Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71213141516171819 LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 365
  1. #321  
    Taxes would be another thread altogether. NO company pays taxes. It is you and I who pay (consumers & investors & such).
  2. #322  
    Hobbes - these project startup costs grow more staggering every year (harder to find hydrocarbons) was my point about this.

    Bet it would interest some to know that some oil companies are already amomg the largest investors in the research & development of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
  3. #323  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Hehehe, I just checked and they paid almost a hundred billion in total taxes last year.
    "Income, excise and all other taxes totaled $98.6 billion in 2005, an increase of $11.8 billion or 14 percent from 2004. Income tax expense, both current and deferred, was $23.3 billion, $7.4 billion higher than 2004, reflecting higher pre-tax income in 2005. The effective tax rate was 41.4 percent in 2005, compared to 40.3 percent in 2004. During both periods, the Corporation continued to benefit from the favorable resolution of other tax-related issues. Excise and all other taxes and duties of $75.3 billion in 2005 increased $4.4 billion from 2004, reflecting higher prices and foreign exchange effects. "
    like I've said, the accounting depts of these companies have mastered Cold Fusion -- they've perfected accounting alchemy on a level that would make houdini's head spin --
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  4. #324  
    I'm currently shopping for a VW diesel, but its not easy, because in New York State all new diesel cars arn't allowed to be sold due to the gasoline favored emmisions laws. But I know its worth the effort.
    Somebody....anybody........................Don't let Dr. Doom spill his Kool-Aid on his brand new "perrywinkle" sweater vest!!!
  5. #325  
    Most everyone laps up that black goo. Only some of us say/repeat things we've heard or have been told w/o investigating into the facts.

    There were very legitimate reasons why some refineries were shut down or not upgraded. Well, I say legitimate, probably should say external, because they were governmental &/or environmental. If it wasn't for our government and some whackos (not all enviros are whackos by the way) I would venture to say that quite a few that shut down would still be up and running.

    There was a law or ruling or something passed in the mid 90's. Essentially it stated that if a refiner wanted to replace an old piece of equipment with a new piece because of efficiency or capacity, they not only had to do environmental studies associated with that new piece (which is understandable), but they had to do it with the whole refining unit, and install equipment that would bring the whole unit up to today's standards. So because of the huge costs involved, a lot of incremental efficiency upgrades did not occur. I'm pretty sure that law was repealed a few yrs ago.
  6. #326  
    BTW, I think that law was titled something like "New Source Review".

    There's more energy bound up in deisel than there is in gasoline.
  7. #327  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    like I've said, the accounting depts of these companies have mastered Cold Fusion -- they've perfected accounting alchemy on a level that would make houdini's head spin --
    I get it. Because you say so, the numbers aren't real. That makes winning arguments really easy. I should try it.
  8. #328  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    some are mathematically challenged and are having a hard time figuring out how the difference between selling something profitably at $20, versus now selling that same thing instead at $75 can make you more money.

    Its conditions like these that make it easy to argue for "windfall" profit taxes on these excessive profits -- well above and beyond anything that was forseeable by the companies producing the oil -- and which could be used to pay down the debt or advance alternative energy research and implementation.

    Remember we are talking about many many billions of dollars
    Excluding a $17 million charge for non-operating items, BP's underlying or "clean" net profit was $5.282 billion, compared with an average forecast of $5.21 billion in a Reuters poll of eight analysts and $4.96 billion in the same period of 2005.

    As usual, it was BP's upstream oil and gas production unit which powered the strong results, with higher oil prices more than compensating for lower volumes.

    The upstream unit underperformed analysts' forecasts, but this was more than compensated for by the refining unit.

    "The downstream was particularly strong, which is a plus, given all the Texas City outages and the weak quarter they had in Q4 last year, so it's definitely rebounded," said Oswald Clint, analyst at Sanford Bernstein.

    The refining unit reported profits of $1.612 billion, compared with an average forecast from three analysts who had predicted earnings of only $865 million.

    Profits at the unit rose compared with a year earlier, despite lower margins and the closure of the London-based firm's Texas City refinery which helped cut volumes by around 20 percent.

    The refinery is now back online but BP said "the full financial potential" of the refinery would not be realised until 2007.

    The company said an increase in taxation of UK oil and gas production would lead to a one-time deferred tax charge of around $600 million.

    BP said it would pay a quarterly dividend of 9.375 cents per share.

    BP's shares were trading down 0.35 percent at 709 pence at 8:01 a.m..
    From the article linked earlier. Governments arnt completely stupid, and they want money as much as anyone else.

    Surur
  9. #329  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    Its conditions like these that make it easy to argue for "windfall" profit taxes on these excessive profits -- well above and beyond anything that was forseeable by the companies producing the oil -- and which could be used to pay down the debt or advance alternative energy research and implementation.
    Oil industry aside, aren't you bothered at all by the prospect of the government deciding how much profit is excessive?
  10. #330  
    New Source Review was it. Google for it & READ. Not quite the way I remember it, but effectively the same implications I described.
  11. #331  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I get it. Because you say so, the numbers aren't real. That makes winning arguments really easy. I should try it.
    though I haven't time for a thorough search, this article gives a partial description of the techniques used by companies with big foreign operations -- especially huge vertically integrated ones -- to hide their profits:

    Because of the multiple tax breaks especially afforded to US oil companies (various hyper generous depreciation allowances, for example), their opportunities for financial juggling are particularly advantageous.

    Profit Laundering and Tax Evasion
    By Lucy Komisar Dissent Magazine
    Spring 2005

    The debate about cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy is a false one. The issue is not whether transnational corporations and the very rich benefit from tax cuts, but that many of them walk away from all taxes...

    How It Works

    ...the offshore venues assess little or no taxes on foreign-owned shell companies. Some of these shells have no function other than to hold the assets of corporations or individuals. The offshore banks that handle the shell company money are not underground operations run by unknown shady characters. The banks' managers may indeed be shady, but most of them work for subsidiaries of the multinationals-Citibank, Bank of New York, Credit Suisse, Barclays, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and others.

    More than half of world trade is within corporations, not between them. And half the world's trade goes through offshore centers, as corporations shift profits to where they can avoid taxes. Companies set up offshore "subsidiaries" that, on their books, perform functions that allow the firms to cut their taxes. The simplest ploy is the "sale" and "rental" back of a company's logo or other intangible assets. Or money stashed in tax havens is "loaned" back to the U.S. company, which then deducts interest payments on its tax returns.

    Even more important is transfer pricing: allocating profits for tax and other purposes among parts of a multinational corporate group. Offshore "trading" offices or companies handle imports and exports, buying a U.S. export from a company at a sharply reduced paper cost and selling it abroad for the real-world market value, so the exporting company makes no profit. That stays with the tax haven trading company. In the reverse, a company buys goods at a real price and "sells" to the U.S. firm at a grossly inflated one, so the U.S. firm has a huge cost to deduct when it uses the item in manufacture or resells it at a loss...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  12. #332  
    refinery capacity according to CBS news:

    1980 we had the capacity to refine 18 million Barrels/day w/a demand of 17 million barrels/day

    todays capacity is 17 million barrels/day (less than 1980) while demand has grown to 20.2 million barrels/day
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  13. #333  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    Oil industry aside, aren't you bothered at all by the prospect of the government deciding how much profit is excessive?
    For an industry like oil that is so interwoven with this presidency and this congress I would have no hesitation in taxing agressively the "windfall" that came to them as the result of the giant increase in oil prices.

    This windfall was not the result of either innovation on their part, or of research that succeeded in discovering new cheap energy sources. The profit comes as much from luck and incompetency as from anything else.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  14. #334  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    For an industry like oil that is so interwoven with this presidency and this congress I would have no hesitation in taxing agressively the "windfall" that came to them as the result of the giant increase in oil prices.

    This windfall was not the result of either innovation on their part, or of research that succeeded in discovering new cheap energy sources. The profit comes as much from luck and incompetency as from anything else.
    Two problems: one, even if you're right about this administration and congress, what happens six months from now? Two years from now? Two, its not just oil. By setting profit windfall taxes you're setting a precedent for other industries/entities.
  15. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #335  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    refinery capacity according to CBS news:

    1980 we had the capacity to refine 18 million Barrels/day w/a demand of 17 million barrels/day

    todays capacity is 17 million barrels/day (less than 1980) while demand has grown to 20.2 million barrels/day
    I thought you might find this interesting.


    Source: MSNBC

    Chevron Memo Raises Suspicion

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A Chevron memo is raising suspicion that oil executives intentionally reduced refining capacity in an effort to boost profits. The 1995 memo, obtained by Consumers Union, reads:

    "If the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refinery profits."

    In the last 20 years, 18 of California's 32 refineries have shut down. The industry is now seeing record prices and profits at the pump.

    On Friday, former oil and gas executive Joe Sparano spoke with KCRA 3 and made no apologies for continued rise in gas prices. In fact, he explained that prices are a direct result of driver demand far exceeding gas supply.

    . . .

    When asked when prices would come down and by how much, Sparano said he didn't know.

    Sparano openly acknowledged that he is answering questions as part of a public relations campaign to educate and explain the high price of gas.

    He also stressed that he is telling the truth when he said that oil companies are simply charging the price the market will pay and is not ruling out the possibility that gas could someday drop below $2 a gallon again.
    and


    Source: USNewswire

    Evidence Shows Shell to Demolish Profitable Refinery, Drive Up Gas Prices; Consumer Group Seeks Intervention of Bush, Kerry, CA Attorney General

    SANTA MONICA, Calif., April 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights today released internal Shell documents showing the oil refiner is set to close and demolish its Bakersfield refinery despite the fact the site had the biggest refinery margins, or profits per gallon, of any Shell refinery in the nation as of yesterday.

    Shell had claimed it was not economically viable to keep the refinery open and has refused to put it up for sale. Bakersfield supplies 2 percent of the state's gasoline and only 13 refineries feed California's tight gasoline supply (down from 37 in 1983).

    An April 5th internal Shell document released today by FTCR shows that Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation. That means, for example, that margins are 36 cents per gallon higher in Bakersfield than in Port Arthur, Texas. The internal document comments under the category of refinery margins.
    Last edited by NRG; 05/08/2006 at 09:22 AM.
  16. #336  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE
    though I haven't time for a thorough search, this article gives a partial description of the techniques used by companies with big foreign operations -- especially huge vertically integrated ones -- to hide their profits
    So you're saying XOM owed more than $100 billion in taxes last year? Because what you put forth is not an explanation of why that number misrepresents what they actually paid, but that they should have paid more. This whole thing smacks of a witch hunt of successful people and corporations...
  17. #337  
    So, does that make any sort of sense to anyone other than the poster? In order to increase profits, Shell shuts down its MOST profitable refinery??? Duh....
  18.    #338  
    All about controling supply and demand. Memory makers do the same thing to a lesser degree. But memory chips are not the backbone of our economy either.
  19. #339  
    Quote Originally Posted by sblanter
    So, does that make any sort of sense to anyone other than the poster? In order to increase profits, Shell shuts down its MOST profitable refinery??? Duh....
    That depends on what the operating expenses of the most profitable refinery are and how much the shift in supply & demand will gouge us at the pump... Duh..
  20. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #340  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    All about controling supply and demand. Memory makers do the same thing to a lesser degree. But memory chips are not the backbone of our economy either.
    Nail, meet head.

Posting Permissions