Conocophillips Posts $5.19B Profit
Conocophillips Posts $5.19B Profit
NEW YORK (Reuters) - ConocoPhillips (COP) , the No. 3 U.S. oil company,Wednesday reported a 65 percent surge in quarterly profit, boosted by sharply higher crude oil prices and the recent acquisition of Burlington Resources.
But the company warned production in the third quarter would be hurt by seasonal maintenance scheduled in Alaska, the United Kingdom and Venezuela and take a $400 million charge over higher U.K. tax rates.
Net income in the second quarter rose to $5.19 billion, or $3.09 a share, from $3.14 billion, or $2.21 a share, in the year-earlier quarter.
Analysts on average expected the company to report a profit of $2.79 a share, according to Reuters Estimates.
Revenue jumped to $47.1 billion, up from $41.8 billion in the year earlier quarter.
Oil and gas companies are enjoying another blockbuster quarter as crude oil prices stay at stubbornly high levels, driven by anxiety over violence spreading in the Middle East.
The company produced 2.54 million barrels of oil equivalent per day in the quarter, including an estimated 400,000 barrels per day from its stake in Russian oil giant LUKOIL.
ConocoPhillips' stake in LUKOIL stood at 18 percent at the end of the second quarter.
The higher crude oil prices and inclusion of Burlington into its results helped push earnings at its exploration and production to $3.3 billion in the quarter from $1.92 billion a year earlier.
Refining and marketing operations earnings rose to $1.71 billion, up from $1.11 billion a year earlier, as higher domestic refining margins helped offset lower worldwide marketing margins.
posted by jeff @ 10:01 AM
30 comments
30 Comments:
could someone please let me know how i can stick it to the man in this situation... my wife has an anxiety attack everytime i fill up with gas and these are the profits... this might be worse than making money on praise dance revolution or stuffed Jesus dolls (see Jeff's previous post)... but then again maybe not...
dang...
someone needs to figure out what the profit margin is on a gallon of gas. what would a gallon of gas cost without them making a profit?
all we have to figure out is how many gallons of gas Conoco-i'mtakingallyoumoney sold in that quarter...
a 65% increase in profits...
Jeff, don't worry, man. The government will get to the bottom of all this and take care of those who abuse the capitalistic system...
Oh, whoops, I forgot that Sen. Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens won't make the oil execs testify under oath. Read all about
it. (Sorry, couldn't find the hilarious Daily Show clip to go along with this).
Funny thing is that that all went down last fall pretty close to the time that a certain movie alluding to a supposed tight relationship between government and Big Oil was released by those "liberal, America hating, out of touch, tree-hugging, Hollywood people." (Oh, and did I mention that it had George Clooney in it?) :)
Here's a sweet excerpt from the senate hearing transcript. Good stuff!
CANTWELL: Mr. Chairman?
STEVENS: And we look forward to questions.
Senator Cantwell?
CANTWELL: Mr. Chairman, I did send you a letter co-signed by eight of my colleagues, and asking that the witnesses be sworn in.
This rare joint hearing...
STEVENS: I did not yield to make a statement. We're ready to go. We have a statement process...
CANTWELL: Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to vote on whether we swear in...
STEVENS: There will be no vote. That's not an order at all. It's not part of the rules that any vote can be taken to administer an oath. It's the decision of the chairman, and I have made that decision.
CANTWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we swear in the witnesses.
STEVENS: And I rule that out of order.
BOXER: I second the motion.
STEVENS: Thanks very much. That's the last we're going to hear about that because it's out of order.
BOXER: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, could I just ask just for a little clarification here?
BOXER: If a senator makes this request and there's a second, why wouldn't we have a vote on that?
STEVENS: Because you can't vote to put in the rules something that's not there.
BOXER: Mr. Chairman...
STEVENS: This is not a business meeting. There's no way to put this into the rules. This is a matter for the chairman to decide and I've made the decision.
(UNKNOWN): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say I'm...
STEVENS: Pardon me.
