BNET Insight

The Corner Office

Taking on the big questions facing CEOs, boards, and shareholders.

Rockefeller vs. ExxonMobile: the New "Dallas"

May 27th, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

5 Comments

Categories: Best Practices, Board Management, Compensation, Corporate Governance, Economy, Environment, Finance, General, Management, Regulation, Shareholder Activism, Strategy, Tips and Tools

Tags: Shareholder, Dallas, Greenhouse Gas, Rockefeller Family, Financial Accounting, Finance, Peter Galuszka

Remember “Dallas” the 1970s TV show where the oil-rich heirs launch intrigues and turn on each other? Stayed tuned tomorrow (May 28) because the next episode will be a doozy.

Tomorrow, what’s turned out to be a highly active proxy season comes to a head in Dallas. There, the management of ExxonMobil, the nation’s most profitable and successful petroleum company will face off against a slew of shareholder activists including 15 members of the family of John D. Rockefeller, the symbol of American capitalism and founder of the oil giant.

The Rockefellers have offered a resolution asking that the role of chairman and CEO be split apart so the company can start looking being greenhouse gas-emitting hydrocarbons as its products. In a separate resolution, filed along with the Sisters of St. Dominic, the Rockefeller heirs want the $358 billion company with $40 billion in profits last year to start reporting on how it will cut greenhouse gas emissions. About 19 big institutional investors, including retirement systems in California and New York, back the resolutions.

Countering them, another large group of shareholders, the National Fraternal Order of Police, has filed its own resolution urging the company the old the line against “social” goals” that would “undercut every project and business operation” and hurt profitability at the world’s best performing energy company.

Holy conundrum! All of these are worthy goals. Should ExxonMobil turn its back on the product that made it rich and undertake a massive realignment to cut carbon dioxide emissions? In a time of record high oil prices and dangerous production and supply shortages, wouldn’t it be better to serve society and its shareholders if it found more oilfields and built more refineries, pipelines and storage tanks? CEO, Rex Tillerson, will be earning some of his $21 million in pay when he deals with these issues.

The Rockefeller family is correct that the company has a fiduciary responsibility to peer far in the future for newer, renewable and less polluting products. But we live in today as we will tomorrow. Today, as the policemen point out, there’s a real need for more gasoline immediately to break the upward spiral on prices and give the economy a breather. Conservation and switches to non-polluting sources of energy can’t be done overnight.

There is a bigger phenomenon here than just what ExxonMobil should do. We are seeing a new form of shareholder activism that, like global warming, is just now hitting the mainstream and is starting to be taken seriously. According to CERES, a network of 60 institutional investors that promotes sound environmental-oriented investment and oversees $5 trillion in assets, a record number of shareholder resolutions involving greenhouse gas issues have been presented to corporations this proxy season. That’s up from 47 last year.

Here’s the trend: more acceptance of greenhouse gas issues, more demands on CEOs, directors and corporations, more shareholder activism. CEOs and boards are now listening more intently. Just a few years ago, management would be in denial that global warming exists at all.

So, tomorrow, be sure to tune in to “Dallas.” Let me know who shot J.R. and also if Rex Tillerson survives.

Have a tidbit of executive wisdom you would care to share with fellow BNET readers?

 
Reply to Story

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

  •  
    1

    qtrback

    05/28/08 | Report as spam

    Perhaps I'm wrong....

    However I feel that with 40 Billion (That'sBillion with a B") Exxon/Mobile could find a few bucks to satisfy both these arguments. $40Billion is larger than the economies of many countries around the world.

  •  
    2

    pgaluszka

    05/28/08 | Report as spam

    ExxonMobil

    Yes they have tons of money but any resolution will take years. At least the Rockefeller Family is pointing in that direction.

    Peter Galuszka

  •  
    3

    hongell

    05/29/08 | Report as spam

    Taking the lead

    I agree with the $40B concept already posted. Someone needs to take the lead. Call it innovation if you will. We need petrol now, which is obvious. We shouldn't have to rely on it from other countries in the future though. We need to innovate and lead the pursuit of newer, refined energy and cut national (global) emissions while doing so. Its a common sense issue that business should be proactive in, lead, and grow. Its good business with strategic vision - and having $40B helps a good bit in this regard.

  •  
    4

    ePM360

    05/29/08 | Report as spam

    RE: Rockefeller vs. ExxonMobile: the New

    Both sides are right.

    However, even being in the industry myself, we couple of individuals, have proposed a diversification "project" - in effect presented to majors in houston but with luke warm non-commital "great interest" - drag out - that, all the same, will maintain oil/gas profitabilities, demand/supply and still be able to harnes a tremendous source of energy (revenue for these Oil/Gas Companies) which is "free" from CO2, cools the environment at same time, reduces the fossil fuel requirements for the electricity industry - saving the Oil/Gas for higher value products.

    It is proven technology - we are just making it feasible and economic which others have not been able to.

    It is not wind turbines, or solar panels, or wave powers, or such ... it is in the real domain of these oil gas companies using offshore technologies.

    How can we get a real bang up publicity and support for this? If not then WE can have one unit designed and deployed with $100 MM which will generate 40 MW power from a 30 ft by 30 ft offshore structuure - NPV - it is 6 times cheaper to "build" than a Coal plant of same duty - alternatively it can produce 2-3 MM gallons a day of fresh water from the ocean, instead of the 40MW electricity for the grid.

    We have some interest but it will end up going to France or somewhere ... here we could employ a generation of industrial production while we have some headway in the technology and industrial abilities better than other parts of the world in this area ... for the next 20 years - instead of just becoming a Service based and an Oil and Gas (Companies) only economy.

    To raise $100MM and kept in trust of such companies as Price Water House or such ... 100 MM people giving up a $1.00 - one bag of fries or a few cigarretes or a cup of tea could fund this project without sweating any individual or a company as such!!!

    Now, how do we do this ? it can be deployed in less than 18-24 months, providing equipment being available.

    Next untits would come down in cost due to it becoming cookie cutter designs. $50 MM to $80 MM each.

    20 units of a different size could provide all the electricity for Texas!


    This would mean Double the rate of attack on Global Warming - No CO2, Cooling the environment, ... and to boot, no fossil fuels needed from difficult regions of the world.

    I can supply contact info if there is any palpable interest ...

    Kind regards,

    Ken P

  •  
    5

    pgaluszka

    06/02/08 | Report as spam

    The Rockefellers

    Sister Patricia Daly, an activist who filed one of the ExxonMobil resolutions, told me that if Ford and GM had listened to similar petitions her religious order had filed back in the 1990s regarding the need for fuel efficient cars, the automakers would not be in the stew they are now in..
    She has a point.

    Peter Galuszka

Please add your comment:

  1. You are currently: a Guest |
  2.  

Basic HTML tags that work in comments are: bold (<b></b>), italic (<i></i>), underline (<u></u>), and hyperlink (<a href></a)

advertisement
advertisement
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
  • Click Here
advertisement
Click Here