For preview only. Get it at Amazon.com.

Gashole

,    »  -   74 Comments
2.1k
8.85
12345678910
Ratings: 8.85/10 from 41 users.

Storyline

GasholeWhat caused America to go from being a leading exporter of oil to the world's largest importer? What are the economic and sociological forces that have contributed to that change and impede its solution?

Gashole is an eye-opening documentary about the history of oil prices and sheds light on a secret that the big oil companies don't want you to know – that there are viable and affordable alternatives to petroleum fuel! It also provides a detailed examination of our continued dependence on foreign oil and examines various potential solutions - starting with claims of buried technology that dramatically improves gas mileage, to navigating bureaucratic governmental roadblocks, to evaluating different alternative fuels that are technologically available now, to questioning the American Consumers' reluctance to embrace alternatives.

Narrated by Peter Gallagher, hear from a wide range of opinions from representatives of the US Department of Energy Representatives, Congressional leaders both Democrat and Republican, Alternative Fuel Producers, Alternative Fuel Consumers (including actor Joshua Jackson), Professors of Economics and Psychology and more. Anyone who buys gas should see this film!

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • celticwarrior1

    good docu, little biased towards "bio fuel" when these people need to remember is we need the land to grow FOOD not fuel

  • thursday child

    Agreed.

  • Norm

    These corporations, as well as our government, are practicing nothing less than insidious, economic terrorism.

  • gabbledegook

    I watch these documentaries and sometimes hope maybe life will be a lot better when the oil actually does run out less wars less conflict less corruption i just hope someone discovers a free source of energy for us all to use sunshine based or similar oh well i can dream

  • Siddhartha78

    I assume you grow your own food then?

  • in_SANE

    lol ...wat a choice for the name of the doc haha

  • marcosanthonytoledo

    Unfortunately there is a long history history of this problem the resource maybe different but the scenario is the same. To openly enslave us or through addiction to what ever they throw at us to achieve the same result whether fast cars,planes,boats,drugs whether legal or not and oil is just one of them, excellent documentary.

  • Ramesh Krishnan

    Could we run this in an ever lasting loop at the white house and show it before all sessions.

  • Brandon Schultz

    Are you serious, man? Come on. Why would you say something like this?

    Look into the reality behind biofuel, not the auto manufacturer hype. He or she has a totally legitimate concern.

  • Siddhartha78

    You should look into the reality of the food we grow is all i'm saying. Most of the land used for growing food is for saving the huge companies money to use soy and corn as a cheap filler. Do you remember you food bill taking a dive in the past five years. I don't think so, they use all that land to "feed the starving people" bull shit. The poor are still hungry and the rich keep getting richer. If you don't grow your own food then you really don't give a shit. It's worth saying this and that about but not worth giving up your lawn for actual change?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-Leclair/100001393091664 Pete Leclair

    Wasn;t this BUSH a draft dodger,Any thoughts on how when and where the oil will come from in thirty years.Why is it the oil pulled in the West never seems to be enough to fill our tanks? Answer cause those that drill from the west pipe it or ship it to there regions and sell it back to us.We own the land and oceans that a large number of foreign companies come here to get and why is it we let them take our oil and sell it back to us and when disasters happen it all goes nuts for a few months and then it quiets down ex BP the gulf of Mexico is part of the U>S. right so kick them out and choose American companies to drill cause BP shells out 20 billion but makes half a trillion. Build some new plants in America or Canada and maybe the refinement issue will look better for the west.This is how our Government works for the big oil not us.Money talks bullshit walks,Ex doc.

  • Guest

    ...and with a pic of Bush and his giant codpiece to go along with it...

  • 0zyxcba1

    "What caused America to go from being a leading exporter of oil to the world’s largest importer"

    That's a no-brainer.

    The world's not-so-gradually running out of oil and ours is already gone.

    Just wait till 'The Chinese Dream' comes into its ascendancy(lol):
    The Two-Car-per-Family Nation-of-a-Billion!

    [ What a stupid question! (not lol) ]

    0z

  • celticwarrior1

    Yes i do, Im a farmer in the UK with a 2000 acre farm, i have 2k head of mutton 100 beef cows and only a few arable fields where i mostly grow beats.
    But what has that got to do with wasting land in an ever over populated world on fuel?

  • http://www.facebook.com/ElmoPutz David Foster

    Ah, the wisdom of the new generation... Take my car, just leave me my cellphone!

  • Siddhartha78

    This documentary doesn’t really touch on the over consumption of fuel and since you brought up food in general; I thought I would bring up the fact that most of the food we eat travels around two thousand miles before we eat it. That is a lot of gas to guzzle for a burrito. Every ounce of nutrition we consume is reaped and sown by the over use of oil (and that is before the petroleum based packaging and waste.)

    So if you are one of the 99% of people that only complain about oil and don’t actually do anything about it, like make room for alternative growing by trading your lawn for space to grow or only buy local foods; then I would say it has everything to do with oil…

  • Siddhartha78

    Also, let’s not forget the petroleum based chemicals modern science will try and talk you into drenching your crops with instead of growing the same way we have for the past ten thousand years.

    Let’s also keep in mind that (mostly in the US) a vast majority of land is used to over grow soy and corn in order to produce cheap fillers in fast food. Due to government subsidies these crops have been forced fed to cattle, chicken, pork, even seafood. They are grown in such abundance that even us as humans are now being force fed these huge profit crops just to save the corporations money. If our food is so much cheaper to make now with these cheap fillers why haven’t we seen a price drop in groceries?

    I would say the food question is very relevant to the subject of oil. If we didn’t over use all the oil in the world we wouldn’t be running out now and the price wouldn’t be so devastating.

  • Paul Glaspie

    What some people may have missed is that the "new" company drilling in the Gulf is also owned by B-P, an irony that seems unsurprising in this unfolding saga of "dirty deeds."

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Art-Vinette/100002176783386 Art Vinette

    1997 - Saturn SL2 achieved 30 mpg - 10 gallon tank - cost of fuel $1.00 per gallon.

    2011 - To stay on par with 1997 technology cars today must get 150mpg - 10 gallon tank - cost of fuel is $5.00 per gallon.

    2011 - Actual mileage per gallon is 22mpg for a 2011 Chevrolet Camero.
    Ford has a more modern car that gets 56mpg.

    In 2011 the gasoline powered engine is obsolete and needs to be banned from manufacture.

    New electric vehicle production is now ramping up with Tesla Motors in San Bruno, California. July 3, 2011 announcement. 20,000 vehicles a year.

    In order for consumers to fight back against the manufacture of gasoline powered engines the answer is simple DO NOT PURCHASE gasoline powered cars or trucks.

    All modern governments today are controlled by the oil companies and energy companies. Governments WILL NOT proactively ban the manufacture of gasoline powered engines. So it is up to consumers to take a stand and say NO TO GASOLINE POWERED CARS.

    The United States government spent $700 billion in 2010 to secure oil fields in Iraq and Afghanistan. Altogether $14 trillion has been spent.

    Investment by the United States Government in companies like Tesla Motors that is pioneering electric cars is $0.

    So it is easy to see where the US government's priorities are.

    The easiest way to fight against high gasoline prices is simple DO NOT PURCHASE gasoline powered cars or trucks.

    Force car companies to change to electric versions and other types of engines that do not use gasoline. In the end the consumer CAN FORCE CHANGE to better more affordable engine solutions.

  • CapnCanard

    I will say that none of these alternatives(Bio-Diesel, Alcohol, HHO, et al) will get the big traction and be widely used, and not because they don't work, but because the ECONOMIC MOTIVE just isn't there. For a moment of speculation: if Hydrogen were magically available for use in cars AND the whole process was VERY CHEAP then what would happen to the Oil and Gas industry? Hell, what would happen to the USA? What would happen to the GLOBAL ECONOMY? That is a scenario for a REAL COLLAPSE OF THE POWERS THAT BE... and the global economic landscape would shift under our feet in minutes, hours, days. But I do insist that that is worth speculating on, though the war to come would make us all weep and possibly your money may become worthless. If any of that happens then that is the act of RAPE THAT WEALTH WOULD ASSAULT US WITH. Hell, they are betting on it just as much as fundamentalists are betting the rapture takes them up.

  • CapnCanard

    Remember the EV 1 Chevrolet Impact 1996-2004? It was a plug in all electric but was pulled off the market and all models taken from customers. And then they were shredded. SHREDDED. Why? Because it worked so well and batteries kept getting better and better... There are even better alternatives besides bio-diesel: ALCOHOL. Reference David Blume "Alcohol Can Be a Gas" . It is very possible and the math works plus all gasoline powered cars can be converted to run on 100% Alcohol(ethanol-it's just 200 proof Alcohol add some methanol to make it toxic to keep Alcoholics from drinking it, i.e. denatured alcohol). But "FORCE" car compaines to change to electric? I doubt if that would happen under the authority of the USA, we just invested trillions(?) to save GM! We are enslaved to profit and the players, esp. oil, gas, and coal, tell us what we will do for them.

  • Guest

    But obviously it's going to HAVE to happen sooner or later, and I really think what's as likely to happen as anything else is, that this situation will be stretched out as long as it possibly can be, and until many of these huge companies can be sure they've got their fingers, as much as possible, in all the other pies that comprise the alternatives. And then -for one example- all of us will suddenly see the price for the electricity to power our cars skyrocket... So that while the PLANET may be saved, the "barons" will continue to make the same enormous profits they always have, thereby keeping the same degree of power and influence. When the time comes that it really MUST be done in droves, it's going to take the kind of wealth these companies have to foot a large part of the bill for the comprehensive changeover in the industry. It'll be mostly the same actors in different costumes, ready for Act II. And hopefully the first act will NOT have ended with a war...

  • Guest

    Part of the problem, though, is the affordability of these vehicles, and the infrastructure to support them, don't you think? I'll grant you that prices would come down if more people bought them, but where is the rest of what you'd need for such a radical changeover? The industry and government KNOW it would be very difficult for us to force their hand... They're depending on it, at least for now.

  • CapnCanard

    okay, let's speculate: new energy? Under our monetary system it can't happen. Creation of wealth is based on scarcity and if the air were used then the wealth creation machine is gone, so you could expect the Govmint to outlaw breathing air without paying for the privilege of breathing. We are locked in a failed economic system. In short: I believe we could find a new alternative but the economy will not tolerate any change whatsoever. Reference water rights in Bolivia, circa 2002, when it was illegal to collect rain water because water had been privatised and Bechtel would lose profit so it was against the law to collect rain water. NO JOKE. We are prisoners of the system and it is crumbling... kind of painful, eh?

  • CapnCanard

    sure! I concur but how it all manifests will be the part that effects us and that is hard to say. I would say that money isn't the issue, ACTION and PEOPLE will get it done. Here's to hoping that money has nothing to do with it. Yes, I believe it must come from the ground up. The national movements will not work, this is the territory of local communities action and THAT is not in the national interest ...and because currently it is not in the national interest there is NOTHING BEING DONE.

  • beedahosen

    great doc.....real eye opener......thanks big V
    hi nelson

  • Siddhartha78

    Only about ten percent of a barrel of oil gets turned into fuel. The rest if used to make "stuff". Stuff we all over use. you know there is 7 gallons of oil in every tire? There is almost 80 gallons of oil in every car that is manufactured (electric cars as well); from the energy it takes to get through the production line to the petroleum based carpet in the interior. Oil is all around us, it is going to take a lot bigger change than the fuel we use...

  • RiverAsUsual

    The ultra-greedy worlds of the oil industry and stock markets are shooting themselves in the foot.
    The reliance on oil is being moved away more quickly, which in a way is a good thing but it just feels costly at the present.
    Oil companies will regret their greed. If you have shares, it's pretty much time to sell up. MMW!

  • Guest

    Good point. It's also used in a hell of a lot of our FOOD production.

    ( 2 hours later- As I just happened to see NOW you pointed out elsewhere... )

  • Guest

    But it IS in our national interest. Very much! Just not enough ordinary people see that yet AND are willing to really do something about it. And for those who are, their hands are still tied pretty well by these industries, in whose interest this is NOT, currently. They've really got us over "a barrel", and we pretty much have to take it or leave it on their terms...And with the way everything is structured now, it's very hard for most to just leave it. Where are the refineries for the better fuels, and the stations to pump them? Where's the guy to fix your electric car, in Butte, Montana, if it breaks down? It's going to take a butt load of capital to make all of the changes necessary, and that's why I'm afraid we're stuck with waiting for them to make the really big moves. We're at the behest of their greed. IF, on the other hand, we had a lot of POLITICAL will behind us... But there again, the politicians have long been in the back-pocket of these people, as I'm sure you know. These bastards lend a lot of support to incumbents, which is one more thing making real change so difficult.

  • WAAATTHEF

    WTF they are pushing Bio Diesel I believe the oil companies helped produce this movie Bio diesel is just another fuel that they can use to keep us on fossil fuels because what they will do is blend bio and fossil to stretch the fuel reserves. And did you know we will use more land, pesticides and water; burn coal to refine the fuel and the more fuel to get it to the market the cost of fuel will not go down because they will still make money refining bio- fuel. Also with hydrogen there is still the refining and production these are just two fuel sources that the big oil companies can convert to when they run out of oil. And they didn’t even mention electric cars at all becaue it’s a free energy there is no refining it and if you make your house self sufficient with solar and wind you don’t have to depend on no one for your energy needs. I wonder who funded this documentary because I believe the oil company properly funded it and I Joshua Jackson is properly a Republican lol. This is just a feel good film to make you think that there is hope that you will still have something to burn in your car if they REALLY want to fix the problem of getting us off fossil fuels then they should develop electric cars.

  • http://www.facebook.com/koopernikos ???????? ????????

    gashole is almost as funny as assburger syndrome. sorry, feeling a bit infantile today

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_5NYHKTJRSI7AE2MPRWPMO6T6CM Chris

    I agree with you 100% ethanol is way worst than oil 1.) it is terrible for your engine b/c it absorbs water and dirt WHICH DRAMATICALLY reduces your engine life! 2.) Ethanol reduces your horsepower by 17%. 3.) You get 34% less miles per gallon. 4.) It takes 5 barrels of OIL to produce 4 barrels of ETHANOL! If you don't believe me look it up through EBSCOHOST or a reliable source not Joe blow internet site who thinks ethanol is a blessing. Better yet go to the Library. And WAAATTHEF you are right about using more land causing more environmental damage. If we were to use strictly bio fuels there wouldn't be enough land in the world to sustain the worlds needs so say good bye rain forest if people keep pushing ethanol.

  • PaulGloor

    If they were interested in stretching fuel reserves they would invest in increasing MPG and snuff alternatives such as biodiesel entirely. Biodiesel can apparently run 100% but you get mixed diesel because biodiesel on its own or without intervention such as heated filters or additives which, include low sulfur diesel or kerosine, will gel and clog filters at lower temperatures. These temperatures for B100 (100% biodiesel) differ widely depending on the base oil stock.
    Collected from Wiki
    Canola -10°C (14°F)
    Tallow +16°C (61°F)

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_ZMK6YNWJACHQ5CRCJW5TNYFURI KsDevil

    I think the people who provide negtive opinions of this documentary are oil company shills doing ther predictable best to inject apathy into the conversation.
    This documentary appears to be a few years old. Biodiesel can now be made from an ever increasing number of products.
    With the right investment, a small group of normally intelligent people can build a biofuel plant and buy closed or abandoned gas station to make a nice tidy profit.
    That's right. There's no need to thing big but you have to think strong. The oil companies will try to close you down. Ther's nothing like making such activities public to chase them away.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QEY54N3I7MSX7IN6FLVSRUJVQU Ziad

    the solution is for america to stop sucking up to israel and start acting fairly and honorably towards confilcts

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Christopher-Eeles/511889850 Christopher Eeles

    This is the worst documentary I have seen in a long time, not as a result of content but because of the presentation format. Clips were shuffled around in so that each statement was out of the context of the discussion taking place in the interviews. It is easy to take a few words from each interview and string them together as some coherent sounding argument in support of your cause, but truth lies in context and this was lacking for most of the quotes in the film. This is not a presentation of fact but instead a propaganda film which may or may not provide truth but certainly does not present information fairly and therefore should be rejected as a device for attaining truth.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kevin.marchese Kevin Marchese

    as far as i could tell by looking it up, its all true.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=609596301 Ken Peck

    Alternative energy will not solve anything. Crude oil is in everything. It takes 7 gallons of oil to make one tire for a car. So just cause you can recycle fryer grease does not mean that the whole world can run off of corn oil. It would also be impossible to fuel th us on corn oil be cause corn is in everything also. We would have to grow nothing but corn on all of our usable farm land and that wouldnt be enough.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=609596301 Ken Peck

    israel has nothing to do with it. egypt has alot to do with oil prices. They control a canal that lets oil get from Saudi Arabia faster and cheaper. If they closed that canal then they would have to take the oil tankers down and around south africa.

  • ulickmcgee

    We are being conned by big multinationals like shell for profit

  • Xbow

    Because the USA has 27% of the worlds Coal and 30% of the world oil shale an energy supply that can last us several centuries I am in favor of developing the Fischer-Tropsch process to the Nth degree.

    The F-T process which as some of you might know is a CTL processes (Coal To Liquid). The process is being used in a number of countries most notably by South Africa's SASOL corporation. From their Secunda plant they produce 160,000 barrels of Diesel, Jet fuel and Gasoline per day..28% of what they need from one plant. On a side note this is the process that supplied Nazi Germany with fuel during WW2.

    Obviously our needs are far greater. Since we import 8,500,000 barrels of oil per day we would need to build seventeen plants with a 500,000 barrel/day capacity to eliminate our need for any imported oil. On the other hand if we continue to import oil from Canada and Mexico ~40% of our total we would need only ten such plants.

    The process has already been proven to be competitive with OPEC prices. And by merging Nuclear power with CTL plants to supply the heat required for the Fischer-Tropsch process and the electrical power for carbon capture the end result could have a devastating effect on producers of conventional oil.
    And that would be a good thing. And imagine not having to put 300 to 400 billion dollars per year in the hands of our enemies.

    Each one of these plants could cost as much as ten billion dollars to build and if only US contractors & manufacturing companies and US citizens were employed in the program it would cause an explosion in good paying industrial jobs for Americans.

    But what do we get instead? Obama's Green Energy program that will NEVER serve our needs or have any positive effect on energy independence. But it will promote a lot of Obama's Green Energy cronies into the ranks of the super rich at the expense of the American people.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Gros/1267365077 John Gros

    Fryer grease is not just corn oil. Peanut oil, lard etc is also useable. As it is a chemical process that is very simple, and is grown on any agricultural land, it breaks the monopoly of oil companies.

  • aa bb

    where can i watch joint committees on energy prices and profit 2005 ?

  • brian rose

    In 2005 the Department of Energy produced "The Hirsch Report," which analyzed the consequences of a near-term peak in global oil supplies. It found that market signals would include dramatically higher oil prices, price volatility, higher unemployment, severe recessions, and higher debt levels. Of course, in 2005 when this report came out that all sounded pretty far fetched... now its 2011, and we're living it.

    The report also analyzed the prospects for transitioning from oil to other sources of energy for transportation. It found that the lead times to transition were large due to the amount of oil we use (62,500 barrels a minute), and the infrastructure already in place.

    The report concludes "The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary." To put the magnitude of the challenge into perspective, the U.S. (the world's largest corn producer) in 2011 turned 40% of its corn harvest into ethanol. Turning 40% of your corn harvest into ethanol has such a minute effect on the global supply/demand situation that oil prices in 2011 will be the highest prices in recorded history. On an inflation adjusted basis the prices paid for oil in 2011 will be higher than those in 1973 and 1979; the two 1970s oil crises that led to severe global recessions. Its no coincidence that talk of economic growth has reverted to talk of possible recession over the last 6 months.

  • http://www.facebook.com/clemcat.hughes Clemcat Hughes

    Every documentary is the opinion of the writers/directors, take them only for what you can relate with. Inspiration comes in many forms, this is just one of them. Unless it is hate driven or damning to any people, person, or belief system. Watch it with an open mind, anyone who knows anything equally knows they know nothing. Doc's are and should always be about inspiring thought and question. opinions are a gift, not to be feared but embraced.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-Anne-Vaughan/728678228 Elizabeth Anne Vaughan

    Your logic would make sense if fossil fuels were the only source of energy, and if global warming wasn't a factor. Unless you think that a climate similar to the surface of Venus sounds like a good place for your grandkids. Runaway greenhouse effect, anyone?

    Switching to alternative energy sources (ethanol, biodiesel, solar, etc) is a small but potentially world-saving adaptation that multitudes of people make every day. But you seem pretty set on preserving the status quo, so I'm guessing someone else will have to make up for your evident lack of caring about the planet you live on.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JNIWLD2N7KE6YWLCZBXZ5EC3RQ Yusiley S

    You just made it all great with that comment. :) Good to see... or in this case read... someone with that multitude of intelligence. Bravo and thank you.From your quote. " anyone who knows anything equally knows they know nothing.".... I was about to quote Montaigne on the same matter in my own opinion about this film "The man who thinks he knows does not yet know what knowing is." However, you beat me to it... again bravo and thank you. Peace be.

  • http://1iotofoto.wix.com/otofoto oQ

    IF (hypothetically) you woke up tomorrow and electricity and gaz were no longer available and you still had a full tank of gaz in your car.
    Would you drive away, if so where, if so why? If not, describe how you would manage living in your present environment especially if it is a large city.
    Just curious if people feel their present situation is where they feel safe.

