BBC NEWS
Exxon Mobil profits exceed $25bn
US oil giant Exxon Mobil made a record $25.3bn (£13.4bn; 19.4bn euros) profit in 2004 as it exploited the surge in crude oil prices.
The world's largest public oil company saw income from exploration, production and refining soar despite a decline in the amount of oil and gas produced.
Revenues hit a record $298bn as worries over disruption to oil supplies in Iraq, Nigeria and Russia lifted prices.
The firm's annual profit is higher than the gross domestic product of Syria.
Soaring prices
Exxon Mobil's profits rose to $25.33bn from $21.51bn last year, on revenues up 17% to $298bn.
The strong performance boosted its shares, which rose 39 cents to $51.66 in early trading.
Along with the world's other biggest oil producers, Exxon Mobil benefited from the giddy rise in crude oil prices last year.
Ever-increasing demand for oil from China and India plus worries over interruptions to output from key markets fuelled a rise in prices to a thirty year high.
The increases culminated in prices hitting $55 a barrel in October.
The Texas-based company exceeded market expectations with its performance, which also broke records for the fourth quarter of 2004.
It made an $8.4bn quarterly profit - its highest ever - on revenues of $83.3bn.
Bumper year
"Strong operational performance in all areas of our business helped Exxon Mobil capture the benefits of favourable market conditions in 2004," said chairman Lee Raymond.
Profits from production and exploration in 2004 rose by more than $1.5bn to $4.8bn while profits from refining tripled to $2.3bn.
Exxon Mobil's chemicals business also prospered, generating profits of $1.25bn, compared to $476m the year before.
The sharp rise in profit was achieved despite a 1% fall in oil production and a 2% decline in gas output.
Analysts said the company's profits were much higher than expected, even taking into account the escalation in crude oil prices.
"This is a particularly impressive set of results given that every segment outperformed expectations," Credit Suisse First Boston said.
According to media reports, Anglo-Dutch oil firm S is expected on Thursday to reveal a record annual profit for a UK firm of about £9.2bn.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ss/4223573.stm
Published: 2005/01/31 17:41:37 GMT
© BBC MMV
So buy stock in oil companies.
Last edited by Useruser666; 01-31-2005 at 02:07 PM.
Wow, that was brilliant. That really made me want to hear what you had to say.One of the Real Reasons shrub/ head, oilmen, started an unnecessary war
Black gold, baby.
I think only the naive may believe that an imperial power would not think of the dream scenario of a cluster of military bases planted over virtually unlimited reserves of oil.
I think only the terminally stupid and cynical would believe this war was fought for oil.
then it was fought for a mistake instead
our lord our savior george w bush done ed up. come on you can say it you old crusty blowhard
What mistake?
He’s referring to the WMD’s.
Well, if that were the only (or even the most significant) reason we'd gone to war, then he'd be right.
uh what did our lord our savior george w bush say was the reason? that was the most significant reason he gave, again and again and again.
It was the main reason and you fell for it but won't admit it.
"The Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
W
March 17, 2003
i thought Bush said if sadaam didn't want to be invaded, all he had to do was dismantle his weapons program
Well, aside from my belief (and the belief of most of the sane world) there were WMD's, prior to invasion, there were a mul ude of reasons given for invading Iraq. From continued resistance to and defiance of over a dozen UNSC resolutions, to human rights abuses verging on genocide, to attempted assassination of a sitting president, to frequent and blatant violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to inflammatory rhetoric (to the effect of using WMD's on our troops), and on and on and on...
That you can't seem to be able to avert your attention from the mainstream media's perception of the war is telling.
yes, yes, it's all that evil media's fault.
thank jesus that fox news can tell us everything is alright.
blah blah blah. man it was all about the wmd program.
Maybe for the media and the left.
man he said saddam had them and he didnt. he ed up he isnt going on mount rushmore hes going to be the laughing stock of history
Saddam did have them. The question seems to be -- when did he get rid of them and how. And, Saddam Hussein had the entire international community (via the UNSC) demanding he get rid of them and then tell how he did so. That he didn't would, any reasonable person could conclude, seem to mean he didn't get rid of them.
So, where are they?
The point is that no one knows. Dubya thought they were in Iraq. Wrong. Where to next?
bush said he knew he had them. you dont make a statement like that unless you know with damn near 100 percent certainty. you dont send 1400+ americans to their deaths unless you know.
Once again, there's no reason the statement couldn't have been 100% true at the time it was made only to change because of the actions of Saddam Hussein the very next day.
So, where are they?
ask your lord your savior george w bush. you said he knew.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
