ExxonMobil Company Profile

ExxonMobil is one of the biggest companies in the world. It is an American multinational oil and gas company, formed in 1999 by the merger of Exxon and Mobil. It is the largest refiner in the world. ExxonMobil is headquartered in Irving, Texas, United States. It is the parent company of Esso in the UK. ExxonMobil has a long history of questionable behaviour, including the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, which was a watershed moment for environmental critics of the oil industry. The company has been criticised for many of its activities, from funding climate change sceptics, massively influencing American foreign policy, increasingly drilling in terrains leased by dictatorships and its involvement in the Canadian tar sands.

You can find Corporate Watch articles on ExxonMobil and our 2002 Company Profile in the right hand column of this page.

Click here for details of ExxonMobil’s latest profits and other financial results from the Bloomberg website.

There is also lots of useful information on ExxonMobil‘s website:

  • Click here to find out what products the company is selling.
  • Click here to find out who’s on ExxonMobil‘s board of directors.
  • Click here to download ExxonMobil‘s latest annual report and accounts.

For a more critical perspective on DuPont‘s work try Powerbase orGreenpeace USA.

If you want to do some digging into DuPont yourself, have a look at our Investigating Companies: A Do-It-Yourself Handbook.

If you would like your website added to this list, or have any other links or suggestions for this page, please get in touch.

ExxonMobil: Overview

Industry Area Oil and gas exploration, development and production.

Overview

 

Worldwide
The main activities of the ExxonMobil Group are exploration, production, transportation and sale of crude oil and natural gas as well as the manufacture, transportation and sale of petroleum products.

The group also manufactures and markets petrochemicals and participates in coal and minerals mining, and electric power generation.

In 2000, 82% of the revenues came from refining and marketing; 10% from exploration and production; 8% from Chemicals, 8% and other revenues were nominal [1].

UK
Exploration and production is the largest business area of Esso in the UK. However, most of it is done as joint ventures with Shell, with Shell as the operator, so Esso isn’t very visible. Compared to Exxon globally, the downstream and chemical part of their operations are smaller, 5% of total. Esso UK is the market leader in retailing and has the biggest refinery in the UK.

Back to top

Market share/importance

 

Worldwide
Exxon is the biggest not state owned oil and gas company in the world. According to the Time & Fortune Group’s 2001 Fortune Global 500 list of the largest companies by revenue, it is the biggest corporation [2]. Worldwide it employs over 100,000 people.

Petroleum is mostly sold through Exxon’s/Esso’s service stations of which they have 45,000 in 118 countries. Aviation fuel is sold at more than 700 airports in 80 countries. ExxonMobil Marine Fuels serves more than 300 ports in 70 countries [3].

UK
Esso is the biggest petrol retailer in the UK with 1620 stations, of which 878 are company owned. Around 70% of the population live within a mere two miles of an Esso petrol station. According to Esso, their Snack ‘n’ Shop chain (part of their petrol stations) is the largest chain of shops in the oil industry.

Esso produce 10% of UK oil and gas, while over 15% of all oil products used in Britain come from their refinery in Fawley. As for gas, Esso supplies almost 9% of the total gas used by UK consumers.

Esso employs about 2800 people. Added to that amount is the significant number employed by subsidiary companies and contractors working on Esso sites and projects.

Back to top

History

 

Worldwide
[This is brief summary and does not go into the history of the different ExxonMobil companies]

The history of Exxon and Mobile is that of a true corporate giant. It started when John D. Rockefeller and partners formed the Standard Oil Company (1870). By 1878 Standard Oil controlled 95% of the US refining capacity [4]. This had largely been achieved by swallowing all competitors, and getting secret rebates from oil and making ‘drawback’ agreements with the railroad [5]. In 1989, Standard Oil officials were indicted for violating state anti monopoly laws. Standard Oil was not convicted, but this marked the beginning of several attempts to curb its power.

In 1882 the Standard Oil Trust was formed. It was the first trust ever formed and was constructed to circumvent Ohio laws restricting ownership of out of state companies. In 1890 the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed largely in response to Standard Oil’s monopoly. The U.S. Supreme Court finally broke up the Standard Oil trust in 1911 into 34 different companies. The ownership group however, stayed largely the same. Two of the spin-off companies were Jersey Standard and Socony, the chief predecessor companies of Exxon and Mobil respectively. Over the years the two companies spread their interests to all over the world [6].

During the 1930s when Walter C. Teagle was head of Standard Oil, the company forged close ties with I.G. Farben, a firm that supported the Nazis and used concentration camp labour. Charles Higham (a former New York Times writer and biographer) writes in his book Trading With the Enemy: ‘From the 1920s on Teagle showed a marked admiration for Germany’s enterprise in overcoming the destructive terms of the Versaille Treaty. His lumbering stride, booming tones, and clouds of cigar smoke became widely and affectionately known in the circles that helped support the rising Nazi Party’ [7]. Exxon Mobil’s website prefers to describe how ‘Each company [Jersey Standard and Socony-Vacuum] beefed up refining output to supply the Allied war effort [8].’

In 1931 Socony purchased assets of Vacuum Oil and changed its name to Socony-Vacuum. Socony-Vacuum became Socony Mobil Oil Co. in 1955 and, in 1966, simply Mobil Oil Corp.

Jersey Standard changed its name to Exxon Corporation in 1972 and established Exxon as a trademark throughout the United States. In other parts of the world its affiliated companies continued to use the Esso trademark.

In the 1970s, Exxon, Mobil and other companies escalated exploration and development outside the Middle East – in the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, Africa and Asia [9].

The biggest public scandal to hit Exxon so far came with the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 (see Case Study and Corporate Crimes below).

In 1998, Exxon and Mobil signed a definitive agreement to merge and form a new company called Exxon Mobil Corporation. ‘This merger will enhance our ability to be an effective global competitor in a volatile world economy and in an industry that is more and more competitive,’ was the comment of Lee Raymond and Lou Noto, chairmen and chief executive officers of Exxon and Mobil respectively. After shareholder and regulatory approvals, the merger was completed in November 1999 [10].

UK
Esso started as the Anglo-American Oil Company in 1888, producing oil for kerosene lamps. It was only in 1951 that they became known as Esso. Following the merger of Exxon and Mobil in December 1999, it is now a part of the Exxon Mobil Corporation.

Esso has now finalised an alliance with Tesco (See Corporate Watch profile of Tesco Plc). Although Tesco claims that it no longer sourcs its petrol from Esso in its own brand petrol stations, their alliance sees Tesco Express forecourt shops on the grounds of Esso petrol stations.

Back to top

References:

[1] Corporate Information: http://profiles.wisi.com/profiles/scripts/corpinfo.asp?CUSIP=30231G102


[2] www.fortune.com, viewed 31.08.01

[3] ExxonMobil annual report 2000, p. 19

[4] Corporate History p. 427

[5] Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller Sr., by Ron Chernow, gives a more detailed explanation of this. Read it online at www.micheloud.com/FXM/SO/rock.htm

[6] Corporate History p. 427

[7] EXXON: THE OIL KING, John Summa, published by Multinational Monitor, www.essential.org/monitor/hyper/issues/1989/01/mm0189_10.html

[8] ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/emhistory, viewed 1/9/01

[9] ibid.

[10] ibid.

ExxonMobil: Who, Where, How Much?

Worldwide Exxon Mobile conducts business in almost 200 countries worldwide [16]. For information on the different ExxonMobil companies and affiliates, see www.exxonmobil.com/affiliate/, or look at the map of worldwide operations divided up into upstream, downstream, chemical and coal & mineral www.exxonmobil.com/opsmap/index.html.

The corporation’s headquarters is in Irving, Texas, USA.

Exxon Mobil Corporation

5959 Las Colinas Boulevard

Irving, TX 75039-2298

Phone: +1 (0) 972 444 1000

Fax: +1 (0)972 444 1350

Other offices include:

Exxon Chemical

13501 Katy Fwy

Houston TX 77079

Phone: +1 (0)800 231 6633

Exxon Coal & Minerals

2401 S. Gessner

Houston TX 77063

Postal address: PO Box 1314, Houston, TX 77251-1314

Phone: +1 (0)713 978 5333

Fax: +1 (0)713 9785404

Exxon International

200 Park Ave

Florham Park NJ 07932

Phone: +1 (0)201 765 7000

UK You can find Esso’s major locations on an interactive map on their web site www.esso.com/eaff/essouk/glance/britain.html. Their main locations are in Leatherhead, West London, Abingdon, Fareham, Fife, Fawley and Purfleet.

See below for descriptions of some of the places.

Leatherhead Leatherhead is the HQ of Esso UK plc, Esso Exploration & Production and Esso Petroleum Company. Up to 1000 staff work there [17]. It is a purpose built complex of offices, used initially for administrative functions when the head office used to be at Victoria Street. Based here are sales & marketing, IT, gas, some of human resources, logistics, some of exploration, some of finance.

Exxon Mobil House

Ermyn Way

Leatherhead

SURREY

KT22 8UX

Phone: +44 (0)1372 222 000

Fax: +44 (0)1372 222 424

London offices Mobil Court in London is HQ of UK upstream units (Mobil North Sea, Esso Exploration and Production, Mobil Gas Marketing) and of ExxonMobil International. Trade journal Lloyds List describes its role as a ‘centre of excellence’ responsible for European and African upstream operations [18]. Prior to the merger, Mobil had 900 upstream staff in London [19].

The London office is described as ‘European upstream headquarters’. The finance division is based there (deals with internal finance) [20].

3 Clements Inn

London

WC2A 2EB

West London Terminal, Heathrow

Fuels Customer Service Centre, Central Operations Group and Senior Management are based here.

Fareham, Hampshire Exxon Chemical’s Head Office, close to Southampton and the M27.

ExxonMobil Chemical ltd

P.O. box 122

4600 Parkway

Solent Business Park

Whitley

Fareham

Hampshire

PO15 7AP

Fawley Situated on the Solent near Southampton is Fawley, Britain’s largest refinery (uses as much electricity as Southampton does) [21].

Major process units at Fawley include: 3 atmospheric + 3 vacuum distillation units, a fluid catalytic cracking unit, a resid finer, a polymerisation plant, 2 powerformers, 5 hydrofiners, 2 sulphur extraction units, a lubricating oil manufacturing complex, an isomerisation unit and a bitumen plant [22].

Crude oil arrives in 80,000 tonne tanker ships [23]. The Marine Terminal has 5 deep-sea berths and 4 inshore berths. 2,500 ship movements per year (most of these taking products away) [24]. More than 25 million tonnes of oil and oil products pass through Southampton port per year, mostly for or from Fawley [25]. About half of the inputs are from the North Sea (sweet – low sulphur), half from the Middle East (sour) [26].

Exxon Chemical has a chemical manufacturing complex at Fawley, producing 700,000 tonnes of chemicals per year [27]. It produces ethylene, butylenes, butadiene, solvents, butyl and halobutyl rubber, lubricating oil, fuel oil additives, higher olefins for internediaries for the vinyl and plastics industries. It also produces speciality chemicals for oil exploration, extraction and refining industries [28]. About 80% is exported – many to Exxon Chemical plants in Europe. Chemical products for UK markets go first by ship to two terminals at Purfleet or one at Immingham [29]. About 600 work at Fawley for Exxon Chemical [30].

Last year a combined heat and power plant (CHP) was set up at Fawley. It produces 135MW of electricity, and 150 tonnes of steam per hour, which is fed back into the refinery. The site is on Esso land, but the plant is owned by Cogen, National Power’s CHP subsidiary, and is operated by Esso employees [31].

Fawley

Southampton

SO45 1TX

Phone: +44 (0)1703 896712

Mossmoran plant Mossmoran is fed directly from the North Sea, via St Fergus terminal. Its products are distributed by pipeline to UK markets or by ship to Europe. 250 employees on Mossmoran site [32]. 50% owned by Shell Chemicals UK [33].

Purfleet Lubricants Plant Responsible for manufacture, packing & distribution. Blends base stocks, which come by ship from Fawley. It is also a major distribution terminal for fuels and other products. Leading brands are Mobil 1 and Esso Ultron. Over 400 different types of lubricants are blended at Purfleet for industry [34].

Call centre, Manchester Due to open in the summer, at Salford Quays, with 300 staff. Dealing with enquiries from retail, wholesale and industrial customers across Europe [35].

Aberdeen office The Mobil North Sea office in Aberdeen has been kept after the merger, but with a reduction in staff numbers from the former 400 [36].

The Distribution network ExxonMobil claims to operate the largest underground pipeline network in the UK [37] : 00 km in total. 85% of Fawley’s products leave by pipeline to distribution terminals or airports (including Heathrow + Gatwick). Short pipelines feed local power stations and petrochemical works [38]. 10% leaves by ship, taking products to terminals in UK and Europe, and just 5% by road.

There are distribution terminals at West London (near Heathrow), Purfleet, Avonmouth, Birmingham, Nottingham, Hythe (near Fawley) and Manchester. West London is the biggest terminal [39].

Esso also shares a terminal in Plymouth with Conoco (Mayflower Distribution Terminal) and one in Belfast with BP (Belfast Fuels Terminal) [40].

Esso has its own fleet of 100 road tankers [41], which take the products from terminals to petrol stations and to industrial customers. Esso also uses contractors for this.

Garages get their fuel from the nearest refinery – whichever company owns it, so if you watch tankers coming out of Fawley, you will see all company liveries. When Fawley was blockaded last year, The Automobil Association said half the petrol stations on the south coast could be affected [42]. But a report in Octane Week confirms the assertion on Esso’s website that 80% are supplied from Fawley – noting that the new ultra low sulphur gasoline from Fawley was being sold at 80% of Esso’s petrol stations, and the remaining 20% weren’t supplied from there [43].

Back to top

Structure / Ownership

 

ExxonMobil is structured and managed by business activity, on a global basis, rather than by country. New ExxonMobil structure, following merger, organises into 11 separate global businesses:

• five upstream: exploration, development, production, gas marketing, upstream research

• four downstream: refining & supply, fuels marketing, lubricants & petroleum specialities, technology

• chemicals

• coal & minerals

While the move is to global organisation, there are practical (geographical) limits to the ability to do this. For example, upstream and downstream operations in the UK both have the same chairman, and are based in the same office. But the move is new, so it remains to be seen to what extent the globalisation policy is implemented.

To give an idea of their grouping, one senior manager of ExxonMobil board is responsible for all upstream divisions, another for all downstream, and another for the chemicals and coal & minerals divisions.

Relative size of these areas in ExxonMobil globally according to Exxon-Mobil Financial & Operating Review (average capital employed, 2000):

Upstream 44.6%
Downstream 31.7%
Chemicals 15.8%
Other + corporate 7.9%

Major shareholders

Top Institutional Holders of Exxon Mobil [44]:

FMR Corporation (Fidelty Management & Research Corp)

Barcleys Bank Plc

Morgan (J.P.) Chase & Company

State Street Corporation

Mellon Bank, N.A.

Vanguard Group, Inc.

Putman Investment Management, Inc.

Taunus Corporation

TIAA Cref Investment Management, LLC

Citigroup Inc.

Top Mutual Fund Holders [45]:

College Retirement Equities Fund-Stock Account

Fidelity Magellan Fund Inc

Vanguard Index 500 Fund

Fidelity Growth And Income Portfolio

Putnam Fund For Growth And Income

AXP New Dimensions Fund

Fidelity Contrafund Inc

Vanguard Institutional Index Fund

Fidelity Puritan Fund Inc

Washington Mutual Investors Fund

Board of Directors Exxon Mobil [46]

The board currently is comprised of fifteen directors, eleven of which are non-employees.

Lee R. Raymond Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer

Eugene A. Renna Senior Vice President

René Dahan Senior Vice President

Harry J. Longwell Senior Vice President

Michael J. Boskin T.M. Friedman Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

William T. Esrey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Sprint Corporation (a global communications company integrating long distance, local and wireless communications services and one of the world’s largest carriers of Internet traffic)

Donald V. Fites Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Caterpillar Inc. (manufacturer of construction, mining, and agricultural machinery and engines)

Charles A. Heimbold, Jr Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (manufacturer of consumer products and pharmaceuticals)

James R. Houghton Chairman of the Board Emeritus, Corning Incorporated (communications, advanced materials and display products)

William R. Howell Chairman Emeritus, J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (department store and catalogue chain)

Helene L. Kaplan Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (law firm)

Reatha Clark King President and Executive Director, General Mills Foundation; Vice President, General Mills, Inc. (manufacturer and marketer of consumer food products)

Philip E. Lippincott Chairman of the Board, Campbell Soup Company (global manufacturer and marketer of high quality, branded convenience food products); Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Scott Paper Company (sanitary paper, printing and publishing papers and forestry operations)

Marilyn Carlson Nelson Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Carlson Companies, Inc.; Co-Chair, Carlson Holdings, Inc. (travel, hotels, restaurants and marketing services)

Walter V. Shipley Retired Chairman of the Board, The Chase Manhattan Corporation and The Chase Manhattan Bank (banking and finance)

Executives

Lee R. Raymond Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

E. G. Galante Senior Vice President

R. W. Tillerson Senior Vice President

H. J. Longwell Executive Vice President, Director

E. A. Renna Executive Vice President, Director

R. Dahan Executive Vice President, Director

M. E. Foster President, ExxonMobil Development Company

F. A. Risch Vice President, Treasurer

D. D. Humphreys Vice President, Controller

C. W. Matthews Vice President, General Counsel

T. P. Townsend Vice President of Investor Relations, Secretary

P. E. Sullivan Vice President and General Tax Counsel

H. R. Cramer Vice President

K. T. Koonce Vice President

S. R. McGill Vice President

S. D. Pryor Vice President

D. S. Sanders Vice President

J. S. Simon Vice President

The two Senior Vice Presidents, the three Executive Vice Presidents and the Chairman and CEO, L. R. Raymond, constitute the Corporation’s Management Committee.

