Exxon Mobil profits plunge 66%

[HiyaEmerald Eyes]

Source: CNN

The energy company says the weak global economy and volatile oil prices hurt second-quarter results.

Last Updated: July 30, 2009: 12:56 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil reported a 66% decline in second-quarter earnings Thursday as demand for energy remained weak and prices for oil and gas tumbled from last year's highs.

The world's largest publicly traded oil company said it earned $3.95 billion in the second quarter, down from $11.68 billion a year earlier. On a per-share basis, Exxon said it earned 81 cents, down from $2.22 in the second quarter of 2008.

Excluding certain items, including $140 million for interest related to the Valdez punitive damages award, Exxon said it earned $4.09 billion, or 84 cents per share, in the quarter.

The results were well below forecasts. Analysts were expecting earnings of $1.02 per share, according to Thomson Reuters.

Revenue plunged to $74.46 billion in the quarter from $138 billion a year ago. But revenue was higher than the $71.3 billion that analysts had forecast.

"Global economic conditions continue to impact the energy industry both in the volatility of commodity prices and reduced demand for products," Exxon Mobil chairman Rex Tillerson said in a statement.

Challenging times: The larger-than-expected decline highlights the challenges facing energy producers as the economic downturn curbs the world's appetite for fuel and stockpiles of crude oil continue to grow.

Oil prices averaged around $60 a barrel in the second quarter, compared with roughly $124 a barrel in the same period in 2008.

At the same time, weak demand for oil-based products has caused crude supplies to swell, which has squeezed profit margins for many refiners.


Read more: http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/30/news/companies/XOM_earns/?postversion=2009073012

[rfranklin]

1. Time for a bonus!

Got to motivate the poor CEO!

[subsuelo]

2. In the form of a bailout

Come on, everyone, pitch in!

[jamesatemple]

7. Hey! I've got a crazy idea!

Why doesn't our government separate Exxon from Mobil under the auspices of the Sherman Antitrust Act in order that, equally divided, the loss will only be half as much for each of the greedy corporations?
A side benefit would be that the two could actually compete with one another for business.

If such an outlandish idea were to work, the legislators could go on to break up other giants in the oil business.

I told you my idea was crazy. Our government only broke up monopolies in the old days. Now, it encourages corporate control over everything, resulting in concentrated power, astronomical wages and benefits, and sizes "too large to let fail". Then, when these giants falter, the taxpayer has to cough up bailout money.

[Titanothere]

15. Uh, they were separate until 2000 or so ...

You obviously don't know anything about the oil business. ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco etc (most used to be part of Standard Oil and were separated due to anti-trust, and then made much more money apart than they had together) have been reconsolidating due to the insane amount of money it takes to explore for oil and gas in deep water these days. A single deepwater well, which might be a dry hole, can cost over $250 million dollars.

And as far as oil "giants" go, most are foreign, state owned companies and ExxonMobil doesn't even make the list. ExxonMobil has to compete with these guys since you can't hardly drill a well in the US anymore, they have to get bigger to survive. Unless you want the Saudi's dictating all your oil supplies?

Reserves in billions of barrels
Saudi Arabian Oil Company 295
National Iranian Oil Company 287
Qatar Petroleum 165
Abu Dhabi National Oil Company 137
Iraq National Oil Company 137
Gazprom 115
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation 107
Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. 102
Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation 62
National Oil Corporation (Libya) 45
Sonatrach 40
Rosneft 35

[sofa king]

27. And what would happen if we did drill in the US?

The United States has a reserve to production ratio of eight years. That means that at current consumption, the US could function for only eight years on its proven reserves. Opening up more wells would simply lower that figure. America's production, even if it doubled, wouldn't be able to make a dent in world oil prices.

The reason why people want to drill more wells in America is because it makes a shitload of money for the people drilling, without offering any benefit to Americans.

In fact, what more drilling will do is further weaken America's strategic position. The concept of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as envisioned by the Nixon Administration, was to dramatically reduce domestic production in order to use the reserves of our potential enemies, like, oh, every government we overthrew from 1950 to 1971, including Iran's.

George W. Bush changed all that. He opened the spigots and started a war which conveniently shot the price of oil through the roof for five years. As a result we, America, paid top-dollar to burn our best defense. And we'll pay for that, I promise you.

[Titanothere]

28. Believe me, I'm with you on this one

I fully support leaving America's reserves until last so to speak. Why deplete our own finite resources before their time when we can access others? I don't think anything Bush did significantly depleted our resources, I haven't heard of any major discoveries off of Florida or California yet, and probably won't for years.

[sofa king]

33. Bush only had to do one thing.

By starting the Iraq war, we drove the price of oil up 200%. Once oil hits $90 a barrel, it becomes profitable to begin extracting from dormant wells in the United States. So starting in 2003, all those dormant wells cranked back up and haven't stopped since.

[cabluedem]

30. Let us not forget the Chevron/Gulf Oil buyout in 1990. Mo' money,honey. nt

[timeforpeace]

21. Those already happened, thus the "fall" of profits.

[fascisthunter]

3. I have a tiny violin

[GliderGuider]

8. Like this?

:nopity:

[fascisthunter]

13. something like that...

I was thinking more like this:

[Betsy Ross]

4. Nice to see good news posted now and then. n/t

[Titanothere]

12. You must not have a 401k or any mutual funds

Because if you do, then you just lost money. How is this good news?

[Betsy Ross]

16. I do have money in the market.

Somehow small investors have been losing money regardless of how much profit big companies are making. Making money on the abuses of oil companies, not so great.

[Hawkowl]

5. The recession is over!

People have stopped buying gasoline! First time unemployment claims are lower than expected! Yet add in continuing unemployment claims, those getting extended benefits beyond the initial 13 weeks, and we have a new 68 year record of over EIGHT MILLION UNEMPLOYED!

Jeezus H. Crist on a bicycle. The press and Obama's economic advisors are either lying to us, or just history's most corrupt confidence tricksters ever.

[tocqueville]

9. Jeezus H. Crist on a bicycle

[pattmarty]

6. AGAIN, missing the point here. Exxon-Mobil's profits have been......................

..................absolutely record breaking for how many years now, 6 or 8??? They don't have "Dick" anymore to listen to their crying about only 30% returns and invading countries to get more "product" for them. These cocksuckers are still making billions, so fuck them and their pussy crying!!!!

[saigon68]

10. Love your language mince no words

Tell it like it is

OUTSTANDING

[CatholicEdHead]

25. But if they are not continuing to be record breaking

during this and future quarters, then the CEO and board are not doing the job for the shareholders. Remember, maximum short term profit above all else.

:sarcasm:

[Deja Q]

32. Excuse me, they are not cocksuckers...

They are bushlickers.

Why the kinky euphemisms?

[Sewsojm]

11. Won't be long before they start jacking gas prices!!

[louis-t]

14. Where's my violin? Where's my violin?

Oh, here it is. :nopity:

[defendandprotect]

17. Should have been a windfall profits tax on them for earnings during Bush years . . .

OBAMA passed on that --

Carter did it -- and rightly so!!

[dmosh42]

18. We'll need to increase their subsidy from 18b+ ! n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

19. Too bad, So sad.

:cry: :nopity:

[liberal N proud]

20. Bend over, because we are about to get it in the gas tank

I hope they provide a lube job first.

[Skipperoo]

22. Oh Gee Darn! They only made $$$ 3.95 Billion Profit $$$

Life is tough when you don't have Oil Men in the White House.

[rhett o rick]

23. I smell bail-out. nm

[primavera]

24. Poor babies

Gosh, their execs might have to give up their status as trillionaires and be content to be humble billionaires.

[Festivito]

26. That is: from outrageous profits to just plainly too much profit.

All at our expense of course.

[bemildred]

29. Do bonuses reduce profit?

If you give a bonus, it's and "expense" right? So it reduces "profit"?

[Deja Q]

31. How much was oil in 2007? $70?

The profit loss was due to an artificial spike, based on mere speculation. It didn't deserve to be so high.

[muntrv]

34. Awwww poor Exxon/Mobile! This on top of no longer having oil men in the White House!

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[Bandit]

35. ONLY making 35 million a DAY in NET PROFIT

How do they get by? :shrug: