In Ten Years: Exxon Mobil
By Scott Reeves Dec 15, 2008 9:00 am
The future runs on hydrogen, bailout money.
Exxon Mobil (XOM) soon tired of massive profits. Profits grew to a record $40.6 billion in the fourth quarter of 2008, up from a previous high of $10.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2006.
But producing gloppy, stinky crude oil in regions of the world where there's not so much as a Starbucks is hard work. And after an epiphany in 2010, Exxon decided it had had enough.
Luckily, the company's corpulent bigwigs avoided the ethanol boondoggle. But they learned a valuable lesson: There's no need to struggle for market share and profits when Uncle Sam can mandate them.
Even the semi-conscious know that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the fuel releases when burned - but Uncle Sam's decision to mandate its use as a gasoline additive created an instant market for the silly stuff, and drove corn prices through the roof.
When the price of corn flakes climbed beyond the reach of average American families, Congress, after lengthy hearings, decided it was time to do something. No one on Capitol Hill knew exactly what, but all agreed it would cost lots of money.
Luckily for history, Exxon waited in the wings with its Hydrogen Initiative.
The company hit all the right notes in announcing that it would move into a bright, sunny, hydrogen-powered future: Building a fossil-fuel-free world for the children whose bones and potential otherwise would be brittle and twisted.
The Hydrogen Initiative required massive research. Good - Uncle Sam is in favor of research, and lots of it.
However, there were a few bumps on the road to nirvana. With Exxon out of the oil business, gasoline supplies fell and the price at the pump went nuts. But drivers were happy to dig deeper into their pockets for a good cause.
Then there was the cost of building the new hydrogen distribution system, including conveniently located filling stations. Fortuitously, Exxon had announced plans in 2008 to sell about 2200 company-owned gas stations, dumping the dinosaurs on legions of small businessmen. The company was proud, and more than a little pleased, to leave construction of hydrogen-filling stations costing an estimated $1.5 million each to the sages in Congress.
Oops - hydrogen is a highly flammable gas that reacts with oxygen in a flash if exposed to a spark. This wasn't an insurmountable problem, because Congress shielded Exxon from all liability.
Then some pain-in-the-butt reporter wrote a scurrilous story noting that the transition to hydrogen will take decades, and any reduction in oil imports or carbon dioxide emissions will be minuscule for about 25 years.
But none of these inconvenient truths bothered Exxon Mobil, because it had the full backing of the federal government. In any case, the Hydrogen Initiative is about process - not results.
The US auto industry, socialized in early 2009, had long produced nothing but hydrogen-powered cars under strict guidelines promulgated by Congress. It was the right thing to do, but no one could drive the new cars because the fuel distribution problem hadn't been worked out. Sales plunged. Detroit was in chaos. But the hydrogen cars gleamed on showroom floors across the nation.
No problem - Congress just wrote another check on the taxpayers' account. Meanwhile, all the right people loved Exxon Mobil because the company was no longer a polluter. Only trolls and troglodytes mentioned the Exxon Valdez and that nasty oil spill in Alaska in 1989.
The company's top officers patted themselves on the back for perfecting the art of producing nothing at great expense to others and praising themselves for it, just like Congress.
Headlines in major newspapers no longer fretted about the company's "obscene profits," but instead proclaimed, Exxon Mobil Loves Kittens, Abhors Evil.
No positions in stocks mentioned.
The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(3)
Reply
2008-12-15 12:51:20
The Hydrogen Scam
Congratulations to Scott Reeves for seeing through the ethanol scam---more fossil energy in than corn energy out.
How about some equal insight into hydorgen?
The only practical sources of that inconvenient gas are using new nuclear or coal-burning (how likely is that?) capacity to electrolyze water, or stripping hydrogen out of fossil hydorcarbons leaving behind the carbon to most likely furnish energy for the process, by being burned into yet more carbon dioxide. Global Warming here we come!!
Even Scam Master T. Boone Pickens says hydrogen is "not a fuel, just a tool for delivering fossil energy from refinery to cars"
Whether hydrogen is produced by ExxonMobil, the government, or some of Al Gore's business partners, the result is the same.
How about some equal insight into hydorgen?
The only practical sources of that inconvenient gas are using new nuclear or coal-burning (how likely is that?) capacity to electrolyze water, or stripping hydrogen out of fossil hydorcarbons leaving behind the carbon to most likely furnish energy for the process, by being burned into yet more carbon dioxide. Global Warming here we come!!
Even Scam Master T. Boone Pickens says hydrogen is "not a fuel, just a tool for delivering fossil energy from refinery to cars"
Whether hydrogen is produced by ExxonMobil, the government, or some of Al Gore's business partners, the result is the same.
2008-12-15 15:00:10
"Carbon emission source" and "strategic commodity" in 5 years?
In 10 years Exxon Mobil will have nothing to worry about (at least price wise). At least half of the oil will still be in the ground, and it will be expensive. Profits will be great. You can't completely replace oil, it is so ubiquitous.
The oil concern would be revolutions around the World, and getting nationalized. Not only state run and controlled oil resources in other countries, but also if oil is ever classified a "strategic commodity" and a "carbon emission source" in our own, it could be a whole different ball of wax.
We will know within 5 years, how close the scientists predictions are, on both topics.
The oil concern would be revolutions around the World, and getting nationalized. Not only state run and controlled oil resources in other countries, but also if oil is ever classified a "strategic commodity" and a "carbon emission source" in our own, it could be a whole different ball of wax.
We will know within 5 years, how close the scientists predictions are, on both topics.
2008-12-15 15:00:15
"Carbon emission source" and "strategic commodity" in 5 years?
In 10 years Exxon Mobil will have nothing to worry about (at least price wise). At least half of the oil will still be in the ground, and it will be expensive. Profits will be great. You can't completely replace oil, it is so ubiquitous.
The oil concern would be revolutions around the World, and getting nationalized. Not only state run and controlled oil resources in other countries, but also if oil is ever classified a "strategic commodity" and a "carbon emission source" in our own, it could be a whole different ball of wax.
We will know within 5 years, how close the scientists predictions are, on both topics.
The oil concern would be revolutions around the World, and getting nationalized. Not only state run and controlled oil resources in other countries, but also if oil is ever classified a "strategic commodity" and a "carbon emission source" in our own, it could be a whole different ball of wax.
We will know within 5 years, how close the scientists predictions are, on both topics.
Get real-time options trading ideas from Steve Smith, veteran options trader and newsletter author, plus let him show you the way to cut risk and boost your returns through the strategic use of options. Click here for a free 14 day trial to OptionSmith by Steve Smith.
Copyright 2009 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved
















