Hard to say which is more annoying: that Exxon Mobil made $10.5 billion last quarter, or that the profit is only the second highest in history for a U.S. company.
The first highest, of course, was the $10.7 billion Exxon Mobil made in the fourth quarter of 2005.
Most of the company’s profits come from overseas production of oil and natural gas, but analysts also credited high U.S. demand for gasoline, which barely budged even when prices topped $3 a gallon during the summer.
“At what price do people really start cutting back? We’re not sure,” said energy analyst Jacques Rousseau.
Good question. And the petroleum industry knows a good way to find out.
Posted by Dave Knadler
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
30 Comments
You know that Exxon doesn’t even count as 5% of the Oil Industry revenues or even considered a very big player compared to State ran oil Companies, such as PEMEX, ARAMCO, Petroleos de Venezuela and the other slave and state runned oil companies dominated by dicators and monarch goverments who profit personally more than Exxon could in a year. Yet Exxon is the bad guy.
Knadler-Why don’t you be more honest about how the profits work?It’s nice you found an “energy analyst” who wants to know when we will start cutting back.I’ll start when Al Gore starts.Suck it.
Kind of puts a damper on all that, “The price is determined by supply and demand” line.
The middle class has cut back because they are the working poor.Is it just me, or didn’t anybody else try to cut back on driving out of necessity?Whatever we don’t use, the well off use up in their expensive vehicles.
The majority of Exxon stock, as is the case with all publicly traded corporate stock, is held by retirement plans. Another good chunk of Exxon stock is held by charities, college endowments, and college savings plans.As a percentage of total capitalization of the entire company, the profits from Exxon, over the last 10 years, are small. Exxon profits don’t look much better than investing in any other industry. (Sell all assetts, pay off all debts, and you will find that energy companies have many competitors for investment dollars. The historical cash on cash return is competitive, but not out of line. Sometimes, CD rates and muni bond rates have been a better deal.)Think of it this way, you have two rental houses. Your rent received, on both houses, is $500.00 a month.One house is “worth” about $80,000 and the other house is “worth” about $160,000. Try as you might, you can’t seem to get more rent out of either house.Which house is the best investment, since they both produce the “same” rent? Income, alone, means nothing.Knadler, if you want some respect on this issue, divide the corporate profits of Exxon by the number of employees at Exxon and give us a picture of what Exxon does for the economy. Divide the profits from Exxon by the capitalization of Exxon, and show us the profits per share of corporate stock. The capitalizaton required for a company like Exxon to exist, the money required to run their business, is HUGE.Knadler, if you want to tie up all of your money in trucks, pipelines, drilling rigs, ships and maintaining a HUGE payroll, nobody is stopping you. (Gosh, shouldnt we just layoff or outsource all of those Exxon employees, since they are in such a politically incorrect business anyway?)— nobody is stopping any of you from investing in the oil industry. You can either buy Exxon stock, or for a relatively modest amount, you can buy a share in your own oil well.You don’t do that because you would rather use your money elsewhere.This is America, you have a right to avoid direct oil company investment if you decline that option. You have chosen NOT to invest directly in oil and gas production because you correctly see it as a somewhat risky, long term investment. Quit whining then. You made your decision. You did not buy your “lottery ticket” and you therefore do not deserve to “win.” (Even though EVERY one of you that has a retirement plan IS invested in the energy industry, you probably even “own” Exxon stock in your retirement plan and you don’t know it.)I am not offering to sell anything with this politically oriented post, but energy related mutual funds out there often have a minimum investment of $50.00.
Time for SERIOUS investment in alternative energies so that one day my kid can flip the bird to the middle east instead of going there to fight for oil. Then I can turn to Paul Rosell, Exxon and all the greed heads that are screwing up Americas economy and polluting the atmosphere and tell them to suck it.
Joe Williams,
“…Yet Exxon is the bad guy.”
Yes, they fund climate change denialists and skeptics.
The M-E region has huge amounts of cheap ($1+ a barrel to produce) oil.
IMO, the “bad guys” include the oil and Detroit lobbyists, and pols in Congress who block higher mpg standards — and claim the “solution” is more domestic oil production.
Also the Americans who buy and drive low mpg vehicles, and vote for pols who block higher mpg, push more drilling.
Design higher mpg gasoline vehicles, and alternative fuels become more feasible.
It’ll take a decade (or 2) to replace the low mpg vehicles built today, unless they’re abandoned, or modified.
Japan’s 100 mpg cars, hydrogen vehicles, and climate change will force Detroit to change, sooner or later.
Joe – Exxon is a US company, the others are not. I would expect a US company to have at least SOME allegience toward the USA. As such, I would look to them to act in a manner consistent with our nationsl security. They do not.
We need to be weaning ourselves from foreign oil; Exxon-Mobil actively oppose such activities. In particular we need to be moving toward increased energy effieiencies; Exxon-Mobil sees that as a threat to their revenues. Revenues that are subsidized by US taxpayers in many ways, including the use of our troops to protect foreign oil supplies.
Shttp://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027enator Inhofe has it right:
I think US companies should have an allegiance to our country and many times this has proven not to be the case. I don’t think that moral decline in the country is what is bringing the US down, it is the pure greed of major US corporations that will cheat, lie and steal to get that one more penny profit.
We will be using fossil fuels for at least another 100 years. Gasoline will be our primary ground transportation fuel for at least another 50 years.—-By the way Ben, didnt catch your response last time I asked:How were the Vikings able to cultivate land and harvest crops in Greenland? Greenland is too cold for agriculture today.
Again, Senator Inhofe is great!:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264027
Inhofe relies on a fiction writer for his science advice. He is 100% wrong.
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
Paul – localized temperature changes are caused by local events, in that case the strength of the thermohaline. It was not global. What we are seeing now is global.
I recomment that if WSU offers their paleoclimatology class again you take it.
Paul F Rosell
How many times do I have to explain it to you? Honesty in posting! At the end of each of your posts you need a disclaimer foot note. Here like this
*Paul Rosell is a trader in fossil fuel futures.
“We will be using fossil fuels for at least another 100 years.”
That sounds like something a trader in fossil fuels futures (Paul F Rosell) would LIKE not only to believe but to deceive others into believing.
Shill.
Paul F(alse) Rosell,
Do your “financial planning” clients read this blog?
I suggest they compare your praise of Inhofe with these:
‘Inhofe’s speech and right-wing global warming myths’http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/25/17124/9789
The Inhofe links at http://desmogblog.com/
Paul… since you advise investing in fossil energy, you should study the facts at http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/
According to the Harry Potter books we have nothing to worry about – at least as long as Harry defeats Lord Voldermort. That is just as credible as Inhofe’s fiction writer.
JRI am proud to say that I have “worked” in just about EVERY industry there is, if you think investment advice that is industry specific makes me unqualified to speak, politically, about that industry, then that doesnt leave me much to talk about. Manufacturing, Drugs, Transportation, Real Estate, Finance, Nursing Homes, Travel and Recreation, Medical, Insurance.I will go along with your claim that I am an expert, through experience, in nearly every field, and therefore I am not “unbiased” when I speak.—–You, JR, are an idiot in every field. You post that disclaimer and I will post mine!
BenHow were the Vikings able to produce agricultural products in Greenland?Today, Greenland is usually frozen solid.How where the Vikings able to raise crops in Greenland?Sounds like things got Colder, not Warmer!!!
Paul – asked and answered above. Also, there is some question just how much they DID produce there – if anything. There was a big push to get people to move there and there was a bit of ‘land puffery’ – just like with the “beautiful Antelope Valley” in southern California. (a.k.a the Mojave desert).
I once had a quote from an old issue of Chemical & Engineering News about the frustrations felt by professional scientists in dealing with ignorant people who prefer to believe fiction over science. That quote fits you to a “T”.
How familiar are you with the dynamics of the global thermohaline circulation?
Paul I was merely demonstrating that you have a financial stake in keeping this nation addicted to oil and thus are not really to be trusted.
But hey? Let’s let you write your OWN footnote disclaimer.
Off topic but posted just minutes ago by Paul on another thread…..
“I plagiarized the quote about Morrison, adding some words of my own.I did so because dim bulb Tracey tossed out the slander and liabel stuff.I believe the words to be true, even if I wasnt the first to use all of those words.Truth is an absolute defense against liable and slander.Neither RoseMarie nor Paul Rosell, nor anyone else who has gone after Morrison will ever get so much as an scolding for what we say here.Even if the Tyrant Morrison, by some miracle, wins, this is still America.I am not trying to adopt anybody, but my family members will tell Morrison to go to hell if trys to scare any of them.”
There’s your footnote for the credibility of one Paul F Rosell folks!——
Paul F(alse) Rosell,
“Greenland is too cold for agriculture today.”
http://www.greenland-guide.gl/reg-south.htm“Because of these conditions, the economic life of this area is also very different from the rest of Greenland, with sheep farming and agriculture playing an important part.”
Debunking Paul’s myth,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/greenland-used-to-be-green.html
Paul, do you enjoy looking ignorant, gullible, and foolish?
Remember cosmos, over on another thread Paul informed us that he considers lies to be OK as long as he believes them.
CosmosSheep farming is far, far different from planting crops.The Vikings actually planted crops in Greenland.Your post proves nothing.
Ben, I believe that what you are trying to say is that some air or sea current, much like the Japenese current in the American Northwest, helped to keep Greenland warm at the time of the Vikings?
JR has a monopoly on stupid and I will let him dominate that topic.
On the other hand, for those who did not read the post JR refers to, I only pointed out that public figures can not sue for liable and slander and win.
I know this from personal experience, so I will put that disclaimer in, as well JR.
Paul – have any verification of those crops – their extent etc?
Paul, if you don’t know what the thermohaline is then you should go and learn. Why is northen Europe so much warmer than the equivalent latitudes in North America?
Same now as then Paul.
During the summer, South Greenland fully lives up to its Danish name, Green Land, as this is the most fertile part of the country. In fact most of the flora of Greenland grow in this particular region. The winter climate is relatively mild, and summer temperatures reaching 16-18°C are not uncommon. (note 18C = 64F) Because of these conditions, the economic life of this area is also very different from the rest of Greenland, with sheep farming and agriculture playing an important part. (Note it says FARMING AND AGRICULTURE)
According to the sagas it was actually Eric the Red who called this country Greenland. After he had lived for three years in this region he returned to Iceland, and wanted to convince his fellow countrymen of the fine opportunities for starting a new life here in this ‘Green Land’.”
Now Paul – have you read my link and its further links? That is a professional meteorlogical site; not a political site.
Had to pop back in for a sec. to see if Paul had started claiming he was Napoleon.
Paul you really are quite the clown.
I have “a monopoly on stupid”?
It’s LIBEL not liable you failed little journalism grad you!
You are WAY outta your depth arguing science with Ben the SCIENTIST Paul. Why not quit while you are a behind?
—–
Thanks JR. And especially thanks cosmos for doing the search. At my age it is hard to reach all the way back to freshman science to deal with the willfully ignorant who trust fiction more than science.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6369091
About 70 years ago, pioneer aerial photographer Bradford Washburn flew over Alaska’s glaciers, documenting their splendor while looking for mountain-climbing routes.
Now, a Boston photojournalist is following in his footsteps with a very different purpose. He’s reshooting Washburn’s images to demonstrate global warming’s impacts. Ed Schoenfeld of CoastAlaska News reports from Juneau.
David Arnold sits on a bench outside a helicopter tour office, waiting for his charter flight. He shuffles through a collection of 1930s photographs showing Alaska glaciers from the air. They were taken by Washburn, a mountain-climber, mapmaker and museum director.
“The most remarkable thing about Brad’s pictures is the artistic quality of them,” Arnold says. “And actually, what you see today is the loss of art. The forces, the confrontations that so enamored him are gone.”
The glaciers Washburn found were massive. But many have since lost much of their mass. Arnold’s goal this day is to shoot the Mendenhall Glacier, in Juneau, and learn how it has changed since Washburn flew by in 1937.
Paul F. Rosell,
“Sheep farming is far, far different from planting crops.The Vikings actually planted crops in Greenland.Your post proves nothing.”
Thank you, for YET AGAIN proving your amazing ignorance, and sheep-like devotion to climate change myths. BAAAAAAAHHH!!
The Vikings planted FODDER crops, in a futile attempt to feed sheep (and other livestock) that had to be kept in barns for many months during the winters.
Paul, do you want to post some other stupid myths?
Ben,
Thanks for the help (”AGRICULTURE”). I didn’t think Paul would be foolish enough to post again on this thread.
For research, http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/ is handy, has a new “Categories” guide, links to RealClimate, NASA, other sites.
.morg,
Those Alaskan glaciers have really retreated. And the increase of trees? IllConsidered link (above) has more on world glacier shrinkage.
Student loans, and student loan consolidation – Lock in the lowest rate with NextStudent. We also offer a scholarship search engine, private student loans and federal student loan applications.