Please try and look at this as if the CEO of a big oil company isn't an evil person, it will help you be unbiased.
---------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Chevron Corp. CEO David O'Reilly says Big Oil is not to blame for skyrocketing gas prices.
In an interview Tuesday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "The Situation Room," O'Reilly said high demand and a short supply of crude oil were key factors causing gas prices to spike. Despite reports of record profits among major oil companies, O'Reilly downplayed a recent poll in which Americans said corporate avarice played a role.
O'Reilly also discussed President Bush's and GOP presumptive presidential nominee Sen. John McCain's proposal to lift the ban on new offshore drilling as well as presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama's call for taxing companies' windfall profits.
The following is an edited version of the show's transcript:
Blitzer: You know you have -- you and ExxonMobil, the Big Oil companies --have a huge public relations problem. In all the recent polls, when the American public is asked, who do you blame for these huge gas prices at the pump, they -- more than any other single source -- they blame Big Oil. They blame you. What's going on? Video Watch Blitzer grill O'Reilly »
O'Reilly: Well, I don't think they blame us as much as you think. It looks to me like there's a lot of blame to go around.
Blitzer: There's other blame, but more than any other single source, they blame Big Oil.
O'Reilly: It depends on the poll you look at.
Blitzer: The recent Gallup Poll.
O'Reilly: Let me point out what we're trying to do about this because I think the issue here is one of supply. And prices are high today, but it's fundamentally a concern about oil supplies -- 75 percent of the price of gasoline is related to crude oil.
We're very dependent on crude oil imports. The total world demand for crude oil has been growing steadily over the last decade. And that is affecting everybody's price. So it is a concern, but we need to work on the supply side, as well as the demand side, to bring change.
Blitzer: Because you have had record profits, right?
O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits.
Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before.
O'Reilly: Yes, but it's a big business. And on a return-on-sales business, we're right in there with the average of American business today. What we're doing is investing that money. For example, last year, we did make a lot of money, $18.7 billion. This year, our capital investment in new supplies is $22.9 billion, almost $23 billion.
Blitzer: You know that Barack Obama says if he's president, he wants a windfall profits tax. He wants to take a chunk of your profits right now and give it back to the American people. John McCain opposes that, as you know. So I assume you would like to see John McCain elected president? Video Watch McCain explain his stance »
O'Reilly: Well, I would like to see no windfall profit tax. And I will tell you why. First of all, we are already heavily taxed as an industry. Our tax rates last year were at 45 percent, compared with in the 30s for the average of all industry.
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, we're investing the money. If you take the money away, it will reduce investment, reduce supply and have exactly the opposite effect of helping the problem that you have referred to.
And, thirdly, we have done it before. We have had windfall profit taxes. Congress has studied them about 30 years ago. And what happened under those circumstances is supplies dropped domestically, and we became even more dependent on imported oil. You don't want to do that today.
Blitzer: Here's how Sen. Obama put it. Listen to this.
Obama (in a video clip): Sen. McCain wants to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to Big Oil and opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies like Exxon to help families struggling with high energy costs. I think that is exactly why we need to change Washington.
Blitzer: So, I guess, given the stark difference when it comes to Big Oil between Obama and McCain -- let me rephrase the question -- do you want McCain to be elected?
O'Reilly: I want someone to be elected who will help resolve our energy crisis. And I don't know enough about Sen. Obama's position or Sen. McCain's position to pass judgment on either one of them.
What I do know, though, is that if we want to solve this problem of high energy prices, we're going to have to work not only in the demand side, as Congress has done with [Corporate Average Fuel Economy] standards and alternatives, but we're going to have to work on the supply as well.
Blitzer: Do you want offshore drilling to be approved on both coasts and in the Gulf, which Sen. McCain now says is a good idea?
O'Reilly: I do think that's a good idea. Today, our shores, except for the gulf off Texas and Mississippi and so forth, are off-limits today. So, look, Europeans who are very environmentally conscious -- the British, the Norwegians, the Danes, the Dutch -- they can allow sensible offshore production from their oceans. Why can't we? See where drilling is allowed, banned »
Since we have -- over the last 20 years, domestic production has steadily declined -- and we have been more and more dependent on imports. We definitely need to do something about it. We don't know yet how much oil is under there, but we should at least be given the opportunity to look.
Blitzer: We invited our viewers to ask you a question, and some of the I-Reports came in. iReport.com: See what iReporters are saying about gas prices
Unidentified male (in a video clip): If you would had told me a year ago that gas prices were going to reach about $4 a gallon, I wouldn't have doubted you. And if you had told me the year before that that they would reach $3 a gallon, I still wouldn't have doubted you. So what should Americans expect in terms of pricing of gas in the future?
Blitzer: What do you think?
O'Reilly: Very good question. I mean, $4 gasoline is a reality today because ...
Blitzer: In some parts of the country, it's approaching $5.
O'Reilly: Well, 75 percent of that is the price of crude oil. And that is the crude oil that we have been talking about here that's driving the current crude oil -- energy market.
Blitzer: So, how high is it going to go?
O'Reilly: Well, if crude oil prices come down, I think those prices could moderate. But it's a big if. Crude oil prices have to come down. We need to send a very strong signal to the market that we're serious about increasing supplies in this country.
Blitzer: Do you think manipulators, stock manipulators, are paying -- are doing things to cause this spiral?
O'Reilly: I don't know enough about the financial markets. We're a physical player. But I think most of the price that we see today is because of concern about physical long-term supply.
Blitzer: Just because of the huge demand in India and China, also?
O'Reilly: Huge demand around the globe, including here in the United States.
Blitzer: Here's another question.
Unidentified male (in a video clip): Have we reached peak oil supply? And, if not, when do you expect that we will? And, once we do, when do you expect that the prices of gas will go down to a reasonable level?
O'Reilly: You know, peak oil is a big question today, and it's a very good question.
One of the issues that we face has been addressed -- around people -- has been addressed to the National Petroleum Council study, which was issued last year by the secretary of energy. It is a very important study. What it really says is, there's enough oil and gas in the ground, but the access is what's impeding production.
So, we could have a squeeze in the years ahead if we don't get after increasing our supplies, not only here in the U.S., but creating a global environment which permits access around the globe and free trade around the globe as far as oil is concerned.
--------------------------------------
Conclusion #1: Taxing the oil companies will only drive up prices because they can't re-invest it to find more oil. Obama is flat-out wrong. People keep talking about reducing demand - okay, but we're still dependent on oil right now and reducing demand is a long-term thing, not a short-term solution.
Conclusion #2: Dems are dumb and not doing their research on this as always. I even heard a suggestion from a Democratic House Rep of nationalizing oil refineries? Yeah, that's not Socialist/Communist ideals at all.
Conclusion #3: Environmentalists are paranoid about the environment when other countries (mentioned in the interview) have done off-shore drilling in an environmentally friendly way for years. Why can't we? _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Please try and look at this as if the CEO of a big oil company isn't an evil person, it will help you be unbiased.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
No.
Looking at the CEO of a big oil company as if s/he was not primarily concerned with profits is naive. There's a difference between being "biased" and understanding the perspectives and motives of people.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Conclusion #1: Taxing the oil companies will only drive up prices because they can't re-invest it to find more oil. Obama is flat-out wrong. People keep talking about reducing demand - okay, but we're still dependent on oil right now and reducing demand is a long-term thing, not a short-term solution.
You're basing this on a false premise - we're not dependant on oil, our government just chooses to support huge oil companies. The only thing standing between you and a reasonably priced hydrogen fueled car, infinitely more efficient than the car you own today is Dick Cheyney. The technology is out there, we just need to stop holding it from the market in order to protect big oil.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Conclusion #2: Dems are dumb and not doing their research on this as always. I even heard a suggestion from a Democratic House Rep of nationalizing oil refineries? Yeah, that's not Socialist/Communist ideals at all.
The first fallacy is that you group all Democrats around what one of them said. The second is that you didn't provide a source. The third is that you failed to realize that most Democrats don't want refineries nationalized, they want them abandoned for renewable energy sources - why waste time increasing our dependency on oil, when we will inevitably run out of it.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Conclusion #3: Environmentalists are paranoid about the environment when other countries (mentioned in the interview) have done off-shore drilling in an environmentally friendly way for years. Why can't we?
Because it's a stupid idea in the first place. We should not be increasing our dependency on oil.
Imagine investing in an appartment - you have to keep on paying and paying and paying, but you'll never own anything. Really all you're paying for is time to live in that appartment, and that time runs out every month. Investing in a home is different - you pay just like you do with the appartment, but this time you're actually buying a house that will last your entire lifetime. Eventually, you will own that house, and you won't have to keep paying just to live there.
Oil is just as economically inefficient as the appartment is. You pay and pay for oil that inevitably runs out, and the solution is to look for more oil? I think it's a bit smarter to invest in something that won't run out. _________________
Why should I believe anything O'Reilly says? He's a conservative saying that the conservatives aren't at tfault with no proof to back anything he says up. He is completely biased. How can something biased make me unbiased? _________________ ^made by Fiendfyre
I think that this arguement is pretty weak myself, and I really do take these arguements with an open-mind. I want the best fix, and I can't tell which side to trust. Each side is calling the other side a liar. _________________
Please support the Diabetes Walk
here's the thing. I think that if America can develop the current methods of hydrogen power, or solar power out there to help fuel the big emitters like large companies, factories, and power plants, then the demand for oil will be primarily for smaller enterprises. I believe the swiss, or one of those other countries are primarily hydrogen based. They have an underground pipeline that delivers hydrogen fuel to filling stations and the by product is water, not co2. If we look at all of the unused land in desolate regions of america, mainly in the hot zones like arizona, we can convert that to solar fields. the power generated will be significant with such a highscale project and it will all be environmentally friendly by reducing emissions.
Also, to everyone that says lets just drill, remember, oil prices may go down, but if we screw up the enviornment, there is no going back. We may sit in our air conditioned homes and think that global warming is nothing to worry about, but it has a global impact that goes beyond automotive budgets. The poles will melt, specie populations will go down, the earth temperature will rapidly rise, impoverished nations will experience untold famine and death. We may save some money through further drilling, but the planet will die in both its beauty and survival supplies for us. Instead, lets invest money into bettering clean technologies. Its time to think long-term. _________________ Ice shall instill the heart of man...only silence will remain
yes. i think that sums it all up. its pointless to keep spending on something that will run out because supply will continue decreasing which means prices will be increasing. if the technology hasnt been made yet, then we can go using oil first, just to buy time until the technology is there. but if it is already there, then what is the point in delaying its release in the market? bring it out!
and as for the environment, we should be thankful that mother earth is giving us time to recover the destruction we have caused. dont tell me you'll take action once the real threat is already there... nip it in the bud! _________________
I love my handsome Erik
Exactly!!!! Oil should be used as a temporary solution, untill our current technologies can be updated for realistic use. However, what heppens is that we get a couple of commercials saying that GM, or Tayota, Or Honda are studying new technologies, but thats about it. Yes, we do have hybrids, but they are very expensive and you have to be on a waiting list to get them.
If it were up to me, i would at least make it a requirement that all newly manufactured cars must have an elecrical motor support system, even if it means cutting the hp. I mean seriously, how fast do are cars have to go, when the speed limit rarely passes 65. _________________ Ice shall instill the heart of man...only silence will remain
Why should I believe anything O'Reilly says? He's a conservative saying that the conservatives aren't at tfault with no proof to back anything he says up. He is completely biased. How can something biased make me unbiased?
Why should I believe anything O'Reilly says? He's a conservative saying that the conservatives aren't at tfault with no proof to back anything he says up. He is completely biased. How can something biased make me unbiased?
my momma says 2 biased does not make an unbiased
but 4 lefts are 1 right
1 left is 1 left
2 lefts are 1 backwards
3 lefts are 1 right
4 lefts are 1 straight ahead _________________
oil companies only take 8% of their profits. most companies take 20%.
conclusion, theyre not evil. how could they be when they take in a smaller amount of what they sell? and who in the right mind does reall really well when being taxed heavily. heres a good example. back in the day with evil monarchs, when they heavily taxed the people, what happened? did they magically do well or obviously bad. i dont know what im talking about but
as always, fiendfyre is on the ball. _________________
oil companies only take 8% of their profits. most companies take 20%.
conclusion, theyre not evil. how could they be when they take in a smaller amount of what they sell? and who in the right mind does reall really well when being taxed heavily. heres a good example. back in the day with evil monarchs, when they heavily taxed the people, what happened? did they magically do well or obviously bad.
2. You're equating high taxes with monarchy now? You're going to have to go into a bit more depth on that one, if you don't want the idea to be brushed off as idiotic.
3.
Vasaver wrote:
i dont know what im talking about
Clearly
4.
Vasaver wrote:
but as always, fiendfyre is on the ball.
Clearly not
Lessons we learned today: Don't make up numbers. Don't lie. Don't try to make ridiculous analogies without any logical reasoning to support them. Don't put blind faith in somebody whose arguments have been torn apart 5 times in one thread and has gone 6 days without even an attempt to rebuttal. DON'T MAKE UP NUMBERS!
20%, what the hell were you thinking? _________________
Looking at the CEO of a big oil company as if s/he was not primarily concerned with profits is naive. There's a difference between being "biased" and understanding the perspectives and motives of people.
Liberal ignorance. You can say that - yet look at how much of their profits they reinvest. Don't be sad that you were too stupid to not buy oil stocks
flamingtard923 wrote:
You're basing this on a false premise - we're not dependant on oil, our government just chooses to support huge oil companies. The only thing standing between you and a reasonably priced hydrogen fueled car, infinitely more efficient than the car you own today is Dick Cheyney. The technology is out there, we just need to stop holding it from the market in order to protect big oil.
1) We're dependent on oil. Why do you think the whole country is freaking out? I swear you think you live in the 22nd century.
2) You claim to know so much about him, yet you can't even spell his name. It's Cheney, genius.
3) The technology is still in the early stages. And none of it solves all the problems we would face if we weren't using oil to power things in the first place. It's very clean to burn, it WAS cheap, and is still a fairly abundant resource. These 'other technologies' don't address everything we need yet. And this Hybrid car you speak of? It still uses oil And this hydrogen car you speak of in this post? Problems:
Hydrogen cars use hydrogen fuel cells. They are costly to produce and fragile.
Hydrogen cells don't last long. They are STILL researching ways to get it up to 3 and a half years.
These cells can freeze and be unable to be used in the winter.
A report written by a PhD to the European Fuel Cell Forum states "Currently, however, hydrogen vehicles utilizing hydrogen produce more pollution than vehicles consuming gasoline, diesel, or methane in a modern internal combustion engine, and far more than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles." ----- Wait.. I thought you and your liberal buddies were for protecting the environment? Oh, but, you didn't do your research did you? Liberals never do. Yeah, you got owned on this one bub. Smile for the camera.
Need I list any more?
Flamingmonkey923 wrote:
The first fallacy is that you group all Democrats around what one of them said. The second is that you didn't provide a source. The third is that you failed to realize that most Democrats don't want refineries nationalized, they want them abandoned for renewable energy sources - why waste time increasing our dependency on oil, when we will inevitably run out of it.
Your fallacy is that you do the same thing when one Republican says something that is dumb. My source was watching CNN and I simply don't want to waste my time looking up something to 'prove' to you when you know in your heart that it is true.
And yes, you're right about Dems wanting to abandon oil. The problem is this: there's nothing to feasibly move to yet. We're stuck with oil like we have been for a while. So, your almighty Dems need to get their heads out of their butts and focus on TODAY and not 50 years from now. That includes the people that support them, which is you.
Flamingmonkey923 wrote:
Because it's a stupid idea in the first place. We should not be increasing our dependency on oil.
It's not increasing dependency (aka demand). It's increasing the volume of oil we have at our disposal (supply). God, where the hell did you take your economics courses? Or have you?
flamingmonkey923 wrote:
Imagine investing in an appartment - you have to keep on paying and paying and paying, but you'll never own anything. Really all you're paying for is time to live in that appartment, and that time runs out every month. Investing in a home is different - you pay just like you do with the appartment, but this time you're actually buying a house that will last your entire lifetime. Eventually, you will own that house, and you won't have to keep paying just to live there.
Oil is just as economically inefficient as the appartment is. You pay and pay for oil that inevitably runs out, and the solution is to look for more oil? I think it's a bit smarter to invest in something that won't run out.
Dude. What the hell?
No matter what they find for us to switch to - we're going to have to pay to refuel/recharge/rewhatever it. It's always gonna take fuel or something to power engines, and that will always cost us something. Always. Until we find a way to eliminate world currencies. I think you're getting rusty, FM. _________________
^ HP Chat & Games
Liberal ignorance. You can say that - yet look at how much of their profits they reinvest. Don't be sad that you were too stupid to not buy oil stocks
Every company reinvests. I'm just pointing out that they make more profit than the average industry. Really, that's not any way associated with my argument as to why we should leave oil, I just saw Vasaver making up numbers and I pointed it out.
Fiendfyre wrote:
1) We're dependent on oil. Why do you think the whole country is freaking out? I swear you think you live in the 22nd century.
Let me rephrase. We would not be dependant on oil if the government didn't want us to be. We are only dependant on oil because the oil firms in this country have enough political power to maintain a monopoly on energy. It is not due to the lack of technology.
Fiendfyre wrote:
2) You claim to know so much about him, yet you can't even spell his name. It's Cheney, genius.
I don't claim to know much about him - he keeps his presidency behind an Iron Curtain, that's the problem.
