| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Oil execs to Congress: Don't blame us | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 1 2008, 09:31 PM (106 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Apr 1 2008, 09:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Time to put something here
|
"Simon said" ![]() "He said over the past five years Exxon Mobil's U.S. tax bill exceeded its U.S. earnings by $19 billion." this means nothing with out other data to suport its relivence. "Independent truck drivers staged protests around the country Tuesday against the rising cost of diesel fuel, complaining that they can no longer make a living when it costs more than $1,000 to fill up their tanks." This bothers me the most from this artical. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., told the executives, "Your approval rating is lower than ours and that means you're down low." its good to know that congress is not compleatly obliviuse. "Robertson noted that the U.S. Energy Information Agency has forecast that oil, coal and natural gas will provide about 86 percent of the world's energy needs over the next 25 years. "So essentially we're going to be in a fossil fuel environment for some time," Robertson said. But he added that the company will invest $2.5 billion over the next two years in renewables and its growing energy efficiency consulting business." I find this to be a bad aditude for many current american companies. Its what doomed the old engery companies when oil came around and it looks like it will now doom the oil companies. They should be looking more long term. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 2 2008, 09:10 AM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I thought the other reason energy company chairmen were brought before congress was to browbeat them about not spending all of their profits developing so-called "alternative" energy sources. The article didn't mention it. The reason why energy companies are diving into so-called alternative energy (natural gas, solar, anything but nuclear) is because there's no real return in it for them. A company is, first and foremost, responsible to shareholders. Who are those shareholders? The individual investor, the mutual fund holder, or pretty much anyone who has a retirement plan. (This lecture was not for Dante, but rather for those posters who immediately will fix blame on the "evil Bush regime and his cronies in the industry.") EDIT: For Dante. I wish they'd look more long term as well, as I'm looking at companies like ExxonMobil to fund my retirement... in 15-20 years. Too many people want immediate results, and that's what drives a lot of policy. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Apr 2 2008, 09:14 AM Post #3 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I don't doubt it, but then again Exxon is a world-wide company. Not all earnings are taxed here, and we do have high corporate income taxes in the US. So, the statement is factually correct, but still spin. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Apr 2 2008, 09:39 AM Post #4 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Its an interesting concept for global companies. While in school almost half of a global business class we took was centered on moving generated earnings in order to minimize tax exposure. In simulation US earnings where always artificially lowered. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



9:32 AM Jul 11