Talk:ExxonMobil/Archive 1

Exxon Valdez disaster

Isn't Exxon the company responsible for the Exxon Valdez disaster? --AxelBoldt

Yup. Naturally, though, this wasn't mentioned in the history on their own homepage, which was all I was working from for the initial entry. Hence my warning about NPOV in the revision comment. :)

removed text

This was recently removed:

...and a further 1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case.

Did or did they not spend 1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges? This seems to be unrelated to the 5 billion punitive damages that were put in the article instead. AxelBoldt (09:44, 2 April 2002 ET)

neutrality

As to the neturality of this article: I've noticed that most pages on big corporations on wikipedia are not neutral, this one is no exception.

My first edit, that article/fact is simply unnotable, the article states 8 other companies including the Yankees, but amazingly under the Yankees is anything mentioned about that article? it seems like people researched anything at all they could find bad that was a news story about exxonmobile to put down. In a real encyclopedia that article would assuredly not be included

My second edit - That sentence I removed is almost to the point of conspiracy theory, yet your trying to claim it's npov. Saying the government lets exxonmobile pollute because of money is most assuredly not something commonly accepted as fact by un-biased news organizations.

My third edit - this one might still have validity, but if so a counter-point needs to be added, It's no surprise that with who edits wikipedia, we only get poor examples of things Exxon mobile does. One should add in the amount of money they've donated to wildlife organizations/save the tigers/ other charitable funds as pre-emblem if this stays and to add neturality to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuck F (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 October 2004 ET.

I swear I responded to this last night, but it appears there was a problem saving. Oh well. Sudan paragraph: This is a single sentence. It's factual, notable, and cited. It has been replaced. Please do not delete sentences with references simply because you think they are not notable. Government conspiracy paragraph: You're right, this is pov, so I deleted the parenthetical comment about preferential treatment by the gov. The rest of the paragraph is fine, I replaced it. Your third edit: We do not delete accurate, factual information simply because it presents a subject in a bad light. If you have positive information about Exxon Mobil, feel free to add it. Do not delete unrelated info just to balance the article.

And please stop removing the external links. External links do not have to present the subject positively. Rhobite 14:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

... If you want to put all the bad factual information in and ignore all the postives, then it needs to be in a sepearte article aka critcisms of exxon mobile, untill then I refuse to let wikipedia turn into attack pages on corporations, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.112.19.195 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 8 October 2004.

This is whitewashing, plain and simple. You're deleting facts from an article with no justification. Unless you dispute these facts, you have no basis for removing them. Feel free to add positive information, but under no circumstances should you delete verified facts simply because you feel like it. Rhobite 15:58, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Chuck, please, add some details about ExxonMobil's positive activities! As Rhobite says, we want unbalanced articles to become balanced by adding content, not removing it! —Stormie 22:46, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Revert war

Please, anon and Chuck, don't revert without comments here - anon's continued removal of factual information is not making it more neutral, simply removing legitimate criticism. Intrigue 18:36, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One sentence that really does need a cite..

..is "To secure the concessions, ExxonMobil paid Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos millions of dollars in the late 1990s."

I don't think we can fling that sort of thing in here without a reference. —Stormie 22:42, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about that one. I have read a little about how Exxon and other corporations pay into a development fund as a condition of their presence in Angola. Rhobite 23:27, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Can anybody find a source for this about angola? if not it needs to go, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.112.19.195 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 10 October 2004 ET.

I found a source ([1] - Forbes Magazine) for the "ExxonMobil paid Angolan President José Eduardo dos Santos millions of dollars" claim, but I have rewritten that sentence to make it clear that this is an allegation that has been made, not a bald statement of fact. —Stormie 09:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. if anyone can dig up a response that ExxonMobil have made to these allegations, that would be great. The Forbes article doesn't really air their side of the story. —Stormie 10:08, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

also with the Line "These organisations commonly parody the company's brandname as "E$$O" to indicate their belief that the company is only interested in short-term profit, and is willing to use its financial power to buy influence." Can I include what The Objectivist center thinks of exxon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.112.19.195 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 10 October 2004 ET.

You most certainly can, that would be very welcome. —Stormie 09:56, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

And for a bit of a cleanup..

• Surely this article should be named ExxonMobil?
• We really need some sections: something like History (perhaps pre- and post-ExxonMobil merger), and Criticism (and it would be nice if the activists' complaints could be spelled out a little more, which would also allow us to slot in the corporate response to the complaints, if there is one) —Stormie 22:42, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

History of the "Esso" brand

The article mentions that the US trade name was changed to Exxon but that the rest of the world continued to use Esso. However it does not previously mention Esso at all! What's the history of this brand name? When did it begin? What does it mean? Why did they decide to retire it in the US but not worldwide? —Morven 04:43, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Just to help everyone's research, Esso retail petrol (gasoline in US-speak) outlets were known as Atlantic for some years in Australia, before rebadging sometime in the 60s. Their lubricating oil was already branded Esso. So there's some relationship there too. Andrewa 21:39, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suppressed link

• • Exxon corporate profile This link was suppressed by Anon. Editor 203.112.19.195, as "outdated" without substituting an up-to-date link other than the corporation's own website. Wetman 06:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV warning

Chuck (editing from 203.112.19.195), you added an NPOV warning but declined to point out any POV statements in the article. If you don't point out specific problems, I'll remove the NPOV statement in a couple days. A general complaint about the article's "balance" isn't really actionable. Rhobite 00:11, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

The last edit brings up an intresting point to me... this article is entirely about exxon, aka it has nothing about mobile pre-merger history(which seems to be the intelligent thing to do since exxon brought out mobile and got rid of most of the top mobile employees). But are pre-buyout critcisms of mobile still valid if we don't even have pre-buyout mobile history, and when mobile doesn't really even exist anymore, seems like something more valid for a history of mobile/critcisms of mobile article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.112.19.195 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 16 October 2004 ET.

Libertas's changes

I have reverted two of Libertas's changes. First, adding "Forbes is frequently sued in defamation" is completely inappropriate. We try to cite sources for claims like these precisely to avoid ad hominen, unsourced attacks, not as an excuse to attack the sources themselves. Forbes is a large, reputable publication, which has undoubtedly been sued for defamation -- but that's totally irrelevant unless it was sued over this specific article. Second, I see no reason to remove "Exxon Mobil is regarded by environmental activists as an example of disregard for environmental concerns by US-based corporations", although I did add a "many" qualifier in restoring it. RadicalSubversiv E 22:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Esso refinery at Fawley

I've added a little info on the Esso facility at Fawley, Hampshire. I'd like to link to it from here as it's a pretty big industrial plant in the UK, but I'm fazed by the the myriad different trade-names, subdivisions etc. I can't work out exactly who owns it and what it should be called. Locally, it has always been referred to simply as "Esso". Can anyone offer any advice? Mattley 13:33, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the name

Is it an urban legend, or is it true that the name Exxon was chosen to honor then-president Richard Nixon? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 4 July 2005 13:10 (UTC)

Category:Climate change organizations?

I don't care a great deal whether it stays or not, but I find the Category:Climate change organizations somewhat dubious. Exxon has said some stuff on GW, yes, but at the moment its keeing its head down; and calling it a cl ch org seems rather odd. William M. Connolley 21:54:14, 2005-07-10 (UTC).

ExxonMobil is one of the largest climate-change organizations in the world due to their petroleum production. They also are one of the largest funders of climate change research. Any way you cut it, it belongs in that category unless the category is really supposed to be "anti-climate-change" organizations. But it's not. Maybe that category needs rethinking. ;) -Willmcw 22:43, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Of the history section 349 of 708 words are lifted verbatim from [2]. The only reason the section is not a total copyvio is due to subsequent original contributions, e.g. Exxon Valdize oilspill. I believe it's not appropriate to list the page on Wikipedia:Copyright problems as the whole article is not a copyvio but this section at least need addressing.

Not only has no attempt been made to paraphrase this contribution, but the source is not even acknowledged!

Material copied verbatim

....In the same year, the nation's kerosene output was eclipsed for the first time by.....gasoline. The growing automotive market ultimately inspired the product trademark Mobiloil, registered by Socony in 1920.....

