Arctic Environmental / Sponsorship Discussion
- Thread starter freetomeander
- Start date
Haggis
Appalachian Ridgerunner
Scott, I want to applaud you for the way you are handling freetomeander's thread. Your response has been one of forceful restraint while still not putting up with someone's BS. One of the reasons I started logging on to this site was the manner of discourse you all have between yourselves, level headed debates where issues were seen from all sides. This thread, when I first read it, seemed like someone with an agenda was lopping a bomb in here.
Super Doody
Explorer
Being a critique is easy. Understanding the issue before making a sounds decision is hard.
In the western world where individuality is promoted and a very important of the social fabricate, opinions and "logic" will always differ. All we can do be honest to ourselves and respect others.
In the western world where individuality is promoted and a very important of the social fabricate, opinions and "logic" will always differ. All we can do be honest to ourselves and respect others.
RoundOut
Explorer
I applaud the individuals in the Arctic Expedition Team for their ability to enjoy vehicle dependent expeditions to remote areas while earning a living. What a beautiful thing! Congratulations on your sponsorships, and what a blessing it is to include an energy company among them. Until another fuel source and engine combination is brought to market, we have the internal combustion engine and the oil industry.
It is completely hypocritical for anyone that drives a car, heats or cools their home, turns on the lights from a switch on the wall, cooks a meal on a gas or electric stove, uses plastics of any kind, irons their shirt, or vacuums their carpet to make attacks like that. Many of the products we take for granted and most of the electricity generated today comes from fossil fuels. Why do so many people ignore this fact and then slam the energy industry which is the very source of these comforts?
Although I was very upset with much of the tone, if not the intent of freetomeandor's post, I waited to chime in until this thread was moved over to one dedicated to this discussion, so as not to "pollute" the topic of the Arctic trip.
I have made my living since 1986 in the oil and gas industry. While our industry has made many mistakes, it provides products and services that this country could not do without, PERIOD. The very freedom we all enjoy could be boiled down to the availability of energy at a reasonable cost. If you want to understand that statement better, read Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Among the only reason's we are all not speaking German or Japanese is the availability of fuel to our armed forces during WWII.
The ANWR is perhaps the last of the "elephants", in terms of large quantities of oil and gas reserves available from within our nations borders. Outside of the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California and offshore Florida, there are few other locations with as much promise of economic energy reserves. Because of the development of the North Slope, the pipeline infrastructure is almost all in place to develop ANWR and all that is needed is a mutually acceptable development plan, which could be negotiated between reasonable people. Our country's interests would be better served by allowing energy companies to develop ANWR directionally from a few pads, limiting intrusion of native habitat, than to ignore these vast reserves and send our dollars overseas.
This is all part of a much larger problem, in my opinion. Nobody wants a drilling rig in their back yard or just off their pristine beach, but we all want a source of cheap gas for our car, truck or SUV. It is shameful that energy policy in this country cannot be developed by reasonable people. The greenies and militant media see it as oil industry profiteering, and the politicians are afraid to be statesmen and make hard decisions for fear of losing a few votes. So nothing will change, unfortunately. We'll all just point fingers, make accusations, and spend whatever it takes to fill our gas tanks. That's just the way it is.
It is completely hypocritical for anyone that drives a car, heats or cools their home, turns on the lights from a switch on the wall, cooks a meal on a gas or electric stove, uses plastics of any kind, irons their shirt, or vacuums their carpet to make attacks like that. Many of the products we take for granted and most of the electricity generated today comes from fossil fuels. Why do so many people ignore this fact and then slam the energy industry which is the very source of these comforts?
Although I was very upset with much of the tone, if not the intent of freetomeandor's post, I waited to chime in until this thread was moved over to one dedicated to this discussion, so as not to "pollute" the topic of the Arctic trip.
I have made my living since 1986 in the oil and gas industry. While our industry has made many mistakes, it provides products and services that this country could not do without, PERIOD. The very freedom we all enjoy could be boiled down to the availability of energy at a reasonable cost. If you want to understand that statement better, read Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Among the only reason's we are all not speaking German or Japanese is the availability of fuel to our armed forces during WWII.
As a for-profit company and more specifically a publicly traded company, ExxonMobil is in the business of making money for its shareholders. Their chosen method is to explore for, produce, transport, and refine oil and gas products as cheaply as possible and market them as profitably as possible. It is NOT the goal of oil companies to cause environmental destruction, but rather to deliver energy for a profit. In today's age, environmental responsibility is part of the cost of doing business in this industry. It is much cheaper to act responsibly than to clean up a mess caused by not acting responsibly. Suggesting that ExxonMobil wants to destroy the beauty of ANWR is ridiculous.seth_js said:
The ANWR is perhaps the last of the "elephants", in terms of large quantities of oil and gas reserves available from within our nations borders. Outside of the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California and offshore Florida, there are few other locations with as much promise of economic energy reserves. Because of the development of the North Slope, the pipeline infrastructure is almost all in place to develop ANWR and all that is needed is a mutually acceptable development plan, which could be negotiated between reasonable people. Our country's interests would be better served by allowing energy companies to develop ANWR directionally from a few pads, limiting intrusion of native habitat, than to ignore these vast reserves and send our dollars overseas.
This is all part of a much larger problem, in my opinion. Nobody wants a drilling rig in their back yard or just off their pristine beach, but we all want a source of cheap gas for our car, truck or SUV. It is shameful that energy policy in this country cannot be developed by reasonable people. The greenies and militant media see it as oil industry profiteering, and the politicians are afraid to be statesmen and make hard decisions for fear of losing a few votes. So nothing will change, unfortunately. We'll all just point fingers, make accusations, and spend whatever it takes to fill our gas tanks. That's just the way it is.
Ursidae69
Traveller
RoundOut said:
This statement in particular caught my eye. You really think that profiteering isn't going on? You really think the greenies and militant media is just hyping the fact that ExxonMobile and others have had record profits? Exxon's second-quarter profit in 2006 was 10.36 billion dollars while we paid record amounts at the pump. Doesn't seem like a greenie conspiracy to me, but in fact abuse of the American consumer. On the bright side, these high gas prices are forcing the government and automakers to act and forcing the consumers here to conserve, so some good will come out of it beyond the record profits.
This has been an interesting thread and I'm glad this was moved out of the trip thread, it was very out of place there.
freetomeander
New member
Mr Brady,
Regarding your latter post in this thread, I would first like to say that I very much appreciate your committment to the environment, your love of nature, and your commitment to travel. We share those things in common. Believe it or not, it's possible we'd work for the same cause...if we ever get over this hump. Having said that, I find it quite ironic, if not oxymoronic, that you have aligned yourself with a multi-national corporation that has ultimately worked against the preservation and improvement of the global environment...despite their public declarations to the contrary.
Your former post where you specifically responded to my post is somewhat of a different matter.
I experienced it as hostile, aggressive, and an attempt to intimidate. (slaps on the back from your compatriots notwithstanding) No problem. I understand. I will try to not to be as personal but allow me a couple observations. You seemed quite intent on PROVING that my post was inflammatory even thought I attempted to assure you that was not my intent. Do you need to be right? If you are a student of psychology, what would needing to be right indicate? We all have and need ego just to get out of bed in the morning, but...
Next let me say that your 'old-fashioned' rationale connecting anonymity with inflammatory is without merit in this instance. I agree that generally speaking, a veil of anonymity could encourage hostility. But that is not the case here. I have been the victim of identity theft and household robbery. The two were connected and the internet was involved. I will NEVER, EVER again post my full name, where I live, or my occupation on the internet. Plus the long arduous hassle of straightening-out indentity theft is a process I would not wish on anyone. A side note - I also see that some people in this forum post their birthdays along with their full names and where they live. Very foolish. Birthdate is one of the key pieces of info in identity theft. You have no idea how clever these types of thieves are in piecing together information from different sources and using it.
Back to the issue at hand. This argument of "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or "hey, don't you use oil to?" is really very thin, if not intellectually bereft. Of course I use oil - just like all of you. I even have a Mobil credit card along with many others. It just makes traveling easier in many instances. I also eat food and wear clothes - just like all of you. Does that mean that I condone corporations that exploit third world labor in garment sweatshops where women and children are forced to work 14-16 hour days in deplorable conditions for 30 cents an hour? NO. Does the fact that I eat food mean I shouldn't be critical of agricultural corporations that exploit and mistreat immigrant farm labor? NO. (I realize some of these abuses have been exposed in recent years and some changes made, but exploitation still continues)
On a comparative basis, ExxonMobil is the 8th largest economy in the world. Nothing 'wrong' with that. Last year, ExxonMobil had $40 billion in net profit. That's net profit after all expenses, including R&D for things like synthetic oil. That $40 billion is the largest one fiscal year profit in the entire history of capitalism! Nothing necessarily 'wrong' with that either, although it begs the question of when and if profit is excessive, how should it be used? So when I fill my tank and gasoline is $3/gallon and going higher, I have to ask if any of that $40 billion could have been returned to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. ????
Please use the following links as a starting poing for your own research on ExxonMobil.
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/whyexxon.html
This is a coalition of environmental and public interest groups spotlighting ExxomMobil's efforts to drill in the ANWR, prevent action on global warming, and encourage America's oil dependence.
Be sure and scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Facts links
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/ExxonMobil/exxonmobil.html
This Stanford link is a more scholarly, balanced opinion...although not quite current.
http://www.waado.org/Environment/OilCompanies/ERAonExxonMobil.html
The style of this link is a bit too over-the-top liberal but the issues are credible. Take note of the lawsuit that is mentioned. I was priivy to some of the deliberations of the American law firm that represented the plaintiffs. I know that the allegations mentioned were meritorius of an action.
Contrary to what many of you may think, I am not anti-corporate nor am I a knee-jerk, "tree-hugging" liberal (thank you, Ursidae for challenging that). I simply try to be an informed and objective observer of this world I have travelled and form my opinions accordingly. By the way, you will never be well informed if your only input is American media. Douglas Hackney echoes this opinion on his website as well. I would encourage everyone to start reading foreign news sources and magazines and see how other people in the world experience America. If you are not close-minded or predisposed, your perspectives will be broadened and some of your current opinions will most likely change.
The topic of this thread is corporate sponsorship vis a vie expedition travel. Let's get to the issue an abandon this debate over the tone of my first post. I KNOW it was challenging and that can be interpreted as attacking. I did my best to not make it inflammatory. Now let's continue with the issue as some members have attempted to.
Ursidae and DesertRose have made some insightful points about using corporate funds. I'd like to briefly expand on that. It seems to me that accepting "green money with dirty footprints" is necessary and an inevitable aspect of the way our world works. But is there a line that should be drawn?? Can money with dirty footprints ever be too dirty? Or do we accept all green money totally regardless of the "dirt?" If we accept money, or products for testing, from corporations that have engaged in commonly accepted reprehensible behavior, are we as a people not sliding into a type of moral bankruptcy? Are we selling our souls to the devil? Are money or free products so seductive that accepting them has no standards? I would hope not. Mr. Brady, are there any corporate actions that would remove a corporation from your list of acceptable sponsors? If so, what are they?
As you might guess, ExxonMobil would not be on my list.
Mr. Brady, thank you for this discourse. After all, it is your forum. I suspect you may respond with a long expose defending ExxonMobil or debunking the criticisms in the links. (no doubt the oil man from Houston will!) So be it. In the final analysis, everyone will decide for themselves...but hopefully after reading the proverbial both sides of the story.
My appreciation to all who thoughtfully read and consider what I've posted here.
Regarding your latter post in this thread, I would first like to say that I very much appreciate your committment to the environment, your love of nature, and your commitment to travel. We share those things in common. Believe it or not, it's possible we'd work for the same cause...if we ever get over this hump. Having said that, I find it quite ironic, if not oxymoronic, that you have aligned yourself with a multi-national corporation that has ultimately worked against the preservation and improvement of the global environment...despite their public declarations to the contrary.
Your former post where you specifically responded to my post is somewhat of a different matter.
I experienced it as hostile, aggressive, and an attempt to intimidate. (slaps on the back from your compatriots notwithstanding) No problem. I understand. I will try to not to be as personal but allow me a couple observations. You seemed quite intent on PROVING that my post was inflammatory even thought I attempted to assure you that was not my intent. Do you need to be right? If you are a student of psychology, what would needing to be right indicate? We all have and need ego just to get out of bed in the morning, but...Next let me say that your 'old-fashioned' rationale connecting anonymity with inflammatory is without merit in this instance. I agree that generally speaking, a veil of anonymity could encourage hostility. But that is not the case here. I have been the victim of identity theft and household robbery. The two were connected and the internet was involved. I will NEVER, EVER again post my full name, where I live, or my occupation on the internet. Plus the long arduous hassle of straightening-out indentity theft is a process I would not wish on anyone. A side note - I also see that some people in this forum post their birthdays along with their full names and where they live. Very foolish. Birthdate is one of the key pieces of info in identity theft. You have no idea how clever these types of thieves are in piecing together information from different sources and using it.
Back to the issue at hand. This argument of "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or "hey, don't you use oil to?" is really very thin, if not intellectually bereft. Of course I use oil - just like all of you. I even have a Mobil credit card along with many others. It just makes traveling easier in many instances. I also eat food and wear clothes - just like all of you. Does that mean that I condone corporations that exploit third world labor in garment sweatshops where women and children are forced to work 14-16 hour days in deplorable conditions for 30 cents an hour? NO. Does the fact that I eat food mean I shouldn't be critical of agricultural corporations that exploit and mistreat immigrant farm labor? NO. (I realize some of these abuses have been exposed in recent years and some changes made, but exploitation still continues)
On a comparative basis, ExxonMobil is the 8th largest economy in the world. Nothing 'wrong' with that. Last year, ExxonMobil had $40 billion in net profit. That's net profit after all expenses, including R&D for things like synthetic oil. That $40 billion is the largest one fiscal year profit in the entire history of capitalism! Nothing necessarily 'wrong' with that either, although it begs the question of when and if profit is excessive, how should it be used? So when I fill my tank and gasoline is $3/gallon and going higher, I have to ask if any of that $40 billion could have been returned to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. ????
Please use the following links as a starting poing for your own research on ExxonMobil.
http://www.exxposeexxon.com/whyexxon.html
This is a coalition of environmental and public interest groups spotlighting ExxomMobil's efforts to drill in the ANWR, prevent action on global warming, and encourage America's oil dependence.
Be sure and scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Facts links
http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/ExxonMobil/exxonmobil.html
This Stanford link is a more scholarly, balanced opinion...although not quite current.
http://www.waado.org/Environment/OilCompanies/ERAonExxonMobil.html
The style of this link is a bit too over-the-top liberal but the issues are credible. Take note of the lawsuit that is mentioned. I was priivy to some of the deliberations of the American law firm that represented the plaintiffs. I know that the allegations mentioned were meritorius of an action.
Contrary to what many of you may think, I am not anti-corporate nor am I a knee-jerk, "tree-hugging" liberal (thank you, Ursidae for challenging that). I simply try to be an informed and objective observer of this world I have travelled and form my opinions accordingly. By the way, you will never be well informed if your only input is American media. Douglas Hackney echoes this opinion on his website as well. I would encourage everyone to start reading foreign news sources and magazines and see how other people in the world experience America. If you are not close-minded or predisposed, your perspectives will be broadened and some of your current opinions will most likely change.
The topic of this thread is corporate sponsorship vis a vie expedition travel. Let's get to the issue an abandon this debate over the tone of my first post. I KNOW it was challenging and that can be interpreted as attacking. I did my best to not make it inflammatory. Now let's continue with the issue as some members have attempted to.
Ursidae and DesertRose have made some insightful points about using corporate funds. I'd like to briefly expand on that. It seems to me that accepting "green money with dirty footprints" is necessary and an inevitable aspect of the way our world works. But is there a line that should be drawn?? Can money with dirty footprints ever be too dirty? Or do we accept all green money totally regardless of the "dirt?" If we accept money, or products for testing, from corporations that have engaged in commonly accepted reprehensible behavior, are we as a people not sliding into a type of moral bankruptcy? Are we selling our souls to the devil? Are money or free products so seductive that accepting them has no standards? I would hope not. Mr. Brady, are there any corporate actions that would remove a corporation from your list of acceptable sponsors? If so, what are they?
As you might guess, ExxonMobil would not be on my list.
Mr. Brady, thank you for this discourse. After all, it is your forum. I suspect you may respond with a long expose defending ExxonMobil or debunking the criticisms in the links. (no doubt the oil man from Houston will!) So be it. In the final analysis, everyone will decide for themselves...but hopefully after reading the proverbial both sides of the story.
My appreciation to all who thoughtfully read and consider what I've posted here.
Last edited:
RoundOut
Explorer
Absolutely not, profiteering is not going on. It is naive of one to think that any one company, even as large as ExxonMobil, has market power over gasoline prices in the U.S.Ursidae69 said:
Gasoline is but one component of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons existing in various amounts in various grades of crude oil found in various locations throughout the world. Other things constant, such as the quality of the crude oil - i.e. sulfur content, amount of naphtha (makes gasoline) or distillate (makes diesel and jet fuel) in crude oil, location, etc., the price of crude oil on the world market is determined by the price someone is willing to pay for the very last barrel produced each day. As much as ExxonMobil or any other company would like to have control over it, they don't.
During times of political conflict, such as Iranian nuclear fears or Nigerian rebels taking over oil production, prices rise over concerns of supply. During supply interruptions, such as occurred with the two hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, other sources of crude oil production had to be procured for refiners in the Gulf Coast that were used to the supplies from Gulf of Mexico platforms. In order to attract those sources to the Gulf Coast, someone had to pay more than the last guy. The last guy didn't want to lose his steady supply, so he had to pay more to keep it, and the cycle continues until a price equilibrium is established in the free market.
The world market controls the cost of the feedstock, crude oil. The world market controls the cost of the oil companies' working capital, through the cost of feedstocks and cost of money to own the inventory of feedstocks, intermediate products and finished products. What oil companies do have some control over is the transportation, refining and marketing cost. The profit margin at the pump is determined solely by how cheaply the gas station owner can supply gasoline and whether his/her price is low enough to attract the number of customers he/she needs to move their target volume. Again, this is a free market.
At the end of the day, commodity prices are all market-based, and gasoline is no exception, except for the $.385/gallon in taxes (that is what it is in Houston, I think - it varies from state to state or city to city).
You quote Exxon's profit of $10.36 billion as if it were some kind of sin. Have you considered that Exxon shareholders have invested about $440 billion to make that kind of profit? While making that profit, American consumers have all enjoyed the convenience of being able to visit grandma over Easter weekend and not worry that there won't be enough fuel to get home.
Remember what a profit of $10.36 billion will provide the U.S. Treasury, too! A whole bunch of corporate income tax.
durango_60
Explorer
Since this thread has gone down the ExxonMobil is a Evil Empire Road...
And? Are we now penalizing organizations for making a profit???
So what? Yes, 40 Billion is a huge number that is nearly impossible to comprehend but that number by itself is merely a small piece of the puzzle. I only look at percentages such as ROE and Net Margin, for your viewing pleasure I have attached S&P reports for 4 companies we all know and love so you can pick out the evil profiteering organization.
Edit, the reports are larger than I can upload directly to the site and I don't have time to host them somewhere else right now, I'm busy trying to make a profit...
My favorite part is how Alcon(a drug company out to help people) has a 1 year 39.25% ROE vs. ExxonMobil's 35.11% ROE.
As a shareholder I got my piece of the pie
disclaimer: while I do not work for the oil industry, it did pay for my education and a wonderful childhood travelling the world...
freetomeander said:
And? Are we now penalizing organizations for making a profit???
freetomeander said:
So what? Yes, 40 Billion is a huge number that is nearly impossible to comprehend but that number by itself is merely a small piece of the puzzle. I only look at percentages such as ROE and Net Margin, for your viewing pleasure I have attached S&P reports for 4 companies we all know and love so you can pick out the evil profiteering organization.
Edit, the reports are larger than I can upload directly to the site and I don't have time to host them somewhere else right now, I'm busy trying to make a profit...
My favorite part is how Alcon(a drug company out to help people) has a 1 year 39.25% ROE vs. ExxonMobil's 35.11% ROE.
freetomeander said:
As a shareholder I got my piece of the pie
disclaimer: while I do not work for the oil industry, it did pay for my education and a wonderful childhood travelling the world...
Scott Brady
Founder
Mr./Ms. Freetomeander,
I really only have two points left on this interchange, as time is short in this life and I do not believe that your intentions are honorable with any of this.
If you would like, send me an email and I will give you my phone number. Maybe a more traditional discussion will come to some good...
First:
I genuinely believe that you had negative intentions with your initial post, and there is obvious evidence to support it. It is not about my ego or about being right. It is about the continued degradation of "class" and "good taste" on the Internet, where even individuals of implied maturity act poorly. There can be places on the Internet where people can have some manners and my hope is that ExPo will remain one of them. So, I will stand toe-to-toe (or keyboard-to-keyboard in this case) with you on this.
1. Timing: You made the post just as I had returned and was celebrating with my friends, fellow forum members and family.
Let me share with you a story:
Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has just completed a life dream, the dream of climbing the ten tallest 14'ers in Colorado. Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has put together a party at his/her home in the Denver area to celebrate the successes that he/she has accomplished with two of Freetomeander's closest friends. While everyone is enjoying looking at the pictures and listening to your stories of adventure, a stranger slips into the house from the darkness, lurking in the shadows of the room. Just as you are ready to share a toast with your friends and family this stranger steps forward and says. "how can you justify celebrating your accomplishment, when you climbed the mountain wearing North Face equipment?" Silence comes over the room and the celebration fizzles. You have never seen this person, in fact, they stay in the shadows so that you cannot see their face. So you respond. "Well, I am a mountain climber and The North Face does make climbing equipment". The stranger huffs, obviously prepared to continue with the accusations. "The North Face gear is made in China, and they are a communist country, you are supporting communism and should be ashamed of your accomplishments". By this point, Freetomeander is feeling pretty defensive, with a stranger in the home, having interrupted the party and offended his family and friends.
How would you feel if this happened to you Freetomeander?
Just take a step back and draw on your years of time on this earth and think about your first post. If you were at all honest with yourself, you would admit that your intentions were not honorable.
Second:
You drive a Class C motorhome for recreation. You have zero credibility on the subject of fossil fuel conservation or usage in my mind.
I partner with good companies and good people. My stories and images help to promote interest in wilderness and wildlife. My agreement is with Mobil1for synthetic fluids, which IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT when compared to traditional fluids. I think I have made this point perfectly clear by now...
I don't like Walmart, so I would not consider them for sponsorship. Other than that, it is on a case by case basis, as any other small business in the universe with limited time and resources would do....
I really only have two points left on this interchange, as time is short in this life and I do not believe that your intentions are honorable with any of this.
If you would like, send me an email and I will give you my phone number. Maybe a more traditional discussion will come to some good...
First:
I genuinely believe that you had negative intentions with your initial post, and there is obvious evidence to support it. It is not about my ego or about being right. It is about the continued degradation of "class" and "good taste" on the Internet, where even individuals of implied maturity act poorly. There can be places on the Internet where people can have some manners and my hope is that ExPo will remain one of them. So, I will stand toe-to-toe (or keyboard-to-keyboard in this case) with you on this.
1. Timing: You made the post just as I had returned and was celebrating with my friends, fellow forum members and family.
Let me share with you a story:
Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has just completed a life dream, the dream of climbing the ten tallest 14'ers in Colorado. Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has put together a party at his/her home in the Denver area to celebrate the successes that he/she has accomplished with two of Freetomeander's closest friends. While everyone is enjoying looking at the pictures and listening to your stories of adventure, a stranger slips into the house from the darkness, lurking in the shadows of the room. Just as you are ready to share a toast with your friends and family this stranger steps forward and says. "how can you justify celebrating your accomplishment, when you climbed the mountain wearing North Face equipment?" Silence comes over the room and the celebration fizzles. You have never seen this person, in fact, they stay in the shadows so that you cannot see their face. So you respond. "Well, I am a mountain climber and The North Face does make climbing equipment". The stranger huffs, obviously prepared to continue with the accusations. "The North Face gear is made in China, and they are a communist country, you are supporting communism and should be ashamed of your accomplishments". By this point, Freetomeander is feeling pretty defensive, with a stranger in the home, having interrupted the party and offended his family and friends.
How would you feel if this happened to you Freetomeander?
Just take a step back and draw on your years of time on this earth and think about your first post. If you were at all honest with yourself, you would admit that your intentions were not honorable.
Second:
You drive a Class C motorhome for recreation. You have zero credibility on the subject of fossil fuel conservation or usage in my mind.
I partner with good companies and good people. My stories and images help to promote interest in wilderness and wildlife. My agreement is with Mobil1for synthetic fluids, which IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT when compared to traditional fluids. I think I have made this point perfectly clear by now...
I don't like Walmart, so I would not consider them for sponsorship. Other than that, it is on a case by case basis, as any other small business in the universe with limited time and resources would do....
Ursidae69
Traveller
RoundOut said:
I'm admittedly not an expert in oil and I do not think the profits are some kind of sin, but they do make me pause and reflect at their size. The ROE argument is an interesting side note, especially when compared to other industries.
In the end, I am still optimistic that these higher prices at the pump (that are not going away) will spur advances in conservation and fuel economy.
mountainpete
Spamicus Eliminatus
There have been some very good points brought forward in this thread. Unfortunately, we can all see the direction this is going.
Scott - the members of ExPo and North American overlanders in general owe you a considerable amount of gratitude and respect for the leadership you have shown for Vehicle Dependant Expedition Travel on this side of the pond. We all celebrate with you, Chirs and Pasquale the amazing success of the Arctic Expedition.
At the same time - well it's seriously corny but Spiderman's Uncle Ben put it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." As you are more and more in the public eye, you will continue to get more pressure to explain yourself and your choices. From my perspective, you have proved your leadership in this area many times over. The record speaks for itself and I respect it. The decision to accept Mobil-1 as your sponsor was yours (and probably Chris) - it's done so lets move on.
Freetomeander - you have brought forth many excellent points and I respect your right to your personal privacy - there are certain lines I also do not cross online. Your comments regarding Mobil Oil are well taken. As you can see, I live in Alberta - Oil Capital of North America. Our economy is heavily dependant on oil and research, exploration and drilling, so I can personally understand where you are coming from.
With that said, you have to be honest - you really did cause quite a stir in our little online community. Your timing is probably what hurt you the most and as a result this discussion isn't going in the way it should. I feel that you would get your point across better if you focus on how you would choose a good sponsor instead of why one specific company is good or bad.
Everyone: The ExPo community has a basic, unwritten pillar that holds it up. That being respect. Respect for members personal beliefs, experiences and perspectives. It's as simple as not bashing Toyota vs. Jeep and goes as far as the jokes that may be posted. This includes heavy bashing of specific people or companies. This is stuff we all know and it's why we come to ExPo. Let's always do what we can to keep that respect!
With all that said, lets make this a constructive discussion. :26_7_2:
Pete
Scott - the members of ExPo and North American overlanders in general owe you a considerable amount of gratitude and respect for the leadership you have shown for Vehicle Dependant Expedition Travel on this side of the pond. We all celebrate with you, Chirs and Pasquale the amazing success of the Arctic Expedition.
At the same time - well it's seriously corny but Spiderman's Uncle Ben put it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." As you are more and more in the public eye, you will continue to get more pressure to explain yourself and your choices. From my perspective, you have proved your leadership in this area many times over. The record speaks for itself and I respect it. The decision to accept Mobil-1 as your sponsor was yours (and probably Chris) - it's done so lets move on.
Freetomeander - you have brought forth many excellent points and I respect your right to your personal privacy - there are certain lines I also do not cross online. Your comments regarding Mobil Oil are well taken. As you can see, I live in Alberta - Oil Capital of North America. Our economy is heavily dependant on oil and research, exploration and drilling, so I can personally understand where you are coming from.
With that said, you have to be honest - you really did cause quite a stir in our little online community. Your timing is probably what hurt you the most and as a result this discussion isn't going in the way it should. I feel that you would get your point across better if you focus on how you would choose a good sponsor instead of why one specific company is good or bad.
Everyone: The ExPo community has a basic, unwritten pillar that holds it up. That being respect. Respect for members personal beliefs, experiences and perspectives. It's as simple as not bashing Toyota vs. Jeep and goes as far as the jokes that may be posted. This includes heavy bashing of specific people or companies. This is stuff we all know and it's why we come to ExPo. Let's always do what we can to keep that respect!
With all that said, lets make this a constructive discussion. :26_7_2:
Pete
jeffryscott
2006 Rally Course Champion: Expedition Trophy
I've stayed out of this until now. I used to be married to someone that was more of an activist. She would join various protests and think she was doing something. I, on the other hand, was working with my photography to protest many of the same issues - but I was doing it by showing the ills of society, trying to raise awareness, documenting rights and wrongs in an effort to educate through the media.
People have a choice, they can yell and scream from either side of the fence, or they can work to educate and inform - even if sponsorship is from a company that has a less than stellar track record. You can either work from within and attempt to make change slowly, or you can stand on the sidelines ranting and raving. Personally, I think education is the nexus of change, not yelling and screaming.
Change doesn't happen overnight - raising awareness, promoting conservation,, etc ... come from people like Scott, who is reaching far more people everyday with this goal than someone raising concerns in an internet forum.
People have a choice, they can yell and scream from either side of the fence, or they can work to educate and inform - even if sponsorship is from a company that has a less than stellar track record. You can either work from within and attempt to make change slowly, or you can stand on the sidelines ranting and raving. Personally, I think education is the nexus of change, not yelling and screaming.
Change doesn't happen overnight - raising awareness, promoting conservation,, etc ... come from people like Scott, who is reaching far more people everyday with this goal than someone raising concerns in an internet forum.
This is a truly interesting thread. Ignoring perceived attacks, bad timing and other attention diversions.
One has to admit that there is a certain amount of irony in having EM as a sponsor on an arctic expedition with one of the expedition's functions being to promote the arctic environment. Good, bad, meh is an individual decision. My twisted sense of humor did cause me to chuckle a little though.
The interesting question that did arise is when is money too dirty to accept in sponsorship? On a level we all experience, who do we support through our shopping habits. I think that we are all old enough to realize that the world is not black and white. How does one decide? It all depends on the compromise and shades of gray one's moral compass sees.
Who Expedition West accepts as a sponsor is Expeditions West's decision and business. Expedition West doesn't have to defend its decisions. However, Expedition West shouldn't be surprised when questions like this do arise. When one puts oneself in the spotlight there is often an inevitable increase in scrutiny. Is the increased scrutiny justified, sometimes. Is it sometimes stupid and of no real bearing, yes. There are lots of ways to deal with scrutiny and once again how Expedition West does so is EW's decision.
I would have used a less aggressive and defensive tone, but that is my opinion and my interpretation. To be clear, I am talking about the original poster and the EW's response.
:cheers:
One has to admit that there is a certain amount of irony in having EM as a sponsor on an arctic expedition with one of the expedition's functions being to promote the arctic environment. Good, bad, meh is an individual decision. My twisted sense of humor did cause me to chuckle a little though.
The interesting question that did arise is when is money too dirty to accept in sponsorship? On a level we all experience, who do we support through our shopping habits. I think that we are all old enough to realize that the world is not black and white. How does one decide? It all depends on the compromise and shades of gray one's moral compass sees.
Who Expedition West accepts as a sponsor is Expeditions West's decision and business. Expedition West doesn't have to defend its decisions. However, Expedition West shouldn't be surprised when questions like this do arise. When one puts oneself in the spotlight there is often an inevitable increase in scrutiny. Is the increased scrutiny justified, sometimes. Is it sometimes stupid and of no real bearing, yes. There are lots of ways to deal with scrutiny and once again how Expedition West does so is EW's decision.
I would have used a less aggressive and defensive tone, but that is my opinion and my interpretation. To be clear, I am talking about the original poster and the EW's response.
:cheers:
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Another question to be raised then is who has the moral right to question others decisions and/or actions?
I'm still trying to separate how accepting sponsorship from Mobil is morally incomprehensible yet having a big motorhome, a Mobil credit card and supporting Exxon when you buy gas is somehow different. Knowing that and going back to the original question I'm actually a little surprised someone would be so bold.
The old saying "It's not what we say, but what we do that defines who we are," keeps coming to mind while I read this thread.
I'm still trying to separate how accepting sponsorship from Mobil is morally incomprehensible yet having a big motorhome, a Mobil credit card and supporting Exxon when you buy gas is somehow different. Knowing that and going back to the original question I'm actually a little surprised someone would be so bold.
The old saying "It's not what we say, but what we do that defines who we are," keeps coming to mind while I read this thread.
Last edited:
Pskhaat
2005 Expedition Trophy Champion
durango_60 said:
Okay, time for an economist to say a small piece:
Pure capitalism is no sin, but let's not be fooled into thinking we live in a free market for any industry. Laws and methods of taxation drive and steer economies. Laws (or specific lack thereof), lobbying, tax codes, and pinpoint Congressional spending can shape those economies as well as the resulting social culture.
If I were Exxon I have a cultural, social, and investment interest in getting as much profit as possible, just the same as if I were selling cloth fabrics for a living. Period.
It should be we complaining about economic and legal barriers to alternative fuels and alternative refineries; we who complain about our local tax monies going to transportation departments that seem to be solely interested in making more paved roads and fuel-wasting stop lights instead of rail lines and roundabouts (for a random instance). With our complaints, should we mandate fuel use tax to carbon-equate each gallon of gasoline/diesel?
Fuel is nearly perfectly inelastic product. So is water. It's no suprise that many foreign countries are making energy a federal utility.
My point is the oil companies--and sorry RoundOut I am quite convinced I am being charged significantly more than historical, speculative, or projected future cost
--is not the right target.