|
31 Jul 08 - 02:15 PM (#2402453) Subject: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Bert Must be Obama's fault. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 02:18 PM (#2402455) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Yes Obama is responsible for High oil profits. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 02:29 PM (#2402469) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace Have to agree with you there. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 04:38 PM (#2402557) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: MaineDog Actually, it is the fault of the accounting rules permitted for the oil companies. They are allowed to take profit as a percentage of their "cost of goods sold" : as their per gallon price goes up, their profit goes up proportionally, even though it costs them no more to PROCESS a costly gallon than a cheap one. Filling stations, however, are required to take their profit as so many cents per GALLON , and so their processing costs (credit charges) go up per gallon, and their sales in gallons are declining, so that many of them are hurting badly. Sounds like Republican dirty work to me. MD |
|
31 Jul 08 - 05:12 PM (#2402586) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Charley Noble I guess they won't need a bake sale to bail them out. Any one else for cake? Charley Noble |
|
31 Jul 08 - 07:01 PM (#2402663) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Rabbi-Sol The ironic thing is that their stock was down today. Although they posted the greatest profit ever in their history it was still below the figure that the Wall Street analysts projected that it should be. My heart really bleeds borscht for them as much as my pockets bleed dollars everytime I fill up at the pump. SOL |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:06 PM (#2402738) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Donuel Rabbi, last year at a Mobile station I made small talk to an older gentleman also filling his tank. I said "Gas is really going up isn't it." He said "yes, this month alone my stock has gone up 10%" |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:14 PM (#2402745) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Teribus Sounds like some people posting here do not know what they are talking about. Why not read up on subject before pontificating on the subject. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:22 PM (#2402750) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Donuel Duhhaee wut didja say? we are sooo toopid we doan unnerstan youse. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:39 PM (#2402760) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Shareholders were unhappy, since the income did not increase sufficiently, thus somewhat lower dividends are likely. In 2006, $32.6 billion was distributed to shareholders, more in 2007. Like other oil companies with a large refining business, they have paid more for each barrel of oil as producing countries raised prices as demand increased, but costs passed on to the buyers of refined products are lower than the increase for their crude purchases. As new refineries now are being built near the crude sources, more and more oil will be shipped in the refined state, reducing costs. Exxon-Mobil is one of the companies building refineries and petrochemical plants nearer the sources, e. g. Saudi Arabia and Emirates; they have a large petrochemical operation in Singapore, and have signed contracts for refining and petrochemical plants in China. If one examines the Fortune list of 500 largest corporations, it is evident that profit as a percent of revenue is higher for a number of companies than it is for Exxon-Mobil. In 2006, Citigroup, Microsoft, Bank of America, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Intel, etc., made more profits relative to revenue, and were able to pay, in some cases, better dividends to their investors. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 09:54 PM (#2402770) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Teribus Donuel, please read the last post carefully. "Q" actually knows and understands what the oil & gas business is all about and can explain it rationally in comparison to others and a great deal more clearly than I ever could. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 10:01 PM (#2402776) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: dick greenhaus Profit, as a percent of revenue, is a VERY misleading statistic. If you have sufficient volume, as is the case with operations like oil companies and supermarkets, a very small percentage profit is a whale of a lot of money. Return on Investment is a much better measure. |
|
31 Jul 08 - 10:03 PM (#2402779) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: DougR Right on, Exxon Mobil! My grandson is an engineer with the company. Maybe he will get a huge raise! I doubt the stockholders are complaining much either. DougR |
|
31 Jul 08 - 10:16 PM (#2402784) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Kent Davis How interesting to think of profits being high as a "fault". If one of us sells something for a handsome price at a yard sale, or if one of us gets a raise at work, or gets a nice dividend check, we would hardly ask whose "fault" it is that we did well. Low profits, or losses, may indeed be someone's fault. High profits would be to someone's credit. After all, that money doesn't just disappear. Money is either taxed, spent, or saved. It therefore ultimately goes for government expenses (if taxed), goods and services, capital investment, wages, bonuses, benefits, et cetera (if spent), and pensions, dividends, loans, delayed capital investment, et cetera (if saved). Kent |
|
31 Jul 08 - 11:30 PM (#2402804) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace The thing being missed is that the rising cost of POL is then driving higher transpot costs for many goods. The people whjo feel THAT most are the poor. So please let's don't present Exxon Mobil as white knights. They are hurting many REAL people--people who have to feed their kids. For those who can't see that, I feel sorry. And cutsey wise-ass shit from Doug don't change the fact that the poor ARE feeling it, and feeling it badly. Nice for the company and its stock holders. Not so nice for a single mom with hungry kids. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 12:45 AM (#2402831) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Return on investment? With regard to a company with over 100 years of investments? In fact two such companies, merged? My mind is boggled at the thought. Let's see what the Annual Report shows. Some figures, in no particular order, but pertinent. 2006; last one published on the net. One can get a figure for 'return on investment,' but I am not sure that it is meaningful. -Net income, $39 billion -Return on average capital employed, 32% -Dividends paid $7.6 billion -Purchase of stock from shareholders $25 billion Thus $32.6 billion paid out to shareholders -New Investment in the business, $20 billion in 2006 -Research and Development $700 million in 2006 -Seven start-up projects in 2006- In West Africa, Malaysia, Azerbaijan, Norway and Canada- each of these were researched and brought to development over several years (personal note, I contributed to the initial Canadian project research some 30 years ago- it takes a long time to prove something out in exploration and to reach the stage where the project will provide a return, sometimes it is years before prices rise to the point that it becomes economically viable. I also did work on the Arctic, a very complex area and subject to pie in the sky guesstimates). -Overall, some 60 major projects in various stages of development. Purpose is to meet petroleum demands in 2030 that will be some 60% greater than in 2000. -Proved reserves additions replaced 122% of production. -Cash at year end- $28 billion -Total assets at year end- $219 billion -Total debt at year end $8.3 billion -Shareholders equity $114 billion -Average capital employed $122.5 billion -Market valuation at year end $439 billion Net income per common share $6.68 Current Assets to current liabilities 1.55 There are a few figures to play with. See the Annual Report for more and details. Of particular interest in the Report is the section on Outlook for 2030, when demand is predicted to be 115 million barrels per day. The world's resources are adequate to meet rising demand through 2030, but huge investments will be required. In 2030, oil, gas and coal will still be predominant! Rising CO2 emissions pose significant risks for society and ecosystems, but the best options are yet to be picked and balanced. [Much depends on international agreements, which may be difficult to reach- how?? this is my comment, not theirs.] Exxon-Mobil scientists and economists predict that alternative fuels from crops, coal and natural gas will supply only a fracion of the fuel needed. Lots of talk, but oil will be at the top for decades. In China and India, the developing economies will use coal to generate electricity, because their coal is abundant and the lowest cost option. 'Significant' growth in nuclear and renewable fuels is forseen. Whew! Should have stopped long ago. Read their annual report, Royal Dutch Shell's, BP's, etc. Lots of data and some different viewpoints. http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/XOM_2006_SAR.pdf (The easiest way to find the annual reports of any company is Google the company name (in "") followed by 'annual report'. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 01:21 AM (#2402838) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Bert The whole point of this thread Doug is that McCain blames Obama for the price of gas. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 02:58 AM (#2402860) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn And with record profits you'd think that they'd pay off their share of the fines incurred by the Exxon Valdez, how many years ago. It will not pay for the nation (by oil ex's standards) to go green until 2030 has pasted, by then we'll be reduced to the costs of a goat fart in a rain barrel. & it'll be Obama's fault for that too. Barry |
|
01 Aug 08 - 04:41 AM (#2402898) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor The thing about the Exxon-Mobil's profits is that in 2000, oil was what? $20 per barrel and they were making money. Now they get $130 for the same oil. Not all of their oil, but much of it. There refining costs may have gone up, but not in labour, not much, mostly fro transportation, but they can get diesel for their tankers at cost. Yeah they buy some oil on the spot market, but they pass that cost on at the pumps. But in 2000 two more things happened. An oil man and a failed oil man were elected co-president and in 2001 the senior co-president met with Exxon Mobil. Some time in the intervening time, the media went from blaming high oil prices on political instability in the Mid East to blaming it on demand from China and India. I know these things are related, but I can't put my finger on how they are related. (See Foolestroupe I do understand irony.) |
|
01 Aug 08 - 05:08 AM (#2402904) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Fill 'er up...and by the way, can you get my windows too?' |
|
01 Aug 08 - 12:44 PM (#2403118) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Exxon-Mobil plans to sell off its gasoline retailing business. There is little profit, expenses are high, competition is strong (Wal-Mart, etc.). Old news. Some 800 wholly owned stations, 1400 more leased to dealers, will be sold. Most stations are in CA, NY, and concentrations in TX, FL, MD, TN and VA. In many areas, oil companies sell to retailers that have best access to products from their refineries. In Calgary, e. g., Shell service stations sell gasoline from the Imperial Oil (subsidiary of Exxon-Mobil) refinery in Alberta, because it is cheaper and easier of access than product from its own refineries. The same is true of other retailers with various names, and it is true for many areas in the U. S. as well. ------------------------------- Anyone who expects any serious "greening" before 2030 is dreaming. Not until then or later will nuclear plants, wind farms, fuel cells, solar collecting farms, etc. be completed and infrastructure for distribution or use be anywhere near effective. Most efforts towards "greening" must be international, and I see little likelihood of China, India, Canada and others with large coal supplies to fuel electrical energy and/or access to oil agreeing to abandon cheap (yes, it is cheap compared with viable alternatives) energy. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM (#2403133) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,number 6 "Fill 'er up...and by the way, can you get my windows too?'" that's gone by the wayside here .... it's literally all self serve now ... maybe that accounts for the record profits. biLL |
|
01 Aug 08 - 02:19 PM (#2403169) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor The biggest reductions in carbon will come from conservation, from reducing wasteful practices. The US is the world leader in room for improvement. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 04:21 PM (#2403240) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Eb Gross $M Net $M Profit Petronas 66,218 18,118 27.36% Gazprom 98,642 19,269 19.53% Vodafone 71,202 13,366 18.77% Telefónica 77,254 12,190 15.78% Petrobras 87,735 13,138 14.97% Lukoil 67,205 9,511 14.15% Nokia 69,886 9,862 14.11% RoyalBScotland 108,392 15,103 13.93% Santander 89,295 12,401 13.89% P&G 76,476 10,340 13.52% J.P. Morgan 116,353 15,365 13.21% Goldman Sachs 87,968 11,599 13.19% HSBC 146,500 19,133 13.06% GE 176,656 22,208 12.57% Bank of America 119,190 14,982 12.57% France Télécom 72,488 8,623 11.90% China Nat Petro 129,798 14,925 11.50% ENI 120,565 13,703 11.37% Berkshire Hatha 118,245 13,213 11.17% Barclays 80,347 8,837 11.00% Exxon Mobil 372,824 40,610 10.89% China Nat Petro 129,798 14,925 11.50% ENI 120,565 13,703 11.37% Berkshire Hath 118,245 13,213 11.17% Barclays 80,347 8,837 11.00% Exxon Mobil 372,824 40,610 10.89% |
|
01 Aug 08 - 04:32 PM (#2403250) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I think you will find that picture changed quite a bit in 2008 Eb. This year there won't be as many banks as the top or as much profit for non energy companies. Also, calculating profit as a percent of gross is very misleading. Different businesses make money different ways. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 04:45 PM (#2403257) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) I don't know where Eb got his figures, but they do show that Exxon-Mobil profits are not exceptional, as noted before. Surprised at China N P, I had no idea that they were that big- or do the figures include both Chinese majors I look forward to figures from Royal Dutch Shell, to see whether they match Exxon-Mobil for 2007. Some figures surprise me, e. g., Berkshire Hathaway in 2006 listed revenues of 81,663 and profits 8,528; to 118,245m and profits 13,213m is quite a jump. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 07:34 PM (#2403351) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: katlaughing 5 million in profit PER HOUR: This morning's news reports that America's biggest oil company announced it is now making $5 million in profit every hour of every day, the most profits of any American company ever in a single quarter. (Denver Post, 8/1/2008) With this report, the world's top five oil companies are now on track to make more than $160 billion in profits this year, dramatically outpacing last year's $123 billion. OBSCENE!! |
|
01 Aug 08 - 08:29 PM (#2403382) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Reasonably pleasant results to the many individual stockholders, pension funds, teachers unions, credit unions, mutual funds, savings and loans, etc., that have the stocks in their portfolios. They could be better; investors are worried that dividends will be down somewhat from the previous year. Obscene? No, only reasonable considering the size and scale of operations. Petronas of Malaysia, also a integrated explorer, producer and refiner, but smaller and newer, made more than double the profit percentage of Exxon-Mobil. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 08:38 PM (#2403386) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Q, All of those stockholders are suffering except for individuals with no diversity. Have you seen the Dow Jones? The banks a credit unions stockholders are suffering most because of the lack of oversight that led to the current liquidity crisis and all businesses except for oil related businesses are suffering because of the price of oil. Exxon Mobil's profits are coming at the expense of everyone else, especially the average US voter. It may or not be obscene, but if you don't vote against changing the status quo, you are not voting in your own economic self interest. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM (#2403396) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: MarkS " $20 per barrel and they were making money. Now they get $130 for the same oil." Weeeel = actually that is what they pay for the oil they refine into product and sell to us. I wish my customers were bidding up the price of the product my company sells, but demand for industrial machinery is just not that great. Anyhow - General Motors posted a 15.1 billion dollar loss this quarter. Don't hear any politicians yelling about "obscene" so far. Maybe we can take the profit from Exxon and send some to GM. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 09:48 PM (#2403400) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace "I don't know where Eb got his figures, " She is a lady, and a great one at that. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM (#2403404) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Dow Jones averages tell nothing of individual holdings. The funds, e. g., one like than held by the Ontario Teachers Union, has a very diversified portfolio, consisting of selected stocks and bonds, office buildings, mall and other commercial real estate and construction projects ($109 Billion in assets), and is prepared to ride the ups and downs of the markets, guided by their economic experts. The diversified energy companies happen to be bright at the moment and balance off sluggish holdings that they rate hold and not sell. We cannot take production cheaply from the majors discoveries in Sakalin, China, Malaysia, etc., because the countries that the agreements are with get first dibs, only that which is excess to their needs can be sold elsewhere- and not at bargain prices, but the market price. It is a myth that E-M and other majors profits come at the expense of business- it is the producers and the market that set the prices- the majors produce only part of the oil that they refine and transport, the rest they purchase. A 10.4% profit for 2007 is not excessive. (2007 annual report now on the net) Scale, size, must be considered; the profit cannot be cut to the scale of a mom and pop business. One might ask Canada, the No. 1 supplier of oil and natural gas to the U. S., to cut their price, but I doubt if the Canadian government would allow the producers to comply. One might ask Saudi Arabia, No. 2, or Mexico, No. 3 or Nigeria, No. 4, to cut back from the $140 or so, but I am sure that their answer would be no. Businesses must integrate the cost and the consumer must pay (his only recourse is to limit use as much as possible). Some oil is still coming out of Texas, Alaska, Louisiana, etc. I suppose they could be forced to cut price, but on the other hand they might shut down and walk away to greener fields. There is no way the next administration can change the 'status quo'- they don't hold the cards to make it happen. The market is global, and insular solutions are no longer possible. Adapt or die. |
|
01 Aug 08 - 10:20 PM (#2403421) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Kent Davis Peace, You are certainly right that higher prices mean that it costs more to buy things. However, this thread is about profit, not prices. Prices and profits are related, but they are not the same, as many a business owner has learned to his sorrow. Some businesses (think Target or WalMart) have low prices but are still profitable. Others may have high prices but still are not profitable. By the way, since you pointed out that single mothers are real people, I hope you won't think it amiss if I point out that Exxon Mobil's employees (including many single mothers), and the many elderly people whose pension funds hold Exxon Mobil stock, are real people too. Kent |
|
01 Aug 08 - 10:32 PM (#2403427) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Eb a lady? Her figures are OK, too. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 12:04 AM (#2403450) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Its not rocket science even for a trickle downer. Exxon both produces from reserves of its own and buys oil on the spot market. They were making good money on their reserves when oil was 20 bucks a barrel the extra $110 per barrel is almost entirely profit. That they are making those profits is good for them, but the price of fuel required for them to make that profit hurts pretty much every other US business. Other businesses are not hurt just for transportation costs but because demand is down for pretty much everything but fuel wile consumers pay a larger percent of their budgets on fuel. Yes the profits of oil companies are obscene, but the windfall to foreign governments is even more obscene. Bush and Cheney ought to be not only impeached. They ought to be prosecuted as traitors. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 01:27 AM (#2403484) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Oh, my! Lets put the major oil companies in perspective with respect to reserves. 1. Exxon-Mobil buys 90% of the oil that it refines for the U. S. market. Moreover, the amount of refined oil that it buys is growing as the nations with the oil reserves build large refineries to add to their profits. On the internet is a chart from Chevron Oil, printed by Credit Suisse First Boston, and lifted by a blogger- it is important information. It shows just how small and weak the majors like Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Total, BP, etc., are. 2. Oil reserves, 'proven,' my figures approx. since I eye-balled them from the graph. (Gas is liquified conversion) B = billion bbls NIOC (Iran) Oil- 130 B, Gas- 200 B Saudi Arabia Oil- 180 B, Gas- 40B Gazprom (Russia) Oil- 30 B, Gas 150 B Qatar Oil- 30 B, Gas 150 B ADNOC (UAE) Oil- 100 B, Gas 50 B Iraq Oil- 120 B, G 10 B KPC (Kuwait) Oil- 90 B, G 40 B PDVSA (Venezuela) Oil- 80 B, G- 50 B NNPC (Nigeria) Oil- 45 B, G- 40 B NOC (Lybia) Oil- 50 B, Gas 15 B Sonotrach (Algeria) Oil- 20 B, Gas- 30 B Rosnof (Russia) Oil- 20 B, Gas 25 B Petronas (Malaysia) Oil- 10 B, Gas 20 B EXXON MOBIL Oil- 20 B, Gas 15 B (Exxon says 22.7 B Oil) Petrochina (China) Oil- 20 B, Gas 10 B Exxon Mobil is in 14th place- their reserves are tiny compared to the reserves controlled by state owned companies- some 90%- and NO WAY can the American or European majors buy those reserves below market. BP has about the same amount of reserves as Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and Chevron somewhat less. Note- I think the Iran data are inflated, esp. the gas estimate. Canada, the No. 1 source for U. S. oil, does not appear since the oil sands are mined, and liquid reserves are small. http://www.powerlineblog.com/OilChart9.jpg |
|
02 Aug 08 - 01:35 AM (#2403486) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Q, Exxon produces millions of barrels a year from Hibernia, off Newfoundland. They buy that well below market. The US almost went to war with Venezuela over Chavez charging them market rates. That's two examples I know about. If you think that they are making that kind of money buying and refining you are dreaming. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 01:39 AM (#2403489) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Even in your own statistics you are showing Exxon Mobil, a private company, owning more reserves than most countries. How do you think that came about? |
|
02 Aug 08 - 11:42 AM (#2403645) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Donuel WOO WHHOOO lets get us some of that windfall profit money. After we collect the windfall profit tax from the Oil companies to help the consumer, we will already be driving flying saucers powered by sigularity gravity engines and won't be using money anymore. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 12:13 PM (#2403673) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Eb Taxes Paid by Exxon (millions of dollars) Income taxes 2007 $29,864 2006 $27,902 2005 $23,302 Sales-based taxes 2007 $31,728 2006 $30,381 2005 $30,742 All other taxes and duties 2007 $44,091 2006 $42,393 2005 $44,571 Total 2007 $105,683 2006 $100,676 2005 $98,615 Effective income tax rate 2007 44 % 2006 43% 2005 41% |
|
02 Aug 08 - 12:55 PM (#2403699) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Eb Shouldn't we be glad that the two largest companies in the world are based here in the US? Would it be better to run them offshore with higher taxes? What happens when Anheuser Busch is bought by InBev?
-Joe Offer-
|
|
02 Aug 08 - 02:41 PM (#2403768) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Where are you getting this stuff? Exxon.apologists.com? I simply don't believe them without a source. The sales taxes and other taxes aren't taxes on Exxon, they are taxes paid on the importation and sale of petroleum products. I can't speak for the "effective income tax rate" because you haven't shown where you got the ridiculous figure of 44% but it sure seems like a lie. The maximum corporate tax rate is only 35% and Exxon has some pretty good lawyers. I've got to tell you. If I was a shareholder and I saw that. I'd be after the CEO and CFO's heads. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM (#2403784) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic Right now I believe EB over JTS, who is clearly pulling numbers out of you-nowhere. Get off your backside and come up with some real numbers rather than just impugn EB... The internet's full of good stuff, get your girlfriend to help you out. Back around '99 oil was $9 a barrel out of Alaska and some pundits were predicting this would go on for years. This doesn not mean the oil companies were making a profit at those rates. In order to maintain infrastructure, market share, and payrolls they had to keep goin'. And nobody gave a tinker's cuss about it, so from the point of view of the oil companies, why should they care about the bleating at the pumps as gen X'ers fill up their Rav4s for that solo ride to the espresso bar? Meanwhile, one of the things that happens when oil is down, which it has been recently, is that a lot of support/ remedial work does not get done at the major industrial sites required for the movement and refining of the crude. BP's site down in Texas was so poorly maintained they had a major disaster and killed 15 on-site workers and injured 500. Refineries are notoriously tight because they don't own the oil, they buy it, process it, and market the products. They are run with skinny margins. There is a lot of catch-up and environmentally mandated work that's been going on now that some sectors of the oil bidness are flush. They are notoriously tight with a dollar and this work wouldn't get done without the recent surge in price. Meanwhile, the high prices in the States are getting several important things done at once: 1) Making Americans familiar with what Europeans have been going through for years. 2) Encouraging some seldom seen restraint on the part of the gas burning public. 3) Shifting economic investment to alternative fuels/ energy development. 4) Giving us a vital warning as to what's ahead. There is still a huge amount of petrochemical reserve in the world, but it's a finite resource, and this is a warning (actually so far it is a minor warning). 5) Exxon needs to have some of the ready at hand to finally pay out Alaskans for their losses during the Exxon Valdez spill. Oh, and while Exxon was reaping in the billions, General Motors was losing them, on account of pretty horrible management choices over what to develop and produce, and a lot of arm waving about efficiency and the hydrogen economy which they've been doing to assure us they are ready for the future. I got a look at the BMW museum in Munich back in the 80's and they were talking about efficiency and recycling even then. So this price hike is highly valuable for separating the BS from the fax. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:13 PM (#2403790) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Hibernia ownership: Exxon Mobil Canada (Imperial)- 33.125% Chevron Canada Resources- 26.875% PetroCanada- 20% Canada Hibernia- 8.5% Murphy- 6.5% StatoilHydro- 5% Production allowed- 220,000KPD Est. total reserves 1 billion bbls. (Tiny, compared with fields elsewhere. Not certain where the economic cutoff is here). Cost of development $5.8 billion. The Canadian government provided $2.6 billion in loans and loan guarantees, which debt has been paid back. Money distribution, Total as of 2006 year end- Newfoundland- $1.2 billion Oil companies consortium- $8.8 billion Canada government- $4.8 billion Info sources- Canadian Press, Nov. 15, 2007, www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2007/11/15/hibernia-decade.html About Hibernia, www.hibernia.ca/html/about-hibernia/index.html Reuters, Jan. 17, 2007- Newfoundland Rejects Hibernia oil field expansion. (In essence, they want a bigger cut). ------------------------- There continues to be failure to recognize the importance of scale. Exxon Mobil, in % profit, taxes, etc., is no different from the small company worth only a few million. The business is subject to wide fluctuations in profit, exploration and infrastructure costs, and the whims of governments that control reserves in their jurisdiction. Cheap politicians and ignorant journalists point to large size as a reason to denigrate and attack, diverting attention from the true causes of the public's misery. --------------------------------------------- Chevron, No. 2 oil company in the U. S., has just reported good quarterly profits, but there are danger signals- they posted a loss on refining due to high costs of crude. Large integrated oil companies with refining and product a large part of their business could be down-rated in the stock market if their profits fall further. No longer a 'hold,' but a 'sell.' |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:34 PM (#2403801) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Robomatic, My wife has told me that you work for the oil industry. You are obviously a paragon of objectivity on this matter. That makes me wonder, are you EB? Posting Oil industry slanted stats under a pseudonym then rushing in to defend your BS when Joe outed you? EB/Robomatic if you want credibility, you can tell us the source of those stats and we can look them up ourselves. Otherwise we shall have to ASSume the source you pulled them from. On the other hand the only "number" that I used was the corporate tax rate. If you want to go look it up and prove me wrong. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:39 PM (#2403805) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Thanks Q, You just proved that Exxon was not paying market rates for Hibernia crude. >>Reuters, Jan. 17, 2007- Newfoundland Rejects Hibernia oil field expansion. (In essence, they want a bigger cut).<< When I was studying business in Newfoundland in the early 80's the projected break even price for Hibernia crude was about $12 per barrel. At ten times that amount Exxon is making a killing on Newfoundland oil. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM (#2403813) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw The 44% came from http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.t18Pq.htm The gross, net and profit margins came from Forbes.com |
|
02 Aug 08 - 03:54 PM (#2403819) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic JTS Please give your girlfriend/wife my regards. Your statement is not accurate. i.e. it's flat wrong. Meanwhile, you have adapted her tactic of ad hominem attack. All you really have to do is read my previous contribution and speak to it. The facts in it are accurate, and I stand behind the logic and sense of it. You don't even have to get off your backside. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 04:06 PM (#2403829) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: CarolC If someone is trolling to get me to post on this subject, I'm afraid he/she is going to be disappointed. I'm not particularly interested in posting anything on this subject at this time. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 04:14 PM (#2403838) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 02 Aug 08 - 03:49 PM The 44% came from http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.t18Pq.htm The gross, net and profit margins came from Forbes.com<< "44%" and "43%" does not occur anywhere on that page. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 04:28 PM (#2403852) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic JTS&CC: If you guys had a kid and taught it to post I'd claim a trifecta. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 04:41 PM (#2403862) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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! |
|
02 Aug 08 - 04:51 PM (#2403874) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:04 PM (#2403885) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:08 PM (#2403888) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic I TOLD you it didn't have to be goodbye. Now go back and read my earlier post and respond with some coherence. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:16 PM (#2403894) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:17 PM (#2403895) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM (#2403901) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:34 PM (#2403904) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM (#2403905) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM (#2403912) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:02 PM (#2403921) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.t18Pq.htm#f82k Look under taxes. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:08 PM (#2403929) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:09 PM (#2403931) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor You said "effective income tax rate". They said "Effective tax rate" obviously they were not paying more than 35% INCOME TAX |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:25 PM (#2403941) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:39 PM (#2403953) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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 |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:48 PM (#2403960) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor OK Price Waterhouse says that they paid 44% in income taxes. So what? |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:49 PM (#2403961) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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? |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM (#2403965) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 06:58 PM (#2403972) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
02 Aug 08 - 07:13 PM (#2403981) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw 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." |
|
02 Aug 08 - 07:23 PM (#2403990) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 11:25 AM (#2404889) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 01:23 PM (#2404991) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:23 PM (#2405100) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw The merger was approved by the FTC and the European Commission in 1999 before "Oil Men" took control of the government. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:35 PM (#2405106) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:37 PM (#2405109) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace They ain't doin' so badly under Bush, either. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:38 PM (#2405110) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Stringsinger 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 |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:44 PM (#2405113) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 03:46 PM (#2405115) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 04:16 PM (#2405148) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 04:48 PM (#2405164) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq "...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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 05:14 PM (#2405178) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM (#2405194) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM (#2405195) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 05:41 PM (#2405205) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) BP second quarter profit 9,465 millions; profit/share 18.56 pence. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 06:14 PM (#2405233) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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 " |
|
04 Aug 08 - 06:48 PM (#2405246) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 07:01 PM (#2405252) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn 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 |
|
04 Aug 08 - 07:26 PM (#2405269) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor pdq Are you saying that because Clinton did not block it it was right? That is a very curious position coming from you. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 07:47 PM (#2405287) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 07:58 PM (#2405300) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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? |
|
04 Aug 08 - 08:19 PM (#2405311) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 08:29 PM (#2405322) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 08:31 PM (#2405324) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) 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 |
|
04 Aug 08 - 08:39 PM (#2405332) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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.} |
|
04 Aug 08 - 11:00 PM (#2405435) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) '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. |
|
04 Aug 08 - 11:11 PM (#2405440) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq 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? |
|
05 Aug 08 - 12:34 AM (#2405470) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw "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. |
|
05 Aug 08 - 01:02 AM (#2405480) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor 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? |
|
05 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM (#2405803) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) pdq, American companies are pumping oil in locations- 'foreign lands'- around the globe. The practice, however, is to use citizens of the country involved as employees and managers wherever possible. Most of the oil in Canada is 'pumped' (Hibernia, e. g.) or mined (tar sands) by American companies and partners, but the employees and management are Canadian; e. g., affiliates such as Imperial Oil Ltd, or Syncrude (with partners) where Exxon Mobil is the owner of Imperial. Other companies such as Royal Dutch Shell have set up similar affiliates in Canada, staffed by Canadians. BP Canada Energy Co., ConocoPhillips Canada, Chevron Canada Resources, etc. China has not bid or applied for Canadian tracts, although their two major companies have expressed interest. The Canadian government would set the rules of operation. Chinese operators, if they stayed in Canada, would come in as landed immigrants. BP and Royal Dutch Shell have U. S. organizations for the U. S.; policy at the highest level may be set in London or the Hague, but employees and management in the U. S. is nearly all American, not UK or Dutch. Major integrated petroleum companies, regardless of where ownership resides, use local employees wherever possible, and mostly have set up affiliate companies for management and direction, under the laws of the countries involved. Such is necessary when operations must be global. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 12:20 PM (#2406652) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Teribus The international oil & gas industry is structured in a such a way today that field developments are very rarely single company efforts. For quite a few years now any development of a new field will be a collaborative effort involving a number of partners - doing that optimises resources, defrays costs and reduces risk. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 12:35 PM (#2406670) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw I don't see how pointing out that someone makes 32 times more money than a person you claim makes too much money Proves your point. Exxon produced a product and sold it. Soros produced nothing and the people received nothing in exchange for their money due to his currency manipulations. George Soros Financed Peru Riots In July 2000 By Richard Deegan http://educate-yourself.org/rfp/reportsperusorosfinancedriots7may01.shtml May 7, 2001 A stunning admission was finally forced from the empire of the New World Order's George Soros that, indeed, he had contributed millions of dollars to the political campaigns of Alejandro Toledo Manrique in Peru, included $1,000,000 specifically for Toledo's "March from the Four Winds" that resulted in six dead and multi-million dollar damage to government and private buildings and property (the specifics of these riots were the subject of a previous Report). Smoking Fax Obtained from Toledo Camp Defector The admission came in the form of a fax from international currency speculator Soros' Open Society Institute in New York, issued by Director Michael Vachon. The fax was intended to serve as a clarification after Toledo (who had previously denied receiving money from foreign interests) acknowledged receiving a million dollars from Soros specifically for the July 26-27-28 2000 series of demonstrations and attacks in the heart of Lima. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM (#2406688) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq George Soros is not an investment broker. George Soros is an economic terrorist who causes the stocks he "sells short" to drop. He and John Paulson broke Bear-Stearns and made 2-3 billion each in the process. US taxpayer foot the bill. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 02:28 PM (#2406797) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Soros has had his ups and downs with his funds. He did well beating down the British pound, but lost heavily in the Russian money crisis of 1998, and later his Quantum Fund lost one-third of its value (2000), down from $10 to $6 billion. He switched investments mostly to technology, a field that has been doing well. His Quantum Fund has grown strong and larger than ever. His 1994 book, "The Alchemy of Finance," has classic status; one of its predictions was the the mortgage crash. His new book, "The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What it Means," should be required reading for all bank and fund managers, In 2008, be is investing in Indian stocks, among others. Larger funds are Goldman-Sachs and others in the news recently. The accusation that Soros and Paulson caused the collapse of Bear-Stearns is nonsense; they knew when to get out before the walls came tumbling down- and he told the public what would happen in his 1994 book. A good survey of the plus and minus of hedge funds, which have been in existence for 60 years, here: Hedge All I know about the funds is what I have read; they have little to do with the petroleum industry. Soros books are authoritative, by a man who knows his subject from the inside. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 04:49 PM (#2406963) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw What I want to know is where does that money Soros makes come from? Exxon makes it's money by making a product and selling it for 10% more than it cost them. Less of a mark up than other oil companies. Soros's fund made $1.8 billion in one week by manipulation currency. What was produced? What did anybody receive in return for this money? Where is your demand for a windfall profits tax on that corporation? |
|
06 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM (#2407005) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic pdq writted: 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.} ARCO's Kuparuk properties were sold to Phillips, a then much smaller American petroleum company, as a condition of the BP purchase. This happened about the turn of the millenium. It was a condition imposed by the FTC. I think in this case the US government agencies worked properly and were good for both the industry and the nation. As for foreign ownership of American resources, there has never been a minute of US existence without considerable foreign ownership of American resources, particularly British. Capitalism, like Democracy, can be a messy business. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 05:31 PM (#2407006) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Have I demanded windfall profits? From anyone? >>Exxon makes it's money by making a product and selling it for 10% more than it cost them.<< That is not true by any realistic measure. If you want to know why, learn the difference between markup and net profit. I don't think the law should allow Soros to do what he did. But he did it and it was legal so legally and morally, its his money. I believe in regulating business. You don't. The system you support allowed Soros to do that. I have already explained that Soros gambled his own money while a CEO is paying himself someone else's money. If you can't see the difference, I won't bother explaining it again. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 05:36 PM (#2407008) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: robomatic Date: 06 Aug 08 - 05:30 PM pdq writted: --- As for foreign ownership of American resources, there has never been a minute of US existence without considerable foreign ownership of American resources, particularly British. Capitalism, like Democracy, can be a messy business.<<< Good points robomatic! pdq There are countries that insist on local ownership, like Russia and Venezuela. Perhaps you could emigrate? ;-) |
|
06 Aug 08 - 05:43 PM (#2407012) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic pdq: I DID emigrate....to Alaska! ;-)& |
|
06 Aug 08 - 05:48 PM (#2407016) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Yeah!! Good one! I was talking about pdq moving to a country that enjoys companies from that country owning the oil reserves. Sorry I wasn't clearer. It was just a joke, not well told. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:02 PM (#2407033) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw So JTS is not in favor of a windfall profits tax? profit, markup. Wordgames. Exxon gave people something in return for the money they made. Soros did not. The CEO of Exxon made money and Soros makes 32 times more than he did. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:12 PM (#2407045) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Soros- Nothing to do with Exxon Mobil or the other petroleum corporations. Quantum (Soros and Rogers) fund's money is made by investing worldwide in companies and funds, buying and selling, much like other funds such as Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc. Quantum's operations are often a gamble, much more so than other funds, and it has sustained severe ups and downs. Since it is a foreign company registered in Dutch Netherlands Antilles (Curacao), little is known of the actual holdings. It is thought that Quantum holds 10% of Apex Silver Mines, a Bolivian mine partly owned by Sumitomo of Japan, but this does not reflect the sweep of the holdings accurately. Rogers, co-founder with Soros, says that they are heavily invested in China. His book, "A Bull in China," suggests that one's children learn Chinese, which will become "the most important language of their lifetimes" (also briefly reported in USA Today, 12/16/2007). The company is not registered in the U. S., thus a 'windfall profits tax' (which really is a tax on all investors in a company, decreasing their dividends) is not a possible avenue for the U. S. since the company, which is closed, is registered as a Dutch concern. Both Soros and Rogers have contributed to the Democratic party, and Soros has long called for the defeat of Bush and the Republicans (several stories on the net, some in The Financial Post, etc., I am not qualified to comment on them). |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:21 PM (#2407054) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor LOL you are a funny poster! profit, markup. Wordgames. No they are specific business terms that one of us knows how to define. :-) I never said whether or not I was for a windfall profits tax. But it was pretty funny for you to assume that I am. Your question was also very funny on another level which Q just explained to you. We don't tax foreign companies on money made outside the United States. Keep up the good work! I am amused! |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:23 PM (#2407055) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: DougR Bert: I wasn't aware that McCain had blamed the oil crisis on Obama. If he did, it was not a very bright thing to say. Were he to blame Obama and his fellow Democrats for blocking legislation that would lift the restriction on drilling off-shore, or building more nuclear plants, or developing clean coal, or drilling in Anwar, however, I would applaud him. The only proposal Obama and his crowd have recommended is developing alternate replacements for oil that it probably will take twenty years or so to successfully develop. The alternatives should consider to be developed, but the only short term solution to freeing ourselves from foreign oil sources is to drill our own natural resources. Oops. I forgot that Obam did sugggest keeping the tires in our cars inflated to proper levels which, in his opinion, would solve the oil crises. I can't believe he said that with a straight face. DougR |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:45 PM (#2407074) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq The oil in the ground under US land owned by the Bureau of Land Management or other government entity is the property of the citizens of the US. I want that oil pumped out by American companies and I want them to pay us, the citizens of the US, a fair price. I stand behind that statement. It has very little to do with general investemnt in the US. Two or three people have re-invented what I said or have made up their own statements and credited them to me. Nothing new here. As far as Soros and Exxon-Mobil, he has never had a thing to do with the company directly, at least that is what I believe to be true. Again about Soros, he has a personal fortune of 8-10 billion dollars and has never prouuced a product, delivered a single kilowatt or grown an ounce of food. He is an economic parasite and all "short trading" should be ended since the investor is hoping for that company's fortunes to drop. In Soros case, he causes them to drop simply by wielding about 200 billion in client's assets. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 06:59 PM (#2407084) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Bert: I wasn't aware that McCain had blamed the oil crisis on Obama. If he did, it was not a very bright thing to say. He specifically blamed the high price of gasoline on Obama, and Obama only, in an ad. I don't think it was bright either, but the pundits say it swayed some voters. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 07:03 PM (#2407088) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>I forgot that Obam did sugggest keeping the tires in our cars inflated to proper levels which, in his opinion, would solve the oil crises. No he said that it would make a bigger difference than the offshore oil + ANWAR. He did not say it would solve the oil crisis and he did not offer it as a solution in his energy plan. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM (#2407117) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw "one of us knows how to define" Which one? I never mentioned a markup. You say it is OK for Soros's company to do what ever he want to with his money [like financing riots where people are killed] but it is not OK for a CEO to make 1/32 of what Soros makes. This is not making sense to me. If you are going to go after the biggest this or that looks like Soros should be gone after before Exxon. I don't recall mentioning markup and did I say that you demanded windfall profits? Ceo's don't assign themselves "nine figure pay" Corporations have Boards that must approve the CEO's compensation. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 07:46 PM (#2407124) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: MaineDog Several companies in Maine have folded recently because the price of oil has gone too high. Ditto others whose raw materials have gotten too expensive. However, the OIL companies do much better when the price of their raw material goes higher. Something is very wrong here. We should treat the whole energy business as infrastructure, and regulate it. We don't let the toll bridges and highways rip us off to the extent that no one can travel, why should we let oil companies do that? We protect and regulate financial institutions because we know that we need them. So also should we regulate and protect our transportation system, oil companies as well as railroads and airlines, and car makers. A free market is great where there is true elasticity, but in the case of "monopolies" or cartels, we can't let things go where the plutocrats will take them, or we will all suffer. MD |
|
06 Aug 08 - 07:52 PM (#2407132) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq "A free market is great where there is true elasticity, but in the case of "monopolies" or cartels..." Then can we sorta agree that the Clinton era mergers reducing 9 major US oil companies to 4 or 5 was bad for competition. Perhaps that it has lead to higher pump prices? Just asking. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 08:36 PM (#2407158) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Soros-Rogers assets are closer to $20 billion than $200 billion. In 1998 they hit $22 billion approx., then dropped a few billion. [Now they seem to be up again] (NY Times). Assets In June 2008, Soros testified before the U. S. Congress on the reasons for the oil 'bubble. His four factors: 1. "Increasing cost of discovering and developing new reserves, and the accelerating depletion of existing oil fields as they age." 2. "Backwards-sloping supply curve." "As the price of oil rises, oil-producing countries have less incentive to convert their oil reserves underground, which are expected to appreciate in value, into dollar reserves above ground, which are losing their value." 3. "the countries with the fastest growing demand, notably the major oil producers, China and other Asian exporters, keep domestic energy prices artificially low by providing subsidies, therefore rising prices don't reduce demand as they would under normal conditions." 4. "both trend-following speculation and institutional commodity-index-buying reinforce the output pressure on prices. Commodities have become an asset class for institutional investors and they are increasing allocations to that asset class by following an index-buying strategy. Recently, spot prices have risen far above the marginal cost of production and far out forward contracts have risen much faster than stock spot prices." What Soros outlined in his talk is that "Real-world circumstances have created a mismatch between supply and demand, which sets the stage for a speculative frenzy." From an article by Andrew Leonard, "How the World Works," June 3, 2008: Soros testimony |
|
06 Aug 08 - 09:30 PM (#2407177) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) According to the Canada Free Press, George Soros has raised $100 million through his Democracy Alliance for the Democratic Party through liberal non-profits, including $24 million of his own money, aimed at the defeat of Bush and the Republican Party. http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1297. From the NY Times- In 2007, Soros and his team of investors made $3 billion, according to the ranking of hedge fund earners by Institutional Investor's Alpha magazine. His Quantum Fund returned 32% Hedge fund manager James H. Simons and his Medallion Fund also made $3 billion and returned 73% (Mr Simons, a mathemetician and former Defense Dept. code breaker, uses complex computer models to trade. Paulson & Co. made $3.7 billion betting against certain mortgages and the complexes that held them. Newcomer to the big time Phillip Falcone and his Harbinger Partners made $1.7 billion, returns 117%. It is a gigantic version of Las Vegas, says the Brookings Institute economist Gary Burtless. Balancing the winners were scores of losers, "wracked by bad investments, excess borrowing or leverage, and client redemptions-..." Wall Street Winners The NY Times title is wrong to an extent, much of the investment by Soros-Rogers and their Quantum Fund is not invested in Wall Street stocks and funds, but in other markets worldwide. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 09:40 PM (#2407184) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) How fast these funds can grow is illustrated by the Paulson example. Their fund was worth $6 billion in 2007 but reached $18 billion in 2007. Their funds, based on the credit market, returned 590% and 353% last year. There are many of these funds, some independent and some tied to other investment funds, total value some $2 trillion under management. Same NY Times article linked above, "Wall Street Winners." |
|
06 Aug 08 - 10:57 PM (#2407235) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: robomatic pdq having written: "A free market is great where there is true elasticity, but in the case of "monopolies" or cartels..." Then can we sorta agree that the Clinton era mergers reducing 9 major US oil companies to 4 or 5 was bad for competition. Perhaps that it has lead to higher pump prices? Just asking. I think it is a question worth asking, but I don't think the contraction among some American oil companies had the negative effect you imply. I think it's important to realize that though these are large American companies, their reserves are far less than those of the Mideast and other government controlled oil companies such as Russia, China, possibly Mexico and Venezuela. And oil being 'fungible' means that the huge demands on oil posed by the expansion of industry in Asia and India have greater and longer lasting impact that would make it economically a non-starter for the United States to try and capitalistically nationalize American oil for the American people as you seem to wish. The almighty dollar may not be as almighty as it once was, but our Chinese friends have maybe a trillion or two of 'em. |
|
06 Aug 08 - 11:09 PM (#2407242) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Please do not make that first line a quote from me. I was quoting Maine Dog as you can clearly see in my post and his. There is also no fucking way I said to "capitalistically nationalize American oil" since that phrase is meaningless and absurd. Please restate what you mean should you figure out what that is. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 01:20 AM (#2407284) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor >>Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 06 Aug 08 - 04:49 PM What I want to know is where does that money Soros makes come from? Exxon makes it's money by making a product and selling it for 10% more than it cost them. Less of a mark up than other oil companies. Soros's fund made $1.8 billion in one week by manipulation currency. What was produced? What did anybody receive in return for this money? Where is your demand for a windfall profits tax on that corporation? << >>"one of us knows how to define" Which one? I never mentioned a markup.<< |
|
07 Aug 08 - 03:15 AM (#2407309) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq George Soros is a predatory investor who manipulates markets by playing with the emotions of investors, not by clever analysis of assets. His Quantum Fund has made 32% profit (on average) since 1969. Exxon-Mobil provides a real product and only gets 10% profit. Soros manager regrets attack on HK dollar Amy Nip Thursday, July 05, 2007 An asset manager who represented George Soros, one of the predatory speculators who laid siege to the Hong Kong dollar and attempted to manipulate the stock and futures markets, has admitted making a blunder. In an interview with mainland paper China Business News, Rodney Jones, the former managing director of Soros Fund Management in Hong Kong, admitted: "We made a mistake." He said Wednesday the markets could have collapsed, "if the Hong Kong government hesitated any longer." For two weeks beginning August 12, 1998, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority with the support of then financial secretary Donald Tsang Yam- kuen, waged war on currency speculators who were making a double play of dumping the Hong Kong dollar and shorting local stocks and Hang Seng Index futures. In the end, the speculators were literally caught short with their short positions on HSI futures and short positions on the currency. Soros and his flagship Quantum Fund bet heavily that Hong Kong would end up on bended knee, but it was not to be. In 1996, Jones was stationed in Hong Kong and was researching Southeast Asian markets. He said he noticed the asset price bubble in the real estate market and yet banks continued to lend to developers who had difficulty paying interest on loans. In the circumstances, Jones said he recommended to Soros that he short-sell the Thai baht. "We started preparations six months beforehand and built short positions gradually," he told the paper. In January 1997, Soros and other global hedge funds began dumping baht in large quantities, putting the exchange rate under immense pressure. "Capital started to flow out of Thailand in May and Thailand imposed capital controls," he recalled. "But at that time, we already knew the baht could not hold." At the time, the Thai economy was in trouble, exports had slumped, there was excessive investment and the country was grappling with a yawning current account deficit. Speculators smelled blood, believing the baht was overvalued. Hedge funds launched a second assault on the baht in June that year. With forex reserves depleted, the Bank of Thailand caved in and devalued the currency. After causing immense grief and turmoil in Southeast Asia, with the poor hit the hardest, Soros set his eyes on Hong Kong. Jones said there was a bubble in the stock and property markets at the time, "although not as bad as in Thailand." He added: "And we thought in the beginning that the cost of maintaining the linked exchange rate would be too high for the Hong Kong government." The funds mounted a three-pronged assault on the currency, futures and stocks. But then they came up against a well-prepared HKMA, which left greedy speculators with a bloodied nose. Hong Kong intervened in the markets, although there was concern in some quarters that the government had dipped into the Exchange Fund. In hindsight, Jones, said he felt otherwise. "Government intervention raised public confidence in the market when it was near total collapse. It prevented a bigger crisis and saved the market." Tsang declared at the time: "We have frustrated their plan. We are absolutely determined to use all means available to us to protect the stability and integrity of our currency and financial markets." Even the Bank of China supported the counterattack on speculators. Tung Chee-hwa, the chief executive at the time, warned speculators saying: "We will continue to do what is necessary." Jones said: "We used to doubt if the HKSAR government's intervention would be effective or not, as timing and choice of strategies were of crucial importance. From what we see now, the HKSAR government chose the right time to intervene. We made a mistake at the time." |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:54 AM (#2407443) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack The Sailor pdq, Are you making a point? Assuming its even any of our business what Soros does in Hong Kong, assuming he is doing something morally wrong, what he has done has nothing to do with Exxon Mobil. So what is up? Are you changing the subject? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 05:42 PM (#2407921) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw The Soros Threat To Democracy George Soros is known for funding groups such as http://MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency. How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute, which gave him "legal and media advice"? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different. That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer? Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases. So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report. Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too. Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld — for the terrorists. OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists. They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer? It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news? OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" — also known as eco-terrorism. On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats… |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:31 PM (#2407988) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Sawzaw, You are making me laugh again!! Ha ha ha!! Where are you getting this stuff? >>Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.<< James Hansen info You think it would be a good thing that if Hansen had not been funded NASA would have been able to continue to lie? What did he do to you? Try to kill your pet tree? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:37 PM (#2407996) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Are you saying that trees make good pets? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:38 PM (#2407998) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw If you cut down the trees, where are the birds gonna live? |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:49 PM (#2408008) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Are you saying that trees make good pets? No, to me trees are just like spotted owls, a renewable source of energy and building materials. >>If you cut down the trees, where are the birds gonna live? In the new trees, the ones you plant. That's why they call it sustainable energy. Because it can be sustained. But if we have to, we can tide them over in temporary lodging. FEMA bird house. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 07:58 PM (#2408018) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: DougR I heard a report on the car radio today that the employees of the major oil companies in the U.S. contributed considerably more to the Obama campaign for president than they did to McCain's campaign. Suppose they have a death wish? DougR |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:05 PM (#2408023) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Soros and his Open Society Institute, and its accomplishments should be the subject of a separate thread, since there is no relation to Exxon Mobil or any of the other integrated petroleum producers. A good place to begin is the OSI Brochure- "A Record of Achievement: 2008" Record 2008 Click on the symbol of the pdf document. The report is 20 pages and may be printed easily. The organization is open and liberal, it neither funds nor supports terrorists. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:13 PM (#2408029) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) At the site which comes up, click on About OSI. Then click on 'more' under "Record of Achievement." This will get you to the 2008 report. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 08:59 PM (#2408062) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw How long does it take to grow a tree? It's going to be a long time between fill ups. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 09:03 PM (#2408065) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>How long does it take to grow a tree? It's going to be a long time between fill ups.<< Awesome insight there Saw. Yep, Obama's whole energy plan revolves around buring one tree. |
|
07 Aug 08 - 11:04 PM (#2408127) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,NO DOUBT HOW ABOUT WE ALL TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILTY....... WE ALL BY THE SHIT |
|
08 Aug 08 - 12:43 AM (#2408159) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Let me see. You plant some trees and then you have to wait for them to grow before you cut them down and turn them into methanol. That will take a while unless you cut down some trees that are already grown. The ones you cut down aren't converting any CO2 anymore and the replacements take a while to grow so you are putting CO2 in the air that is hot being converted until the replacement trees grow up. Sounds to me like it would increase CO2 levels. Why not plant trees, let them keep on growing and absorb the CO2 from fossil fuels. Then about when we run out of fossil fuels we will have non fuel burning energy sources. And the birds will be a lot happier. Where are all these trees going to go? How about the water and energy it takes to grow them, harvest them and convert them into fuel? Won't that make the whole process inefficient? How about the left over chemicals and stuff? will it pollute? I need to know all these thing before I can decide if it is feasible or not. A new study of the carbon dioxide emissions, cropland area requirements, and other environmental consequences of growing corn and sugarcane to produce fuel ethanol indicates that the "direct and indirect environmental impacts of growing, harvesting, and converting biomass to ethanol far exceed any value in developing this energy resource on a large scale." The study, published in the July 2005 issue of BioScience, the journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), uses the "ecological footprint" concept to assess needs for ethanol production from sugarcane, now widespread in Brazil, and from corn, which is increasing in the United States. In the United States, ethanol yielded only about 10 percent more energy than was required to produce it. Recently, Patzek published a fifty-page study on the subject in the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Science. This time, he factored in the myriad energy inputs required by industrial agriculture, from the amount of fuel used to produce fertilizers and corn seeds to the transportation and wastewater disposal costs. All told, he believes that the cumulative energy consumed in corn farming and ethanol production is six times greater than what the end product provides your car engine in terms of power. If you have a 100,000 acre plantation exporting biomass on contract to Europe , that's a completely different story. From one square meter of land, you can get roughly one watt of energy. The price you pay is that in Brazil alone you annually damage a jungle the size of Greece ." If ethanol is as much of an environmental Trojan horse as Patzek's data suggests, what is the solution? The researcher sees several possibilities, all of which can be explored in tandem. First, he says, is to divert funds earmarked for ethanol to improve the efficiency of fuel cells and hybrid electric cars. For generating electricity on the grid, Patzek's "favorite renewable energy" to replace coal is solar. Unfortunately, he says that solar cell technology is still too immature for use in large power stations. Until it's ready for prime time, he has a suggestion that could raise even more controversy than his criticisms of ethanol additives. "I've come to the conclusion that if we're smart about it, nuclear power plants may be the lesser of the evils when we compare them with coal-fired plants and their impact on global warming," he says. "We're going to pay now or later. The question is what's the smallest price we'll have to pay? |
|
08 Aug 08 - 06:52 PM (#2408885) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>>And the birds will be a lot happier. If your point is that using energy has costs. I agree. If you are saying that trees are not as bad as solar so we ought to use oil. That is definitely for the birds. If you don't cut down every tree at once only a small minority of birds will even notice. |
|
09 Aug 08 - 10:37 AM (#2409268) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Are you saying that cutting trees does not have an impact on the environment? |
|
09 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM (#2409385) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I have said the same thing to you about eight times. Everyone who has read it understands it but you. That should tell you something about yourself. I'll repeat it once more. To fight global warming it is better to use trees than fossil fuels because the trees are already part of the biosphere. This is especially true if you replant the trees. |
|
09 Aug 08 - 06:38 PM (#2409552) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw So how long doe it take for those replanted trees to grow. What take their place at converting CO2 to O2? "trees are already part of the biosphere" So please don't cut them down and harm the biosphere like they do down in Brazil. Is the "stuff in the ground" part of the Biosphere? Now you know something about me. Tell us something about you. Are you real smart? A biologist or something? Somebody that has a license to talk down to people? |
|
10 Aug 08 - 01:02 AM (#2409694) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw I realize that I did mention markup. I meant to say profit. And I still want to know where Soros's money comes from since he is not producing a product for resale? I suspect it comes from devaluation of the currencies he deals in and eventually comes out of everybody's pocket. |
|
10 Aug 08 - 01:53 AM (#2409701) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: CarolC Maybe the employees of the oil companies are voting for Obama because they know they're more likely to find themselves without health insurance if McCain gets elected than if Obama gets elected. And maybe they like Obama's plan to reduce taxes on their income bracket. |
|
10 Aug 08 - 02:54 AM (#2409714) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn Maybe they're just betting on the better prospect Barry |
|
10 Aug 08 - 04:36 AM (#2409736) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Various trees take different times to grow depending of conditions and the type of tree. The little trees take the place of the big trees. The amount of O2 is not an issue. it is removing the CO2, which is made more difficult by adding carbon from the ground. You don't have to be a biologist to understand what I have been saying. You simply need to be able to understand simple arithmetic. One doesn't need a license to talk down to someone who has had the same simple thing explained eight times and still doesn't get it. And who reacts sarcastically each time it is explained. |
|
11 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM (#2410236) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw How can a tiny tree absorb the amount of CO2 produced by burning a big tree? You haven't explained it yet. The amount of CO2 converted by a large tree is much more than a small tree, over a period of time, the tiny tree can replace the big tree in it's capacity to convert CO2 into O2. In the mean time the amount if CO2 in the biosphere is increasing because you have replaced a big tree with a small tree. If you leave the big tree alone to absorb the CO2 released from burning the fossil fuel, which by the way was originally trees and other organic matter, The tree will be there to absorb the CO2 produced. Where are these trees going to grow. On cropland and raising food prices even more. How much as the corn ethanol program lowered the price of gas? It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy you get out of it. It was feel good legislation and a boondoggle. Maybe someday ethanol production will pay off but I think it is better to skip over all this cleaner fuels bandaid approach that still produce CO2 and concentrate on energy technology that does not depend on burning anything. In the meantime use up whatever gas and oil we can find here. I think that is what T Boone is saying. Solar wind and nuclear with oil and gas as a tide me over. Hybrid cars should be replaced by totally battery powered vehicles with longer lasting more compact and lighter weight lithium batteries. It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though. |
|
11 Aug 08 - 02:29 AM (#2410281) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>From: GUEST,Sawzaw Date: 11 Aug 08 - 12:16 AM >>How can a tiny tree absorb the amount of CO2 produced by burning a big tree? You haven't explained it yet. The amount of CO2 converted by a large tree is much more than a small tree, over a period of time, the tiny tree can replace the big tree in it's capacity to convert CO2 into O2. In the mean time the amount if CO2 in the biosphere is increasing because you have replaced a big tree with a small tree. If you leave the big tree alone to absorb the CO2 released from burning the fossil fuel, which by the way was originally trees and other organic matter, The tree will be there to absorb the CO2 produced.<< Who said it had to be one tree? several small trees gave more surface area than one large one. Eventually the big tree will die and all its carbon will be released. >>>Where are these trees going to grow. On cropland and raising food prices even more. Where are trees growing now? >>>How much as the corn ethanol program lowered the price of gas? It takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the amount of energy you get out of it. It was feel good legislation and a boondoggle. Maybe someday ethanol production will pay off but I think it is better to skip over all this cleaner fuels bandaid approach that still produce CO2 and concentrate on energy technology that does not depend on burning anything. In the meantime use up whatever gas and oil we can find here. I think that is what T Boone is saying. Solar wind and nuclear with oil and gas as a tide me over.<< Solar and wind are the ultimate goal according to Pickens. You should pay closer attention. >>>Hybrid cars should be replaced by totally battery powered vehicles with longer lasting more compact and lighter weight lithium batteries. That is the goal of some car and battery makers. But Plug in hybrids presently give a better balance of weight and range. Supercapacitors are also a very promising technology. If they are based on carbon nanotubes, in the future they may be able to store more power per unit of weight than a battery and be charged in less time than it takes to fill a car with gas. It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though. |
|
11 Aug 08 - 04:13 AM (#2410317) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>It will be a bitch to develop a battery powered airliner though. There is always rubber band power. |
|
11 Aug 08 - 10:31 AM (#2410556) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant. Barry |
|
11 Aug 08 - 12:08 PM (#2410630) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace But he's got HIGH HOPES |
|
12 Aug 08 - 11:46 PM (#2412203) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw "Solar and wind are the ultimate goal according to Pickens. You should pay closer attention." I have said that the ultimate coal is wind and solar but there is something even better, fusion reactors. Are you saying that several small trees are going to fit in the same space that the big tree occupied? "Eventually the big tree will die and all its carbon will be released." True but you would have to use only trees that die from natural causes to break even. You will still not reduce the existing CO2 in the atmosphere and you would not reverse global warming. The only way to reverse Global warming is to quit burning fuel and leave the trees alone to do their job. |
|
14 Aug 08 - 11:52 PM (#2414252) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Big Oil Not Sitting On Oil Acreage Despite Democrats' Claims Roy Maynard Congressional Democrats now have their unified response to increasing calls for oil exploration in Alaska and in the waters off our shores: The energy companies, they say, are already sitting on plenty of oil, refusing to recover it. But is that true? "Energy companies are not producing oil or gas on 68 million acres of federal land under their control," claims Congressman Maurice Hinchey, a New York Democrat. "The fact of the matter is Congress has already allowed oil companies to drill, but those companies are refusing to drill because they want to lock up as much federal land as possible and wait for oil to rise to $200 or $300 a barrel so that they can make even greater profits than they are making now." Therefore, the Democrats say, there's no need to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer Continental Shelf, despite the crippling rise of gasoline prices. "Why should the U.S. government continue to give away precious acres of public land to massive energy companies when they've already demonstrated that they will just sit on those acres and not produce oil in a timely fashion?" The party even advanced a bill last week they called "Use It or Lose It," which would deny energy companies additional leases until they "demonstrate that they are diligently developing" the leases they already have. "If they were showing in good faith that they were drilling on some of the 68 million acres they have now, it might change some of our attitudes," says Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. Yet the unified response rings hollow and untrue. Oil companies in the business of finding, retrieving and selling petroleum don't want to? The best work debunking the Democrats' claim comes from the reliable Investors Business Daily. "This is yet another slander of 'Big Oil' by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi one that has become a major talking point for Democrats in Congress," the newspaper said in a July 3 editorial. "It's completely dishonest." Oil companies are driven by profits, and they've already sunk billions of dollars into those existing leases. And they are drilling an increase in activity of more than 66 percent since 2000, according to that editorial. "They are searching for oil even as you read this," the Daily says. "Some parts of those 68 million acres will have oil, some won't. But at $145 a barrel, you can bet oil companies have plenty of incentive to find it." In fact, I have a friend who supplies oilfield equipment. He says he's now spending much of his time explaining to customers that he's having trouble meeting all their pipe needs the demand is extremely heavy, and the supply is being further limited by a worldwide shortage in steel. The Daily's helpful editorial goes on to dispel several more myths. Can we drill our way out of the energy crisis? "Actually, we can," it notes. "Conservative estimates put the total amount of recoverable oil in conventional deposits at about 39 billion barrels. Offshore we have another 89 billion barrels or so. In ANWR, 10 billion." That's not counting the oil shale deposits with an estimated 1 trillion barrels, or natural gas. As for those who claim additional drilling won't impact gas prices for years, remember: what's helping to drive prices upward is the oil futures market. "Markets would suddenly have to discount future oil prices for the expected gain in oil supply," the Daily says. "That would cause oil prices, especially in futures markets, to drop." Congressional Democrats are already feeling the pressure to allow additional drilling, but so far they're not budging. "This call for drilling in areas that are protected is a hoax," Ms. Pelosi said on Thursday. "It's an absolute hoax on the part of the Republicans and this Bush administration." |
|
15 Aug 08 - 12:02 AM (#2414256) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Sawzaw If you want oil company propaganda go here! |
|
