ExxonMobil rakes in record cash, spends only 1 percent on alternative energy 11

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   greentiger Posted 9:45 am
   31 Jul 2008

   on the bright side...1% of 11 billion dollars is 100 million dollars.  In one quarter.  That's no pittance.

   Permalink

2. 

   John former Marine Posted 10:17 am
   31 Jul 2008

   for a really serious oil indurstry perspective:http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/were_investing_so ...
   
   Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

   Permalink

3. 

   Des Emery Posted 10:38 am
   31 Jul 2008

   ProfitWhen oil companies can post outasight profits, report lower consumption, and still insist that they do not control prices, the rest of the title of this blog definitely applies.
   
   Des Emery

   Permalink

4. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 10:50 am
   31 Jul 2008

   If only we had taxed carbon decades ago....this money would be in the hands of the U.S. government and U.S. taxpayers instead of Exxon and the terrorists of Iran and Saudi Arabia- good job short-sighted U.S. politicians and consumers!!!!
   
   Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! http://www.voicesofreason.info.

   Permalink

5. 

   Ashley Braun Posted 5:00 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   Exxon posts profits at $1,485 per secondThank goodness the oil execs can still afford gas!
   As Bush Fights for Big Oil, Exxon Mobil Puts Profits at $1,485 a Second

   Permalink

6. 

   Atomicrod Posted 5:57 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   Certainly no pittanceGreentiger:
   You are right - 1% of 11 billion is more than $100 million and that is a lot of money for investing in alternative energy sources.
   It can buy the majors a lot of friends and supporters. Look at how popular BP has been in the green community with its somewhat larger investments in alternatives and its much larger advertising budget proclaiming its "green" message of being "Beyond Petroleum" with that nice green and yellow sunburst logo.
   What I get from ExxonMobil's quarterly numbers is that 99% of that $11 billion is NOT being spent to solve our oil addiction.
   Don't forget that the number is post tax profit - that is what is left over after all of the bills have been paid. The number that is truly astounding is that ExxonMobil's quarterly revenue was $138 BILLION and that company has only about 2-3% of the oil and gas market.
   I also found it interesting to note that ExxonMobil's post tax profit margin was almost 9% and that they achieved their record profits in a quarter where their production actually fell by 7% over the comparable quarter last year.
   The company directors also determined that of all possible investments that they could make one of the best was to spend $8.8 billion purchasing about 1.9% of the outstanding stock in the company. That was quite a bit more than they spent on exploration and development of new energy sources.
   The amount of money that all of us are spending on our fossil fuel addiction is incredible, but your comment indicates that you believe it is okay as long as alternative energy suppliers get a few crumbs of investment dollars.
   Rod Adams
   
   Publisher - Atomic Insights

   Permalink

7. 

   timbuktu Posted 7:40 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   SwindlersAnd yet their stooges in Washington are pressing to open up more offshore and Arctic sites to these guys?  If they're doing so well and we (the people) are still hurting, I doubt whether Exxon more resources is going help anyone but their shareholders. In fact, a recent CNN report states that oil companies are currently utilizing only 20 of 90 million acres of productive land they have on lease ("This Is Not A Drill"). If they're really short on oil they can tap into that. No need to give the scoundrels any more real estate!

   Permalink

8. 

   vakibs Posted 10:15 pm
   31 Jul 2008

   Force them to invest. Let them take profitsExxonMobil has a 2-3% share of the oil market and reports a profit of 11 billion dollars !! ?
   This speaks volumes of how our society functions.
   A
   
    recently blogged about scientific american article complains that building fast breeder reactors for burning all the nuclear waste costs 1-2 billion dollars more than a conventional nuclear reactor.
   Do you guys care about reducing nuclear waste ?
   Well, then let's build those reactors. A portion of these oil profits can go towards building them. Another portion might go towards mass producing solar PV panels, Ni-Cd batteries  or  wind turbines.
   ExxonMobil can even be asked to take all the profits that come out of this investment.
   
   

   Permalink

9. 

   gzuckier Posted 1:49 am
   01 Aug 2008

   the waiting gameas the article points out, EM isn't betting its big recent winnings on alternative energy. on the other hand, they're pulling back their bets on oil nowadays, putting less into exploration than the rate of inflation, even to the point where analysts give them a demerit for not having a future pipeline for product. instead they're buying back their stock with the extra money.
   as a fine-tuned machine for making profit, EM has come to the realization that the future is, right now, very uncertain. maybe not news to us, but definitely news when the folks who make the future come to that realization. i'm definitely going to watch where they decide to go if/when they finally make a move.

   Permalink

10. 

    Gustavion Posted 3:04 am
    01 Aug 2008

    Alternative EnergyThe truth of the matter is that EM will put its money where it believes is most profitable.  They know that oil is going to continue to be very significant player in the future.  The legitimate way to prod EM to invest more into Alternative Energy is for us, as consumers, to demand it.
    
    Simplestop.net - Stop postal junk mail, Protect the environment, Protect your identity.

    Permalink

11. 

    GRLCowan Posted 3:08 am
    02 Aug 2008

    No, no-one cares about reducing nuclear wasteA recently blogged about scientific american article complains that building fast breeder reactors for burning all the nuclear waste costs 1-2 billion dollars more than a conventional nuclear reactor.
    Do you guys care about reducing nuclear waste ?
    Well, then let's build those reactors.
    Nuclear waste is more radioactive than the mined UO2 it is derived from, but so is the dilute, unmined UO2, because there is so much more of it than will ever be mined: in all the continents, there is ten million tonnes per centimetre of depth. (I seem to recall this makes non-no-till agriculture one of the top two or three artificial exposers of the public to nuclear radiation: uranium makes radon, and tilling helps it into the air. Seems plausible but I don't have a source.)
    So burying nuclear waste a hundred thousand centimetres deep guarantees that it is unable to radioactively contaminate the land, no matter what happens to it down there, in the same way the saltshakers in the Edmund Fitzgerald are guaranteed not to salt Lake Superior. (Which is naturally, after all, very, very slightly saline. There's only a billion tonnes of salt in it.)
    So the coprocephalics here -- for example anyone who talks about the waste being radioactive for thousands of years without acknowledging its harmlessness in all the years we've seen, despite being much more radioactive in those past years than it will be, long hence -- don't care for any solution to the nuclear waste problem because their assertion that it is a problem is how they justify profiting, usually through taxation, from analogous alternative harms that actually occur. And the rest of us won't get enthusiastic about unduly fancy measures to solve a problem that can be simply and for sure solved by burial or dry-cask encapsulation.
    --- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
    
    How solar power plants can work all winter

    Permalink