Lee Raymond, EXXON CEO, on Charlie Rose

[umass1993]

this is his second interview within the year. Why does he keep going onto Charlie Rose?

Is he worried about future oil costs? He gives mixed messages. He says that there is enough oil for the next 20 years, then he says the US should be more energy efficient, i.e. drive hybrids rather than SUVs.

He seems fairly glib. But he also seems to be hiding some of the facts. Does anyone know the deal with this guy?

[Viking12]

1. He has only one interest in mind, Exxon's!

Don't listen to his double-talking BS. In his last appearance on Rose, he claimed it would take solar panels covering the entire state of New Jersey to replace the energy dispensed by one gas station. :wtf: The apples/oranges, red-herring issues aside, PV solar panels with the surface area of NJ would replace and surpass all of the electricity production in the US.

[hatrack]

2. Man, what choice nugget of bullshit did he sculpt THAT talking point from?

Pathetic - apparently he not only reads Cato/AEI/NAM/Global Climate Coalition press releases, but also believes them. :eyes:

[umass1993]

4. CATO ?

He has his own people doing research. they tell him everything.

he is CEO of the most profitable company in the world, I think they can afford to generate their own reports.

Don't mistake cynicism for thought.

The question is, what are his people telling him?

[Viking12]

6. Exxon funds Cato and a myriad of other deceivers.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php

[umass1993]

9. they probably do fund cato,

lee raymond didn't really affirm that he believed global warming was real, or a real problem.

This is part of the mixed messages. Exxon doesn't want to be viewed as the bad guy.

I don't think it's the planet that worries Raymond, I think it's the people on the planet that foster his worst nightmares.


Pushing efficiency, yet dissing global warming. I guess the mixed message reflects the bizarre position in which a modern oil finds itself.

hrmph.

[umass1993]

3. I do listen to him..

he is an important person. It seems he wants the US to begin to chnage its attitudes towards energy... without alarming anybody.

He seems fairly smart. He isn't neccessarily evil. Exxon can afford to be nice. No matter what, they are going to make money.

He did say that an oil shortage would be disastrous. Is this what concerns him? If there is an out and out shortage, then very angry people may turn to Exxon for answers. Maybe he is genuinely worried. Maybe he knows that production will struggle to keep up with demand unless changes are made. He can't say it that way. So instead he says we should be "more efficient" and open up ANWR.

given current geopolitical conditions, wouldn't you be worried too?

I found it interesting that although, Iran, Iraq, China, Russia and the US were mentioned in the conversation, nobody mentioned the possibility of WWIII.

[rustydad]

11. Shortage?

A shortage in electricity means usually a blackout. Meaning no electricity at all unless on has his own generator. On the other hand a shortage of transportation fuel is quite different. A shortage of gasoline causes prices to rise until the 'shortage' goes away because there is demand destruction, IE some people can't afford to drive as much or at all. The other option is what happened in the 70s oil boycotts. Then Nixon tried a form of rationing using restrictions on when one could fill your car. It didn't work and created all kinds of social unhappiness. The next time we have supplies below demand watch for ever higher prices. If one is poor think bike. bob

[umass1993]

15. here is the answer, in all of its glory

VIENNA - Oil producers' struggle to keep up with rampant global demand growth will only be won with access to oilfields now off-limits, Exxon Mobil (XOM.N: Quote, Profile, Research) chief executive Lee Raymond said yesterday.


"The outlook sets before us an enormous task of finding and producing the huge and increasing amounts of energy required by the people of the world," Raymond said in a speech to the OPEC International Seminar in Vienna.

Worries that global oil demand is growing faster than producers can pump have underpinned a 35 percent surge in crude prices this year to a peak of $49.40 a barrel, prompting some to declare the end of the cheap oil era.

Raymond said he expected world energy demand to grow by between 65 and 85 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2020, roughly eight-times the current rate from the world's top producer Saudi Arabia.

"The future need for petroleum energy will be such that restrictions in whatever form and wherever imposed, will jeopardize access to adequate energy supplies to world consumers," he said.

[umass1993]

5. there's a difference between energy and electricity

production.

So both statements could be (in)correct.

This particular episode of cynicism of yours seems unmerited.

[Viking12]

7. My cynicism is wholly merited.

Yes, there's a difference between the two. That's my point. Raymond and Exxon deliberately confuse the issues to impede progress.

[umass1993]

8. I'm not sure what you mean by progress..

If the world continues along its current path, disaster awaits.

Progress is a dream, far, far away. Right now, I would be happy to avoid a bottomless plummet into the abyss.

I imagine you are thinking of renewable energy. Powering modern society (including transportation) as it now exists is impossible with renewable energy. Not even close.

I just think that if he was up to no good, he would seclude himself and work behind the scenes. the product hardly needs publicity.

BTW: He gave a plug for high-compression diesel engine cars. Many consider this to be progress. He also said that Iran's plan for building nuclear plants to expand oil exporting capabilities would make economic sense. In other words, energy alternatives to fossil fuels make sense.

I guess he's just worried. Maybe he doesn't want to die in global thermonuclear war either.

[rustydad]

10. Considering

Considering who this guy is and works for I think he was somewhat forthcoming. Rose tried to bait him into talking politics which he avoided. He did agree that Iran had a need for nuclear power and he did not defend our war on Iraq. He mentioned the "world pool" of oil several times and disputed the notion that it is each nation for it's own. He explained the interconnectedness of world oil supplies. He touted conservation. He discussed how Exxon has lost money on exploration of late. All in all not bad for a bad boy from Exxon. What Rose missed on completely is 'Peak Oil". Of course Rose does not likely understand that issue at all. Bob

[hatrack]

12. Not just ExxonMobil losing money on exploration

Wood/McKinzie reported last month that the world's top ten oil companies from 2001 to 2003 (with the trend likely to continue for 2004) collectively didn't discover enough oil to pay for the cost of exploration.

Whoops.

[umass1993]

14. He can't say

that the world doesn't have enough oil production capacity for the future. Peopple would freak. Poor people, middle class people and rich people would all be confused, angry and panicked.

Moreover, he doesn't know the situation in Saudi Arabia,, nobody does. It seems he would sleep better at night if the Arabians were willing to grant us a little more "clarity." It is hard to hate the guy for that.

He's no environmentalist, but that doesn't mean he's suicidal either.

[umass1993]

13. did you see my point on mixed messages?

thanks for your reply. obviously you saw the interview.

I hoped my posts lended some insight into the mind of Lee Raymond.