posted
Next time you fill up your gas tank, or when pay your utility bill/heating bill, remember the corporate welfare our Congress gave to these companies ... and especially, remember this when you decide who to vote for in the mid-term elections.
quote:Exxon Mobil Sees Record Profit
Monday, January 30, 2006
IRVING, Texas - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted a record quarterly profit for a U.S. company on Monday - $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter - as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products. The company's earnings amounted to $1.71 per share, up from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the 2005 third quarter. The recent quarter included a $390 million gain related to a litigation settlement. Excluding special items, earnings were $10.32 billion, or $1.65 per share. The result topped Wall Street's expectations. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial predicted earnings of $1.44 per share. Exxon shares rose $1.46, or 2.4 percent, to $62.75 in premarket activity. Quarterly revenue ballooned to $99.66 billion from $83.37 billion a year ago but came in shy of the $100.72 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter, which was the first time a U.S. public company generated more than $100 billion in sales in a single quarter. By segment, exploration and production earnings rose sharply to $7.04 billion, up $2.15 billion from the 2004 quarter, reflecting higher crude oil and natural gas prices. Production decreased by 1 percent due to the lingering effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which battered the Gulf Coast in August and September. The company's refining and marketing segment reported $2.39 billion in earnings, as higher refining and marketing margins helped offset the residual effects of the hurricanes. Exxon's chemicals business saw earnings, excluding special items, decline by $413 million to $835 million, as higher materials costs squeezed margins. For the full year, net income surged 43 percent to $36.13 billion, or $5.71 per share, from $25.33 billion, or $3.89 per share, in 2004. Annual revenue grew to $371 billion from $298.04 billion.
posted
In 2004 Exxon's CEO made $38 million so I would hope with his ability to keep making these record profits his salary will also increase accordingly
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In 2004 Exxon's CEO made $38 million so I would hope with his ability to keep making these record profits his salary will also increase accordingly.
Yeah. It's a shame when people aren't rewarded for highway robbery.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow!! Who'd a thunk it. The product they're selling nearly doubles in price while their production costs remain unchanged and that results in record profits? Call an economist-- this is revolutionary!!
Why don't they teach that business plan to Harvard MBAs.
[ January 30, 2006, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, CT, I wish that they had raised the price of gas years ago, and raised it to something above $3 a gallon. It hurts quite a bit paying a relatively high amount for gas, but I think that gas being painfully expensive is the only way to get the American public seriously interested in fuel conservation and alternatives to the way we've been doing things. When Katrina had gas prices up there a lot of my SUV driving co-workers began to seriously talk about getting something more fuel efficient, but when the prices dropped a bit they stopped talking about it, and several said (more than half seriously) that it meant that they wouldn't have to get rid of their SUVs after all.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but what about the price of heating oil? Raising prices doesn't just impact on the price at the pump. There are people who have died and are dying this winter because they can't afford to heat their houses.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yes, but what about the price of heating oil? Raising prices doesn't just impact on the price at the pump. There are people who have died and are dying this winter because they can't afford to heat their houses.
What, in the U.S.? Where? I googled around a bit and couldn't find any account of such.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about natural gas companies, but electric utilities can't disconnect people (in Indiana, anyway) if it's below freezing outside.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The utter ridiculousness of this situation only becomes apparent when one sees what was in the most recent energy bill: washington post
Beyond a license to pollute, existing energy companies including oil and gas giants get tens of billions of dollars of subsidies. Why is it, exactly, that the taxpayers are subsidizing the most profitable companies in history during record years?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They own more of the government than the American citizens do.
Also, some people are sucessful in selling the idea that we have a simplistic situation where the oil companies' only relationship to the government is when the government introduces "price controls".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an article about how the high heating prices in Massachusetts are affecting the poor.
Excerpts:
quote:By some estimates, more than 1,000 low-income households in the Merrimack Valley will run out of money to pay their heating bills by the end of winter. They will go without prescription medications, borrow money from friends and relatives, even heat with radiators plugged into extension cords running from neighbors' sockets -- doing anything possible to stay warm.
The article did mention two deaths - one in 2003 and one in 2004 of elderly people who had shut off the heat in their homes because they couldn't afford the bills and mentioned several people who were hospitalized.
As for assistance, there appears to be quite a lot out there, but the article says it's not enough.
quote: To avoid such tragedies, strict rules in Massachusetts and New Hampshire regulate when utility companies can shut off services to private customers in the winter.
In New Hampshire, energy companies cannot shut off utilities to low-income households or people 65 or older without permission from the Public Utilities Commission. Massachusetts forbids all shut-offs in households where someone is extremely ill, a child is under 1 year old and born before the service was to be shut off, or the customer is unable to pay because of financial hardship
Charles E. Moran, spokesman for Bay State Gas Company and Northern Utilities, said his company does everything it can to avoid leaving customers in the cold, including flexible payment plans that distribute the cost throughout the year. But it is up to the customer to tell the company he has a problem, he said.
quote:
More than 800,000 Massachusetts households are eligible for some level of energy assistance, but less than 30 percent take advantage of programs available to them, according to Energy Bucks, a public awareness campaign sponsored by Massachusetts investor-owned utilities, Low-income Energy Affordability Network and the Massachusetts Association for Community Action Programs.
To find out if you qualify for fuel assistance, energy efficiency services, or utility discount rates, call 1-866-LESS COST, a toll-free Energy Bucks hot line, or see www.energybucks.com.
Families who don't meet low-income requirements for federal assistance may qualify for up to $275 in heating aid from the Salvation Army. Call (978) 682-8038.
Low-income oil customers may also qualify for a one-time, half-price oil shipment from Citizens Energy Corp. in Boston. Call (877) 563-4645.
I think it's clear that yes, some people do die because they choose not to heat their homes, but it's not true that utility companies are cutting off people's heat with no regard for their lives, and there are plenty of assistance programs out there for the poor and elderly. I know in Alabama there are several ways people can get help with their power bill.
Doesn't mean the situation is ideal, or that people aren't suffering hardships because of high prices this winter, but it does mean that there are options so that people needn't die because they can't afford to heat their homes.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, it doesn't help if they don't know they can get help, or how. I'm glad there's a public awareness campaign going on. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by DarkKnight: France let thousands die of heat.... France heat wave --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that's relevant how?
That was in response to Mr Squicky's post:
quote: Yes, but what about the price of heating oil? Raising prices doesn't just impact on the price at the pump. There are people who have died and are dying this winter because they can't afford to heat their houses.
quote:Originally posted by smitty: I don't know about natural gas companies, but electric utilities can't disconnect people (in Indiana, anyway) if it's below freezing outside.
Apparently it varies from state to state:
quote:In 2004, Pennsylvania's legislature amended the state's utility law and changed the process that utility companies must follow to disconnect services to customers who have not paid their bills. Utility companies are no longer required to personally visit the home of customers who are about to be shut-off due to unpaid bills. Nor are they now required to obtain the permission of the Public Utility Commission (PUC) before discontinuing services, including heat and water, from December through March to customers below a certain income level... entire article here
I couldn't find any articles about people dying in the US due to lack of heating (so far this year) but there were articles about that happpening in Russia this winter.
I'm glad that so many of you are too well off to feel pinched at the pumps - - - so much so that you want the prices to be raised even more. Must be nice.
Personally, we are struggling. We're running as fast as we can to stay in the same place. We've cut 'extras' and are making it from paycheck to paychek. Even so, our electric bill had a fuel costs surcharge added to it, because our co-op needed to pass their additinal costs on to us.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Really? What terms did you use to google?
'death froze "heating oil"', with a couple of other variations. The results included some deaths (around Chicago) from 3 years ago, and lots of dire predictions; but you specified that people had died this winter, which has been rather mild.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: The utter ridiculousness of this situation only becomes apparent when one sees what was in the most recent energy bill: washington post
Beyond a license to pollute, existing energy companies including oil and gas giants get tens of billions of dollars of subsidies. Why is it, exactly, that the taxpayers are subsidizing the most profitable companies in history during record years?
Thank you - that is exactly my point.
Remember how those 'investigations' into the high Oil prices happened right around election time? Remember good ole boy Ted Stevens refusing to swwear in the Oil Executives? Remember how the Gasoline prices dropped - - - until after the elections? They seem to remember we are watching only when it is almost time for an election, and then put on a show to reassure their constituancy.
Remind eveyone you know to REMEMBER this when they vote in the mid-term elections. No matter how fancy the TV ads, and how many times those ads run, the ads are bought and paid for by the energy companies, and the other special interests that are in effect running our country through their bought and paid for representatives in congress and the White House.
My personal opinion is: Any vote for the people running the Congress right now is a vote against your own best interests.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just not a fan of hyperbole on this particular subject. The oil companies do not "own" the government, they give them massive sums of money to convince us the people who do own the government to re-elect them or like-minded people.
I'm a registered Independant, but my family is mostly moderate Republicans-one of two categories of people you need to convince-and I can tell you that overstatement like that doesn't persaude anyone but the choir.
Corruption or even massive though legal campaign contributions from any source-oil company or otherwise-is a serious problem. Saying that Big Oil "owns" the government does little to help solve the problem, but does make the speaker feel good sometimes.
Rather, say that big oil companies are looking out for their own bottom line first, always that first-and they contribute to the campaigns of politicians they believe will keep that in their minds. It's still a major and cynically upsetting problem, but it's more accurate.
Just like environmentalists aren't out to save spotted owls and screw the working man.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: Remember how the Gasoline prices dropped - - - until after the elections? They seem to remember we are watching only when it is almost time for an election, and then put on a show to reassure their constituancy.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm just not a fan of hyperbole on this particular subject. The oil companies do not "own" the government, they give them massive sums of money to convince us the people who do own the government to re-elect them or like-minded people.
I'm a registered Independant, but my family is mostly moderate Republicans-one of two categories of people you need to convince-and I can tell you that overstatement like that doesn't persaude anyone but the choir.
Corruption or even massive though legal campaign contributions from any source-oil company or otherwise-is a serious problem. Saying that Big Oil "owns" the government does little to help solve the problem, but does make the speaker feel good sometimes.
Rather, say that big oil companies are looking out for their own bottom line first, always that first-and they contribute to the campaigns of politicians they believe will keep that in their minds. It's still a major and cynically upsetting problem, but it's more accurate.
Just like environmentalists aren't out to save spotted owls and screw the working man.
Good answer. I agree with you, mostly anyway. We need significant reform in Washington, and serious changes in the way money and resources are exchanged for influence there. Unfortunately the odds of the people benefiting from this corrupt system actually significantly reforming it are somewhere between slim and none.
The reason that Ted Stevens wouldn't swear in those Oil Executives last fall is that he was protecting them from being liable for not telling the truth to Congress, as the Tobacco Executives were liable for their false statements. He is their man, as surely as if he was on their payroll. And so many other elected officials actions regarding their contributors say the same thing about them. They talk the talk, of taking care of their constituency, but their actions say something else.
I am registered as a Democrat, but only because if I didn't choose a major 'party' I wouldn't be able to vote in the primary elections. But that is another thread.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: Remember how the Gasoline prices dropped - - - until after the elections? They seem to remember we are watching only when it is almost time for an election, and then put on a show to reassure their constituancy.
quote:How Much Oil to Make Gasoline? As one reader pointed out, although a barrel of oil contains 42 gallons, it makes only about 21 gallons of gasoline. So, you might think that a $10 rise in the price of oil would cause a $10/21, or 48¢ rise in the price of gas. This would be right if the whole 42 gallons of oil were used up. But the barrel of oil makes about 21 gallons of other fuels, like home heating oil, etc.
This means a gallon of gasoline should only need to go up in price by 1/42 because a gallon of heating oil will also go up by 1/42 of the rise in the oil price.
quote:This means a gallon of gasoline should only need to go up in price by 1/42 because a gallon of heating oil will also go up by 1/42 of the rise in the oil price.
This is what one would think if one thought that cost of production is the only variable involved in setting the price of a good in a competitive market.
quote:He is their man, as surely as if he was on their payroll.
Ah, there we go, the blatant accusation.
Are you just a paid shill for MoveOn.org? Or is it only appropriate to call Bush appointees such names?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you know there's a severe asphalt shortage? Right now oil companies are making more money doing additional refining of tarry grades to gasoline right now, than they do keeping the tarry stuff and selling it to asphalt companies. It's directly affecting the bottom dollar of most public works construction projects in the U.S. driving up municipal deficits.
quote:Originally posted by Silkie: Remember how the Gasoline prices dropped - - - until after the elections? They seem to remember we are watching only when it is almost time for an election, and then put on a show to reassure their constituancy.
The high was in September, 2005. Elections were in November.
Then the prices fell from the point of $3.07(+/-) to a low of around $2.20(+/-).
First of all, what elections are we talking about? Sri Lanka's? 2005 was an off-year; there were no nationally significant races in the U.S. Are you seriously suggesting that the oil industry acted in collusion to manipulate gasoline prices on the order of 80+ cents/gallon in order to influence... the San Diego mayoral election, and a Seattle ballot initiative for their monorail? I want to know which candidates, by name, you think benefitted from this imaginary process. And why they didn't do it in 2004, when a lot more was on the line.
Secondly, you implied that the oil industry drove the price back up after these "elections"; however, the 'low' you cite, $2.20 per gallon, is only one cent lower than what I paid yesterday.
Thirdly, the actual low was about $2.15, hit a month *after* the November 8 elections. On November 8, the average price was still approximately $2.38.
Why did the evil Big Oil robber barons push the price down another 23 cents after succeeding in their diabolical plan to lower property taxes on Maine fishermen?
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*slaps head* I misspoke. I said elections and that was wrong. I meant to say the testimonies by the Oil executives and investigation of the Oil industry. The same time line applies.
Sorry.
I estimated the low point that gas reached from the graph. Our prices here in the Orlando area actually dipped to around $2.00 per gallon.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: But what's the deal with the subsidies, then?
I agree. What's the deal with the corporate welfare? Welfare is OK for multi-billion dollar companies with record profits, but not OK for destitute families?
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: But what's the deal with the subsidies, then?
I agree. What's the deal with the corporate welfare? Welfare is OK for multi-billion dollar companies with record profits, but not OK for destitute families?
I'm voting for the one that creates jobs, personally.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
This may seem like a dumb question, Irregardless, but what exactly does "Lawyers and Lobbyists" mean? Does that mean ALL lobbyists? Because, if so, a lot of those dollars could be from opposing groups, sort of cancelling each other out. I'm guessing, in effect, that the numbers are bigger because they represent a great many different interests, rather than one (the oil industry). Moreover, wouldn't lobbyists include oil lobbyists? You could also, say, look at all domestic donations, and conclude that all politicians are in the pocket of the American people...but obviously, that would be pretty pointless.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or is it only appropriate to call Bush appointees such names?
Mmm, technically, Stevens isn't a Bush appointee. But I do understand the broader point. Is it surprising to you that the administration in power is frequently sniped at? I don't think Bush gets attacked any more than Clinton did, and to be fair, they both lied to America. So, pray tell, given the Stevens situation, what do you make of the failure to have the oil execs sworn in?
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I'm voting for the one that creates jobs, personally.
Can you tell which one that is? I am having a hard time doing that.
BOTH parties seem to think that outsourcing is the way to go, which doesn't affect upper strata jobs but does affect 'middle class' jobs that used to be our bread and butter. Does anyone have a figure on how many jobs have been outsourced since the Clinton (Republican Congress) years when it was entitled?
quote:Business Week, JULY 13, 2004 Now that job creation in the U.S. has supposedly picked up steam, and more new jobs are finally being created than are lost on a monthly basis, the whole issue of outsourcing seems to have been relegated to the backburner, as if it is a fad that has had its day. The media have begun communicating that message -- the July issue of Business 2.0 sniffs on its cover, "Stop whining about outsourcing."
BOTTOM-LINE LOGIC? Yet a recent report out of India suggests that outsourcing from the U.S. is creating huge numbers of jobs in that country -- something on the order of 200,000 technology jobs in the year ended last Mar. 31. The report, by a large Indian trade group known as the National Association of Software & Service Companies, suggests about 50,000 per quarter, which is many more than the 4,633 jobs reported lost by the U.S. Labor Dept. for this year's first quarter. And remember, the Labor Dept. survey isn't limited to jobs going to India -- they could be going anywhere in the world outside the U.S.
Part of the discrepancy is attributed in the media to the fact that not all jobs lost via layoffs are transported overseas. The other explanation is that jobs sent to India -- and an estimated 80% of the companies outsourcing jobs to India are American -- are "new" jobs and thus wouldn't necessarily have been jobs that would have been created in the U.S.
I'm not sure why there is so much denial about the relationship between jobs and outsourcing. When U.S. companies create software programming and call-center jobs in India, there is no question that there are Americans who could handle those tasks. The companies choose to send those jobs to India or elsewhere because of their perception that labor costs will be lower. Pure and simple.
"The Indian software and services export is estimated at Rs 78,230 crore ($17.2 billion) in 2004-05, as compared to Rs 58,240 crore ($12.8 billion) in 2003-04, an increase of 34 per cent."
Outsourcing is a growing industry - growing a lot faster than our job rate ...
Posts: 337 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Sorry.
