O'Donnell let Frist mislead on ANWR drilling, Exxon Mobil profits
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell failed to challenge Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) suggestion that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is necessary to reduce America's "60 percent dependen[ce]" on foreign oil. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR would reduce projected U.S. dependence on oil imports by only 4 percent over the next 20 years, from 68 percent in 2025 to 64 percent.
On the April 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host and MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell failed to challenge Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) suggestion that drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is necessary to reduce America's "60 percent dependen[ce]" on foreign oil. In fact, according to the Department of Energy, drilling in ANWR is expected to reduce projected U.S. dependence on oil imports by only 4 percent over the next 20 years, from 68 percent of petroleum product supplied in 2025 to 64 percent. O'Donnell also failed to challenge Frist's claim that the record profits of Exxon Mobil Corp. are justified because companies such as Exxon Mobil "make profits in certain years and in other years lose money because" they don't "hit a well." In fact, Exxon and Mobil -- which merged in 1999 -- have both made significant profits for at least 13 consecutive years, according to a Media Matters for America review of the companies' financial statements, press releases, and media coverage.
When O'Donnell noted that Senate Republicans had coupled a proposal to distribute $100 rebates to American taxpayers with a proposal to allow drilling in ANWR, Frist stated that "we need to look at things like [drilling in] ANWR" because "[w]e're 60-percent dependent on foreign sources of oil." But a July 2005 report by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) documented that drilling in ANWR would do little to address U.S. dependence on foreign oil over the next 20 years. The report stated: "Opening ANWR reduces import dependence by 4 percentage points, from 68 percent of petroleum product supplied in 2025 to 64 percent."
Later, O'Donnell asked Frist whether it was "right" for Exxon Mobil to make record profits and offer an approximately $400 million retirement package to former Exxon Mobil chairman and CEO Lee R. Raymond at a time when Americans are paying record gasoline prices. Frist responded that "these companies ... make profits in certain years and in other years lose money because of exploration" if they don't "hit a well," although when O'Donnell pressed him about Raymond's compensation, Frist stated that it was "wrong."
But a Media Matters review of Exxon Mobil's financial statements revealed that the company, which has been in existence since the merger of Exxon Corp. and Mobil Corp. in November 1999, has reported billions of dollars in profits every year since the merger, and reported a $2.3 profit during the fourth quarter of 1999, when the merger took place. (Although the federal government observes a fiscal year beginning October 1 and ending September 30, Exxon Mobil's financial statements include calculations based on a fiscal year beginning January 1 and ending December 31.)
Further, a Media Matters review of Exxon and Mobil statements and media reports on the two companies -- going as far back as 1993 -- has revealed no yearly losses. Both Exxon and Mobil also reported billions of dollars in profits during the first three quarters of 1999, prior to their merger.
|
Year |
Exxon Mobil profits (billions of dollars) |
|
2005 | |
|
2004 | |
|
2003 | |
|
2002 | |
|
2001 | |
|
2000 | |
|
1999 (Q4) |
|
Year |
Exxon profits (billions of dollars) |
Mobil profits (billions of dollars) |
|
1999 (Q1-Q3) | ||
|
1998 | ||
|
1997 | ||
|
1996 | ||
|
1995 |
2.4* | |
|
1994 |
1.1* | |
|
1993 |
2.1** |
*Source: Associated Press, 1/22/96
**Source: Reuters, 1/21/95
From the April 27 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
O'DONNELL: And, of course, one of the things that the Republicans proposed today, you guys are proposing a $100 gas rebate for millions of Americans. You've attached it, however, to the very controversial drilling in the Arctic Wildlife. Let me ask you though, is $100 really going to help Americans?
FRIST: Well, you know, Norah, right now, to a lot of Americans, it will be actually a huge help, and the whole idea is to get that relief to the American consumer today who really unexpectedly, again, has been hit by these skyrocketing gas prices.
Does it change supply and demand? No. And that's why it is important to increase exploration and domestic production in this country. We know that China is growing, India is growing, their use of energy is increasing. We're 60-percent dependent on foreign sources of oil, those sources being in unstable parts of the world right now -- Nigeria, the region of the Middle East, Iran, Saudi Arabia.
We have to increase the supply here. The supply is here. We can drill for it, explore it in an environmentally friendly way, and that's why we are so convinced that we need to look at things like ANWR or the Alaska Wildlife Refuge.
[...]
O'DONNELL: Let me ask you about Exxon profits, because we learned today they're up seven percent this quarter, that Exxon has made in terms of income, $8.4 billion in the past three months. Of course the former head of Exxon Mobil just got a $400 million compensation package. Is that right?
FRIST: Well, first of all, it does require these companies, who we are totally dependent on, in terms of increasing that supply, it does require them to make profits in certain years and in other years lose money because of exploration. You don't know if you're going to hit a well. You don't know if you're going to hit a reserve or not.
And that is going to require some understanding on all of our part. The one thing that we can have no tolerance for -- and the reason that [House] Speaker [J. Dennis] Hastert [R-IL] and I wrote a letter to the president -- is that we need to make sure that the markets are fully transparent for supply and demand, market pricing to work. That there can be absolutely no price gouging, either at the retail level or at that wholesale level and that the futures market, which ultimately determines that price and demand, is not being manipulated in any way.
O'DONNELL: But, Senator, you didn't say whether you thought it was right or wrong. Is it right or wrong to be awarded $400 million in compensation?
FRIST: Well, the compensation, I think, is wrong. To allow right now in the marketplace, for companies to make a profit I think is very good, because if they don't make a profit, they're not going to be able to invest to increase the supply.
The important thing is that market is transparent. It has to be fully justified by the investments that they will be making. If they say they're going to be out there exploring, we need to make sure that those profits are invested in that exploration.
invest in alternative fuels and more efficient cars and transportation, the US would be the market leader on that front in 5-10 years. Instead, the republicans chose to continue the plain-old-way and are in tears when China or India will develop as marker leaders and make trillions of dollars.
In the 2003 SOTU, Bush announced a program to spend $1.2 billion over 5 years, or an average of $240 million per year, on the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Through FY 2006, the budget for the program has averaged approximately $209 million per year.
Meanwhile, we're now spending almost $10 billion per MONTH in Iraq. ($592 million is being spent just to build the U.S. embassy there.) How many billions more do the oil companies receive in tax credits, lease subsidies, etc.?
Any doubt about the administration's priority? ANWR is a drop in the bucket for the public, but no doubt very important to those who stand to profit from it.
I think little doctor fristy-pants needs a diaper change.
Not only is Frist a liar - he clearly knows nothing of the oil industry - if Exxon Mobil is buying oil on the market, and refining it into gasoline, what the hell does any of that have to do with them "hitting a well" ??? If they are able to drill for, extract, and refine the oil, then why would it be so expensive? This argument is false right on its face. Now, as for the gasoline prices? Sorry, I can't really have much sympathy over that - we've know forever that oil was a finite resource, but what do Americans do? Buy gas guzzling SUVs - really f**king smart. Any industry works on a margin - if the cost of raw material increases, and your margin stays the same, the obviously your profits go up - that's simple math. My problem with this whole scenario is entirely different - if Exxon has record profits - over $8billion this quarter alone, and enough money to allow its CEO to retire with over $400million, then how do they justify underfunding their pension plan for their regular employees by almost $12billion? The scam is simple - over project your pension investment returns so you can show a higher profit on the books, underfund the pension, line the pockets of management in the process, and f**k the employees. As far as I'm concerned, they're destroying people's lives, and given my druthers, I'd line them up along a wall and shoot 'em - and I'd make sure I didn't waste the money on a second bullet with a bad shot. These people are sociopaths who have no qualms about destroying others lives in the name of excessive profits. If there's a way for them to line their pockets, well, screw the little people - they just don't matter. In the last 5 years in this country, the number of billionaires has increased by 15%, while at the same time over 4.4 million more people have slipped into poverty, and the median wage (real income adjusted for inflation) has slipped by 6%. Maybe I'm being a little extreme, but I would have no sympathy for anything awful that fell upon one of these greedy bastards - they deserve whatever they get.
"Any industry works on a margin - if the cost of raw material increases, and your margin stays the same, the obviously your profits go up - that's simple math."
I disagree that "any industry" works this way. In industries that have an actual market, the margin is not going to stay the same. The margin of profit will be dictated by the interaction of supply and demand and costs of production. If a company wants too high a profit margin, they will go out of business and be replaced by a company that is willing to sell for cheaper and make less profit. Acting like it is wholly natural for these oil companies to be making these obscene profits ignores the fact that their is no "free market" in energy, there is an oligopoly, where the oil cos. get to decide how much they will make in profits as a percentage of receipts. But if this is the case, then the oil cos. have EVERYTHING TO GAIN from prices going through the ceiling. The problem is that we have an oligopoly controlling the supply of a product for which there is inelestic demand. Without real competition, the oil cos. know that they do not have to invest their money in refineries, exploration, etc., because they will make MORE money if they keep supply artificially low. The oil companies' profits are not natural expressions of the "invisible hand" at work, they are the products of market manipulation, oligopoly and the lack of a free market in energy.
That's why we need to nationalize our energy/oil industry. There, I said it.
but you'll never get nationalization past the "free marketeers" - I'm afraid until things get to the point of a revolution in this country, that will never change. But you still have to admit, americans driving gas guzzlers completely flies in the face of common sense, doesn't it?
But you still have to admit, americans driving gas guzzlers completely flies in the face of common sense, doesn't it?
It is hard to be sympathetic when people with big trucks and SUVs moan about how much it takes to fill their tanks. Most claim it is for their family but refuse to see how it is destroying families, future families, their very children's family. I hate them with a passion. And when I see a fish symbol on the back it really earns a big eye roll.
I just deleted what was probably a two-page response to your points about SUVs. Suffice it to say, I agree with you, but will spare you the rant. The whole "debate" about them just kills me.
"If you raise fuel efficiency requirements, the rich and pretentious will be forced to drive less safe vehicles!" You mean, like the ones that the rest of us have to drive? You mean that you have to have a three-ton vehicle to protect you from getting hurt in the accidents you cause because you have no clue how to drive a 3 ton vehicle?
Sorry, you hit a pet peeve.
i dont want to wait in line for even more expensive gas
Another point rarely mentioned is that the USA imports most of its oil from Canada, with only a small % from the Middle East. Yet when any Political Action 'threatens' the flow of ME Oil, the price of Gas in America rises immediately. Bush had better tell BOR to shut up with his criticism of Canada, or the price of Gas will really rise.
this link dates back to 2002 - it contains a listing of the companies with the most underfunded pensions - [link to money.cnn.com]
... if folks like Norah and Bill had to wear an anally-implanted LBD (Lie & Bullscat Detector) that zapped them every time they spewed the stuff they do?
The result would either be more truth getting out to the American people or nothing much covered at all except missing white women.
And car chases.
Someting bothers me about the questions asked by "journalists" concerning the "oil company profits": why do they only ask if it's "right" for for oil companies to make a profit, and NOT ask where the oil companies USE those profits?
I don't believe the oil industry should operate as non-profit organizations, but I would like to know where their profits go: how much goes towards company support, how much to R&D, how much into the CEOs wallets, and how much (if any) goes to the industry workers.
The media keeps the focus on the extreme profits reported, without indicating where the company spends it. If we knew where the money wa earmarked for, we might be able to put better pressure on the industry to make changes.
there is the $400 million retirement package for the retiring CEO, while the Exxon Employees Pension Plan is underfunded by many Billion Dollars.
The link I inserted in my post above contains the 10 companies with the most underfunded pensions - Exxon tops the list, with $9.3Billion underfunded as of 2002. If anyone wonders just where that money went - just look at Lee "fat bastard" Raymond's retirement package.
I have good years and bad years, too. I want to be subsidized while I'm not working.
Lay off ExxonMobil. Don't you know they had to pay for the scrubbing of scores of birds in Valdez? All to please a bunch of tree huggers. In order to offset the years when their drunk captain causes an 10 million gallon spill, they have to rack up billions of dollars a quarter in profits. It's simple math really.
Wow. Norah, if you weren't so incompetent I'd be in love with you. Those eyes are incredible.