    As for me, i do not own a car but if i did, i would most likely stay where i'm at and combine my efforts with the town folks or drive to the next town where my friend has a huge garden i have helped with numerous times.
    1i

  • Devon Griffiths

    Some belief systems need to be damned - Nazism would be a classic example but there are many others which seem more benign but can have bad results, and which demand critical evaluation, particularly after their impacts are felt and known. Ideas are different than people in this. You can change your ideas; and ideas that are bad, cannot be redeemed. But people cannot become other people, and people, unlike ideas, can be redeemed.

  • martino

    Egypt has nothing to do with oil prices, cause the international community wont allow it to close the canal and Egypt knows that. Just like their not allowing Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. After all the canal wasn't Egypts invention to start with.

  • AJF13

    Yeah that's it that's all that needs to change my god what genius quick someone get this guy in the bloody White House.

  • RT JaKaL

    So then think about this... If Oil Companies make such huge profits and have "overhead" to pay for, then how much would the government be making on the sale of Gas and Deisel. Think about it, they have no overhead to pay in the production of Gasoline, but the taxes paid on this gas at the pump if often equal to the retail price of the Gas itself. So then why would "Core" Politicians who have intimate knowledge of what is really going on cut back on their revenue, is that consistent with the history of their behavior? No, it would be completely "Out of Character" for them. Many times you hear about great inventions and then hear that the Gov is interested and have their experts like NASA sign contracts with these people and then the tech becomes "Classified". So is the Gov working with Oil Companies, are the Oil Companies and the Government maybe the same entity but separate themselves on paper like other big companies that actually own smaller companies whom they are supposed to be competing against?

    Ok so forget the size of these companies and just look at them as business owners. Some businesses have cutthroat tactics and little or no ethics. So if a business owner is competing with another they often try to make the other guy look bad or like the Mob maybe rub out the competition. Have we seen any proven killings by the owners of this industry? Don't think small scale, think about Wars that have been fought over oil-rights, or wars fought to defend oil fields from falling into someone else's hands other than those people that they can control. So if oil and gas is willing to snuff out thousands or millions of people, is it not reasonable to assume that killing a single inventor here and there that threaten their profits wouldn't bother them in the least? Now if these owners hold such power over the current system of things, then we have to assume that anything major, like policy or laws that decrease the rights or the power of the population to make change in the way these business owners conduct their dealings, if they do not want a bill passed, it doesn't pass. So it has to make you wonder, look around you, how much of these major issues are they directly responsible for or at least have a major role in, maybe a lot maybe a little, who can know anymore?

    I know this sounds crazy to a lot of people, and not to long ago it sounded preposterous to me too. But my passion has been mechanics and how things work most of my life. And I had some ideas a while back about improving fuel efficiency at the same time increasing performance, since efficiency=performance, its MATH, But the more I researched these ideas I found out that others already had versions of these same ideas that reportedly worked, but when patents were bought shortly after the tech disappeared or was reported as a hoax. So then I kept digging and the more I dug the more I was dismayed and discouraged I was that anyone can do anything about the situation.

    So how can you hold someone accountable to the laws, or who would you report them to if it were the agencies who make and enforce the laws that needed to be reported. Reporting the wrong doing of an agent to themselves and hoping to see change is for lack of a better word... Stupid.

    So what can a person do? Hope and pray to God, since he seems to be the only one with real authority who isn't swayed by profits or political power. In fact Revelation tells us he will ".?.?.bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” (Revelation 11:18)

  • awful_truth

    An excellent documentary that covers most of the important history of oil. With that said, several important issues are not addressed such as:
    1) The invasion of Iraq, which was indirectly about the oil itself, and directly related to Saddam's wish to sell oil without converting to U.S funds. (put in place globally after the end of the 2nd world war) This in itself would have killed the U.S economy. Other countries are now threatening to do the same thing. (China, etc)
    2) That oil companies themselves will eventually lead the way to getting off the dependence of oil, but only after they have purchased control over all the other energy alternatives. (solar, wind, electrical, nuclear, etc - the more things change, the more they stay the same)
    Ultimately, a good doc for everyone to watch, including the layman!

  • basic

    We will never can do some thing about SHELL... .. the big bosses are members of the BILDERBERG GROUP. if you wand to do some thing about Shell start with them. they are the ones that PROTECTING them!!

  • Yaqub Ali

    for those smart people out there this documentary is BULL.
    the Physics proofs that it is a lie, consider the following:

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE 100 MILES USING 1 GALLON OF GAS:

    1 liter of gas has 34.8MJ; which when converted means there is :
    131,818,181.80 joules/gal. (do the math conversion, its easy)

    assuming the car weighed 2,000 lbs and traveled for 100 miles...
    in SI units: 2,000 lbs = 907.184kg

    when a car travels a distance (100 miles in this case) it looses ALOT of energy to friction on the road...its simple physics

    the equation for friction is:
    Friction force= (u)(N)
    where u=coefficient of friction and
    N= normal force; acceleration of gravity*mass of the vehicle

    (NOTE: the coefficient of friction between rubber tires and asphalt is: 0.5)

    now to figure out how much energy was lost to friction you simply multiply the answer you get by 100 miles (actually 160934 meters, since we must use SI units) because:

    Energy/work= (Force of friction)(distance traveled)

    now:
    energy lost to friction=

    (0.5)(9.81)(907.184)(160934)= 716,114,058 joules

    ---
    notice here that here gasoline only contains
    131, 818,180 joules of energy in one galon

    and the energy that will be lost to friction will be
    716,114,058 joules

    the energy that will be lost to friction IS MUCH MUCH greater than the energy in one gallon of gasoline....

    one gallon of gas DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY to make a car go 100 miles....

    IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND THE PHYSICS PROVES IT.

  • Yaqub Ali

    I agree, this documentary is BS.
    the Physics proofs that it is a lie also.
    consider the following:

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE 100 MILES USING 1 GALLON OF GAS:

    1 liter of gas has 34.8MJ; which when converted means there is :
    131,818,181.80 joules/gal. (do the math conversion, its easy)

    assuming the car weighed 2,000 lbs and traveled for 100 miles...
    in SI units: 2,000 lbs = 907.184kg

    when a car travels a distance (100 miles in this case) it looses ALOT of energy to friction on the road...its simple physics

    the equation for friction is:
    Friction force= (u)(N)
    where u=coefficient of friction and
    N= normal force; acceleration of gravity*mass of the vehicle

    (NOTE: the coefficient of friction between rubber tires and asphalt is: 0.5)

    now to figure out how much energy was lost to friction you simply multiply the answer you get by 100 miles (actually 160934 meters, since we must use SI units) because:

    Energy/work= (Force of friction)(distance traveled)

    now:
    energy lost to friction=

    (0.5)(9.81)(907.184)(160934)= 716,114,058 joules

    ---
    notice here that here gasoline only contains
    131, 818,180 joules of energy in one galon

    and the energy that will be lost to friction will be
    716,114,058 joules

    the energy that will be lost to friction IS MUCH MUCH greater than the energy in one gallon of gasoline....

    one gallon of gas DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY to make a car go 100 miles....

    IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND THE PHYSICS PROVES IT.

  • Yaqub Ali

    actually no...this documentary is BS.

    the Physics proofs that it is a lie also.
    consider the following:

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE 100 MILES USING 1 GALLON OF GAS:

    1 liter of gas has 34.8MJ; which when converted means there is :
    131,818,181.80 joules/gal. (do the math conversion, its easy)

    assuming the car weighed 2,000 lbs and traveled for 100 miles...
    in SI units: 2,000 lbs = 907.184kg

    when a car travels a distance (100 miles in this case) it looses ALOT of energy to friction on the road...its simple physics

    the equation for friction is:
    Friction force= (u)(N)
    where u=coefficient of friction and
    N= normal force; acceleration of gravity*mass of the vehicle

    (NOTE: the coefficient of friction between rubber tires and asphalt is: 0.5)

    now to figure out how much energy was lost to friction you simply multiply the answer you get by 100 miles (actually 160934 meters, since we must use SI units) because:

    Energy/work= (Force of friction)(distance traveled)

    now:
    energy lost to friction=

    (0.5)(9.81)(907.184)(160934)= 716,114,058 joules

    ---
    notice here that here gasoline only contains
    131, 818,180 joules of energy in one galon

    and the energy that will be lost to friction will be
    716,114,058 joules

    the energy that will be lost to friction IS MUCH MUCH greater than the energy in one gallon of gasoline....

    one gallon of gas DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY to make a car go 100 miles....

    IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND THE PHYSICS PROVES IT.

  • Yaqub Ali

    Really this documentary was propagating LIES

    the Physics proofs that it is a lie also.
    consider the following:

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DRIVE 100 MILES USING 1 GALLON OF GAS:

    1 liter of gas has 34.8MJ; which when converted means there is :
    131,818,181.80 joules/gal. (do the math conversion, its easy)

    assuming the car weighed 2,000 lbs and traveled for 100 miles...
    in SI units: 2,000 lbs = 907.184kg

    when a car travels a distance (100 miles in this case) it looses ALOT of energy to friction on the road...its simple physics

    the equation for friction is:
    Friction force= (u)(N)
    where u=coefficient of friction and
    N= normal force; acceleration of gravity*mass of the vehicle

    (NOTE: the coefficient of friction between rubber tires and asphalt is: 0.5)

    now to figure out how much energy was lost to friction you simply multiply the answer you get by 100 miles (actually 160934 meters, since we must use SI units) because:

    Energy/work= (Force of friction)(distance traveled)

    now:
    energy lost to friction=

    (0.5)(9.81)(907.184)(160934)= 716,114,058 joules

    ---
    notice here that here gasoline only contains
    131, 818,180 joules of energy in one galon

    and the energy that will be lost to friction will be
    716,114,058 joules

    the energy that will be lost to friction IS MUCH MUCH greater than the energy in one gallon of gasoline....

    one gallon of gas DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH ENERGY to make a car go 100 miles....

    IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND THE PHYSICS PROVES IT.

  • Nicolaas

    Change LOL... That's not going to happen

  • Eletrik

    It IS possible to go 100 miles on a gallon of gas. It has been done, demonstrated and proven. Anyone that disagrees is misinformed or trying to deceive. Google Automotive X prize for one simple example. Stop believing the BS skeptics. Their math is fatally flawed, including the BS math posted by Yaqub. Take special note of the false assumptions made in his friction calcs. Not all vehicles have a tire friction coef of .5 which is the STATIC friction coef!!! He should be using the ROLLING RESISTANCE , not the the STATIC coef - as while the tire contacts the road it is NOT slipping unless you are sliding! Do the research - I'm right! So your calc is WRONG and MISLEADING! You need to use the ROLLING RESISTANCE, not the static coef used for breaking and grip!!! Too many assumptions makes you NOT correct. Your math is NOT airtight, and you have been proven wrong. Your misleading math makes me very angry as it serves to confuse and mislead those that might otherwise realize that we as a people can make and demand for better fuel mileage. It CAN and MUST be done.

  • Jordan Minson

    I have a simple question for you. How far would your theoretical car make it on just the one gallon of gasoline?

    Not very far. In twenty miles, you've spent the total energy on friction alone. Which means you haven't made it twenty miles. You've created the worst car ever.

  • Yaqub Ali

    theoretically, a gallon of gas has 131,818,180 joules.
    assuming all that was converted to moving the car, the friction would cut it off, it wouldn''t let the car go even 30miles for 1 gal of gas

  • Jordan Minson

    I can think of many internal combustion, strictly gasoline-driven vehicles that far exceed thirty miles per gallon. Your math and logic are flawed.

  • Yaqub Ali

    I just chose thirty miles out of random. my calculations were based on 100% efficiency of a combustion engine. even if that is assumed a car can't reach 100 miles on one gallon of gas. it's basic physics.

  • Jordan Minson

    Please stop feigning intellect. Your calculations are flawed.

  • Yaqub Ali

    fine show me where. and if you haven't taken physics yet, look back on them when you get the chance.

  • Jordan Minson

    I've already pointed out your mistake. According to your logic, no vehicle weighing roughly 2000 pounds can travel even twenty miles on one gallon of gasoline. This is obviously a false claim, as there are many production vehicles near or exceeding 2000 pounds which will travel more than twenty miles on a single gallon, and quite a few which will travel farther.

    I have no real argument with you. If you would, could you post a similar calculation to show the maximum distance a 2000 pound vehicle could travel using one gallon of fuel?

  • Yaqub Ali

    I made that post like a year ago, I will examine my calculations again and respond appropriately

  • Josh Korpela

    Your calculation using the coefficient of friction corresponds to pushing the car on asphault without the tires rotating, hence the immense energy required.

  • The6thsense

    I had a honda CRX HF, in the 90's. I was getting somewhere like 55 mph in the hwy and 50 in the city. I miss that car. We do not need 3000 lbs cars when most cars on the road are single riders

  • U.N. Soldier

    Bilp can go phuck themselves!

  • Derek Seymour

    This is propaganda! Just kidding - thought I'd do the professional trolls a favour.

  • Jason West

    Yeah, but WHAT is propaganda. Tried to watch it and all I got was that Blip had the doc removed. I get really, really tired of running into these things on this website. Seems like they should have better control of their content than what they do.