ExxonMobil's profit in 2005 is $36 billion!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BostonAnne

Refugee
Joined
Nov 6, 2001
Messages
2,052
Location
Massachusetts, USA
I was reading Time magazine today, and ran across this in the "numbers" section. Shouldn't prices be regulated or something? This is ridiculous...

$36 billion ExxonMobil's profit in 2005, a 43% increase from 2004 and the largest annual net income in the U.S. history

6.5% Portion of U.S. consumer spending in September that went to gas and other energy bills, the highest rate in more than two decades
 
Bluer White said:
Margins of Oil and Gas Industry vs. Other Major Industries

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/ACF1C0.pdf

From the above link...
Its revenues are large, but so are its costs of providing consumers with the energy they need. Among those are the cost of finding and producing oil and natural gas and the
costs of refining, distributing and marketing it. The energy Americans consume today is brought to us by investments made years or even decades ago. Today’s oil and natural
gas industry earnings are invested in new technology, new production, and
environmental and product quality
improvements to meet tomorrow’s energy needs.

If the costs are so large, how can one company still manage to make $36 billion? How much was invested in new technology, new production, etc? If it's such a tough business with those awful costs of finding and producing oil and natural gas and the costs of refining, distributing and marketing it is so rough - why does Exxonmobil have the largest annual net income in U.S. history?
 
^Well, the source is The American Petroleum Institute so it does have a teeny agenda behind it's reporting.:wink:
 
Because speculation about the future supplies on the global market has driven price up. That is not cause to punish oil companies for making profits, now price fixing and colluding - that is cause for punitive action.
 
BostonAnne said:
I was reading Time magazine today, and ran across this in the "numbers" section. Shouldn't prices be regulated or something? This is ridiculous...





Well, if your one of the several million people that own stock in ExxonMobile, its been a great year.
 
what i have huge trouble with is the fact that the day after katrina hit, gas stations in canada almost doubled their price of fuel - OVERNIGHT.

that's bloodworthy.
 
trevster2k said:


That's capitalism at it's purest level, greed baby, greed!!:evil:

INTERNATIONAL LABOR RIGHTS FUND

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

ExxonMobil Investors Tell Management to Review Relationship with Indonesia’s Criminal Military

7.6 Percent Back New York City Pension System Resolution Questioning Risks to Shareholders from ExxonMobil Payments to Brutal Armed Forces

Washington, D.C. – Stockholders of oil and gas giant ExxonMobil (New York Stock Exchange symbol: XOM) today issued a call to action about the company’s operations in the Indonesian province of Aceh, devastated by last December’s tsunami. At the company’s annual shareholders meeting in Dallas, Texas, this morning, well over 7 percent of investors (accounting for roughly 498 million shares worth more than $27 billion) voted in favor of a resolution calling on ExxonMobil management to report to shareholders concerning the potential investor risks and liabilities resulting from corporate payments to Indonesia’s notorious rights-abusing military.

A similar resolution put before Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. (NYSE symbol: FCX) shareholders on May 5 by NYC’s firefighters, teachers and police pension funds also garnered more than 7 percent of the ballots. Both resolutions send a strong message to corporate management and received well above the percentage needed to carry forward similar resolutions during next year’s shareholder season.

Urging investors to help end the violence in Aceh by voting “yes” on the NYC resolution, Mr. Munawar Zainal, Secretary General of the Aceh Center -- USA, told shareholders at the meeting, “I strongly believe that ExxonMobil can influence the prospects for peace and stability in my homeland. This will require a change in policy and action by the company’s management, which you, as shareholders, can encourage. Right now, Exxon Mobil’s ongoing financial and logistical collusion with the Indonesian armed forces provides those troops with opportunity and cover for their brutality.”

Delivering a statement on behalf of Antioch New England Graduate School’s Faculty Senate, Ms. Elena Acosta reminded investors that “The compensation received by the Acehnese communities whose natural resources ExxonMobil exploits has been environmental degradation, military occupation, and severe human rights abuses by the Indonesian armed forces whom ExxonMobil pays to “protect” its operations. We, as concerned shareholders, need to safeguard our investments by ensuring that ExxonMobil does not underwrite criminal activity.”

Copies of the New York City Pension Funds Resolution and Statements by Mr. Zainal and Ms. Acosta are available online at: www.stopexxonmobil.org

BACKGROUND

ExxonMobil holds a 100 percent interest in Aceh’s Arun natural gas fields, which account – together with satellite fields – for 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas/day or 11 percent of ExxonMobil’s global production for 2004. The company realized $25.33 billion dollars in profits in 2004, a world record. ExxonMobil has provided just $8 million in tsunami relief and reconstruction contributions or less than one-third of one percent of the company’s 2004 profits. (Its more than 100,000 employees, retirees, dealers and distributors have contributed a total of $3 million.)

The ExxonMobil shareholder meeting takes place the same day that newly elected Indonesian president General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono makes his first state visit to Washington, D.C., to meet with President George W. Bush and members of the U.S. Congress. ExxonMobil will host a major gala dinner reception this evening for President Yudhoyono at Washington, D.C.’s Mandarin Oriental Hotel. The company enjoys close relations with the Bush Administration and with Indonesia’s senior military leadership. The company was the top oil and gas industry contributor to the Bush/Cheney and other Republican campaigns during the 2004 election cycle. In December 2004, International Government Relations Manager Robert Haines, who chairs the U.S.-ASEAN Business Council’s Indonesia group, led an exclusive delegation of 50 senior executives from 26 major U.S. corporations to Indonesia for meetings with President Yudhoyono and other top Indonesian economic officials.

According to the U.S. State Department and other credible sources, Indonesian government forces have killed, tortured, involuntarily disappeared, and arbitrarily arrested and detained thousands of Acehense civilians. The Indonesian government largely has closed Aceh to foreigners since the implementation of martial law in 2003 and during the current period of civil emergency in place since 2004, contributing significantly to the problem of providing humanitarian aid to the victims of December’s tsunami.

ExxonMobil currently faces a lawsuit representing families and victims of torture and murder by Indonesian troops stationed at ExxonMobil’s Aceh facilities. Human rights investigators and journalists have reported that the Indonesian military has used ExxonMobil facilities to torture its victims and used company equipment to dig mass graves for burial of murder victims.
 
Since George Bush came to power there have been numerous episodes of ExxonMobil engaging in dirty tricks to scupper action on climate change:

February 6th 2001 a fax from ExxonMobil to the head of the White House Center for Environmental Quality asking, "Can Watson be replaced now at the request of the US?" Dr Bob Watson was the respected head of the UN global warming panel and supported mandatory government action to stop climate change. President Bush complied with ExxonMobil's request and lobbied successfully to have Dr. Watson removed from his position.

September 2001, the draft final report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included the line: "The Earth's climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities." ExxonMobil lobbied to amend the text by deleting "with some of these changes attributable to human activities." The IPCC rejected the amendment.

June 7th, 2002 groups funded by ExxonMobil called for President Bush to denounce the report put out by his own Environmental Protection Agency. The report documents the negative impacts of global warming on the US.

September 2002 blocking international efforts to set a target for global generation of clean renewable energy.

A letter sent to President Bush by ExxonMobil front groups last month called on the US administration to avoid signing any new treaties at the summit in Johannesburg, which they described as "anti-Western." The signatories to the letter, who were cumulatively funded by ExxonMobil to the tune of more than $1million, went on to claim that a lack of clean drinking water is the "greatest environmental obstacle" and that global warming is the "least important issue." They then told Bush to keep climate change "off the table and out of the spotlight."
 
trevster2k said:


That's capitalism at it's purest level, greed baby, greed!!:evil:

Exxon sticks with hiring older tankers
Sydney Morning Herald

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business...g-older-tankers/2005/07/02/1119724837493.html

Exxon Mobil Corp. is transporting oil to Asia aboard older, single-hulled supertankers shunned by other major oil companies, industry sources say.

The world's largest listed oil company has regularly chartered ageing oil tankers, built in the late 1980s, to save on freight costs.

Exxon is not breaking any laws and says that any oil tanker it hires is subject to very strict vetting procedures.

The US oil giant said it regularly chartered both single and newer double-hulled tankers.

"Both configurations offer safe and effective transportation," Exxon said in a statement to Reuters.

"Any vessel chartered by ExxonMobil affiliates must, in addition to meeting all applicable laws and regulations, pass a very thorough and stringent vetting review," the company said.

But its recent tanker hires have raised eyebrows in the oil shipping industry because newer double-hulled tankers, offering added cargo protection, have been readily available.

"It's more noticeable with Exxon, because they don't have the same restrictions as some of the other majors like Total and Shell who stipulate double-hulled requirements," a senior ship broking source said.

"Every ship that Total takes has to be a double, and Chevron are more and more double-hulled, so Exxon is more noticeable," said the source, who did not wish to be named.

"They certainly have gone down the route of price rather than quality," he added.

Single-hulled oil tankers, of the type that sank off Spain in November 2002 causing an environmental and economic catastrophe, are gradually being phased out worldwide.

The European Union has banned such ships carrying heavy grades of oil from calling at its ports.

SINGLE HULLS

In the last week Exxon has chartered single-hulled supertankers the VL Malibu, built in 1989, and the Titan Neptune built in 1988. Both supertankers were chartered to deliver crude from the Gulf to Asian refiners.

Ship broking sources said Exxon, in the last few months, had also chartered single-hulled supertankers the Lysaker, built 1989, the Geilo, built 1990, and the Asian Jewel built 1992 among others.

Ship brokers said Exxon had hired older single-hulled tankers 10-15 Worldscale points below modern double-hulled ships at a cost saving of some $340,000 to deliver a $120 million cargo on a typical voyage to Japan.

Supertanker freight rates for transporting crude oil are already trading close to 20-month lows.

"You'd have thought that because they have lots of alternative quality double-hulled vessels to choose from they would have gone after them," an executive with a leading oil transportation firm said.

"They are taking the cheapest ships possible."

Exxon's public image was badly damaged in 1989 when the single-hulled Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, Alaska, shedding a third of its 260,000 barrel crude oil cargo.


and what US Congress says:

http://www.house.gov/transportation/cgmt/hearing/06-29-99/cbrown.html

Some oil companies are purposely delaying replacing their ships -- hoping that the shipbuilding base will shrink further in an effort to get relief from Congress on the double hull law. Their strategy includes waiting until the last minute to place an order, demanding an unachievable delivery schedule, and then using the shipbuilding industry's inability to meet that unrealistic delivery date as a reason for Congress to grant them relief from the law. As the number of eligible tankers to meet our domestic oil transportation needs decline, Congress will come under increasing pressure to follow the strategy of these oil companies. Delay by oil companies increases the risk to our environment.

The road to double hulls was long overdue. In 1976, then President Jimmy Carter directed the Coast Guard to go to the International Maritime Organization and make double hulls the international standard. Exxon led the campaign among the members of the IMO to defeat double hulls. And ten years after the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill, Exxon has yet to introduce a new double hulled tanker into the American fleet. Instead, it is seeking to bring the single hulled VALDEZ, renamed MEDITERRANEAN, back into Alaskan waters, and continues to seek waivers to the double hull law.

Congress should not let them get away with it. There is no reason for any oil company to be allowed to usurp the most important pollution prevention measure of OPA-90. You, Congress, can use your voice and your pen to publicly demand that these companies do what is right for America's environment and her citizens. I urge you to make these public calls today, and every day, until all ships plying our waters are equipped with double hulls. I also recommend that Congress require the Coast Guard to keep accurate data on the phase-out date of each and every tanker in the U.S.-flag fleet, and report annually to Congress on the progress of these companies in placing their orders to avoid a disruption in U.S. oil transportation.
 
Well, I guess that makes it pretty clear, hiphop. The evil smiley was appropriate.:evil:
 
trevster2k said:
Well, I guess that makes it pretty clear, hiphop. The evil smiley was appropriate.:evil:

Sure. While we´re all stunned by the huge profits of such a great multi, we should not ignore how this company makes its profits.

No man, that ain´t oil. That´s blood.
 
got this e-mail from John Edwards today

Dear Friend,


First the Vice-President's Energy Task Force. Then an energy bill basically written by oil and gas lobbyists. We didn't need more evidence that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are in the pocket of the oil and gas industry. But we got it anyway.

The New York Times broke the story that the Administration will allow big energy companies to pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territories over the next five years without paying any royalties to the taxpayers. I should say that again: without paying any royalties whatsoever to the taxpayers. The Administration's own figures show that it will give up more than seven billion dollars in payments in the next five years. It's a pretty sweet deal. I am deeply concerned -- and I know you are, too -- that taxpayers are again getting ripped off and that wealthy corporations again are laughing all the way to the bank.

George W. Bush is the President of the United States, not the president of the oil and gas industry. But too many of his policies put the interests of that industry before the interests of the American people. We know he is an oilman; we know Cheney's an oilman, we know that many of their friends are oilmen, too. But this Administration goes too far when it takes care of those friends even when it hurts the American people.

Every day, I meet families who are struggling with high gas prices and soaring home-heating costs. Everyday, prices go up for the things we all need because the price of fuel goes up. Meanwhile, the big energy companies are hitting all-time record high profits. So why do they need another give away? They don't. And they certainly don't need another give away while oil prices climb to $70 per barrel.

This boondoggle is unfolding just as the Administration is pushing for its budget -- an immoral document if I ever saw one. Once again, their budget lavishes tax breaks on millionaires while it slashes programs that help the most vulnerable among us. If the President gets his way, 300,000 people will be pushed off food stamps; 19,000 fewer children will go to Head Start; and low- and moderate- income people will lose $36 billion in Medicare.

Everything people need to get ahead, let alone, get by -- is on the chopping block: student loans, vocational training, child care, Social Security benefits for widows, and more. My mind is reeling with all the people who could be helped with the seven billion dollars that Bush and Cheney are handing over to the oil and gas companies.

In the President's State of the Union address, he told us that America is addicted to oil. What he didn't admit was his role in bloating the pushers' profits.

We have the chance to get our country back on track. It's not too late to create a safe, healthy and hopeful future for our children. I am going around the country to help elect Democrats in 2006. I hope every one of you will get involved by working for candidates, organizing in your communities, and standing up for the people who have no one to speak for them. If you're upset about the President's policies, get energized with us. Please take a moment to share your concerns and join the conversation at our One America Committee blog:

http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com
 
They do pay taxes.

The laws regarding paying royalties from products taken from federal lands are not new - companies have been doing this for decades.

Edwards should have thought about this before instead of simply trying to demonize the "evil oil companies".
 
nbcrusader said:
They do pay taxes.

The laws regarding paying royalties from products taken from federal lands are not new - companies have been doing this for decades.

Haven't you read? The Bush Administration has now proposed eliminating the royalties earned from those public lands.

That's what you get when you elect a President whose interests lie with businesses, not the American public. Why else would multimillionaires fight for a job that requires a massive pay cut?

Melon
 
melon said:


Haven't you read? The Bush Administration has now proposed eliminating the royalties earned from those public lands.

That's what you get when you elect a President whose interests lie with businesses, not the American public. Why else would multimillionaires fight for a job that requires a massive pay cut?

Melon

That's what I was talking in about in my original post--the royalties earned from those public lands.
 
At its peak, the government collected $3 billion in oil and gas royalties. No where near the $65 billion Edwards is touting.

But let's make sure we make domestic production as difficult as possible.
 
nbcrusader said:
At its peak, the government collected $3 billion in oil and gas royalties. No where near the $65 billion Edwards is touting.

But let's make sure we make domestic production as difficult as possible.

There's a lot of NIMBYs around the Gulf of Mexico, so let's not go blaming Democrats for everything.

As for the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, it's already known to be economically unfeasible. We'd be spending hundreds of millions on something that wouldn't even produce one drop of oil until 2020. By that time, we could have switched to E85 through switchgrass harvesting--something that Bush talked about during the State of the Union and one of the handful of things he's ever said that had basis in scientific fact.

Melon
 
so what if exxonmobil's profit is $36 billion? they are a succesful multinational corporation and should be an example to us all. if we're lucky they will proselytize those who are misguided to the american way. god willing.
 
nbcrusader said:
Do you know how much we pay in gas taxes already?



yes, and it's not nearly enough.

there's a war on, didn't you hear? gotta pay for it some how. instead of a Victory Garden, we can have Go-Go USA Gas!
 
Back
Top Bottom