What a shock......

There is no e at the end of ExxonMobil.

So whatever happened to G.W.'s fact-finding mission to see if there has actually been any corruption in the oil market?

You guys don't think that maybe our President has been bought, do you?

(Jeez, sarcasm really doesn't come through in text.)

The extra e was for what an excellent company exxon is.

What a scam. I am saving money to buy a tesla or ZAP car.

Don't worry Bluegus... The sarcasm came through JUST FINE

There is an e at the end of Exxpose Exxon.

It is a good thing they are making all sorts of profits now. They are going to need all of that cash to invest in figuring out what the heck they are going to do for energy when the oil starts to dry up.

There is no oil shortage. Just cartel's and bald-faced war profiteering.

An older post at thetruthaboutcars.com sheds some light on this: http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1457

Whether Exxon is a good green company or not is beside the point.

EXXON AND THE OTHER OIL COMPANIES DO NOT SET THE PRICE OF OIL.

Oil futures reached $78 a barrel, because someone was willing to pay that price.

It's illegal for them to sell oil at a lower than market price. Google "anti-trust" and "Standard Oil" and "Rockefeller."

Why was someone willing to pay $78 a barrel?

Look around you, see anything made of plastic? See anything made of plastic and made in China?

A barrel of oil makes a lot more plastic than gasoline, so manufactures (most are in China these days, and China has to import almost all of its oil) can afford to pay more without having to raise the wholesale price of their goods.

If you think $78 was high, some of the futures marketeers are predicting $85 a barrel this summer.

As to the green/sustainable argument: sure we need a replacement for oil, but why you think Exxon, a company that sells oil, should be trying to find it, is beyond me.

I don't think Exxon should be forced to pay to find an alternative to oil. What Exxon shouldn't be allowed to do, however, is own the executive branch of government. Nor should the Saudis, who (through their domination of OPEC) do set the price of oil.

As to the green/sustainable argument: sure we need a replacement for oil, but why you think Exxon, a company that sells oil, should be trying to find it, is beyond me.

Exxon sells oil because that is what is used to power almost all cars in the world today. That is where the profit is at the moment. But Exxon is an energy company. If the paradigm shifts (which it probably will at some point), then all energy companies that focus on oil currently are going to have to shift with it or die. This is why BP is putting such an emphasis in their marketing campaigns to show that they are investing in alternative energy sources and products. They want to show that they are future-proofing their company.

If Exxon refuses to look at other energy sources and options if and when that paradigm shift occurs, then they are going to be screwed in the end.

Simply put, oil is currently the most profitable energy source for fueling automobiles. When better technologies come along and become the most profitable energy source for fueling automobiles, smart companies will focus on them instead of oil.

When prices are at record highs, in terms of dollars, there are going to be record profits.
The profit margin is still the same, around 9-10%.

It's a conspiracy!

the Saudis, who (through their domination of OPEC) do set the price of oil.

Once again, price is set by demand. In the '70s OPEC did try to set price through the control of supply. It worked for a short time, but as soon as demand drove the prices high enough, OPEC broke ranks and they have not looked back since.
(Many economists will tell you all OPEC did was adjust the supply/demand imbalance, and that their control of supply, had little or nothing to do with price adjustments that were long overdue.)

As for new technology replacing the petroleum fed internal combustion engine, don't hold your breath. Even if (when) oil hits $100 a barrel it will still be an incredibly cheap source of energy. Think about it for a moment, one gallon of gas will take you 25-30 miles, this is a huge cost to benefit ratio.

If you folks are really interested in this stuff you should check out some of the "Peak Oil" sites.

Just Google "peak oil", some of the sites are nuttier than others, but all are pretty much obsessed with actual, provable numbers and facts.

thank you stephen5. I couldn't have said it better myself.

And you should all know that their profits DO NOT come from the sale of gasoline. If you think otherwise then you are just trying to find something to bitch about.

If you want someone to blame, go to the NYMEX and kill a futures trader.

hey Cockeyed -

wow what a clever thing, those futures traders are cornering the market, they're colluding, they're out to get me. where'd you read that, Your Local Paper's business section?

i love ignorance, especially after a day of cornering the market. It makes me laugh.

Thanks.

You know what? I don't care. Do you get a thrill out of posting someone elses' windfall billions? You're not one of them, you're not gonna see the billions. The fact that those billionaires live on the same planet as you bugs you no end. And I think that makes me laugh.

The fireplace is your friend. Next to the fireplace is a large pair of tongs. Bend over, grab the tongs, & pull that liberal bug out of your ass.

For pristine earth-loving peons that you prove yourselves to be every goddamn 24-hour period in the media & academia, you sure really focus in on money faster than a Rockefeller on a Nigerian diamond mine.

Peace, bro.

10.45% profit margin. Not a record by any means, and it took them $377 billion to do it. I think Starbucks had a better margin at one time, also selling a highly marked-up brown liquid that Americans cannot live without.

Most of us know that what we pay for gasoline in the US is dirt cheap compared to Europe and many other destinations. Much of that increase is in taxes (mostly VAT I would guess) that pays for all sorts of socialist goodies. Not necessarily a bad thing, but here in America we have been too long pampered by cheap everything. Marx was wrong- cheap consumer goods is the opiate of the masses.

We should not begrudge a comany just because it happens to be gigantic and extremely profitable. I've worked in the oil industry and people are treated well. If profitability makes you angry, try attacking companies that reap obscene profits AND treat their employees like rags. You probably know a few.

I made almost 2300 bucks on that stock!!!
We are addicted to oil for the next 200 years, get used to it. Once the oil dries up in the Middle East, we will get some alternitave energy vehicles and a cleaner environment. Of course, none of that matters because Matt Lauer and Al Gore told me that my SUV is going to cause a big giant racist hurricane to come and kill us all. If the hurricanes don't get us, french fries will.

Where did all the rednecks come from all of a sudden?

In the UK, gas (petrol, unleaded) costs around £1 per litre. That works out at around $7.50 a gallon (US). :-(
Most modern petrol cars can manage around 40-50 miles per gallon (UK), hybrids and diesel are up around 65 miles per gallon.

Just some largely irrelevant perspective.

hey krak...
being that i am a prop trader, i follow the markets, oh, some would say closely...what is it you do for a living again?

Wow, again? I guess it's no surprise. Seems like just yesterday I was telling people at work about this, now I can tell them again. :(

It's not the profit, its the manipulation and the government response. The Republican Congress gave poor, needy Exxon-Mobil a big share of the $39.5 Billion in oil company subsidies to, "encourage production". Here I thought that was the function of high prices and record profits in the world of all you free-marketeers. Then the big bad Democratic Congress had the courage to reduce those subsidies to $34 Billion. What about ending them?? Its about time at least one party climbed out of the pocket of corporate America!

Oh, and the oil company excuse for the slow fall in gas prices when the price of crude went down -- it was because there still was "still high priced oil in the supply chain." Of course, when the price of crude went up, the price of gas rose immediately. I guess low price crude doesn't stay in the supply chain like the high priced spread??

It's not the profit, its the manipulation and the government response. The Republican Congress gave poor, needy Exxon-Mobil a big share of the $39.5 Billion in oil company subsidies to, "encourage production". Here I thought that was the function of high prices and record profits in the world of all you free-marketeers. Then the big bad Democratic Congress had the courage to reduce those subsidies to $34 Billion. What about ending them?? Its about time at least one party climbed out of the pocket of corporate America!

Oh, and the oil company excuse for the slow fall in gas prices when the price of crude went down -- it was because there still was "still high priced oil in the supply chain." Of course, when the price of crude went up, the price of gas rose immediately. I guess low price crude doesn't stay in the supply chain like the high priced spread??

The $39 billion (or $59 billion as computed by some sources) is a made up number. For example $16 billion in subsidies is added in as the cost of the "protection provided by the armed services and homeland security forces", and another $8 billion is added in as "federal highway and road subsidies" (oil trucks use the federal highway system so upkeep on the highways is a subsidy.)
Real monies paid to energy companies as subsidies in 2005 amounted to about $12 billion, of which oil companies received between $1 and $2.5 billion. In 2005 "the big 3" paid over $160 billion in taxes.

As to the slower fall than rise of prices, that is due to the nature of the futures market. The market tends to protect sellers (originally farmers), that's the primary reason it exists.
If you want to argue that oil should not be sold on a futures basis I might agree with you.

Then there's wonder why the savings rate is -1%. Although granted most people don't need those trucks with 6 wheels (or is it 8??).