Arctic Environmental / Sponsorship Discussion

[pwc]

Good point, what is the % that is evil? Sure, I don't like to see some other guy make $10B in three months when I didn't, but I just made 120% on the sale of a photo. Am I an evil person?
Should all companies make 5% profit and that's it?

EDIT: Crap...I hope they weren't drinking coke on that trip too!! Coca-Cola 1Q profit jumps 14 percent - $1.26billion

 

[VikingVince]

When is a return on profit considered profiteering, 10% profit return, 20%, 30%?

When gross revenues are huge, a 10% profit looks huge, but in my mind is not out of line.

I agree with you Al. (btw, hello and how are ya?)
All corporations have to make a profit to stay in business. IMO, "x" amount of profit margin is not so much the issue. But rather in some industries and corporations, there is a very dark and dirty side to the way some or all of their profit is made.

 

[crawler#976]

Well, here it goes...

Again, congratulations on Expedition’s West’s successful trip!

Since the crux of this discussion is based on environmentalism, guess I might as well chime in as someone on the opposite side of the ANWR argument. I’m all for conservation and energy alternatives, and maintaining a clean, safe, stable environment, but in this case feel we need to open the area for resource production.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A 17% increase in domestic production is a good start, and if drilling in the Gulf Coast and off Cali is opened up, that number increases further yet.

I'm 100% in favor of opening up 3 square miles out of 28125 square miles in ANWR to development on the artic. The 1.5 million acre number used by the media is somewhat disingenuous – only about 2000 acres will actually have drilling activity on it. The larger figure is the amount of area on the coastal plain that is open to exploration. The impact on the coastal plain has been proven to be virtually non-existent. At the present time the central artic caribou herd is expanding at Prudhoe Bay. The populations of brown bear and artic foxes as well as bird populations are stable and are equal to areas not under production.

I'm 100% in favor of building many more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now 30 years behind in technology. We’ve got a lot of research to do, but if the energy companies (like Mobil) are going to spend the billions required to do the research, they must be assured of, and yes, it is a business, creating PROFIT for their investors. Production of nuclear energy will offset the need for fossil fuel, and is the only clean alternative in areas where solar and wind power are impractical.

Later,

Mark

 

[teotwaki]

Well, here it goes...

Again, congratulations on Expedition’s West’s successful trip!

Since the crux of this discussion is based on environmentalism, guess I might as well chime in as someone on the opposite side of the ANWR argument. I’m all for conservation and energy alternatives, and maintaining a clean, safe, stable environment, but in this case feel we need to open the area for resource production.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A 17% increase in domestic production is a good start, and if drilling in the Gulf Coast and off Cali is opened up, that number increases further yet.

I'm 100% in favor of opening up 3 square miles out of 28125 square miles in ANWR to development on the artic. The 1.5 million acre number used by the media is somewhat disingenuous – only about 2000 acres will actually have drilling activity on it. The larger figure is the amount of area on the coastal plain that is open to exploration. The impact on the coastal plain has been proven to be virtually non-existent. At the present time the central artic caribou herd is expanding at Prudhoe Bay. The populations of brown bear and artic foxes as well as bird populations are stable and are equal to areas not under production.

I'm 100% in favor of building many more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now 30 years behind in technology. We’ve got a lot of research to do, but if the energy companies (like Mobil) are going to spend the billions required to do the research, they must be assured of, and yes, it is a business, creating PROFIT for their investors. Production of nuclear energy will offset the need for fossil fuel, and is the only clean alternative in areas where solar and wind power are impractical.

Later,

Mark

Pretty well sums up what I might have written. In the end it is about a four letter word spelled "compromise". :Wow1: Having far Right and far Left loonies is useful for debate and edification but we have to meet in the middle and chart a practical course based on facts rather than emotion.

 

[Ursidae69]

I was going to climb back into this thread, but it is getting too political for me because I respect and value people's opinions on this site and I also value their opinion of me. Because we may or may not agree on some things, I'd hate to see that potentially affect future interactions, even though I doubt it would due to the high level of professionalism on this site.

I also want to thank RoundOut for his post, that was really informative and I for one am certainly not critical of your occupation. I’m somewhat critical of certain aspects of the industry as a whole, but not of the people working in the field. Hope that is not taken as being hypocritical.

Great thread.

 

[Pskhaat]

Awesome response, RoundOut! There are a few Oil junkies on the board here no doubt; and I certainly benefited in my early years from struggling domestic oil companies.

Theoretically, I can never say there is too much profit. Quite honestly, if I were in charge of retail fuel pricing, I'd bump it a heck of a lot higher because...what...you're not going to fill up and make it to work?

What I do fear is collusion in the industry which we must admit happens de facto in almost all industries at some minute level. If it didn't happen in oil in the late 1800s with the `trust'ing and collaboration of all of the Standard Oil disparate entities, there'd be no Sherman Act.

As per the Arctic drilling, that's a box I don't really want to open

 

[VikingVince]

RoundOut - I don't think anyone here, myself included, has been critical of your choice of occupation. This thread is supposed to be about corporate sponsorship and all its ramifications. I am critical about some aspects of the oil industry. I invoke the term "profiteering" only when I believe a corporation uses unfair or unethical practices to make profit, and yes I believe that has occurred in the oil industry...as well as others for that matter.

Let's get back on topic. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on if, when, and how corporate funds ever become too "dirty?"
DesertRose had a good post on her years of experience in conservation and funding...the interconnectedness of everything...always being able to find a dirty footprint somewhere, etc.
So is there ever a point where we draw a line?
I think this is a pretty interesting topic, as I believe DesertRose voiced as well.

 

[stevenmd]

This thread has been a great read and I applaud Scott for letting it play out in a public setting. Shows integrity.

Btw... can you tell the difference between a "clean" dollar and a "dirty" dollar? I can't. Does "dirty" money spent on a good cause make said cause "dirty"? Yeah right.

 

[elcoyote]

This thread has been a great read and I applaud Scott for letting it play out in a public setting. Shows integrity.

:iagree:

Btw... can you tell the difference between a "clean" dollar and a "dirty" dollar? I can't. Does "dirty" money spent on a good cause make said cause "dirty"? Yeah right.

I believe the term is "Laundering" :bigbossHL:

 

[Scott Brady]

I believe that since we are even having this discussion shows that many on this forum are sensitive to the idea of improving efficiency and reducing fuel consumption. How far one goes is a very individual decision. This is just one of the many issues we face as humans in a time of high consumption of natural resources. Big houses, Big SUV's, 3+ children to a couple, Water usage, long commutes, grain fed and open range chickens (not that I eat chicken ), etc. (these are just some active issues in the media, not anything that I necessarily believe in one way or another)

I do not believe it is appropriate to judge one persons actions over another (we are all at fault to one degree or another on some issue), but I do believe that having discussions on these topics is healthy and helps to reduce ignorance and shed light on both sides of an issue.

I totally enjoy this stuff, I just don't like it when it gets personal...

Finger pointing is not a very becoming trait. Plus, when you are finger pointing, you can't use that hand to keep your own skeletons in the closet :ylsmoke:

 

[kcowyo]

Plus, when you are finger pointing, you can't use that hand to keep your own skeletons in the closet :ylsmoke:

Quotable Brady strikes again......

This has been an interesting read. What a unique and diverse community we have here.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Being brand new to this forum and arriving at this discussion fashionably late, I'll keep this brief.

As a former resident of Alaska and freqent visiter to ANWR I can't help but feel a strong sense of protection for the entire northern landscape. As a former mountain and sea kayaking guide I've also done my fair share of tree hugging preaching. I believe in it. I also have to admit to myself and my fellow tree huggers that I drive a Land Rover that gets a shamefull 14mpg. I think we all have a little of both extremes in us.

While you could make the argument that Mobile sponsorship is counter to the spirit of the trip, I would offer the more compelling argument that this endeavor (even sponsored by big oil) did a great deal to expose even more people to the wonderment of our northern wilds. That is what it's all about.

When I was guiding sea kayaking trips in the fjiords of Alaska we'd often see cruise ships lumbering by. While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Personally, I think Mobile makes a fitting sponsor. So much for a brief reply. Sorry.

 

[DesertRose]

As a former resident of Alaska and freqent visiter to ANWR I can't help but feel a strong sense of protection for the entire northern landscape. As a former mountain and sea kayaking guide I've also done my fair share of tree hugging preaching. I believe in it. I also have to admit to myself and my fellow tree huggers that I drive a Land Rover that gets a shamefull 14mpg. I think we all have a little of both extremes in us.

While you could make the argument that Mobile sponsorship is counter to the spirit of the trip, I would offer the more compelling argument that this endeavor (even sponsored by big oil) did a great deal to expose even more people to the wonderment of our northern wilds. That is what it's all about.

When I was guiding sea kayaking trips in the fjiords of Alaska we'd often see cruise ships lumbering by. While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Welcome to Expedition Portal - well-said, too. In my younger days everything seemed clear-cut and I was more "radical" in many views, including environmental. But now into my 40s and having spent a lot of my 30s exploring, learning, listening, and thinking (like many of the people on this forum), I am much more conservative and aware of both sides, as well as a fan of compromise and meeting in the middle.

But on some things - like ANWR - I guess I just say while it's true the actual species-by-species impact might not cause any extinctions, it's not about that, it's about a Wild place. So on that I have to say "Let's leave the world's greatest Wilderness free of our junk." Go for alternative fuels. Some things are worth saving.

 

[RoundOut]

Welcome Flounder!

... While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Warning... going off topic...

This reminds me of discussions my wife and I enjoy regarding animals in zoos and/or circusses (sp?). People flock to zoos and circusses, some for entertainment and some for education (zoos only here, not circusses), and regretably the animals in the zoo/circus are not "free to meandor". Granted, some zoos offer their captive animals a more natural setting, but nonetheless, they are still captive. Circus animals however, are pretty much prisoners and/or forced laborers which really chaps us.

However, many people would never appreciate these animals unless afforded the opportunity by zoos or circusses to see them first hand. At least the zoos are necessary evils, much less the circus. I could personally do without the circus, but they are certainly entertaining for some.

OK, back on topic.

 

[Christophe Noel]

I didn't mean to stray off topic. I was simply drawing parallel lines between cruise ships plying pristine waters and a Mobile 1 sponsored expedition traveling into the wilds of the arctic. If the cruise ship and the Mobile 1 sponsorship serve to bring more people's attention to the wilderness, that's not a terrible thing at all. What Chris and Scott did is 1000 times cooler than a cruise, by the way.