$36 Billion gouge - Exxon 2005

Puts Iraq and oil back into perspective pretty quick doesn't it?

Also, if oil continues to climb, and oil company stocks climb with it, how much potential investment money is going to be soaked up by their stocks, instead of going to IPOs and such?

Enough to screw up the markets or no? What percent of all stock value is oil-related currently?

[ 30 January 2006: Message edited by: up ]

RRSPs and corporations..Canadian mining companies are doing a heckuva job in Africa.

If you ever notice how environmental infractions by corporations in Canada are dealt with by minumum fines and slaps on the wrist by most of our provincial governments, its hard for me to imagine how those environmental infractions are dealt with in the third world where there are few prying eyes. But the profits are good..

quote:

---

I don't know the numbers, but they are serving my RRSPs excellently.

---

If you don't know the numbers, I don't see how you can make that claim.

I don't know the numbers, either. It would be interesting to see the growth of investments vs. the growth in the pirates treasure chests.

I wouldn't assume they move in lock step with each other.

So Morgan, is the only benchmark you use to determine whether something is good how much money it makes? You haven't answered the points about how the companies get away with environmental infractions both in Canada and in the Third World.

C.Morgan said:

quote:

---

I don't know the numbers, but they are serving my RRSPs excellently.

---

How nice for you. No really. Most of us still live in a monetary, capitalist world & I can't say that I've joined any local economic trade groups (LETS) yet, though I totally support the idea. Are you at all aware of Exxon's track record or about their refusal to acknowledge the link between their products and global warming? Other oil companies have at least done that. From the way you speak, it seems you don't care. From Friends of the Earth:
[url=http://www.exxposeexxon.com/report.pdf]Although each of these oil companies can do much more to cut global warming pollution, they are several steps ahead of ExxonMobil, which simply denies its role in the problem. In early 2003, Trillium Asset Management examined activities of the major oil companies in order to compare the thoroughness of disclosure and corporate readiness for global warming-related developments. Trillium analyzed and ranked companies for quality of governance,
measurement of global warming pollution, targets for emissions reductions, emissions reduction activity, and active involvement in constructive policy discussion. According to this analysis, ExxonMobil lags far behind the other major oil companies.[/url]

From the same document:

quote:

---

ExxonMobil’s position on global warming has not solely been one of denial, however. ExxonMobil
has been funding many of the efforts designed to
cast doubt on the overwhelming evidence linking
human activities and global warming. Greenpeace
has identified about 40 ExxonMobil-funded
organizations that either have sought to
undermine mainstream scientific findings on
global warming or have affiliated with a small
group of climate “naysayers” who continue to do
so. In 2004, ExxonMobil gave $1.9 million to
26 organizations specifically to challenge the
scientific consensus on global warming; this is
more than double the amount given to
organizations in 2003 for grants earmarked for
global warming work ($905,000)

---

Of course Exxon is not alone in the deception game:

quote:

---

Exxon, Mobil, and other large companies with a financial stake in fossil fuels launched the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) in 1989 with the goal of casting doubt on the science behind global warming, sounding alarms about the catastrophic consequences of regulating carbon dioxide emissions, and influencing the ongoing
international negotiations on global warming
issues. For example, in February 1992, the GCC
held a press conference with global warming
“skeptics” to attack IPCC’s science during the
fifth session of negotiations. The GCC also issued
a briefing entitled “Stabilizing carbon dioxide
emissions would have little environmental
benefit.”

---

There's more on Exxon's direct influence on the Bush White House, drilling in the Arctic, its rejection of renewables, at the above .pdf link.

[url=http://www.foe.org/exxon/movie.html]In response to today's news of Exxon's profits, the ExxposeExxon.com campaign has created a short, funny video in Exxon’s honor. [/url]

Oh, C.Morgan, here's some numbers for you:

"At the 2004 ExxonMobil annual shareholder meeting, 28.3% of shareholders voted for a resolution calling for the company's board of directors to review how it will meet greenhouse gas reduction targets in countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol. These shareholders represent 1.5 billion shares and a market value of $83.8 billion, or about 20.7% of ExxonMobil's total worth." ...from [url=http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html]here.[/url]

quote:

---

There is hardly much revenue in Beluga whaling and fur these days.

---

Revenue? I am not opposed to using whale meat & fur for one's own use. I don't believe these resources are sustainable for growing populations where they are harvested, especially not as growing revenue entities that export to Europe and elsewhere. Just not sustainable.

Besides, this argument is more like a smokescreen for not addressing the negative impact of using fossil fuels. No one is saying you & all RRSP owner should dump them this minute. At least engage in the dialogue at hand. Isn't your backyard getting dangerously melted?

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
[b]
I just want to see less bullshit and more realism.[/b]

---

Um, conservation?

Oil stocks becuase sure things, and everyone is like you, looking a the energy end of their portfolio, then too much money out there is goin to end up competing on oil stocks instead of starting new businesses and funding new ideas.
Plus, the higher oil goes the lower most other stocks go as their costs go up.
The whole investment market will be tilting at oil refineries, just before the whole mess falls over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
An excellent example was in the recent election campaign. I attended the candidates forum in Inuvik. The Green candidate hands down garnered the most laughs in the room when he proposed that Inuvik consider pursuing solar energy. (he clearly hadn't noticed that the sun had not risen that day nor had it in over a month)[/QB]

---

Though if you think outside of the box this may not be such a silly idea. For at least part of the year the sun barely sets. Who wrote the rule book that says you have to depend on the same source of power year round? Maybe a mixed system would be feasible in some cases. Maybe in the summer the load can be taken off of fossil fuel sources and a put on solar. Maybe couple it with wind power for the winter months with fossil fuels as a back up. Maybe right now it is cost prohibitive to do such a thing, but what would it look like when energy prices spike? Would it be benefical then? Have micro energy sources been explored at all? Maybe the goal in the north is not a complete changeover but an overall reduction in fossil fuel use so it becomes a secondary source of energy, thus promoting conservation which you would think would be a primary goal of an area that depends on it more then any other. Maybe more energy independence would be a good thing to strive for in the north for both political and social reasons. Maybe all of this is a bunch of crazy rambling...still I think it's in our best interests to at least look at the possibilities.
Human's are incredibly creative yet we seem to get stuck in ruts. We're not going to get out of this mess by thinking the same way.

A couple links. Didnt find what I was looking for but these will do.

quote:

---

Preliminary estimates suggest employment for as many as 2,600 short-term positions during the construction phase of the project, as well as 50 permanent, long-term positions in the pipeline and facility operations.

The anchor field development promises yet more employment, with construction, drilling and servicing and operations staff required for the project.

Searle says it’s also important to consider the economic growth beyond the immediate job offerings.

"(There are benefits) over and above the direct benefits of the pipeline," he said. "One of the great multipliers here is that (the North will) finally have some infrastructure that encourages other companies and support services."

He points to hotels, restaurants, contractors and sub-contractors, road construction and housing as examples of industries that will answer to the siren song of $5 billion, generating commerce and market activity outside the actual pipeline expenditures.

---

from [url=http://www.aboriginaltimes.com/economic-development/oil%20pipeline/view]...

Again, I must stress that capacity building in terms of the average Gwich'in or Inuvialuit is still sorely lacking, and the bulk of the jobs are short-term. Most people do like the idea of infrastructure development though.

quote:

---

A new study commissioned by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee shows the very different futures that may await people who live alongside gas resource areas in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. The study maps some very different pictures of the amount of land that will be disturbed as companies look for and develop gas wells. The new maps build on work done by CARC earlier this year.

---

from [url=http://www.carc.org/2005/draws_stark.php]CARC[/url]

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
[b]

Online posting (from a bulletin board or chat)
If an online posting can't be accessed because it isn't archived or a password is required, cite it in the text but don't include it in the references. If it's archived, give as much identifying information as you can.

Chu, L. (2002, March 18). Aversion therapy. [Msg. 3]. Message posted to
news://sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated

[url=http://owl.ccd.edu/writ_resources/handouts/APA_Exp.html]APA Citations[/url][/b]

---

Thanks [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by C.Morgan:
[b]They clearly do not care much about the fates of the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in peoples up here who have been on the hook and waiting for the project to get going. It seems the environmentalists prefer to see natives in perpetual poverty.[/b]

---

This is the crass extortion game played by big oil all over the world: "Hand over the oil or all these natives will starve!"

They did it in [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001417]E... and they did it in [url=http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/cno.html]Colombia[/url] and now they are doing it in the Western Arctic. The environmental destruction and economic plunder is always justified by pointing to how the locals profit, whether it is true or not. And if you're opposed to the oil megaprojects, you don't give a damn about the people who live there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
[b][QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeb616:
[QB]A couple links. Didnt find what I was looking for but these will do.

try this one

[url=http://www.mackenziegasproject.com/]http://www.mackenziegasproject.com/[...

---

Know it already pretty good.

So why no local economic benefit?

quote:

---

A new report says a large percentage of Gwich'in adults in the Mackenzie Delta don't think their communities are ready for a pipeline.

Researchers for the Gwich'in Renewable Resource Board and the Aurora Research Institute found only eight per cent of those surveyed never want to see a pipeline. However, 44 per cent say their communities aren't ready to participate in one.

"People were concerned that Gwich'in [wasn't] educated enough to get the good jobs in the project, that a lot of the jobs are not long-term jobs, that negative social impacts might be too great," says Raila Salokangas, who led the survey of one-fifth of all Gwich'in adults.

---

From [url=http://www.cbc.ca/north/story/nor-mackenzie-hearing-26012006.html]CBC north[/url]

Fred Carmichael scoffs at the report because he has a vested interest in the development with his position on the Aboriginal Pipeline Group.

This doesn't mean the Gwich'in don't want the pipeline, they just want to make sure they can contribute and that it is done properly. And for sure they don't want traditional lands and cultural spaces destroyed. And by their estimates they are still not prepared. A lot of people are also ambivalent in regards to anything to do with the mackenzie gas project.

Imperial Oil stands to win no matter what.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Jeb616 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
[b]The same reasons were given for the Norman Wells pipeline 20 odd years ago.

The pipeline right of way is constructed from NW south to the AB border.Additional development will be the subject of the NEB hearings.

Any large project will give impetus to the bottom feeders.Booze,drugs,predatory behavior,prostitution etc It is incumbent on all involved to mitigate these concerns.

One of these concerns is a sudden prosperity among those who do not have the skills to handle this affluence.

A labourer or swamper does not require much in the way of marketable skills beyond two feet and a heartbeat.

If this pipeline is not built,how do the locals plan to address these same problems without the additional revenues this development will provide?[/b]

---

The pipeline will be built. My feeling is it is set to go no matter what as long as the people of the north don't go demanding too much. How do you define 'too much' when you are bargaining with the most profitable industry in the world?

The social problems wont be as exasperated if the pipeline is kaboshed, thats certain. But economic development may well be.

If Harper and his creeps decide to reneg on the money provided to offset the social costs of the development, and it is simply pushed through without looking pragmatically at it, it will be devastating.

And earnestly, I am in love with the north. Even though it is -35 without the windchill. Everyone should make an attempt to connect with it. Unfortunately it remains an unknown in common Canadian discourse.

Also infrastructure development of every sort is needed, with or with out a pipeline. And even an eco-tourism or cultural tourism infrastructure that can appeal to people who don't want to or can't pay $25000 to hunt a polar bear.

This is seriously lacking in the Mackenzie Delta and could potentially provide a lot of potential revenue, and provide a lot for Gwich'in and Inuvialuit who still mantain strong ties to the land, a source of income if they are willing.

Tourists that drive up the Dempster find that its hard to even find a tour guide to take them up the Mackenzie River or anywhere. And it totally is worth seeing.

I don't have any answers to this issue, just a lot of concerns.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Jeb616 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagnaf:
[b]Ok ... we're all demonizing a corporation that has a 9 to 10% gross margin. The average national bank enjoyed a 16% margin. The manufacturer of Marlboro cigarettes saw a 22% margin, and Merck had a 25.3% margin in 2005.

Who's the bad guy again?[/b]

---

Potentially all of them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagnaf:
[b]

And yet only Exxon is being attacked here. Let's remember that even Whole Foods Market -- a retailer of organic, "non-cruel" foods realized a 37.9% gross margin in 2005: larger than Exxon, the major national banks or any of the other "evil" corporations that have been mentioned. Just because Exxon is a resource firm doesn't mean that it should be singled out.[/b]

---

Agreed. I was going off on a tangent after C Morgan's postings bringing the Mackenzie Delta into the topic.

However, present geo-political circumstances considered, the Oil and Gas Sector does have a lot to be accounted for. Corporations might not need be evil, just the consequences of their narrow world view... and this pplies to big oil as much as anyone.

[ 31 January 2006: Message edited by: Jeb616 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagnaf:
[b]
And yet only Exxon is being attacked here.[/b]

---

There is lots and lots of factual information and careful interpretation of same available about Exxon. We *know* Exxon is evil; we can only surmise about many other companies. Plus, it's the biggest--perhaps by even more than its declared profits would suggest, if as you say its profits really aren't a big percentage.

So your question sounds to me a bit like someone saying to the people going through Africa vaccinating for smallpox, "Why aren't you guys dealing with all the other diseases? They're bad too. Why are you just picking on smallpox?"
Well, smallpox was about the worst, and by concentrating on smallpox, they wiped it out. If they'd done bandaids on everything at once, I surmise the results would have been less useful.

On a more local level, I might suggest that Exxon is being attacked here because this is, hello, a thread about Exxon, started in the NEWS forum about the NEWS of Exxon's record profits. You want to see corporations and their profit margins in general attacked, by all means start a thread in Politics about it. I, for one, will be pleased to go there and give lots of reasons why the limited liability stock corporation is a Bad Thing.

Sheesh.

Meanwhile, as to Exxon itself, I'd be willing to bet there's a lot of cash disappearing before the investors ever see it, or being carefully sheltered so it don't show up as "profits". The budget of their creative accounting department would probably make all our hair stand on end. Enron was IMO unusual only in degree (the scamming went so far that it killed the goose, especially since the company itself had little real-world existence and so was rather fragile) not in kind.

[ 02 February 2006: Message edited by: Rufus Polson ]

...and in Canada, Imperial saw a paltry $1B in the last quarter of 2005.

" Imperial Oil Ltd. generated earnings of more than $1 billion in the fourth quarter on the way to the company's fattest annual profit in its history, Canada's largest energy producer reported Thursday.

Calgary-based Imperial said it earned just over $1 billion or $3 a share for the three months ended Dec. 31. That compared with a profit of $538 million or $1.53 a share for the 2004 fourth quarter."

quote:

---

Originally posted by lucas:
[b]...and in Canada, Imperial saw a paltry $1B in the last quarter of 2005.[/b]

---

And $2.6B for the year - a record annual profit for the company, which is 69% owned by Exxon Mobil Corp.

Well, at least they are putting it to good use:

quote:

---

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

---

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html]http://www....

quote:

---

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada ...

---

That would be the Fraser Institute. DeSmogBlog.com [url=http://www.desmogblog.com/fraser-institute-ipcc-london-report]leaked[/url] their report and has a few words to say. They're not impressed.

[ 01 February 2007: Message edited by: pogge ]