Thanks. We’re not finance, but environmental folks, and we learn a lot from great finance Substacks like yours, Doom and others. So we’re grateful for the compliment!
Am curious about your thoughts on professional societies "policing" their members for the kind of crap that Mann is spewing right now. Back in the day, I was party to a project that had a very ugly ending; a PE filed a formal complaint with the state Board of Registration. Of course, it went nowhere, but I felt at the time that the complainant did the right thing. Board said it wasn't their function to police. Bullshit; what good does having a board do if they don't? I feel the same way about professional societies such as National Academy of Science, AIPG, ANS, etc.
It's an interesting question. We recently witnessed a pissed off client responsible for failing to follow the advice of a reputable, capable environmental engineer having to do with a process waste pond. The engineer's client took the cheapest option against the advice of the P.E., and when the result wasn't ideal - along with client's own bandaid solutions that only exacerbated the situation - brought a complaint to the state Board.
In this case, the state Board looked at all the evidence and took no action against the P.E. (user error, disregarded advice of the professional).
Thanks. I agree with your remarks, but somewhere, somehow, sometime, someone must bring a dose of civility and sanity to the table. They have their faults, but I think the professional societies are a reasonable place to begin.
Outstanding post, sir! Thank you. Let us ALL hope Exxon presses forward with its suit, and also pushes for due process to avoid the 12-year fiasco that was Mann v. Steyn. And we ALL know how that suit played out.
Please keep this subject line open, and post updates as they become available.
Thanks. We’re tracking it via the online North TX District Court filing system and will update readers via Notes with new developments and of course Judge Pittman’s ruling.
It seems bizarre to me that such a tiny percentage of stock ownership can potentially force huge changes in such a massive corporation. And those changes can potentially destroy the corporation’s entire business model.
Correct. Two thoughts occurred to us as we investigate and wrote this story:
1) SEC should probably increase its threshold for “shareholder proposals”.
2) SEC needs a red face test rule: if a high school student with a 3.5 GPA could reasonably assess that a proposal was clearly not in the interest of shareholders (or in this case, clearly the opposite), the company should be able to ignore it.
All these Oil & Gas companies have to do is say, "Ok then, we are going to announce a major & massive move to go ALL NUCLEAR energy, we are going to manufacture Small Modular Reactors by the tens of thousands".
Any bets on the hemming & hawing that will immediately result? "Well, that's getting just too extreme, we really don't think it's that urgent, maybe we asked for too much, let's just renegotiate, a more gentle plan, something more modest would be OK with us, maybe just build a few solar & wind farms. That'll be good enough"
That would be neat. But with shareholder concerns over Return on Capital Employed since ~2018 and the nuclear business carrying even greater political risk than they’re already dealing with, we’d be surprised to see it.
Mental, you chaps continue to out do yourselves. Brilliant article and an exciting turn of events. I’m happy that XOM will be turning the screws on these shareholder activists. These are not good-faith actors who have their own skin in the game, but rather the donations of their members (while probably enjoying a handsome salary). Every once in a while it is good to use the enemy’s strategies against them (which is why everyone should read Saul Alinsky). The environmental fanatics will only stop when it becomes too uncomfortable (or financially impossible) to operate. Bravo fellas!
“Not good faith actors” is the point to the SEC. Needs to change. Or don’t be surprised or pissed when someone does the same to wind/solar companies (or even to BP).
Do not apologize for the length. Every sentence was a high-value contribution to the entire piece. Your observation about employing the same tactic to the same the solar / wind companies is an incredibly insightful observation. I'll be curious to see how the playing field evolves. Enjoy the balance of your weekend. Cheers!
Great article, and an example of what happens when the petulant and the clueless, like Natasha Lamb get ahold of daddy's money: they can be really annoying!
The problem for them is that Exxon is chock full highly educated scientists and engineers and attorneys who have a good grip on the basic Law's of Physics and The Law......and deep pockets.
great work on this. and great to see XOM fighting back on behalf of all sane people.
Thanks. We’re not finance, but environmental folks, and we learn a lot from great finance Substacks like yours, Doom and others. So we’re grateful for the compliment!
Thank you. And great to know there is some diversity in the enviornmental space on topics like this one.
Thank you for your efforts on our behalf!
Am curious about your thoughts on professional societies "policing" their members for the kind of crap that Mann is spewing right now. Back in the day, I was party to a project that had a very ugly ending; a PE filed a formal complaint with the state Board of Registration. Of course, it went nowhere, but I felt at the time that the complainant did the right thing. Board said it wasn't their function to police. Bullshit; what good does having a board do if they don't? I feel the same way about professional societies such as National Academy of Science, AIPG, ANS, etc.
It's an interesting question. We recently witnessed a pissed off client responsible for failing to follow the advice of a reputable, capable environmental engineer having to do with a process waste pond. The engineer's client took the cheapest option against the advice of the P.E., and when the result wasn't ideal - along with client's own bandaid solutions that only exacerbated the situation - brought a complaint to the state Board.
In this case, the state Board looked at all the evidence and took no action against the P.E. (user error, disregarded advice of the professional).
With that as background, the advocacy of some of these academies and societies can be pretty suspect. We had a good laugh when Anthony Watts applied his dog Kenji for membership in the Union of Concerned Scientists back in 2011. > https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-of-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
(we're still wondering what Kenji thought of the UCS mouse pad he received with his membership).
So, the idea of these associations or boards policing themselves is rather a "yawn" for us.
Thanks. I agree with your remarks, but somewhere, somehow, sometime, someone must bring a dose of civility and sanity to the table. They have their faults, but I think the professional societies are a reasonable place to begin.
Agree. Just not holding our breath till we turn green in the face.
(Oh...wait. We are green in the face already... :)
Outstanding post, sir! Thank you. Let us ALL hope Exxon presses forward with its suit, and also pushes for due process to avoid the 12-year fiasco that was Mann v. Steyn. And we ALL know how that suit played out.
Please keep this subject line open, and post updates as they become available.
Thanks. We’re tracking it via the online North TX District Court filing system and will update readers via Notes with new developments and of course Judge Pittman’s ruling.
It seems bizarre to me that such a tiny percentage of stock ownership can potentially force huge changes in such a massive corporation. And those changes can potentially destroy the corporation’s entire business model.
Correct. Two thoughts occurred to us as we investigate and wrote this story:
1) SEC should probably increase its threshold for “shareholder proposals”.
2) SEC needs a red face test rule: if a high school student with a 3.5 GPA could reasonably assess that a proposal was clearly not in the interest of shareholders (or in this case, clearly the opposite), the company should be able to ignore it.
Excellent. Thank you. Ironic if all their millions in funding winds up in Exxon’s pocket
Thanks. We’ll just be pleased if the Court sets a reasonable precedent under the “ordinary business rule” (14a-8 (i) (7) )
Another engaging and informative article, folks, well done!
It is indeed good to see Exxon fighting back like this, let's hope it spurs others to grow a spine and follow suit.
Keep 'em coming!!!!
Thanks. Sorry for length on this one…
No need to apologize! You had a lot of ground to cover, and did so quite succinctly with just the right amount of educational explanation inserted.
Again, keep 'em coming!
Excellent recap, thank you. Environmental for the win
Thanks. Little train that could…
All these Oil & Gas companies have to do is say, "Ok then, we are going to announce a major & massive move to go ALL NUCLEAR energy, we are going to manufacture Small Modular Reactors by the tens of thousands".
Any bets on the hemming & hawing that will immediately result? "Well, that's getting just too extreme, we really don't think it's that urgent, maybe we asked for too much, let's just renegotiate, a more gentle plan, something more modest would be OK with us, maybe just build a few solar & wind farms. That'll be good enough"
That would be neat. But with shareholder concerns over Return on Capital Employed since ~2018 and the nuclear business carrying even greater political risk than they’re already dealing with, we’d be surprised to see it.
Mental, you chaps continue to out do yourselves. Brilliant article and an exciting turn of events. I’m happy that XOM will be turning the screws on these shareholder activists. These are not good-faith actors who have their own skin in the game, but rather the donations of their members (while probably enjoying a handsome salary). Every once in a while it is good to use the enemy’s strategies against them (which is why everyone should read Saul Alinsky). The environmental fanatics will only stop when it becomes too uncomfortable (or financially impossible) to operate. Bravo fellas!
Thanks and sorry for the length on this one.
“Not good faith actors” is the point to the SEC. Needs to change. Or don’t be surprised or pissed when someone does the same to wind/solar companies (or even to BP).
Do not apologize for the length. Every sentence was a high-value contribution to the entire piece. Your observation about employing the same tactic to the same the solar / wind companies is an incredibly insightful observation. I'll be curious to see how the playing field evolves. Enjoy the balance of your weekend. Cheers!
Great work, lots to chew on here.
Careful. Don't choke.
Excellent article! Love the last comment. It was a long post but worth the time spent. Keep up the great work!
Thanks!
Excellent article. Thanks. I see some unraveling of the environmental activist actions if not agenda and find it heartwarming.
This situation. EU farmers. BP's investment shift. Germany subsidizing 10 new gas plants.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Great article, and an example of what happens when the petulant and the clueless, like Natasha Lamb get ahold of daddy's money: they can be really annoying!
The problem for them is that Exxon is chock full highly educated scientists and engineers and attorneys who have a good grip on the basic Law's of Physics and The Law......and deep pockets.
Thanks.
It'll be interesting to see how the court rules and what happens afterward.