Posts with the tag Exxon

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

WEBMASTER — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:26:14 EST

The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.

Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.

Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when

individuals and organizations understand that alternative energy technology exists and
when people see the economic benefits of using alternative energy technologies

Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.

Alternative Energy
Source: David Apperson

url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy

Obama-Biden: the only ticket for US!

Ramuel — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:28:56 EDT

Obama-Biden:

the only presidential

ticket ever powered

wholly by us American

people as individuals

who work and care.

It's our own accounts

against Exxon-McCain's

big money, Washington lobbyists,

media arms and special interests.

Chevy, Exxon, and the EV1

Alvin from Oxford, AL — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 03:33:04 EDT

Quote from Chevrolet's website:

"AREN'T YOU THE GUYS WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR?

We are the guys that developed and launched EV1, the first modern-day electric vehicle, back in 1996. We are also the guys that devoted tremendous resources to design, engineer, and market this vehicle. Although the technical innovation and marketing efforts behind the EV1 were unparalleled, only 800 people were willing to lease the EV1. Yes, the EV1 quickly became the worldwide benchmark for electric vehicles, but its timing wasn't quite right. When GM launched the EV1, gas was cheap, there wasn't a war in Iraq, and there was less discussion about global warming. There were far fewer reasons for people to make the trade-offs in their transportation lifestyle to make the EV1 work for them. “We didn't kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead.” The good news is that both the technology and the GM team who developed the EV1 live on. Chevy's next generation of low- and zero-emission vehicles - Tahoe and Malibu Hybrids,(1) Equinox Fuel Cell electric vehicles,(2) and our range-extended electric E-Flex system (found on the concept Volt) - all feature technologies and innovations from the EV1. We didn't kill the electric car; electric vehicle technology is far from dead. - Jill Banaszynski Manager of Electric Vehicle Programs General Motors Corp. "

So their excuse was "its timing wasn't quite right"?! Are you serious? Or rather it should say, "we lie in the same bed with OPEC, and we make more money the other way" Seriously? They're going to say, "it's because gas was cheap." It had nothing to do with the lack of marketing, leasing of the vehicles to people instead of selling the product, ripping it away from devout EV1 customers, or even the change of power in politics? No no... it was just bad timing. Oh and wait, it gets better: they're not going to re-release the already designed and working EV1 or any other electric model; no no, they're going to wait until 2010 before even considering releasing another electric car. Maybe the automobile companies don't understand:

WE ARE TIRED OF BEING JERKED AROUND!

WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF RIDING THE BLACK SEA UP AND DOWN THE WAVES OF OIL. Not only is it an issue with cost; there's an issue with the environment. Even if there's an alternative to oil, we need to be responsible adults and take charge of the situation in how we affect the world around us. It's the same reason you don't start a county dump in your front yard if you live around other people. It's that kind of common respect you should want to give your fellow man. I mean, I totally understand if oil was the only way a car could get from point A to B, but seriously, we've had alternate fuels since before the 1940's. Furthermore: they need to STOP MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THEY CARE. We know they don't. It's just like EXXON Mobile saying that they care about alternative fuel sources....

YOU'RE AN OIL COMPANY! NO... NO YOU DON'T.

Unless of course it's to patten it before someone else releases it on the market. They're getting government subsidies to sit on their hands and fondle their wallets. Someone just needs to keep it real. That's all I saying.

There’s just that little problem of disposing of the waste tsk . . .

Isadore Olivia Pine — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:58:44 EDT

This inconvenient truth is brought to you by . . .
http://www.thesaucywench.com

Signed,
Issy Olivia Pine
(And I am unanimous in this!)

The DNC Launches New Web Site

Cindy in Salt Lake — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 11:35:08 EDT

The DNC has launched a new web site, www.ExxonMcCain.com.
I personally have not filled my tank at an Exxon station since the Exxon-Valdez oil spill on March 24, 1989, considered to be "one of the most devastating man-made environmental disasters ever to occur at sea".

