Biggest. Profit. Ever. Made by your friends at Exxon Mobil.

Another year has passed — one that saw gas prices spike to well over $3.00 a gallon in many parts of the U.S. — and the folks at Exxon Mobile are breaking record profits:

Exxon Mobil Corp. roared past Wall Street expectations and set a new record for the highest profit ever earned by a U.S. company in a single year.

Exxon said today the company’s 2006 profits reached $39.5 billion, trumping its own 2005 record of $36.1 billion. Excluding a $410 million tax benefit, annual profits reached $39 billion &#xu2;014 still nearly $2 billion higher than the $37.1 billion analysts expected.

Not that Exxon Mobil is alone in their accomplishment, several other oil companies also did very well:

The Hague-based Royal Dutch Shell earned $5.28 billion in the quarter, a 21 percent jump over $4.39 billion in the fourth quarter of 2005. Full-year earnings were $25.4 billion, a 1 percent rise over $25.3 billion in 2005.

And Marathon earned $1.08 billion, or $3.06 per share, a 17 percent drop from $1.26 billion, or $3.43 per share in the fourth quarter of 2005. Excluding one-time items, Marathon earned $838 million, or $2.38 per share, compared to $1.33 billion, or $3.61 per share in the year-ago period.

Either way, Marathon exceeded Wall Street expectations. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expected earnings of $2.26 per share for the quarter.

For the year, Marathon earned $5.2 billion, or $14.50 per share, up from $3 billion or $8.44 per share in 2005.

Hopefully they’re putting some of that money into researching alternative fuel sources seeing as the oil isn’t going to last forever.

12 thoughts on “Biggest. Profit. Ever. Made by your friends at Exxon Mobil.

  1. gas prices spike to well over $3.00 a gallon

    We’ve had £1/litre in the uk in the past, at the moment it’s 90p ish per litre. Most of it is tax, and the demand is fairly inelastic in terms of price – people will keep buying it as long as they can because they need it, and because there isn’t much in the way of filling stations for alternative feuls, as well as many people not being able to afford to convert. There is competition in the UK but prices are controlled by oligopolies in many things, that and market forces.

    Hopefully they’re putting some of that money into researching alternative fuel sources seeing as the oil isn’t going to last forever

    If they want to survive long term they will need to, but the current directors and shareholders will probably not be the same directors and shareholders 50 years down the line, and so it benefits them more individually to not spend any money. Reminds me of polititions spending loads of public money because they know their time in the job is limited.

    Whether market forces will be strong enough to force us to prepare alternatives to oil just as we run out has yet to be seen, people in the developed world might starve due to lack of transportation options, we would have to take a serious look again at sailships, horsecarts, etc. I would expect other fossil feuls and nuclear will be enough to provide electricity and keep trains running, at least to some extent in some places – trains would be packed without cars but imagine the economic disruption if people’s commutes were limited to the range of bicycles

  2. Actually, I just ran across a link this morning to a Guardian Unlimited article about the American Enterprise Institute’s attempt at paying off the scientists involved in the U.N.‘s global warming study.  Guess who’s funding the AEI?  Granted, I run “The Guardian” through a certain filter for liberal bias.  But if even HALF of that article (,,2004399,00.html) is true, daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang.  I hope to Hades that this story has legs.

  3. cubiclegirl: daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang

    Nice link – though I can’t find independent confirmation on the net yet.  So far – everyone who’s writing about this is quoting the Guardian story.  If true, there’s another spooky example of the politicization of science for you.

  4. I saw the core story hit the AP wire, but not mentioning the Exxon-Mobile link to the AEI.  I’m more ignorant than I should be of how much of their funding these “belief tanks” have to publically disclose.  Wish this weekend wasn’t going to be so darned stacked up—and me not even planning to watch the SuperBowl, even…

  5. Michael: … there’s another spooky example of the politicization of science for you.

    We’ve gone through the politicisation of science with tobacco, asbestos, and, I’m sure, many other things – the problem with this one is that it affects our home not just a few temporary individuals.

  6. I saw the core story hit the AP wire, but not mentioning the Exxon-Mobile link to the AEI.

    I searched around a bit, and all I could find about the AEI story was from various blogs.  CBS news picked it up, but they referenced the original guardian story.  Of course, that didn’t stop me from blogging about the whole thing.

    LJ: Check this out if you haven’t seen it yet.  Scary stuff.

  7. Scary stuff.

    Wow. ‘Thanks’ for the pointer.

    Bush’s own wife says, “George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn’t need to evaluate and re-evaluate a decision. He doesn’t try to over think. He likes action.”
    Bush seems to value gut instinct over evidence, faith over fact, conviction over reality. He doesn’t need science to know that our food is safe, that the Earth was created in seven days, or that Saddam Hussein was only seconds away from handing over nukes to al Qaeda. If studies say otherwise then agencies have to be reorganized, committees reshuffled, and data reinterpreted until they get it right.

    Scary alright.
    I’m damned near affected as much as you are by US policy [foreign & domestic] so we can only hope we get someone a little more honest and intelligent next time … who doesn’t believe in a literal bible.
    I was gonna say ‘atheist’ but we know that’s absolutely outa the question nor would it have any guarantees.

  8. Do you think someone behind the scenes pulls the strings behind bush? Either way giving the apearance of not having reasons hides an agenda under a more acceptable mask of incompetance

  9. I think some of the reasoning behind Bush’s shoot from the hip, take no prisoners, seek no logic as long as you believe it to be so politics is a direct result of him being an untreated alcoholic.  He obviously turned from one addiction to another without in any way addressing the base problem within himself.  Too bad we all have to suffer for it.

    As far as the powers behind the throne, it’s been long joked that Cheney and his PNAC associates are really in control, and Bush is just the figurehead who was chosen to keep the religious right under the GOP thumb.  However, I believe that Bush himself is probably just as influenced by his cohort of religious advisers that he meets with once a week (I know Ted Haggard was part of that group before his scandal, and I believe James Dobson is currently one of those Bush meets with regularly). 

    I was a born-again Christian for a period of time and I avidly listened to every word that came out of the mouths of Dobson and those like him.  I had a particularly keen interest in all things related to the end of the world and the creation/evolution “debate”. Bush’s attitude toward science, reason and everything we see as good and logical is definitely more influenced by his religious advisers than by Cheney and his neo-conservative croneys.  His actions support both groups equally well, but I think his motives are religiously based, as shown by the Laura Bush quote LJ quoted.

    Honestly though, if we don’t keep asshats like Bush out of power, we are headed right into a new dark age.  He’s just a symptom of a deeper problem within American society, and I’m not sure we’re going to be able to overcome it.

  10. Thanks TAFKA Buzz,

    I was a born-again Christian for a period of time

    I was years ago, probably most westerners were at some point. Christianity is a bandwagon, so people like to jump onto it, and being localised the social pressures and expectations emphasise local beliefs regardless of accuracy because the members are more influential. Faith is also an easier explaination to those who prefer to be given easy answers rather than thinking and finding reality themselves, and it provides them with psychological security against ever looming oblivion, which they have an evolutional fear towards

    I don’t think it’s possible to have a political leader who isn’t an asshat, it’s a requirement of any high-ranking job. Anyone who isn’t would be eaten alive by false accusations and dishonest publicity tricks, and the biggest asshats are also the most tenatious and are objective towards how to get what they want.

    Voting for a politition always seems like voting for the lesser of two evils, voting otherwise would be like voting on the qualtiy of their painted gloss, when their positive publicity efforts seem so falsified. I don’t know enough about what goes on to make anything other than a blind vote, democracy seems an entirely image thing

  11. I was [a born-again Christian] years ago, probably most westerners were at some point.

    I’m sure that’s untrue of Australians and Continental Europeans.
    It could be true of Canadians, USAians and UKians. wink

  12. Maybe most westerners were Christian, at some point (I never really was) but I wouldn’t saddle most of them with a “born again” tag. That applies to a fundimental minority….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.