ABC: Exxon spends 1 percent of profits on alternative energy.
By on Jul 31st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
ABC: Exxon spends 1 percent of profits on alternative energy.
Exxon Mobil today broke its own record for the highest-ever profit by a U.S. company, with net income this quarter rising to $11.68 billion. While Exxon officials regularly tout the company’s investment in alternative energy, ABC reported today that Exxon spends only 1 percent of profits on alternative energy sources. Watch it:
“They’re probably spending more on the advertising than they are on the research,” noted an oil analyst contacted by ABC. BP invested the most out of the big five oil companies, at 2.9 percent.
Update According to a new study from the Center for American Progress Action Fund, their U.S. profits from the last 12 months were the equivalent to $236 from every single person with a drivers license in America.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Well, for Big Oil… there is no ‘alternative’ to record profits….
July 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pmBring back the windfall profits tax to force them to pay for thier fair share of the war. After all, they have benefitted the most from it.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pmSusan Liscovish of CNN said big oil spent $10 billion on dividends and share buybacks. It’s much more than they spend on research or new oil exploration.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pmTo be fair, one percent of massive profits is a big chunk of change.
But it still doesn’t represent much of a commitment to the future of energy, beyond extraction-and-combustion.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pmdary11 Says:
Why should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
Truth in advertising, maybe?
“They’re probably spending more on the advertising…
July 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pmdary, you’re not very bright, are you?
If a company develops an alternative product, and thus profits from its adoption, how is that “competition”?
Especially considering the accepted wisdom that oil reserves will cease being viable resources within 50 years? A company that relied on a vanishing resource for its “primary product line” dooms itself to become obsolete. Is that teh kind of leadership you want?
Oh, that’s right — you do. You’re for McCain.
Never mind.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pmdary11 Says:
Why should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
Two things:
1) They will make money selling the alternative fuel, just as they make profits on oil &
2) So the planet doesn’t die. Do you want a dead planet for your kids to enjoy?
Where do these LIV’s come from? And why don’t they go back?
July 31st, 2008 at 12:39 pmIn Exxon’s defense: 1% of their profits is a MASSIVE amount of money.
And despite those good works by poor Exxon (struggling to compete in these tough times), the Democrats want to take away the tax breaks that Exxon needs. Those Bastards!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:39 pmAlso, you must remember that, as a propaganda addled right-winger, Dar11 loves false advertising.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pmWhy should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
Exactly, that’s why we can’t count on Industry to lead the way here… they have a vested interest in the status quo.
That’s why we need to wean the successful oil companies off the Government subsidies that they no longer need and transfer that money to alternative energy research- this needs to be a Government led intiative.
Glad you’re on board Dary11!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:40 pmSkeeter1 Says:
——————————————————————————–
In Exxon’s defense: 1% of their profits is a MASSIVE amount of money.
Except that most of that money is being spent on advertising propaganda to fool idiots like Dary11 into believing that they are actually doing research.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pmdary11 Says
July 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Why should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
_________________________________________________________
Why indeed? This is like asking tobacco companies to conduct smoking-cessation programs.
But seriously, it makes better sense to hand the reins of alternative energy development over to an entity with a bigger interest in actual success in this area. I have no problem with the oil companies paying for this through windfall profits, however (just as I have no problem with Philip Morris paying for anti-smoking programs that someone else manages).
July 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pmbelac is correct. We will all die waiting for the oil industry to move away from their products which are killing the one planet we have. The oil companies will proudly declare – as the last humans begin to die off – that they had their best yearly profits of all time.
They will be proud, but their pride would have made our planet uninhabitable.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:46 pmWhy should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
This is exactly why it doesn’t make any sense at all to open up more leases for more off-shore drilling. We should not be (1) perpetuating the reliance on oil by creating some false hope that “there’s more of it in the pipeline” nor should we be (2) costing the oil companies more expense for more leases.
It’s a vicious cycle that we need to break right now. Then, the oil companies will take investment in alternative energy sources more seriously because they will realize that their future depends upon it.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:46 pmralph the wonder llama Says
July 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
But it still doesn’t represent much of a commitment to the future of energy, beyond extraction-and-combustion.
_____________________________________________________________
You’re right — not when “alternative energy” means “drilling in alternative locations”.
The big oil companies have had their chance to prove their commitment to renewable and less polluting energy development. They have failed. It’s time to take the money the oil companies are supposed to be paying for this and turn it over to an entity who will get serious about it.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pmWhere is the oil industry’s biggest apologist on this topic, Jim Wilkie? Maybe he hasn’t got the Exxon talking point yet.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:51 pmSo, dary, would you consider it a “subsity” (sic) for oil companies to be allowed to drill on public land without paying the negotiated royalty to the American people?
And why did you put belac’s correctly-spelled “subsidy” in quotes, only to misspell the same word later? I mean, we all make typos and some of us even misspell stuff. But that’s just odd. It’s like you went out of your way to spell something wrong.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pmHmmmm, I wonder what percentage is spent researching other people developing alternative energy products, buying their research and breakthroughs, and squelching the possibility of the breakthrough seeing the light of day…
..with all that money, Exxon can virtually bring progress to a standstill and usher in a new dark age. The church did something like this with science back in the bad ‘ol days, withholding simple truths to keep the coffers full and the money flowing.
We’re just on our knees to a different ‘god.’ Stop cooperating.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:54 pmCUT TO:
Jim Wilke, frantically pacing in front of his fax machine.
JIM
Come on, come on…
He checks his email again.
JIM
Nothing. Darn those Exxon people!
Don’t they know all the “pro’s” are
getting a jump on me while I wait
for these stupid talking points?!?
Jim grabs a handful of Cheetos, spilling several on the floor.
He wipes the Cheeto dust on his pajamas.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pmShould be clear by now: The only solution is to nationalize the futhermockers.
If energy really is “national security priority #1,” then to let a band of international brigands running essentially state-less corporations have the choke-grip on the Nation’s vital security interests is not only stupid, it is un-American, and un-Patriotic…and could cease immediately with swift nationalization of the entire industry.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pmABC reported today that Exxon spends only 1 percent of profits on alternative energy sources.
I’m shocked!! Shocked, I say.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pm“Exxon spends only 1 percent of profits on alternative energy sources…”
I have absolutely no problem with that as long as the other 99% goes to the Government as excess profits tax. Keep in mind that the “profit” is what is left after all expenses, including salaries and bonuses and whatever else they can fraudulently claim against their taxes.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pmdary11 Says:
That is where I need clarification. What do you mean by “the money the oil companies are supposed to be paying for this…” “Supposed to be” according to what authority?
The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a federal organization under the Dept. of the Interior, to oversee the production of natural resources from Federal lands and manage the royalties paid to the federal government.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pmIt wasn’t a personal attack. It was a question.
As I said, we all make typos. I just thought it odd that you drew attention to belac’s use of the word and then mistyped it yourself.
And I notice you in turn focused on my comment about the typo, and completely my comment about the royalty payments, which came first and which is, in fact, relevant to the topic of this thread.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pmdary11 Says:
——————————————————————————–
tokin librul’s tokin answer is Cuban style Communism.
Of course, you Republicans much prefer Chinese style Communism.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pmdary-leven, is ‘energy sufficiency’ a national security priority?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:01 pmIf yes, how does one secure it in private hands?
If not, then what are we worried about $5 gas for?
dary11 Says:
tokin librul’s tokin answer is Cuban style Communism.
Hope your eye treatment heals well.
I disagree with what you say because certain things which are vital to our infrasctucture, security, way of life, transportation, etc…must be available and reasonably affordable. By keeping pure competition driving the business model, we will never see enough incentive for the oil companies to change their ways.
We are using a finite, and unhealthy resource. We know we need to change, but who is gong to lead the charge? Certainly not those who profit handsomely from the status quo.
I’m afraid we must force the change.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pmsince congress won’t do anything about this, only we can.
folks, for the love of all that is good in the universe, stop driving.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:04 pmupside99 Says:
The Minerals Management Service (MMS), a federal organization under the Dept. of the Interior, to oversee the production of natural resources from Federal lands and manage the royalties paid to the federal government.
Of course, in this administration their job is to manage the massive fraud being perpetuated by the oil companies in their highly successful efforts to avoid paying royalties for pumping oil on federal lands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/business/31royalties.html
July 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pmdary11 Says:
tokin librul’s tokin answer is Cuban style Communism.\
Here in my San Diego neighborhood, that comminist (intentional mispelling) Arco is selling gas for $.24 lower than the Exxon station across the street.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pmWhat happened to the story about inciting a war with Iran? It just disappeared.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:06 pmdary11 Says:
Why should an oil company spend money promoting competition to its primary product line?
Geez, I dunno, Dary-leven? Why would GM, which builds primarily petroleum-powered vehicles start to research and build electric cars?
Please, Dary, assure us you don’t actually have any responsibilies that require anything above low-mean IQ, do yaz?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pmralph the wonder llama @ 2
I think Jim is still looking through a bag of Cheetos, trying to find another Jesus.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pmdarladooner:
July 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmThat’s a really good idea but not entirely feasable for some. I think it might be a better idea if people drive more selectively, utilize available mass transit, carpool, maintain vechicles for maximum efficency, and other simple conservation strategies. Also being conscious of excess plastic packaging and wise consumerism might be best. Shop local and support your local growers!
Exxon spent $8.8 billion on share repurchases in the second quarter. See page 4 of the press release linked below:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h5g6j9jCMUKAPB08_aMvC8XnQqIQD928T5UO0
July 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmdary11~
I know you guys on the right side of the aisle love you some unfunded mandates, so how about this?
1)We require the oil companies to pay royalties on all oil an natural gas extracted on public lands equal to the royalties paid to private land-owners.
2)We invest that money in a Government program that funds research and development into alternative energies and grid maintenance and upgrades.
3)We require all new construction to produce some percentage of it’s estimated daily power needs- let’s say 10%- that’s not an unattainable goal and it has several benefits…
a)provides a real world market for all that Government sponsored research.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmb)the economy of scale would seem to indicate as more technologies come on line the cost of those alternative energy sources will decline, leading to more people retro-fitting their homes and enjoying the benefits of home-energy production.
c)we de-centralize the power grid while also upgrading the badly decayed power distribution network leading to improved national security (Imagine if every home generated 60% of it’s own power- during the day all that power that homeowners aren’t using is returned to the grid and powers big business! It will be for power what the internet was for communication!)
tokin librul Says:
Please, Dary, assure us you don’t actually have any responsibilies that require anything above low-mean IQ, do yaz?
Don’t worry, he’s just an oil company executive. It doesn’t take a high IQ to cram money into your pockets.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pmdary11 Says:
That is where I need clarification. What do you mean by “the money the oil companies are supposed to be paying for this…” “Supposed to be” according to what authority?
If this was the real Daryll, he would be spouting “God’s authority”
This is a fake Daryll troll. Kinda sad when the trolls have to namejack their own
July 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pmA hundred years ago Daryll’s great grandfather was worried about Henry Ford’s new contraption and went to congress to get laws enacted to protect wagon makers, wheelwrights and whip manufacturers.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pmDang, my copy button didn’t work correctly. Here’s the Exxon press release.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Files/news_release_earnings2q08.pdf
July 31st, 2008 at 1:12 pmoh and darladooner, forget the stupid bottled water especially that Fiji shit. I assume most folks have faucets
July 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pmAnd THIS is exactly why our energy infrastructure MUST be nationalized.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pmWe can’t rely on short term oriented profit based private sector to do what is in the citizen’s long term best interest.
I just figured it was an homage to one of their star performers. Most of them have to scrounge up new names every week or so (more often for some) because they just can’t contain their stupidity long enough to contribute to a thread.
Daryll is at least entertaining, if you don’t take him seriously (and I don’t).
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pmdary11:
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pmI think the authority you are seeking is rooted in morality, ethics, and a sense of a shared common good.
Exxon sold their natural gas transport business in Germany. It will add $1.6 billion to their third quarter bottom line:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000003408808000096/r8k070308.htm
July 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pmDon’t worry Dary11. The oil companies aren’t spending much money on alternatives. They are just spending money on advertising to fool gullible Republicans and on lawyers to keep them from having to pay royalties on the oil they are stealing from the American public.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:19 pmGood example of right-wing thinking. Let’s not move on until the product on which we depend has become obsolete. Let’s let the Japanese and Brazilians get the jump on the next generation of energy technologies. Great idea.
Gee, I wonder why the first 10 darys didn’t work out.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:21 pmdbadass Says:
dary11:
I think the authority you are seeking is rooted in morality, ethics, and a sense of a shared common good.
What are you, some kinda commie or sumpthin’?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:21 pmYou still haven’t pointed out by what authority (i.e. statute, regulation, contract, etc…) oil companies are required to invest into an alternative to their primary product line.
You’re right- I don’t know of any either. That’s why we can’t rely on them to do the right thing, and we shouldn’t. (but they’re stupid not to) We didn’t ask Ma Bell to invest in the internet- The governement just did it ’cause it was the right thing to do for our country. Just like energy independence and alternative energy are the right thing to do now.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pmdary11 Says:
————————————————————-
Fair enough, but some of the posts above seemed to be implying a legal requirement.
Dary11, did you know that oil companies steal billions of dollars from the American public every year by not paying royalties on oil and natural gas taken from federal lands?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pmshoeless Says:
dbadass Says:
dary11:
I think the authority you are seeking is rooted in morality, ethics, and a sense of a shared common good.
It’s true. Pollution doesn’t stop at the border – it travels everywhere. As well as that, when the oil disappears in 50-60 years, we will all be in the same boat, too.
We are all joined at the hip concerning our addiction to fossil fuels. We survive together, or perish together.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pmdary11 Says:
Then you should work to make it obsolete. And the oil companies can work to prevent it from being obsolete. The market will decide.
Do you consider stealing to be part of the “market”?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pmtokin librul Says:
Should be clear by now: The only solution is to nationalize the futhermockers.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
______
I’m going to have to disagree on this one. It’s impossible and impractical to nationalize the entire U.S. oil industry. If anything, there needs to be more competition in the industry.
Right now, the oil giants are essentialy vertical monopolies. Companies like ExxonMobil, BP, Total, and Shell control every step in the oil chain, from exploration to drilling to extraction to pipelines to shipping to refinement to the pump. Perhaps what’s needed is a Ma Bell-style breakup.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pmDary-leven.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pmare corporations citizens?
do citizens owe any duties to the Nation?
if so who specifies those duties?
the nation and the people?
if the nation can compel any citizen to any act at all, whatsoever–pay taxes, obey laws, etc.–then it can surely compel corporate citizens for same purposes, nest paw?
Dary hasn’t chosen to acknowledge that particular inconvenient fact as of yet.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:30 pmHi TripeKick X:
July 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pmWhy do you think they have all those bullshit greening advertisements? Do you think they are being deceptive deliberately?
Yeah, and Ford and GM didn’t need to invest in alternative-fuel vehicles over the past decade, either. They WERE in the business of selling SUVs and pickups.
Now, however, Toyota and Honda are eating their lunches. Drinking their milkshakes.
There’s some good ol’ fashioned American business acumen for ya there.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pmdary11 Says:
Ralph: Dary11 is just a name. It’s not “Daryll.” I would never pretend to be the fake Daryll (a liberal in disguise). If I were trying to be like the fake Daryll, I’d be throwing in some biblical references, but I haven’t picked up a bible since translating the Vulgate in High School. Delete me and I’ll be back as Dary12 if that will make you happy.
goon_golly has been pushing the “Daryll is a liberal” story for quite some time. I’m not at all sure why, because Daryll is a very convincing wingnut.
One of this goofballs, maybe the same one, claimed Daryll was really Shayne, which is hysterically stupid.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pmNorway has a huge nationalized oil industry. The profits go to the public.
http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/svg00990.nsf?OpenDatabase&lang=en
July 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pmTripleKick X Says:
——————————————————————————–
Exxon doesn’t need to spend 1 red cent on alternative energy. Their in the business of selling OIL.
They are also in the business of STEALING OIL!
