It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

by df1:
Various countries including iran have proposed an oil bourse based on euros instead of dollars and this is a direct threat to both the oil giants and the federal reserve system so I do not see the difference which you see. Imho most of the military action in the ME is to protect the interest of these two groups.


REPLY: I'm guessing that a "bourse" is some kind of tax???

I really don't believe that any war actually protects the oil interests, since the supposed "extra profits" don't accrue from wars. It drives up the purchase price to the oil companies.




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 02:09 AM
link   
A bourse is market or exchange like an oil or stock exchange, especially one in a continental European city. wikipedia


From what I have read and understand about it the US has a monopoly on the worlds oil trade; because oil has to be bought and sold in US dollars. As the US inflates the money supply it becomes worth less and less which is like a tax on the world in a way. Sadaam was going to sell oil for euros which would mean forgein companies would no longer need to hold dollars which could be detrimental to the US economy. Sadaam has been shut down, but the Iranians are going to attempt the same euro for oil deal with their oil bourse.

This explains it much better than I can, and in much greater detail


www.informationclearinghouse.info...




[edit on 4-8-2006 by warpboost]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
hmm, record profits again eh?
seems to me that anyone with half a brain would invest in these companies instead of demonizing them

the dividends earned from a couple hundred shares would more than cover the gas price increase

gas prices last year were around 2$ a gallon, now they're around 3$
assuming you put 10 gallons in your tank a week:

last year
20$ a week for 52 weeks= $1040

this year
30$ a week for 52 weeks= $1560


Exxon Last Trade: 68.37 Div & Yield: 1.28 (1.90%)
finance.yahoo.com...

Chevron Last Trade: 65.50 Div & Yield: 2.08 (3.20%)
finance.yahoo.com...


Chevron earns you almost double what Exxon earns you in dividends and both cost nearly the same per share

so go put $10,000 in 150 Chevron shares and earn yourself a nice $312 a year in dividends

that'll almost cover the difference in price over last year
also with the profits always climbing to new records the price of the stock will go up as well as the dividends paid out

if you time it right you could make tons of cash as well!

so quit complaining and go solve 2 of your problems, as this will take care of you in old age as well!

[edit on 4-8-2006 by wondernut]



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
wondernut: Nawwwww that makes too much sense. Some will always impugn success of others, instead of doing the right thing and investing in successful companies.

Of course.... I don't know any successful people who are complaining about the costs of fuel, either!!!



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: That still does not go against the fact that 12 cents per dollar invested is not a great amount.


They were profitable when the oil price was in the 20 dollar range ( and lower) and you must think me -and the rest- quite ignorant to keep repeating this '12 cent profit on the dollar' when it's such a blatent lie considering even recent history


People see that high dolar amount per barrel, yet have no clue as to the tens of thousands of products made from it, or it's derivatives...... which we most certainly cannot do without.


You would be surprised to realise what we can do without had we realised the possibility. Does it really matter how many other things we use it for when that profit is the profit per barrel figure?


Drilling one hole (off-shore) to 13,000 feet costs up to One million per week, and it's only an 85% certainty they will hit reserves the first time.... even with the newest technology.


Actually it's far less than 85% of the time and considering that they have capped their exploration cost ( indepedent of profit or reserve decline; which reserves are not) it really has very little effect on their profits. Those costs are all built into the price and it still leaves them with massive profit margins.


REPLY: ...... and screw all the investors, many of whom are middle class grandma's and grandpa's??? Governmental control of ANYTHING is a big mistake, as has been obvious for decades.


That may have been the case in the 1940's but these days far fewer people are invested in the stock market. Government control is always going to be problematic with citizens who do not understand the real forces behind the global 'economy'.


REPLY: Incorrect. If companies can make a profit from it, awhich creates more jobs in the process, they will develo the technology.


They will not as has been said by many many ( and some of the brightest economist) who admit that class interest normally comes before profit for big business. Do some research or ask for links but please do not presume that i am simply another fool who does no research .


Literally billions has been spent since the 1970's in alternative evergy sources, and has resulted in hundreds of advances.


All mostly useless and all VERY centralized ( state control) The billions spent is YOUR money and they do not really care if it's wasted or not as long as you stay on their energy grid. The hundreds of 'advances' have in fact apparently led to a decline in the standerd of living for Americans so what have they in fact contributed? The advances that could have revolutionzed energy production have been completely suppressed and have never reached the market place. I can prove to you that these technologies not only exsists but that the science behind it it credible and very much 'admitted' ( if not talked about or acknowledged) in the scientific community.


