Here's an excerpt from [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-110905oilexecs_wr,0,5368610.story?coll=la-home-headlines|an article] at LATimes.com:
Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp., said he recognizes that high gasoline prices "have put a strain on Americans' household budgets" but he defended his company's huge profits, saying petroleum earnings "go up and down" from year to year.
Yeah, right--profits go up and down each year? Check out what else the LATimes article says:
ExxonMobil, the worlds' largest privately owned oil company, earned nearly $10 billion in the third quarter. Raymond was joined at the witness table by the chief executives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BPAmerica and Shell Oil USA.
Together the companies earned more than $25 billion in profits in the July-September quarter as the price of crude oil hit $70 a barrel and gasoline surged to record levels after the disruptions of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
That's a pretty high jump--will your downs be as low as your ups are high, Mr. Raymond?
Meanwhile, WaPo's Dana Milbank [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902058.html|explains in an article what really happened yesterday] in Washington:
Senators struck a note of populist outrage when they ordered oil executives to appear before the Energy and Commerce committees to explain high fuel prices and record company profits. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), announcing the hearing, said it would expose "those who abuse the free-enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans."
But instead of calling oil executives on the carpet yesterday, senators gave them the red-carpet treatment.
...
From the start, the ferocity of the questioning seemed to come in inverse proportion to the amount of industry funds a questioner had received.
When Energy Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash., $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."
"I move that we swear in witnesses," Cantwell persisted.
"I second the motion," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., $9,450).
"That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order," a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that "I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold."
Stevens did not fail in this goal. When Boxer later displayed a large chart showing the executives' pay, Stevens cut her off.
"We'll stop the clock right here for you, Senator," Stevens said, ordering the chart taken down because it was not "information that pertains to our issue."
From the audience, a woman called out: "How about the consumers?" When the same woman later let out a cheer, Stevens threatened to "clear the room."
Gotta love those Republicans. Actually, I think I heard Jon Stewart last night on the Daily Show say that Ted Stevens was also against the torture ban.
OH, YOU REPUBLICAN SCAMPS!!
First, you're pro-torture and then you're pro-oil!
Won't you kids ever learn?
A better question is: Won't Republican voters ever learn?
The good news is that the Federal Trade Commission is going to do the Senate's job for them. Here's a clip from [http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005110917140002613974&dt=20051109171400&w=RTR&coview=|an article] from Reuters.com and CNN.com:
The Federal Trade Commission has sent subpoenas to Big Oil companies in its investigation of gasoline price manipulation and oil refining capacity constraints, and hopes to complete the probe next spring, the agency's head told a U.S. Senate hearing on Wednesday.
The agency sent out "dozens of subpoenas" to companies, including oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips, and the U.S. units of BP Plc. (BP.L) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc., FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras said.
She spoke following a hearing on energy profits held by the Senate's energy and commerce committees. "It is a major investigation."
It had better be major. This is all just like the California energy crisis all over again--only now the whole country is getting lied to and raped at the gas pump.
From WaPo:
Oil and Grilling Don't Mix
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, November 10, 2005; Page D01
Senators struck a note of populist outrage when they ordered oil executives to appear before the Energy and Commerce committees to explain high fuel prices and record company profits. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), announcing the hearing, said it would expose "those who abuse the free-enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans."
But instead of calling oil executives on the carpet yesterday, senators gave them the red-carpet treatment.
The companies summoned to testify have given about $400,000 in PAC money this year alone -- and much of that has found its way to those who served as the executives' interrogators. So while protesters came to the hearing wearing "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts, most lawmakers opted to extol Exxon Mobil -- and Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell.
"First, let me begin by thanking each of you and the companies for what you all did to save lives, to save property, to restore the communities along the Gulf Coast," said Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has taken $249,155 in oil and gas money over five years, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
"There's a great deal we know about your industry; there's a great deal the average citizen does not know," said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho, $96,950), explaining popular hostility to the industry. "I must tell you, it's not terribly fun defending you. But I do."
