Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jfrazell wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

Why do people argue first, before refuting what I say?

Read either article. You can say you're sorry, or not.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/07/31/exxon-mobil-update-markets-equity-cx_mp_0731markets34.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080731_733191.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis

I hope business week and forbes are reputable enough.

Exxonmobile is not doing well, and that's the truth of it.

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

I could go on and on about executives being morons and how the pay is ridiculous, and you can keep telling people making alot less than I am that their entire lifes work is worth less than this guys 15 minute coffee break...

All I know is that ExxonMobil just released their Q2 profit and that it set a new US record for quarterly profit. So if that's the definition of "not doing well", I shudder to think what "doing well" might mean.

I don't have to say anything. A person is worth only what somebody else is willing to pay. You may want to think that you're worth something. But if nobody's willing to pay you, then you're probably wrong. In the case of some of these CEOs, they're worth millions in salary because that's what their boards are paying. In contrast, I happen actually to hire IT guys so I know for a fact that the basic techs are a dime a dozen. A+ certs and all.

BOOOM!!!! HEADSHOT!!!!

Reecius wrote:the people who were the most solid financially were a working mom and dad.

being financially stable and secure is more about lifestyle choices and discipline,

and, if you want to make big bucks and dont want to start a business, go into sales. But, that takes a ton of talent and highly developed skills.

anyone who is reasonably intelligent can learn a skill set, even difficult ones like IT guys have.

@ Reecius: I'm totally agreed with everything you wrote.

And those dual incomes are great to insulate against risk.

Discipline is hard, but it is how you get ahead and stay ahead.

Sales is tough work, no doubt about it. And it takes serious people skills to build the kind of trust that makes big money.

Basic IT skills are *not* that difficult, which is why India is taking away so many jobs. High end IT skills are valuable, but they also take a lot of work to develop.

Regardless, if you want to succeed, you need to work very, very hard. And if you want to make big money, you need to be very, very particular about what you work at.

Hi, I'm another topic entirely. Glad to see you've reached me. =) Oh? You're original topic? I'm not really sure but I think it's about seventy five lightyears BACK THERE.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't have to say anything. A person is worth only what somebody else is willing to pay. You may want to think that you're worth something. But if nobody's willing to pay you, then you're probably wrong. In the case of some of these CEOs, they're worth millions in salary because that's what their boards are paying. In contrast, I happen actually to hire IT guys so I know for a fact that the basic techs are a dime a dozen. A+ certs and all.

That's the single most depressing paragraph I've ever read.

It may be depressing but it happens to be true.

I don't doubt it, that's what's so depressing.

Reecius, you are absolutely correct about the way people handle or mishandle their money.

We have a TV show in the UK, hosted by an American in fact, who investigates people in financial trouble and sorts out their finances. Lots of people just spend, spend, spend on credit cards and don't think about how they will pay the bills. I have to say I'm a bit like that myself -- there have been times I've just cut up my credit card to prevent me spending. And I've got a degree in business, so I understand accounting and compound interest.

Stelek wrote:

jfrazell wrote:

Stelek wrote:Actually if you knew the reality, Exxonmobile isn't doing well in their core business.

Just like GW isn't.

OTT but you better have about fifty points to back that up, all of which will nullified by their financial statements. Care to define the "core business" of a an international integrated supermajor?

Why do people argue first, before refuting what I say?

Read either article. You can say you're sorry, or not.

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/07/31/exxon-mobil-update-markets-equity-cx_mp_0731markets34.html

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db20080731_733191.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_news+%2B+analysis

I hope business week and forbes are reputable enough.

Exxonmobile is not doing well, and that's the truth of it.

I ask for proof and you show me a businessweek article? Thats cute.

We'll stick to public statements. Exxon made $389Bn in revenues LTM, $76Bn in EBITDA and $42Bn in net income (LTM 3/31). Consensus expectations are for $95Bn in EBITDA by FYE. They are the most profitable company in the history of mankind.

Refining is not their core business, just one of three (not including petrochemicals). All refiners are down the last two quarters due to frac margin compression within the industry. If you researched the topic before making statements you'd understand that. Its not an indicator they are having problems, its an indicator that pure refiners are getting squeezed.

Have you studied any of these before making your statements?
Development costs historically and vs. competitors
Lifting costs historically and vs. competitors
Same to same reserve replacement rates
Same to same new field discoveries
Same to same political risk involved in JVs with foreign powers
New agreements recently. Venezuela’s a creaky boy and they need that oil or are they still using ME sweets for their non-internal production? Do they have non-internal production?
Whats their complexity in comparison to their competition?
Whats that complexity internationally vs. the US?
What are they doing about that complexity?
Whats their turnarounds looking like? Were they completed properly or any delays?
Whats their hedging strategy? How far out?

By the way, it helps to actually spell the name correctly.

Abit OTT but what I find funny with the Exxon example is that they've that much money, but the investors are having a paddy because they'd failed to reach expectation. It's that thinking that adds to the whole recession mess. Due to this magic figure not being reached, the company decides to cut costs, so they streamline the company by getting rid of 2,000 staff. These people then have no jobs or less well paid jobs, so therefore no money to spend, times this by 'x' amount of similar companys doing the same thing and you have a large chunk of people not spending. Domino effect. All because said company only made £270 million instead of an expected £300 million.

Sadly, I do understand the oil business. You seem to think you can overload me with questions.

Other major industry players have alternate energy plans. Hell, BP renamed themselves to Beyond Petroleum years ago.

By the by, I use a spell checker, it likes to fix words. Since you seem to think taking pot shots is a valid argument strategy, here ya go:

"What's" not "Whats".

See? Totally meaningless, pointless, and tripe.

Anyway, why do you want me to answer the questions you can find on their website? With the answers already provided? Are you trying to sound intelligent or something? It isn't working.

Since you seem to believe all of the industry watchers and analysts that think EM is going to gradually disappear over the next fifteen years, and why do they think that?

For several reasons. Cramped refinery operations (the first and only thing you got right) aren't their major headache.
Rising oil prices not being matched at the pump, and their inability to find new oil sources--those are even worse issues facing EM.

Because that's what the company told Wall Street at its March 2008 annual analyst meeting. You should know as well that the company's projections have a history of being too optimistic. i.e. They like to blow smoke up everyone's , just like you tried to do.

You can go ahead and talk about how they are just losing money in refinery operations, but the truth is they aren't going to increase their production level.

You should know why, but you seem to think you just know better. Decades ago, Western oil companies controlled 70% of the oil reserves of the world. This includes EM, btw. Now, national oil companies control 80%.

So, no more new oil fields for EM. Known reserves are down. Oil production is falling, and despite all the expertise and the cash on hand--EM can't get into new fields.

So let's recap: You put out a bunch of useless questions, trying to pretend like you're a know-whats when you're certainly not. I've put out the facts that are scaring investors, and the board of EM itself.

You see, the corporate culture at EM has always been a bad one. If they can't make huge amounts of money (not necessarily a bad thing), they won't do it.

So they aren't making a huge commitment to new oil fields. Or new oil exploration. Yet, you don't mention this fact at all. Kind of odd, from someone who wants to tell everyone that EM is really just doing great. If they have flat (or the reality, are losing total) production and that's their big money maker, why don't you see a problem with this when the oil industry analysts do and started selling off EM stock yesterday?

Anyway, the future of EM is bleak. Most analysts I've talked to (yes, you too can get a real internet argument going by talking to real experts, instead of talking out your ) believe there are 2 viable futures for EM and 1 that isn't so viable:

Oil prices drop, to pre 2002 levels, which is what EM seems to be betting their future on. No one else in the market or those observing it believe that oil will fall to 30-45 dollars a barrel, which is what EM is banking on. Are they going to nuke China and India? That's about the only way that pipe dream scenario is going to happen.

They can continue to buy back their own stock, like they've been doing for years now (less stock in circulation now than just a few years ago--always a bad sign, but you knew that and went ahead and talked the talk anyway). Then they can hope to get a good stock trade for another major company (cough, like they did with Mobil, but you remember that too, or have you forgotten already...seems you have) because even with all of their money, with the huge valuation increase in oil company stock--they cannot actually afford to buy any other oil company. They can only trade for one.

The other viable option (the one people believe EM will go to, because the two options listed above aren't happening) is EM will in the next decade turn into a trust and eventually go private.

Yeah, that's an awesome company. In excellent shape to go the way of the dodo. Just doing fine.

You should sign up for their newsletter. I actually own EM stock, and get it for free. I listened in on the analyst meeting back in March, and nearly sold my stock. Then I'd miss the neat pink newsletter, where they say the ship is sinking but in nice institutional investment terms.

Sorry, you were being a smart and trying to win an argument, right?

It helps to know the facts.

*You started this fight with your statements.
*I’m not faulting someone for typing poorly or accidently misspelling words. You consistently spell the name of the company wrong that you’re arguing about. Its never been called Exxon Mobile. It was never Mobile before the merger. Mobile is a city. Mobil was a company.

You can go ahead and talk about how they are just losing money in refinery operations, but the truth is they aren't going to increase their production level. You should know why, but you seem to think you just know better. Decades ago, Western oil companies controlled 70% of the oil reserves of the world. This includes EM, btw. Now, national oil companies control 80%.

Your ignorance of the drivers of history is inspired. At one point, Western oil companies controlled all the oil reserves in the world. Those initial discoveries ran dry. New discoveries were made in nations with government controlled rights (or appropriated aka Mexico and later Chavez). You say it like it’s the fault of the oil companies. Having said that that’s not the driver to the refinery industry. The price of the oil is fungible, depending on how sweet/heavy it is.

So let's recap: You put out a bunch of useless questions, trying to pretend like you're a know-whats when you're certainly not. I've put out the facts that are scaring investors, and the board of EM itself.

The fact you can't answer the questions reflects that you really don't know what you're talking about. Your knowledge of the energy industry, particularly integrateds, is deficient.

You see, the corporate culture at EM has always been a bad one. If they can't make huge amounts of money (not necessarily a bad thing), they won't do it.

*That’s humorous. They’re the strongest public company in the world and you state they have a bad business culture? How do you think they got that way – Ouija board?

So they aren't making a huge commitment to new oil fields. Or new oil exploration. Yet, you don't mention this fact at all. Kind of odd, from someone who wants to tell everyone that EM is really just doing great.

*The Company’s reserve replacement cost is literally half the industry average. They’re doing something right.
*The Company is increasing investment to $25Bn from $21Bn in 2007 (roughly keeping up with oilfield inflation). Its not increasing spending because it literally doesn’t have to. Per Herolds, the definitive market source for E&P analysis (July 2008): “The company has a deep inventory of discovered resources (see Issue in Focus), with contract rights to about 50 Bboe, which is equivalent to over 30 years of production at 2007 levels. While access to resources remains a critical challenge for the industry, XOM is well positioned to deliver long term growth relative to its peers .“

You should sign up for their newsletter. I actually own EM stock, and get it for free. I listened in on the analyst meeting back in March, and nearly sold my stock. Then I'd miss the neat pink newsletter, where they say the ship is sinking but in nice institutional investment terms.

That’s all you have? A newsletter? Very cute. I’m sure you think the stockbroker is giving you good advice and not just churning your stock as well.

*Of course refinery operations currently are a major headache. Refinery ops, as evidenced by the standalones including Western and Tesoro are getting hammered due to the frac spreads/demand. But that’s industry wide and will change.
*The fact that you view a stock buy back as a bad thing, because they literally are making more than they can profitably reinvest reflects that you don't know what you're talking about.

"the future of EM is bleak"

Thats about as a nonsense argument as I've heard you use in quite a while and thats saying something. 3rd party consensus forecasts are for EBITDA of $111Bn by FYE 2010. That’s a 52% increase over FY 2007 and 134% increase over 2004. Yea, they’re about to crater at any time.

I apologize to everyone for sidetracking this thread and will stop now, but these statements had to be answered, especially after the smarmy manner in which they were presented.

Hmm. No facts, more talking. Guess I won the internets. Yay!

Yes I think this thread has wandered plenty OT.

You guys can continue via PMs if you want.