Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 35

• 0%

  engineer7 months ago

  Yes! I'm glad the Rockefellers' said it. I'd like to see it done out of Exxon's "earnings!"

  Reply

  16 Replies

  • 0%

    jimdoze7 months ago

    That's where corporate R&D investments come from... duh!

    Reply

    15 Replies

    • 0%

      flyonthewallzz7 months ago

      Just for a lark: check out R&D expended.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual

      I could very well be missing something.

      My ears are open.

      Reply

      8 Replies

      • 0%

        jimdoze7 months ago

        What were you looking for that you are "missing something"?

        Did you imagine that ExxonMobil was trying to re-invent oil?

        Try this one: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=INTC

        Cargill doesn't try to re-invent grains either, but Pioneer Hi-bred does. What is your point? Do you wish to see XOM more vertically integrated?

        Clearly the Rockefeller family is becoming concerned about peak oil and public relations... and are trying to steer the company, to which a major portion of their fortune is attached, toward a more diversified energy portfolio.

        Reply

        7 Replies

        • 0%

          flyonthewallzz7 months ago

          Jimdoze: thank you for responding.

          I am just trying to get a grasp.

          I am not sure how Intels buisness relates.

          As I understand it the industry has recieved a fair amount of royalty relief to drill deep in the gulf of Mexico.

          I thought that R&D to do it would show up in there income statements.

          It is with respect that I read statements such as yours.

          My point is more of a question.

          Believe it or not I think that when prices get out of hand I think there is a coruption in the free market system.

          I do believe the system should work.

          Reply

          6 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze7 months ago

            Oil Drilling quite simply is not research and development.

            I also believe the system should work. It quite clearly is working.

            Reply
          • 0%

            jimdoze7 months ago

            The reason prices have gone so high is because far more of the world is developed today and uses more energy than it ever had in the past... at the same time, discovery of new reserves has tailed off... Pricing is simply a function of more demand and less supply. Again, the system is working.

            The only public policy move that I see that would take the upward pressure off the price of crude would be a federal "clearing of the decks" to allow a massive build of nuclear fission power plants in this country over the next 10 years.

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              quackpot7 months ago

              A public policy that would cause a RAPID decrease in crude prices would be to restore stability to the mid-east. Just as crude prices fell rapidly in the mid-1980s when stability was restored to the mid-east, they will fall again when stability is restored.

              When adjusted for inflation, Crude oil prices were constant for about a 20-year period from the mid 1980s until 2004. Since 2004, the crude oil prices have increased 4-5 fold. This very rapid increase CAN NOT be explained by increased demand.

              The rapid increase is similar to that of the early 80 when unrest in the mid-east cause a large spike in price.

              Now, What LARGE destabilizing event took place in the mid-east shortly before the 2004 price jump started?

              Bush's total lack of coherent mid-east policy is directly responsible for a MAJOR portion of the current high oil prices.

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • 0%

                quackpot7 months ago

                I certainly agree with your suggestion of alternative fuels for the long term, jim. Perhaps we need to figure out what to do with nuclear waste, a problem that has been around for about 50 years with no solution in sight.

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  jimdoze7 months ago

                  Yucca Mountain Repository

                  http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ym_repository/index.shtml

                  Reply
              • 0%

                jimdoze7 months ago

                We have relative stability in the ME, Quack. The region is light years more stable than it would have been if we had not had our boots on the ground in Iraq. Every producer is shipping oil out of the region. And for those who will try to make a case that Iraq would have been shipping more had we left it alone. Baloney. Without American boots on the ground, it was highly probable that the Iranians would have moved on the southern oil fields. They have every reason to. If we leave now, they likely will. This would have shown Saddam's military strength to be negligible. Which would have emboldened the Kurds to try for independence. Since Turkey will never allow that, they would have moved into the north (taking those fields) to prevent that. Think real chaos.

                "Bush's total lack of coherent mid-east policy is directly responsible for a MAJOR portion of the current high oil prices."

                A canard, oft repeated by the left... with NO strategic nor factual basis.

                Reply
    • 0%

      donald517 months ago

      Jim, how about subsidies from the past Repug Energy bill, the one that threw out all the Energy anti-monopoly laws from the 1930s; so that big oil can buy and stunt the growth of any competion! More Bush deregulation failures... to the greater demise of most Americans... all backed lock step by the Repugs in Congress for over 6 years now! Senate repugs going for 8 years straight of pure Bush support!

      Reply

      5 Replies

      • 0%

        jimdoze7 months ago

        Quite simply, my friend, the world (including this country) runs on carbon based fuels. No amount of wishful thinking will get us to the point in the next half century where wind and solar power will supply us with the industrial quantities of energy required by an industrial society. The repugs (as you call them) were smart enough to see that. If the dems don't figure that out, you better get yourself prepared for the not so graceful slide to the bliss an agrarian economy. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, there is only one policy initiative available that would obviate that potentially disastrous intellectual disconnect.

        Reply
      • 0%

        bill29367 months ago

        Interesting you should mention political parties. Gas prices did not seem to be a propblem prior to 2007, Montgage crisis was not on the radar before 2007, and other parts of economic problems did not seem to exist prior to 2007. What has changed in Government since 2007?

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          quackpot7 months ago

          Crude price began their rise in 2004 after being nearly constant for 20 years.

          Now, what happened shortly before 2004 that might have destabilized oil prices?

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze7 months ago

            What happened?

            World economic recovery. China, India and others begin importing crude in multiples of what they had previously. Don't confuse correlation with cause and effect.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              quackpot7 months ago

              no - China's imports have not increased that dramatically since 2004. Not multiples, a growth of about 7%/year.

              Reply
• 0%

  crespi7 months ago

  Don't trust a Rockefeller.

  "We must break the bonds between families and lower the national intelligence."

  John D Rockefeller-1905 (at the time the richest man in the world, and respected grand Patriarch of the sprawling Rockefeller clan.)

  They invested heavily into EUGENICS, worked with the Nazis, and should not be trusted.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    donald517 months ago

    ...so let them show some heart and make amends now! They can at least call big oil for what it is...

    I for one want the Cheney Energy meeting minutes declassified ... to see how much these fools have taken america to war for their greater profits!

    This article also goes with the Ben Stein article last week in the Times talking about how the Securities and Exchange Commision unleashed all this Wall street speculation when in 2004 they no longer required as much former backup collateral to transactions. Ben Stein, a Repug coming honest like the Rockefellers!

    Reply
• 0%

  simonsez7 months ago

  Exxon is not a foundation like the Rockefeller's Foundation.

  Probably every 401K, every pension fund, every retirement fund and nearly all large stock mutual funds are owners of Exxon.

  Exxon has a responsibility to its owners to invest profits wisely.

  Reply

  8 Replies

  • 0%

    flyonthewallzz7 months ago

    Simonsez: What you say is true.

    This tree hugging, bleeding heart, moonbat, leftwing, liberal's profit sharing account is with Vanguard. The largest chunk of shares they own are Exxon. I wonder why the account lost $500.00 on the last statement.

    The other thing I can not figure out is why the Executives seem to sell off there stock as soon as they get it.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it;_ylc=X3oDMTB1MzZj...

    I am pretty dumb about this stuff.

    I have thought about talking to my boss about having the money go elsewhere. I just don't know how it would go over. I sure do not wish to show him disrespect.

    Reply
  • 0%

    quackpot7 months ago

    Most companies view research as an investment in the future of the company.

    Pension funds and investors would not likely fault a company for spending money on research that is clearly related to the companies future.

    Reply
  • 0%

    jimdoze7 months ago

    That depends on the core competency of the company... which is one reason I had a link to Intel earlier.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      ETproductions7 months ago

      And investing in a non-renewable energy source which is running out, ruining our environment, and largely controlled by our avowed enemies is wise? How?

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        jimdoze7 months ago

        It is wise because the anti-nuclear sentiment in this country has bottled up the only viable alternative to carbon bases fuels for maintaining industrial sources of energy.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          ETproductions7 months ago

          Perhaps it would be wiser to take on the anti-nuke NIMBY crowd.

          And part of solving the long term energy problem is also recognizing that there are alternative sources that only further R&D will develop.

          Imagine if mankind had pinned their energy strategy on whale oil back in the 1800s and ignored petroleum and natural gas research. We would have long since wiped out all whale species and have NO alternative in hand.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze7 months ago

            "Perhaps it would be wiser to take on the anti-nuke NIMBY crowd."

            I'd love to see that, ET. However, the current administration realized that it could never accomplish that and wisely chose to leave it alone. Just as Nixon was the one who could go to China, so too do I feel that (currently) only a Democrat could effectively handle this. This is the ONLY reason I could countenance voting Dem in this election. But, as it stands, the Dems appear to remain worse than clueless on this. Their stance, from what I can see, is an amalgam of wishful thinking at best and deliberate avoidance at worst.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              ETproductions7 months ago

              Yeah Jimdose, I think you may have something there. It's going to take educating those who have a knee-jerk NO reaction to ANY energy development. I hope that education can come from an inspired leader, and not from the school of hard knocks.

              Reply
• 0%

  donald517 months ago

  I'd just like to see big oil investing in their own infrastructure since they have had new record profits for the last 4 years... yet, the Chinese are able to bring cheaper gas to their people (2.81 a gallon on CBS Evening News report last week) (better developed infrastucture?)!

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • 0%

    jimdoze7 months ago

    Why are Chinese pretroleum end products cheaper? Think taxes. The Chinese pay the same price for crude that we do.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 0%

      ETproductions7 months ago

      Any country that doesn't tax the daylights out of petroleum now does so at their own peril, and that of the planet. We need to encourage movement to energy efficiency and clean alternative energy, not burn more crude oil as fast as is humanly possible.

      Oh oh. Political pandering par excellence! Lets place a $4 per gallon tax REBATE on gasoline. Actually pay consumers to use as much as is humanly possible. We should be able to drive global warming past the tipping point and use up available reserves without looking for any alternative. Brilliant!

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        jimdoze7 months ago

        You are still in the world of politically correct wishful thinking, ET. I did not say anything about reducing taxes. I simply pointed out the reason for differences in the price of petroleum end products in each country.

        You and yours can stand around and wishful think, and come up with sarcastic commentary that you think places you on the moral high ground all you want. A simple fact is that industrial economies require industrial sources of energy. Another simple fact is that wind and photovoltaics won't get us there in the next half century... You're whistling in the wind if you think they will.

        Reply
• 0%

  quackpot7 months ago

  This has been at the top of the options for 30 years. Since 1978!

  Reply
• 0%

  quackpot7 months ago

  There is little to be said to argue with a man who believes the middle east in the year 2008 is stable.

  Peace be with you.

  http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    jimdoze7 months ago

    Peace be with you as well!

    Reply