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H., $64,480) praised the executives for being "very reasonable." He said industry's profits are big "because they are very big companies," and he argued against higher taxes on their profits.
From the start, the ferocity of the questioning seemed to come in inverse proportion to the amount of industry funds a questioner had received.
When Energy Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska, $102,190) announced that he would not require the executives to give their testimony under oath, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash., $9,400) asked for a vote on the issue. Stevens shot back: "There will be no vote . . . It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision."
"I move that we swear in witnesses," Cantwell persisted.
"I second the motion," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif., $9,450).
"That's the last we're going to hear about that, because it's out of order," a piqued Stevens replied. When the two women continued their protest, the chairman informed them that "I intend to be respectful of the position that these gentlemen hold."
Stevens did not fail in this goal. When Boxer later displayed a large chart showing the executives' pay, Stevens cut her off.
"We'll stop the clock right here for you, Senator," Stevens said, ordering the chart taken down because it was not "information that pertains to our issue."
From the audience, a woman called out: "How about the consumers?" When the same woman later let out a cheer, Stevens threatened to "clear the room."
At times, the senators seemed to be bigger boosters of the industry than the executives themselves. Under questioning from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore., $12,500), all five executives testified that they did not need the tax breaks in the recent energy bill.
"That energy legislation is zero in terms of how it affects Exxon Mobil," said the company's chairman, Lee Raymond.
This did not sit well with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex., $306,820). "But," she asked, don't the tax breaks "make a difference" in investment decisions?
Raymond would not play along. "They will not significantly alter the programs that we have," he said. Stevens scratched his head.
More than one senator begged the executives to help them explain high energy prices to consumers. "Please," said Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M., $164,158), "describe in detail how the price of oil is set." Nobody volunteered. So Domenici called on Raymond to "put yourself in my shoes."
The executives rebuffed requests from other friends. They wouldn't comment on a request by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M., $43,864) for their thoughts on fuel economy standards. When Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn., $117,450) asked whether they favor more efficient natural gas plants, Shell's John Hofmeister advised him: "That's a question for the utilities."
The executives were even less forthcoming when questions turned hostile. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J., $10,000) asked whether any of the companies had participated in Vice President Cheney's energy task force, and all five answered in the negative. Fortunately, they were not under oath: A report by the Government Accountability Office found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force.
Lautenberg did not press the issue. Those wearing the "Exxpose Exxon" T-shirts put on their jackets. The unscathed executives walked briskly with their security guards from the building, past a pair of demonstrators with "Return the Gas and Oil Money" signs, and into their waiting Cadillacs.
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
From LATimes.com and AP.org:
10:30 AM PST, November 9, 2005Oil Execs Defend Profits Before Congress
From Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The chiefs of five major oil companies defended the industry's huge profits today at a Senate hearing where they were exhorted to explain prices and assure customers they're not being gouged.
There is a "growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage," Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said, opening the hearing in a packed committee room.
"The oil companies owe the American people an explanation," he declared.
Lee Raymond, chairman of Exxon Mobil Corp., said he recognizes that high gasoline prices "have put a strain on Americans' household budgets" but he defended his company's huge profits, saying petroleum earnings "go up and down" from year to year.
ExxonMobil, the worlds' largest privately owned oil company, earned nearly $10 billion in the third quarter. Raymond was joined at the witness table by the chief executives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BPAmerica and Shell Oil USA.
Together the companies earned more than $25 billion in profits in the July-September quarter as the price of crude oil hit $70 a barrel and gasoline surged to record levels after the disruptions of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Raymond said the profits are in line with other industries when earnings are compared to the industry's enormous revenues.
But senators pressed Raymond to explain why in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina some ExxonMobil gas station operators complained the company had raised the wholesale price of its gas by 24 cents a gallon in 24 hours. Is that not price gouging? they asked.
