Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 52

• 0%

  STONERS1 year, 3 months ago

  Items on the agenda included greater restrictions and oversight of executive pay, goals for reducing greenhouse gases, more investment in renewable energy, and a call to put the company's nondiscrimination policy on sexual orientation into writing.

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 80%

    STONERS1 year, 3 months ago

    "Exxon Mobil is double-crossing the public and policy-makers. It's avoiding real changes and continuing to fund groups that purposefully distort the science of global warming."

    Reply

    18 Replies

    • 65%

      Neophile1 year, 3 months ago

      Kudos to these brave shareholders, who are willing to put aside their near-term bottom lines in favor of the moral issues that will affect generations to come.

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 100%

        questionseverything1 year, 3 months ago

        yes they r to be commended but i think one more thing should be added to list...that for the sake of national defense and the public well being exxon should have to keep their refinerys in xcellent condition

        btw i nevr buy from an exxon station unless i am on the road and have no choice

        Reply
      • 100%

        GoldStandard1 year, 3 months ago

        What "moral issue" is that? The moral way to handle high gas prices is for individuals to cut down on their consumption, (ever thought about a hybrid?), not using the government as a battering ram against a private firm that has every right to charge its own price for its goods/services in a free market. There's nothing "brave" about demanding intervention of the state into a free economy.

        "What motivates these activists is not the wellbeing--i.e., the wealth--of fellow shareholders, but an anti-profit, anti-capitalist social agenda. It is they who call for corporate 'social responsibility'--the idea that executives and shareholders should sacrifice money-making for the sake of sundry 'stakeholders.' This is incompatible with the purpose of business and with the responsibility of corporate leaders to maximize shareholder wealth."

        Dr. Yaron Brook

        http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4968

        Reply

        13 Replies

        • 100%

          NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

          GoldS - My rebuke to you is simple, Nationalize all oil companies in the U.S. Greed perpetuates greed and the oil companies have shown an obvious determination to shaft the American consumer. Now you will decry that I am a Socialist and you will be partially correct in your assumption. Capitalism has its attributes but it can also coexist with a socialist society. The rich are becoming richer and the day of reckoning is fast approaching, so to you I say, if you are one of the greedy, get your house in order since the masses will take only so much of your greed amd corrupt policies of governing before dissatisfaction arises.

          Reply

          12 Replies

          • 100%

            GoldStandard1 year, 3 months ago

            "Capitalism has its attributes but it can also coexist with a socialist society."

            Think so? It's that kind of system based on contradictions that produces lobbying. Think about it. In a laissez-faire system, government is forbidden from interfering with business, and vice-versa. Much like separation of church and state.

            "The rich are becoming richer and the day of reckoning is fast approaching, so to you I say, if you are one of the greedy, get your house in order since the masses will take only so much of your greed amd corrupt policies of governing before dissatisfaction arises."

            Screw you. In the first place you don't know anything about me, so watch your mouth. Secondly, it's no less wrong to steal a dollar from a rich man than a poor man. You propose theft, pure and simple. What individuals acquired through consensual trade you think should be taken by force. That's the honest way of putting it.

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

              What, screw me and watch your mouth. My you have a conservative rhetoric about you. Have any more expletives you would desire to espouse? By the way show me a rich person, generally speaking, and I will show you a person without ethics or character who has achieved his wealth illegally or without the concept of respecting his fellow man. Now the other types of rich are those that have inherited their wealth through lineage. So did I now upset you more? Bring on your expletives it shows your ignorance.

              Reply

              9 Replies

              • 0%

                simonsez1 year, 3 months ago

                What an attitude you have. You must have had a lousy existence.

                Reply

                2 Replies

                • 0%

                  NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

                  Simon - I am laughing all the way to the bank legally. How about you? My attitude is care free with excellent health care and the lot but I still feel guilt towards others who have not the same benefits. I realize conservatives are without a conscience for the plights of their fellow man so I say to you, when you expire take it with you. Now a smile has came over my face, my attitude is quite pleasent except when it comes to greed.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • 100%

                    GoldStandard1 year, 3 months ago

                    "I am laughing all the way to the bank legally."

                    So you feel "guilty" for what?

                    Reply
              • 0%

                GoldStandard1 year, 3 months ago

                Conservative? No, I just believe in a little thing called "property rights".

                "By the way show me a rich person, generally speaking, and I will show you a person without ethics or character who has achieved his wealth illegally or without the concept of respecting his fellow man."

                So you consider any and every financially secure individual in a free society a criminal? Sad. I don't hate the poor, but you obviously hate the rich. Here's a news flash, the "haves" in this country are not all Paris Hilton clones.

                Reply

                5 Replies

                • 100%

                  NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

                  But that act like Ms. Hilton. Righteous, pompous, selfish, egotistical and to epitomize my thoughts, Donald Trump.

                  Reply

                  4 Replies

                  • 100%

                    NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

                    To further explain my "Donald Trump" theory. He was a man in debt but he used his influence with the corrupt bankers to obtain loans not afforded the average citizen. Consequently, while money makes money in our society, those loans made off the average Americans savings, saved this egotistical from another bankruptcy. That is a system off tilt and beneficial to those in power. The average American savings are used to perpetute those in power so my analogy of the rich getting richer unethically is valid.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    GoldStandard1 year, 3 months ago

                    I think you watch too much T.V.

                    Reply

                    2 Replies

                    • 100%

                      NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

                      Ok, have a nice day.

                      Reply
                    • 0%

                      questionseverything1 year, 3 months ago

                      gold, ur screw u was lil like maries "let em eat cake" and we all know whr that got her,we dont have to steal it,all we have to do is get fed up enough to vote to take em

                      but dont worry,if it comes to that we will share

                      Reply
          • 100%

            capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago

            NelsonR AKA Hugo AKA anti-American "Nationalize all oil companies in the U.S."

            For Venezuela's firebrand leader Hugo Chavez, oil is the indispensable crutch that props up his regime. Mr. Chavez's recent moves to bring Venezuelan oil assets under control of the state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), while not surprising, are another reason Washington should be concerned. The Chavez government has turned its attention to bringing more state control to the oil operations currently managed by foreign firms, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips, in the Orinoco River basin, considered to be one of the largest remaining oil reserves in the world.

            By exploiting Venezuela's oil resources and making money off oil exports, which rank fifth in the world, Mr. Chavez had generally broken from the more traditional model for Latin American populist dictators, who relied more heavily on foreign loans and captured foreign assets to support their regimes.

            Reply
    • 0%

      rightfromwrong1 year, 3 months ago

      They are truly evil and beyond compare as is George Bush.

      Reply
    • 0%

      riverdalian1 year, 3 months ago

      People trust Stoners a lot more than a hermaphrodite with natural gas like you B.O.Plenty.

      Reply
• 0%

  BronxBomber1 year, 3 months ago

  "Frustrated drivers Consumers, faced with record gasoline prices, have also set their sights on the world's largest publicly traded oil company. Several letters calling for boycotts have reportedly been circulating on the Internet."

  I'd say right on! Keep it up! It's actions like these that will make big oil interest's, these robber baron's stand up and take notice. Power to the people!

  Thanx Stoners!

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 88%

    younomark1 year, 3 months ago

    What is the largest "non publicly traded oil company"? How come no one cares to attack them? How about boycotting them? How about using our own oil? Or are we just saving it until everyone else runs out?

    Reply
• 100%

  natashas1 year, 3 months ago

  I do not use Exxon Mobil. They would rather pay fines and add money to their pockets then to make a change to help the economy wich they help destroy. I agree Bronx Bomber, I hope these robber baron's stand up and take notice.

  Reply

• lovermanComment removed: User banned.
• 0%

  engineer1 year, 3 months ago

  In 2005, the oil companies 'earned' $420.00 dollars profit, not sales, for every man, woman and child in the US. What was your contribution? It's about time something was done to them and their immoral execs!

  Reply

  2 Replies

  • 100%

    younomark1 year, 3 months ago

    Gee I wonder how much of that "profit" went into the pockets of Americans versus Arabs?

    Reply
  • 0%

    schillinfl11 year, 3 months ago

    Your analysis is flawed. US Oil Companies earn 60% of their profit from overseas.

    Good effort.

    Reply
• 33%

  duke-nuke-em1 year, 3 months ago

  That last time I checked my newspaper America was a freemarket society. I'm tired of hearing people whine about the high cost of gas. Americans want everything right now, and they don't want to have to pay for it. The radical environmentalist's (activist's) haven't let a new refinery to be built in this country for more than 30 years. Wake up people! Haven't you ever heard of supply and demand??

  As far as the "activist shareholders" of Exxon are concerned. That is nothing but a dog and pony show. If they are so concerned about Exxon, then why don't they sell all of their shares? If you don't like Exxon, don't buy their product. It's still a semi-free country. Go buy your gas from CitGo. Hugo Chavez needs the money so that he can shut down more opposition TV stations in Venezuela. More government meddling??? I don't think so!

  Reply

  5 Replies

  • 100%

    NelsonR1 year, 3 months ago

    Dude - Liked your "Meddling" analogy. Guess you agree then that we Americans with our elite political figures have "Meddled" enough into other nations business's and governments?

    Reply

  • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
  • 100%

    quackpot1 year, 3 months ago

    With respect to the oil companies, we are far from a free market society. The price of gas is CURRENTLY determined primarily by refinery capacity (and secondarily by oil supplies). The refineries are owned by a small hand full of oil companies who can, at will, increase the price of gas by taking one or two off line (this month, two refineries were taken off line - just as demand is increasing).

    Further, the executive compensation packages are far from a free market. For most corporations, executive compensation is determined by a committee that consists of ..... executives from other corporations. It is a small club that is very careful to perpetuate huge deals for the executives.

    Reply

    2 Replies

    • 100%

      capecoralM1 year, 3 months ago

      May 24, 2007

      Domestic refineries can process about 17.5 million barrels of crude oil each day, much of which is imported. But with consumption near 21 million barrels a day, more imports of refined products are also needed.

      In recent weeks, refiners point out that they have been increasing output: gasoline production in the United States is at its highest ever level, 8.85 million barrels a day.

      http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/24/sports/p...

      Due to environmental groups lawsuits to block new construction along with the vast and complex EPA rules it is estimated that building a new refinery in the US will take 10-12 years and Billions in lawsuit defense lawyers. With the congress passing laws to favor bio-fuels many companies do not want to gamble on the 12 year time frame to bring a new oil based refinery on line.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 90%

        quackpot1 year, 3 months ago

        According to the Cogressional testimony of Oil executives at hearings last month, The reason for not building new refineries is not due to environmental law suits, but it is, like you say the huge cost coupled with what the oil compamies view as a likely down-turn in demand. How the come up with a likely down-turn in demand, I have no idea.

        Reply
• 100%

  canadianrancher571 year, 3 months ago

  I drive a car that was made in the 90's because that is what I can afford, I hate it when people say buy a hybrid, that just isn't in the budget. Most people who are hurt by the high cost aren't the ones driving suv's or fuel pigs of any sort they are ordinary people who have limited finances. As for freemarket, that disappared years ago in many segments of business and continues today, most top executives know that competition hurts them but buy outs work and are easily financed using the new companies equity for security. I don't hate large companies but it bothers me when they are so arogant about things and also seem to have all the politicians in their pokets.

  Well that's the rant for today.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 50%

    GWHayduke1 year, 3 months ago

    Is that you, John Edwards?

    Reply
• 86%

  ameliog1 year, 3 months ago

  Reading some of these comments, you'd think that people are taking issue with Exxon simply because they're making money and this is simply wealth-envy at play, or else they hate capitalism so much that they pick on poor little Exxon.

  I submit that there are others who see dangers in excessive wealth as a matter of faith, a spiritual thing. They believe words in a book held in highest regard by millions of like-minded people in this country. Words such as "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God", and "You can't worship God and Money both". I know lots of people discount this book and these words as just superstition, but as I say, millions take spiritual matters very seriously and believe that seeking after wealth can tempt and endanger one's soul, and these beliefs don't fit into convenient stereotypes of "socialist", "capitalism hater", and other equally empty rhetoric.

  Reply

  3 Replies

  • lovermanComment removed: User banned.2 Replies

    • 100%

      ameliog1 year, 3 months ago

      thanks loverman. I was just adding another angle to the debate, and don't want to imply that I think it was the only angle. Many groups take issue with what's happening at Exxon for a wide range of reasons. Even without the faith aspect, I can see causes for legitimate concern and your comment speaks to one of these concerns.

      The arguments I don't accept are the ones that turn this issue (and others) into a simple matter of liberals hating capitalism and that sort of meaningless junk. Life is more complicated than such simplistic characterizations.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • lovermanComment removed: User banned.
• 100%

  ETproductions1 year, 3 months ago

  The tide is rising. It's not a majority of shareholders yet. But what will they do to Exxon management when their fine beach-front properties get flooded by rising sea levels? What will they do when ever larger super storms wreak havoc all over the world? What will they do when we reach the tipping point that NASA Scientists now say may be no more than 10 years away?

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Justice4All1 year, 3 months ago

    The oil companies were worried a few years ago. But they have a plan in place.

    1. Convince the mindless masses that global warming is cooked up by Al Gore and the Democrats as a way of making money for themselves. This stops the conservatives from thinking about science and gets them to focus on politics.

    2. Let people spend the next 10 or 20 years turning a scientific issue into a polital one.

    3. Earth warms up. Sea levels rise. But it's the year 2020 and we all made a bundle while everyone was distracted. And we are running out of oil anyway so now the problem solves itself and we didn't have to reduce production.

    4. Problem solved. We are all old and rich. The next generation can worry about the mess we made.

    Reply
• 0%

  greeneyes1 year, 3 months ago

  This is fabulous. I only wish all shareholders for all corporations in the US and around the world would do the same. The rich just keep gettig richer, no morality exists, and corporations should all be put to task. It is time we take our country back from the bastards!

  Reply
• 0%

  sixshot1 year, 3 months ago

  a lot of gas stations in australia are company owend i wonder how many are in the us just a thought?

  Reply
• 0%

  arcrftmech161 year, 3 months ago

  If we the people could get an embargo on all US oil companies to stop exporting oil from the US these so called oil crises smoke screens would help the american people. Much of the US oil is exported and imported oil is bought to replace what these oil companies are selling on the world market. The profit and incentive is in place for oil companies to export US oil. There are no guarantees or laws or requirements that any oil from the US oil fields remain in the US. The cheaper US oil brings outreagous profits as the profit on the world market resell is high. As an example, US oil companies cost for drilling and pumping may be $20 a barrel and can be sold for $60 a barrel on the world market. If this oil stayed in the US and refined they could only gain on the $20 a barrel oil. What ever the cost of imported oil doesn't matter as they just pass this cost on to the consumer while making $40 a barrel on the US oil they are selling. This crisis is a smoke screen to drill, scam, and sell.

  Reply

  1 Reply

  • 0%

    Justice4All1 year, 3 months ago

    It's this type of mis-information that makes people think the problem can be easily solved. We produce less than half the oil we consume and we do not export any other than refined products made from imported oil.

    Spreading rumors like this only serves the interest of big oil. People need to take a serious look at the problem rather than just assuming it is due to corrupt politics or mis-management and is something that can be easily solved.

    For the past 30 years we have discovered 1 barrel of oil for each 2 that we have consumed. It will catch up with us very soon.

    Reply
• 100%

  HMMace1 year, 3 months ago

  if Bush did not make money from oil--we might have caps on the price of oil..but, Bush is just another war-profiteer..as is his veep, Cheny...--NEVER RE ELECT ANY POLITICIAN--EVER...

  Reply
• 100%

  evelyna1 year, 3 months ago

  I do not think sky should be the limit when it comes to necessities like heating, gas, water, food and medical care.

  I also think executive pay is way out of line. For the gov. to think holding the line on labor is ethical while certain people can make money to the moon is ridiculous.

  If this is a free market-the executives and ceos are taking money away met for the shareholders. Unjustifiable! Much like the credit card companies who feel they can make a fortune doing nothing. Where can I find a job like that I can start tommorrow.

  Reply
• 100%

  concetto1 year, 3 months ago

  How much profit is enough for these oil companies? And how can we truley influence what they charge. Competitions is minimal and these companies play ball with each other. Having worked for one of them, I believe the only way to influence what they charge for gasolene is to boycott one them. One that owns its gas stations so that we don't hurst the gas station operators, like a Hess. My idea is to set a price level , say 2.50/gal, and then boycott Hess until Hess drops its, price to that level. When the do, boycott another oil company until it drops its price to $2.25/Gal.

  Reply
• 0%

  DrWatson1 year, 3 months ago

  I wouldn't worry about this.....they WILL comply sooner or later, whether they like it or not.

  Soon as` they see the PROFIT potential of alternative fuels.

  Just another stupid game they play....for now.

  Reply
• 83%

  schillinfl11 year, 3 months ago

  What's so brave about these shareholders? They hate the company but hold the stock. Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

  Bravery to me would be for them to sell the stock. They aren't moral enough to do that.

  Reply
• 0%

  0gramstransfat1 year, 3 months ago

  "ExxonMobil has been left behind in protecting their LGBT employees as industry competitors Amerada Hess, BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Shell and Sunoco have all drafted policies doing so; ExxonMobil is also the only Fortune 50 company that has failed to write sexual orientation protections into its primary nondiscrimination policy... nearly 38 percent of ExxonMobil shareholders voted at an annual meeting May 30 in Dallas to bar discrimination to its employees... While it is heartening that a number of shareholders agree that ExxonMobil must take steps to provide equal protections for all employees, it is extremely troubling and downright unacceptable that ExxonMobil has strongly resisted the call..." (from a planetout.com story: http://planetout.com/news/article.html?date=200... )

  Corporate America... the jewel of the American Government.

  Reply
• 100%

  getreal11 year, 3 months ago

  They can cut those oil wells off right before each Storm and save some money. They also get insurance for property damage. Never pay the same bill twice.

  Reply