Exxon Profit surges 55%.... And gas prices are up.

[HTSS_TR]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/28/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm

Few numbers in this article:

Profit: $7.35 billion, Revenue: $95.3 billion, Profit Margin: 7.7%. 7.7% is not outrage profit margin by any standard.

Oil prices were up about 12% from the same period last year, while gasoline prices have risen about 6%. The smaller increase in gasoline price tells me the competitions in retail gasoline keeps the price lower than it could be.

The price of oil is about $85 a barrel or about $2 a gallon, Federal + State tax is about $0.40 a gallon, the average gasoline is about $2.90 a gallon regular. Refining + transportation + profit (manufacture + distributor + retail) is about $0.50 a gallon.

 

[mechanicx]

I think what most people object to more than the markup price of gas is that crude oil is $85/bbl or $2/gal in the first place.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
I asked you because you said: "The longer we wait to develop alternatives". "We" includes you, and since you believe there is a problem, I wanted to see what you were doing to remedy the "problem".


Why do people have to play these silly samantics games? When I said "we", I meant it collectively as a nation (and I think you knew that). Since I'm part of this nation, that includes me. That doesn't mean I'm personally going to get invovled in the funding and/or research of alternative energies. That is something that's best left to those who are in the business of providing energy. I think people play these stupid samantic games to draw the focus away from the topic at hand and force people to address the silliness just to change the subject. It's a lot like accusing someone of implying that all Muslims are terrorists by saying the 9/11 attacks were carried out by Muslims.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
When I said "we", I meant it collectively as a nation (and I think you knew that).

Nothing about semantics, but about distinctions. How or the method one gets to a given goal is important. Remember that Exxon is an oil company. It and other oil companies have spent billions on alternatives and lost money on them.

Collective solutions tend to involve lots of tax payer dollars. That experiment was run in Europe (especially Spain) and they are now broke countries.

If we want companies to invest more funds into these areas, the best thing we could do, as a nation, is allow them to keep more of the fruits of their labor. Right now they are being punished for what they already do.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
When I said "we", I meant it collectively as a nation (and I think you knew that).

Nothing about semantics, but about distinctions. How or the method one gets to a given goal is important. Remember that Exxon is an oil company. It and other oil companies have spent billions on alternatives and lost money on them.

Collective solutions tend to involve lots of tax payer dollars. That experiment was run in Europe (especially Spain) and they are now broke countries.

If we want companies to invest more funds into these areas, the best thing we could do, as a nation, is allow them to keep more of the fruits of their labor. Right now they are being punished for what they already do.


How it's accomplished is something that'll have to be figured out by the pursuant, but the fact remains; either we figure out how to replace fossil fuels with alternatives, or society as we know it ceases to exist.

 

[Shannow]

Not only society as we know it but the perpetually expanding exponential society that's needed to feed the system.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Not only society as we know it but the perpetually expanding exponential society that's needed to feed the system.

+1
It does boggle my mind that exponential growth is "necessary" to keep our economy going according to the economists. Ask any biologist about exponential growth and how sustainable it is...
Kind of sad we are no smarter collectively than yeast in a fermentation vat, producing alcohol until they all are killed by it...

 

[ZZman]

Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: ZZman
I have no problem with profit if it is reasonable.

What's reasonable? Who determines that? You? The Government?


Reasonable is reasonable. When you have a captive audience (consumers) gouging is unfair when there are no true alternatives people can turn to. I would say 5-10% profit is fair.

Why shouldn't the government set it? Oil is a strategic commodity. It is not a luxury or optional one for most people.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Why shouldn't the government set it? Oil is a strategic commodity. It is not a luxury or optional one for most people.

Because some people would scream bloody murder if the government set it.

Not disagreeing with you BTW. Just offering a response.

 

[ZZman]

When you think about it the government is involved in Utilities pricing. Your gas or electric company can't all of a sudden jack your rates up 25% at their whim. They need approval.

 

[Shannow]

They did here, appealing to the "independent" regulatory authority to increase electricity retail prices by 20%.

They got it, our rates went up, and consumption is back to 2005 levels, a drop of 20-25%...and wholesale prices went with it.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: ZZman
I have no problem with profit if it is reasonable.

What's reasonable? Who determines that? You? The Government?


Reasonable is reasonable. When you have a captive audience (consumers) gouging is unfair when there are no true alternatives people can turn to. I would say 5-10% profit is fair.

Why shouldn't the government set it? Oil is a strategic commodity. It is not a luxury or optional one for most people.

As posted at the top of page 9, EOM's profits are about 7.7% Right in the middle of what you deem fair.
You do have alternatives. You have the alternative to reduce your consumption. Carpooling, public transit, moving closer to work, etc.

 

[ZZman]

That is true whip. And they did it in large part by pumping more oil.(with some help from oil price increases) Imagine what their profit would be if speculators bid it way up.

That is not a true alternative to fuel Whip.

Not like buying apples instead of oranges, chicken instead of steak.

And I do drive a fuel efficient car and I don't have "toys" like boats and orvs that waste fuel. As far as living closer to work that is a pipe dream as it may be closer for me and farther for my wife. Carpooling not possible, Public transit does not go that way.

 

[Trav]

Quote:
I would say 5-10% profit is fair.

Why shouldn't the government set it?


Which Government?
The U.S. does not have international control over much of the industry.If they try some sort of Communist/socialist action like this the U.S. will find itself in a shortage in short order.
Then we can see how good the Government is at getting gas to the pumps.

If 5-10% profit was the maximum set by some law the investors would run for the hills leaving just another American company in need of a bailout and subsequent Government take over and shortages.
Look at the former Soviet block history of what happened to industry for prime examples of exactly what you are saying is "fair profit"
The Government should first regulate how much tax they can gouge from the sale of fuel before thinking about regulating profits.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trav
I paid 13k in property tax last year on one house alone.I never had kids in any school here in the U.S. so where the heck is my tax money going? Maybe its going to pulbic transportation and illegal immigrant education!Because it sure isnt going for the roads,rubbish removal,street lighting or anything else, i pay for my own rubbish removal out of pocket and the swines turned many of the street lights off to save money.


Your fault for not buying a smaller house or in another area.

Did the property tax rate changed since you bought the place by much? If not, why don't you factor it in when you bought the place? Real estate price goes up and down based on location and high property tax rate will reduce it (or increase it if it prevent the "undesired" people to afford living there).

Sounds like you made a wrong investment for your need, don't blame it on someone else.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Trav

Which Government?
The U.S. does not have international control over much of the industry.


Oh heck no, we probably have the most control out of the entire world in the oil industry.

Let's see, our former president and VP came from the oil industry with huge influence in the government policy. Many of the ME oil producers (or former producers) are our puppets, we have a huge fleet of military that can whoop anyone who doesn't listen to us or want to cause trouble (look at Saddam), we have the most investment in drilling technologies.

Most importantly, we subsidized the energy with government sponsored "protection" so the supply is stable and no one in the world dare to cause huge trouble in supply (other than maybe Iran, even Russian doesn't dare to cause trouble to the Alaska side of their market).

And you say we have no control over the oil industry?

 

[ZZman]

I will go back to what I have said before in other posts Trav. Producers and Major users (nations) could agree to a price and freeze it on long term contracts for say 6 months/yr.

This could then take speculators/investors out of the picture.

Since most price flucuations really have nothing to do with supply/demand issues because the producers can pump as little or as much as they want. They can make artificial shortages.

 

[yeti]

zz -- an agreed upon price & freeze would likely never happen in the real world, because the speculators/investors, as you state, would be making no money. it ALWAYS comes down to money. ALWAYS.
your last two lines are spot on.the nat. gas industry has been doing that for several years.

 

[CourierDriver]

Ok,,,high gas price r here to stay. I buy about 1200 dollars worth of gas a month for my van freight hauling business. No way around that. So , with all our engineering schools from LA to Maine, surely there is a way to reinvent the gas engine or something so we can pull our bass boats, pull our 10,000 lb campers, and run our Duallys and moms socker van. We got nuclear power, gas, coal, steam,sails,rockets,magnets,hydraulics,and all kinds of motors, so think guys( lets come up with a unit that will drive all our toys). whoops,,forgot LP gas there too. PS, dont invent one of those cars made for tiny folks thats gonna cost us 40,000 bucks so we can save money, thats not smart, u think? I think in its day the old Stanley Steamer was a cool idea, probably not practical today,,,but a bucket of water and a gas burner wood get u down the road.

 

[bruno]

Till cold weather set in !