Fiendfyre wrote:
3) The technology is still in the early stages. And none of it solves all the problems we would face if we weren't using oil to power things in the first place. It's very clean to burn, it WAS cheap, and is still a fairly abundant resource. These 'other technologies' don't address everything we need yet. And this Hybrid car you speak of? It still uses oil And this hydrogen car you speak of in this post? Problems:
Hydrogen cars use hydrogen fuel cells. They are costly to produce and fragile.
Hydrogen cells don't last long. They are STILL researching ways to get it up to 3 and a half years.
These cells can freeze and be unable to be used in the winter.
A report written by a PhD to the European Fuel Cell Forum states "Currently, however, hydrogen vehicles utilizing hydrogen produce more pollution than vehicles consuming gasoline, diesel, or methane in a modern internal combustion engine, and far more than plug-in hybrid electric vehicles." ----- Wait.. I thought you and your liberal buddies were for protecting the environment? Oh, but, you didn't do your research did you? Liberals never do. Yeah, you got owned on this one bub. Smile for the camera.
Need I list any more?
Keep in mind, I've never said anything supportive of hybrid cars. I've also never said that the sole reason we should abandon oil is because it's harmful to the environment. You can stop setting up straw men, and actually argue me now.
You're listing the technology currently available to the American market - that's decades old in some cases. Look at Japan, they're mass producing hydrogen fueled cars at this point, and they're a hell of a lot less expensive than buying gas at $4.15/gallon every week. The technology we have today is applicable, it's just not available to U.S. citizens because that would put oil companies in jeapordy.
It's just like what happened in the 70's and 80's with the electric car - despite it's higher efficiency, it was outlawed because big oil didn't like it.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Your fallacy is that you do the same thing when one Republican says something that is dumb.
That's the difference - I don't do that. I don't set up straw-men and pretend that you're just like the Republican idiot sitting next to you. There are idiots on both sides of any argument, because the world is chalk full of idiots. The difference between you and I is that I argue you, and you argue the ideas of the idiots next to me and then claim victory over me.
Fiendfyre wrote:
My source was watching CNN and I simply don't want to waste my time looking up something to 'prove' to you when you know in your heart that it is true.
I don't want refineries nationalized, and that in itself defeats your assertion that all Democrats want to nationalize refineries. I don't 'know in my heart that it is true' when my own existence disproves your claim. Thank you for generalizing and stereotyping again.
Fiendfyre wrote:
And yes, you're right about Dems wanting to abandon oil.
You just said that every single Democrat wanted to nationalize refineries, not abandon them. Make up your own mind before arguing somebody else.
Fiendfyre wrote:
The problem is this: there's nothing to feasibly move to yet. We're stuck with oil like we have been for a while. So, your almighty Dems need to get their heads out of their butts and focus on TODAY and not 50 years from now. That includes the people that support them, which is you.
The only thing keeping us 'stuck with oil' is the oil companies that don't want us to harness other forms of energy for fear of competition. I don't get how blind you are to this. Your Co-president is hiding behind an Iron Curtain, making shady deal after shady deal with huge oil corporations and you blatantly don't care. This has happened before, too; like I said, the electric car was murdered by oil corporations and lobbyists who didn't like the competition it gave them. Learn from your history, and open your eyes.
Fiendfyre wrote:
It's not increasing dependency (aka demand). It's increasing the volume of oil we have at our disposal (supply). God, where the hell did you take your economics courses? Or have you?
Preventing the sale of alternative technology to the market increases dependancy on the one technology available. It's not that hard to understand - I think if you try really hard, you might be able to grasp it. Not only that, but keep in mind that when all competition is driven from the market, we have what is known as a monopoly. Any capitalist (and I am one; I felt the need to throw this in before you went into a McCarthyite rant about me being a 'commie') in his right mind can tell you that's not a good thing.
Fiendfyre wrote:
Dude. What the hell?
It's alright, I think if you try as hard as you can, you might be able to understand a simple analogy.
Fiendfyre wrote:
No matter what they find for us to switch to - we're going to have to pay to refuel/recharge/rewhatever it. It's always gonna take fuel or something to power engines, and that will always cost us something. Always. Until we find a way to eliminate world currencies. I think you're getting rusty, FM.
What about solar energy? Do you need to 'refuel' that? Sure, but it's a renewable resource so it doesn't matter. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact remains that oil will run out, and renewable energy won't - it's renewable. What's so hard to understand about that? _________________
Rules
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
And this hydrogen car you speak of in this post? Problems: