Charlie Rose & Lee Raymond, CEO Exxon-Mobil

[amicus]

Charlie Rose & Lee Raymond, CEO Exxon-Mobil



Broadcast on PBS, Public Broadcasting, tonight,. 11/08/05, on the eve of several Petroleum company executives appearing before a committee in Washington D.C., concerning high energy prices.

I have been an on again, off again fan of Charlie Rose for many years. But not a fan of Public Radio or Television as it is, like much of the media, 80% left wing liberal and is currently under investigation for those accusations. (The corporation for public broadcasting is supposed to be non-political)

Lee Raymond, Chairman and CEO of the worlds largest energy company, made some interesting comments concerning profit and loss, world energy requirement, free market capitalism and the ‘responsibility’ of large corporations in social terms.

Just a few of the things two billion dollars worth of scientific research has uncovered in the past 20 years.

‘Alternative energy’ under the best scenario can never provide more than 1 to 2 percent of energy needs in the US. That includes wind and solar energy; which may supply a ‘niche’ market somewhere, but does little in terms of overall energy requirements.

Hydrogen is not a viable source of energy as it is not available freely and must be manufactured at a prohibitive cost.

Exxon-Mobil cannot and will not invest heavily in exploration and drilling in the continental United States, (off shore east and west coast) because of environmental resistance and government regulations.

Mr. Raymond suggested a rapid expansion of nuclear power plants in line with what China is doing with a massive undertaking to eventually lessen dependence upon middle east oil reserves.

Prior to hurricane Katrina, Exxon-Mobil acted to preserve and protect its offshore drilling platforms and onshore refining capacities, knowing it would suffer damage. They also contracted with European suppliers to transship gasoline and heating oil supplies to the United States.

There is no, repeat no, industry ‘gouging’ of prices, merely the market operating as it should with high demand and low supply immediately following Katrina and Rita.

As best as he could, Charlie Rose presented the ‘Global Warming’ aspect of fossil fuel utilization, but could not defend his assumptions.

The best studies available show that global warming has been taking place following the last ice age with changing variables that cannot be predicted nor fully understood.

“There is no scientific evidence that human activity has added to the normal cyclic climate change on a global or local basis.”

That is the conclusion of the ‘non political’ science community all over the world.

It was a pleasure to see Charlie Rose stymied and without comment, as he is smart enough to realize that he was facing a man of science and facts and not politically or economically driven opinion. Lee Raymond, CEO is a PH.D in Chemical Engineering and a member of the Academy of Scientists.

One can already predict the ‘spin’ of the media concerning the meetings to be held in the nation’s Capitol today, evil profit mongering oil companies….thought you might like to know the truth behind the spin.

There was also an interesting discussion that I did not fully understand, concerning Mr. Raymond’s contention that oil prices, gasoline and crude, have been declining since 1981, (in real dollars) and even at current prices, are below those of the Jimmy Carter. days.

Gas (petrol) prices in GB $7.00 per gallon, France, $6.50 per gallon (all government taxation) and China, $1.50, (lower than US prices because of price control by the Communist government in China.)

Amicus…

 

[dr_mabeuse]

‘Alternative energy’ under the best scenario can never provide more than 1 to 2 percent of energy needs in the US. That includes wind and solar energy; which may supply a ‘niche’ market somewhere, but does little in terms of overall energy requirements.

That sounds like asking the president of the American Buggy Whip Association about the viability of the automobile back in 1908. There might be a niche market, but cars will always just be a rich man's toy.

If the government got into a crash alternative energy program like they got into the production of the atomic bomb or landing a man on the moon, we could have this problem licked in 10 years. It should have been done years ago, and if we didn't have a bunch of ex-oil men sitting on their thumbs in the white house, maybe it would have been.

 

[maggot420]

I used to work for a company that sold renewable energy products. These days they are mostly into wind turbines because the oil companies bought up most of the manufacturers of PVC panels and suddenly the price of solar panels skyrocketed. I won't specualte on the reasons they might have done this, but the fact remains that renewable energy technology today could replace the hydro and gas used in most homes. The cost is actually about 30% more than old power systems but also has the advantage of paying for itself over time which traditional power sources do not.

'Alternative energy’ under the best scenario can never provide more than 1 to 2 percent of energy needs in the US. That includes wind and solar energy; which may supply a ‘niche’ market somewhere, but does little in terms of overall energy requirements.

1% or 2% of the USA's energy needs? Give me a break. Thats so far off from the facts it makes me laugh. The Canadian government is already moving forward with wind farms and have several test sites set up to determine which types of wind turbines are the most effective. The future of renewable energy has really already been decided. It's coming albeit slowly. When the oil companies realize that they can't obstruct this new technology any longer, they too will embrace renewable energy and have in fact already positioned themselves to be the leading manufacturer of PVC panels.

 

[elsol]

There is no, repeat no, industry ‘gouging’ of prices, merely the market operating as it should with high demand and low supply immediately following Katrina and Rita.

No... Amicus.

to minimize the increase in price while at the same time recognizing if we kept the price too low we would quickly run out (of fuel) at the service stations.”

This is an admission made by ExxonMobil that the prices were kept high artificially so they wouldn't run out of the stations.

This wasn't a charity thing... they though 'Hey, if the prices are TOO low people will run in and buy all of our stuff!'

Come on!

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by amicus
‘Alternative energy’ under the best scenario can never provide more than 1 to 2 percent of energy needs in the US. That includes wind and solar energy; which may supply a ‘niche’ market somewhere, but does little in terms of overall energy requirements.

That sounds like asking the president of the American Buggy Whip Association about the viability of the automobile back in 1908. There might be a niche market, but cars will always just be a rich man's toy.

If the government got into a crash alternative energy program like they got into the production of the atomic bomb or landing a man on the moon, we could have this problem licked in 10 years. It should have been done years ago, and if we didn't have a bunch of ex-oil men sitting on their thumbs in the white house, maybe it would have been.

Hydro-electric power produces about 10% of the electricity used in the United states. This percentage could probably be increased. Tidal, wind, geo-thermal and nuclear power could probably provide most of the rest.

Asking the petroleum industry to judge the value of alternative energy sources is much like asking small boys to judge the value of castor oil. Asking those same people to judge the value of petroleum would be like asking the same small boys to judge the value of candy.

 

[amicus]

Dr. Mab in part: "...That sounds like asking the president of the American Buggy Whip Association about the viability of the automobile back in 1908. There might be a niche market, but cars will always just be a rich man's toy.

If the government got into a crash alternative energy program like they got into the production of the atomic bomb or landing a man on the moon, we could have this problem licked in 10 years. It should have been done years ago, and if we didn't have a bunch of ex-oil men sitting on their thumbs in the white house, maybe it would have been..."

Strangely enough, Dr. Mab, Dr. Raymond was asked a similar question by Charlie Rose, "Didn't the scientists you hired just go out and find information to support what you wanted to hear?" (I paraphrase)

Dr. Raymond gave a quizzical glance into the camera before he answered: :"Science doesn't work that way, Charlie, and I think you know that. I am a scientist, I search for facts and truth and I have enough training and education to be able to tell the difference..."

For those of you who seem to believe that petro chemists, archeologists and other scientists are to be viewed as talk radio show hosts who can be paid to speak on the left or the right, then no wonder you have a poor opinion of mankind in general.

Aside from general ignorance, there are people who will eat bugs for money, scientists in 1930's Germany who violated all sense of ethics and morality to please a dictator. and a host of others who have no sense of right and wrong who will do anything for compensation.

Other oil companies are now advertising their 'green status' such as BP and Shell, doing research that Exxon-Mobil did twenty years ago in an attempt to catch up. The result of the two billion dollar research study about possible economic ways to supply energy outside crude oil was as I said, 1 to 2 percent. Which is not to be scoffed at, two percent of US energy requirements is not a trifling amount.



Maggot420... "I used to work for a company that sold renewable energy products. These days they are mostly into wind turbines because the oil companies bought up most of the manufacturers of PVC panels and suddenly the price of solar panels skyrocketed. I won't specualte on the reasons they might have done this, but the fact remains that renewable energy technology today could replace the hydro and gas used in most homes..."


Back in the 50's and 60's, everyone swore that the big auto manufacturers bought up the patent to a carburator the got 100 miles per gallon....they also swore the General Electric had a cheap lightbulb that would burn for 20 years...

There is no magic bullet for energy production and although there will be new discovering and new applications of old techology, the numbers are just not there and you can do the research as well as I.


amicus...



__________________

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Charlie Rose & Lee Raymond, CEO Exxon-Mobil



Broadcast on PBS, Public Broadcasting, tonight,. 11/08/05, on the eve of several Petroleum company executives appearing before a committee in Washington D.C., concerning high energy prices.

I have been an on again, off again fan of Charlie Rose for many years. But not a fan of Public Radio or Television as it is, like much of the media, 80% left wing liberal and is currently under investigation for those accusations. (The corporation for public broadcasting is supposed to be non-political)

Lee Raymond, Chairman and CEO of the worlds largest energy company, made some interesting comments concerning profit and loss, world energy requirement, free market capitalism and the ‘responsibility’ of large corporations in social terms.

Just a few of the things two billion dollars worth of scientific research has uncovered in the past 20 years.

‘Alternative energy’ under the best scenario can never provide more than 1 to 2 percent of energy needs in the US. That includes wind and solar energy; which may supply a ‘niche’ market somewhere, but does little in terms of overall energy requirements.

Hydrogen is not a viable source of energy as it is not available freely and must be manufactured at a prohibitive cost.

Exxon-Mobil cannot and will not invest heavily in exploration and drilling in the continental United States, (off shore east and west coast) because of environmental resistance and government regulations.

Mr. Raymond suggested a rapid expansion of nuclear power plants in line with what China is doing with a massive undertaking to eventually lessen dependence upon middle east oil reserves.

Prior to hurricane Katrina, Exxon-Mobil acted to preserve and protect its offshore drilling platforms and onshore refining capacities, knowing it would suffer damage. They also contracted with European suppliers to transship gasoline and heating oil supplies to the United States.

There is no, repeat no, industry ‘gouging’ of prices, merely the market operating as it should with high demand and low supply immediately following Katrina and Rita.

As best as he could, Charlie Rose presented the ‘Global Warming’ aspect of fossil fuel utilization, but could not defend his assumptions.

The best studies available show that global warming has been taking place following the last ice age with changing variables that cannot be predicted nor fully understood.

“There is no scientific evidence that human activity has added to the normal cyclic climate change on a global or local basis.”

That is the conclusion of the ‘non political’ science community all over the world.

It was a pleasure to see Charlie Rose stymied and without comment, as he is smart enough to realize that he was facing a man of science and facts and not politically or economically driven opinion. Lee Raymond, CEO is a PH.D in Chemical Engineering and a member of the Academy of Scientists.

One can already predict the ‘spin’ of the media concerning the meetings to be held in the nation’s Capitol today, evil profit mongering oil companies….thought you might like to know the truth behind the spin.

There was also an interesting discussion that I did not fully understand, concerning Mr. Raymond’s contention that oil prices, gasoline and crude, have been declining since 1981, (in real dollars) and even at current prices, are below those of the Jimmy Carter. days.

Gas (petrol) prices in GB $7.00 per gallon, France, $6.50 per gallon (all government taxation) and China, $1.50, (lower than US prices because of price control by the Communist government in China.)

Amicus…

Hydrogen is a completelyviable option Amicus. It does take energy to separate hyfrogen molecules from water and it is economically prohibitive PROVIDED that the only energy source you consider using to seaparte them is carbon fuels. You can, however, use any energy source, including renewable sources like wind, water and solar to separate them. In doing so, you can produce workable quantites in an economically feasible manner.

All it takes is a positively charged electrode and a negatively charged electrode and some juice (9 volts will work). Now, that's pure hydrogen gas. You could produce it in your basment while riding your exercise bike if you wanted.

When your freinds at Exxon say it's not feasible, what they are doing is playing a little semantics game, because you get less energy from the pure hydrogen you burn, than it took to separate it. So if you are using a fossile fuel to do it, then you are getting less useable energy than you used to get the hydrogen. But if you are using a renwable source, solar for example, you don't have to concern yourself with the fact the trasnfer is less than 100% efficient, since the sun will be around to give you more energy. If it ain't, we won't be worried about fuel for our cars anyway.

Anyone who tells you differently probably draws a pay check from the big oil companies. You know the ones, who are reaping an unprecedented profit (exxon mobile over 10 Billion in the third quarter alone) while promising they aren't price gouging.

Not trying to pen a debate here, just pointing out that the statement is false, and prove ably so. If you would like verification, grab a nine volt batter, a glass of water and two electrodes. Drop them in and you will see buble forming. the ones on one electrode are oxygen (not neccisarily pure as you may electolize other elements out depening on the uality of your tap water) and pure hydrogen.

 

[maggot420]

Back in the 50's and 60's, everyone swore that the big auto manufacturers bought up the patent to a carburator the got 100 miles per gallon....they also swore the General Electric had a cheap lightbulb that would burn for 20 years...

There is no magic bullet for energy production and although there will be new discovering and new applications of old techology, the numbers are just not there and you can do the research as well as I.


amicus...



__________________

I don't understand what you are saying. You think that renewable energy is some kind of magic bullet? You don't think its possible to run a home from renewable energy? I don't have to do any research. I can show you the houses that are using it. I have overseen the installations. The only reason that it isnt more popular is because the initial cost is upwards of 30% more and the systems are a little more complex. Household energy consumption has to be monitored carefully. This is somtimes seen as inconvenient but the possibility exists nevertheless.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Hydrogen is a completelyviable option Amicus. It does take energy to separate hyfrogen molecules from water and it is economically prohibitive PROVIDED that the only energy source you consider using to seaparte them is carbon fuels. You can, however, use any energy source, including renewable sources like wind, water and solar to separate them. In doing so, you can produce workable quantites in an economically feasible manner.

All it takes is a positively charged electrode and a negatively charged electrode and some juice (9 volts will work). Now, that's pure hydrogen gas. You could produce it in your basment while riding your exercise bike if you wanted.

When your freinds at Exxon say it's not feasible, what they are doing is playing a little semantics game, because you get less energy from the pure hydrogen you burn, than it took to separate it. So if you are using a fossile fuel to do it, then you are getting less useable energy than you used to get the hydrogen. But if you are using a renwable source, solar for example, you don't have to concern yourself with the fact the trasnfer is less than 100% efficient, since the sun will be around to give you more energy. If it ain't, we won't be worried about fuel for our cars anyway.

Anyone who tells you differently probably draws a pay check from the big oil companies. You know the ones, who are reaping an unprecedented profit (exxon mobile over 10 Billion in the third quarter alone) while promising they aren't price gouging.

Not trying to pen a debate here, just pointing out that the statement is false, and prove ably so. If you would like verification, grab a nine volt batter, a glass of water and two electrodes. Drop them in and you will see buble forming. the ones on one electrode are oxygen (not neccisarily pure as you may electolize other elements out depening on the uality of your tap water) and pure hydrogen.

One major advantage of hydrogen, enough to overcome spme disadvantages, is the lack of smog. When hydrogen burns, it produces Hydrogen Oxide. This is more commonly known as water.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

All it takes is a positively charged electrode and a negatively charged electrode and some juice (9 volts will work). Now, that's pure hydrogen gas. You could produce it in your basment while riding your exercise bike if you wanted.

I'm not so sure, Colly. The operative quantity isn't the voltage, it's the coulomb, the number of available electrons. One coulomb of electricity will produce only 1 gram of Hydrogen, less than you get from a human fart. An ampere is 1 coulomb/sec, so if you rode that excercise bike/generator for an hour at a rate sufficient to generate 1 amp/hr at 10 volts, you'd only generate 3600 cc of Hydrogen an hour. That's about enough to fill a child's party balloon. (Does anyone know the approximate energy output of the human body in watts when riding a bike?)

Hydrogen could work, but there are still lots of problems before there can be widespread use.

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas: "...Anyone who tells you differently probably draws a pay check from the big oil companies. You know the ones, who are reaping an unprecedented profit (exxon mobile over 10 Billion in the third quarter alone) while promising they aren't price gouging...."

This is not your usual style, Colly. The function of any business or corporation is to make a profit, both to stay in business, reward those stockholders who invested in them and fund future research and development.

Many energy companies lost a great deal of money, resources, equipment and facility structure to the hurricane season. The global market for petroleum products has become highly competitive and supply oftentimes cannot keep up with demand.

Energy producting companies in the United States have been held hostage by environmentalists for over a generation, no new refineries, no new nuclear plants and limited expansion of even fossil fuel plants had led to a hostile environment in the industry.

And yes, Exxon made great profits in supplying a product that was in high demand and the market place functioned as it is supposed to.

