What, there's no land in the midwest that isn't heavily populated? There are literally hundreds of towns on the verge of becoming ghost towns, or are already abandoned. Just because they can't build one in suburban NJ doesn't mean they can't build it elsewhere.
You can't just build a refinery somewhere in the Midwest. You have to have access to the necessary infrastructure.
I should have been clearer, Exxon should indeed put their money into expanding refininig capacity. Their position is that it is cheaper and faster to expand existing refining capacity and improve efficiencies, then it is to build new refineries with all of the NIMBY issues.
But those places in the west and midwest are fragile ecosystems, often where endangered species are being re-introduced and nurtured. On the other hand, if Exxon's bayway refinery in NJ blows up, sure there will be damage and disruptions on Rt1&9 and the turnpike, but the north jersey bennies - certainly not an endangered species - will still be able to migrate to their summer breeding grounds at the shore by taking the garden state parkway.
pray tell, where in the hell is the crude going to come from if they build a refinery in the midwest? you want them to pay $$ for it to be piped to the midwest, then piped out of the refinery? fat chance of that happening as it makes a low return on capital business even less attractive.
I don't think you get it. Exxon likes the government regulations. They don't want to expand refinery capacity. They want the supply of oil to be tight. They love operating in "emergency" situations. They make record profits because of the war in Iraq and Katrina. What do you think Bush's energy bills have been all about?
I think Exxon likes govenment regulation in the sense that they want stability. I don't think Exxon loves operating in a long term "emergency" situation, because they realize those situations will definitely lead to a push for more capacity, which could lead to over capacity 5 years from now, and a huge bust.
Why are we picking on a company with less than 10% profit margins? Look at microsoft's profit margins and you'll see what price gauging really is.
Well I think we all know about that one, M$ gets prosecuted by the Dems, then once the reeps get in the case goes nowhere.
You realize that Exxon was the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and Mobil was the Standard Oil Company of New York.
Your post had no relevance. Exxon/Mobil have been making gobs and gobs and gobs of money for a century.
Exxon can lobby for whatever it wants, but Exxon does not set gas prices. Those are determined by the free market. Gas prices are higher because we're currently running at capacity. We have emerging markets who are willing to pay premium for gas and the American consumer is hell bent on driving SUV's. We're addicted to oil. And now we're paying the price for it. The only thing Exxon is guilty of is running its business in a profitable manner. All large companies in the US benefit from government subsidies. The only real solution to the problem is for gas prices to continue to increase so people will stop buying so much gasoline. How about a national gas tax? Sounds like a good idea to me.
Can I add a couple things real quick? 1) why is the title 10.6 Bill when the real profi is 36 B 2) Shell just has $$23 bill in profit http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=171832006 3) Dare I suggest, that if Bush were increase taxes/create tax incentives (by 2%) on major oil companies he would double what he is giving, in post STOU, to alternative engergy R&D. (recommend quick read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/02/AR2006020202129.html ) Why the hell are Oil companies going to look elsewhere for alternatives fuel sources when oil supplies will shorten and demand will exponetially increase, therfore creating higher profit margins? btw, Opec made 550 Billion http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10807339/from/RL.1/ 4) and finally, might I add that Oil companies also made so much because they are not paying the full cost of oil because they shift costs on to the environment.
This is what's wrong: 18 years on, Exxon Valdez oil still pours into Alaskan waters · Study concludes threat to ecology could last decades · Tanker's owner dismisses report as insignificant Ewen MacAskill in Washington Friday February 2, 2007 The Guardian It's reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaally simple. A company that makes thirty-nine billion dollars in 365 days should not have 26,000 gallons of oil from something for which it was clearly responsible polluting the world. It should act. Instead, money, greed and corruption gets this from Exxon's own Mouth-'o-Sauron: Just say that you will handle the problem. And handle...the problem. You just made 40 billion ********ing DOLLARS! What would it take for you to do what you should do ANYWAY??? What would it take, you greedy ********ing soulless cash whores??!?!??!? WOW!
And this: ExxonMobil taint suit Giant dumped 100 million poisoned gallons a yr. in creek, group charges www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/491598p-414110c.html http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/491942p-414396c.html
I would say that is something everyone does. What ExxonMobil does that is reprehensible is lobby and wield influence- including political and legal influence- for causes which are harmful to people and the environment.