Principal directors in the UK Esso UK plc [47]:

Ansel Condray (Chairman)

Ansel Condray helped Bush to draft the voluntary Clean Act Programme for Texas when Bush was governor there in 1997 (see also Links with Government) [48].

Took over from Keith Taylor, 26/2/00. Taylor was a very public figure, both in the industry and outside it – President of Institute of Chemical Engineers, vice president of the Institute of Petroleum, council member of CBI, Business in the Community and the Institute of Business Ethics. He died of cancer in September 2000 [49].

SC Spancake (Finance Director)

SC Polkey (Fuels Marketing)

D Carr (Logistics & Refining)

JV Genova (International Gas Marketing)

RG Bellis (Exploration)

All executive directors of Esso UK plc (all male).

Condray, Genova and Bellis all have Europe-wide roles in ExxonMobil International [50].

Other directors:

SBL Penrose (Finance Director, Esso Petroleum Co Ltd, Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd, Mobil Gas Marketing Ltd) [51]

ME Clifton (Mobil Gas Marketing) [52]

John Cousins (Executive vice president, ExxonMobil International Ltd). [53]

ExxonMobil Chemical [54]

MJ Lane (Chairman)

RH Coleman

DJ Hartgerink

ExxonMobil Aviation International [55]

JAC Bell

E Biriotti

RM Cooper

IC Downie

Back to top

Subsidiaries

 

Worldwide

ExxonMobil has numerous functional and service organisations. One example is ExxonMobil Development Company, responsible for overall stewardship of project development and drilling activities for the Corporation’s worldwide upstream operations. There is a whole range of other companies recognisable by Exxon, Mobil and / or Esso name. Some of the companies are not so easily recognisable by name, like Imperial Oil Limited, Monetary Coal Company, Compania Minera Disputada de Las Condes Limitada (Chile), International Colombia Resources Corporation LLC (intercor) (Colombia) etc.

To get an overview of some of ExxonMobil’s different companies, check out ‘Our Activities’ at www.exxonmobil.com/opsmap/index.html. The most comprehensive overview can be obtained by looking in the Who Owns Who directory of North America (can be found in most libraries).

UK In the UK, the Esso business consists of the holding company Esso UK plc and two operating businesses – Esso Exploration and Production UK Limited, and Esso Petroleum Company Limited.

ExxonMobil has 6 main UK operating companies

Upstream:

Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd

Mobile North Sea Ltd

Mobil Gas Marketing (U.K) Ltd

Downstream:

Esso Petroleum Company, Ltd

Mobil Lubricants UK Ltd

Chemicals:

ExxonMobil Chemical Ltd

There are also a number of ExxonMobil international business areas which are co-ordinated from the UK, by the following subsidiaries:

ExxonMobil Aviation International Ltd

ExxonMobil Marine Fuels Ltd

International Marine Transportation Ltd

Mobil Marine Lubricants

ExxonMobil International Ltd (oversees the upstream operations within Europe and West Africa)

ExxonMobil Sales and Supply Corporation

Esso Petroleum Company owns (100%) the following: Cleveland Petroleum Company Ltd, Comma Oil & Chemicals Ltd, Dart Oil Company Ltd, Redline Oil Services Ltd and Retail Petroleum Services Ltd. Also owns 74.9% of Mode Wheel Property Ltd [56] and 65% of Mainline Pipelines Ltd [57].

Back to top


References [16] ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/opsmap/ [17] Aberdeen Press & Journal, 2/12/98, ‘Jobs fears as oil firms get hitched up’ gives 2,500 between Leatherhead and Fawley. Esso video, ‘Graduate opportunities in Esso – a closer look’, 2000, says 1,500 staff at Fawley.

[18] Lloyd’s List 4/12/99, ‘Oil – Exxon Mobil predicts big savings’, by Helen Carr

[19] London Aberdeen Press & Journal, 2/12/98, ‘Jobs fears as oil firms get hitched up’

[20] ExxonMobil, ‘We cover a lot of ground’, recruitment brochure, 2000

[21] Esso – ‘Refining’, Dec ‘96

[22] Institute of Petroleum, Annual statistics, 1998/99, p.6

[23] from refinery delivery updates, Lloyds List – always 80,000t

[24] Institute of Petroleum, Annual statistics, 1998/99, p.6

[25] Lloyds List, 27/1/97, Special report on Southampton: ‘Dredging programme the key to the future’

[26] Esso – ‘Refining’, Dec ‘96

[27] Esso video, ‘Graduate opportunities in Esso – a closer look’, 2000

[28] Institute of Petroleum, Annual statistics, 1998/99, p. 6

[29] Esso – ‘Refining’, Dec ‘96

[30] ‘Esso in the UK’, Dec ‘96

[31] Hart’s European Fuel News, 8/12/99, ‘Esso Fawley refinery gets new Cogen plant

[32] Esso video, ‘Graduate opportunities in Esso – a closer look’, 2000

[33] Esso – ‘Refining’, Dec ‘96

[34] ExxonMobil, ‘Activities in the United Kingdom’, pamphlet, April 2001

[35] Lloyd’s List 4/12/99, ‘Oil – Exxon Mobil predicts big savings’, by Helen Carr

[36] Manchester Evening News 1/3/01, ‘Jobs bonanza – but mind your language’

[37] ExxonMobil, ‘Activities in the United Kingdom’, pamphlet, April 2001

[38] Institute of Petroleum, Annual statistics, 1998/99, p. 6

[39] Esso / Exxon Chemical – ‘Forward focus – Graduate opportunities’, summer 1998.

[40] Esso Newsline, Feb ’98, p.5

[41] Esso video, ‘Graduate opportunities in Esso – a closer look’, 2000

[42] Evening Express, Aberdeen, 12/9/00, ‘UK in gridlock’

[43] Octane Week, 4/12/00, ‘UK weighs more tax cuts to spark sales of ultra low-sulfur gasoline’

[44] Yahoo Finance web site, http://biz.yahoo.com/hd/x/xom.html, viewed 1/9/01

[45] Yahoo Finance web site, http://biz.yahoo.com/hd/mf/x/xom.html, viewed 1/9/01

[46] ExxonMobil annual report 2000

[47] Esso UK plc, interim accounts, 15/3/01, from Companies House

[48] A Decade of Dirty Tricks, ExxonMobil’s attempts to stop the world tackling climate change, a briefing by Greenpeace (July 2001), online at www.stopesso.com/pdf/Dirty%20Tricks.pdf [49] The Times, 16/10/00, ‘Keith Taylor – obituary’

[50] Hart’s European Offshore Petroleum Newsletter, 26/1/00, ‘Europe: Oil & gas people’

[51] Esso Petroleum Co Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 12/4/00; Esso Exploration & Production UK Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 9/5/00; Mobil North Sea Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 2/11/00

[52] RS Franklin (Mobil Gas Marketing) Hart’s European Offshore Petroleum Newsletter, 26/1/00, ‘Europe: Oil & gas people’

[53] Mobil North Sea Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 2/11/00

[54] Exxon Chemical Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 13/6/00

[55] ExxonMobil Aviation International Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 23/10/00

[56] Esso Petroleum Co Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 12/4/00

[57] Esso Petroleum Co Ltd, annual accounts for year ending 31/12/99, filed at Companies House 12/4/00

ExxonMobil: Products/Projects

Products
The core of Exxon Mobil’s business is oil and gas. Petroleum is mostly sold through Exxon’s/Esso’s service stations. Aviation fuel is sold at airports, and ExxonMobil Marine Fuels serves ports.

Exxon Mobil is the world’s largest non-governmental marketer of equity natural gas [12].

It is also the world’s leading marketer of finished lubricants, using the brand name Mobil [13] and the world’s largest wholesaler of helium [14].

Exxon Chemical products include plastics, oriented polypropylene film, synthetic rubber, fluids, plasticizers, basic chemical building blocks such as ethylene, ethylene glycol, propylene and paraxylene, fuel and lubricant additives and synthetic lubricant base stocks [15].

Projects
Oil and gas exploration all over the world. Coal extraction and mining on two continents.


References
[12] ExxonMobil annual report 2001, p. 14

[13] ExxonMobil annual report 2001, p. 17

[14] ExxonMobil annual report 2001, p. 14

[15] ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/chemical/about/index.html

ExxonMobil: Corporate Crimes

Politics and Globalisation ExxonMobil support numerous right wing and conservative think tanks and lobby groups (see ‘PR Companies and Greenwash’ and ‘Lobbying’ above for examples). They promote everything from environmental deregulation to cuts in social welfare spending. ExxonMobil is also a strong proponent of so called free trade (globalisation).

Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ‘[A]llowing environmentally responsible exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and prospective areas offshore and in the Rocky Mountains should be priorities’ – H. J. Longwell Senior Vice President, ExxonMobil, February 13, 2001[106].

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an ecologically sensitive area hosting numerous species. The indigenous Gwich’in people, who rely on the Caribou herds that breed there, are opposed to the development.

So far this area has been untouched by development. The oil industry however is lobbying the congress to open up the refuge for exploitation. ExxonMobil supports organisations like The Heritage Foundation that are working for the opening of the refuge. The House of Representatives now support plans to drill for oil and gas in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Before any drilling can commence, it still has to be approved by the Senate. With Bush in the Whitehouse, it could be just a matter of time before this small piece of vulnerable land loses its protection.

Back to top Climate Change Exxon has been in the forefront of fighting any action on climate change. The tactics have varied from denying the science, to denouncing the Kyoto Protocol, to playing the developing world and the developed countries against each other. Exxon has and continues to supporting lobby groups and think tanks working against action on climate change or trying to undermine confidence in climate science. Examples include The American Enterprise Institute and The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. Exxon was also a member of The Global Climate Coalition (see PR above for info on these three organisations). For information on ExxonMobil’s sponsoring of climate sceptics, see ExxonMobil Emerges as a Major Funder of Greenhouse Sceptics (March 2001) by Ross Gelbspan atwww.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full“> www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3645&method=full.

The two faced game they are playing can be exemplified by the way they render the Kyoto protocol useless because developing countries have not committed themselves to CO2 targets, while at the same time lobbying developing countries not to sign up to any binding targets. The following quotes well exemplify this.

‘If action is needed (on global warming), it should…include developing nations, since they will account for most of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.’ Lee Raymond, Exxon’s Chairman of the Board, open letter to Congress, May 8, 1997.

‘[W]ork with us to resist policies that could strangle economic growth,’ Lee Rayomond at the October, 1997 World Petroleum Congress in Beijing, urging countries of the region to resist climate policies. He further stressed that economic growth ‘will necessitate increasing, not curtailing, the use of fossil fuels.’

ExxonMobil was also a major contributor to a $13 million U.S. advertising campaign against the Kyoto agreement stating; ‘It’s not global and it won’t work [107].’

In 2001, ExxonMobil’s hard work seemed to have paid off: President Bush withdrew the USA from the Kyoto agreement. To show their support for the Bush Administration’s decision, advertisements were paid for, stating: ‘Kyoto was too much too soon. Its initial carbon targets would require massive reductions in energy use within a few years, with further substantial reductions to follow. Political goals were set without a sober assessment of economic and technical realities or public toleration of major lifestyle changes. This was reckless given the central role played by energy in all economies [108].’

In its attempts to counter the scientific evidence for climate change, ExxonMobil has used outdated science and misrepresented scientific research. At the shareholder meeting in May 2000, CEO Raymond used satellite measurements of the earth temperature to prove that the world is actually cooling. However this study had already been shown to be incorrect in the scientific journal Nature in 1998, due to the satellite’s changed orbital. Taking the changing orbital into account, the data actually shows a warming trend. The new revised data had been publicised in 36 newspapers in the US. At the same AGM, Raymond also referred to temperature measurements in the Saragasso Sea to discredit the climate science. Dr. Lloyd Keigwin, author of the report, later claimed that ExxonMobil’s use of his research has been misleading and that no conclusions about the validity of climate change could be made from his research. ExxonMobil has also used the Saragasso example in misleading ads that it placed in the New York Times under the headline ‘unsettled Science’ (atwww.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3442&method=full“> www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3442&method=full the ‘science’ of their ad is taken to pieces).

For more information on these examples see How ExxonMobil is Misleading Shareholders, Policymakers and the Public about Global Warming (www.campaignexxonmobil.org/learn/index.shtml“>www.campaignexxonmobil.org/learn/index.shtml), by CampaignExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil sees no need to invest any of its huge profits into research into renewable energies. This is ‘[b]ecause they are not as reliable or affordable as conventional fossil fuels, renewables compete in niche applications, and hardly at all in transportation fuels. In view of their technology limits and excess costs, which prevented widespread deployment, a business decision was taken many years ago to concentrate on our core energy and petrochemical businesses [109].’ ExxonMobil refers to the US Department of Energy Outlook estimation that (non-hydro) renewables will only contribute towards 3% of energy needs in 20 years time, as a reason for not even trying to enter the renewables market [110]. Investment in finding new oil and gas reserves are however still considered a good investment by ExxonMobil. This even though we already have more fossil fuels than we should burn if we are to mitigate climate change [111].

For the History of ExxonMobil’s attempts at to stop any action on climate change, see Esso’s Decade of Dirty Tricks to sabotage The Kyoto Protocolwww.stopesso.com/pdf/Dirty%20Tricks.pdf“> www.stopesso.com/pdf/Dirty%20Tricks.pdf.

Back to top

Australia – watch this space for further developments! [112]

Near the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, ExxonMobil owns 50% of the Rundle oil shale deposit, through Esso Australia Resources Ltd (the other half is held by Southern Pacific Petroleum and Central Pacific Minerals (SPP/CPM)) [113]. Esso originally planed to commence oil shale mining there (oil shale releases oil when heated and crushed). Greenpeace Australia claims that these developments would have produced open cut mines, potentially created toxic run off. The final product would have been a very carbon intense fossil fuel. However, in 1983/84 Esso decided not to proceed, officially because the decline in world oil prices made it uneconomic, but Esso still retained its 50% interest.

According to SPP/CPM’s 2000 Annual Report Esso has paid all costs on the Rundle deposit from 1 March 1985 and will do so ‘until construction of the first stage of a commercial development commences’ [114]. The fact that Esso are willing to cover all costs associated with the Rundle deposit (which amounted to A$12 million in 2000 according to SPP/CPM’s 2000 Annual Report) demonstrates a significant degree of interest.

Esso’s partners at the Rundle deposit, Australian companies Southern Pacific Petroleum/Central Pacific Minerals (SPP/CPM), are developers of the Stuart Oil Shale Project, just south of the Rundle deposit. Greenpeace Australia is currently campaigning against the development of the Stuart Oil Shale Project.

Back to top

Europe In 1998, a proposed EU-wide ban on PVC toys containing phthalates was dropped. Phthalates are used to make PVC toys softer and more elastic, but several reports have raised fears that they could have several detrimental health effects.

Exxon Chemical (producer of phthalates) and Mattel (toy manufacturer) opposed the EU-wide ban. There is evidence suggesting that the U.S. government lobbying on behalf of Mattel and Exxon, may have influenced the European Commission’s rejection of the proposed ban [115].

Peru ExxonMobil is preparing to explore for oil and gas in Candamo Valley and the surrounding area (block 78), despite fears that developments could seriously damage the ecosystem and its inhabitants. The area is one of the most biodiverse in the Peruvian Amazon and lies close to the Bahuaja-Sonene National Park [116].

When Shell explored for oil in the region in 1985, they encountered previously un-contacted Nahua Indians. Soon after 50-100 Nahuas died due to coming into contact with ‘western’ diseases they had no immune defence against. When in 1996 Mobil was poised to start searching for oil in a neighbouring valley (block 77), an area inhabited by three uncontacted Indian peoples, they were faced with international resistance. In 1998 Mobil decided to withdraw from the land.

Ecuador Five Indian peoples (the Waorani, Quichua, Siona, Secoya and Cofan) have been affected by the oil exploration of Exxon and other oil companies in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The major negative impacts have been displacement of the wildlife that the Indians depend on and pollution of the soil and water [117].

Back to top

Russia Presently three oilfields at Sakhalin (Sakhalin I, II and III) in the Okhotsk and Bering Seas are being developed. Sakhalin I is run by ExxonMobil, SODECO of Japan, Rosneft and Sakhalinmorneftegas of Russia and Sakhalin III involves ExxonMobil and Texaco. All three developments work under extremely hard conditions. This has lead them to claim that they must discharge toxic wastes in the sea despite international best practice is to re-inject drilling wastes deep underground. This has put half the world’s remaining Pacific salmon, pollock and Kamchatka crab under threat. Communities dependant on fishing, including native communities (the Koryak and Itel’men people), have allegedly been silenced through their dependence on the fish quotas of the pro-oil local government. The Sea of Okhotsk and Bering Sea is also important habitat for grey whales, endangered stellar’s sea lions and a large variety of seabirds.

In June 1998 the Sakhalin Special Marine Inspection Division (a government agency) filed a lawsuit for the illegal discharge of 3,500 tons of waste into the Okhotsk Sea against the developers of Shakhalin I. The Sakhalin I consortium claimed that the lawsuit was illegal. The matter seems to have been resolved by a letter to the office of V. Danilov-Danilyan, Russian Minister of the Committee on the Environment from K. Kuntz, Director of Exxon Neftegas: ‘You and I have met twice to discuss this issue and both times you personally assured me that the actions of the Marine Inspection Division are baseless and the suit ought to be recalled.’ Twelve days later the lawsuit was suspended [118].

Nigeria In January ’98 a broken Mobil’s Idaho production platform leaked 40,000 barrels of oil off the cost of Nigeria. The spill caused a 42-kilometre long oil slick that seriously damaged fishing grounds and farmland. 61 affected communities formed the Association of Mobil Spill Affected Communities to try to get rightful compensation from Mobil. More than one year after the spill the association still didn’t feel that the communities had been properly compensated and took direct action occupying 13 pipeline relay facilities in the Niger Delta as well as several barges and boats [119].

Mobil has also faced pressure, from among others its shareholders through resolutions, over it long involvement in Nigeria. The regime in Nigeria received a substantial amount to its budget through the foreign oil companies operating in the country [120].

Back to top

Chad – Cameroon ExxonMobil is the operator of the ‘1-billion-barrel’ Chad Doba project (ExxonMobil interest 40%) [121]. The project would link oil fields in southern Chad to the coast of Cameroon, where the oil would be exported to the west.

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the project. The pipeline would go through fragile rainforest and the traditional homelands of the Baka and Bakola peoples, indigenous communities of hunter-gatherers [122]. The compensation offered to the communities has been minimal, and set without consulting the locals. An environmental impact assessment has been made, but the official Dutch Commission on Environmental Impact Assessments claims that essential information is missing and that from it one could neither asses the project nor its environmental consequences.

The region is also politically highly unstable. Amnesty has documented massacres of unarmed civilians in these regions for over the past two years. A 1999 United States State Department report shows that the Chadian government has engaged in indiscriminate human rights abuses. In March 1998, 100 unarmed civilians were massacred by Chadian security forces in the oil-producing region, just six months after troops killed 80 people in the same area.

Shell and Elf have pulled out of the proposed pipeline. The World Bank, however, is continuing with plans to provide a US$90 million loan to the governments of Chad and Cameroon to help pay for their stake of 15 percent. The International Finance Corporations (IFC), which is the private sector lending arm of the World Bank, is proposing to lend an additional US$150 million toward the project’s infrastructure [123].

Back to top

Indonesia ExxonMobil has been sued by the International Labor Rights Fund, on behalf of 11 villagers in Aceh, a province in western Indonesia, where ExxonMobil has a large gas plant. The corporation is accused of being complicit in the human rights abuses committed by the notorious Indonesian army guarding the area.

Villagers in the area have been victims of murder, torture, kidnapping and rape. ExxonMobil’s part in these atrocities is claimed to have been supplying barracks used by the military to torture prisoners and machinery like excavators that used to dig mass graves [124].

Mobil began operating the Arun gas fields in 1968 and has since then ‘contributed’ to the annual budget of Suharto’s regime to the time of his downfall. After the merger of Exxon and Mobil, the company took over the management of the gas field [125].

Colombia ExxonMobil has a 50% share in an opencast coalmine at El Cerrejon in the north of Columbia through its 100% owned mining subsidiary Intercor (Anglo American Coal Corporation Ltd, Billiton plc (based in London), Glencore International AG (Swiss-based) are other owners of the mine) [126]. The mine is the biggest in South America (30miles long and two to three miles wide) and produces 15 million tons of coal annually. The area of the mine is inhabited by the Wayuu Indians who have been opposing bad practices at the mine since 1980. At the start 5000 indians were employed but almost all of them were dismissed when the mine started operating two years later. In 1988 the last Indians were made redundant because of trying to organise union activities [127].

The mine has had negative impacts on the grasslands on which the Wayuu Indians depend. Indians have also suffered from respiratory diseases caused by coal dust and heavy noise pollution [128].

Intercor has also shown cultural disrespect by removing Wayuu graves during the construction of a railway connecting the mine and the port of Uribia. Intercor was later forced by the Wayuu to rebuild the structures [129].

Intercor is now about to evict all residents of the Indigenous community of Tabaco, to make way for the expansion of the mine. Residents are resisting and claim that the relocation arrangements made would break up communities and not give people sufficient funds to buy land to live on [130].

Back to top

Workers rights and safety Esso UK began the process of union derecognition in UK refining and logistics by derecognising its tanker drivers in 1991, followed by process operators at Fawley. The rest of the UK onshore oil industry followed over the next 4 years, to great criticism from the Transport and General Workers’ Union [131]. In January 2000, Esso decided to cut many of its middle managers at Fawley [132] – a process known as delayering, widely thought to be the major cause of the recent disastrous safety record of BP’s Granagemouth refinery.

On September 25 an explosion at the Longford natural gas processing plant occurred killing two workers, injuring eight and cutting off natural gas supplies to most of the state of Victoria for two weeks. In July 2001 Esso was fined £715,000 for safety violations and Justice Philip Cummins, at the supreme court of Victoria in Melbourne, stated that the explosion was not an accident and sole responsibility lay with Esso. The company was convicted last month of 11 charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act [133].

Below is part of a list published in ‘The Dirty Four: The Case Against Letting BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum Drill in the Arctic Refuge’, by Athan Manuel (Published in March 2001 by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group)

• Exxon paid $252 million as part of a $760 million punitive damage award in August 1998 to Lockheed Corporation workers. The workers sued after being exposed to chemicals while working at the top-secret ‘Skunk Works’ aircraft plant in Burbank, California [134].

• In November 1992 a drilling crew working on an Exxon rig near Hawkins, Texas hit a pocket of natural gas, causing an explosion and well fire. Thirty-one families in the area had to be evacuated [135].

• A fire in August 1993 at an Exxon Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery cooker killed 3 people [136].

A history of pollution Below is part of a list published in ‘The Dirty Four: The Case Against Letting BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum Drill in the Arctic Refuge’, by Athan Manuel. It shows some of Exxon’s environmental contributions during the 90s.

Oil Spills, Offshore drilling pollution, and Illegal water pollution • Exxon agreed to pay the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission $600,000 for dumping almost 2 billion gallons of chemical wastewater from their Baytown, Texas refinery [137].

A recent report on the Baytown refinery in Houston has revealed persistent accidental releases and failure to report problems and emissions.

• In 1991, the EPA filed complaints against Exxon, British Petroleum, and the Alyeska Pipeline Service Corporation for dumping ballast water wastes at the Valdez Alaska tanker terminal [138].

• On January 1, 1990, 567,000 gallons of oil spilled from an Exxon pipeline into the Arthur Kill waterway between Staten Island and New Jersey. In February 1990 the City of New York sued Exxon for submitting false pipeline safety reports. Prior to the lawsuit Exxon admitted that its leak detection system had not worked properly for 12 years. A year later Exxon settled out of court, agreeing to spend $10 to $15 million on environmental improvements [139].

• Oil that leaked from Exxon’s Paulsboro, New Jersey petroleum storage facility has contaminated groundwater and soil in southern New Jersey [140].

Illegal Air Pollution

• In February 1998, the Department of Justice filed a civil complaint accusing Exxon of nearly 200 Clean Air Act violations and demanding $4.7 million in fines [141].

• In October 1996 Exxon paid a civil penalty of $20,000 for violating the Clean Air Act at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery [142].

• In 1993 Exxon paid $1 million in air pollution fines for its Bayway refinery in Linden, N.J. The penalties stem from Exxon bypassing air pollution control equipment [143].

Hazardous Waste Violations • In August 1998, Exxon and Tosco agreed to pay $4.8 million in damages and for environmental restoration after discharging selenium, a carcinogen, into San Francisco Bay [144].

• In August 1998 Exxon was ordered to pay $35,000 to four plaintiffs as part of the Campbell Wells oilfield waste suit. The residents of Grand Bois, Louisiana sued Exxon and Campbell Wells alleging that the waste exceeded limits on toxins such as benzene, a known carcinogen[145].

• In October 1996, Exxon paid a civil penalty of $73,000 for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and $116,000 for Clean Water Act violations at its Baton Rouge, Louisiana refinery[146].

• Exxon is a PRP for 41 hazardous waste Superfund sites in seventeen states.

• In 1991, EPA fined Exxon $125,000 for discharging contaminated fluids from service stations into or directly above underground drinking water sources[147].

Back to top

Stealing oil and gas Below are examples of ExxonMobil extracting oil and gas without proper permission (list again taken from the excellent report ‘The Dirty Four’)

• In January 2001, the State of Texas filed suit against ExxonMobil for extracting oil and natural gas from state land without permission. The state is seeking “tens of millions of dollars” in compensation.

• ExxonMobil agreed to pay $7 million to settle claims it underpaid royalties for oil it extracted from federal lands in 2000. It was part of a $282 million agreement reached by 10 oil companies for underpaying the government by hundreds of millions of dollars in drilling royalties on federal land in the western United States[148].

• A Montgomery County jury returned a verdict in December 2000, finding that Exxon defrauded Alabama on royalties from natural gas wells in state waters. The jury awarded the state $87.7 million in compensatory damages and $3.42 billion in punitive damages[149].

Back to top


References [106] February 13, 2001, GETTING FROM HERE TO THERE: MEETING THE OIL AND GAS NEEDS OF 2010 Cambridge Energy Research Associates Executive Conference, Remarks by Harry J. Longwell, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/exec_speeches/hjl_oilandgas.html [107] Campaign ExxonMobil’ web site, www.campaignexxonmobil.org/learn/misinform.shtml [108] www.fabclimate.org/company_lowdown_e.html#esso [109] Global Climate Change, April 2001, ExxonMobil Views, www.exxonmobil.com/em_newsrelease/climatetalkingpoints.pdf, viewed 4/9/01

[110] Ibid.

[111] For a full outline of this argument see Fossil Fuels and Climate Protection – The Carbon Logic by W.L. Hare, Climate Policy Director, Greenpeace International, available online at www.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatecountdown/fossil.htm [112] This information has been received from Greenpeace Australia, Greenpeace, GPO Box 3307, Sydney NSW 2001, Ph: 02 9263 0321, Fax: 02 9261 4588

[113] Southern Pacific Petroleum, annual report 2000, p. 86

[114] Southern Pacific Petroleum, annual report 2000, p. 56

[115] Out of the Mouths of Babes, by Charlie Cray, Multinational Monitor, June 1998, volume 19, number 6, www.essential.org/monitor/mm1998/98june/front2.html [116] Rainforest Action Network, Action Alert 150, ExxonMobil Threatens Pristine Amazon Valley, July 8, 2000, www.ran.org [117] Survival International’s Top Ten List, 1992

[118] Lawsuit Vs Exxon Pollution In Sakhalin (Russia) Suspended, Drillbits & Tailings: December 21, 1998: Page Two

[119] Drillbits & Tailings: April 17, 1999: Page Seven (www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/990417/99041707.html), Drillbits & Tailings: September 21, 1998: Page Two

[120] www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/980421/98042101.html, Drillbits & Tailings: April 21, 1998: Page One, MOBIL SHAREHOLDERS TAKE ON HUMAN RIGHT ISSUES

[121] Annual report 2000, p. 12

[122] “Drilling to the Ends of the Earth,” Project Underground report, July 1998, and “Help Stop World Bank Loan to Exxon for Chad-Cameroon Pipeline,” Friends of the Earth and Environmental Defense Fund fact sheet.

[123] Shell and ELF Pull out of Chad-Cameroon Pipeline, Drillbits & Tailings, Volume 4, Number 19, 23/11/99. Activists Demand World Bank Axe Chad-Cameroon Oil Project, Drillbits & Tailings, 21/7/98.

[124] Lawsuit Says Exxon Aided Rights Abuses, Neela Banerjee, New York Times June 21, 2001

[125] Drillbits & Tailings: December 21, 1998, Mobil Operations in Sumatra (Indonesia) Investigated As Villagers Sue

[126] AME Mineral Economics’ web site (economic analysis of metal and minerals)

www.ame.com.au/mines/co/Cerrejon-Norte.htm, viewed 28/08/01

[127] Drillbits & Tailings: March 21, 1998: Page Three, Abuses Revealed In Venezuelan Coal Sector www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/980321/98032103.html [128] Survival International’s Top Ten List, England 1992

[129] What You Should Know about the Proposed Crandon Mine, Compiled by Al Gedicks, Exec. Secretary, WISCONSIN RESOURCES PROTECTION COUNCIL, www.wrpc.net/wyskcul.html, viewed 28/09/01

[130] From Mines and Communities homepage, www.minesandcommunities.org/Action/action9.htm, viewed 28/08/01

[131] The Herald, 14/4/98, ‘Unions condemn findings of low-pay survey in run-up to minimum wage’, by Ken Smith

[132] Hart’s European Fuel News, 12/1/00, ‘Further streamlining at Fawley’

[133] Esso fined over fatal gas plant explosion, Monday July 30, 2001, The Guardian

[134] Michael Fitzpatrick, “California Jury Awards $760 Million Against Exxon, Others,” Reuters Limited, August 8, 1998.

[135] Michael Fitzpatrick, “California Jury Awards $760 Million Against Exxon, Others,” Reuters Limited, August 8, 1998.

[136] Doyle, Crude Awakening, Table 14-2; Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International; Chemical Week, and other sources.

[137] “Texas Enviro. Group Sues Exxon Over Wastewater,” Wall Street Journal, March 15, 1996

[138] Patrick Lee, “Toxics Disposal Probe Targets Exxon, Arco, BP,” Los Angeles Times, Feb. 20, 1991, pg. D-1.

[139] Leonard Butler “New York City Accuses Exxon of Fraud in Spill,” New York Times, February 8, 1990 pg. B-2, and “New York City Sues Exxon Over Oil Spill in January,” Wall Street Journal, February 8, 1990

[140] NJ Dept. of Env. Protection and Energy, Site Remediation Program – Site Status Report. Lance R. Miller, Assistant Commissioner, Fall 1991, pg. 224

[141] “DOJ Sues Exxon for Clean Air Violations,” Greenwire/National Journal Group, February 13, 1998.

[142] FY 1997 EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishment Report, B-39

[143] “Exxon to Pay Pollution Fines on Refinery It Sold,” Associated Press, Apr. 10, 1993.

[144] “Oil Refineries Settle Over Selenium,” Contra Costa Times, August 26, 1998.

[145] “New Rules on Oilfield Wastes Expected After Tests Finished,” Saturday State Times/Morning Advocate, August 31, 1998.

[146] FY 1997 EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishment Report, B-39

[147] FY 91 EPA Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Accomplishments Report

[148] http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id= 17255174&ID=cnniw

[149] www.msnbc.com/local/wvtm/229470.asp

ExxonMobil: Influence / Lobbying

Lobbying Groups

 

ExxonMobil does extensive lobbying in Washington themselves. Before the merger of Exxon and Mobil, the New York Times reported that Mobil and Exxon spent $5.3 million and $5.2 million respectively on lobbying [58]. In 1999 it was estimated that ExxonMobil spent $11,695,800 on lobbying [59].

ExxonMobil spent $5.8 million on the following lobbying firms in 1999; Akin, Gump et al, Cassidy & Assoc, Gardere & Wynne, Mobil Business Resources Corp, and Swidler, Berlin et al [60].

Below some of the groups that Exxon Mobil is a member of are listed and briefly explained. This is just a very short list, and does not claim to be a comprehensive list of the most important groups.

• American Petroleum Institute (API) www.api.org The oil industry’s think-tank, explains that its ‘most pressing issues revolve about public perceptions and government policies toward our industry — many of which have international dimensions’ [61], one of these issues being climate change. The institute lobbies against any action on climate change that could be perceived as a threat to the petroleum industry, and is extremely sceptical about the science behind climate change. ‘[T]he debate is about whether enough is known about climate change to warrant the lost jobs, higher consumer prices and a weakened U.S. economy that would come with implementing the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement which at best would make only slight progress toward solving climate change’ [62]. ExxonMobil is a financial supporter of the API and sits on the board. In 1998, Exxon helped API to plan its $ 7 million PR campaign to undermine confidence in the scientific consensus about climate change [63]. The API is a member of the Global Climate Coalition (see below).

• US Council For International Business www.uscib.org ‘The USCIB advances the global interests of American business both at home and abroad. It is the American affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, and the International Organisation of Employers (IOE). As such, it officially represents U.S. business positions in the main intergovernmental bodies,…’ [64].

After Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto agreement the USCIB sent him a letter stating ‘[we] believe that the U.S. should move quickly to chart a farsighted path forward within the UNFCCC process that will avoid the Kyoto Protocol’s unrealistic targets, timetables and lack of developing country participation’ [65].

• European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) www.cefic.be [66]

CEFIC actively lobby the EU and at UN climate negotiations for voluntary action as the alternative to government regulation. CEFIC rejects absolute targets being imposed on the chemical industry and threatens to, ‘relocate to cap-free countries,’ warning that the end result will not help the environment and will bring massive job losses to the EU [67].

• The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) www.ceps.be [68]

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) is a ‘think tank lobby’ group supporting corporate interests in the EU. CEPS formed a working group on ‘EU Climate Change Policy: Priorities for COP-6’ before the COP 6 meeting in Den Haag 2000. The group chaired by BP’s Barbara Kuryk aims to steer the EU away from government regulation and towards voluntary initiatives and market-based mechanisms. It also lobbies for binding CO2 reductions to include southern countries.

• Global Climate Coalition (GCC) www.globalclimate.org A climate sceptic organisation, representing a diverse range of US businesses. The GCC argues that ‘Unrealistic targets and timetables, such as those called for under the Kyoto Protocol, are not achievable without severely harming the U.S. economy and all American families, workers, seniors and children [69].’

GCC received such heavy criticism that companies such as BP, Ford and Texaco decided to leave it. Exxon however stayed a member until GCC decided that only trade associations were suitable for membership [70].

Back to top

Links with government

 

ExxonMobil George W. Bush himself is an old Texas oilman. In 1977 he set up the oil company Arbusto Energy (arbusto: Spanish for bush). The company was never very successful; it changed name, went through a merger and was bought up. Bush left the oil business in the early 1990s [71]. His close ties to the oil industry were however visible when he as governor let Exxon draft the ‘voluntary’ emissions reporting system for Texas [72] (this Clean Air Programme turned out to be utterly ineffective) [73].

In 2000, ExxonMobil gave $1.2 million to the Republican Party [74]. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, only Enron (a gas and electricity corporation) gave a higher amount of political donations the same year (this makes ExxonMobil the largest oil and gas donor) [75].

Bush’s cabinet turned out to contain several persons with links and interests to the oil industry and ExxonMobil. Some have very direct links, such as the under secretary of economic affairs, Kathleen B. Cooper, also Chief Economist and Manager of the Economics and Energy Division of ExxonMobil. Some are not direct links, like Dick Cheney, secretary of state, a former CEO of Halliburton, who shows a predisposition to share the views of the oil industry. The above and below examples are from Multinational Monitor’s May 2001 issue (‘Bush’s Corporate Cabinet’).

• Elaine Chao, secretary of labor, was a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think-tank sponsored by among others ExxonMobil.

• Christine Whitmank, environmental protection agency administrator, holds stocks in ExxonMobil and has several economic interests in the oil industry.

• Gale Norton, secretary of the interior, worked at the right wing law firm Mountain States Legal Foundation from 1979 to 1983. The firm was funded by among others, Exxon, Amoco, Chevron and Ford. She is the national chair of the Coalition for Republican Environmental Advocates (its steering committee includes lobbyists from the car and oil industry).

• Donald Evans, secretary of commerce, whose former job was CEO for Tom Brown Inc. (a Denver based oil and gas company), and has large financial interests in several oil companies.

• Paul H. O’Neill, treasury secretary, is a trustee at the American Enterprise Institute (a conservative think-tank, see lobby above) and is a director of Institute for International Economics. Both are sponsored by ExxonMobil.

• Robert Zoellick, U.S. trade representative, is on the board of Council on Foreign Relations, and in the advisory committee of Institute for International Economics and the Brookings Institute for Policy and Economic Programs. All three of these are sponsored by ExxonMobil.

Among the president’s advisors you can also find connections to the oil industry. Lawrence Lindsey, top economic advisor to the president, holds a chair at the American Enterprise Institute, Diana Furchgott-Roth, staff chief to the Council of Economic advisors, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Nina Rees, adviser to the vice President Cheney is a senior analyst at the Heritage Foundation. Both organisations are sponsored by ExxonMobil.

Esso UK The most politically engaged aspect of Esso was its former UK chairman and chief executive Keith Taylor. He sat on the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, and was involved in various higher education policy roles.

Esso’s Trees of Time and Place initiative invited MPs to get involved. John Swinney and Andrew Welsh both participated. Scottish Wildlife Trust is involved in co-ordinating the initiative in Scotland. Paddy Ashdown and John Battle were early joiners.
Back to top

PR Companies and Greenwash attempts

‘ExxonMobil strives to be a good corporate citizen and a good neighbour wherever we do business.’ – ExxonMobil’s homepage [76]

ExxonMobil likes to point out its great social responsibility and its contributions to the environment. Information about who they sponsor can be found at www.exxonmobil.com/community. They also list institutions that they have sponsored, among them several lobby groups and right-wing/conservative think tanks.

The first sponsorship they mention is their support for tiger conservation. This is an important part of ExxonMobil’s image, since the tiger is also the company’s mascot. However, one of the greatest threats to the tiger could turn out to be loss of habitat due to stress caused by climate change.

ExxonMobil also give a lot of support to education. Some of this sponsorship has come under criticism for being more promotional material than educational material. The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education writes: ‘Some teachers were duped by Exxon’s lesson plan about the healthy, flourishing wildlife in Prince William Sound, Alaska, which showed beautiful eagles, frolicking sea otters, and sea birds in their habitat. In reality, the program was a public relations vehicle designed to help Exxon clean up its image after the Valdez oil spill [77].’

Below is a sample of the organisations that ExxonMobil supports (full list at www.exxonmobil.com/community).

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (Washington, D.C.) is a conservative think-tank. Among other things, it has published the book The Bell Curve by Charles Murray & Richard Hernstein, one of the most prominent racist books published. The book made ‘scientific’ claims that black people are less intelligent than white people.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (Washington, D.C.) is a right wing organisation that lobbies state legislators

The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Tempe, Arizona) promotes climate sceptic ideas. Their homepage (www.co2science.org) blatantly shows their aggressively anti climate science stance.

The Citizens for a Sound Economy Educational Foundation (Washington, D.C.) promotes market solutions for economic and social problems.

Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, Bozeman, Montana, is working against environmental legislation. It gives seminars that resemble free luxury vacations for judges to promote their ideas [78].

The Heartland Institute (Chicago, Illinois) is an archconservative think tank.

The Heritage Foundation (Washington, D.C.) is an ultra conservative organisation promoting ‘traditional American values’, free enterprise, a strong national defence, and drilling in the Arctic wildlife refuge, among other things.

The Hoover Institution (Stanford, California) promotes its antipathy against federal social welfare and questions the science behind global warming. Michael J. Boskin (Member of the ExxonMobil board) is a Senior Fellow at the institute.

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (New York, N.Y.) argues for cuts in welfare, medical and health spending, and for privatisation and deregulation of environmental and consumer protection.

The Political Economy Research Center (Bozeman, Montana) is a conservative organisation challenging environmental regulation.

Back to top

Influencing Research and Education

 

Worldwide ExxonMobil invests more than $650 million per year on research and development [79].

UK Former Esso UK chairman and chief executive Keith Taylor, according to the Times, personally championed Esso’s higher education support scheme and engineering fellowships. He was visiting professor at Surrey University, member of Higher Education Funding Council for England [80]. The University of Birmingham gave an Honorary Doctor of Engineering to Keith Taylor in early 1997, when he was joint chair of the university’s chemical engineering senior advisory group [81].

Esso uses London Business School to train all graduate recruits, an absolute key to their corporate culture.

All university applicants for the exploration division must attend 8-week summer work experience in Leatherhead, during their last summer vacation. This summer programme has the ‘full support’ of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [82].

A few miscellaneous connections:

• Esso sponsors fellowships in chemical engineering – these are worth £6000 for the first year, declining over the following four, in return for which Esso expects some of the fellow’s time. One of the Esso fellowships was awarded to Dr. David Faraday at Surrey University, who had previously arranged industrial placements for his students with Esso [83].

• Professor Graeme Simpson, the first Schlumberger Chair of Energy Industry Management at Aberdeen, was formerly Business Opportunities Group Manager with Esso Exploration and Petroleum UK [84].

• Heriot-Watt University has an Esso Teaching Resources Facility, (£15,000 from Esso), which underpins a communications skills module for chemistry undergraduates [85].

• Loughborough University was awarded £8,600 by Esso Higher Education Support Scheme for a project to develop computer based teaching material [86].

• University of Wales, Swansea has an Esso Lecture Theatre in its Department of Engineering.

• John Avery, formerly of Esso Petroleum, went on to become head of Real Estate Management at the HEFCE (the Higher Education Funding Council for England), where he was responsible for a capital budget of £100m, leading HEFCE’s work in promoting private finance in higher education [87].

• The Geology and Petroleum Geology at Aberdeen University – staff include [88]: Dr AJ Hartley, the Mobil Lecturer in Production Geoscience; Dr Tim Reston, the Mobil Lecturer in Structural Geology. There are also research fellows sponsored by Mobil.

• The University of Dundee has a Centre for Energy, Petroleum and Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP), whose Assistant Director of the Centre Armando Zamora previously worked for Mobil Oil [89]. Part-time and honorary teaching staff include Richard Beazley (President, Mobil CIS) [90].

• At the University of Nottingham, Esso offers one bursary of £500 each year to Mechanical Engineering students, and BP £1,500 to Chemical Engineering students, both awarded at the start of the second year and renewable in the final year [91].

The Greenpeace International report called ‘Exxon Valdez – a case of corporate virtual reality’ by Andrew Rowell explains how Exxon used 3 British academics to help explain that Prince William Sound is just fine after the Exxon Valdez accident. See case study below. The full report is available online at: www.greenpeace.org/~climate/arctic99/reports/exxon2.pdf.

CASE STUDY: The Exxon Valdez spill damage

After the grounding of the Exxon Valdez oil tanker off Alaska in March 1989, Exxon flew three British scientists out to the scene to assess the damage: Prof Robert Clark (Dept of Zoology, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne), Dr Paul Kingston (Inst of Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University) and Dr Jenny Baker (consultant).

Clark, Kingston and Baker released a report in 1990, which argued that ‘The overall impact of the oil spill on the environment in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska is likely to be short-lived’. For example, it claimed that ‘Animals may accumulate petroleum hydrocarbons while their environment is oily, but they subsequently purge themselves in a relatively short time and return to normal levels. It is important to understand that oil is not like pesticides, mercury and other substances that cannot be metabolised, cannot be excreted, and thus build up in the flesh’ [92].

In June 1990, Prof Clark said ‘Oil spills create a big mess. They cause short-term damage, but the long-term effects are nil’ [93]. In a 1991 article, Clark observed that ‘The effects of the cleanup, coupled with the scouring action of winter storms, left the shoreline largely free of oil by the spring of 1990…. There is evidence that [the] remaining oil is neither toxic nor harmful’ [94]. Looking at particular species, Clark notes for example that in 1990 ‘sea otters are still abundant in the sound and, with their high reproductive rate, can rapidly reverse whatever losses they sustained’. Of murres (seabirds), Clark states that in the northeast Atlantic their population has mushroomed despite losses from oil pollution, and he expects the same to be the case in Prince William Sound (PWS) [95].

By contrast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration estimated in autumn 1992 that 12% of the total oil spilled still remained in sub-tidal sediments, and 3% on the beaches [96]. Rick Steiner, an Associate Professor at the University of Alaska, commented that ‘Four years after the spill, oil still remains trapped in mussel mats in the inter-tidal zone, being picked up into the food chain’ [97]. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill State/Federal Trustee Council is now sponsoring a research team to find out how much Oil is still left. During the summer 2001, the group could still easily find oil by digging 15 centimetres into the beach [98]. The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees expect direct damage to wilderness to continue for decades [99].

An overview of the scientific studies of sea otters reported that ‘By late 1991, three findings indicated that chronic damages were limiting recovery of the sea otter population in PWS: patterns of mortality were abnormal when compared to prespill data, surveys showed no increase in abundance, and juvenile survival was low in oiled areas of western PWS’ [100]. According to the Trustees, by 1993 there was still little or no evidence of recovery of the sea otter population, which may take decades [101]. The number of breeding murres fell by up to 70%, and there was complete reproductive failure in 1989, 1990 and 1991 [[102]; the Trustees suggest that it may take a century for the population to recover, if at all [103].

Thus the views put forward by Baker, Clark and Kingston are not shared by all scientists of marine pollution. In fact, the three are known as ‘sceptics’ with regard to the ecological damage caused by oil spills (their main point being that oil spills’ effects are short-term, and do not significantly impact upon populations or ecosystems in the longer term), and have written extensively on the subject since at least the early 1980s. Kingston is part of the Institute of Offshore Engineering at Heriot-Watt University, most of whose work is for the oil and gas industry, and Kingston himself ‘has worked on most major North Sea petroleum developments’[104] .

Because their views are ‘friendly’ is at least partly why Exxon chose these three to assess the Valdez damage. But more cynically, Otto Harrison, Exxon’s Director of Operations in Alaska, told an Institute of Petroleum conference in London that Exxon had used British scientists because the American public would find a scientific message more credible and more impressive if spoken in an English accent [105].
Back to top


References [58] Leslie Wayne, Companies Used to Getting Their Way, New York Times, December 4, 1998

[59] The Center for Responsive Politics’ web site, www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/client.asp?ID=92872&year=1999, viewed 23.08.01

[60] Ibid

[61] American Petroleum Institute’s web site, www.api.org/about/aboutindex.htm, viewed 31/08/01

[62] American Petroleum Institute’s web site, www.api.org/globalclimate/bigpicture.htm, viewed 31/08/01

[63] The Case Against Esso, a Stop Esso campaign briefing available at www.stopesso.com/about.htm [64] United States Council for International Business’ website, www.uscib.org/dkpuscib.asp [65] United States Council for International Business’ website, www.uscib.org/bushclim.asp [66] Greenhouse Market Mania-UN climate talks corrupted by corporate pseudo-solutions, CEO, November 2000, available at, www.xs4all.nl/~ceo/greenhouse/index.html [67] CEFIC, ‘Climate Policies and the Chemical Industry’, June 1999

[68] CEFIC, ‘Climate Policies and the Chemical Industry’, June 1999

[69] Global Climate Coalitions’ www.globalclimate.org/climscience.htm [70] The Case Against Esso, a Stop Esso campaign briefing available at www.stopesso.com/about.htm [71] The Center for Responsive Politics’ web site, www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp#1 [72] The Greening of George W. Bush (The Governor’s ‘Clean Air’ Bill Hasn’t Cleaned Up Texas’ Air), by Louise Dubose, 27/10/2000

www.auschron.com/issues/dispatch/2000-10-27/pols_feature9.html [73] A Decade of Dirty Tricks, ExxonMobil’s attempts to stop the world tackling climate change, a briefing by Greenpeace (July 2001), online at www.stopesso.com/pdf/Dirty%20Tricks.pdf [74] ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/em_newsrelease [75] The Center for Responsive Politics’ web site, www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=E01, viewed 23.08.01

[76] ExxonMobil’s web site, www.exxonmobil.com/community/ [77] The Center for Commercial-Free Public Education’s web site, www.commercialfree.org/sem.html, viewed 23.08.01

[78] www.mediatransparency.org/recipients/free.htm [79] ExxonMobil annual report 2001, p. 5

[80] The Times, 16/10/00, ‘Keith Taylor – obituary’

[81] Lynne Williams, ‘Honorary degrees / noticeboard’, in THES #1266, 7/2/97, p.30

[82] ExxonMobil, ‘We cover a lot of ground’, recruitment brochure, 2000

[83] Lloyds List Energy Day – Recruitment & Training – ‘Strategies for major change’, 23/3/98, p.10

[84] Lynne Williams, ‘Chairs / noticeboard’ in THES #1295, 29/8/97, p.26

[85] Olga Wojtas, ‘Chemists to make complex simple’, in THES, no.1241, 16/8/96, p.7

[86] THES, ‘Motor math’, in no.1227, 10/5/96, p. SP/2

[87] Managing HE, Issue 1, Winter 1995 (pub. Hobsons)

[88] University of Aberdeen, Department of Geology & Petroleum Geology, ‘Staff directory’, on worldwide website www.abdn.ac.uk/geology/staff/staffdir.htm, viewed 8/10/98

[89] University of Dundee, ‘Armando Zamora’, on website, www.dundee.ac.uk/petroleumlaw/html/zamora.htm, viewed 5/2/99

[90] University of Dundee, ‘CEPMLP profile’, on website, www.dundee.ac.uk/petroleumlaw/html/profile.htm,viewed 5/2/99

[91] University of Nottingham, ‘Scholarships open to Undergraduate Students’, pp. E-46 – E.48, 1996/97

[92] Dr Jenifer Baker, Prof Robert Clark & Dr Paul Kingston, Environmental Recovery in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska, June 1990, commissioned by Exxon, pp.3, 9 (pub. Institute of Offshore Engineering, Heriot-Watt University)

[93] Reuter News Service, ‘Exxon scientists see Alaska oil spill recovery’, 14/6/90; quoted in Andrew Rowell, ‘The Exxon Valdez – a case of corporate virtual reality’, March 1994, p.16 (pub. Greenpeace International)

[94] Robert Clark, ‘Recovery: the untold story of Valdez spill’, in Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Winter 1991, pp. 24-26

[95] ibid.

[96] Golob’s Oil Pollution Bulletin, ‘Exxon claims ecosystem has recovered from Exxon Valdez’, in vol.V no.11, 7/5/93; quoted in Rowell, op.cit., p.15

[97] Rick Steiner, ‘Lessons from Alaska for Shetland – lessons from both for the world’, 1993; quoted in Rowell, op.cit., p.15

[98] Scientists still finding oil after 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, by DOUG O’HARRA, Anchorage Daily News, www.nandotimes.com/nation/story/43784p-681103c.html [99] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration plan – summary of alternatives for public comment, supplement to draft, Anchorage, June 1993, B17; quoted in Rowell, op.cit.,p.15

[100] Brenda Ballachey & James Bodkin (both of Alaska Fish & Wildlife Research Centre, National Biological Survey, Anchorage), & Anthony De Gange

[101] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, op.cit.

[102] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees, Exxon Valdez oil spill restoration – Volume 1 – restoration framework, Anchorage, April 1992, pp.31-32; quoted in Rowell, op.cit., p.13

[103] Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, op.cit., B9

[104] Baker, Clark & Kingston, op. cit., p.12 – About the authors

[105] Otto Harrison (of Exxon), ‘Lessons from the Exxon Valdez’, lecture to Institute of Petroleum, 4/3/92; cited in Rowell, op.cit., p.25

Further Information and Resources

 

The Stop Esso Campaign
UK wide campaign to boycott Esso because of their abysmal climate change record. Has an excellent website with current info. The campaign is organised by Friends of the Earth, People and Planet and Greenpeace.

Web: www.stopesso.com
Email: info@stopesso.com
Campaign ExxonMobil
A shareholder organisation dedicated to pressing ExxonMobil to take responsibility for its role in the problem of global warming and to committing to the development of non-polluting energy sources.

South Congress

Color Color Suite 200 Austin

Texas 78704 USA

Phone (512) 479-0335

Fax (512) 479-7645 611

Web: www.campaignexxonmobil.org
Pressurepoint
Pressurepoint organised an international day of action against Esso on the 11th of June.

Pressurepoint

PO Box 95113

Seattle

WA 98145

USA

Web: www.pressurepoint.org/
Email: info@pressurepoint.org

Project Underground
www.moles.org
Monitors mining and oil companies. All issues of Drillbits & Tailings referred to above can be found on their site.

U.S. Public Interest Research Group
The Dirty Four: The Case Against Letting BP Amoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Phillips Petroleum Drill in the Arctic Refuge, By: Athan Manuel,

Published in March 2001

U.S. Public Interest Research Group

U.S. PIRG

218 D St., S.E.

Washington, DC 20003

Phone 202/546-9707

Fax/546-2461

Web: www.pirg.org
E-mail: pirg@pirg.org


Research like this takes time and money. By supporting us with a monthly donation, you will help us keep doing it. Click here to make a regular contribution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *