TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Exxon Mobil made nearly $1,500 per second
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Exxon Mobil made nearly $1,500 per second
| quote: |
| Exxon Mobil once again reported the largest quarterly profit in U.S. history Thursday, posting net income of $11.68 billion on revenue of $138 billion in the second quarter. That profit works out to $1,485.55 a second. That barely beat the previous corporate record of $11.66 billion, also set by Exxon in the fourth quarter of 2007. But Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) profit fell short of Wall Street estimates. Analysts predicted the company, the world's largest publicly traded oil firm, would make $12.1 billion in profit on $144.4 billion in revenue, according to Thomson Reuters. Exxon shares fell about 2% in pre-market trading. Exxon was both helped and hurt by high oil prices. As an oil producer, the company makes a lot of money when crude prices rise. Exxon made $10 billion from selling oil in the latest quarter, up nearly 70%. But as a refiner, it must also buy crude oil to turn into gasoline. Exxon actually buys more crude than it sells. Profits from its refining business totaled $1.6 billion in the quarter, less than half of what they were last year. "Record crude oil and natural gas realizations were partly offset by lower refining and chemical margins, lower production volumes and higher operating costs," Exxon said in a statement. Oil prices in the quarter were nearly twice as high as the same time last year, while gasoline prices were an average of nearly 30% higher. Exxon spent $7 billion in the second quarter finding and producing more new oil, up 38% from last year. Still, oil and natural gas production from the company fell 8%. Even excluding special events such as a labor strike in Nigeria and seizure of fields in Venezuela, production slipped 3%. The company returned $10.1 billion to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, 12% more than last year. On an earnings-per-share basis, Exxon made $2.22. That was still lower than analysts had expected, but 24% higher than last year, a gain Exxon attributed to its aggressive stock buyback plan. The big international oil companies have been criticized for plowing much of their profits back into stock buybacks and other programs to benefit shareholders, as opposed to exploring for more oil which could bring down the price of crude for everyone. "While oil companies are earning record profits and gas prices are soaring, the largest oil companies have invested more resources in stock buybacks than U.S. production," said Congressional Democrats in a press release shortly after Exxon announced its earnings. Other critics charge the oil companies with deliberately restricting production in an attempt to keep prices high. The industry says it's investing as much as it can in finding new oil, but is having a hard time given the shortage of workers and equipment in the sector. Recent efforts by countries such as Russia, Venezuela and Kazakhstan to gain greater control of their own domestic oil resources have also hampered the ability of international oil companies to increase production. In addition to making hefty profits, Exxon also had a hefty tax bill. Worldwide, the company paid $10.5 billion in income taxes in the second quarter, $9.5 billion in sales taxes, and over $12 billion in what it called "other taxes." But with Americans paying nearly $4 a gallon for gas, oil company earnings have been political fodder of late. Congressional Democrats said they are having a conference later in the day to call for an end to tax breaks for big oil firms. Several bills have been introduced in Congress to enact a 'windfall' profits tax on these earnings, or at the very least eliminate manufacturing tax exemption oil companies now enjoy. Presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama wants to tax oil companies at a special rate every time crude goes over $80 a barrel. Most plans would either use this newfound tax money to fund investments in renewable energy, or give it to low income Americans struggling with high energy prices. But so far those efforts have been blocked - mainly by Republicans - who say raising taxes on oil companies will only discourage investments in finding new oil and raise the price of crude. |
so are there still believers in non-artificial pricing going on?
my God.
similar ish story here, centrica which owns british gas put prices up on tuesday by 35% for gas & 9% for electricity, after a 15% rise in both in Jan, then a day later announced profits of �992million, but complained it was down 10%
obviously not on the same level, but it shows a bit of a nerve
Ian, the worst thing about Gas prices in the UK is that eighty percent of the price is taxed by the government.
Or, so i heard...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by diggerz Ian, the worst thing about Gas prices in the UK is that eighty percent of the price is taxed by the government. Or, so i heard... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by KiNeTiC ENeRgY that sounds a bit excessive |
You can't trust Bas.
true dat sam. truth knockin'
| quote: |
| From 2007-10-01 the main road fuel (petrol and diesel) duty rate in the UK is GBP�0.5035 per litre (GBP�2.2890/imperial gal or GBP�1.9059/US gal). The rate for biodiesel and bioethanol is �0.3035/L (GBP�1.3797/imperial gal or GBP�1.1489/US gal).[1] Value Added Tax (VAT), currently at 17.5%, is also charged on the price of the fuel and on the duty. At a pump price of 128.8p/litre (typical for diesel as at May 2008), this would put the combined tax at 69.53p/litre, or approximately USD$5.20 per US gallon. Thus without tax, the retail price would be 59.26p per litre, making a combined tax rate of 117%. Diesel for use by farmers and construction vehicles is coloured red and has a much reduced tax. Jet fuel used for international aviation attracts no duty, and no VAT. wiki wiki |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by diggerz true dat sam. truth knockin' |
How does the UK rate of tax on fuel compare to the US ?
they vary by state, but it's roughly 25 cents per gallon plus 18.4 federal tax making the total 47 cents per gallon.
ok, my currency conversion skills are bad & I may be using the wrong figures anyway, but does that make it about 4x more in the UK ? (going by the �1.90 per us gallon) with there being about 1.9usd to the � last time I checked (altho im more used to the canadian dollar due to the family there)
yes, sir.
it is quite an eye opening tax affair in the UK.
aye. As it is the price has gone from 97.9pence per litre in october last year to 133.9p a couple of weeks ago, although a couple of the supermarkets who run petrol stations plus Shell have knocked about 4 to 5pence a litre off in the last week or so, many stores are doing mega-savings on some foodstuffs too as the economy grinds to a halt. Current price is roughly 127.9p per litre (of diesel which is what we use) and I think about 116.9p for Unleaded.
this country for one is heading to a recession, and it's ironic that the guy who's controlled the purse strings for 10 years is now the prime minister 
I was considering a job in the U.K
reasons why I'm turning it down, for now.
Ah I see. it depends what type of work you're looking at, several industries are being hit hard at the moment, mostly the engineering and house building ones as like in the US some of the mortgage lenders are finding it hard to get capital to lend. My brother's just taken a job in Alberta, Ca and the wage is 3x what an equivilent one would pay here including his tax free living allowance, plus the rates of tax & cost of living there is the cheapest in canada overall (although fort mcmurray is expensive as it's a working town only) so he'll be way better off there than here.
Interesting, a close English friend of mine works for DaimlerChrysler Co. in London, I can imagine the anxiety of not knowing if you're going to loose your job or not, it's just getting way out of hand and i don't see this going anywhere but down.
I was applying for a teaching position in Nottingham through a close friend of mine responsible of the referral.
a lot of it is because firms are being badly run anyway and have been able to get away with it for a long time because there has been so much demand for business. However Toyota for example, for which my little cousin works for and is being trained by at the moment have not cut jobs, just reduced the production levels by 150 cars a week and are sending workers on more training because they forecast it picking up in 12-18 months time, but a lot of companies have been hiring in huge numbers and are now firing cos of bad management from before.
I think overall though this country (not sure about the reasons for the US problems) needs to just build for the future & be clever, for example we produce our own gas, but have nowhere to store it, so sell it off to companies in europe and then pay them about 2.25 times as much to buy it back 
So if we used many derelict old power station sites to build huge safe gas storage chambers, which could be buried deep in the ground, we could save a fortune then as consumers whilst allowing the companies to also make a healthy profit. I think that by investing in infrastructure now we can actually do a lot for the future, rather than just blaming the people in the past who didn't forsee everything we have to deal with now.
rant over
Well, the gas prices are slowly dropping around here; finally getting below the dreaded $4 mark. Who knows how far it will drop, and who knows how soon it will rise again. Congrats to Exxon Mobil for now being able to afford to buy all of New York and a small island for vacation purposes.
Duly noted, on both accounts. I think Ian has a very interesting approach, although most of the people are talking about alternative fuel investment (solar, wind, etc) very few have talked about nuclear energy for the future and even if it's off-topic I found it befitting. If the UK is in the position to grow enough fuel to boost an entire economy, more power to you. In the US the main problem is that there are very few oil refineries and most of the oil comes from abroad - on the same topic, the up-coming New York City candidate for major* (forgot his name) said he would invest in oil refineries in America which would boost the economy and lower the cost of energy production as a whole. The man is also willing to spend $1 billion on his campaign.
Nuclear energy also is a good idea, I know we've done a deal with i think saudi arabia where we get more oil and in turn we're going to educate them on nuclear power and different techniques, but I think that for now we need to decide what we're doing and invest in it, perhaps some of these companies with huge profits should be taxed themselves on it to give a certain percentage towards the development of the future.
Just to mention too, Nottingham is a bit rough, i lived nearer to it for a few years when younger, but it's not a bad place. Some gun crime (most in the uk i think) but nothing too bad and it's a lot cheaper to live than in London where many people from abroad end up living.
Oh, thanks for the tip. Being assaulted by chavs was the last thing on my mind.
two acronyms: FIFO, LIFO.
please learn what they mean before talking about oil accounting.
I beg your pardon?
that was directed at everyone.
talking about accounting (especially that of oil companies) without knowing the difference and which the industry in question uses is like critiquing music without knowing what 'key' is.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.