Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by Gunark, Jan 27, 2002.
yesi saw for the first time this weekend.
i LOVED IT!
made me smile
I suspect they'll try to monopolize renewables, as will Imperial Oil, BP Amoco, Anadarko, Chevron-Texaco, and Philips-Tosco. In other words, there will be competition.
...... well......I would also like to point out that your statement it quite circular.
..... you are saying that you don;t want energy compamies to have a monopoly is producing renewable energy..... unless I am misinterpretting it.
..... but automatically any company that mass produced anything relating to energy would be considered an 'energy company'
.... it also would depend on what the source of this new energy is.... with our existing dependance on oil, there are not many companies that could finance building a giant platform in the middle of the ocean.... well.. except maybe Microsoft.....but thn we;ll all need Windows 2000 to use their electricity.
... it pretty much takes a monopoly sized company to produce energy cheaply.....
also how can they sacrifice quality and efficiency? How do to determine to 'quality' of energy.... and you said yourself that all big companies care about is money... ie 'efficiency'
Well...I work for the National Research Council of Canada... we do tonnes of research into renewable energy with partners in industry.... look through our web page and you will find plenty of information about our research and what companies are financing it. It didn;t take me long to find a lot of stuff.... but sorry, I can;t post the actual links. Our webserver detects that I am surfing from our internal network and automatically reroutes me to internal links for everything.... these won;t work from outside.
.... but do searches... there is tonnes of stuff there.
Adrian, if advertising, marketing, and corporate image makeovers didn't work, companies wouldn't invest they kind of money they do into this.
Most people don't want to trouble their lives with worrying about how an oil company in far away africa exploited the abuse of human rights. This stuff just never registers on most people's radars.
The commercial I'm talking about, on the other hand, is on high rotation (every 15 to 20 minutes on CBC Newsworld and Discovery). It congures up a warm and fuzzy feeling of "an oil company coming to terms with the environment"). Hell if I didn't know any better I'd be pumping my gas at a Shell station, feeling all righteous about supporting a good company.
And the average viewer sees exactly that -- "Shell is on the right track, yey for shell".
The thign is, the way they come up with commercials like this has nothing to do with what's really going on in the company. It's not like the board of directors suddenly sat down and said "that's it, we're done with our evil ways, lets tell the world aobut our new green philosophy"... but that's exactly what the commercial seems to be saying.
No, the bosses go to their marketing department or ad agency and say "We have a P.R. problem. Do something about it."
Several brainstorming sessions and focus meetings follow, and the professionals at Chernoff/Silver (Shell's ad agency) come up with an image that addresses and solves the problem. End of story.
I know this because I work in the advertising industry. I've worked for a large ad agency, I went to those meetings, I got to participate in the wonderful "creative process".
Trust me, people are dumber than anyone would admit. All it takes is a little smooth strumming of the emotional strings and your marketing investment dollar pays off in dividends.
Way to get a biased opinion
I checked their references... would you like the list, so you can do it too?
Way to jump to conclusions.
Deus, don't think that I work in the same pathetic sheep-like fashion that you do...
P.S. I don't mean to suggest that there's some sort of secret evil plan to fool the people behind this. Not at all. This is just how the system works. It's much cheaper and more effective to just tell people that you're doing things differently, than to actually do it.
I'm sure the commercials are not lying, and the people they are "profiling" are real.
But while casting yourself in a better light may be morally wrong, it's not illegal.
here's the company's annual report, some discussion under President's Statement. They also publish a sustainable development report each year, focused on their "green" initiatives and community goodwill. A surprising amount of evil companies publish these reports.
Well.... let;s combine these to quotes shall we. Perhaps one can come to the conclusion that these 'dumb people' - who I assume you are taking to refer to all of society - all get taken in with the only people who ARE currently speaking out on this issue -- that being VERY one sided environmentalist groups who think that oil companies should have the ability to change the laws of physics to produce this so called 'clean energy'.
Perhaps it is Shell who might know a little better about their own research and are now choosing to tell their side of the story.
....and are you telling me that environmental groups have never been guily of this 'strumming of emotional strings' to get their message accross? Most environmental groups spout nothing but pure scientific gibberish, but their the only ones getting their message out, so people believe it for lack of anything else to listen to.
The thing is, the oil and gas exploration and development business is actually really interesting; from the geology and seismic, to the technology of drilling and extraction, and through the processing and downstream. It also has the total excitement of wildcat exploration and it's behavior in public markets. It comes with it's own set of economics, and it's a difficult business, subject to varying degrees of supply/demand manipulation, heavy competition and basic unpredictability. It's also a business that accounts for a third of Canadian GDP, something to consider if you enjoy living in a country that offers all the benefits that ours does. Canadian oil companies create careers and communities, and if you speak to guys working tough jobs on the rigs, more often than not, they'll describe their work using words like family. To paint these companies as pure evil because they extract non-renewable resources from the earth, or conduct business in repressive areas of the world, really doesn't tell the full story, although these things are, and should be concerns.
Just as a background observation, the gas is being flared because there are no facilities in place to process it. The gas, and gas bearing liquids are arriving at the surface as a co-product of the heavier oil, the production and processing focus. The gas must be treated differently than the crude oil, as it exists, and must be maintained under high pressure. There isn't a network of gas transportation in that part of the world, and the expense to create it makes it untenable. Thus, there isn't anywhere else for the gas to go. To put it in perspective, during the 1930's, when natural gas went for about US $0.10/mcf (vs. $2.75-$3.00/mcf today), it was uneconomic (and useless), and flared-off up until the 1950's. Virtually all of the natural-gas deposits of Texas, and the Louisiana basin were flared-off (only the deep pinnacle-reef gas structures still exist, expensive drilling and difficult to locate), there was nowhere else for it to go. Plane routes were literally diverted around these areas for fear of ignition of the unspent gas in the air. It isn't done anymore of course, now that treatment and transportation facilities are common, and because the US is a net importer of natural gas, now that it's appreciated for it's cleaner qualities. This of course benefits Canada, and our resource and utility companies. The point is, they aren't doing anything in Nigeria, that hasn't been done right here in North America on an incredibly larger scale. That doesn't make it right, but at least it's a context.
Let's face it ... for most of the people around here, you will NEVER be satisfied unless the government uses tax dollars to fund ALL research into renewable energy. Any research by private firms must be "wrong" because there's a profit motive, or because they're looking to dominate the market, or because they're trying to stifle rival technology, or because they're brainwashing the public.
Even still, you will always complain that MORE money should be invested because progress is too slow on finding and developing viable renewable energy sources.
Seriously ... why not swallow your pride and admit that any step forward is a good step? Who cares where the money comes from and who cares what kind of commercials they show?!
I'm not really arguing about who should be investing in renewable resources. I totally agree with that the move should (for the most part) be driven by commercial interests, rather than government intervention.
But that's not what my whole rant was about. The point of this was to complain about how a company can often just buy itself a new image... one which distorts the truth and misrepresents what the company really stands for.
But when you really get down to it, I'm basically complaining about how dumn our society is in general. So there.
dumb, not dumn
Separate names with a comma.