Barack, please "Follow our money"

Doug Grandt — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:44:26 EDT

Joe Romm posted "Follow your money" August 2nd and one of the responders issued a call to action for Barack:
Dennis wrote -
It’s not just our money we need to follow; in many cases, it’s also our oil. Just who owns the land (and seabed) these companies want to drill on? We do! The prices they pay for “leases” are nothing compared to their profits. With oil being pumped out on OUR land at $120+ per barrel, all those excess profits by right out to be the public’s, for the purpose of getting our country off oil and on renewables. Obama needs to start making this argument NOW.

Another response by Rod Adams is a must read ... I encourage all to read it.
This is an serious situation that many not be aware of, so I feel inclined (ever so humbly) to copy my response to Rod here ... PLEASE MAKE THE PHONE CALLS to the numbers listed below:

McCain’s “Pork Barrel” Claim Is Laughable

Al Pao in San Francisco — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:09:20 EDT

McCain said Senator Obama voted for "pork-barrel" spending time and time again. Although I am not a fan of "pork-barrel" spending, it is nonetheless DOMESTIC STIMULUS SPENDING, targeted at non-defense related activities all across the country.
What McCain forgot to mention was that he voted for the IRAQ war which has resulted in more money being wasted on a sectarian issue within a sovereign that had no bearing on making the United States any safer from terrorism.
The huge amount of money that is being spent by the defense department is also a kind of economic stimulus. However, the two main areas that the McCain spending seem to have stimulated most are an increase in revenues (in billions of dollars) for a select group of war profiteers, including Exxon, and an increase in gasoline prices for consumers.
The same money could have gone into infrastructure, which would have created jobs over a broad spectrum of industries, and into education, which would ensure the next generation of Americans would be well prepared for competition in the global economy, which is already upon us.

Exxon Mobil 2Q profit sets US record, shares fall

Henry M — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 13:41:56 EDT

The pretense of oil/gas shortages didn't stop Exxon Mobil, but maybe their investors see the possibility that a change is gonna come: http://tinyurl.com/5ug4fk
When there was a gas shortage in the '70's, there was rationing. If there really was a serious shortage now, would the oil companies permit the McShame dynasty to hurt their profits by not allowing them to sell as much at as high a price as possible?
Support Obama with the Truth!
Thanks.
Henry M
Please contribute to Obama if you can: http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/PListe4Obama
If you appreciate my blog, then how about being my friend on the My.BarackObama.com network: http://my.barackobama.com/page/socialnet/register/33qzpcr2sl

"Unconditional " Surrender

Deena Stryker — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:28:57 EDT

The right has a way of using phrases invented in one context, and having one meaning, to serve in another context, with a totally different meaning.
The term “unconditional surrender” was used at the end of the second world war to communicate that the defeated axis powers could pose no conditions to ceasing combat, by opposition to previous wars where each side could lay down conditions for ceasing hostilities.
Senator John McCain has been using the term to refer to the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, stating that it would be equivalent to “unconditional surrender”. In terms of war, we defeated Saddam’s army. Victorious, occupying armies are expected to eventually withdraw. To not withdraw from a sovereign country whose government requests it, is an act of war, which would require another “victory”. An intrepid journalist should ask Senator McCain what further “victory” he is seeking in Iraq, since Al Qaeda is holed up in the hills of Pakistan. Is he referring to the victory of one Shiite faction (Al Malaki’s) over another (Al Sadr’s)? The return to power of the Sunnis (Saudi Arabia’s allies)?
Or maybe just the signing away of Iraq’s oil wealth to Exxon?
P.S. Barack Obama met with Al Malaki before he met with General Petraeus, in what I believe is a significant inversion of U.S. diplomatic practice.

20 Years Later Exxon Finishes Dumping on the Hardworking Americans of Prince William Sound

Leo — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:25:14 EDT
Antonin Scalia is a traitor to the hardworking Americans of this country, and Exxon as well as others have just been given permission to rape our natural resources with no fear of reprisal.

When I originally posted this blog about 3-4 months ago, in my worst imagined scenario I never thought that each plaintiff would only get $15,000.00 apiece as compensation for the destruction of their lives.

While you go about your working day- remember: Should you ever find yourself in the sights of corporate rule, and even your entire livelyhood be destroyed, you are worth no more than $15,000.00 to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Juxtaposition as Mind Control

Bigname Scientist — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 00:51:17 EDT

Individual Mind Control, aka Manchurian Candidate, is fiction. But Population Mind Control, aka psychological operations (psyops) and so called "Influence Science" does work. No individual can be forced to change their mind, but statistical sampling over time proves that some people do change their minds. Crowd psychology-based psycholinguistic and theatrical techniques can dramatically change the outcome of a poll or a vote. George Bush's popularity rating soared to 90% in September 2001.
Juxtaposition is more subtle, but here's how it works: Juxtapose a politician's picture next to an unrelated headline about a murder or a story about embezzlement, and watch their popularity ratings fall. Have authorities, who should have inside knowledge, like Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, and his "War Heads" shills repeately mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same breath, and polls will show that 70% of Americans came to believe Saddam was "behind" 9/11 (even though people previously believed the culprit was Bin Laden or other Islamic crazies, and Saddam was a secular dictator.)

Now McCain is running this picture ad all over the Internet. Not only does it misrepresent Obama's position on Diplomacy, but it juxtaposes Obama with the Reincarnation of Satan/Saddam, the unspellable Amadinajad!!! And the yes/no buttons don't even work!!
Well, it really sucks that this ad WILL be effective because of biologically-determined weaknesses in Human Psychology, that we subconsciously learn to associate spatial and temporal juxtapositions
Personally, I think Influence Science is an abuse of Psychology and should be banned. Until it is, I have taken the liberty of getting even with McCain's psyops team, with the following image juxtapositions:

My final image juxtaposition about McCain's campaign's use of his heroism so beyond the pale, that I can't preview it for polite company; please DON'T look!

PREVIOUS ENTRY

'Supreme' Giveaway to Big Oil

Neal — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:40:58 EDT
This is a HUGE story: the 'supremes' have cut back the ExxonMobil punitive damage award by 90%. This means that residents, neighbors, Native Americans, who have been waiting for almost 20 years, some who lost their jobs, food sources, and homes to the spill in 1989, will get only a tenth of the compensation they deserve for the incredible consequences of ExxonMobil's actions. See:

http://www3.gregpalast.com/court-rewards-exxon-for-valdez-oil-spill/

This has big impacts for all of us. Big oil wants to 'guarantee' that drilling a mile offshore is safe? Then why not address the safety problems rather than fight us in court for 20 years? The truth is that we can never trust them to put safety in front of profits.

Moreover, the ruling has generally limited our ability to encourage good corporate behavior. Punitive damages have been limited by the 'justices' to a 1:1 ratio in this ruling. This means that the punitive damages can, at a maximum, only go up to the cost of compensating for any losses. They reached this maximum from some very faulty statistical arguments, by the way. There is no way to make the cost high enough so that corporations will address safety concerns in the future.

I believe we should do everything in our power to make sure that our citizens are outraged over this decision.

EXXON DECISION: WHY ALASKANS MUST VOTE FOR CHANGE...

Elstun — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:41:37 EDT
>Note. The following is from the Anchorage Daily News comments on the Supreme Court's decision handed down today. For the information of non-Alaskans, Cordova has come to typify the "oiled communities" impacted by the EVOS (Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill). Over the years, we have all been by-standers to the continuing insult that remains on the beaches and in the waters of Prince William Sound. The fisheries have declined, residents forced to abandon their homes and lifestyles; cultural decline can be symbolized by the death of the last Eyak speaker from the region. The two Bush appointees on the supreme court provided the margin of victory for Exxon.

Here is the presidential vote results from 2004 and 2000 from Cordova. Talk about some people voting with their heads up their @ss3s!

The Exxon decision is a final warning to Alaska: Change in 2008!

Respect to "Rockin_Mel_Slurrup who posted the info on the ADN Website.

In 2004, Cordova residents voted for President in the following manner:

Turnout: 46.08%
Kerry/Edwards: 303 votes
Bush/Cheney: 483 votes
Loonies: 35 votes

In 2000, Cordova residents voted for President in the following manner:

Turnout: 41.64%
Gore/Lieberman: 256 votes
Bush/Cheney: 469 votes
Loonies: 162 votes

Cordova has approximately 2,300 residents. If the conservative U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of Exxon by either reducing or eliminating the punitive damage amount, I will only feel sorry for exactly 42.7% of Cordova's residents: those who did not or could not vote against their own self-interests by voting for George Bush and Dick Cheney and the right-wingers that they have appointed to the Supreme Court.

