrats in the "Forbidden Truth" thesis is understandable, especially if they can make the charge of "secret negotiations" stick. If the Bush administration was not only "soft" on terrorism but even somehow protected their Saudi allies from scrutiny by law enforcement agencies, then who benefits? The Bush family, long tied to the Saudis, is fair game once the "Forbidden Truth" conspiracy theory becomes the conventional wisdom: George Herbert Walker Bush, reviled by some for his pro- "Arabist" policies, is the particular target of this left- wing hate campaign.]
[THE ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION
In return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King Ibn Saud granted Aramco a monopoly over the production of Saudi oil at the end of World War II. Aramco is a consortium of companies, with Exxon, Mobil, and Socal – all Rockefeller- connected – granted 70 percent ownership, and Texaco granted the rest. A premier example of crony capitalism, the Rockefeller- Saudi alliance translated into multi- millions in subsidies through the Export- Import Bank, so that the King could build his own personal railroad from his capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took money out of the war budget to prepare the way for Rockefeller's pipelines. In return, the Saudis granted the US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil fields. Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to protect their property, but the big boys – or, at least, some of them – have the use of the American military.]
[TWO CAN PLAY
A very interesting comment, that last: what are these "competing projects"? This is none other than the Transcaucasian "Silk Road" pipeline project, slated to extend from the Caspian Sea oilfields to Turkey, and perhaps down through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. This project has long been on the drawing boards, and the Clinton administration took it up with alacrity, even going so far as to set up a special department to facilitate its creation. If the foreign oil companies were going to try to go around them, said the Prince in so many words, then two could play that game:
Q: "Your Royal Highness what about Saudi Aramco? Will it assume a new role following the formation of the council and the invitation of the international oil companies?"
A: "We are proud of Aramco's achievements through the years and our dealings with foreign companies will never be at the expense of Aramco. I believe the presence of these companies will strengthen Aramco and sharpen its competitive edge. Aramco, has, I believe, the administrative and technical expertise and know- how that enable it to compete effectively with these companies."]
[BUSH [II] PAYS THE PRICE
So far, President Bush has made it plain that he does not mean to wage war on Islam, and for that he is being made to pay a price. While his State Department is struggling to undo the damage done by the anti- Saudi media and the Lieberman- Levine assault in Congress, a grand coalition of left and right is pushing for World War III in the Middle East – a war that, given the presence of Pakistan and India (not to mention Israel) in the equation, could quickly go nuclear.]
much more & links @ link..
==
++
btw i've come to the conclusion that the Dems are right.. the war is about OIL.. irony is, it's not being fought in Iraq or anywhere else, but right here by our legislators in the Halls of Congress..
==
Folks, the way I see it, this energy crisis -- like all problems in this country -- is deliberately caused by the Dems so they can then blame it on Republicans and then get elected and get their "stolen" power back. They don't care one iota about the suffering of Americans unless it means one thing: getting their vote.
The Dems have the American people right where they want them: suffering at the pump, struggling with their bills, and hopping mad at oil companies and the current Republican administration. Then, by promising to solve our problems (which, again, they created), they hope to complete what they started in '06 and capture the White House in November.
"Anonymous" is exactly right: Energy independence isn't a Dem priority. The only thing that's a Dem priority is power and control over your life.
How do they plan to confront the problem? Sen. John Cornyn just answered that in a Townhall article: "Tax, Sue, Investigate." Those three things boil down to one thing: Centralized power.
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt
Don't forget the Great Lakes. Can't drill there, either!
++
EricTheRed @ 1:25 PM..
excerpt:
[But Democrats made clear they have other priorities. They want to tax, sue and investigate their way out of this problem.
Unfortunately, their agenda will do nothing significant to increase the supply and reduce the price of gasoline in America.
A central component of the Democrats’ energy bill is to increase taxes on U.S. energy companies. This is almost bizarre. Democrats have clearly not learned the lesson from the 1980s when the windfall profits tax — a tax on oil produced in the U.S. — was first enacted.
We know now as a matter of certainty that this tax had the opposite effect than what was intended. It led to lower domestic oil production — not lower prices at the gas pump. In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service estimates the windfall profits tax decreased domestic oil production by as much as 1.2 billion barrels between 1980 and 1986. It also drained $38 billion that the domestic energy sector could have used to invest in new production and exploration, or development of alternative fuels.
At a time when our goal should be reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil, imposing massive new taxes on American oil companies promises an entirely different result.]
read that yesterday, excellent article..
Plan To Increase Domestic Production [5/01/08]
American Energy Production Act S. 2958 [5/01/08]
Sen. Cornyn Introduces "American Energy Production Act" [5/05/08]
==
bg - Yes, it was an excellent article, Cornyn seems to think the Dems are simply doing what they think is best for the country, that their intentions are good but their actions are wrong. I think it's more sinister than that. GP spends the beginning of his post listing all the things the Dems have done over the past 30 years that has resulted in the current crisis. I accuse them of doing this to deliberately threaten American prosperity in the hopes that the uninformed citizenry will vote them into power thinking they will fix it, which of course they won't.
++
EricTheRed @ 2:42 PM..
i agree.. they work the oil debate the same way they (Dems: black, white, hispanic, etc) work the minority vote.. the more they (Dems: black, white, hispanic, etc) convince the minorities to rely on them via their promises, the more the minorities are used against the Reps when the Dems (black, white, hispanic, etc) don't deliver.. it's a despicable vicious cycle..
==
This should be a Republican issue, but daggnabit, McCain voted against ANWR drilling.
This post has been removed by the author.
++
Senate OKs oil drilling in Alaska's ANWR [3/17/05]
[Democrats vow that the fight is
not over for wilderness area.]
Close Senate vote supports development in ANWR
[Republicans claimed victory on Wednesday after the Senate narrowly rejected a Democrat effort to block drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Several members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee played key roles in the debate and vote on the controversial issue. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) introduced the amendment to strip authorization for drilling from the federal government's budget while Republicans on the committee, including Sens. Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), argued against it.]
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session [3/16/05]
[To strike section 201(a)(4) relative to
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]
Senator John Sidney McCain III (AZ)
==
++
juandos @ 4:39 PM,,
please check your links & re-post.. ;)
==
++
re: bg @ 4:40 PM..
re: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes
109th Congress - 1st Session
S.Amdt. 168 to S.Con.Res. 18 [3/16/05]
[To strike section 201(a)(4) relative to
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.]
McCain = YEA
S CON RES 18 [3/16/05]
[Ensign Amdt. No. 170; To increase veterans medical care by $410,000,000 in fiscal year 2006.]
McCain = YES
S CON RES 18 [3/17/05]
[Conrad Amdt. No. 243; To express the sense of the Senate that the tax cuts assumed in the budget resolution should include the repeal of the 1993 increase in the income tax on Social Security benefits.]
McCain = YES
flashback:
Democrats furiously fight move into ANWR [3/16/05]
John McCain is not my fav candidate..
however, there's also more to the votes than meets the eye..
besides, there's nothing i could do about the MSM's chosing him to run against their Obamessiah..
==
This post has been removed by the author.
++
juandos @ 5:12 PM.. :D
still not getting this one right..
[Should I mention something about the study: The CBO has revealed that a C02 cap - and - trade allocation scheme will result in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich?]
==
IT WILL BE AN ISSUE, IF . . .
... the Reps make it an issue. I hope they aren't too afraid to.
Remember in the last election the Dems accused Bush of keeping gas prices down to trick voters. Well, this year what are the odds they accuse Reps of increasing gas prices to make the Dems look bad? I don't put it past them.
In order for an issue to be important to voters, they have to understand it, and in order to do that they have to have all the pertinent facts. They aren't going to get them from the MSM, that's for sure.
