Exxon Mobil Posts Record Profits

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Minjin
As I always say when this topic comes up, if you truly believe that the oil companies are absolutely raping the consumer, then buy stock in those companies and share in it. The extra cost of gasoline is a pittance compared to a well chosen investment.

But it doesn't offset the extra cost of milk, beef, and damn near everything else that has ballooned in price as oil prices have soared. 90% of my problem isn't with what I am paying at the pump, it's what I am paying for everything else. I have a toddler. 6-8 mos ago when he started drinking milk, I could find a store brand gallon for about $2.90. Now it's $4.25. In a matter of months. And then these guys post record earnings??

BTW, not addressed to you, 'cos I don't have time to find the right post, but the problem here is that Exxon's Gross Margin has increased every year since 2004 (I believe it was up to 23% in 2006, up from 20%), and I was waiting for them to post their financials to see if it increased again in 2007.

I ran the math last year, and the margin increase was "only 3%", which translated to SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS OF EXTRA GROSS PROFIT IN 2006 alone. $7,000,000,000.

Last, to the guy who spit out the other hackneyed comeback "no one is forcing you to buy", see my comment above. Oil is the lynchpin of our economy. I submit that it is nearly impossible to not pay for it everyday. The only way would be to stop living, which isn't death, right away anyway. It's like a bottom up tax on everything.

And, even if it didn't permeate everything, find a practical substitute for it. Something that is as useful, as plentiful, and as available. (hint: it doesnt exist - but if it does and you know about it - rush to patent/market asap).

Oil is not a free market
Oil Co.'s are oligopies
Refined Oil is kept purposefully scarce to inflate prices (no new investment)
There is no true subsitute for oil
It is a slap in the face of every consumer in our society to continue to post record earnings based on increasing gross margins

/thread
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Speaking of marketing/advertising, this is a fantastic link on that. I havent watched it all yet though.

I will watch it sometime.

FWIW: If the above link is a not so subtle way of trying to imply that I am some socialist or liberal-commie based on either my s/n or opinions on this topic, you are 1/2 right.

My views on commodities that are essential for living are pretty socialist. Make all the money you can grab on other crap but when it comes to life and death items, greed should not be the determining factor. On the flip side, I am also a rabid rightie when it comes to other topics so it kinda balances itself out.

Also, the name is philosophically based and not politically based.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Specop 007

Speaking of marketing/advertising, this is a fantastic link on that. I havent watched it all yet though.

I will watch it sometime.

FWIW: If the above link is a not so subtle way of trying to imply that I am some socialist or liberal-commie based on either my s/n or opinions on this topic, you are 1/2 right.

My views on commodities that are essential for living are pretty socialist. Make all the money you can grab on other crap but when it comes to life and death items, greed should not be the determining factor. On the flip side, I am also a rabid rightie when it comes to other topics so it kinda balances itself out.

Also, the name is philosophically based and not politically based.

There were no hidden meanings or subtle things, simply a very informative link. It was free, take it for whats its worth. :)
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Net profit is not a statistic, its a hard number. 11 some billion in this case, for the quarter.

Let me ask you this, why does it bother you so damn much that a company is successful?
 

Auric

Diamond Member
Oct 11, 1999
9,591
2
71
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Yet your brilliantly independent obession with increasing gross margins neglects the fact that capital spending is also ever increasing which explains why profits are stagnant.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Now is net profit meaningless? All-in costs do not matter?

Do you think that dry-well costs do not matter? What about increased costs for ever-increasing difficulty for extraction and exploration? What about new technology R&D? What about increased transportation costs due to longer routes? What about regulatory pressures for new tech in shipping?

What about costs for new tech in distillation? Ethanol?


Yeah, gross profit is the *only* number that matters. Why don't you call the Exxon analyst at Goldman Sachs and tell him that. Let him know that nothing else matters but that, I am sure he'll start basing all research reports on his new-found knowledge!
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Now is net profit meaningless? All-in costs do not matter?

Do you think that dry-well costs do not matter? What about increased costs for ever-increasing difficulty for extraction and exploration? What about new technology R&D? What about increased transportation costs due to longer routes? What about regulatory pressures for new tech in shipping?

What about costs for new tech in distillation? Ethanol?


Yeah, gross profit is the *only* number that matters. Why don't you call the Exxon analyst at Goldman Sachs and tell him that. Let him know that nothing else matters but that, I am sure he'll start basing all research reports on his new-found knowledge!

Dry hole research?

EPIC FAIL. Please tell me you are not a CPA. If so, turn in your license.

Page 40, 2006 Exxon Annual Report. Line 5 under COSTS. "Exploration expenses, including dry holes"

Please, lay some more faux know-it-all attitude on me. Continue beinga stooge for these crooks.
 

rgwalt

Diamond Member
Apr 22, 2000
7,393
0
0
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Minjin
As I always say when this topic comes up, if you truly believe that the oil companies are absolutely raping the consumer, then buy stock in those companies and share in it. The extra cost of gasoline is a pittance compared to a well chosen investment.

But it doesn't offset the extra cost of milk, beef, and damn near everything else that has ballooned in price as oil prices have soared. 90% of my problem isn't with what I am paying at the pump, it's what I am paying for everything else. I have a toddler. 6-8 mos ago when he started drinking milk, I could find a store brand gallon for about $2.90. Now it's $4.25. In a matter of months. And then these guys post record earnings??

BTW, not addressed to you, 'cos I don't have time to find the right post, but the problem here is that Exxon's Gross Margin has increased every year since 2004 (I believe it was up to 23% in 2006, up from 20%), and I was waiting for them to post their financials to see if it increased again in 2007.

I ran the math last year, and the margin increase was "only 3%", which translated to SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS OF EXTRA GROSS PROFIT IN 2006 alone. $7,000,000,000.

Last, to the guy who spit out the other hackneyed comeback "no one is forcing you to buy", see my comment above. Oil is the lynchpin of our economy. I submit that it is nearly impossible to not pay for it everyday. The only way would be to stop living, which isn't death, right away anyway. It's like a bottom up tax on everything.

And, even if it didn't permeate everything, find a practical substitute for it. Something that is as useful, as plentiful, and as available. (hint: it doesnt exist - but if it does and you know about it - rush to patent/market asap).

Oil is not a free market
Oil Co.'s are oligopies
Refined Oil is kept purposefully scarce to inflate prices (no new investment)
There is no true subsitute for oil
It is a slap in the face of every consumer in our society to continue to post record earnings based on increasing gross margins

/thread

No new refineries are being built because of the extreme cost and environmental regulations around building them. BP proposed an expansion and re-tool to its refinery in Whiting, IN. The public outcry was enormous over increased discharge limits, which litterally amounted to drops of additional pollution in a bucket. Refineries across the country are expanding, but such projects take a significant amount of lead time to come on-line. Plus, the price of materials and labor are skyrocketing, eating into the bottom line.

Crude oil clears on a global market, but trades for US dollars. Part of the cause of high crude prices is the de-valuation of the US dollar. A company like BP, Exxon, Shell, Citgo, etc, pulls oil out of the ground all over the world, and sells it on an open market. Exxon might sell oil to Shell, who sells their oil to BP, who sells their oil back to Exxon. It doesn't matter if Exxon runs crude produced by Exxon, because as a company Exxon sells their products on a world market. For instance, much of the oil produced in the mid-East doesn't make it to the US... it ends up in Europe, India, China, and South East Asia. The US runs a lot of material produced in South and Central America, the Gulf, Alaska, and Canada. For people who live in California, Oregon, and Washington... Most of the gasoline you put in your cars is derived from ANS crude (alaska north slope), not from Saudi Arabia. The point is, it doesn't matter who produces the crude or where it comes from in terms of price. Crude is a global commodity. If we want to drive cars in the US, then US refiners have to buy it and have to compete for the resource in the global market.

Another reason crude is so expensive is because global supply hasn't kept pace with global demand. China and India are hungry for crude oil, and this drives the price up. This fact has created a situation where crude is somewhat overvalued, but that will correct itself in time. Meanwhile, petroleum producers like Exxon are raking in record profits. It won't last forever.

Part of the reason gasoline is expensive is because crude is expensive. However, what most people don't know is that refiners don't set the price of gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, etc. Commodities markets set these prices. These markets are funny things in the short term, but in the long term the prices are set by supply and demand. No one in BP or Exxon wakes up in the morning and decides what to sell gasoline for... they sell their product for what the market will pay them, and they buy crude on the open market for what it costs when it is put in the pipe or offloaded the from tanker. In some cases refiners lose money on products. For example, several weeks ago unleaded regular gasoline cost less per gallon than West Texas (WTI) crude oil on the Chicago commodities market. As a result, refiners generally lost money on gasoline in the Chicago market. They made money on other products, like diesel, jet, and fuel oil, so their net margins were likely still positive, depending on the refinery configuration. In another part of the country, the refiner Tosco announced they were dialing back rates at some of their refineries because of sagging profits. Their refineries were likely running expensive crude to primarily produce gasoline, and since the gasoline market is really soft right now, they can reduce supply in response. Eventually the market will pick back up and they will increase rates.

Time for a short history lesson... in the 1990's and early 2000's oil was at a very, very low price per barrel. It's lowest was around $12 a barrel. Companies like Exxon, Shell, and BP, which are "integrated" because they both produce an refine petroleum, were posting small profits. However, these companies are divided into "upstream" or production, and "downstream" or refining business. Refineries were doing well to make a profit on the products they sold just 10 years ago. It was costing them more to buy $20/barrel crude than it was to produce the gasoline and other products from the crude oil. This was a very lean time for the industry, and money was not invested into expanding production capacity. Why spend money to increase production when you can't sell material for a profit?

Fast forward a few years and the market has finally normalized. Supply didn't keep pace with increasing demand because refiners weren't spending money on capital projects to increase throughput when they were lucky to turn a profit. We found ourselves in a situation where demand outpaced supply, the price of refined products increased on the commodities market as a result, and now refiners are making good margins on the crude they are running. Now that the market has adjusted itself and outlooks are good, refiners want to spend money on adding capacity. Along with BP's expansion, Shell-Motiva is adding 325,000 barrels a day of capacity at their refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. At least a dozen other projects have been announced. It took refiners awhile to realize that the current margin environment isn't a fluke, it is here to stay in some capacity for awhile. The thing is that these projects take a long time to complete. Just because gas prices are high now doesn't mean a refinery can be thrown together over night, or even over the course of a year. It can take 5 or 6 years to build a facility and bring it on-line. Plus, the investment is massive. These companies want to make sure they can see a return on the investment.

The Chinese government sets the price of gasoline sold in the country. As a result, refiners there slow down rates to minimum when they can't make a profit. In turn, this creates nightmares for supply in China. Fuel shortages, rationing, etc. It is a house of cards that cannot be sustained in the long term.

Putting price controls on crude oil will simply not work. Every other country without price controls would have demand satisfied first, then the US second (with the exception of locally produced crude). Price controls refined products would result in the same effect in the US as in China. Petroleum producers would rake in profits from production, but refiners would suffer. Refineries would cut rates to a minimum if they weren't turning a profit on their products. Some of the small "marginal" refineries would simply shut down. I am not joking. Businesses doesn't stay afloat when selling products at a loss.

Profit controls could help stabilize the price of gasoline and other refined products if we were to link them directly to the price of a benchmark crude. The one problem is that different refineries have different "kits", so some refiners would still make more profit than others. In the long run, I think this would reduce the incentive for development and expansion. I don't incentive would be eliminated, but definitely reduced.

For people who say that supply is being throttled to artificially increase demand, I have one thing to say to you: Take off your tinfoil hats. There were several refinery issues across the country in late spring and early summer of last year. This made the supply situation very tight in some areas and drove prices through the roof. The refineries that were cut back on rates due to issues would have LOVED to be at full capacity, even if margins were reduced. The reason is that if the supply situation was relieved, the margins wouldn't drop enough to offset the profits from running at increased rates.

summer gasoline costs more than winter gasoline. Seriously, it does. Winter blends can have more light components, like isomerate and butane, blended into the fuel, thereby decreasing their cost. Summer grades are regulated to be much heavier (40% decrease in vapor pressure) as compared to winter grades. Low vapor pressure material generally costs the refinery more to produce, and there is less volume material produced. Plus, gasoline demand is far higher in the summer. Combine tight supply in the refinery with increased demand and you have increased prices.

Also, refineries have to take equipment out for maintenence and inspection periodically. Generally these turn arounds are scheduled in the fall and spring, so as not to impact gasoline season (summer) or fuel oil season (winter). But guess what, accidents happen. Sometimes turn arounds take longer than expected because issues are uncovered when the unit is opened up. Sometimes units catch on fire or spring a leak. Depending on the unit and the configuration, this could shut down the whole refinery or severly cripple it. When issues like these crop up, it can take a while to resolve them. It can keep a refinery at reduced rates for quite awhile.

Just keep all these things in mind before calling oil companies "criminals". They are capitalist entities functioning in a capatilist society. If you don't like paying so much at the pump, consider buy a more fuel efficient car the next time you go car shopping. Consider living closer to work, car pooling, or taking public transportation. As a society, we have grown too accustom to having the government step in when we aren't happy. In this case, the oil companies aren't doing anything wrong. They aren't fixing the price of oil and forcing us to buy it. They are selling crude on a global market, and selling refined products on national commodities markets. If a company doesn't make money on the product they produce, they dial back production. This shouldn't be a foreign concept. No one buys high and sells low on purpose.

R
 

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
I'd love to see what the big oil hate squad proposes in place of free market capitalism.

Nothing else works as well, period, and you've only got to open your blinkered, self-righteous, and indignant little eyes and look around at the many examples of 'EPIC FAIL', to quote the extremely enthusiastic gentlemen above me, where governments attempt to 'fix' these so-called 'problems' :p
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Originally posted by: JS80
10% profit margin - sounds reasonable to me.

look at their quarterly data. they have about a 9% profit margin. their profits are large only because they deal in very large volumes. and don't forget about the falling dollar. of course, if you think their profit is huge, you should ponder how much saudi aramco is making since they do at least 3 times the volume that exxon does.

for comparison, here are the profit margins for:

intel: 17%
microsoft: 28%
time warner: 9%

so, if anyone here wants exxon to lower prices below their 9% margin, would that same demand apply to microsoft or intel? if not, why not?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Dry hole research?

EPIC FAIL. Please tell me you are not a CPA. If so, turn in your license.

Page 40, 2006 Exxon Annual Report. Line 5 under COSTS. "Exploration expenses, including dry holes"

Please, lay some more faux know-it-all attitude on me. Continue beinga stooge for these crooks.

LOL! 4.25 hours off googling and that is all you can come up with? Do you even know how to read an annual report?

-edit-
Just re-read all of your rantings in this thread. It's clear you cannot comprehend an annual report.

OMG!!! but, but, but....the profits!!!!!
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Now is net profit meaningless? All-in costs do not matter?

Do you think that dry-well costs do not matter? What about increased costs for ever-increasing difficulty for extraction and exploration? What about new technology R&D? What about increased transportation costs due to longer routes? What about regulatory pressures for new tech in shipping?

What about costs for new tech in distillation? Ethanol?


Yeah, gross profit is the *only* number that matters. Why don't you call the Exxon analyst at Goldman Sachs and tell him that. Let him know that nothing else matters but that, I am sure he'll start basing all research reports on his new-found knowledge!

Dry hole research?

