Posted on 10/28/2005 1:38:17 AM PDT by Crackingham
Exxon Mobil, the world's largest oil company, said yesterday that its third-quarter net income jumped 75 percent, to $9.92 billion. Its profit in the first nine months of this year - $25.42 billion - already equals its full-year earnings for 2004. This year's sales, which topped $100 billion in the last quarter, are expected to exceed those of Wal-Mart.
Another oil giant, Royal Dutch Shell, reported a 68 percent jump in profits yesterday, to $9.03 billion. Chevron is expected to post a profit of more than $4 billion today.
This year is shaping up as an exceptionally lucrative one for the oil industry, thanks to strong global demand, tight supplies and high prices for oil and natural gas. While the idea that the Bush administration was considering imposing a windfall profits tax was knocked down yesterday by officials, longstanding resentments against Big Oil are resurfacing and could end up imposing some additional burdens on the industry.
SNIP
Today, Republicans and Democrats alike, aware of the politically sensitive issue of high energy prices, are putting increasing pressure on the oil and gas industry to return some of its profits. The ideas include forcing the industry to invest in more refining capacity or to increase inventories to cushion energy shocks.
SNIP
Senator Bill Frist, the Republican leader, said yesterday that executives of major oil companies will be summoned to Capitol Hill to testify about high energy prices. Some of Mr. Frist's language harked back to the 1970's and early 1980's when cries of price gouging at gasoline pumps were common.
"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans," he said, "they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Anyone can invest in these companies, therefore you'd be paying yourself every time you fill up. Sort of a commercial communism if you will.
So what's the 'effen problem? Oh, I get it, lefty reporter for lefty rag interviews non investing lefty with proper lefty $$40k import SUV and feels that, sniff sniff, it's...not ....fair.
Templet non news.
What the hell is Frist doing???????
"If there are those who abuse the free enterprise system to advantage themselves and their businesses at the expense of all Americans," he said, "they ought to be exposed, and they ought to be ashamed."
I've nver been a fan of Frist, but there was a time when I considered him a decent candidate--someone I could support given mediocre choices. Never again--populism of this sort is one of the worst possible signs.
You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes me glad that you "as a consumer" have absolutely no power. The country would be a sad place if we gave people like you any say in things.
Why does it not bother you that 'big oil' has made huge profits on the back of the hurricane crisis? Do you consider this price gouging? If so, do you actually believe that consumers hold no purchasing power?
You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes me glad that you "as a consumer" have absolutely no power. The country would be a sad place if we gave people like you any say in things.
Why don't you explain yourself; your comment was vague.
Price gouging is just "left speak" for making a profit. Allowing prices to rise and fall with the market is the quickest and best way to get what is needed to those who need it the most.
Ok, so you don't hold no power, but no power to "ban the companies" you don't like.
As for the economics, of course profits are going to increase following a supply-disturbing hurricane (which is certainly not the main reason for this increase, since it didn't come until two months into the quarter), unless a company suffered severe losses to the hurrucane.
A) hurricane destroys small percentage of supply B) energy consumption is inelastic, meaning consumers can't significantly reduce consumption even if prices increase C) therefore, prices have to increase a significant amount before demand comes down to the slightly reduced supply D) companies are now selling nearly as much oil/gas as before (since supply disruption was small percentage of their total), but at significantly higher prices (and their production costs are roughly the same), meaning much higher profits.
It's not gouging; it's free market, and allowing it is the only way we'll avoid the shortages of the Carter years.
"What the hell is Frist doing???????"
Same thing Teddy Roosevelt did 100 years ago. Calling the price-gougers/fixers(trusts back then) to account.
We now know that what we've been told since the spring when prices spiked up was utter bullshit. The oil companies told us that their price at the pump merely reflected the higer demand and increased cost of crude and the resulting higher price to refineries. The prices spiked further during short interruptions in supply caused by two major hurricanes.
Well, you can't have it both ways. If the $3.00/gallon price at the pump was merely a reflection of cost, how the hell did they make profits of 75%?
The quicker we move away from oil-based fuels to a hydrogen one the better. We won't have to give a damn what some raghead in Oman is thinking today, worry about the effects of storms on our ability to fill our gas tanks or about the frigging Chinese economy's demand for energy ratcheting up prices beyond toleration.
Earlier this week the Saudi oil minister was quoted as saying that he thought with all current factors considered, the natural price/barrel should be $30. No doubt he sees a time coming were an ever increasing number of cars will powered by hydrogen fuel cells and the price of crude oil and the revenues of Mideast countries sinks ever lower, never to return.
They didn't. You misread the numbers, as the NYSlimes intended for you to do. Profits did not increase to 75%, profits increased by 75%. If the profit was $1 last quarter, it would be $1.75 now.
This is a common trick of leftists, or any unscrupulous person with an agenda. It is called lying with statistics.
"If the $3.00/gallon price at the pump was merely a reflection of cost, why did they make profits of 75%?"
If it's not a gouge, what is it?
Please explain this to me too, somebody. Or provide a link or reference. Be simple. Thanks in advance.
Perhaps that pandering moron Frist would like to hold Senate hearings on "profiteering" and "price-gouging" in the medical profession -- and then call himself as the first witness.
"So what's the 'effen problem?"
Are we sending them relief money to repair wells and refineries?
You should read and understand the numbers instead of making these totally unsubstantiated statements. Exxon-Mobil posted profits of nearly $10 billion on sales of $100 billion, which means the return on their investment was about 10%.
And the "wannabe" penny ante capitalists here on FR will be along to insist it was "supply and demand" at work.
Unless they formed a cartel on a cornered market they didn't abuse anything. They made money supplying a product in a competitive environment - they had supply-side problems and - more importantly - demand remained inelastic. There was no gouging, just a high demand/supply ratio.
If America doesn't like Big Oil, it should open the gates to Small Oil: allow other players and more competition in, and stop all the environazi law-suits and legislation.
The leading socialists of this world are the Rockefeller family members, put the onus where it lies not on me.
Exxon/Mobile is not my offspring. Oil supporters here need to remove their glasses and face reality.
Odd that the pure profit, in return for zero productive input, that was made by state and federal governments on those sales is not noted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.