...Jersey Standard acquired a 50 percent interest in Humble Oil & Refining Co., a Texas oil producer. Socony purchased a 45 percent interest in Magnolia Petroleum Co., a major refiner, marketer and pipeline transporter. In 1931, Socony merged with Vacuum Oil Co., an industry pioneer dating back to 1866 and a growing Standard Oil spin-off in its own right....

...In the Asia-Pacific region, Jersey Standard had oil production and refineries in Indonesia but no marketing network. Socony-Vacuum had Asian marketing outlets supplied remotely from California. In 1933, Jersey Standard and Socony-Vacuum merged their interests in the region into a 50-50 joint venture. Standard-Vacuum Oil Co., or "Stanvac,"operated in 50 countries, from East Africa to New Zealand, before it was dissolved in 1962....

...Mobil Chemical Company was established in 1960. As of 1999, principal products included basic olefins and aromatics, ethylene glycol and polyethylene. The company produced synthetic lube base stocks as well as lube additives, propylene packaging films and catalysts....Exxon Chemical Company became a worldwide organization in 1965 and in 1999 was a major producer and marketer of olefins, aromatics, polyethylene and polypropylene along with speciality lines such as elastomers, plasticizers, solvents, process fluids, oxo alcohols and adhesive resins. The company was an industry leader in metallocene catalyst technology to make unique polymers with improved performance.

...In 1955, Socony-Vacuum became Socony Mobil Oil Co. and, in 1966, simply Mobil Oil Corp. . A decade later, [the] newly incorporated Mobil Corporation embraced Mobil Oil as a wholly owned subsidiary. Jersey Standard changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972 and established Exxon as an uncontested trademark throughout the United States. In other parts of the world, Exxon and its affiliated companies continued to use its long-time Esso trademark...

...In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed November 30, 1999... Mark 14:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge of article

Shouldn't Mobil and ExxonMobil be combined to form one big article as Mobil's info on history and other stuff is pretty much the same. Lincher 18:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Kyoto

"As soon as Bush was elected, the USA - the world's biggest polluter - withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the international measure to cut down on global warming and Greenpeace has argued ExxonMobil encouraged Bush to take a stance against Kyoto." This sentence implies that it is George W. Bush's election that led to the American withdrawl from Kyoto Protocol. This is patently untrue. Kyoto was left unratified by the Clinton administration because it knew that it would never pass the Senate. As such, the US is a signitory to the Protocol but this is non binding. Bush simply never bothered trying something that he, and every other politician in America knows, will never pass muster with the Senate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.95.200 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 7 December 2005 ET.

And it ain't like Bush didn't say before the election anything about Kyoto. He said he was against it when he was still gov. of Texas. It was something that Gore and Bush talked about in the presidental debates. --162.119.240.103 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

DP

Is it really appropriate to use DP as an abbreviation for domestic partner(ship) really appropriate? Seems a bit lazy, I'll fix it if no one objects. --Timmywimmy 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Diversity--sexual orientation

I rephrased the sentence about shareholders' voting against "special treatment" on account of sexual orientation, both for style reasons and because it was reminiscent of opponents' slogans that specifically protecting against sexual-orientation discrimination constitutes creating a "special right" rather than assuring equality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbkelley (talk • contribs) 09:56, 25 February 2006 ET.

In discussing the vote about DP benefits, I changed "shareholders" to "shares voted". There's a tiny chance that I'm wrong about this because I don't know about that particular vote, but typically votes are counted by shares, not by shareholders. In other words, if one person owned a supermajority of shares and voted against the proposal, that's all that Exxon would care about (and report), not the actual number of shareholders who voted against the proposal. AdamRetchless 02:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Exxonmobil corporate website clearly states in its Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity policy that discrimination on personal characteristics including sexual orientation are not tolerated. http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/Citizenship/CCR5/employment_policies_and_practices.asp The article cited even admits this http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/companies/pluggedin_fortune/index.htm before proceding to discuss the real issue which is the extension of spousal benefits to same-sex domestic partners. The current wording is misleading as it implies discrimination in hiring and harrassment are condoned. 81.244.152.97 16:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The "Diversity" section of the article is reiterating the same point already made in the "Allegations" section so the information is redundant. Furthermore, it does not discuss any aspect of diversity other than sexual orientation. 81.244.152.97 16:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

After further reflection, the diversity section does not address diversity in the workplace, it addresses only one aspect of the employee compensation. I am consolidating the contents of this section with the related bullet point in "Allegations". 81.243.21.109 03:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

They're the largest company in the world (revenue), have over 88,000 employees, and presence in countless countries with massive research, exploration, and production operations. The only picture in the article is a crooked shot of a gas station supposedly not even operated by Exxon that you can sort of see if you look across the street and past the traffic. Is that a joke? Dbchip 20:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you happen to have a ExxonMobil refinery or office building right next to you, go take a picture of it and feel free to get rid of my picture! I didn't have a good digital camera at the time (I do now), which is why the picture isn't that great. --Coolcaesar 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Splitting Entries for ExxonMobil, Exxon, and Mobil

Does anyone have any good arguments for or against creating separate entries for ExxonMobil, Exxon, and Mobil? On the one hand, separate entries allow some focus on the history of the two heritage companies, which operated independently (by law) after their birthing at the dissolution of the Standard Oil trust, and more focus on current information for the present company. On the other hand, past is prologue and much of how the present company operates and is viewed by the public is based on the history of the heritage companies.

MJRathbone - 2 April 2005

Much the same way that the Sears Holdings Corporation article was recently split into three, leading to the creation of two new articles: Kmart and Sears, Roebuck and Company; a new spinoff article dedicated exclusively to the subsdiairy Exxon should be created from the current ExxonMobil article. As far as I'm concerned, the ExxonMobil article should include only informations related to the new company that was created in 1999 following the merger between Exxon and Mobil. Mobil already has its own article so why not do the same for Exxon.

— Farine May 18, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, those looking for historical information would be better suited by an article on Exxon. —Jnk^[talk] 01:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They're the same freakin' company. Splitting the entries would be endlessly confusing to the vast majority of readers who are unaware of the differences, and would make the information harder to find.

"Publicly traded"

The intro paragraph says it's the largest publicly traded company in the world, and has the largest market value of any publicly traded company. Is it necessary to say "publicly traded"? I thought it was #1 in these categories among all companies. Tempshill 19:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

"publicly traded" is relevant because it is hard to value other types of companies. If it is no. 5 on Forbes Global list, those other four may have greater value, but this is hard to assess, particularly if one of them is state owned or does not publish audited financial statements.

-Randall Cameron randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

The term publicly traded is meant to differentiate XOM and similar shareholder-owned companies from state-owned oil companies such as Aramco. XOM is not the largest integrated oil company if state-owned companies are included in the analysis.

MJRathbone - 5 April 2005

The intro also states that it's the largest oil and gas company, when it's in fact the largest, period. Is there a reason to keep this distinction? Jesus Carp 17:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems pretty anti-Exxon Mobil, given Wiki's desire to remain NPOV it does not seem reasonable for an editor to add a substantial paragraph on criticisms of the company and then expect someone else to add any positive contributions. I know the polite thing to do is ask before making changes, so I would like to add some of the positive things they have done and trim down the allegations section. --ProductofPublicEducation 17:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. You might mark unimproved sections with the npov tag. Dbchip 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction - Chevron

Introduction -- "...four supermajors..." There are five: you left out Chevron, which is quite a bit bigger than Total.

-Randall Cameron randallcameron@kpmg.com.ye

I took the statement of four at face value, which is probably a mistake. Trying to find a reasonable definition for super major, supermajor, or super-major on the Internet is an interesting exercise. In addition to Chevron, one could also make a case for Conoco-Phillips. I saw one reference that cited only XOM, BP, and RDS. Perhaps the sentence should be pulled unless someone can develop a more precise definition.

MJRathbone - 5 April 2006

Supermajor. TastyCakes (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Allegations section - source and be notable

The allegations section is inherently POV. Even more so for the unsourced allegations. Allegations, if included, should be be notable, e.g. ff the allegations result in national news coverage AND are sourced. Unsourced allegations should be removed. —ERcheck @ 20:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've added {{Fact}} for the allegations. Without citations and proper notability, these should be removed within a reasonable amount of time. I suggest that 10 days is sufficient. —ERcheck @ 20:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest moving a bulk of the allegations section to a general criticism of petroleum industry article.

