Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM)

All Comments on XOM

  • commenter
    longoil
    Aug 29 06:12 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Old Wizard,
    Bin Laden has a degree in civil engineering but never practiced as one.

    I think you are giving these 9/11 terrorist fanatics too much credit.
    Yes, they took advantage of flaws in airport security to sneak in box cutters. And the airlines should have gotten suspicious when these guys paid for one way tickets in first class with cash.

    The terrorists expected fanastic explosions and the deaths of all the passengers, but never expected the buildings to collapse as mentioned in one of Bin Laden's communique shortly after 9/11. He said "the collapse of buildings was much more than he could have prayed for."

    I remembered watching some documentaries where the engineers that designed the towers in the 1960's said they designed the buildings to take head-on impacts of Boeing 707s (the largest planes at the time.) They did not anticipate the scenario of larger planes (i.e. Boeing 757s) built 30 years crashing into the towers. I doubt very much Bin Laden knew this tid-bit of information.
    Reply
  • commenter
    The Old
    Wizard
    Aug 29 05:40 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    I need to add that since Bin Ladin is a civil engineer or architect [I forget which], he knew what could collapse the building. Attacking the building with large jets full of jet fuel near the 80th floor of the towers was particularly demeonic, since it was designed to cause the most casualties[ read deaths]. Had it not been for the courage of the first responders, many of whom gave their lives,the causualties could easily been 5 times what they were. We were a hair away from losing our son-in-law. I think blaming Bush is disengenious and that blame should be placed where it belongs. Failure to recognize who was the blame deflects the issue and causes a weakening of our political will to cope with the very real problem. Reply
  • commenter
    The Old
    Wizard
    Aug 29 05:24 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Fitz, I tune into your articles to join in the discussion aimed at a comprehensive energy plan with specific goals and mechanisms for implementation and funding. I consider this the number one priority issue for the country's present and future welfare. You seem to be balanced there, although I'd like you to specify in the discussion what you consider the above. I know you said you have a site that delineates your plan, but I think you should give it to those who are following the discussion. When, in your dislike of Bush, you give in to conspiracy theories about 9/11`, blame everything that is wrong in america on Bush, believe that it was only bush who had misjudged the Russians, encouraged the eastern former russian satellites to be independent and join the western alliance, you are rewriting history. You should read Comaarade J, a recent book, written by a former Washington Post reporter. It is a bioghraphy of a post cold war Russian spy who defected. The epilouge written by the spy, himself, is particularly eye-opening. On building seven, my son-in-law's first-hand account is that the building caught fire due to the burning fuel and explosions of the twin towers. The NYFD MADE A DECISION TO NOT TRY TO STOP THE FIRES, FIRST BECAUSE OF THE UNAVAILABILITY OF sufficient water to deal with the fires of the towers and then because that building's integrity was in question. Secondly, the twin towers were not subject to the Nyfd building codes since they were built by the NY Port Authority. The construction was a steel thrust construction. When steel is sujected to intense heat it first expands,which causes the thrust construction to lose structural integrity and to collapse. Under enough heat the floor collapsed and then each floor pancaked. And if I remembered my technical facts steel can actually melt if heat is intense enough. When you dicuss the issues other then energy, you tend to be very selective with the use of facts and in your desire to blame everything on Bush ignore very significant contributors to our current problems. Ignoring them tends to detract from a constructive national discourse that first defines the problem then in a problem-solving spirit comes up with real solutions and consistent plans for solution. Blame it on Bush may make some of us feel better, but it doesn't advance any solutions. Reply
  • commenter
    Mmarrkk
    Aug 29 03:52 PM
    ConocoPhillips Is Latest Oil Major to Exit Low-Margin Retail Gas Stations [view article]
    Get real. The sum of all the untapped reserves in North America are huge, including Canadian Oil Sands and the Oil Shales in Utah/Colorado not to mention the oil deposits potentially off the coasts and in ANWR. Just the Oil Shales alone are enough for decades. REad the USGS reports.

    Now, long long term, I agree we must get off of gasoline but we are a long way away from Solar as our primary, let alone, only source. Natural Gas is a good transition fuel and will be needed for electricity generation as well as cars/trucks/buses.


    On Aug 29 02:59 PM Itsonlymoney wrote:

    > We can not drill our way out of this energy predicament. The sum
    > total of all untapped North American oil on and off shore if delivered
    > will power our present oil consumption for just months, not years.
    > Ultimately oil will be gone or too expensive to retrieve so the sooner
    > we wake up to the necessity for a renewable energy future the better
    > we will all be. Big oil is getting out of retail gasoline distribution
    > because they see that it is a fading industry. Service stations make
    > more money on soda's than gas. Oil will be too valuable to burn on
    > a trip to the store.
    >
    > The future for personal transportation is anything but gasoline powered.
    > Smart people may someday plug their vehicles into a home solar charger
    > and fuel up while they sleep from the days solar electrical storage.
    > Or we may be walking again if we blow this opportunity to restructure
    > into sustainable and renewable means for energy production.     Reply
  • commenter
    gramps2
    Aug 29 03:17 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Whoops - typo in the first reference to the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Yuccatan is the Mexican penninsula near Cuba. Yucca (no "tan") is the mountain range in Nevada Reply
  • commenter
    ksmithdc
    Aug 29 03:07 PM
    My Website
    Options Trader: Thursday Outlook [view article]
    It's the media's job to scare the crap out of people. They have to sensationalize things or people will get bored & the ratings will drop. Reply
  • commenter
    Itsonlymoney
    Aug 29 02:59 PM
    ConocoPhillips Is Latest Oil Major to Exit Low-Margin Retail Gas Stations [view article]
    We can not drill our way out of this energy predicament. The sum total of all untapped North American oil on and off shore if delivered will power our present oil consumption for just months, not years. Ultimately oil will be gone or too expensive to retrieve so the sooner we wake up to the necessity for a renewable energy future the better we will all be. Big oil is getting out of retail gasoline distribution because they see that it is a fading industry. Service stations make more money on soda's than gas. Oil will be too valuable to burn on a trip to the store.

    The future for personal transportation is anything but gasoline powered. Smart people may someday plug their vehicles into a home solar charger and fuel up while they sleep from the days solar electrical storage. Or we may be walking again if we blow this opportunity to restructure into sustainable and renewable means for energy production.     Reply
  • commenter
    gramps2
    Aug 29 02:00 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Well Fitz, we do seem to agree that Bush is an idiot and did a lot more harm than good during his (almost) 8yrs. I just don't see much difference between McCain and Obama: both are Washington insiders; neither has a credible energy plan; Obama's idea to cut and run with our tail between our legs from Iraq is as foolish as McCain's plan to stay there "until the end". Both candidates are lying about "saving" social security (in slightly different ways).

    Obama has very few concrete plans of what he will do -- its mostly a bunch of hot air and buzz words about "hope". Hope is not a plan. 143 days in Congress is not enough time to establish anything of a track record -- which is why the DNC convention had to be filled with so much fluff. There is no substance to Obama, and very little to argue about pro or con. His energy proposals (windfall taxes, corn ethanol, etc) have been quite thoroughly discussed and discredited by you in earlier posts.

    McCain has a few (very few) concrete plans -- most of which don't make sense to me. His nuclear energy proposal is at least a start, but he neglects to explain what the country will do with the nuclear waste produced. Last I checked, Yuccatan Mountain storage in Nevada was still on permanent hold (it was supposed to be ready for use sometime in the early 1980s?). For 30yrs, people have argued whether Yucca will leak radiation or not (I don't know the answer). If McCain wants lots more nuclear power plants, he needs to have a "complete" solution, including what to do with the spent rods. I haven't heard anything. McCain has made a number of statements that suggest (but do not prove) he would like to attack Iran over nuclear weapons -- besides being a foolish idea, its not obvious that the military has the logistical / resource capability to fight a third simultaneous war. They seem pretty stretched with the two they already have. Iraq is likely to take at least 2-3 years to wind down, according to both military leaders and the recent proposal from the Iraqi government. Despite the news media's obsession with Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse, not better.

    McCain's big "selling point", in my eyes, is that he is from the opposite political party as the one likely to control Congress. Since we can't get a qualified leader, I prefer gridlock. That should NOT be confused with an endorsement of McCain.

    Regardless of who wins, medicare becomes cash flow negative sometime in early 2009. The budget deficit is chronic. Higher taxes (on rich or poor) will not help a fragile economy. Housing might bottom depending on which expert you ask, but no one is predicting a rapid recovery. Plans from both candidates to increase spending conflict with the fiscal reality the winner will face on day one. And historically, almost every problem the country has faced has been solved by the private sector -- even if some government bureaucracy later took credit. Big government might work in other countries, but it hasn't worked in the U.S.

    Even if you don't agree with my political views on the two candidates (and I am guessing you don't) -- irrational hysteria over Bush's failings is not a reason to vote for either candidate. And since your blog has historically been a discussion of energy issues (that's why I tune in anyways), none of us expected to read a heavily partisan rant     Reply
  • commenter
    longoil
    Aug 29 01:47 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Fitz, did you see McCain’s new running mate ?

    Wow, he managed to find someone to appeal to everyone (from a political point of view)

    1) A woman running mate will certainly siphon off many disenchanted Hillary supporters from the Obama’s camp. I’ll bet you McCain did not know who he was going to choose for VP until the Joe Biden announcement.

    2) She an evangelical, so his got the ultra-right side of the Republican party back on his side.

    3) She from Alaska and is pro drilling, so ANWR is a step closer. So much for his alternative energy stance. I think this alone point confirms that McCain is back in the Bush camp as far as energy policy goes.

    If I was Obama, I would really be worried now. I think McCain has just shrunk Obama’s 3 point lead in the polls to zero. We’ll at least Obama can refute the inexperienced line (Palin is only 44 yrs old herself) and the fact she’s under investigation by her own legislature provides another target for the Obama camp.
     Reply
  • commenter
    The Fitzman
    Aug 29 01:14 PM
    My Website
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    longoil: i agree with you - longterm oil is going to go up in price regardless of who is president. that said, as you pointed out bush invaded iraq and took millions of barrels off the market at exactly the same time that demand from china, russia, india, and the middle east began seriously growing. so, oil popped. oil also popped because a new geopolitical risk premium was added to the price of a barrel of oil as the rest of the world realized the US (that is,bush) would create wars in order to get access to oil reserves. so, oil popped further. next, with respect to the energy policy you and i agree is so badly needed, bush has been a huge hinderance to CAFE increases, alternative fuels (except for the idiotic ethanol mandates, which just increased food inflation), and has basically stuck with an oil centric mentality. so, US demand stays high and so does the price of oil. finally, the deficit spending by this administration which has weakened the US dollar some 40% also passes directly to Americans since oil is priced in US dollars. so, without the war in iraq, without the huge drop in the dollar, and with any resembling a logical energy plan, one could make a case that oil would be somewhere between $60-$80, or, somewhere around 40-50% lower than today. that said, oil is going to keep rising in the future due to worldwide supply/demand issues. which is why it is even more imperative that the US adopt a comprehensive, long term, strategic energy policy:

    thefitzman.blogspot.co...

    i often note what a hypocrit bush is. consider this: notice how everytime he rationalized filling the strategic petroleum reserve, he talked about how important oil is to the economy, how the US could not survive without it, and how important it is that we have reserves in times of crisis. then, he goes right out and fights for policies to keep us addicted to the foreign oil of his buddies in saudi arabia while he is telling us out of the other side of his mouth how important it is we get off it. this is a perfect example of bush hypocrisy. say one thing, and do the total exact opposite. just like spending. just like security. just like "freedom". of course i could go on and on and on (and i usually do).     Reply
  • commenter
    hwood007
    Aug 29 12:04 PM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    I thought I just might tell everyone that I am a retired intelligence worker and spent years overseas. My retirement pay is not that much, but I do increae my income with dividends. All the stock I own have a dividend, some little, some more. To those who think that dividents should be taxed at a high rate because only the rich own stock. NEWS FLASH!! Reply
  • commenter
    hwood007
    Aug 29 11:57 AM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    WOW! Fitz you are really taking some hits here. You assume each comment is directed towards you, but like my comment becoming like Europe is aimed at all of us. Their social systems are using more of their wealth than they thought, we can not provide free everything to everyone when you consider our current birth rate. We also loose future taxpayers and workers under rules of limited free choice. Reply
  • commenter
    catching on
    Aug 29 10:25 AM
    Board and Executive Compensation in S&P 500 [view article]
    when I read the insiders activities on the stocks that i own i always see large blocks of stocks being sold or option being exercised. As a stock holder i paid for my shares these insiders didn't there shares came from the stockholders. The only company i have that has honest management is brk.a/b Reply
  • commenter
    longoil
    Aug 29 10:24 AM
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    Fitz,
    I agree with all your claims against Bush, except
    >>>> bush is responsible for the 500% increase in the price of oil.

    1) With oil priced in Euros, the price of oil still went up 300% since 2002. The weak US dollar accounts for only one third of the current high oil prices.

    2) Yes, Bush's highly misguided invasion of Iraq did take 4% of the world's supply off the market in 2003 and turned the US surplus when he took office into the current +1 trillion debt. But, the insatiable of appetite of BRIC + ME nations for oil would still be growing at double digits rates, regardless if the Iraq invasion never took place. Two things would have happened, if Iraq was never invaded in 2003
    a) $140 oil would have occurred in 2010-11 instead of 2008
    b) With cheap gasoline still available today the energy presidential platforms of Obama and McCain would be totally void of any energy alternative policies and we would all be in a much deeper hole in 2015. At least everyone is now sensitized to Peak Oil. We would have never heard of Obama talking about of 150 billion investment in alternative energy or McCain offering 300 million prize for a super battery.

    Ironically, in serendipitous (a la Forrest Gump) way, Bush (despite all his misguided policies) triggered the start of a serious discussion of alternative energy. What will actually be done in January 2009 is another story.     Reply
  • commenter
    The Fitzman
    Aug 29 09:36 AM
    My Website
    The Economics of Political Spin [view article]
    building 7 was not hit with jet fuel.
    if you don't think it's strange that bush's #1 priority after the 9-11 attacks was to fly saudi arabians out of the country, well, so what.
    gramps - i swear if you don't stop putting words in my mouth and debate what i actually WRITE instead of what you think i wrote, i am gonna come over and pull all the grey hairs off your chest one at a time.

    ok, so i give up, you guys have all convinced me with your excellent debating skills:

    bush has been a great president!
    bush is not responsible for the weak US dollar or weak US economy.
    bush is not responsible for the strengthening of russia & the middle east.
    bush is not responsible for the 500% increase in the price of oil.
    bush is not responsible for doubling the debt during just 8 years.
    bush is a foreign policy expert.
    bush has strengthened the middle class.
    bush's tax policies are fair and it makes sense to increase the wealth of the uber-wealthy because then it trickles down to the middle class.
    bush has left the US much stronger than when he came into office.
    the US stock and bond markets are in great shape.
    the financial system is in great shape.
    the feds aren't taking over the financial system
    inflation is not an issue
    and lastly, bush's energy policy has been *great* for the country.

    you guys are right! there is no need for change! everything is perfect, and bush gets all the credit for the great shape of the US today.
    oh, and i love and believe everything rush limbaugh and larry kudlow say. everything is great. i can't wait to see what wonderful things mccain has in store for us. you guys convinced me. bush is great.

    <fingers crossed>     Reply

Trading Center


Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: