Exxon Mobil profit soars 41%

[Chino]

Exxon Mobil reported quarterly earnings of $10.3 billion on Thursday, a surge of 41% from a year earlier. Today, Exxon's profits are on track to do even better in the fourth quarter, since oil prices have increased more than 13% over the last month.

https://money.cnn.com/2011/10/27/news/companies/exxon_mobil/index.htm

I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand I don't have a problem with a company profiting in the billion upon billions. Companies like Google and Apple do it and I don't get mad at them. On the other hand I have to admit that this bothers me. Google and Apple do what they do because they are hot companies, they are not manipulating a natural resource that the world needs. The world could survive withought search engines and media devices, but it could not survive on fuel. Another thing that bothers me is that these profits obviously come from increased prices at the pump that further hurt people that are already in the shitter financially. The things that really gets under my skin is the tax situation in their case. Exxon did pay income taxes in 2009, and I believe (I could be wrong) they are only paying something like 16% this year, perhaps less.

Your thoughts?

[Aramatheis]

Your thoughts?

STICK IT TO THE MAN

[MasterShakezula]

Good for them.

[7StringedBeast]

I think its kinda bullshit.  Gas prices have not come down.  I highly doubt more people are buying more gas all of a sudden.  They could probably have lowered their prices (like every oil company out there) but have not done so.  It's a bit fishy to me.

[GuineaPig]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

[Rathma]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

This.

[Chino]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

Here's my idea: By 2025 all manufacturers selling cars in the US are not allowed to sell any vehicles that can use gas. All pick-up trucks, SUV's, 18 wheelers, motor homes, buses, and other large vehicles must all be sold as hybrids. Put people to work laying out the new power grid. Put people to work engineering the new technologies for the vehicles. Put people to work finding out ways to supply the new power needed, without the use of coal and fossil fuels.

[7StringedBeast]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

Here's my idea: By 2025 all manufacturers selling cars in the US are not allowed to sell any vehicles that can use gas. All pick-up trucks, SUV's, 18 wheelers, motor homes, buses, and other large vehicles must all be sold as hybrids. Put people to work laying out the new power grid. Put people to work engineering the new technologies for the vehicles. Put people to work finding out ways to supply the new power needed, without the use of coal and fossil fuels.

But where is that money going to come from?  And you can't force companies to get into alternate fuel.

[antigoon]

Don't gas prices have more to do with commodities trading than anything?

[Chino]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

Here's my idea: By 2025 all manufacturers selling cars in the US are not allowed to sell any vehicles that can use gas. All pick-up trucks, SUV's, 18 wheelers, motor homes, buses, and other large vehicles must all be sold as hybrids. Put people to work laying out the new power grid. Put people to work engineering the new technologies for the vehicles. Put people to work finding out ways to supply the new power needed, without the use of coal and fossil fuels.

But where is that money going to come from?  And you can't force companies to get into alternate fuel.

Sure you can. I don't see how it's any different that enforcing stricter EPA standards...

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

[Scheavo]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

Not so. They take advantage to of tax incentives available to any corporation, or they take advantage of incentives related to the oil industry, which doesn't hurt their competition.

Further, the point was that they are not being given anybody else's money to prop up their operations. They're simply being allowed to keep their money.

So that is supposed to be my argument and it's a very good one!

[Scheavo]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

Not so. They take advantage to of tax incentives available to any corporation, or they take advantage of incentives related to the oil industry, which doesn't hurt their competition.

Further, the point was that they are not being given anybody else's money to prop up their operations. They're simply being allowed to keep their money.

So that is supposed to be my argument and it's a very good one!

Well it's a very poor one.

Sure, the oil industry faced internal competition. But it doesn't face external competition, and the oil industry get's a huge leg up in the energy market.

*edit*

Take back the corn comparison, becuase I believe there would be a difference there.

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

Not so. They take advantage to of tax incentives available to any corporation, or they take advantage of incentives related to the oil industry, which doesn't hurt their competition.

Further, the point was that they are not being given anybody else's money to prop up their operations. They're simply being allowed to keep their money.

So that is supposed to be my argument and it's a very good one!

Well it's a very poor one.

Sure, the oil industry faced internal competition. But it doesn't face external competition, and the oil industry get's a huge leg up in the energy market.