I agree. I feel that the allegations section has outgrown its place in this article, and would be more educational as part of a wider view of criticism in the petroleum industry. Voting to move to criticism of petroleum industry.

A statement concerning a 2003 judgment against XOM has had a {{Fact|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} tag for over 2 weeks. I did a quick G-search and did not find anything specific related to the petroleum marketers. As such, I removed the statement. If a citation can be found, returning is should include an effort to maintain a NPOV, by including plantiff and defendant stances. — ERcheck (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations against XOM - "unproven, highly debatable"

In the "Allegations against" section, someone keeps deleting the phrase that the allegations are debatable and unproven, and I keep putting it back.

I think it is important to preface this section with these comments.

Allegations are inherently POV, but in the case of such a controversial entity as XOM, I think it is important that the Wiki article give some mention of the various blots on the company's reputation (whether justified or not,) as well as its popular perception as a villain in American politics, as the existence of these accusations are important things to know about the company, even if you don't necessarily believe the charges.

Nevertheless, since such allegations are by nature political, partisan, and a matter of opinion, any section giving mention of such controversies MUST be conditioned with strong NPOV language.

I'm putting the "unproven/debatable" comment back for a 3rd time.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.128.186.177 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 May 2006 ET.

Might want to add the stuff about them editing their own wiki entry and removing criticism. http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=14323 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.83.227 (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with GDP

Should the comparisons with nations be made against purchasing power parity GDP, or nominal GDP. Currently it seems to be with the former, but can i be bold and suggest that the latter is more sensible as one cannot really define a purchasing power (in the same way) for a company, can one? --Neo 09:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Production and Reserve Numbers

Does anyone have the stats for how much oil exxon is responsible for producing per day/year and how big it's proven reserves are? I think these should be in there someone... TastyCakes 22:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put in the production figuree, as they are sucha a fundamental measure of an oil company i have put them in the first paragraph, obviously somebody may want to put them elsewhere. The figures are easily referencable as they are taken directly from the annual report under shareholder publications on the Exxon Corporate website, however when i tried to work out how the formatting works for referencing my brain melted. Anybody who would like to do this would be greatly appreciated. Oh do we need to explain BoE?----

I think it would be useful to explain an "equivalent barrel of oil", but I think a link to an article that does so would suffice. Is there such an article? TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Global Warming

The Global Warming section should be improved as it pushes the reader into the realm of being "scientific fact". The so-called organizations that seek to confuse the public, are no different than one sided documentaries like "An Inconvenient Truth", which injects personal politics and vendettas into a science which hasn't yet proven to be true or false.

The section does state implicitly that there is a scientific consensus on global warming which is well documented. Other than that it really discusses only funding, not science, and every statement is sourced. The term astroturfing is used to paraphrase where possibly it shouldn't be but I see no other POV problems. --Nethgirb 20:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

How many employees?

The sidebar says "Employees: 83,700", yet in the article body it claims Exxon employs "over 100,000 people worldwide" - which is correct?

Birdbrainscan 02:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick check seems to agree with the article text. I updated the sidebar and added a cite. Thanks for noticing that! Kuru ^talk 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just updated the employee numbers based on ExxonMobil 2006 Corporate Citizen Report that came out at in Feb 2007. The number should be ~82,000. I believe Yahoo's information is old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.92.60.215 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

dealings with Santos

There is nothing in [3] which evenly remotely supported the text that was in the article. Thus I removed it. Intangible2.0 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

the text exactly states "Getting at that oil wasn't pretty--ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President Jose Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s, helping to prolong Angola's ruinous civil war--but then the oil business is rarely pretty. "You kinda have to go where the oil is," deadpans Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil's chairman. "

Noting about the act so I removed that, the rest of the text was put back Teardrop onthefire 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

A settlement with OFAC does not mean you accept guilt or responsibility as far as I know. And only 2 companies traded with Sudan, making the current text illogical and wrong. About the Santos deal, Exxon seemed to have paid the Angola government money. The IMF does this as well. How is this unethical? Intangible2.0 18:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It is unethical if it is "helping to prolong Angola's ruinous civil war" (from the article) Teardrop onthefire 16:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The referenced article is an opinion article. Please first show that this opinion is actually widely held. Otherwise I will have to put a NPOV tag to the section. Will you restore the OFAC bit in the mean time? Intangible2.0 22:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if it is still an opinion if Lee Raymond, ExxonMobil's chairman admits the claims stated by Forbes with the reply :"You kinda have to go where the oil is". Teardrop onthefire 09:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was a reply at all by Raymond. The article blaims Exxon for prolonging a civil war in Angola by handing over money to Santos. The implication that handing this money over to Santos caused the civil war to be prolonged is not evident. I want to see additional sources for this, which shouldn't be hard to find if this a widely held view. Intangible2.0 17:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

4 extra references were added concerning Exxon Mobil and Angola Teardrop onthefire 13:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Former global warming skeptics category

Frescard removed the category former global warming skeptics, I think because it could be argued that the category should include only humans, not corporations. However, the parent category, global warming skeptics, is the de facto place for all kinds of global warming skeptics, including people and a number of organizations. So it seems appropriate to do the same for the subcategory.

What does it mean for an organization or corporation to be a skeptic? Certainly if their official policy is skeptical of global warming, that is enough. And in ExxonMobil's case we have the internal memo which stated quite unambiguously in 1998, "The climate change theory being advanced by the treaty supporters is based primarily on forecasting models with a very high degree of uncertainty. In fact, it is not known for sure whether (a) climate change is actually occurring, or (b) if it is, whether humans really have any influence on it." [4] And they put their money where their mouth was... It's also clear as documented in the article that the official position changed by 2007.

So, any objection to putting the category back in? --Nethgirb 04:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to be a skeptic you have to be able to think, to doubt, and to suspend belief ([5]).
A corporation can't do any of those. A corporation has policies and strategies, and these may align with the positions of followers or skeptics, but a corporation itself doesn't think - it doesn't have a conscience. It is therefore incapable of doubting anthing by itself.
Labeling a corporation a skeptic doesn't make any sense by the commonly accepted definition of the word.
And if there are corporations or organizations in other lists of skeptics, then it would be time to clean up those lists, rather than applying this absurd definition to this particular list as well. --Frescard 15:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See? No matter what you want to do there's always someone against it. Personally, I have no problem with applying the label if the corporation issues a formal policy statement, and puts things like this in their financials, and tacks it up on billboards for the whole world to see, but I would look with great skepticism on talking points which seem to imply all kinds of nice things. And on the other hand I'm not an admin so my opinion doesn't really matter. Cryptonymius 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Frescard, a little anthropomorphization never hurt anyone. I agree with your formal definition of "skeptic" but I think it is counterproductive to be so strict when the meaning is clear (and spelled out in the article, in case there is any confusion). Anyway, if you dislike thinking of the label as applying to Exxon, take it to mean that the management of Exxon are former GW skeptics --- they are presumably human... --Nethgirb 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The argument that corporations can't think is silly. But who says they are "former"? William M. Connolley 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article: In January 2007 the company appeared to change its position, when vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said "we know enough now — or, society knows enough now — that the risk is serious and action should be taken." Cohen stated that as of 2006, ExxonMobil had ceased funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and "'five or six' similar groups". [6] Do you know if they have said or done anything to contradict that statement? If not, it seems fairly clear... --Nethgirb 23:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb:"Anyway, if you dislike thinking of the label as applying to Exxon, take it to mean that the management of Exxon are former GW skeptics --- they are presumably human..."

I don't really know what the management of Exxon thinks (all we know is what their press releases say), but since this article is about the Exxon corporation, and not about their board members (who probably have different opinions anyway), that argument doesn't really help much... --Frescard 00:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't find out what anyone really thinks -- we have to go by what they say.

The category can be applied when the article contains a significant discussion of the topic, not only when the subject of the article title is in the category, e.g. Global warming controversy (it's not reasonable to anthropomorphize a "controversy", but the article contains a significant discussion of global warming skeptics so it is in that category).

