PDA

View Full Version : Exxon earns nearly $11B in 1Q, best since '08



Teh One Who Knocks
04-28-2011, 01:47 PM
By CHRIS KAHN, AP Energy Writer


NEW YORK – Exxon earned nearly $11 billion in the first quarter, a performance likely to land it in the center of the national debate over high gasoline prices.

The world's largest publicly traded company on Thursday reported net income of $10.65 billion, or $2.14 per share, in the first three months of the year. That compares with $6.3 billion, or 1.33 per share a year ago. Revenue increased 26 percent to $114 billion.

The results surpassed Wall Street estimates of $2.04 per share on sales of $112.6 billion, according to FactSet.

The quarter was Exxon's best since it earned a record $14.83 billion in 2008's third quarter. It comes at a time when some drivers are paying $4 or more for gas and President Obama is threatening the oil industry's multibillion-dollar tax subsidies.

Earnings grew across the company's business segments. Income from its exploration and production business gained 49 percent to $8.7 billion while the company's downstream business, which includes refineries, posted a huge 30-fold jump to more than $1.1 billion.

Anticipating a strong reaction to the results from drivers and politicians, Exxon said on a company blog Wednesday that it has little control over the price of oil, which has risen to near $113 per barrel. The company also noted that less than 3 cents of every dollar it earns comes from the sale of gasoline and diesel fuel.

That may not appease many motorists, however. The national average for a gallon of gas is $3.89, about $1.02 more than a year ago. It's above $4 in 8 states and the District of Columbia. And on Thursday, the Commerce Department said economic growth slowed sharply in the first quarter, partly because of high gas prices.

On the blog, Ken Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public and government affairs, said the company was anticipating "the inevitable headlines and sound bites about high gasoline prices and what to do about them" after the earnings were reported.

Exxon's huge profit followed similar results by other oil companies.

Europe's largest oil company, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, reported $8.78 billion in first-quarter profits, up 60 percent from a year ago. BP PLC's quarterly earnings rose 16 percent to $7.2 billion. ConocoPhillips said net income grew 43 percent to $3 billion and Occidental Petroleum Corp. said earnings climbed 46 percent to $1.55 billion.

Exxon Mobil Corp. increased earnings even though it produced less oil and natural gas liquids. Benchmark crude prices rose 20 percent from a year ago.

The company has increasingly focused on producing natural gas. Exxon expects natural gas to displace coal as the second most important fuel source within the next decade, and last year it acquired XTO Energy to become the largest U.S. natural gas producer.

Natural gas production increased 24 percent in the quarter for Exxon, but prices declined as other companies followed Exxon's lead and rushed to develop underground shale gas deposits in North America. Natural gas prices fell nearly 16 percent from a year ago.

Muddy
04-28-2011, 01:56 PM
I earned $415,000 dollars last year Lance.. :mrgreen:

I may invest some of it on some extry turbos for my weed eater.. 8-[

FBD
04-28-2011, 03:56 PM
Exxon does have little control over the price of oil - its a market after all, something Obummer doesnt understand in the least, otherwise the admin would be letting companies drill for oil :roll:

FBD
04-29-2011, 07:31 PM
Here's an interesting angle: (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/04/exxonmobil-paid-almost-1m-per-hr-in.html#links)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lBI8iRRa67c/Tboe9SzHy-I/AAAAAAAAPQo/9yLry4bELss/s400/exxon.jpg

ExxonMobil reported its first quarter 2011 earnings today, which came in at $10.65 billion, an increase of 69% from the same quarter last year when it earned $6.3 billion. While the huge earnings amount captured all of the media attention, several other items received much less attention (see chart above):

1. ExxonMobil paid $8 billion in income taxes to various governments in the first quarter, which is about $22 million in income taxes each day, or almost $1 million each hour.

2. ExxonMobil spent $7.8 billion in the first quarter on capital equipment and exploration (73% of its earnings), or more than $21 million per day, which is an increase of 14% compared to the first quarter last year. Over the next five years, the oil company plans to invest about $175 billion in capital equipment and exploration.

3. Compared to the first quarter last year, ExxonMobil increased its output of oil and natural gas by 10%, and a large part of that increased output came from a 192% increase in natural gas production in the United States, thanks to new advanced drilling technologies like hydraulic fracturing. While higher oil prices certainly played a major role in increasing Exxon's profits, the role of increased output shouldn't be ignored. And we shouldn't forget that retail natural gas prices in the United States, adjusted for inflation, are the lowest now since December 2002, in large part due to increased domestic production from companies like Exxon.

4. Dwarfing Exxon's first quarter profits of $10.65 billion, are the total taxes paid or collected around the world by Exxon from January to March, which totaled to$26.2 billion and include: a) $8 billion in income taxes, b) $10.3 billion in sales-based taxes, and c) $10.3 billion for all other taxes including property taxes, etc.

5. Exxon Mobil paid $8 billion in income taxes in the first quarter on $18.9 billion of income, which translates into a 42.3% effective income tax rate on its income. And yet according to Obama and others, oil companies "aren't paying their fair share of taxes," and should be taxed more?

6. The 6.1% average profit margin for Exxon's industry "Major Integrated Oil and Gas" ranks #112 among all industries for the most recent quarter (data here), so if Obama wants to target "excessive" corporate profits, there are many other industries much more profitable than the oil and gas industry. For example, the surge in commodity prices has resulted in "windfall profit" margins of 31% for the silver industry, 23% for the copper industry and 19.8% for the gold industry. Internet providers are capturing 23% in profit margins, cigarette companies more than 21% and periodical publishers are earning a whopping 51.6% profit margin, so perhaps those would be ripe targets for Obama's new lust to confiscate "windfall profits."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9DSesf5FcFU/TbiP0dd3gbI/AAAAAAAAPP0/vHxw-Mhz-7w/s400/statetgastax.jpg

The map above from API shows gasoline taxes by state (combined local, state and federal), which range from a low of 26.4 cents per gallon in Alaska to a high of of 66.1 cents per gallon in California, averaging 48.1 cents per gallon across all states. How does that compare to oil company industry profits per gallon?

According to this post on Exxon Mobil's Perspective Blog , "For every gallon of gasoline, diesel or finished products we manufactured and sold in the United States in the last three months of 2010, we earned a little more than 2 cents per gallon. That’s not a typo. Two cents."

Update: ExxonMobil is now reporting that for its retail gasoline operations in the U.S., it made an average profit of 7 cents per gallon during the first quarter of 2011.

The chart below shows the difference graphically:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bt2nt4tenvI/TbmhzVQn8eI/AAAAAAAAPQY/TADGkkP_agg/s400/exxon.jpg

Deepsepia
04-29-2011, 11:54 PM
Yes, as much fun as it is to beat up on Exxon, they're no villains, and in fact they're a very well run company.

And they're not even "Big Oil" anymore. We think of the old Standard Oil companies as dominating world oil, but they don't. "Big Oil" is Saudi Aramco, Gazprom -- State-owned oil companies. Exxon is small fry by comparison.

FBD
05-01-2011, 03:59 PM
Yup, and dishonest bastard that Obama is, he's got to pitch thing in a manner that obscures all kinds of meanings so people are less clear on what it even is that he's saying.

e.g.,

"tax expenditures" vs "subsidies" - Obama has been really trying to obfuscate these terms so that he can have his cake and eat it too just like he's always done.


From the American Petroleum Institute:

"Contrary to what some in politics and the media have said, the oil and natural gas industry currently enjoys no unique tax credits or deductions. Since its inception, the US tax code has allowed corporate tax payers the ability to recover costs and to be taxed only on net income. These cost recovery mechanisms, also known in policy circles as “tax expenditures”, should in no way be confused with “subsidies”, i.e., direct government spending."

Read the details (http://www.api.org/policy/tax/upload/Oil_Gas_Tax_Treatments_Not_Subsidies_April2011.pdf ) here.

In addition to the misunderstanding that oil companies somehow receive direct subsidy payments from the government like the payments some farmers receive (sometimes for NOT growing certain crops), there is also the misunderstanding that oil and gas companies are "not paying their fair share" of income taxes. The assumption here must be that other companies or U.S. industries are paying "their fare share" and oil companies "get off easy."

The chart above is based on data from the API and shows that oil companies face a much higher income tax burden as a share of before-tax earnings (41.1%) compared to other S&P Industrial corporations. Keep in mind that oil companies pay a higher effective tax rate than even the highest corporate marginal income tax rate of 35% because they are also paying state income taxes and foreign income taxes. And there are also royalties, bonuses bids, excise taxes and other transfers to governments that aren't even included in the 41.1% tax expense rate.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ylzNHj9JJV8/Tb11O8GbE9I/AAAAAAAAPRE/9C8TxN0wVT0/s400/taxes.jpg

--------------------------------


Its almost as if the admin isnt even TRYING to hide their dis-ingenuousness any longer. Ass backwards...more transparency equals less, "saving" means increasing "investments" (or, just simply spending if you take an honest look at it), energy independence means super high prices and more restrictions on domestic production..."fairness" means handouts for some and huge penalties for others..."standing up for the little guy" while entrenching the very biggest outfits at the expense of entrepreneurship...

cant WAIT until we have a less democratic legislature and a real president.

I'd really laugh if Cain and West ran on the same ticket :lol:

Deepsepia
05-01-2011, 04:41 PM
Yup, and dishonest bastard that Obama is, he's got to pitch thing in a manner that obscures all kinds of meanings so people are less clear on what it even is that he's saying.

e.g.,

"tax expenditures" vs "subsidies" - Obama has been really trying to obfuscate these terms so that he can have his cake and eat it too just like he's always done.

"Tax expenditures" and "subsidies" are, to an economist, largely indistinguishable.

The mortgage tax deduction for homeowners, for example, may not look like a "subsidy", but if you're sitting there doing a "buy vs. rent" calculation, that's what it is.

And that's what conservative, flat tax advocates have always said . . . if you look at someone like Jack Kemp, the clear message was always: get rid of the deductions, the oil depletion allowances, the mortgage interest . . . just tax the income without deductions and you can set a very low rate.

He was right. And so is Obama. The effect of things like "the oil depletion allowance" are not distinguishable on company income statements from a subsidy, they might appear as slightly different line items, but at the bottom line there is no difference.

FBD
05-02-2011, 01:29 AM
:lol: