All Hank, all the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Retail meaning, the guy at the gas station sells the fully refined product at $.02/gallon more than he pays for it?

I am more interested in the interim markups. I mean, a lot of shit seems to go on from the point the gunk that comes out of the ground and the point it's pumped into your car. It's not like the retailers are buying crude.

ETA here's the first paragraph of the chairman's statement on estimated 1st Q earnings from ExxonMobile:

ExxonMobil's Chairman Rex W. Tillerson Commented:

ExxonMobil's first quarter earnings excluding special items, were $8,400 million, up 14% from first quarter 2005. Higher crude oil and natural gas realizations and improved marketing margins were partly offset by lower chemical margins. Net income for the first quarter was up 7% from 2005.


Off their website.

What's an improved marketing margin?

EATA and I need to find out what "upstream" means, and "downstream":

"Upstream earnings were $6,383 million, up $1,329 million from the first quarter of 2005. Earnings from U.S. Upstream operations were $1,280 million, $73 million lower than the first quarter of 2005. The combination of a litigation item and higher tax expenses reduced results by over 4 cents per share. Non-U.S. Upstream earnings were $5,103 million, up $1,402 million from 2005. Higher realizations were partly offset by negative foreign exchange impacts."

"Downstream earnings excluding special items, were $1,271 million, up $128 million from the first quarter 2005, primarily due to higher marketing margins, improved refining operations and positive foreign exchange effects. Petroleum product sales were 7,865 kbd, 364 kbd lower than last year's first quarter, primarily due to lower refining throughput and divestments.

"U.S. Downstream earnings were $679 million, up $34 million. Non-U.S. Downstream earnings of $592 million were $94 million higher than the first quarter of 2005. "

upstream is from the ground to the refinery (i.e., crude oil); downstream is from the refinery to the consumer (i.e., gasoline, heating oil, chemicals, etc.)

so, nearly 80% of their earnings came from crude oil, natural gas, etc. development.

And, before you ask, they account properly between the two. that is, they set internal transfer prices equal to the market price for the relevant product. (i.e., when exxonmobil sells its own crude to its own refinery, they sell it at the market price for that type of crude oil) they have an incentive to do that for determining what of their operations are more/less profitable, and where to improve

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I suppose I need to review why ExxonMobil can't undersell OPEC on crude.

because the articles of incorporation make it a for-profit venture, not a charitable organization.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
because the articles of incorporation make it a for-profit venture, not a charitable organization.

It seems like they would want to increase market share, or whatever. How are they not part of a cartel if they set their prices based on what OPEC says?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like they would want to increase market share, or whatever. How are they not part of a cartel if they set their prices based on what OPEC says?

What is Exxon's profit per dollar of sales averaged over, say, a five-year span? Seems like the oil companies do well every few years or so when the price spikes. In other years, there profit tends to be pretty modest.

[Shape Shifter]

Boy, Clinton really fucked things up, didn't he?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What is Exxon's profit per dollar of sales averaged over, say, a five-year span? Seems like the oil companies do well every few years or so when the price spikes. In other years, there profit tends to be pretty modest.

Are you fighting with W to suck the dicks of the oil companies?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It seems like they would want to increase market share, or whatever. How are they not part of a cartel if they set their prices based on what OPEC says?

if Safeway sets the prices of lettuce to be, say, $1, and Kroger is aware of that, and sets the price of its lettuce at $1, instead of 99c, that is not unlawful or a violation of the antitrust laws.

If OPEC effectively sets the world price of oil, and Exxon sells at that price too, they're not part of the cartel. Now, this isn't how things operate in the real world. In the real world, no one sets price for oil, they supply a quantity. OPEC keeps the price high by agreeing to limit quantities. Exxon as a result supplies *more* not less oil as a result than they would in the absence of the cartel because they can get a higher price for it than without the cartel.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are you fighting with W to suck the dicks of the oil companies?

What can I say? I like butter and garlic.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
Translation: I am crying fat, hot, salty tears of burning shame right now. Boo. hoo. boohoohoo.

Whose tears are you callin' fat?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
if Safeway sets the prices of lettuce to be, say, $1, and Kroger is aware of that, and sets the price of its lettuce at $1, instead of 99c, that is not unlawful or a violation of the antitrust laws.

If OPEC effectively sets the world price of oil, and Exxon sells at that price too, they're not part of the cartel. Now, this isn't how things operate in the real world. In the real world, no one sets price for oil, they supply a quantity. OPEC keeps the price high by agreeing to limit quantities. Exxon as a result supplies *more* not less oil as a result than they would in the absence of the cartel because they can get a higher price for it than without the cartel.

And, of course, Kroger will only reduce the price if it feels it can resell more lettuce that way, or if it is throwing away lettuce instead of selling it. In other words, as fringe says, "increase market share."

Exxon is selling as much oil as it can pump, as is everyone else. So no one has much incentive to cut prices. The only incentive is with the holders of the hugest reserves and who expect to be selling lots of oil many years from now -- mainly Saudi Arabia -- and the incentive is to prevent prices from going SO high that people actually start caring about effiency and alternative energy sources.

But even Saudi is pumping at pretty close to capacity, which limits its ability to reduce the market price.

I have no great concern about oil industry profits, or about gas prices. I have a great concern about tax breaks for oil companies, which have been increased over the past year and which were ludicrous then and more so now.

And, of course, I have concern about the Admin's view -- one it may now, perhaps, be regretting -- that energy efficiency (which Cheney derisively calls "conservation") is merely a "personal virtue" and not any appropriate part of an energy policy.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter



Boy, Clinton really fucked things up, didn't he?

Well, it's his fault we had to invade Iraq, because he didn't prevent the Taliban from hosting al Qaeda.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What is Exxon's profit per dollar of sales averaged over, say, a five-year span? Seems like the oil companies do well every few years or so when the price spikes. In other years, there profit tends to be pretty modest.

That sensible retort to the shrill lunatics screaming for the first born of the oil execs is unfortunately Page 3 news, if news at all.

Why explain the economics of the industry when you can incite a nasty debate on businesses screwing people? Emotion is sewww much more interesting than, like, facts, doncha think?

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Well, it's his fault we had to invade Iraq, because he didn't prevent the Taliban from hosting al Qaeda.

Exactly

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Exactly

What's frightening is that you actually see a connection.


NB: It's also Clinton's fault that we had to invade Iraq because he made Saddam abandon his WMD programs.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
What's frightening is that you actually see a connection.


NB: It's also Clinton's fault that we had to invade Iraq because he made Saddam abandon his WMD programs.

Nah, that was #41 for not finishing the job.

Kind of like how I blame Truman for not taking care of China when he had the chance.