Oil Companies
- Thread starter RichM
- Start date
I agree Rich it seems to be a big number. I would like to know what their total sales and what products brought in the higher margins. This would help to determine if the profits are out of line.
These companies have other products than just the selling of fuel. Example chemicals,Transportation Alaska Pipeline. We would need to see their Profit and Loss statements to really know for sure if these profits are outlandish.
I don't believe profit is wrong just because it is high.
I hope you are doing better.
Ace
These companies have other products than just the selling of fuel. Example chemicals,Transportation Alaska Pipeline. We would need to see their Profit and Loss statements to really know for sure if these profits are outlandish.
I don't believe profit is wrong just because it is high.
I hope you are doing better.
Ace
From April to June, Exxon earned $114 million a day — $80,000 a minute. Or look at it this way: In 30 seconds, the Exxon Mobil Corp. makes about what an average American family earns in an entire year.
mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=2245149
mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=2245149
The big oil companies make just as much profit on a gallon of fuel when it sells for $1.50 as they do when it sells for $3.00. The reason for their record profit levels is volume. In spite of record high prices at the pumps Americans continue to purchase gasoline and diesel fuel in increasing amounts every month. If you offer a product or service for sale to the public you expect to make a profit--or you go out of business. It's called "capitalism."
Now, why are fuel prices so high at the pump? Well...have you looked at the price the oil companies are paying for crude oil lately? It's called the "cost of raw materials." Every time Osama Bin Ladin farts, the oil traders panic and bid up the price of next months crude oil. Last time I looked it was over $70.00 per barrel. That is obscene.
If we (the U.S.) were serious about reducing fuel prices we would start drilling in ANWAR, start building some new refinerys on the left coast, and stop selling all of our north slope oil to Japan and start refining it ourselves. But, of course, the "tree huggers" will have none of that.
Just keep voting those folks into office and go out and buy some Exxon-Mobil stock and you will be OK.
Now, why are fuel prices so high at the pump? Well...have you looked at the price the oil companies are paying for crude oil lately? It's called the "cost of raw materials." Every time Osama Bin Ladin farts, the oil traders panic and bid up the price of next months crude oil. Last time I looked it was over $70.00 per barrel. That is obscene.
If we (the U.S.) were serious about reducing fuel prices we would start drilling in ANWAR, start building some new refinerys on the left coast, and stop selling all of our north slope oil to Japan and start refining it ourselves. But, of course, the "tree huggers" will have none of that.
Just keep voting those folks into office and go out and buy some Exxon-Mobil stock and you will be OK.
tallcal101
Veteran Expediter
I love it.Just because Corporate Pigs(20th Century industrialists) have ruined all the beauty of the midwest cities on the Great Lakes,and the all the bays around Delaware,and the rivers flowing to them,lets start in on the left coast.As a result of people like John Muir,the Sierra Club(over 100 years old)and "tree huggers"California,Oregon and Washington still have trees to look at.
With the exception of a few old rigs off the Central California coast,we have been able to keep a coastline that fish can still survive in.So,lets start in trashing the left side for,well,for the hell of it.Call names,fling generalizations and jump and down all you want.If you don't live here,come,drop your loads,fill up,and head out.Keep your opinions to your self,and spout off at truck stops and on the cb,where people who share your point of view tend to solve the worlds problems.
I started pointing out record profits of the oil companies last Febuary,and was told to go pound sand,everybody has a right to make as much money as they can.Fuel was around $2.50 then.If you think the oil companies are getting rich@$70.00 per barrel,how about the OPEC countries,they are laughing's their #####'s off.
Not to mention Chavez in Venzuela.
Keep buying those SUV's America,some Saudi's niece and nephews need new shoe's(and perhaps a new jet with matching interior).
If Bush had any real cajhones,he would demand these f*****s start paying their tax's, and investing in infrastructure and alternative fuels.But why should they,spanking us is a lot easier,and alot more profitable.Bottom line baby,it makes the world go around.
With the exception of a few old rigs off the Central California coast,we have been able to keep a coastline that fish can still survive in.So,lets start in trashing the left side for,well,for the hell of it.Call names,fling generalizations and jump and down all you want.If you don't live here,come,drop your loads,fill up,and head out.Keep your opinions to your self,and spout off at truck stops and on the cb,where people who share your point of view tend to solve the worlds problems.
I started pointing out record profits of the oil companies last Febuary,and was told to go pound sand,everybody has a right to make as much money as they can.Fuel was around $2.50 then.If you think the oil companies are getting rich@$70.00 per barrel,how about the OPEC countries,they are laughing's their #####'s off.
Not to mention Chavez in Venzuela.
Keep buying those SUV's America,some Saudi's niece and nephews need new shoe's(and perhaps a new jet with matching interior).
If Bush had any real cajhones,he would demand these f*****s start paying their tax's, and investing in infrastructure and alternative fuels.But why should they,spanking us is a lot easier,and alot more profitable.Bottom line baby,it makes the world go around.
TallCal said, "If you think the oil companies are getting rich@$70.00 per barrel,how about the OPEC countries,they are laughing's their #####'s off.
Not to mention Chavez in Venezuela."
Thanks for helping make my point. The ones who are getting richest from our $3.00 per gallon fuel are the towel headed Arab princes, the communists in Venezuela, and the Mexican mafia who own all the holes the crude is pumped from.
As far as keeping my opinions to myself--what's up with that? I thought the purpose of a forum was to "share opinions."
Not to mention Chavez in Venezuela."
Thanks for helping make my point. The ones who are getting richest from our $3.00 per gallon fuel are the towel headed Arab princes, the communists in Venezuela, and the Mexican mafia who own all the holes the crude is pumped from.
As far as keeping my opinions to myself--what's up with that? I thought the purpose of a forum was to "share opinions."
I think we all understand supply and demand, the oil companies have no incentive to expand refining capabilities in light of the fact they can make record profits with decreased supply.
In addtion, studies have concluded that drilling in Anwar would have little impact on the problem. There are countless studies that have indicated this...
WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
In addtion, studies have concluded that drilling in Anwar would have little impact on the problem. There are countless studies that have indicated this...
WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
tallcal101
Veteran Expediter
My point is that treehuggers are not the problem.If America would change it's appetite for consumption(suv type vehicles)and put preasure on the oil companies through boycots,making those in office aware that if things don't change their out,and changing old habits,finger pointing at any one group would stop.
I'm just voiceing my opinion that blaming west cosaters is futile,but if you want to rant,have at it,but it's somewhat without meaning.
I'm just voiceing my opinion that blaming west cosaters is futile,but if you want to rant,have at it,but it's somewhat without meaning.
Tall you pass judgement on folks with large SUV's and rightfully so ,but how many times does a D Unit getting 8-10 MPG haul 1 pallet that weighs 300 pounds. Planes fly that are only 30% full and I think the worst case of energy useage is a cruise ship that uses huge amounts of energy in order to allow a couple of thousand people to float around on the water for a few days.
>I got a really dumb question; Has there been a real accident
>with off shore drilling in the past 15 years and how can off
>shore drilling effect fishing outside of disturbing some
>shrimp beds or make some sport fishermen to fish somewhere
>else?
1) Rigs In The Gulf Have Experienced "Major Accidents" Resulting in 19 Deaths. Between 1956 and 1990, Chevron's rigs in the Gulf experienced 40 "major accidents" as defined by the federal government, experienced 14 gas or oil and gas blowouts, and experienced 65 fires and explosions. In fact, Chevron experienced one blowout that took over 40 days to bring under control and which released 30,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf. The accidents resulted in 19 fatalities.
Florida PIRG, Florida's Shores At Risk
(2) Production Platforms Can Discharge Thousands Of Fluid and Metal Cuttings Into The Ocean. A single production platform, which can drill 50-100 wells, discharges over 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean. A single exploratory rig dumps approximately 25,000 pounds of toxic metals into the ocean and a single offshore rig emits as much air pollution as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day.
Florida PIRG, Florida's Shores At Risk
The Oil From The Exxon Valdez Traveled 90 Miles in 7 Days. Within one week of the Exxon Valdez spill, the currents and winds had pushed the oil 90 miles from the site of the tanker, out of Prince William Sound into the Gulf of Alaska. Approximately 1,300 miles were impacted by the oil spill. 200 miles were heavily or moderately oiled (meaning the impact was obvious); 1,100 miles were lightly or very lightly oiled (meaning light sheen or occasional tarballs).
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. P.1.
--mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
>with off shore drilling in the past 15 years and how can off
>shore drilling effect fishing outside of disturbing some
>shrimp beds or make some sport fishermen to fish somewhere
>else?
1) Rigs In The Gulf Have Experienced "Major Accidents" Resulting in 19 Deaths. Between 1956 and 1990, Chevron's rigs in the Gulf experienced 40 "major accidents" as defined by the federal government, experienced 14 gas or oil and gas blowouts, and experienced 65 fires and explosions. In fact, Chevron experienced one blowout that took over 40 days to bring under control and which released 30,000 barrels of oil into the Gulf. The accidents resulted in 19 fatalities.
Florida PIRG, Florida's Shores At Risk
(2) Production Platforms Can Discharge Thousands Of Fluid and Metal Cuttings Into The Ocean. A single production platform, which can drill 50-100 wells, discharges over 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean. A single exploratory rig dumps approximately 25,000 pounds of toxic metals into the ocean and a single offshore rig emits as much air pollution as 7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day.
Florida PIRG, Florida's Shores At Risk
The Oil From The Exxon Valdez Traveled 90 Miles in 7 Days. Within one week of the Exxon Valdez spill, the currents and winds had pushed the oil 90 miles from the site of the tanker, out of Prince William Sound into the Gulf of Alaska. Approximately 1,300 miles were impacted by the oil spill. 200 miles were heavily or moderately oiled (meaning the impact was obvious); 1,100 miles were lightly or very lightly oiled (meaning light sheen or occasional tarballs).
Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council; Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1994. Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Restoration Plan. P.1.
--mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
greg334
Veteran Expediter
SO ok I got all that but lets put this in better perspective.
The most tragic enviormental event by far was WW2. The east coast was a grave yard for tankers and a lot of oil was in the water, hence the reason for increasing the use of rail for gas and oil and the investment of more pipe lines. In addition to this, a lot of ships were sunk in the atlantic - again lots of oil, lots of metal and lots of pollution. From what I see the ocean is not awashed with 1940's oil and it seems areas that were distroyed by war seem to make a come back.
And
Until recently the coral beds, fishing beds and other so called pristine areas of the ocean were not considered important enough to hold off oil drilling.
So I look at it this way; with what we have today (safety, enviormental concerns, etc..), there is no real reason why there can't be drilling on our coasts.
The most tragic enviormental event by far was WW2. The east coast was a grave yard for tankers and a lot of oil was in the water, hence the reason for increasing the use of rail for gas and oil and the investment of more pipe lines. In addition to this, a lot of ships were sunk in the atlantic - again lots of oil, lots of metal and lots of pollution. From what I see the ocean is not awashed with 1940's oil and it seems areas that were distroyed by war seem to make a come back.
And
Until recently the coral beds, fishing beds and other so called pristine areas of the ocean were not considered important enough to hold off oil drilling.
So I look at it this way; with what we have today (safety, enviormental concerns, etc..), there is no real reason why there can't be drilling on our coasts.
Gregg, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. lol I think we are experiencing some of the worse environmental tragedies in recent decades, for example recent images show that the Amazon rainforest is disappearing at an increasing rate. Chernobyl, Love Canal, Three Mile Island and Bhopal are just a few of the many examples of environmental tragedies that have had a severe impact on the environment in the past decades since WWII.
Think about it, weather is crazy here in the United States and around the world. In 2005 , we had a record down pour in the Nevada desert, glaciers melting in Greenland, and an unprecedented series of major hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic. And as I mentioned above, the worst drought in a century in the Amazon rainforest.
As far as off shore drilling goes…the House, in June of this year took a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century. Naturally the Bush administration supports the legislation. It was approved by a 232-187 vote in the House, but the Senate most likely will not pass it as written. The House bill would end an "Outer Continental Shelf" drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of this country’s coastal waters.
As a matter of fact, just hours ago the Senate just put out their version of the bill and it will be voted on this coming Monday.
So, you will get your wish…drilling off our shores…but my mother always told me to be careful what I wished for.
Article is here: http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/28/news/economy/senate_drilling/
-mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
Think about it, weather is crazy here in the United States and around the world. In 2005 , we had a record down pour in the Nevada desert, glaciers melting in Greenland, and an unprecedented series of major hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic. And as I mentioned above, the worst drought in a century in the Amazon rainforest.
As far as off shore drilling goes…the House, in June of this year took a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century. Naturally the Bush administration supports the legislation. It was approved by a 232-187 vote in the House, but the Senate most likely will not pass it as written. The House bill would end an "Outer Continental Shelf" drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of this country’s coastal waters.
As a matter of fact, just hours ago the Senate just put out their version of the bill and it will be voted on this coming Monday.
So, you will get your wish…drilling off our shores…but my mother always told me to be careful what I wished for.
Article is here: http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/28/news/economy/senate_drilling/
-mcbride-
--What goes around comes around--
HI
Part of the problem is the people who buy large vehicles with way too much horse power.The auto industy has the ways and means to build fuel effiecent vehicle but the public will not buy them.But my biggest gripe is with truck manufactors, they could reduce the weight of commercial vehicles by using carbon fibers thus needing less horsepower to move the vehicles.Of course most trucking companies would just see the weight loss as a way to haul more freight.
Part of the problem is the people who buy large vehicles with way too much horse power.The auto industy has the ways and means to build fuel effiecent vehicle but the public will not buy them.But my biggest gripe is with truck manufactors, they could reduce the weight of commercial vehicles by using carbon fibers thus needing less horsepower to move the vehicles.Of course most trucking companies would just see the weight loss as a way to haul more freight.
If prices are based upon supply & demand, why do they jump every time Wall Street gets it's collective shorts in a bunch over the latest wrinkle from the Mideast? Or Korea, or China, etc....Why are we paying $3.00 a gallon, because of the stock traders' imagination?
Seems like they keep predicting doom, & keep being wrong, & the price pretty much goes up & stays there anyway.
Seems like they keep predicting doom, & keep being wrong, & the price pretty much goes up & stays there anyway.
tallcal101
Veteran Expediter
Really bad eye candy
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
If doom and gloom create profit to those on Wall Street, doom and gloom is what we will get, real or imagined. Nothing has happened in the last 8 years to justify oil going up 500% and gas and fuel 300%. Their excuses are just that... excuses.
The oil companies have already stated their reluctance to build more refineries, yet they're at max capacity? I don't buy it! I heard the Sec of Energy, Spence Abraham, the other day. He said it's because China's industry is expanding at record paces. Oil companies say it's because of the mid-east, and because of their refining capacities. I say it's because of the all mighty dollar. BANK on THAT!
The oil companies have already stated their reluctance to build more refineries, yet they're at max capacity? I don't buy it! I heard the Sec of Energy, Spence Abraham, the other day. He said it's because China's industry is expanding at record paces. Oil companies say it's because of the mid-east, and because of their refining capacities. I say it's because of the all mighty dollar. BANK on THAT!
We should remember that the industralists that talcal speaks of made this country strong. If it was not for these people we would probally not of become the power we are today. These industries provided jobs for families gave us the freedom to move about this country. We need to think would we want to live like the Native Americans after all they are the first tree huggers or are we happier with our life style because of those industrialists.
I agree that we need tree huggers & liberals to check the short sided thinking of some Industry leaders. They should work with industry to find solutions to possible problems that the manufacturing , refining or timber harvesting may cause. Instead they obstruct by trespassing, going to court or destroy personal property. Many of them do not like hydro power plants,nuclear power plants,coal fired power plants, but they do not want people to cut down trees so how would we heat our homes. They want to stop further housing developments, but they want shelters for the homeless. They worry about certain vegetation or animals so they stop projects that would create jobs,but they complain when people are out of work. Remember the Wooly Mamoth or the saber tooth tiger did the evil industrialists cause them to vanish?
Why is it so bad that we Americans want to drive SUV's when we can not afford to drive them we will seek alternative vehicles. I could say why do expediters need a 96" sleeper on their truck when they could have 36" sleeper. It is because we want the conveince and the luxury the larger sleeper offers. This adds weight to the truck and reduces it's fuel effeciency.
I ask you what is more important human beings or wildlife?
I agree that we need tree huggers & liberals to check the short sided thinking of some Industry leaders. They should work with industry to find solutions to possible problems that the manufacturing , refining or timber harvesting may cause. Instead they obstruct by trespassing, going to court or destroy personal property. Many of them do not like hydro power plants,nuclear power plants,coal fired power plants, but they do not want people to cut down trees so how would we heat our homes. They want to stop further housing developments, but they want shelters for the homeless. They worry about certain vegetation or animals so they stop projects that would create jobs,but they complain when people are out of work. Remember the Wooly Mamoth or the saber tooth tiger did the evil industrialists cause them to vanish?
Why is it so bad that we Americans want to drive SUV's when we can not afford to drive them we will seek alternative vehicles. I could say why do expediters need a 96" sleeper on their truck when they could have 36" sleeper. It is because we want the conveince and the luxury the larger sleeper offers. This adds weight to the truck and reduces it's fuel effeciency.
I ask you what is more important human beings or wildlife?
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Without wildlife, there would be no humans. I believe in total responsibility, and think the environment holds a higher authority over industry, to a point. However, I don't think that justifies delaying or terminating projects because a sand flea is endangered, or because there may have been an extinct bird spotted several years before the fact. Common sense doesn't reign in these situations, which usually turn into all or nothing events.
However, I believe the oil companies count on the environmentalists so they can claim their facade of "we can't drill, we can't build" bullcrap. With the appearance of shortage, they can charge what they want... which is what they're doing.
I hate to say it, but if the Dems were in office, this wouldn't be happening. Just the threat of an inquiry or hearing would drop the prices back to near normal. Too bad the loonies now control their party.
However, I believe the oil companies count on the environmentalists so they can claim their facade of "we can't drill, we can't build" bullcrap. With the appearance of shortage, they can charge what they want... which is what they're doing.
I hate to say it, but if the Dems were in office, this wouldn't be happening. Just the threat of an inquiry or hearing would drop the prices back to near normal. Too bad the loonies now control their party.