Are all oil companies as bad as each other?

Alain Quay

Today: Shell, which has trumpeted its commitment to a low carbon future, has sold off most of its solar business

Friday 7 Dec: 'BP will be involved in the "greatest climate crime" in history by backing tar sands projects to extract oil in Canada' say Greenpeace.

hugo 1st

No, it's a vicious circle: oil companies are all WORSE than each other.

dennisn

If you hate them so much and they are just awful people in awful companies doing
awful things I would suggest that you start you own oil company. Then you could
sell oil the right way, which is, of course, your way. It's bound to succeed because
you know so much about the oil biz. I can't wait to invest.

Dennis Noward

clarkson

maybe, but total oil are funding the military regime in burma.

Salsiccia

dennisn wrote:

If you hate them so much and they are just awful people in awful companies doing
awful things I would suggest that you start you own oil company. Then you could
sell oil the right way, which is, of course, your way. It's bound to succeed because
you know so much about the oil biz. I can't wait to invest.

Dennis Noward

Is there a 'right' way to sell oil? Wouldn't the 'right' way be to say 'don't buy our oil unless you have absolutely exhausted all alternative methods of obtaining the energy you need, and only do that if you decide you absolutely need the energy in the first place'?

nwallace

Salsiccia wrote:

dennisn wrote:

If you hate them so much and they are just awful people in awful companies doing
awful things I would suggest that you start you own oil company. Then you could
sell oil the right way, which is, of course, your way. It's bound to succeed because
you know so much about the oil biz. I can't wait to invest.

Dennis Noward

Is there a 'right' way to sell oil? Wouldn't the 'right' way be to say 'don't buy our oil unless you have absolutely exhausted all alternative methods of obtaining the energy you need, and only do that if you decide you absolutely need the energy in the first place'?

So wiping out the entire worlds forest so as to make Coke or Charcoal to fire Steel Mills and Aluminium Fabrication plants so that Bikes can exist is better than burning Oil to do the same?

Salsiccia

nwallace wrote:

Salsiccia wrote:

dennisn wrote:

If you hate them so much and they are just awful people in awful companies doing
awful things I would suggest that you start you own oil company. Then you could
sell oil the right way, which is, of course, your way. It's bound to succeed because
you know so much about the oil biz. I can't wait to invest.

Dennis Noward

Is there a 'right' way to sell oil? Wouldn't the 'right' way be to say 'don't buy our oil unless you have absolutely exhausted all alternative methods of obtaining the energy you need, and only do that if you decide you absolutely need the energy in the first place'?

So wiping out the entire worlds forest so as to make Coke or Charcoal to fire Steel Mills and Aluminium Fabrication plants so that Bikes can exist is better than burning Oil to do the same?

Sorry, my point might have been a bit cryptic - I was trying to say that it is in all our interests for people to look at producing energy through less harmful means, and only use oil if that is the least harmful; I was also trying to point out that first and foremost we should be looking for ways of using and needing less energy, and only keep producing the energy we really need and not be so wasteful with what is produced.

nwallace

Well in the early days of the humans existence there was no need for anything other than warmth and food. Life expectancy was a bit short though and food gathering methods would have bunny huggers crying in their humous.

Can you define what we need, and to what level of basicness each one can be reduced to. Cave dwelling I suspect is beyond what we could return to and on the basis this is a Bike forum I suspect we may all want to keep out bikes! So we would need to be able to at least produce carbon fibre, aluminium or steel.
The vast majority of people probably wouldn't cope with a return to pre-industrial revolution conditions either. Imagine one of today's townies trying to run a croft, make linen on a hand loom and keep a pot of soup in edible condition for weeks on end. The only people I can think of still living like that are involved in the making of Harris Tweed. It was also still common in remote areas prior to the arrival of the railway.

Without a mass change in lifestyle Oil is a need, the oil companies know this. Such a change can not be engineered without the control of an Autocrat or forced by lack of resources.

OffTheBackAdam

Shell's probably realised that any ROI in solar energy is many years, if not decades away.
Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts and so they're spouting can be ignored.
There's more CO2 being produced by the burning of tropical rainforests than by all forms of transport. A lot of this rainforest is being destroyed to make way for Palmnut Oil plants, to produce biodiesel, so the EU's grand vision of at least 5% of all diesel used in the EU can come from "Green" sources by 2010, or some such date.
It's way past time we didn't have to burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, but until Governments have enough guts to push for nuclear power, then we're stuck with it.
Costs? Nuclear power 3.5p/KwH; Gas 4.5 and all those lovely windmills (whenthey're working, scarcely a breath of wind here today, cold and gloomy so I need lights to work and central heating to keep warm!) 7.5p.

spen666

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Shell's probably realised that any ROI in solar energy is many years, if not decades away.
Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts and so they're spouting can be ignored.
There's more CO2 being produced by the burning of tropical rainforests than by all forms of transport. A lot of this rainforest is being destroyed to make way for Palmnut Oil plants, to produce biodiesel, so the EU's grand vision of at least 5% of all diesel used in the EU can come from "Green" sources by 2010, or some such date.
It's way past time we didn't have to burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, but until Governments have enough guts to push for nuclear power, then we're stuck with it.
Costs? Nuclear power 3.5p/KwH; Gas 4.5 and all those lovely windmills (whenthey're working, scarcely a breath of wind here today, cold and gloomy so I need lights to work and central heating to keep warm!) 7.5p.

Any intelligent person reading your post would stop at this point.

Whether they are communist, fascist or whatever is irrelevant in the evaluation of their views.

You have shown by this line that yours is not a balanced considered view

OffTheBackAdam

My balanced, considered view is that Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts.

Anonymous

spen666 wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Shell's probably realised that any ROI in solar energy is many years, if not decades away.
Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts and so they're spouting can be ignored.
There's more CO2 being produced by the burning of tropical rainforests than by all forms of transport. A lot of this rainforest is being destroyed to make way for Palmnut Oil plants, to produce biodiesel, so the EU's grand vision of at least 5% of all diesel used in the EU can come from "Green" sources by 2010, or some such date.
It's way past time we didn't have to burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, but until Governments have enough guts to push for nuclear power, then we're stuck with it.
Costs? Nuclear power 3.5p/KwH; Gas 4.5 and all those lovely windmills (whenthey're working, scarcely a breath of wind here today, cold and gloomy so I need lights to work and central heating to keep warm!) 7.5p.

Any intelligent person reading your post would stop at this point.

Whether they are communist, fascist or whatever is irrelevant in the evaluation of their views.
.
You have shown by this line that yours is not a balanced considered view

Which would explain why you carried on reading.
No I can't prove you did, just to pe-empt your next side step.
OffTheBackAdam presumedly falls into the 'whatever category', therefore you have just contradicted your own assertion regarding the relevance of his view on the subject.

nwallace

spen666 wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Shell's probably realised that any ROI in solar energy is many years, if not decades away.
Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts and so they're spouting can be ignored.
There's more CO2 being produced by the burning of tropical rainforests than by all forms of transport. A lot of this rainforest is being destroyed to make way for Palmnut Oil plants, to produce biodiesel, so the EU's grand vision of at least 5% of all diesel used in the EU can come from "Green" sources by 2010, or some such date.
It's way past time we didn't have to burn fossil fuels to produce electricity, but until Governments have enough guts to push for nuclear power, then we're stuck with it.
Costs? Nuclear power 3.5p/KwH; Gas 4.5 and all those lovely windmills (whenthey're working, scarcely a breath of wind here today, cold and gloomy so I need lights to work and central heating to keep warm!) 7.5p.

Any intelligent person reading your post would stop at this point.

Whether they are communist, fascist or whatever is irrelevant in the evaluation of their views.

You have shown by this line that yours is not a balanced considered view

Although that line shows a distinct prejudice against Greenpeace an intelligent person would continue to skim read until picking up the bit about Rainforest being burnt to allow for palm oil plantations then start reading again.

There is a much derided legal political party who economic policies are Communist and social policy is to shut the door on outsiders. Yet they are more likely to be slammed for being vile fascists than vile Stalinists.

Though he never backed up his claim with sources.

Apparently the vast majority of UK agricultural land isn't used for food production but my source for that is a drunk farmers daughter.

ademort

Hi must tell you a story of friend of mine who works for an oil company, please remember they make millions. He and the rest of his buddies were to be rewarded for their good work throughout the last year, and the reward was a food hamper to the value of 45 euros. Its not much, but better than nothing. Today i hear from same buddy that the 45euros is to be deducted from each employees salary for the month of December.I cannot say too much as i also work for an oil company, however should they ever offer me a food hamper then it will be getting stuffed right up somebodys ar##e .

OffTheBackAdam

Tight cnuts!
Mind you, it's probably be counted as a "Benefit in kind" and thus be taxable!
Perhaps it's a tax-avoidance scam?

ddraver

Wasnt fugr...no shit, shut up dave


erm, my names not dave

clarkson

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

My balanced, considered view is that Greenpeace are a bunch of communist nuts.

yeop agreed. they were 'recruiting' todaydown my town. even tried me. a short and resounding no w2as all they got.

The Mechanic

Did you know that the vegitation needed to create one Range Rover tank of ethanol (biofuel) is enough to feed a family of 4 for a year. That's why a certain Brazilian company is building an ethanol plant in Angola. They can use the fuel to drive their Range Rovers up to Eritrea and check out the starvation for themselves.

passout

Don't worry the oil will run out soon. I can't wait, but then I'm a big Mad Max fan.