Lee Raymond's retirement package may be the reason why.

Quote :

"Retirement Package Amid Soaring Gas Prices April 14, 2006— Soaring gas prices are squeezing most Americans at the pump, but at least one man isn't complaining. Last year, Exxon made the biggest profit of any company ever, $36 billion, and its retiring chairman appears to be reaping the benefits. Exxon is giving Lee Raymond one of the most generous retirement packages in history, nearly $400 million, including pension, stock options and other perks, such as a $1 million consulting deal, two years of home security, personal security, a car and driver, and use of a corporate jet for professional purposes. Last November, when he was still chairman of Exxon, Raymond told Congress that gas prices were high because of global supply and demand. "We're all in this together, everywhere in the world," he testified. Raymond, however, was confronted with caustic complaints about his compensation. "In 2004, Mr. Raymond, your bonus was over $3.6 million," Sen. Barbara Boxer said. That was before new corporate documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that revealed Raymond's retirement deal and his $51.1 million paycheck in 2005. That's equivalent to $141,000 a day, nearly $6,000 an hour. It's almost more than five times what the CEO of Chevron made. "I think it will spark a lot of outrage," said Sarah Anderson, a fellow in the global economy program at the Institute for Policy Studies, an independent think tank. "Clearly much of his high-level pay is due to the high price of gas." Exxon defends Raymond's compensation, pointing out that during the 12 years he ran the company, Exxon became the largest oil company in the world and that the stock price went up 500 percent. A company spokesman said the compensation package reflected "a very long and distinguished career." Some Exxon shareholders are now trying to pass resolutions criticizing the company's executive pay policies. The company is urging other shareholders to vote against those resolutions. "

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=1841989

4/18/2006 2:05:31 AM

i see nothing wrong with this at all.
lets get rid of all regulations so that his successors bonus can be even more impressive.

4/18/2006 2:08:34 AM

some of it is that an octane boosting agent currently used in gasoline was just outlawed so they're switching to alcohol.

4/18/2006 2:11:56 AM

Ain't Capitalism great??? We should all strive for those top paying corporate positions dispite our personal preferences and ambitions.

Quote :

"some of it is that an octane boosting agent currently used in gasoline was just outlawed"

You mean the one in California that was polluting the environment? Damn those hippies.

4/18/2006 2:24:07 AM

money is for bitches

4/18/2006 2:51:15 AM

he had dirt on the company

4/18/2006 3:19:52 AM

Quote :

"some of it is that an octane boosting agent currently used in gasoline was just outlawed so they're switching to alcohol."

it has nothing to do with octane; it was the oxygenate MTBE that was taken out, but it is being replaced by ethanol.

4/18/2006 8:00:50 AM

hush money

4/18/2006 8:16:38 AM

Quote :

"he had dirt on the company"

Yep. I still see nothing wrong with his bonus, even if it were just that.

4/18/2006 8:35:45 AM

Its reasons like this why we should keep a graduated income tax structure. You notice anyone who becomes super rich usually gets it by screwing the little guy. Prescription medecines costing little old ladies thousands a month, hospital stays that consume a persons entire life savings, oil corporations making $36 billion in profit per quarter,ect. If anything, taxing these people disproportionately higher than the average citizen is the only fair thing we can do to try and even out the inequalities.

4/18/2006 9:19:41 AM

Gas is approaching $3 a gallon because Exxon wants to be #1

Proof: http://www.wimp.com/exxon/

4/18/2006 9:35:24 AM

there's nothing wrong with whatever income a company decides is right to pay it's CEOs

what is wrong, is the apparent collusion between the oil companies and between the oil companies and the governments

that is where the wrong doing appears to be

4/18/2006 9:41:53 AM

Quote :

"If anything, taxing these people disproportionately higher than the average citizen is the only fair thing we can do to try and even out the inequalities."

Punishing the best and brightest in our nation for being successful is the fair thing to do? That sounds a little crazy if you ask me.

4/18/2006 10:13:05 AM

I wouldn't call having a virtual monopoly the best or brightest. Anyone who knows economics knows that when you make enough money, it gives you leverage to make even more money. And we also should consider the crooked and corrupt tactics these corporations have used to sway poiltical decisions through the use of lobbying, political contributions and bribes/junkets. Besides we literally give these corporations billions of dollars a year in tax breaks and subsidies, corporate welfare far exceeds social welfare expenditures. Tell me that Halliburton earned their contracts in Iraq and I will laugh in your face.

4/18/2006 10:37:01 AM

^
you know the easiest way to get rid of the lobbyists, political contributions and bribes/junkets?

get rid of the idiotic morass of regulations...

---

Quote :

"billyboy: Lee Raymond's retirement package may be the reason why."

awwww, someone thinks companies set the prices for the market and not the other way around...how cute

4/18/2006 10:45:06 AM

i'd say for all that lee raymond has done for exxon, he deserves every penny.

from a thread in the lounge a couple weeks ago, my opinion on why:

Quote :

"several reasons actually. - conversion from MTBE to EtOH. ideally, you'd like to have your gasoline preblended before it hits the terminals. it is cheaper that way. but that isn't possible with EtOH as it would contaminate the pipelines and screw up the jet fuel that also goes on those same pipelines (and you do NOT want EtOH in jet fuel.... unless you want to go sky diving without parachutes). so we blend the EtOH at the terminals and it costs more. also, refineries usually make their own MTBE. we are having to buy EtOH since we don't have alcohol units typically. - boutique blend gasoline. california and several larger us cities are requiring specific blends for smog/pollution reduction. this costs quite a bit more and reduces gasoline supply flexibility. for example. you can use gasoline meant for atlanta in rural nc. but you can't use gasoline meant for rural nc in atlanta. by the way - urge your city planning folks to improve traffic congestion by signal light optimization, HOV lanes, etc. traffic optimization is a much better way to reduce smog/pollution than changing fuel honestly. plus you have larger supply availability in the case of shortages. oh, and its cheaper on your wallets everyday. - various other cleaner fuel technology. we are having to implement multi hundred million dollar projects at each refinery to meet new low sulfur gasoline and diesel requirements, SOx, NOx reductions, etc. these projects yield 0 to negative return on investment. they have to be paid for somehow. - higher crude oil prices. duh. multiple reasons here too. besides the whole middle east thing.... 1. several platforms in the gulf are still down. so gulf coast refineries that use Delta/gulf crude are having to purchase oil elsewhere and pay more for it. 2. there is quite a bit of unrest in africa (i.e. nigeria) that is causing supply problems (i.e. revolutionaries bombing our facilities)"

and sure add in OPEC, whatever arguements you want over supply, etc.

not going to regurgetate the arguements so,
http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=399832&page=1#bottom

[Edited on April 18, 2006 at 10:50 AM. Reason : er]

4/18/2006 10:48:52 AM

Here's a breakdown of the increase, in order of significance:
1. Greed.
2. Whatever else.

4/18/2006 10:50:28 AM

Quote :

"you know the easiest way to get rid of the lobbyists, political contributions and bribes/junkets? get rid of the idiotic morass of regulations... "

Scuba Steve, you didn't say anything about taxing corporations. You said taxing people, individuals. If you think that the CEOs of ExxonMobil, JPMC, IBM, or any other medium to large sized corporation don't deserve their position then I don't know what to tell you. These guys make money for their shareholders and they are rewarded for it. If you think oil prices are unfair you have many options available to you, including but not limited to buying a bike, building an electric car, moving to a major metrolopitan area, or sucking it up and getting on CAT.

By the way, I think that you can probably thank our fear mongering sitting President for much of our oil price increases.

Quote :

"Oil prices rise amid Iran fears Guardian Unlimited, UK - 4 hours ago"

4/18/2006 11:05:14 AM

Do you honestly think while we have an oil man in office that anything is going to be done in the best interest of our country to wean ourselves away from foreign oil?

4/18/2006 11:10:22 AM

at least the gas I buy at Citgo goes to support the government and programs of Venezuela instead of lining the pockets of greedy oil execs at ExxonMobil, Shell, or BP, or Conoco or whatever else.

4/18/2006 11:13:52 AM

Quote :

"Do you honestly think while we have an oil man in office that anything is going to be done in the best interest of our country to wean ourselves away from foreign oil?"

And $3 gas is doing what?

The only viable government policy that could wean us away from foreign oil is a very high gas tax, perhaps making it $3 a gallon or something. Ah, but wait! It is already $3 a gallon!

US oil consumption for 2005 increased 1.5%, the slowest rate of growth in three years. Analysts credit high gas prices. Hold that price level for a few years and watch oil consumption fall, just like in the 1980s.


