ExxonMobil – Debate on its future

ExxonMobil has a market value of around $500 billion. It has plans to spend $25 billion in exploration and research of carbon-based fuels while spending $100 million in funding Stanford University’s centre researching technical solutions to global warming. A shareholder revolt headed by descendants of John D. Rockefeller pressed for a change of policy at this year’s AGM attracting 39.5% of the vote but the support from the mutual fund companies carried the day for the CEO Rex Tillerson. So Exxon’s policies remain unchanged for another year.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to ExxonMobil – Debate on its future

  1. matt says:

    Outrageous. Go Rocka! May momemtum biuld for change at AGM 2009.

  2. the Grit says:

    Hi y’all,

    For the sake of accuracy, President Bush, and both of our Presidential candidates for the next term, have stated that they have bought into the Global Warming Hoax, so you can rest assured that the US will be squandering untold billions of dollars in the near future to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. Beyond that, almost all of our politicians have reached the conclusion that it’s a strategic defense necessity that we become energy independent. While I doubt we have the internal willpower to pull off another Manhattan Project or moon landing, it’s quite likely that we’ll manage complete self sufficient energy production within 20 years. Unfortunately, doing this will probably screw our economy up quite a bit, so y’all need to start getting ready to shoulder more of the burden.

    the Grit

  3. matt says:

    And this post has just been wiki referenced; http://wikicompany.org/wiki/ExxonMobil (under ‘Blog links’). Well done Keith.

  4. earthpal says:

    Hi Grit,

    For sure, America will invest billions in striving for energy independence but their energy independence movement is not a green one and any environmental advantages to be gained from the movement will be incidental.

    Trouble is, biofuels seem to be an important aspect of their plans which is bad news for food security:

  5. the Grit says:

    Hi earthpal,

    You are correct to some degree. We will invest billions and, eventually, achieve our goal, but the immediate problem is that we’re in too much of a hurry. Your mention of biofuels is an excellent example of this. You also have to remember that “green” and “energy independence” are not the same thing. Keep in mind that we have huge untapped carbon fuel resources available to us and, when the average family is faced with large increases in cost to use “green” and more expensive energy sources, our coal and oil supplies are going to be reaped regardless of what the minority environmentalist movement wants. You’ll see an example of this in another few weeks when our liberal run Congress is forced to admit defeat in the matter of oil exploration and drilling on previously prohibited US Government land.

    Your example of our ill considered rush toward biofueils is, by the way, an excellent example of what the “green” movement has done wrong. Instead of waiting until we had a viable alternative to point to, they’ve put all their energy into screaming that we need change and, when their collective voice was heard and accepted, no appropriate way to change was available. Thus, while biofuels won’t really be a viable alternative fuel source for a decade or two, political forces are driving us into a bad choice that will have countless masses of unintended consequences.

    A little patience please!?

    Hi matt,

    Yea-haw! Way to go!

    the Grit

  6. keithsc says:

    Or should Exxon and the other petrol giants be spending much more on investing in alternatives to oil. I see little sign of them being in a hurry to do anything but increase their profits from oil.

Comments are closed.