Huzzah for ExxonMobil’s Ken Cohen, vice president of public and government affairs, for using the excellent “Perspectives” blog to lay out the details and context that rightfully belong with the company’s announcement of $10.7 billion in earnings for the first quarter of 2011.

From “ExxonMobil’s earnings: The real story you won’t hear in Washington“:

ExxonMobil’s earnings are from operations in more than 100 countries around the world. During the first quarter, more than three-quarters of our operating earnings came from outside of the United States.

The part of ExxonMobil’s business that refines and sells gasoline, diesel and other products in the United States represents less than 6 percent – or 6 cents on the dollar – of our earnings.

Why so little? Because we actually buy more crude oil to refine into gasoline and diesel in the U.S. than we produce ourselves. And these purchases are made on the open market at the prevailing rates.

During the first three months of this year, for every gallon of gasoline and other products we refined and sold in the United States, we earned about 7 cents. Compare that to the 40 to 60 cents per gallon that went from gasoline consumers to the government (state and federal) in gasoline taxes.

Rising gas prices do indeed have an impact on consumers, families and businesses, Cohen writes before explaining the primary causes of the increase: (continue reading…)

Here’s a notable ruling that deserves widespread attention (and praise), U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong dismissing a wild federal public nuisance suit from an Alaskan native village, Kivalina, that blamed oil, power and coal companies for causing global warming that produced coastal erosion. The Northern District of California federal judge said the plaintiffs lacked standing and the issues should be left to the political process for resolution.

Here’s the order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case is Native Village of Kivalina et al. v. Exxonmobil Corporation et al.

We applaud a judge who recognizes the limits of the federal judicial system to answer every issue and redistribute wealth according to a political calculation.

More at Point of Law.

UPDATE: The Massachusetts lawyer, Matthew F. Pawa, who represented the Eskimo plaintiffs has background legal documents available at his website.

And, how is this ruling going to affect the production schedule? It was a brief flirtation with stardom.

Below we noted the lawsuit the Kivalina Alaskan native village has brought against oil, coal and power companies, suing them for contributing to global warming that has supposedly eroded the village’s shoreline. Now some filmmakers are out to depict this calamity, using the litigation as the narrative device.

From Public Nuisance Wire, “Film company shoots Kivalina documentary before trial ends“:

TORONTO – A Canadian-based film company has begun filming a documentary aimed at exposing the controversial case of Kivalina v Exxon Mobil.

Filming began last month in the tiny Alaskan village of Kivalina, a 3.9 square-mile town with a population of around 399 people. The village is in the middle of a lawsuit with Exxon Mobil over allegations the big oil company’s excess gas emissions have caused erosion and damages to the town.

In a press release, Phoebe Greenberg, one of the film’s producers, said she was intrigued by the subject matter and that the dramatic consequences of global warming affect not only the small Alaskan community, but the world as well. 

The production company labels Exxon one the world’s “worst polluters,” claiming the oil giant should pay for the consequences of global warming.

Too bad they have their minds made up already. We were hoping for an objective documentary by an objective filmmaker telling both sides of the story objectively. You know, like the anti-Chevron movie, “Crude.”

Ms. Greenberg better not hope for boffo box-office. “Crude” pulled in $4,219 in weekend gross last weekend, Oct. 2-4, That’s right. Four thousand bucks in four theaters, off 72 percent from the previous weekend.

Total domestic sales as of October 4? $81,257. That’s not quite the “huge hit” that Amazon Watch proclaimed. Tendentious documentaries that pretend to be something else just don’t sell.

And say goodbye to Mr. Rule of Law…

The Wall Street Journal editorialists take a considered look at Sen. Obama’s latest energy plan, a $1,000 “stimulus check” paid for by a “windfall profits” tax on oil companies, noting several important points:

• Record high profits by the oil companies are accompanied by record high taxes: “Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us…”
• Exxon’s profit margin was 10 percent in 2007: “If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings.”

The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

Yeah, and next thing you know they’ll be declaring some companies “patriotic” and others not.