But I think the main argument here is that (1) saying an organization can have an opinion is justifiable and not uncommon, (2) the de facto standard is for these categories to include organizations, so even if you think all these categories should be reorganized, the way to do it is not to exclude one individual article from inclusion. --Nethgirb 00:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no further objection, I am replacing the category. --Nethgirb 21:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

This is the last sentence of the introduction, "Although the largest among privately owned oil companies, ExxonMobil is still larger in size by the largest state petroleum producers." Is this a typo, and "by" should be "than"? Or - as indicated by the word "although" - Exxon is the largest private oil company, but not smaller than a state owned company? I thought the state run oil compnay of Saudi Arabia was larger than Exxon, but I am not sure. Just something that should be clarrified.--Rugz 05:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

POV issues

The sections on "Controversies" and "Environmental record" do not present a neutral point of view (NPOV). Undoubtably, ExxonMobil has responses to the controversies and has environmental issues, which need to be presented in order to maintain NPOV. — ERcheck (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Given the well-documented extreme skewing of science and the mass media perpetrated by ExxonMobil, I think they have lost much of the credibility that would otherwise warrant the inclusion of their 'response' to these issues. Instead I suggest this article stick to factual and/or genuine scholarly sources when trying to find 'balance'.

I also put forward for the reader's consideration here the following imaginary scenario in order to help understand the what ExxonMobil has at stake: imagine you had $10,000, acquired legally, but to which the state could make a claim for some part of -- how hard would you work to keep these funds? Would you be willing to 'spin' your case in a way that obscures a potential lack of ethics in the way you procured this $10,000? Now, imagine it was $100,000. Now imagine it was $1,000,000. Now imagine it was the quarterly profits of ExxonMobil. To hold the opinion that EM would act in any kind of an ethical way in the face of the possibility of losing billions of dollars is to be obscenely naive.

I would also remind reader that former CEO of ExxonMobil Lee Raymond appears to have lied to congress, which would be illegal. 132.239.215.69 16:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing neutral about a reply from ExxonMobile. Rockefeller was the first to employ 'spin' and PR-tactics...the company is all about it. The world hated Rockefeller due to his lack of humanity and basic human decency/morals, yet he died a beloved philanthropist. I'm sure that the PR for Standard Oil aka Exxon is just as good as ever.192.249.47.11 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. NPOV does not mean that both sides are presented equally, it means that the facts are presented in a straightforward manner. The facts are clear and well documented in this case. I've removing the neutrality dispute tag as it appears to be used improperly. Also, fellow Wiki editors, please try to keep the talk page about the article. Pro crast in a tor 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire controversies section is biased in the way it presents the controversies; what is straightforward about listing the fact that a governer thinks someone's retirement package is outrageous? A politician's opinion about what is excessive is menaingless to me. Just list the amount, and if it is an outlier, say so. This type of writing is what typifies this section, opinions included with the listing of facts. Exxon's response to each controversy listed would not be necessary if the controversies were honestly presented.NKCTrio 14:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is largely one-sided against Exxon Mobile. Every large corporation or organization eventually acquires a crowd of critics. This needs to be cleaned up.Kevinp2 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

$500 billion Market Cap

The article now says that ExxonMobil is the first corporation in history to hit the $500 billion market cap milestone. I believe Microsoft was actually worth over $500 billion in 1999 before the dot-com bubble burst. I think the claim of Exxon as the first to hit the milestone needs to be modifed.Boyleb1 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft and the dot-com burst are unrelated...dot-com related to online businesses. MS took a hit when their monopoly was broken up. 192.249.47.11 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ExxonMobile edits own article

Can somebody verify that this change is ok? The IP belongs to Exxon Mobile and has some more edits that should be checked. Regards, --85.127.143.188 23:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, although since then, the text has been rewritten. I wonder if any other IPs editing here belong to the company. --Nethgirb 00:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to comply with neutrality standards- it read like an Exxon press release.-Wafulz 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• The information has now been properly nuanced, although it remains unreferenced. The article about Exxon's meddling with its own page (nuaghty, naughty) can be read here: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article2267778.ece Eusebeus 09:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't Exxon (or any other entity or person) edit their own page?Kevinp2 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well it would be lovely if Exxon could get a fair rap on a page like this without intervening itself, but reading the article and some of the comments here makes it apparent that's not possible. If they put in information that is clearly factual and non-biased, I don't see a problem with it. Providing a reference is obviously a requirement, however. TastyCakes (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

fair enough, but surely its "rap"? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks ;) TastyCakes (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Punitive Damages Changed

On 21:18, 21 August 2007 "Pro crast in a tor" changed the value of damages owed from $5 billion to $2.5 billion. This site [7] I think says $5B (specifically see the ruling [8]). This document is from 2001, so things have probably changed (maybe the appeal has been completed). However the link provided in the citation "http://www.seattleclassaction.com/exxon/exxon.asp" is broken. If someone can clear this up that would be great. Thanks Lionfish0 12:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Lionfish0, the correct value is in fact 2.5B. Here is the actual ruling

However, it appears that the ExxonMobil page is currently protected, with the reason given of "you know why". Which has me mystified, I'm going to request that it be unprotected. Pro crast in a tor 04:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be because ExxonMobil has appealed the $2.5B verdict to the Supreme Court, as User:Cyde protected both this page and exxon valdez oil spill. I think this is a minor news event not worthy of protection, and the protection is hindering our ability to update the page to the latest available information. I'm out of town the next week or so, so it'll be up to y'all to add reference information for the $2.5B change, my attempts at resolving the protection problem tonight have failed. Pro crast in a tor 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to profits

Here's a more controversial edit that I wanted to get feedback on first. I'd like to strike the following: "The company and the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and chemical industry's lobbying apparatus, tried to downplay its success in order to avoid consumer criticism by putting up page-long ads in major American newspapers, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, comparing oil industry profits to those of other large industries such as pharmaceuticals and banking. [10] [11]".

While at first glance it seems to be related, a close reading shows that this statement has little to do with the fact that ExxonMobil reported record profits for any company ever. It appears to be pure PR to me, advertising that has made its way into Wikipedia, and as such, I think it should be removed. Sure, it was Exxon's response, but I don't think non-factual, PR responses are notable. Do others think this is notable? Also, API does a lot more than be a "lobbying apparatus", it's also a standards organization and many other things, but I guess that's a moot issue if the sentence is stricken. Pro crast in a tor 08:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument wasn't about net profits, it was about profit margin. Indeed, Exxon's profit margins are significantly lower than pharmaceuticals and I think it's a valid point that has been made by people other than Exxon lobyists and PR people. TastyCakes (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Someone, always using an IP rather than an account, keeps adding links to llp3.com, a Dutch website (written in English). As far as I can tell, the theme of the site is "big corporations." In addition to looking like it was designed by a schizophrenic with no sense of aesthetics, it is not primarily about Exxon. The IP that adds it usually spams a few other articles with the link whenever it edits this one. I was curious if anyone else had any opinions about this. I've been assuming it is spam and deleting it whenever I see it.Urlass 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial"

it's simple. it's an attempt to color the reader's perception of the company. there are countless corporations that can be labeled "controversial". dow chemical, monsanto, BP, Walmart. however, editors with NPOV in mind have appropriately kept the lede of their articles focused on the facts. if there are notable controversies, at best they are mentioned towards the bottom of the lede. one man's meat is another man's poison, and it is up to editors to keep both meat and poison out of articles, and to simply present verifiable facts. one editor has repeatedly used a link to an ny times opinion piece as his/her reference to cite the controversy as 'fact'. the problem is, opinions aren't facts - so citing an opinion to back up an opinion does not magically make it a fact. i've reverted these edits routinely, but as user User:Stormie wisely pointed out, it's becoming a revert war. i'll repeat, this is simple: several editors are insisting on using the word "controversial" as the very first adjective to describe ExxonMobil in the very first sentence of the article. that's patently POV pushing. the controversies are discussed at length within the body of the article, where it's appropriate to do so. my opinion on exxonmobil? i barely have one. i'm neither a pom-pon wielding cheerleader for the company nor do i have a burning pit of hatred in my gut for the company. all i care about is maintaining NPOV, and high quality writing. when i see blatant POV pushing, i revert it. too bad others aren't joining in. it's the right thing to do.Anastrophe 02:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As someone who comes very close to having "a burning pit of hatred in my gut for the company", I have to say I agree with Anastrophe here. If there's enough dirt on them to form an ExxonMobil controversies article, that's one thing, but the company is far more than the sum of its controversies, and probably all large companies are controversial to one group of people or another. (I don't feel that the word necessarily needs to be purged everywhere in the article, but it doesn't belong in the first sentence.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What about a sentence in the opening paragraph (as is the case now)? I think that's probably the way to go: Wikipedia:Lead section states "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any," although that is only a guideline and the "notable controversies" section has been the subject of some heated discussion (see e.g. Wikipedia talk:Lead section/Archive 2#Notable controversies) --Stormie 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

petrochina

an anon editor changed the page to state that petrochina is now worth more than exxonmobil. while true as of today, it's the result of an IPO of a state-controlled company. in terms of earnings, exxonmobil still is larger, and the reality is that IPOs tend to be highly volatile, and values tend to drop as the stabilize after the initial excitement boils off. since wikipedia isn't wikinews, i question whether this is notable enough to change the article to say it's the 'second largest' company in the world (and since it's only via one measure, it's inaccurate anyway). i'm not against the information being added, but it needs to fall in line with notability and the fact that tomorrow it may no longer stand accurately. for reference, [9]. Anastrophe 19:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

While the edit is correct, I do agree Wiki should not suffer from "recentlism", I suggest we wait a few days and see what happens to the market first, see if it calms down. However, I do want to point out that in all technicality, Petrochina IS currently the largest corporation, profitability cannot be used to compare company size since many companies are valued higher than their profits, even Exxonmobil is valued at TWICE of their's; while Perochina is valued at 10x. 24.89.245.62 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/06/bloomberg/06sxpetro.php. speaks for itself as reason for these changes to be held off until the market settles down. Anastrophe 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this assertion. Please see my reasoning at Talk:PetroChina. If you disagree or can show me where my logic is wrong, please respond there. Thanks. Ufwuct (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does XOM redirect here?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.212.30.32 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the stock symbol. I don't know the policy for this though (whether or not it's an unnecessary redirect). Ufwuct (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an appropriate use of a redirect — which is an alternative term (stock symbol) and a convenient way of going to the page. Note that for Chevron Corporation, their stock symbol CVX redirects to the main article; For more information on use of redirects see Help:Redirect. `— ERcheck (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Profits of Oil Companies

There is a preposterous statement about the price of oil which says that the devaluation of the dollar is responsible for the price increase. This is fringe economics at best, propounded by an obvious Ron Paulist. Why are there no reasonable explanations of the five-fold increases in 'Big Oil' profits over the past 8 years? I've noticed that wikipedia was this time last year a great place to find no-nonsense info and a great place for debunking, but I find more and more that it is being littered with just weird fluff. Perhaps it is getting to big for its own good? -J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

How can you possibly make the argument that it's fringe economics? Take two seconds and look at the graph on the linked source. The trend is clear and obvious. Why are people so willing to call simple math "fringe"? Simply because it's not what they want to hear? -14:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.87.140 (talk)

Fringe or not, it doesn't belong. The assertion that its the primary cause is clearly not acceptable as is, it would have to be heavily qualified. But it doesn't belong here William M. Connolley (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that it does, in fact, belong-the sources provided very clearly point out that the primary cause of the rising cost of oil, per barrel, is caused by inflation, and not oil company profits. The price, per barrel, naturally has a direct effect on the price of gasoline, which can also effect profits of ExxonMobil, thus artificially inflating their profits.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it belongs in a general oil, or price-of-oil, article, not here. Unless you're planning to add it into all oil company articles, could you explain why you've only added it to this one? It is not true that everything to do with oil belongs in the EM article William M. Connolley (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The primary reason is that ExxonMobil is nearly equated with the oil industry in the US, due to its size, profits, and frequent mentionings in the news--I'm not denying that there are other oil companies in the US, I'm merely saying that ExxonMobil is the primary one. And again, the reason why I posted my statement is that it explains why the profits have gone up each year. --Fox P McCloud (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is or not in the public mind, it isn't equated in *reality*. Your edit would only be justified if added to every oil company page, whereupon it would obviously be absurd. The solution is obvious: inheritance: ie, it should go into oil or oil price if it exists, or somesuch. This is leaving aside the question of whether your edit is true. Personally I don't think it is; at the very least it cannot be stated so definitively. But thats secondary: the primary problem is that this is the wrong place William M. Connolley (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I will concede your point on where it should be placed...that said. Why can't the currency issue be stated so definitively? I provided a very informative video and provided an article; these aren't the only ones that I could have provided either. Why is it so hard to believe that currency is the primary problem?--Fox P McCloud (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, good. Currency: you have a source saying X; in fact you have several. But I hope you won't pretend that is the only opinion on the subject. Other sources would say that Y or Z explain the oil price. Analogy: I could provide you several sources to say that global warming is caused entirely by the sun. I could find you several others to say that global warming doesn't exist and the earth is in fact cooling. Nonetheless, the global warming article states neither of these contradictory positions as a fact William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the argument here? The US dollar has lost ground against currencies in oil exporting countries and regions, like Canada, the middle east, Russia etc. Obviously oil is going to be more expensive when priced in US dollars as a result. Just as in Canada, it doesn't "appear" to Canadians that the price of oil has gone up as much, because the value of the Canadian dollar has risen something like 30% against the US dollar over the past few years. This isn't fringe economics, it's common sense. That said, it is obviously not the only factor at work. TastyCakes (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article

To me that whole article feels like a bashing Exxon Mobil website.. wow. I am not impressed with Wikipedia after reading that page at all. Does anyone else get that feeling as well...? Motorex (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In general I feel this entire article is biased against ExxonMobil, just as I feel that a few other articles are, as well, biased.--Fox P McCloud (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Exxon and oil companies in general have become a whipping boy for a lot of the American government and public at large. There are a few mostly misunderstood things that makes a lot of their anger misplaced. First, ExxonMobil does not control or even produce a particularly significant portion of the world's oil. Exxon and companies like it are important to the oil industry because of their skills, experience and their ability to raise capital. Second, the portion that they do produce is decreasing, particularly liquids, and they are struggling to achieve replacement of their reserves. And third, Exxon and Western oil companies in general are extremely careful when it comes to environmental matters, probably more so than any other industry in the world (of course the products they sell produce carbon dioxide when burned, but you can hardly blame them for what their customers do, especially when we are the customers). And I suppose 4th, while their profits are high their profit margins are relatively reasonable and a large part of the profit is reinvested in ensuring future production. If those things can be clearly put across I think the article would be fairer. TastyCakes (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Exxon and other oil companies are detested not because of their business, but because of their politics. They've opposed environmental regulations and reforms that might have helped mitigate the impacts of the current oil crisis. They've donated hundreds of thousands of money to global warming skeptic groups. Unsophisticated observers might see Exxon charging lots of money for gas and think Exxon is bad, but that's not the real reason they're detested. Unfortunately, at least in the US, not many people know about Exxon's shady connections and dealings. I mean, it really looks like their executives lied to congress, for crissake. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed reforms such as what? If by "oppose" you mean "not funded", then sure, but it's not like they've gone about trying to undercut wind power or hydro or whatever. If you want to hate anybody in this chain it should really be the car companies for not providing an alternative to gasoline, not the company that sells gasoline. How stupid would a company have to be to try to dissuade people from using its product? It is not Exxon's place to try and get people to drive electric cars, and expecting it to is unfair. If they were exerting pressure on car companies not to make such vehicles that would be another matter, but that remains in the realm of conspiracy theorists and is patently untrue, IMO.

Tell me, if they're not "trying to undercut wind power or hydro or whatever" then why have bills incentivizing renewable energy, etc., stalled in congress? The bills have majority political (and overwhelming popular) support, yet oil-industry-friendly Senators have said "no" to repealing oil-industry tax breaks that would have funded similar tax breaks for renewables. I would have no trouble with modest oil companies that showed themselves as committed to reducing CO2 output, conversion to sustainable energy sources, etc. However, ExxonMobil has shown no such thing in any substantive way. And so ExxonMobil is rightfully despised for selling out the world's future in support of profits on a time-line that shareholders care about. The "market" doesn't care what the world is like in 50 years ... yet so many people think that we can just leave myopic corporations, which have cultivated global dependence on a finite resource, to their own politically-manipulative devices. Almost all change for the better will hurt some parties. In this case, weening ourselves from oil dependence (which is a good thing for hundreds of reasons) will hurt oil companies, and they're trying to stall and prevent this as much as possible. I know I probably would if I were in their shoes. Wouldn't you? 132.239.215.69 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Exxon isn't in congress, and you are misrepresenting the issue of "tax breaks" on the oil industry. These so called breaks are some of the most misunderstood elements of the story. The largest part of them are credits towards operating stripper wells and operating in deep-water. In the former, it is felt that such wells (producing less than 5 barrels a day but collectively accounting for a large portion of America's oil output) would become uneconomic without these breaks and the wells would be shut in, denying that oil probably forever since spending a million dollars to redrill each well would be a non-starter. The deep water and other "breaks" are given essentially to attract oil and gas investment to America as opposed to undesirable regimes abroad. America would likely be even more dependent on foreign oil without them, a situation disliked by all parts of the political spectrum. The choice for the American government on that front is not "how much should we take from the oil companies" but should we get a reduced tax and royalty revenue from the company or get none, as the operation would simply not be in America but offshore Angola or some such place.

You fail to mention renewables already have significant tax breaks, and the ethanol issue is, IMO, a borderline sham. I agree entirely the world must ween itself off of oil. But, perhaps tragically, that seems unlikely to happen on a significant scale until market forces begin to dictate it. Fortunately, it seems these forces might have already begun to work. Which bills are you referring to that are stalled in congress, other than ones to remove oil and gas incentives as mentioned above?

This is obviously becoming a too-protracted discussion for this page, and we're no long really talking about the substance of the article. If it's actually true that oil tax-incentives are revenue-neutral (since an unviable-without-break-well doesn't generate royalties if it's not pumped) then obviously no one should have any trouble with them (assuming everything was done openly and honestly ... at today's prices I expect these wells are probably quite viable, but I simply don't know). I strongly doubt that this is the case for the majority of the tax-breaks, but I simply don't know at this point.

I am not saying these policies are revenue neutral, I'm saying they're revenue positive. Ideally these breaks for stripper wells would be scaled to oil price, I believe they are but I'm not sure to what degree. The objective of attracting capital to developing oil interests in America rather than overseas remains as true and relevant at $125 a barrel as is it did at $20 a barrel. As for you not knowing the issue, that is precisely my point. It is easy for people to say "look at all the tax breaks they're getting!" without really understanding what the breaks are or the motivations behind them. Despite not understanding the whole story, you were more than happy to insert your opinions on the matter into a diatribe against the oil industry. Which is, in my experience, quite common in such discussions. TastyCakes (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it's true, I don't know the details. But it appears neither do you. Depending one various costs and price-points, the royalty waivers could be revenue negative or positive. Maybe the industry secured these accommodations when prices were low and didn't include an oil price increase clause (because I know that's what I'd do if I were an oil lobbyist). Or maybe, thanks to the impeccable ethical standards upheld by the current US administration, government administrators stood their ground in the oil industry negotiations and insisted that the subsidies be calibrated so that it didn't end up being revenue negative. Also, it's a political question in the first place whether we should be encouraging domestic oil investment at this point in time (it's not like the oil is going anywhere), which makes it perfectly reasonable to say "look at the tax breaks they're getting". 132.239.215.69 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with American royalties, but I am familiar with Canadian ones. It varies from province to province, but the significant producing provinces all have royalty formulas that take into account price, production, age of well and then a whole slew of exemptions for technically challenging wells - deep wells, CBM wells etc. I suspect American royalties are similar, although much more of their production comes from private lands where government royalties don't apply. TastyCakes (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we to believe that oilmen Cheney and Bush, who've refused to disclose what happened at their meetings with lobbyists and oil execs, are committed to seeing America become energy independent asap through conservation and alternative fuel sources? Or is the truth of the matter that ExxonMobil, and other oil companies, would prefer to see Americans dependent on them for as long as possible, while passing this off as being "good for the economy"? If E.M. abided by the mantra "don't be evil", I highly doubt the company would be funding researchers whose sole purpose is to skew the CO2 debate in the public sphere. Stalled bill. And of course corn-based-ethanol is a sham -- but research money and incentives for the cellulosic kind aren't. Special:Contributions/132.239.215.69|132.239.215.69]] (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Believe what you want, it is speculation and opinion and not suitable for inclusion in the article. TastyCakes (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We both understand the free market, how businesses work, and the influence of the profit incentive. It doesn't take an economist infer what happens when self-interested parties get together in secret with extremely sympathetic lawmakers (indeed, the only political mechanism prevent collusion here is transparency). How might such eminently reasonable conclusions be transmitted in a Wikipedia article? 132.239.215.69 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

By companies that reinvest in clean energy, I suspect you mean ones like Shell, BP and Chevron which make a big dog and pony show out of their (on balance) modest investments in various green causes. I have always considered these actions a ploy to get the government and everyone else off their backs, not to mention distract investors from borderline fraud in the case of Shell's overstatement of reserves and ineptitude in the case of BP's various technical blunders. I guess time will tell the ultimate outcome.

I disagree that the market doesn't care what the world will be like in 50 years. There is simply a great deal more uncertainty that far in the future. If BP, Shell etc think that 50 years along the line they will be financially rewarded for seeing "the big picture" when it came to energy from an early stage, I wish them all the best. Exxon has apparently decided that it is too early to make such a change in direction and will continue to focus its efforts on what it does best: oil and gas. You believe Exxon is being myopic. I can almost guarantee they put a lot of thought into where their business will be in the decades to come. Their opinions on the world and the energy market in particular are simply very different from yours. They believe oil will remain a significant if not dominant energy source for a long time to come. Time will tell if this is correct and Exxon will reap the rewards or pay the price. That is their choice to make in a free economy. TastyCakes (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the free market is great, don't get me wrong, but why on earth would it care what the world was like in 50 years?? Maybe 10 or 20 years down the line, but no executive stays with a company that long, so why would he or she be concerned more about his legacy than his compensation (in fact, this would be breaking his obligation to his share-holders)? All the players in the market, acting in their self-interest, don't particularly care about the things that won't affect them. That's the whole point. Money moves where there's the fastest buck to be made, the "high compounders". The issue with ExxonMobil is not that they're acting like an honest company in a free economy. Most reasonable people would have no trouble with that. It's that there's good reason to believe that they're not, that ExxonMobil's concern for quarterly and yearly profits (even 10 to 20 years from now) has spilled over into shady political and media dealings, into denying mitigate-able human-caused climate change, into preventing states from enforcing their own emissions controls, and into so-manipulating the public and political debate that a good portion of Americans believe the solution to high oil prices is to open up additional American oil fields, which all involved admit will have no short term effect on oil prices, and a negligible long-term one. That's not fair play in a free economy. That's deception and propaganda and blatantly unethical political meddling by a large corporation. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any of the CEO's of the big companies will still be with the company in 10 years, never mind 30. But you are correct, everything that I want to say has been said and everything else is just arguing about unprovable opinion. I have a few issues with the stalled bill article you cite: 1) it doesn't mention exxon, 2) it talks about extending renewable credits, 3) carbon capture research, which the energy industry (including Exxon to my knowledge) supports, largely because they're the ones that would be doing it and it would allow continued use of their product 4) and an extension of production (not research) tax credits for biofuels which we both apparently disagree with. TastyCakes (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Unprovable opinion"? "Matter of perspective"? Why does this always seem to be the refrain of the anti-intellectual Right? Why not bring to bear reason reason, argument, and evidence on the behavior of free markets? This is what economics is for, no? Science tells us that we can come to some conclusions, through honesty and hard work, that are more true than others. So, unless you have blind faith in the free market, or that it's been convincingly shown somewhere, there's no reason to believe that the net effect of the actions of a bunch of people concerned with a time horizon of (conservatively) no more than 20 years will lead to the right behavior for making the world good 50 years from now (there are issues here of cost and uncertainty, of course, but let's assume that they've been worked out). Absent empirical evidence, the burden of proof lies with the person claiming to know that the long-term behavior of a system with billions of actors will be near-optimal, not with the person (me) who thinks that, left to its own devices, such a system will end up far from optimal. Now, you are correct that the article does not mention Exxon. But it seems awfully naive to believe that the Republican party has been pushing policies favoring the oil industry (and stalling ones that don't) just because Republicans believe it's the "right thing to do". This is all only circumstantial evidence, of course, but you were initially saying that the reason people don't like the oil industry is because they're making a lot of money and because their product pollutes. In fact, people don't like the oil industry, of which ExxonMobil is the current masthead, because of their politics. Now, it's difficult to prove they've done anything wrong, but Wikipedia isn't a court of law, and ExxonMobil isn't isn't a living person about whom we must avoid criticism on matters of principle. We can note the stalled funding for energy efficiency research, and the lackluster funding for the right kind of biofuels, and thus by examining the available evidence conclude that politics, science policy, and public opinion have been affected for the worse by the financially self-interested and bad faith actions of ExxonMobil and parts of the energy industry. Indeed, this article would be remiss if it failed to point out the close connections of ExxonMobil and other oil companies to the Republican Party and the Bush Administration, and the kinds of policies and behavior that resulted from such a relationship. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of being a member of the anti-intellectual right? And for that matter are you presuming to be an intellectual? ;) "How much companies care about the future" is clearly unprovable opinion, just as I said, and arguing about it is pointless and will not improve the article. I continue to believe most people dislike Exxon because they see them as unfairly benefiting from the pain they feel at the pump, while environmentalists "hate" Exxon for the global warming reasons you cite. People may have a vague feeling that they are in bed with the Republican party or whoever they dislike, but they are either uninformed on the matter or, like you, cite circumstantial evidence to make an argument something along the lines of: "The government isn't doing what I want it to (ie passing an environmental bill quite possibly loaded with pork), Exxon isn't environmentally friendly therefore the government is in Exxon's pocket!". I still view it as something of a non-sequitur.

