Exxon Mobil profit nearly doubles By Ben Rooney, staff reporterJuly 29, 2010: 12:29 PM ET NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. reported quarterly earnings Thursday that easily beat analysts' expectations on higher crude prices. The world's largest public energy company reported net income of $7.56 billion, or $1.60 a share, in the second quarter, up 91% from $3.95 billion, or 81 cents a share, in the same period in 2009. Analysts were expecting earnings of $1.46 a share, according to a survey by Thomson Financial. Earnings for the first half of 2010, excluding special items, were $13.9 billion, up 60% over the first half of 2009. Shares of Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) were little changed in Thursday trading. Rex Tillerson, Exxon's chief executive officer, said in a statement that the results reflect an increase in oil production, improved profitability in refining and strong performance in the company's chemicals business. Lower refining profits had weighed on Exxon's results in recent quarters as the weak economy damped fuel consumption and crude prices rose. But margins improved in the second quarter as refining activity picked up ahead of the summer driving season. Exxon said earnings in its global refining business rose $708 million to $1.22 billion in the quarter, driven by improved profitability. Earnings in the company's chemicals business, its smallest division, jumped $1 billion to $1.37 billion.
Well, I understand the political rationale for wanting to maintain presence in parts of the world to "protect US interests" - and energy is obviously a good excuse for that. BUT - it seems to me that if we devote some resource to mass-production R&D for synthesizing our own fuel, we free ourselves up from having to do the policing (since according to the economic/banking crises that was created, we can't afford to anyway). That would leave the U.S. with the strongest military power, but energy independence. We could still be policeman to the troubled part of the world with that power.... But, for a price. That is, not for oil, which we would need much less of, but for payment from countries requiring security - INTO THE U.S. TREASURY. That would relieve U.S. taxpayers of a big burden.....
Any chance Big Ears Barry would sign such legislation if they did? We could have solved our foreign oil dpendance decades ago - if our federal government really wanted to. In fact if, I'm not mistaken, that's why the the Dept. of Energy was created. To reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There's another example of federal involvement either not working at all despite billions spent or even making things worse.
Carter tried, Daddy Reagan shut it down... Reagan, father of massive deficit spending and corporate welfare, all but killed alternative energy. http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/08/who-got-us-in-this-energy-mess-start-with-ronald-reagan/ "Those of you with keen memories may recall that the energy crisis is not new. In 1977, Jimmy Carter called it the "moral equivalent of war." In the sort of speech a politician rarely delivers, he told a not-particularly-grateful nation that his energy program was going to hurt, but "a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy." The core of his initiative was conservation. Carter had earlier asked us to lower our thermostats and wear sweaters. He wore one himself. Reagan, who succeeded Carter in the White House, wore only a smile. For him, there was no energy crisis. Whereas Carter had insisted that only the government could manage the energy crisis, Reagan, in his first inaugural, demanded that government get out of the way. Speaking of general economic conditions at the time, he said, "Government is not the solution to our problem." He went on to call for America to return to greatness, to "reawaken this industrial giant," and all sorts of swell things would happen. It was wonderful stuff. To contrast the two speeches is like comparing the screeching of a cat to the miracles of Mozart. Yet today, Carter's speech reads as prescient. Most of his dire predictions -- "It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century" -- have generally come true, although not quite as soon or as calamitously as he had warned. The pity of it all is that in American politics, being right is beside the point. It is not my intention to pummel the late Ronald Reagan for what he did or did not do back in the 1980s. It is my intention, though, to suggest that Reaganism -- to which Republicans now swear allegiance -- has outlived its very short usefulness and ought to be junked. This is not to say that government is the answer to all our ills. It is only to note that if you think the answer is private enterprise, then drive to the nearest gas station and admire the prices brought to you by private companies. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070702215.html
DoE doesn't look "shut down" to me dopey. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/12budget/Content/Apprsum.pdf Lets say Reagan did shut down alternative energy, why didn't Clinton resurrect it?
Ask Clinton. Jimmy tried to put us on the right track, Reagan shot that down and said essentially, live for today, strive for excess, forget about the future... The DOE isn't following Carter's plan. Carter was not sponsored by big oil...
I doubt he'd take my calls so I'm asking you, the self proclaimed know it all and supporter of Clinton. Even if true it's now irrelevant ancient fucking history. You're right here, it's following Obama's "plan". Maybe Clinton and Obama were/are.
I doubt he'd take my calls so I'm asking you, the self proclaimed know it all and supporter of Clinton. Please provide a link and quote where I claimed to "know it all." Sorry about your inferiority complex... Even if true it's now irrelevant ancient fucking history. Less than two generations ago is ancient history. Kids these days... You're right here, it's following Obama's "plan". I don't agree with Obama's plan. Maybe Clinton and Obama were/are. Maybe they are. No president since Carter has actually and sincerely tried to solve the problem.
Just as soon as I have time to sift through your multiple alias' and what must be 40,000 + posts now. Does you claiming that you're never wrong count?
Provide a link to where I claim that I am never wrong. Good luck, and remember to be specific on the claim you stated below.