# I Hate Big Oil, So ...



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

The discussion about the Lochsa River corridor has reached its limit. The reason I say that is that logic has been lost in the emotion over "*Big Oil*." Even the name of the thread suggests that what is being opposed is not the transportation of big things, but rather _anything_ connected with *Big Oil*.

So to make things clearer, I'm starting two new threads. This one gives you a chance to tell us why you hate *Big Oil* and what you're going to do about it. The other will deal with oversize loads on public highways.

To get things started here, I hate *Big Oil* because . . . uh. Well, actually I don't hate *big oil*, but I know that a lot of people do. They hate it because its big. They hate it because it makes us pollute. They hate it because of global warming. Or global climate change. Whatever. They hate it because of oil spills. They hate it because it feeds *The Rich*, whom they hate even more than *Big Oil*. I get it.

But for the sake of argument, I'll hate *Big Oil* today. And because I hate *Big Oil*, I want to boycott their products so that they will go out of business and stop spoiling the earth.

I should start by shutting off the heat to my house. It's not oil heat; but it's natural gas, and everyone knows that the gas companies are in bed with *Big Oil*. Maybe I can keep warm by wearing a knitted wool jumpsuit. I'd like to shut off the electricity too, because a lot of electricity is generated by burning "fossil fuels," which is code for *Big Oil*. But then I couldn't use my computer. Damn!

Okay, well here's something I can do. I can get rid of my F150 and buy a more eco-friendly vehicle, like this one, made of woven bamboo.










It gets great mileage, and it runs on ethanol from soy beans and rice.

Okay, now for some reality. My F150 burns a gallon of gas every 12 miles. But it carries six people to the river, towing a trailer loaded with three rafts and all of their gear. It will take three of the bamboo wagons to accomplish the same thing. All together, they'll burn a gallon of ethanol every 10 miles. I wonder how much fossil fuel was consumed in growing the soy beans and making them into ethanol? 










Oh, and then there's the shuttle. A Main Salmon shuttle is $365 per vehicle this year. That's $365 for my F150, or $1095 for three of the bamboo wagons. Hmm. This isn't looking so good.

And THAT is why I don't hate *Big Oil*.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

I hate people that would rather go to war than drill our own land, its a shame we are that irresponsible! They can't see whats really happening, its not big oil its big populations without sacrifices. They can sacrifice the plains of Wyoming to out of state sold electrity. Id rather that than ruin a cultures holy land so we can keep making the world a harder equation to solve!. Great post. You forgot the mention what you would use in place of a raft..


----------



## Jensjustduckie (Jun 29, 2007)

caspermike said:


> I hate people that would rather go to war than drill our own land, its a shame we are that irresponsible! They can't see whats really happening, its not big oil its big populations without sacrifices. They can sacrifice the plains of Wyoming to out of state sold electrity. Id rather that than ruin a cultures holy land so we can keep making the world a harder equation to solve!. Great post. You forgot the mention what you would use in place of a raft..


I don't know that this actually holds water since I learned it in public high school but:

We are buying foreign oil and saving ours so that when the world reserves of crude run out we'll still have lots and thus have more power and control of the world.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

I hate that big oil is subsidized. I believe a free market approach to oil would have our country in a different situation right now. Also, how are new forms of energy (green or otherwise) supposed to stand up to oil when the government is playing favorites?


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Great Jen keep drilling foreign!


----------



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

Being a Pipe Welder I a love big oil  When the oil craze was going on gas may have been $4 a gallon, but there were pipe welders making $5,000 to $7,000 a week on pipelines around the country. Oil creates jobs, from building refineries, pipelines, power plants, and much more. Aside from that oil refined here is cheaper to the consumer. A completely green world is a wonderful idea, but not very practical. The EPA is shutting down many plants to put in scrubbers. This is when they send the pollution through a stack where it combines with water. The water is then boiled so the horrible pollution you see coming for most places now days, is just harmless steam. The pollution now in slurry form is loaded onto trucks, and then dumped some where else. Usually some barren wasteland that no one cared about to begin with. I am not supporting anyone destroying a river for a dam, pipeline or oil. But we need energy, and it has to come from somewhere. Now if you think Recycling is the best way to save the world check out the facts. YouTube - Penn & Teller Bullshit - Recycling Part 1


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

Invent a solar powered crewcab truck that'll haul 6 friends and a stack of boats and I'll buy it, but right now I need fossil fuel. Sad fact of life.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Flying_Spaghetti_Monster said:


> Being a Pipe Welder I a love big oil


Even when they send your job to Korea and then ship the pre-fabbed modules through you home? Have you seen what imperial is proposing to ship? Instead of fabrication piping systems on-site, they are building massive systems that (as far as I can tell) flange together. Your great paying job down the tubes. This is the best photo I can find for now



Giant Alberta-bound oil-sands shipments stall in Idaho as opposition mounts | OregonLive.com


----------



## Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (Jun 3, 2010)

Yeah I have heard of that. There are reasons I do this to get through college The good oil days are gone for now anyway


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

lhowemt said:


> Even when they send your job to Korea and then ship the pre-fabbed modules through you home?


"*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" is a whole different subject, utterly unrelated to the issue of hauling big loads on public highways. It is a campaign slogan, meaning nothing, and intended to do nothing but evoke emotion, just like your use of the term "*Big Oil*." I had hoped this discussion would get beyond that.

But since you brought it up, "*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" occurs for one reason only. It is because the cost of doing the work here exceeds the value of the product produced. Some reasons that happens include American workers salary expectations, American workers benefit expectations, American taxes, and government regulation.

I'm not saying that any of these things are wrong or bad. I'm sure you could debate each issue, but the fact is that this is how things are. For better or worse, we are not willing to pay for products produced with our own high overhead. That's why we have Korean-made television sets instead of Zenith television sets.

The fact that these modules are manufactured overseas is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed on our roads.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

The Mogur said:


> "*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" is a whole different subject, utterly unrelated to the issue of hauling big loads on public highways. It is a campaign slogan, meaning nothing, and intended to do nothing but evoke emotion, just like your use of the term "*Big Oil*." I had hoped this discussion would get beyond that.
> QUOTE]
> I hate to point this out but the term "Big Oil" on this thread was initiated by you.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The Mogur said:


> " "*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" occurs for one reason only. It is because the cost of doing the work here exceeds the value of the product produced. Not at all true of the modules being shipped from Korea. Most of the infrastructure for the Canadian tar oil fiasco, is being produced in North America.
> 
> 
> 
> > The fact that these modules are manufactured overseas is irrelevant to whether or not they should be allowed on our roads.


 
Not at all irrelevant. If they were manufactured here they would not have to be shipped across the mountains. The key thing to remember here is that Idaho and Montana are being asked to sacrifice for Korean manufactures, there is no benefit to Idaho or Montana.


----------



## jboats (Apr 5, 2006)

Hydrolosis is the answer.... more bang for your buck.... Of course I live in CO and we have little water to start with... Scratch that....

For those of you who don't know 
Hydrolysis is a chemical process in which a certain molecule is split into two parts by the addition of a molecule of water. One fragment of the parent molecule gains a hydrogen ion (H+) from the additional water molecule. The other group collects the remaining hydroxyl group (OH−).

Lots of energy in this process....... Which is crazy to see big oil deep sea drilling when all they need is sea and not whats under it....


----------



## jboats (Apr 5, 2006)

YouTube - NO GAS Create your own water car hybrid for under $150!

Pretty cool...


----------



## pretender (Dec 23, 2008)

The Mogur said:


> "*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" is a whole different subject, utterly unrelated to the issue of hauling big loads on public highways. It is a campaign slogan, meaning nothing, and intended to do nothing but evoke emotion, just like your use of the term "*Big Oil*." I had hoped this discussion would get beyond that.
> 
> But since you brought it up, "*Shipping Jobs Overseas*" occurs for one reason only. It is because the cost of doing the work here exceeds the value of the product produced. Some reasons that happens include American workers salary expectations, American workers benefit expectations, American taxes, and government regulation.
> 
> ...


If you mean by "exceeds the value of the product produced" that someone can do it cheaper elsewhere, I agree. If you mean "big oil" won't make money if was produced in the USA or Canada, I disagree.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Rich said:


> [The fact that these modules are manufactured in Korea is] not at all irrelevant. If they were manufactured here they would not have to be shipped across the mountains. The key thing to remember here is that Idaho and Montana are being asked to sacrifice for Korean manufactures, there is no benefit to Idaho or Montana.


If it were economically viable to manufacture them here, that is how it would be done. They are being built in Korea because it is cost-prohibitive to manufacture them on-site; and if they were manufactured anywhere in the US other than on-site, regardless where, you'd still have the transportation issue.

I'll accept your argument that Idaho and Montana are being asked to sacrifice, but not to Korean manufacturers. The ultimate benefit goes to the people who buy oil: us. All of us.

You may ask the American consumer if they are willing to pay for oil produced the way you would prefer. Please do so (if you can figure out how). If they say they are, then we'll do it your way. But given the history of past "buy American" crusades, I'd say the chances are slim.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

The Mogur said:


> If it were economically viable to manufacture them here, that is how it would be done. They are being built in Korea because it is cost-prohibitive to manufacture them on-site; and if they were manufactured anywhere in the US other than on-site, regardless where, you'd still have the transportation issue.


My understanding is that most of the large modules are being manufactured in the Great Lakes Region and shipped by barge and
driven over the Canadian Great Plains, with no mountains to cross and no narrow river corridors to traverse.

A small amount of the infrastructure was ordered from Korea to save a buck, and now Idaho and Montana are being asked to sacrifice.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> To get things started here, I hate *Big Oil* because . . . uh. Well, actually I don't hate *big oil*, but I know that a lot of people do. They hate it because its big. They hate it because it makes us pollute. They hate it because of global warming. Or global climate change. Whatever. They hate it because of oil spills.


I don't hate Big Oil. They're awesome! They'd never do anything to hurt this planet. They're our friends. Just like crack dealers.


----------



## pretender (Dec 23, 2008)

The Mogur said:


> If it were economically viable to manufacture them here, that is how it would be done. They are being built in Korea because it is cost-prohibitive to manufacture them on-site; and if they were manufactured anywhere in the US other than on-site, regardless where, you'd still have the transportation issue.
> 
> I'll accept your argument that Idaho and Montana are being asked to sacrifice, but not to Korean manufacturers. The ultimate benefit goes to the people who buy oil: us. All of us.
> 
> You may ask the American consumer if they are willing to pay for oil produced the way you would prefer. Please do so (if you can figure out how). If they say they are, then we'll do it your way. But given the history of past "buy American" crusades, I'd say the chances are slim.


'Cost prohibitive' is a loaded phrase that cannot stand alone. It needs defining and proof to have meaning.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

pretender said:


> 'Cost prohibitive' is a loaded phrase that cannot stand alone. It needs defining and proof to have meaning.


Are you suggesting that the decision to manufacture the modules in Korea was based on something other than cost?


----------



## pretender (Dec 23, 2008)

The Mogur said:


> Are you suggesting that the decision to manufacture the modules in Korea was based on something other than cost?



No, I meant what I said...plain and simple. 
What I think is; that by using the phrase 'cost prohibitive' you're saying/implying these structures would not have been built here because the cost would have been to high to mine the oil profitably. 'Cost prohibitive' is a long way from 'because it's cheaper'.
But if you did mean they would not have been built I'd love to hear what you know.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

pretender said:


> No, I meant what I said...plain and simple.
> What I think is; that by using the phrase 'cost prohibitive' you're saying/implying these structures would not have been built here because the cost would have been to high to mine the oil profitably. 'Cost prohibitive' is a long way from 'because it's cheaper'. But if you did mean they would not have been built I'd love to hear what you know.


I guess you've never owned a business and written paychecks to employees. I have. In a business environment, "cost prohibitive" is any level of cost that impairs the company's ability to compete in the marketplace. Everything businesses do starts with a cost-benefit analysis. That very often results in doing things a certain way "because it's cheaper," specifically because doing otherwise would be "cost-prohibitive" in terms of maintaining market viability.

That's why I shuttled my raft trip customers in 15-passenger Dodge vans rather than in Lincoln Towncars, which would have been much more comfortable. 

And it's why the oil company chose to buy lower-priced off-shore manufacturing rather than spend substantially more to have the same product built domestically. Further, if there were no coice but to use the domestic product, then I do suspect that the cost would indeed have been too high for the oil producer to be price competitive.


----------



## pretender (Dec 23, 2008)

you're making a lot of assumptions. I have owned (and still do) my own business for over thirty years. A contracting business. I know the difference between the two quoted phrases. But none of that is the issue. 
For me it's that you are making statements which you represent as factual with-out factual support. 
Comparing a rafting co. to the oil business is a case of apples to oranges. Goggle 'Most profitable businesses in the USA' to see what I mean.
I don't know why the items were made in Korea and I bet you don't either, but we both
have a guess. 
I'm out


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

pretender said:


> You are making statements which you represent as factual with-out factual support. Goggle 'Most profitable businesses in the USA' to see what I mean.


I did exactly what you suggested. I Googled "most profitable business in the USA," and I got 4 hits. One of them is this thread. The other three contained identical information: "Newspapers have been one of the most profitable businesses in the USA, comparable to Coke selling sugar water, and American Tobacco selling nicotine, and big pharma selling prescripti­on drugs."

Now, I ask you. Who is making statements withoug factual support?

Here is what I find when I seriously look for those massive oil company profits. First is a price breakdown on what you pay when you buy a gallon of gasoline: Estimated Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details

That doesn't break out the profits taken at each step in production, refinement, transportation and delivery, but it does show that the profits are divided among a series of businesses between the oil field and the gas tank. The biggest single profiteer may be the various levels of government who tax the product, since they have no overhead associated with the money they take. In any case, this isn't information that tells the story you are looking for.

So I did another search, looking for those obscene profits: http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/13/news/economy/gas_gallon/index.htm?cnn=yes

This is 2008 information, so it isn't current, but it is revealing. The article points to Chevron's massive profit increases, from $.92 per share to $2.27 per share. Wow. More than double. But is that obscene?

A share of Chevron stock is trading today at $88.49. So that $2.27 profit per share reflects a 2.56% return. At $.92, the return is 1.04%. Those hardly seem predatory. What does your passbook savings account pay?

Now, Pretender, those are the facts. And they are far better documented than any of your empty claims.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The 20 most profitable companies according to Fortune Magazine as of April 2010 (2009 profits):
1. Exxon Mobil (big oil, big money)
2. Microsoft
3. Wal-Mart (crap sells)
4. Proctor & Gamble
5. IBM
6. Goldman Sachs (nice, eh?)
7. Merck (drug dealers always do well)
8. AT&T
9. Wells Fargo 
10. Johnson & Johnson
11. J.P. Morgan Chase (lovely folks)
12. GE
13. Bristol-Myers Squibb
14. Chevron 
15. Pfizer
16. Berkshire Hathaway
17. HP
18. Coca-Cola
19. Google
20. Liberty Media

Newspapers are in the TOILET. Guess you haven't been paying attention. Just like real estate, huh? Guess you noticed that one.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Riparian said:


> Newspapers are in the TOILET. Guess you haven't been paying attention.


I didn't say that. I was merely quoting what I found when I followed the Google search suggested by Pretender (as you would know if you had read my post more carefully).

But I'm curious. What is it like to go through life so filled with hate?


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> I didn't say that. I was merely quoting what I found when I followed the Google search suggested by Pretender (as you would know if you had read my post more carefully).


 Quoting your post: "*Newspapers have been one of the most profitable businesses in the USA*, comparable to Coke selling sugar water, and American Tobacco selling nicotine, and big pharma selling prescripti*on drugs."



> But I'm curious. What is it like to go through life so filled with hate?


Where's the hate? Because I pointed out the well-established fact that newspapers have been the _least_ profitable businesses for several years? 

My question to you: What's it like to go through life as an apologist for greedy corporations that view you as nothing more than a wallet? Gotta be rough. My condolences.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

Look! The pretty Lochsa! It was really nice this summer. I even slept in the raft in the trailer. Right on the side of the road. Guess I won't be doing that again for the next 100 yrs.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

I did drive this all the way there from Southern California so I guess I love Big Oil?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

The Mogur said:


> I did exactly what you suggested. I Googled "most profitable business in the USA," and I got 4 hits. One of them is this thread. The other three contained identical information: "Newspapers have been one of the most profitable businesses in the USA, comparable to Coke selling sugar water, and American Tobacco selling nicotine, and big pharma selling prescripti­on drugs."


Rip, will you please look at the above paragraph taken verbatim from the post that you insist on misinterpreting. Do you see that the statement made inside quotation marks is what I found when I Googled "most profitable business in the USA," and are not my words?


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Riparian said:


> My question to you: What's it like to go through life as an apologist for greedy corporations that view you as nothing more than a wallet?


Listen to yourself. The hate drips from your words.

But I'll tell what it's like to recognize that most people who are in business honestly offer goods and services to people who want and need them, in exchange for which they are entitled to reasonable compensation for the time, energy, talent, and money they expend producing those goods or providing those services. It feels good. 

It feels a lot better than going through life resenting everyone in the world who might have more than you have, and assuming that because they have more than you have, they must have come by it through dishonesty or treachery. What a pitiful way to see the world.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> Listen to yourself. The hate drips from your words.
> 
> But I'll tell what it's like to recognize that most people who are in business honestly offer goods and services to people who want and need them, in exchange for which they are entitled to reasonable compensation for the time, energy, talent, and money they expend producing those goods or providing those services. It feels good.
> 
> It feels a lot better than going through life resenting everyone in the world who might have more than you have, and assuming that because they have more than you have, they must have come by it through dishonesty or treachery. What a pitiful way to see the world.


Gosh, what a rosy view! Reminds me of "Leave it to Beaver" reruns! (_Eddie Haskell was a dick, you gotta admit._) There's no treachery in the financial sector, Halliburton would never do shoddy work and electrocute soldiers, and BP is a good corporate citizen that would never cut corners to make a buck. Ever.

Maybe in fantasyland, but not here on earth. But maybe if you click your ruby slippers together, it will happen!


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Riparian said:


> _Eddie Haskell was a dick, you gotta admit._


Now, that we can agree on.

But look. I never said all was good and everything is rosy. What I said is that MOST businesses are honest and entitled to what they earn. Do you not agree with that? Or do you automatically assume that all businesses are as bad as the worst, as your attitude implies?


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> Now, that we can agree on.
> 
> But look. I never said all was good and everything is rosy. What I said is that MOST businesses are honest and entitled to what they earn. Do you not agree with that? Or do you automatically assume that all businesses are as bad as the worst, as your attitude implies?


I assume that small businesses are honest and entitled to what they earn. They are because they're community-based and have local accountability. If they're sleazebags, they're out of business. I assume most corporations are only focused on profits and count on the public's short attention span to free them from accountability. This belief has been confirmed time and time again. There are exceptions, to be sure, and those are the ones that get my money.

_Glad we could agree on Eddie Haskell. That guy was such a dick..._


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

Riparian said:


> _Glad we could agree on Eddie Haskell. That guy was such a dick..._


Yeah, and that's a good place to put this to bed. Wally was kind of a kiss-ass, and Lumpy was a dork.


----------



## Riparian (Feb 7, 2009)

The Mogur said:


> Yeah, and that's a good place to put this to bed. Wally was kind of a kiss-ass, and Lumpy was a dork.


Agreed. Off to an Xmas Party. Cheers!


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

catboatkeith said:


> Invent a solar powered crewcab truck that'll haul 6 friends and a stack of boats and I'll buy it, but right now I need fossil fuel. Sad fact of life.


That's the best quote in any of these related threads...


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

As I graze on this thread, the biggest issue I see is the fact that corporations are the ones persuing this. If something criminally happens, no one is locked up (you can't lock up a corporation). So what you have is a day and age where a cost/benefit analysis comes into play (as Mogur pointed out). The question becomes, "Is it going to cost us more to follow the law or not?" With oil and gas issues in Colorado, there are more than a few instances when it is cheaper not to follow the law and to simply pay the fine later (especially when you have a well pumping a million dollars of natural gas a day).

Oh yea, one more thing...
I pointed out earlier that Mogur did not like when people use the term "big oil," yet he was the one who introduced that term to this thread (in fact he included it in his title). He has posted responses to other points since then, but not this. Mogur...why are you the only one who gets to use this term. Hypocracy?


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Riparian said:


> I *assume* that small businesses are honest and entitled to what they earn. They are because they're community-based and have local accountability. If they're sleazebags, they're out of business. I *assume* most corporations are only focused on profits and count on the public's short attention span to free them from accountability. This belief has been confirmed time and time again. There are exceptions, to be sure, and those are the ones that get my money...


As I said before, you know what happens when you assume. Those are both pretty big assumptions actually. In both cases, I am sure you can find as many companies that violate those assumptions as you can find those that fit that assumption.

I've worked for small businesses, and they were no more honest and entitled to the big corporation I work for now. In fact, a couple of them I'd say bordered on sleazebag on a few occasions.

There are big corporations that are sleazebags too. To put them all in the same category as being evil is foolish IMO, as would be putting all small companies in the same category as being all rosey.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Plenty of shit bag small businesses too. For the most part they are not regulated to nearly the same degree as big business and plenty of them pull dirtbag moves to make the biggest profit margins as well.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

...the Mogur (Ken) lurks, failing to justify his hypocracy, then hides.


----------



## The Mogur (Mar 1, 2010)

caseybailey said:


> Mogur did not like when people use the term "big oil," yet he was the one who introduced that term to this thread (in fact he included it in his title). He has posted responses to other points since then, but not this. Mogur...why are you the only one who gets to use this term. Hypocracy?


Casey, Casey, Casey. What are we going to do with you? Of course I used the term *Big Oil* in the title for this thread! The tread is all about the demonization of the oil industry, and the derogatory term that is used by the people who hate the oil industry is "*Big Oil*." And my whole point is that it a sign of mental laziness for people to brand an entire industry as evil, simply by calling it *Big Oil*.

And when did I ever say that I'm the only one who gets to use the term hyprocracy? Go ahead and use it all you want. But please don't deny the hyprocracy of denigrating an entire industry, while you continue to patronize the industry and benefit from the use of its products.

You seem to want to make an argument where there's nothing to argue about. What, you don't agree that Eddie Haskel was a weasel? I thought we'd found something we could all agree on.

When we meet out on the river, I'll give you a beer. Unless it bothers you that I consumed petroleum products transporting it to the river, in which case you can drink river water.


----------



## caseybailey (Mar 11, 2008)

_First off, I must say I"m a stickler for the process and I think there is value in pointing out weakness in an argument. _ 


The Mogur said:


> ...the derogatory term that is used by the people who hate the oil industry is "*Big Oil*." And my whole point is that it a sign of mental laziness for people to brand an entire industry as evil, simply by calling it *Big Oil*.
> _Why didn't you just say that? Instead you introduce the term into a discussion and then complain about people using it._
> 
> And when did I ever say that I'm the only one who gets to use the term hyprocracy? _Miscommunication on my part. (Poor punctuation?) I meant the term "big oil"._ But please don't deny the hyprocracy of denigrating an entire industry, while you continue to patronize the industry and benefit from the use of its products. _I never did deny it. I definitely see my hypocracy, but I try to minimize my use of oil. (Knowing full well it probably took a full barrel of oil to make my raft.) I don't participate in "motor sports", but I drive my truck to trailheads and put-ins. So it goes._
> ...


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

What boat brands are experimenting with environmentally friendly plastics? Seems like we need to keep our goods up with level of todays performance outcome. At least in playboats which break less do to size


----------



## Riverghost (Jan 30, 2011)

Great discussion, I am very impressed with the viewpoints and rebuttals. You are obviously very astute and passionate about your opinions. As I type this, I am at one of the Oils Sands facilities you speak of. The reason these modules are fabricated throughout the world has more to do with the availability of labor, materials and facilities to build them. We are manufacturing most of the modules here, but cannot accommodate the sheer volume as we are tapped out, but of course there is always the dollar factor hovering overhead. There are projects to the tune of 65-70 billion dollars over the next ten years planned with just the company I work for alone. If Joe public wants to participate in making this happen, they are more than welcome. The problem we face is the stigma given to this, whether through the hatred for “Big Oil”(if I may use that term without lamentJ), environmental concerns, foreign outsourcing and so forth, which is keeping the rest of us from ‘cashing in’ for lack of a better term. I am sitting on the second largest known reserve of oil known to man and we are a relatively friendly nation, you decide whether or not to support it. Sad it is, I agree, but we all like conveyance of the fossil fuels we burn.

I hope I have gotten an inkling of a point established, if not feel free to let me have it.

Eddie was a dickJ 

...on with the discussion


----------



## Riverghost (Jan 30, 2011)

sorry, I meant 'convenience of fossil fuels' not 'conveyance' although it kinda works anyways.


----------



## ajpz (Mar 8, 2009)

convenient to get from point a to b, to grow and transport food, to heat us in the cold, to provide boats to us all, to provide new boats every year for some [entitled] folks.

convenient form of polluting freshwater, poisoning food, air, and all of the creatures on the planet. convenient way to control power, and the people. 

seems to me there comes a point of diminishing returns. invent the wheel to make work less or easier...time goes on, and we work far more to get these things to make life easier.


----------

