Exxon record proift, again!
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,947
From: Springfield,OH. U.S.A.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24625005/
From $86/barrel to $124, means we could see and honest $60/barrel drop in price, if there's a real investigation and elimination of this speculation bubble.
"We were only trading at $86 about three months ago and not a whole lot has changed to move us to where we are now,” said Addison Armstrong, Director of Market Research for Tradition Energy. “There's no doubt in my mind — and most other people I speak to — we are in a bubble. And it's going to deflate at some point.”
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I think like this at times myself. Take GE for an example. When Jack Welch took over it was a 14 Biilion compnay. When he left it was a 220 Billion compnay. If you would pay him just 1% of what the compnay was worth he would have taken in 220 Million. At a modest 10% he would have made 22 Billion which is a lot more thatn he actually made.
Jack Welch's first 5.9 years as CEO, GE's stock rose 221% from a split-adjusted $1.40 in April 1981 to $4.50 in March 1987.
Again what is someones pay worth when they take a company and increase it's worth 16fold?
One thing I do support is that when a compnay has to make cuts it should be done from the top down starting with perks ect before it rolls into the production/blue sector.
Jack Welch's first 5.9 years as CEO, GE's stock rose 221% from a split-adjusted $1.40 in April 1981 to $4.50 in March 1987.
Again what is someones pay worth when they take a company and increase it's worth 16fold?
One thing I do support is that when a compnay has to make cuts it should be done from the top down starting with perks ect before it rolls into the production/blue sector.
If that is how Jack Welch made the profits soar, to put it bluntly, he is an a**hole!
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
I didn't bother to read every post in this thread.
I am just wondering if any of you know who the major shareholders are in all of those large energy companies.
You will be surprised when you find out. I know I was surprised.
when Energy companies post record profits, nearly every working American benefits in the long run.
I am just wondering if any of you know who the major shareholders are in all of those large energy companies.
You will be surprised when you find out. I know I was surprised.
when Energy companies post record profits, nearly every working American benefits in the long run.
Anyway, whether people believe in global warming or not, it seems Exxon shareholders want a greener change....
May 19, 2008
Exxon Faces Shareholder Rebellion Over Global Warming
exxon_station.jpgFour U.K.-based investors and a British proxy advisory firm joined a group of dissident shareholders calling for an independent chairman at Exxon Mobil, BusinessWeek reports.
“Exxon is facing a rebellion from its investors over its hardline approach to global warming,” The Guardian reports. “The firm has refused to follow rival oil companies in committing large-scale capital investment to environmentally friendly technology such as wind and solar power.”
Descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Exxon Mobil predecessor Standard Oil Corp., have been calling for splitting the roles of chairman and CEO between two people, some saying the company is too focused on short-term gains.
The investors joining the shareholders are F&C Asset Management, Co-operative Insurance Society, Morley Fund Management, and West Midlands Pension Fund. London-based proxy advisory firm PIRC Ltd. has recommended that its clients support the proposal, which is already backed by RiskMetrics Group, Glass Lewis and Proxy Governance Inc.
“Despite top-notch individual directors, the company’s record over the last decade, particularly regarding climate change, demonstrates that debate has been lacking,” says Karina Litvack, director of Governance & Sustainable Investment at F&C Asset Management. “By bringing in an independent chairman, the company can better leverage that creativity and challenge, and avoid over-dominance by management. Over our eight-year dialogue, ExxonMobil management has opened its doors to challenging views - now it’s time for its board to do the same.”
Exxon Mobil’s board has said the most effective leadership structure is for Rex Tillerson to remain both chairman and CEO. Shareholders are expected to vote on the proposal at Exxon Mobil’s annual meeting on May 28.
A year ago a group of institutional investors, who said they collectively represented about 100 million Exxon shares, wanted Exxon Mobil director Michael Boskin removed and would withhold support for his reappointment because he failed to take action on climate strategy.
Earlier this year it was reported that U.S. investors filed 54 global warming shareholder resolutions with U.S. companies, including Exxon Mobil.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...lobal-warming/
Exxon Faces Shareholder Rebellion Over Global Warming
exxon_station.jpgFour U.K.-based investors and a British proxy advisory firm joined a group of dissident shareholders calling for an independent chairman at Exxon Mobil, BusinessWeek reports.
“Exxon is facing a rebellion from its investors over its hardline approach to global warming,” The Guardian reports. “The firm has refused to follow rival oil companies in committing large-scale capital investment to environmentally friendly technology such as wind and solar power.”
Descendants of John D. Rockefeller, the founder of Exxon Mobil predecessor Standard Oil Corp., have been calling for splitting the roles of chairman and CEO between two people, some saying the company is too focused on short-term gains.
The investors joining the shareholders are F&C Asset Management, Co-operative Insurance Society, Morley Fund Management, and West Midlands Pension Fund. London-based proxy advisory firm PIRC Ltd. has recommended that its clients support the proposal, which is already backed by RiskMetrics Group, Glass Lewis and Proxy Governance Inc.
“Despite top-notch individual directors, the company’s record over the last decade, particularly regarding climate change, demonstrates that debate has been lacking,” says Karina Litvack, director of Governance & Sustainable Investment at F&C Asset Management. “By bringing in an independent chairman, the company can better leverage that creativity and challenge, and avoid over-dominance by management. Over our eight-year dialogue, ExxonMobil management has opened its doors to challenging views - now it’s time for its board to do the same.”
Exxon Mobil’s board has said the most effective leadership structure is for Rex Tillerson to remain both chairman and CEO. Shareholders are expected to vote on the proposal at Exxon Mobil’s annual meeting on May 28.
A year ago a group of institutional investors, who said they collectively represented about 100 million Exxon shares, wanted Exxon Mobil director Michael Boskin removed and would withhold support for his reappointment because he failed to take action on climate strategy.
Earlier this year it was reported that U.S. investors filed 54 global warming shareholder resolutions with U.S. companies, including Exxon Mobil.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...lobal-warming/
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 1,880
From: Norfolk, VA. USA
The majority of shares in energy companies (exxon mobile being one of the larger ones) are held by retirement and mutual funds.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Wouldn't you know it, a financial institution being a shareholder of an oil giant? How surprising is that?
Oil companies, financial institutions, pharmaceuticals... is there a company out there that makes it's zillions not from the dependency of its customers?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
I believe you will likely find most state governments make more per gallon through taxes than oil companies do through their bottom lines.
I also believe state governments get a flat rate per gallon, so they are essentially insulated and get their cut regardless of whether oil companies do well or poorly. Of course, some state and local tax revenuse do go up when the price of gas or diesel rises as portions of the tax are sales taxes and do move with the pump price. So when the pump price rises? The sales tax portion of the tax amount rises...
Let's not forget the feds get 18.4 cents per gallon in tax. Also regardless of infrastructure or market fluctuation.
Here's a reference point if you are interested. Let's just be straight when we discuss who is hosing who at the pump.
http://api-ec.api.org/statistics/fue...ARY_2008_2.pdf
Let's look at diesel, and keep in mind the feds take 24.4 cents per gallon right off the top.
http://api-ec.api.org/statistics/fue...NUARY_2008.pdf
I also believe state governments get a flat rate per gallon, so they are essentially insulated and get their cut regardless of whether oil companies do well or poorly. Of course, some state and local tax revenuse do go up when the price of gas or diesel rises as portions of the tax are sales taxes and do move with the pump price. So when the pump price rises? The sales tax portion of the tax amount rises...
Let's not forget the feds get 18.4 cents per gallon in tax. Also regardless of infrastructure or market fluctuation.
Here's a reference point if you are interested. Let's just be straight when we discuss who is hosing who at the pump.
http://api-ec.api.org/statistics/fue...ARY_2008_2.pdf
Let's look at diesel, and keep in mind the feds take 24.4 cents per gallon right off the top.
http://api-ec.api.org/statistics/fue...NUARY_2008.pdf
Last edited by 1fastdog; May 28, 2008 at 11:07 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,610
From: Cincinnati, OH
Not all large companies are bad.
www.ecomagination.com
Last edited by Chuck!; May 28, 2008 at 11:01 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
When lending institutions foreclose, they lose money. Without lending institutions hardly anyone would be in a position to own their own home or drive a new car.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,808
From: FL/MI
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,402
From: Toronto, ON Canada
Unlike brand-name jeans, oil is not an elastic need. A person has a choice of buying $100 jeans or buying $25 jeans at Costco/Wal-Mart. When the price of $100 jeans doubles in a year, more people will shift to Wal-Mart.
Nobody has any choices in buying gas/oil.
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
AGREED!!
Might want to check things out so that you might understand what you're talking about.
1. Take a look at how much oil the US is using. 400 million gallons of gas/day based on 20062. Search and see if there is any shortage whatsoever on the market.
3. Search to see what the estimated amount of oil under those so-called reserves. North Shale depostis-1.3-1.6 trillion-more than all the know reserves. Montana-300-600 Billion, Pennsylvania-Don't remember the exzct amount but a few hundred Billion. And I can go on-ANWAR, Gulf, West coast, East Coast.
4. Compare that with how much oil we actually use. I did.5. And finally... for extra credit, take a guess on how long it would take to get those fields up and ruunning and the BBLs per day they would generate. Who gives a **** how long it would take. If we would have drilled in ANWAR 15 years ago we woud have had that oil 5-6 years ago. There is nothing now or on the horizion that can replace oil so we should use what is available NOW.
So, let me get this straight.
A. People who are holding oil stock (who are making money in all this) complain about the money oil is making? Yes, go do some research and find out.
B. The US Federal Government is to blame for high gas prices? Yes, do I need to spell it out?C. We should run our country's enviromental regulations the exact same way a 3rd world nation at the verge of a civil war where people make less annually than a typical 12 year old does here in the US from their allowence from their parents. What does their income have to do with oil? What Enviromental regulations are you talking about, most don't have any. Ther reason they don't have money--It is called FREEDOM! Lets strap our country with egregious laws that nobody else follows then complain about high prices. Again, name one counrty who does not drill for their own resouorces?
First of all, how about a little knowledge about Nigeria before you start in about how we should allow drilling because they do. Waht does this have to do with anyhting? The premise was to explain that a country like Nigeria signed a 100 year lease to drill for oil but America is not allowed to to do this. Has nothing to do with the way the country is run.
The Nigerian military is basically running roughshod over the Ogoni population (concentrated around these oil fields) and have basically created an enviromental disaster there. So who would be enviromentally friendly drilling inthe Gulf, Nigeria or the US? The government profits directly from oil, and that wealth isn't shared with the population. Do you think they wouldn't want a chance to line their pockets more at the expense of the population? The point is they want to drill for and are allowd to drill for oil but we are not! Then there's that nasty virtural civil war they have.
Second, yes, the Feds are partially to blame for high gas prices.... but not the way you're probally thinking. Really, please explain this!!
1. Can't drill or build refineries--Increase in price
2. 22 grades of designer gas-Increase in price-(Let;s see take Milf for example-If we had the same process for milk that we have for oil how much do you think would be)
3. Clean air act and other enviromental regulations-Increas in price-The 4 hottest years on record were n the 1930's with 1934 being the hottest year. 1988 was an anommoly.
4. We don't build Nuclear facilities-China, you know that country that follows all the enviromental regulations puts on average around 4 coal plants per month on line.
5. Gas tax-Increase in price-The Feds took in 26.8 Billion in 2006
6. The Feds have substantial control of the oil industry now and loot at prices- They tell them they can't drill or refine.
1. We refuse to fund our government with the money it needs, choosing instead to harp about cutting spending... Which ain't gonna happen.
2. Instead of rasising taxes to cover expenses,(News flash-when you increase taxes revenue decreases-I already posted the CBO numbers a long time ago-YTou can not TAX yourself into prosperity. BTW go look at the countires in 2007 that the the biggest increase in GDP-the countries who CUT tax rates.) we're instead choosing to sell securities and bonds to foreign governments. China is buying up the lion's share of them, essentially funding our debt. So... instead of paying taxes to cover our spending like we're supposed to, we're going to pay for not only the money China and other countries are loaning us.... we're also going to be paying them intrest..... compounded annually!
3. Any country that overextends it's ability to pay for it's own operations, sees it's currency devalue. The US dollar is essentially in the toilet from where it was at the start of the decade. A the turn of the decade, the Euro was worth just over 80 cents. Today it's worth roughly $1.60. Effectively, the US dollar has dropped 50% against the Euro. Unfortunately, there's similar drops against other major currencies.
4. OPEC uses US dollars as the only currency to purchase oil. With oil prices as a constant, it takes twice as much money to buy the same oil. Add in roughly 8 years of an average inflation rate of 2.8% and that's another 18% increase to a total of 68%.
There's other factors outside of the government.
* Speculation.
* China and India competing for the same oil.
* But probably, the biggest....
We consume more oil annually than any top 3 oil producing countries can supply, even if we completely took them over and sent all their oil to the US. Which would increase supply and drop prices.
Did you know we import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia?
Did you know that after Canada and Saudi Arabia, we get most of our oil from Mexico?
Did you know we import more oil than Japan, China, and Germany combined (the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th, largest oil importers after the US)?
Finally, did you know the United States of Ameriac is the World's 3rd largest PRODUCER of oil on the planet (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia)?
Problem is that we produce 8.4 million barrels of oil per day.
We use 21 million barrels per day.... and need to import 11.4 million.
We need to cut our usage far( No we don't and we don't need some marxist telling or forcing us to do. We have alot of oil that we need to go and get.) and away more than we need to increase supplies(Wrong, we need to increase supplies becasue at the moment and the forseeable futre ther is nothing that can replace oil). It's a matter of US National Security. We need cut our usage to where our production (We don't have any new production, that is the problem), along with imports from Canada & Mexico is enough to virturally cover our entire oil needs instead of the 15 plus countries we need currently.
Australia and Canada are energy self sufficient, as is Russia. ( Gee, I wonder why? Maybe becasue they drill for their own friggin oil?) If we were moreso (and had a credible budget policy) we'd probably do ourselves alot more good than simply dropping wells that aren't going to do us much good( How in the hell do you know htis. Are you a driller? Do you work for an oil company? Again how do you know? If ther was no money to be made do you actually think that the oil companies would waste their time drilling for what you say will do us no good?), and won't do us any good for a decade or so when they would come on line. Oil in 10 years is better than no oil in 10 years.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Might want to check things out so that you might understand what you're talking about.
1. Take a look at how much oil the US is using. 400 million gallons of gas/day based on 20062. Search and see if there is any shortage whatsoever on the market.
3. Search to see what the estimated amount of oil under those so-called reserves. North Shale depostis-1.3-1.6 trillion-more than all the know reserves. Montana-300-600 Billion, Pennsylvania-Don't remember the exzct amount but a few hundred Billion. And I can go on-ANWAR, Gulf, West coast, East Coast.
4. Compare that with how much oil we actually use. I did.5. And finally... for extra credit, take a guess on how long it would take to get those fields up and ruunning and the BBLs per day they would generate. Who gives a **** how long it would take. If we would have drilled in ANWAR 15 years ago we woud have had that oil 5-6 years ago. There is nothing now or on the horizion that can replace oil so we should use what is available NOW.
So, let me get this straight.
A. People who are holding oil stock (who are making money in all this) complain about the money oil is making? Yes, go do some research and find out.
B. The US Federal Government is to blame for high gas prices? Yes, do I need to spell it out?C. We should run our country's enviromental regulations the exact same way a 3rd world nation at the verge of a civil war where people make less annually than a typical 12 year old does here in the US from their allowence from their parents. What does their income have to do with oil? What Enviromental regulations are you talking about, most don't have any. Ther reason they don't have money--It is called FREEDOM! Lets strap our country with egregious laws that nobody else follows then complain about high prices. Again, name one counrty who does not drill for their own resouorces?
First of all, how about a little knowledge about Nigeria before you start in about how we should allow drilling because they do. Waht does this have to do with anyhting? The premise was to explain that a country like Nigeria signed a 100 year lease to drill for oil but America is not allowed to to do this. Has nothing to do with the way the country is run.
The Nigerian military is basically running roughshod over the Ogoni population (concentrated around these oil fields) and have basically created an enviromental disaster there. So who would be enviromentally friendly drilling inthe Gulf, Nigeria or the US? The government profits directly from oil, and that wealth isn't shared with the population. Do you think they wouldn't want a chance to line their pockets more at the expense of the population? The point is they want to drill for and are allowd to drill for oil but we are not! Then there's that nasty virtural civil war they have.
Second, yes, the Feds are partially to blame for high gas prices.... but not the way you're probally thinking. Really, please explain this!!
1. Can't drill or build refineries--Increase in price
2. 22 grades of designer gas-Increase in price-(Let;s see take Milf for example-If we had the same process for milk that we have for oil how much do you think would be)
3. Clean air act and other enviromental regulations-Increas in price-The 4 hottest years on record were n the 1930's with 1934 being the hottest year. 1988 was an anommoly.
4. We don't build Nuclear facilities-China, you know that country that follows all the enviromental regulations puts on average around 4 coal plants per month on line.
5. Gas tax-Increase in price-The Feds took in 26.8 Billion in 2006
6. The Feds have substantial control of the oil industry now and loot at prices- They tell them they can't drill or refine.
1. We refuse to fund our government with the money it needs, choosing instead to harp about cutting spending... Which ain't gonna happen.
2. Instead of rasising taxes to cover expenses,(News flash-when you increase taxes revenue decreases-I already posted the CBO numbers a long time ago-YTou can not TAX yourself into prosperity. BTW go look at the countires in 2007 that the the biggest increase in GDP-the countries who CUT tax rates.) we're instead choosing to sell securities and bonds to foreign governments. China is buying up the lion's share of them, essentially funding our debt. So... instead of paying taxes to cover our spending like we're supposed to, we're going to pay for not only the money China and other countries are loaning us.... we're also going to be paying them intrest..... compounded annually!
3. Any country that overextends it's ability to pay for it's own operations, sees it's currency devalue. The US dollar is essentially in the toilet from where it was at the start of the decade. A the turn of the decade, the Euro was worth just over 80 cents. Today it's worth roughly $1.60. Effectively, the US dollar has dropped 50% against the Euro. Unfortunately, there's similar drops against other major currencies.
4. OPEC uses US dollars as the only currency to purchase oil. With oil prices as a constant, it takes twice as much money to buy the same oil. Add in roughly 8 years of an average inflation rate of 2.8% and that's another 18% increase to a total of 68%.
There's other factors outside of the government.
* Speculation.
* China and India competing for the same oil.
* But probably, the biggest....
We consume more oil annually than any top 3 oil producing countries can supply, even if we completely took them over and sent all their oil to the US. Which would increase supply and drop prices.
Did you know we import more oil from Canada than Saudi Arabia?
Did you know that after Canada and Saudi Arabia, we get most of our oil from Mexico?
Did you know we import more oil than Japan, China, and Germany combined (the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th, largest oil importers after the US)?
Finally, did you know the United States of Ameriac is the World's 3rd largest PRODUCER of oil on the planet (behind Saudi Arabia and Russia)?
Problem is that we produce 8.4 million barrels of oil per day.
We use 21 million barrels per day.... and need to import 11.4 million.
We need to cut our usage far( No we don't and we don't need some marxist telling or forcing us to do. We have alot of oil that we need to go and get.) and away more than we need to increase supplies(Wrong, we need to increase supplies becasue at the moment and the forseeable futre ther is nothing that can replace oil). It's a matter of US National Security. We need cut our usage to where our production (We don't have any new production, that is the problem), along with imports from Canada & Mexico is enough to virturally cover our entire oil needs instead of the 15 plus countries we need currently.
Australia and Canada are energy self sufficient, as is Russia. ( Gee, I wonder why? Maybe becasue they drill for their own friggin oil?) If we were moreso (and had a credible budget policy) we'd probably do ourselves alot more good than simply dropping wells that aren't going to do us much good( How in the hell do you know htis. Are you a driller? Do you work for an oil company? Again how do you know? If ther was no money to be made do you actually think that the oil companies would waste their time drilling for what you say will do us no good?), and won't do us any good for a decade or so when they would come on line. Oil in 10 years is better than no oil in 10 years.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
http://www.gravmag.com/oil.html
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Without wanting to sound like a broken record, I've been down this road before many times and have provided articles to support my 'case' and/or disprove claims that are just heresay.
What about reports that China and India using the oil up, hence speculators driving up the costs on the basis of increased demand? That was the basic argument we kept hearing. Now your source tells me that OPEC has scaled back production (inelasticity)?
Profit per gallon you say? I don't believe Exxon was around during that time in the 70s, certainly not the entity and size it is today.
To that end, I believe you are being coy to quote profit/gallon because it's irrelevant! Exxon make enough profit per year to exceed most nations GDP for cryin' out loud!
To answer your question, Exxon reported that their $40B profit was in part due to increased world oil prices. If that is the case, why can't the oil companies be content with their healthy margins instead of passing on the price increase (i.e. price they charge)?
You can't make $40B in profit from sound business practice alone, can you? No other companies are able to make these kinds of profits (excepting, to a lesser extent, maybe the finance and pharmaceuticals). There is a trend here... these companies rely on the dependencies of their customers.
What about reports that China and India using the oil up, hence speculators driving up the costs on the basis of increased demand? That was the basic argument we kept hearing. Now your source tells me that OPEC has scaled back production (inelasticity)?
Profit per gallon you say? I don't believe Exxon was around during that time in the 70s, certainly not the entity and size it is today.
To that end, I believe you are being coy to quote profit/gallon because it's irrelevant! Exxon make enough profit per year to exceed most nations GDP for cryin' out loud! To answer your question, Exxon reported that their $40B profit was in part due to increased world oil prices. If that is the case, why can't the oil companies be content with their healthy margins instead of passing on the price increase (i.e. price they charge)?
You can't make $40B in profit from sound business practice alone, can you? No other companies are able to make these kinds of profits (excepting, to a lesser extent, maybe the finance and pharmaceuticals). There is a trend here... these companies rely on the dependencies of their customers.
That's like saying since Wal-mart and K-Mart buy ther goods from the same place-CHina-why does Wal-Mart make more profit than K_Mart? Not every oil compnay will make the same profit. They all pay the same aount for a barrel.
Did you go and find out what % of their profits came fromt he US market and from the non-US market?
So ga companies where not around in the 70's? The indusrty as a whole made the same profit on the dollar in the 70's as today. That was the point. The Federal government made hugh increases in their profits from the gas tax yet I don't see you complainning about this.
Why do tyou think Bush went to saudia arabis-To ask that they increase production!
Registered User
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 167
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Yes, as described in the article I linked!
Wouldn't you know it, a financial institution being a shareholder of an oil giant? How surprising is that?
Oil companies, financial institutions, pharmaceuticals... is there a company out there that makes it's zillions not from the dependency of its customers?
Wouldn't you know it, a financial institution being a shareholder of an oil giant? How surprising is that?
Oil companies, financial institutions, pharmaceuticals... is there a company out there that makes it's zillions not from the dependency of its customers?