# Cheney and the boys?



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

What do you think?

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

By Dana Milbank and Justin BlumWashington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated. In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond.
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said.
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.
"Yes," Pillari said.
Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I distrust the media and politicians so will hold my breath on this one. However my thoughts are that no special interests should be allowed to have official input into policy development. If this is all true it is a disgrace and heads should roll, liberal or conservative. If Cheney did allow this to happen he is a fool. Not just because it isn't right, but because the simple appearance of impropriety should have been evident to the dullest wit. 
If the task force needed input they should have done it in the open. I suppose they thought the liberals would jump on it, but they look more guilty this way. Time I hope will tell us, but the truth from politicians will perhaps arrive about the same time as Santa Clause.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm not sure if I understand where the problem is here. It was a national energy policy task force and I suspect there were environmental groups, nuclear groups, methanol groups and many others. Maybe it was because they thought the left would make hay out of it as suggested but where is the main problem. I would expect representatives of our biggest source of energy to have a input in something like national energy policies. Maybe someone can explain what I'm not seeing.......


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'm a little tired right now, but I keep reading it and things don't add up. If it was a secret meeting how can the environmental groups say "The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present." Doesn't secret mean they didn't know about it?

Something isn't adding up. Is this just more false accusation, or what? If energy companies influenced the national energy policy that leads to profits that is wrong. If they influenced the national energy policy as far as conservation that is ok. I guess I think it all boils down to: did they influence officials for their own benefit, or the benefit of the nation?

There just isn't enough information here for me to make any judgments. I stand by my original post, it is wrong if it is in the context that the story puts it, but I don't necessarily believe everything I read. Especially when there are logical contradictions within the story. I'll get more excited when there is something more substantial.

A little nap puts things in different perspective. Is there really something wrong here, or is this just another attempt at character assassination? I guess in my first post I should have said I hope time will tell, but the truth from politicians, *and our media* will arrive about the same time as Santa Clause.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman Wrote:

If energy companies influenced the national energy policy that leads to profits that is wrong.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that sort of a silly thing to say ... The companies must make a profit or they will not be in business long ... Especially considering the Billions of Dollars the industry has been forced to spend (by environmentalists) changing the ways they do business in an effort to comply with new and ever changing regulations.

If the Energy Policy does not take the entire array of issues into account including things like the industries ability to comply and still survive on the "Ledger Sheet" ... Who is well served?


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I do think that the energy crisis has been brought to the forefront and people are taking a serious look at the system. A gradual increase just makes people go along with business as usual but the big jumps have made everyone pay attentioin. Sad to say but as the prices come down politics will get in the way and we will gravitate back to business as usual.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DecoyDummy said:


> Plainsman Wrote:
> 
> If energy companies influenced the national energy policy that leads to profits that is wrong.
> 
> ...


Yikes, I sounded like a socialist there didn't I? I hope you give me another stab at it.

Profit is the engine of capitalism and ideally should go unchecked. There is a problem. Even though people within a cooperation have a conscience, a corporation does not posses that attribute. Lets look at the pharmaceuticals for example. I am sure if you went to one of the top executives and begged for medicine he may give it to you. If the corporation had 25 unites of medicine and 100 terminally ill people I am sure they would like to gather them all in a room for a bidding process. Therefore our capitalistic society is not perfect because we must implement some controls.

I have no way of knowing if the latest energy price spikes were legitimate or price gouging. The price spikes along with reported record profits are just a little to coincidental for me to swallow the whole story that the energy companies tell. I don't begrude these energy companies a profit, but I would not be happy if they used the disasters as an excuse for price gouging. The only thing that bothers me is the appearance of impropriety on the part of our elected officials and the energy executives. I have no way to judge this yet, and neither does anyone else, but we shall see what the future unfolds.


----------