As for Raymond, he has made Exxon what it is today. I suspect a retirement package of $0.4 billion for a man that single handedly made you $36 billion just last year is a small price to pay. True, a lot of that was not of his own making but he is only getting paid 1.1% of his annual return. Good managers are hard to come by, so when you find one pay them whatever you can.

[Edited on April 18, 2006 at 1:02 PM. Reason : img]

4/18/2006 1:00:16 PM

Quote :

"As for Raymond, he has made Exxon what it is today. I suspect a retirement package of $0.4 billion for a man that single handedly made you $36 billion just last year is a small price to pay. True, a lot of that was not of his own making but he is only getting paid 1.1% of his annual return. Good managers are hard to come by, so when you find one pay them whatever you can."

It's also worth noting that if it was easy to run manage and maintain a multi billion dollar company, everyone would do it. If Exxon's share holders think it's wrong, they'll change it.

4/18/2006 1:16:35 PM

^^
the real irony is that the only thing higher gas prices will do, via taxes or otherwise, is encourage the use of even less environmentally-friendly ways of procuring petrol b/c it becomes economically feasible to do so...

you'd think the enviro-hippies would be lobbying for the elimination of gas taxes...

4/18/2006 1:58:36 PM

if a tax makes the price of gas go up it would not encourage or make other means of extracting oil more economically feasible.

4/18/2006 2:05:07 PM

Quote :

"awwww, someone thinks companies set the prices for the market and not the other way around...how cute"

Sarcasm buddy.

4/18/2006 2:41:09 PM

Quote :

"the real irony is that the only thing higher gas prices will do, via taxes or otherwise, is encourage the use of even less environmentally-friendly ways of procuring petrol b/c it becomes economically feasible to do so..."

wtf. you can't just run around spouting something like this

4/18/2006 2:43:50 PM

paid $3.099/gal today

$48 total for 15 gal. tank refill

4/18/2006 2:57:35 PM

Quote :

" awwww, someone thinks companies set the prices for the market and not the other way around...how cute"

Isn't that what part of a futures market is?

People sitting around saying "hmm... this thing coming up might make us lose some money. We better raise prices now to compensate."

It's just as ignorant to think that prices depend solely on supply and demand, and that greed (or stupidity if you fail because you sell stuff too cheaply) doesn't figure in somewhere.

4/18/2006 2:57:58 PM

Quote :

"get rid of the idiotic morass of regulations..."

you mean all those regulations that SUPPOSEDLY are in place to get rid of monopolies.
the oil industry is not a free market. destruction of these super coporations would lower prices in my opinion (cough standard oil cough)

4/18/2006 4:00:01 PM

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say that gas costs what it does because we'll pay that much for it. I mean if nothing else the hurricaine fiasco last year proved that people were willing to pay more for gas than previously seen in recent history. It's not surprising that they are trying to sell it for more $$$ again.

Maybe we should open some refineries in Mexico in exchange for looking the other way for there citizens working w/o taxes here. Two birds with one stone. We've got lots of oil, the crimp in our supply line is the maxed out refineries if I understand the situtation correctly ( I'm sure if I don't someone here on TWW will civily and intelligently disagree with me...). What we need to do is to take action to undo the regulatory discrimination levied on refineries. When was the last time we opened a new refinery?

4/18/2006 5:27:31 PM

I think you're right, it does have to do with the refineries, to a degree, but it also has to do with the fact that the oil market poops its pants every time a nigerian blows up an oil pipeline. It's a pretty skittish market (if reading the business section of google news will tell you anything).

4/18/2006 5:56:38 PM

HELLO SIR> I AM NIGERIAN GOAT SALER> RECENTLY MY PIPELINE OF OIL WAS DESTROYED. LUCKY I HAVE INSURANCE IN THE AMMOUNT OF 1,00000,0000,000 $$. HOWEVER I CANNOT GET THE MONEY. I NEED YOU HELP IN GETTING THE MONEY. IF YOU GIEV BANK INFORMATION I WILL TRANSFER THE MONEYS TO YUOR ACCOUNT AND THEN YUR TRANSFERS THEM BACKS TO ME> YOU MAY KEEP 1,0000,0 FOR YOUR TIME.


THANKS
DIRKALA DIRK DIRK DIRK

4/18/2006 6:07:35 PM

^just send me your bank information and maybe I can help you.

