Exxon Mobil posts largest ever profit

[kaorder1999]

Exxon Mobil posts largest ever profit

07:47 AM CST on Thursday, February 1, 2007
Associated Press

NEW YORK — Oil giant Exxon Mobil Corp. on Thursday posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company — $39.5 billion — even as earnings for the last quarter of 2006 declined 4 percent.

The 2006 profit topped the previous record of $36.13 billion which Exxon set in 2005.

Revenue at the world's largest publicly traded oil company rose to $377.64 billion for the year, surpassing the record $370.68 billion that Exxon posted in 2005.

Exxon Mobil's record annual earnings followed a year of extraordinarily high energy prices as crude oil topped $78 a barrel in the summer — driving up average gasoline prices in the United States to more than $3 a gallon. Prices retreated later in the year.

The fourth-quarter decline reflects lower profits from Exxon's refining and marketing segment and a sharp dropoff in natural gas prices.

Profit for the fourth quarter of 2006 declined to $10.25 billion from $10.71 billion Exxon earned in the 2005 quarter — a record quarterly profit for any U.S. public company.

Per-share earnings rose to $1.76 from $1.71 as the company reduced the number of shares outstanding.

For the year, Exxon earned $6.62 per share in 2006 versus $5.71 per share in 2005.

[Blastoderm55]

We have a thread about this every quarter. I don't think Exxon will ever see a decline. Even now with cheaper gas, people will just buy more, so the increased sales, albeit at lower margin, will still give Exxon astronomical profits.

[kaorder1999]

WE ARE GETTING HOSED!!!! Two years ago or less we were complaining about how ludacris it was to pay $1.50 or so. Now when Its 1.99 we think its cheap(er)! They have brainwashed us!!!!!

[Gobbla2001]

they don't change their percentages mid-stream... that's pretty much all there is to it...

they charge customers a certain percentage of what they pay to get us the stuff...

example:

I sell hamburgers...

to make it simple, let's say I charge the customers double of what I pay to make the hamburger, that's my percentage...

So one week I sell 5 hamburgers... it costs me 1 dollar to make 1 burger, so I double that and sell 'em for 2 bucks... I make 5 dollars profit that week...

the next week the cost of making the burgers goes up to 2 dollars a burger...

so keeping my percentage, I charge 4 dollars a burger, correct?

I still sell only five burgers, but because I kept my percentages the way they were (most companies never change mid-stream), I profit 10 dollars...

not saying it's right, but there's nothing really intentional...

[Phil C]

THE FAT CATS ARE STILL OVERCHARGING!

:mad:

[kaorder1999]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


not saying it's right, but there's nothing really intentional...

what throws up a red flag is when I have to pay $2.17 in Crandall yet can drive to Forney, 5-6 miles, and they can sell it for $1.97. What causes that?

[Adidas410s]

Originally posted by Phil C
THE FAT CATS ARE STILL OVERCHARGING!

:mad:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/kids/2004/04/images/fatCats_large.jpg

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Phil C
THE FAT CATS ARE STILL OVERCHARGING!

:mad: Word!:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
what throws up a red flag is when I have to pay $2.17 in Crandall yet can drive to Forney, 5-6 miles, and they can sell it for $1.97. What causes that?

that's based on market futures etc... they looked at maybe two years ago from what I know... I can't answer that... I'm not on their side or anything so I can't defend that one ha...

kinda like music... you can be in Tennessee and find 20 country stations on your radio dial... but you get to NYC and there's only 10...

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
what throws up a red flag is when I have to pay $2.17 in Crandall yet can drive to Forney, 5-6 miles, and they can sell it for $1.97. What causes that?

The local retailer. He charges the price locally in competition with
other local retailers. The Gas companies control wholesale price
while the retailers control price at the pump over wholesale.
The bidding process at the wholesale level is driven by supply and demand like everything else plus the fear of change in future
demand and supply.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
what throws up a red flag is when I have to pay $2.17 in Crandall yet can drive to Forney, 5-6 miles, and they can sell it for $1.97. What causes that?

and of course supply and demand and good ole competition...

Way out in the boonies exxon will charge 2.10 or what have you, because there's a Shell five miles down the road and that's it for another 20 miles...

but in the city 20 miles away, where they can get into competition wars, the Exxon and Shell will probably be under 2.00...

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
and of course supply and demand and good ole competition...

Way out in the boonies exxon will charge 2.10 or what have you, because there's a Shell five miles down the road and that's it for another 20 miles...

but in the city 20 miles away, where they can get into competition wars, the Exxon and Shell will probably be under 2.00...

But that is still controlled by the station owner. In other words, Shell has nothing to do with what an owner sells for. Shell only bids at the wholesale level and that is where they make there money on gas plus the cost of delivering crude by the barrel over the cost of getting out of the ground. The cost of the barrel is market driven and currently around 58 dollars a barrel. That price
is arrived at by bidding at the futures level for the cost. The cost of getting it out of the ground is around 16 - 18 dollars a barrel.

[Black_Magic]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
WE ARE GETTING HOSED!!!! Two years ago or less we were complaining about how ludacris it was to pay $1.50 or so. Now when Its 1.99 we think its cheap(er)! They have brainwashed us!!!!! sure have. sad when you think your getting a deal at 1.99

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
But that is still controlled by the station owner.

You may be right... but I was under the impression that the prices were set by regional reps... dunno how big their region is, but they decide based on futures and current prices etc... what the price should be...

the gas station down the road helped me stay under that impression as well, I remember going in their a couple of times and the owner herself asking one of her managers "What were we supposed to set the price on regular unleaded at again?"

[kaorder1999]

I drove by Malmart in Seagoville the other morning and it was 1.97. Had to go back at lunch to pick up some clothes and it was 1.99. Went out to eat that night and it was 1.94. The next morning it was 2.00.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by kaorder1999
I drove by Malmart in Seagoville the other morning and it was 1.97. Had to go back at lunch to pick up some clothes at it was 1.99. Went out to eat that night and it was 1.94. The next morning it was 2.00.

they have the cheap stuff... they're wal-mart... :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
You may be right... but I was under the impression that the prices were set by regional reps... dunno how big their region is, but they decide based on futures and current prices etc... what the price should be...

the gas station down the road helped me stay under that impression as well, I remember going in their a couple of times and the owner herself asking one of her managers "What were we supposed to set the price on regular unleaded at again?"

Yes but it is the decision of the store or franchise owners how much margin there is. You see there are enough independents that the local stores are locked in competition with the franchise
owners and the independents. The prices are set by 42000 gallons delivered at the wholesale level but the margin they charge over the delivered price is controlled at the station level determined by the guy willing to make the least. The average station owner makes more on a cup of coffee than a gallon of gas.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Yes but it is the decision of the store or franchise owners how much margin there is. You see there are enough independents that the local stores are locked in competition with the franchise
owners and the independents. The prices are set by 42000 gallons delivered at the wholesale level but the margin they charge over the delivered price is controlled at the station level determined by the guy willing to make the least. The average station owner makes more on a cup of coffee than a gallon of gas.

thanks for clearing that up...

and I'll be willing to bet they sell more gas than coffee, though...

[BILLYFRED0000]

For example the current bid price for unleaded is around 1.45
at the whole sale level. I can buy for 1.89 at race track and around 1.95 everywhere else. When you factor in the cost of the
store to keep the fuel and pay help and bills you can see that 50
cents a gallon is not much.

[Gobbla2001]

yah, I see your point there...

[GUNHO]

Guess I'm telling my age by this but when I was a teen they would have what was called "gas wars" by the stations and I remember paying as little as 9 to 13 cents a gal.when there wasn't a gas war ( which was seldom ) the price was around 23 to 28 cents a gal.

[Pudlugger]

It grinds my gears when folks blame the domestic oil companies for making a profit. Fact is oil is a fungible commodity in world markets . When OPEC and other big non-OPEC countries reduce output to keep the price up or when the market is roiled by such things as a red hot Chinese and Indian economy sucking up oil and gas that otherwise would come here well guess what the price goes up. That's how free markets work. Put up price controls like Carter in the 70's and you'll get shortages and long gas lines as suppliers will not put their product on the market for a loss. The big profit for Exxon comes from the sale of domestic reserves and domestic production that was probably only marginally profitable with oil below $50 a barrel.

When oil was $18 a barrel and folks working in the oil patch got pink slipped where was the outrage?

Remember, Exxon is a publically traded corporation whose stock is owned by most folks with pension plans or 401ks with mutual funds so who is benefiting but millions of folks like yourselves who are shareholders.

:(

[BILLYFRED0000]

It is even more so when you look at inflation. In the late 70's you could by a Trans Am for around 10,000 and gas for close to a dollar a gallon. Now the same TA would cost (if they still sold them) around 35,000 but gas is just 2.00 a gallon. In 78 the old
400 big block got an average of 13 miles to a gallon. Todays mustang gt averages 21. So not only has inflation not kept up,
fuel economy has increased substantially making the price of driving a car for fuel only marginally more expensive. 3.00 a gallon would not catch up to inflation. Maybe four would. And to
make matters worse, the government makes more on a gallon of
gas because of gas taxes than gas stations. So the oil companies are not really to blame nearly as much as complainers would like to say. Just do the math.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
. So the oil companies are not really to blame nearly as much as complainers would like to say. Just do the math.

everything is taken at face-value... nobody wants the "REAL" story... we're too turned on by conspiracies and bi**hing to actually enjoy what we've got...

[Blastoderm55]

Valero Energy reports lower 4Q profit (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EARNS_VALERO_TXOL-?SITE=TXCOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-01-11-09-03)

Must have cost them a lot of money to repaint all those Citgo logos with Valero. :p

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Pudlugger


Remember, Exxon is a publically traded corporation whose stock is owned by most folks with pension plans or 401ks with mutual funds so who is benefiting but millions of folks like yourselves who are shareholders.

:( [/B]

Good post! Should have BOUGHT, BOUGHT, BOUGHT!!!!!! :)

[Pudlugger]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Valero Energy reports lower 4Q profit (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EARNS_VALERO_TXOL-?SITE=TXCOR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-02-01-11-09-03)

Must have cost them a lot of money to repaint all those Citgo logos with Valero. :p

I thought Valero owned Shammrock and recently converted them. Doesn't Venezuela own Citgo (Hugo Chavez the communist)?

[Blastoderm55]

Yup. And around here, all stations that have previously sold Citgo gas have converted to Valero. As if most consumers actually recognize the stigma that is carried by Citgo gas. I don't really understand the move personally. Well, most of the stores in question were previous Circle K stores that have also been converted to Stripes, so that could provide a connection that would explain the change to Valero.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by Blastoderm55
Yup. And around here, all stations that have previously sold Citgo gas have converted to Valero. As if most consumers actually recognize the stigma that is carried by Citgo gas. I don't really understand the move personally. Well, most of the stores in question were previous Circle K stores that have also been converted to Stripes, so that could provide a connection that would explain the change to Valero.

It is all very confusing. Is it Circle K, Valero or Stripes?

[Blastoderm55]

Stripes with Valero gas.

I found the end of the universe last weekend. It is in Corpus Christi, Texas, at the intersection of Saratoga and the road before Weber. There, you'll find a Stripes across the street from a Stripes. :eek::eek::eek:

<3 Luis Black

[sectionCwannabe]

yea they make all this money but cant even take care of this!!! they should have to pay heavy fines until this is gone!!

ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Feb. 1, 2007
Exxon Valdez Oil Persists, 18 Years Later

(AP) Lingering crude from the largest U.S. oil spill has resisted weathering in some places almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground and fouled hundreds of miles of Alaska shoreline, a new federal study concludes.

The estimated 85 tons — or more than 26,600 gallons — of oil remaining at Prince William Sound is declining by about 4 percent a year and likely even slower in the Gulf of Alaska, according to research chemist Jeffrey Short of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

At that rate of decline, oil could persist for decades below the surface of some beaches, Short and colleagues said in their report. The study is to be published in the Feb. 15 edition of Environmental Science & Technology, the journal of the American Chemical Society.

"Such persistence can pose a contact hazard to inter-tidally foraging sea otters, sea ducks, and shorebirds, create a chronic source of low-level contamination, discourage subsistence in a region where use is heavy and degrade the wilderness character of protected lands," researchers wrote in their conclusion.

The study was partially funded by the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Council, which was formed by federal mandate after the Exxon Valdez spill to monitor industry operations. Researchers, however, said their findings and conclusions were not influenced by that sponsorship.

Exxon Mobil Corp. spokesman Mark Boudreaux said the Irving, Texas-based company's Valdez team planned to closely review the findings.

"Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed," he said. "The existence of some small amounts of residual oil in Prince William Sound on about two-tenths of 1 percent of the shore of the sound is not a surprise, is not disputed and was fully anticipated."

Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact from the spill.

The Exxon Valdez ran aground March 24, 1989, emptying 11 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound. The spill contaminated more than 1,200 miles of shoreline and killed hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.