Exxon

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:37 am

I am very glad to see Exxon is not struggling to much during these unsettling times in the oil industry.

Exxon Bumps Wal-Mart from No. 1 on Fortune 500
Monday, April 03, 2006

NEW YORK — Skyrocketing energy prices propelled Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) to the top of the 2006 Fortune 500 list, and consigned Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) 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.

Exxon Mobil last appeared at No. 1 in 2001. Only Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil and General Motors Corp. (GM) have topped the list since its inception in 1954.

Wal-Mart had $315.654 billion in revenue, a 9.5 percent increase from last year. Because of its pervasive U.S. presence, the world's largest retailer has struggled to sustain profit growth in the high teens as it had in previous years.

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. (CVX) and ConocoPhillips (COP) 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.

The major U.S. automakers showed their vulnerability as they faced declining U.S. sales and increasing benefit costs.

GM barely retained its hold on the No. 3 spot, while Ford Motor Co. (F) slipped to fifth place from No. 4. GM's revenues decreased nearly one-half percent to $192.604 billion, while Ford's rose less than 3 percent to $177.21 billion.

General Electric (GE) slipped two rungs to No. 7, while its revenue rose 3.1 percent to $157.153 billion. Citigroup (C) and American International Group (AIG) followed at Nos. 8 and 9, holding their places from 2005.

International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) held onto the last spot in the top 10, although its revenues fell by 5.4 percent to $91.134 billion.

In general, 2005 treated the top U.S. companies to big revenues and profits. The 500 brought in a combined $9.1 trillion in revenue, a 10.2 percent increase over last year, and $610 billion in profits, record numbers on both accounts.

Low long-term interest rates, which spurred consumer spending, and a growing global economy helped the companies to hit those records. The global economy grew by 4.25 percent, led by China, India and a recovering Japan.

"We really are a one world economy," said Cait Murphy, assistant managing editor at Fortune. "If the global economic growth is strong, then the 500 will do well, because they have substantial operations and sales abroad."

Only three of the 47 industry groups that the magazine tracks lost money last year: the airline, motor vehicles and building materials industries.

The seven airline companies on the list lost a total of $28.4 billion last year. Only Southwest Airlines Co. (LUV) was profitable. Ten of the 16 motor vehicle companies were profitable, but big losses from GM and Delphi Corp. weighed down the sector.

Pipelines, Internet services and retailing, petroleum refining and mining-crude oil production were the fastest-growing industries of 2005.

Internet services and retailing companies turned in a 125.9 percent increase in profits, prompting the magazine to create a new industry category. The most notable newcomers to the 500 fell into that category, with Google Inc. (GOOG) debuting at No. 353, Yahoo! Inc (YHOO). at No. 412 and eBay Inc. (EBAY) at No. 458. The three combined for $5.7 billion in profits.

Meanwhile, Gateway Inc. failed to make the list this year after appearing on it since 1993. Last year, the company slid in at No. 495.

"Gateway hasn't fully recovered from the dot-com bust," Murphy said.

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:52 pm

Did you see the figures a while ago about Exxon profits up 75% between 3rd quarter 2005 and 3rd quarter 2006?

PROFITS my friends, not EXPENSES.

Stevicat · Post by **Stevicat** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:55 pm

Thank God for companies like Exxon. They provide the product that our entire economy and way of life depends on as well as hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs.

Congrats to Exxon!!

BWahlberg · Post by **BWahlberg** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 2:01 pm

Although I cannot confirm this as truth I do recall reading an e mail saying that Exxon also gets most of its oil from the middle east. The letter was a comparison of where companies "get" their oil.

Didn't congress just also GIVE companies like Exxon millions of US taxpayer dollars to locate more sources of oil in our latest energy bill? You'd think with profits like those they could pay to find it themselfs...

RyeCat · Post by **RyeCat** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 5:29 am

Hey, I'm all for the free market, capitalism, yada yada yada., but I am thankful I still live in a country where I can complain when I have to bendover and grab my ankles at the the gas pump.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:46 am

question for everybody:

would you rather pay high gas prices or have a replay of the 70's gas lines?

i dont know but personally i think that the gas/oil prices are not high enough, as evil as that sounds it has good reason. we would see more creative usaage of american creativity then just hibreads if the price of gas is a lot higher, now we just have complaining that will get nowhere because nobody would do anything about it

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:51 am

We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.

In addition, you can thank tax cuts AND recent spikes in oil and natural gas prices for the large (and growing) budget surplus that we have at the state level.

Hell's Bells · Post by **Hell's Bells** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:52 am

HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.

In addition, you can thank tax cuts AND recent spikes in oil and natural gas prices for the large (and growing) budget surplus that we have at the state level.

discussion yes
action no

btw i drive a little 4 cylinder thinger *cant quite call it a car* so dont go asking if i did anything to save gas....

btw avitar check

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:55 am

I would say that there is action on alternative fuels. Is it "massive" action? No.
However, the govt is starting to get involved, and the market is taking notice. I couldn't help but see all the advertisements for ethanol 85 fueled Fords during the tournament.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:36 am

HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.

Keep in mind what these gas prices are doing to Montana’s third largest industry- tourism. Tourism will continue to decline as gas prices rise. Tourism was down last year in Montana, and I would make a wager that they will be down again this year.

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:41 am

G.W.Bush wrote:
HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.
Keep in mind what these gas prices are doing to Montana’s third largest industry- tourism. Tourism will continue to decline as gas prices rise. Tourism was down last year in Montana, and I would make a wager that they will be down again this year.

Agreed.
However, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that our third largest industry (tourism) may not be doing well, the money is overflowing into our state coffers.
What this says to me is that while tourism is a fine industry, the future of our state is not in tourism. If it is, then we will face huge tax increases in order to continue to fund our current level of spending in Montana.

G.W.Bush · Post by **G.W.Bush** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:55 am

HelenaCat95 wrote:
G.W.Bush wrote:
HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.
Keep in mind what these gas prices are doing to Montana’s third largest industry- tourism. Tourism will continue to decline as gas prices rise. Tourism was down last year in Montana, and I would make a wager that they will be down again this year.
Agreed.
However, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that our third largest industry (tourism) may not be doing well, the money is overflowing into our state coffers.
What this says to me is that while tourism is a fine industry, the future of our state is not in tourism. If it is, then we will face huge tax increases in order to continue to fund our current level of spending in Montana.

Or we could implement a sales tax… This should have been done two decades ago!

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:58 am

HelenaCat95 wrote:
G.W.Bush wrote:
HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.
Keep in mind what these gas prices are doing to Montana’s third largest industry- tourism. Tourism will continue to decline as gas prices rise. Tourism was down last year in Montana, and I would make a wager that they will be down again this year.
Agreed.
However, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that our third largest industry (tourism) may not be doing well, the money is overflowing into our state coffers.
What this says to me is that while tourism is a fine industry, the future of our state is not in tourism. If it is, then we will face huge tax increases in order to continue to fund our current level of spending in Montana.

With no sales tax, the effect of tourism on the tax revenues is severely limited as compared to other major industries.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:59 am

The Prez beats me to the punch!

HelenaCat95 · Post by **HelenaCat95** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:01 am

G.W.Bush wrote:
HelenaCat95 wrote:
G.W.Bush wrote:
HelenaCat95 wrote:We would not be having a national discussion on alternative fuels, ethanol, bio-diesel, wind power, coal development in Eastern MT, etc., if it was not for recent gas prices.
Keep in mind what these gas prices are doing to Montana’s third largest industry- tourism. Tourism will continue to decline as gas prices rise. Tourism was down last year in Montana, and I would make a wager that they will be down again this year.
Agreed.
However, it is interesting to note that despite the fact that our third largest industry (tourism) may not be doing well, the money is overflowing into our state coffers.
What this says to me is that while tourism is a fine industry, the future of our state is not in tourism. If it is, then we will face huge tax increases in order to continue to fund our current level of spending in Montana.
Or we could implement a sales tax… This should have been done two decades ago!

I could not agree more....unfortunately, the political will to do this is very very low.

Bobcat4Life · Post by **Bobcat4Life** » Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:30 am

A sales tax in Montana that wouldn't happen in the next decade.......hell, it was just a few months ago we had to quit drinking and driving.