Exxon Profits = $1,318.00 Per SECOND.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]293213[/snapback]</div>

Been buying their stock every month since I've had a job. Woo Hoo!

You DO know that they are the ones who control the whitehouse, right?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 12:12 PM) [snapback]293213[/snapback]</div>

How much was reinvested in drilling and production? And when they lost money quarter after quarter a few years ago what were you saying then?

And am I to assume you would prefer them to lose money like Ford and have to lay off workers?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]293213[/snapback]</div>

Uhh, so what? A large $ does not mean anything unless you can know and compare the concomitant costs that produced that profit. Recall the last EXXON profit numbers were even higher, but the actual return on investment was in the neighborhood of `9.9%...

These headlines are solely designed to inflame people who already hate success and businesses in general.

Sheesh, at least EXXON expended SOME effort to earn their share of this 'bounty', unlike the state and federal governments that pull even higher amounts via confiscatory taxation. After all, they spent nothing and therefore earned 100% profit on the oil sales.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 09:24 AM) [snapback]293221[/snapback]</div>

Hey that is Hugo Chavez' private stock, you know

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 27 2006, 12:27 PM) [snapback]293226[/snapback]</div>

The problem is the money they lose on products that dont get to market, and the time they have to recoup money on products that do make it, and of course the LEGAL liability they face here that they dont face in other countries. What is the overall profit margin of the pharmatcutical industry? Yes they have blockbusters, they also have a lot of dogs.

I am a strong believer in market forces here - without profit incentives there would never have been statins, ppi's, immunemodulators, etc.

I am in favor of TORT REFORM which would save the health care "industry" tens of billions of $'s instantly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Jul 27 2006, 12:20 PM) [snapback]293218[/snapback]</div>

Don't forget the Jew's too - you know AIPAC - they also control the White House.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 27 2006, 12:26 PM) [snapback]293222[/snapback]</div>

You are too good!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 27 2006, 11:22 AM) [snapback]293220[/snapback]</div>

I believe that is operating costs.

I also believe you subtract operating costs from net profits, then whatever is left are the actual profits.

It's like your household budget, only on a much greater scale.

paycheck - bills = savings/what's left over you can spend.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jul 27 2006, 11:27 AM) [snapback]293226[/snapback]</div>

Well, the pharmeceutical companies wrote Medicare part D.

And the banking/credit card companies wrote the new bankruptcy laws.

As for the operating costs of the pharmeceutical companies...there are a lot of grants and subsidies for developing new drugs. Many done at Universities...then the pharmeceutical companies get the "patents" or whatever they are for drugs.

Again, the profits are calculated AFTER the operating costs are subtracted. It's basic accounting.

 

I for one am extremely supportive of the oil industry. They go through hell to get the black gold, they deserve to get paid a pretty penny for doing so.

I believe in capitalism, I want oil companies to make a profit so they stay in business and provide oil to the market. Just like I want Toyota to make a profit on hybrids and provide them to the market.

Be angry when you don't see profits, because then there really will be a supply squeeze, when companies are unwilling to spend $1,000,000,000.00 to build ONE large scale off-shore drilling platform.

If you don't want their product, don't buy it.

Nate

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]293245[/snapback]</div>

I'm sorry Godiva (I usually always appreciate your stance on things) but operating costs are typically catagorized as direct costs and are deducted from revenues before any overhead expenses. Once overhead and any extraordinary income or loss is deducted, then you get a net income/loss picture. Net profit/loss is the bottom line picture, short of any distributions to stockholders.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jul 27 2006, 11:46 AM) [snapback]293237[/snapback]</div>

Tort Reform.

That's where you're not allowed to sue a company that knowingly causes you irreparably harm.

And in the cases in which you ARE allowed redress, the government decides how much your arm, leg, eyesight, Mother, LIFE is worth.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SSimon @ Jul 27 2006, 12:02 PM) [snapback]293249[/snapback]</div>

Okay. So I way oversimplified.

But the bottom line is that all operating costs or direct costs and overhead expenses are deducted before you report profits. Right?

So using any operating costs, direct costs or overhead expenses to defend profits is....misdirection.

Isn't it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 10:03 AM) [snapback]293251[/snapback]</div>

As opposed to a jury who gets overridden by a judge...

hmmm, since 1974, 4 of my doctors have left California to go elsewhere, and 3 of those just quit the profession altogether due to costs of malpractice insurance and litigation.

