They actually say this stuff OUT LOUD

Get a load of this stuff from an ExxonMobil presentation to industry analysts, held earlier this month in NYC:

Halfway through the three-hour meeting, Exxon management flashed a chart that showed the company's worldwide oil production staying flat through 2012.

Ponder that for a minute. Exxon is the largest publicly traded company in the energy business. In fact, it's the most profitable company in the history of capitalism, earning a record $40.6 billion last year on sales of $404 billion. Yet even with crude oil prices near all-time highs, Exxon isn't planning on producing any more oil four years from now than it did last year.

That means the company's oil output won't even keep pace with its own projections of worldwide oil demand growth of 1.3% a year.

Imagine a chief executive of another growth company making a similar announcement to that of Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson. What if Steve Jobs said Apple wasn't going to sell any more iPhones than it did in 2007? What if Howard Schultz said latte production at Starbucks would stagnate, at least until the next U.S. president embarked on his or her re-election campaign? Shares of both companies would plummet.

But not Exxon. Unlike Apple or Starbucks, Exxon has the luxury of providing a necessity. We literally cannot live from day to day without them, they know it, and they exploit it. They are untouchable.

Prodded by an impertinent German journalist, Tillerson explained, with the offhand aplomb of Patrick Bateman talking about dismemberment and cannibalism:

"We don't start with a volume target and then work backwards". Instead, he said, his team examines the available investment opportunities, figures out what prices they'll likely get for that output down the road and places its bets accordingly. It really goes back to what is an acceptable investment return for us," Tillerson said.

They actually say this shit out loud!

•  i'm ok with that attitude on behalf of a corp.

  i'm not ok with the government subsidizing that corporation and fighting wars for it.

  by mediaprisoner on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:35:42 PM PDT

  •  right on brother

    by scriznik on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:43:11 PM PDT

•  Time to ween ourselves off these bastards. NT

  by NotablyZen on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:38:08 PM PDT

•  two ways to make money

  sell more of the stuff, or sell it at a higher margin

  by Eiron on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:39:57 PM PDT

  •  "And the good news is"

    We're gonna sell the same amount every year.  No extra spending on infrastructure or exploration,  cheaper maintenance, and we get more money for it every year!

    Ain't capitalism great!

    by tle on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:49:05 PM PDT

  •  This one's not a conspiracy: it's PEAK OIL

    Exxon, like most of the oil companies, have finally realized that cheap, plentiful, easy-to-extract oil has, pretty much, run out -- and what's left is in foreign countries who are not going to let Exxon have very much of it.

    I think the disastrous failures to get oil out of the fields in Kazakhstan were the big wakeup call to the oilmen, actually.

    You have to look at this another way.  ExxonMobil would not publicly admit to its shareholders that oil production was going to be flat or down if they didn't believe it.  It looks better to the shareholders if your oil production is going up, especially when everyone else's is going down.

    The good side?  Maybe we'll finally stop depending on oil and start developing a renewable-energy economy, like we need to because of global warming anyway?

    by neroden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:01:00 PM PDT

•  Eh, old news

  They know we'll buy every last drop.  The only variables are: when, and for how much.  The oilcorp that ration their supplies the longest are going to make a killing.

  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see some oilcorps cutting production so that they can sell when we get really desperate.

  by DemCurious on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM PDT

  •  yeah, but

    doesn't it PISS YOU OFF?
    Can we allow ourselves to become accustomed to these things?
    Like Obama says, 'Cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom'.

    by jedley on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:52:49 PM PDT

    •  we have to be accustomed

      corporations should not be expected to do anything for the good of the public, that makes them seem awful, but what is great about the situation is that you can always predict their behavior.  As long as we can prevent corruption, regulation and incentives can nudge them towards generally servicing the public good while obtaining profit. The problem is corruption, not the corporations.

      by scriznik on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM PDT

•  get the oil men out of the WH

  and provide incentives for alternative energy sources and begin to provide an infrastructure.  As the argument for maintaining an oil based economy becomes increasingly difficult to make, it is no coincidence these dopes have infiltrated our government. We should expect no less from them, but I look forward to their industry becoming irrelevant.   We really need to understand that corporations should be expected to behave precisely this way and to corrupt our government and governmental institutions.  This underscores the importance of regulation and providing an incentive system that will nudge industry towards benefiting the public.  Most of all, it underscores the need for vigilance by the electorate, but as long as media ownership is as it is, that will be tough.  Luckily, a number of the former silicon valley entrepeneurs are increasingly seeing green energy as the new frontier of innovation, and they are pushing for state and national incentive programs to assist the new industry.

  by scriznik on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:41:37 PM PDT

  •  You are on the right track

    The problem I see is this:

    We really need to understand that corporations should be expected to behave precisely this way and to corrupt our government and governmental institutions.

    This is exactly what we have been conditioned to expect since the 1980's. Instead of incentives we need to pull these corporate overlords down and get them to pay their fair share of taxes, uphold their social obligations, respect the social contract and fulfill their patriotic responsibilities. Instead of incentives, we need regulations (as you point out) and strong legislation.

    In the case of Exxon, they have a responsibility to this country to ease the transition from oil to alternative energy as we approach peak oil, and they also have a responsibility to this country to ease the economic disruption during the transition. The old neoliberal idea "that their only responsibility is to make a profit" is immoral and has led to the brink of disaster. Neoliberalism was just another in a long line of pseudo-philosophies that served the interests of the ruling elites at the expense of the lower and middle classes. The Feds recent massive and ongoing bailouts puts to lie the validity of the neoliberal "free-market" ideology, and we should drive the final stake through its heart and not let ourselves slip back into those mistaken beliefs ever again.

    by lightfoot on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM PDT

    •  why can incentives not achieve this?

      As long as we are wise in their implementation, do we need to regulate the nature of the product  these corporations provide?  I guess I do not understand what you mean by legislation.

      by scriznik on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM PDT

      •  I believe a real crisis is looming

        and strong measures will need to be taken to get the multinational corporations to serve the public interest in this country. Corporations have a record of taking tax incentives and gaming the system: taking the money and running with it  overseas.

        The idea behind incentives is that good social behavior is optional, that we need to provide financial compensation for good behavior while the corporations make full use of all the infrastructure of our country without even paying anywhere near their fair share of taxes. I believe we need to stop giving corporations such high regard.

        For example, in an economic crisis where energy costs are a significant contributing factor, instead of incentives how about if we penalize Exxon if they cannot reach certain reasonable production goals? This puts across the idea that they must serve both the national interest and their bottom line, and not just the latter.

        by lightfoot on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM PDT

        •  ok

          you have a convert.  

          by scriznik on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM PDT

•  Maybe the capacity they have

  is running at 100% getting the diminishing supplies of oil out of the ground?  Maybe they don't see any value in bringing additional refineries online (how long does it take to build one anyway?).  Hell, maybe they don't see production going up any time soon no matter how many wells they drill.  There could be practical realities here that make this a bit more than a statement of pure greed.  

  Now, that said, I'm no fan of America's dependence on oil for a whole list of reasons, and I wish that these companies would show some responsibility (stop laughing) and invest some of their profits in whatever will replace oil.  I read somewhere that building a national network of hydrogen stations would cost about $110 billion.  They could work on that.  Sigh.

  by socratic on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:44:29 PM PDT

  •  Hydrogen's a dead end....

    It's not naturally occurring.  You have to manufacture it.  From what?
    (1) Oil
    (2) Electricity

    It's a waste.

    Where should our renewables money be going?

    (1) Renewable electricity.  The grid's already in place, and it displaces coal (the worst global warming culprit) first.  This means solar, wind, hydro where it's manageable, geothermal,  etc.

    (2) Biofuels which don't compete with foodstock.  Algae-based biodiesel would be really effective if it can be made to work at industrial scale; Shell is in fact putting money into this.

    (3) Energy efficency (of course).

    How to generate the money?  Carbon taxes, which have the added benefit of giving people a direct financial incentive to save energy and switch to renewable energy sources.

    (Nuclear's OK too, but has a ridiculous lead time -- and can't work in the US at least until we admit that it needs to be government-run for security reasons, and get a government which can be trusted with such things; at this point, I'd only trust it if we just hired the French government or the Japanese government.  Not likely here.)

    by neroden on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:08:35 PM PDT

    •  Add: Cellulosic Ethanol

      generated from cornstalks, hemp, bamboo, switchgrass and other high biomass yielding crops. Plants that produce a high yield of latex also may be used to refine oil substitutes directly before the remaining biomass is used to produce ethanol. Besides the traditional rubber crops, some interesting candidates for this application are from the genus Euphorbia, including Euphorbia resinifera and Euphorbia tirucalli (Pencil Tree). These latter crops would be particularly valuable in suitable areas that now require irrigation, so as to reduce the stress on the water supply due to overfarming, overpopulation, unplanned "sprawl" development, and the uncertain effects of increasing global warming (see "The Folly of Turning Water Into Fuel").  

      by lightfoot on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:56:36 AM PDT

•  Can oil companies increase production?

  International oil production will soon peak if it has already peaked.  Geologists are not optimistic that there are going to be large undiscovered oil deposits.  The Chinese and Indians are buying more oil.  The depletion of oil deposits is a long range very serious problem.

  by Navy Vet Terp on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM PDT

  •  Depletion

    ... is a serious problem alright. In these conditions, rent seeking, or charging more due to scarcity, does not seem very helpful with regard to a staple such as oil.

    by DBunn on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:55:20 PM PDT

•  You must be under the mistaken impression that...

  the Chairman of a publicly traded company's first interest is that of the public at large.

  ;-)

  by Trix on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM PDT

•  Have you heard of Peak Oil?

  The problem multinationals face is that they DO NOT have access to more resources.  The real players in the future are the national oil companies (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Brazil, Russia, etc.).  Exxon is buying back stock, because it will not be around in the future.

  Let's get serious about our energy future and not sweat the small stuff.

  by rnaworld on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:52:21 PM PDT

  •  See Navy Vet Terp, socratic et al. above n/t

    by rnaworld on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 05:54:36 PM PDT

•  That is business

  They are under no obligation to consider how expensive it is for you to get to work.  They are only obligated to serve the interests of their shareholders.  You don't get screwed because they are evil; you get screwed because the world we all live in has created a necessity out of their product.  The trouble with a necessity is that everyone needs it.  I'm sure I don't have to elucidate supply and demand topics here.  Sure, they could increase supply out of the kindness of their hearts, but they wouldn't keep their jobs.  No one in a position to increase supply could keep their jobs, until prices began to rise once again.

  This may all sound quite harsh.  It is harsh.  But it should surprise no one that an executive officer would display competence in his chosen profession by telling everyone how he plans to increase already ridiculous profits. It's his job, even if you think he's an ass for doing it.

  The only way to stop them is to destroy the value of oil.  And the only way to do that, without going back to the horse-and-buggy, is to invest in technologies and practices that will end the tyranny of oil.

  Because of advancements in nanotech, I'd place bets on solar, chiefly.

  by Arculi on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 09:42:04 PM PDT