EPIC FAIL. Please tell me you are not a CPA. If so, turn in your license.

Page 40, 2006 Exxon Annual Report. Line 5 under COSTS. "Exploration expenses, including dry holes"

Please, lay some more faux know-it-all attitude on me. Continue beinga stooge for these crooks.

You havent been able to provide anything but emotional bullshit.

Give us hard numbers. What should Exxon be "allowed" to make as a profit, both as a percentage and as a dollar figure.
Why do you think the profits they have are "not fair".

You told another poster if hes a CPA to hand in his license, I challenge you to change your diaper and find your bottle because your crying like a little baby.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: jhu
Originally posted by: JS80
10% profit margin - sounds reasonable to me.

look at their quarterly data. they have about a 9% profit margin. their profits are large only because they deal in very large volumes. and don't forget about the falling dollar. of course, if you think their profit is huge, you should ponder how much saudi aramco is making since they do at least 3 times the volume that exxon does.

for comparison, here are the profit margins for:

intel: 17%
microsoft: 28%
time warner: 9%

so, if anyone here wants exxon to lower prices below their 9% margin, would that same demand apply to microsoft or intel? if not, why not?

That's the problem with people, they don't understand basic economics. I say AGAIN, look at Europe's prices for gasoline.

For some reason young people love to hate people fulfilling the American dream. Business is in the business to make money.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: dug777
I'd love to see what the big oil hate squad proposes in place of free market capitalism.

They would love to see nothing more than Hugo Chavez mandated government price controls on oil and other commodities ALA Venezuela leading to food shortage, food rationing, and a 22.5% inflation rate.
 

jhu

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
11,918
9
81
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Dry hole research?

EPIC FAIL. Please tell me you are not a CPA. If so, turn in your license.

Page 40, 2006 Exxon Annual Report. Line 5 under COSTS. "Exploration expenses, including dry holes"

Please, lay some more faux know-it-all attitude on me. Continue beinga stooge for these crooks.

as someone has said earlier, the easy to find and extract oil deposits have already been claimed. now these companies have to go after the deposits that aren't so easy to extract from or find new deposits. finding new deposits is about as much an art as a science. dry holes are a risk when looking for new deposits because if you don't actually look, how do you know if you have an oil deposit or a dry hole?
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: TheAdvocate
Originally posted by: Auric
A meager ten percent profit is forgivable when considering they are at least keeping a hundred thousand people employed and providing an essential commodity to the populace. Nevermind that it looks a lot like a socialist endeavor with merely a capitalist facade. Kudos, I say.

Yet another talking point regurgitation.

Net profit is a meaningless statistic. The issue here is gross margin.

Think for yourself.

Now is net profit meaningless? All-in costs do not matter?

Do you think that dry-well costs do not matter? What about increased costs for ever-increasing difficulty for extraction and exploration? What about new technology R&D? What about increased transportation costs due to longer routes? What about regulatory pressures for new tech in shipping?

What about costs for new tech in distillation? Ethanol?


Yeah, gross profit is the *only* number that matters. Why don't you call the Exxon analyst at Goldman Sachs and tell him that. Let him know that nothing else matters but that, I am sure he'll start basing all research reports on his new-found knowledge!

Dry hole research?

EPIC FAIL. Please tell me you are not a CPA. If so, turn in your license.

Page 40, 2006 Exxon Annual Report. Line 5 under COSTS. "Exploration expenses, including dry holes"

Please, lay some more faux know-it-all attitude on me. Continue beinga stooge for these crooks.

Ohhh, there you go sparky! "EPIC FAIL"? What the fluck is that? Some kinda slick new way of saying you "pwn"?

I am not a CPA, I am a CFA charterholder. NO, I didn't look at the annual reports. Yet, that's all you can come up with despite the any number of examples of post-gross costs I mentioned? What about increased costs for extraction of tapped fields? New extraction technologies can cost a lot. What about increased costs for drilling in exotic environments, such as deep wells or harsh climates? Increased costs for advanced drilling platforms?

All you got is dry holes that you searched for?

I am sure you'll come back with some really slick reply with "epic fail" in it somewhere. Yet, everybody else knows you are wrong and think that you have the attitude.

What about the other items? Did you check the footnotes? I am sure you have come up with more things to wittily rebut.

Hey, when you pass Lvl3 of the CFA exams, let me know. Perhaps then I can invite you into my bank and we can laugh at your inability to calculate ebitda and understand net margins are what matters with regards to profitability. Gross margin, or op margin, is good for checking basic things, but in certain areas it doesn't tell you crap about the overall business.

OMG, I can figure that profits based on Gross Margins make the most sense to cap profitability! Forget about everything else! There isn't tens of billions in other costs they have to account for! Who cares if 50% of their cost structure is variable COGS and 50% is Op and other above the line items!

Nope, Gross tells you *everything* about how profitable a company should be.

Wow, go back to high school business class sparky.

 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Homerboy
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Everyone loves a free market, until they think they're getting screwed then they want .gov intervention.

Not that our market is really free anymore, but it is what it is.

Thankfully, no one is forcing you to use oil. Which really makes all the bitching so amusing. Ultimately, you CHOOSE to pay the price they ask for the product they produce. They certainly dont force you to use it.

No I don't "choose". I don't use much gasoline AT ALL. $20 a week on the high end.
However I DO eat, drink and use my heat in my house. It costs the producers of my food more money to ship it to my grocery store because it costs more in the gas pumps for them. It costs the grocery store more to keep my milk cold because now their electric bill has gone up too.

ITS NOT JUST THE GAS PUMPS FOR MY MINIVAN!

And it costs the oil/gas companies more for a unit of oil. SHOCKING!

Tell you what, let's get the government involed so that the oil companies go out of business because of regulation and the inability of said regulations to quickly adapt to changing world prices.

Then you'll have no food, no nothing. brilliant! No gas because it isn't profitable for anybody to make it for you. Brilliant!

That won't happen if it is regulated properly just like we don't run out of power when the government properly regulates the power companies.

I wish I was as clueless as you, jesus life you be great. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Oil is a GLOBAL commodity. You regulate it to be unprofitable, they wont sell it here. Period. End of story.
Electric is different because, while regulated, they can still run at a profit and probably as much if not more then they may make by shipping it somewhere else.

Trust me, if YOU dont want to pay $95 per barrel of oil China damn well will. If your politician passes a law that no barrel of oil may be sold to America costing more the $75, we aint gonna have any oil being sold here.

You CANNOT limit profits in one area without doing the same in the other. How this most simple of concepts eludes you is truly beyond me.


I dont agree with that statement. If you told a company they could only make $20 billion per quarter, someone would fill that supply line.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: bctbct
I dont agree with that statement. If you told a company they could only make $20 billion per quarter, someone would fill that supply line.

who would that be when the supply is controlled? Supply and demand. Live it, learn it, love it.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: bctbct

I dont agree with that statement. If you told a company they could only make $20 billion per quarter, someone would fill that supply line.

I really dont understand it. How can I possibly explain it to you any better?

If you could make 20 billion a quarter selling here, or 40 billion a quarter selling over there, where would you sell?

I'm honestly afraid I'm going to have to resort to colors and coloring books to explain this very, very basic concept.... :confused:
 

bctbct

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2005
4,868
1
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: bctbct
I dont agree with that statement. If you told a company they could only make $20 billion per quarter, someone would fill that supply line.

who would that be when the supply is controlled? Supply and demand. Live it, learn it, love it.

You could let the russian mafia fill it for all I care, some company in the world would be content with those types of profits.

The amount of the profits is obscene, 10% may not seem like a very high profit margin, but other industries make less. GC construction probably averages 3-8% profits.

Maybe we should have low bid contracts to supply the US with fuel and get the companies to compete in the free market instead of conspiring with the WH to piss off half the world suppliers.