Over half of all Americans hold some interest in stocks and bonds and depend on these industries to invest their money wisely.

I am forever amazed at those who claim profit to be an evil concept.

I personally would like to see a thousand new hydro electric dams constructed on all the remaining rivers on the continent. I would like to see the construction of a thousand new nuclear plants providing clean, non polluting electricity.

Just what will replace the gasoline engine....I do not know; but whatever it is to be, it will be invented, created, marketed and distributed by industry, at a profit and for the benefit of man.

You may wish to give away or donate your time and energy to whatever charitable concern you choose, I do not wish to, I wish to be paid for my efforts and I wish to be paid as much as the market will bear.

If I can sell my widget, which cost me 10 cents to manufacture, for $10.00 a unit, you bet your sweet ass I will.

But if someone makes a better widget and sells it for $5.00 a unit, I will have to rethink my position.

It is called 'business', deal with it.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

I don't understand what you are saying. You think that renewable energy is some kind of magic bullet? You don't think its possible to run a home from renewable energy? I don't have to do any research. I can show you the houses that are using it. I have overseen the installations. The only reason that it isnt more popular is because the initial cost is upwards of 30% more and the systems are a little more complex. Household energy consumption has to be monitored carefully. This is somtimes seen as inconvenient but the possibility exists nevertheless.

For well to do environmentalists, it is possible to use solar power (daytime and clear weather climates only please) and wind power, (assuming the wind blows at least part of the time), for well to do environmentalists, it is possible to spend 30 to 70 percent more for energy to run a home.

But do the math, you have 100,000 homes that consume X kilowatts per day and night to supply. What is the most efficient and cost effect means of doing so?

Maybe even these silly people live in Miami or New Orleans or Los Angeles where there are no rivers to tame for Hydro power, and the eco nuts have halted nuclear construction and no one wants a refinery or energy plant in their own back yard.

You need to get out and look at the real world and come out of the pipe dream of the 60's who always wanted their cake but want to eat it also.


amicus...

 

[amicus]

I'm not so sure, Colly. The operative quantity isn't the voltage, it's the coulomb, the number of available electrons. One coulomb of electricity will produce only 1 gram of Hydrogen, less than you get from a human fart. An ampere is 1 coulomb/sec, so if you rode that excercise bike/generator for an hour at a rate sufficient to generate 1 amp/hr at 10 volts, you'd only generate 3600 cc of Hydrogen an hour. That's about enough to fill a child's party balloon. (Does anyone know the approximate energy output of the human body in watts when riding a bike?)

Hydrogen could work, but there are still lots of problems before there can be widespread use.

More than that, even if the higher cost of producing usable hydrogen is overcome, there is the matter of storage, distribution and combustion engines that could use it efficiently.

Mankind has been seeking better ways to produce energy since we started burning wood, peat and dung. Surely you must know that if there were a more friendly means, economically feasible, all the forces in the world would not hold back the inventor.

I rather expect, as fossil fuels become more and more expensive, that it will be a major oil company that creates and brings forth the next advance in energy manufacture and distribution.

amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I find Amicus' faith in the goodness of Big Business touching, and pretty much identical to a communist's faith in the goodness of the Masses.

Private industry never came up with the idea or application of nuclear power. It was academic research that first split the atom, and government research that paved the way for its peaceful (and military) use and then turned the technology over to industry for free. And if fusion ever becomes viable, again, it will be because of government funded research.

I can't help but think that Big Oil is in the position that IBM was in in the 70's, on top of the world and scoffing at the idea of a commercial use for home computers. History is littered with defunct corporations who were sure their business would never end, starting with the big Canal co-operatives of the 18th century, the whaling business, railroads, Big Steel. When the oil companies come up with some product that's not petroleum based, that's when I'll believe them about their commitment to alternative energy research programs.

 

[maggot420]

For well to do environmentalists, it is possible to use solar power (daytime and clear weather climates only please) and wind power, (assuming the wind blows at least part of the time), for well to do environmentalists, it is possible to spend 30 to 70 percent more for energy to run a home.

Even well to do republicans can use renewable energy. PVC panels and small hydro generators that you can drop into a small stream, are used as trickle chargers to battery packs. All electricity is run from DC instead of AC. You do not need constant sunlight, even on a cloudy day you can still generate power. And maybe you consider Canada a clear weather climate but the closer to the equator you are the easier it is to use PVC panels. Wind power isn't used as often for individual applications due to space considerations and its more effective if you have a large number of them hooked up together.
The extra that you spend is only during the initial installation. Once you are generating enough power to sustain your house, there is no monthly expentiture. Eventually it pays for itself. My math isn't very good but compared to traditional methods it seems eventually your cost is $0.

But do the math, you have 100,000 homes that consume X kilowatts per day and night to supply. What is the most efficient and cost effect means of doing so?

Maybe even these silly people live in Miami or New Orleans or Los Angeles where there are no rivers to tame for Hydro power, and the eco nuts have halted nuclear construction and no one wants a refinery or energy plant in their own back yard.

You need to get out and look at the real world and come out of the pipe dream of the 60's who always wanted their cake but want to eat it also.


amicus...

How simple life must be when you can genearalize so effectively about everyone.
Where do I sign up to join the Eco-nuts?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen Thomas: "...Anyone who tells you differently probably draws a pay check from the big oil companies. You know the ones, who are reaping an unprecedented profit (exxon mobile over 10 Billion in the third quarter alone) while promising they aren't price gouging...."

This is not your usual style, Colly. The function of any business or corporation is to make a profit, both to stay in business, reward those stockholders who invested in them and fund future research and development.

Many energy companies lost a great deal of money, resources, equipment and facility structure to the hurricane season. The global market for petroleum products has become highly competitive and supply oftentimes cannot keep up with demand.

Energy producting companies in the United States have been held hostage by environmentalists for over a generation, no new refineries, no new nuclear plants and limited expansion of even fossil fuel plants had led to a hostile environment in the industry.

And yes, Exxon made great profits in supplying a product that was in high demand and the market place functioned as it is supposed to.

Over half of all Americans hold some interest in stocks and bonds and depend on these industries to invest their money wisely.

I am forever amazed at those who claim profit to be an evil concept.

I personally would like to see a thousand new hydro electric dams constructed on all the remaining rivers on the continent. I would like to see the construction of a thousand new nuclear plants providing clean, non polluting electricity.

Just what will replace the gasoline engine....I do not know; but whatever it is to be, it will be invented, created, marketed and distributed by industry, at a profit and for the benefit of man.

You may wish to give away or donate your time and energy to whatever charitable concern you choose, I do not wish to, I wish to be paid for my efforts and I wish to be paid as much as the market will bear.

If I can sell my widget, which cost me 10 cents to manufacture, for $10.00 a unit, you bet your sweet ass I will.

But if someone makes a better widget and sells it for $5.00 a unit, I will have to rethink my position.

It is called 'business', deal with it.


amicus...

PR is a legitimate function of bussiness Amicus. From the new Ad campaign for Sugar forsted coco bombs, to making sure your big donation to hurricane relief gets good press coverage. And when you get caught in a potentially emabarassing situation, spin is a legitimate function of bussiness. You, as well as I, know supply and dmeand is predicated ontheir being a demand. A company that produces tampons would find no demand if the story broke they refused to promote women.

There is much more to bussines than simple supply and demand now adays. Packageing, selling and projecting your brand name are all important, in part because you have thirty competitors who make super silky shaving cream and you have to keep your product in the public's eye and buying conciousness.

And when you're price gouging, and a congressional comittee of your well paid lackeys is forced to call you to the carpet, it's time for some spin and PR. Because you gave to those guys to get them elected and if they feel so much pressure from the public they have to embarass you, it means your in trouble.

I'm not even saying they are gouging, but I am saying when you post a 10billion thrid quarter profit and people are getting shafted at the pumps, it's a natural assumption.

Frankly, if they just jacked prices to 3 bucks a gallon and said, that's what the market will support, your position makes sense. It's when you use a natural disaster to try and rape people that folks see gouging.

So you're defending the bussiness making profit, which I have no problem with. But I'mnot saying anything about them turning profit. I'm saying using a natural disater as an excuse has gotten them into hot water with bad press and they are now busy at the Spin shoppe.

And that is a legitimate way to spend your profits, if you can see a loss predicated on the bad press.

Botom line is, Katrina looked like a great way to JUSTIFY jacking prices and it backfired, because they didn't anticipate the profits from the price hikes making such an embarasingly noticeable impact. And while jacking prices to the moon is legal price gouging during a disaster isn't.