*edit*

Take back the corn comparison, becuase I believe there would be a difference there.

They have a leg up because they're product works.

[Scheavo]

Um... there are a ton of possible alternatives to fossil fuels out there, that work, and are working in other countries. You basically just said a truism, and ignored the entire argument.

[GuineaPig]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

In Canada, development of the oil sands (which is way more environmentally and ecologically damaging than your average well) is subsidized by the government.  It makes me sad, because no one wants to fund HSR.

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

In Canada, development of the oil sands (which is way more environmentally and ecologically damaging than your average well) is subsidized by the government.  It makes me sad, because no one wants to fund HSR.

And that's wrong. When oil prices reach a high enough price, oil sands will be an economically viable alternative.

Um... there are a ton of possible alternatives to fossil fuels out there, that work, and are working in other countries. You basically just said a truism, and ignored the entire argument.

Sure...if you mean technologies that can't survive without massive (and actual) subsidies from the taxpayer.

[Scheavo]

Um... there are a ton of possible alternatives to fossil fuels out there, that work, and are working in other countries. You basically just said a truism, and ignored the entire argument.

Sure...if you mean technologies that can't survive without massive (and actual) subsidies from the taxpayer.

I'm not even sure where toe begin...

Subsidies required in order to compete with an oil industry which has an unfair tax advantage in it's favor.

The technology is obviously better, on any standard of scientific efficiency. Oil and fossil fuels are very inefficient, it take energy to extract, and it's inefficient in turning it's potential energy into mechanical energy when burned.

You also confuse initial price with long-term costs; the initial costs of fossil fuels makes them a necessity; the long-term costs of greener energies proves to be a very valuable long-term investment (There's a reason private businesses are trying to become more efficient), but it's short-term cost can make it so many people simply can't afford the initial costs.

[Chino]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

Not so. They take advantage to of tax incentives available to any corporation, or they take advantage of incentives related to the oil industry, which doesn't hurt their competition.

Further, the point was that they are not being given anybody else's money to prop up their operations. They're simply being allowed to keep their money.

So that is supposed to be my argument and it's a very good one!

Well it's a very poor one.

Sure, the oil industry faced internal competition. But it doesn't face external competition, and the oil industry get's a huge leg up in the energy market.

*edit*

Take back the corn comparison, becuase I believe there would be a difference there.

They have a leg up because they're product works.

But their product isn't the only solution for the problem their product solves. They have a leg up not because it works, but because they buy off the people who run this country and prevent legislations being passed that would open the door to other solutions.

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

We don't. We just allow them to keep more of there profits and then call it a subsidy.

But when it's selective, it harms competition. Their competitors don't get to keep as much of their profits, as you would like ti put it, meaning they have a tougher time growing, expanding, and thus competing.

This is supposed to be YOUR argument!

Not so. They take advantage to of tax incentives available to any corporation, or they take advantage of incentives related to the oil industry, which doesn't hurt their competition.

Further, the point was that they are not being given anybody else's money to prop up their operations. They're simply being allowed to keep their money.

So that is supposed to be my argument and it's a very good one!

Well it's a very poor one.

Sure, the oil industry faced internal competition. But it doesn't face external competition, and the oil industry get's a huge leg up in the energy market.

*edit*

Take back the corn comparison, becuase I believe there would be a difference there.

They have a leg up because they're product works.

But their product isn't the only solution for the problem their product solves. They have a leg up not because it works, but because they buy off the people who run this country and prevent legislations being passed that would open the door to other solutions.

You're surprised? You want the government to mandate fuel standards, subsidize alternative energy, and otherwise regulate the energy market, and you don't expect the oil industry to play the lobbying game too?

[Scheavo]

That's like comparing a hunter to a murderer because they both use a gun.

[snapple]

I don't think I saw the word "inflation" in the article once. While it doesn't apply to the entire 41% , I'm sure it doesn't hurt.

[Orthogonal]

The fairest approach would be to not give any special treatment to energy providers, but put them on the same playing field. Even if we do that from a industrial competitive standpoint, the Oil industry still has tremendous support from the military industrial complex and foreign policy designed around the control of Oil in the world. However, even if we were to remove all the governmental tampering of the energy industry and allow them to compete on equal footing, the Oil industry would still be incredibly profitable and large. This is due to basic economics.