@juandos.
"The CBO has revealed that a C02 cap-and-trade allocation scheme will result in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich?
Yes. And McCain favors cap and trade, or some form of government intervention in something humans didn't cause and can't do squat about changing. But, if we try, we will succeed in ruining the economy, and makie dealing with any environmental change (probably cooling) much more difficult.
The only reason I will vote for McC., is that he's still better than the horrible alternative, and because maybe other sane Rebs (if enough are elected) may keep him in line.
But we need to know that McCain is just as big an idiot as the Dems when it comes to "climate change."
juandos
Is this the link you meant?
"The CBO has revealed that a C02 cap-and-trade allocation scheme will result in a transfer of wealth from poor to rich."
"Environmentalism" is just another form of Marxism. It has never been about the "environment" it has always been about controlling people and stealing their money. You will note that the biggest proponents of of 'environmentalism" are alot like Marie Antoinette. I love this article from the Daily Mail, You hippy-crites! When it comes to saving the planet do celebrities practise what they preach?.
On a side note isn't it nice that we have a new poster child for the Obamaniacs? Cindy even uses the Obamabible in her posts.
He stated again no drilling in ANWR tonight and quoted Teddy Rosevelt. And he would try to force the states of California and Florica to allow drilling off the coast?
Huh?
He needs to change his mind and hit hard. The new technology today is so far ahead of 70s oil tech.
They can drill in places with small footprint and cleanup afterwards like they were never there.
I have always thought not drilling for sometime was a good measure to secure our future should we need to during war.
Well, this is the time to do it and should've started in 2001. That should be a resounding message from the Republicans and McCain.
Neither party really wants to solve the problem. Then they wouldn't be able to go over to the ARab states and give speeches at $300,000 per. And how would they pay for their political machine....er, presidential library?
Energy independence will be forced on them by the people, not the other way around.
To Gateway Pundit;
I admire your blog and wonder why it isn't way more popular. I see you have a lot of comments on this particular post. There's a lot of emotion attached to this issue, more than just the financial implications. I think the price of gas will be the tipping point in our culture very, very soon. I'm not sure how it will affect the election since I'm not sure how Republican leaders will play it. They're so timid it's maddening. I'm sorry McCain is so blind on this issue; I think he's wrong; and I think he would get lots of support for wanting to do more drilling domestically. Pelosi is sounding insane with her comments "Drill and Veto, Drill and Veto". I want MORE drilling and MORE vetoes! It's crazy to put ourselves at the mercy of lunatics and madmen when we could be energy independent. I also would like to see more nuclear plants; lots more! I'm OK with conservation, but it's not going to make much of an impact at this point.
Kudos again on your fine blog and all the great work that you do. You're in my top five blogstops (esteemed company.)
What exactly did the Republicans do while in the majority in both the House and the Senate and holding the Presidency,all the politicians of both parties are guilty of neglecting the future of this country in favor of chasing lobbist money and PAC cash.Only a very strong showing of third party candidates will be a reality check to the inept and corrupt of DC.
As anyone seen the You Tube or any other video of Stretch whining about veto drill veto drill?
anonymous...come up for air.
The Environazis and the Dems have stopped anyone and everybody from drilling and such. Many GOPers tried but were stopped.
Wake up.
This would be a great issue for the Republican Party if they weren't too fearful of the media and too flat out stupid to seize it. There is no leadership in the Republican Party. Our simpering, high-road, war hero McCain is far more interested in grovelling in front of the leftist media than he is in promoting conservative ideas.
> Gateway Pundit said...
> Cindy- Obama voted against ANWR.
> http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00052
DAMN YOU, and your little FACTS toto, too!
:o)
++
OBloodyHell @ 1:15 AM..
uhg, try reading what you post..
ie: Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 168 to S.Con.Res. 18
Purpose: To strike section 201(a)(4) relative to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
==
Great post and maps, very helpful. Thanks.