It is a dual-edged sword, or er, scalpel as the case may be

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 11:12 AM) [snapback]293213[/snapback]</div>

Why do you care. You drive a prius.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jul 27 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]293213[/snapback]</div>

And, in a related earlier story:

Monday, July 24, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
Cuba Drills for Oil 60 Miles Off U.S. Coast

With Congress deadlocked over allowing oil drilling in presently restricted areas of the Gulf of Mexico, communist Cuba is already drilling for oil 60 miles off the coast of Florida.
Republicans in Congress have tried repeatedly in the past decade to open up the outer continental shelf to exploration. There are an estimated 45 billion barrels in oil reserves and 232 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in banned drilling areas of the Gulf, and Florida's waters hold the promise of major energy finds.
They have been strenuously opposed by Florida and environmental-minded legislators from both parties. Florida's powerful tourism and booming real estate industries fear that oil spills could hurt their business.
Meanwhile Cuba "is exploring in its half of the 90-mile-wide Straits of Florida within the internationally recognized boundary as well as in deep-water areas of the Gulf of Mexico,†the Washington Times reports.
Two Canadian companies are presently pumping more than 19,000 barrels of crude oil each day from fields in the straits about 90 miles from Key West, and a Spanish company has announced an oil strike in deep-water areas of the same region, according to the National Ocean Industries Association.
Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, has signed a deal with China's Sinopec to explore for oil, and it is using Chinese-made drilling equipment in the search.
Sterling Burnett, a fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank, said America’s quarter-century limits on offshore drilling are putting the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage as oil and gas prices reach record highs.
"Canada and even economically backward Cuba are moving forward with plans to drill in offshore areas that abut U.S. coastal waters," he told the Times.
"Since pools of oil do not respect international boundaries, it is almost certainly true that Canada and Cuba will be accessing oil that could otherwise be developed by and for the benefit of Americans."
The House last month passed a bill that would allow coastal states to decide whether to open the first 100 miles of their waters for oil exploration. The states permitting exploration would receive half of the hundreds of billions of dollars in royalties and fees from drilling that would otherwise go to the federal government.
A Senate bill would permit drilling in a key area in the eastern Gulf but allow Florida to retain a 125-mile no-drilling buffer zone.

link below

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/7/...1616.shtml?s=ic

 

I don't think Exxon should sell it's stash of crude for $35 per barrel when the global marketplace dictates the price closer to $80 per barrel.

Their excessive profits are not from buying $78/barrel crude and refining it in to gas. If that's all they were doing, they'd be losing money at $3.20/gallon.

Their profits are coming from spending a lot of money 10 years ago to drill a lot of holes to bring oil to the surface with the hopes of getting $20/barrel from the oil. Over time, they hoped that would be profitable.

As dumb luck would have it, they are not able to get $20/barrel, so the math was off... They're getting $75 to $80 per barrel. $50 per barrel above what they anticipated... I'd have to suggest that if any of us were to unexpectedly get a market place demand for our skills or product in 2007 that drove our paychecks from where they are now to 4x what they are, none of us would be complaining..

Unless you have a sister or kids who look at your unexpected gain and start saying... "Booo hooo... you make so much money you should give me some of it.. You can pay for dinner, you're rich. Can you pay off my car loan, you got so much money. I just need $1000 for new clothes, you're rich.."

To which you reply what?

Hand over the portion above your normal expected income to whoever complains first? Nope.. you all keep the cash and rightfully so...

Good for exxon for having a banner thing going, I hope it happens to me.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wstander @ Jul 27 2006, 12:12 PM) [snapback]293259[/snapback]</div>

"But Mom....all the other kids are doing it!"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 27 2006, 01:06 PM) [snapback]293251[/snapback]</div>

What % of costs related to product liability are real vs. attempts by lawyers to hit lotto? And why do payments have to be lump sum instead of annuity based? And why do the lawyers get 42% of the reward? How many lawsuits are filed each year in the US (and compare to Canada)? What are the costs related to these lawsuits (and compare to Canada)?

You guys should fixate on a problem that if you addressed it and actually solved it - and this can be solved - would do more for your causes than holding hands, chanting kumbaya, and chasing windmills.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(naterprius @ Jul 27 2006, 01:00 PM) [snapback]293247[/snapback]</div>

Exactly! They would really be pi**ing and moaning if there were an oil shortage instead of just higher prices. Then you would have both.

I think we should invade Iraq for their oil and ship it here for free

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Jul 27 2006, 01:38 PM) [snapback]293285[/snapback]</div>

Imagine how cheap the oil would be if we let them drill ANWAR or right off the US coastline :lol: