It appears that the U.S. recession isn't hitting Exxon Mobile. From MSNBC News:
HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp. on Friday reported a profit of $45.2 billion for 2008, breaking its own record for a U.S. company, even as its fourth-quarter earnings fell 33 percent from a year ago.
The previous record for annual profit was $40.6 billion, which the world's largest publicly traded oil company set in 2007.
The extraordinary full-year profit wasn't a surprise given crude's triple-digit price for much of 2008, peaking near an unheard of $150 a barrel in July. Since then, however, prices have fallen roughly 70 percent amid a deepening global economic crisis.
In the fourth quarter alone crude tumbled 60 percent, prompting spending and job cuts in an industry that was reporting robust, often record, profits as recently as last summer.
With piles of cash and diversified operations, the majors like Exxon Mobil have fared better than many smaller oil and gas companies, but Friday's results show no one is completely insulated from the ongoing malaise.
Irving, Texas-based Exxon said net income slid sharply to $7.8 billion, or $1.55 a share, in the October-December period. That compared to $11.7 billion, or $2.13 a share, in the same period a year ago, when Exxon set a U.S. record for quarterly profit. It has since topped that mark twice, first in last year's second quarter and then with earnings of $14.83 billion in the third quarter.
So, is Exxon going to be redecorating their corporate offices? Buying any new corporate jets?
VIENNA, Austria - Oil prices spiked to a new trading high Tuesday, sweeping toward $130 a barrel as supply concerns intensified the momentum buying that has lifted crude deeper into record territory. Gasoline, meanwhile, reached an average of $3.80 at the pump for the first time.
The June contract for light, sweet crude traded as high as $129.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange before settling back to $129.43, up $2.38. The imminent expiration of that contract created additional volatility in the market, and raised the very real possibility that crude could hit $130 before the end of the day, when the contract was ending.
Oil’s trek toward $130 coincided with the Labor Department’s report of an unexpectedly sharp rise in wholesale inflation last month. The combination raised fears that inflation will slice into Americans’ discretionary spending, and that sent stocks falling sharply on Wall Street.
Retail fuel prices also shattered records. The national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline touched $3.80, according to AAA and the Oil Price Information Service, while diesel jumped nearly 2 cents to a record $4.54 a gallon. Gas prices are up about 19 percent from this time last year.
Jim Ritterbusch, president of oil trading advisory firm Ritterbusch & Associates in Galena, Ill., said oil prices were being supported by strong demand for diesel fuel in Asia, and a weakening of the U.S. dollar against the euro, which makes oil cheaper for some investors overseas.
A couple of comments here. First, we're heading into the Memorial Day weekend, which is the start of the big summer driving season for Americans. Gas prices spike during the summer months as Americans take their summer driving trips, and vacations. But with gas prices going over $4.00 a gallon, I wonder just how many Americans are willing to take a summer driving trip? I'm sure there is a greater worldwide demand for gas that is outstripping the supply here, but I still have to wonder if we're seeing some price gouging taking place with the oil companies.
For the week ending May 11, the EIA reported that the nation's 149 oil refineries operated at 89.5% of their total capacity, processing 15.3 million barrels of crude oil per day, up .5% from a year ago. The refineries produced 9.1 million barrels of gasoline per day, up from the previous week.
Drivers, however, used 9.3 million barrels of gasoline per day, 1 percent more than a year ago. The United States has had to import 11.5 million barrels of gasoline per day. For the year, Americans have been consuming an average of 9.1 million barrels of gasoline per day, up just more than 1.7 percent from the same period a year ago.
The EIA reports that as of 2006, the nation's 149 refiners could process more than 17.3 million barrels of crude oil a day. As recently as 2001 there were 155 refineries nationwide that had a maximum capacity of 16.6 million barrels of crude a day.
Refinery capacity peaked in 1981, when there were 324 refineries that could process a total of 18.6 million barrels of crude oil per day.
More than quarter of a century later, there are now less than half that number of refineries, but they have a larger refining capacity thanks to newer, more technically advanced refining technology.
The number of refineries in the U.S. have actually dropped from 324 refineries in 1981 to 149 refineries in 2006. Granted these 149 refineries have a greater refining capacity due to technological advances, but they are processing less oil today than in 1981, down from 18.6 million barrels of oil processed by 324 refineries in 1981 to 15.3 million barrels processed by 149 refineries for today. Big oil companies have cut back on their refining capacity. The refineries are producing 9.1 million barrels of gas per day, while drivers are using 9.3 million barrels of gas per day. It is almost like there is a built-in shortage in refining that Big Oil can exploit in raising gas prices on consumers. According to energy economist Philip Verleger, "Crude oil could be free and you'd still have these high prices because you can't make enough gasoline." This is a problem that has been going on for years, even to the point where, in October 2005, Shell Oil President John Hofmeister said that Shell Oil will not build any more refineries, even as President Bush and Congress provided incentives for oil companies to expand their refinery capacity.
DETROIT — Soaring gas prices have turned the steady migration by Americans to smaller cars into a stampede.
In what industry analysts are calling a first, about one in five vehicles sold in the United States was a compact or subcompact car during April, based on monthly sales data released Thursday. Almost a decade ago, when sport utility vehicles were at their peak of popularity, only one in every eight vehicles sold was a small car.
The switch to smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles has been building in recent years, but has accelerated recently with the advent of $3.50-a-gallon gas. At the same time, sales of pickup trucks and large sport utility vehicles have dropped sharply.
In another first, fuel-sipping four-cylinder engines surpassed six-cylinder models in popularity in April.
“It’s easily the most dramatic segment shift I have witnessed in the market in my 31 years here,” said George Pipas, chief sales analyst for the Ford Motor Company.
The trend toward smaller and lighter vehicles with better mileage is a blow to Detroit automakers, which offer fewer such models than Asian carmakers like Toyota and Honda. Moreover, the decline of S.U.V.’s and pickups has curtailed the biggest source of profits for General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.
Once considered an unattractive and cheap alternative to large cars and S.U.V.’s, compacts have become the new star of the showroom at a time when overall industry sales are falling.
Sales of Toyota’s subcompact Yaris increased 46 percent, and Honda’s tiny Fit had a record month. Ford’s compact Focus model jumped 32 percent in April from a year earlier. All those models are rated at more than 30 miles per gallon for highway driving.
Okay, gas prices shoot up to $4.00 a gallon. This results in Americans spending around $80 to $100 to fill up their gas-guzzling SUV fuel tanks. So what are Americans doing in the face of these high gas prices?
They buy gas miser cars. And what is funny is that we've seen this type of behavior before. According to the NY Times story:
Previous spikes in sales of smaller cars were often a result of consumers trading down during tough economic conditions or gas-price increases. When the economy improved or fuel prices dropped again — as they did after the oil-price shocks in the 1970s eased — buyers invariably went back to bigger vehicles.
Back in the days of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, Americans were caught driving Big Detroit Iron with big appetites for gas. The Detroit Big Three car companies of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, never bothered researching into smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles--vehicles that the Japanese car companies were selling on the market back then. When gas prices shot up, Americans suddenly flocked to the new Japanese car companies of Toyota, Datsun (now Nissan), and even Honda, leaving Detroit with a surplus of gas-guzzling cars that nobody wanted to buy.
Update: Here is an MSNBC story, reporting Detroit Big Three auto sales plummeting in April:
DETROIT - General Motors, Ford and Chrysler saw double-digit U.S. sales declines, but Toyota’s sales edged up 3 percent in April, as high gas prices accelerated consumers’ rush away from trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Weak sales were expected throughout the industry as gas prices rose to record highs. Automakers reported sales Thursday.
General Motors Corp. said its truck and SUV sales were down 27 percent, dragging down increases in car and crossover sales and GM’s best-ever month for hybrids. GM’s overall sales were down 16 percent for the month compared with last April.
“Consumer preference is shifting, and we’re shifting with it,” said Mark LaNeve, GM’s vice president of North American sales. Sales of GM’s midsize Chevrolet Malibu shot up 40 percent, but the long popular Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV saw sales dip 73 percent.
GM said it produced 130,000 fewer vehicles in April due to an ongoing strike at supplier American Axle and Manufacturing Holdings Inc., which has affected 30 plants. LaNeve said the production cuts didn’t affect sales to individual customers because of the company’s large inventory of trucks and SUVs. But LaNeve said GM cut 15,000 sales to rental and commercial fleets in April because of the strike.
Ford Motor Co. said its SUV sales were down 36 percent in April compared with the same month last year, and its overall sales were down 12 percent. Car sales were down only 1 percent, buoyed by sales of the Ford Focus small car, which saw a 44 percent jump in sales. The Focus gets 24 miles per gallon in the city and 33 on the highway. By comparison, Ford’s largest SUV, the Expedition, gets 12 miles per gallon in the city and 18 on the highway.
George Pipas, Ford’s top sales analyst, said retail — or non-fleet — sales of passenger cars exceeded trucks and sport utility vehicles combined for the first time in at least 20 years.
“It’s such a new world for us, because as you well know, for the better part of the last two decades, we’ve been a truck and SUV company predominantly,” Pipas said. “So this requires a big shift in our culture, in our training and our thinking. Not only for Ford but our dealers.”
Toyota Motor Corp. said its car sales rose 12 percent, largely on the strength of the subcompact Yaris, which saw sales rise 46 percent and the hybrid Prius, which was up 54 percent. Toyota’s truck and SUV sales dropped 8 percent.
Again, American consumers are being turned off by the gas-guzzling SUVs that have been Detroit's mainstay for possibly 20 years. And again, they are turning towards the popular Japanese hybrids like the Toyota Prius, and the subcompact Yaris--of which both have had strong sales increases. And if you look at Toyota's sales, their truck and SUV market has dropped by 8 percent, but their car sales have increased by 12 percent on the strength of the increased sales of both the Prius and Yaris. Toyota covered both the SUV market and the combined hybrid and subcompact market to balance out the drop in the SUV market with the rise in combined fuel efficient hybrid and subcompact market. Toyota increases their sales in the long-term. Compare that with the Detroit car companies, who were interested in selling high-profit, gas-guzzling SUVs to American consumers, and not making the investment into smaller cars or hybrids to cover the possible shift in car sales as a result of high gas prices. Detroit has never learned the lessons of the 1973 Arab oil embargo.
NEW YORK - Gas and oil prices pushed further into record high territory Tuesday, with retail gas reaching a national average of $3.51 for the first time and crude nearing $120 as the dollar fell to a new low against the euro.
At the pump, the national average price of a gallon of regular gas rose 0.8 cent Tuesday to $3.511, according to a survey of stations by AAA and the Oil Price Information Service. Prices for diesel — used to transport most food, industrial and commercial goods — also rose overnight to a new record of $4.204 a gallon.
Gas prices are nearly 66 cents higher than last year, when they peaked at a then-record of $3.23 in late May, and have prompted many analysts to raise their estimates of where gas is going to go.
“I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that we could get to $4,” said Antoine Halff, an analyst at Newedge USA LLC.
Other analysts are less certain. Fred Rozell, retail pricing director at the Oil Price Information Service, thinks gas prices will rise only another 10 cents to 20 cents nationally. That would mean they would peak near $4.15 a gallon in California, where prices are typically highest, and around $3.50 in New Jersey, where they’re typically lowest.
WASHINGTON - Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.
Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.
Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.
The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.
Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.
Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.
Think about it for a moment. The U.S. military is stuck in an endless war in Iraq. The Middle East private and government-owned oil companies are more than happy to charge the Pentagon whatever they feel is the market price for gas that day--remember, the Pentagon is buying 50 million gallons of fuel a month on the open market. And while some suppliers are charging a low price of around $1.99 a gallon, and others are charging over $5.00 a gallon, the prices average out to around $3.23 a gallon for gas. If the U.S. military doesn't purchase their gas from these Middle Eastern energy suppliers, you can bet that there will be a lot of U.S. military trucks, tanks, helicopters, and airplanes sitting with empty gas tanks. You can also bet that the Bush administration will not do a damn thing about this issue of high gas prices for the Pentagon--private suppliers gathering around the American taxpayer trough to pig out on their fill!
DETROIT - Automakers got hit where it hurts in February, with U.S. sales of their most profitable vehicles — trucks, sport utilities and large sedans — plunging as consumers reacted to high gas prices and the possible recession. General Motors and Ford announced second-quarter production cuts in the face of falling U.S. sales.
General Motors reported a sales decline of almost 13 percent while Ford's sales slumped 7 percent, Chrysler's tumbled 8 percent and Toyota's fell 3 percent. It was expected to be a difficult month for automakers as consumer confidence continued its slide. Declines in home construction have also significantly weakened truck sales.
GM said its sales decline was led by a 19 percent drop in sales of trucks and SUVs. Sales of Chevrolet full-size pickups were down 29 percent for the month. Large sedans didn't fare much better; sales of the full-size Buick Lucerne were down 26 percent. GM's sales dropped 6 percent in the first two months of the year.
Detroit's Big Three has been pushing too many gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs on the American consumer. Those big trucks and SUVs represent fat profits for Detroit automakers. The problem for GM, Ford, and Chrysler is that when they were raking in the big profits on their fuel-inefficient vehicles, they were ignoring the need for investing in new gas-saving vehicles, and hybrid technology. And just like during the 1970s Arab Oil Embargo, American consumers today are dumping their gas-guzzling vehicles for the Japanese hybrids. And Detroit is playing catch-up again.
I found two sets of stories that I want to talk about. The first is this story off The Washington Post:
Inflation spiked in 2007, driven by escalating food and energy costs that more than cancelled the wage gains earned by workers over the year.
New federal government statistics show the consumer price index rose 4.1 percent over the 12 months ending in December, 2007, compared to a 2.5 percent increase in the 12 months before that. Energy prices, responding to a surge in the cost of oil, rose 17.4 percent over the period. The price of food increased 4.9 percent -- the largest rise in 18 years.
Excluding volatile food and energy costs, so-called core inflation was more moderate as consumers benefited from lower prices for housing, apparel and other goods. The core inflation rate, closely watched by economists, was 2.4 percent over the 12 month period, slightly below the 2.6 percent increase registered in 2006.
Still, the overall rate of inflation left consumers with less money in their pockets by the end of the year -- a fact reflected in the poor December retail sales results that helped push markets sharply lower yesterday. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today that, once discounted for rising prices, the wages of American workers fell 0.9 percent between December 2006 and December 2007.
And I want to look at all these interesting news headlines hyping a potential U.S. recession:
This shouldn't be really surprising, considering how high oil prices have been over the past year. From MSNBC News:
NEW YORK - Oil futures rose to a new record over $100 a barrel Thursday after the government reported a larger-than-expected decline in crude oil inventories and an unexpected rise in heating oil supplies.
One day after oil prices briefly touched $100 for the first time, the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said crude inventories fell by 4 million barrels last week, much more than the 1.7 million barrel decline analysts surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires, on average, had expected.
On the other hand, inventories of distillates, which include heating oil and diesel fuel, rose by 600,000 barrels, countering analyst expectations that distillate supplies would fall by 600,000 barrels. And supplies of gasoline rose by 1.9 million barrels, more than the 1.3 million-barrel increase analysts had expected.
Light, sweet crude for February delivery fell 27 cents to $99.35 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange after earlier rising to $100.09, a trading record. Prices fluctuated in light trading as investors struggled to interpret the EIA data.
Here is a graph showing the rise in oil prices since August 2007:
Graph showing price of light, sweet, crude oil prices. From StockCharts.com
According to this daily graph, oil prices have been going up since August 2007, and have been hovering within the $90 dollar range since November. It was only a matter of time before oil would hit $100 a barrel. If this trend of price increases on oil continues, we could be seeing oil rising well above $100 a barrel throughout 2008--especially if the Bush administration decides to attack Iran, or if even greater violence takes place in the Iraq. We could be seeing even higher energy and gas prices throughout this year, or at least having oil hovering between $90 to $100 dollar range.
And this will not be good to have the issue of high energy prices taking stage in this 2008 presidential election, especially with our current failed GOP president George Bush residing in the White House.
In the past 10 weeks, the price of crude oil has shot up $25 a barrel, closing at $95.93 in New York on Friday, near an all-time inflation-adjusted peak. Unlike earlier spikes in oil prices, which came on the heels of war in the Middle East, this latest ascent does not appear to be linked to any one conflict or to any physical shortage.
Instead, traders who treat oil like any other commodity are widely thought to be driving prices upward, bolstered by a weak dollar and money flowing out of stock markets and other investment vehicles.
So far U.S. consumers have not felt the full impact. Sluggish U.S. gasoline demand over the past two months has made it hard for oil giants to pass through higher costs; refinery profit margins, which hit records in the spring, have been squeezed. But if high crude oil prices persist, they will flow through to the gas pump. Yesterday, the Lundberg Survey reported that the average retail price of regular gasoline is up 16 cents in the past two weeks to $2.96 a gallon.
Many veteran oil analysts say this is a bubble. Oil is historically a cyclical business. Modestly higher production by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a warm winter, slower U.S. economic growth and a flattening of demand in the United States could puncture these lofty prices.
"It just seems that the market is spasming here," said Adam Robinson, an oil analyst at Lehman Brothers. If slowly declining petroleum inventories start to build again, he said, "the radical increase we've seen to the upside can repeat on the way down." Oppenheimer & Sons analyst Fadel Gheit says oil is $30 a barrel overpriced.
Did you catch what the Washington Post isn't saying about this story? It is speculation that is driving the price of oil into the stratosphere. And the speculation on oil is probably caused by outright greed on the trader's part. Four paragraphs down into this story, the WaPost reports that Many veteran oil analysts say this is a bubble.
A U.S. military strike against Iran would have dire consequences in petroleum markets, say a variety of oil industry experts, many of whom think the prospect of pandemonium in those markets makes U.S. military action unlikely despite escalating economic sanctions imposed by the Bush administration.
The small amount of excess oil production capacity worldwide would provide an insufficient cushion if armed conflict disrupted supplies, oil experts say, and petroleum prices would skyrocket. Moreover, a wounded or angry Iran could easily retaliate against oil facilities from southern Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz.
Oil prices closed at a record $90.46 a barrel in New York yesterday as the Bush administration tightened U.S. financial sanctions on Iran over its alleged support for terrorism and issued new warnings about Tehran's nuclear program. Tension between Turkey and Kurds in northern Iraq, and fresh doubts about OPEC output levels also helped drive the price of oil up $3.36 a barrel, or 3.8 percent.
Oil traders said that even if the chances of military conflict with Iran were small, the huge run-up in oil prices that would result encourages some speculators and investment funds to bid up the price of oil, adding a premium of $3 to $15 a barrel.
"It will be chaos. . . . I can't really see it," said Abdulsamad al-Awadi, an oil trading consultant and former executive at Kuwait Petroleum. "Having been in the marketplace for almost 30 years, I can't see a scenario for it. Or precautionary measures [that oil companies could take]. There are no precautionary measures."
"If war breaks out, anticipate that all hell will break loose in the oil markets," said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, a Washington oil consulting firm.
There is not much else to say here, except that a U.S. strike on Iran would certainly cause oil prices to spike well above $100 a barrel--perhaps $110 to $120 a barrel. And along with oil prices, you can expect gas prices to spike as well. The scary thing here is that we've got Vice President Dick Cheney practically demanding a U.S. strike against Iran:
Although the Bush administration is not openly threatening a military strike against Iran, the president recently spoke of needing to avoid "World War III," and Vice President Cheney said that the United States would "not stand by" while Iran continued its nuclear program. "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," he said. Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Bush is "committed to a diplomatic course on Iran," but she added that U.S. patience is "not limitless and allies need to know that."
"These crises have a habit of bursting on the scene and leading to unforeseen places," [Deputy executive director and chief economist of the Center for Global Energy Studies Leo] Drollas said. "Everyone wants it not to happen, but it's like a crash happening slowly. You can see the two cars coming toward each other . . . There's an inevitability about it."
A confidential list prepared by the Bush administration shows that Cheney and his aides had already held at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries. By the time of the meeting with environmental groups, according to a former White House official who provided the list to The Washington Post, the initial draft of the task force was substantially complete and President Bush had been briefed on its progress.
In all, about 300 groups and individuals met with staff members of the energy task force, including a handful who saw Cheney himself, according to the list, which was compiled in the summer of 2001. For six years, those names have been a closely guarded secret, thanks to a fierce legal battle waged by the White House. Some names have leaked out over the years, but most have remained hidden because of a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that agreed that the administration's internal deliberations ought to be shielded from outside scrutiny.
[....]
The list of participants' names and when they met with administration officials provides a clearer picture of the task force's priorities and bolsters previous reports that the review leaned heavily on oil and gas companies and on trade groups -- many of them big contributors to the Bush campaign and the Republican Party. But while it clears up much of the lingering uncertainty about who was granted access to present energy policy views to Cheney's staff, it does not entirely explain why the Bush administration fought so hard to keep it and other as-yet-unreleased internal memos secret.
Contacted over the past week, several people who met with the task force's staff described their meetings as part of a normal "interagency" review of major domestic policy and expressed bewilderment that the White House and Cheney labored to keep the deliberations out of the public eye.
"I never knew why they fought so hard to keep it secret," said Charles A. Samuels, outside counsel to the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, which participated in a March 13 meeting to discuss the idea of tax credits for super-efficient appliances. "I am sure the vast majority of the meetings were very policy-oriented meetings -- exactly what should take place."
Provided a copy of the list, Cheney's office said he would not comment on it. "The vice president has respectfully but resolutely maintained the importance of protecting the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid advice on important national policy matters in confidence, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court," spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said by e-mail.
Here is the list from the Washington Post. I'm not surprised that Big Oil, Big Gas, Big Mining and other corporate interests attended these Energy Task Force meetings with the Vice President Dick Cheney--it is certainly within their business interests to present their talking points with the Bush administration, just as it is within the interests of environmental groups to present their own case to the administration. And I'm also not surprised that the Bush administration would adopt an energy policy that is basically a give-away to the Big Oil, Gas, and Mining interests for their own excessive profits. The real question I have is why did Vice President Cheney spend so much time and energy to keep this list secret? Is it because many of these industry executives on the list are also major campaign contributers to President Bush? Or is it because Cheney feels so strongly in the concept of a unitary executive that he can tell anyone to "frack off" for looking into the administration's activities or any oversight? I can't say.
But now that the list has been made public, I wonder if Congress will start another series of hearings with the big energy execs and question them about their own roles in these Cheney Task Force meetings? There certainly is more to come.
ame Affiliation Date of Meeting Greg Moredock Cabot Energy March 14, 4 p.m. Jim Rouse Exxon Feb. 14, 12 p.m. Ralph J. Goehring Berry Petroleum Company March 6, 9 a.m. John Martini California Independent Petroleum Association March 6, 9 a.m. Red Cavaney American Petroleum Institute March 6, 9 a.m. Graham Ban-[sic] BP March 22, 12 p.m. Deb Beaubien BP March 22, 12 p.m. Peter Davies BP March 22, 12 p.m. Bob Malone BP March 22, 12 p.m. Eli Bebout Nucor Oil & Gas March 22, 12 p.m. William Terry Smith Tidelands Oil Production Company March 22, 12 p.m. Steen Parker Tidelands Oil Production Company March 22, 12 p.m. William Dozier Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22, 12 p.m. Larry Bates Vintage Petroleum Inc. March 22, 12 p.m. Wayne Gibben CONOCO April 12 Alan Huffman CONOCO April 12 Alby Modiano CONOCO April 12 Archie Dunham March 21, 4 a.m. [sic?] Kevin Brown Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Clint Ensign Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Kathi Wise Sinclair Oil March 21, 2 p.m. Willie Hensley Alyeska Pipeline Service Company March 7, 9 a.m. Lindsay Hooper Small Refiners Group March 15, 10 a.m. Paul Freer Marathon Oil, Conoco, Amerada March 29, 2 p.m. Rick Shelby AGA Leadership Council March 26 Sir Mark Moody-Stuart Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m. Steven Miller Shell Oil April 17, 10 a.m. Jerry Halverson Interstate Natural Gas Association of America March 9, 9:30 a.m. Rick Roldan National Propane Gas Association April 20, 10 a.m. Lisa Bontempo National Propane Gas Association RENEWABLE ENERGY The Stella Group March 28, 10 a.m. National Bioenergy Industries Association March 28, 10 a.m. Jaime Steve American Wind Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m. Glen Hamer Solar Energy Industry Association March 28, 10 a.m. Karl Gawell Geothermal Energy Association March 28, 10 a.m. The Alliance to Save Energy David Nemtzow March 28, 10 a.m. American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Howard Geller March 28, 10 a.m. Environmental Energy Study Institute Beth Bliel March 28, 10 a.m. Environmental Energy Study Institute Carol Werner March 28, 10 a.m. American Biomass Association Meagan Smith March 28, 10 a.m. American Green David Flory March 28, 10 a.m. INDEPENDENT ENERGY FIRMS/COUNCILS/THINK-TANKS Electric Power Supply Association Red Cavaney American Petroleum Institute March 8, 4 p.m. David Yergin [sic--Daniel] Cambridge Energy Research Associates March 12, 4 p.m. (3 other visits) Sandia National Laboratories April 20, 3 p.m. (w/VPOTUS) The Energy Council March 6 Alan Richardson Pacificorps March 28, 2 p.m. Rob Wallace General Electric March 28, 4:30 p.m. Nuclear Energy Institute Business Council for Sustainable Energy March 8, 11 p.m. Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy Feb. 22, 2 p.m. Fluor Corporation Feb. 21, 2 p.m. Alliance for Rural America (ARA) Coalition for Energy and Economic Growth (CEEG) Feb. 26, 2 p.m. American Public Power Association (APPA) National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) National Mining Association Feb. 22, 10 a.m. John Anderson ELCON Edison Electric Institute National Hydrogen Association American Society of Engineers Vernon Smith California Energy Crisis Feb. 21, 3 p.m. The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. CONSUMER GROUPS The Progress and Freedom Foundation Feb. 22, 10 a.m. Paul Cicio from Dow Chemical, representing 11 companies International Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers March 7, 10:30 a.m. ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS Howard Ris Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m. Alden Meyer Union of Concerned Scientists April 4, 10 a.m. Elizabeth Thompson Environmental Defense April 4, 10 a.m. Roger Rufe Center for Marine Conservation April 4, 10 a.m. Jim Lyon National Wildlife Federation April 4, 10 a.m. Erich Picha Friends of the Earth April 4, 10 a.m. Alyssondra Campaigne Natural Resources Defense Counsel April 4, 10 a.m. Deborah Callahan League of-Conservation Voters April 4, 10 a.m. Robert Musil Physicians for Social Responsibility April 4, 10 a.m. Anna Aurilio US Public Interest Research Group April 4, 10 a.m. Katherine Silverthorne World Wildlife Fund April 4, 10 a.m. Sandra Sshubert [sic] EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund April 4, 10 a.m. Robert Dewey Defenders of Wildlife April 4, 10 a.m. Kevin Curtis National Environmental Trust April 4, 10 a.m. ACADEMIA/THINK TANKS Robert Hahn American Enterprise Institute Philip Sharp Kennedy School of Government James M. Griffin Texas A&M; James L. Sweeney Stanford University Bob Faron MRI Research March 2, 2 p.m. REGULATORY GROUP National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS National Association of State Energy Officials Northeast Energy and Commerce Association CANADIAN INTEREST GROUPS BC Hydro March 26, 4 p.m. Nova Scotia Power March 26, 4 p.m. HydroQuebec March 26, 4 p.m. CEA March 26, 4 p.m. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Bob Pierce Foothills Pipelines Doug Baldwin Trans Canada Pipelines March 8, 12:30 p.m. CITY/STATE/REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS National Association of State Energy Officials Northeast Energy and Commerce Association John Fistolera Northern Calif. Power Agency Rick Grice State of Colorado, Office of Energy William Keese California Energy Commission James Brandmueller Ph.D. State of Nevada, Dept. of Business and Energy Frederick Hoover, Jr. State of Maryland Energy Administration Maurice Kaya, P.E. State of Hawaii, Dept. of Business, Economic Dev. Peter Smith NY State Energy R&D; Authority Helen Hansen Metro Water District of Southern Calif. Brad Hiltscher Metro Water District of Southern Calif. Deb Taylor State of Texas Energy Conservation Office William Nesmith State of Oregon, Office of Energy Edwin Pinero State of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Environmental Protection Samuel Reid State of Rhode Island, Governor's Office John Nunley State of Wyoming, State Energy Program Kim Raap State of Wyoming Barbara McCall Texas Cities Legislative Coalition Alan N. Vallow, P.E. City of Lori, California Laura Y. Whitton City of Chicago Jim Nichols City of Lake Benton Mayor (Floyd Adams, Jr.) City of Savannah Jack Hilliard City of Florence Utilities Euline Brock City of Denton, Tex. Bern Beecham City of Palo Alto MEETINGS WITH MEMBERS OF CONGRESS/STAFF Rep. Barton (R-TX) Rep. Blunt (R-MO) Rep. Boucher (D-VA) Rep. Burr (R-NC) Rep. Calvert (R-CA) Rep. Cubin (R-WY) Rep. Pickering (R-MS) Rep. Radanovich (R-CA) Rep. Shimkus (R-IL) Rep. Tauzin (R-LA) Rep. Terry (R-NE) Staff of Rep. Nick Joe Racal (D-WV) (sic) Rep. Whitfield (R-KY) Rep. Wilson (R-NM) Republican Staff of House Energy Strategy Group Staff from House Majority Whip's Office Senator Murkowski (R-AK) Staff, Western Governors Seattle Chamber of Commerce Senator Bingaman (Ranking Minority Leader on Clean Air Sub-Committee) Rep. Ose 21-Mar Rep. Vernon Ehler 21-Mar Rep. Ralph Hall (D-TX) 12-Mar Rep. Tauzin's Staff 8-Mar Reps. Tauzin and Barton (Meeting with VPOTUS) 27-Mar Sen. Voinovich 6-Apr Rep. Duncan Hunter 6-Apr Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) Rep. Rick Larson (D-WA) Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) Rep. David Wu (D-OR) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) Rep Peter DeFazio (D-OR) Rep. Darlene Hooley (D-OR) Rep. Butch Otter (R-ID) Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) Rep. Dennis Rehberg (R-MT) Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) Rep Doc Hastings (R-WA) Rep. George Nethercutt (R-WA) Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) Rep. Jennifer Dunn (R-WA) COMPANY/TRADE ASSOCIATION MEETINGS Brian Henneberry El Paso Corp. April 9 Lori Laudien El Paso Corp. April 9 Gretchen Emling Williams April 9 Janet Sena April 9 Kristen Ludecke PSEG Power April 9 Richard Goodstein American Ref-Fuel April 9 Frazier Blaylock Coventa Energy April 9 Phil Moeller CALPINE April 9 David Brown EXELON April 9 David Gilbert Constellation Energy Group April 9 Holly Nichols Reliant Energy April 9 Joe Vasapoli Reliant Energy April 9 April 9 Gene Peters EPSA April 9 Mary Doyle Dynergy April 9 Elaine Ziemba NRG Energy April 9 Melissa Lavinson PG&E; NEG April 9 Tom Briggs Enron April 9 April 9 Yvonne McIntyre Mirant April 9 April 9 Jeanne Connelly CALPINE April 9 Tobyn Anderson Lighthouse Energy Group April 9 Laura Eahm PPL Global April 9 Rusty Matthews Dickstein Shapiro April 9 Barbara Burchett Aquila Energy April 9 Karen Hunsicker Billups Entergy April 9 Donn Salvosa EPSA April 9 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company American Gas Association American Petroleum Institute Arctic Power BP/AMOCO/ARCO Canadian Alliance Judy Pensavene Constellation Energy Group March 5, 9 am* second meeting CREA Beverly Marshad Duke Energy March 5, 9 am Edison Electric Institute El Paso Energy
Emerson Enron Kristie Simms Entergy March 5, 9 am David Brown Exelon Corporation March 5, 9 am
Exxon Mobil Florida Power & Light FLUOR Independent Petroleum Association of America Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission Michael Flannigan Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Alan Steinbeck Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Tom Bunk Kennecott/U.S. Borax and Rio Tinto March 12 Bill Post Pinnacle West March 8 Robbie Aiken Pinnacle West March 8 Midwest Research Institute re: energy studies National Energy Marketers Association National Mining Association Natural Resources Canada Nuclear Energy Institute Petroleum Finance Company Phillips Petroleum Pinnacle West Bud Albright Reliant Energy Resource Development Council for Alaska Southern Company TXU United States Enrichment Corporation VECO Alaska, Inc Ambassador Smith Williams Company March 8, 5 pm Emerson Electric Company March 2, 10 am El Paso Energy Corporation* Canadian Electricity Association March 26, 4 pm Edison Electric Institute* Ken Lay Enron Corporation February 22, 5 pm and April 17 (w/VP) Alan Richardson American Public Power Association Executive Committee March 20, 3:30 pm Teamsters April 20, 11 am OTHER MEETINGS Teamsters April 20, 11 am Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas February 1 Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy for Canada Canadian Deputy Secretary of Energy The Honorable David Karnes, Former Senator, Nebraska Kutak Rock LLP Tim Peckinpaugh Van Ness Feldman Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (Van Ness Feldman client) Sandia National Laboratories Scott Sklar Executive Director, Solar Energy Industries Association Kyle Simpson Morgan Meguire LLC Angolan Ministers Paul Cicio Dow Chemical March 7 and March 21, 8:30 pm* J.J. Brown Alternate Fuels March 7 California Independent Petroleum Association Executive Board March 12 British Deputy Head of Mission March 12 Former Congressman Laughlin Former Representative Susan Molinari EXELON March 12 Beth Fowler Nils Olsen March 16 Northwest Energy Caucus (w/VPOTUS) American Farm Bureau (Speech) March 21 California Agriculture Leadership Program March 22 John Runyan International Paper March 22 Erin Schaffer International Paper March 22 Kevin Lynch Pacific Corp March 28 Alan Richardson Pacific Corp March 28 Venezuelan Delegation April 5 Steve Griles-Renewable Energy Caithness April 5 EPSA* Former Congressman Bliley Independent Gasoline Marketers Assn. Jon Doggett American Farm Bureau March 6, 3:00pm Robin West March 7, 3:00pm Linda Stuntz (Former Deputy Secretary of Energy) March 16, 2:00pm Mark Kerrigan March 16, 2:00pm Robert Priddle International Energy Agency April 17, 11:00am Rob Goldstein Princeton Plasma Physics April 18, 4:30pm Business Council for Sustainable Energy April 18, 4:30pm ENERGY EFFICIENCY GROUPS William Badger + 2 Washington Council Ernst and Young March 13, 10:00am Charles Samuels Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers March 13, 10:00am Douglass Horstman Maytag Corporation March 13, 10:00am Ayssondra Campaigne* [sic--spelled differently above] Natural Resources Defense Council* March 13, 10:00am Edward Osann American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy March 13, 10:00am David Hamilton Alliance to Save Energy March 13, 10:00 a.m. *=more than one meeting listed NOTE: Some organizations were listed as having meetings with the Energy Task Force but no individual names were given. Many of the meetings which occurred were not recorded with a specific date. Spellings of names and organizations listed are taken directly from the document.
WASHINGTON - The jump in U.S. gasoline prices this year has so far drained consumers of an extra $20 billion, or about $146 for each passenger car in the country, the Government Accountability Office told Congress on Tuesday.
The national price for regular unleaded gasoline hit a record $3.22 a gallon this week, and is up $1.05 since the beginning of February, according to the Energy Department.
The added expense is taking money away from consumers to spend on other goods and services.
"Spending billions more on gasoline constrains consumers' budgets, leaving less money available for other purchases," GAO's Thomas McCool said in written testimony to a House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on the cause of record prices.
Like many other energy experts, McCool said the GAO has found that current high pump costs are the result of a large amount of oil refining capacity being offline, strong gasoline demand and lower fuel inventories.
Many lawmakers blame the lack of competition in the oil industry from mega oil company mergers for the run-up in gasoline prices.
Gas prices are going up. This is a May 21, 2007 photo of gas prices at a Shell station in San Mateo, which is about 33 miles north of where I live in Campbell:
High gas prices posted at this Shell gas station in San Mateo, Calif., Monday, May 21, 2007. Retail gasoline prices climbed to another record Monday, while crude oil futures jumped above $65 per barrel amid concerns that U.S. refiners are not producing enough gasoline to meet peak summer demand. A gallon of regular unleaded costs an average of $3.196, up from $3.178 on Sunday, according to AAA and Oil Price Information Service. Prices are up 33.7 cents from a month ago and 30.4 cents from a year ago, as demand remains strong, and a spate of planned and unexpected refinery shutdowns have constricted supply. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)
WASHINGTON - Responding to high costs at the pump, the House approved legislation Wednesday that would outlaw gasoline price gouging.
Many lawmakers said that may be easier to say than to detect or enforce.
The legislation would penalize individuals or companies for taking "unfair advantage" or charging "unconscionably excessive" prices for gasoline and other fuels.
Opponents said the language was too vague and that the Federal Trade Commission, which would enforce the law, has not clearly defined price gouging.
"I don't know what `unconscionably excessive' means," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
The bill's chief sponsor, Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, said he had no doubt the FTC would be able to determine price gouging once the agency had a law to uphold.
The measure would establish the first federal law against energy price gouging. The FTC now can investigate price manipulation under antitrust laws. Currently, 29 states have price gouging statutes; enforcement varies widely.
Stupak's proposal only would go into effect — and then for just 30 days — if the president declared an energy emergency.
The bill calls for penalties of up to $150 million for companies and up to $2 million and 10 years imprisonment for individuals found to be engaged in price gouging.
Twenty-nine state have various price gouging statutes, but the vary widely in enforcement.
The FTC has investigated allegations of price manipulation but failed to find widespread violations. In a report last year, the agency said an investigation after Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 uncovered 15 incidents that could have been price gouging. But other factors also could have explained the high prices, it said.
The House passed the legislation by a vote of 284-141 as majority Democrats pushed for action ahead of the Memorial Day weekend. Prices at a near-record levels heading into the holiday, the traditional kickoff for the summer driving season.
Senate Democrats said they would take up energy legislation — including price gouging — next month after they finish an immigration bill.
That energy measure would require that vehicles get better mileage and that 35 billion gallons of ethanol serve as a substitute for gasoline by 2022 — a sevenfold increase over today's levels.
"Our legislation will dramatically increase American-made and grown renewable fuels production," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also has promised an "energy independence" proposal before July 4.
But lawmakers have acknowledged such measures will do little to ease the price crunch at the gas pumps. The House's decision to move ahead on the price gouging measure was viewed as giving lawmakers the chance to vote on gas prices before Congress leaves for a weeklong vacation.
"Vote to stand up for consumers," Stupak urged his colleagues. He said the vote offered a choice whether to "side with Big Oil (or) ... with consumers who are being ripped off at the gas pump."
Opponents, including the Bush administration, said the legislation was too vague and "would amount to price controls and in some cases bring back long gas lines reminiscent of the 1970s."
It "would harm consumers, the very people the bill is touted to protect," the White House said in a statement to lawmakers.
Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt, the No. 2 House Republican, said the bill would mean "undue hardship for ... people trying to make a living" including mom and pop grocery or gasoline station owners.
Separately, two government economists disagreed at a Senate hearing Wednesday about whether oil mergers in the late 1990s may be relevant to today's surging prices.
Thomas McCool, an economist at the Government Accountability Office, said its examination of those mergers showed they raised oil prices by a penny to 7 cents a gallon.
But Michael A. Salinger, director of the FTC's bureau of economics, said the agency's investigations have turned up no evidence that the mergers have been a major factor in higher prices. He said today's prices resulted from increased demand, refinery snags and a recent drop in gasoline imports.
I don't know whether this House legislation will make a difference in lowering gas prices, or not. I'm simply posting it. But there is a relationship here between our own gas-guzzling SUV culture, the lack of an extensive public transportation system, Big Oil mergers, the reduction of refinery capacity (also owned by Big Oil), the increased demand, and possibly the reduction of supply. We are SOL here.
Ford President Alan Mulally, right, had to be quick on his feet to make sure President Bush plugged a power cord into the right socket on a Ford hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid. Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Credit Ford Motor Co. CEO Alan Mulally with saving the leader of the free world from self-immolation.
Mulally told journalists at the New York auto show that he intervened to prevent President Bush from plugging an electrical cord into the hydrogen tank of Ford's hydrogen-electric plug-in hybrid at the White House last week. Ford wanted to give the Commander-in-Chief an actual demonstration of the innovative vehicle, so the automaker arranged for an electrical outlet to be installed on the South Lawn and ran a charging cord to the hybrid. However, as Mulally followed Bush out to the car, he noticed someone had left the cord lying at the rear of the vehicle, near the fuel tank.
"I just thought, 'Oh my goodness!' So, I started walking faster, and the President walked faster and he got to the cord before I did. I violated all the protocols. I touched the President. I grabbed his arm and I moved him up to the front," Mulally said. "I wanted the president to make sure he plugged into the electricity, not into the hydrogen. This is all off the record, right?"
The only comment I would have on this story can be perfectly expressed with this classic YouTube video:
CHICAGO (Reuters) - Occidental Petroleum Corp.'s chairman and chief executive took in more than $400 million in compensation last year, the company said in a filing, one of the biggest single-year payouts in U.S. corporate history.
The largest part of Ray Irani's 2006 payout was $270.2 million from the exercise of options awarded from 1997 to 2006, representing more than 7.1 million shares, according to the company's annual proxy statement, which was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in March.
Irani also received $93.3 million in stock and dividends from a deferred stock program when the company closed the plan in October due to increases in liability and expenses for the program, the company said.
Irani's salary in 2006 was $1.3 million and his cash bonus was $1.4 million, according to the filing. But stock and option awards and other benefits lifted his 2006 compensation to $55.6 million, the proxy said.
In the proxy, the company said that from December 1990 -- when Irani succeeded Armand Hammer as chief executive -- through 2005, the company's stock rose to about $40 a share from $9 and its total shareholder return was 699 percent.
Now maybe Irani deserves this huge paycheck due to Occidental's performance. I'm not sure. But what I will say is that Irani's excessive paycheck will entice other CEOs to back to their boards and demand even bigger salaries for their positions--regardless of their own performance. This corruption in CEO pay will continue on.
Brazilian police take cover behind their shields while clashing with protesters demonstrating against the visit by U.S. President George W. Bush, scheduled to arrive later in the day for the first leg of a tour of five Latin American countries, along Sao Paulo's Paulista Avenue, March 8, 2007. (Caetano Barreira/Reuters)
SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) -- Police clashed Thursday with students, environmentalists and left-leaning Brazilians protesting a visit by President Bush and his push for an ethanol energy alliance with Latin America's largest nation.
Riot police fired tear gas at protesters in Sao Paulo after more than 6,000 people held a largely peaceful march, sending hundreds of demonstrators fleeing and ducking into businesses to avoid the gas.
There were no immediate reports of injuries, but some protesters said they had been beaten by officers after marching two miles through the financial heart of South America's largest city just hours before Bush was scheduled to arrive.
Clashes between police and anti-Bush protesters were also reported in Colombia, where Bush is scheduled to visit on Sunday as part of his five-nation tour to Latin America.
Bush has spoken approvingly of Brazil's ethanol program, which powers eight out of every 10 new Brazilian cars. The proposed accord is meant to help turn ethanol into an internationally traded commodity and to promote sugarcane-based ethanol production in Central America and the Caribbean.
In Sao Paulo, some carried stalks of sugarcane -- used to make ethanol -- and a banner reading: "For every liter of ethanol produced, 4 liters of fresh water are consumed, monoculture is destroying the nation's greatest asset."
And in the southern city of Porto Alegre, more than 500 people yelled "Get out, imperialist!" as they marched to a Citigroup Inc. bank branch and burned an effigy of Bush.
[....]
Graffiti reading "Get Out, Bush! Assassin!" appeared on walls near the locations Bush will drive past as he begins a Latin American tour that also includes stops in Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico.
At National University in Bogota, Colombia, 200 masked students clashed with 300 anti-riot police and shouted "Out Bush!" Police fired tear gas, and the students hurled back rocks and small homemade explosives called "potato bombs" -- aluminum foil wrapped around gunpowder. There were no immediate reports of injuries or arrests.
And in Mexico City, which Bush is scheduled to visit Tuesday, about two dozen demonstrators gathered in front of the U.S. Embassy chanting slogans against the U.S. project to construct border fences and Bush's visit.
"Why is he coming here? It makes no sense, it's unreasonable, after all he's done," said protest leader Roman Diaz Vazquez, a lawyer. "We don't like him. Why is he coming, after he ordered the construction of the border wall?"
Carmelo Ramirez Reyes showed up for the protest in a devil's mask, carrying a placard reading "My name is George Bush, killer of Mexicans."
WASHINGTON - President Bush sought to reverse an impression of U.S. neglect as he opened a weeklong tour of Latin America on Thursday. Street protests awaited him.
President Bush's trip through Latin America. From AP Graphics.
Bush's trip was intended to promote democracy, increased trade and cooperation on alternative fuels. The president and his advisers also hoped his visit would offset the growing influence of leftist leaders, such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
As he flew here on Air Force One, Bush's national security adviser brushed aside Chavez's provocations. "The president is going to do what he's been doing for a long time: talk about a positive agenda," said Stephen Hadley.
Bush played down the protests in interviews ahead of his trip with Latin American news organizations.
"I am proud to be going to a part of the world where people can demonstrate, where people can express their minds," he said in an interview with Univision. And he told CNN En Espanol: "The trip is to remind people that we care."
In other words, this is a political trip that was designed to hopefully bolster Bush's presidential legacy. For six years, the Bush administration had practically ignored the problems of Latin America, only now to "remind" Latin Americans that the administration really cares about their affairs. Think about the scandals and siege mentality this Bush White House has been under. The midterm elections were a disaster for President Bush and the Republicans, since the Democrats have taken control of Congress. New scandals have emerged with the horrendous conditions at Walter Reed, the political firings of eight U.S. attorneys, the Scooter Libby guilty verdict and the re-emergence of the White House involvement into the Valerie Plame scandal. And finally, we have the continued disaster in Iraq, with the congressional Democrats pushing stronger legislation for pulling the U.S. out of the war. President Bush's "legacy" is going straight into the toilet. This Latin American trip was designed to create some positive political news that the Bush White House and Republicans can spin.
But it appears that the positive news of President Bush's Latin American trip might just be overshadowed by a growing protest movement against the Bush White House. Keep your eyes on this one. For they are protesting against President Bush in Brazil even before Bush has arrived there. If we start seeing protest movements numbering 10-to-20 thousand or more, while Bush is visiting, then no amount of positive White House spin will be able to counter the even bigger story of the protest movement.
(AP) Global warming is so severe that it will "continue for centuries," leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world's leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that nations will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios.
They tried to warn of dire risks without scaring people so much they'd do nothing _ inaction that would lead to the worst possible scenarios.
"It's not too late," said Australian scientist Nathaniel Bindoff, a co-author of the authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report issued Friday. The worst can be prevented by acting quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions, he said.
The worst could mean more than 1 million dead and hundreds of billions of dollars in costs by 2100, said Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, one of many study co-authors. He said that adapting will mean living with more extreme weather such as severe droughts, more hurricanes and wildfires.
"It's later than we think," said panel co-chair Susan Solomon, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist who helped push through the document's strong language.
Solomon, who remains optimistic about the future, said it's close to too late to alter the future for her children _ but maybe it's not too late for her grandchildren.
The report was the first of four to be released this year by the panel, which was created by the United Nations in 1988. It found:
_Global warming is "very likely" caused by man, meaning more than 90 percent certain. That's the strongest expression of certainty to date from the panel.
_If nothing is done to change current emissions patterns of greenhouse gases, global temperature could increase as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
_But if the world does get greenhouse gas emissions under control _ something scientists say they hope can be done _ the best estimate is about 3 degrees Fahrenheit.
_Sea levels are projected to rise 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. Add another 4 to 8 inches if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.
Sea level rise could get worse after that. By 2100, if nothing is done to curb emissions, the melting of Greenland's ice sheet would be inevitable and the world's seas would eventually rise by more than 20 feet, Bindoff said.
Yes, global warming is back in the news again--and it is even direr than we thought. The scientists are 90 percent certain that global warming is being caused by man--not by some natural cause. And even worst, it is through mankinds burning of fossil fuels that is causing the greenhouse gas emissions to trap sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, resulting in this warming trend. Can something be done to save us from this terrifying fate?
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.
The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.
The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.
The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".
Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
[....]
The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organisation had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.
That's right--Exxon is going to save us from the dangers of global warming by bribing scientists to write articles contesting the validity of the overwhelming scientific evidence showing the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels to global warming. Even better yet, Exxon is funneling this bribery money through its proxy think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute--can't allow Exxon to be directly linked to these bribes, even though Exxon's former CEO Lee Raymond is the vice chair of AEI's board of trustees. Of course, Exxon's not hurting by this global warming trend:
HOUSTON, Feb. 1 — Exxon Mobil reported a record annual profit today but a modest decline in fourth-quarter earnings because of falling oil and gas prices. Meanwhile, its competitor Royal Dutch Shell reported an unexpected rise in quarterly earnings, a sign that the industry is still going strong.
[....]
Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported profit of $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter. That represented a decline of 4.3 percent from its record profit in the fourth quarter of 2005 and was Exxon’s first quarterly decline in almost three years.
But for the year, Exxon’s profit rose 9 percent from 2005 results to a record of $39.5 billion, the largest annual profit ever for an American company.
Oil prices for the quarter ranged between $55 and $63 a barrel, averaging just shy of $60. That represented a 15 percent decline from the third quarter and was less than 1 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2005.
Graph of Exxon's yearly profits for the past six years. From the New York Times.
Then again, maybe I should get involved in this debate on global warming--I mean, if Exxon's willing to pay me $10,000 to criticize this global warming report, I'll do it. I'll admit that I don't have a scientific background, but who really needs a scientific background to write such fiction that can be passed off as fact through the AEI? Global warming is not caused by the buildup of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. That is what these scientific think-tanks want you to think--remember, science has a liberal bias. The real truth of the matter is that global warming has been caused by the emission of certain gases from former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, just after he consumed his $400 million pork retirement dinner. There has been a steady buildup of volatile, intestinal gas within Raymond, which is then expelled through the anus. It is the release of these gases that have trapped the sunlight within the earth's atmosphere, causing the planet to heat up. Instead of reducing the demand for burning fossil fuels, I have determined through rigorous, scientific study, that this global warming trend can be reversed if Raymond would use his $400 million retirement package to buy up the world's supply of Pepto-Bismol. The results are conclusive:
Thus, Exxon-Mobil can continue to drill for oil and gouge American customers at the gas pumps.
HOUSTON, Feb. 1 — Exxon Mobil reported a record annual profit on Thursday but a modest decline in fourth-quarter earnings because of falling oil and gas prices. Meanwhile, its competitor Royal Dutch Shell reported an unexpected rise in quarterly earnings, a sign that the industry is still going strong.
The results followed reports by other energy companies in recent days that said easing commodity prices, declining refining and chemical earnings, rising steel and labor costs and higher royalties and taxes had hurt their bottom lines somewhat.
But the shortfalls at all the major companies, including Occidental, ConocoPhillips and Hess, have come after record or near-record previous quarters. With oil and gas prices on the upswing again in recent days, few analysts think the bonanza of profits that energy companies have enjoyed in recent years will end anytime soon.
Exxon, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, reported profit of $10.3 billion in the fourth quarter. That represented a decline of 4.3 percent from its record profit in the fourth quarter of 2005 and was Exxon’s first quarterly decline in almost three years.
But for the year, Exxon’s profit rose 9 percent from 2005 results to a record of $39.5 billion, the largest annual profit ever for an American company.
Oil prices for the quarter ranged between $55 and $63 a barrel, averaging just shy of $60. That represented a 15 percent decline from the third quarter and was less than 1 percent lower than the fourth quarter of 2005.
Oh dear! There were some shortfalls among Big Oil earnings caused by "easing commodity prices, declining refining and chemical earnings, rising steel and labor costs and higher royalties and taxes had hurt their bottom lines." Can't let the big profits for Big Oil fall even further--perhaps President Bush needs to start a new war in Iran to increase those oil prices? I apologize if this sounds rather cynical, but I am. I thought I would go in and look at the stock prices for Big Oil over the past five years--just a little comparison here. I've pulled the five-year stock price charts off of Marketwatch.
Royal Dutch Shell's Class A shares two-year stock price trend. From Marketwatch.
So what does all this mean? The interesting trend here is that as President Bush started his war in Iraq, the stock prices of Big Oil companies have risen dramatically--increasing two or three times the value of what they were five years ago. The Iraq war has certainly made Big Oil very rich, as we can see with both the NY Times story on Exxon's profits, and the trends in the Big Oil stock price charts. But now let's continue into the Times story:
Oil prices in 2006 averaged $66, $10 higher than the year before, according to a recent Citigroup report on the energy industry. Oil prices reached a high of $77 in July, but they have declined to the low-to-mid $50s due to generally warm weather and the perception of easing tensions in much of Middle East since then.
The Times story is reporting that oil prices have leveled off, due to warmer weather and the perception of easing tensions in the Middle East. This leveling of oil prices has caused a drop in quarterly earnings for Exxon, and perhaps the rest of Big Oil. The "perception of easing tensions in much of the Middle East" could be a result of oil traders factoring the U.S. war in Iraq into oil prices. What bothers me is that we're seeing tensions increase again--this time between the Bush administration and Iran. President Bush has authorized U.S. troops to kill suspected Iranians inside of Iraq, he has sent another carrier battle group into the Persian Gulf, and attacked an Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq. And finally, there are reports coming out that the PNAC neocons have been planning a U.S. attack against Iran for the past six years. If the United States does go to war with Iran, what is going to happen to the price of oil? What will happen to the price of gas here? What will happen to Big Oil's profits and stock prices over the next two years, if the Bush administration is embroiled into both a war in Iraq and Iran?
WASHINGTON - Far from being a nearly exhausted resource, the world's oil reserves are three times bigger than what some popular estimates state, and peak global oil production is still about a quarter-century away, according to a new study by Pulitzer Prize-winning oil historian Daniel Yergin.
The remaining oil resource base is about 3.74 trillion barrels, according to a report released Tuesday by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which Yergin runs. That's more than three times the 1.2 trillion barrels that "peak-oil" theorists suggest.
CERA's report, titled "Why the Peak Oil Theory Falls Down," challenges an increasingly popular view that the world is about to run out of oil. On the contrary, CERA argues that the world is likely to begin running out of oil between 2030 and the middle of the century. Even so, CERA says, efforts are needed now to push that date back, such as new oil field discoveries, new technologies, energy conservation and alternative energy sources.
This is certainly a fascinating study where more details can be found in the press release. But the CERA report will cost you quite a few barrels of oil--priced at $1,000 for each 16-page report. This debate has been going on for years between the energy conservationists, who use the peak oil theory as evidence for demanding a reduction of U.S. foreign oil imports while increasing renewable energy sources and conservation, and the Big Oil companies intent on drilling everywhere for energy (Can you say ANWR?). In reality, both sides are wrong. I doubt that the world is going to run out of oil, as the peak oil theorists predict with gloom and doom. The CERA report shows that the peak oil theorists failed to include the incorporation of new technologies into their theory--technologies "that permit drilling more than 7,000 feet below the ocean's surface or extracting oil from tar-like deposits in sandy soil found in western Canada." We certainly do not know where future oil supplies may exist on the deep ocean floor, or in unexplored areas throughout the world. But that doesn't mean that the conservationists' calls for renewal energy production and conservation should be discarded--if anything, the United States should embark on a program to reduce its imports of foreign oil through conservation and renewed energy sources. Because there certainly is one argument to show why the U.S. should reduce its addiction to foreign oil, and that argument is Iraq.
So what does this report mean? It means that while the world may not run out of oil until 2030, the United States still has a problem with its dependence upon foreign oil. It has been our addiction to foreign oil that has caused us to become involved in a disastrous war in Iraq. We are going to have to find a way to balance the development of renewable energy sources, conservation, and the exploration of new oil reserves in order to resolve our energy problems. And right now, I don't see that happening for a long time.
