Down with the evil Gas lords. (yes, i am brave enough to post another from myspace)

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by JohnT
Dude, I got a 50% raise today. Doesn't mean we're going to start charging you for phone books.

You don't charge for your phonebooks? Do you take your income from advertisement revenue?

(Well, explaining the intricacies of your industry might be worth another thread... or might actually make this one interesting )

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

So, if you could find a way to drill outside the 200 mile zone, would it be royalty free? I always assumed someone would claim royalties.

Say you built some gargantuan submarine drilling thingiemebob......

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kaak
EVERYONE getting raises. Like I said, my dad got a 33% raise. And this is after getting a raise last year.

yup-- Thats because everyone wants more and more people to ramp up production. Skilled people are in short supply in almost every area in the oil industry so the raises are coming fast and furious.

The same thing is happening with most supplies and supply companies. The prices for many supplies have increased by much more than the price of oil has increased. For instance I understand that some oil rigs day rates are double or triple what they were just a few years ago.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kaak
If prices for something doubled in 4 years, don't you think consumers would kick up a fuss? No, they'd just bend over and take it

Some might, but they would be kinda stupid in this particular case. What matters is the inflation-adjusted price, which is still just fine. I don't understand why people expect the price of gas to stay the same forever. For whatever reason, instead of a slow & steady increase, gas tends to jump and plateau. But if you look long-term, it's the same sort of thing that happens to anything... the price goes up.

I mean, gosh, how much does it cost to go to the movies nowadays! Bastards!

-Arrian

[Wezil]

This thread is like an accident scene....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So, if you could find a way to drill outside the 200 mile zone, would it be royalty free? I always assumed someone would claim royalties.

Sounds like he's saying that we're going to manage to charge for it...

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Wezil
This thread is like an accident scene....

I think the term you're looking for is "train wreck."

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kaak
If prices for something doubled in 4 years, don't you think consumers would kick up a fuss? No, they'd just bend over and take it

Maybe some people understand why the price has gone up so much.

If, on the other hand, some company I owned stocks in was stealing my money to give unnecessary raises to their employees, I'd sure as hell make some noise.

Or did you not think that with prices skyrocketing labour is in high demand, so the price for labour increased?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sounds like he's saying that we're going to manage to charge for it...

I never really thought about it before, I just figured the minute anything of value popped up outside of the established EEZ the nearest nations would lay claim to the assets and attempt to charge some kind of royalty.

I mean the nations of earth carved up Mars and laid claim to it already.

Hmmm, I had been thinking of the economic viability of a small submarine that could go up the Mississippi and bring in drugs, this could be a potential expansion from that.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So, if you could find a way to drill outside the 200 mile zone, would it be royalty free? I always assumed someone would claim royalties.

With current technology companies are generally limited to the continental shelf-- AS it stands, I think most countries are looking at the international convention as the basis of their jurisdiction.

Canadian petroleum legislation asserts jurisdiction to the greater of 200 miles or the edge of the continental margin. Canadian regulators already have regulated and authorized activites outside 200 miles.

Based on the international convention Canada would be responsible to pay a royalty of an international body for production out there ( and obviously Canada would want to collect that royalty from the producer.

Its a little legally murky but the reality is that an offshore production operation requires a fair bit of support so a producer would have to work with an adjacent state. The working assumption was that Canada would charge royalties for operation on its adjacent continental shelf

[Kontiki]

****, are you still hung up on the salary thing Kaak? Again, try working it out mathematically. Figure out how much would have to be given out in salaries to mask the costs. Here's a quick starting point for you - there are about 85,000 employees at Exxon. If the average salary was $300k (which is impossible), it would still only amount to $25.5 billion in payroll expense. Once you do that, you may want to realize that the cost of bringing something to market includes the salaries - it's the cost of doing business. So really, the whole thing is moot. And, if that wasn't enough, consider KH's point about their owners (primarily big pension and mutual funds) kicking up a fuss.

As for the $400 million thing, try to understand that most of that will be in the form of stock options, not cash, and what is in cash is spread out over a good number of years. Also try to understand that $400 million to Exxon is a drop in the bucket.

[Kaak]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
When demand increases, costs, prices, and profits all go up, no conspiracy necessary.

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but your linear model isn't an accurate representation.

in '04, Exxon's revenue was 298 billion. in '05 it was 370.7 bill. That's an increase of ~24.4%

net income was 25.3 billion in '04 and 36.1 bill in '05. That's an increase of about 42.7%.

2002-2003 has even more profound numbers.
20.6% increase in revenue, with AN 87% INCREASE in net income.

[Kuciwalker]

Correct me if i'm wrong here

You're wrong.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kaak


Correct me if i'm wrong here, but your linear model isn't an accurate representation.

in '04, Exxon's revenue was 298 billion. in '05 it was 370.7 bill. That's an increase of ~24.4%

net income was 25.3 billion in '04 and 36.1 bill in '05. That's an increase of about 42.7%.

2002-2003 has even more profound numbers.
20.6% increase in revenue, with AN 87% INCREASE in net income.

Have you taken a single economics class in your life?

[Kaak]

nope that's why i said correct me if i'm wrong.