Raymond said he could not confirm the specific price increase, but that ExxonMobil had issued a directive in response to the storm disruptions "to minimize the increase in price while at the same time recognizing if we kept the price too low we would quickly run out (of fuel) at the service stations."
"It was a tough balancing act," said Raymond, who said it was not price gouging.
Democrats had wanted the executives to testify under oath, but Republicans rejected the idea. "If I were a witness I would demand to be put under oath," said Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii. The soaring prices have sent shivers through a Congress worried about political fallout.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., made the issue personal, noting that the executives were reaping multimillion-dollar bonuses on top of multimillion-dollar salaries as "working people struggle" to pay for gasoline and face the specter of soaring home heating bills this winter. "Your sacrifice appears to be nothing," Boxer told the executives.
The head of the National Association of Manufacturers, former Michigan Gov. John Engler, criticized lawmakers for the way they handled the hearing.
"Demagoguery and demonization will not reduce energy prices or solve supply problems in the long run," he said. "Our energy supply and infrastructure have suffered from 25 years of increasingly restrictive government policies that have made it almost impossible to access and refine the resources we have. The Senate should dispense with the theatrics and get serious about Americas energy supply."
The White House said that President Bush, too, is concerned about energy prices.
"Energy prices have been too high and energy companies have realized significant increases in profits," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "It's important that the private sector be good corporate citizens and invest in the energy infrastructure and support those who are in need."
A number of Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, have called for a windfall profits tax on oil companies.
Domenici said he opposes such a move, saying "it didn't work before and probably won't work again." The government imposed taxes on oil company windfall profits in the 1970s, resulting in a drop in investment in oil development.
The executives hoped to dampen any further momentum for calls for taxing windfall oil company profits, something still viewed as a longshot but also no longer out of the question. Such a tax could inhibit investment in refineries or oil exploration and production, the industry argues.
James Mulva, chairman of ConocoPhillips, said "we are ready open our records" to dispute allegations of price gouging. ConocoPhillips earned $3.8 billion in the third quarter, an 89 percent increase over a year earlier. But he said that represents only a 7.7 percent profit margin for every dollar of sales. "We do not consider that a windfall," said Mulva.
Raymond cautioned against Congress imposing "punitive measures, hastily crafted" -- an apparent reference to windfall profits taxes -- and suggested that they would inhibit investment in domestic energy projects. Both Republicans and Democrats have urged the companies to use more of their profits to build refineries and other energy projects.
David O'Reilly, chairman of Chevron, attributed the high energy prices to tight supplies even before the Gulf hurricanes hit and said his company is "investing aggressively in the development of new energy supplies."
The oil executives said their companies spend tens of billions of dollars in investments.
Shell earned $9 billion in the third quarter, said John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil Co., but he said over the last five years the company's investment in U.S. operations was equal to its income from U.S. sales.
The oil industry's record third-quarter profits -- at a time when motorists were reeling from unprecedentedly high gasoline costs and warned of huge heating bills this winter -- have caught the attention of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Some analysts predict the 29 largest oil companies will earn $96 billion this year.
Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
From CNN.com and Reuters.com:
FTC subpoenas Big Oil firms in U.S. gasoline probe
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Trade Commission has sent subpoenas to Big Oil companies in its investigation of gasoline price manipulation and oil refining capacity constraints, and hopes to complete the probe next spring, the agency's head told a U.S. Senate hearing on Wednesday.
The agency sent out "dozens of subpoenas" to companies, including oil giants Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. , ConocoPhillips, and the U.S. units of BP Plc. (BP.L) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc., FTC Chairwoman Deborah Majoras said.
She spoke following a hearing on energy profits held by the Senate's energy and commerce committees. "It is a major investigation."
Executives from the five companies mentioned testified earlier in the day on their record profits and high energy prices.
Majoras said subpoenas were sent to companies that operated pipelines, refineries and terminals.
The FTC is asking the companies only for information at this point, but agency staff said the companies' officials could also be asked to testify in the investigation.
"If there is anticompetitive behavior going on between and among these gasoline companies, we'll find that and we will prosecute," Majoras said.
The commission plans to finish its investigation and report its findings to Congress next spring, she said.
The FTC probe was ordered by Congress last summer as part of a broad energy bill with $14.5 billion in industry incentives. Lawmakers included the provision because of a steady climb in crude oil and gasoline prices throughout 2005.
Less than a month after the bill was signed into law, Hurricane Katrina thundered through the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana, flooding eight major refineries and halting most offshore oil production. The national average retail price of gasoline surged to a record $3.07 a gallon soon afterward.
Lawmakers on the two Senate panels expressed concern about the sharp increase in gasoline prices.
"The FTC staff is looking at pricing decisions and other conduct in the wake of Katrina to understand what has occurred and to identify any illegal conduct," Majoras said.
Majoras also warned that the United States is "vulnerable to these price spikes as long as we accept the tight refining capacity and the dependence that we have on foreign oil," she said. "We are going to be in for a tough road."
Consumers are understandably upset when they face sharp price increases at the gasoline pump, Majoras said.
But congressional proposals for a federal law prohibiting price profiteering are not necessarily the answer, she added.
"Price gouging laws that have the effect of controlling prices likely do more harm than good," Majoras said. "While no consumer likes price increases, in fact, price increases lower demand and help make the shortage shorter-lived than it otherwise would have been."
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have protections against price gouging. But some state attorneys general, consumer groups and lawmakers believe it is time to have a federal law to also fight price gouging.
"When there is a natural disaster or emergency situation in one area of the country that affects the supply and pricing of an essential, nationally distributed product, as (gasoline was) with Katrina, Congress should provide a mechanism that reduces the volatility of prices across state lines," New Jersey Attorney General Peter Harvey told the panel.
"For this, a federal law could protect all American consumers against price gouging during national or regional disasters or abnormal market disruptions" said Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.
Bills to prohibit oil price profiteering after natural disasters or national emergencies have been offered by several Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Republican, said last month he would support such legislation "if the facts warrant it."
Earlier Wednesday at the Senate hearing, top executives of Exxon Mobil and the four other major oil companies defended a jump in third-quarter profits, which reflected the recent record-high prices of gasoline, crude oil and natural gas.
© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.
11/09/2005 17:14
RTR
© 2005 Netscape.
Join Cantwell to Protect Puget Sound from Big Oil Tankers
ReplyDeleteWashington, D.C. -- Maria Cantwell is working to protect Puget Sound from a top Senate Republican's efforts to open the Sound up as a super-port for oil to be shipped overseas and across the country.
Republican Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, the very same Senator who defeated Maria Cantwell's efforts to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from drilling, has quietly introduced a bill in the Senate to permit high-volume oil tankers to dock in the Puget Sound, making Washington's pristine waterways and coastlines at risk for oil spills and tanker traffic.
In response to Stevens' legislation, Cantwell not only vowed to stop the bill, but emailed Washingtonians to warn them of the threat our state faces.
"We have to show Senator Stevens that Washington state won't stand by silently and let one of our greatest treasures fall to the whims of greedy oil companies," said Cantwell in her email. "Please join me in signing this petition to keep the Magnuson Amendment in place and protect Washington's waterways and coastlines from being overrun with oil tankers."
In 1977, Washington's Senator Warren Magnuson moved to protect Puget Sound against just such a move with the Magnusson Amendment which limited oil tanker traffic in Puget Sound and kept the Cherry Point Refinery near Bellingham focused on meeting the energy needs of our state, not the rest of the country.
Stevens' secretive plan will reverse important protections that both Republicans and Democrats in Washington have supported for decades. Senator Stevens is working for the oil companies and against Washington state – helping oil companies increase their profits, while putting one of Washington state's greatest treasures at risk.
SIGN CANTWELL'S PETITION: Visit www.cantwell.com and join Maria Cantwell in the fight to protect Puget Sound.