|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:28 PM JTS&CC: If you guys had a kid and taught it to post I'd claim a trifecta. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:41 PM robomatic. The things that you are writing are so biased and distorted they don't bear response. Your first words to me in years were to call me a liar, to call me lazy and to imply that my wife and I are lying about out marriage. I was going to let this go. But now that you are accusing me of ad hominem attack, I see that you are simply and childishly trolling. You say among other things that Exxom Mobil needs to have current gas prices of $4.00 per gallon and to make 12 billion per quarter to pay for a settlement which they have delayed for 20 years and which the Bush/Cheney supreme court substantially diminished for them. On the other hand you are saying that you believe that they pay 44% effective income tax in a country where the rate is only 35%. If that were the case then paying out a billion would only cost them about 600 million. So it ain't so bad. You are saying it is somehow good for us to feel Europe's pain and that we should pay more for gas to do that. But Europe's pain, in large part used to be caused by high taxes on fuel which was used to pay for the infrastructure and damaged caused by auto traffic. In the US we subsidized that with other taxes. You are implying that it is better to give billions to Saudi Princes and Exxon shareholders than to collect it as taxes. Taxes would have shifted economic investment. But we'd have kept the money. Looking at the fucking statistics would give us the warning. And the economy wouldn't be in the tank. My God! you are saying that we need to spend trillions on foreign oil to get a warning!! If people like you had just shut up a few years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. But then you wouldn't have had the chance to try to beggar the country to line your selfish pockets. Goodbye to you Mr Oil man. Good bye! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 04:51 PM Mr. Ad hominem, you are an interesting combination of indolence and hyperactivity. First you don't pay attention to most of the actually informative posts on this thread and simply question the information of anyone who dares to disagree with your expostulations. Then you suddenly take wind that someone is actually saying something and you attack attack attack and quickly conflate an entire bunch of posts with one or another poster, bunging them into one horrid mess of argu/confrontation which would make Rush Limbaugh proud. I didn't accuse you of lying. I implied that you are BS-ing. I actally don't know if you are aware of the truth enough to form a lie in this forum. You can YET refer to any particular post and examine it in a logical and rational manner and respond, using facts and reason in order to formulate a viable response that would contribute to the thread and stimulate something more or less positive. The door is still open. This doesn't have to be goodbye. Regards to the Mrs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM >>This doesn't have to be goodbye. It doesn't have to be, but common sense tells me it probably will. You are trolling and have no desire to converse. You are picking the fight. You are lying about me in an attempt to get me to respond. I've responded and your BS gets more outrageous. The rules of this forum are such that those that respond to trolls get punished at least as much as the troll. If you address me again in an uncivil manner. I will ask that the post be deleted. On the other hand maybe this can be handled by the usual Mudcat rules. Mudelves. Please watch what he is saying for ad hominem attacks and delete the posts. I really don't think this with worth bothering Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:08 PM I TOLD you it didn't have to be goodbye. Now go back and read my earlier post and respond with some coherence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:16 PM That was better. Its a pity that you do not see that my reply made a lot more sense than your post. Do you really think that high gas prices are a good thing? Is there, in your opinion, no way to learn conservation other than shipping trillions of dollars to people who wish us ill? Do you really think that Exxon would not have been able to pay for the damages it caused without $4.00 per barrel oil? As points these things are too silly to deserve a reply. I only do so out of politeness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM Eb's Summary of taxes is essentially correct; minor mistake in addition for 2007. 2007 Audit Report, from PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Feb. 28, 2008 (summarized in the Exxon-Mobil Annual Report, p. 38). Sales-based taxes- 31728 (millions) Other taxes and duties- 40953 (Eb figure 40393) These taxes are included in "Costs and Other Deductions" Total Taxes- 102546 (Eb gave 105683; I cheated and used a calculator) ------------------------- Total revenue and Income- 404552 Total costs and Deductions- 334078 Income before taxes- 70474 Income Tax- 29864 Net Income - 40610 millions- roughly 10%, many companies do better! A glance at the 2006, 2005 Reports shows Eb figures for those years are also correct. ------------------------ Exxon Mobil share of costs for exploration, drilling, development and infrastructure (the largest platform) for Hibernia were something like $2.5 billion. This has to be accounted for before any profit is determined. I was one of several groups that first looked at exploration samples from the Hibernia area in the 1960s; a share of the laboratory, engineering development, seismic, transportation, personnel, and other wildcat exploration costs also should be added to costs, but these early in-house and field activities are not a part of the figures. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM Q Yes the 2.5 billion has to be paid back. I don't remember the exact figures of estimated size of the field less recovery cost less expenses but I do remember reading that the break even would be 12 dollars per barrel at the time oil was below 10 dollars so we were concerned that the project would not be completed. We were wrong. Lets say that the break even, with inflation and unforeseen costs was twenty or even thirty dollars. Its still quite a windfall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:34 PM JTS: Your first words to me in years were to call me a liar, to call me lazy and to imply that my wife and I are lying about out marriage. I was going to let this go. But now that you are accusing me of ad hominem attack, I see that you are simply and childishly trolling. Actually I implied that your numbers were BS, which is different from calling you a liar. It is implying that you are not aware of the truth to lie. I don't know you or your marriage situation, I know that you are a couple. If she's your wife but not your girlfriend, that's YOUR problem. As for ad hominem, that was your first tactic before I was in this forum. You did no research on your own, merely challenging someone anyone who didn't see it your way. JTS: You say among other things that Exxom Mobil needs to have current gas prices of $4.00 per gallon and to make 12 billion per quarter to pay for a settlement which they have delayed for 20 years and which the Bush/Cheney supreme court substantially diminished for them. On the other hand you are saying that you believe that they pay 44% effective income tax in a country where the rate is only 35%. If that were the case then paying out a billion would only cost them about 600 million. So it ain't so bad. I made a list of consequences of the high cost of gas at the pump. The fact that Exxon Mobil has the cash to pay off its reduced settlement is in fact irrelevant to the current price of crude. Exxon Mobil bided its time and indeed took the appeals all the wasy to the supreme court and got the punitive damages reduced. You imply that I think this is a good thing, which is actually rather insulting to an Alaskan. As to the numbers you are quoting, I've got no idea, you are confusing my post with someone else's. That is either insulting or just careless, so I'll let it ride. JTS: You are saying it is somehow good for us to feel Europe's pain and that we should pay more for gas to do that. But Europe's pain, in large part used to be caused by high taxes on fuel which was used to pay for the infrastructure and damaged caused by auto traffic. In the US we subsidized that with other taxes. You are implying that it is better to give billions to Saudi Princes and Exxon shareholders than to collect it as taxes. I didn't actually say that. You are playing a dual tactic of trying to recite to me back my arguments only distorted so as to not really mean what I said. You are also cherry-picking my comments leaving out some very critical implications on the oil business not keeping up its own infrastructure and leading to the deaths of workers. JTS: Taxes would have shifted economic investment. But we'd have kept the money. This might be similar to an observation that Thomas Friedman made in the New York Times some time ago, and more than once. I've argued it many times in many venues, possibly here as well: If we'd had more perceptive leadership we'd have instituted a 'war tax' on every gallon of gasoline sold in the United States, thus encouraging economizing on fuel, and reducing the horrible war debt we are now under. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if this is your argument, it is compelling. JTS: Looking at the f_cking statistics would give us the warning. And the economy wouldn't be in the tank. Ditto. See Above. JTS: My God! you are saying that we need to spend trillions on foreign oil to get a warning!! No. I am not saying this. See Above. JTS: If people like you had just shut up a few years ago we wouldn't be in this mess. But then you wouldn't have had the chance to try to beggar the country to line your selfish pockets. Uh, personal unfounded attack. Ad hominem, yadda yadda this is not a new tactic for you and yours. JTS: Goodbye to you Mr Oil man. Good bye! See Above. It's scattershot thought and posts like this which in more public forums got Bush elected and may yet get McCain in the driver's seat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM Q I also do not the "44% effective income tax" in the figures you provide. Trust me when I say that "Effective Income tax" is not a generally accepted accounting principle for tax purposes and also I ask you to trust me when I say that there is no way on Earth that Exxon is paying more than the 35% that it is required to by US law. If those figures are saying that they are paying more than 35% then either there is something left out of those figures or those figures are fudged. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM Robomatic, You are not making any sense to me. It seems to me that you are arguing for its own sake. You defend EBs figures I rebut that you say the figures are not your own. As I said before, your assertions are too silly to warrant a serious reply. My only reply is this. It is self serving nonsense for an oil person to say that high oil prices are getting those things done. The high prices serve the Oil companies and a few foreign countries which are enemies and a few which are friends. (I count the whole middle east as enemies we were in bed with tyrants for cheap oil now we don't even get that.) All those things all could have been accomplished without high oil prices and in ways which would have done less damage to the US economy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:02 PM http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.t18Pq.htm#f82k Look under taxes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:08 PM On my calculator, the tax is 42.38 percent. This is attested by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their report. I don't know where you get your 35%- this may be true for individuals or prairie dogs but it is wrong with regard to corporations. Paying tax in another country, I don't know the current top for individuals, it has been a long time since I filled out U. S. tax forms. ------------------------------ Hibernia- That $12 figure from 25 or more years ago is meaningless. What is the current NFLD take, current cost of production, transportation, refining, etc.,on Exxon Mobil's 33% share. Not much point in making further posts here if questioners do no homework. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:09 PM You said "effective income tax rate". They said "Effective tax rate" obviously they were not paying more than 35% INCOME TAX |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:25 PM Q You aren't doing homework, you are cherry picking stats to support your BS. You, an oil man are arguing with the premise of the thread. That Exxon made record profits, by trying to change the definition of record profits. Percent of this and percent of that aside. 12 billion is twelve billion. You don't try to directly argue that higher crude oil prices mean higher profits for Exxon. But you wouldn't argue that, because it is impossible. The number of gallons of gas they are selling is stable or decreasing. Refining and other costs are rising. Where else could the profits be coming from? I know I could have said this early in the thread but it was more fun poking small holes in your un-win-able argument and watching you run around trying to plug the holes. I know what the federal corporate tax rate is from reading John McCain's tax plan. I don't believe him on everything but I'm taking him at his word on that, especially since Obama's campaign uses the same figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:39 PM The PriceWaterhouseCoopers Audit says "INCOME TAXES," PERIOD. It was 42.38% for 2007. THINK Penalty on deferred tax? Interest on delayed taxes? Effect of foreign income? &c |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:48 PM OK Price Waterhouse says that they paid 44% in income taxes. So what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:49 PM The records I find show that Exxon-Mobil payed $105 billion in taxes in 2007, but only made a net profit of $40 billion. Not exactly getting a "free ride", are they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM SCALE! Cut their profit which is 10% approx? Many companies do better. Large companies make big bucks but they do no better than the average baby $100 million company when investments are compared to profit. Penalize them just for being big? That old saying- You were behind the door when brains were passed out, I think, applies to you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 06:58 PM 12 billion in a quarter is 12 billion in a quarter. Its a record. Its obscene and its on the back of everyone else in this country. PDQ, the people a the pump paid the sales taxes and duties. They are simply a function of that much gas and oil being sold. They collected and remitted those taxes. They did not pay them from their own pockets. Income tax is the only tax based on what they earned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:13 PM There is a difference between total profits numbers and profit percentages. Exxon was 21st on the list. Exxon and most big corporations are owned mostly by stockholders. A lot of retirement funds hold shares. If you have a 401k or a retirement plan, chances are that you own Exxon shares. Is there something wrong with people making a 10% profit? What would gasoline cost if there were on Exxon? What does gas cost in Europe? May. 28, 2008"As American drivers groan over prices nearing $4 a gallon, the French are paying $8.67 for a gallon of super, compared to $7.10 in January, 2007. A gallon of diesel in French gas stations averages $8.54, up from $5.35 just a year ago. And in the U.K. diesel costs $11.50 per gallon, compared to around $3.90 in the U.S. Across the European Union, the average cost of a gallon of gas runs to about $8.70 — more than twice what Americans are shelling out to fill up. And Europe's dizzying fuel costs would be even worse if it weren't for the considerable appreciation of the euro and the British pound against the dollar over the past year, which has partially offset the price escalation in dollar-traded oil." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 02 Aug 08 - 07:23 PM Sawzaw The reason that 10% becomes 44 billion dollars is because we are paying 4 times as much for gas as we were 10 years ago. A big part of the reason we are paying 4 times as much is that Cheney met in secret with the Oil companies and gave them what they wanted. I agree with Robomatic that its time we conserved. Its time we paid a more realistic price for gas. But the way it has happen was the wrong way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM Would the price of gas be lower if there were no Exxon? The other oil companies make a higher profit. Therefore I conclude the price would be higher. Because of Exxon, money from other countries is flowing into the US. Without Exxon their profits would not be coming to the US, they would be going overseas along with the jobs and the taxes paid on those profits. Eventually most of it gets spent here. It benefits retirees and employees of Exxon and it's suppliers and subcontractors. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 01:23 PM If it were Exxon and Mobil instead of Exxon Mobil, its likely that the price would be slightly lower. That's if you believe in the free market and competition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:23 PM The merger was approved by the FTC and the European Commission in 1999 before "Oil Men" took control of the government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:35 PM When "Worthless Willy" Clinton took office (with his whopping 43.1 % mandate) we had 9 (nine) healthy major oil companies in the US. Thanks to his era of "merger mania", when The Big C left office we had only 4 or 5, and our precious Alaska reserves were in the hands of British Petroleum. So much for electing Democrats to rein-in the excesses of the business world. BTW, the oil companies were quite generous with Clinton campaign contributions, just like he asked them to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:37 PM They ain't doin' so badly under Bush, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:38 PM Q...Exxon's figures have to be questioned but what doesn't have to be questioned is Lee Raymond's take home pay. Land holdings for oil leases are not mentioned in the budget report as well. If they hold on to those leases, they control the market price for gas. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM They and the Saudis. Pretty much everyone who has any say in oil prices is a crony of Bush. The question is whether his is unable to put pressure on them, or simply unwilling. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 03:46 PM Some of the CEOs of major US companies are paid too much. Way too much, in some cases. But, so are most baseball, basketball and football players. I doubt that anyone in Major League Baseball gets less than a million per, some get close to $30 million. Then there is Oprah Winfrey who made $270 million last year alone! Break up Oprah. I think she is a monopoly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM Oprah OWNS the company. Her compensation is not nearly that high. I wouldn't try dispute that some exec earn tens of millions of dollars to a business, but when they make hundreds of millions, as employees, its a case of foxes running the henhouses. by the way no one has ever been paid 30 million a year to play baseball. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM "...Major League Baseball gets less than a million per, some get close to $30 million." ~me Note the word "close". $28 million is certainly "close" to $30 million: The Associated PressPublished: April 1, 2008 NEW YORK: Alex Rodriguez will make more this year than his hometown Florida Marlins. Boosted by his new deal with the New York Yankees, Rodriguez tops Major League Baseball's list with an annual salary of $28 million (€17.88 million), according to a study of contract terms by The Associated Press. The 33 players on the Marlins' opening-day roster and disabled list total $21.8 million (€13.9 million). {shortened} Bonds has made about the same amount, but people like Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan have made in excess of $100 million per due to endorsements, autograph singing, and other assorted capitalist concepts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM If I am not mistaken, top actors get around $20M per movie and top ball players get about $20M per year. These number are from Forbes.com Top earners: John Paulson #1 Paulson & Co. Earnings: $3.3B George Soros #2 Soros Fund Management $2.4B Philip Falcone #3 Harbinger Capital Partners $1.7B Kenneth Griffin #4 Firm: Citadel Investment Group $1.5B James Simons #5 Firm: Renaissance Technologies $1.3B T. Boone Pickens #6 BP Capital $1.2B Steven Cohen #7 SAC Capital $1B David Shaw # 8 D.E. Shaw $770M John Arnold #9 Centaurus Energy $700M Raymond Dalio #10 Bridgewater Associates $580M Daniel Och #11 Och-Ziff Capital Management Group $570M Timothy Barakett #12 Atticus Capital $540M David Tepper #13 Appaloosa Management $520M Christopher Hohn #14 Children's Investment Fund Management $400M Alan Howard #15 Brevan Howard Asset Management $400M Stephen Schwarzman #16 Blackstone Group $400M John Burbank #17 Passport Capital $370M Henry Kravis #18 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. $370M George Roberts #19 Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. $370M Richard Perry #20 Perry Captial $350M Lee Raymond salary at retirement, about $51M. Retirement package $400M. All his years of salary plus retirement package is less than half of what the beneficent Mr. George Soros makes in one year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM Fair enough about ARod, Pdq, but my point still stands. I certainly don't begrudge Tiger or even ARod their endorsement money. Soros and Buffett can pay themselves what they want. Its their money to start with. CEOs are generally not spending their own money when they pay themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM Alaskan Oil leases are open to all bidders. Chukchi Sea leases offered were sold Feb. 7, 2008. Royal Dutch Shell, bidding as Shelf Gulf of Mexico, was high bidder on 275 tracts, $2.1 billion. One tract, $105 million, worked