Exxon has biggest U.S. profit ever

[Reincarnated]

Exxon Mobil sets annual profit record

No. 1 oil company posts mark despite lower fourth-quarter income.

February 1 2007: 9:07 AM EST

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit in U.S. history Thursday, even though fourth-quarter earnings fell on lower natural gas prices and shrinking gasoline margins.

For the year, Exxon Mobil earned $39.5 billion, up from its previous record $36.1 billion in 2005.

Net income in the fourth quarter slipped to $10.25 billion, or $1.76 a share, from $10.71 billion, or $1.71 a share, a year earlier.

Excluding one-time items, Exxon Mobil (Charts), the world's largest publicly traded company, earned $1.69 a share. The average earnings forecast of analysts polled by Reuters Estimates was $1.51 a share.

Revenue in the quarter fell 9.4 percent to $90.03 billion.

Earnings from exploration and production activities were $6.22 billion, down $818 million from a year earlier due to the natural gas price drop and decreased volumes driven by lower demand in Europe.

Earnings from refining and marketing operations totaled $1.86 billion, down $430 million due to lower margins.

Oil prices in the fourth quarter dropped from the record levels hit in July but were still robust, hovering around $60 a barrel - roughly in line with year-earlier levels.

Natural gas prices, on the other hand, were sharply lower than in 2005. According to Reuters data, the average U.S. natural gas price was about $6.61 per million British thermal unit in the fourth quarter, down from $12.77 a year earlier.

Since the end of the 2006 third quarter, Exxon Mobil shares are up 10.4 percent, outperforming the Chicago Board Options Exchange's oil index, which has risen 8.8 percent.

Source

Is it all becoming clear now?

[AROCES]

YES! Economy is good, we have a US COMPANY here that is doing very well.

We need more US COMPANY like Exxon mobile.

[Bella-Angelique]

Is it all becoming clear now?

If the question is asking whether we know that the oil companies are the Tyrants of Earth, then I would have to say at this point with rich crazy fundamentalists running around the planet, armies wiping out thousands to keep oil flowing, Moscow having more billioniares than any other city on earth that are mobster oil barons doing radioactive assasination hits, people on cruises looking for polar bear sightings out in the ocean instead of whales, and air pollution reports now a common part of the daily weather report around the planet, the answer is yes, I think we have basically gathered a gist about that being a fact.

[Aztec Warrior]

Tax them heavy. Better yet, put them out of business for making profits.

Saudi Arabian Oil Co.* Petroleos Mexicanos* Petroleos de Venezuela* China National Petroleum* BP Amoco + Arco.....all these corporations would be real happy to take over as numero uno.

[Bella-Angelique]

Yeah, Chavez and Castro have a "plan". You could see it all over their faces. I hope it will just be something that just helps the citizens of both nations and does not go off into some strange Latin America domination plan that would end up hurting the people.

[Reincarnated]

YES! Economy is good, we have a US COMPANY here that is doing very well.

Correction: Exxon is doing good.

We need more US COMPANY like Exxon mobile.

LOL! I don't even have to bother arguing my points anymore, you neo-cons self-destruct on your own with such ridiculous statements.

Does anyone else think AROCES sounds like robot that spits out GOP issued statements? Or maybe he is a tool used by the democrats to gain popularity, he is going a pretty good darn job!

[Reincarnated]

Tax them heavy. Better yet, put them out of business for making profits.

Saudi Arabian Oil Co.* Petroleos Mexicanos* Petroleos de Venezuela* China National Petroleum* BP Amoco + Arco.....all these corporations would be real happy to take over as numero uno.

Just think of all money they have to spend on lobbyists. Do I think we should just "tax them heavily"? No I don't, that is another one of your delusions that we are just "jelous". Us as Americans also want fair business practice. Look how successful they are at delaying action on global warming. It is their greed and total disregard for life and the planet for the sake of profit. They are deeply connected to the republicans who keep giving them bigger tax breaks, who really runs this country?

Don't be afraid to face the truth that you have been tricked into being a pawn for big business. Why would you want to be one of them? Do you like to be taken for a fool? Hiding from the truth is very cowardly.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Reincarnated

[Bella-Angelique]

you neo-cons self-destruct on your own

As reported and as was shown visually to the world, more Democrats stood to applaud Bush during his state of the Union Address than did Republicans.

It is definitely something worthwhile to think on.

If it were not for that fact that we would be left with VP Palpatine/Cheney becoming president, some Republicans would be more than happy to try to impeach Bush themselves.

Edited February 1, 2007 by Bella-Angelique

[AROCES]

Correction: Exxon is doing good.LOL! I don't even have to bother arguing my points anymore, you neo-cons self-destruct on your own with such ridiculous statements.

Does anyone else think AROCES sounds like robot that spits out GOP issued statements? Or maybe he is a tool used by the democrats to gain popularity, he is going a pretty good darn job!

OK, let me make a Dem issued statement. EXXON lost money, laying off workers. Government need to raise tax on all Oil companies and require them to

guarantee all it's workers free medical coverage and more time off from work. Government will take over Exxon and keep it running in negative by government funding. Government need to tax other company to keep Exxon running.

[Fluffybunny]

Let's just hope they reinvest those billions into new oil rigs so that we can rid ourselves of ever having to do business in the middle east again.

[AROCES]

Let's just hope they reinvest those billions into new oil rigs so that we can rid ourselves of ever having to do business in the middle east again.

YES! That I totally agree, and actually the money do goes back to the economy.

If we can only have the EPA back off a little.

[Aztec Warrior]

Just think of all money they have to spend on lobbyists. Do I think we should just "tax them heavily"? No I don't, that is another one of your delusions that we are just "jelous". Us as Americans also want fair business practice. Look how successful they are at delaying action on global warming. It is their greed and total disregard for life and the planet for the sake of profit. They are deeply connected to the republicans who keep giving them bigger tax breaks, who really runs this country?

Don't be afraid to face the truth that you have been tricked into being a pawn for big business. Why would you want to be one of them? Do you like to be taken for a fool? Hiding from the truth is very cowardly.

I know you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism, but don't say that Democrats are not tax and spenders. Does that make you jealous? Do you understand international business competition? How is big oil practicing unfair business practices? Maybe you think they are colluding, but then there are anti-trust laws in place agaisn't that. In fact, that is one role of government....to have some regulations ie. break up monopolies and promote fair competition to drive down prices.

I agree, hiding from the truth makes you look like a fool. Better you stick with your global warming fantasy.

The Dems Versus Oil

Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, expect talk on raising earnings taxes and action on royalties.

By Steve Hargreaves

CNNMoney.com staff writer

NEW YORK -- Democrats, now freshly in control of Congress, are likely to want to get more oil money into government coffers.

The question is, how?

A windfall profits tax on the oil industry is a typical tack. And it is likely to be put forward again. But, despite the change in control, such a proposal would face a tough fight and, probably, ultimately fail. And so the attack may go a different route and target tax breaks and royalty payments.

Oil companies have been making record profits off the record oil prices of late, with ExxonMobil pocketing over $10 billion last quarter alone. Much of that money has been returned to shareholders, which include large pension and mutual funds, in the form of share buybacks and dividends.

Go to CNNMoney.com to view the slideshow

Democrats have railed against what they see as earnings nothing short of unconscionable.

"Oil companies are swimming in windfall profits and American consumers are sinking," Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said last year in a statement when he introduced a bill to tax those profits. That bill died in committee.

Holding a slim majority, Democrats will instead attempt to eliminate tax breaks for energy companies and raise royalty payments for oil and gas drilled on federal land, according to a spokesman for House speaker-to-be Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

The measures are expected to add $33 billion to federal coffers over the next 25 years, which Democrats say they'll channel into renewable energy.

Pelosi's spokesman said $20 billion is expected to come from eliminating royalty relief.

Royalty relief was implemented during the Clinton administration, when oil prices were low, as a means of boosting domestic production in expensive areas to drill like the deep water in the Gulf of Mexico.

Most of those leases included a provision that allowed royalties to kick in if oil prices rose into the $30s. But due to a government oversight, some leases signed in 1998 did not include this clause.

Pelosi's spokesman didn't elaborate on which programs the Democrats will target, but it's generally thought that closing this oversight is the major one.

Other tax breaks amounting to $4 billion granted to oil companies in 2005's National Energy Policy Act will also be on the chopping block.

Still, a windfall profits tax will be a large part of the debate.

"There are [now] more people [in Congress] who talked about the profits of oil companies and the high price of gasoline and made it part of their campaigns," said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Sen. Durbin, "It's an issue that's certainly in the mix."

Even Pelosi hasn't ruled it out.

"She's open to a windfall profits tax, but not everyone in the caucus is in agreement,' said her staffer.

Several countries worldwide have instituted a windfall oil profits tax recently, including England, where a tax on North Sea production was increased and can now be as high as 70 percent.

http://biz.yahoo.com/special/allbiz111506_article1.html

[Fluffybunny]

My dad works up on the north slope of Alaska for Atlantic Richfield Company(ARCO). He told me that the reports he saw regarding potential oil reserves in the region was huge, but just untapped at this point, in his opinion more than enough to go tell opec to go pound sand. I don't want to see an oil derrick on every street corner, but to have several more up there would be such a benefit to our economy and would keep us out of the middle east. It would be amazing to get to the point where the oil we use is our own and then we have enough to export...

It is frustrating to pay 2.75 a gallon for gas, but if the money is reinvested into new oil wells then I am more than happy to do so. I'd love to see the look on the faces of opec when we say "no thanks guys, we got it covered..."

[Reincarnated]

I know you don't like capitalism and prefer socialism, but don't say that Democrats are not tax and spenders.

Saying that the Democrats are the tax and spenders is another illusion pushed by the Republicans. If you did some research, you would find out the opposite.Deficits were enormous under Reagan, Bush Sr., and even in the early Clinton years. Budget Deficits were eventually eliminated under Clinton and replaced by surpluses. Deficits appeared again under G.W. Bush.

[AROCES]

My dad works up on the north slope of Alaska for Atlantic Richfield Company(ARCO). He told me that the reports he saw regarding potential oil reserves in the region was huge, but just untapped at this point, in his opinion more than enough to go tell opec to go pound sand. I don't want to see an oil derrick on every street corner, but to have several more up there would be such a benefit to our economy and would keep us out of the middle east. It would be amazing to get to the point where the oil we use is our own and then we have enough to export...

It is frustrating to pay 2.75 a gallon for gas, but if the money is reinvested into new oil wells then I am more than happy to do so. I'd love to see the look on the faces of opec when we say "no thanks guys, we got it covered..."

YUP! We might not even have to drill at all. There is a chance that if the EPA back off and say go ahead and drill but in an Evironmentally conscious way. OPEC will drop their prices and will try to discourage the drilling!

By the way, don't bet on gas selling for $1 a gallon. 75 cents are taxes now out of the 2.75 price of it. You know very well some will see that as an opportunity for more revenue. We then will be paying the same price after all, $1 for gas and 1.75 tax = 2.75. Can't win.

[AROCES]

Saying that the Democrats are the tax and spenders is another illusion pushed by the Republicans. If you did some research, you would find out the opposite.Deficits were enormous under Reagan, Bush Sr., and even in the early Clinton years. Budget Deficits were eventually eliminated under Clinton and replaced by surpluses. Deficits appeared again under G.W. Bush.

The Democrats are able to have a less deficit by RAISING TAXES while continuing on to increase the government size.

GOP always trim the deficit instead by productivity with lower taxes.

We all know now that the Clinton economy was hallow, companies like Enron cooking their books and DOT COM companies that never made money.

The surplus never materialized, like Enron it was all bogus.

Edited February 2, 2007 by AROCES

[Aztec Warrior]

Saying that the Democrats are the tax and spenders is another illusion pushed by the Republicans. If you did some research, you would find out the opposite.Deficits were enormous under Reagan, Bush Sr., and even in the early Clinton years. Budget Deficits were eventually eliminated under Clinton and replaced by surpluses. Deficits appeared again under G.W. Bush.

So predictable my friend from the far left. And WHO was in charge of congress in every time period you sited. Oh, then Clinton reduced the spending and created a balanced budget.....in ...what ...1994.........Wait...that was "Contract with America" and Newt. Don't ever take false credit for that, sir.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

So predictable my friend from the far left. And WHO was in charge of congress in every time period you sited. Oh, then Clinton reduced the spending and created a balanced budget.....in ...what ...1994.........Wait...that was "Contract with America" and Newt. Don't ever take false credit for that, sir.

Excpet that it was a republican congress with a republican president that caused our debt to skyrocket, so obviously the GOP isn't the party of fiscal responsibility

[Aztec Warrior]

Excpet that it was a republican congress with a republican president that caused our debt to skyrocket, so obviously the GOP isn't the party of fiscal responsibility

I would agree with you, that in the past 4 or 5 years...Republicans had no fiscal discipline. Bush never vetoed any bills. That was wrong and it cost the Republicans both houses.

But Bush is not a conservative.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Aztec Warrior

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I would agree with you, that in the past 4 or 5 years...Republicans had no fiscal discipline. Bush never vetoed any bills. That was wrong and it cost the Republicans both houses.

But Bush is not a conservative.

No he is not a fiscal conservative, he is a social conservative

[Aztec Warrior]

No he is not a fiscal conservative, he is a social conservative

No, he is not a conservative...and most of us conservatives would agree with that. He is just better than a John Kerry liberal.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

No, he is not a conservative...and most of us conservatives would agree with that. He is just better than a John Kerry liberal.

No he is a social conservative, due to his stances on things like stem cell research control, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

[Aztec Warrior]

No he is a social conservative, due to his stances on things like stem cell research control, opposition to gay marriage, etc.

Oh, and his open border policy....or lack of.....his complete disregard for and veto's of the massive out of control spending....and the complete mismangement of the Iraq war. There is no winning the hearts and minds in war. Just killing and winning.

Not a conservative.

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Oh, and his open border policy....or lack of.....his complete disregard for and veto's of the massive out of control spending....and the complete mismangement of the Iraq war. There is no winning the hearts and minds in war. Just killing and winning.

Not a conservative.

You're thinking that to be a conservative you have to be a conservative on everything, a social conservative need not be a fiscal conservative, or vice versa

[Aztec Warrior]

You're thinking that to be a conservative you have to be a conservative on everything, a social conservative need not be a fiscal conservative, or vice versa

No, I was thinking that he has a few conservative positions. That does not make him a conservative. I don't really like Bush and can bash him all day about some conservative issues, but he's still better than most liberal alternatives.