You wouldn't think that the Chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil would be a bit of a whiner, would you, particularly not when his company is making billions of dollars, in pure profit, per quarter. But apparently he, somehow, finds the time:
{...}Mr Tillerson was strongly critical of the drive in the US for independence in energy supplies, arguing that US imports could be curbed by increasing energy efficiency and boosting oil production by allowing companies access to restricted areas. “Regardless, no conceivable combination of demand moderation or domestic supply development can realistically close the gap and eliminate Americans’ need for imports,” he said.He warned that pursuing energy independence “can have a chilling effect on existing trading relations”, and quoted a report by the US National Petroleum Council warning that policies intended to foster it “may create considerable uncertainty among international trading partners and hinder investment in international energy supply development”.{...}
Go read the whole thing. It's interesting and I do agree with most of it, but...you have to laugh. What did he think was going to happen with oil at $95 a barrel? That we were simply going to bend over and take it forever? Methinks he's more concerned about the price dropping than he is about trade relations. Which would make Exxon Mobil's shareholders, who have been raking it in, a bit testy. Of course, you should not pay attention to the fact that if we became more energy independent, Exxon Mobil, which has laid out billions of dollars to invest in oil fields world wide, would take a big hit---that's beside the point. Mr. Tillerson is worried about trade relations. Really he is.
{Insert rolling of eyes here}
The US's energy problems stem, mainly, from the fact that we're beholden to oil imports from countries who a. have issues with democracy, b. suck up most of the profits so they can plate their toilets in gold, and/or are determined to nationalize the oil industries to give power back to the people (!) (thy name is Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad) and c. will do what's best for them, not anyone else. We're at their mercy because they control supply. We've gotten sucked into many an international political snafu because of our dependence on oil. The solution to this problem, a rational person would think, is to decrease our dependence on oil imports. You don't have to be a bra-burning hippie to think that life would be a bit easier if we were more energy independent; that's just common sense. While he's right in that we're never going to be able to eliminate imports, it just doesn't strike me as if he's coming from a standpoint of pure philanthropy, with our interests nearest and dearest to his heart, ya dig?
Once upon a time people used to say what was good for GM was good for the country. Are we now supposed to believe that what's good for Exxon Mobil is good for our country?
I think that's a wee bit of a stretch.
Posted by Kathy at November 13, 2007 10:50 AM | TrackBack