G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies? Only 26.2% profit in 2004?

[Smee]

Oh yes! While the price of crude was skyrocketing, each and every increase was instantly accounted for in the price of a gallon of gas. Since they were paying more they had to hedge their income to assure themselves that they would be able to recoup the cost of the oil they were speculating on.

Now . . . Crude prices have dropped from 145.85 (gas 3.85 9/10 here) to 123.44 a barrel. An 16% decrease in their cost of goods.

Has anyone seen an 16% drop in a gallon of gas or diesel?

Has anyone seen a 10% drop in gas prices?

Has anyone seen a 5% drop in gas prices?

The price here went down 8 cents per gallon.

That is a whopping 2%!!! I'm so excited I wet myself!!!

If the price can go up so quickly, based on "cost of future deliveries" --- we have already paid for this "high price" fuel that is in transit --- why can't it go down as quickly?

G R E E D ! ! !

<EDIT - math error. 16% not 18% drop.>

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Casull]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

Oh yes! While the price of crude was skyrocketing, each and every increase was instantly accounted for in the price of a gallon of gas. Since they were paying more they had to hedge their income to assure themselves that they would be able to recoup the cost of the oil they were speculating on.

Now . . . Crude prices have dropped from 145.85 (gas 3.85 9/10 here) to 123.44 a barrel. An 16% decrease in their cost of goods.

Has anyone seen an 16% drop in a gallon of gas or diesel?

Has anyone seen a 10% drop in gas prices?

Has anyone seen a 5% drop in gas prices?

The price here went down 8 cents per gallon.

That is a whopping 2%!!! I'm so excited I wet myself!!!

If the price can go up so quickly, based on "cost of future deliveries" --- we have already paid for this "high price" fuel that is in transit --- why can't it go down as quickly?

G R E E D ! ! !

Well, here it has gone down from $4.26 to $3.90, or about 8.5%.

 

[bakergeol]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

Oh yes! While the price of crude was skyrocketing, each and every increase was instantly accounted for in the price of a gallon of gas. Since they were paying more they had to hedge their income to assure themselves that they would be able to recoup the cost of the oil they were speculating on.

Now . . . Crude prices have dropped from 145.85 (gas 3.85 9/10 here) to 123.44 a barrel. An 16% decrease in their cost of goods.

Has anyone seen an 16% drop in a gallon of gas or diesel?

Has anyone seen a 10% drop in gas prices?

Has anyone seen a 5% drop in gas prices?

The price here went down 8 cents per gallon.

That is a whopping 2%!!! I'm so excited I wet myself!!!

If the price can go up so quickly, based on "cost of future deliveries" --- we have already paid for this "high price" fuel that is in transit --- why can't it go down as quickly?

G R E E D ! ! !

<EDIT - math error. 16% not 18% drop.>

Smee

What? You are paying $3.85 a gallon for gas? Oh! I forgot you are not
a member of BIG OIL like I am. As a member of Big OIL when I pull into the gas
station with my Lamborghini I pull out my BIG OIL/CAREL gas card. I get the $3.00 a gallon
discount you know.

"It's good to be the King"
George

 

[Montana Jim]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

I work for an aviation company... we refuel airplanes... lots of airplanes.

If we don't charge enough money to buy the next truckload of fuel, or in our case, several truckloads a day (tens of thousands of dollars a load), we might short ourselves the cash to make the purchase tomorrow if the price increases. A few cents a gallon makes a huge difference at the pump so to speak.

A competator might charge a lots less - but, will not be able to afford the next truckload if he's not carefull - and will be out of business fast! The poor guy running the gas station has to make a few cents profit just to break even because he never knows what tomorrow will bring!

Don't blame the guy who owns the pumps!

 

[Smee]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

Smee

What? You are paying $3.85 a gallon for gas? Oh! I forgot you are not
a member of BIG OIL like I am. As a member of Big OIL when I pull into the gas
station with my Lamborghini I pull out my BIG OIL/CAREL gas card. I get the $3.00 a gallon
discount you know.

"It's good to be the King"
George

Gee, sorry to bother ya.

Greed is greed. The increases were INSTANT when oil was going up. The increases were INSTANT when someone flipped a tanker in East Podunk. The increases were INSTANT when some Arab sneezed.

Please note that I understand that oil purchased today will not be processed for weeks. I understand the jacking up of the prices in preparation for the next price increase, although the increases FAR OUTSTRIPPED the increases in the cost of the oil.

Since the increases were INSTANT, why are folks at the pumps so excited to be getting a 2% or even a 5% price break when the oil companies are getting a 16%+ price break. With the billions in windfall profits that the oil companies are bringing in, well, they just want more.

Not sure if I should be upset at the GREED or STUPIDITY. A nation of sheep, a nation of sheep.

 

[Casull]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

Since the increases were INSTANT, why are folks at the pumps so excited to be getting a 2% or even a 5% price break when the oil companies are getting a 16%+ price break. With the billions in windfall profits that the oil companies are bringing in, well, they just want more.

I'm not sure how to answer you. After all, you have a mindset that 8% to 10% profits are "windfall profits". Also, remember that the oil companies' costs include more than just the per barrel price of raw oil. I am guessing that the costs of refining, shipping, distribution, etc. have not gone down. In any event, I have seen the price go down, if not immediately, then very quickly by over 8%. Would I like to see it go down faster and farther? Of course. But then again, I would like to see taxes go DOWN. I would also like to see the cost of automobiles, groceries, insurance, utilities, etc. go down as well. Unfortunately, just because I wish for such things does not mean those companies (or the government) is going to cut their profits. Why should the oil companies be any different?

 

[Smee]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

I'm not sure how to answer you. After all, you have a mindset that 8% to 10% profits are "windfall profits". Also, remember that the oil companies' costs include more than just the per barrel price of raw oil. I am guessing that the costs of refining, shipping, distribution, etc. have not gone down. In any event, I have seen the price go down, if not immediately, then very quickly by over 8%. Would I like to see it go down faster and farther? Of course. But then again, I would like to see taxes go DOWN. I would also like to see the cost of automobiles, groceries, insurance, utilities, etc. go down as well. Unfortunately, just because I wish for such things does not mean those companies (or the government) is going to cut their profits. Why should the oil companies be any different?

I'm not sure how to answer you. Profits are only 8-10%? I don't think so, but of course, we do want the fox to tell us how many chickens are in the hen house. Why? Simply because he has no reason to lie.

Just because big oil SAYS they are only making 8-10% means it must be true.

We can certainly rest comfortably knowing that these folks would never be so greedy as to "gouge" the American public.

By the way, I'm trying to sell some land located on a bluff on Grand Isle in South Louisiana. There's great fishing, plenty of sunshine, and the place NEVER floods. Only $500 and acre. You want some?

 

[Casull]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

I'm not sure how to answer you. Profits are only 8-10%? I don't think so, but of course, we do want the fox to tell us how many chickens are in the hen house. Why? Simply because he has no reason to lie.

Just because big oil SAYS they are only making 8-10% means it must be true.

Your childish attempt at sarcasm aside, just look it up. The information is out there for anyone who wants the truth, and not just to rant his "regular guy" urban myths.

 

[bakergeol]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

I'm not sure how to answer you. Profits are only 8-10%? I don't think so, but of course, we do want the fox to tell us how many chickens are in the hen house. Why? Simply because he has no reason to lie.

Just because big oil SAYS they are only making 8-10% means it must be true.

Your childish attempt at sarcasm aside, just look it up. The information is out there for anyone who wants the truth, and not just to rant his "regular guy" urban myths.

Casull

You know you are not going to change any minds about this regardless of what you post.

Have a chuckle and move on
George

 

[Casull]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

Casull

You know you are not going to change any minds about this regardless of what you post.

Have a chuckle and move on
George

George, I know you're probably right, but I keep hoping to find someone smart enough to consider facts. Oh well, I guess I just like beating my head against a wall.

 

[Smee]

Re: G-R-E-E-D-Y oil companies?

I'm not sure how to answer you. Profits are only 8-10%? I don't think so, but of course, we do want the fox to tell us how many chickens are in the hen house. Why? Simply because he has no reason to lie.

Just because big oil SAYS they are only making 8-10% means it must be true.

Your childish attempt at sarcasm aside, just look it up. The information is out there for anyone who wants the truth, and not just to rant his "regular guy" urban myths.

You, sir, like some others here only parrot what the oil companies tell you. You need to take a little time to

I N V E S T I G A T E

as to whether they are lying to you . . . again.

Only 8%-10%? Those poor babies!!!

After being accused of being a kook by you and Bakergeol, I think some facts might be in order rather than parroting anyone.

Let's take a look at Unocal's 10K they had to file with the SEC -- and we'll take the information DIRECTLY from the SEC's website. click here

When you get there, look under "ITEM 6 - SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA" and scroll down to the bottom of the spreadsheet.

Net earnings were as follows:

2004 - 26.20%
2003 - 17.69%
2002 - 10.30%
2001 - 21.10%
2000 - 31.00%

What are "Net Earnings"? It is another way of saying "NET PROFIT" (http://www.investorwords.com/3259/net_profit.html). In their own words, they admit to as much as 31% profits in 2000, when gas was about $1.30/gallon.

Do you think shareholders would allow "smaller profits" now? NO WAY!!

Wake up and do a little research before you accuse someone. Don't listen to the companies lines on television or on the radio. Look up the numbers. They don't lie.

No sarcasm, just fact.

2004 Exxon (from their 10k filing with the SEC)

$ 72,872,000,000 Total revenues
$ 12,021,000,000 Net Income
16.5% Net Income

16.5% is more than 8% . . . isn't it?

 

[Casull]

You, sir, like some others here only parrot what the oil companies tell you. You need to take a little time to

I N V E S T I G A T E

as to whether they are lying to you . . . again.

Only 8%-10%? Those poor babies!!!

After being accused of being a kook by you and Bakergeol, I think some facts might be in order rather than parroting anyone.

Don't know where your "facts" came from (your SEC "site" wouldn't come up), but here is something a little more current (than your 4 to 9 year old "facts"). In 2007, Chevron had revenues of $220.9 billion with net profits of $18.7 billion, or profit of 8.47%. Or even more currently, in the first quarter of 2008, Exxon had revenues of $116.85 billion with net profits of $10.89 billion, or profit of 9.32%. Hmmm, looks like 8% to 10% to me.

 

[bakergeol]

You, sir, like some others here only parrot what the oil companies tell you. You need to take a little time to

I N V E S T I G A T E

as to whether they are lying to you . . . again.

Only 8%-10%? Those poor babies!!!

After being accused of being a kook by you and Bakergeol, I think some facts might be in order rather than parroting anyone.

Don't know where your "facts" came from (your SEC "site" wouldn't come up), but here is something a little more current (than your 4 to 9 year old "facts"). In 2007, Chevron had revenues of $220.9 billion with net profits of $18.7 billion, or profit of 8.47%. Or even more currently, in the first quarter of 2008, Exxon had revenues of $116.85 billion with net profits of $10.89 billion, or profit of 9.32%. Hmmm, looks like 8% to 10% to me.

I am sorry Casull I could not resist once my aviator was tossed around. You are of course correct.
Folks if you don't think Casull's data is correct here is the SEC document on which his numbers are based.
I don't think Chevron has ever broke the two digit profit margin.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/sec/sec.filings.html?symb=CVX&sequenceid=1&guid=5825368

Folks if you want to see what a company made last year- just go to the SEC filing and not some left wing blog.

INVESTIGATE!
George

 

[Smee]

Don't know where your "facts" came from (your SEC "site" wouldn't come up), but here is something a little more current (than your 4 to 9 year old "facts"). In 2007, Chevron had revenues of $220.9 billion with net profits of $18.7 billion, or profit of 8.47%. Or even more currently, in the first quarter of 2008, Exxon had revenues of $116.85 billion with net profits of $10.89 billion, or profit of 9.32%. Hmmm, looks like 8% to 10% to me.

My SEC site is the "Securities and Exchange Commission" site.

Don't know how it got converted into a link to a nonexistant page at Tnet , but here it is in black and white:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716039/000119312505044680/d10k.htm#toc

I am sorry Casull I could not resist once my aviator was tossed around. You are of course correct.
Folks if you don't think Casull's data is correct here is the SEC document on which his numbers are based.
I don't think Chevron has ever broke the two digit profit margin.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/sec/sec.filings.html?symb=CVX&sequenceid=1&guid=5825368

Folks if you want to see what a company made last year- just go to the SEC filing and not some left wing blog.

INVESTIGATE!
George

Talk about LEFT WING? You choose the CNN (Clinton News Network) over the SEC filings?

Sounds kinda Kooky to me.

The reason the numbers are from 4 years back is those are the most recent ones you can find there. Have at it. Find me the numbers from the SEC filings to back up your claims, not some leftist bunch at CNN after they have put their spin on things. They can't even question outright lies made by an Exxon rep on their live news show, how can you expect them to get things right. Besides, the left has been saying for years how we don't pay enough for fuel compared to the Europeans.

 

[Casull]

Sounds kinda Kooky to me.

The reason the numbers are from 4 years back is those are the most recent ones you can find there. Have at it. Find me the numbers from the SEC filings to back up your claims, not some leftist bunch at CNN after they have put their spin on things. They can't even question outright lies made by an Exxon rep on their live news show, how can you expect them to get things right.

Unfortunately Smee, you can't read an accounting statement. The numbers you have given are for shareholders' return on equity. Using the report you refer to provides the following:

2004 - Total revenues were $8.2 billion and net earnings were $1.2 billion or profit of 14.6%

2003 - Total revenues were $6.51 billion and net earnings were $640 MILLION or profit of 9.8%

2002 - Total revenues were $5.27 billion and net earnings were $330 MILLION or profit of 6.3%

2001 - Total revenues were $6.77 billion and net earnings were $610 MILLION or profit of 9.0%

2000 - Total revenues were $9.21 billion and net earnings were $760 MILLION or profit of 8.3%

So, over that five year period, the total revenues were $35.96 billion and net earnings were $3.54 billion or profit of 9.84%. Hmmmmmmm, looks like that is between 8% and 10%. Thank you for proving my point (even if you didn't really want to).

 

[bakergeol]

Don't know where your "facts" came from (your SEC "site" wouldn't come up), but here is something a little more current (than your 4 to 9 year old "facts"). In 2007, Chevron had revenues of $220.9 billion with net profits of $18.7 billion, or profit of 8.47%. Or even more currently, in the first quarter of 2008, Exxon had revenues of $116.85 billion with net profits of $10.89 billion, or profit of 9.32%. Hmmm, looks like 8% to 10% to me.

My SEC site is the "Securities and Exchange Commission" site.

Don't know how it got converted into a link to a nonexistant page at Tnet , but here it is in black and white:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/716039/000119312505044680/d10k.htm#toc

I am sorry Casull I could not resist once my aviator was tossed around. You are of course correct.
Folks if you don't think Casull's data is correct here is the SEC document on which his numbers are based.
I don't think Chevron has ever broke the two digit profit margin.

http://money.cnn.com/quote/sec/sec.filings.html?symb=CVX&sequenceid=1&guid=5825368

Folks if you want to see what a company made last year- just go to the SEC filing and not some left wing blog.

INVESTIGATE!
George

Talk about LEFT WING? You choose the CNN (Clinton News Network) over the SEC filings?

Sounds kinda Kooky to me.

The reason the numbers are from 4 years back is those are the most recent ones you can find there. Have at it. Find me the numbers from the SEC filings to back up your claims, not some leftist bunch at CNN after they have put their spin on things. They can't even question outright lies made by an Exxon rep on their live news show, how can you expect them to get things right. Besides, the left has been saying for years how we don't pay enough for fuel compared to the Europeans.

Bull Hockey- I gave you the SEC filing or can't you read?

"The reason the numbers are from 4 years back is those are the most recent ones you can find there"?

What the H*LL is this. Duhh!!! Unocal ceased operations as an independent company in 2005. That is why you can't find any filing later than 2005!!! So you have been ranting about a company that no longer exists

Casual has answered the profits of Unocal while it was in operation quite well!!!

George

 

[Smee]

Just more repeating of the from the oil companies.

There was no allegation about how Unocal is CURRENTLY doing anything. I didn't find any 10K filings on their (SEC's) website more recent than 2004 in that format. Maybe I typed in the wrong item in the search engine.

Your allegation was that BIG OIL only makes 8-10% profit. Your allegations were and are wrong.

Read the statements again. "NET EARNINGS", is the same thing as "NET PROFITS".

BOTH terms refer to the money left AFTER ALL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID.

Net is net, no matter how you want to dress it up. No matter how much you want to believe that you are being told the truth by big oil.

 

[Casull]

Your allegation was that BIG OIL only makes 8-10% profit. Your allegations were and are wrong.

Read the statements again. "NET EARNINGS", is the same thing as "NET PROFITS".

BOTH terms refer to the money left AFTER ALL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PAID.

Well, you have proved one thing . . . that you can't even admit when you're wrong (that or you just don't understand what you are reading). The "net earnings" that you are looking at in that SEC filing are under the category "Return on average stockholders' equity from". In other words, it is the percentage of return from net earnings on the stockholders' equity, NOT the percentage of net earnings as related to revenue (which is where the percentage of profit is determined). If you can't understand this, just leave it alone and don't continue to embarass yourself.

 

[Lasivian]

G R E E D ! ! !

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell.

Charge what the market can bear, why lower the price if people keep paying it?

 

[Casull]

G R E E D ! ! !

That's unrestrained capitalism in a nutshell.

Charge what the market can bear, why lower the price if people keep paying it?

9.85% profit is "unrestrained capitalism"? Your response is unrestrained liberalism (just ignore facts and attack "big business", "big oil", "big tobacco", etc. - just pick your "big"). Pathetic.