It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Exxon, $8.4 Billion First Quarter Profit

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 09:54 AM
Historic profit-making continues at the world's largest oil company, while the average consumer suffers with rising fuel pricess that risk crippling the economy. One day after Chevron announced historic first quarter profits, Exxon follows with a revenue report of $88.98 billion and a profit of $8.4 billion in the first quarter of 2006.
Crude oil prices have risen steadily from about $20 a barrel in 2002 to over $75 last week, handing oil and gas companies a long-running profit bonanza.

But the fat profits have also angered U.S. drivers grappling with rising gasoline prices and provoked sharp criticism of Big Oil from lawmakers and consumer advocates.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

The Federal Reserve is issuing a caution in light of rising oil prices and shameless oil profits while law makers scramble to appear as though they are doing something.

How much longer can/will consumers allow this kind of "robber-baron" business practice?

What do ATS members think about this?

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:36 AM
I think before I get upset about this, I'd like to see what the profit percentage is. The fact of the matter is, the price of oil has gone up significantly. It stands to reason that profits would be higher in terms of dollar amounts, even if profit margins remain the same.

It is really easy to blame the "evil" oil companies for anything bad related to oil. It is a little more difficult to say, "I'm not sure I'm willing to start regulating businesses just because the price is higher than what I'm used to." If someone can show that they have raised their profit margin, that is, the percentage of profit, then I will be more willing to start castigating the oil companies.

As demand goes up and supply remains relatively static, prices necessarily rise. Simple Keynesian economics. Demand has gone up dramtically in recent years, supplies have remained static. Why is it a shock that prices increase? Furthermore, if more money is being spent on oil (due to more consumers/increased demand), dollar amounts of profits will necessarily rise. Why are record profits, reported in dollar amounts, not percentages a big surprise?

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:37 AM
Nothin to see here folks.

Its just supply and demand.

Just capitalist economics that you don't understand.

Its no different than the spikes we saw in the early 80's.

Back in your cages, err cubicles.

*rolls eyes*

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:40 AM
This are things that make you go Hum mm and Aaaah

Funny that now one of the proposed solutions to the Oil problem is giving 100 dollar vouchers to tax payer to pay for the increase in oil prices.

But occurs is a catch, we have to agree to drilling in Alaska.

The thing is that drilling is just giving more power to the oil barons over our national resources and it will do nothing to the prices at the pump.

If the problems is lack of refineries then why drilling has to be included.

US is the third largest producer of crude as it is.

So what benefits will give to the consumer to drill more oil out of Alaska when still we do not have enough refineries to alleviated our domestic demand.

Is a hoax

By the way it may be capitalism as its fines, but is also control by what the oil companies in this country has become monopolies

[edit on 27-4-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:43 AM
Don't we need more refineries?

It would be nice if they contributed some of this profit towards those, particularly the ones that can handle low grades of oil, which we have very few of and which cause a lot of the oil spikes.

Or they could invest that money into alternative technologies.

I have no problem with huge profits per se, it's what they do with it that counts. Giving that money directly back to the consumer in the form of price reduction may not be feasible, but they should be doing something socially productive to alleviate the situation in the long term, with their profit.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:56 AM
Why give back to the consumer when even our own governments has been rewarding them with tax brakes and incentives taken away from the tax payer.

They are for the money just like any other business.

Common DaFunk13, we all know how stuff works

I even got myself educated in the Oil business
But still are lots of loopholes that have been exploited by the oil corporations because our government lets them.

What we do not know is how we have allowed our own government let these monopolies go unpunished.

Can somebody tell me how in the world with all the profits this companies make they are still entitle to more give away at the expenses of tax payer money?

"Today President Bush told the oil industry they're doing a heck of a job by throwing a few more billion dollars at them," said Kevin S. Curtis, Vice President of the National Environmental Trust. "With oil prices sitting at almost $70 a barrel, that money would be better spent investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency programs to help consumers at the pump."

Once and oil’s man always and oil’s man.

I said let them have their profits we are a capitalistic economy after all but take away all the tax payer money given to them.

[edit on 27-4-2006 by marg6043]

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:05 AM

Originally posted by marg6043
Common DaFunk13, we all know how stuff works

It was a joke. I am having a little debate about this with someone on another thread and his defense is that it is supply and demand. Its just "how it works." Like we shouldnt question the profits of the individual CEOs and tycoons.

While the American public feels the crunch all the opposition can say is "oh well, thats capitalism."

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by DaFunk13

It was a joke.

I know is a joke
what do you think about the proposed 100 hundred dollars to alleviate the gas woes at the pump?

That is the biggest slap on the hard working class American tax payer!!!!!!!

I almost gag on my morning coffee when I heard that one.

I am really starting to see the real picture on the gas hoax.

Is all about lowering standards on environment, giving more incentives to oil companies and now allowing them to get their greedy dirty hands in more drilling in Alaska.

Open your eyes American, is a hoax to give more power to oil companies.!!!!!!!!!

I think that our government really believe that we the people are ignorant and stupid.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:21 AM
So, here is another new "big story" to get the populace all hyped up and worked up about something important. Or is it?

I wanted to get this story into the stream of discussion here on ATS not because I'm convinced there are issues with the amount of profit, but because I think there are issues with the political "rapid response" to these new stories of oil profits.

Let's step back a bit... and consider timing and perspective.

That whopping $8.4 billion number seems like an impossible number for any corporation to report as profit, much less in one quarter. However, that number represents a rather slim 9.4% profit margin on the quarter's earnings. Now, by any corporate governance and finance perspective, single-digital profit margins are rather disappointing. Granted, the scale of these profits enable the single-digit percentage to be less disappointing, but still, from a percentage standpoint, this is below what typical companies shoot for.

But we're not going to see that in the news are we? No... we're going to see all manner of politicos all up in arms over this, postulating and genuflecting in the general direction of voters with a cheap smile and smelly cologne... or smelly smile and cheap cologne, I forget.

While the cost of energy is an important issue, I get the feeling that (this time) the issue is being manipulated for controlling effect. Watch the politicians this time around... they've been desperately searching for an issue less controversial than gay marriage and immigration, and it's no surprise that one is being pushed upon us.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:38 AM
Let me look at my calendar...Oh, it's 2006. What happens with the politicians this year? Yep, mid-term elections.

What is the most visible issue facing the consumer (voter) every day? The price of gas.

It may even overtake the other major issue, the porous borders, as the number one issue to manipulate for votes this fall.

Now the first pol that manages to marry the oil in Mexico with a a solution to illegal immigration will be on the fast track to the presidency.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:45 AM
To Sceptic Overlord:

what about the tax breaks for the oil industry? Do you agree they should have those? If yes, why? I sort of feel the $400M retirement package for the outgoing Exxon CEO comes from our W-2s and 1040s, don't you think?

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 11:55 AM
I see your point SO and their may be some validity to it but what really has the populace "hyped up" is the dramatic spike in price at the pump.

My take on the whole thing is for the Republicans rather than raise taxes to fight the war on terror they raise gas prices knowing full well that some of that gas tax is going to flow right back into the federal coffers. It's just a very slimey way to raise taxes while calling the democrats the tax and spend party. No real difference between them except for the tactics.

Boycott ExXon! Create a little competition!

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
what about the tax breaks for the oil industry?

I don't think any "industry" should receive tax breaks until profit approaches negative and their industry serves the overall public good or health. Since heat/fuel is needed for the "public good", then these energy harvesters certainly fall into that category... but not yet.

I sort of feel the $400M retirement package for the outgoing Exxon CEO comes from our W-2s and 1040s, don't you think?

No. He worked hard and did a good job under the parameters of his contract, and if those are the rewards he expected for the results he achieved, that's what he should get (4.8% of the quarterly profits). I doubt anyone told him not to piss off the American tax-payers while organizing a massive corporation to obtain historic profit totals.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the amount or incentives, but if that was his package and he achieved the goals, it's his for the taking. The issue is the structure of the package... something deeper and well beyond the oil industry.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:08 PM
Dear Sceptic,

but don't you think that tax incentives etc was one of the factors that helped him turn profit at Exxon? And he gets the credit?

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:12 PM

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
That whopping $8.4 billion number seems like an impossible number for any corporation to report as profit, much less in one quarter. However, that number represents a rather slim 9.4% profit margin on the quarter's earnings.

Maybe I am reading the information wrong, but just to put this in perspective, I looked up Microsoft at Yahoo!Finance ( and it shows that Microsoft, for their most recent quarter, had a profit margin of 31.57% and revenue of 41.36B. WOW! Those numbers seem to put the oil company numbers to shame.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:23 PM
It certainly puts it into perspective.

For the oil companies, people see them as evil for a quaterly profit margin under 10%. Microsoft, on the other hand, posts 31% profit, which is about 13 billion based on revenue. That is significantly more than the oil companies' profits.

Maybe all Windows owners should get $100 back from Uncle Sam.

Or maybe SO is right on this one, and we are being led about by our nose on a non-troversial issue.

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:48 PM
According to Seekerof its Enviromentalists fault...

"Furthermore, I am not laughing at the antics of environmentalist, who are partially to blame for the situation that 'we' are experiencing in the U.S." Seekerof

Thats right, people who have no control anywhere, not in the White House, COngress, or in any oil company, are to blame. Gotta stop those hippies from, uh, driving hybrids?

Edit: On Microsoft, is that US only Profits or WORLD profits? I think windows is used in more then just America, and in fact they just started in China right? A place with more then a BILLION consumers! SO you sell the product for 38$ each and you make 38billion easily, sell it for more, and around the world, will make more money.

Also, why are republicans upset at a poor black woman getting 300dollars a month through welfare but have no problem giving the same tax payers money in the amounts of BILLIONS to oil companies? Oh thats right, Bush, Cheney, Rice, and several others in power are Oil Men/Women...

[edit on 27-4-2006 by StarkMan]

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:51 PM
Upset about Exxon's record profits?

Buy stock! Take a piece!

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:10 PM
Gee .... did you think the Wars on Terra tragi-comedies were orchestrated for the BENEFIT of Western World sheepies ?

posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Aelita
but don't you think that tax incentives etc was one of the factors that helped him turn profit at Exxon? And he gets the credit?

Certainly. But getting or preserving the incentives was likely a parameter of his job and one of the metrics under which his exit package was assembled. We can't fault corporations for getting tax incentives they ask for... nor CEO's for asking for them... that's just good governance for a public corporation. This is an administration issue.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in