Record Oil Profits

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
Unlike The Saudis, are the Nigerian people benefiting from this bounty? Maybe Hugo Chavis has a point.

source: BBC News.com

Shell reports record UK profits
Soaring oil prices in 2005 have helped Royal Dutch Shell report a record annual profit for a UK-listed company.

The Anglo-Dutch energy giant generated profits of $22.94bn (£13.12bn) - up nearly a third on last year when it set a UK record with profits of $17.59bn.

The results follow a year in which the cost of crude jumped from below $45 a barrel to break the $70 mark.

Most of Shell's profits come from finding and extracting oil, and then selling it on to the markets.

Little, if any, profit comes from forecourt sales of fuel - which in the UK attracts among the highest taxes in Europe.

That has not stopped road lobbyists calling for Shell to reduce prices.

'Solid platform'

The cost of crude oil rose sharply last summer as a number of factors combined to push up the price.

Continued demand from countries such as China and the US came at the same time as political tensions in a number of oil-producing countries, and output in the Gulf of Mexico was affected by a series of hurricanes.

As well as the annual figure, Shell also unveiled a fourth quarter net profit of $5.395bn.

"Our good performance in the fourth quarter 2005 gives us a solid platform to build on in 2006," said chief executive Jeroen van der Veer.

"We delivered record cash and earnings. Success in exploration and gaining access to new resources continues."

He said production expectations for the year had been met, despite the impact of the hurricanes.

The firm said that efforts to get its damaged Mars platform in the Gulf of Mexico back into operation should be concluded in the middle of 2006.

Alternative energy

Mr van der Veer said the company would invest strongly in new energy technologies, in a week when US President George W Bush warned of "addiction" to oil and said alternative fuels to compete with petrol could be produced within six years.

Ruth Bridger of the AA said: "Shell should be putting more money into research and development to get away from an oil-based economy, and look at developing new alternative fuels such as hydrogen cells."

Shell also indicated it would buy back shares totalling $5bn during the coming year.

"We focus on delivery now and building the future," said Mr van der Veer.

Shell said its reserve-replacement ratio, the capacity to replace pumped oil with new oil, was 70 to 80%. Firms aim for a rate of more than 100% to keep their asset base solid.

In 2004 Shell's reserve-replacement ratio was less than 50%, leading to criticism from investors.

'Bit disappointing'

Shell's results come after Texas-based oil giant Exxon Mobil this week revealed $33.86bn profits in its last financial year - the biggest so far in corporate history.

Some analysts said Shell could have done better given Exxon's figures.

"Things are as expected, but the result in itself is a bit disappointing," said Jaap Barendregt, at FBS Bankiers.

"We could have expected somewhat more given the surprise we saw with Exxon."

In December, Shell cut its plans for North Sea exploration, blaming Chancellor Gordon Brown's tax hikes for the move.

The company had planned to hire three drilling rigs, but has decided to reduce the number to two.

Shell said it took the decision after a review prompted by the chancellor's decision to increase a charge on profits from 10% to 20%.

Instead Shell is focusing on other parts of the world; in the fourth quarter it said 20 successful exploration wells were drilled in Australia, Brazil, Brunei, Egypt, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, UK and USA.

And in November it started pumping oil from a huge new field off the Nigerian coast.
 
Its obvious why they challenge the global warming argument.

source: Houston Chronicle.com

Feb. 2, 2008, 12:02AM
Exxon Mobil posts third consecutive record profit
Oil giant took in $77,213 per minute last year as the price of crude soared


By KRISTEN HAYS
Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Exxon Mobil Corp. has no profit records except its own to break, and the world's largest oil company just keeps breaking them.

For the third year in a row, the Irving-based behemoth set new ceilings for annual and quarterly profits ever earned by a U.S. company, reaping the benefits of last year's dramatic surge in oil prices.

The company's quarterly profit of $11.6 billion and annual take of $40.6 billion — $77,213 per minute — won accolades from analysts, yawns from investors and criticism from some Democratic lawmakers.

Chevron Corp., the nation's second-largest oil major behind Exxon Mobil, also reported record profits Friday, boosted by oil prices that hovered above $90 a barrel for most of the last three months of 2007.

Several analysts, while impressed, questioned whether the companies could maintain the momentum, particularly if energy prices fall amid the softening economy.

"The resilience of Exxon Mobil's earnings will be the focus today," Citigroup analyst Doug Leggate told investors in a research note Friday.

Phil Weiss, an analyst with Argus Research, noted that the average crude price in 2007 was $72 a barrel, as prices didn't surge past $80 until the second half of the year. So far this year, prices have been in the high $80s and $90s after briefly touching $100 a barrel in early January.

"Maybe we haven't reached the peak yet, but I think the fourth quarter might be tough to top," he said.

Exxon Mobil's 2007 annual profit surpassed its 2006 record of $39.5 billion. In the fourth quarter the company's earnings far surpassed Wall Street expectations, rising 18 percent from $10.2 billion in the last three months of 2006.

Results also beat Exxon Mobil's previous record for the most profits earned in three months, $10.7 billion in the October-December period of 2005.

Chevron's quarterly profit rose 29 percent to $4.87 billion from $3.77 billion in the year-ago period. The San Ramon, Calif.-based company's annual profit rose to $18.7 billion from $17.1 billion in 2006.

Shares of both companies closed down less than 1 percent Friday in a lackluster day on the New York Stock Exchange.


Call for tax break rollbacks
The companies' results prompted jeers from some Democrats who pushed in vain for last year's energy bill to repeal billions of dollars in tax breaks for the world's five largest oil companies. The companies said the move would chill exploration spending, and President Bush's threat to veto the measure prompted Senate leaders to remove that provision.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the congressional Joint Economic Committee, said Friday that the earnings results reminded Americans "why they cringe every time they pull into a gas station" and again called for tax break rollbacks.

Kenneth Cohen, Exxon Mobil's vice president for public affairs, told reporters he hoped that people would focus on the industry's challenge to meet ever-growing global demand.

"Our industry has always been the focus of attention. I doubt that will change here over the short term," he said.

Last week, ConocoPhillips reported a 37 percent increase in quarterly income, and Royal Dutch Shell unveiled a 60 percent hike in fourth-quarter profits Thursday. London-based BP on Tuesday will be the last of the world's oil majors to report results.


Refining margins squeezed
The record crude prices, as well as high natural gas prices, fueled substantial hikes in exploration and production income for both Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

But in refining, Chevron's profits fell because of low margins and downtime at plants, while Exxon Mobil's international results overcame soft refining margins.

A refining margin is the difference between what refiners pay for oil and the selling price of gasoline and other fuels made with it. Fuel prices didn't keep up with last year's rapid rise in crude prices, squeezing those margins.

Exxon Mobil's exploration and production segment earned $8.2 billion, up from $6.2 billion in the year-ago quarter. In refining, Exxon Mobil earned $2.26 billion, up from $1.96 billion a year ago. Refining earnings were boosted in part by asset sales, mostly of European marketing operations.

Chevron's exploration and production earned $4.84 billion, a 66 percent jump from $2.9 billion in the year-ago quarter. Its refining segment earned $204 million, down from $954 million in the fourth quarter of 2006.

Exxon's oil and liquids production was 2.5 million barrels a day, down slightly from fourth-quarter 2006. It was weakened by quotas imposed by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, divestments and the company's exit from Venezuela when that country's government-owned oil company took control of foreign operations last year.

Excluding those effects, production rose nearly 3 percent, the company said.

kristen.hays@chron.com

exxonprofits0202map.jpg
 
They been having record profits since Bush took office. Bush's family fortune came from oil....go figure.

Peace.
 
Oil companies and taxes...

Am I the only one that doesn't get it when lawmakers say that they're going to raise oil company taxes they have to pay?

