ExxonMobil posted record profits

Snowflake · 10-27-2005, 10:08 AM

And we're surprised by this news?

If you have any interest, you can read it here

Donna

scaeagles · 10-27-2005, 10:20 AM

Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all. They are in a for profit business. They are not the ones bidding up oil futures every time a hurricane nears the gulf.

They have investors and a responsibility to make a profit.

Scrooge McSam · 10-27-2005, 12:01 PM

<chuckle>

And they can't build any more refining capacity because of how burdensome government regulation has become.

scaeagles · 10-27-2005, 12:05 PM

Oh - they could. However, it comes down to a simple cost benefit analysis. Does the cost of expanding or developing new refining capability overwhelm the benefits to their bottom line? Being that they are a corporation that wants to make money, the answer is clearly no. Part of that is government regulation.

If they could make more money doing it, you bet they would.

Where's Barbie? · 10-27-2005, 12:08 PM

This would have bothered me before I learned more about oil and how pricing works. Now I am on the CAP(community advisory panel) for ExxonMobil and really understand it now. It's about the oil futures & station owners. Owners don't make much money on gas they make it on the mini marts.

Scrooge McSam · 10-27-2005, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Part of that is government regulation.

Yep, Part! But that's not what we hear. The argument is that government regulation is the main obstacle to building refineries. The government is restricting their ability to supply us with the finest petroleum products in the world.

<cue short sighted congressman bent on easing environmental regulation as payment for that generous corporate contribution>

And the people say "bah bah"

scaeagles · 10-27-2005, 12:47 PM

And also, I might add, they have to deal with legal issues and suits brought by groups such as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. Say what you wish about these groups, but they oppose pretty much everything. They are even starting to oppose wind power because windmills are killing birds (no link - just something I've read).

Why else, Mr. McSam, would the oil companies NOT want to expand their business?

I don't buy the "they're making enough profit now" argument. If it is profitable, they will do it. If it is not, they will not. Government regulation and legal maneuvers (sp?) by environmental groups, as well as the NIMBYs, are what stops them from doing it.

scaeagles · 10-27-2005, 12:51 PM

I will add, though, that it is true that oil companies may not be willing to pay for certain infrastructure requirements (again, because of the effect on the bottom line, but this is not a government or environmental issue). As an example, there has been discussion about building an oil refinery in the AZ desert southeast of Phoenix. Out in the middle of nowhere, and certianly not "pristine wilderness" in the least. Well, how does one get oil into the middle fo the AZ desert to refine? The hangup is the pipeline that would have to be built and who would foot the bill for 300 or so miles of pipeline from the gulf of California to the facility.

There are, of course, environmental groups opposing it. As stated before, environmental groups pretty much oppse everything.

Betty · 10-27-2005, 01:25 PM

Where does it end then? What is to stop them from charge $5 a gallon? $10 a gallon. Sure - everyone may buy more fuel effecient cars, but for the forseeable future, we're all dependent on oil.

After all, they'd just be doing their job - making a profit for their investors.

I think that things like oil, electricity, water - things that are considered to be basic requirements to live a modern life if our country, ought to have a certain amount of regulation to insure that consumers aren't needlessly gouged. I expect them to make a profit. But what is to stop them from just charging more? I'd have to pay it - or quit my job and find one within walking/biking/bus distance. Not a lot of choice there. Or move I suppose.

Just sucks to have to spend $55-$65 a week on gas for myself only - not to mention the other car we drive too.

When I was in high school (late 80's) - putting in $10 filled the tank, or pretty near. It would be $20 with my tank size now. That's a pretty dramatic increase in price compared to other things. Okay - maybe not - houses comes to mind.

But darn it. It's too damn much!

scaeagles · 10-27-2005, 01:35 PM

Actually, I believe that when adjusted for inflation. we are paying less for gas now than in the late 70s.

There is enough competition in the oil industry to prevent what you suggest. If there is evidence of illegal practices such as collusion, the government should step in. If one oil company starts to drastically overcharge, someone else will undercut them and take their profits.

10-27-2005, 10:08 AM	#1
Snowflake lost in the fog Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 7,831	ExxonMobil posted record profits And we're surprised by this news? If you have any interest, you can read it here Donna
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 10:20 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Honestly, this doesn't bother me at all. They are in a for profit business. They are not the ones bidding up oil futures every time a hurricane nears the gulf. They have investors and a responsibility to make a profit.
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 12:01 PM	#3
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	<chuckle> And they can't build any more refining capacity because of how burdensome government regulation has become.
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 12:05 PM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Oh - they could. However, it comes down to a simple cost benefit analysis. Does the cost of expanding or developing new refining capability overwhelm the benefits to their bottom line? Being that they are a corporation that wants to make money, the answer is clearly no. Part of that is government regulation. If they could make more money doing it, you bet they would.
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 12:08 PM	#5
Where's Barbie? I enjoy being a HAG Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Torrance Posts: 6	This would have bothered me before I learned more about oil and how pricing works. Now I am on the CAP(community advisory panel) for ExxonMobil and really understand it now. It's about the oil futures & station owners. Owners don't make much money on gas they make it on the mini marts. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 12:47 PM	#7
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	And also, I might add, they have to deal with legal issues and suits brought by groups such as the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. Say what you wish about these groups, but they oppose pretty much everything. They are even starting to oppose wind power because windmills are killing birds (no link - just something I've read). Why else, Mr. McSam, would the oil companies NOT want to expand their business? I don't buy the "they're making enough profit now" argument. If it is profitable, they will do it. If it is not, they will not. Government regulation and legal maneuvers (sp?) by environmental groups, as well as the NIMBYs, are what stops them from doing it.
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 12:51 PM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I will add, though, that it is true that oil companies may not be willing to pay for certain infrastructure requirements (again, because of the effect on the bottom line, but this is not a government or environmental issue). As an example, there has been discussion about building an oil refinery in the AZ desert southeast of Phoenix. Out in the middle of nowhere, and certianly not "pristine wilderness" in the least. Well, how does one get oil into the middle fo the AZ desert to refine? The hangup is the pipeline that would have to be built and who would foot the bill for 300 or so miles of pipeline from the gulf of California to the facility. There are, of course, environmental groups opposing it. As stated before, environmental groups pretty much oppse everything.
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 01:25 PM	#9
Betty Kicking up my heels! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: The Silver State Posts: 3,783	Where does it end then? What is to stop them from charge $5 a gallon? $10 a gallon. Sure - everyone may buy more fuel effecient cars, but for the forseeable future, we're all dependent on oil. After all, they'd just be doing their job - making a profit for their investors. I think that things like oil, electricity, water - things that are considered to be basic requirements to live a modern life if our country, ought to have a certain amount of regulation to insure that consumers aren't needlessly gouged. I expect them to make a profit. But what is to stop them from just charging more? I'd have to pay it - or quit my job and find one within walking/biking/bus distance. Not a lot of choice there. Or move I suppose. Just sucks to have to spend $55-$65 a week on gas for myself only - not to mention the other car we drive too. When I was in high school (late 80's) - putting in $10 filled the tank, or pretty near. It would be $20 with my tank size now. That's a pretty dramatic increase in price compared to other things. Okay - maybe not - houses comes to mind. But darn it. It's too damn much!
	Submit to Quotes

10-27-2005, 01:35 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Actually, I believe that when adjusted for inflation. we are paying less for gas now than in the late 70s. There is enough competition in the oil industry to prevent what you suggest. If there is evidence of illegal practices such as collusion, the government should step in. If one oil company starts to drastically overcharge, someone else will undercut them and take their profits.
	Submit to Quotes