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: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Yes, that is quite a bit, and I noticed that. I could have sworn the maximum that the government could impose on net income was like 37%, but I suppose not.

reply to post by jsobecky
 


I have to be honest, I 'm not real informed on market speculators, and how that whole scene works.

What I do understand is financial statements.

In 2002, crude oil was around 1/2 the price of crude oil in 2007.

2002 crude oil was around $35 per barrel
Crude oil was around $72 per barrel in 2007

As I showed before, sales have doubled since 2002. That means, they are still seeing the same percentage of cash from each sale. Also, their production costs stayed the same (i.e. they are not paying workers more, not funding more operations, etc), so they are actually making four times the amount they were in 2002.

So market speculation aside, oil companies are just rolling in it. They are bringing in 2 times the cash, and making 4 times the net profit they were in 2002.

At the same time, they are buying back tons of common stock and giving out giant dividends to share holders. Someone else pointed out that they also spend a small fortune lobbying in Washington.

So if gas prices in 2007 were double that of 2002, but oil companies were making 4 times the net income, where is all this extra money that these speculators are making coming from?

It's an honest question, I just don't understand it.

*Edit:

After thinking about it, I do understand that they are making money off the market and not the product. However, that seems even more shady.

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]




posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well it's nice to see my opinion backed up with something else. It just seems to make sense to me that more drilling would provide more oil, which in turn would lead to lower costs. This is without the supply being too low already, or lower than the demand.

It really is quite the confusing ordeal to sift through all this data and get to the root of the problem.

I think we may be on the right track though.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Yeah, but no one ever said supply was low. In fact, they said they artificially kept supply low (by forcibly not adding more to the supply) because the American economy was going into recession. They said due to the recession, demand would lower and the market would find a new equilibrium.

Plus, I even went as far as to show that they spend far less (4x) "investing in new oil" than they do protecting share holder earnings.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Exactly.

I may have worded that wrong but I was trying to say that this was the case even though supply was not low.

The fact is this goes much farther than simple supply and demand. The drilling of more oil can reduce costs even if more oil is not needed.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
You 'researchers' are great!
I am learning but there is something I can't seem to grasp. How does this supply and demand exists in reality. They seem to artificially debase and then re-inflate the figures based on obtuse considerations to control the cost based on the very supply and demand they are manipulating. It seems circular. Obviously I'm missing something here because it supposed to make sense (and I'm sure it does to someone.) Keep up the great work - for all of us!

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Gotcha.


So, we've got two different entities making tons of money - one off of market speculation and the other off raised prices due to speculation (which one would have to assume they help eek that along).

Good call. I think we're on the same page now?

[edit on 30-4-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



Originally posted by nyk537
The fact is this goes much farther than simple supply and demand. The drilling of more oil can reduce costs even if more oil is not needed.



If nothing else, ample reserves help to smooth out the bumps caused by natural and man-made disasters. It also makes it easier to create and follow a sensible energy policy - which, unfortunately, our gov't has failed to do.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I so glad I've had the wondrous opportunity to contribute to that. By the way Shell, thanks to you, and your competitor companies, this summer I'll be pedaling my hairy white behind over 10 miles a day back and forth to work. Heck, if anything at least I'll lose some weight, right?

Let me also thank you for ruining the economy. Most of the farmers I know are switching their normal crops to corn for ethanol. Now I'm sure the price of corn will go up, since there won't be as much as there normally would be, there goes my summer corn bash. Also, thanks for making the cost of fuel so high, that even the cost of milk is up over a buck a gallon. You know I have a family, and we consume about 4 gallons a week?

Think the board of directors of Shell Oil would be a bit angry if I parked my truck in from of the head offices, say, right in front of the front doors?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 

I'm currenntly reading Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons and he insists that the problem is the other way around. It's not that prices are being controlled to get higher and higher, it's that prices were artifically lower in the past due to companies like Saudi Aramco lying about it's proven reserves and it's ability to flood the market with oil on a whim. This assumption kept prices lower so that demand would grow as quickly as possible.

I suppose you could argue that now they have us sold on oil and can increase the price at will. I would agree with you on that except for the question of why they still seem to be unwilling to reveal their details about their proven reserves. Why can't an outside entity review their data?



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


I would suppose that since oil rich territories are spread all over the globe (sort of) you need an auditing entity that all parties would accept. Not gonna happen.

As for our (meaning American) own reserves..., well we could get an accurate audit if we hadn't tacitly given the oil folks 'royal' privileges over the national supply. Go figure. Not gonna happen either.

We could get some suicidal president to fight for a declaration of 'eminent domain' and reclaim the resource for the nation. Not gonna happen. Besides we've lost enough good leaders to those who lust for wealth and or power.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Yeah, see I have to admit, my knowledge on economics is limited. I don't really grasp all of that stuff yet. I do have a strong background in accounting, which is why I fell back on interpreting the financial statements.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Didn't you forget the first rule of accounting when you baled out of that argument?

Make a profit.

Simple as...



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


And that is what they has been nothing but earning profits as many of the them with the record profits since 2002 has been able to be debt free by 2005 so now everything they make is nothing but profits.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Oh they are making a profit all right.


They're doing very well, let's just say that. I wish I had seen this coming - they'd be good to have invested in.



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by budski
 


Oh they are making a profit all right.


They're doing very well, let's just say that. I wish I had seen this coming - they'd be good to have invested in.


Yes,

they were.




posted on May, 1 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
DISGUSTING!!!!!


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1-5-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Oil companies make an 8 to 10 cents/gallon profit. The federal government makes (and does not spend a dime to produce it!) a 23 cents/gallon profit from the sale of a gallon of gasoline. Who is committing the greater crime?

If allowed, the oil companies would put their 8 to 10 cents profit back into exploration and drilling to supply oil and gasoline for the pulbic. The government takes the 23 cents/gallon profit and doesn't do one thing to help the American public other than get larger and redistribute that confiscated money to who knows what.

Most of the problems in America are created by an out of control government!



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by b_j8
 


I've already shown that to be false. First of all, we pay a sales tax on every gallon - yes. However, that's not affecting the oil companies, their price is still set at what they want it at.

Second, they do not "use that money to explore for new oil". They use it to gobble up common stock for the share holders.

Third, gas prices have doubled since 2002, yet their NI has quadrupled. Why are you defending them? I think they're doing just fine.

*Edit: And I don't know where you are getting this 8cents per gallon figure either.

[edit on 1-5-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I am not defending the oil companies. The governments, state and federal, are reaping billions also and they are confiscating it from people like you and me. The government isn't going to supply you with anything other than a tax bill and we as taxpayers do not get a whole lot of bang for the buck.

Taxes are continually going higher and higher along with the price of gasoline. As I stated, it is government that is the problem.



posted on May, 1 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by b_j8
 


I'm actually going to agree with you on the point you made, but not for the reason you might have intended.

Government is indeed the problem with a lot of things today, but it's not because they aren't doing enough. Government is a problem because they are trying to do too much. What America needs is for the government to begin to take a smaller role in our lives.

We don't need more government programs or regulations like major Democrats want to install, we need fewer of them.

The American people are a crafty and productive bunch, and left to their own devises, they will do, and have done, amazing things.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join