Colloquially speaking, there are 2 types of "energy". Flows and Stores. Stores of energy are the natural resources we use to extract energy like oil, coal, wood and uraniaum (nuclear). Then we have Flows like wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal etc..., which require a process to become a Store, these are generally referred to as "Renewable" energy sources. The natural resource energy Stores have a huge advantage because they have incredibly high energy densities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density. Due to their relative abundance and very high energy densities, they will always have an economic advantage over Renewable energy sources. Further, the predominant use of energy Stores is not just because of historical tradition, but because they are a much more reliable source for base load power requirements. Renewable energy sources are at a disadvantage because their power generation forecasting is highly variable due to things like inclimate weather which can greatly effect power generation day-to-day. Renewable sources are best used as a supplemental source of energy. Finally, renewable sources are at an even further disadvantage because the power generation processes require huge swath's of land. It would take roughly 1200 square miles of wind turbines to compete with a single nuclear power plant. They just don't have the ability to concentrate power necessary for World consumption.

The best solution would be to push Nuclear energy since it has by far the largest energy concentration. There are obviously additional concerns regarding containment and waste management, but it would be the cleanest form going forward while infrastructure is built for electrical transportation. Nuclear fission will only take us so far since Uranium is also finite, so we may have to wait for the Holy Grail of power, Nuclear Fusion. It may or may not be possible but there are a few promising avenues that could potentially come online in the relatively near future.

[Super Dude]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

This.

Seconded.

Edit: And @ WW's argument about the economics of energy, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado have all shown cleaner energy to be just as efficient if not more than oil, and the latter two have done it much cheaper with Massachusetts rapidly approaching that point where non-automotive energy is concerned.

[Scheavo]

"Renewable energy sources are at a disadvantage because their power generation forecasting is highly variable due to things like inclimate weather which can greatly effect power generation day-to-day. Renewable sources are best used as a supplemental source of energy. Finally, renewable sources are at an even further disadvantage because the power generation processes require huge swath's of land. It would take roughly 1200 square miles of wind turbines to compete with a single nuclear power plant. They just don't have the ability to concentrate power necessary for World consumption."

I disagree with your assessment. Geothermal would reduce our energy demands quite a bit, as would smarter meters, switches, etc. Combine that with solar and wind, and you mean that we could fill the rest of will small scale nuclear, and we could stop burning fossil fuels.

Solar and wind can be added to our existing land structure, and it's much more spread out, less centralized. The fact that people can buy solar panels, and see a return on their investment within their lifetime, shows you that solar panels are obviously enough to power a home, and is economically viable. Furthermore, there are some ingenious methods of storing energy at night, when we don't need them. Natural batteries, pumping water up hill, making a huge flywheel, etc. These improve the viability of man green options becuase you can store them, en masse, for use on demand.

Solar energy is extremely promising, and could provide a store of possible options. For instance, we can pretty cheaply copy the photosynthetic process where plants split hydrogen and oxygen in water, meaning we can produce hydrogen. You can do this in a home system, theoretically, storing any excess hydrogen. That hydrogen can be used in fuel cells, very efficiently and cleanly; fuel cells in your car, fuels cells in your home. Since you can store the extra, if a rainy day comes along, you're just fine. It's much more economically profitable to keep people addicted to oil, then give them a system them makes them independent. Capitalists hate yeomens!

[Super Dude]

And to springboard off of that, a power grid that incorporates wind and solar alone could probably power a small city.

[Fuzzboy]

my idea: More solar powered hydrogen fueling stations, produce more Honda Clarity's, watch as it catches on.

what do i win

[PraXis]

So? The average profit margin (the actual important figure, as opposed to the profit) of a gas company is ~9%.

[William Wallace]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

This.

Seconded.

Edit: And @ WW's argument about the economics of energy, Massachusetts, California, and Colorado have all shown cleaner energy to be just as efficient if not more than oil, and the latter two have done it much cheaper with Massachusetts rapidly approaching that point where non-automotive energy is concerned.

Don't you see the flaw in your argument? Your preferred energy sources require states to fund them; they can't compete in the energy market. If people can't afford to power their cars and homes with alternative fuels, unless they're propped up with public money, you have a major problem.

