Arctic Environmental / Sponsorship Discussion

[freetomeander]

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?
How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?
ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbys for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?
Oil drilling in the ANWR would be terribly destructive to arctic environment, wildlife and native peoples. If they could, ExxonMobil would drill in every arctic mile you traveled over if there was oil there.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. pardon the pun. Google ExxonMobil with the words environmental criticism, globalization, Nigeria, third world exploitation, oil profits. etc and explore what you find...if your interested in being more informed.

[Ursidae69]

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?
How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?
ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbys for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?
Oil drilling in the ANWR would be terribly destructive to arctic environment, wildlife and native peoples. If they could, ExxonMobil would drill in every arctic mile you traveled over if there was oil there.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. pardon the pun. Google ExxonMobil with the words environmental criticism, globalization, Nigeria, third world exploitation, oil profits. etc and explore what you find...if your interested in being more informed.

Interesting observations. I don't think you can compare the politics of ANWR with Tread Lightly. Tread Lightly was founded to teach drivers how to wheel responsibly, not take a stance on other land use issues such as oil and gas development. I personally don't see it as a conflict of interest at all, and that is coming from a greenie who does not support drilling of anwr. The way I see it, if Exxon/Mobile wants to support this trip that is great. Look at the great natural beauty the guys on the trip have seen and put online and shown the world. If anything, it will help put to rest the idea that the arctic is a barren wasteland, in fact it is a thing of beauty. My 0.02.

[seth_js]

The way I see it, if Exxon/Mobile wants to support this trip that is great. Look at the great natural beauty the guys on the trip have seen and put online and shown the world. If anything, it will help put to rest the idea that the arctic is a barren wasteland, in fact it is a thing of beauty. My 0.02.

I'm not taking sides or anything, but I think that is kind of his point. They are taking sponsorship from somebody who wants to destroy that beauty.

[pwc]

do I need to point out the irony that I believe they were using Mobil1......a synthetic?

[Ursidae69]

I'm not taking sides or anything, but I think that is kind of his point. They are taking sponsorship from somebody who wants to destroy that beauty.

I hear ya, but my point is the money is being put to good use. For instance, lots of good conservation work around the world is funded by corporations that have might have questionable environmental practices. Does that mean the folks doing the work should find funding elsewhere? Maybe, but funding is very limited. Same with this trip I think. If Brady et al. can secure some of the billion dollar profits Exxon/Mobile is making and put it to good use I am all in favor of that.

[crawler#976]

IMO

Guys, take the policy/political outta here...

...and celibrate the sucsess of the trip!
_________________

I'll be interested to see/hear how the uber soft BFG's did both from a traction stand point and wear was experianced, and how well the low temp fluids held up to the rigors of extended high heat/long distance driving.

[articulate]

do I need to point out the irony that I believe they were using Mobil1......a synthetic?
HA! That was good . . . ;)

[Willman]

IMO

Guys, take the policy/political outta here...

...and celibrate the sucsess of the trip!

:iagree:

[Scott Brady]

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.


That was a purely inflammatory post. If you had any good intentions in writing it, it would have come in a PM or email so that you could find out the facts of my involvement before attacking me in a public forum.

The sponsorship was from Mobil 1 for synthetic fluids and testing in extreme conditions. Synthetic fluids are principally based on non fossil fuel chemistry, they improve fuel economy and have a longer service life, reducing waste.

[DaveInDenver]

The sponsorship was from Mobil 1 for synthetic fluids and testing in extreme conditions. Synthetic fluids are principally based on non fossil fuel chemistry, they improve fuel economy and have a longer service life, reducing waste.
I don't want to really wade too much into this argument, the thread and trip were not about this. It's been lots of fun following it and glad you guys made it back.

OK, anyway, in my very limited chemistry background I've always understood that most synthetic lubricants still fundamentally come from oil production. The difference is really what you call a crude oil base stock and what you don't.

In the case of Group IV oil (the PAOs), the base stock is typically ethylene, which is used to make alpha olefins, which are then refined into polyalphaolefins that are the base stock of these oils. The PAO is 'P'oly 'A'lpha 'O'olefin. Ethylene comes from cracking light hydrocarbons (like propane or methane), it's still an organic.

In the case of Group III oil (like Castrol and Mobil both are), the base stock is usually still methane (at least natural gas, which could be a number of things), just that the process is hydroisomerized GTL rather than using PAO.

Not knowing everything that Scott is privy to from Mobil, it's certainly possible that the lubes he was testing are from a completely different source. For example I don't know that Group V base stock doesn't come from a different source of olefins. I know soybean & palm oil and fish oils are other sources that synthesized base stock can come from. But then there's problem of over cutting, over farming and over fishing. You can't win for losing.

[DesertRose]

I hear ya, but my point is the money is being put to good use. For instance, lots of good conservation work around the world is funded by corporations that have might have questionable environmental practices. Does that mean the folks doing the work should find funding elsewhere? Maybe, but funding is very limited. Same with this trip I think. If Brady et al. can secure some of the billion dollar profits Exxon/Mobile is making and put it to good use I am all in favor of that.

As usual Chuck, well-said! You, too, crawler ["Guys, take the policy/political outta here..."]. As someone who has worked in environmental conservation for 20 years, I can guarantee you: all grant money from all foundations used to fund green work can be traced to "dirty" money somewhere. Exxon or Ford Foundation - it all grew from investments that hurt something somewhere.

The key is that we do something good with all things - and to not preach to the choir all the time. Team Arctic from Expeditions West is an environmentally responsible group that is spreading the word about overlanding in an audience that traditionally doesn't give a hoot about conservation. I applaud ExxonMobil for sponsoring them. I may detest their policies - but I drive a truck. I'm not stupid. All life takes life and has a footprint on the planet.

Whew - enough of that.

Besides - I heard that Scott tried to get Hemp Alternative Fuels to be their title sponsor, but the company executives kept forgetting to call him back . . .

[RedDog]

This represents the enviro kicker. Many would slag me for driving a Jeep TJ while not knowing that I put about 12,000 km (approx. 7,500 miles) a year on it while I walk and bicycle to the office, market and bank half the year - and go up to a couple weeks at a time in the summer without starting my vehicle.

At the same time, they have no idea that I might pull in off the David Thompson highway (AB #11) into a campsite along Shunda Creek and actually fish a couple beer cans out of the water along the bank which I actually take home for recycle. Putting them in the camp drums would have seen them in a mountain landfill not far removed from the water I removed them from.

Nearly 2/3rds of my annual vehicle mileage likely now represents recreational purposes in the high country. My annual total represents maybe 2 or 3 months of shuttling step kids around day and night when married. My world-wide emissions legal Jeep and I are the least of the environment's concerns.

[kcowyo]

I heard that Scott tried to get Hemp Alternative Fuels to be their title sponsor, but the company executives kept forgetting to call him back . . .
:bowdown:

"Gas, grass or ***. Nobody rides for free." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/kcowyo/pimp.gif

[freetomeander]

That was a purely inflammatory post. If you had any good intentions in writing it, it would have come in a PM or email so that you could find out the facts of my involvement before attacking me in a public forum.

The sponsorship was from Mobil 1 for synthetic fluids and testing in extreme conditions. Synthetic fluids are principally based on non fossil fuel chemistry, they improve fuel economy and have a longer service life, reducing waste.

Purely inflammatory? Attacking you? I can only attempt to tell you that was NOT my intention at all!!! It's unfortunate that you see it that way. Yes they were challenging issues and questions but legitmate ones and part of the climate of our time. And a public form is "the" appropriate place because its a public issue. If you travel under that corporate banner, you will enevitably run into such questions.

From what I see on your website you plan to continue your international travels. Good for you! I'm alot older than you and have traveled alot of the world, not in the style you plan to but one still encounters much of the same thing. I can GUARANTEE you that in your future travels you will eventually encounter similar challenges to the ones I posted. If you haven't encountered them thus far, you will. And some may be much more provocative and challenging than what I posted, ESPECIALLY if you travel under a corporate banner and in this day and age of anti-Americanism. IT WILL NOT SERVE YOU WELL IF YOU RESPOND THE WAY YOU HAVE HERE - defensively saying they're inflammatory and accusing you. I suggest that it would serve you well to start practicing a different response here in this public forum. It will serve you well in future foreign places.

Good luck in your future travels.

[DesertRose]

:bowdown:

Can't take credit for a good line, kc - last night DesertDouglas and Jonathan and I were having martinis and scotch at our favorite watering hole, discussing this thread . . . and DesertDouglas came out with that line but was too shy to post it. I told him that I had no such compunction, being prone to all sorts of inappropriate and silly comments :jump:

That said, I was also trying to bring levity to this thread which is getting heated.

Freetomeander, I think your original post had some good food for thought, and though you had intended to be a devil's advocate, I think, it came across as a bit too sharp and potentially more like an attack than an invitation to serious discourse. I can't speak to Scott's feelings, but his reaction clearly was one of defensiveness, and I understand why, given the tone, however unintentional. It's very difficult to write clearly about hard subjects!

There are lots and lots of spots on this forum where people are really, really good at discussing sensitive topics without attacking each other - it's unfortunate this one got out of hand.

We all dearly love Expedition Portal and want to see thoughtful, polite discussions rathern than personal problems and the kind of mean-spirited stuff so common on forums such as IH8MUD (which I just went to to look for information on FJ60 diesel conversions and was so turned off by the impolite and downright rude behavior there!).

Perhaps at some point we can all debate the corporate sponsorship - conservation angle in another forum area, with thoughtfulness and in a non-personal way. It's certainly worth discussing!

[Willman]

Can't take credit for a good line, kc - last night DesertDouglas and Jonathan and I were having martinis and scotch at our favorite watering hole, discussing this thread . . . and DesertDouglas came out with that line but was too shy to post it. I told him that I had no such compunction, being prone to all sorts of inappropriate and silly comments :jump:

That said, I was also trying to bring levity to this thread which is getting heated.

Freetomeander, I think your original post had some good food for thought, and though you had intended to be a devil's advocate, I think, it came across as a bit too sharp and potentially more like an attack than an invitation to serious discourse. I can't speak to Scott's feelings, but his reaction clearly was one of defensiveness, and I understand why, given the tone, however unintentional. It's very difficult to write clearly about hard subjects!

There are lots and lots of spots on this forum where people are really, really good at discussing sensitive topics without attacking each other - it's unfortunate this one got out of hand.

We all dearly love Expedition Portal and want to see thoughtful, polite discussions rathern than personal problems and the kind of mean-spirited stuff so common on forums such as IH8MUD (which I just went to to look for information on FJ60 diesel conversions and was so turned off by the impolite and downright rude behavior there!).

Perhaps at some point we can all debate the corporate sponsorship - conservation angle in another forum area, with thoughtfulness and in a non-personal way. It's certainly worth discussing!

Well put!

This picture is something i got from a friend....This is just a joke to calm the waters!!! I have mentally challeged friends....This picture goes to show we can argue all we want...it's still not going to get us anywhere!

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f374/nicwillman/untitled.jpg

Let's ALL get along and ..."Guys, take the policy/political outta here..."

This is my 2 cents!

:elkgrin:

[VikingVince]

:bowdown:

"Gas, grass or ***. Nobody rides for free." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v142/kcowyo/pimp.gif

Hey, I know some of you have heard a song with that very phrase in it:rockon: :rockon: (I guess the hook wasn't strong enough!)

Welcome back to Scott, Chris, and Pasquale. Congrats on a "cool" trip and glad you're back safely.

Freetomeander...lot of us here have travelled with Team Arctic and know they are good men of conscience and character! (I don't think you were implying otherwise). Personally, I didn't find your post inflammatory; challenging yes, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen....or don't be a chef:chef: ;) Actually,I thought it was thought-provoking. And because of it I read thoughts by Ursidae and DesertRose which expanded my thinking...something to the effect 'there is no green money without dirty footprints.' etc, etc That's good food for thought.

And you're right about eventually encountering anti-American or anti-corporate challenges in foreign lands and be ready to deal with them. I've encountered it more than once. Just last year when I was in Baja(of all places!), this Canadian guy (surprised me) "let me have it" about Americans and the American government being responsible for the drug trade from Mexico!!! He was really hostile and very anti-American. (Canadian folk - I know he was more the exception than the rule...right?) Soooo...One better be prepared to be diplomatic (not ego defensive or seemingly arrogant) if you're going to drive though Nigeria with large ExxonMobil stickers...I'd think twice about it.

[Scott Brady]

Freetomeander,

Ok, let's talk in more detail then.

I am pretty old fashioned when it comes to these types of discussions and find posts from completely anonymous individuals that directly attack another person to be highly dubious and typically with only the intention of being inflammatory. I sign my name to every post and would only type something in a forum that I would say to someones face around a campfire. So my response to your post is not at all typical of how I deal with debate or challenge, but it is how I will always respond to anonymous accusers with glaringly obvious intentions.

Your comments below are leading, accusational and insulting, there is no other way to interpret them. In addition, you made those accusations without making any attempt to find out the details of my involvement with Mobil 1, which is only related to synthetic fluid promotion and testing. I am also going to assume that you drive a fossil fuel burning vehicle (being that you are a member of a vehicle-dependent expedition forum), so your comments are even more dubious and naive. The concept of throwing rocks in a glass house certainly comes to mind.

I am not adverse to the challenges you make or to dealing with the issues you pose, I suppose I am just used to a more respectful and thoughtful dialog.


Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?

A leading question here. My arrangements with my sponsors are private business dealings.

Just read your own words above and tell me with any honesty that they were not intended to be leading and inflammatory. I am a student of psychology and your intentions with those questions are beyond defense.


How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?

How can this be interpreted in anyway other than inflammatory? You are asking me to justify my trip in a vehicle that burns fossil fuels, sponsored in part by a company that manufacturers them and documented on a forum that encourages vehicle-dependent travel. My business is not to ride a unicycle around the world, so the justification should be painfully apparent.


ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbies for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Nearly all fuel comes from non-renewable sources. Where do you think the gas you put in your car comes from? An oil rig in the ocean, a pump in the desert or jungles or a pipe across the Arctic.


And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?

It is simple. I make my living driving and racing vehicles and testing vehicle related equipment; However, I do so in as environmentally responsible manner as possible. I educate others on Tread Lightly to help prevent trail damage, erosion, the spreading of noxious weeds, etc. I support conservation organizations with my time and finances and have even helped to start one (more details in a month or so). I also work from home, in a house with a small footprint. My truck sits in the garage unless I am on a trip so I drive very few miles in a year. I also selected a vehicle with better than average fuel economy and with a very clean burning motor from an automotive company with a very good environmental record.

Even this forum strongly advocates environmental responsibility, awareness and conservation with entire sections allocated to those subjects.

I try to do my part to minimize impact and practice conservation.

So, I have a few questions for you:

Do you own and drive a fossil fuel burning vehicle?
Would you agree that synthetic fluids are more environmentally sustainable and with less waste than traditional fluids?

[Willman]

:lurk:

[bigreen505]

[Moved from other thread]

Unfortunately some people's enviro sense rarely go past page three of Google. I come from a public relations background and I can think of several reasons why ExxonMobile is a great title sponsor for the trip. Beyond the obvious of supporting conservation expeditions, which it does a lot of, the trip provides an excellent testing opportunity to see how its SYNTHETIC fluids hold up in the real world conditions for which they were developed, and modify and refine them so we get higher quality products. The best sponsorships are win-win deals. Delving further into the politics (and hoping I don't upset anyone), the goal of any company is to make money. Companies like ExxonMobile are looking into longer-term and less dino-derrived fuel and oil sources because the international demand is out-pacing exploration.

[Lost Canadian]

I have to side with Scott's discourse analysis of Freetomeander's post. I'm not saying the questions Freetomeander raised were not valid questions to ask, but the context he/she used, and the manner and timing in which they were asked were clearly meant to be somewhat antagonistic.

I agree with Vince as well in that the questions raised are thought-provoking. It raises the question of what lines are being or should be crossed. Is doing buisness with those who seemingly care little for the moral ramifications of their actions a sort of "shaking of hands with the devil?"

Then again what if the intended outcome of the business deal is to ultimately reduce the footprint of man through improved science and to bring awarness to the beauty of both land and human cultural diversity? Is doing such buisiness immoral or even questionable then?

Sure Exxon's buisness practices and their politcal influence have lead to a questionable reputation for them, but I don't think that efforts to work with them to improve on our current oil and environmental situations should be shut down completely. In fact if Exxon wishes to bring an individual who is clearly dedicated to conservation and reducing mans footprint into the fold then it should be applauded no?

None of us are innocent when it comes our impact on the earth, we all drive cars, it is us who drive the demand for oil, and certainly if we didn't drive that demand then Exxon wouldn't be in buisiness and wouldn't need to seek out new supply. I think it's highly pretentious for anyone who drives the demand for oil to turn and scorn oil companies who are seeking to meet that demand. We're all guilty. If Scott so chooses to help those companies improve on products which will ultimatly reduce waste and need then that should seen as a positive step towards conservation.

I think the only person who needs to ask any questions of Scott is Scott. It's not fair or appropriate for anyone else to question Scotts purpose or intentions of securing sponsorship from Exxon because Scott has never openly expressed his intentions or hopes from the deal.

It's as it is in conflict, you can't hope to resolve a problem unless work with those who you are seen to be in conflict with.

[Scott Brady]

I want to make my position on this discussion a little more clear:

1. Regarding Mobil 1: I believe that synthetic fluids are an advantage for the environment, improve fuel economy and reduce waste. This fact is well documented. I am a proponent of these technologies, which is why I have aligned with Mobil 1 to help test and promote them.

2. I believe that we all have a responsibility to conserve natural resources, which means that I must make compromises in my lifestyle to minimize my use and impact, but it does not mean I will stop doing what I enjoy and supports my family. So my truck, which I would love to drive around daily just sits in the garage unless I am on a trip. I am looking to purchase a dual-sport to even further limit my use. So the 8-9,000 miles I drive on average in a year in a reasonably efficient and clean burning truck has a lower impact. I could certainly do more, but I am satisfied with my efforts at the moment and look for new solutions all the time.

3. Being in a first world country means that we are nearly all "high use". There is a fraction of the population in this country that is carbon neutral, living in an apartment in the city and not driving a car. I always find humor in hearing people advocate no logging from the comfort of their new, 3,000 square foot wood home...

4. I love the outdoors and cherish my ability to visit the world's wild places. I work hard to help conserve wildlife and preserve wildlands.

5. Solutions come through innovation and conservation. Research and innovation continue to accelerate and to use another quote:

"need is the mother of all invention".

Efficient, low emissions diesels are already here. More will come, along with other solutions.

So.... I am a hopeless optimist and believe in humanities ability to overcome challenges, social, environmental or otherwise.

[calamaridog]

Congrats on your trip. I have a couple questions.
So you took Mobil as your title sponsor. What does that mean? They gave you more money than anybody else?
How do you justify traveling to the Arctic under ExxonMobil sponsorship?
ExxonMobil strongly advocates and actively lobbys for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And you're a environment conscious Tread Lightly Trainer? How do you put those two on the same page?
Oil drilling in the ANWR would be terribly destructive to arctic environment, wildlife and native peoples. If they could, ExxonMobil would drill in every arctic mile you traveled over if there was oil there.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg. pardon the pun. Google ExxonMobil with the words environmental criticism, globalization, Nigeria, third world exploitation, oil profits. etc and explore what you find...if your interested in being more informed.


freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic:(

[bigreen505]

I have to side with Scott's discourse analysis of Freetomeander's post.

Really? I thought it was unnecessarily nice, but I suppose that is true Scotty style. I would have assumed he was purely a troll, deleted the post and locked his account, but that is just me. I'm all for open and honest discussion, but there are certain things that I don't put up with in person or on the Internet and those posts were shining examples.

The funny thing is what Scott wrote was exactly what I was thinking when I read freetomeander's first post and nearly verbatim what I sent Ursidae69 in PM.

Freetomeander, if you are looking for a place to have an open and honest discussion and learn a ton, welcome to Expo. If you are just looking to stir the post, stir elsewhere.

[elcoyote]

freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic:(

I second this. Two thoughts come to mind: 1- Let he who have not sinned cast the first stone. 2-Never get into a battle of wits unprepared.

[DaktariEd]

freetomeander,

Feel free to post some personal information and facts about yourself and your lifestyle so we can put a "face" to your posts. It's easy to ask hard questions about people and their associations from behind a curtain of anonymity.

Scott is a very public person, and perhaps because he's so visable, you assume he is an easy target. I assure you, this is not the case.

Frankly, I think Scott has answered questions in a forthright manner.

As far as your post, I too found it was antagonistic:(

:iagree:

[Lost Canadian]

Really? I thought it was unnecessarily nice...
:ylsmoke: Perhaps, but I'm sure Scott would agree it's usually better to take the high ground.

[toyrunner95]

freetomeander has a point in the questions he proposed, however his manner of proposing them was a little out of line, a simple private message or an e mail would have probably been more appreciative (sp) than a public "attack". i also agree that it was an attack, it sounded very heated and argumentitive. my conclusion is that either the tree he was hugging fell down, or he had a genuine need to voice his opinions publicly.

oddly i thoguht his name was free tomater for the longest time.

[erin]

Very well put SCott, not out of line at all.

[pwc]

I'm fine with drilling in the arctic as long as we steal it all from Canada.

It's kinda funny in a way. Scott made the point with #3 about people who live in wood houses, etc... My thought is, I already pay Mobil X amount of dollars for their oil. Why not have them give it to me for free?

We all use some kind of oil. And meander does too when he jumped on those big jet planes traveling the world.

In the holier than thou vein, my oil comes from pure evil oil companies, but at least my fuel doesn't. Yet. Neener, neener.

EDIT: Where did freetomeander go? a one sided conversation benefits no one.

[Ursidae69]

my conclusion is that either the tree he was hugging fell down, or he had a genuine need to voice his opinions publicly.


Can we knock off the "tree hugging" remarks? I'd like to see freetomeander interact in this thread and not be forced off the site because of this thread.

[Haggis]

Scott, I want to applaud you for the way you are handling freetomeander's thread. Your response has been one of forceful restraint while still not putting up with someone's BS. One of the reasons I started logging on to this site was the manner of discourse you all have between yourselves, level headed debates where issues were seen from all sides. This thread, when I first read it, seemed like someone with an agenda was lopping a bomb in here.

[Super Doody]

Being a critique is easy. Understanding the issue before making a sounds decision is hard.

In the western world where individuality is promoted and a very important of the social fabricate, opinions and "logic" will always differ. All we can do be honest to ourselves and respect others.

[RoundOut]

I applaud the individuals in the Arctic Expedition Team for their ability to enjoy vehicle dependent expeditions to remote areas while earning a living. What a beautiful thing! Congratulations on your sponsorships, and what a blessing it is to include an energy company among them. Until another fuel source and engine combination is brought to market, we have the internal combustion engine and the oil industry.

It is completely hypocritical for anyone that drives a car, heats or cools their home, turns on the lights from a switch on the wall, cooks a meal on a gas or electric stove, uses plastics of any kind, irons their shirt, or vacuums their carpet to make attacks like that. Many of the products we take for granted and most of the electricity generated today comes from fossil fuels. Why do so many people ignore this fact and then slam the energy industry which is the very source of these comforts?

Although I was very upset with much of the tone, if not the intent of freetomeandor's post, I waited to chime in until this thread was moved over to one dedicated to this discussion, so as not to "pollute" the topic of the Arctic trip.

I have made my living since 1986 in the oil and gas industry. While our industry has made many mistakes, it provides products and services that this country could not do without, PERIOD. The very freedom we all enjoy could be boiled down to the availability of energy at a reasonable cost. If you want to understand that statement better, read Daniel Yergin's book, The Prize, The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power. Among the only reason's we are all not speaking German or Japanese is the availability of fuel to our armed forces during WWII.


They are taking sponsorship from somebody who wants to destroy that beauty.
As a for-profit company and more specifically a publicly traded company, ExxonMobil is in the business of making money for its shareholders. Their chosen method is to explore for, produce, transport, and refine oil and gas products as cheaply as possible and market them as profitably as possible. It is NOT the goal of oil companies to cause environmental destruction, but rather to deliver energy for a profit. In today's age, environmental responsibility is part of the cost of doing business in this industry. It is much cheaper to act responsibly than to clean up a mess caused by not acting responsibly. Suggesting that ExxonMobil wants to destroy the beauty of ANWR is ridiculous.

The ANWR is perhaps the last of the "elephants", in terms of large quantities of oil and gas reserves available from within our nations borders. Outside of the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California and offshore Florida, there are few other locations with as much promise of economic energy reserves. Because of the development of the North Slope, the pipeline infrastructure is almost all in place to develop ANWR and all that is needed is a mutually acceptable development plan, which could be negotiated between reasonable people. Our country's interests would be better served by allowing energy companies to develop ANWR directionally from a few pads, limiting intrusion of native habitat, than to ignore these vast reserves and send our dollars overseas.

This is all part of a much larger problem, in my opinion. Nobody wants a drilling rig in their back yard or just off their pristine beach, but we all want a source of cheap gas for our car, truck or SUV. It is shameful that energy policy in this country cannot be developed by reasonable people. The greenies and militant media see it as oil industry profiteering, and the politicians are afraid to be statesmen and make hard decisions for fear of losing a few votes. So nothing will change, unfortunately. We'll all just point fingers, make accusations, and spend whatever it takes to fill our gas tanks. That's just the way it is.

[Ursidae69]

The greenies and militant media see it as oil industry profiteering, and the politicians are afraid to be statesmen and make hard decisions for fear of losing a few votes. So nothing will change, unfortunately. We'll all just point fingers, make accusations, and spend whatever it takes to fill our gas tanks. That's just the way it is.

This statement in particular caught my eye. You really think that profiteering isn't going on? You really think the greenies and militant media is just hyping the fact that ExxonMobile and others have had record profits? Exxon's second-quarter profit in 2006 was 10.36 billion dollars while we paid record amounts at the pump. Doesn't seem like a greenie conspiracy to me, but in fact abuse of the American consumer. On the bright side, these high gas prices are forcing the government and automakers to act and forcing the consumers here to conserve, so some good will come out of it beyond the record profits.

This has been an interesting thread and I'm glad this was moved out of the trip thread, it was very out of place there.

[freetomeander]

Mr Brady,

Regarding your latter post in this thread, I would first like to say that I very much appreciate your committment to the environment, your love of nature, and your commitment to travel. We share those things in common. Believe it or not, it's possible we'd work for the same cause...if we ever get over this hump. Having said that, I find it quite ironic, if not oxymoronic, that you have aligned yourself with a multi-national corporation that has ultimately worked against the preservation and improvement of the global environment...despite their public declarations to the contrary.

Your former post where you specifically responded to my post is somewhat of a different matter. :rolleyes: I experienced it as hostile, aggressive, and an attempt to intimidate. (slaps on the back from your compatriots notwithstanding) No problem. I understand. I will try to not to be as personal but allow me a couple observations. You seemed quite intent on PROVING that my post was inflammatory even thought I attempted to assure you that was not my intent. Do you need to be right? If you are a student of psychology, what would needing to be right indicate? We all have and need ego just to get out of bed in the morning, but...

Next let me say that your 'old-fashioned' rationale connecting anonymity with inflammatory is without merit in this instance. I agree that generally speaking, a veil of anonymity could encourage hostility. But that is not the case here. I have been the victim of identity theft and household robbery. The two were connected and the internet was involved. I will NEVER, EVER again post my full name, where I live, or my occupation on the internet. Plus the long arduous hassle of straightening-out indentity theft is a process I would not wish on anyone. A side note - I also see that some people in this forum post their birthdays along with their full names and where they live. Very foolish. Birthdate is one of the key pieces of info in identity theft. You have no idea how clever these types of thieves are in piecing together information from different sources and using it.

Back to the issue at hand. This argument of "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" or "hey, don't you use oil to?" is really very thin, if not intellectually bereft. Of course I use oil - just like all of you. I even have a Mobil credit card along with many others. It just makes traveling easier in many instances. I also eat food and wear clothes - just like all of you. Does that mean that I condone corporations that exploit third world labor in garment sweatshops where women and children are forced to work 14-16 hour days in deplorable conditions for 30 cents an hour? NO. Does the fact that I eat food mean I shouldn't be critical of agricultural corporations that exploit and mistreat immigrant farm labor? NO. (I realize some of these abuses have been exposed in recent years and some changes made, but exploitation still continues)

On a comparative basis, ExxonMobil is the 8th largest economy in the world. Nothing 'wrong' with that. Last year, ExxonMobil had $40 billion in net profit. That's net profit after all expenses, including R&D for things like synthetic oil. That $40 billion is the largest one fiscal year profit in the entire history of capitalism! Nothing necessarily 'wrong' with that either, although it begs the question of when and if profit is excessive, how should it be used? So when I fill my tank and gasoline is $3/gallon and going higher, I have to ask if any of that $40 billion could have been returned to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. ????

Please use the following links as a starting poing for your own research on ExxonMobil.

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/whyexxon.html
This is a coalition of environmental and public interest groups spotlighting ExxomMobil's efforts to drill in the ANWR, prevent action on global warming, and encourage America's oil dependence.
Be sure and scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the Facts links

http://www.stanford.edu/group/SICD/ExxonMobil/exxonmobil.html
This Stanford link is a more scholarly, balanced opinion...although not quite current.

http://www.waado.org/Environment/OilCompanies/ERAonExxonMobil.html
The style of this link is a bit too over-the-top liberal but the issues are credible. Take note of the lawsuit that is mentioned. I was priivy to some of the deliberations of the American law firm that represented the plaintiffs. I know that the allegations mentioned were meritorius of an action.

Contrary to what many of you may think, I am not anti-corporate nor am I a knee-jerk, "tree-hugging" liberal (thank you, Ursidae for challenging that). I simply try to be an informed and objective observer of this world I have travelled and form my opinions accordingly. By the way, you will never be well informed if your only input is American media. Douglas Hackney echoes this opinion on his website as well. I would encourage everyone to start reading foreign news sources and magazines and see how other people in the world experience America. If you are not close-minded or predisposed, your perspectives will be broadened and some of your current opinions will most likely change.

The topic of this thread is corporate sponsorship vis a vie expedition travel. Let's get to the issue an abandon this debate over the tone of my first post. I KNOW it was challenging and that can be interpreted as attacking. I did my best to not make it inflammatory. Now let's continue with the issue as some members have attempted to.

Ursidae and DesertRose have made some insightful points about using corporate funds. I'd like to briefly expand on that. It seems to me that accepting "green money with dirty footprints" is necessary and an inevitable aspect of the way our world works. But is there a line that should be drawn?? Can money with dirty footprints ever be too dirty? Or do we accept all green money totally regardless of the "dirt?" If we accept money, or products for testing, from corporations that have engaged in commonly accepted reprehensible behavior, are we as a people not sliding into a type of moral bankruptcy? Are we selling our souls to the devil? Are money or free products so seductive that accepting them has no standards? I would hope not. Mr. Brady, are there any corporate actions that would remove a corporation from your list of acceptable sponsors? If so, what are they?

As you might guess, ExxonMobil would not be on my list.

Mr. Brady, thank you for this discourse. After all, it is your forum. I suspect you may respond with a long expose defending ExxonMobil or debunking the criticisms in the links. (no doubt the oil man from Houston will!) So be it. In the final analysis, everyone will decide for themselves...but hopefully after reading the proverbial both sides of the story.

My appreciation to all who thoughtfully read and consider what I've posted here.

[RoundOut]

You really think that profiteering isn't going on? You really think the greenies and militant media is just hyping the fact that ExxonMobile and others have had record profits? Exxon's second-quarter profit in 2006 was 10.36 billion dollars ...
Absolutely not, profiteering is not going on. It is naive of one to think that any one company, even as large as ExxonMobil, has market power over gasoline prices in the U.S.

Gasoline is but one component of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons existing in various amounts in various grades of crude oil found in various locations throughout the world. Other things constant, such as the quality of the crude oil - i.e. sulfur content, amount of naphtha (makes gasoline) or distillate (makes diesel and jet fuel) in crude oil, location, etc., the price of crude oil on the world market is determined by the price someone is willing to pay for the very last barrel produced each day. As much as ExxonMobil or any other company would like to have control over it, they don't.

During times of political conflict, such as Iranian nuclear fears or Nigerian rebels taking over oil production, prices rise over concerns of supply. During supply interruptions, such as occurred with the two hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, other sources of crude oil production had to be procured for refiners in the Gulf Coast that were used to the supplies from Gulf of Mexico platforms. In order to attract those sources to the Gulf Coast, someone had to pay more than the last guy. The last guy didn't want to lose his steady supply, so he had to pay more to keep it, and the cycle continues until a price equilibrium is established in the free market.

The world market controls the cost of the feedstock, crude oil. The world market controls the cost of the oil companies' working capital, through the cost of feedstocks and cost of money to own the inventory of feedstocks, intermediate products and finished products. What oil companies do have some control over is the transportation, refining and marketing cost. The profit margin at the pump is determined solely by how cheaply the gas station owner can supply gasoline and whether his/her price is low enough to attract the number of customers he/she needs to move their target volume. Again, this is a free market.

At the end of the day, commodity prices are all market-based, and gasoline is no exception, except for the $.385/gallon in taxes (that is what it is in Houston, I think - it varies from state to state or city to city).

You quote Exxon's profit of $10.36 billion as if it were some kind of sin. Have you considered that Exxon shareholders have invested about $440 billion to make that kind of profit? While making that profit, American consumers have all enjoyed the convenience of being able to visit grandma over Easter weekend and not worry that there won't be enough fuel to get home.

Remember what a profit of $10.36 billion will provide the U.S. Treasury, too! A whole bunch of corporate income tax.

[durango_60]

Since this thread has gone down the ExxonMobil is a Evil Empire Road...


On a comparative basis, ExxonMobil is the 8th largest economy in the world. Nothing 'wrong' with that. Last year, ExxonMobil had $40 billion in net profit. That's net profit after all expenses, including R&D for things like synthetic oil.

And? Are we now penalizing organizations for making a profit???


That $40 billion is the largest one fiscal year profit in the entire history of capitalism!

So what? Yes, 40 Billion is a huge number that is nearly impossible to comprehend but that number by itself is merely a small piece of the puzzle. I only look at percentages such as ROE and Net Margin, for your viewing pleasure I have attached S&P reports for 4 companies we all know and love so you can pick out the evil profiteering organization.

Edit, the reports are larger than I can upload directly to the site and I don't have time to host them somewhere else right now, I'm busy trying to make a profit...

My favorite part is how Alcon(a drug company out to help people) has a 1 year 39.25% ROE vs. ExxonMobil's 35.11% ROE.




So when I fill my tank and gasoline is $3/gallon and going higher, I have to ask if any of that $40 billion could have been returned to the consumer in the form of lower gas prices. ????

As a shareholder I got my piece of the pie:)


disclaimer: while I do not work for the oil industry, it did pay for my education and a wonderful childhood travelling the world...

[Scott Brady]

Mr./Ms. Freetomeander,

I really only have two points left on this interchange, as time is short in this life and I do not believe that your intentions are honorable with any of this.

If you would like, send me an email and I will give you my phone number. Maybe a more traditional discussion will come to some good...

First:

I genuinely believe that you had negative intentions with your initial post, and there is obvious evidence to support it. It is not about my ego or about being right. It is about the continued degradation of "class" and "good taste" on the Internet, where even individuals of implied maturity act poorly. There can be places on the Internet where people can have some manners and my hope is that ExPo will remain one of them. So, I will stand toe-to-toe (or keyboard-to-keyboard in this case) with you on this.

1. Timing: You made the post just as I had returned and was celebrating with my friends, fellow forum members and family.

Let me share with you a story:

Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has just completed a life dream, the dream of climbing the ten tallest 14'ers in Colorado. Mr./Ms. Freetomeander has put together a party at his/her home in the Denver area to celebrate the successes that he/she has accomplished with two of Freetomeander's closest friends. While everyone is enjoying looking at the pictures and listening to your stories of adventure, a stranger slips into the house from the darkness, lurking in the shadows of the room. Just as you are ready to share a toast with your friends and family this stranger steps forward and says. "how can you justify celebrating your accomplishment, when you climbed the mountain wearing North Face equipment?" Silence comes over the room and the celebration fizzles. You have never seen this person, in fact, they stay in the shadows so that you cannot see their face. So you respond. "Well, I am a mountain climber and The North Face does make climbing equipment". The stranger huffs, obviously prepared to continue with the accusations. "The North Face gear is made in China, and they are a communist country, you are supporting communism and should be ashamed of your accomplishments". By this point, Freetomeander is feeling pretty defensive, with a stranger in the home, having interrupted the party and offended his family and friends.

How would you feel if this happened to you Freetomeander?

Just take a step back and draw on your years of time on this earth and think about your first post. If you were at all honest with yourself, you would admit that your intentions were not honorable.


Second:

You drive a Class C motorhome (http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46078&postcount=20)for recreation. You have zero credibility on the subject of fossil fuel conservation or usage in my mind.



Are money or free products so seductive that accepting them has no standards?

I partner with good companies and good people. My stories and images help to promote interest in wilderness and wildlife. My agreement is with Mobil1for synthetic fluids, which IS GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT when compared to traditional fluids. I think I have made this point perfectly clear by now...


Mr. Brady, are there any corporate actions that would remove a corporation from your list of acceptable sponsors? If so, what are they?

I don't like Walmart, so I would not consider them for sponsorship. Other than that, it is on a case by case basis, as any other small business in the universe with limited time and resources would do....

[Ursidae69]

Absolutely not, profiteering is not going on. It is naive of one to think that any one company, even as large as ExxonMobil, has market power over gasoline prices in the U.S.

Gasoline is but one component of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons existing in various amounts in various grades of crude oil found in various locations throughout the world. Other things constant, such as the quality of the crude oil - i.e. sulfur content, amount of naphtha (makes gasoline) or distillate (makes diesel and jet fuel) in crude oil, location, etc., the price of crude oil on the world market is determined by the price someone is willing to pay for the very last barrel produced each day. As much as ExxonMobil or any other company would like to have control over it, they don't.

During times of political conflict, such as Iranian nuclear fears or Nigerian rebels taking over oil production, prices rise over concerns of supply. During supply interruptions, such as occurred with the two hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, other sources of crude oil production had to be procured for refiners in the Gulf Coast that were used to the supplies from Gulf of Mexico platforms. In order to attract those sources to the Gulf Coast, someone had to pay more than the last guy. The last guy didn't want to lose his steady supply, so he had to pay more to keep it, and the cycle continues until a price equilibrium is established in the free market.

The world market controls the cost of the feedstock, crude oil. The world market controls the cost of the oil companies' working capital, through the cost of feedstocks and cost of money to own the inventory of feedstocks, intermediate products and finished products. What oil companies do have some control over is the transportation, refining and marketing cost. The profit margin at the pump is determined solely by how cheaply the gas station owner can supply gasoline and whether his/her price is low enough to attract the number of customers he/she needs to move their target volume. Again, this is a free market.

At the end of the day, commodity prices are all market-based, and gasoline is no exception, except for the $.385/gallon in taxes (that is what it is in Houston, I think - it varies from state to state or city to city).

You quote Exxon's profit of $10.36 billion as if it were some kind of sin. Have you considered that Exxon shareholders have invested about $440 billion to make that kind of profit? While making that profit, American consumers have all enjoyed the convenience of being able to visit grandma over Easter weekend and not worry that there won't be enough fuel to get home.

Remember what a profit of $10.36 billion will provide the U.S. Treasury, too! A whole bunch of corporate income tax.


I'm admittedly not an expert in oil and I do not think the profits are some kind of sin, but they do make me pause and reflect at their size. The ROE argument is an interesting side note, especially when compared to other industries.

In the end, I am still optimistic that these higher prices at the pump (that are not going away) will spur advances in conservation and fuel economy.

[mountainpete]

There have been some very good points brought forward in this thread. Unfortunately, we can all see the direction this is going.

Scott - the members of ExPo and North American overlanders in general owe you a considerable amount of gratitude and respect for the leadership you have shown for Vehicle Dependant Expedition Travel on this side of the pond. We all celebrate with you, Chirs and Pasquale the amazing success of the Arctic Expedition.

At the same time - well it's seriously corny but Spiderman's Uncle Ben put it best: "With great power comes great responsibility." As you are more and more in the public eye, you will continue to get more pressure to explain yourself and your choices. From my perspective, you have proved your leadership in this area many times over. The record speaks for itself and I respect it. The decision to accept Mobil-1 as your sponsor was yours (and probably Chris) - it's done so lets move on.

Freetomeander - you have brought forth many excellent points and I respect your right to your personal privacy - there are certain lines I also do not cross online. Your comments regarding Mobil Oil are well taken. As you can see, I live in Alberta - Oil Capital of North America. Our economy is heavily dependant on oil and research, exploration and drilling, so I can personally understand where you are coming from.

With that said, you have to be honest - you really did cause quite a stir in our little online community. Your timing is probably what hurt you the most and as a result this discussion isn't going in the way it should. I feel that you would get your point across better if you focus on how you would choose a good sponsor instead of why one specific company is good or bad.

Everyone: The ExPo community has a basic, unwritten pillar that holds it up. That being respect. Respect for members personal beliefs, experiences and perspectives. It's as simple as not bashing Toyota vs. Jeep and goes as far as the jokes that may be posted. This includes heavy bashing of specific people or companies. This is stuff we all know and it's why we come to ExPo. Let's always do what we can to keep that respect!

With all that said, lets make this a constructive discussion. :26_7_2:

Pete

[jeffryscott]

I've stayed out of this until now. I used to be married to someone that was more of an activist. She would join various protests and think she was doing something. I, on the other hand, was working with my photography to protest many of the same issues - but I was doing it by showing the ills of society, trying to raise awareness, documenting rights and wrongs in an effort to educate through the media.

People have a choice, they can yell and scream from either side of the fence, or they can work to educate and inform - even if sponsorship is from a company that has a less than stellar track record. You can either work from within and attempt to make change slowly, or you can stand on the sidelines ranting and raving. Personally, I think education is the nexus of change, not yelling and screaming.

Change doesn't happen overnight - raising awareness, promoting conservation,, etc ... come from people like Scott, who is reaching far more people everyday with this goal than someone raising concerns in an internet forum.

[GeoRoss]

This is a truly interesting thread. Ignoring perceived attacks, bad timing and other attention diversions.


One has to admit that there is a certain amount of irony in having EM as a sponsor on an arctic expedition with one of the expedition's functions being to promote the arctic environment. Good, bad, meh is an individual decision. My twisted sense of humor did cause me to chuckle a little though.


The interesting question that did arise is when is money too dirty to accept in sponsorship? On a level we all experience, who do we support through our shopping habits. I think that we are all old enough to realize that the world is not black and white. How does one decide? It all depends on the compromise and shades of gray one's moral compass sees.



Who Expedition West accepts as a sponsor is Expeditions West's decision and business. Expedition West doesn't have to defend its decisions. However, Expedition West shouldn't be surprised when questions like this do arise. When one puts oneself in the spotlight there is often an inevitable increase in scrutiny. Is the increased scrutiny justified, sometimes. Is it sometimes stupid and of no real bearing, yes. There are lots of ways to deal with scrutiny and once again how Expedition West does so is EW's decision.

I would have used a less aggressive and defensive tone, but that is my opinion and my interpretation. To be clear, I am talking about the original poster and the EW's response.

:cheers:

[Lost Canadian]

Another question to be raised then is who has the moral right to question others decisions and/or actions?

I'm still trying to separate how accepting sponsorship from Mobil is morally incomprehensible yet having a big motorhome, a Mobil credit card and supporting Exxon when you buy gas is somehow different. Knowing that and going back to the original question I'm actually a little surprised someone would be so bold.

The old saying "It's not what we say, but what we do that defines who we are," keeps coming to mind while I read this thread.

[pskhaat]

Since this thread has gone down the ExxonMobil is a Evil Empire Road...

Okay, time for an economist to say a small piece:

Pure capitalism is no sin, but let's not be fooled into thinking we live in a free market for any industry. Laws and methods of taxation drive and steer economies. Laws (or specific lack thereof), lobbying, tax codes, and pinpoint Congressional spending can shape those economies as well as the resulting social culture.

If I were Exxon I have a cultural, social, and investment interest in getting as much profit as possible, just the same as if I were selling cloth fabrics for a living. Period.

It should be we complaining about economic and legal barriers to alternative fuels and alternative refineries; we who complain about our local tax monies going to transportation departments that seem to be solely interested in making more paved roads and fuel-wasting stop lights instead of rail lines and roundabouts (for a random instance). With our complaints, should we mandate fuel use tax to carbon-equate each gallon of gasoline/diesel?

Fuel is nearly perfectly inelastic product. So is water. It's no suprise that many foreign countries are making energy a federal utility.

My point is the oil companies--and sorry RoundOut I am quite convinced I am being charged significantly more than historical, speculative, or projected future cost :) --is not the right target.

[calamaridog]

In the end, I am still optimistic that these higher prices at the pump (that are not going away) will spur advances in conservation and fuel economy.

This is exactly the case. As the technology makes financial sense, it is brought to market in greater quantity...

...Ethanol for example...

...Which raised the price of CORN in 3rd world countries, such as Mexico, leading to FOOD RIOTS. People died, because the price of tortillas went through the roof.


Oh, the tangled web we weave.

[calamaridog]

The interesting question that did arise is when is money too dirty to accept in sponsorship? On a level we all experience, who do we support through our shopping habits. I think that we are all old enough to realize that the world is not black and white. How does one decide? It all depends on the compromise and shades of gray one's moral compass sees.

:cheers:

How does one decide?

I doubt you, or 99% of consumers has any idea where most of the stuff they buy originated from and where the profits went.

It's almost impossible to tell from looking at a package...

[GeoRoss]

How does one decide?

I doubt you, or 99% of consumers has any idea where most of the stuff they buy originated from and where the profits went.

It's almost impossible to tell from looking at a package...


:iagree:

That is what makes it such a great question on both the personal level and on the sponsorship/professional level .


Are you in the 99% or 1%? :)

Me, I'd like to think I try my best on these issues but often fall into your 99%.

[RoundOut]

In the end, I am still optimistic that these higher prices at the pump (that are not going away) will spur advances in conservation and fuel economy.

That is a free market response to opportunity. High prices of gasoline at the pump will cause some entrepreneur(s) to develop a widget or widgets that either conserves or replaces gasoline or offers an alternative power plant for vehicles that would not be economic to develop if gasoline prices were much lower. Is $3.00 gasoline enough to cause this to happen? I don't know, but eventually, it will happen. That is the beauty of a free market economy. How, when, what, I wish I knew.


Pure capitalism is no sin, but let's not be fooled into thinking we live in a free market for any industry. Laws and methods of taxation drive and steer economies. Laws (or specific lack thereof), lobbying, tax codes, and pinpoint Congressional spending can shape those economies as well as the resulting social culture.

I agree completely, Scott. We are far from a pure free market with all the taxes, duties, legal requirements and other obligations levied upon companies and citizens, alike. "Personal responsibility" and "buyer beware" are overwhelmed with laws and regulations designed to protect consumers (this is not always a bad thing), and taxes that rarely get spent productively (this is unfortunate).


I am being charged significantly more than historical, speculative, or projected future cost

I have not done the math in a long time, but as an economist, you may wish to consider real dollars since the 1970's. I am pretty certain that gasoline remains cheaper now than it was in the 1970's in real dollars. I have no opinion on speculative or future cost, although I cannot see oil staying at these levels forever, nor do I see it becoming $20 per barrel ever again.

[flywgn]

...I have not done the math in a long time, but as an economist, you may wish to consider real dollars since the 1970's. I am pretty certain that gasoline remains cheaper now than it was in the 1970's in real dollars. ...

I wish that all my files were not still packed away after our recent move, but I did this math about a year ago based on figures from 1964 and determined that gas should have been (at that time) around $3.50/gal based on the comparative figures of other "essential" commodities and the value of the dollar.

This exercise in comparative figures stemmed from a question I answered in the Economist. There was a really good study I found that was done by, I think, Wharton which placed the price around $3.75/gal.

'Course this makes me feel so much better when I put 42 gal in my truck at $2.69/gal. ;)

Allen R

[Kermit]

Scott,

Lets say you seized your motor with their product, would they pay for a new motor?

[Scott Brady]

Lets say you seized your motor with their product, would they pay for a new motor?

I think if it was attributed to a fluid failure, they would. Hard to say for sure, but they have been great to work with (they are big fans of expedition testing). Fortunately, I am back on standard 5W30 Mobil 1 synth and everything looks good.

They are running tests on the fluid I ran in the Arctic.

[pskhaat]

real dollars since the 1970's

That's quite a tough comparison though. For instance, how much did you pay for a 12oz can of soda in 1985? I'm guessing about $0.50. Today? Most likely about $0.50. Inflation is present but the basic price point remains, this is due often in part to economies of scale with growth, technology and better practices.

Taking simple inflation (which is a whole 'nother topic :) ) I'm betting we're nearly at our trending high end, but we're much better now at our geophysics and exploration, better at extraction and chemical refining. We have greater volume and infrastructure and should be able to account for much of the overhead we saw in those years. Plus we're using cheaper overseas labor (no rhetoric, just stating) in our global economy.

It's a great point you raise. I think the demand side sets the prices now though. It's not inflation that is our enemy, it's our price indexing, which of course due to our US infrastructure so primarily based on individual fuel usage, we've made a perfectly inelastic product.

[Willman]

I think if it was attributed to a fluid failure, they would. Hard to say for sure, but they have been great to work with (they are big fans of expedition testing). Fortunately, I am back on standard 5W30 Mobil 1 synth and everything looks good.

They are running tests on the fluid I ran in the Arctic.

Let us know their findings if you can!

[DesertRose]

Originally Posted by GeoRoss

The interesting question that did arise is when is money too dirty to accept in sponsorship? On a level we all experience, who do we support through our shopping habits. I think that we are all old enough to realize that the world is not black and white. How does one decide? It all depends on the compromise and shades of gray one's moral compass sees.




How does one decide?

I doubt you, or 99% of consumers has any idea where most of the stuff they buy originated from and where the profits went.

It's almost impossible to tell from looking at a package...

I think that these comments sum up the angst that has surfaced with this thread - we're really talking moral compasses, and yet no one compass is grounded by the same pole. So really it's up to each person to set their compass direction and decide what works for them - and try not to bash others whose compasses deviate.

I can speak from my own experience in 20 years raising money for conservation - no money is "green" - any person or corporation that has reached the level where they can create an endowment to fund philanthropy has invested those funds in global markets, every single share of which may be traced to something that might offend someone somewhere. Once upon a time you might have been able to choose an "American" or local company, but today all stock markets are linked - vis a vis the recent "plunge" of nearly all markets when the Shanghai market burped 10%. All . . . connected.

Scott's conundrum comes in that he has put himself out there publicly, which subjects him to the subjective lenses of our moral compasses. While he had his really well-thought-out-reasons for accepting Mobil1 sponsorship, they were not articulated yet to the public. Hence the blip when Freetomeander posed his questions (which, we all agree, were worthwhile but not packaged as diplomatically as they could have been).

Anyway, I love this thread, and the amazing minds that are contributing to it. I'm really humbled by all the thought that has gone into personal compasses for life here. Thanks for sharing.

As Kermit sez, live life the best you can now, because you won't make it out alive. :PROFSheriffHL:

What's cool is to find others out there who think about things like this . . . and are willing to discuss them like gentlemen/women - thanks for that.

And now, it's martini-time.

:beer: Hey Scott - we need a Martini emoticon for those of us real 'men' who drink real drinks :hehe:

[VikingVince]

Absolutely not, profiteering is not going on.

I'm not gonna get into a debate with you...can see where you're coming from...but I gotta say I find that statement pretty hard to swallow. I guess it depends on your definition of "profiteering." If you stick to an untainted, textbook definition using supply and demand, you can make the argument you made.

Oxford Concise English dictionary definition: profiteering - make an excessive or unfair profit.

Our modern usage of the word also includes the associated negative connotations. I would define profiteering as: the often harmful and usually never benign manipulation and exploitation of any and all resources and institutions to realize an excessive or unfair profit, largely retained by the profiteer for self enrichment.

Do oil companies engage in profiteering? Pretty much a no-brainer for me.

I know, I know...now you'll say "well, tell me how oil companies engage in manipulation and exploitation." Well. just read the links in freetomeander's post. I agree with a lot of the information in those links. (That is NOT a judgment on Team Arctic travelling under the EM banner)

[RoundOut]

For those critical to my choice of primary occupation, you should know that I teach Leave No Trace in my son's Scout Troop, recycle as much as possible, car pool whenever possible, practice Tread Lightly in my off-road adventures and purchase products in bulk to avoid wastful packaging whenever possible. My family actively conserves wherever we feel it is possible and economic, and we are raising our children to be aware of resources and be thrifty with them at all times. Our society is inherently wasteful, and that is shameful, but with proper education and child-rearing, at least our decendents will appreciate our resources.

Although it is nobodies business, I'll further volunteer to be even more clear so that everyone can understand the "Oil Man from Houston". I make a few cents per barrel for aligning an independent oil producer with a market (marketing company, pipeline company or refiner) that is willing to pay them more for their production than other markets were at the time. When oil is $10 per barrel, I make a few cents and that does not change with oil at $60+ per barrel. In other words, my pound of flesh remains the same and I am NOT a profiteer, LOL.


Do oil companies engage in profiteering? Pretty much a no-brainer for me.
I respect that you don't wish to debate this issue of profiteering, but your insistance on oil companies being profiteers, raises an important question to me.

Where do the profits lay in the oil business today, as compared with times when the natural resources were not priced as highly? When oil and gas sold for $20/bbl and $3/mcf respectively, producers made a profit, refiners and marketers made a profit, other things equal. Now, Oil is north of $60bbl and gas is north of $7/mcf. Nothing has changed anything in the refining and marketing business except for the cost of their working capital, i.e. cost of holding any inventory, whether feedstock, unfinished products, or finished products. Refining and marketing margins ebb and flow, but the margins rarely last in an increased state. It is difficult for refiners and marketers to successfully maintain wide margins because of the alternative supplies available in the efficient commodity system they are locked into. There exists markets which have traditionally had higher margins, such as the west coast, the Salt Lake City area, and the Phoenix area. Their high margins attract supplies from outside their natural geographic production regions, which tend to keep the margins from getting too extreme.

Now that we have bracketed that, one should understand that the major oil companies, i.e. ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips, ChevronTexaco, and Citgo control a huge percentage of the giant refineries in the country, but their are some very large independents that play primarily in just the refining and marketing space, such as Valero, and Tesoro.

Of the integrated majors, a small percentage of the reserves they refine come from their own production in the U.S. Most majors have divested of most of their oil production in the U.S. and those producing properties are now owned by much smaller independent producers. There are a few large independent producers, such as Apache, Anadarko, and Occidental, but the lion's share of domestic production is produced by much smaller independent operators. It is THESE independent operators that supply the majority of domestic production to the refiners, including the majors, which supply the gasoline and deisel for transportation and heating fuels and have the brand recognition that makes them the favored targets when price-gouging accusations are flying about.

All of the above is to accurately point to the independent producer as the "profiteer" in the mix. Yes, their profits are extraordinary right now. However, these are the same independent producers who struggled to pay the light bill when oil was at $8-$14/bbl. Street gasoline prices were sub $1 then, and if an oil well went down, it was common to defer maintenance on it because the cost of maintenance could not be justified in the return on that investment. They could barely feed their families, so you could buy gasoline for less than a dollar a gallon.

It is upsetting for me, as someone who purchases oil from small independents, to sit by and watch industry outsiders criticize the "oil companies". They look at the majors, who invested in engineers to design more economic drilling, extraction, refining, and transportation technology, and done so at great expense. They look at the majors that made a bunch of money when the remaining production from their larger fields (remember they have divested almost all of their smaller fields) and from their vast investments in international production as world market prices rose to record high levels, driving the cost of the street price of gasoline to record highs in the U.S. Because of the major's overwhelming presence as household names due to their large branded jobber networks and company-owned stations on nearly every major intersection, they are the whipping boys of the whole industry. They don't do a very good p/r job to rebut this, so I guess in a way, they deserve it.

However, the naivety of the average finger-pointer is overwhelming. We have a bunch of very lucky business owners who happen to produce oil or gas, and you label them a profiteer because they own commodities that the world market prices extrememly high. The majors, who have the brand recognition and because of thier huge investments, get large profits, get slammed as profiteers, when in reality, they don't own a very large percentage of the component of the industry which makes gasoline prices so high.

I hope this post helps oil industry outsiders better understand some of the dynamics that create the appearance of profiteering. The very one's who profit (the independent producer) are the one's with the least control over the value of their production. That is hardly a definition of profiteering, in my opinion.

[flywgn]

Thank you RoundOut for taking the time to respond.

Since the privately-owned producers--whether they be the large Exxon or the small independent--control very little of the world market, don't the nationalized companies (over 87% of the mkt as I understand it) play the definitive role in pricing?

Allen R

[pwc]

Just don't use their product and you don't have to worry about it as much.

[awalter]

When is a return on profit considered profiteering, 10% profit return, 20%, 30%?

When gross revenues are huge, a 10% profit looks huge, but in my mind is not out of line.

[pwc]

Good point, what is the % that is evil? Sure, I don't like to see some other guy make $10B in three months when I didn't, but I just made 120% on the sale of a photo. Am I an evil person?
Should all companies make 5% profit and that's it?

EDIT: Crap...I hope they weren't drinking coke on that trip too!! Coca-Cola 1Q profit jumps 14 percent - $1.26billion (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070417/ap_on_bi_ge/earns_coca_cola_5)

[VikingVince]

When is a return on profit considered profiteering, 10% profit return, 20%, 30%?

When gross revenues are huge, a 10% profit looks huge, but in my mind is not out of line.

I agree with you Al. (btw, hello and how are ya?)
All corporations have to make a profit to stay in business. IMO, "x" amount of profit margin is not so much the issue. But rather in some industries and corporations, there is a very dark and dirty side to the way some or all of their profit is made.

[crawler#976]

Well, here it goes...

Again, congratulations on Expedition’s West’s successful trip!

Since the crux of this discussion is based on environmentalism, guess I might as well chime in as someone on the opposite side of the ANWR argument. I’m all for conservation and energy alternatives, and maintaining a clean, safe, stable environment, but in this case feel we need to open the area for resource production.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A 17% increase in domestic production is a good start, and if drilling in the Gulf Coast and off Cali is opened up, that number increases further yet.

I'm 100% in favor of opening up 3 square miles out of 28125 square miles in ANWR to development on the artic. The 1.5 million acre number used by the media is somewhat disingenuous – only about 2000 acres will actually have drilling activity on it. The larger figure is the amount of area on the coastal plain that is open to exploration. The impact on the coastal plain has been proven to be virtually non-existent. At the present time the central artic caribou herd is expanding at Prudhoe Bay. The populations of brown bear and artic foxes as well as bird populations are stable and are equal to areas not under production.

I'm 100% in favor of building many more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now 30 years behind in technology. We’ve got a lot of research to do, but if the energy companies (like Mobil) are going to spend the billions required to do the research, they must be assured of, and yes, it is a business, creating PROFIT for their investors. Production of nuclear energy will offset the need for fossil fuel, and is the only clean alternative in areas where solar and wind power are impractical.

Later,

Mark

[teotwaki]

Well, here it goes...

Again, congratulations on Expedition’s West’s successful trip!

Since the crux of this discussion is based on environmentalism, guess I might as well chime in as someone on the opposite side of the ANWR argument. I’m all for conservation and energy alternatives, and maintaining a clean, safe, stable environment, but in this case feel we need to open the area for resource production.

I'm 100% in favor of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. A 17% increase in domestic production is a good start, and if drilling in the Gulf Coast and off Cali is opened up, that number increases further yet.

I'm 100% in favor of opening up 3 square miles out of 28125 square miles in ANWR to development on the artic. The 1.5 million acre number used by the media is somewhat disingenuous – only about 2000 acres will actually have drilling activity on it. The larger figure is the amount of area on the coastal plain that is open to exploration. The impact on the coastal plain has been proven to be virtually non-existent. At the present time the central artic caribou herd is expanding at Prudhoe Bay. The populations of brown bear and artic foxes as well as bird populations are stable and are equal to areas not under production.

I'm 100% in favor of building many more nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the U.S. is now 30 years behind in technology. We’ve got a lot of research to do, but if the energy companies (like Mobil) are going to spend the billions required to do the research, they must be assured of, and yes, it is a business, creating PROFIT for their investors. Production of nuclear energy will offset the need for fossil fuel, and is the only clean alternative in areas where solar and wind power are impractical.

Later,

Mark

Pretty well sums up what I might have written. In the end it is about a four letter word spelled "compromise". :Wow1: Having far Right and far Left loonies is useful for debate and edification but we have to meet in the middle and chart a practical course based on facts rather than emotion.

[Ursidae69]

I was going to climb back into this thread, but it is getting too political for me because I respect and value people's opinions on this site and I also value their opinion of me. Because we may or may not agree on some things, I'd hate to see that potentially affect future interactions, even though I doubt it would due to the high level of professionalism on this site.

I also want to thank RoundOut for his post, that was really informative and I for one am certainly not critical of your occupation. I’m somewhat critical of certain aspects of the industry as a whole, but not of the people working in the field. Hope that is not taken as being hypocritical.

Great thread.

[pskhaat]

Awesome response, RoundOut! There are a few Oil junkies on the board here no doubt; and I certainly benefited in my early years from struggling domestic oil companies.

Theoretically, I can never say there is too much profit. Quite honestly, if I were in charge of retail fuel pricing, I'd bump it a heck of a lot higher because...what...you're not going to fill up and make it to work?

What I do fear is collusion in the industry which we must admit happens de facto in almost all industries at some minute level. If it didn't happen in oil in the late 1800s with the `trust'ing and collaboration of all of the Standard Oil disparate entities, there'd be no Sherman Act.

As per the Arctic drilling, that's a box I don't really want to open :)

[VikingVince]

RoundOut - I don't think anyone here, myself included, has been critical of your choice of occupation. This thread is supposed to be about corporate sponsorship and all its ramifications. I am critical about some aspects of the oil industry. I invoke the term "profiteering" only when I believe a corporation uses unfair or unethical practices to make profit, and yes I believe that has occurred in the oil industry...as well as others for that matter.

Let's get back on topic. I'd be interested in hearing opinions on if, when, and how corporate funds ever become too "dirty?"
DesertRose had a good post on her years of experience in conservation and funding...the interconnectedness of everything...always being able to find a dirty footprint somewhere, etc.
So is there ever a point where we draw a line?
I think this is a pretty interesting topic, as I believe DesertRose voiced as well.

[stevenmd]

This thread has been a great read and I applaud Scott for letting it play out in a public setting. Shows integrity.

Btw... can you tell the difference between a "clean" dollar and a "dirty" dollar? I can't. Does "dirty" money spent on a good cause make said cause "dirty"? Yeah right.

[elcoyote]

This thread has been a great read and I applaud Scott for letting it play out in a public setting. Shows integrity.

:iagree:

Btw... can you tell the difference between a "clean" dollar and a "dirty" dollar? I can't. Does "dirty" money spent on a good cause make said cause "dirty"? Yeah right.

I believe the term is "Laundering" :bigbossHL:

[Scott Brady]

I believe that since we are even having this discussion shows that many on this forum are sensitive to the idea of improving efficiency and reducing fuel consumption. How far one goes is a very individual decision. This is just one of the many issues we face as humans in a time of high consumption of natural resources. Big houses, Big SUV's, 3+ children to a couple, Water usage, long commutes, grain fed and open range chickens (not that I eat chicken :) ), etc. (these are just some active issues in the media, not anything that I necessarily believe in one way or another)

I do not believe it is appropriate to judge one persons actions over another (we are all at fault to one degree or another on some issue), but I do believe that having discussions on these topics is healthy and helps to reduce ignorance and shed light on both sides of an issue.

I totally enjoy this stuff, I just don't like it when it gets personal...

Finger pointing is not a very becoming trait. Plus, when you are finger pointing, you can't use that hand to keep your own skeletons in the closet :ylsmoke:

[kcowyo]

Plus, when you are finger pointing, you can't use that hand to keep your own skeletons in the closet :ylsmoke:

Quotable Brady strikes again......

This has been an interesting read. What a unique and diverse community we have here. :coffee:

[Flounder]

Being brand new to this forum and arriving at this discussion fashionably late, I'll keep this brief.

As a former resident of Alaska and freqent visiter to ANWR I can't help but feel a strong sense of protection for the entire northern landscape. As a former mountain and sea kayaking guide I've also done my fair share of tree hugging preaching. I believe in it. I also have to admit to myself and my fellow tree huggers that I drive a Land Rover that gets a shamefull 14mpg. I think we all have a little of both extremes in us.

While you could make the argument that Mobile sponsorship is counter to the spirit of the trip, I would offer the more compelling argument that this endeavor (even sponsored by big oil) did a great deal to expose even more people to the wonderment of our northern wilds. That is what it's all about.

When I was guiding sea kayaking trips in the fjiords of Alaska we'd often see cruise ships lumbering by. While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Personally, I think Mobile makes a fitting sponsor. So much for a brief reply. Sorry.

[DesertRose]

As a former resident of Alaska and freqent visiter to ANWR I can't help but feel a strong sense of protection for the entire northern landscape. As a former mountain and sea kayaking guide I've also done my fair share of tree hugging preaching. I believe in it. I also have to admit to myself and my fellow tree huggers that I drive a Land Rover that gets a shamefull 14mpg. I think we all have a little of both extremes in us.

While you could make the argument that Mobile sponsorship is counter to the spirit of the trip, I would offer the more compelling argument that this endeavor (even sponsored by big oil) did a great deal to expose even more people to the wonderment of our northern wilds. That is what it's all about.

When I was guiding sea kayaking trips in the fjiords of Alaska we'd often see cruise ships lumbering by. While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Welcome to Expedition Portal - well-said, too. In my younger days everything seemed clear-cut and I was more "radical" in many views, including environmental. But now into my 40s and having spent a lot of my 30s exploring, learning, listening, and thinking (like many of the people on this forum), I am much more conservative and aware of both sides, as well as a fan of compromise and meeting in the middle.

But on some things - like ANWR - I guess I just say while it's true the actual species-by-species impact might not cause any extinctions, it's not about that, it's about a Wild place. So on that I have to say "Let's leave the world's greatest Wilderness free of our junk." Go for alternative fuels. Some things are worth saving.

[RoundOut]

Welcome Flounder!


... While I sometimes hated their poluting, fuel hogging presence in the pristine wilderness, I had to be aware that on board there were thousands of people being exposed to the raw spectacle of nature. Something they never would have seen without the cruise ship. Necessary evils.

Warning... going off topic...

This reminds me of discussions my wife and I enjoy regarding animals in zoos and/or circusses (sp?). People flock to zoos and circusses, some for entertainment and some for education (zoos only here, not circusses), and regretably the animals in the zoo/circus are not "free to meandor". Granted, some zoos offer their captive animals a more natural setting, but nonetheless, they are still captive. Circus animals however, are pretty much prisoners and/or forced laborers which really chaps us.

However, many people would never appreciate these animals unless afforded the opportunity by zoos or circusses to see them first hand. At least the zoos are necessary evils, much less the circus. I could personally do without the circus, but they are certainly entertaining for some.

OK, back on topic.:coffee:

[Flounder]

I didn't mean to stray off topic. I was simply drawing parallel lines between cruise ships plying pristine waters and a Mobile 1 sponsored expedition traveling into the wilds of the arctic. If the cruise ship and the Mobile 1 sponsorship serve to bring more people's attention to the wilderness, that's not a terrible thing at all. What Chris and Scott did is 1000 times cooler than a cruise, by the way.

[DesertRose]

Flounder, I don't think RoundOut was saying you were off-topic, he was warning that he himself was going off by making the zoo animal / wild animal appreciation comparison to vicariously appreciating wild places through anything from cruise ships to overland expeditions.

I think both comments are right-on target with this thread though: it's about appreciation for wild places, balancing use and preservation, and how to pay for it.

[RoundOut]

Flounder, I don't think RoundOut was saying you were off-topic, he was warning that he himself was going off by making the zoo animal / wild animal appreciation comparison...

Exactly. In fact, earlier, I sent Flounder a PM to this effect. Thanks for understanding and clarifying it, DesertRose.

[calamaridog]

:iagree:

That is what makes it such a great question on both the personal level and on the sponsorship/professional level .


Are you in the 99% or 1%? :)

Me, I'd like to think I try my best on these issues but often fall into your 99%.


I think that the educated consumer is more likely to end up with a quality product with a longer service life. Often, this product will be made somewhere other that China.

And yet, the inexpensive Plasma TV lures me like a moth to the :campfire:

The frustrating thing is that drawing conclusions is no longer as easy as "where was it made?" as more and more quality brands are made in China to maximize profits and cash in on reputation.

At what point does the quality suffer?

Maybe I'm at 2% enlightenment;)

[RoundOut]

I caught the middle of a TV show the other day... don't usually see much TV, but this one interested me. I think it was on the Discovery Channel, but I'm not sure. The topic was related to this thread, as the discussion centered around the US dependence on foreign oil and how until we ween ourselves from our ensatiable apetite for gasoline and diesel, we will continue to send money to the Middle East, and be defacto terrorism sponsors. I thought this was an interesting point of view.

[pskhaat]

Just to revive an old hare:



Originally Posted by pskhaat
Pure capitalism is no sin, but let's not be fooled into thinking we live in a free market for any industry. Laws and methods of taxation drive and steer economies. Laws (or specific lack thereof), lobbying, tax codes, and pinpoint Congressional spending can shape those economies as well as the resulting social culture.

I agree completely, Scott. We are far from a pure free market with all the taxes, duties, legal requirements and other obligations levied upon companies and citizens, alike.


Thought we all would like this beauty:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070509/ap_on_fe_st/odd_cheap_gas;_ylt=Aq5__SPSmoWGYmcKYz3JxB_MWM0F

[crawler#976]

I was curious to know how much Exxon/Mobil spends on environmental spending. So, I asked!

The letter came in PDF format. I saved it as pictures - not great, but I don't know how to save from PDF to text...

Attached is the response I got:

[DesertRose]

Thanks for doing that - it was an interesting letter, and had good information in it. I'm checking out their website, too (http://www.exxonmobile.com/biodiversity)

[Desertdude]

Very good info thanks for sharing that.

From this page - http://www.exxonmobile.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_employee_vip.asp

"A $500 grant can be awarded to a charitable non-profit organization after an eligible participant volunteers at least 20 hours of their time to the organization during a calendar year. Each eligible participant may apply for four individual grants per calendar year. These grants may be for the same or separate organizations, provided 20 hours of service is performed for each grant.

An organization may receive a maximum of $5,000 per calendar year of Individual Volunteer Grants."

[RoundOut]

Very good info thanks for sharing that.

From this page - http://www.exxonmobile.com/Corporate/Citizenship/gcr_employee_vip.asp

"A $500 grant can be awarded to a charitable non-profit organization after an eligible participant volunteers at least 20 hours of their time to the organization during a calendar year. ...

ExxonMobil is one of the largest benefactors of the Boy Scouts in Houston because of this program. I know many units that are chartered by a 501 (c) 3 that benefit directly from these grants, as well as the Sam Houston Area Council (16.5 counties, over 160,000 youth served, 30,000 adult volunteers in the Houston area) that receive those grants.

[Super Doody]

I want to throw my 2 cents in on this corporate sponsorship issues since I work in Corporate Environmental Management/Compliance which very close tied to environmental stewardship/policy and PR.

Corporations in order to be successful longterm have to be ethical. There are two types of PR/environmental programs/initiatives. There are mandated programs which are usually due to lawsuit settlement, state and federal requirement and there programs which is sponsored by the company. Funding of each program is very clearly defined. Sometimes its funded by the company and sometimes funded by its customers. For example, CA utilities give refunds and credits for various energy efficiency program. People think its free money. But its actually funded by the rate payers which are the customers.


I believe all environmental programs regardless of how it came about is a positive , but tooting your own horn for something that was mandated by regulation is unethical. Its like taking credit for something required to do in the first place. This is not directed at Exxon but I just want to give an insiders perspective.

As a company, you want to showcase the good work you do but its a balance between showcasing something thats required or something thats above and beyond what was expected.

[DesertRose]

I want to throw my 2 cents in on this corporate sponsorship issues since I work in Corporate Environmental Management/Compliance which very close tied to environmental stewardship/policy and PR.

Corporations in order to be successful longterm have to be ethical. There are two types of PR/environmental programs/initiatives. There are mandated programs which are usually due to lawsuit settlement, state and federal requirement and there programs which is sponsored by the company. Funding of each program is very clearly defined. Sometimes its funded by the company and sometimes funded by its customers. For example, CA utilities give refunds and credits for various energy efficiency program. People think its free money. But its actually funded by the rate payers which are the customers.


I believe all environmental programs regardless of how it came about is a positive , but tooting your own horn for something that was mandated by regulation is unethical. Its like taking credit for something required to do in the first place. This is not directed at Exxon but I just want to give an insiders perspective.

As a company, you want to showcase the good work you do but its a balance between showcasing something thats required or something thats above and beyond what was expected.

I'm really glad you made this point - it is complex, but in spirit I agree that all environmental programs do good no matter where the impetus or funds came from - and it just sounds petty to keep hammering on the Exxon types who possibly (we really don't know) would not "do the right thing" unless forced by a league of lawyers.

Having worked for several decades in conservation - writing grants, soliciting corporate donors - I'm painfully aware of how "dirty" almost all money is, even "green" foundations can trace investments to global funds that are not necessarily green or humanitarian. But I am happy to use the funds to do good -

Roseann