Charlie Rose

Alan Hopkins  09/03/2008 05:58 PM Report

Wow - there was more interesting information just between the lines in this interview than the sum of all the talking points I've seen between Republican and Democrat elected officials so far in this decade.

And for that, the bloggers here are almost exclusivey concerned with the "mood in the hood" comment.

As a people, a society, a country... we are clearly doomed. Time to take the word shame out of the dictionary. It doesn't exist.

Billy Hewitt  08/10/2008 08:04 AM Report

The large oil companies like Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell have betrayed America that gave them huge benefits in return for their promise to invest 10%+ in alternative technologies. Instead these multinational corporations have only invested 0.1% and kept $BILLIONS for their greedy selfish bloated management. The lies that John Hofmeister told with Charlie Rose shaking his head like a hired yes man insult any patriotic American. This bloated arrogant oil man stated President Chavez has little support in Venezuela. President Chavez has 70% support of the Venezuelan people and has created an economic miracle in Venezuela with universal healthcare and highest minimum wage in latin America. President Bush has been urged by these oil men to invade Iraq and Venezuela. Venezuela is the best democracy in South America. President Bush has a low 28% approval

rating because of the illegal occupation of Iraq and the failure of our financial system and and bailout of greedy bankers at Bear Stearns and policy of torture of men, women, and children. let's tax the greedy fat oil men.

ronald  07/18/2008 05:45 AM Report

Just wish all the oil nipple suckers would stay away from main stream media.Society does not need more drilling in the protected areas of Alaska nor in the Gulf.

Let alternative fuels take over and kick out all these oil vampires

Tolui  07/16/2008 01:18 AM Report

Is this guy for real? The "mood in the hood"!!? Yikes.

And he's saying we're the only country in the world that doesn't subsidize energy? Has he driven in Europe recently? I think they're paying something like $8 per gallon in England.

Utterly self serving bull...

Cara  07/16/2008 01:18 AM Report

You let your guest get away with stirring up racialized fears of "urban"--read black--unrest to justify controversial oil drilling in the United States without so much as a follow-up question. I believe the direct quote was "what's the mood in the hood?" Urban-dwellers of all colors actually use public transportation and could teach us a lot about sustainable living. Infusing this debate with "riot" rhetoric is a disturbing tactic. I'm afraid Mr. Rose has helped to normalize this thinking by failing to challenge it in the moment.

Thadeus Eustacius  07/16/2008 01:17 AM Report

Difficult to watch a leading multinational energy corporation representative spout off about the need for "energy nationalism" as if Royal Dutch Shell is an American corporation when it is heavily involved in destroying the environment in Africa and killing its opposition.

The real key to energy economy is to not use it by not losing it. An economy built on automobiles cannot ever be efficient. Shell's idea of an energy plan that deals with the organization of energy use, focused only energy development, the profit centers for Shell. Energy conservation is not on the Shell agenda. Mass transit depends on society organization, curtailing urban sprawl, getting population densities up. The technology exist to build homes and buildings that use nearly no fossil fuels for heat. Shell's focus is on getting more resources to use, not conservation. The crises is truly a crises of leadership because the energy corporations dictate that policy. The guest's eyes really lit up when he spoke of getting "invited" into the Iraqi oil grab. Really pathetic performance by a man who is part and parcel of the conflicts in the world fueled by the corporate energy grabs.

Mike Snead  07/16/2008 01:15 AM Report

Hidden beneath the apparently sensible explanations of Mr. John Hofmeister was the fact that his company is unable to provide affordable transportation fuel for America. His proposed solution is to use additional consumption taxes and rebates to lower-income consumers to enable his company to stay in business. At a result, the government's role in keeping the company in business becomes critical. This then raises two important issues that were not addressed. First, if the company is fundamentally dependent on government's enabling rebates to sustain business, then it is no longer a private company and should be reorganized as a regulated utility, perhaps as a government-run utility. Second, should such a move be required to maintain public order, as Mr. Hofmeister clearly noted, then it is a clear indication that he and his company's management have fundamentally failed to effectively manage their business. This despite their 5, 10, 50, and 100-year projections of energy needs and company solutions, as he proudly made note. This situation emphasizes that the interests of private energy businesses are not those of the public's government. As such, private energy businesses should not have a special place at the table in formulating public energy policy; especially in formulating a policy that is designed to prop up the private business after poor management decisions.

Diane  07/16/2008 01:13 AM Report

It's nearly impossible for any past or present president of a major oil company to think as independently as is necessary to give an objective set of solutions to the world's energy needs and recommendations to stave off the damaging effects of global warming. Even if he retires, he will still be collecting big pension bucks that will not enable him to think completely "outside the box" of oil company thought processes. It was good that he was on the broadcast so that people can be aware of the spin that is sure to be spun to the public and congress by oil interests. In addition to the concerns about costs of fuels, the major point that has to be discussed broadly is that of deadly pollution of the earth's atmosphere.

The food vs. fuel problem that was identified with respect to fuel from corn crops is not valid. Read "The Omnivore's Dilemma" to learn the disaster that's taking place as a result of feeding corn to cattle. Maybe a better use for corn is, indeed, fuel rather than as artificial and hormone and pesticide injected food for cattle. Fructose from corn provides big bucks for the companies that produce it and heavily lace our food supply with it, but it is raising havoc in the bodies of the poor souls who are buying packaged foods thinking that they are buying nutrition.

damali ayo  07/16/2008 01:05 AM Report

Charlie,

I am extremely disappointed that you did not interrupt the exaggerated, fear-inducing and blatantly racist comments that this guest made about "the hood" with regards to gasoline prices. If you don't recall, he basically insinuated that black people would riot if gasoline prices got too high. He disrespectfully compared the "climate in the hood" to that following the racist beating of Rodney King by LA police officers. I was in shock as I listened him go on sentence after sentence building an image of urban violence resulting from high gas prices. Certainly, people in urban areas have been living in poverty in this country for decades without erupting spontaneously into violence and looting. His insinuations were diabolical.

His statements were inaccurate and clearly meant to incite fear among your white middle and upperclass viewers, and you let him use you to exact this strategy. It was appalling. It was even more disturbing because those in "urban areas" certainly are as concerned as everyone else about food prices, but also clearly use less gasoline than those in suburban and rural areas who use their automobiles to transport them large distances to work, groceries, and daily activities. Urban living is more likely to rely on public transport, alternative transport, and walking. Urban areas, as far as transporation goes are proven to be far more "green" than other areas of the country- except for LA, perhaps which has no viable public transport system, but where you are in New York could have been easily used as a clear contradictory example to his absurd statements. The facts to challenge the racist statements of your guest were right at your fingertips, yet you sat in total silence.

You, Charlie, of all people, know better than to let someone sit in front of you and paint that kind of dangerous, and very bias picture of the "urban centers" of this country.

It's doubly upsetting to me because I was deeply concerned when you and Tom Friedman sat across from each other and congratulated America on how far we've come with regards to civil rights. You both seemed to think that racism is over. Of course there was no person of color at your table to say otherwise. Two white men congratulating this country on how far we've come with regards to race really concerned me, but the comments by the Shell executive on your show really turned my stomach.

Really Charlie, how can you sit at your table with Jay-Z one week and another let a man say those kinds of things?

I believe you owe your audience an apology.

damali ayo

morris  07/16/2008 01:03 AM Report

The president of Shell oil did not tell the truth about subsidies. He said

other countries subsidize their oil, but USA does not. The truth is

the USA subsidizes by putting aircraft carriers in the Gulf, and 140,000 troops out there to protect "our" oil. The USA subsidizes by building highways instead of transit systems. If we paid the full price of gasoline, it would be $15 or $20 a gallon instead of $4.

TH in SoC  07/16/2008 12:59 AM Report

So, Mr. Hofmeister is asserting that the Government must immediately lift all restrictions on drilling for oil in this country, or else the inner-city "nigga's" will riot? Mr. Hofmeister talked to Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa about the "mood in the hood" as it pertained to gasoline prices? I'm sorry, but that sounds as unlikely as the lies Hillary Clinton has been telling lately.

I am a black American. I also have a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering, and hold a California professional engineering license. Two of my professors at the university I attended are black. Both hold doctorates in electrical engineering; one taught electromagnetics, and the other specializes in power engineering. Mr. Hofmeister's comments are an insult to me, as well as to many others.

But Mr. Hofmeister's comments betray the pathological greed of the rich, and of those who, through offers of easy credit, have been fooled into thinking that they are rich. After all, was it not these people who pushed for the Iraq war? And that war was all about oil - nothing else. We should be more worried that in an era of declining availability of oil, the rich in this country will do whatever they can to maintain their addiction to money, whether that means demonizing the poor and people of color, or invading countries on a pretext, simply to steal their resources. I am much more concerned about the desperation that's likely to ensue in places like Yorba Linda, Laguna Niguel, Trabuco Canyon, Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, Malibu and other upscale places when cheap oil becomes utterly unavailable and the economy fueled by cheap oil suffers a terminal breakdown. What will the mood be in the far-flung exurbs of Southern California, crammed full of useless McMansions, when soccer families are no longer able to afford the Mercedes and Land-Rover SUV's or the mortgage payments?

Perhaps Mr. Hofmeister thought that Americans are so stupid that he could get away with saying such outlandish hogwash. Believe me, the truth is different. More and more of us are getting wise to peak oil. All the spin doctoring in the world can't erase that growing awareness. But if Mr. Hofmeister thinks he can get away with statements like those he made in this interview, maybe it's a sign that Shell Oil's diversity policies and treatment of minority employees should be investigated.

John Matro  07/16/2008 12:58 AM Report

Rose let John Hoffmeister, the president of Shell Oil, off way too easily. By the time Rose was done with him, he made one of the Princes Of Darkness look like an altar boy. Hoffmeister told the viewing public what he wanted it to hear and Rose allowed him the stage to do it. I especially didn't like the part where Hoffmeister didn't come clean about the risks of drilling off the northwest coast of Alaska. But first, he made himself sound reasonable by shockingly saying that he doesn't condone drilling in ANWR (only because the oil resources are scant compared to the political cost). But Hoffmeister conveniently didn't mention the huge risks of a large oil spill that will persist for years and which cannot be cleaned up (there is no technology that can clean oil from icy waters). Even the Bush administration's scientists admit that there is a 50% chance of this happening in the short run and a 100% chance that it will eventually happen. The Bush administration has squelched documents which show how polar bears and other marine life will be devastated by these imminent spills while seven oil companies have spent almost $3 billion dollars on oil leases in the area. When polar bears and other marine mammals attempt to clean themselves by licking their fur, they die from petroleum poisoning; a different way of dying than the birds.

Rose should do better research and make his viewing public proud by skewering bastards when he has them in his clutches. But I'm beginning to get the idea that Rose is a self-serving pussycat. Being mean is bad for business.

Rudy  05/22/2008 09:47 PM Report

I understand his need to make a point,and I believe it's a valid point.But there is no reason for a old,rich, white executive to ever use the term "In the hood." unless you are a person who lives in that general vicinity and even there I believe it's fallen out of use.It certainly shouldn't be used as the "go to" term to describe any place urban or where a large population of ethnic or financially disadvantaged people reside.

John Fruzzetti  04/12/2008 12:48 AM Report

Man, this guy is funny....the coons in the hood will riot if we don't drill now, everywhere. They are coming to steal your tv and stereo in YOUR home if we don't let oil companies drill wherever they want, whenever they want. Insane. Talk about racist......an example of our elites, their greed and why they are sailing us straight down the crapper.

Christopher  04/01/2008 05:55 AM Report

Mood in the hood...

The public perception is the right one. Oil companies want lower gas taxes. Gasoline has to be taxed more, it would encourage the purchase of more fuel effieicent cars...This is the case in Europe. Also, I don't think the private sector is up to participating in the national energy strategy because companies want to make the most profits immediately.

Charlie was weak in this interview, no questions about next ten years, next twenty, etc, asking "what is your plan? can the private sector hack it?".

Alan Cohen  03/31/2008 02:28 PM Report

Hofmeister is a well intended sort and a fresh change from the likes of say Lee Raymond at Exxon. As a Harvard educated physicist, I can say that it will take longer for this country to generate economic sources of energy beyond fossil fuels than we might imagine. I believe we ought to consider ways to open additional acreage to oil companies to improve the production of hydrocarbons, while we are waiting for alternative energies to come online.

PS I am a registered Democrat leaning toward Mr Obama.

Benjamin Miller  03/29/2008 05:20 PM Report

The wholesale, unquestioning acceptance of a completely unproved theory (that being anthropogenic global warming) promoted by alarmist panic-mongers and promulgated, aided and abetted by an amazingly credulous, gullible media has produced behavior closely resembling that of sheep. Hofmeister and Shell have given up trying to talk sense; they realize they're only going to be lynched.

_____________________________

The Sloppy Science of Global Warming

Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.

While a politician might be faulted for pushing a particular agenda that serves his own purposes, who can fault the impartial scientist who warns us of an imminent global-warming Armageddon? After all, the practice of science is an unbiased search for the truth, right? The scientists have spoken on global warming. There is no more debate. But let me play devilâ??s advocate. Just how good is the science underpinning the theory of manmade global warming? My answer might surprise you: it is 10 miles wide, but only 2 inches deep.

Contrary to what you have been led to believe, there is no solid published evidence that has ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth â?? not one peer-reviewed paper. The reason: our measurements of global weather on decadal time scales are insufficient to reject such a possibility. For instance, the last 30 years of the strongest warming could have been caused by a very slight change in cloudiness. What might have caused such a change? Well, one possibility is the sudden shift to more frequent El Niño events (and fewer La Niña events) since the 1970s. That shift also coincided with a change in another climate index, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The associated warming in Alaska was sudden, and at the same time we just happened to start satellite monitoring of Arctic sea ice. Coincidences do happen, you knowâ?¦thatâ??s why we have a word for them.

We make a big deal out of the â??unprecedentedâ?? 2007 opening of the Northwest Passage as summertime sea ice in the Arctic Ocean gradually receded, yet the very warm 1930s in the Arctic also led to the Passage opening in the 1940s. Of course, we had no satellites to measure the sea ice back then.

So, since we cannot explore the possibility of a natural source for some of our warming, due to a lack of data, scientists instead explore what we have measured: manmade greenhouse gas emissions. And after making some important assumptions about how clouds and water vapor (the main greenhouse components of the atmosphere) respond to the extra carbon dioxide, scientists can explain all of the recent warming.

Never mind that there is some evidence indicating that it was just as warm during the Medieval Warm Period. While climate change used to be natural, apparently now it is entirely manmade. But a few of us out there in the climate research community are rattling our cages. In the August 2007 Geophysical Research Letters, my colleagues and I published some satellite evidence for a natural cooling mechanism in the tropics that was not thought to exist. Called the â??Infrared Irisâ?? effect, it was originally hypothesized by Prof. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

By analyzing six years of data from a variety of satellites and satellite sensors, we found that when the tropical atmosphere heats up due to enhanced rainfall activity, the rain systems there produce less cirrus cloudiness, allowing more infrared energy to escape to space. The combination of enhanced solar reflection and infrared cooling by the rain systems was so strong that, if such a mechanism is acting upon the warming tendency from increasing carbon dioxide, it will reduce manmade global warming by the end of this century to a small fraction of a degree. Our results suggest a â??low sensitivityâ?? for the climate system.

What, you might wonder, has been the media and science community response to our work? Absolute silence. No doubt the few scientists who are aware of it consider it interesting, but not relevant to global warming. You see, only the evidence that supports the theory of manmade global warming is relevant these days.

The behavior we observed in the real climate system is exactly opposite to how computerized climate models that predict substantial global warming have been programmed to behave. We are still waiting to see if any of those models are adjusted to behave like the real climate system in this regard.

And our evidence against a â??sensitiveâ?? climate system does not end there. In another study (conditionally accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate) we show that previously published evidence for a sensitive climate system is partly due to a misinterpretation of our observations of climate variability. For example, when low cloud cover is observed to decrease with warming, this has been interpreted as the clouds responding to the warming in such a way that then amplifies it. This is called â??positive feedback,â?? which translates into high climate sensitivity.

But what if the decrease in low clouds were the cause, rather than the effect, of the warming? While this might sound like too simple a mistake to make, it is surprisingly difficult to separate cause and effect in the climate system. And it turns out that any such non-feedback process that causes a temperature change will always look like positive feedback. Something as simple as daily random cloud variations can cause long-term temperature variability that looks like positive feedback, even if in reality there is negative feedback operating.

The fact is that so much money and effort have gone into the theory that mankind is 100 percent responsible for climate change that it now seems too late to turn back. Entire careers (including my own) depend upon the threat of global warming. Politicians have also jumped aboard the Global Warming Express, and this train has no brakes.

While it takes only one scientific paper to disprove a theory, I fear that no amount of evidence will be able to counter what everyone now considers true. If tomorrow the theory of manmade global warming were proved to be a false alarm, one might reasonably expect a collective sigh of relief from everyone. But instead there would be cries of anguish from vested interests.

About the only thing that might cause global warming hysteria to end will be a prolonged period of coolingâ?¦or at least, very little warming. We have now had at least six years without warming, and no one really knows what the future will bring. And if warming does indeed end, I predict that there will be no announcement from the scientific community that they were wrong. There will simply be silence. The issue will slowly die away as Congress reduces funding for climate change research.

Oh, there will still be some diehards who will continue to claim that warming will resume at any time. And many will believe them. Some folks will always view our world as a fragile, precariously balanced system rather than a dynamic, resilient one. In such a world-view, any manmade disturbance is by definition bad. Forests can change our climate, but people arenâ??t allowed to.

It is unfortunate that our next generation of researchers and teachers is being taught to trust emotions over empirical evidence. Polar bears are much more exciting than the careful analysis of data. Social and political ends increasingly trump all other considerations. Science that is not politically correct is becoming increasingly difficult to publish. Even science reporting has become more sensationalist in recent years.

I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted. I fear that the sloppy practice of climate change science will damage our discipline for a long time to come.

Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. His book, Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, will be published this month.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=828

Daniel Scheer  03/28/2008 10:50 PM Report

Charlie Rose interview with Shell Oil John Hofmeister...a very sensible man...I am so sick of global warming agenda...why why do bobbleheads not know...only a percentage of greenhouse gas is c02 & if true, why bother if and India China exempt?? Small percentage of Kyoto scientists are climatologists & they wrote "findings not conclusive" & was DELETED from report & given as gospel truth. Under-stand...COMUNISM works thru FRONT GROUPS i.e environmentalism & Islam in order to weaken & soften us & set us up for the kill. They are chessmasters. They have penetrated our ass & convinced us they are dead...agenda hasn't changed since 1959...WAKEUP PEOPLE!

Kellygo  03/28/2008 07:34 PM Report

I don't want to dismiss this interview out of hand. Some interesting ideas were expressed to improve "The energy problem". I would like to see action taken to study and develop these ideas and others. However, I am very skeptical anything will be done. I was 9 or 10 years old during the 70's oil shortage, there was a lot of talk about energy conservation in my classroom, on the news, and in the streets, but nothing was done. I am now 44, absolutely nothing has been done to develop viable energy sources. A lot was and has been done to manipulate the consumer into conserving, then consuming, now conserving again.

With all due respect to Mr. Hoffmeister's concern for "the mood in the hood". A simple solution is a tour of his peers and competitors to lower the gas prices, and not allowing them to get to $4.00 a gallon. In light of the record profits being made.

M.  03/28/2008 02:38 PM Report

I live in a less than perfect part of Los Angeles. I admit cringing when he used the term the "hood," but if you can get past the ignorance of the syntax, he actually had some relevant things to say about the social impact of fuel costs. I was surprised to hear him support a fuel tax that was tied with income, but I wasn't surprised to hear his opposition to a windfall tax. So I agreed with some parts of what he said, and disagreed with others, but on the whole he came across as credible. Look, he's a businessman. He's going to protect his business. He's not going to do anything that damages that business. Sometimes that's good, sometimes that's bad, but that's the nature of market economy we live in. When it's good, we need to encourage it, and when it's not, there needs to be regulation. I do like his point about wind power. There's a lot of NIMBYism when it comes to it. For example, the Kennedys say they're all about renewable energy and what not, but they didn't want windfarms to be built off of the coast of Massachusetts because it would hurt their privileged view of the ocean. You don't hear a lot of talk about that.

dan  03/28/2008 01:25 PM Report

Loved the interview Charlie. I cannot wait to see you continue exploring this topic. CEOs are good and fine, but I hope you get some entrepreneurs and inventors (there are crazy, incredible things being done w/ solar alone), scientists.

That said, you might have asked this CEO what would happen when the oil spills in that sea up in Alaska.

JoAnn  03/27/2008 04:31 PM Report

I applaud the CEO of Shell to offer possible energy solutions for the future. This is a businessman that is trying to protect his company's future and also has a moral and intelligent sense to know recent accelerated global warming is real and caused by man. I don't agree with everything he said and his time frames for solutions might not be as fast as I would like but they are reasonable, doable and can be economically prosperous. This is the type of person that can spearhead a "Green Energy" dept. to help bring together federal, state and local governments to partner with business technology. Our next President can utilize some expertise like this to carve a pathway toward energy independence. During this interview, John Hofmeister mentioned that the only presidential candidate to show up at an energy meeting last year was Hillary Clinton. All the candidates were invited and only Hillary came and addressed the crowd to talk about global warming and offer solutions to the energy crisis. Years and years ago when Phillip Morris was only a tobacco company, they started to lose major profits when many customers decided to quit smoking and certain smoking advertising was banned. Phillip Morris could have went out of business all together but decided to add different products to sell and they bounced back. The Shell CEO admitted that Shell Oil will eventually become an energy company selling different types of energy. He realizes this if he wants his company to survive. It would be better if other oil companies felt this way.

Sarah  03/27/2008 03:22 PM Report

This was one of the best interviews that I have ever seen on the topic of energy (and I am a liberal Democrat, so not necessarilty sympathetic toward business in general, and the oil industry in particular). It was a rational, dispassionate and largely non-self-serving analysis of the problem of global warming and the various solutions available. I was particularly impressed (given his position in the oil industry) that he takes human contribution to climate change as a given and no longer even worth discussion. I was also impressed with his sensitive analysis of why it would be difficult for this country to tax gasoline to the point where it costs considerably more than it does now (the adverse effect on the poor, absence of mass transportation, (unlike Europe) and absence of a social safety net to help maintain the standard of living of low income people). Shell Oil deserves credit for placing a person who is so capable of seeing multiple points of view as its President.

Randy  03/27/2008 11:40 AM Report

Mr. Hofmeister's interview was one of the best I've seen when it comes to the high price of gas. The economic downturn is just beginning if the price of gas begins to rise. I've had double digit gains in customers in each of the past ten years, now I'm having double digit loss of customers because they cannot afford my services. And I haven't raised a price in over a year. The price of oil is now affecting my sales line as well as my bottom line. When I am forced to raise my price again, probably soon, I'll loose another 10% of my customers which will result in "layoffs" of employees. We've grown from two employees to over 35 the past ten years. I don't know what the attitude in the "urban areas" are, but they're not to good in the "rural areas" either. As for me, if we have the energy sources available domestically, go get it.

sam  03/27/2008 06:13 AM Report

As though it would be so hard to partner with companies and countries that have nuclear no how like France, China, Japan, India are all building mass nuclear plants to keep up with their energy needs and instead of getting oil from Canada America can get uranium as Canada has one of the largest supplies in the world. This guy dismissed nuclear the safest and cleanest energy source almost every study proves this because they as a oil company don't see any money in it for then and it is such a steady reliable renewable source that they can't say because of demand and supply the prices of it must be jacked up every year. You have never in the West heard of a death caused by nuclear power in the last 30 years but how many times have we heard of coal mining deaths, just this last year there were over 10 just in America, in places like China there are thousands of mining deaths in a year.

Shaft  03/27/2008 12:32 AM Report

Mr. Rose, another marvelous conversation/interview indeed. I've never seen an oil corporate chief executive officer with sounding socially responsible ways to find solution to the crisis. I am very surprised to see such a highly conscience CEO, you donâ??t encounter them too often. But then again, I also think he is very shmooooz getting thru Charlie's radar of discussing his company's profit. He was not fair when he mentions only last year's profit of $27 BILLION will be used to re-invest in other sectors to diversify Shells portfolio. The truth is the oil industries have been raking record profit for the past five consecutive years, beating the last year profit progressively, there will also be just as much profit this year and the coming years. The question is the profit is not thrown for a humanitarian causes, rather that money is invested to generate more profit. I admire his honesty that the consumer is getting frustrated with gas price increase and the environment is getting worse off and the Hydro-Carbon Energy source industry is getting richer at the expense of the consumer and the environment. In Europe Germany is exploiting wind-generated energy; about 10% national energy source comes from wind turbines, just about half of that also comes from solar energy recovered by the consumer, so they are on the right path on combating global warming by reducing their carbon foot print. Recently, I read it somewhere that the government of Germany pays double the amount per KW of energy produced from solar energy by the consumer, while the consumer pays half the price for KW of energy. There is no better way than that kind incentivication program for the consumer to be encouraged in producing clean source of energy via solar recouping techniques and sale daily the extra power not consumed back to the energy industry for double the price. The secretary of energy Sam Bodman should be consulted on such and other methods to help combat global warming and make America a leader on the cause and make Americans get creative with producing consuming cleanly generated source of energy.

Geraldine Germain  03/26/2008 11:39 PM Report

In the interview with Mr. Hofmeier why was the use of geothermal energy not even mentioned? That might be the solution to our energy problems, because it's clean, and there is no dangerous waste to be disposed of. Of course, an undertaking such as tapping geothermal sources to supply our energy needs would have to be a large-scale undertaking, probably requiring support by the Federal government, using our tax money. It wouldn't be providing juicy profits for any energy companies. Is that why it's never mentioned? I have been told (perhaps erroneously) that George W. Bush has a geothermail plant in his ranch to supply the household energy needs. If this is the case, why isn't this recognized as a viable source of energy for the rest os us?

Steve in Ohio  03/26/2008 11:07 PM Report

I loved this show. I always like hearing from the players rather than the pundits. I especially like hearing from business leaders. Putting on an hour long show five night a week can't be easy.

Tom Green  03/26/2008 08:04 PM Report

Hofmeister is being disingenuous about his concern for the "hood". The Rodney King comment was totally off-the-wall and unbelievable. Aside from that, I live in Alaska and I can tell you there is huge pressure to drill the Chukchi sea. When the oil spills (and it will), they will not be able to clean it up. Just look at what the Exxon oil spill did to the ecosystem (fisheries) in Prince William Sound. And cleanup was possible there. Ironically, Shell oil is relying on global warming and the melting of the polar icecap to in the arctic ocean. And not surprisingly, Shell Oil and the University of Alaska are now considering a joint partnership to explore common research. I wonder how much they are paying our legislators to buy influence. Does the name VECO ring a bell?

gano  03/26/2008 05:57 PM Report

Charlie could have spent more time unpacking a few of John Hofmeister's glib comments, like the aforementioned "mood in the hood". But the one that jumped out to me was regarding wind power (starting around 13:12 in the programâ?? "Wind is a fun business!") Hofmeister estimates that deploying a couple 100,000 or so wind turbines in remote places could supply 10-15 percent of the nation's energy. What's stopping us? Because of the growing demand for wind turbines, we're waiting in line for them. Can you imagine?! Shell Oil waiting in line for the goods that offer such a significant advance toward energy independence?! Hofmeister cites another obstacle, the huge investment in transmission lines, which people (read "environmentalists") try to stop every time we try to start...". (I guess they're too worn out from all the pipeline battles to get into all that again!) . He did not mention the regulatory obstacles that stymie wind farm development efforts in the US (http://www.startribune.com/business/14445531.html) and Europe (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/backlogs-threaten-government-targets-for-renewable-e nergy-782648.html). Energy issues are complex, and Hofmeister sounds like a sharp mind that can't wait to leave Shell and engage the problem in all dimensions. I hope he can imagine clean, renewable solutions like wind, solar, and geothermal to be more than just "fun" businesses.

Paul Roberts  03/26/2008 05:46 PM Report

The interview with John Hofmeister was as good a show about the broad outlines of global energy issues as I've seen in a while. However, Mr. Rose missed the chance to address a critical issue that Hofmeister himself raised: conservation of gasoline through improved gas mileage of US vehicles. The only rational response that our nation could make to the crisis in the near-term is to use less fuel, which would require most importantly Americans to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles. I myself am infuriated that while have always driven cars that get 30 mpg or better, millions of suburbanites buzz around in SUVs at 17 mpg; if people who do not require such large autos for work believe they are rich enough to afford the fuel for them, while endangering the long-term security of the country to do it, government needs to move toward extremely heavy taxation of such vehicles.

Secondly, while Hofmeister was overall a well-informed oil executive, it simply isn't true that the world has 100 years worth of recoverable oil in its future. He qualified this by saying his estimate included so-called "heavy oil." But what we will find is that, at current rates of consumption, there is perhaps 30 years of oil that can be affordably recovered. Beyond that, oil becomes like uranium: the infrastructure required for its continued exploitation will simply break down because the inexpensive oil needed to run such a system is gone.

Allan Sandosham  03/26/2008 05:07 PM Report

Many within the industry would challenge his comment that oil will remain available in its current form for the next 100 years. In fact, many oil exporting countries are struggling to keep pace with their current production levels. It would be more prudent as a society to divert some of the capital that would be used to extract oil from the Alberta tar sands and other non-standards forms of oil to more cost effective strategies and technologies that could be deployed immediately. The first step which he referred to in the discussion is a rethinking about how we lay out our cities. Currently, we build cities around cars not people. For example, minimum parking requirements often found in cities planning codes means we give more land to cars than people and sprawl our cities with surface parking lots and oversized roads. Infill these concrete wastelands and put in high density urban environments and provide public transportation and you will get rid of a significant amount of our gasoline use. There are significant paradigm shifts that are needed in approaching our energy challenges. As someone with an oil industry background, I give Mr. Hoffmeister full credit for being progressive and forward thinking. However, I think we can go a even further towards solving the energy issue by challenging the basic presumptions underlying our energy uses.

Jim Goodwin  03/26/2008 04:22 PM Report

Thank you for this interview with John Hofmeister It is the first time I have heard a president of one of the major oil companies give us so much information about what they are doing to help with the oil shortages. I was also very interested in hearing some of his solutions for the problems we are all having with the high price of oil. However one thing he did not mention is that the oil companies are making enormous profits and how some of this money could be returned to those in need, particularily the working poor.

I am a pensioner on a relatively fixed income and my only solution to the high cost of gasoline is to drive less.

charlize courriers  03/26/2008 04:19 PM Report

It's good to hear once again that there in NO SHORTAGE of oil. In fact there is a sly hint that the good ole USA has plenty off its shores, ala Denmark,United Kingdom, etc. Today at the local supermarket a gallon of tea is $3.29(U.S.currency). A gallon of gasoline-$3.25. The real problem is the narcissistic consumer, that person you now see advertised on PBS(Propaganda Broadcasting System). Keep up the good work Charle. Its the best entertainment available late night.

Chiquita   03/26/2008 02:02 PM Report

I loved this show! I know some of you are worried about the comment "what's the mood in the hood" but as a person who actually lives in "the hood", it was the first time I heard someone in a corporate leadership position make any statement concern about the needs of poor Americans and a call to end injustice against them. Although I don't agree with everything John Hofmeister said, I do think it's time to have long-term, on-going discussions about national energy policy that brings everybody to the table.

Here's my recommendation: let's think big--transcontinental railroad big! We should invest in a national mass transit system that significantly improves urban rail and bus systems, creates new commuter rail options and gets Amtrak to connect to more rural communities. Every major city should have a high-quality, extensive local rail system like the New York Subway. Suburbs can be connected to cities by major commuter rail and bus systems. Outlying rural communities can be connected to cities and suburbs via more local Amtrak stops. The government should further subsidize Amtrak costs to guarantee lower fares between the rural areas and the city. Also, we should use electric power on Amtrak in areas where it doesn't currently exist, like south of Washington D.C. and so many areas. That would significantly reduce emissions from those diesel engine trains.

I'm not sure how much this would cost upfront but I'm sure it will save money and the planet in the long-term. I think it's a consideration to be put on the table.

ramona silvestri  03/26/2008 01:38 PM Report

Bravo!!!!! Mr. Rose for last nights closing comments--- to all the oil companies, you spoke my exact thoughts..i tried to hold back my own personal thoughts about the pres. of shell seemingly seamingly bursting as a wolf in sheeps clothing, it all made no sense when he says 10 billion dollars worth of "research" for the last 10 years has come up null with oil/gas still as "their" number one choice....it sickened me and ultimately ironically all of us...Thank You Mr. Rose and Staff!!! Love THE SHOW!!!!

Darrel L. Kenops  03/26/2008 01:15 PM Report

Really enjoyed last nights conversation with President of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister. His calm, professional, practical, strategic and clear communication is what is missing in many of today's natural resource issues debates.

The Energy Act of 2007 is one example where important sources of renewable energy supplies were excluded due to special interest groups in a late night, last minute move.

Mr. Hofmeister coining of the term "natural resources nationalism" is a concept long over due. Because today we externalize our natural resouces needs abroad there by creating negative environmental, economic, community and social impact in our country and abroad.

We need a better balance between what our county can do in this regard as contrasted to what we import to sutain ou quality of life.

Thanks Charlie for again bringing forth intelligent, informed and caring conversation that can lead to new solutions and approaches which are badly needed in todays world. best regards Darrel

Jack  03/26/2008 01:10 PM Report

This was an excellent interview Charlie, and while Hofmeister wasn't totally open minded, he displayed at least an interest in seeing more that the oil companies side of the story. Whether he believes any of it or not, his views can help us move forward in the fixing of the energy crisis.

Dean  03/26/2008 12:33 PM Report

Caught the end of the interview and it seemed really interesting. I want the video uploaded already! As a young person about to start working in energy I am very excited by the buzz that John Hofmeister is creating. Right now we do not have the technology to rule anything out or crown anyone alternative the "right" choice.

Mike Snead  03/26/2008 11:30 AM Report

Bob,

I agree that many safety aspects of the petroleum industry are government regulated, just as they are in many other industries. The purpose of the private enterprise model is for the government to establish boundaries for private action and then to encourage successful private enterprise within these boundaries. If the private enterprise fails to be profitable within these boundaries at providing critical consumer needs, such as food and energy, then further government action, however less efficient, is warranted. Such is a central purpose of government.

There are certainly significant problems with our current energy policy and laws. Mr. Hofmeister identified several of these including rapidly changing energy law and the difficulty in gaining the permits to build the needed infrastructure. It is apparent that these problems are beyond the ability of private industry to resolve. In the past, when such circumstances have arisen, the government has instituted new public-private partnerships to identify and implement suitable solutions that are politically and economically acceptable. The decision to take this step normally resides with the Executive Branch with the concurrence of Congress. We saw this process work with the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. There does not appear to be any reason why this approach would not also work on building new refineries, new pipelines, and new non-conventional domestic oil production which, in the future, can be sold to private industry. The power of this approach is that the new enabling laws can also limit private lawsuits provided that the provisions established by Congress for siting, environmental protection, etc., are met. If we are indeed approaching a crisis in petroleum availability at affordable prices, as both Mr. Rose and Mr. Hofmeister appeared to acknowledge, then the paradigm of how this problem must be solved needs to shift. The old paradigm is clearly no longer working.

Del  03/26/2008 10:46 AM Report

I don't agree with this summary dismissal of ethanol. The CEO of the Oil Company says they looked into it but don't want to use something that competes with food. Brazil is exporting ethanol to the US produced from sugar cane.

When I go to the supermarket and walk down the juice isle it is almost impossible to find a bottle that does not have high fructose corn syrup listed as the primary ingredient. This high fructose corn syrup comes from corn. With obesity being such a problem in the US, I don't see why the high fructose corn syrup industry cannot be redirected to producing more domestic ethanol. I think if most americans had a choice between a carbonnated high fructose corn syrup beverage and cheaper fuel for their car they would choose the cheaper fuel for their car. If the US had made more of an effort to produce more ethanol 20 years then the corn industry most likely would not have channeled their product to adulterating the juice in the juice isle at the supermarket.

Just because ethanol does not positively add to Shell Corps quarterly earnings is no reason for the country to not pursure this avenue.

It's not the final solution, but we could be doing a lot better in this area.

Bob A.  03/26/2008 08:29 AM Report

Mike,

What you're missing is that it already *IS* a government regulated industry, hence the fact that no refineries have been built in 30 years, as well as all of the other government hurdles that companies like this have to leap to get the public affordable transporation fuel.

As he stated, they attempt to make 5, 10, and 30 year plans, yet we have a congress which repeals in 2007 parts of the 2005 and 2006 energy bill. Ridiculous. It's impossible to manage effectively when the end goal, forced by law, changes from year to year.

If you think the government can do better, I'm not sure what part of the government that you're looking at in which they are cost effective, efficient, and deliver a quality product. The government can't even fill the pot holes we drive over let alone run a national industry which fuel our vehicles.

Robert Payne  03/26/2008 03:49 AM Report

I was glad to watch the interview with John Hofmeister, President of Shell Oil Company. His ideas on energy are realistic and doable. I am reminded of how American scientists and engineers were put to the test when FDR initiated the Manhattan Project. Within a few years they produced the atomic bomb. Whoever wins the upcoming presidential election would be well advised to initiate a similar project to address America's energy issues. We have put a national energy policy on the back burner far too long. We must come to our senses and begin to solve our energy problems now!

dubina  03/26/2008 03:42 AM Report

That didn't take long!

I'm sympathetic to Thadeus Eustacius (above).

See ... "The results yield this interesting tip to the world's importers...."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3749/320309

John in Texas  03/26/2008 02:57 AM Report

One last addendum, Mr. Hofweister should call up Amory Lovins and ask him to co-chair it with him and lend the resources of RMI to the effort.

John in Texas  03/26/2008 02:54 AM Report

I agree that leadership is the main missing ingredient in this as well as so many other really important areas of social organization.

For this area, I would like to suggest that Mr. Hofmeister would be a good national spokesman for a new non-partisan effort in regard to energy usage/carbon control sponsored by the major corporations of this country and the world. A media/internet campaign similar to a political campaign a la Ross Perot.

Before you dismiss this as just another "big american business" manipulation/disinformation effort, let me say that I see this as a huge chance for "big american business" to redeem itself by doing this right. By demonstrating their organizational talents for the greater good this time.

1st media half hour, Mr. Hofmeister introduces the effort with a preamble that acknowledges the previous mis-guided pr campaigns that twisted science for industry gain and pledges the opposite here.

This could be an off shoot for the "Elders".

John in Texas  03/26/2008 02:14 AM Report

Gary, that might have been that partisanship will ruin us whereas bipartisanship would be working together I think. See next post for thoughts about your concern for leadership.

John in Texas  03/26/2008 02:11 AM Report

Brian, before deciding on nuclear power, please visit rmi.org for Rocky Mountain Institute, home of Amory Louvins (motto: In God We Trust; All Others Bring Data.). I think that they have an approach to our future development that would make it a bad investment to go with nuclear.

Mary Susan  03/26/2008 01:55 AM Report

Your show tonight with the head of Shell Oil

was one of the best shows I have ever seen and

I am a regular viewer. Thank you for laying

out all the particulars in your questioning

in the need for "Energy Nationalism". My

vote in November will be for the candidate who

is most proactive in this arena.

Again, thank you!

Brian  03/26/2008 01:41 AM Report

Clearly John believes energy security and global warming are key issues we should all be alarmed with and it is going to take Leadership to make change. We are at a tipping point to an irreversible situation if we don't act now. So how can we do our part on a mass scale to reduce our carbon footprint?

Global Warming is not waiting for environmentalists to wake up to reality that we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuel and shift to using mineral fuel. Nuclear Power is a safe and clean way to produce the worldâ??s electricity. Some are against nuclear power because it can be linked to nuclear bombs or fear of terrorist attacks but, as with fire, it could be either useful or dangerous. Some people from the environmental community are also so against nuclear and so closed minded yet they offer no real solutions to our energy crisis. Solar, wind, geothermal all good solutions but not good enough on their own! If we act now Nuclear Power can offer the possibility of large quantities of electricity that is cleaner than coal, more secure than gas and more reliable than wind.

Unless we all want to move back to living in caves I think we have to be open minded and leave all options on the table!