It specifically says in the rules, "The president of the Senate, speaker of the House or a chairman of any committee" can make the decision.
(UNKNOWN): And, Mr. Chairman, I concur.
STEVENS: Now, if we could come to order, and I would hope that we'd have -- I do believe that we do not wish to have standing room only in this. There's plenty of seats. Please take seats.
Jeff, just because you have a bleeding heart doesn't mean you have to BECOME a bleeding heart! Come back to the dark side of capitalism...Jeff, we miss you!
PS - How are those Birkenstocks workin' out for you?
Sam, please don't tell me you're blindly defending these guys
No, I woudln't say I'm "blindly" defending "these guys." What I am saying is if you think gas is overpriced and that you're getting ripped off, then don't buy it. Just like you wouldn't buy a McDonalds cheeseburger if it were $15.75, don't buy gas if it's $3.00/gallon. What's that Jeff? You say you can't function without gas? Man, sounds like good folks in the marketing department at Conocophillips need a pay raise to me! Maybe that's what they should do with their record profits! I'm just saying that if they have you so convinced that you can't live without gas, they've done one hell of a job selling their product. Isn't there a bus stop at the top of Ivy Lane???
(You're the best Jeff!)
OK...
Here's what we all know... the Government and Big Oil are in bed together...
Here's what we didn't know... Sam Ed is a love child of that very relationship...
Sometimes mommy and daddy lie... It's just like when they made you believe in Santa...
Ouch... I just stumped my toe... Dang Birkenstocks... Maybe I'll go order some real steal toe shoes on the internets... I just hope the tubes aren't clogged up again...
-J
(Sam, I am love you more than you know... please don't divrce me as a friend... ;)
Oopse Jason, was that me that stepped on your toe with my conservative yet trendy stelettos on my way to broker another deal with he big boys at Exxon (which today posted a much higher quarter profit than Connocophillps...way to go Exxon marketing department!)?
Let me clairify...I think gas prices are outrageous, just like you. Gas costs me the same price as you as I fill up my SUV with a V8 engine with all-wheel-drive. I simply don't think the government needs to come in with MORE regulations.
If we, as consumers, are fed up with the gas prices, then don't pay them...carpool, use public transportaiton (it does exist, even here in the Triangle), make sure you plan errands efficiently...but LESS gas! Just like McDonalds can only charge $15.75 for a hamburger if you're willing to pay it, oil companies can only charge $3.00/gallon if we are willing to pay it. There's a reason why a McDonald's hamburger is less than $2.00, it's because somewhere along the way, we decided that's what it was worth. What is gas worth to you?
(Jason, I would never friendship divorce you or Jeff...I believe in mixed relationships of all kinds...even with complaining liberals)
The current gas problem is evidence of American's short sightedness. In the 1970's, when gas prices when through the roof, america invested billions in alternative fuel's (sound familiar). When OPEC dropped the prices in the 1980's (thanks in some small part to advances in offshore drilling, and the opening of oilfields in other previously inaccessable places (Alaska)), America quickly abandoned its alternative fuel ideas: gas was cheaper.
The problem with the McDonald's analogy is that it assumes that people can quit eating McDonald's. People can't quit eating gas. When gas prices dropped, people moved out the suburbs, people moved a hour away from their jobs, and public transportation became dependant about gas instead of electricity (think trolley versus busses). We can't just jump horse midstream.
Do you know that poor people have the least access to effecieint public transportation. This means that the people who need to avoid the rising cost of the gas the most, can't because it takes them multiple bus changes, and "lay-overs" to get to where they need to be. Driving for them is often the only option.
Another intestering fact related to this is that 70% of African American's have to go over 3 miles to get to a grocery store. For our part, in the suburbs, we can bike to the grocery store cause its a mile from our house, not everyone can do that.
The point of me saying this isn't to be mean, or confrontational, but just to aggressively suggest that the "alternatives" that seem so easy aren't. OPEC threw us the bait in the 80's and 90's and when we could have been preparing, we were too busy gobbling up the easy food. If they were to drop prices again, in two weeks, we'd all quit talking about it....
However, this doens't get the oil companies off. They are guilty as sin...just something to say.....
If McDonalds charged $15 for a cheeseburger I would go to Wendy's... I can't go to BP and get cheaper gas than Exxon... That's why there are gov. regulations on the Oil people... well, in theory...
This is still a bad example even still because I am a complaining liberal and we are all Vegans anyways!!! - HAH!
Glad to know we are still friends...
Whoa, Sam, who said anything about more government regulations? Don't get me wrong, I am not totally against capitalism here.
However, I do have problems with those who might try and take advantage of the system, especially when the results affect all of us--including liberals, conservatives, Jeff, Jason :), and all the rest--in a negative way. I would think that if we are interested in preserving our current economic system, that we would want to continually evaluate it to make sure that it is staying resilient to corruption.
To further clarify, I'm not even trying to say that the oil companies are 100% corrupt. However, when I see that oil companies are turning record profits, and I'm paying record prices at the pump, I'm going to think that something's up. And hey, maybe it's just because I'm completely ignorant about this subject, but how am I supposed to ever learn when all I see on the news are responses like "You just have to let the market do its thing. You gotta just trust the market."
I just want the government to do a little bit of investigating. But how are they supposed to do that when some senators don't even think it's necessary for oil executives to testify under oath before a committee? Doesn't that leave them free to say whatever they want?
I may be illustrating my ignorance again here, but I personally think that it's a little sad and very ironic that Congress will make baseball players testify under oath about whether or not they took steroids, but they won't require oaths from the CEO's of companies whose business deals with a natural resource that affects each and every one of us.
i feel much better about conocophillips now that i've learned BP had a $7.3 billion profit and Exxon had over $10 billion.
Sam, really, hamburgers?... we can eat at a million different places. you don't have to go out to eat. you can't function in this society without feeling the effects of these gas prices in a bunch of different ways, not just at the pump.
And call me cynical, but adding to my suspicion I found this gem on the internets:
'In Bush's two elections, oil and gas companies gave Republicans 79 percent of their $61.5 million in campaign contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.'
Preach it, sister!
Seriously, I think that there is a measure of truth on both sides here. But in the end, I believe Sam is right in that the oil companies make this money only because they can. American consumers find themselves on the wrong side of the supply/demand curve and it's costing us. This is why I'm perfectly happy driving my '99 Civic to work every day and carting my family around in our '99 Camry.
Just be glad that you don't have to buy gas in Europe. They've solved the problem with fuel-efficient scooters and extremely small cars. Capitalism in action.
Clearly if we lower the demand for gas then we can affect prices. One way of doing that might be to evaluate the vehicles we use and the trips we take. We also need to consider public transportation and (gasp) bicycles, going on foot, etc. Try rolling your windows down instead of cranking up the AC. Yeah, you get a little sweaty, but I like saving the gas.
Someone made the point about how the poor need the lower prices the most. Absolutely. But us affluent white folk can have a much greater impact on the market because we do have access to public transportation and can cut out discretionary trips. Plus we're the ones driving the Hummers, the Suburbans, etc and changing our habits will make more of a splash in the gasoline pool. And since we have more options available to us, maybe we can cut down on the size of our vehicles and use less gas.
I'm all for stickin' it to the man here. But let's do it in a way that works.
I do agree that it is a little strange that Congress will force Rafael Palmeiro to testify, but not the heads of the oil companies...
Both sides are right, to some extent, in this argument. Unfortunately, I don't really see that we have much of a way to stick it to the man unless we get some renaults and fiats over here in the states and start changing the way we live (driving less, living closer to the things we do/need). And seriously, who wants to drive around in a Fiat, much less drive around in a Fiat on I-40 or I-440 where if you're moving the speed limit, you quite possibly might be in danger.
