April 27, 2006
Exxon Mobil's 'In Your Face' Rape And Pillage Of America: Part 3 - Fighting Back
Take home message below: Just Say No To Exxon Mobil - Get Mad, and pass it around!
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
In our first post on this topic I said that after hearing about Exxon Mobil's "in your face greed" involving their $400 million share of the booty awarded to their CEO (one Democratic Senator called it a "shameful display of greed"), I decided to do two things - establish a new category on this blog entitled "Corporate Greed", and never never never ever buy anything from Exxon Mobil or it's subsidiaries for the rest of my life. I also suggested that readers do the same, and to pass the word around.
Now it looks like Bee County in Texas has the same idea, and they're asking the entire state of Texas to take similar action:
This week, Bee County became the first in the state, possibly the country, to pass a resolution asking motorists to boycott (Exxon Mobile) fuel pumps beginning Monday.While I'm not suggesting we boycott until Exxon Mobile brings the gasoline prices all the way down to $1.30 a gallon, I am suggesting that we do so until prices return to pre-Katrina prices. It's time that we fought back against corporate greed and Exxon Mobile is as good a place as any to begin to engage the oil companies and fight back. Call it picking our own battleground and time - the place is Exxon Mobile and the time is now.County elected officials said they would ask others in the state to follow suit.
"Hey, the American people are tired," Martinez said. "What we did is we simply took action instead of complaining.
"We're offering our residents a beacon of hope."
... the boycott call is targeted only at Exxon Mobil gasoline until retailers agree to drop the price to $1.30 a gallon. Martinez said he's especially miffed about reports that former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond received a retirement package worth $400 million.
Posted by: Richard@hyscience at
09:24 AM
| Comments (64)
| Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.
1
The only problem is that the average Exxon station is localy ownder, but just some guy. You are going to be punishing the small buisness owner, and not the company that he is in a franchise with. You may get him to swtich franchises, but you may also just end up putting them out of buisness. The most effective thing to do is drive less, and use less gas. I know it sucks, but the reality is if the gas companies aren't selling gas, they will lower prices. Right now we have shown them we are willing to pay higher prices, and they will stick it to us until we start to curb our use.
Posted by: Just Some Guy at April 27, 2006 10:00 AM (4oRC5)
2
I hear that some company called 'Starbucks' is charging $3 for a tiny cup of coffee. That's outrageous! Where are the calls out outrage and gouging about that?
If this company is such a money machine, why not purchase some stock like I have. I used to be pissed off at all the SUVs blocking my way. But I saw an opportunity and have doubled my money since.
Thank you ExxonMobil!
Boycott it if you want. They sell gas to the other brand stations too as well as to half the planet that is all to willing to fork over $3 a gallon. Lets not forget the dropping dollar that gives the foreigners more buying power with the same amount of cash pushing the cost up further.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 27, 2006 10:21 AM (JXdhy)
3
You are daft, right?
The guy took home 1.1% of the 2005 net income of a company that only earned ~9% profit on its sales.
I have a better suggestion for you, stop driving.
Posted by: Fersboo at April 27, 2006 10:24 AM (x0fj6)
4
Fred,
that's why I already do boycott Starbucks coffee, and I brew coffee at home instead. Regardless, I don't need to drink coffee. Unfortunately, I do need to drive my car and I can't brew gasoline at home. So comparing Exxon to Starbucks is just dumb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 10:42 AM (M3nr/)
5
Let's see - the price of a barrel of crude oil on the world commodies market is apx 75.00 - at 55 gal to a barrel that's 1.36 per gal unprocessed crude.
The 75.00 is what the oil companies pay to various entities (usually govts) to extract the crude oil.
Extraction, transportation, refining, distribution etc. costs come next (this is the oil companies). Various fed, state and local taxes are added on throughout the process.
Do the math.
The problem is the original base price - and the oil companies have little if anything to do with that.
Falling for the populist claptrap BS is easy - but it solves absolutely nothing - and I'm not falling for it.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 10:54 AM (SeBrl)
6
Oh - 1 gal crude does not equal 1 gal of gasoline. During processing I believe 10-20% is cooked off (impurities, sulfur, etc.).
Math can be fun. Try it Hy.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 11:04 AM (SeBrl)
7
Imagine at state...or the federal government...passing a law that required new discoveries of gold to be sold at the market price of say, 1845.
You could argue that the gold found today is the same as the gold found over 160 years ago. The price of gold was $20.65 an ounce. The price of gold today is $635.50.
If you were the guy that discovered the gold, would you think it fair that the government requires you to sell at $20.65 when it can sell it at $635.50?
I remember when my state, Oregon, had an usury law. It was illegal to lend money for any rate above 12%. Then we got Jimmy Carter. The law had to be repealed because no institution would lend money below its cost. Of course, state democrats proposed a State Lending Bank that would lend money below market rates to the deserving.
So...why stop with oil. I know my dad always commented on the price of bread on every trip to the grocery store. Did you know a loaf of bread used to cost a nickel? It did. Wouldn't it be great if we could get the government to enforce price regulations on bread? Butter? Milk? Medical costs? Cars? Housing?
Posted by: OregonGuy at April 27, 2006 11:08 AM (+VVx6)
8
>>>The problem is the original base price
That doesn't explain the oil companies record profits. I demand an explanation, and reddings about percentage of profit compared to other industries (like Starbucks), the amount of taxes oil companies pay, original base prices, etc., won't do. No more red herrings. EXPLAIN THE RECORD PROFITS.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 11:08 AM (M3nr/)
9
Sorry, not "reddings", but red herrings.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 11:09 AM (M3nr/)
10
>>>So why stop at oil?
Because oil is a necessary commodity, unlike gold and Starbucks, which are basically luxury items.
There are laws against gouging. You don't approve of such laws?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 11:19 AM (M3nr/)
11
EXPLAIN THE RECORD PROFITS.
Record amounts of oil sold and used.
Do you really think that this is done as a charity? The oil industry is an expensive and dangerous place to work in. I spent three months working on a gasoline tanker in 1993 for Mobil. Billion dollar offshore rigs. Billion dollar refineries. Any clue how large Exxon is? Of every $ of revenue they take in, they made 8-9 cents profits.
Over the last 20 years, they have spent more in exploration then they have earned on profit, but we are not that far sighted enough to pay attention to the whole picture. Guess what, it is going to guess worse. Better hope the value of the doller doesn;t drop or you'll see $5 a gallon gas.
Also. See all those SUV Drivers out there. Thankt them for the high price of oil, and the record profits. You can also thank all the day traders who have been bidding up the price of oil.
Look on the bright side, the high price of gas and oil will bring about alternative energy!
42 gallons of crude oil results in 44 gallons of refined oills of which about 20 gallons is gas.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 27, 2006 11:24 AM (JXdhy)
12
>>>75.00 is what the oil companies pay
No, that is what the oil companies CHARGE.
And the cost of "exploration" has not gone up either. It's the same as it's always been, so another red herring argument there.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 11:33 AM (M3nr/)
13
JC
If you have a five percent return on your investment, and sell one dollar's worth of goods, you make a nickel
If you have a five percent return on you investment, and sell a 100 billion dollar's worth of good, you still make that same nickel per dollar, but the gross dollars will be larger.
Savvy?
Posted by: OregonGuy at April 27, 2006 11:34 AM (+VVx6)
14
oregon,
yeah, I savvy. How do you know they're selling more oil? do you have some real figures I could look at?
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 11:42 AM (M3nr/)
15
I hear that some company called 'Starbucks' is charging $3 for a tiny cup of coffee.
Btw. Starbucks is the anti Walmart, they are one of the only companies in the U.S that extend benefits to part-time employee's THIS IS WHY YOUR PRICE IS HIGHER
In a September 13 statement, the CEO of Starbucks Corp. announced his company will spend more on health insurance for its employees this year than on coffee beans.
Howard Schultz, meeting with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) and other Seattle business leaders, said his firm provides health care coverage to Starbucks employees who work at least 20 hours a week.
So stop comparing Oranges and Flange-Valve covers, Starbucks prices are high because they take care of their employee's.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 11:45 AM (CcXvt)
16
Sorry JC
If they owned the oil fields globally (and all that came out of them) I would agree - but they don't.
They do own some of the fields in the US - an oddity actually - due to the fact that the US is one of the few (possibly only) nations on earth that recognizes private landownership to include mineral rights underneath. In the rest of the world, mineral rights (and often air rights) are automatically the property of the state.
Betcha didn't know that! - weird world fact #234.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 11:52 AM (SeBrl)
17
Aight, I give up. You win. I can tell the difference between facts and Leftwing scare mongering.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at April 27, 2006 12:16 PM (M3nr/)
18
Since when have wack-job moonbats been allowed to post at The Jawa Report?? Sounds to me like a certain android is late for his 10,000 parsec overhaul.
Posted by: KobeClan at April 27, 2006 12:34 PM (2ENQ9)
19
JC
If you were out in your back yard digging a well, and struck a solid vein of gold 100 feet down - you would be jumpin' for joy ... all because you live in the good ol' USA.
Anywhere else in the world .... no no no! ... some compensation - if your lucky!
Its the property of the "King, Queen, State, THE PEOPLE whatever!"
The USA is the odd one out here - going back to our founding ... which is why "eminent domain" is an issue here .... elsewhere in the world the state's right is taken for granted.
The story of oil is an amazing one - so much involved. Many Americans can't comprehend the role the above plays in it - because its alien to them.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 12:39 PM (SeBrl)
20
I happen to agree with the supply -> demand argument, if they raise Gasoline by ten cents tomorrow, will you still buy it? yes, what about twenty, thirty, forty cents? still yes.
Even if everyone brought Hybrids tomorrow, does that guarantee lower prices? you would still be relying on them for oil.
I could see how lowering consumption, could also heighten the costs of extraction. I guess the difference would be however would be foreign dependency, which even if the price of oil halted at todays prices would be worth breaking.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 12:42 PM (CcXvt)
21
I have not bought Exxon gas since the Valdez incident, which damage they still have not payed for because of appeals. Greed is the word, alright. Why doesn't Pres. Bush think of freezing gas prices (say to the price it was back in 2004)? That's what Pres. Carter did in 1976, and the price was only $1.75 but the first time it was ever over $1.00 in the U.S.
Posted by: Gary Veazey at April 27, 2006 01:08 PM (urlFN)
22
"So stop comparing Oranges and Flange-Valve covers, Starbucks prices are high because they take care of their employee's."
And ExxonMobil does not? Not only do they offer great coverage, but they also match employee donations to whatever cause their employees care to donate to.
"Since 2001 the Corporation has invested neariy $75 billion. This spending represents a disciplined evaluation of each project in our growing development portfolio as our spending increased from $12 billion in 2001 to $18 billion in 2005, This approach separates current market fluctuations from long-term investment decisions, Over the past 20 years, the company invested more than it earned."
To reduce foreign dependency, they can allow drilling on the East and West coasts; currently banned until at least 2012.
If I was a gas station owner in Texas, I would tell that judge to go and f-off the next time he pulled in to tank up.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 27, 2006 01:08 PM (JXdhy)
23
"Why doesn't Pres. Bush think of freezing gas prices (say to the price it was back in 2004)? That's what Pres. Carter did in 1976, and the price was only $1.75 but the first time it was ever over $1.00 in the U.S."
That will not cover the crude oil cost to make the gas, let alone refining it. You can fix the price of crude too, but that only works for domestic oil. Where does the difference come from?
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 27, 2006 01:11 PM (JXdhy)
24
Fred Fry: so are you telling me that ExxonMobil extends part-time employee's healthcare benefits? because I call bullshit.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 01:22 PM (CcXvt)
25
Well the compenstaion is excessive. but we can and should lower tax credits for exploration as the price can support that now. Also if you want to break that market speculators who are holding oil waiting for the peak to sell you have to affect demand. I got a AFA flier this am they are asking for everyone to lower consumption 3%. Just three percent. I get tired of some guy whining about filling his 12 mpg truck at the pump and then blowing by me at 80 mph one minute later. Just set the cruise at 55 or a but under 65. Wait two more days to mow. Take a day off. Free markets can be affected. Plus I've heard a lot of talk about oil and no mention of Irans intentional run up of the price by uspetting stability. Another thing is big oil makes money from the well head to the gas pump a bit on each step. Drilling, pumping, transport, refining, transport again and delivery not to mention chemicals and plastics. so sure they are making money and remember oil companies pay well all the way down. It's dangerous hard dirty work. Executive compensation is excessive. but don't cut off your nose to spite your face. There is a big reasoin big oil makes the money they get the oil. Few of these nations can even get it themselves so they pay big oil to do if for them.
Posted by: Howie at April 27, 2006 01:27 PM (D3+20)
26
Asshats, as far as the eye can see. 9% profit margin!!!! It would be a 9% margin even if they didn't pay the outgoing CEO (who was employeed there 49 years) a large serverance package.
If you asshats stopped whining and did something besides typing your drivel on the internet all day, you might find out that making money means working hard, not performing mutual-mental-masterbation.
Posted by: Fersboo at April 27, 2006 01:43 PM (x0fj6)
27
This post was satire, right?
Posted by: ken at April 27, 2006 02:06 PM (hFZJx)
28
Fersboo!
This is an honest disagreement/discussion between friends! Watch your mouth! Uncalled for!
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 02:08 PM (SeBrl)
29
Tell me you're kidding. Please.
Posted by: rightwingprof at April 27, 2006 02:16 PM (hj1Wx)
30
Reference Starbucks
Actually Exxon has excellent employee coverage - doubt if they have any significant number of PT employees.
Starbucks however has a hugh percentage of PT employees - the majority I believe - and interestingly enough - they are overwhelmingly young with an extremely high turnover.
Interesting thing about young mobile employees - they seldom actually use their benefits - a key factor in Starbucks profitability - and Starbucks can negotiate cheap insurance/med coverage based on that with the carriers. (that's where insurance carriers make their profits - off young people who pay/or are paid for - but don't use ... just in case anyone didn't know ... old fucks like me cost them money).
Give starbucks credit! So much good PR achieved with slight of hand and BS! WC said their is a sucker born every minute - who will pay 3 bucks for a cup of coffee.
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 02:39 PM (SeBrl)
31
I think what Carter did back in the day was great!
You couldn't get any gas, but the gas you could not get was cheap!
Posted by: West at April 27, 2006 02:43 PM (OkonL)
32
Carter had a good idea we had to sacrafice our economy but it did break the market loose a bit. We need to balance. Glenn Reynolds said today :When you see people voulentarily driving on the interstate at 55 then you know gas is too high. It's to high now but I don't see what a c note or droppin 18 cents a gallon will do except extend high demand and create more govt debt.
Posted by: Howie at April 27, 2006 03:02 PM (D3+20)
33
HOWIE!
Reference Carter!
Back then I was young, recently married with 1 daughter ... and partner (3 of us) in a small 20 car NYC Yellow Cab company.
It got to the point where I was forced to buy gas by the barrel from a guy named Tony in Brooklyn at 2 in the morning for 2+ a gallon!!!!
Add to that a cash business requiring financing .... remember the finance rates??? Do ya????
We went under ....
One partner blew his share up his nose - the other lost his mind and went lookin' for Yasger's Farm ... me ... I was desperate - had a family to support - so I did the only thing available to me .... I put the uniform back on ... which fed my baby ... but ruined my marriage!
Nearly 30 years later - regrets - I've got a few ...
but Carter ... CARTER!!!! FUCK HIM!!!!!
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 03:20 PM (SeBrl)
34
Yes I see the logic of what he tried. Conservation is not always a bad thing. But the cost as I said was the economy. The misery factor (Reagan) was it not? The added percentages of inflation + interst rates as I recall were high like 15%. It did help break the oil market and every thing else. I would prefer the people voulentarily shave a bit off their consumption. All that's need is to break the price a bit and a lot of profit takes will do just that. Once you get it moving it may drop quite a bit. Exdpt Iran remember Iran seems Iran was involved both times eh?
Posted by: Howie at April 27, 2006 03:39 PM (D3+20)
35
Starbucks can negotiate cheap insurance/med coverage based on that with the carriers. (that's where insurance carriers make their profits - off young people who pay/or are paid for - but don't use ... just in case anyone didn't know ... old fucks like me cost them money).
Hondo: sorry, but you do not know what you're talking about, Starbucks is self-insured, and has Etna do it's Administration.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 03:42 PM (CcXvt)
36
J.C., think white lighting man. During WWII farmers used it to run their motors. We have a lot of corn, and we have fuel injection now, so why can we not produce a lot of that sunshine in a bottle?
Of course, I would not drink any. Really.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 27, 2006 03:50 PM (D2g/j)
37
Opps interest was 18 % and inflation over 10 misery factor 28%. It was bad times the whole nation was depressed and I was just a pup but I can remember.
I remember this from SNL I think.
Hello I'm Jimmah Cahter, Your freindly neighborhood President. I told you I'd turn things around. Nothing is working!
And then Reagan was elected and in fairly short order the cloud of national depression lifted.
Posted by: Howie at April 27, 2006 03:54 PM (D3+20)
38
When are we going to stop outsourcing America and start buying American cars? Yep! You get what you pay for and what you deserve. Has anyone thought of how much gasoline will be consumed farming and processing corn for the alternative ethanol? Sort of like squeezing blood from a turnip. Or pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. But, the rhetoric makes it appear as if the President is concerned and actively doing something about it. Fore!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 27, 2006 04:16 PM (FCC6c)
39
Yeah Larry, that's why Brazil is about to declare Gasoline independance, because they're importing Gasoline to make all the Ethenol they consume with their flex-fuel cars.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 04:19 PM (CcXvt)
40
40% of oil company stock is owned by American retirement funds -- our retirees, our parents.
40 cents is the nation-wide average Compulsory Government TAX on each gallon of gas.
Oil company profits are only 9% -- and they are expected to build/replace massive infrastructure, fight harrassment from the enviros, and provide a decent return to the investors.
We can make a choice: do we value more carabou in Alaska, or the human lives and military expense involved in importing/protecting all that FOREIGN oil?
Open your eyes, people! We will have to learn to ignore the Democrats, and increase drilling for American-owned oil.
Instead of throwing rocks at the energy sector, push for new types and varieties of fuels.
I'm from a third generation oil & gas family. Like the coal miners, we have paid a heavy price to bring energy to this nation. It is your OWN greed that has made you so dependent on oil. Get a bicycle, or get out of the way, so the drillers can bring you what YOU want and gotta have: gasoline.
Posted by: Veritas Regina at April 27, 2006 04:32 PM (jXE2n)
41
I read you can make 5 galions an hour with a small still. I read it. 56lbs of corn, water, yeast, and fire etc...
I am confident you nice folks would get a permit before making any. It is on the Internet.
Larry, look it up before you say it would not work, stupid.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 27, 2006 04:35 PM (D2g/j)
42
Starbuck's self-insured? Ha ha Ha Ha! Hell! That's even better!!!!!
That simply means they pay out when the need arises ....
REMEMBER!!!!
A majority PT labor force (with reduced PT benefits I'll bet), very young, with a high turnover! (precisely the one group that rarely uses the benefits - ha ha ha!!!).
Damn! I should have invested in that company! They do know how to sell BS!
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 04:36 PM (SeBrl)
43
"Fred Fry: so are you telling me that ExxonMobil extends part-time employee's healthcare benefits? because I call bullshit."
Sorry, I don't know much about part-time employees. Then again there are NO PART-TIME JOBS AT SEA. Try working 12 hour days/seven days a week for a couple months on a tanker or working +12 hour days "14 days on - 14 days off" on an oil rig.
How good is Starbucks health care in the fields where the coffee is grown? "Fair-trade" prices cover medical too? I am not picking on Starbucks. Just using them as an example.
The gas industry is amazingly efficient and cheap. Try buying gas in Europe. We will get no sympathy from there. The real crooks are the tax authorities and the State of Delaware that gouges every driver that drives through the state.
Posted by: Fred Fry at April 27, 2006 04:41 PM (HJnrm)
44
Hello? did you not see the part about they will pay more for Healthcare than Coffee their primary ingredient ?
They did not advertise the fact they paid part-time benefits until Hippy's started complaining about "third-world exploitation" and average joe joined in with the "Starbucks vs. a Gallon of Gasoline"
Whatever, just like some people will always think bad about America, so will some people think bad about Corporations, even if they do contribute vast money to Charity, or take care of their employee's.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 04:44 PM (CcXvt)
45
How good is Starbucks health care in the fields where the coffee is grown? "Fair-trade" prices cover medical too?
Yes, benefits from American corporations often extend to the country they import from, I'm guessing ExxonMobil pays it's workers in third-world countries like Nigeria the same rate it pays it's American employee's correct?
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 04:59 PM (CcXvt)
46
davec
Do a lil' research on the CA/SA coffee growing market - seems to be a nagging consistant lil' argument about price suppression on the growers (especially the small ones) by the bulk corporate buyers recently reinforced by the new marketeers like Starbuck's. Its off the radar - but its out there.
Davec - its PR spin - nothing wrong with it - they are very good at it. Like I said - I should have invested in this one!
Posted by: hondo at April 27, 2006 05:00 PM (SeBrl)
47
Featherdick, it's just like you to take some study found on the internet and believe it workable. That's the stuff of Engineer jokes. The pitfall in your example is " fire ". Looks good on paper or in cyberspace but in practicality?
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 27, 2006 05:33 PM (FCC6c)
48
You did not read it, did you? You are wrong, and you have no ideas. Maybe, you should go home now, and let your mommie take care of you.
Posted by: Leatherneck at April 27, 2006 05:52 PM (D2g/j)
49
Larry: explain how Brazil is going to be declaring Gasoline independence using Ethenol in their flex-fuel cars, you're telling us that we'd actually use more Gasoline to make Ethenol yet Brazil managed to do it? great logic there.
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 06:52 PM (CcXvt)
50
Does Brazil have the EPA on their backs? Isn't Brazil the place where they are losing acres of rainforest everyday?And .. Declaring is well, just that.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 27, 2006 07:27 PM (FCC6c)
51
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we're gonna have to start sooner than later parking our vehicles and funneling all the oil and gas we have left or can get into war machinery.
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at April 27, 2006 08:31 PM (FCC6c)
52
The rainforest has what to do with the subject at hand?
As the Federal Government in 2000 purchased 23,000 Flexible fuel vehicles which were designed to run on 85% Ethanol, I don't think the EPA will be a problem, especially as they are pushing it as a viable alternative on their website.
re:Brazil/Flex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible-fuel_vehicle#Flexible-fuel_vehicles_in_Brazil
various stories, with Brazil independent of Foreign oil:
http://www.denverpost.com/latin/ci_3736762
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060421/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_oil_sufficiency60421/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/brazil_oil_sufficiency
Posted by: davec at April 27, 2006 08:47 PM (CcXvt)
53
While you're boiling your corn the tanks from oil smart countries will be flattening your ass and your land.
Posted by: Last word Larry at April 27, 2006 09:14 PM (FCC6c)
54
Boycotting Exxon will not work.
We simply have to use less gas. However, try telling that to China and India. Their massive growth is part of the reason it's gone so high.
8-9 cents a gallon is small potatoes. Yes they've made record profits. But they've sold record amounts of gas. Think India and China again. These gas companies don't limit their sales to only the US.
And before we start bashing an Exxon executive on his retirement package, maybe we should wait and see what he does with the money. If he's running charitable projects with a significant amount of money, wouldn't that be a good thing? Not to mention the taxes he'll have to pay on the money. Believe me, the government will find a way to get their hands on as much of it as possible.
I can't help but think that it's only because of the commodity that we're talking about that people get their panties in a twist about who's making what money. Since when have we decided how much someone is allowed to earn? What's the point where we decide it's too much? And what if he didn't get that 400 million? How much less would gas cost? A half a penny?
14 pharmaceutical companies combined earned 37 billion in profits in '01. People were upset over that too, but not to this degree.
Did you know that in 2003 Exxon contributed almost 37 million around the world to education alone? Amost 30 million was in the US. They gave 26 million to communities and 15 million to arts and culture. There's a lot more.
Posted by: Oyster at April 28, 2006 06:08 AM (YudAC)
55
I'm sorry, that should have read 8-9 cents a dollar - not a gallon.
Posted by: Oyster at April 28, 2006 06:10 AM (YudAC)
56
I have no idea what Exxon-Mobil pays roughnecks or roustabouts in Indonesia or Angola; but I'm willing to bet that it's a hell of a lot more than they would be making if E-M wasn't there.
Whoever it was upthread who said that the cost of extraction [particularly in the US] is the same as it always was is a moron. Because of politics, there are only about 1/3 as many working drilling rigs available in the US today as there were in 1980. Rig rental [virtually no company owns their own rigs] for a 15,000' capable onshore rig has gone from $3000/day to upwards of $20,000/day ... when you can get one. Drilling mud prices have increased similarly. So have drill stem and bit prices. Let's don't even talk about insurance rates for workman's comp, etc. or labor/benefit rates for rig workers.
Also, what's the problem with profit? I guess all the lefties are just upset because they didn't buy Exxon stock. I know I am!!!
Posted by: Charlie at April 28, 2006 08:56 AM (DwY9A)
57
got my 401k statement yesterday, hell yeah! So here we are in a global market. Adn we are upset that some American companies do very well in that market. We as consumers can affect that market and should. But remember the rich don't blow the money. They will turn around and invest it to make you guessed it more money. So we should curb demand a bit to help ourselves what we can. However why do we not go after Yocos or BP. They are making money too. But no we Americans can't wait to shoot ourselves in the foot can we.
And seems like this post was a pretty good idea look at all the comments. Richard can post here all he wants if you have not noticed he has been allowed to for a long long long time. he has my support and I don'T see how presenting this issue makes him a moonbat at all. We play wide open.
Posted by: Howie at April 28, 2006 09:06 AM (D3+20)
58
ExxonMobil may not have many part-time employees, but they have a lot of contractors whose companies don't pay benefits. I am a chemical engineer and I know the hiring process. People outside the petrochem industry should spend a few days at an oil/chem major. Then you will really understand how these guys operate. At Exxon the pecking-order is : Management, Shareholders, customers, employees, contractors.
Exxon tries its best to use contract labor and avoids hiring engineers so it does not have to pay benefits.
Posted by: jinger at April 28, 2006 09:32 AM (VXCAu)
59
Gasoline prices are rising above record levels to sheer unaffordability. It's not crude oil prices doing this, it's profiteering by oil companies.
"It will not make a difference if Saudi Arabia ships an extra million or 2 million barrels of crude oil to the United States," said Adel Al-Jubeir, a senior adviser to the crown prince. "If you cannot refine it, it will not turn into gasoline, and that will not turn into lower prices."
Frankly, I don't care how it's packaged -- with all the yap, yap, yap, yada, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah, OIL! company speech -- at the end of the day, it's still a costly Greedy OIL Party scam.
President Bush, an oil man, collected $2.5 million from the oil and gas industry for his re-election.
The FBI used the RICO statutes to bring down Mafia crime families.
Posted by: BenAMarine at April 28, 2006 10:28 AM (w7ck7)
60
40% of oil company stock is owned by American retirement funds -- our retirees, our parents.
Yow. Your parents are my age?
Sheesh ...
Posted by: rightwingprof at April 28, 2006 02:31 PM (hj1Wx)
61
Exxon is evil, shell is evil, George Bush is evil and Ronald Reagan is the devil. Good news I have outsmarted all of you. I work for starbucks, walk to work, collect finacal aid for my 10th year in college, and invest in oil companies. I do own a toyota with a 500 dollar credit limit. Your poor or going to be poor because you dont take advantage of a system that is designed to help people who are ruthless suceed. From now on take every free dime your offfered and make sure that if someone is going to make money you can sponge all of it from them.
I dont mind people with profit but if I can legally take advantage of it for my own personal gain I will gladly do so. I dont care about anyone and if there homes get foreclosed then I can buy me new home even cheaper. Down with General motors.
Posted by: Nick at April 28, 2006 09:34 PM (AkimU)
62
Oyster is right...a boycott won't work. A mere 1,000 of the 170,000 EM service stations are actually owned by EM, the rest are owned by moms and pops and the couple next door. So unless the mission is to hurt small business owners, this a bad idea. Snopes.com debunked the boycott thing when this made the rounds a while back...
Posted by: gashat at May 02, 2006 01:09 PM (U61Td)
63
Hondo- for future calculations there 42 gallons of oil in a barrel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel_(unit)
Howie,
Please read the following article so you'll know what Mr Carter tried to do for this country and what Mr. Reagen did.
http://www.energybulletin.net/5882.html
Posted by: imig at May 03, 2006 08:40 AM (cN0XN)
64
gashat-- I read the snopes.com article too, and I agree with you that the boycott thing will only hurt the little guy. Everyone gets upset when they find out how much Exxon is making, but I don't think everyone immediately realizes that their large profits are due to their large volume of sales-- the world demands a lot of their product!! High gas prices are killing us right now because there isn't enough supply to meet our demand, thanks to factors like hurricanes, political unrest, speculation, etc.
Posted by: lucky at May 04, 2006 10:31 AM (0DCqv)
62kb generated in CPU 0.0262, elapsed 0.1933 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1789 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
119 queries taking 0.1789 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