You clearly have some strong, partisan feelings on these issues, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but they must be checked before insertion into the article. It also suggests you have trouble placing yourself in the shoes of others: I think it is foolish to presume there is only one side to an issue as complex as Exxon's relationship with America, but you have apparently made that leap. Moral judgments must be left at the door, the facts should be presented and the reader decide for themselves. If you feel the article does not present the issue thoroughly enough, by all means change it and we can discuss any disagreements that come up. A glance at your response above shows that, while perhaps thoughtful, this conversation has drifted far from areas of any use to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "partisan" -- I adore the market and detest partisanship. The question is whether this article is unfairly biased against ExxonMobil if it contains a healthy dose of criticism, if people come away from the article feeling as though ExxonMobil has sometimes been negligent, has sometimes acted in bad faith, and has perhaps had too much political influence. This isn't (or at least shouldn't) be an ideological issue. What matters is if we can reasonably conclude those things to be true. How much evidence would we need in favor of this conclusion for the article to not be "biased" if these conclusions were included? What is the standard of evidence in this regard? This isn't a slander issue. Companies and the industries they are a part of have massive budgets to improve their image and to deal with public relations. If free market evangelists are right, then their income is reward enough for their economic contribution -- they don't need additional PR help on Wikipedia. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"hundreds of thousands of dollars" is really not much money for any large company, let alone ExxonMobil. And a lot of people are skeptical of global warming, and I think it's fine that there are other voices in the debate, rather than just being steamrolled by Gore-esque pop-science. And how does it look like they "lied to congress"? If they did they are well aware they could go to jail for a long time, and I assure you that's something they really don't want to do. And how is involving people from the energy business in a "task force" to produce an energy policy for America (what both current presidential candidates are complaining about a lack of) "shady dealings"? For that matter, what "shady dealings" are you talking about? All big oil companies, and ExxonMobil in particular, are extremely careful about following the laws you seem to suggest they break, like the foreign corrupt practices act, gifts over a certain value etc. Where is your disgust for the pharmaceutical lobby, fleecing the American public on medicine of all things to profit margins of 17%, or the agriculture lobby, notorious for getting huge concessions for the benefit of a tiny slice of the population?

This is all a matter of perspective. America will likely face an energy crisis in the coming years, and I strongly believe Exxon and companies like it will be an asset rather than a part of the problem. Of course oil is not going to last forever and of course we need to find other sources of energy sooner or later. Exxon does not dispute that. But a transition won't happen overnight, and to do it without crippling economic problems we need to use oil as a bridge of sorts. And Exxon is the biggest and best tool in America's toolbox for building and maintaining that bridge. TastyCakes (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, we're not talking about agriculture or pharma, which I personally also have many problems with. They're off-topic, of course. Anyway, did I say hundreds of thousands? How about 10s of millions to sponsor fear, uncertainty, and doubt about science (where there is, believe it or not, at least rough consensus that human cause climate change is real, mitigate-able, and will get worse) in order to stall regulations like carbon taxes? It's completely in the financial interests of ExxonMobil to do this, so it's no surprise that they would. But it means they that are, and imho deserve to be, the object of significant contempt.

Are we to believe, by your posting, that oil companies are stalwart defenders of liberty, enterprise, and the American way? This is an awfully naive view of how the world works. If those executives were so aware of the consequences (like Cheney would let them be charged), and so darn honest, then why not have them testify under oath back in 2004 (note that it was an oil friendly senator that overruled requests to have the executives sworn in). I mean, really, have you ever been responsible for billions of dollars of money? What would you do to make sure you kept as much of it as possible?

So, no. It's not "all a matter of perspective". The idea that right-wing/left-wing ideology is all "relative" is a Republican fiction. Some organizations and people operate honestly, in good faith, and with on-balance-altruistic intentions. For example, the IPCC. Some organizations don't. ExxonMobil has shown itself to be among the latter. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came off as an Exxon fanboy, or something similar, I really don't consider myself one. I believe Exxon is a machine with a brutally simple set of motives: make money and keep making money while remaining inside the law. But I do not believe, as you apparently do, that the majority of big corporations in the world operate significantly differently from that principle. As such I decline to make moral judgments on companies, as of course the article must also.

So removing whether or not I think Exxon are "good guys", I am left looking at a balance. On the one hand Exxon is a solid American company that's good at what they do, provide an extremely valuable service to the world's citizens (as demonstrated by their revenues and profits) and pay their taxes and follow the law. On the other they are a significant contributor to the anti-global warming movement. My balance of whether Exxon is good for America is further impacted by my belief that the much more pressing issue than global warming facing humanity today is the possibility of imminent peak oil. On that issue, although Exxon has in the past poo-pooed the concept, it could be a very important element in avoiding a disastrous plunge in oil production, through technology and skills that can "reduce the downward slope". You already know what side of the balance I lean towards.

So no, I don't believe Exxon is a defender of liberty. But in the future they could be a tool that helps protect its enterprise, and it already has had a lot to do with allowing America's way of life in all its consumptive glory. I still don't know precisely what you think Exxon lied about to congress, perhaps you could fill me in. And incidentally, is the global warming argument not essentially FUD also? "We don't know exactly what will happen or when, but some or all of these bad things could happen in the future". I don't mean to belittle the issue, I just think some important issues have everything to do with fear, uncertainty and doubt, not necessarily in a cynical way. TastyCakes (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to the oil executives' appearance regarding the Energy Task Force where oil-friendly Senator Ted Stevens refused to have the executives testify under oath. Climate change isn't FUD in the normal sense because it's not being propagated deceptively in an organized campaign for reasons of financial self-interest. The idea that the scientists in the IPCC are all involved in a conspiracy to mislead the world for their own devious, money-making ends, while the real truth comes from the company that stands to lose billions if CO2-capping regulations are passed, is comical to say the least.

Anyway, if ExxonMobil stayed where it belonged, within the business sphere, then so long as they acted within the law they would (probably) be morally fine, and this article would do best to not pass judgment. But ExxonMobil clearly doesn't. Do I believe that the whole corporation is evil and irredeemable? No. But I do think there's a lot of money to be made by manipulating politics into keeping a whole country dependent on your product. And that's morally reprehensible. To the extent that ExxonMobil has participated in manipulating politics and public opinion for their own gain (and, apart from ethics, why wouldn't they!?) this deserves to be reflected appropriately in their Wikipedia article, regardless of whether the company is a net asset to the US. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand my question, once they were in front of congress what did they lie about? Just because they weren't under oath doesn't mean they lied. While we have different views of how "despicable" Exxon's support of anti-global warming research is, I think we both agree it has a place in the criticism section of the article. I do have doubts at how effective their supposed efforts to manipulate public opinion in oil's favour, but I suppose that's irrelevant. As far as saying they "manipulate politics" I think to be included in the article the claim would require a source that actually mentions ExxonMobil and is from sources other than environmentalist blogs. I also think it should be shown that it is more "controversial", endemic and serious than other big business lobbying in Washington, which I personally doubt but I guess you probably believe. TastyCakes (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points: (1) I had assumed you would consult the relevant Wikipedia article. It looks like they lied about their participation in the Energy Task Force [10]. (2) What determines the quality of a source is not that it comes from someone with an obvious slant but that it's verifiable and from a source that isn't prone to lying or acting in bad faith -- so at least some environmentalist blogs should be fine. (3) Why would E.M.'s lobbying need to be worse than other big business lobbying in Washington for it to be cause for contempt? At the very least, E.M.'s financial interests are not aligned with the world's interests of cutting CO2 emissions and reducing the world's oil dependence. These factors alone should make any involvement in the science and policy of these areas highly suspect. (4) What we are trying to decide on is whether a "neutral" position toward ExxonMobil is one with a negative valence. If they are manipulating science policy in bad faith this suggests the company is not acting entirely in good faith (note that there is a BIG difference between the scientific and non-scientific debate arenas -- what ExxonMobil has done is to consistently fund one side of the debate primarily in the public, not scientific, sphere. An honest company would have worked within the scientific community, not done an end-run around it. Note that it is in the public sphere where most of the climate change skeptics operate -- it's the same strategy that's used by creationist evolution skeptics. This is because in the public sphere money and propaganda make a bigger impact than sound argument and evidence.). Finally, full disclosure: I have no competing interests (I have no affiliations with the oil industry or any industry that competes with it). Do you? 132.239.215.69 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah I had looked at the article but missed the part about them saying they had not participated in the task force. While it is disturbing they would say something untrue (knowingly or otherwise), it doesn't seem a particularly important lie. And I have already said why I think consulting with oil industry people is a good idea in making an energy policy for the country.

I believe I have already conceded some time back that funding of global warming skeptics should be included in the criticism section, as it is. I again thing the political lobbying is going to be harder to include in the criticisms but go ahead and try if you want.

As for disclosure, I am not and have never been an Exxon employee, nor am I ever likely to be. I have recently finished my schooling in petroleum engineering and will start at a small oil consulting company in September. The company does reserve evaluations for other companies, not unlike Ryder Scott. And I'm Canadian, which I would like to think removes at least some partisan bias regarding internal American politics, although I suspect you too are of Canadian extraction. So yes, I do have a financial stake in the industry, but not a particularly direct one to Exxon or American politics. While that may bias my editing to a degree, I'd like to think greater familiarity with the subject makes up for it to some extent. TastyCakes (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"not an important lie"? To Congress? This really sounds like picking and choosing -- shredding a piece of paper isn't criminal, unless it's legal evidence. Similarly, we have no idea whether the lie is important or not because we don't know the truth (c.f. Scooter Libby). I mean, what would be an important lie, then (perhaps if they had been under oath?)?

And, please, I'm not a hippie -- one would be a terrible administrator to not consult with energy producers when developing energy policy. But the US is a democracy, ostensibly, so why keep hidden the process and participants?

I don't feel the company's lobbying or hyper cozy relationship with the executive administration need necessarily be explicitly included (though I probably wouldn't object to it, so long as it wasn't strident ultra-leftist). All I'm saying is that this article need not be a fluff piece, and that it's reasonable for it to be the case that a NPOV is, in this case, a bit negative. ExxonMobil is a big boy and can stand up for itself. 132.239.215.69 (talk) 04:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

intro billions

ok at the start it says it maked 404 billion in 2007 then at the bottom it says it made almost 40 billion. no one ever refers to a billion as 1,000,000,000,000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.203.125 (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

40 billion profits, 400 billion revenues... Billion in this case being the American definition (1,000,000,000), as is usual in pages about American companies (I believe). TastyCakes (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are not billions, they are millions as seen in this [document http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/2675/3201/] --Lloux (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

... On page 4 they give sales and other operating revenue as 390,328 million. Also known as... ~400 billion. TastyCakes (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Profit vs Profitability

NothingWorthy, you keep changing a statement along the line of "ExxonMobil is the publicly traded company with the largest profits" with "ExxonMobil is the most profitable publicly traded company". The first is clearly the better choice, since profitability is often measured as a percentage profits over gross revenue (see here). While not all definitions of profitability fit into these lines, and many news sources like the fortune article you cite use the various terminology loosely, when saying they have the largest profit no room for doubt is left, while saying they are the most profitable it is unclear and incorrect from the view of anyone that considers profitability to be a measure of profit margin. So please, stop reverting it before you get three revert ruled. TastyCakes (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reported this as an edit war here. TastyCakes (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As an example of "profitable" being used to describe % rather than absolute profit, see this Fortune article. Note also that the Oil and Gas industry (with 13.7% profits as a portion of revenues, higher than Exxon's) is not at the top of the list. TastyCakes (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If there are no arguments, I'll assume it's ok for me to revert the article? TastyCakes (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Updating Board of Directors List

This is Jayme with ExxonMobil's Public Affairs Department. Just wanted to let the Wikipedia Community know that we have a more updated list of our Board of Directors available on our website. Here's the link to the most updated information: http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/investor_governance_directors.aspx

ExxonMobil Public Affairs (talk) 20:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

History

There is total lack of history here, I major role in the history of Exxon is Humble Oil, yet in this article it's no more than a mere blurb. This needs to be greatly expanded. The fact the the old headquarters was the Humble (Exxon) building in Houston should be addressed, this company is what contributed to putting Houston, Texas on the map! It was Humble Oil, then became Enco, then became Exxon! There is void in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.127.186 (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

number of employees

1. of employees in text conflicts with number in the chart Rtdrury (talk) 23:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

what is ExxonMobil's safty priorities in event of a oil spill by an ExxonMobil tanker?

Have they truely learned by the wreck of their tanker ExxonValdez? I would like to know! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.106.111.17 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In the article, it mentions that ExxonMobil still uses more single-halled tankers than the next 10 biggest oil companies combined. Double-halled tankers are less prone to leakages and spills. So you decide.BFBbrown (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

gay critisim

this should be included see the link

Furthermore the company has angered many in the LGBT community since it is not gay-friendly. The company does not provide employee's same-sex partners or spouses with benefits nor provides an anti discrimination clause. The Human Rights Campaigne has consistantly rated it a 0 on its index of gay-friendliness since it began compiling its report on major companies in 2002.[11]

I'd like to expand on the sentence "ExxonMobil scored a 0 out of 100 on the Corporate Equality Index 2006 for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people.[14]" - I'd like it to instead say: "ExxonMobil was one of only three companies to score 0 out of 100 on the Corporate Equality Index 2006 which surveyed the 1,520 largest companies.[14]". Without that context I feel 0 out of 100 doesn't really tell me much. Lionfish0 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The two other companies, if anyone's interested are Perot Systems and Meijer. Lionfish0 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From the report:

ExxonMobil has the dubious distinction of being the only U.S. company to have rolled back both benefits eligibility for its employees’ domestic partners and a non-discrimination policy inclusive of sexual orientation. When Exxon purchased Mobil in 1999, Mobil had specifically included sexual orientation in its non-discrimination policy and offered benefits to domestic partners. Exxon did neither. Mobil’s employees lost the protections and the domestic partner benefits program was closed to new applicants when they were brought under Exxon’s policies. Since then, the company has consistently refused to add sexual orientation to its non-discrimination policy despite shareholder attempts. Instead of modifying its written policy for its employees, the company simply professes to its shareholders that it does not discriminate.

They are working on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.163.16 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A criticism? I, and most of my friends and family would go out of our way to patronize a company that has the honorable distinction of being scored a 0 by the deviants at the HRC. - Jogar2 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You sir, are uncivil. And I believe you are a bigot. BFBbrown (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)