It's not easy being a carbon-fuel provider these days. They bear the responsibility for keeping the entire economy moving along like a well-oiled machine. They get you you to work, your kids to school, and your food to your family table. Everybody depends on them and they bear that responsibility remarkably well by never allowing our gas stations to run out, following a proper business model so they can offer reasonable prices while not having to be subsidized by your tax dollars and if they make a mess somewhere, they clean it up completely without whining or prolonged court battles trying to weasel their way out of their obligations. They even give billions of dollars to public health agencies to help offset the health care cost associated with using their product. It's quite a burden and yet their kindness is starting to repaid by people looking for alternatives to buying their product.

We aren't the only ones who feel these companies are being disrespected this way either. Just recently, an artist in the Los Angeles area by the name of Donny Miller took it upon himself to create signs for assorted gasoline retailers that point to some of the positive things that they do in addition to being the energy backbone of our nation. We are pretty sure he didn't bill any of the companies for his efforts and though he could only commit his humanitarian gesture in one small part of our great country, he had some of the installations recorded on video and posted the effort on YouTube. So, without further ado, hit the jump for video of this creative genius at work and please, remember him in your prayers personal meditations tonight.

[Source: YouTube]

First, let's get the hard data out of the way: Exxon's $11.68 billion of profit last quarter was the highest ever recorded by any company, topping it's own previous record from the last quarter of '07. For those who like to keep track of such things, that is nearly $90,000 a minute; $1,500 every second. That's a lot of dough, for sure, but it is actually not as high as some investors were expecting, causing a bit of a sell-off this morning following the earnings announcement. It seems that some are worried that it is costing the oil giant too much money to find new reserves, though Exxon has been fighting that problem by asking Congress for subsidies to help.

In related news, pretty much all other oil companies also posted record numbers, including Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum. Expect all of these companies to continue spending more to find additional oil reserves in a bid to maintain this profit growth for as long as possible.

[Source: The New York Times]

Recently we told you about oil execs explaining to congress how $123 billion in profits should entitle them to an additional $18 billion in the form of subsidies. I realize many of you out there have a lot of sympathy for their position and have spent the intervening time hounding your Congresspersons on their behalf. I mean, this is America and that means energy corporations have the right to do whatever they want - and if we don't like it we can buy a bicycle (I recommend a bicycle regardless. They are great for your health). One of the reasons these companys' hands are out-stretched beggar-like is because (they claim) they need money for further exploration and development. I don't know why they didn't have this part of the equation in their business model to begin with but hey, everyone makes mistakes. Year after year after etc. etc..

How my eyebrows did raise then when reading this article about Exxon (XOM) not increasing oil production so as to keep their record profits high, on Business Week. It is common practice now for oil companies to simply trade any capitol invested in new projects for the equivalent in oil so the countries are paying them to drill directly from their oil reserves. So why do they need our money again?

I know this may sound like a direct quote from Captain Obvious but oil companies like Exxon don't really care if Americans are struggling to keep their houses and buy food because of their desire to see higher profits which is reason number 643 why I intend my next new car to be electric. End rant.

[Source: Business Week]

While the amount of energy the world demands every year is tremendous, the cost of finding and purchasing that energy is just as staggering. According to this article, ExxonMobil plans to spend between $25 and $35 billion every year for the foreseeable future in search of more oil. Even as established oil reserves dry up, the company is finding more oil through their new operations than they have been losing from closing their old ones. With $40.6 billion dollars in profits last year, the company surely has plenty of cash on hand to go out and search for even more crude.

Although Exxon Mobil is spending a pile to discover new oil sources, the amount pales in comparison to the $1 trillion in total money that the world will spend on new energy projects in the coming years. We wish that more of that money were being spent on alternatives to oil, but, as this article points out, we will undoubtedly consume all of the oil that anyone can find.

[Source: CNN Money]

Chavez is backing off his threats to cut oil sales to America that we recently told you about. According to Bloomberg, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on state television that, "We don't have plans to stop sending oil to the U.S. ... All I've said is that, if the U.S. attacks us, we'll have to decide not to send one drop of oil to the U.S." False alarm everyone, back to using gas. Chavez meant if we attacked him, he would stop oil shipments ... which would make sense.

While America is in good shape to receive Venezuelan oil, things are not developing as well for oil companies. Chavez did not back off stopping sales to Exxon and he is considering a "tax on sudden earnings." I kinda like that idea.

Related:

• Exxon is back at the top with record profits again
• BREAKING: Venezuela stops selling oil to Exxon
• Chavez might stop selling oil to the U.S.

[Source: Bloomberg]

Ask yourself: what could possibly be better for Exxon Mobil than posting a record profit of $39.5 billion in 2006? Tough one, huh? How about beating that record-setting profit number with a new record of $40.6 billion the following year. Yeah, that'd do it! We've been covering the on-going record prices that a barrel of crude has been garnering over the last few months, and you can bet that Exxon has been tracking that same thing.

In case you were wondering, Exxon Mobil produces about three percent of the world's oil, making them the largest oil company in the nation. Numbers two and three, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, also recorded huge profits. Same story in Europe as well, as Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's largest oil company also made record profits of $31.3 billion. I'll remember that the next time it my tank is on empty.

[Source: Exxon Mobil]

I just read the ExxonMobil advertorial in the NYTimes. The second in a 3-part series, this one is titled "Energy close to home." It is a very well-done piece that cherrypicks information. For instance, while admitting that the US is the world's leading oil consumer, it notes we are the No. 3 oil producer. It doesn't mention the we are No. 3 out of about 80 countries providing oil to the US economy. Nor does it say we are No. 3 but slowly declining in production or that the U.S.-sourced portion of our oil supplies is only about one third of our needs.

To be sure, we need U.S. and ExxonMobil oil production - I use about four gallons a week myself - and I credit the geologists and petroleum engineers of the world for getting it to us. After all, we need it to keep ourselves moving while we transition to the vehicles you read about here on ABG and their non-petroleum energy sources - biofuels, hydrogen, renewable electricity, plus the alternate lifestyles global warming will require - more biking, walking, telecommuting, etc. The point is we can't live a 21st century life using 20th century habits, not if we want to remain a strong and free society.

The advertorial is meant to attack the U.S. policy of keeping certain energy resources "off limits" to current exploration and production. While tempting, isn't it best that we sip rather than slurp up the last of our remaining petroleum sources? After all, once we use it all up and we are not done transitioning, what do we do then? Turn all our petroleum-dependent vehicles into horse drawn buggies or large planters? Our oil has to last till about 2050. That is a stretch.

What do you do when your company makes more money in a quarter than any other company in history... ever? I'm not sure, 'cause I'm certainly not in that position. Perhaps ExxonMobil, which is the profit-laden company in question, decided to play a trick on one unsuspecting customer of almost twenty years. Their dirty trick? Send him TWO-THOUSAND credit cards in the mail! Each of the credit cards had Frank Van Buren's name and account number on them. Unfortunately for Frank, the cards did not mean free gas for life, because there was still only the one account which all the cards pointed to. So, he was stuck spending hours shredding them all. ExxonMobil says that they are investigating how the mix-up happened.

[Source: Herald Online]

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming. This backs up the claims by Britain's leading scientific academy, The Royal Society, who in September wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

According to ExxonMobil's web site, $6.8 million of nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally for "public information and policy research" was distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

In September, ExxonMobil admitted that it donates to companies that research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company."

Alden Meyer, a leading member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that ExxonMobil mirrored tactics used by tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts. Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

If these claims prove true, nobody would argue with their successes, as can be seen here and here.

Related:

• Science teachers reject free copies of "An Inconvenient Truth" under pressure from ExxonMobil
• ExxonMobil responds to Royal Society

[Source: yahoo.com]

Kimberley Strassel is on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, and she went on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week to talk about oil prices, oil companies and ethanol. Her basic argument was that high oil prices at the pump are not the fault of oil companies and their record-breaking profits (ExxonMobil, for example, made more than $8 billion between January and March of this year, a jump of 44 percent over last year) but instead the fault of congress and unrest in the places where we get most of our oil. And, of course, a high rate of consumption. Strassel did not answer Stewart's question that, even if oil costs more per barrel, shouldn't the companies' costs be going up and their profits remaining pretty much the same?

On ethanol, Strassel said that nobody would use the fuel if congress hadn't mandated ethanol usage last year because it was difficult to transport and store. She didn't mention anything about local ethanol plants that are coming online across the country.

For at least a little while (a month or three), you'll be able to watch the clip here, after that you'll have to buy the show on iTunes.

[Source: The Daily Show]