That's like comparing a hunter to a murderer because they both use a gun.

This is an interesting aspect of almost everything we discuss here. Many posters want a society where the government plays an active role in everyday life. That almost certainly carries with it lobbying efforts from the groups that also want that kind of society: "public health" groups, consumer advocates, environmentalists, etc. None of that bothers you - fine. But just think about it for a minute. You set up a system where government is required to do a lot for us and may be pressured by special interests. Then you get indignant when interests you don't like get in the game. I think it's the biggest goof in all of political science.

So, yes, I know your cause is just and your motives pure, and the oil industry is a great murderer (your word) of democracy and the environment, but that doesn't matter. You're inviting the state to control a massive sector of the economy; be reasonable and expect some resistance.

[Scheavo]

You set up a system where government is required to do a lot for us and may be pressured by special interests. Then you get indignant when interests you don't like get in the game. I think it's the biggest goof in all of political science.

Well, I don't think lobbing, as it currently exists, is something we should allow. Issues should raise during the election, they should be spoken about in the media, and this will result in legislative action. If you need to lobby for your problem, by going to congress, chances are you have a shitty problem that the public doesn't care about. So no, I don't want any special interest groups, even those that agree with my ideology.

You're inviting the state to control a massive sector of the economy; be reasonable and expect some resistance.

Control? Hardly! Influence, yes.

[Orthogonal]

Solar and wind can be added to our existing land structure, and it's much more spread out, less centralized. The fact that people can buy solar panels, and see a return on their investment within their lifetime, shows you that solar panels are obviously enough to power a home, and is economically viable. Furthermore, there are some ingenious methods of storing energy at night, when we don't need them. Natural batteries, pumping water up hill, making a huge flywheel, etc. These improve the viability of man green options becuase you can store them, en masse, for use on demand.

The fact that people can see an ROI "within their lifetime" is precisely why it is not viable. An amortization over a lifetime or even a decade is not something you are going to convince average joe to agree to. Renewable energy sources will always have an uphill battle.

[ResultsMayVary]

Good for them.

This.

[skydivingninja]

Here's an idea: maybe we should stop subsidizing the oil industry.

Here's my idea: By 2025 all manufacturers selling cars in the US are not allowed to sell any vehicles that can use gas. All pick-up trucks, SUV's, 18 wheelers, motor homes, buses, and other large vehicles must all be sold as hybrids. Put people to work laying out the new power grid. Put people to work engineering the new technologies for the vehicles. Put people to work finding out ways to supply the new power needed, without the use of coal and fossil fuels.

Government should keep its hands out of what businesses can and cannot make or sell (obviously within reason, hence why safety standards exist).  There's no reason to enact such a law.  Whatever oil we hypothetically didn't use would just be used up by the rest of the world.  Especially the developing countries that use up more oil as they improve their infrastructure and more people start using cars.  You'd be hurting businesses by limiting their product lines and forcing them to invest in this technology, and consumers by limiting their choice.  That's not something government should force. 

As far as I'm concerned, hydrogen is the way to go for the cars of the future.  It costs as much as oil does now, is the most abundant anything in the universe, saves the environment, and can only find more productive ways of processing it into fuel from here. 

Now as for Exxon, we'd just need to see more information.  I'm curious to see how they're doing compared to companies like BP/Marathon/Shell/etc. and whether they're seeing the same kinds of increases or not.  It does seem awfully high, but I obviously don't have a problem with companies making a profit. 

[Scheavo]

Solar and wind can be added to our existing land structure, and it's much more spread out, less centralized. The fact that people can buy solar panels, and see a return on their investment within their lifetime, shows you that solar panels are obviously enough to power a home, and is economically viable. Furthermore, there are some ingenious methods of storing energy at night, when we don't need them. Natural batteries, pumping water up hill, making a huge flywheel, etc. These improve the viability of man green options becuase you can store them, en masse, for use on demand.

The fact that people can see an ROI "within their lifetime" is precisely why it is not viable. An amortization over a lifetime or even a decade is not something you are going to convince average joe to agree to. Renewable energy sources will always have an uphill battle.

So your argument is basically that becuase something takes a long time to pay off, it's not worth doing? Or that it make's it not viable? Because that's just plain silly.