Posted on 04/03/2006 7:50:24 AM PDT by jmc1969
Skyrocketing energy prices propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. to the top of the 2006 Fortune 500 list, and consigned Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to the No. 2 spot on the magazine's annual ranking of the nation's largest publicly traded companies.
Fortune compiled its list based on companies' 2005 revenues. Exxon Mobil raked in $340 billion in revenue, a 25.5 percent increase over 2004, and had $36.1 billion in profits, the most by any U.S. company in history.
Other oil producers also rose in the rankings, boosted by crude prices that topped $70 a barrel and gasoline prices that surpassed $3 a gallon after hurricanes battered the Gulf Coast.
Both ChevronTexaco Corp. and ConocoPhillips saw their revenues jump in 2005, increasing by 28 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Chevron climbed two spots to No. 4, while Conoco edged up to No. 6 from No. 7 last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.moneycentral.msn.com ...
wow... wonder how that happend :/
Good for Exxon. Now get to work and find some new reserves!!
Geaux Tiger!
That would mean lowering energy prices so it isn't going to happen. The same is true when it comes to building new refineries.
Why spend money on something that will just lower your profit over the course of the next decade when you don't have to.
The profit margin on the gas is still roughly the same. So selling MORE gallons would increase the profits.
Not to mention the tax revenue increases.
Then why is it when gas and oil prices spiked big time last fall that Exxon and all other oil companies made a hell of alot more money?
Worldwide demand is up. China, India, etc, etc.
Well, you are comparing two completely different numbers: profit as a percentage of revenue, and year-over-year profit growth. The profits and sales for the two companies are in the same ballpark, but they are pointing out that it was a 9.5% increase for Wal-Mart (lower growth than the "high teens" of previous years) and a 25.5% increase for Exxon.
Both ChevronTexaco Corp. and ConocoPhillips saw their revenues jump in 2005, increasing by 28 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Chevron climbed two spots to No. 4, while Conoco edged up to No. 6 from No. 7 last year.
I hear ya... but what I can't figure out is why I'm paying over 2.55 a gallon RIGHT NOW.
Gas has gone up 30 cents in the past month around these parts... no Hurricanes, etc... is because of the switch to summer blends? They've been doing these 'switches' for decades? is it really that costly?
IMHO, They are just gearing us up for 3.50 to 4.00 a gallon gas this summer.... and more record profits!
Time to take my oil stock profits and buy a diesel.
...and some people say we are not getting gouged. :/
The poster was correct when it comes to the numbers. Exxon/Mobil's "record profits" represented about 10% of their gross revenues, which is a pretty poor return on investment when you consider that the energy sector is supposed to be at or near its historic peak.
My Grandfather was VP of distribution for the East Coast for a large oil company during the 70s. He said that there was never a national gas shortage, the problem was getting the correct blend of gasoline to the right location. Add that to the idiocy of price fixing at the federal level, and prices were driven sky high nationwide.
I was glad to see that the Bush administration had the good sense not to muddle with pricing during Katrina. There was a genuine supply problem then, in that the refineries were largely knocked offline.
When did exploration and leasing become revenue generators, and how is that feat accomplished?
It's worth noting that once a company gets as big as Exxon/Mobil, it's no longer a sector-specific company anymore. Exxon's operations include oil and gas extraction/production/transportation, real estate, chemical and plastics manufacturing, and even just plain old equities trading. One of the company's sources of revenue for the 2005 calendar year was the sale of $1.4 billion worth of shares in the Chinese oil company Sinopec.
Not without assignment rights from the lessor. And even with assignment rights, lessee transfers of leasehold or development rights are pretty much a wash financially, with the principal benefactors in terms of revenue being the lessors and override holders. O&G companies aren't generally in the business of being land holders or lessors, and are generally the payors on royalties, not the recipients.
And I'm still interested in how exploration is a revenue generator.
The big producers tend to make the lion's share of their money at the wellhead, not in refining or retail sales, but I'm not aware of any statement of earnings for ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, Shell, etc. that attributes significant income to lease trades or exploration. Could be, but I haven't seen it.
Just why would they do that? Apparently the less they have the more profit they make.</ Sarcasm>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.