MSNBC.com (AP)-

 

HOUSTON - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted the largest annual profit by a U.S. company ? $40.6 billion ? on Friday as the world?s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from historic crude prices at the end of the year.

 

Exxon also set a U.S. record for the biggest quarterly profit, posting net income of $11.7 billion for the final three months of 2007, beating its own mark of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005.

 

The previous record for annual profit was $39.5 billion, which Exxon Mobil had in 2006.

 

The eye-popping results weren?t a surprise given record prices for a barrel of oil at the end of 2007. For much of the fourth quarter, they hovered around $90 a barrel, more than 50 percent higher than a year ago.

 

Crude prices reached an all-time trading high of $100.09 on Jan. 3 but have fallen about 10 percent since then.

 

The record profit for the October-December period amounted to $2.13 a share versus $1.76 a share in 2006. Year-ago net income was $10.25 billion.

 

Also extraordinary was Exxon Mobil?s revenue, which rose 30 percent in the fourth quarter to $116.6 billion from $90 billion a year ago. For the year, sales rose to $404.5 billion ? the most ever for the Irving, Texas-based company ? from $377.64 billion in 2006.

 

In addition to benefiting from higher commodity prices, the company said its results were evidence of a well-run, globally diverse operation that?s investing billions to find more energy supplies. It noted that its capital and exploration spending amounted to nearly $21 billion last year, up 5 percent from 2006.

 

Exxon Mobil produces about 3 percent of the world?s oil.

 

Its shares fell 13 cents to $86.27 in afternoon trading after rising as high as $87.86 earlier in the session. The shares have traded in a 52-week range of $69.02 to $95.27.

 

Higher commodity prices in the quarter were clearly evident from earnings at Exxon Mobil?s exploration and production arm, known as the upstream. Income rose 32 percent to $8.2 billion from $6.2 billion a year ago.

 

On an oil-equivalent basis, production increased nearly 1 percent from the fourth quarter of 2006, driven by higher demand for natural gas in Europe. Excluding the expropriation of its Venezuelan assets last year, divestments and other factors, production rose nearly 3 percent.

 

Refining and marketing, or downstream, earnings were $2.3 billion, up from nearly 2 billion in the year-ago quarter, as improved refining operations offset lower U.S. refining margins.

 

In the U.S., downstream earnings were off sharply from a year ago ? $622 million in the most-recent quarter versus $945 million in 2006.

 

Refining margins ? the difference between the cost of crude and what the company makes on refined products such as gasoline ? have been squeezed in recent months as spiking oil prices outpaced increases in gasoline prices and other refined products.

 

Already, ConocoPhillips has said record oil prices at the end of 2007 helped it post a 37 percent increase in fourth-quarter profit, even as it produced less crude and natural gas than a year earlier. Its quarterly net income rose to $4.37 billion versus $3.2 billion a year earlier.

 

ConocoPhillips is the nation?s third-largest integrated oil company behind Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp.

 

Chevron reported separately Friday that its profit rose 29 percent in the fourth quarter, as surging prices for crude oil offset weak results from its refining business. It earned $4.88 billion, or $2.32 per share, from $3.77 billion, or $1.74 per share, a year earlier. Revenue rose 29 percent to $61.41 billion from $47.75 billion.

 

On Thursday, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Europe?s largest oil company, posted a 60 percent gain in fourth-quarter profit to $8.47 billion on asset sales and higher oil prices. Shell said full-year net profit was a company record $31.3 billion, up 23 percent from the prior year.

 

Link

And yet they are still getting tax breaks. :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

i wonder how much of that money ol' W. got?...id be willing to bet...quite a bit...after all...global warming and dinosaurs are a myth

FREE ENTERPRISE, YOU BUNCH OF COMMIES! :mischief :mischief

FREE ENTERPRISE, YOU BUNCH OF COMMIES! :mischief :mischief

 

wrong, companies posting raises together at the same time on purpose when they are making record profits = counter of the free market

and there will be no more oil in 10 years. They are only screwing themselves in the long run.

and there will be no more oil in 10 years. They are only screwing themselves in the long run.

For the sake of humanity it better be more than 10 years... :confused

and there will be no more oil in 10 years. They are only screwing themselves in the long run.

Far from the truth on both accounts.

 

Oil companies have invested heavily in alternate energy sources so when the time comes and the technology is made available, they will still be turning profits. Much of the meaningful research is being conducted in the private sector.

the technology is available today...hell...we could have had electric cars ten years ago...but oil companies, car companies and our government all killed the electric car...

 

if people put solar pannels on their roof, they could save over half on their electric bill over the next 25 years

 

its been shown that the amount of sunlight that hits the earth in 1 day could power the world's energy needs for up to year...

 

the technology is there...unfortunetly so are the lobbyists to keep that technology on the sidelines while we continue our search for every last drop of oil this planet has to offer

FREE ENTERPRISE, YOU BUNCH OF COMMIES! :mischief :mischief

 

wrong, companies posting raises together at the same time on purpose when they are making record profits = counter of the free market

 

 

*gives Fishfan79 a sarcasm detector*

Eventually we'll get solar to the point where it is cost-effective and efficient, but it's not quite there yet.

I would be all for nuclear if it wasn't for the waste and the security issues.

I would be all for nuclear if it wasn't for the waste and the security issues.

 

Very true. Wasn't the Indian Point nuclear plant an original 9/11 target, but the planners rejected it b/c they thought there were missiles defending it?

and there will be no more oil in 10 years. They are only screwing themselves in the long run.

Far from the truth on both accounts.

 

Oil companies have invested heavily in alternate energy sources so when the time comes and the technology is made available, they will still be turning profits. Much of the meaningful research is being conducted in the private sector.

the technology is available today...hell...we could have had electric cars ten years ago...but oil companies, car companies and our government all killed the electric car...

 

if people put solar pannels on their roof, they could save over half on their electric bill over the next 25 years

 

its been shown that the amount of sunlight that hits the earth in 1 day could power the world's energy needs for up to year...

 

the technology is there...unfortunetly so are the lobbyists to keep that technology on the sidelines while we continue our search for every last drop of oil this planet has to offer

 

not only do we have other ways they are reasonable economically.

 

Hyrdogen Fuel. Shell is starting to add one hydrogen pump to each gas station, and Chrysler sells hydrogen fuel cars for around 23,000 and they get just as much mileage as gasoline. The problem is the oil companies have to much control to really do anything.

 

Hell NASA has been usign hydrogen fuel since the 80's its just big business has the control over us.

 

And I did exagerate about the time left of fuel, but most estimates are 20-25 years and that by then gas will be around 10-15 dollars a gallon.

what we really need to lower the prices is fix our dollar. We need to control inflation and we need to stop recession.

 

 

I am sure at current consumption we have along time, but lets see what happens in India and China and other places where the car takes over and the bike goes goodbye.

 

 

Back to the dollar, in the late 80's early 90's when gas was around the dollar mark, is what we should aim for. Gold has stayed at about the same price since that time, very little change, but the value of the dollar has gone down by almost 50%. We need to control out creation of money and we need to control the worth of the dollar. If we fix our dollar and gas goes down to even 1.75-2.00 people will much happier and it will be much less scary than it is.

 

 

People also forget we can cut consumption in half by just lower the speed on high ways and reinforcing the mileage on cars. When Nixon lowered the speedlimit from 65 down to 55 on most highways and made car emissions go up gas/oil consumption went down by 30% in 2 years. Then the 90's came and the dollar was doing well gas was cheap so we put speedlimits back to 65 and we started coming out with SUV's and later Hummers which totally went in reverse of the high mileage ideas. I know it would suck to have all speedlimits drop to 55(still go 65 and not 75) but it would help and control consumption.

 

 

HELL we could even do what CA did after the Enron lies/scares offices can just shut off all the lights and computers at night and lower energy consumption by 20-25%. If all companies did that in the US and houses tried to do the same we could be in a lot better shape.

Penguino is pretty much spot on. These oil companies know oil runs out and they're using some of their massive profits to help their companies be profitable once oil is no longer the only resource left. In the meantime though, they're racking in huge profits, because they can.

Penguino is pretty much spot on. These oil companies know oil runs out and they're using some of their massive profits to help their companies be profitable once oil is no longer the only resource left. In the meantime though, they're racking in huge profits, because they can.

One problem that could be huge in the future is the unwillingness of the oil companies to transfer over to next generation fuel technology (whatever kind) until it is too late. That's certainly a fear I have. They have very little incentive right now to do anything except sit on the technology.

Penguino is pretty much spot on. These oil companies know oil runs out and they're using some of their massive profits to help their companies be profitable once oil is no longer the only resource left. In the meantime though, they're racking in huge profits, because they can.

One problem that could be huge in the future is the unwillingness of the oil companies to transfer over to next generation fuel technology (whatever kind) until it is too late. That's certainly a fear I have. They have very little incentive right now to do anything except sit on the technology.

 

Examples of being last or holding back is always evident in the US. We had the technology for alternate fuel and sell it off, we have the technology for hybrids and sell them off. Then we have to pay top dollar from foreign competitors to get these cars, concepts, theories, practices etc. back. I think we know what we need and need to do it more. Chrysler and Shell have made the push, now others need to get on.

FREE ENTERPRISE, YOU BUNCH OF COMMIES! :mischief :mischief

 

wrong, companies posting raises together at the same time on purpose when they are making record profits = counter of the free market

 

 

*gives Fishfan79 a sarcasm detector*

 

 

damn batteries

 

Durcell's dont run forever I guess, where is that rabbit gonna shoot him and steal those batteries

They will switch over when the market deems it to be the right point in time. That will likely happen long before our reserves are even close to running out. They might be sitting on a lot of patents, but nevertheless there is no ideal solution. Ethanol/biodiesel are completely impractical and yet we still subsidize them. That is a pretty solid indicator of the lack of readiness the American public has toward alternate energy sources. Personally I think the public will be completely apathetic until the market proves the worth of the alternate sources through both cost and technological superiority. We aren't there. People still are making conscious decisions to buy minivans and massive SUVs for a couple, a kid, and a dog. This is the choice of the consumer.

 

 

However, ultimately, the entity that should receive the vast majority of the blame is neither the consumer nor the oil company. It is our strong federal government.

-The government is reducing the dollar to nothing. While this creates the business cycle, the price of energy goes up in US dollars disproportionately compared to the worth of the Euro which is gradually taking over. The middle class is suffering as it is and the higher energy prices through inflation is just creating an extra burden.

-Our interventionalist foreign policy is causing too much turmoil in the Middle East that is reducing the supply (note this does not refer to the volume of oil beneath the ground). It is no coincidence that the price of unit oil has increased substantially since Bush sent our troops into the region.

-Failure to acknowledge property rights. Private companies have proven consistently to be more efficient in refining the crude oil which increases the supply. Unfortunately the state controls most of the oil fields and do a terrible job of managing them.

-High energy taxes. I already mentioned this. The US has placed perhaps more tax layers upon petrol than any other major industrialized nation in the world. This solution is most defintely not government regulation in response to the profits. However, I do not feel oil should be given special consideration in tax breaks. All businesses should be treated equally.

-Government regulation upon building no refineries. Construction of new refineries has ceased dramatically over the last couple of decades due to government intervention. This diminishes the supply and prices of petrol go up.

-Environmental regulations. While Alaska is not worth the effort, the US government needs to be more open to tapping reserves on our soil. The shale in the Rocky Mountains might be promising along with any other reserves that might spring up over the next century. Construct nuclear reactors. They are clean and emit considerable sums of energy. This lessens the need for natural gas and coal and also decreases our dependency upon overseas oil.

 

 

 

There's probably more I'm leaving out, but in short, our government is the main enemy right now that should receive most of the blame. Unfortunately none of the leading candidates in the race right now are likely to improve the situation.

 

One thing I agree about Ethanol is the fact that it is not practical. We would have to plant all our unused land with corn and use it strictly for ethanol fuel and it wouldn't even reach half the production of what we currently use.

 

 

I think we could use things like nuclear power, hyrdo fuel cells, solar power etc. I know we have to worry about global warming we know what is good and bad, but right now I think we need to think about practical sustainability also.

As a society, we can't rely on the market to tell us when it is time to start switching over. I know you think that global warming is a fairytale and that we can afford to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary, but it's just irresponsible to wait until Florida is underwater to start changing our ways. There are plenty of business benefits to switching away from fossil fuels as soon as we can (or when it is possible, which appears to be coming soon).

 

I have to disagree that we need to lower environmental regulations in order to take advantage of potential sources of oil that are still available on US soil. It is just too difficult to access the majority of these sources without spending huge amounts of cash, not to mention the possibility for more enviromental damage. We're better off spending the money on alternative sources, either research or implementation.

 

I also disagree that the federal government's regulation is what is causing the dollar to weaken. Bad foreign and monetary policy are more likely the culprit. It doesn't help when the government was the last organization in the country to admit that the economy was slowing.

As a society, we can't rely on the market to tell us when it is time to start switching over. I know you think that global warming is a fairytale and that we can afford to ignore all of the evidence to the contrary, but it's just irresponsible to wait until Florida is underwater to start changing our ways. There are plenty of business benefits to switching away from fossil fuels as soon as we can (or when it is possible, which appears to be coming soon).

 

I have to disagree that we need to lower environmental regulations in order to take advantage of potential sources of oil that are still available on US soil. It is just too difficult to access the majority of these sources without spending huge amounts of cash, not to mention the possibility for more enviromental damage. We're better off spending the money on alternative sources, either research or implementation.

 

I also disagree that the federal government's regulation is what is causing the dollar to weaken. Bad foreign and monetary policy are more likely the culprit. It doesn't help when the government was the last organization in the country to admit that the economy was slowing.

Are you replying to me? Because I agree with what you are saying and I think the big business/government control that they sway off each other and someone needs to step up. Companies like Chrysler and Shell are the ones to finally start the trend and take it serious.

I agree that ethanol is a problem, and funding of it should be stopped. However, I would prefer not to build more nuke plants unless it is going to take decades to create a viable alternative to power that doesn't require fossil fuels.

and there will be no more oil in 10 years. They are only screwing themselves in the long run.

Far from the truth on both accounts.

 

Oil companies have invested heavily in alternate energy sources so when the time comes and the technology is made available, they will still be turning profits. Much of the meaningful research is being conducted in the private sector.

 

Technology is available NOW!!! Oil companies are making mad profits so they will milk the cow dry.

If you are truly concerned about human induced climate change then you would be supporting nuclear power. Demand on fossil fuels has increased because of India and China. Much of the carbon dioxide emissions are coming from countries outside of our borders. Inside our borders we are using coal and natural gas as our primary sources of electricity in serving our industrial, commercial, and residential power grids. By simply going nuclear, much of those dread CO2 emissions would be cut down. Thus, if environmentalists see no need to budge on nuclear then I see no need to consider emission-less cars a dire need at this point in time since a more practical solution already exists. Of course, environmentalists also frown upon both wind and water power because they kill birds and the reservoirs release potent greenhouse gases.

 

 

Ya thats practical.

 

That's beyond laughable.

 

 

Here are 10 reaons why its laughable:

 

Currently we draw electric power from about 400 nuclear plants worldwide. Nuclear proponents say we would have to scale up to around 17,000 nuclear plants to offset enough fossil fuels to begin making a dent in climate change. This isn't possible ? neither are 2,500 or 3,000 more nuclear plants that many people frightened about climate change suggest. Here's why:

 

1) Nuclear waste ?The waste from nuclear power plants will be toxic for humans for more than 100,000 years. It's untenable now to secure and store all of the waste from the plants that exist. To scale up to 2,500 or 3,000, let alone 17,000 plants is unthinkable. ?

 

2) Nuclear proliferation ? In discussing the nuclear proliferation issue, Al Gore said, "During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program." Iran and North Korea are reminding us of this every day. We can't develop a domestic nuclear energy program without confronting proliferation in other countries. ?

 

3) National Security ? Nuclear reactors represent a clear national security risk, and an attractive target for terrorists. In researching the security around nuclear power plants, Robert Kennedy, Jr. found that there are at least eight relatively easy ways to cause a major meltdown at a nuclear power plant. ?

 

4) Accidents ? Forget terrorism for a moment, and remember that mere accidents ? human error or natural disasters ? can wreak just as much havoc at a nuclear power plant site. The Chernobyl disaster forced the evacuation and resettlement of nearly 400,000 people, without thousands poisoned by radiation. ?

 

5) Cancer ? There are growing concerns that living near nuclear plants increases the risk for childhood leukemia and other forms of cancer ? even when a plant has an accident-free track record. One Texas study found increased cancer rates in north central Texas since the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant was established in 1990, and a recent German study found childhood leukemia clusters near several nuclear power sites in Europe. ?

 

6) Not enough sites ? Scaling up to 17,000 ? or 2,500 or 3,000 -- nuclear plants isn't possible simply due to the limitation of feasible sites. Nuclear plants need to be located near a source of water for cooling, and there aren't enough locations in the world that are safe from droughts, flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes, or other potential disasters that could trigger a nuclear accident. Over 24 nuclear plants are at risk of needing to be shut down this year because of the drought in the Southeast. No water, no nuclear power. ?

 

7) Not enough uranium ? Even if we could find enough feasible sites for a new generation of nuclear plants, we're running out of the uranium necessary to power them. Scientists in both the US and UK have shown that if the current level of nuclear power were expanded to provide all the world's electricity, our uranium would be depleted in less than ten years. ?

 

8) Costs ? Some types of energy production, such as solar power, experience decreasing costs to scale. Like computers and cell phones, when you make more solar panels, costs come down. Nuclear power, however, will experience increasing costs to scale. Due to dwindling sites and uranium resources, each successive new nuclear power plant will only see its costs rise, with taxpayers and consumers ultimately paying the price. ?

 

9) Private sector unwilling to finance ? Due to all of the above, the private sector has largely chosen to take a pass on the financial risks of nuclear power, which is what led the industry to seek taxpayer loan guarantees from Congress in the first place. ?

 

And finally, even if all of the above strikes against nuclear power didn't exist, nuclear power still can't be a climate solution because there is ?

 

10) No time ? Even if nuclear waste, proliferation, national security, accidents, cancer and other dangers of uranium mining and transport, lack of sites, increasing costs, and a private sector unwilling to insure and finance the projects weren't enough to put an end to the debate of nuclear power as a solution for climate change, the final nail in nuclear's coffin is time. We have the next ten years to mount a global effort against climate change. It simply isn't possible to build 17,000 ? or 2,500 or 17 for that matter ? in ten years. ?

Just because the investment in commodities is going up now certainly doesn't mean that it was going on before. Oil companies were still raking in insane profits when the economy was doing much better.

 

Considering how much the price of oil tends to move when there is a hint of problems in either the Middle East, Africa, or Venezuela, I would be willing to bet that the political situation has a lot more impact on the market than heavier investment in oil.