John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil Company, was on Charlie Rose Tuesday night.
About 22 minutes into the segment, he says the following [my own transcription]:
If we don't drill more in this country, I am quite concerned about civil disturbances in our urban areas because of the price of fuel.
...
I was meeting in Los Angeles with mayor Villaraigosa and I asked him a specific question because I lived there during the Rodney King civil disturbances. [I] said, "How is the mood in the hood based upon the price of gasoline compared to the mood in the hood at the time of the Rodney King disturbances?" He said it's threshold.
Let us drill or those people will act all crazy again! You know how they can be when it comes to things like this.
And they say environmentalists are alarmist.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
kmp Posted 3:50 am
27 Mar 2008
And how the hell will drilling in this country reduce the price of gas? (Not to mention what the price of gas in Alaska has to do with preventing police brutality... that's a story for another day).
Yes sir, I sure wish we had some of that there Alaskan oil here in NY, as I hear tell it's selling for $1.15 a gallon.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 4:07 am
27 Mar 2008
Permalink
anotherID Posted 4:54 am
27 Mar 2008
Price rationing increases social unrest.
Social unrest in LA is manifest ultimately through riots.
Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Permalink
anotherID Posted 6:14 am
27 Mar 2008
Permalink
awkline Posted 7:39 am
27 Mar 2008
First, where in this country is he purposing to drill, any place that has not been drilled at this point either does not possess enough oil to make it profitable or most likely is located in an environmentally protected area. Thus, you would have to assume he is referring to drilling in restricted drilling areas most likely in Alaska. But he has neglected to consider the "mood in tundra."
It would be a terrible incident if LA or any other area was in turmoil because oil prices but we cannot only consider this when discussing possible solutions.
The world, or let alone the U.S. does not revolve around the lives of everyone in L.A. and we must consider the consequences for everyone involved, not just the hood.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 8:00 am
27 Mar 2008
He (and Shell) definitely do want to get access to areas that had been declared off-limits for environmental reasons.
The truth is that rising fuel prices are correlated with political turmoil. You may remember the protests in Burma a few months back when the government attempted to raise fuel prices (that is, remove subsidies). Many other governments want to remove fuel subsidies, but are afraid of the political repercussions - India, China, Iran, Venezuela.
I haven't heard that inner-city ghettos would be the locus for protests against fuel prices. Poorer people in rural or suburban areas would seem to be the hardest hit. The Nation had an excellent article on the subject a few years ago: Running on Fumes.
In the U.S., people tend to express their anger in the poll booth. The other manifestation is protests by truckers (Truckers `going broke' and threatening to strike). In 2000, Europe was the scene of protests by lorry drivers, farmers and others
As the price of fuels continues to go upward, environmentalists will be one of the groups scapegoated (along with OPEC and Big Oil). It would be wise to have a sophisticated position from which to respond.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
kmp Posted 8:27 am
27 Mar 2008
My doubt comes from believing that drilling here in America will do anything to the price of oil as a global commodity. Drilling here would equal a drop in the bucket of global supply and seems unlikely to have any impact on oil price at all.
You know what might ease social & political unrest related to oil prices? Alternative energy.
Permalink
BILL HANNAHAN Posted 3:31 pm
27 Mar 2008
I believe that genetic engineering will eventually develop relatively inexpensive technology to make renewable liquid fuel.
The gentleman pointed out that we should not drill IN Alaska. Our offshore deposits are orders of magnitude greater than onshore resources.
We should develop our offshore oil now to maximize their benefit by reducing the price of oil and our trade deficit, and making us independent of our enemies during this transition.
Permalink
John Dewey Posted 1:31 am
28 Mar 2008
What benefit would the U.S. derive from reducing our trade deficit? If foreigners want to trade our little pieces of paper for goods they produced, why not continue letting them do that? If foreigners want to use those little pieces to invest in the U.S. rather than take some of our goods back home with them, why not continue to let them do that?
The truth is, the U.S. economic engine is so strong it generates increased wealth for both U.S. citizens and foreign investors alike. That foreigners have a greater need for saving - and choose to place their savings in U.S. financial instruments and U.S. capital investments - is no cause for alarm.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 11:08 am
28 Mar 2008
Good point. However when people are upset, they will grasp at straws and are easy to manipulate. Energy crises are a good time for Big Players to push their solutions - coal, nuclear, tarsands, etc. It's starting to happen now and will become more intense, I think.
kmp: "what might ease social & political unrest related to oil prices? Alternative energy."
Even with alternative energy sources, the price of energy will be going up and up. I think we need to step back, give up the search for magic solutions and take a long-view.
How do we live meaningful lives in a world with less energy? What are the pluses and minuses of different energy sources (e.g., EROEI)? What are the long-term environmental impacts?
BTW, I listened to the whole Charlie Rose interview with Shell president John Hofmeister. Hofmeister is a very articulate spokesperson - he would be an excellent person for environmentalists to study and sharpen their wits against. There are probably points of agreement as well.
Last month, Shell released its 20-page report, National Dialogue on Energy Security (PDF). Read it to see what people in the most PR-literate of the oil companies are thinking.
My take: "an interesting mixture of openness and the same old stuff. Much of the report is quite reasonable."
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink