Solution to the oil problem

[PLC1]

That would be because BigOil coerced them to scrap their money-maker: the electric car. Imagine if GM had stayed with that and honed it over the years? Their stock would be worth quite a bit. All the difference in the world in fact. Instead BigOil talked them into the guzzling "hummer".

If I was a stockholder, I'd organize, investigate and sue some SOBs who richly deserve it. Pun intended..

Meanwhile, I hear that Congress has put out a funny "compromise" on offshore oil pleas from the mega-profit monopoly: 50 miles offshore only and only if the State agrees...


Hmmm...50 miles average where the Continental Shelf drops off. Drilling could get fun in really deep water where rough seas are not uncommon. And then only if the State agrees... Good luck in California. Even if you pad the Governator's pockets really well, you'll have millions of protestors on your hands. Last I heard, Ahhnold was staunchly opposed to offshore drilling. Austrians can be so stubborn sometimes!

Big oil coerced GM into giving up the electric car? I suppose they coerced them into putting their money into SUVs also?

Hardly. GM gave up on the electric car because they didn't think it would be profitable, and they were most likely right about that. They put their time and energy into SUVs because the public demanded large vehicles, and the CAFE standards wouldn't let them develop large passenger cars. GM made business decisions based on what the American consumer wanted, which included large, powerful, gasoline powered vehicles. Neither GM nor the consumers foresaw the doubling of gasoline prices. Had they (both) been prepared for it, then small fuel efficient cars would be the norm, and electric technology would have been much further advanced than it is.

It is just silly to argue that the oil industry controls GM or any other auto manufacturer.

 

[Andy]

That would be because BigOil coerced them to scrap their money-maker: the electric car. Imagine if GM had stayed with that and honed it over the years? Their stock would be worth quite a bit. All the difference in the world in fact. Instead BigOil talked them into the guzzling "hummer".

You can not be serious. I suppose BigOil also coerced them to create the car to begin with. Coerced them to mass produce it. Coerced them to market it. Coerced them to lose millions on it. Then coerced them to end the project that was losing millions. Why yes, of course. It all makes sense now....

GM scrapped the electric car because they lost nearly $100K on each one they built. Anyone who does not limited their information intake to the tin foil covered Montana shacks, knows this.

It was well documented. The car cost roughly $120K, when you include the cost of the chargers, the home installation fees, the cost of free service on the cars, because they were all leased. Why were they leased? Cause no one is going to buy a $100K car that only goes 80 miles, and needs 4 hours to recharge, has nearly no truck space, only seats two, and looks like a plastic wind up toy... especially when they can buy a $16K car that can hold more, seat more, drive farther, and refuel in 5 minutes at nearly any city street corner.

The cars were horrible. They were not money makers. If GM could sell a car that ran on sand and marshmallows, they'd do it. The problem is, the EV1 was horribly expensive, and not enough people wanted them. It was not a money maker.

Once again... absolutely zero connection with reality.

 

[Sihouette]

All cutting edge technology is rough...assuming your assessment of them as "horrible" is correct and not just more spin-hype without links to information supporting your claims...which I notice is blatantly lacking from many pro-oil detractors...

Given several more years of fine-tuning...GM would've been at the top of the game right now. But noooooooo.....

Somebody...talked their CEOs into the hummer, in spite of the fact that experts knew long before then, and were advising same, that gas prices would go through the roof and oil would be running out...

You do the math of what happened with GMs bass-ackwards decisions.. Personally, I smell bribes and coercion. But you know me...always thinking that people chase short-term profiteering instead of long-range and sane investments....

Silly me...

 

[BigRob]

All cutting edge technology is rough...assuming your assessment of them as "horrible" is correct and not just more spin-hype without links to information supporting your claims...which I notice is blatantly lacking from many pro-oil detractors...

Given several more years of fine-tuning...GM would've been at the top of the game right now. But noooooooo.....

Somebody...talked their CEOs into the hummer, in spite of the fact that experts knew long before then, and were advising same, that gas prices would go through the roof and oil would be running out...

You do the math of what happened with GMs bass-ackwards decisions.. Personally, I smell bribes and coercion. But you know me...always thinking that people chase short-term profiteering instead of long-range and sane investments....

Silly me...

The "somebody" that talked GM out of the electric car was a guy named "profit margin."

 

[Dr.Who]

You can not be serious. I suppose BigOil also coerced them to create the car to begin with. Coerced them to mass produce it. Coerced them to market it. Coerced them to lose millions on it. Then coerced them to end the project that was losing millions. Why yes, of course. It all makes sense now....

GM scrapped the electric car because they lost nearly $100K on each one they built. Anyone who does not limited their information intake to the tin foil covered Montana shacks, knows this.

It was well documented. The car cost roughly $120K, when you include the cost of the chargers, the home installation fees, the cost of free service on the cars, because they were all leased. Why were they leased? Cause no one is going to buy a $100K car that only goes 80 miles, and needs 4 hours to recharge, has nearly no truck space, only seats two, and looks like a plastic wind up toy... especially when they can buy a $16K car that can hold more, seat more, drive farther, and refuel in 5 minutes at nearly any city street corner.

The cars were horrible. They were not money makers. If GM could sell a car that ran on sand and marshmallows, they'd do it. The problem is, the EV1 was horribly expensive, and not enough people wanted them. It was not a money maker.

Once again... absolutely zero connection with reality.

An accurate assessment.

 

[Andy]

All cutting edge technology is rough...assuming your assessment of them as "horrible" is correct and not just more spin-hype without links to information supporting your claims...which I notice is blatantly lacking from many pro-oil detractors...

Given several more years of fine-tuning...GM would've been at the top of the game right now. But noooooooo.....

Somebody...talked their CEOs into the hummer, in spite of the fact that experts knew long before then, and were advising same, that gas prices would go through the roof and oil would be running out...

You do the math of what happened with GMs bass-ackwards decisions.. Personally, I smell bribes and coercion. But you know me...always thinking that people chase short-term profiteering instead of long-range and sane investments....

Silly me...

Dear Sil... last time you questioned my sources of information, I formed a two post long thread on Geothermal power, complete with sources for every single point I made. You not only didn't answer, but still have yet to provide even one... just one... substance backed counter point to anything I said.

If you want me to provide another completely documented, linked, supported, evidence backed post, I will do so. Unlike some here, I don't say things unless I have seen evidence and researched the topic myself.

The real quest though is, why is it your posts never meet the high standards of links and documented evidence, that you dismiss others for not having? Why is this high requirement of professional research quality posts, only required by people who disagree with you, but not for yourself, or those that support your views? Why the double standard? Why do we have to accept your statements on faith, or with scant circumstantial evidence?

Here's a thought: How about you provide the clear documented evidence that BigOil coerced Toyota to drop the RAV4 EV? Where are your links proving the massive profits from GM's EV1? What evidence do you cite of this supposed massive demand for an 80 mile max, 2 seat, zero trunk, 4-hour recharge, nearly $100K car? Do you have anything?

You let me know, I'll be more than happy to write out another post you won't respond to, or will only make passing substance-less remarks about.

 

[Phoenix68]

Solution to the oil problem​

.

.
Gee.....how 'bout tapping into their "forgotten" STASHES....and, CLEANING-UP, AFTERWARDS??!!!!
.​