Apparently, in a meeting held in late March, 14 attorney's general have joined New York state's Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in investigating whether or not Exxon Mobil mislead the investment community on the minimal effects of climate change when their own internal research said otherwise. If so, Schneiderman expects to extract a pound, or two, or more of flesh from the energy giant which will lead the way for hundreds of similar extortions throughout the energy industry. Al Gore, who also attended that meeting, likened it to the cigarette industry's downplaying of the effects of cigarette smoking when its own research clearly proved it harmful and, in some cases, lethal. Last I heard, we breathe in CO2; and even though there's more of it, we are actually living longer. Of course, the real intent by all of these Democrats such as Schneiderman and Gore is to shutdown freedom of speech; and to ultimately put an end to all climate change deniers. In typical fashion, the Democrats are using the law and lawsuits to achieve that very end.
But, aren't climate alarmists just as guilty of telling lies?
Al Gore, especially. In his movie, The Inconvenient Truth, he claimed that the seas would rise 20 feet unless we took steps to abate climate change. But, the real inconvenient truth is that, based on an average rise of about one-tenth of an inch per year or 10 inches a century, we won't see a 20 foot rise for more than 2,000 years. Then, there was his claim that the Arctic would be ice free by 2012. It's now 2016 and the latest report from NASA is that polar ice is not receding due to climate change. Then, there was the claim (not by Gore) that 4.5 billion people (half the world's population) would die by 2012 due to climate change....and the alarmist lies just keep flowing!
The fact is, that climate change alarmists appear to be free to scare the bejesus out of the world with false claims and without impunity. But, it is literally alright to crucify Exxon Mobil for possibly doing the same thing. I emphasize "possibly" since some of their research may actually disprove climate change being caused by man-made CO2.
Isn't it great to live in a supposedly fair and free society with free speech for some and not all?
References:
Exxon Mobil Climate Change Inquiry in New York Gains Allies: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/science/new-york-climate-change-inquiry-into-exxon-adds-prosecutors.html
Al Gore Global Warming Movie Responses: 10 Facts 'An Inconvenient Truth' Got Wrong: http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/al-gore-global-warming-movie/2014/12/15/id/612566/
Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#339645f932da
7 Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970 That Were Just Dead Wrong: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/
Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012—Does That Have Your Attention?: http://reason.com/blog/2007/01/09/global-warming-could-kill-45-b
Failed Climate Change Predictions: https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/
Showing posts with label Exxon Mobil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Exxon Mobil. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 26, 2016
Friday, February 24, 2012
Is Obama Lovin' Exxon-Mobil, Now?
Everyone in the world knows that Democrats hate big oil. Especially, Exxon-Mobil. But, in yesterday's speech on energy, Mr. Obama mentioned that we could substitute our demand for oil with fuel that is produced from algae. Of course, just last month, the President also said we should be powering our cars and trucks with natural gas. Nothing like a consistent energy policy. Right?
But, here's the thing. The world leader in blue-green algae research is Exxon-Mobil -- that nasty big oil company. I'm sure you've all seen this TV ad that has been running for quite a few years:
In fact, back in July of 2009, Exxon-Mobil announced a $600 million program to develop the production of fuel from blue-green algae. In the press release, they noted that, unlike oil-based fuels, algae-based fuels would be, at the very minimum, CO2 neutral. That's because the CO2 produced in the burning of any algae-derived fuels would be more than offset by the amount of CO2 being used up by the algae's own growth process.
I just find it interesting that this President is now -- in a backdoor fashion -- promoting Exxon-Mobil. A company that he just targeted for punishment by eliminating any tax loop-holes for big oil.
But, here's the thing. The world leader in blue-green algae research is Exxon-Mobil -- that nasty big oil company. I'm sure you've all seen this TV ad that has been running for quite a few years:
In fact, back in July of 2009, Exxon-Mobil announced a $600 million program to develop the production of fuel from blue-green algae. In the press release, they noted that, unlike oil-based fuels, algae-based fuels would be, at the very minimum, CO2 neutral. That's because the CO2 produced in the burning of any algae-derived fuels would be more than offset by the amount of CO2 being used up by the algae's own growth process.
I just find it interesting that this President is now -- in a backdoor fashion -- promoting Exxon-Mobil. A company that he just targeted for punishment by eliminating any tax loop-holes for big oil.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
A Tale of Two Companies
With gasoline prices so high, some politicians have decided to make Exxon-Mobil the evil of all evils.
After all, Exxon-Mobil made an obscene profit of $11.6 billion dollars in the last quarter (See Full Story). However, those same politicians fail to mention that Exxon-Mobil pays an effective tax rate of 41.8% and pays more in taxes, alone, than the bottom half of all the taxpayers in America, combined. Last year, Exxon-Mobil paid $71 billion dollars in taxes. And, don't forget. Because Exxon-Mobil is a worldwide company with worldwide profits, it bringings profits into this country and helps to stem the bleeding that we have in our Balance of Trade with other countries.
Out of those after-tax profits, each Exxon-Mobil stockholder will get a dividend. Based on the given tax bracket for each of those receiving that dividend, the government will get some more of those Exxon-Mobil profits in the form of dividend-related taxes. Standard & Poors rates Exxon-Mobil as a strong buy. Charles Schwab gives it an "A" ranking. For this reason, a lot of people buy and sell Exxon-Mobil stock. Actually, 28 million or more shares of Exxon-Mobil stock are traded daily. Because Exxon-Mobil is such a powerful company, most of those people who made trades on that stock probably made a profit. A profit, too, that will be taxed by our State and Federal governments. Finally, the company grew from 83,700 employees in 2006 to the current level of 106,400 or more. That's a growth of at least 23,000 new jobs. While not all new employee were added in this country, many were. All those new U.S.-based employees were added to the Federal and State tax rolls.
As a profitable concern, Exxon-Mobil will expand its business. That means that it will spend those profits it made on new land, products and services that are needed to grow its business. This means more business for other American businesses and other international businesses. This also means more profits for those businesses. As a result, more of Exxon-Mobil's profits will go, indirectly, to Federal and State taxes. Just because Exxon-Mobil had a profit, it doesn't mean, somehow, that they are going to willy-nilly throw that money away. They will either bank it for later use or apply it to expand their business. Ultimately, it will positively affect economic growth in America and throughout the world.
Now. Let's look at General Motors. They lost $15.5 billion dollars last quarter (See Full Story). That's a loss of nearly $4 billion more than Exxon-Mobil made. General Motors, because of their continued losses, will pay no taxes this year; just as they paid no taxes last year and the two years before that. A year ago, they cut their dividend in half to $1/share. That drop also cut the Federal and State tax revenues on those taxpayer that were receiving General Motor's dividends. The odds are high that they will eventually drop their dividend, completely, and there goes that tax revenue, too! General Motors also cut staff last year. Mostly in the United States. As a result, the Feds and States like Michigan also loss some payroll tax revenues and some States were forced to pay out taxpayer monies in the form of unemployment benefits. Since the year 2000, General Motor's stock has done nothing but fall. Those people who were invested "long" on GM stock and sold at a loss also didn't pay any taxes on those stock trades.
With General Motors bleeding like it is, bankruptcy is not out of the question; and, often rumored. If they do go belly-up, their losses will ripple out to all those other companies who were suppliers of product and services to General Motors and were still owed money by General Motors. As a result, each of those companies will be forced to write off that debt and their profits will go down. Once again, the Federal and State tax revenues will suffer.
Exxon-Mobil and General Motors are big international corporations. They are dealing in big money. Their profits are amazingly large and their losses can be equally as large. Most people seem astonished and even appalled that Exxon-Mobil made $11.6 billion. I think they should be "more" upset about General Motors and their $15.5 billion loss.
You tell me. Would you prefer that the United States have a bunch of corporations like General Motors or the ones like Exxon Mobil? Which of those companies is doing more harm versus good to the tax base and employment in this country? We should celebrate profitable companies; not demonize them. Exxon-Mobil's gross profits are high because they are an extremely large worldwide corporation. But by any other measure, they are so-so in the world of corporations. For example, Exxon-Mobil has a profit margin of 10.85%. By contrast, Apple Computer is almost 50% more profitable because of its nearly 15 percent profit margin. If Exxon Mobil's profits were excessive, then, I would say there is a problem and room for complaint. However, in the world of worldwide competition, the British equivalent of Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, has only an effective tax rate of 33 percent for the profits that they are taxed for in Britain. That's because we already tax our corporations more heavily than the government of Europe tax their companies. And, now, people like Barack Obama want to tax our oil companies (and all companies) at even a higher rate with both a higher corporate and business tax rate and with a windfall profits tax. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats tried this once, already, when they passed the "Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act" of 1980. As a result, there was a decline of domestic oil production and our dependence on foriegn oil accelerated (See Full Story). And, believe me, the gas lines only grew longer. That tax had to be repealed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Congress.
So, let's just keep complaining that Exxon-Mobil is making too much money and not paying enough taxes. Let's let Barack Obama and the Democrats tax the hell out of those companies and all other business in this country. That way we can turn all of our businesses into a bunch of General Motors. Let's especially tax Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the oil companies so heavily so as to limit their ability to explore and drill for new domestic oil. Let's give the advantage to the Brit's with British Petroleum and the French will their oil company, Total, and the Dutch will Shell Oil Company. That should make this country even stronger! Right!
Statistics (like effective tax rates, etc) were sourced from non-public and non-re-printable reports by Charles Schwab and Standard & Poors; and from Fortune magazine.
After all, Exxon-Mobil made an obscene profit of $11.6 billion dollars in the last quarter (See Full Story). However, those same politicians fail to mention that Exxon-Mobil pays an effective tax rate of 41.8% and pays more in taxes, alone, than the bottom half of all the taxpayers in America, combined. Last year, Exxon-Mobil paid $71 billion dollars in taxes. And, don't forget. Because Exxon-Mobil is a worldwide company with worldwide profits, it bringings profits into this country and helps to stem the bleeding that we have in our Balance of Trade with other countries.
Out of those after-tax profits, each Exxon-Mobil stockholder will get a dividend. Based on the given tax bracket for each of those receiving that dividend, the government will get some more of those Exxon-Mobil profits in the form of dividend-related taxes. Standard & Poors rates Exxon-Mobil as a strong buy. Charles Schwab gives it an "A" ranking. For this reason, a lot of people buy and sell Exxon-Mobil stock. Actually, 28 million or more shares of Exxon-Mobil stock are traded daily. Because Exxon-Mobil is such a powerful company, most of those people who made trades on that stock probably made a profit. A profit, too, that will be taxed by our State and Federal governments. Finally, the company grew from 83,700 employees in 2006 to the current level of 106,400 or more. That's a growth of at least 23,000 new jobs. While not all new employee were added in this country, many were. All those new U.S.-based employees were added to the Federal and State tax rolls.
As a profitable concern, Exxon-Mobil will expand its business. That means that it will spend those profits it made on new land, products and services that are needed to grow its business. This means more business for other American businesses and other international businesses. This also means more profits for those businesses. As a result, more of Exxon-Mobil's profits will go, indirectly, to Federal and State taxes. Just because Exxon-Mobil had a profit, it doesn't mean, somehow, that they are going to willy-nilly throw that money away. They will either bank it for later use or apply it to expand their business. Ultimately, it will positively affect economic growth in America and throughout the world.
Now. Let's look at General Motors. They lost $15.5 billion dollars last quarter (See Full Story). That's a loss of nearly $4 billion more than Exxon-Mobil made. General Motors, because of their continued losses, will pay no taxes this year; just as they paid no taxes last year and the two years before that. A year ago, they cut their dividend in half to $1/share. That drop also cut the Federal and State tax revenues on those taxpayer that were receiving General Motor's dividends. The odds are high that they will eventually drop their dividend, completely, and there goes that tax revenue, too! General Motors also cut staff last year. Mostly in the United States. As a result, the Feds and States like Michigan also loss some payroll tax revenues and some States were forced to pay out taxpayer monies in the form of unemployment benefits. Since the year 2000, General Motor's stock has done nothing but fall. Those people who were invested "long" on GM stock and sold at a loss also didn't pay any taxes on those stock trades.
With General Motors bleeding like it is, bankruptcy is not out of the question; and, often rumored. If they do go belly-up, their losses will ripple out to all those other companies who were suppliers of product and services to General Motors and were still owed money by General Motors. As a result, each of those companies will be forced to write off that debt and their profits will go down. Once again, the Federal and State tax revenues will suffer.
Exxon-Mobil and General Motors are big international corporations. They are dealing in big money. Their profits are amazingly large and their losses can be equally as large. Most people seem astonished and even appalled that Exxon-Mobil made $11.6 billion. I think they should be "more" upset about General Motors and their $15.5 billion loss.
You tell me. Would you prefer that the United States have a bunch of corporations like General Motors or the ones like Exxon Mobil? Which of those companies is doing more harm versus good to the tax base and employment in this country? We should celebrate profitable companies; not demonize them. Exxon-Mobil's gross profits are high because they are an extremely large worldwide corporation. But by any other measure, they are so-so in the world of corporations. For example, Exxon-Mobil has a profit margin of 10.85%. By contrast, Apple Computer is almost 50% more profitable because of its nearly 15 percent profit margin. If Exxon Mobil's profits were excessive, then, I would say there is a problem and room for complaint. However, in the world of worldwide competition, the British equivalent of Exxon-Mobil, British Petroleum, has only an effective tax rate of 33 percent for the profits that they are taxed for in Britain. That's because we already tax our corporations more heavily than the government of Europe tax their companies. And, now, people like Barack Obama want to tax our oil companies (and all companies) at even a higher rate with both a higher corporate and business tax rate and with a windfall profits tax. Jimmy Carter and the Democrats tried this once, already, when they passed the "Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act" of 1980. As a result, there was a decline of domestic oil production and our dependence on foriegn oil accelerated (See Full Story). And, believe me, the gas lines only grew longer. That tax had to be repealed in 1988 by Ronald Reagan and Democratic Congress.
So, let's just keep complaining that Exxon-Mobil is making too much money and not paying enough taxes. Let's let Barack Obama and the Democrats tax the hell out of those companies and all other business in this country. That way we can turn all of our businesses into a bunch of General Motors. Let's especially tax Exxon-Mobil and the rest of the oil companies so heavily so as to limit their ability to explore and drill for new domestic oil. Let's give the advantage to the Brit's with British Petroleum and the French will their oil company, Total, and the Dutch will Shell Oil Company. That should make this country even stronger! Right!
Statistics (like effective tax rates, etc) were sourced from non-public and non-re-printable reports by Charles Schwab and Standard & Poors; and from Fortune magazine.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Where "Does" Exxon Mobil Get It's Oil?
If you listen to our Democratic politicians, the Big Oil Companies have 68 million acres of oil leases on Federal lands that they aren't drilling on. The implication by the Democrats is that a company like Exxon Mobil is buying up Federal leases and, then, avoiding any drilling in order to keep prices high.That argument just shows how uninformed our lawmakers are about the oil industry. Exxon Mobil, our largest oil company, has only 5 percent of the world's oil reserves. The majority of oil it refines and sells is "bought" from major oil producing countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. Sometimes these oil companies are subject to complete disruptions of any access to that oil because of contract disputes and the current political environments (Click to see an example). This kind of uncertainty makes doing business very difficult and seriously affects the bottom line. Any time a company can add stability to its business, like drilling on the Federal Lands in this country, it will. That's point one.
Point two. When a company like Exxon Mobil finds its own oil and processes it, it makes a lot more money than when they have to "pay" another entity (Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, etc) for that oil. And, making money is why they are in business! More often than not, the price they pay for that "purchased oil" is at the current "spot price" (See Definition); and, these are some of the highest prices an oil company can pay. This is usually the case when an oil company is forced to buy it's oil in a less-then-friendly business environment as in the case of Venezuela. So, the concept that they would "avoid drilling" their own wells on more "friendly" Federally leased lands and in a more price-controlled environment (especially at today's prices) is just bogus and shows a complete lack of "business sense" by a lot of politicians.
Point three. High oil prices will make "alternatives" to oil more attractive. Oil companies risk their own survival if they were to keep oil prices high by limiting supplies. It is to their benefit and, most importantly, their survivability that they keep oil prices down by drilling when and wherever they can.
Apparently, these same Democrats think that Americans are "so" stupid that they will buy their lame argument that the oil companies are not drilling on 68 million acres of Federal land for selfish interests. (Given the educational system in this country - the one that the Democrats built or, better yet, tore down -- they are probably right!) As I have outlined above, drilling, as opposed to not drilling, would be in any oil company's best and "selfish" interest.
The Democrats argument against any new drilling in this country is really intended to satisfy their "political base" and provide "political payback" to the environmentalists and environmental groups in this country. (That includes Barack Obama's position against domestic drilling!) These are the groups who contribute a lot in terms of direct votes, campaign volunteering and canvassing, and money to the Democrats. Over and above the legislative "blocking" actions being done by the Democrats in Congress, there are over 8,000 lawsuits pending in Federal courts to block any drilling on Federal lands. Those lawsuits have all been filed by the friends-of-the-Democrats: the environmental groups and organizations in this country. This begs the question: Is it "Big Oil" -- or -- just "Big Environmental Special Interest and Politics" that have us importing over 70% of our oil from other countries and that has Americans paying over $4/gallon at the pump?
Let's face it, an oil company drilling it's own oil well is a fixed cost. That price doesn't float around as the price of oil rises or falls. If, based on the current price of oil, it makes sense for an oil company to drill for its "own" oil, they will "jump" at the chance. And, that cost to drill is a one-time expense that will either be written off or depreciated over time and won't have any substantial effect on the bottom line unless oil prices completely fall through the bottom. Then, of course, you can watch the oil companies go under along with the price of oil. My guess is that will never happen with the current and future supply-to-demand imbalances that are causing today's high prices.
For reference, here are some examples of the ongoing and uphill battles that the oil companies face against the environmentalists over Federal oil leases.
"Groups sue over oil leases in Shoshone"(See Full Story)
"Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Alaska Wilderness Oil Leases"(See Full Story)
"Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Leases in Alaska"(See Full Story)
"Utah Lawsuit Over Tar-Sands Leases"(See Full Story)
"A coalition of conservation groups file lawsuit challenging Forest Service and BLM leases of prime wildlife habitat near Yellowstone National Park for oil development."(See Full Story)
"Groups Try to Block Oil, Gas Leases"(See Full Story)
Colorado: "A coalition of 10 environmental groups has filed a lawsuit"(See Full Story)
One last note: It doesn't take years to drill an oil well. To echo-sound a potential well and drill takes weeks to months. When some politicians quote 7 to 10 years, that is the time it takes, quite often, to do the environmental impact studies (for final Federal approval) and to ward of the lawsuits from conservation and environmental groups.
image in the public domain and royalty free
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
