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.

 

Shell's profit soars to record $9 billion

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Iran demands that oil price should go beyond what is right now. The oil companies are saying yes your majesty o great Iran.




posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Have a look at Exxon's Financial Income Statement (you should see their Statement of Cash Flow - wow)

Income Statement


Keep in mind, that's in millions. So every number there, including gross profit and net income needs to be multiplied by 1,000,000.

Oh, and notice the giant chunk of taxes also. Thanks Uncle Sam.

Makes NI 11,660,000,000

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by Sublime620
They have the oil, they're making the money.


True, but they are not the ones telling you how much to pay for that oil. They are not the ones setting those prices.

This is not altogether true. They "have" the oil after they pay some foreign gov't an exorbitant amount of money for the right to create the infrastructure to pump it out of the ground and refine it. Then after they sell it to the distributors, it's not "theirs" any longer.

And you are correct. Their influence in the overall cost of the end product is minimal, at best.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
Yeah, wackos. Then we'll have a bit more oil, and still be dependent on it.


Only in the short term. For some reason people assume that using our own oil resources is such a problem because it keeps us dependent on oil. What they don't realize is that using our own resources would free up considerable resources to devote to developing those new technologies you so adamantly seek. I agree that oil can't be the long term answer for energy, but it HAS to be the short term answer.


Great idea. How about we say screw the oil companies, and look in other directions?


Because saying "screw the oil companies" wouldn't solve a thing. After all, you and your girlfriend and everyone else still has to drive to work and back don't they? It's time for some people to accept that oil has to be a short term solution until we develop these new technologies. Instead of fighting the oil companies we should work with them to get this done.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Its really pretty pathetic thats these "ROBBERS" are being defended so.

Our Government is run by OIL TYCOONS if none of you can see the big picture then it really is sad.

Crude oil was $20 a Barrel when good ole GW got in office, you cant tell me Oil going up to $120 a barrel doesnt have anything to do with that.

Are you defenders really going to say Bush and Cheney arent scoring big, whether they are admiting it or not?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ATruGod
 


Guess you must have forgotten the 70s because oil was cheaper than water.
Before the oil crisis I mean.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by deltaboy]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
I find hilarious also that people defend this oil barons. But then again our President is an oilsman what can you expect.


As the price of gasoline rises toward $4 per gallon, top oil executives explain to a House panel why they need $18 billion in subsidies when their companies rake in huge profits. Democrats want to end the tax breaks and spend the money on renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power.


www.npr.org...

This was in April 2008,

Interesting that those 18 billion Subsidies can help the consumers in this nation.

It only adds to this fat cat wealthy pockets.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
As the price of gasoline rises toward $4 per gallon, top oil executives explain to a House panel why they need $18 billion in subsidies when their companies rake in huge profits. Democrats want to end the tax breaks and spend the money on renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power.


And what do you think would happen if those subsidies and tax breaks were taken away? Their cost of attaining and refining oil would go up. Therefor the cost the suppliers must pay for this oil goes up even more. In turn the price you pay at the pump will rise. How do you think further taxing and regulating the oil companies are going to lower cost?

And do Democrats believe that simply eliminating oil and developing solar and wind power will work? Are the billions of people in the world who drive cars and power factories going to suddenly stop needing oil and be able to afford to switch to solar power? Please.

The only way to develop those new technologies you so desperately seek is to develop them while continuing to use oil. So we might as well be trying to work with the companies to make gas affordable again in the meantime.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Wow so instead of saying screw the oil companies you actually think we should give them more of our hard earned dollars?

I whole heartedly disagree, I don't think they have our best intrest at heart I believe they only care about the bottom line.....PROFIT!!



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:13 AM
link   
According to their balance sheet they added $5,000,000,000 in long term investments last year alone.

They currently had a positive cash flow of 2,558,000,000. $2.5 billion in cash.

That's unreal.

For instance, a company like Walmart will never have more cash on had than $97,000,000.

Walmart's Cash Flow

*Edited:

Walmart's is interesting. Big negative on cash flow last year. Wonder what they are doing?

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I am not fond of our political system as is ruled by corporate America and both main parties in this nation benefit equally.

But if you don't see that something doesn't add up with all the links been posted here then I wonder how high the gas prices will have to go for you to feel that is wrong.

Beside I see not part of our present administration doing a more vigorous effort to get this nation from the claws of foreign oil dependency.

Why ? because that is not part of their money making agenda.

Already our Republican president candidate McCain has received plenty of donations from the oil barons of this nation, it tells you to who our politicians and the candidates cater too.



[edit on 29-4-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:17 AM
link   
It's called Capitalism and if you take that right away from a private business then you take it away from everyone. The oil companies are in the business to make money just like any other privately owned business and the government needs to stay out of their way. These companies do all the hard work to bring you that perfect batch of oil, through buying it, piping it here, refining it to certain standards for each state and all you have to do is pump it into your tanks. These oil companies have thousands of employees working for them who need those jobs just like we need ours.

There are other markets where some businesses are making record profits and others are not but we don't hear about them do we?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Who says anything about defending oil barons? We are telling you that you have to accept that fact that gas is going to be expensive. Heck I'm mad because comic books cost 3 bucks compare to 10 cents back in the 50s. Candy at the vending machine are now a dollar compare to like 5 cents back in the 50s.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


To tell you the truth, my friend, this the only way to vent the frustration about the corruption in our nation.

AT the end of the day Delta we all go home and pay the piper.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


Those other companies you are talking about have competition. It's called capitalism.

There is no competition for big oil right now. Do you know what happens when monopolies go unchecked in capitalistic societies?

They make a NI of 11,660,000,000 (after investing 5,000,000,000 in long term assets) and still maintain a $2.5 billion positive cash flow.

reply to post by deltaboy
 


And you can thank the gas companies for all the prices of the things you just named shooting up.

Gas affects everything - not just the individual. Every time the gas prices rise, the consumer's spending power drops two-fold.


[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATruGod
Wow so instead of saying screw the oil companies you actually think we should give them more of our hard earned dollars?


No.

But I'm also not foolish enough to believe that simply saying "screw them" will do anything but harm us further.

The most realistic approach is usually the least popular to be sure.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


What are you going to do? Break up the oil companies into small companies and hope they sell cheaper gas?



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I say invest in other energies. But that's just me.

It's been historically shown that when we start to move away from oil, they bottom out the price.

It's a win-win situation.

i.e. As soon as they get competition (key in capitalistic societies) they find a new market equilibrium.

Glenn Beck on synthetic fuel

For example, back in 1980, Congress passed the Energy Security Act, which led to the creation of something called the Synthetic Fuels Corp. (SFC). Lawmakers provided SFC with up to $88 billion in loans and incentives to get started (the equivalent of about $230 billion in today's dollars) with the goal of creating two million barrels a day of synthetic oil within seven years.

So why aren't you putting SFC oil into your SUV right now? Well, it turns out that members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries didn't appreciate the competition so they started bringing down the price of oil. From 1980, when SFC launched, to 1986, when it was shut down, oil went from more than $39 a barrel to less than $8 a barrel. Suddenly, synthetic oil didn't seem so important anymore.

In announcing the SFC's closure, then-Energy Secretary John Herrington said that oil prices had simply dropped too low to make it a viable business.

But the good news is that those economics don't work anymore. The state of Montana, which is leading the synthetic fuel charge, says we can now make it for somewhere around $55 a barrel. That's more than a 50 percent discount from what it costs to buy the real stuff.


 


More info:

Wiki Synthetic fuel

Wiki Synthetic oil

[edit on 29-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


You mean like biofuel or ethanol? The UN calls that a crime.



posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Since when do you care what the UN says?

And no, that's not what I was referring to. I added more to explain.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join