Exxon Mobil: 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