4/18/2006 6:33:04 PM

Quote :

"We've got lots of oil, the crimp in our supply line is the maxed out refineries if I understand the situtation correctly"

Not exactly, but there is an element of that.

During Katrina there was plenty of oil thanks to the Mr. Bush and the SPR, but there is no national reserve for gasoline, only speculative hoarding. At that time, oil was only $60 but gasoline was priced as if it was $80-$90. Well, this time, gasoline shortages are not occuring, the vast majority of the latest price hikes are due to hikes in oil prices.

4/18/2006 6:38:50 PM

Quote :

"moron: It's just as ignorant to think that prices depend solely on supply and demand, and that greed (or stupidity if you fail because you sell stuff too cheaply) doesn't figure in somewhere."

oh I agree, but it's even more ignorant to think there's some mass collusion taking place that all competing firms have said "hey let's not compete, so we can fuck everybody"

if everyone's colluding, there becomes a huge incentive for a company to break the agreement -- they'd reap enormous one-time profits, reap even more profits over the long term, gain market share over their competitors, and the other companies wouldn't be able to do anything to "punish" them since the collusion was illegal in the first place.

there have been so many examples of this throughout history (in OPEC itself, no less) that it's sad that teh L3ft still likes to trot out its "OMG oil cartel! look at DeBeers and diamonds!!1" silliness...

---

Quote :

"RevoltNow: you mean all those regulations that SUPPOSEDLY are in place to get rid of monopolies."

no, I'm talking about all those regulations that have jack shit to do with the mandate of any government.

there are very few anti-trust regulations on the books. the reason all these companies spend shitloads of money on lobbyists, campaign contributions and bribes are because the government likes to regulate shit just because some vocal minority wants it regulated. just look at damn near anything relating to the RIAA, none of that has anything to do with anti-trust 

4/18/2006 6:39:29 PM

Quote :

"I'm gonna go way out on a limb here and say that gas costs what it does because we'll pay that much for it. I mean if nothing else the hurricaine fiasco last year proved that people were willing to pay more for gas than previously seen in recent history. It's not surprising that they are trying to sell it for more $$$ again."

This may come as a shock to you, but people will pay a lot for gas because are you ready for it? I mean are you really ready for it? I don't think you are ready. I'll give you about five more seconds to prepare. People will pay a lot for gas because it is necessary.

the oil companies know they have us over the barrel and they exploit it.

and I don't care, tax the shit out Lee Raymond. With 400 mill coming his way, he won't notice if we take 300 mill in taxes.

[Edited on April 18, 2006 at 7:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2006 7:46:34 PM

Quote :

"People will pay a lot for gas because it is necessary. the oil companies know they have us over the barrel and they exploit it."

How generous it was for them to be selling oil at $8 a barrel back in 1998. Or was gas simply not a necessity back then?

4/18/2006 8:46:57 PM

the industry has consolidated a lot since the 90's. It's looking a lot like an oligopoly now.

4/18/2006 8:49:45 PM

Quote :

"the reason all these companies spend shitloads of money on lobbyists, campaign contributions and bribes are because the government likes to regulate shit just because some vocal minority wants it regulated. just look at damn near anything relating to the RIAA, none of that has anything to do with anti-trust "

no
no no
they spend all that money to avoid regulation. you see they get the government to encourage monopolies by writing in exceptions to regulations for one or two companies, making those companies much more profitable. no company lobbys for regulations on itself. thats just dumb.

4/18/2006 8:56:56 PM

Quote :

"they spend all that money to avoid regulation. you see they get the government to encourage monopolies by writing in exceptions to regulations for one or two companies, making those companies much more profitable. no company lobbys for regulations on itself. thats just dumb."

Economist tell each other stories as metaphores for modern issues. One such story is that of the "Babtists and Bootleggers". It seems long ago there was a political push to outlaw alcohol. This political coallition was built between two unlikely factions, the babtists who figured alcohol was immoral, which were funded and supported in part by bootleggers who realized such regulations would eliminate their competition.

A recent modern example was right here in North Carolina. Progress Energy pushed, forcefully, for regulations to be placed on power plant emissions. In effect, seeking to get itself regulated. Why?

Well, thanks to a twist of history, Progress Energy owns most of the nuclear power plants in North Carolina which do not pollute. Their competition, however, doesn't, and will in fact be devastated trying to meet the requirements of the regulation.

The same happened at the Federal Level when Enron pushed for stricter air pollution controls because, lucky it, most of its facilities burned natural gas which doesn't pollute very much, but it suceeded in driving up costs for its competition.

4/18/2006 9:07:20 PM

thanks for proving my point.

4/18/2006 9:17:11 PM

plz to 500% gain in 12 yrs

4/18/2006 9:43:15 PM

4/18/2006 9:53:06 PM

Quote :

"RevoltNow: no no no they spend all that money to avoid regulation. you see they get the government to encourage monopolies by writing in exceptions to regulations for one or two companies, making those companies much more profitable. no company lobbys for regulations on itself. thats just dumb."

wow...

how you managed to take what I wrote...then write that response...and somehow walk away thinking you actually made a point...

wow... 

4/19/2006 2:48:52 AM

Quote :

"a $1 million consulting deal"

I could do that.

"Raise the price of gasoline, people will pay it."

Where's my million?

4/19/2006 9:22:59 AM

^ It never worked before, imagine their surprise that it works today. I'm sure back in 1998 while most stations were charging $0.98 a gallon there was one station sitting there charging $1.49, but no one was buying it. What went wrong? He raised prices, but people didn't buy it... WTF?

Quote :

"and I don't care, tax the shit out Lee Raymond. With 400 mill coming his way, he won't notice if we take 300 mill in taxes."

I can't believe I missed this... Oh well. Look, nuttybiscuits, he is only getting paid that much because taxes are relatively low (only 35%). Back when tax rates were 50+%, rich people didn't take packages that way. They funnelled it into offshore accounts, got paid with stock instead, etc. etc.

4/19/2006 9:47:12 AM

Quote :

"New Gasoline Study Shows Profits, Not Crude Oil Prices Or Ethanol, Are Driving Pump Price Spike Santa Monica, CA -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a new study today of rising gasoline prices in California that found corporate markups and profiteering are responsible for spring price spikes, not rising crude costs or the national switchover to higher-cost ethanol, as the oil industry claims. Click here to download and read the study. Independent petroleum consultant Tim Hamilton analyzed gasoline price increases from January to April to find that: * Increases in the "spot" market price of crude oil -- which is the highest price a major oil company would pay for crude oil -- accounted for only 12 cents per gallon. California's percentage sales tax increased fuel prices by another four cents per gallon. More than 40 cents of the 60-cent increase in gasoline prices over 3 1/2 months is attributable to increased refinery and marketing profit margins for the oil companies; * Neither the MTBE phaseout nor the substitution of ethanol is a serious part of the increase. If the MTBE phaseout or ethanol blending specifically increased costs for oil companies in California, other states in the West using conventional unblended gasoline should be much less affected. Yet Washington State, which uses only conventional gasoline and has similar refinery capacity and crude oil sources, mirrored California's increase; * The profit increase of 42 cents, on top of record profits last year, means California gasoline will cost consumers approximately $546 million more in April 2006 than in April of last year. "While oil companies continue to blame crude oil prices and ethanol additives for the recent gasoline price spikes in California, the chief cause is increased profiteering by oil companies that have previously posted world record profits," said Hamilton. "

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=6133

4/19/2006 6:40:19 PM

Aha, that study is a joke and it looks like it was put together by a 3rd grader. He doesn't even factor in rising demand due to more motorists being on the road in the spring and summer. Instead he blindly refers to refinery "profit margins" as if refinery costs are fixed.

Thats a pretty biased source, btw. Its like quoting the oil executives themselves. You can't trust a word they say.

4/19/2006 7:30:36 PM

Quote :

"If the pump price of gasoline in California climbed in direct correlation with the increase in crude costs, the differential between crude costs and pump prices would remain relatively unchanged."

there could be other things going on besides profit. to say that it is profits is circular in my opinion. if we are going to quote studies can we at least quote ones that have a bibliography?
this actually pisses me off because i think he is right, but poor research like this tears the argument apart.

[Edited on April 19, 2006 at 7:46 PM. Reason : left out a word]

4/19/2006 7:46:08 PM

Quote :

"Well, this time, gasoline shortages are not occuring, the vast majority of the latest price hikes are due to hikes in oil prices."

See now LoneSnark, I heard that on Rush today so I can't believe you. TWW has taught me that Rush is wrong so you must be wrong.

4/19/2006 9:48:50 PM