Oil Execs to be questioned on profits..

[Texsox]

Trust me it makes me sick how much monry these guys make but we live in a capitalistic society were the goal is to make as much as possible.  I don't see how a company can do that and get in trouble.

 

We break up monopolies. We are not 100% pure market driven. We do look out of the "public good".

 

Oil companies could cripple our country. Everything imaginable from plastics to chemicals, to food additives, are touched by the oil industry. Factor in transportation and see how important those industries are.

 

Yes, SS, it is three completely dfifferent scenarios, showing that we regulate and control profits in a wide variety of ways for the public good. We sacrifice profits for job safety, we sacrifice profits for pollution standards, etc. So the make as much money as possible isn't 100% accurate.

 

Again, looking into and shining a light isn't by itself a bad thing, what they do once they conclude the hearings is a completely different matter.

[kapkomet]

We break up monopolies. We are not 100% pure market driven. We do look out of the "public good".

 

Oil companies could cripple our country. Everything imaginable from plastics to chemicals, to food additives, are touched by the oil industry. Factor in transportation and  see how important those industries are.

 

Yes, SS, it is three completely dfifferent scenarios, showing that we regulate and control profits in a wide variety of ways for the public good. We sacrifice profits for job safety, we sacrifice profits for pollution standards, etc. So the make as much money as possible isn't 100% accurate.

 

Again, looking into and shining a light isn't by itself a bad thing, what they do once they conclude the hearings is a completely different matter.

They're going to do NOTHING. It was all a dog and pony show for the cameras to make sure that the American people knew they were "watching". And that's the sickest part of all. Forget the political party, these people are nothing but dips***s that hang off the camera teat.

[Texsox]

They're going to do NOTHING.  It was all a dog and pony show for the cameras to make sure that the American people knew they were "watching".  And that's the sickest part of all.  Forget the political party, these people are nothing but dips***s that hang off the camera teat.

 

I'll bet a few may short the stocks they own in blind trust

[kapkomet]

I'll bet a few may short the stocks they own in blind trust 

 

They probably already have. It's the only thing making money.

[KipWellsFan]

Executives from big oil met with Cheney aides while developing national energy policy. They recently denied this at the hearings, maybe they should have been under oath.

 

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.

 

...

 

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111501842.html

more at link

[Texsox]

I would hope the people drawing up an Energy Policy would meet with oil company execs. I wonder why they lied?

[mreye]

I would hope the people drawing up an Energy Policy would meet with oil company execs. I wonder why they lied?

Because it was a secret meeting that the EPA was not invited to.

 

 

My question still has not been answered:

 

Who profits the most in all of this?

[FlaSoxxJim]

Executives from big oil met with Cheney aides while developing national energy policy.  They recently denied this at the hearings, maybe they should have been under oath.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5111501842.html

more at link

 

I wonder why the GOP Congress declined to make them testify under oath. No, actually I don't.

 

I'm very much AGAINST any windfall tax on US oil companies, because it is a potential disincentive to produce from existing domestic sources and would likely lead to greater dependence on foreign sources. BUT, the cloak-and-dagger approach the administration and Big Oil took in drafting American energy policy favorable to their needs is utter B.S. Cheney should have been subpoenaed and forced to come clean about all of this three years ago.

[Texsox]

I think any reasonable person drawing up an energy policy or plan should interview people in the industries. Not only the oil people, but wind farmers, nucleeahyr, solar, natural gas, etc.

 

The potential sinister stuff is how that information is used or abused.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think any reasonable person drawing up an energy policy or plan should interview people in the industries. Not only the oil people, but wind farmers, nucleeahyr, solar, natural gas, etc.

 

The potential sinister stuff is how that information is used or abused.

 

It was sinister on the first place to not level with the public on who was being consulted.

[Texsox]

It was sinister on the first place to not level with the public on who was being consulted.

 

Sinister in the second place. The first place was imviting them, which should have been cool.

[kapkomet]

It was sinister on the first place to not level with the public on who was being consulted.

Whhaaaaaaa?

 

I remember very clearly a big stink being raised about this then. We knew who was at the meetings - but where I'm confused is where everyone denied it now? Who did that?

[kapkomet]

I shoulda read the article first.

 

Representatives of these companies go to Washington to lobby for stuff all the time. So representatives met with Cheney. It doesn't mean that the executives on the Hill last week KNEW that people had been a part of the conversations.

 

Then this gem.

 

In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document

 

That's 100% DIFFERENT then the title indicates on the article. And you people wonder why I HATE the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost. People are grasping for straws here to throw crap to see what sticks.

 

The thing is, all these high-powered bigshots rub elbows with these people all the time. There's so much corruption and crap they talk about, that you could infer just about anything from these "meetings".

 

Did they set policy? Hard to say. But my point is the inflammatory headline is different then the actual content of the article with the "should bes and maybes and not sures".

 

I admit that it does stink to high heaven though.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Whhaaaaaaa?

 

I remember very clearly a big stink being raised about this then.  We knew who was at the meetings - but where I'm confused is where everyone denied it now?  Who did that?

 

No, we really didn't know who the players were, or who was involved in the shaping of the US energy policy. And Cheney never made that information or the substance of the Energy Task Force available and refused to turn over documents regarding the matter.

 

A lot of what we know about Ken Lay's involvement only became known as the Enron debacle and ensuing investigations unfolded.

 

More than 25 "Bush Pioneers" ($100K+ donors) before the 2000 election came from the Energy and Natural Resource sector. Knowing that the public would of course demand transparency as to exactly how much a US energy policy coddled these major donors and their industries, the White House should have been very upfront about who was influencing policy and then be able to justify it.

 

I agree with Tex that of cource Big Energy needs to be at the table when drafting US energy policy. It is what may have transpired under the table that has always been the issue.

[kapkomet]

No, we really didn't know who the players were, or who was involved in the shaping of the US energy policy.  And Cheney never made that information or the substance of the Energy Task Force available and refused to turn over documents regarding the matter.

 

A lot of what we know about Ken Lay's involvement only became known as the Enron debacle and ensuing investigations unfolded.

 

More than 25 "Bush Pioneers" ($100K+ donors) before the 2000 election came from the Energy and Natural Resource sector.  Knowing that the public would of course demand transparency as to exactly how much a US energy policy coddled these major donors and their industries, the White House should have been very upfront about who was influencing policy and then be able to justify it.

 

I agree with Tex that of cource Big Energy needs to be at the table when drafting US energy policy.  It is what may have transpired under the table that has always been the issue.

I agree with you there. These "under table" deals with ALL facets of industry are sickening.

[KipWellsFan]

I shoulda read the article first. 

 

Representatives of these companies go to Washington to lobby for stuff all the time.  So representatives met with Cheney.  It doesn't mean that the executives on the Hill last week KNEW that people had been a part of the conversations.

 

Then this gem.

That's 100% DIFFERENT then the title indicates on the article.  And you people wonder why I HATE the NY Slimes and the Washington Compost.  People are grasping for straws here to throw crap to see what sticks.

 

The thing is, all these high-powered bigshots rub elbows with these people all the time.  There's so much corruption and crap they talk about, that you could infer just about anything from these "meetings".

 

Did they set policy?  Hard to say.  But my point is the inflammatory  headline is different then the actual content of the article with the "should bes and maybes and not sures". 

 

I admit that it does stink to high heaven though.

 

 

The title of the article is 'Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force', I don't see anything wrong with that.

[kapkomet]

The title of the article is 'Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force', I don't see anything wrong with that.

And then there's a reference that basically says "sources say" but then "it's not proven"... :rolly

[KipWellsFan]

And then there's a reference that basically says "sources say" but then "it's not proven"... :rolly

 

I don't know what you're trying to get at.