out at over $18,000/acre. Conoco Phillips bid in 98 tracts for $506 million. ---------------- Exxon's Point Thompson area leases have as partners BP, Chevron, and Conoco Phillips. Alaska has expressed displeasure at the slow rate of development and threatened to take back the leases- it is rumored that Royal Dutch Shell is interested. ---------------------- The U. S. Interior Dept. has tried to open bidding on parts of the Reserve region, but so far has been blocked. -------------------------------- BP- Sole owners of the Liberty field, which is on federal leases about six miles offshore and east of Prudhoe Bay oilfield. Discovery well drilled in 1997. The holes will be the longest known, up to 8 miles long and as much as 2 miles deep. Operations are very expensive, oil prices must be high to justify the work. Field development will cost $1.5 billion, and estimated recoverable is 100 million barrels. www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=4705&contentId=7046246 ----------------------------------- Exxon Mobil and partners plan to start active work on the Point Thompson area this winter. The long delay is mostly due to doubtful economics and infrastructure difficulties. ---------------------------- NOTE- Lease holdings and offerings are reported publicly in several journals, such as Oil and Gas Journal. Data are too detailed for Annual Reports, in which they are briefly summarized, but are available to all shareholders. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 08 - 05:41 PM BP second quarter profit 9,465 millions; profit/share 18.56 pence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM No JtS, that is approximately what Forbes Magazine lists as incomefor 2007. Other sites said it was a bit higher, in the $271-273 region. I will back-off the the official Forbes figure. Here is copy'n'paste of a list of TV celebrities. Let's be fair and not be indignant about businessmen only. "That's a pretty good take for one year - it makes her the number one paid TV professional by a long shot. She beats Seinfeld by $200 million and Jack Bauer by $230 million. Syndicated daytime TV is really where the money is in the TV business. Here's the full top 20 From Forbes Magazine: 1. Oprah Winfrey, $260 million 2. Jerry Seinfeld, $60 million 3. Simon Cowell, $45 million 4. David Letterman, $40 million 6. Jay Leno, $32 million 7. Dr. Phil McGraw, $30 million 8. "Judge" Judy Sheindlin, $30 million 9. George Lopez, $26 million 10. Kiefer Sutherland, $22 million 11. Regis Philbin, $21 million 12. Tyra Banks, $18 million 13. Rachael Ray, $16 million, 14. Katie Couric, $15 million 15. Ellen DeGeneres, $15 million 16. Ryan Seacrest, $14 million 17. Matt Lauer, $13 million 18, Barbara Walters, $12 million 19. Diane Sawyer, $12 million 20. Meredith Vieira, $10 million " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 06:48 PM And to my point about oil company merger-mania and the Clinton era, here is a statement from the Federal Trade Comission: "BP Amoco and ARCO are the two most important competitors in bidding for exploration leases for oil and gas on the Alaska North Slope. They own or control all exploration, development, and production assets and won over 60% of all State of Alaska lease auctions over the last decade. During that same period the top four firms won 75%. In the most recent North Slope lease sale, BP Amoco and ARCO collectively won more than 70% of the tracts bid. After the merger, no single firm, or combination of firms, will be both large enough and sufficiently well informed with respect to the value of individual tracts, to replace the loss of revenues to the State of Alaska and the Federal Government, from bidding revenues. Moreover, the reduced competition in the bidding for oil and gas leaseholds will eventually result in less exploration and development, and less production of ANS crude oil. New entry will not be timely, likely or sufficient to undermine the anticompetitive effects of the merger. Firms that lack the information, infrastructure, and interest in North Slope bidding will simply be unable to fill the void created by the loss of ARCO as an independent bidder for exploration and development acreage." An activist president could have attempted to block this anti-comptition merger of BP and Atlantic-Richfield.. Clinton did nothing but count the campaign money he was given. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:01 PM And what do they pay out when they destroy the enviorment, OUR enviorment? As I said above Exxon still refuses to pay their fine & it's what nearly 15 yrs? Some still use older tanker for shipping & won't go double walled until they exhust the old fleet. Most run their ships with skelaton crews in defience of union pleas & saftey factors. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:26 PM pdq Are you saying that because Clinton did not block it it was right? That is a very curious position coming from you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:47 PM pdq, Income isn't salary. Oprah owns the production company, a magazine, gets endorsement money and owns a big piece of other people's shows, including Dr. Phil's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 07:58 PM JtS, My personal opinion: we were much better off with the competition between 9 major oil companies. Now that we have only 4 (or is it 5?) the public loses. I voted Democrat for 32 years. Pro-environment and pro-abortion rights, mostly, but I expected the Dems to keep business excesses in check. Clinton stunk so bad I may never vote for another Democrat. Clear enough? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 08 - 08:19 PM pdq, I believe that the FTC actions you refer to date back to 2000, when there was an agreement, and the FTC cleared the merger of BP Amoco and Atlantic Richfield. I don't know the final outcome, but "PB Amoco would be required to divest all of ARCO's assets relating to oil production on Alaska's North Slope to Phillips ... or another commission-approved purchaser." The action was brought under the Clayton Act, dealing with competition, and had nothing to do with the ownership of BP. Federal Trade Commission announcement, Apr. 13, 2000- www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/04/bpamoco1.shtm As I have stated, leases go to the highest bidder. I don't quite understand your comment about being 'sufficiently well-informed,' or the one about 'loss of revenue on bidding' to Alaska. All information a company has, on its sale or merger, goes to the buyer, no data are lost. Frequently data are traded or sold to a competitor, so that both may proceed in an informed way on adjoining properties. Since the lease tract bids were accepted by Alaska, I can't see how the state is losing revenue when merger occurs- this just turns the tract over to another entity, who picks up the terms of the lease agreement. BP did turn back to the State some leases around its Liberty play after they determined that economic possibilities were unlikely. Moreover, the mergers were driven by the increasing need of capital for operation, as globalization was seen to be inevitable, and were approved by the stockholders. When oil companies grew to the point that they were integrated production, refining and manufacturing entities, they no longer could remain regional but had to become national; eventually they became international with global operations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Aug 08 - 08:29 PM Fair enough pdq. But who is more likely to set things right McCain or Obama? Eight years ago, I would have thought McCain, but now he is a main stream, pro big business Republican. Its hard to imagine a worse job than Bush has done. We certainly need an administration and justice department that will enforce antitrust. We needs tighter regulations and need to be willing to enforce them. The credit mess is proof of that. Honestly that is one of my biggest issues. We need to stop electing people who hate government. If we want to shrink government, we need to be responsible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 08 - 08:31 PM On the North Slope and Cook Inlet, Chevron is the major lease holder, with 767,000 acres of oil and gas leases. Some additional tracts were bid in at the Oct. 2007 sale. www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/386107278 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 08:39 PM I have not seen convincing evidence that BP actually did divest the ARCO leases as was suggested. I don't like BP or any other foreign-owned company pumping oil from United States lands. I also liked the concept of 9 or 10 companies bidding for the leases, all US-owned. That is how I feel. {Your milage may vary.} |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM 'BP or any other foreign-owned company...' Then would you suggest that foreign countries in return refuse U. S. investment? Insularity is a sure way of decreasing employment and quality of living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Date: 04 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM I said "...foreign-owned company pumping oil from United States lands..." I don't see the word "investment" in there anywhere. Trying to be obtuse, are you? You imply that you would like to see thousands of Chinese oil workers developing the fields in Alberta, taking away your country's assets and sending the profit back to China? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 05 Aug 08 - 12:34 AM "Soros and Buffett can pay themselves what they want. Its their money to start with. CEOs are generally not spending their own money when they pay themselves." Soros Fund Management LLC, founded by George Soros, is a privately held corporation providing financial services and investment strategies for various funds including some controversial hedge funds such as the Quantum Group of Funds. The company's investment strategies have been based on analysis of real or perceived macroeconomic trends in various countries. Soros' companies have been accused of applying pressure on currencies to directly benefit their speculative strategies. Soros responds to these charges by saying that his funds merely take advantage of known weaknesses in the international financial system. In the week leading up to September 16, 1992 (the "Black Wednesday"), Quantum Funds made $1.8 billion by shorting British pounds and buying German marks. This feat earned Soros the title of "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England". Where did the $18B mentioned above come from? Was $190 billion in goods and services produced and sold at a 10% profit? Or did ut come out of the pockets of the citizens of the UK? But it was Soros's money and he can do what he wants with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Aug 08 - 01:02 AM Sawzaw, I have been making the point that business should be regulated. Thank you for making my point. It is apparently legal for Soros to gamble his money that way. It is his money, he gambled it the payoff is his. It is not the same as a CEO assigning himself nine figure pay. Certainly it would be hypocritical for a so called free market Republican to criticize Soros for making money on the free market. But that doesn't stop Limbaugh or Fox "News". Does it? |