15 Aug 08 - 04:03 PM (#2414878) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Most N.M. Leases See Drilling Monday, 11 August 2008 Opponents of opening new areas offshore and in Alaska to oil drilling frequently cite the fact that millions of acres already leased by oil and gas companies sit idle. Oil companies, they say, are hoarding and should drill these leases before potential new fields are opened. But, in New Mexico, more than three fourths of leased federal acres are delivering natural gas or crude oil. Some of the leases that aren't producing simply came up dry, and some others have been tied up by environmental and conservation groups opposed to drilling. Those include Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico and the Galisteo Basin north of Albuquerque and near Santa Fe. The state's Oil Conservation Division, which regulates groundwater protection on state and federal land leased to oil and gas companies, has also blocked some new exploration on leases in Rio Arriba County. Big picture numbers: The Bureau of Land Management has leased 5.4 million acres of federal land to oil and gas producers in New Mexico. Of that, about 3.9 million acres are in production, according to Tony Herrell, the BLM's state deputy director for minerals.........." |
|
15 Aug 08 - 07:16 PM (#2415034) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) The American Petroleum Institute has a very good website, but trying to educate the average American on energy may be a hopeless task. The facts brought up in the little API 'test' linked there has been considered in several threads here and the details behind the answers are available there. Neocomies posting here are economic dinosaurs, ignorant of the geopolitical considerations that have caused all progressive world economies to adopt the capitalist system, whether driven by the people or in part state directed from the top. Unfortunately,the fundamentals of economics, geopolitics, wealth creation and capitalism are given little attention in North American schools, and the average person is too lazy to look beyond the nonsense spouted by bloggers. The U. S. oil reserves are less that 3% of the world's total. International oil companies control only 5% of estimated reserves. The rest are controlled by government owned companies. The U. S. will depend more and more on government-owned petroleum reserves, and equitable contracts are needed. Coal reserves are large, and will continue to be used for generation of electricity, but use and management of gases and other waste products should be a priority. Other forms of generating energy- nuclear, solar, wind, fuel cell- all should have their place but implementation to serious levels will take a generation. Drilling in new areas and development of infrastructure will not bring important quantities of new oil into the picture for 10 years- provided that the pie-in-the-sky figures bandied about are even partly correct. There will be many disappointments because reservoirs may be tight, thermal conditions were unfavorable to the development of liquid hydrocarbons, development costs too high and many other factors. |
|
15 Aug 08 - 07:53 PM (#2415063) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor API is a trade industry association, the information they present is totally biases, as it should be expected. They exist to promote the interests of the oil companies. With that is mind, they are a good website. As Sawzaw's aim also seems to be the promotion of the interests of the oil companies, I thought that he should know about them. |
|
15 Aug 08 - 09:22 PM (#2415127) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Most N.M. Leases See Drilling Monday, 11 August 2008, 15:00 CDT Opponents of opening new areas offshore and in Alaska to oil drilling frequently cite the fact that millions of acres already leased by oil and gas companies sit idle. Oil companies, they say, are hoarding and should drill these leases before potential new fields are opened. But, in New Mexico, more than threefourths of leased federal acres are delivering natural gas or crude oil. Some of the leases that aren't producing simply came up dry, and some others have been tied up by environmental and conservation groups opposed to drilling. Those include Otero Mesa in southern New Mexico and the Galisteo Basin north of Albuquerque and near Santa Fe. The state's Oil Conservation Division, which regulates groundwater protection on state and federal land leased to oil and gas companies, has also blocked some new exploration on leases in Rio Arriba County. Big picture numbers: The Bureau of Land Management has leased 5.4 million acres of federal land to oil and gas producers in New Mexico. Of that, about 3.9 million acres are in production, according to Tony Herrell, the BLM's state deputy director for minerals...... |
|
15 Aug 08 - 10:28 PM (#2415170) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Q (Frank Staplin) Prospective leases sometimes sit idle until economic conditions are deemed favorable by the economic advisors in the companies. The price per barrel is dropping fast, back to around $110-115,bbl., and some prospects which looked good three weeks ago, have been put back on the rear burner. No point in break-even or loss production. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 05:45 AM (#2442875) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Teribus $93.89 a barrel now JtS and dropping. Has that got anything to do with Bush/Cheney/Iraq War/"evil neo-con conspiracies"??? |
|
17 Sep 08 - 06:21 AM (#2442894) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq Brent "spot" price: $90.06 / barrel. That is still $2.145 per gallon of crude oil "as is, where is". There is a lot of work required to refine and transport it before the gas stations fill their storage tanks. Also, a huge share of profit goes to the US government in taxes. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 08:22 AM (#2442955) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Sandy Mc Lean [That is still $2.145 per gallon of crude oil "as is, where is".] It is a great mis-conception to believe that is the price actually paid for most of the crude . Much of it is supplied by themselves (big oil) to themselves and they only pay the higher spot market price to top up their supply. The USA may import a lot of crude but it also produces a lot more than that within it's own borders. It also has a stable supply from Canada. The spot market price is driven by speculaters ( gamblers) who hope that the price will increase even more. Hopefully some of these bastards have recently lost their shirts! Anyone who believes that Exxon is paying the "world price" for every gallon of crude is pretty gullable. As Woody said: "Some will rob you with a six-gun; some with a fountain pen!" |
|
17 Sep 08 - 08:43 AM (#2442975) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: pdq "...paying the "world price" for every gallon of crude..." Please cite where anybody but yourself has made such a claim. "Hopefully some of these bastards have recently lost their shirts!" Real nice guy, aren't you. |
|
17 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM (#2443073) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Kevin Parker Interesting Statistics on US oil production/consumption on this page: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html Hope it might illuminate the debate cheers KP |
|
17 Sep 08 - 12:02 PM (#2443122) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading By David Cho Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A01 Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses. But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol's books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol's portfolio -- at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange. The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators. ad_icon The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol's activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders. Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer. "It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner." The CFTC, which refrains from naming specific traders in its reports, did not publicly identify Vitol. The agency's report showed only the size of the holdings of an unnamed trader. Vitol's identity as that trader was confirmed by two industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter. CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil -- about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday. The documents do not say how much Vitol put down to acquire this position, but under NYMEX rules, the down payment could have been as little as $1 billion, with the company borrowing the rest. The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as "swap dealers" who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms. To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC's purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn...." Much More at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/20/AR2008082003898.html |
|
17 Sep 08 - 12:06 PM (#2443123) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: GUEST,Sawzaw Swiss oil trading firm Vitol SA pleads guilty in oil-for-food case, will pay $17.5 million The Associated Press November 20, 2007 NEW YORK: Swiss oil trading firm Vitol SA pleaded guilty Tuesday to a larceny charge in connection with a scheme to pay secret kickbacks to the Iraqi government in exchange for oil under the United Nations' scandal-ridden oil-for-food program, state prosecutors said. District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said the company pleaded guilty to a single count of grand larceny in the first degree in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. Vitol will pay restitution of $13 million (€8.8 million) to the Development Fund for Iraq and will make a payment of $4.5 million (€3 million) to the city and state of New York. "The Oil for Food Programme was established by the United Nations with the noble goal of providing for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people," Morgenthau said in a statement. "One outcome of this investigation, and last week's joint investigation involving Chevron, is to insure that illegal funds that were paid to Saddam Hussein's government are redirected to benefit the Iraqi people." Prosecutors alleged that Vitol, through an associated entity or third parties, paid $13 million in kickbacks to Iraqi officials in connection with oil purchases under the program from June 2001 through September 2002, but allowed false representations to be made to the U.N. that no kickbacks were paid. Today in Business with Reuters Wall Street, unsatisfied, bids down stocks Fed rescues AIG with $85 billion loan for 80% stake Lloyds TSB in talks to buy HBOS Vitol's case is one of several that are the result of a wide-ranging criminal probe into the oil-for-food program. Last week, Chevron Corp. agreed to pay $30 million (€20.2 million) to settle civil and criminal charges related to secret surcharges paid by third-party merchants in exchange for oil under the program. Nine people, including former Coastal Corp. Chairman Oscar S. Wyatt, have either pleaded guilty or been convicted of criminal charges in the case. Criminal charges are pending against six other individuals, including the program's former executive director, Benon V. Sevan. In February, El Paso Corp. agreed to pay $7.7 million (€5.2 million) to settle civil and criminal charges that it indirectly paid $5.5 million (€3.7 million) in illegal surcharges to Iraq through purchases of crude oil from outside parties under the oil-for-food program. The oil-for-food program was designed to allow the government of Iraq, which was facing international sanctions, to sell oil in exchange for food, medical supplies and other humanitarian needs." http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/20/business/NA-FIN-US-Vitol-Oil-for-Food.php |
|
18 Sep 08 - 12:54 AM (#2443723) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Barry Finn With Exxon's record profits being made public, you'd think that somewhere you'd hear the cry of "Fowl" when they still refeuse to pay the fines levied against them more than 15yrs ago for the Valdez episode in Alaska. Barry |
|
18 Sep 08 - 01:42 AM (#2443743) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: DougR Good for Exxon! My grandson is a Project Engineer with Exxon and he makes damn good money. The shareholders must be pleased. DougR |
|
18 Sep 08 - 01:46 AM (#2443744) Subject: RE: BS: Exxon Mobil Corp. Record profits From: Peace Kids still need to eat. |
