The most profit in dollars ever made by a US company:

##############################################
- http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fe866320-b1fe-11db-a79f-0000779e2340.html

ExxonMobil beats records with $39.5bn profit

By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: February 1 2007 15:42 | Last updated: February 1 2007 17:37

ExxonMobil, the worlds’ biggest public oil company, on Thursday reported the highest-ever annual profit by a US company, at $39.5bn.

The record came in spite of a fall-off in earnings in the last quarter of 2006 as energy prices dropped back.

ADVERTISEMENT

Exxon’s fourth quarter net profit, of $10.3bn, was down 4 per cent on the same period the previous year – the first such slump in almost three years.

However, the company reduced outstanding shares with buy-backs, pushing its earnings per share up 2 per cent to $1.69 – well over theconsensus estimate of $1.51.

Jason Gammel of Prudential Financial said analysts had been forecasting lower earnings in international refining and marketing, as well as chemicals, and had not foreseen some tax benefits.

For the year, Exxon’s record net income of $39.5bn was up 9 per cent year-on-year, “driven by strong results in every business segment,’’ said Rex Tillerson, Exxon’s chairman and chiefexecutive.

The company’s strong showing was not unexpected following last year’s run-up in energy prices.

Analysts had generallybeen expecting record 2006 profits from all the US and European majors.

They also had predicted the drop in fourth quarter earnings, given the fall in the prices of oil and natural gas and a squeeze onrefining margins late last year.

Even though Exxon’s results trended with that of the sector, analysts continued to regard the company as ahead of the pack – a view supported by its record-setting profits.

“Costs are higher and risks are higher, so the quality of the portfolio and the quality of management really starts to matter," said Robin West, chairman of PFC Energy, the consultancy.

“And this is the difference with Exxon. This is the case of a company with an excellent portfolio and strongmanagement,” he said.

Exxon recorded a 4 per cent increase in 2006 production, on an oil-equivalent basis, as the company increased production at Abu Dhabi and started production at its Dalia field in Angola, which is estimated to contain nearly 1bn barrels of recoverable reserves. Early production of LNG began at a joint venture in Qatar, also adding to the results.

Offsetting those positives were declines from maturing oil and gas fields, as well as lower European demand for natural gas.

The company continued to pour money back into increasing its reserves, spending $19.9bn on capital and exploration projects in 2006 – up 12 per cent from 2005.

Exxon’s exploration and production division earned $26.2bn, up $3.5bn from 2005. Its refining and marketing division earned $8.5bn, up $572m from 2005. Earnings from chemicals were $4.4bn, up $979m from 2005.

Doug Leggate of Citigroup called Exxon “amongst the most attractive of the super major oils”.

wonder why the Gas price almost hit $4.00/gallon

Exxon must have given George bush some extra dividend on the side. He surely deserves it in addition to his fat stocks in the company.

Ratobhaley - That's a very interesting piece of information (that he owns stock in Exxon). I am curious what your source for it is. Googling didn't help.

Capt Haddock

Bush has investments in Vanguard. Vanguard is a huge owner in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips.

Ratobhaley -

Thanks. Are you quoting from - http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000067.html ?

If you are, that page simply says "Probable return on assets is obviously hard to quantify. Some estimate can be provided by George W. Bush's own financial disclosure statement (see www.opensecrets.org). Bush had relatively piddling assets of $68,766 invested in Vanguard in 2001, on which he declared a quite respectable capital gain of $4,735, or about 6%."

It doesn't say he owned stock in Vanguard. From the wording it is all but likely that those were assets in funds operated by Vanguard and it would be quite a stretch to argue that a holding in a mutual fund makes you an owner of a stock. At best a stakeholder.

But I get the gist of the point you were making and the somewhat light-hearted tone I sensed in it and I don't mean to split hairs here. I just found it interesting to hear that he had dividend-earning stock in a company like Exxon which might be a politically suicidal thing in today's climate and that's the reason why I asked :)

But yes, his past as an oilman does create some room for doubt in the minds of people and does little to help his credibility on the issue of oil prices

Have a good one.

Cap'n initially I think i got that info from a documentary like fahrenheit 911. Could be something like that I saw on google videos.

Here's a blog where the bloggers seems to think the same too - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/12/30/162121/25

check the last paragraph

I see, thanks.

But the last sentence sort of says it all, no? :P "This concludes the rant of an angry American Veteran." :)

If you, or anyone else, come across anything else more substantive on this connection, I'd be curious to hear. It's something worth looking into and could very well be possible, but it would be good to see it backed up with hard data.

Aiight, on another note, Tata finally completed it's take-over of Corus, and it seems to be generating a lot of excitement all over : - http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/01/business/rupee.php