terrasin
01-30-2006, 09:01 AM
And gas is going up again WHY??!

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products. The results exceeded Wall Street expectations and Exxon shares rose nearly 3 percent in morning trading.

The company's earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up 27 percent 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 third quarter of 2005.

Exxon's profit for the year was also the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a stock market analyst for Standard & Poor's. He said the previous high was Exxon's $25.3 billion profit in 2004.

Exxon's results lifted the combined 2005 profits for the country's three largest integrated oil companies to more than $63 billion.

ConocoPhillips said last Wednesday that its fourth-quarter earnings rose 51 percent to $3.68 billion, while annual income climbed 66 percent to $13.53 billion. Two days later, Chevron Corp. said its fourth-quarter earnings rose 20 percent to $4.14 billion, while annual income jumped 6 percent to $14.1 billion.

The oil industry's stellar results renewed talk among some politicians for a windfall profit tax that would push companies to invest more in new production and refining capacity.

Sen. Babara Boxer, a California Democrat who sharply criticized oil executives appearing before Congress in November, struck again on Friday. She called on the Bush Administration and the Federal Trade Commission to "put an end to gouging," then suggested that FTC stood for "Friend to Chevron."

But John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington-based trade group, said Monday that the political rhetoric was "not a case based on fact."

"We invested somewhere in the order of $86 billion last year," Felmy said. "Then we have to treat investors appropriately otherwise we'd have the Eliott Spitzers of the world coming after us."

The results for Exxon's latest 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 $1.87 to $63.16 in morning trade on the
New York Stock Exchange.

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 to $5.71 per share from $3.89 per share in 2004. Annual revenue grew to $371 billion from $298.04 billion.

To put that into perspective, Exxon's revenue for the year exceeded Saudi Arabia's estimated 2005 gross domestic product of $340.5 billion, according to statistics maintained by the
Central Intelligence Agency.

lamb_servant72
01-30-2006, 09:19 AM
I think I shall invest in a bicycle.

timmyrotter
01-30-2006, 09:32 AM
this makes me so mad!!! the rich just want to get richer!!!

"Asparagus"
01-30-2006, 10:12 AM
I think I shall invest in a bicycle.
My wife and I did last August. And we are still riding them to class in January. We're glad the weather has been so good.

amodman
01-30-2006, 10:32 AM
What happened to the federal investigation? I haven't heard anything about it since it was issued and the original 'drop' in prices (to about $2 here - more now) occurred...

skynes
01-30-2006, 11:13 AM
Out fuel is sitting at about $1.7 per litre.
It's rediculous...

terrasin
01-30-2006, 12:32 PM
What happened to the federal investigation? I haven't heard anything about it since it was issued and the original 'drop' in prices (to about $2 here - more now) occurred...
Oil companies probably struck a bargain with the government. Maybe donating money for the war or something. :\

More likely they were going to investigate and then they dropped the price down to $2/gal which is still thievery. Now they are looking for excuses to jack it back up.

I don't know how they manage to sleep at night.

CJ

disciple
01-30-2006, 12:57 PM
Me neither...


"The rich just keep gettin' richer, and richer, and richer, and the poor keep gettin' more poor."

;)

skynes
01-30-2006, 01:02 PM
1 Gallon = 3.79 litres.

1 Gallon (USA)= $2

at $1.7 per litre for us

1 Gallon (UK) = $6.44

Excuse my harshness, but QUIT WHINING! Your prices are UNDER A THIRD of ours! How can you complain! What you pay for a gallon, we pay for a litre!

disciple
01-30-2006, 01:10 PM
There would be the conspiracy. :)


I usually don't pay for gas, 'cause I can't drive, but sometimes I have to pay for my Dad's gas just so he can go to work to get more money for gas. It's above $2 here, sure, closing in on $3 if I remember correctly, but I am glad I don't pay Irish prices. ;)

amodman
01-30-2006, 01:25 PM
1 Gallon = 3.79 litres.

1 Gallon (USA)= $2

at $1.7 per litre for us

1 Gallon (UK) = $6.44

Excuse my harshness, but QUIT WHINING! Your prices are UNDER A THIRD of ours! How can you complain! What you pay for a gallon, we pay for a litre!

Our economies are built different :P. Besides, the cause for our prices is, evidently the companies trying to take advantage of a perceived crisis and make a buck (or billion), not the taxes (which is drastically lower than your, and pretty much every other country's).

Isildur9473
01-30-2006, 02:37 PM
Capitalism is for cool kids.

terrasin
01-30-2006, 05:45 PM
1 Gallon = 3.79 litres.

1 Gallon (USA)= $2

at $1.7 per litre for us

1 Gallon (UK) = $6.44

Excuse my harshness, but QUIT WHINING! Your prices are UNDER A THIRD of ours! How can you complain! What you pay for a gallon, we pay for a litre!
From what I've read about this, Europeans have a much lower gas consumption rate than the USA. Here we have gas hogging SUVs and trucks which don't really help things either. European cars are smaller and more economic and efficient. Our country would see a major change if we started using those tiny 2 seater cars seen only in European countries. Especially larger cities who would also benefit from the pollution reduction. But that's not the way America works, sadly. Around here, every soccer mom feels the need to have a Hummer. ;|

CJ

disciple
01-30-2006, 05:50 PM
Too many Hummer commercials being beamed directly to their brains in their sleep. ;<

terrasin
01-30-2006, 05:53 PM
Examples:

Europe:
http://twicerisen.ath.cx/rn/a3/wyd2c2.jpg

USA:
http://www.astoria-motor.co.uk/images/chevrolet-avalanche/chevrolet-avalanche-big.jpg

Europe:
http://www.veryfunnypics.com/pics/trans/images/zzzEuropean%20Car.jpg

USA:
http://www.firstclasslimos.net/hummer-h2-limo-2.jpg

I know it's a little extreme, but it's to show the extreme differences between economies. I know that the Echo was the car of the year in Europe and we have those here as well, but the majority of Americans drive these huge, gas munching cars. I myself drive a Ford F-150 that I use for hauling my trailer and I used for work. I find that a decent reson for people to have one. But it irritates me to see some lady driving down the road in her Hummer with 2 kids in the back when she could easily get a mid-size v6 van. There's no excuse...

CJ

amodman
01-30-2006, 06:30 PM
Well, that and...

The United Kingdom -
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/6960/uk9nc.png

The United States -
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/5904/us6bw.png

;)

skynes
01-31-2006, 12:47 AM
I get CJ's point, I don't get yours, lol.

CJ, those little cars aren't as common as you think. It's mostly Volkswagon, Vauxhall, Renault and Toyota's you see around. But yeah point sitll applies, we have no CHOICE but to use economic cars cause fuel is so expensive..

Mr. Xcitement
01-31-2006, 01:32 AM
GM has gotten pretty far in their technology with Fuel Cell cars, but unfortunately from what I've read is that the fuel for those is still hard to make so it'll cost about the same as gas does right now, but I'd still rather get a fuel cell car, nothing like water vapor for exhaust. Also, I believe Europe has more Ethanol powered engines, not sure, just something I think is true, since I know Saab has had a Ethanol engine over there for a while and is now bringing it here.

OTD
01-31-2006, 10:41 AM
Actually, Norwegian scientist succeeded in creating hydrogen fuel tablets, using seawater, which are reactivated using ammonia. So much for having to store flammable gas or liquid hyrogen..and the expense. Now I wonder how long it will take to get the technology across Europe and into Canada before US automakers have no choice..or if big oil will buy up the research and squash it. They want to make hydrogen fuel out of ...guess..come on..OIL, yeah..which is what we're trying to replace in the first place.

NightCrawler
01-31-2006, 11:04 AM
I get CJ's point, I don't get yours, lol.
I think his point was that we have much larger distances that we can/are expected? to travel compared to UK. Although that isn't a very strong point...

skynes
02-01-2006, 01:06 AM
It's not a strong point, lol. The long distance means that you need to be even more fuel, so if the prices were the same as here ($6 a gallon) they'd be making TRIPLE their normal income.

terrasin
02-01-2006, 04:08 AM
Skyness, on average, how much do you spend in gas a week, and how much does your tank hold?

CJ

skynes
02-01-2006, 04:27 AM
I don't drive. For the simple matter that it's too expensive and I can't afford it. My insurance alone is over $5000

So I dunno how much I'd use a week or how big the tanks are.

amodman
02-01-2006, 07:25 AM
It's not a strong point, lol. The long distance means that you need to be even more fuel, so if the prices were the same as here ($6 a gallon) they'd be making TRIPLE their normal income.

Again, our prices are due to the lowest gas taxes in the world, lol. This record profit is more than enough evidence that gas companies are taking advantage of the people. But anyways, the size of the U.S. and the way our economy and society is built around the car is a factor.

We don't have near as sophisticated of public transit systems, walking alternatives, etc. as a lot of places in the U.K. and Europe. And, even if you're like me, who drives less than average because I ride my bike to school (very rare, have you, even with 13,000 students at my college) and work every day, I still drive up to Chicago every other weekend to visit my mom which more than equals the fuel I would've used around town, and that's still not considered anything more than an average distance. Approx. 3/4 of this college town does that every weekend ;). We drive greaters distances, use more fuel, drive as big of hoggers as we can afford, that's the American way of life.

And besides that, all domestic transactions in America are affected with increased prices. It doesn't take long around here to spot a semi. As gas goes up, the price of everything eventually goes up. These are the reasons our Gov. has such a low tax on gas in the first place. I'm not saying you shouldn't have lower prices too, but with the way our country is, we need lower prices. Everything is built around it. I'm not saying that's good, it just is...

skynes
02-01-2006, 11:43 AM
I still don't see how having more people and more stuff built around fuel makes a difference. So what if everyone drives?
That's hardly an excuse to put prices down, tonnes of people drive here too, loads of people drive to Uni or work daily.
What's the difference?

terrasin
02-01-2006, 01:55 PM
The point is that our economy in the US can't handle it. With more money going into the tanks and into fuel to heat houses, that's less money to spend on other things such as food and consumer goods. When that happens, businesses lose money and have to lay people off which means less jobs and more unemployment. There is a system of stability in this country, and more and more people are seeing the stability falling because of the failing economy. In 10 years if it keeps up, we could be looking at a depression. We're already very close to it now as I read an article noting that savings accounts of american people are now the lowest they have been since the last depression. The only thing keeping it from going lower is that we have credit cards now. But those are causing massive debt to the economy. People are on 2nd and 3rd house morgages... If the economy stays the way it is, this country is in for a rude awakening...

CJ

skynes
02-02-2006, 03:58 AM
The price of a litre of petrol bought by the station is 23p.

The they add 6p for their own profits

then the government adds 67p of Tax...

Bringing up to around 1 ($1.7) per litre.

disciple
02-04-2006, 12:31 PM
John... we can't view YOUR E-Mails. ::] You're gonna hafta fenangle something, like copy-and-paste it or something.

john316
02-04-2006, 12:38 PM
John... we can't view YOUR E-Mails. ::] You're gonna hafta fenangle something, like copy-and-paste it or something.

Opps...my dumb...ill have to figure something else out when i have time