This doesn't make sense

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2619400
Why not reign in the federal government, they are far bigger than any oil company? I'm sorry I really believe in the free markets, ...
You say you believe in a free market but but it's OK for big oil to pay less tax than other companies? It's not free market if they receive federal subsidies that other similarly sized corporation do not receive.

 

[salty blues]

The politicians who are against drilling in Anwar and other places are only tring to appear enviro-concious. In reality they are just out for votes from the tree hugger constituency. I'll bet many of them don't even know all the facts concerning enviro-friendly driling techniques.
Also, I agree that the oil companies are making big bucks. The folks who work in the oil business are making good money. My son-in-law is one of them. He works overseas(Europe & Africa) offshore oil drilling. It is a dangerous job. He is providing a very good living for my daughter and my grand-kids.
When you slam the oil companies, you are slamming a lot of Americans who have good paying jobs with those same companies as well as other oil service related companies.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2620538
When you slam the oil companies, you are slamming a lot of Americans who have good paying jobs with those same companies as well as other oil service related companies.
Can you remind me who was slamming the oil companies? I don't remember that.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by nacl freak
http:///forum/post/2618672
Special interest groups such as the BIG oil companies spend millions on lobbiest. Wineing and dining public officials. I think they should be hit with HUGE taxes when their profits hit a certain margin! If you remember back in the Carter days, we had a huge recession and gasoline was rationed. You had to wait in line for hours to get gas. That was 30+ years ago. Our leadership did nothing at that time to insure our independance from Arab oil. ...
Umm, if you also remember in the Carter years the "windfall tax" he pased on Oil Companies crippled domestic drilling and helped contribute to the oil shortage...
Taxing our domestic oil companies further (remember they are paying record taxes already) will lead to greater dependence on foreign oil, not less.

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2620767
Can you remind me who was slamming the oil companies? I don't remember that.
Lots of folks constantly slam oil companies. nacl freak wants to tax the hell out of 'em. I was speaking rhetorically, not to you personally. Geez, take a ritalin!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2618857
Of course they are

. I'll bet their marketing department says they're making great headway toward eliminating the need for oil.
I think we should ask the steel industry to research alternative building materials.

Chevron 2.5 Billion
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...e-energy-tech/
Shell Oil 1 Billion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1390521.stm
http://www.cdfe.org/driessen.htm
Renewable Energy
Has BP really gone Beyond Petroleum? Where does the hype over BP’s investments in fossil fuels and renewable energy end – and the reality begin? When will the romantic promise of near-term renewable energy reflect the reality of costs, energy output and environmental impacts?
Over the past six years, BP invested more than $200 million in solar power. It plans to expand this into a billion-dollar business by 2007. Worldwide, it generates a combined total of 77 megawatts (MW) of wind and solar power.[5] These numbers and the company’s ad campaign make its commitment to renewable energy sound quite impressive. However:
During 2001 alone, BP spent $8.5 billion exploring for and producing oil and gas. So its average annual investment of $33.3 million in solar amounts to an almost imperceptible 0.4 percent of its 2001 petroleum expenditures.[6]
Its total 6-year solar investment is a mere 1.3 percent of what it plans to spend drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico alone, over the next 15 years. Its proposed billion-dollar business five years out is just 0.6 percent of the company’s current worth ($174 billion).[7]
Its 77 MW of solar and wind output is barely enough to keep Boise, Idaho’s lights lit for a year – whereas its oil and natural gas production (3.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent, or BOE) could satisfy all of America’s oil needs for six months.[8]
BP’s “beyond petroleum” advertising campaign is expected to cost the company $100 million a year – three times what it’s actually spending annually on solar power.[9] “If BP executives were completely honest about it,” says the Washington Times, “they’d have to admit the company spends far more in a single year burnishing its environmental image than it has invested in solar power in the last six years.”[10] And shareholder activist group SANE BP says the company spent more on its new eco-friendly helios logo than it did on renewable energy during all of 2000.[11]
BP became the world’s “largest producer of solar energy” primarily by spending $45 million to buy the Solarex Corporation[12] – 0.1 percent of what it spent to buy Arco or 0.9 percent of what will spend between 2002 and 2006 on oil exploration in Alaska.
Wind and solar currently provide only 0.1 percent of global primary energy production.[13]
Environmentalists excoriate ExxonMobil as an eco-Darth Vader. Yet it spent over $500 million on renewable energy R&D two decades ago (over $1 billion in 2002 dollars), before abandoning the effort as too fraught with scientific and economic uncertainty, and refocusing on fossil fuels.[14] However, the company still invests heavily in fuel cell technology, energy efficiency, and reducing carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions.
ChevronTexaco’s renewable energy division focuses on fuel cells, improved batteries (via a joint venture with Ovonics), hydrogen, wind and solar. But the company gets about as much green ink and acclaim for these environmental investments as does ExxonMobil.
Shell Oil Company also operates “a fledgling wind-power business” and, having purchased Siemen's solar photovoltaic operations, is now the fourth-largest solar-energy business in the world. The company also emphasizes biomass – burning wood in power plants to generate electricity. It is planning to invest $500 million to $1 billion in renewables over the next five years (and a like amount in oil shale), and believes there is “a chance” that renewable energy could become a profitable business over the next several decades.[15]

 

[natclanwy]

Being from Wyoming the environmentalist drive me crazy, most of them live in big cities and have never ventured outside the city limits they just don't have a clue what life is like out here. The Mineral industry is a huge part of the economy in Wyoming I currently work in the Oil and Gas field and there is an ongoing battle to halt the drilling of new wells because they are destroying the habitat and to make there point they circulate pictures of a gas field in SW Wyoming that was opened up in the 50's and 60's a time when conservation wasn't even on the list of things to do anywhere in the nation. Now you are hard pressed to even see the wells and most of the roads are existing roads that have been improved to reduce erosion, and when the well plays out they reclaim the area and all that is left to find is a fence post with a number on it. I see study after study trying to tell the public how detrimental the oil and gas activity is to the environment in Wyoming yet actively working in the field I don't see the same things that they are reporting in the studies. Some of the studies are just unbelievable I saw one that studied mule deer activity around active drilling sites and they reported a 30% reduction in deer populations in those areas. Well duh most wild populations of deer don't hang out where people are present continuously but the drilling activities only last 2-3 weeks and then they move to a new location and then the deer go back to there normal routines within a few weeks. I could go on and on with this subject it just makes me crazy especially when residents of this state get on board with the lunatics and they are directly benefiting from oil and gas production. Oil and Gas has benefited this state far more than it has harmed anything and the largest beneficiary in Wyoming is the local school districts. Gotta stop

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2621017
Lots of folks constantly slam oil companies. nacl freak wants to tax the hell out of 'em. I was speaking rhetorically, not to you personally. Geez, take a ritalin!

Sure.
I just don't understand the resistance to free market policies toward big oil. They should pay as much as any other large corporation in my opinion.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2621373
BP’s “beyond petroleum” advertising campaign is expected to cost the company $100 million a year – three times what it’s actually spending annually on solar power.
This just confirms my thought. It's all marketing hype.

 

[acrylics]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2621497
I just don't understand the resistance to free market policies toward big oil. They should pay as much as any other large corporation in my opinion.
They do already, in fact they pay far more on average, as examples: Exxon pays an average of ~43% taxes on an 11% net profit margin, Conoco Philips pays ~45% taxes on 7% net margins. Compare these to Microsoft which pays an average ~30% taxes on a 29% net profit margin and last year Microsoft paid a measly 9%, Intel pays 23% on 18% net margins, General Electric pays ~15% on 13% net margins. So even though oil companies' margins are much lower, they pay much higher tax rates.
Net profits for big oil companies (Exxon, Chevron, Conoco Philips, etc) typically are in the 7-10% range and typically pay 45% of that in taxes. There margins are not high by any means and they already pay among the highest tax rates. Take a quick look at the income statements for these companies to see for yourself.
When the oil trade is down, they do get subsidized by the feds because the health of these companies is in the best interest of this country (read national interest, imagine Exxon folding) but when the trade is up - they pay among the highest tax rates in this country. They get subsidized when times are bad but pay it back in higher tax rates when times are good.
They employ millions of workers, some of which are very dangerous jobs (like drillships & refineries) and get slammed every which way when oil prices are high, something which they actually have little to do with. If you want to get active on this, tell your congressmen to quit spending money they don't have which causes the dollar to fall in value compared to other currencies, which causes oil to rise.
Oil is up right now for several reasons, the top 3 IMO are: (1) the fall of the dollar, (2) speculation, and (3) demand in developing countries (China, India, etc.)
For #1, we as Americans are absolutely addicted to Uncle Sugar's handouts. We look at uncle same to fix everything for us and spend money they don't have (Ie. print $$) This has to stop for us to continue and be healthy. IF this were to happen, the dollar value would then again rise.
For #2, free market though the leverage margins should be changed IMO.
For #3, we can't do much about and shouldn't if we could.
IMO the fall of the dollar and speculative market are responsible for about 40-50% of the price of oil right now. If the dollar were back to where it was a coupla yrs ago, the speculative market would be relatively benign, leaving the price of oil at $65-70/bbl rather than the $130+ we see today. So final result (again IMO) is that you can blame much of it on your congressmen.
I could go on about building more nuclear plants which would slow *our* demand, getting rid of the ethanol mandates (more subsidies/handouts), etc...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2621498
This just confirms my thought. It's all marketing hype.

So billions they spend on alternatives mean nothing because they advertise the fact they are doing it. That artical fails to mention that in addition to producing solar power BP also has about 20% of the market share for the manufacture of solar cells too. Also not listed is their Hydrogen projects and several others that dont fit the enviro agenda of that publication. I only used it because it cant be lumped into the "corporate propaganda" claims used against "big oil" all the time.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2621563
They do already, in fact they pay far more on average, as examples: Exxon pays an average of ~43% taxes on an 11% net profit margin, Conoco Philips pays ~45% taxes on 7% net margins. Compare these to Microsoft which pays an average ~30% taxes on a 29% net profit margin and last year Microsoft paid a measly 9%, Intel pays 23% on 18% net margins, General Electric pays ~15% on 13% net margins. So even though oil companies' margins are much lower, they pay much higher tax rates.
You're not including their profits from selling oil to themselves in your analysis. If the refining company and the oil company were seperate then I would agree with your assessment. You can't exclude 75% of their profit and call it free market. That would be the same as only taxing Mocrosoft on their operating system profits (they almost break even) and then not taxing their end-user software profits.
I'm not anti-oil, I'm pro-free market. I also happen to be anti-import but that a whole other discussion.

 

[acrylics]

The money they make by selling to themselves (subsidiary to subsidiary) are included within those numbers, at least according to their statements. Remember the refining market has not fared well in this market. On that note though, if I own a company that has a drilling subsidiary and a refining subsidiary, I *personally* don't see a problem in selling from one to the other unless they are having an anti-trust issue. Or are you implying they are not paying taxes on their drilling segment? or?
Disclaimer: I don't own XOM, COP, MSFT, INTC, nor GE

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2622115
You're not including their profits from selling oil to themselves in your analysis. If the refining company and the oil company were seperate then I would agree with your assessment. You can't exclude 75% of their profit and call it free market. That would be the same as only taxing Mocrosoft on their operating system profits (they almost break even) and then not taxing their end-user software profits.
I'm not anti-oil, I'm pro-free market. I also happen to be anti-import but that a whole other discussion.
Why wouldn't a oil company keep the main focus of their business on oil? I am just making the point that these companies are also investing in alternatives as well. You work with that many zeros it isn't just marketing hype.
As far as I know none of the majors have a seperate refining corporation so I don't know how or why they would sell oil to themselves. Overall Exxon or Chevron is still going to be taxed on the profits. If they had a seperate refining corporation then they could run a numbers game

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2622529
Why wouldn't a oil company keep the main focus of their business on oil? I am just making the point that these companies are also investing in alternatives as well. You work with that many zeros it isn't just marketing hype.
As far as I know none of the majors have a seperate refining corporation so I don't know how or why they would sell oil to themselves. Overall Exxon or Chevron is still going to be taxed on the profits. If they had a seperate refining corporation then they could run a numbers game

They are charging themselves commodity prices for the oil they pump (like they are supposed to). That's why it appears as though their margins are slim. It doesn't cost them $130 to pump and transport a barrel of oil, it's more like $10. That is the numbers game, they're not doing anything wrong at all and are following all reporting requirements. They are receiving a large tax break on the realized gains from selling the oil to themselves. The tax should be 20% of the difference between cost and sale price.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2622663
They are charging themselves commodity prices for the oil they pump (like they are supposed to). That's why it appears as though their margins are slim. It doesn't cost them $130 to pump and transport a barrel of oil, it's more like $10. That is the numbers game, they're not doing anything wrong at all and are following all reporting requirements. They are receiving a large tax break on the realized gains from selling the oil to themselves. The tax should be 20% of the difference between cost and sale price.

What does it cost them to drill the hole to pump the oil for 10 bux a barrel. When Exxon or the other oil companies report profits it is their total corporate profit. There is no numbers game.
If the major oil companies have these huge margins why isn't it reflected in their stock prices? I sold exxon stock in the winter of 04 after Katrina for 60 bux or so. I had bought it about 6 months before at 42 and change. Since then its moved up as high as 96 and is currently around 90.
Missing out on a move from 60 to 90 may sound bad but I made a whole lot more of the stocks I bought with the proceeds from the Exxon sale. I did my homework. The margins are just not there for the majors.

 

[cowfishrule]

i blame the traders and speculators.

 

[cowfishrule]

i've also read a few times "tax the oil companies more"
just what we need. more taxes. great liberal thinking

less taxes = more money in pocket of consumer = more consumer spending = healthier economy.
basic god damn logic. i dont understand why some folk just cant figure it out.