ExMo Chief: energy independence is "isolationist"

Tue, 2007-11-13 12:24Ross Gelbspan
Ross Gelbspan's picture

ExMo Chief: energy independence is "isolationist"

On the same day Hilary Clinton released her plan to reduce the US addiction to foreign oil imports and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the CEO of the largest oil company in the world is balking at the pursuit for energy independence.

Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil, has hit out at “isolationism” in energy policy (full article is firewalled) arguing that attempts to pursue energy independence are futile and counter-productive.

According to the US Department of Energy Information, ExxonMobil is the second largest exporter of crude oil to the United States originating from the Persian Gulf.

Tillerson stated that:

Regardless, no conceivable combination of demand moderation or domestic supply development can realistically close the gap and eliminate Americans' need for imports.”Tilerson's remarks, made at the World Energy Congress in Rome, provided support for calls from Opec, the oil producers' cartel, for what the group calls “security of demand”.

Like what you read on DeSmogBlog? Subscribe to our RSS feed here.

Comments

What do you want to bet he’s probably being paid by Exxon to say those things? Typical denieralist.

Time for Desmogblog to get some dirt on this guy!

Don’t you see the difference between someone who discloses their funding and someone who hides it?

You’ve really hit on something there, Steve L.

Just why IS the CEO of Exxon hiding his funding sources??? If only we could find out which nefarious corporation is paying him?

I hope Desmogblog will get to the bottom of this.

What are you trying to say? When someone pretends to be an honest broker or grassroots organisation but has a hidden agenda or source, as evidenced by attempts to hide their funding (e.g., friends of science), desmogblog is performing a legitimate service to expose them as having a conflict of interest or being an astroturf group. When someone has an obvious vested interest (e.g., Tillerson and Exxon-Mobil) and wades into debate on public policy, it’s legitimate to point out why their pronouncements should be taken with numerous grains of salt. My point was that, contrary to your suggestion, desmogblog didn’t have to dig up dirt on Tillerson since nobody would consider him an honest broker. What the hell was your point?

A little background on Mr Rex W Tillerson

Cash Compensation (FY December 2006)
Salary $1,500,000

Bonus $2,800,000

O
T
H
E
R Latest FY other short-term comp. $0

Latest FY other long-term comp. $8,709,495

Latest FY long-term incentive payout $0
Total $13,009,495

Stock Options (FY December 2006)
Number of options Market value
exercised 72,199 $2,355,728

unexercised 464,545 $7,477,219

unexercisable 0 $0
Total 536,744 $9,832,947

More here: http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/personinfo/FromPersonIdPersonTearsheet.jhtml?passedPersonId=932617

Are you trying to tell us the CEO of Exxon is highly compensated?!

This is an outrage! Here I thought he’d be making somewhere around $18/hour.

Surely, he has stolen his salary and stock options from the cradles of starving Third World babies!

Don’t get excited.
I think you should have a nice glass of warm milk, maybe a cookie and then have a little nappy.
When you wake up….just maybe you’ll have a life…

Tillerson is telling it straight. Few countries in the world are energy independent. Could the US or Canada become completely energy independent? Possibly, but it would likely involve the construction of 100 to 200 nuclear reactors in North America.

Interesting – many people have a philosophical opposition to regulating the economy, and that is usually expressed with particular attention to supply. You seem to be in support of regulating the economy by maintaining domestic demand for a foreign good. Odd. Also strange is your assertion that Canada could not be energy independent without lots of nuclear. Canada is a net energy exporter:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/northamerica/engsupp.htm
I’m not against Canada developing more alternative energy (including nuclear), but it doesn’t need to for energy independence.

Steve, if we wanted to be energy independent in Canada AND drastically reduce C02 emissions AND have this new energy source be affordable AND 7/24/365 reliable, yes, we would have to build many new nuclear plants here.

Your former comment was incorrect. This one is more accurate, but “many” is a relative term. It’s unclear to me that the number of nuclear plants would be great relative to their acceptance. If a graduated carbon tax was implemented (with reductions in income tax), the market and democratic processes would determine how future energy needs could be sustainably met.

Agreed- Mr. Tillersons’ statement is accurate and not worthy of attack. The U.S. is extremely dependent upon foreign energy sources and there is no obvious way to change the situation. While I would disagree with his use of the term “conceivable”- certainly we could come up with some solutions- there is likely not a viable means of making the U.S./Canada energy independent.

Whatever else he may be, Mr. Tillerson is not wrong in the quoted statement.

My opinion. Yours may vary.

Don’t put the US and Canada together in this matter. Canada has more energy than it needs.

According to the US Department of Energy Information, ExxonMobil is the second largest exporter of crude oil to the United States originating from the Persian Gulf.

http://www.bloglifetime.com/

[x]

The headline on The Australian newspaper’s story about a leak of a major United Nations climate change report read “We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC”.

But an investigation by Australia’s press watchdog has found that in fact, it was the Murdoch-owned national newspaper that “got it wrong”.

The Australian Press Council has upheld complaints about the coverage, led by a story from the newspaper’s environment editor Graham Lloyd.

The council also found the...

read more