It seems like a good plan originally but the bottom line is we're going to be charged higher at the pump because of the tax hike. Sure it seems like we're "sticking it to them". But in all actuality, the government is sticking it to us. Our taxes aren't lowered in the process so who benefits?

For instance... Taxes originally started out as only for rich people. Then as the economy grew it expanded to everyone. The rich people created corporations and loopholes around paying taxes while the poor and uneducated were stuck with the burden of paying taxes.

How is taxing the oil companies any different?
~Jus sayin
 
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

but they'll still raise the price forwhat people are willing to pay. might aswell raise their taxes.it's actually a good thing to make the raise their prices drasticly cause it creates more incentive for companies to invest in alternate sources of energy. if prices rise slowly people slowly get used to it and go to the pump like zombies.
 
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

Am I the only one that doesn't get it when lawmakers say that they're going to raise oil company taxes they have to pay?

It seems like a good plan originally but the bottom line is we're going to be charged higher at the pump because of the tax hike. Sure it seems like we're "sticking it to them". But in all actuality, the government is sticking it to us. Our taxes aren't lowered in the process so who benefits?

For instance... Taxes originally started out as only for rich people. Then as the economy grew it expanded to everyone. The rich people created corporations and loopholes around paying taxes while the poor and uneducated were stuck with the burden of paying taxes.

How is taxing the oil companies any different?
~Jus sayin
Are you against ending the substantial subsidies to oil companies since that will raise the cost of gas as well?
 
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

Am I the only one that doesn't get it when lawmakers say that they're going to raise oil company taxes they have to pay?

It seems like a good plan originally but the bottom line is we're going to be charged higher prices at the pump because of the tax hike. Sure it seems like we're "sticking it to them". But in all actuality, the government is sticking it to us. Our taxes aren't lowered in the process so who benefits?

For instance... Taxes originally started out as only for rich people. Then as the economy grew it expanded to everyone. The rich people created corporations and loopholes around paying taxes while the poor and uneducated were stuck with the burden of paying taxes.

How is taxing the oil companies any different?
~Jus sayin


Aren't we (American taxpayers) being charged higher prices at the pump regardless of the oil companies overhead? You seem to be suggesting again, that the people (in this case the legislators) should not act in favor of the best interest of their constituency.

The general public already benefits the oil cartel by maintaining road construction (at little to no cost to them), we've funded their wars, subsidised billions of their tax dollars all while they are the largest industry in America. Raking in profits that have yet to be rivaled by any other Industry in the history of the world. In Feb 07 Exxon released reports that they'd earned $75,000 a minute for the entire year of 2006. Thats ridiculous!!

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. Thursday reported the biggest annual profit on record for a U.S. corporation - earning more than $75,000 every minute of 2006 on the back of record oil prices.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/companies/exxon/index.htm

They rape the American tax payer by smoozing with politicians at every turn, they buy-out and regularly defeat attempts to introduce viable alternative energy sources into the marketplace, and your suggestion is that the people should grin and bear it because they might raise prices? Fact: oil was $25 a barrel in 2002 it is currently $103.83 per barrel as of April 3, 2008. Question:Why? Answer: Pure unadulterated greed.

With a rise in oil & gas cost, so goes the production and transportation cost of everything sold worldwide. They're worse than a monopoly.

Unless the oil industry prices are regulated, they're going to continue to unnecessarily overcharge their customers, if taxes are raised or not.

The only liberation from them is to actively support alternative energy research.
 
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

The only liberation from them is to actively support alternative energy research.
exactly.

but everytime someone figures out a way, they manage to kill the project.


everyone should check out the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"
 
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

exactly.

but everytime someone figures out a way, they manage to kill the project.


everyone should check out the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car"

Yeah, I saw that one. It was a real eye opener. A lot of people laughed at the idea of an electric car when GM and Saturn first introduced them. After big oil shut the program down for fear of real competition, and with oil prices where they are today, I'd bet more than just Bill Maher would support the idea of the ev1.

You're right, it is all about control. By keeping innovative discoveries which could release literally everyone from the bounds of fossil fuel cost, and could literally bring all third world nations into the first, corporations and governments prolong the suffering and slow the progress of humanity to a crawl, while reaping the financial and hegemonic profits of their extorts. The technology already exist.
 
Last edited:
Re: Oil companies and taxes...

It will just hurt the shareholders (pension & mutual funds) and CEO pay if they are taxed. Earnings per share will drop, if any major tax bill is passed.

If the oil companies won't invest in renewable energy, somebody else will. However, I think most of the oil companies are involved in some type of renewable energy projects to hedge their bets for the future.

I would like to see a tax on fossil fuels (carbon tax)to the level the playing field with renewable energy. You sacrifice economic growth because of the higher costs, however long term you build a country's economy on something that is sustainable long term.

I also think GDP numbers should attach the mix of energy/carbon emissions that a country uses for growth. A state/country is growing fast by building coal plants and dumping carbon in the environment versus one with a lower GDP growth rate and lower carbon emissions is relevant information when comparing economies.
 
source Think Progress

BP makes enough profit in four days to cover the costs of the spill cleanup thus far.

“As hopes dim for containing the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico anytime soon” after a giant containment dome failed, the cost of cleaning up the spill will continue to rise. BP is financially responsible for the disaster, and President Obama wants to raise the cap on what the company is liable for, as cleanup costs have already surpassed the current limit. BP said yesterday that it had already spent $350 million on the spill response, and the company’s stock has taken a big hit, but the “behemoth” company will almost certainly survive the disaster with little long term damage. BP’s daily profits dwarf the daily cost of spill response, and at the current rate, the company could cover the entire cost of cleanup thus far in just under four days of profits:

For now, at least, BP’s prodigious costs combating the oil spill in the Gulf are outweighed by prodigious profits.
On Monday, BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant’s profits averaged $93 million a day.
The amount of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico has been estimated at 5,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. In the first quarter, BP produced 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day worldwide — and it received $71.86 for every barrel.
At $93 million a day in profits, BP makes $350 million in about 3.8 days. The Washington Post noted that Exxon, through a decision by the Supreme Court, was able to pay only $507.5 million of the original $5 billion in punitive damages that it had been assessed for the 1989 Valdez disaster.
<!-- post updates would go here in theory -->
 
Such a fuckin' joke :smh:

POLITICO (Washington) - While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
 
Such a fuckin' joke :smh:

POLITICO (Washington) - While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.
]

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

So you are on board for 100% public campaign funding?:yes:
 
don't assume!

All I know is BP Got Their Guy, and Goldman Sachs Too!

Now I understand why you rail against politicians so much. You use their rhetoric in the same way. You are not a solutions person, you are a conspiracy person.
 
42 years of oil left, half is gone, in some engine only using 20 percent. Time to move on, oil is a dead Ender.

Sustainable energy, supply can be adjusted at will, with oil, they know supply will decrease, make more money. The reason they spend a paltry sum, on sustainable energy, fight generous subsidies.
 
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IRLp57ksr_E&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IRLp57ksr_E&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Such a fuckin' joke :smh:

POLITICO (Washington) - While the BP oil geyser pumps millions of gallons of petroleum into the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama and members of Congress may have to answer for the millions in campaign contributions they've taken from the oil and gas giant over the years.

BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company's political action committees - $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals.

On top of that, the oil giant has spent millions each year on lobbying — including $15.9 million last year alone — as it has tried to influence energy policy.

During his time in the Senate and while running for president, Obama received a total of $77,051 from the oil giant and is the top recipient of BP PAC and individual money over the past 20 years, according to financial disclosure records.




Poor Lamarr, he is so ill informed. he needs to stay out of Sean Insanity's forum.
source: Media Matters

Palin clings to false claim that Obama received the most BP PAC money

On Facebook, Sarah Palin falsely claimed it is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years." In fact, President Obama received no PAC money from BP during his presidential campaign, and only $1,000 during his 2004 Senate campaign



<object width='320' height='260'><param name='movie' value='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf'></param><param name='flashvars' value='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201005240069'></param><param name='allowscriptaccess' value='always'></param><param name='allownetworking' value='all'></param><embed src='http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/player.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' flashvars='config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg2?id=201005240069' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' width='320' height='260'></embed></object>

Palin falsely claimed "Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years"
Palin: It is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years." In a responding to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs' criticism of her suggestion on the May 23 edition of Fox News Sunday that there is a connection between "contributions made to President Obama" by oil companies and administration's response to oil spill, Palin wrote on her Facebook page that it is an "undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money":
I pointed out that the media was rather silent on asking if there was a connection between the White House's hands-off response to the spill and the undisputed fact that Barack Obama was BP's top recipient of both PAC and individual money for the last 20 years. Please note that I never claimed there was a conspiratorial connection; rather, I was saying that it's odd that so few in the media have asked that question. In fact, I believe Major Garrett is one of the few reporters to pursue the issue. You can be sure that if this were a Republican administration, at the very least the media would be asking that question nonstop.
Obama received no PAC money from BP during his presidential campaign. As Media Matters noted, while Obama received $71,051 in BP-linked contributions during his presidential campaign -- more BP money than any other candidate received -- all of that money came from BP employees, not from BP's PAC or from the company itself. A spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics confirmed that "the $71,051 that Obama received during the 2008 election cycle was entirely from BP employees." The CRP spokesman also stated that "Obama did not accept contributions from political action committees, so none of this money is from BP's PAC. And corporations themselves are prohibited from donating directly to candidates from their corporate treasuries."
Obama took only $1,000 of PAC money from BP during his Senate campaign, less than 21 other Senate candidates that year. Obama received $1,000 from BP's PAC during his 2004 Senate campaign. Twenty-one Senate candidates received more from BP's PAC during that election cycle alone.
Donations from BP or its employees represents just .01 percent of Obama's total fundraising. As Media Matters senior fellow Jamison Foser has noted, Obama has raised more than $799 million for his campaigns. The $77,051 he has received from BP's PAC and employees accounts for less than 0.01 percent of Obama's total campaign contributions.
Scherer: "People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest." In a May 5 Swampland post, Time's Michael Scherer cited CRP's data and noted that "t is true that ... Obama received slightly more money from BP's PAC and employees since 1990 than anyone else." Scherer went on to explain:
But there is a major a reason for that, which the story fails to mention: People who run for President raise much more money, and received much more money from BP interests -- and just about every other interest. The fourth highest recipient of BP money in the same time period is George W. Bush. The fifth highest recipient is John McCain. In the 2000 and 2004 cycles, Bush got the most money, albeit less than Obama received in 2008. But then one could adjust these numbers for campaign inflation: campaigns overall raised much less money in the 2000 and 2004 cycles than the record-smashing 2008 cycle.
Palin says Garrett is "one of the few reporters to pursue" her claims, doesn't note he knocked them down
Palin: Fox's Garrett "one of the few reporters to pursue the issue." In her Facebook posting, Palin stated: "Please note that I never claimed there was a conspiratorial connection; rather, I was saying that it's odd that so few in the media have asked that question. In fact, I believe Major Garrett is one of the few reporters to pursue the issue."
Garrett noted the oil industry gives far more to Republicans than Democrats. On the May 24 edition of Fox News' America Live, Garrett reported that while Obama received more BP-linked money then any other candidate in 2008, the oil industry has historically contributed far more to Rebublicans than Democrats:
GARRETT: Quickly, Megyn, just wrapping up that point that Sarah Palin made: Yes, indeed, candidate Obama received the most BP money, but as far as industry contributions, Republicans historically have received far more from the oil and gas industry than Democrats, about 75-25 percent. That's going back many, many years.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:
 
Back
Top