Offshore Drilling Ban to be Lifted by Bush

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Oil companies have zero interest in increasing supply.

Opening up offshore drilling and ANWR is just a way for the oil companies to continue to line the pockets of their biggest investors without having to spend any more of their record profits at the expense of areas that will be forever ruined.

The reality is, we will eventually run out of oil. Drilling off shore and in wildlife preserves will buy more time, but not infinite.

First exerpt - I disagree. Decreasing supply and increasing prices that reduce demand is not in their financial interest and they know this because their profit margin remains the same. Those that currently profit off of (raw) oil are those that have it to sell. Of course the oil companies would like to have more oil of their own to sell and compete against those selling it - mainly OPEC.

What about the small investor. What percentage of the US populace oiwns stock? I'm not sure what percentage owns stock in oil companies, but 401Ks are invested somewhere. Their record profits are only based on record consumption, not record margins. Forever ruined? Who is the arbiter of that? Who defines ruined? Yes, accidents happen, but with the current environmental climate there is no way in hell they are going to create massive environmental damage or they will forever be banned from having the opportunity again. As shown earlier, over 60% of oil in the oceans comes from natural seepage, with less than 1% from drilling. With ANWR, the Alaskan pipeline hasn't produced the environmental disatsters predicted, so I fail to see why 200 acres out of several million cannot be carefully accessed.

Time is what we need. For every cry of "drilling won't give us another drop of oil for 10 years" (an exaggeration), there is the reality that alternatives are farther off than that. Drill and gain the time to develop those alternatives. That is not unreasonable.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'm not sure what percentage owns stock in oil companies, but 401Ks are invested somewhere.

Checking Yahoo Finance for Major Holders of Exxon Mobil stock:

MAJOR DIRECT HOLDERS (FORMS 3 & 4)
Holder - Shares - Reported
TILLERSON REX W - 914,569 - 7-Dec-07
MCGILL STUART R - 901,244 - 5-Jun-07
SIMON J STEPHEN - 818,592 - 6-May-08
CRAMER HAROLD R - 600,213 - 19-May-08
PRYOR STEPHEN D - 580,445 - 16-May-08

With 5.28 billion shares outstanding, this means that the top individual stockholder (Rex Tillerson - Chairman and CEO) only owns about 0.033% - yes, just 3/100 of a percentage point - of stock (and he is the top of the food chain at EM).

Further, 52% of all EM stock is owned by Institutional & Mutual Fund holders - you and I with our pensions hoping to make a little money so that we can retire at a reasonable age.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Time is what we need. For every cry of "drilling won't give us another drop of oil for 10 years" (an exaggeration), there is the reality that alternatives are farther off than that. Drill and gain the time to develop those alternatives. That is not unreasonable.

What is amusing is how many people who are cry about our reliance on oil also drive their car to work/play/etc. every day. These same people also aren't willing to pay more for a alternative fuel vehicle (readily available), ride the bus/mass transit (not available everywhere, but IS an option), etc. They always want "someone else" to pay for things.