I think the market sees the danger of our reliance on gasoline and the production of hybrids and E85 consuming cars are byproducts of that, but we're nowhere near being able to slim our reliance like we should. The dependence runs too deep - our nation requires crude oil and there is no way around that right now. If the gas companies decided they wanted to double prices over night, what would people do? They would pay it. The higher prices go, the more of a wake up call it will be to the market that we need alternatives and when someone figures out the right alternative, markets will change. Apparently $3.00 a gallon is still managable by the majority (both consumer and business sectors). Should it be? I don't know, but then again I drive an underpowered Honda civic and I know its costing me a lot less than some people to drive across town (and I do a lot of driving).
bottom line... supply and demand out of the equation or in - I don't believe "those that can" are doing anything to regulate prices they way "they" act like "they" do... whoever "they" are...
I'm not much of a labeler... so I will not say any names...
very close to the bottom line... what I believe and a quarter will almost get you a phone call...
one other thought... helping the poor by driving less to decrease demand is about as moving as believing that through "trickle down economics" I can help the poor by playing 3 rounds of golf or buying an expensive car...
if you want to help the poor, just help them... but it's a lot harder when you're giving all of your money to Exxon...
Salutes to those who drive civics... I have no problem with supply/demand or capitalism... My frustration is more with the "celebration" of control over oil prices that really doesn't exisist in such a way...
sincerly,
-tree hugging, sandle wearing, soy protein eating, vegetable loving, artistic, hippie (I really do eat meat)
Personally i feel somewhere in between on all of this. While I'll admit the gas card has made me somewhat apathetic to the whole 'gas crisis', i have found myself a regular listener to talk radio and getting more educated shall we say or perhaps at least more interested in such matters.
The funny thing about all this is the people. It really comes down to the fact that we have the power to change everything. The one thing our representatives fear is our votes. If you don't like what they are doing up there vote for someone else...odds are they will eventually be corrupt and suck just as bad, but at least you are sending a message that you want proper representation.
Now i think there is some harmony in sam's post and the anonymous post in that nothing is going to be fixed by lowering prices. Ingenuity generally comes from a need, and if we can get by with cheap petrol then what's the point of finding something new. When we are pushed to the point where people really cannot afford to drive their vehicles we will see innovation. In the meantime i'm enjoying the increased sales in my sector for support of teleworking equipment!
Maybe i'm just crazy right now but i for one just think going out to buy the alternative fuel vehicles is not a wise move. Here's my thoughts. One it's just not worth the money. The costs (Both Capital and Reoccuring) make it take 15 years to make the ROI over the traditional petrol guzzler model. Secondly these AFV's have yet to standardize on anything and my guess is in a few years it's going to be on to another better technology. I just don't think they have come to a solution that really makes sense. They are still for the most part relying on the Petrol. It's sort of like the 80s all over and VHS and BetaMAX duking it all out again, and i can handle waiting it out to see what becomes the victor...Yeah the veggie oil cars are nifty cause fuel is cheap to free for now but anytime we have more...blah blah blah supply and demand talk here...
I'm going to stop commenting and update my own blog now...
Wow, so I've been out of town...had no clue of the discussion/bashing that's been going on...interesting, very interesting...
Maybe I'll start to be more bitter when my gas budget increases. For now, I've been able to modify, adjust, and conserve in my driving enough to not have to increase my fuel budget. (No nasty comments about me living close to work or what type of car I drive...I live 25 minutes from work and drive a V8 SUV...that's right...I drive an SUV!)
And, honestly, if your concern is for the poor in their plight in this gas price debacle and not your own, I might suggest driving one of those people to the grocery store that is three miles from their house.
I'm not sure how asking us to modify our driving habits equates to trickle down economics. This is a real, tangible thing. We consumers are on the rough side of the supply/demand curve right now. The more we lower the demand the lower the prices will go. The trickle down theory didn't work very well because there were filters at the top. But lowering demand for gas is simple economics. You can't take the supply/demand curve out of this.
It's the same as making a decision to recycle cans or bottles. My household makes very little difference to the world's landfill situation. The Town of Cary makes maybe a drop in the ocean. But the more everyone does it the more effective it is.
I'm not saying that AFVs are necessarily the way to go. But I do know that I can be more conscious of my driving habits and do what small part I can at making a difference. Isn't this the same as our decision to give groceries away? As a church we only make a small impact, but we do what we can.
It's got to start at a much lower level than the government. But I think that's the answer for all social change.
Good point, Jason. I think this may be why "real change" is so difficult...both socially and in our individual lives.
Its relativley easier to try to change things from the outside in or from the top down...but its more effective for change to happen from the inside out or from the bottom up...
after a little research...
"if gasoline is selling at about $3 a gallon, major companies make a profit of about 10 cents a gallon"
Obviously, if its selling at less that $3 a gallon, they make less than 10 cents a gallon
http://www.conocophillips.com/newsroom/other_resources/energyanswers/oil_profits.htm
wow i think people post more on Jeff's blog than Jeff posts on Jeff's blog...
I agree completely that every little bit happens and that by just doing something small and getting more and more to join in a difference is made. (I will refrain from the whole tossing a starfish back into the ocean analogy here...) I'm just saying that there are better ways to accomplish the same goal at this time. There are highly economical cars coming out, and maybe, just maybe we'll start to see some E85 stations around the RDU area rather than the one pump in durham.
Thinking green is a great thing.
I was talking with one of the sales reps today as we carpooled to a customer site today, how public transportation isn't really a catch all solution for everyone. I can't rely on a bus for my role, it just doesn't fit into my requirements. However were I to have the same position out of the NY City office I would be all over the subway system, and I would walk a heck of a lot more...
Perhaps it's just a matter of being conscious of our actions, and rather than pulling a swingers when we all head out to the local pub or location of your choice, we pile in a large vehicle and ride together...
All this big oil talk has me thinking about other pressing issues, like Global Warming.
Yeah, not sure if anyone else has seen any interviews with oil executives, but I happened to catch an interview and his general perspective seemed to be: our job is to make money. I guess I can't fault the guy for being honest, but considering our economy's dependence (not just my personal, or anyone else's) on oil, it seems in everyone's interest to keep prices in check. Everything from fruit transport from Florida and California to Construction projects.
This story was in the N&O today. Pretty good, blames it primarily on costs in the refining process, which the big oil companies are responsible for. Also says that when crude goes up, gas prices go up immediately, but they are much slower to go down when the price of crude goes down.
http://www.newsobserver.com/104/story/466418.html
hey 'anonymous, can you post that whole link, i didn't get it.
re: our job is to make money. I guess I can't fault the guy for being honest, but considering our economy's dependence (not just my personal, or anyone else's) on oil, it seems in everyone's interest to keep prices in check.
while i agree that it would be ideal that they should think about the rest of the people, we don't live in that kind of society. They are a large corporation. They are in the business to make money, not to run a charity.
As i said before i haven't really kept up a lot with the whole situation so i don't know the fine details but if they have made it to this level through the use of our system then so be it.
That's how businesses are supposed to be ran. And i guarantee that if anyone of you were profit sharing with that 5B or 10+B these companies are seeing you wouldn't mind so much either.
Yes it sucks to be the middle man in these situations. Yes the oil companies are ramming these prices right up our...But it is not the governments job to regulate their success. It defeats our whole systems.
But like i said i'm saying this off of my knowledge basis that what they have done for these profits has been legal, albeit sketchy in practice in some areas, legal. Should this be untrue then the government should be stepping in.
Focus on how to make the problem non-existent rather than how to make a temporary fix. These prices are only going to get worse.
Not to diverge but speaking of global warming they had on the news the other morning that the pollution and chemicals that they claimed destroyed the ozone and caused the 'greenhouse effect' back in the 60s and 70s are finally dissipating from the atmosphere and as a result they are no longer blocking the heat and uv rays of the sun as they once were. Thus we have the crazy heat that we are experiencing this week across the country. No clue about the validity but it was on tv so it must be true. I just thought it was funny that the 'pollution' was actually 'helping'
What I want to know is why is capitalism and supply/demand economics not working with gas? Maybe I need to study my economics, but I don't get how gas prices could lower slower than oil prices lower.
There is more than one company refining oil and selling gas. So when oil prices decline and it becomes possible to lower the price of gas, one of these companies should do it, in order to gain market share from the other companies. In this way, that one company would be working in their best interest and ours. Likewise, the other companies should follow and there you go, capitalism. So it's not happening, why? If their is collusion among the gas companies, then that's illegal and it should be stopped. If that's not the answer, then what else is it?
I feel rather ignorant in the matter. I plan to find a good book, read it, and the fix the problem...or at least know how to best complain. In the meantime, I'd thought I'd chime in here.
Anybody have the answer?
I see two themes that keep coming up in some of the comments:
1) This is just business as usual, a result of supply vs. demand, etc. In other words, as long as they're doing it legally, this is just a textbook example of capitalism in action.
2) We [the consumers] have to do our part in all of this. We have to be more environmentally responsible individuals, social change starts with us, it has to be a bottom-up solution, etc.
Some of my thoughts on said themes:
1) Hmmmm, I think responses like "this is a case of supply vs. demand" and "this is just capitalism in action" are a little too simplistic. As Jeff and Jon have already mentioned (I won't repost what they said, you can reread their comments :-), there are some important points in this issue that can't be explained away by those two answers.
I don't want to keep going back to what I said earlier, but the issue of legality was brought up in another comment. If I may paraphrase, something along the lines of "if what the oil companies are doing to turn these massive profits is legal, then they get the green light to keep on doing it."
Good point. But if they are so innocent, then why did they refuse to give an oath when they appeared before a congressional committee? Why NOT give an oath? To me, that would help silence a lot of the criticism...wouldn't it?
But they didn't testify under oath. And how convenient. Especially after it was later discovered that oil executives met with Dick Cheney's energy task force, even though they denied doing so at the hearing. The article goes on to say that "oil executives were meeting with Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated...The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present.
Um......say what??? Oil executives playing a major role in framing government legislation??? Uh, I think that might be a little more than "business as usual."
Let's not misinterpret capitalism here. It's an economic system. It's NOT a form of government. Last I checked, corporations don't run this country. I'm supposed to have a say too.
-----
2) You know, my dad and I got into a debate about this whole issue the other day, and eventually we both agreed that everyone involved is guilty to some extent.
And I'm pretty sure that most of us would agree that real change starts with us, and we can't rely solely on the government to fix our problems. I have no problem with that.
My concern is that our country's laws and regulations are supposed to protect BOTH SIDES, but I think that in an issue such as this (and many others. don't get me started on intellectual property!) the scales tip in favor of the big corporations.
We're supposed to do our part in all of this. Right. Got that. Been getting that. Will always continue to get that. But corporations DO have a responsibility to the communities/societies in which they operate. Making money may be the driving force, but it can't be the only one.
I need to shut up now. Sorry for the long post.
P.S. Jon I can't recommend a book to you off the top of my head (ask Josh Thompson), but this movie looks interesting and applicable to this debate.
Dave,
I actually saw a small article with a woman talking about this issue. She could get like 100 miles on a charge and just used her husband's car when she needed more than that. The car could go like 80 mph, which is something I would not have figured. Interesting stuff. The overall pollutant reduction equation must take into account how the energy for a given household is produced though. As in, if the electricty at her house where she plugs the car in comes from a poorly run coal plant, well, maybe the amount of pollutants produced in that energy production is more than if she had just burned gas in her car. However, as far as gas prices go (not pollutants), this is very interesting. anyway:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/25/paul.commentary/index.html
I have a copy of the Supply and Demand chart for Energy politics..if you are interested to know one take on what governs the cost of energy, and determines the market shoot me an email at
jtthomps@gmail.com
and I will send you a copy.
Post a Comment
<< Home