Because of those investments, solar technology (panels) has an efficiency of 12% to 17%. That's still not much, and most of the energy produced, because of low amperage, would be lost in it's transmission over long distances.


So not very usefull for anyone but the rather well off who can pay the rather high installation cost.


Hydrogen is not the answer, because even with all the investment, no efficient storge container has been developed, and it still takes more energy to produce than the net energy gained.


Actually you can ask Bob Lazar ( and many others ) about just how effecient it can be with just a little intelligence applied. You can for instance use solar power to produce your own hydrogen in your garden ( as his been doing for decades) so the figures you are quoting are just more lies and propaganda from oil barrons and our friendly politicians.


Actually, one has only to look at the Periodic table to see that efficient storage may never be attained, because the Hydrogen molecule is smaller than all others, so how do you "contain" it? You could fill the tank, let the vehicle sit unused for a couple of days, and lose half the contents.


Pffft. I can't believe you will talk about something you know so little about.


Ethanol isn't the answer, either, since we have to import most of what we now use. Have you checked the price of E-85? Importation is the reason.


It's a stupid solution to a completely artificial problem.


REPLY: You still have to balance that with their expenditures.


Well i do not as it's THE PROFIT ( as the article clearly states) . If you refuse to read you can not possible learn anything new.


The oil companies buy the oil, pay people to load their tankers, bring it from (avg) 3000 miles away in ships that burn 50 gallons of fuel every 200 yards; then pay people to unload it at the storage depots; then pipe it to refineries (more wages), then process it (more wages) and store it again. Then it's put in tankers and delivered to other storage facilities around the country, then delivered to the gas stations.


Well they could get that oil in the USA and still make a profit at only 10 dollars in the mid 90's so why on god's earth are you trying to argue that they are having trouble doing it now? If they are it's OBVIOUSLY a completely artificial burden beind imposed on them and since their making the massive profits i imagine it really is'nt.


Every step of the way people profit, which raises the price. Then you have the 13+ different (rediculous) "designer blends" which has completely ruined our national delivery system, which again drives up the prices. They've done a remarkable job at keeping the prices as low as they are.


It's a bogus argument as all these people could still get their cut from 10 dollars per barrel not a decade ago.


Even Hybrid cars use more energy in their lifetime (from design to construction to upkeep to disposal) than does a Hummer, so they're not the answer, either.


Which sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me but i guess it's possible if one really sets out to waste energy during construction.
I can obviously support all these claims in great detail but i hate being the only one who bothers with the practice considering it's time consuming nature. Feel free to include as many links and sources as you want next time so i can refute them and settle the matter.

Stellar



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   


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.


dont you know how much money Bill Gates gives back to the community? Bill has personally taken it upon himself to bring hope and help to the country
...for example

www.gatesfoundation.org...

* $1 billion over 20 years to establish the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, which will support promising minority students through college and some kinds of graduate school.
* $750 million over five years to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization, which includes the World Health Organization, the Rockefeller Foundation, Unicef, pharmaceutical companies and the World Bank.
* $350 million over three years to teachers, administrators, school districts and schools to improve America’s K-12 education, starting in Washington State.
* $200 million to the Gates Library Program, which is wiring public libraries in America’s poorest communities in an effort to close the “digital divide.”
* $100 million to the Gates Children’s Vaccine Program, which will accelerate delivery of lifesaving vaccines to children in the poorest countries of the world.
* $50 million to the Maternal Mortality Reduction Program, run by the Columbia University School of Public Health.
* $50 million to the Malaria Vaccine Initiative, to conduct research on promising candidates for a malaria vaccine.
* $50 million to an international group called the Alliance for the Prevention of Cervical Cancer.
* $50 million to a fund for global polio eradication, led by the World Health Organization, Unicef, Rotary International and the U.N. Foundation.
* $40 million to the International Vaccine Institute, a research program based in Seoul, South Korea.
* $28 million to Unicef for the elimination of maternal and neonatal tetanus.
* $25 million to the Sequella Global Tuberculosis Foundation.
* $25 million to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, which is creating coalitions of research scientists, pharmaceutical companies and governments in developing countries to look for a safe, effective, widely accessible vaccine against AIDS.

Gates Money Source

i mean Bill is dishing out cash left and right, this super rich guy even gets other rich guys to throw down on his projects...




Warren Buffett, the world's second richest man, has pledged $30.7bn of his $44bn fortune to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


Source Link

Whether your jealous of his money or not, Bill Gates is doing the right thing...lets not compare him to the oil companies, its a whole different ball game. Not to mention he still pays over $3 for his gas and hes not just fueling his Bently, hes got a helicopter and a plane too.



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
by StellarX:


They were profitable when the oil price was in the 20 dollar range ( and lower) and you must think me -and the rest- quite ignorant to keep repeating this '12 cent profit on the dollar' when it's such a blatent lie considering even recent history.


REPLY: Over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.


You would be surprised to realise what we can do without had we realised the possibility. Does it really matter how many other things we use it for when that profit is the profit per barrel figure?


REPLY: 80% of the things in your house, and part of the house, would fall apart without the adhesives derived from Crude oil. I brought up the other oil products because many forget that those are included in the price of a barrel of oil.


That may have been the case in the 1940's but these days far fewer people are invested in the stock market.


REPLY: Not true at all. Currently about 55% of seniors are invested in the market in one form or another. Also, college age adults are investing more so than at any other time. This holds true because of the increase of companies who have 401-K's. True, it does fluctuate, but there is an increase.


They will not as has been said by many many ( nd some of the brightest economist) who admit that class interest normally comes before profit for big business.


REPLY: Don't you think that the shareholders, who have a say in such matters, would scream bloody murder if the Corp. didn't maximize profits?


The hundreds of 'advances' have in fact apparently led to a decline in the standerd of living for Americans so what have they in fact contributed? The advances that could have revolutionzed energy production have been completely suppressed and have never reached the market place.


REPLY: Technological advances cause a decline in stansard of living?? I'd be interested is seeing info on this, and on the technology(ies) you are referring to.


So not very usefull for anyone but the rather well off who can pay the rather high installation cost.


REPLY: I'm just saying that the investments made during the past 35 years has made possible the efficiency rates shown. However, I'm invested in a Corp. that will greatlt increase those efficiency numbers.


Actually you can ask Bob Lazar ( and many others ) about just how effecient it can be with just a little intelligence applied. You can for instance use solar power to produce your own hydrogen in your garden ( as his been doing for decades) so the figures you are quoting are just more lies and propaganda from oil barrons and our friendly politicians.


REPLY: Sorry... I don't get my info from either source. True, the solar/hydrogen issue works, but only on a very small scale. Trying to build a nationwide infrastructure on those principles won't work very well; not with current solar efficiencies.


I can't believe you will talk about something you know so little about (Hydrogen storage issues).


REPLY: My information about Hydrogen storage comes from two people at MIT.


It's a bogus argument as all these people could still get their cut from 10 dollars per barrel not a decade ago.


REPLY: Hmmmm You're telling me the costs of labor, new technology and materials hasn't gone up in a decade?



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
zappafan quote:

REPLY: 80% of the things in your house, and part of the house, would fall apart without the adhesives derived from Crude oil. I brought up the other oil products because many forget that those are included in the price of a barrel of oil.
---------------------------


Not to argue, but crude oil is not the only thing that can be used to make household products;

Quote from the book "The Emperor Wears No Clothes" written by Jack Herer

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is -- the same one that did it all before -- Cannabis Hemp

The book, backed by H.E.M.P. (America), Hanf Haus (Germany), Sensi Seeds/Hash Marijuana Museum (Netherlands), and T.H.C., the Texas Hemp Campaign (America), offers $100,000 to anyone who can disprove the claims made within.

en.wikipedia.org...


This should be on the news directly behind every oil company stock report, every time, every night until something is done.

O christ, I forgot again that everyone is a sellout and doesn't give a sht about the earth because they would rather get rich.



[edit on 4-8-2006 by tha stillz]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   

O christ, I forgot again that everyone is a sellout and doesn't give a sht about the earth because they would rather get rich.



You're absolutely correct about the attributes of hemp (not the same as cannabis). I don't know about you, but I read the book when it forst came out; it was among a rather large library of books in the same genre. However, there would bever be enough of it to provide for all that would be required of it.

Yeah....... like the earth is going somewhere; it's much more resilient than you give it credit for. HEY?????? Is this Algore's daughter???

Now.....back on topic??



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
by StellarX:
REPLY: Over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes.


American oil companies?

And if your going to quote do it properly as i will probably catch you considering how much i read.


over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes.

www.taxfoundation.org...


That being said it raises VERY interesting questions about how and why this business can sustain such 'losses' for so long and not just go under? Do you know what sustained American oil companies if the government apparently tried so hard to destroy them?


These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.



These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

www.taxfoundation.org...


If you can supply further links proving this to be the case ( A net loss in income for the American Oil industry over the last 25 years) you would really be rocking my boat and supporting, with fact, a theory i have had for a few years now.


REPLY: 80% of the things in your house, and part of the house, would fall apart without the adhesives derived from Crude oil. I brought up the other oil products because many forget that those are included in the price of a barrel of oil.


I am sure that we could find far cheaper alternatives with the right kind of investment if such materials do not already exist.


REPLY: Not true at all. Currently about 55% of seniors are invested in the market in one form or another. Also, college age adults are investing more so than at any other time. This holds true because of the increase of companies who have 401-K's. True, it does fluctuate, but there is an increase.


A far larger percentage of the American public used to be invested in the stock market in the 40's according to my sources and it's been declining ever since. You can not compare 401 k's and private stock ownership as there really is nothing to compare.


REPLY: Don't you think that the shareholders, who have a say in such matters, would scream bloody murder if the Corp. didn't maximize profits?


The main shareholders are other private corps and either way all corps take part so it evens out the field between them. Why do you think price gauging is such a big problem that needs all those laws to prevent it? This is the same kinda thing but it's much harder to figth as it's class interest which the rich and those in government share whatever else their small differences of opinion.


REPLY: Technological advances cause a decline in stansard of living?? I'd be interested is seeing info on this, and on the technology(ies) you are referring to.


It has nothing to do with 'technological advance' if that technology does not meaningfully increase your comfort standards. Americans work the longest ours in the industrialized world and still come out well below many in terms of buying power. The buying power of the average American worker have been declining ever since the early early 80's after stagnating since the later 70's.


REPLY: I'm just saying that the investments made during the past 35 years has made possible the efficiency rates shown. However, I'm invested in a Corp. that will greatlt increase those efficiency numbers.


Not sure what your trying to say here


REPLY: Sorry... I don't get my info from either source.


Start using them and i can show up the flaws in reasoning your sources employ to obscure the obvious.


True, the solar/hydrogen issue works, but only on a very small scale.


Only has to work on a very small scale as that would already solve the need for any kind of distribution of gasoline across America.


Trying to build a nationwide infrastructure on those principles won't work very well; not with current solar efficiencies.


You do not need a nationwide infrastructure as that is exactly what makes a country vulnerable and what we are trying to get rid off. While we dependent on centralized power distribution we will always be little more than slaves with meaningless luxuries.


REPLY: My information about Hydrogen storage comes from two people at MIT.



MIT's Lincoln Laboratories' work leans much more heavily towards basic research rather than procurement and deployment. Lincoln Labs may be better buffered from any cuts in military funding because of its close association to the academic world and fundamental research. Nevertheless, Walter I. Wells, assistant to the director of Lincoln Labs, admitted, "In the long run we are somewhat apprehensive."

In the 1989 fiscal year, 16.8 percent of MIT's funding, excluding Lincoln Labs, came from the Department of Defense. However, including Lincoln, the Department of Defense accounted for 59.4 percent of total research funding.

www-tech.mit.edu...


The government pretty much decides what gets researched at MIT and that is only mentioning DIRECT funding towards specific goals. If you takes into consideration all the other aspects of narrow minded science and alumni grants it becomes obvious why it's rarely a good idea to trust people from government/universities on energy independence matters. If you want more specific information showing how easy it it is to store hydrogen i can go dig that up for you.


REPLY: Hmmmm You're telling me the costs of labor, new technology and materials hasn't gone up in a decade?



Well no and certainly not by the massive amount ( 10 dollars per barrel t0 70 dollars per barrel in ten years) some suggest. Here is what big oil has to say...


In general, crude oil accounts for roughly half of gasoline's price, as shown in the graphic. Other price components include refining, distribution (pipelines and tanker trucks) and marketing (service stations and convenience stores). These so-called "downstream" costs have been falling as companies have made operations more efficient. When gasoline reaches the pump, another major factor comes into play – federal, state and local taxes, which average about 20 percent or more of the pump price. The federal tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, while state and local taxes vary from 8 cents in Alaska to nearly 50 cents per gallon in New York.

www.conocophillips.com...


That being said it's hard to know when to trust them and they seem to agree with you on not making much on gasoline...


A multitude of factors can affect an individual oil company's profit on gasoline sales. However, in general, if gasoline is selling at about $3 a gallon, major companies make a profit of about 10 cents a gallon on their U.S. refining and marketing operations based on data gathered by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

www.conocophillips.com...


Well feel free to elaborate on your very intriguing first assertion!

Stellar


[edit on 5-8-2006 by StellarX]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join