I received so many emails about my previous column on

Chevron's big oil find

that I felt compelled to give readers a chance to express their outrage in this space.

The point I sought to make was that


(CVX) - Get Report



(COP) - Get Report



(BP) - Get Report


Royal Dutch Shell


and other oil companies will continue searching and drilling for fossil fuels because

there isn't a viable alternative that consumers like nearly as much


Admittedly, I used a little hyperbole to make my point, such as referring to oil as "fossilized dinosaur dung." That came off a little too irreverent for many readers, as you'll see.

In any event, I would like to thank all who responded. This type of healthy debate is among the true purposes of Today's Outrage.

So without further ado, here are today's reader rants:

Dinosaur Dung? You can't possibly believe that tired old lie anymore, can you? Just stop and think about that possibility, and if done so, the less that theory holds water (or oil so to speak). More and more evidence shows that oil is not a byproduct of decaying old things; the many variables involved there make it far-fetched at best. The only theory that makes sense in a practical sense is that the earth is creating oil in the magnificent engine at its center.

The interest in oil stems from the fact we all own gas-guzzling cars and true, functional and large green cars are but a glimmer on the horizon. Until they become available and cheap, oil is still a viable product, and finding it means something in the market. A) the more there is, the cheaper the oil stocks will be but short term there can be a bounce in a stock. And B) the cheaper our gas will be, which helps the economy in the long run. Cheaper gas is like lowering taxes. It puts money in our pockets to buy other things.

I found your opinion piece lacking in analysis -- something that might be OK in a general interest publication, but inappropriate for a financially oriented one. Of course investors are interested in Chevron's find in the Gulf of Mexico; we're investing to earn a return, and oil finds within the US are likely to generate that for Chevron. That may be evidence of "how much we still care about oil," but more likely it's evidence about how much we care about making, rather than losing, money on our investments. And the best way to stimulate more demand for the alternatives is to make them price competitive. Hopefully that won't be done by simply raising taxes on fossil fuels, as that approach will make us all poorer.

"I don't get your thesis. There is no substitute for oil. So how can Chevron's quest be an "outrage?" We always have the option of using less oil (smaller cars, for example, or slicker airplanes) but there is no total substitute. How can you fly airplanes without oil? And electric cars are a cruel "pie-in-the-sky" hoax.

Dude get a clue oil DOESN"T come from dinosaurs. Your article was one of the most ignorant articles I've ever read on "TheStreet.com" what.... did you go to class stoned or something? Jeez at least try an internet search next time before you advertise your stupidity. Are all u greenies this stupid?

I have always been a supporter of a mandated and enforced 55 mph speed limit in the US. That would substantially cut our thirst for oil and reduce air contaminations from emissions. I also strongly favor nuclear power to generate our huge demand for power. Wind and solar have their place, but they couldn't generate the power the U.S. requires. Natural gas and coal gasification are other options as well. Also, we know that much more than fuel is derived from the use of crude oil from aspirin to asphalt. If we were able to produce enough oil so that in the short term we could eliminate imports from the Persian Gulf states and Venezuela, then we could sell excess oil to other nations such as China which could affect our balance of trade.

This is a business and investment Web site. Don't waste investors time with your political philosophy. Send this junk to Daily Kos or Huffington to help them reconfirm that they hate business.

What are they supposed to do, stop looking for our main source of energy because we SHOULD be moving toward alternative sources? It will take years to develop replacements so, I guess, until then, we'd better keep drilling so that the demand, even at current levels, can be met. Otherwise, we'll get more price spikes and a very unhappy consumer.

You are "Outraged" that we have found some domestic oil that may reduce our imports just a bit! I'm sure that you enjoy many of the fruits of our oil-fed lifestyle. So what if we use oil until it becomes so expensive that the marketplace come up with alternatives? What in particular is your beef against oil anyway?

You sir, are a dumb ass. Oil has improved more lives in this world than any unproven alt fuel that you tout. Give me the free market. You can have your meddling politicians to yourself!

Hall is the editor of


. Previously, he served as deputy editor and chief innovation officer at

The Orange County Register

and as a news manager at

Bloomberg News

in Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Washington, D.C. As a reporter, he covered business and financial markets, worked in both print and television in the U.S. and Europe, and conducted in-depth investigative coverage at

The Journal-Gazette

in Fort Wayne, Ind. His work also has been published in a variety of newspapers including

The Wall Street Journal


The New York Times


International Herald Tribune

. Hall received a bachelor�s degree in journalism and political science from The Ohio State University and has taken graduate management science courses at Boston University.