Consumer organization Oil Watchdog has admitted to accepting money from Chevron. This is odd behavior for an organization that has been fiercely critical of universities and museums that accept donations from oil companies.
Oil Watchdog staff member John Simpson, after having accepted the contribution from Chevron, defended his actions by claiming he gave the money to a friend. Simpson also argued that Chevron didn’t really need the money anyway. Following this admission, Simpson made a plea for more funding from readers. Must be tough times for Oil Watchdog’s trial lawyer backers.
—————————–
* Note: When reporting on Oil Watchdog’s misdeeds, I will try keep to the journalistic standards they have set. The only difference is, unlike Oil Watchdog’s reporting, what I reported above is actually true. Maybe misleading, but true. 🙂
Author: Robert Rapier
Robert Rapier is a seasoned chemical engineer with three decades of international experience in the energy sector. He holds undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics, and a master’s in chemical engineering. Robert has worked extensively in oil refining, production, synthetic fuels, biomass energy, and alcohol production, earning several patents along the way. As Editor-in-Chief of Shale Magazine and a prolific author for Investing Daily, he shares his expertise through various newsletters and his latest book, American Energy: A History of Power, Progress, and Change. Robert's insights have been featured on 60 Minutes, The History Channel, CNBC, and PBS, among others. His articles have appeared in top publications like the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and The Economist. For nearly a decade, he has covered the energy sector for Forbes.
View all posts by Robert Rapier
I’d give a dollar to get back the 30 seconds it took to read that. I agree that Oil Watchdog are asshats, but this post was a waste of time. Please use your time to intelligently discuss energy issues. I would like to see some expansion on the comment by the IEA about “really bad days”. What does that really mean? I’m not a doomer, but it gives me that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach.
I disagree. I appreciate integrity of the things I choose to read. I would rather have a penny back for the valuable seconds I wasted scanning the front page of the WSJ…
I peruse a wide variety of info on energy, and it is obvious that a part of the problem in this country is that most don’t even realize WHAT the real problems are…and part of that has to do with dis- and misinformation that is out there, like Oil Dog. Or, for that matter, the WSJ. In this environment, I believe that solutions will harder to implement, if they are even realistic to begin with, and there are damn few of those out there…
A bit of comic relief is good now and then. Why not take a few minutes and give something back to the Dog, in return for all the pleasure he has given us?
I am curious though…. any sign that the folks at Oil Watchdog are visiting this blog? Probably not, as I think the concepts might be too tough – or unpleasant – for them.
I saw the other day where Judy Dugan was quoting a basic economics textbook (one hopes she might read it). Interestingly, she rejected the writer’s claim that oil prices were determined by supply and demand, but grabbed his figures on per barrel costs.
I have been thoroughly censored from their site now. I guess in a way I should be proud of that! 🙂