Gateway Pundit,
Good information on energy issues in your original post above. Here is some more info provided by the National Center for Policy Analysis providing a critical analysis of the climatological model forecasting methods relied upon in the IPCC Fourth Assessment report (the group that won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for their work supporting environmental activism). The NPPA report shows that from a scientific point of view, the forecasting methods used by the climatologists to project environmental conditions decades into the future are scientifically invalid. Here is the link address:
www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308
The authors of the report are credible academic sources, and the professional forecasting group (http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/) is academically legitimate - one of the leading scientific associations concerning itself with forecasting. Basically, this information hits at the heart of the "scientific consensus" argument of the pro-Global Warming activists, exposing the data, modeling and objectivity problems of the IPCC group.
Good info in your blog on this subject. Keep up the good work!
Churchlayman
Yup, the Democrats are deliberately creating poverty in this country, so they can blame the Republicans for it take the White House in 2008. The problem is, the Republicans are going to let them do it, because they don't have any spine. What is driving the Democrats power grab above and beyond everything else? It can be summed up in two words: Karl Marx.
When chipclemmer et al grouse about "the Republicans," I wonder who are "the Republicans" they're griping about.
If one has been voting in Republican primary elections and generally votes for candidates holding the Republican line on the ballot in the general election, the one is a part of "the Republicans." (Duh.)
If you have to pay for gas at the price that it is now, why blame the Dems for it...kinda weird that no one sees that Bush put your country on it's rearend for war (really for oil). And you pack of morons turns your guns on the Dems. Then who the hell been in power for the last 8 years? Who put the country in a deficit hole the last 8 years. You all might as well work for Fake News (Fox).
Amazing that so many blind people can't see what's up...If I was selling white canes to you morons, I'd be millionaire!!!
Thank God I'm Canadian!!!
++
Anonymous @ 11:22 AM..
and if yhit were nickels, you'd be a billionaire!!
==
I agree that we are killing ourselves by not drilling for oil, but how expensive is oil really getting? Is the problem that oil is going up, or is it the fact that the value of the dollar is going down? Take the dollar out of the equation. How much oil could you get for an ounce of gold in 1913 vs. how much oil you get for an ounce of gold today. The disparity seems to really shrink if you look at it that way. The real war should be against inflation.
I'm just tired of oil being a political tool by both the dems and the repubs. Bush can end all this with an executive order authorizing drilling of Anwar, building of refineries, nuclear power plants, etc, for national security reasons. But, he will not act.
Anonymous @ 11:22
Why do we blame the dems? Well, when they took over congress in '06 they promised they had a plan to lower gas prices. They've done nothing but go up ever since. That's why.
And those idiots still haven't gotten the hang of supply and demand.
If China has tens of thousands of dead due to the cyclone, why didnt the price of oil move downward? We hear the same lies day after day about how China is a developing region and their daily demand grows fast and hard. With scores laying dead and not driving their Toyotas why didnt the price go down? It didnt go down because the whole deal is nothing but a war against the US economy. About two months ago I was listening to the news and oil moved up because San Fransisco Bay had a layer of fog. But when tens of thousands of people are dead in a so called developing nation, there is no downward move, based on a lesser demand.
Why are we surprised that a Liberal policy has failed? I struggle daily to determine how the DEM party is still in existence due to their track record of dismal, central planning big Govt policies. Kudos to the list that began your article. I love that kind of stuff! conservOpunk
And yes I realize I stated "cyclone" but you get my point. Thank me very much.
And who do we vote for? The liberal democrats are perfectly happy with the status quo, to block all drilling in Alaska and off our coasts. They don't care of gas goes to $16 / gallon! Then there's John McCain, Mr. 'global warming' activist. He wants to limit the amount of CARBON DIOXIDE (the gas we exhale!) that America is allowed to emit. I honestly don't know who to vote for this fall, or if to vote at all! What a sorry state of affairs!
Price of Oil before Bush's war: $24 per gallon. Price after: $130 (well... it ain't over yet... some say it may go to $200 soon, but I'm being generous).
Bush's family business? What sector are they in? Cheney's? Hmmmm....
How gullible are you? You're being screwed by self-serving politicians.
Sorry, but the natural environment is worth more to me than cheap gas for a couple years. If Bush invested $1 trillion in solar and wind power instead of the war, we would be in a different place. Then again, Haliburton doesn't sell solar cells. So, no wonder.
CORRECTION Last comment: $24 per barrel, not gallon.
Short term solutions (ruin our environment to lower gas prices) or long term solutions (invest in clean energies). Which party has pushed for the latter?
Come on people. Educate yourself a little before you criticize.
++
Anonymous @ 7:59 PM..
THE WAR AGAINST THE SAUDIS
excerpt:
[In return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King Ibn Saud granted Aramco a monopoly over the production of Saudi oil at the end of World War II. Aramco is a consortium of companies, with Exxon, Mobil, and Socal – all Rockefeller-connected – granted 70 percent ownership, and Texaco granted the rest. A premier example of crony capitalism, the Rockefeller-Saudi alliance translated into multi-millions in subsidies through the Export-Import Bank, so that the King could build his own personal railroad from his capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took money out of the war budget to prepare the way for Rockefeller's pipelines. In return, the Saudis granted the US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil fields. Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to protect their property, but the big boys – or, at least, some of them – have the use of the American military.]
RTWT (you might learn a thing or two about
the Dems & their connections to SA/ oil)..
check out the chart, it's self explanitory..
not to mention these..
==
++
Anonymous @ 7:59 PM..
oh yeah, just a sample/outline if you will..
you do know how to use a search engine don't you??
==
The sad thing about all of this is that the dems and environazi's have been saying for years that they want the price of oil to increase drastically so we will all be forced to stop using "fosil"
fuels. It should be no surprise then that they are continuing to do all things within their power to keep the price of oil high. It really is too bad that the iraq war has "not" been a war for oil, we could use some cheap oil right now.
By the way, if you can show me real evidence that the use of oil and coal for energy production is an actual detriment to this planet then I will agree that the planet is more important than the price of gas. But since I don't "believe" Al Gore when he says "the debate is over on man-made global climate change" I will continue to want cheap oil.
++
i forget the name of the wise person who said this.. but the fastest way to lower foreign oil prices is to approve of drilling oil, etc, from our own resources..
==
++
Anonymous @ 7:59 PM..
[How gullible are you? You're being screwed by self-serving politicians.]
oh i don't know, Gore doesn't seem
to have a problem, so you tell me..
The Exxon Fight, Round 2
excerpt:
[The heirs of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil empire made a media splash recently when they demanded that the oil giant diversify out of oil, of all things. When Exxon holds its annual shareholder meeting next week, the Rockefeller clan will push proxy resolutions requiring the company to invest in noncarbon energy sources, and to create more board of director "independence" from management by splitting the role of chairman and chief executive. To hear the wealthy heirs tell it, Exxon will thus be better positioned to take advantage of the eco-opportunities of the future.
[snip]
In supporting the Rockefellers, Ms. Nappier explained that her alternative-energy ideas would be better for Exxon than are the investment plans of Exxon's executives. If Exxon ever took her advice, we'd recommend putting in an immediate sell order on its shares. But it's more likely that the future candidate for Governor is merely angling for some easy green publicity as she and the state's pensioners continue to benefit from their investment in Exxon's substantial oil profits. She'd be violating her own fiduciary duty to those pensioners if she pursued an ideological agenda that hurt returns.
The Rockefellers and most of their allies are wealthy enough to survive any Exxon decline. The same can't be said for retired police officers. Exxon will do more for its shareholders, and for society, if it avoids political fads and keeps its focus on investments that promise the highest return on shareholder capital.]
==
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home