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 by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Good deal! My brother-in-law works for them. Maybe he will get a big bonus this year...



FG
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Farmgirl:
Good deal! My brother-in-law works for them. Maybe he will get a big bonus this year...



FG

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Really? What terms did you use to google?
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 
France let thousands die of heat....
France heat wave
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
Oh, that must mean it's the right thing to do, then.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
France let thousands die of heat....
France heat wave

---

quote:

---

They own more of the government than the American citizens do.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DarkKnight:
France let thousands die of heat....
France heat wave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's relevant how?

---

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.

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle:
Here's an article about how the high heating prices in Massachusetts are affecting the poor.

---

quote:

---

*sigh* Oil companies do not put politicians in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

They own more of the government than the American citizens do.

---

*sigh* Oil companies do not put politicians in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Really? What terms did you use to google?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silkie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

They own more of the government than the American citizens do.

---

*sigh* Oil companies do not put politicians in power.

---

Rakeesh, you have inpressed me as a very smart person. I don't see how you can believe that the Oil comapnies do not 'own' the current government.

This is how much disproportionately the Oil companies donate to Republican politicians:
Center for Responsive Politics

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
*cough* http://www.crp.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K&cycle=2006

---

quote:

---

loose quote... Politicians and babies should be changed often and for the same reasons.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

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.

---

When, exactly, did this drop occur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2005energycrisisgasolineprices.gif

---

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.

---

quote:

---

He is their man, as surely as if he was on their payroll.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:
France let thousands die of heat....
France heat wave

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silkie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:

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.

---

When, exactly, did this drop occur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2005energycrisisgasolineprices.gif

---

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?
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 
*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.
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 
Edit: computer malfunction
 

---

Posted by Silkie (Member # 8853) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
But what's the deal with the subsidies, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Silkie:

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irregardless:
*cough* http://www.crp.org/industries/indus.asp?ind=K&cycle=2006

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
Or is it only appropriate to call Bush appointees such names?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boris:
I'm voting for the one that creates jobs, personally.

---

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.

Business Week

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by smitty:
I'm holding back the "France surrendered to the heat" joke...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
While that seems to be an economically sound business practice, isn't it a little hypocritical of them to run ads making a big deal about supporting American workers, then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noemon:
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.

---

quote:

---

When hubby and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that this is about Union busting. Given the 'global economy' it seems inevitable that Unions will lose power unless they change, and they seem unlikely to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

When hubby and I discussed this we came to the conclusion that this is about Union busting. Given the 'global economy' it seems inevitable that Unions will lose power unless they change, and they seem unlikely to change.

---

I don't think it is about Union busting, I think it is much more about trying to keep Ford business intact. The plants that are closing are mostly truck plants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
The Focus is made in Mexico?! All of them? From day one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noemon:
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.

---

Oh, I was totally serious. The US was the only place with such ridiculously low prices, and it fuels an unhealthy set of behaviors.

So why weren't the prices raised before this, guys? Record profits, better for us ... I don't get it. Why only now?

---

quote:

---

I don't have an answer for you about why Gasoline is so much more expensive in Europe.

---

quote:

---

So, pray tell, given the Stevens situation, what do you make of the failure to have the oil execs sworn in?

---

quote:

---

Before politicians take office, they are sworn in. Before witnesses testify in court, they pledge honesty. New citizens must swear their allegiance to the flag. High school students filling out college applications must attest to their truthfulness. Some states won't even let you drive unless you first take an oath. There is no limit, it often seems, to the venues in which Americans lean on the oath to steer their consciences to honesty--with one glaring exception: the hearing rooms of the United States Congress, where only a handful of the thousands of witnesses interviewed each year are required to take an oath before testifying.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
You tell me: What exactly does one make of a Senator following the normal practices of Congress?

---

quote:

---

Interesting article. Reminds me of the debate that swirled around "what the meaning of 'is' is."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
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.

---