Why Exxon Still Denies Peak Oil

One beauty of British mystery writers like Conan Doyle and early Le Carre is their use of deductive reasoning to relate odd facts and explain reality. Matt Simmons used the same powers to help us understand why major oil companies deny Peak Oil and why they finance groups like Cambridge Energy Research Associates that go around sewing doubt in the public’s mind about Peak Oil (although, as recently reported, their scheme has failed).

The reason, as Matt told us in Twilight in the Desert, is that the production sharing agreements between the major oil companies and various countries where they produce oil mean that as the price of oil rises, the share of production going to the major oil company declines. Thus, in accordance with their contracts, the oil company’s production shows a decrease even though its revenues increase.

Oil companies don’t like this because Wall Street analysts, in their wisdom, become discouraged by declining production. It causes the analysts to downgrade the stocks, which causes the stock prices to fall. Executives get a lot of their compensation (often most of their compensation) via stock options that are issued every year and sold every year by the executives when the stock price rises. So falling production levels caused by higher oil prices causes the executives’ compensation to fall. Ouch. That’s real money.

Executives, especially Exxon executives, have thought for some time that they could keep oil prices under control by pretending that Peak Oil is a left-wing myth. Or that it won’t happen until we’re all dead. Most executives (other than Exxon’s) have stopped that foolishness by now.

Yesterday, Exxon reported a “plunge” in oil production - in the words of The Financial Times. Revenues and cash flow, mind you, were pretty damn good (see transcript). But the stock was downgraded by analysts because their oil production declined and the stock price was down by more than $3. Q.E.D.

Comments

[lakeside]

"sewing doubt" --- I'm not sure one can "sew doubt." Columnist must be product of American public school education. I think the correct idiom is "sowing doubt" as in "sowing crops." [Any typos, errors, etc., in this comment are also due to American public school education.

[PK deC'ville]

Another fuel speaks.

[Northoil]

I have operated under and negotiated many production sharing contracts. Maybe some exist, but I've never seen a contract where the company's share of production depends on the price of oil. And many production areas, like the North Sea, have simple revenue/taxation licenses. No, oil fields annually decline 4-8% naturally. Exploration, which is the real "sowing", is not replacing ever larger drawndowns of reserves.

[angus13]

Left-Wing Myth? "PEAK OIL" is defined thus? Gee thx Jim I didn't know that.

[JimKingsdale]

Guilty as charged on public schools; thanks for the spelling catch. I'll make a different mistake next time. But on the subject of production contracts between IOC's and particularly, less developed oil rich countries, the sort of contract I described is reported to be common by Matt Simmons and was specifically referenced in the news reports on Exxon's recent earnings.

[Xenon]

Exxon does need quit holding on and move to diversify into other more "green" energy sources.
They could buy huge potential reserves from the small Houston based oil company Hyperdynamics(HDY). They hold the largest oil concession offshore West Africa. They are developing a portfolio of oil reserve prospects that is larger then Exxon's. The stock sells for $2.17 on May 02,08. Last weeks estimate of only one lead after seismic data was published was in the range of a 4.8 billion barrel find. That is an estimate not a proven calculation. But the stack was one thousand feet deep!

[BrianPursley]

Peak Oil is a myth for several reasons, none of which have anything at all to do with Daniel Yergin or CERA.

World oil production goes up every year and has been going up every year since the Peak Oil cult has been on the payroll (since the 1950s).

Growing evidence (Lost City hydrothermal vent etc.) indicates that hydrocarbons are being constantly generated abiogenically in the Earth's mantle and crust. Furthermore, Transocean continues to drill deep below the mythological biogenic "oil window" claimed by cultists such as Kenneth Deffeyes and other Peak Oil propagandists.

[DownSouth]

I too have given this subject a lot of thought. I haven't come up with good reasons for the oil companies' behavior, but the reason offered here doesn't make any sense.

The drumbeat I hear from the major oil companies is that there is plenty of oil to be found on the globe, but they can't get at it for political reasons. All the good places to explore for conventional oil are in the hands of state-owned oil companies. Although it isn't stated explicitly, there seems to be a yearning to solve this problem militarily. And in fact, is there not speculation that the Iraq war was just that, a military solution cooked up by Cheney and the chieftans of these major oil companies in secret energy meetings that took place soon after Cheney took office?

Clearly, Peak oil doesn't fit into the major oil company narative. For their desired foreign policy direction to be sellable to the American public, the story line has to go something like this: If we, the major oil companies, control the world's oil reserves, we can increase world oil supply, which will result in lower prices, not just for you, but for the entire world. In other words, they are offering a solution where the only losers will be a handful of recalcitrant, despotic and self-serving governments. It's a solution with a lot of appeal.

Non-conventional oil alternatives like the Canadian oil sands are capital intensive, massively so. Operating costs are exorbitant. Oil companies face the prospect of investing billions in these projects only to have Saudi Arabia open the valve and flood the world with cheap oil. This creates downside risk that they have no contol over. There's no cheap oil for the consumer, and the environmental aspects are a public relations nightmare.

So what other alternatives can the major oil companies offer the American people? It appears their options are few. The public is demanding solutions, and two presidential candidates have already proposed punitive winfall profits taxes.

The way I see it, the major oil companies have been put in a positon which was not of their creation and which they are powerless to do anything about. Yet a majority of Americans seem to be more than willing to blame them for the deplorable situation regarding energy the country finds itself. They certainly do not want to be the messengers who tell the American people that the age of almost free energy is over.

[David Lentz]

Perhaps if XOM spent more than the (approx) $1 billion per year that they do on exploration, and less than the over $30 billion they spent in stock buybacks in 2007, they might find more oil.

Here's the data I pulled from the past annual reports at XOM's web site:

net income stock buy-backs exploration expenses (including dry holes)
2001 $15.320 $5.721 $1.175
2002 $21.560 $4.798 $0.920
2003 $21.510 $5.881 $1.010
2004 $25.330 $9.951 $1.098
2005 $36.130 $18.221 $0.964
2006 $39.500 $29.558 $1.181
2007 $40.610 $31.822 $1.469

dollar amounts are in billions (of course).

Perhaps I am misinterpreting things, but it certainly appears that XOM is in the business of pumping dollars through to their executives via option grants->stock sales, and not in the business of selling oil.

[The Fitzman]

good analysis jim, and i believe u r right on. at oil over $100/barrel you'd hafta believe exxon do more exploring for it if they thought they could generate real good returns. but they aren't because they don't have access to the real good returns. so, they are funneling their profits into stock buybacks, some of which is OK, but they are WAY overboard. the rise in the dividend, though welcome, was still skimpy and they are paying the lowest dividend yield of their class, despite the best balance sheet, profits, and cash flow.

but, the overwhelming issue here is peak oil. we've had 3 CEO's talk about 2015 as being peak oil D-Day, when worldwide supply will cease to meet worldwide demand (CEO's of Conoco, Hess, and Shell). you are correct in that XOM surely knows, but because of the arithmetic of the production sharing contracts, they want oil prices high, but not toooo high. it's all a game. problem is, when the realities of peak oil hits, not even all the money these executives have will be able to shield them from the realities that will hit society if we are not prepared. so far, we are not prepared....

[DownSouth]

David Lentz,

I think you are trying to attribute ulterior motives to these oil company executives where perhaps none exist.

Free markets, at least in the short term, are not rational. I love the example Warren Buffett gave the other day:

"Before we start in on questions, I would like to tell you about one thing going on recently. It may have some meaning to you if you're still being taught efficient-market theory, which was standard procedure 25 years ago. But we've had a recent illustration of why the theory is misguided. In the past seven or eight or nine weeks, Berkshire has built up a position in auction-rate securities [bonds whose interest rates are periodically reset at auction; for more, see box on page 74] of about $4 billion. And what we have seen there is really quite phenomenal. Every day we get bid lists. The fascinating thing is that on these bid lists, frequently the same credit will appear more than once."

"Here's one from yesterday. We bid on this particular issue - this happens to be Citizens Insurance, which is a creature of the state of Florida. It was set up to take care of hurricane insurance, and it's backed by premium taxes, and if they have a big hurricane and the fund becomes inadequate, they raise the premium taxes. There's nothing wrong with the credit. So we bid on three different Citizens securities that day. We got one bid at an 11.33% interest rate. One that we didn't buy went for 9.87%, and one went for 6.0%. It's the same bond, the same time, the same dealer. And a big issue. This is not some little anomaly, as they like to say in academic circles every time they find something that disagrees with their theory."

So why do I bring this up? I bring this up because, for whatever reason, the market is valuing the oil and gas reserves of major oil companies at a price that is lower than they can drill for them. Take ConocoPhillips for instance. Some time back I made some calculations as to how much their proved reserves are selling for. I took the enterprise value of the company (market cap plus long-term debt), subtracted for the non-E&P holdings of the company, and divided this by the proved reserves. The figure I came up with was something like $14 per barrel.

But what does it cost to find and develop a barrel of proved oil reserves? I think if you go take a look at some of the domestic independent oil and gas companies, you will find the cost is recently running about $30 per barrel.

So let me ask you, if the executives of ConocoPhillips take their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders seriously, where can they best spend the company's profits? In drilling for new oil reserves for $30 per barrel, or buying back their own reserves for $14 per barrel?

As a stockholder of ConocoPhillips, there is no doubt about what I want them to do. I want them to add to my reserves per share in the least expensive way possible, and the cheapest way they can do that is by buying their own shares.

Sure, it is a horrible distortion created by an irrational market, but these executives have to operate in the real world, not some imaginary world that exists only in the minds of the proponents of liberal economic theory.

[BrianPursley]

The high commodity price of crude oil is due to the weak dollar and the failed economic policies of big government liberals. Scarcity has nothing to do with it and this can be observed by comparing oil to gold or any foreign currency.

[oilguy]

If you plot Exxon's production, both liguids and total, for the past five years, it has fluctuated but the 1q08 production was clearly not a "plunge". In fact, Exxon said in the analyst meeting that the new projects coming onstream in 2008 were backloaded into the 3rd and 4th quarters. Soundsl like too many people are talking about things they don't understand.

[CharliePeters]

What was the cause of death of Alexander Farrell, 46, expert on alternative fuels?

www.bostonherald.com/n...



Was Dr. Russell Long/REAP/Pavley 2002 CA tailpipe bill for Pacific Ethanol's Jones business?



Should Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger consider a "fee" on corn fuel ethanol use?



* Lower price for food, gas, water, beer and cleaner air… and… funds for the budget from oil profit



* Clean Air Performance Professionals (CAPP) supports a Smog Check inspection & repair audit, gasoline ethanol fuel cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFÉ credit to cut car impact over 50% in 1 year.



* Some folks believe ethanol in gasoline increases oil use and oil profit



* Ethanol uses lots of water



* A Smog Check audit would cut toxic car impact in ½ in 1 year. Chief Sherry Mehl, CA/DCA/BAR, has never found out if what is broken on a Smog Check failed car gets fixed, never



* An ethanol waiver would stop a $1 billion California oil refinery welfare program coming from the federal government @ $0.51 per gallon of ethanol used



* About 60,000 barrels per day of the oil used by cars is allowed by the "renewable fuel" CAFE credit

[paultaut]

There is some wit to what both Brian and the oilguy had to say, most of it ---......

Lets see, we are going to drill beyond anything that has gone before and this is going to cost the same as it did before...duh?

Exxon Mobil has a daily refining capacity of 4 1/2 mil. brls., they are currently providing oil for just 2 mil. of that capacity...rest is purchased on the open market.

Guess what, when Exxon built those refineries some 30 years ago, they were for the oil being produced by themselves...

[paultaut]

here's another one Charlie:

Try putting out an Ethanol Fire...specialty chemicals required...almost all fire departments do not carry them.

[WayneS]

Exxon's refineries built30 years ago have been upgraded to produce may times more output from poorer crude with less pollution, including CO2. If the U.S. goverment would allow them, they could reduce the CO2 even further.

[SailDog]

CERA calculate production declines as 4.5% which amounts to nearly 4m barrels per day of lost production from existing fields. It is higher in the North Sea, at Canterell and various other OECD fields, so quite how they get to 4.5% we shall never know.

Even so, using this 4.5% decline rate one can quickly work out that the world loses 9m barrels per day from existing fields in about 2 years and three months. That is one Saudi Arabia in less than 30 months and 2 Saudi Arabia in less than 5 years.

Please can some of those who commented above (except Brian Pursley - who implausibly believes in abiotic oil regeneration) explain just how many Saudi Arabias are "out there"?

I personally think anybody who believes oil production will rise smoothly in the years ahead is deluded or ignorant. We are at or near the limit in terms of daily production. It is really quite simple, it is VERY important, yet seemingly, like lemmings, we do not care about the cliff ahead.

[BrianPursley]

World oil production

2006 - 85.17 mbpd
2007 - 85.20 mbpd
2008 - 86.94 mbpd

Source: IEA

Read it and weep.

[JREwing]

1. Someone up there wrote, that 'Peak Oil' is a myth. That is simple illogical. Whether it we experienced 'Peak Oil' last year or in a hundred years, doesn't matter. Once daily world oil production fails to increase, it's 'Peak Oil'. Unless you wait a billion years until new hydrocarbons develop, but I don't want to wait that long.

2. In general i agree with Matt Simmons' view, although he is a little to gloomy, for my taste. No one is ever going to be able to exactly pinpoint 'Peak Oil', because there is always the chance of a new big discovery, helped by ever advancing exploration&produc... technology and know how. Although the size of the new Tupi and Carioca fields have yet to be proven, they are good examples for this.

3. They 'majors' are unimportant, because they are no 'majors'. ExxonMobil, although perceived by the Joe Public as a new 'Standard Oil' on a global stage is a midget with not even 3% of the daily world oil output.

4. Size DOES NOT matter. Smaller outfits like OXY are far superior when it comes to E&P. There are no more big projects, at least not for privately held oil companies, and the majors are too big to be effective in this environment.
Their business model is broken. Unless they split up their companies, they are going to be mostly refining and chemical companies, ten years from now.

5. For those guys up there citing numbers and statistics from the IEA and what not. These are educated guesses at best. I don't know what the exact world oil production is, but so does NOBODY!
For example: No day goes by without somebody saying or writing in the media, that Saudi-arabia has 3 million barrels spare capacity, but 'they just won't give it to us!'. That is so ridiculous. With the exception of the two embargoes, they pumped what they could no matter how dirt cheap oil was. Every OPEC member always pumped over their quotas, for the simple reason, that most OPEC members are disgusting regimes, who need the oil-revenues to calm down their peoples. I am old enough to know that folks don't change that much.

6. The 'Real Majors' are the state run/owned oil companies of the world. With the exception of Petrobras they all seem to be either badly managed or taxed to death.
Take the Russians for example: They didn't just run out of new potential oil fields, when announced last week, that they are unable to increase daily production levels. The Russian government obviously thinks, that they can tax with impunity. As of next week they raise the export tax once again by 17%.
In the case of PEMEX, there seems to be both the fact, that it is Mexico's piggy bank and a lack of deepwater know how.

7. All in all the world oil industry suffers from at least 25 years of underinvestment and that means, that it must invest that much more now. For governments, like the US government, it means that they have to ignore silly environmentalists and drill in any damn place there is. If Brazil can find oil in under their OCS, so can the United States.

[Bersvein]

I'm completely baffled at how Wall Street interprets comments made by oil exec's. First of all, oil reserves are quit simply oil that can be recovered and delivered to market. Contracts don't determine how much oils in the hole. There are indeed massive amounts of stranded reserves of oil and gas both domestic and overseas. Only our domestic stranded reserves are "stranded" because of political and supposed environmental reasons. The fact is "peak oil" cannot be proven. We, in fact, only have theories to explain how crude oil was actually formed. To assume that all of the crude in the world has been found and/or quantified is just ridiculous. Some would like to believe that there is no more oil and that we could go on without, using "alternatives&quo... Again, ridiculous, there are no suitable substitutes for the petroleum derived feedstocks used to make plastics and specialty fibers. This is just a small fraction of what is made from crude oil but a very critical fraction- disposable syringes, dialysis machines, stents, used in the medical industry- impact resistant plastics- membranes for reverse osmosis water purification- the list goes on and on. If we continue to believe the "peak oil" hype and the anti-oil crowd we will wake up one day and say "what happened" and they'll hand you another load of crap how the oil companies screwed us all when we actually did it to ourselves.

[SailDog]

Brian - first off 2008 is a <i>forecast</... At least I am dead certain that the calendar is not abiotic. Then the IEA data includes biofuels and syncrude from tar, which by definition are not crude oil. Their energy contribution to society (over their energy inputs) is miniscule or negative; and the impact of their prodcution on the world has been catastrophic.

I will accept C+C as crude oil and that did Peak in Jan 2008 at something like 100k barrels more than the previous Peak in July 2006. However these tiny changes in production are well below the error level in the data set so I am not going to read and weep. In any event I would welcome a robust increase in production, or even just an announcement that a significant new province of easily recoverable oil had been found.

I am not sure why you and people like you want to muddy these waters. At the very least wishing/hoping/believi... in abiotic oil (even with pictures from the mid-Atlantic ridge) do not amount to an increase in a recoverable resource. Intellectual honesty demands that you concede there is a significant risk that oil production has peaked or soon will and that the consequences, already highly damaging, can only get worse.

[BrianPursley]

The 2008 production number is not a forecast. It is the actual number for February 2008. It's higher than the number for January 2008. And that number is higher than December 2007. Sorry to disappoint you.

[yank]

Bersvein:
Excellent post. You were absolutely correct in your comments. The MOST IMPORTANT part of your entire posting was the following:
...there are no suitable substitues for petroleum derived feedstocks used to make plastics and specialty fibers. Things like syringes, stents, dialysis machines, etc.

Bingo! As most of us recall from the movie the "Graduate", the famous line someone uttered to Benji was "Plastics". Well, we took the ball and ran with it and now 40 years later we have a WORLD economy entirely based on plastics and therefore the need for cheap oil to manufacture those plastics. It's going to take a "Houdini" move to get out of this tight spot. But for those spouting inanities like "The oil companies need to diversify into greener fuels", I say grow up and get a life. They obviously do not understand the extent of this problem. Offering sophomoric solutions to complex problems such as this is like putting your finger in the dike to stop the flood. Pretty much useless.

[drooyrich]

wake up guys, world production of oil is static at 85 million barrels since 2005 - go see the statistics if you want - do not believe in peak oil and declining oil fields ? Why has the UK become from net exporter to net importer ? Why is Cantarell, Mexico's largest oil field and one of the largest world wide is decresing every year its output by 15% EVERY year since 2005 ? Do not believe in peak oil ? You are doomed if you are not taking countermeasures on what will change completely your life expectations - prepare now or be very very sorry later - suburbia is Finished ! peakoil.com or energybulletin.net -

[JREwing]

Suburbia is not finished. That is a simplistic argument of a defeatist.

I believe, that oil production CANNOT be increased by much, at least not in the short run.

But the answer is not to cut down on your mobility, the answer is technical innovation.

Like I wrote in another post:

I drive a Jeep Grand Cherokee, not with a HEMI V8, the engine is a Diesel from Mercedes-Benz. It has the same torque, it's just a little less top speed. (But who needs top speed).

It consumes about half the fuel compared with the HEMI.

I guess that Mercedes Diesel is not the latest in engine technology, so there is lot to of fuel to spare in the future.

[yank]

Crossing:
Good point about Mercedes diesel technology. They are light years ahead of the "Big 3" on clean diesel. I was in Europe last summer and rented a Renault Minivan that carried 6 people (a little snug I admit) and after 1,200 kms returned an avg of 35 mpg, with its diesel engine. Seems to me if the Europeans are already doing it, why can't we? Why do we always have to "reinvent the wheel?"
The engine technology is already there. In the words of Nike, "Just do it!"

[graybeard]

The original poster mentioned the possible influence of stock options on executive decision making, and many others point to this as being a driver of Exxon's decision to have large share buybacks instead of either bigger dividends or bigger capital investments. I can't completely discount that, but I personally don't believe the share buybacks have much to do with executive compensation. For one thing, Exxon hasn't given it's executives any stock options since 2001, when they switched to restricted stock. So the incentive for them to favor stock buybacks vs. dividends is much lower now than it used to be. I believe the main reason they continue to favor buybacks vs. dividends is the tax advantage that buybacks give to shareholders, who only get exposed to tax when they sell their shares and take a capital gain. Any finance textbook will tell you that dividends and buybacks are equivalent financially in the absence of taxes. But under present tax law buybacks are better for shareholders. Another reason for Exxon to favor buybacks is that they are proud of their long record of continuously raising the dividend, and given the boom-bust nature of the oil industry, they don't want to increase the dividend to the point that it becomes unsustainable. Despite current $120 oil, most of the leadership of Exxon well remember sub $20 oil, so their modest dividend ensures they will have cash available for investments without cutting the dividend even if prices crash. So my conclusion is that the Exxon buyback/dividend program is very reasonable. Shareholders who want a 4% dividend can just sell a couple % of their shares each year -- or just buy BP.

btw... did anyone else notice that the biggest difference between XOM vs the BP and Shell results was the FIFO vs. LIFO inventory accounting? both BP and Shell use FIFO, and they showed huge positive effects (about 10%) from the effect of using FIFO accounting during a period of rising crude prices. XOM uses LIFO, so they didn't enjoy the same bump. That factor alone accounts for most of the perceived gap in performance of XOM vs the others in 1Q. Wait until we have a quarter with falling prices and you'll see the reverse. To be fair to BP and Shell, their press releases clearly showed the "current cost of sales" & "replacement cost" adjustments, but almost all the coverage I've read just glosses over that, and compares the FIFO apples to the LIFO oranges.

[daveperk]

A large part of the decline in production lies at the feet of tyrants, and the American left who will not permit domestic production increases. Any treatment of this subject without these highly pertinent facts just stinks of a journalistic hit job on ExxonMobil, and that's from a guy without any connection to the oil industry.

Too smug, Kingsdale. Not fair.

[LaLaLand]

Hey Brian - if oil is abiotic, why hasn't the US oil industry in the likes of Texas and Oklahoma recovered from its declines in the 70's? Why do we need to import more than we produce? Why the need for foreign oil at all? The US once supplied the world (and ourselves). If oil renewed itself, why are those wells in TX and OK...not operating?

Why do we import the majority of our petro reserves from Canada? Why is Pemex reducing exports to the US? Why are there claims that Cantarell is in steep decline?

With abiotic oil that comes from the gooey nougat center of the Earth, none of those things should have happened....

Just saying!

[BrianPursley]

Hi LaLa - The mystery of your questions does not preclude my suspicion that fossils have less than zero to do with hydrocarbons. How many fossils does it take to make a barrel of oil? Abiogenic oil is not necessarily infinite even though hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe. We don't know why certain regions of the world appear to have peaked. When the commodity price went to $8 a barrel in 1999 domestic production was not economically feasible. This lead to underinvestment, rust, and ExxonMobil. Oil services companies involved in well stimulation such as Halliburton and Core Labs are in the business of stimulating wells that have already peaked and had their production go back up (Eugene Island 330 etc). Since the vast majority believe hydrocarbons only come from fossils, America has only drilled a few deep wells, namely Chevron's Tahiti, Jack, Jack 2, etc. Chevron just ordered an enhanced Enterprise-class drillship, the Discoverer Clear Leader, from Transocean which is expected to be completed in Q2 2009. Discoverer Clear Leader will be able to drill in 12,000 feet of water and 40,000 total depth - more than twice as deep as the deepest fossil ever discovered - well (pun intended) below the mythological biogenic "oil window." And they have a second enhanced Enterprise-class ship Discoverer Inspiration due Q1 2010. In the US I suspect we peaked because Bolsheviks in Washington (Obama, McCain, & Co.) hate corporate profit (they think 10% profit margin is too high but 33% tax rate is too low), hate hydrocarbons because of their faith that global warming is caused by them, and therefore won't let us drill in California, Alaska, or Florida. I suspect these are some of the reasons why we need foreign oil. That and it's cheap.

[Kezorm]

Response to DownSouth,

Your explanation of why oil companies are buying back there own stock was superb!

Thanks

[Bersvein]

Brian Pursley is exactly right. San Joaquin Valley, Bakersfeild, Oildale are seeing wells, long ago abandoned, with more oil now then when they were capped. Its not clearly understood why the wells replenished themselves- earthquake or seismic activity, hydraulics, or another source. The theory that crude oil is derived from fossils has never been supposed to even qualify as a "theoy", however likely it may be. Some arguments here are not based on science or even sound logic. If some of you say we shouldn't trust "big oil" then we should we trust academias who are using climate change and global warming hype to acquire research funds and grants to finance their own careers. I've worked with some of the most respected Noble Prize winners and they are all about fame, notoriety and money. One Nobel Prize winner who was instrumental in discovery of the "Greenhouse Effect" had ordered us to keep our mouths shut when an entire sore of ice core samples from the Antarctic were compromised when the sub-zero freezer broke down for an entire holiday weekend. These same ice cores were loaned out to universities all over the country and were used in determining CO2 levels in the past. However, since they had been stored above the require 40 degrees below zero, most of the CO2 would have been released from the ice.

[DIEGOJAMES]

LONG STO-STATOILHYDRO, COP-CONOCCO-PHIL; SO THERE....its the old BONUS thing again....buy LNG producers, HYGS,CLNE,CLR, COG AND LIVE LONG and prosper...say good by to my BMW and hello SMARTcar or something inbetween that is electric or LNG...please come to market in the San Fernando Valley in SOLAR S.CALIFORNIA
dIEGOj
Porter Ranch
Calif.

[DIEGOJAMES]

lalaland et al above...brillant writing/insight. As a native Californian from San Diego and Organic chemist/pharmacist and philosphy reject like everyone else it is just practical to become multi sourced energy output nation. then everyone is right. becuz no one knows what the %^$K is going on.
Does anyting re new ...answer SOLAR... others energies are produceable from start up products...if oil is seeping into areas by Bakersfield BIGDEAL!!!! i do not need any more congressional or corporate energy planning

Multi Source power for cars...ie. turbo diesel/electric motor or LNG/diesel/electric who cares JUST BUILD THE DAMN CAR NOW

Diegojames
Porter ranch Calif,

[DIEGOJAMES]

do ants produce Carbon dioxide or power cars