July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pmone, no two things: there’s never again gonna be any MORE competition in critical, national security or other vitral industries than there is today. Nagahapun two: that vertical model of corporate integration? not a bug, a FEATURE. don’t expect that to disappear, either.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pmTaking the final step and nationalizing the industry does nothing more drastic than remove the superfluous middle-men, the chief execs, boards of directors, theparasites who do nothing other than feed on the labor of the workers. (Gee, I lurv talking marxy!)
gum, that claim that Daryll is a liberal will be noted now as a Gigi giveaway.
And I don’t remember which sockpuppet claimed that Shayne was Daryll, but it was clearly, as you say, a Gigi sockpuppet.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pmIn 2007 Exxon had $390 billion in revenues and $40 billion in profits. They spend 1% of profits on alternative energy, which equates to $400 million. That’s 1/1,000th of Exxon’s revenue.
Cash flow in 2007 was a positive $56 billion.
R & D in 2007 was $814 million. Exxon doesn’t break it down between traditional R & D (oil, gas, chemical) and alternative energy R & D. I find it hard to believe they’re devoting 50% of their research to alternative energy sources.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/34088/000119312508078618/ddef14a.htm#toc87659_32
July 31st, 2008 at 1:38 pmRight gummitch:
Good_golly = Jabberjaw = Dary11
and Jabberjaw was accusing me of being Daryll.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pmDoes anyone think it is odd that when Daryll went away, TK (1-infinity) shows up immediately? Almost like Sybil allowing another ‘personality’ to emerge.
Kinda strange…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pmIn 2007 Exxons spent $1.47 billion on oil exploration, a fraction of its $390 billion in revenues and $40.6 billion iin profits. Here’s where they spent it:
U.S $280 million
Canada/South America $264 million
Europe $164 million
Africa $470 million
Asia/Middle East $226 million
Russia/Caspian $67 million
My guess is ExxonMobile would love access to Iraq and Iran’s oil fields. But it’s just a guess!
July 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pmAlmost like Sybil allowing another ‘personality’ to emerge.
Nah, just a shift change…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pmI say flag them all. They have been flooding the place this week and it takes too much time to go through all the troll poop.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:45 pmThe $236 per person comment is stupid – divide their profits by their actual market (i.e. the entire globe minus a few insular regimes) and the profits per person are more in-line with what one would expect.
At any rate – who actually thinks Exxon will make it a priority to fund alternative energy? Other than strategic and economic concerns (i.e. their $100 million dollar R&D investment), why would they? It is dangerous to suggest a company SHOULD do something unless you are willing to pony up and buy some equity. Once you do, feel free to beat the system at its own game by reinvesting dividends in the technology of your choosing.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pmbelac Says:
Almost like Sybil allowing another ‘personality’ to emerge.
Nah, just a shift change..
Very funny…Good stuff.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pmFor me it is standard survival. If my business relied on a finite resouce, and that resource was being used up at faster, and faster rates, I would look to other ways to leverage off the equipment and materials I already have.
If nobody does anything, the oil will be gone – or too expensive to extract – and the oil companies will evaporate as a going concern. They are drilling their way out of existance. Seems sorta backward. Why not increase your viability by using your vast resouces to find other ways to power our planet? That would be hugely profitable.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm——————————————————————————–
StratRat Says:
——————————————————————————–
Does anyone think it is odd that when Daryll went away, TK (1-infinity) shows up immediately? Almost like Sybil allowing another ‘personality’ to emerge.
Kinda strange…
They only have a couple of computers at the RNC troll bank. The trolls have to share.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:59 pmThe oil companies make money for their shareholders by drilling for crude, refining oil to make gasoline, diesel, home heating oil and so on. Does it make sense for them to invest in alternative energy? Perhaps. But if you are making scads of money doing what you do best, maybe they should focus on what they do best. It’s up to the government to get out of the oil company subsidy game (including the terribly inefficient ethanol subsidy hoax) and give credits to alternative energy companies.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:02 pmTripleKick X Says
July 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Exxon doesn’t need to spend 1 red cent on alternative energy. Their in the business of selling OIL.
_______________________________________________________
Then I guess they don’t need any government subsidies, either — subsidies they got by assuring the government they would assist in the development of renewable energy sources.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:02 pmDid I hear a gnat buzzing arount my ear? Oh it was little Daryll with some more drivil.
The current situation with oil is just a continuence of our developing transportation history. The government recognized that efficient transportation was important to the country when they made a grant to fund a section of the National Road. With popupation growth and increasing commerce our transportation methods changed also. Technology led that change begining with the steam engine that was quickly adapted to shipping and then railroads.
Railroads grew because of the land grants given to them to lay more track. Trains put a big dent in the long distance wagon business, affecting revenues in both freight and passenger business. Passenger rail service was adapted to cities, first pulled by horses, then powered by electricity as technology brought a new source of energy to the public.
But technology continued to develope, automobiles became more reliable, trucks began replacing horse drawn wagons and everybody wanted better roads. Then airplanes entered the scene and almost killed off passenger trains, again because of new technology. In all of this the government played a central roll in either funding new technologies or enacting laws that affected the direction the nation would move in.
Now it is 2008 and we have idiots like president Chimpy, candidate McSame and trolls like dopey daryll who want us to regress into a 3rd world status when we should be leading the effort to replace the old, harmful technologies based on hydrocarbons. Why hasn’t this country put maglev to use outside of Disney? Probably for the same reason that many cities replaced their streetcar systems with buses. And that reason was because automobile companies and oil companies had politicians in their pockets even then.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:06 pmI am very conservative with my driving. So the $236 that I paid for Exxon’s profits means that almost 3 months of my driving goes towards fattening their pockets. Therefore, starting October 1 until year’s end, any driving I do can be viewed as helping Exxon make the big bucks.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pmActually I think it is our money and I for one don’t mind supporting my government as they offer me all sort of stuff like say the roads that those trucks that bring me shit that makes my life enjoyable. Anyway this seems to contradict your earlier “point”.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pmDaryll, IBM’s primary product line used to be timeclocks. Adobe ust to be a font company. There’s nothing special about a primary product line. Companies change their product lines all the time to survive changing conditions. Remember Polaroid?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pmAnd as for subsidies, let’s add in the military assistance to keep their product stream open. How big would their profit be if they had to hire, say, Blackwater to make sure their middle East oil got to market? Brinks supplies their own security guards.
The answer is that oil is both a commercial product and a matter of national sexcurity, because our economy is dependent on it. Hence the fleets keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, hence both Gulf Wars.
It was Winston Churchill who supervised the conversion of the British Fleet as First Lord of the Admiralty before World War I, and then he had misgivings about it–the same misgivings we have today.
It’s been in our interest to develop an alternative to oil for about a hundred years now, and the lesson was brought home in the (first) Arab Oil Embargo. Dary11, do you think we’d survive another oil embargo, especially if joined by Hugo Chavez? Do you knowwhat would happen if our oil stream were cut in half? Do you know what the winter would be like?
It’s a vital national interest to wean ourselves from dependence on oil. Technology to give us a more flexible energy web would vstly increase our prosperity–and if America were the first to develop the technology, it would increase our clout.
General motors is teetering on the brink of insolvency–but if they were producing the EV-1, instead of having shut production down and crushed all copies of, they’d be making money hand over fist.
If we act intelligently, we can solve the problem, hve better cars, a better energy network, and the companies producing the solutions will make a ton of money.
If we act stupidly, Americann industry, the American public , and the American nation will all suffer, and both American citizens and American corporations wil suffer, and many will die.
And when the smoke clears, we’ll be a second-class nation, with the new technology in the hands of the European Union, and most of American industry bought by foreigners, and Americans with a standard of living more like post-soviet Russia than prosperous Europe.
Crazy? Impossible? Dary11, look around you. It’s happening NOW.
In 2007, Exxon gave $7.6 billion in dividends back to shareholders.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pmFrom US NEWS & WORLD REPORT May 1, 2008
Exxon Pumped Less Oil on the Way to $10.9 Billion Profit
“Beneath ExxonMobil’s $10.9 billion in profits—a first-quarter record for the company and the second-highest in the company’s history—lies another number that should give pause to consumers and policymakers worldwide. The world’s largest publicly owned oil company is producing a lot less oil.”
–snip–
“Exxon accelerated its already aggressive share buy-back program, plowing $8 billion—or 73 percent of the quarter’s profits—into the company’s own stock.”
Less drilling means more profit especially when all they need do is pump the price of their stock up.
Also see Washington Post July 27, 2008, article
“Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling
“Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.
“Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month — three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban — compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.”
So McCain’s suddenly, miraculously, decided that granting Big Oil a monopoly on every drop of U.S. oil is the smart thing to do. That’s the ticket.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pmTriplekick,
If the oil companies are only making a dime a gallon of refined gasoline, how TF can they be making $11.6Billion in profits? They make money all along the way, from selling crude, to refining, to transportation and marketing. They also make huge profits from selling natural gas and other petroleum products to manufacturers as well as manufacturing their own.
I was in that business for 15 years and know a LOT more things that they don’t want the public to hear.
Buying into their propaganda much?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pmExxon spent $35.6 billion paying dividends and buying back stock. That’s 15 times the amount spent on exploration and R & D. More evidence of the smoke blown from oil company execs during Congressional testimony.
The Senate is going nuts on the energy issue.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:41 pmOneCitizen, those are just tired and boring facts. Corporate tools like Dary and TK strive diligently to avoid them in preference for the energetic and exciting oil industry propaganda advertising!
July 31st, 2008 at 2:45 pmGiven that the Right has had a hard-on for scrapping Social Security from the day FDR signed it into law, the only government that is “screwing up the doomed social security system” is Republican governments who cut taxes for their buddies, then spend borrowed money and try to cover their “fiscal responsibility” by borrowing more from the SS Trust Fund.
If left alone, SS would have more than enough to pay its obligations for decades, and any projected shortfall beyond that could easily be met by raising payroll taxes which are the most regressive federal taxes we have.
Another RW talking point body-slammed.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:49 pmI own many shares of various oil companies in my diversified 401K and IRA. Most American’s who are invested in such a way are also invested in oil companies’ success.
And by not diversifying their ‘energy’ sources, the oil companies will find their stock plummeting as oil becomes scarcer and scarcer while demand shifts away to renewable resources. Better hope your fund manager isn’t asleep at the wheel.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:53 pmTriplekick, it’s ALL the government’s money. They print the stuff. They can print enough to mke your ‘earned’ money worthless–which is what the Bush administration is doing.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:54 pmThe government has the power to manage the currency as they see fit–and that includes taxing people and subsidizing projects.
There’s no right to property in the constitution. Not even in the Declaration of Independence.
You earned that money because somebody gave it to you. You didn’t make it yourself. The government printed it and somebody gave it to you. All else is mythology.
I’ve worked as a freelancer–and I’ve ‘earned’ an awful lot of money I didn’t get. And there’s no bank of mythic Earning that maintains my credit account. And I’ll just bet that if someone asks you about inherited income or investments, suddenly that emotive ‘earning’ becomes an abstract thing double-quick.
Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations argues that it’s the prosperity of the nation as a whole that increases wealth. Skillful manipulation of the currency, including taxation and subsidy, can make everyboy richer, and make those dollars of ‘yours’ do more and be worth more.
It was somebody else’s money before it was yours, and it will be somebody else’s money after you. And it’s only by that process that you get anything out of it. and that system is provided for and administered by the government.
To #2… the ‘Windfall Profits’ tax is a joke. If you apply it to oil companies, you need to apply it to other companies that rape the public, like Time Warner and Comcast, that generate HUGE profits… yet don’t make the news, because they don’t have any connection to Iraq or ‘terrorism’.
They profit so much because they have up AND downtream operations, which is why they’re an integrated oil company. Do you damn research before you start ranting about this and that. They’re making so much money because various forces drove up the price of oil… they’re losing their ASS on the refining/retail side… just like every other refiner/retailer in the country.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:05 pmwhy would a company rape the public? Capitalism is the shits I was told…
July 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pmI find it funny that all of you think the government should have the power to tell a company what they should and should not invest or do business in. That’s communisim/socialism. Exxon, BP, and the others are OIL AND GAS companies, NOT alternative fuel companies. If they don’t want to invest in alternative fuels and possibly make money from that arena then that is their decision. How would you feel if the government tried to step in and tell your favorite San Francisco coffee shop that they must invest in and sell hamburgers? Companies have the right to choose what they will and will not invest in. The government has no business meddling in other people’s business.
October 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm