|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 9:51:13 GMT -6
Hey Jackass - I think XOM and other big oil cos. are looking at alternative energy - every company with a huge R&D budget is allocating some of it toward alternative energy because they all know that it is like a freaking lottery ticket - if they hit on the new new thing, they are sitting on a trillion dollar patent. That's a big incentive.
The gas tax needs to stay, though. If you use the roads, you should pay for those roads through the gas tax. McCain and Hillary are both wrong for trying to lift it temporarily.
Socal - who would those funds go to? First, if it was $1 a gallon, there would be a shitload of cash. Some of it would go to research universities and gov't run programs, but after a few sessions of congress, it would end up in the coffers of the biggest companies in the country (who would probably do great things with the free money research wise), but it would be a clusterfuck and would end up being a massive corporate welfare check. The incentive that is created by the possibility of owning the coolest new technology and the multi billion or trillion dollar patent portfolio is all that Fortune 500 companies need to invest in R&D.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 9:54:38 GMT -6
**-Typed while thinking about driving to Starbucks. Do it, I bought SBUX yesterday before it started running back up. We need more customers.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 30, 2008 10:00:04 GMT -6
The return on poors money has to equal money taken by the oil companies? That doesn't make any sense. I agree with you that alternative energy sources should have researched in depth and implemented (if possible) years ago but it is what it is. We need to tap our own oil deposits immediately for short term benefits while developing other energy sources for the long term. The question I have about the "new" source(s) is(assuming capitalism is still around): Will the price per energy unit stay constant or will it fluctuate with the market? If the latter, people will then eventually be pissed off with Big Alternative Energy gouging joe sixpack rather than Big Oil and we'll be having the same discussion as now. Oil and other fossil fuels are finite resources but will be the major provider for our energy needs for the next few hundred years. Scarcity of oil isn't a myth. Anthropogenic climate change douchebaggery is!--Iammr.
I should clarify.
1. I wanted to make sure that the conservatives on the board aren't implying that when oil companies make world-record profits, that that's an automatic "yipee" for those who invest a little in them. I agree with the GENERAL comment made earlier that those who invest in profitable companies win, but to what extent...that's all. I'm not meaning to imply that there should be a 1:1 tradeoff.
2. Yes, I strongly believe that capitalism is still around, despite what some may be trying to bend here on this board. Isn't Exxon's worle-record profit a testament to that?
3. I strongly believe that there are long term, strategic reasons to look at decreasing our dependence on ARAB oil. That can mean a lot of things, but don't you have to agree that putting lots of money in Arab pockets is one facet of the larger geopolitical picture in the middle east?
4. You are entitled to your strong, incessant opinion that global warming is a myth. Everyone has an opinion. I'm going to go with the majority of scientists worldwide who seem to strongly "believe" that it does exist, and is beginning to affect our GLOBE, and will be dramatically affect us in the future.
I want to be proactive, rather than reactive. Those that do nothing about our dependence on foreign oil (by making personal choices and policy choices), are not helping.
I'm wondering why you feel so strongly that global warming is a myth? Isn't there a large, worldwide body of scientific writings on the subject? ARen't you in a very small minority? Enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not trying to smack-talk. I'm really trying to understand why you adamantly choose to not "believe" in something that has worldwide scientific acceptance (on the whole, not a few studies by others).
If this turns into a typical personal rant by conservatives who resort to name calling, then I'm not interested in discussing. This board has way too much of that already. I really do want to hear why you believe this. Douchebaggery and hippie comments don't help me to understand why you cling to your assumptions.
respectfully, Patrick
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 10:00:14 GMT -6
BTR....Believe it or not, I actually do understand the economics. I was just playing out your argument that costs are high due to the exploration, drilling, transportation, etc. All arguments that you pointed out. Hey hippie, I don't think you do. All the shit that a company has to do to get oil to market is crazy (and in light of that, I think oil's cheap) , but the most recent spike is mostly from you and your liberal allies driving your SUVs and overextedning your credit. Oil will pull back (but I ain't stupid enough to try to call a top on it yet). To Seth's point, gas was over 100 yen a liter when I lived Japan, which was about $5 a gallon 5 years ago. So hippies, if you have a complaint with gas prices, get your fatass out of your Microbus and walk damnit.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 10:02:36 GMT -6
hippie comments don't help me to understand why you cling to your assumptions. respectfully, Patrick You should read the content a little more carefully and stop being a hippie, hippie. Your giant carbon footprint is choking my ability to breathe, man.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 30, 2008 10:03:40 GMT -6
BTR....Believe it or not, I actually do understand the economics. I was just playing out your argument that costs are high due to the exploration, drilling, transportation, etc. All arguments that you pointed out. Hey hippie, I don't think you do. All the shit that a company has to do to get oil to market is crazy (and in light of that, I think oil's cheap) , but the most recent spike is mostly from you and your liberal allies driving your SUVs and overextedning your credit. Oil will pull back (but I ain't stupid enough to try to call a top on it yet). To Seth's point, gas was over 100 yen a liter when I lived Japan, which was about $5 a gallon 5 years ago. So hippies, if you have a complaint with gas prices, get your fatass out of your Microbus and walk damnit. Did you have to go down the road of ruining a decent conversation with your crap? All the shit that had to happen for Acco get the box of Jumbo PaperClips into my desk drawer was extensive also... but they aren't receiving equal billing on your "need to dismiss liberal comments out of hand" scale, are they?
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 30, 2008 10:07:14 GMT -6
Tired of filling up so often? Learn to drive less!Or... buy a motorcycle (or scooter) that only needs fuel enough to propel a 200 - 800 lb mass forward*, instead of a 2 to 6 ton mass*. Or a bike / mass transit system... or god given feet**. *-Not including bodyweight **-Typed while thinking about driving to Starbucks. My wife and I have one car between us. It's a little RSX that gets well over 30 on the highway. I ride my bike to work most days, and ride the L often when I need to go downtown. These are personal choices, and not hippie choices. They allow me to use my money on other things. This shit doesn't have to be simplistic, left versus right. It's a human issue. LET'S HELP DECREASE DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
|
|
|
Post by Norm "racerhawk" Parker on Apr 30, 2008 10:12:48 GMT -6
hippie comments don't help me to understand why you cling to your assumptions. respectfully, Patrick You should read the content a little more carefully and stop being a hippie, hippie. Your giant carbon footprint is choking my ability to breathe, man. First, you should read my last post, asshole. My carbon footprint is probably smaller than most on this board, since you brought it up. Secondly... I wasn't even referring to you, you Napoleonic pisssant. I was replying to someone else. You are a dogmatic cartoon of a conservative. If you could manage to stop your fucking name calling and have a decent conversation, I'll reply to your comments as well, jackass. I'm done responding to you. Kick me off the board if you will. I was trying to have a conversation, and again, you swooped in and did this cartoonish, hyperbolic, predictable stuff again. Fuck off and grow up.
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 30, 2008 10:14:31 GMT -6
3. I strongly believe that there are long term, strategic reasons to look at decreasing our dependence on ARAB oil. That can mean a lot of things, but don't you have to agree that putting lots of money in Arab pockets is one facet of the larger geopolitical picture in the middle east? Just a point of order... It's the frigging Canadians we should be worrying about... They are the neighbors "that always seemed like nice people..." www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 10:14:32 GMT -6
Hey hippie, I don't think you do. All the shit that a company has to do to get oil to market is crazy (and in light of that, I think oil's cheap) , but the most recent spike is mostly from you and your liberal allies driving your SUVs and overextedning your credit. Oil will pull back (but I ain't stupid enough to try to call a top on it yet). To Seth's point, gas was over 100 yen a liter when I lived Japan, which was about $5 a gallon 5 years ago. So hippies, if you have a complaint with gas prices, get your fatass out of your Microbus and walk damnit. Did you have to go down the road of ruining a decent conversation with your crap? All the shit that had to happen for Acco get the box of Jumbo PaperClips into my desk drawer was extensive also... but they aren't receiving equal billing on your "need to dismiss liberal comments out of hand" scale, are they? Did you not see my blanket, pre-emptive and retroactive apology to the left the other day? You should take being called a hippie as a compliment from me. I'm just funnin' ya guys. You either agree with me or you're a hippie, it's pretty simple. Someday we might all get along, when you guys finally stop being hippies. As for your Acco paperclips, they are inferior to my OIC paperclips. If Acco has a big reserve of the inputs necessary to make paperclips and the market sends those reserves skyrocketing, they'll make hella bank. My guess is they don't though. I also guess that elasticity of demand of paperclips might be just a little different than the elasticity of demand for gas.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 10:19:02 GMT -6
You should read the content a little more carefully and stop being a hippie, hippie. Your giant carbon footprint is choking my ability to breathe, man. First, you should read my last post, asshole. My carbon footprint is probably smaller than most on this board, bince you brought it up. Secondly... I wasn't even referring to you, you Napoleonic pisssant. I was replying to someone else. You are a dogmatic cartoon of a conservative. If you could manage to stop your fucking name calling and have a decent conversation, I'll reply to your comments as well, jackass. I'm done responding to you. Kick me off the board if you will. I was trying to have a conversation, and again, you swooped in and did this cartoonish, hyperbolic, predictable stuff again. f**k off and grow up. Are these threats or promises? Chillax man. You should know that whenever I say anything about a carbon footprint I'm fucking around. I know you don't drive. Barber's wife hates me because I told her that I, a conservative, had a smaller carbon footprint than her, a liberal and that her talk was cheap until she took action. Big mistake. She didn't know that that is my standard line to liberals and that I don't really give two shits, but she doesn't want barber hanging with me anymore because I'm such an "asshole." I'd rather be an asshole than a whole ass, though.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Apr 30, 2008 12:06:31 GMT -6
....In case you missed it, some dumbass Clinton appointee hippie central banker was printing money like it was going out of style in 2002 and 2003 and an unprecedented housing boom started and a bunch of dipshits lent too much or borrowed too much and now they're effed in the A, so the fed is giving away all kinds of money and has devalued the piss out of the dollar, which has caused commodities prices to skyrocket. Who would you be referring to there, BTR? I am puzzled. Are you speaking of the Clinton RE-appointee of the H.W.Bush RE-appointee of the Reagan appointee? I may be a hippie now, but damnit, that is because God broke the mold when He made Dutch, and there hasn't been a decent Republican in office since then. Don't you DARE criticize anything Dutch did.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Apr 30, 2008 12:12:54 GMT -6
Also Ralph, just because they are looking at them, doesn't mean they are investing in them like they should be.
Even self-titled "Green" companies such as BP are not investing near what they should be. It is sort of like the dude who goes to church once a year on Easter. Hey, he's a church goer, right?
I think I will take the opinion of the family that founded XOM, has a very significant part of their personal wealth tied up in XOM, and as a whole, still controls a large block of XOM stock over your word. Nothing personal, I just think they might be a little better nformed on the subject than you.
|
|
|
Post by 101 on Apr 30, 2008 12:19:48 GMT -6
First, you should read my last post, asshole. My carbon footprint is probably smaller than most on this board, bince you brought it up. Secondly... I wasn't even referring to you, you Napoleonic pisssant. I was replying to someone else. You are a dogmatic cartoon of a conservative. If you could manage to stop your fucking name calling and have a decent conversation, I'll reply to your comments as well, jackass. I'm done responding to you. Kick me off the board if you will. I was trying to have a conversation, and again, you swooped in and did this cartoonish, hyperbolic, predictable stuff again. f**k off and grow up. Are these threats or promises? Chillax man. You should know that whenever I say anything about a carbon footprint I'm fucking around. I know you don't drive. Barber's wife hates me because I told her that I, a conservative, had a smaller carbon footprint than her, a liberal and that her talk was cheap until she took action. Big mistake. She didn't know that that is my standard line to liberals and that I don't really give two shits, but she doesn't want barber hanging with me anymore because I'm such an "asshole." I'd rather be an asshole than a whole ass, though. I must be mistaken. I thought you were both an asshole and a whole ass simultaneously. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 12:38:34 GMT -6
Are you speaking of the Clinton RE-appointee of the H.W.Bush RE-appointee of the Reagan appointee? Perhaps I am. P. Adolph Volcker (see libs, I often use first initial, middle name) would have NEVER let the crises that the easy money philosophy of that dude blow up like it has on several occasions. Only good thing Carter ever did was to put P. Adolph in there.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 12:46:01 GMT -6
Also Ralph, just because they are looking at them, doesn't mean they are investing in them like they should be. Even self-titled "Green" companies such as BP are not investing near what they should be. It is sort of like the dude who goes to church once a year on Easter. Hey, he's a church goer, right? I think I will take the opinion of the family that founded XOM, has a very significant part of their personal wealth tied up in XOM, and as a whole, still controls a large block of XOM stock over your word. Nothing personal, I just think they might be a little better nformed on the subject than you. What is the amount they "should" invest? In XOM's existence, think of all the hairbrained shit that has happened. I guarantee they've dumped more cash down the alternative energy blackhole than the U of Iowa has in endowments. The Rockefeller family won the birth lottery Powerball and Mega Millions jackpots. Frankly, a lot of ultra wealthy who've never worked are liberal. I would bet that I've read more of the XOM 10-K and proxy than the Rockefeller family. They don't have a board seat, if they want to control the company, they should buy some more shares, get a few board seats and get a CEO in there who will invest the earnings the way they think they "should" be invested. I can't wait to hear your take when Paris Hilton sends a letter to the board of her family's hotel chain. Yeah, I'd trust her to know WTF is going on just because of her name.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Apr 30, 2008 13:10:20 GMT -6
You are comparing yourself and Paris Hilton to Neva R. Goodwin? Seriously?
Neva Rockefeller Goodwin: Co-director, Tufts University Global Development & Environment Institute; Director, World Development Institute; Director, Winrock International; received a Masters' degree in Public Administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government ('82) and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Boston University ('87).
Why argue the issues when you can throw out Red Herrings over substance? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than that.
I'll stand by my statement that I would trust her guidance.
BTW, here is their resolutions:
Resolution #5: Require an Independent Board Chairman. Resolved: That the shareholders urge the Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to amend the by-laws to require that an independent director shall serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and that the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall not concurrently serve as the Chief Executive Officer.
Resolution #17: Establish a Task Force to Study the Consequences of Global Warming on Poor Economies. Resolved: Shareholders ask ExxonMobil Corporation's ("ExxonMobil's) Board of Directors to establish a task force, which should include both (a) two or more independent directors and (b) relevant company staff, to investigate and report to shareholders on the likely consequences of global climate change between now and 2030, for emerging countries, and poor communities in these countries and developed countries, and to compare these outcomes with scenarios in which ExxonMobil takes leadership in developing sustainable energy technologies that can be used by and for the benefit of those most threatened by climate change. The report should be prepared at reasonable expense, omitting proprietary information, and should be made available to shareholders by March 31, 2009.
Resolution #15: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Products and Operations. Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt quantitative goals, based on current technologies, for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions from the Company's products and operations; and that the Company report to shareholders by September 30, 2008, on its plans to achieve these goals. Such a report will omit proprietary information and be prepared at reasonable cost.
Resolution #19: Adopt Renewable Energy Policy. Resolved: That ExxonMobil's Board adopt a policy for renewable energy research, development and sourcing, reporting on its progress to investors in 2009.
Nothing too radical there, do you think?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 13:34:30 GMT -6
You are comparing yourself and Paris Hilton to Neva R. Goodwin? Seriously? Neva Rockefeller Goodwin: Co-director, Tufts University Global Development & Environment Institute; Director, World Development Institute; Director, Winrock International; received a Masters' degree in Public Administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government ('82) and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Boston University ('87). Why argue the issues when you can throw out Red Herrings over substance? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than that. I'll stand by my statement that I would trust her guidance. BTW, here is their resolutions: Resolution #5: Require an Independent Board Chairman. Resolved: That the shareholders urge the Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to amend the by-laws to require that an independent director shall serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and that the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall not concurrently serve as the Chief Executive Officer. Resolution #17: Establish a Task Force to Study the Consequences of Global Warming on Poor Economies. Resolved: Shareholders ask ExxonMobil Corporation's ("ExxonMobil's) Board of Directors to establish a task force, which should include both (a) two or more independent directors and (b) relevant company staff, to investigate and report to shareholders on the likely consequences of global climate change between now and 2030, for emerging countries, and poor communities in these countries and developed countries, and to compare these outcomes with scenarios in which ExxonMobil takes leadership in developing sustainable energy technologies that can be used by and for the benefit of those most threatened by climate change. The report should be prepared at reasonable expense, omitting proprietary information, and should be made available to shareholders by March 31, 2009. Resolution #15: Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Products and Operations. Resolved: Shareholders request that the Board of Directors adopt quantitative goals, based on current technologies, for reducing total greenhouse gas emissions from the Company's products and operations; and that the Company report to shareholders by September 30, 2008, on its plans to achieve these goals. Such a report will omit proprietary information and be prepared at reasonable cost. Resolution #19: Adopt Renewable Energy Policy. Resolved: That ExxonMobil's Board adopt a policy for renewable energy research, development and sourcing, reporting on its progress to investors in 2009. Nothing too radical there, do you think? Number 5 "The Board recommends you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons: The Board believes the current process for nominating, vetting, and subsequently electing directors is working effectively. The Board believes the criteria suggested by the proponent are entirely too narrow and would severely limit its ability to identify and recruit the most qualified candidates to serve on the Board. The proposal also precludes any “salaried employees” from being on the Board. We believe that appropriate representation on the Board from the senior executive ranks of the Corporation is essential to the Board’s effective operation. " Number 17 "The Board recommends you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons: The information requested in this proposal on possible climate impacts and on ExxonMobil’s views and actions on global climate change are already widely available in existing publications that have been provided to the proponent. In addition, the proponent and colleagues have extensively corresponded with directors and management representatives and personally have met with members of senior management several times in recent years to review the Company’s climate change views and actions, and renewable energy technologies. Therefore, the Board does not believe an additional report is warranted. A number of third-party assessments of the impacts of climate change are publicly available, most notably the recently published Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), an effort in which ExxonMobil scientists directly participate. The IPCC Report includes an entire, book-length volume on Impacts and Adaptation that discusses impacts and vulnerability of society and ecosystems to future climate change. In view of the comprehensive material available, there is no need for an independent ExxonMobil report on climate impacts. ExxonMobil’s views on future energy demand, greenhouse gas emissions, options to limit growth in emissions, and ExxonMobil’s actions to address climate risks are available in several publications including: Tomorrow’s Energy, Corporate Citizenship Report, and our report to the Carbon Disclosure Project. These reports discuss anticipated future trends and the potential for various policies and technologies to limit future emissions. The cited publications and executive speeches published on the ExxonMobil Web site also discuss ExxonMobil’s actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its own operations and the steps we are taking to promote efficiency in the use of our products by customers. These actions include both research and development to create viable options to address climate risks, and steps to commercialize advanced technologies that will reduce future emissions." Number 15 "The Board recommends you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons: At ExxonMobil, we take the risk posed by rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions seriously and are taking action. Our views, actions, and progress on climate change are widely available, for example, in executive speeches, in the report Tomorrow’s Energy: A Perspective on Energy Trends, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Future Energy Options (2006), in our report to the Carbon Disclosure Project (2007), and in the annual Corporate Citizenship Report. While investing to increase production, our scientists and engineers are diligently seeking opportunities to improve efficiency and reduce emissions while maintaining leadership in returns to shareholders. As well, the Company will comply with emerging laws and regulations concerning GHG emissions. In pursuing its business objectives on behalf of shareholders and in meeting society’s aspirations for a better future, ExxonMobil seeks to increase oil and natural gas production to meet rising global demand. The primary opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the Company’s operations are in improving energy efficiency and in reducing flaring. In both areas, the Company’s operations have improvement objectives and planned improvement steps that will offset some of the growth associated with higher production and more energy-intensive operations. For example, through actions taken in 2006 and 2007, we reduced GHG emissions by about 5 million metric tons in 2007, equivalent to removing about one million cars from U.S. roads. In Nigeria, we are investing about $3 billion on projects to effectively eliminate routine gas flaring in our operations there. In addition, as part of the American Petroleum Institute’s Climate Change Program, ExxonMobil committed to improve energy efficiency by 10 percent between 2002 and 2012 across U.S. refining operations. We are on pace to exceed that commitment, not only in the U.S., but globally as well. GHG emissions from ExxonMobil’s customers’ use of its products are determined both by the need for energy and by the efficiency with which the energy is consumed. The Company has active research efforts under way to identify technologies that can improve the efficiency of the use of its products. For example, in the past year, ExxonMobil announced the development of a new technology for on-board hydrogen reforming to power fuel cell vehicles, as well as the deployment of new battery separator films for use in lithium-ion batteries in hybrid and electric vehicles. Both of these technologies demonstrate significant potential to reduce emissions from transport. Besides efficiency gains, another step to reduce GHG emissions involves more widespread use of natural gas, rather than coal, to produce electric power – an area in which ExxonMobil is well-positioned to enhance supplies. Another means to reduce GHG emissions is carbon capture and storage. We have been involved in the development and utilization of this technology in our own oil and gas operations and in partnership with others for over three decades. In 2006, we agreed to participate in a ground-breaking research initiative sponsored by the European Commission called “CO2ReMoVe” to establish scientific monitoring standards and determine the reliability of geological CO2 storage. Beyond efforts to reduce emissions from our own operations and products, ExxonMobil has also worked to establish and is providing $100 million to Stanford University’s long-term Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). GCEP is a pioneering research effort aimed at innovation across a broad portfolio of technology areas that can lower GHG emissions on a worldwide scale. Results and progress are available on the GCEP Web site. " Number 19 "The Board recommends you vote AGAINST this proposal for the following reasons: The Corporation’s annual Outlook for Energy – A View to 2030 highlights a substantial increase in energy demand in support of continued economic progress for the world’s growing population (available at exxonmobil.com/energyoutlook). To help meet this need, the Corporation is investing at record levels in its traditional oil and gas development projects and is actively involved in research on alternative energy technologies. Therefore, the Board believes this proposal is unwarranted. Experts agree that oil and gas, the Corporation’s primary business areas, will remain indispensable to meeting global energy demand for decades. In fact, consistent with the Outlook for Energy, the reference case from the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that global oil and gas demand growth through 2030 will be close to 10 times the combined amount of growth in biofuels, wind, solar, and geothermal. To meet oil and gas demand, the IEA projects the industry will need to invest, on average, approximately $380 billion a year through 2030. This signals a significant call on the scale and capabilities of the Corporation and, with that, the opportunity to provide tremendous value. At the same time, our active involvement in research on alternative energy technologies enables the Corporation to readily assess new developments for possible commercialization, and investment as appropriate, to improve shareholder value. In addition to its own significant research, ExxonMobil is working with other institutions, including Stanford University’s Global Climate and Energy Project, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the European Commission to support breakthrough research to help meet energy and environmental challenges. Finally, the Corporation’s views on long-term future energy and environmental challenges – including potential development of game-changing technologies – are already reported to the public through its annual Outlook for Energy, Energy Trends reports (2004 and 2006), and other communications including the annual Corporate Citizenship Report. " Sorry JA - I trust the guys running the business a helluva lot more than I do some academic who knows how everything "should" be. It looks to me like some of those proposals will do nothing but cost money and take management attention away from running the business. If the shareholders as a group want more action, fine, let them vote their shares that way, but my guess is that none of those proposals will get a majority (the board one would be close if it were limited to CEO/Chairman). It looks to me like the company is doing a lot on each of those environmental/energy fronts.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Apr 30, 2008 14:03:14 GMT -6
Now she is "some academic" instead of Paris Hilton?
I've got no issue with your point of view. I still think you are wrong, but that is ok with me as long as you argue on the merits...you did use the words "serious discussion" in the title of this thread, did you not?
Nice to see after all that has happened in the past 7 years that some of you still have blind faith in Boards of Directors, just because, well, they are on the Board.
I don't trust most Boards to act in shareholders' best interests. I think they have a tendency to act in management's best interests, which is often not in tune with the owners of the company.
Also, I like looking long-term (which, I admit, many shareholder activists do not do so), and alternative energy sources will be crucial to the long-term survival of XOM. The only problem is that it will not be an issue until the current management team is long gone, so why invest in the future if it hurts my current bonus check?
The Rockefellers' long-term horizon is 20, 50, 100 years from now. Managements' long-term horizon is a year from now, at most.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 30, 2008 14:56:58 GMT -6
Listen JA, I'm glad she used her position in the birth lottery to go to Harvard and get a job in academia, it's impressive, it really is. My trailer park roots won't get me that far. The mere fact that she was bequethed a great deal of shares makes her no more an expert on the subject than Bill Gates' kids will be on operating systems.
I don't have blind faith in directors at all. I have voted for proposals they have recommended voting against. I read all the proposals and the board's position on each. Plus, I know that the directors aren't drafting those responses, senior management and outside counsel are after looking carefully at each issue. XOM spending 10 million dollars on a study about global warming is a piss poor use of the company's money and the shareholders will let it be known. The company is already investing in cutting its own emissions and for research. How would those shareholder proposals benefit the company in any economic way? The company's already doing that stuff. They spent over $800 million on R&D last year. How much more should they be spending on it? Are they supposed to abandon their core business of production so they can focus just on R&D? I trust the directors and officers because they can remember $12 oil. Oil goes up and down, it's up now and the company is spending 2% of its profit on R&D, but if oil swings back down quickly, the company has to be damn careful or they'll end up in BK.
And I agree and disagree re time horizons. Most companies grant long term options and shares to officers and directors, thus aligning their future wealth with shareholders. Management of a company like XOM is looking out for a longer time frame than you give them credit, if they only cared about next year, when oil was $12 a barrel 10 years ago, they would have just shut down operations, instead they went on an M&A spree and purchased capacity and reserves on the cheap -- thus setting the groundwork for the $10 billion quarters they've been having. I don't necessarily agree that alternative energies will be the backbone of the long-term survival of the company. They might be, but they might not be. If I would have told you 20 years ago that Apple would run all the record stores out of business by selling music over a wire played on a player the size of a pack of gum, you'd have laughed your ass off (as would I). My guess is that companies like GE and FSLR who have core businesses more closely aligned with R&D and maximizing value of intellectual property will be the companies to profit off of alternative energy and if the Rockefeller heirs feel strongly about such, they should invest in those types of businesses. No amount of shareholder activism or letter writing is going to shift XOM into worrying more about photovoltaics than depletion allowances and reserves. It ain't gonna happen, and that's why XOM trades at 12X multiple versus FSLR's 143X multiple. It's the mean capitalism cycle of life. Just go with it, man.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 30, 2008 16:11:45 GMT -6
You are comparing yourself and Paris Hilton to Neva R. Goodwin? Seriously? Neva Rockefeller Goodwin: Co-director, Tufts University Global Development & Environment Institute; Director, World Development Institute; Director, Winrock International; received a Masters' degree in Public Administration from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government ('82) and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Boston University ('87). Why argue the issues when you can throw out Red Herrings over substance? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything more than that. I'll stand by my statement that I would trust her guidance. BTW, here is their resolutions: Resolution #5: Require an Independent Board Chairman. Resolved: That the shareholders urge the Board of Directors to take the necessary steps to amend the by-laws to require that an independent director shall serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, and that the Chairman of the Board of Directors shall not concurrently serve as the Chief Executive Officer. Resolution #17: Establish a Task Force to Study the Consequences of Global Warming on Poor Economies. Resolved: Shareholders ask ExxonMobil Corporation's ("ExxonMobil's) Board of Directors to establish a task force, which should include both (a) two or more independent directors and (b) relevant company staff, to investigate and report to shareholders on the likely consequences of global climate change between now and 2030, for emerging countries, and poor communities in these countries and developed countries, and to compare these outcomes with scenarios in which ExxonMobil takes leadership in developing sustainable energy technologies that can be used by and for the benefit of those most threatened by climate change. The report should be prepared at reasonable expense, omitting proprietary information, and should be made available to shareholders by March 31, 2009. Nothing too radical there, do you think? People who submit proposals like #17 piss me off. WTF? You're the f***ing Rockefellors. If you want the damn report, do it yourselves (or pay someone else to do it). Don't ask the corporation to spend my money doing it.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Apr 30, 2008 17:20:30 GMT -6
BTR, that was worth one "Exhault".
Well done, my friend.
Don't let it go to your pointy head.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on May 2, 2008 7:19:22 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on May 2, 2008 8:40:17 GMT -6
Concur.
You would most definitely make a good suck ass, errrr, mouthpiece, for Rupert Murdoch.
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on May 2, 2008 21:20:50 GMT -6
[ I should clarify. 1. I wanted to make sure that the conservatives on the board aren't implying that when oil companies make world-record profits, that that's an automatic "yipee" for those who invest a little in them. I agree with the GENERAL comment made earlier that those who invest in profitable companies win, but to what extent...that's all. I'm not meaning to imply that there should be a 1:1 tradeoff. 2. Yes, I strongly believe that capitalism is still around, despite what some may be trying to bend here on this board. Isn't Exxon's worle-record profit a testament to that? 3. I strongly believe that there are long term, strategic reasons to look at decreasing our dependence on ARAB oil. That can mean a lot of things, but don't you have to agree that putting lots of money in Arab pockets is one facet of the larger geopolitical picture in the middle east? 4. You are entitled to your strong, incessant opinion that global warming is a myth. Everyone has an opinion. I'm going to go with the majority of scientists worldwide who seem to strongly "believe" that it does exist, and is beginning to affect our GLOBE, and will be dramatically affect us in the future. I want to be proactive, rather than reactive. Those that do nothing about our dependence on foreign oil (by making personal choices and policy choices), are not helping. I'm wondering why you feel so strongly that global warming is a myth? Isn't there a large, worldwide body of scientific writings on the subject? ARen't you in a very small minority? Enlighten me. Seriously. I'm not trying to smack-talk. I'm really trying to understand why you adamantly choose to not "believe" in something that has worldwide scientific acceptance (on the whole, not a few studies by others). If this turns into a typical personal rant by conservatives who resort to name calling, then I'm not interested in discussing. This board has way too much of that already. I really do want to hear why you believe this. Douchebaggery and hippie comments don't help me to understand why you cling to your assumptions. respectfully, Patrick 2. I meant if capitalism was around when the new energy source was devopled and being consumed by the public. 3. I absolutely agree that we need to get off foreign dependence for the majority(if not all) of our energy sources. That is exactly why we need to tap into our own oil deposits. Even if a viable, cost effective, clean burning energy souce was developed( or found) tommorrow, it wouldn't make much of a dent in our fossil fuel dependence in the short term. This country's energy infrastructure is based on fossil fuels. It would take decades, if not a lifetime, to integrate the new source into our lives. Thus, drilling is the smart thing to do for the short term while searching for the best long term alternative fuel option. 4. My strong, incessant(I love that word)opinion? I'll write up a nice reply in the newest global warming thread shortly.
|
|