May those 42.7% shun the other 57.3%.

King George and his final gift to big oil

Rick Adis — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:28:42 EDT

I have decided to call Predident George W. Bush "King George" since he appears to have lost sight of his roll in the American political process. Perhaps his appointment by his dad's friends on the Supreme Court launching his loosing career as President may have gone to his head. Especially since he seems to think the Constitution of the United States is irrelevant and that he has acquired special powers granted to him perhaps by himself or John Yu. Just in case you are not familiar with YU he was one of the main government attorneys responsible for Gitmo and tapping our phones.
Maybe I give King George to much credit. But, can anyone really be so stupid? No my friends, it has to be more than just good old fashion stupidity. Guess what?? It's all about greed, power and oil. Remember the secret energy meeting with VP. Dick Cheney and the heads of the oil companys? I'm sure they were not discussing the weather in Florida. Now mind you I am not a conspiracy nut however, there are just to many unanswered questions. But, enough of all that.
Speaking of memory, remember six months or so ago when John McCain's campaign was on the rocks? Broke and failing the press had already written him off. His mavrick ideas destined for oblivion? Wow!! What happened? He got a shot in the arm from the RNC. Why would they do that? Well perhaps it was because, like Bush, McCain suddenly wants to give tax breaks to folks making more than $250,000.00 per year. (Wish I made that) McCain, like Bush, reversed his position and now magically wants to drill off the continental shelf and at ANWR in Alaska. (Wish I could have been a fly on the wall at the RNC meeting with McCain)
Bush in his continuing effortrs to return political favors and knowing his days are numbered is trying, through the RNC surrogate, John McCain to tie up the loose ends for the oil companys and deliver whats left for oil drilling and exploration. His final gift to the corporations who have faithfully supported his failed presidency.
Why do I think that? Lets look at the fact oil companies already have leases for thousands of square miles of land and coastline but, are using less than twenty one percent of the area. This leaves more than seventy nine percent unused. So why does Bush/McCain continue to espouse the virtues of off shore drilling and drilling ANWR? Especially when the oil companys are not using this area and folks like Exxon - Mobile are reporting record profits of some after tax revenue of $11,000,000.00 for the first 1/4 of this year. By the way, Exxon is not alone in record profits. Chevron, BP, and others are enjoying mega profits at our expence. Consider also the fact, oil refining is running at 89% capacity. Even if we had all the crude the world had to offer we couldn't refine it. At least not until oil companies sepend some of that mege profit and build one or two.
Sounds like a Bush / oil Christmas to me.


An Oil company tax that'll actually work!!

Rene from Lewiston, ME — Sun, 04 May 2008 10:37:31 EDT

If we really want to lower gas prices give the OIL companies tax breaks or rebates!! READ ON !!!
Wind power, Solar, Electric cars, Ethanol wont work. Those are long term solutions 20 years away and we can't wait that long. OIL is the answer! The more oil supplies we have the lower the prices will be. Don't kid your self, there is plenty of oil to be drilled for the next 50 years plus. Oil companies purposely produce just enough to barley meet demand to drive prices way up. If they saturate the market by producing more ,prices will drop and they'll lose money.
SOLUTION! Take away all tax breaks the oil companies are getting right now. Change it so they get tax breaks based on how much oil they produce. The more oil they put into the market the bigger tax break they'll get.



His Boy Enron update: Exxon Mobil Fights to further Lower Valdez Spill Damages Settlement 20 Years Later

Leo — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:15:40 EST

His Boy Enron update: (originally Posted on MySpace Feb 28th)
Exxon Mobil yesterday continued it's fight to lower the $2.5B award, (which accompanied their conviction), for the Valdez oil spill- 'members that-back-20-years what might warrant-a-penalty?'

The current award equals about three weeks of Exxon's current net profits.

Exxon Mobil: "You mean we might have to pay $5B every time we have a spill that destroys 1100 miles of beautiful coastline along with all the fish/fishing industry...EVERYTIME!??! That's expensive man!"

Checkit: I can't believe Exxon doesn't realize what a great deal this is! Prince William Sound was 1,100 miles of contaminated coastline. Almost a perfect 1000 mile cost benchmark which we'll estimate a worst-case scenario of $5B. Including interest.

$5B per each cataclysmic oil-spill-event!? Hell! Give me half-a-dozen!
It only equivocates to 66.6% of ONE years-current-net-profits! Exxon Mobil still pockets $16.8B!!! And liberals say that self-regulation doesn't work!

Horse-feathers!

Exxon Valdez

Sam — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:45:55 EST

It is incredible to me that there is even debate on this case. But I suppose that shows the kind of power that a huge company like Exxon has. Exxon claims that because they had already dealt with the maritime laws on spills, they should not have to pay punitive damages. In fact, they believe they should not have to pay at all. Ginsberg asked under what laws they could claim such things, and shot down every single one that the lawyers gave. However, as her time ran out, Scalia came to Exxon’s rescue. What a surprise. The fact is, Exxon knew this captain was an alcoholic and had been drinking on the job for three years. They took the risk by employing untrustworthy personnel and must now pay the consequences. They have destroyed the fishing industry in Alaska, killed the land’s natural beauty, and made the groundwater unfit for human use. We can still see the effects of this spill today; there is physical evidence. To claim that no harm has been done is completely and blatantly untrue. If a surgeon drinks on the job and kills a man, he is held up to the full extent of the law. Why should an oil company be any different? Exxon should pay for any and all damages they have caused. It also amazes me that this case is even in the Supreme Court. All of the lower courts ruled in Alaska’s favor and yet somehow they feel that all of these courts must have been wrong. Just as any other company, Exxon should be fined and pay reparations for all the damages they caused by their irresponsibility. They have fired the Captain responsible but the thirty-three others known to have drunk with him are still on the job and recently received bonuses.

IMPORTANT!!!! Exxon 11 Billion in Profit, 1 Billion of which from US Gov't HANDOUTS!!

Corey C. - visionary and idealist: INSPIRED BY HOPE! — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:16:34 EST

To think we would actual have a non-establishment president come in and allow the average American even MORE access to something like this!:

Because of Obama's Transparency Act, the website usaspending.gov exists.
What i found this morning shocked me!
Exxon made 11 billion last year.
10 Billion from jacked up oil prices by OPEC.
1 From HANDOUTS by the US Government!
Ill post what i saw below, but go check your self!
Go to usaspending.gov
Click on CONTRACTS at the top
Type in ANY company name!
List of Contractor Parent Companies for FY 2007 You can click on the column headers below to re-sort the search.
Parent Company NameContractor Name(s)Total Amount (for this search)
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATIONEXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (9005), ESSO BAYERN GMBH, EXXON COMPANY, USA, MOBIL OIL CORPORATION, ENGYCALOR ENERGIA CALORE SRL $23,791,509
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATIONEXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION (1570)   $307,210
DAVISON'S EXXON SERVICEDAVISONS EXXON SERVICE $107,292
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (unknown parent company, no D & B number)EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION $47,343,785
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (9005) (unknown parent company, no D & B number)EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION (9005) $949,152,285!!!!!!
EXXON MOBIL DE COLOMBIA S.A. (miscellaneous foreign contractor)EXXON MOBIL DE COLOMBIA S.A.$13,021
EXXON MOBIL SALES AND SUPPLY COMPANY (miscellaneous foreign contractor)EXXON MOBIL SALES AND SUPPLY COMPANY$11,340
EXXON-MOBIL DE COLOMBIA (miscellaneous foreign contractor)EXXON-MOBIL DE COLOMBIA$17,607
Total parent companies for fiscal year 2007: 8

Total funding (within this search) for the year: $1,020,744,050

This total is 0.3% of all awarded dollars for the fiscal year.

Don't think it's time for energy independence?

RNC_for_Obama — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:45:25 EST

While Bush travels to Saudi Arabia to beg them to pump more oil, and thereby, reducing the US to beggar status, Exxon oil rakes in record profits.
Exxon shatters all-time profit recordWorld's biggest oil company books $11.7 billion in profits during the quarter, blowing past estimates.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?postversion=2008020108