ExxonMobil just posted 10.71 Billion Profit For Quarter

[coogebeachhotel]

Spread the wealth guys

 

[furlough-boy]

Spread the wealth guys

I'm sure they'll donate the required percentage to the RNC.

 

[HawkerF/O]

and 36B+ for the year, but no, there is no gouging going on there. Shame on those that would say something like that.

 

[Vingus]

I hope this is sarcasm. I pray this is sarcasm.

 

[Dizel8]

Exxon had an operating margin of 15% nothing out of the ordinary, although the profit numbers looks big because we are dealing in big numbers.

Microsoft has an operating margin of 42%, GE 22%.

 

[GogglesPisano]

I think the typical pax airline has a profit margin of around +/- 0.0000000001%

 

[Dizel8]

SWA:

Profitability: Profit Margin (ttm): 7.23%Operating Margin (ttm): 10.81%

Yes, most airlines are in the dumps at the moment, the oil companies have seen similar episodes. Is it really gouging going on or simply, due to circumstances, a profitable time?

 

[GogglesPisano]

What's the difference between an operating margin and a profit margin?

 

[Dizel8]

Profitability Ratios: These numbers measure the efficiency the firm demonstrates to generate income.

Return on Equity- shows how much money the firms earns on every dollar of equity. Is the most important number because it tells the investor how much of a return they will see on their dollar.

Return on Assets- shows the returns on assets. It demonstrates how effective a manager is in using their assets to produce profits.

Gross Profit Margin- before the operating expenses are taken out, this number shows the profit earned on every dollar from sales.

Operating Profit Margin- after the cost of producing a product or service is taken out, this number shows what is then left from the sales.

Net Profit Margin- after all costs have been deducted, including COGS and taxes and preferred dividends, this number shows the percentage of sales dollars left

 

[DH2WN]

Instad of complaining about the earnings of a company why don't you join them. I've made more on XOM and other oil stocks in the last few months than I have in a year at SWA. I don't even pick up trips anymore because I can bank more at home day trading. I started with $5000 and now have about $80000 in realized gains after cashing out.

Food for thought. Less time on this board and more on the market and maybe everyone's bitching would lessen.

 

[Falconjet]

I wonder what the QOL and schedules are like at Exxon.

FJ

 

[Dizel8]

All the free oil you can eat!

 

[73-Driver]

I hope this is sarcasm. I pray this is sarcasm.

Yep their entitled to their profits, just like Haliburton, KBR and Enron.

 

[Dumbluck]

Its the Bush oil /economic policy. The plan is let oil companies make so much money that they get sick of dealing with 3 billion dollar a month profits, then they'll just give it away. Just interesting math but at $100 per minute it would take 19 years to spend ONE billon dollars. Pakistan, the country, who has Nuclear weapons, has a 5.1 billion dollar budget. for the whole country.

 

[AQ PILOT]

I just wanna make sure I understand this....You own an oil company. People are willing to buy your oil at $50 a barrel. How much are you gonna sell it for? $30? $20? $40? If you say yes to any of those, you should be in airline management...preferably in a marketing position, you'd fit in well!

I just don't get it. They have a product. They sell their product for what the market will pay. What's next? If Mickey D's starts turning record profits are you gonna demand they sell their Cheeseburgers for less? No, wait, don't answer that, you left wingers will probably say yes.....

 

[bizicmo]

There was a blurb in the news today that exxon asked a federal judge to reduce the payout from the valdez(however you spell it) accident in alaska.
And for the post about about if people are willing to buy it at $50 a barrel, why would they sell it for less. Well considering its pretty much a necessity they could probably get away with selling it for $150 a barrel.

 

[Dumbluck]

No, I'm fine with companies turning a profit. It is what made this country great. I do have a problem with gouging, but its not really gouging, what started this trend of oil prices going up is due to alot of things. a small part is the war, but check out out much oil comes from the desert, its not as much as you'd think. a larger reason is a rush of large amounts cash being invested into oil futures, historically,very few institutional investors ever went near futures markets because futures are unstable, once the idea of the oil running out took hold, oil futures were not only safe, but a veritable cash cow. The problem is that oil companies are investing in there own futures driving the price higher, the higher the price goes the more they can invest. And since there are very few oil companies world-wide, collusion might not be able to be proved, its seems like a possiblity. Also, except for a 2 companies in Canada, pulling oil out sand, the infastructure for oil to flow from the world to the U.S.is already in-place. If oil companies were making normal profits at 40, and then bought their own futures at 35 and now exercising their option or selling futures outright at 60. Perfectly legal,and I'm all for it right up to point where U.S. citizens living below the poverty level have their utilities shut-off. Yup, this is where free-market capitalism runs smack dab against social responsiblity. What are you going to do? let the rich get richer or maybe stand up for those who less fortunate. Did you just say some thing like get off you A$$ and get a job? I bet someone did. Remember that we, in our industry have pilots getting paid 18.00/hr, in on of the most demanding career fields. Then some of the same people say support the union, Unions are backed by Dems, but most pilots are Republicans.

Anyone else care to over-simplify this particular issue, or the destruction of the American middle class in general.

Rant over, you have the soapbox

 

[Gulfstream 200]

No, I'm fine with companies turning a profit. It is what made this country great. I do have a problem with gouging, but its not really gouging, what started this trend of oil prices going up is due to alot of things. a small part is the war, but check out out much oil comes from the desert, its not as much as you'd think. a larger reason is a rush of large amounts cash being invested into oil futures, historically,very few institutional investors ever went near futures markets because futures are unstable, once the idea of the oil running out took hold, oil futures were not only safe, but a veritable cash cow. The problem is that oil companies are investing in there own futures driving the price higher, the higher the price goes the more they can invest. And since there are very few oil companies world-wide, collusion might not be able to be proved, its seems like a possiblity. Also, except for a 2 companies in Canada, pulling oil out sand, the infastructure for oil to flow from the world to the U.S.is already in-place. If oil companies were making normal profits at 40, and then bought their own futures at 35 and now exercising their option or selling futures outright at 60. Perfectly legal,and I'm all for it right up to point where U.S. citizens living below the poverty level have their utilities shut-off. Yup, this is where free-market capitalism runs smack dab against social responsiblity. What are you going to do? let the rich get richer or maybe stand up for those who less fortunate. Did you just say some thing like get off you A$$ and get a job? I bet someone did. Remember that we, in our industry are getting paid 18.00/hr, in oe of hte most demanding career fields. Then some of the same people say support the union, Unions are backed by Dems, but most pilots are Republicans.

Anyone else care to over-simplify this particular issue, or the distruction of the American middle class in general.

Rant over, you have the soapbox

social responsibility?

feeding the big bad machine?


hey, what kinda gas mileags does that hummer looking sand dune machine in your avatar get?

 

[Dumbluck]

I know ain't hypocrisy great!!, By the way its not mine, Robbie Gordon drives it, and then he broke it. Better MPG than a 747 (I don't have one of those either)
I'd rather spend taxes on social welfare than cor-pirate welfare.

I'll take my comments off the air, I gonna finish watching "24"

 

[Gulfstream 200]

I know ain't hypocrisy great!!, By the way its not mine, Robbie Gordon drives it, and then he broke it. Better MPG than a 747 (I don't have one of those either)
I'd rather spend taxes on social welfare than cor-pirate welfare.

I'll take my comments off the air, I gonna finish watching "24"

I gotta agree...the profits some companies are making is obscene....but then again, they do employ a lot of people! - and is it not the american way to make money? and who says you HAVE to give any away?

Let gas be $5/gallon. We will all still drive as much and continue to buy g'dam Hummers to go the mall.

 

[AQ PILOT]

It really isn't an oversimplification per se. While oil and its associated products (plastics, energy, etc.) are obvious necessities, one could, if they really chose to, pretty much live without paying the large increases in the cost of oil. Simply catchin' the bus solves the biggest issue most people have, the price of a gallon of gas.

At some point though, oil does lose it's pricing power through "social responsibility" in that if it become to expensive to sustain the economy (transportation of goods, energy production, whateva) good old Unlce Sam will step in. Problem is, that point hasn't even been close to being reached yet.

But it still doesn't address my point. If people are willing to buy your product for $x, what are you gonna sell your product for? $x-$10?

The rich are gonna get richer until they do something stupid to give their money back to us airline pilots. Don't matter if its by selling oil or buying in volume discounts because they have the capital. Someone, somewhere, way back when, got the first leg up and just kept going. Can't penalize people for doing that in my opinion. I just wish I had more money in oil....

 

[Dumbluck]

I agree, I would sell it for as much as I could. Sour Grapes on my part, I suppose, but if it were my company, I' try to follow a business plan more akin to "Whole Foods" or Starbucks.

 

[73-Driver]

Kansas City Star, The (MO)
June 26, 2005
Page: A1

The big squeeze by big oil

The U.S. oil industry, wanting to drive up profits, shuttered dozens of refineries over the past quarter century.
and you feel the pinch at the pump every time you fill up.
STEVE EVERLY

ARKANSAS CITY, Kan. - The dormant complex here at the edge of Kansas is a weathered still-life of a bygone era.
Remnants of rusty pipes and storage tanks hint at the oil refinery that once hummed here on the banks of the Arkansas River.

Property that could produce enough gasoline to satisfy half the state's thirst for the fuel is now overrun with prairie grass.
Abandoned buildings sit with plywood-shuttered windows.

It's a fate few here thought possible. Even nine years after the refinery closed, some former employees still can't believe
what happened to the economic lifeblood of the community since 1918. They still ponder how a deal to sell the refinery fell apart.

So does Malcolm Turner. He led a group that wanted to buy the refinery. They offered the owner, Total Petroleum Ltd.,
$37 million and thought they had a deal. But Turner said Total backed out at the last minute - offering scant explanation.

Seeking answers, Turner hopped on a flight from Dallas to Total's North American headquarters in Denver. Over a round of golf with
Total executives, the discussion finally got to the question: Why would Total walk away from $37 million and prefer to sell a perfectly
good refinery for scrap?

"They finally said by closing the refinery it would tighten up the market," Turner recalls. "They thought they would benefit."

At the time, Total told employees the sale fell through and the company was closing the refinery for business reasons. The
company has declined repeated requests for more comment on its decision-making process.

Turner, a decades-long veteran in the oil industry, was dumbfounded that the company shut the plant. But similar stories have
been quietly playing out across the country - wiping out thousands of good-paying jobs, devastating communities and, ultimately,
squeezing consumers at the gas pump.

Drawing from dozens of interviews and previously undisclosed government documents, The Kansas City Star has discovered a largely
untold story of a rapidly consolidating industry that has clamped down on refining capacity to drive up profits. Now, as retail gas prices
routinely surge to more than $2 a gallon, what started as a legitimate business concern about overcapacity has become a recurring
theme that has limited refining capacity in the world's largest oil-consuming nation.

The refining issue now occupies the world economy's center stage.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which itself has been under fire for high oil prices, has criticized the
shortfall in U.S. refining capacity. In April, the foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah said additional
supplies of crude oil to the U.S. would "make no difference" because we lack the refining capacity to make it into gasoline.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently called our domestic refining capacity "worrisome."

President Bush proposes using former military bases as sites for new refineries. Others urge a streamlining of environmental regulations
to make it quicker to gain the necessary permits to build refineries. Still others argue for fewer types of environmentally friendly
reformulated gas to eliminate production bottlenecks.

But such proposals miss a central question: Does the oil industry even want to significantly increase refining capacity?

ExxonMobil Corp., the world's largest oil company, last year had a return on investment of about 25 percent on its refineries.
Its 2004 earnings were $25.3 billion, a record for a public company. The company now has a cash horde of more than $20 billion.
But while the company is using some of its extra cash to buy its own stock, it doesn't have plans to build another U.S. refinery.

"You won't see our investment spending swing with changes in near-term commodity prices," Exxon CEO Lee Raymond recently
told investors at the company's annual meeting.

Over the past 25 years, 176 refineries have closed in the United States - including refineries in Sugar Creek and Kansas City, Kan.
A new U.S. refinery hasn't been built since 1976. Even with upgrades and expansions at the remaining refineries, domestic capacity
is down 9 percent since 1981, while demand for gasoline has increased 38 percent

Today this country, which once had far more refining capacity than it needed, can no longer depend on its own refineries for all its
fuel needs - even when they run virtually at full speed. Imported gasoline now accounts for 10 percent of supply, and that number is
expected to grow.

The industry's refining margins, the difference between crude oil and wholesale gas prices, have doubled and tripled at times to nearly
60 cents per gallon. Refinery and marketing profits, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, were up 292 percent for the last
quarter of 2004 when compared with the same period the previous year.

The refinery squeeze already has contributed to some of the most volatile gas prices in memory. Indeed, the gasoline market now is
so tight, say industry executives, that any demand spike, refinery outage or pipeline shortage can easily cause prices to soar.

Refining margins were a big topic at an oil industry conference held last fall at a resort near Las Vegas.

"Any little thing that happens, prices shoot up," Bill Greehey, chief executive officer of Valero Energy Corp., told the audience.

Greehey, in a remarkable moment of candor for an often tight-lipped industry, dubbed this the "Golden Age of Refining," saying
"the best is yet to come."

Rooted in crisis

It took ages to reach this point.

Two 1970s oil crises orchestrated by OPEC left consumers with indelible images of long lines at gas stations and high prices at
the pump. But they also marked a turning point for Big Oil that set a course for today's higher refinery profits.

A detailed portrayal of that turnabout is contained in a previously undisclosed 393-page document, assembled by Federal Trade
Commission lawyers as part of an antitrust suit that was pending before an administrative law judge that was later dismissed.

As countries around the globe nationalized their oil industries, the domestic oil industry increasingly looked to refining for profits.
In some instances, according to the FTC document, the oil companies cooperated among themselves to reduce refinery capacity.

"It's not happenstance that we're short of refining capacity," said David Haberman, a retired former antitrust lawyer with the
Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice. "I really thought it could end up like it is today."

Haberman was one of 19 lawyers who spent nearly a decade compiling a case which has been largely forgotten. The case,
which was before an administrative law judge within the FTC, was dismissed in the early days of the Reagan administration.
But it created a treasure trove of more than 500,000 pages of documents within the FTC archives that offer a rare glimpse
inside the industry.

The FTC, replying to requests by The Kansas City Star, so far has refused to release most of those documents after initially
saying they could not be located. The federal agency now says that it is required to get the approval of the oil companies that
authored the memorandums and other documents before they can be released.

But the FTC's "Complaint Counsel's First Statement of Issues, Factual Contentions and Proof" obtained by The Star offers some
details of the government's investigation of eight major oil companies. The FTC has confirmed that the document, which is dated
Oct. 31, 1980, and summarizes the FTC's case, is legitimate - even as it refuses to release other supporting documents covered
under the newspaper's request.

The FTC's lawyers found that Big Oil was turned on its ear by the nationalization of Mideast oil. The industry had relied on the
vast supplies of Mideast oil for much of its profits and plenty of refinery capacity was crucial in being able to process it all.

But the loss of control of Mideast oil, according to the FTC report, meant the end of the old system. The major oil companies
increasingly viewed refineries as having a new role - a stand-alone business that needed to be profitable.

The FTC document said the industry turned its attention to making that happen, alleging:

 

[73-Driver]

In other instances, if an independent company was looking at land to build a refinery, the site was purchased to prevent
it from being built. If there was still investment interest, oil companies would temporarily reduce wholesale gasoline prices in that
territory to convince the would-be buyer that it would be unprofitable.



In addition, refining capacity among the companies was controlled by sharing information on gasoline production.
One company's memorandum to another company that discussed plans to shut down a refinery included instructions to destroy
the document after it was read.



At one point, according to the FTC report, the companies thought demand would increase significantly. But the companies
"contrary to their individual business interests, did not expand refining capacity or take other actions to meet anticipated demand" -
delaying or canceling refinery projects.



The companies also sought to keep from dumping too much gasoline on the market by following the "leading firm" in
each market regarding how much gas to refine to sell to that market.



"The system worked in firming up prices," concluded the FTC document.



During and after the FTC's investigation, the oil companies denied the allegations that they worked together
to restrict capacity. Some argued that the government was merely looking to blame the industry for high energy prices.
They contended that business decisions were individual responses to the pressures of a competitive free market, not an
organized effort to use their market power to thwart competition.



Shortly after Ronald Reagan became president, in September 1981, the FTC withdrew its case, saying further proceedings
were "not in the public interest." At the time, the commission noted that the decision to dismiss did not represent a decision
on the merits of the case, and it left open the option of addressing competition in the industry at a later date. The case, which
alleged some specific examples of "collusive" actions, was the largest ever brought by the FTC.



A generation later, the oil industry sees the dismissal as exoneration of the antitrust allegations.



"There have been numerous claims but there has never been a finding of collusion," said Edward Murphy, group director of
refining and marketing for the American Petroleum Institute, which represents the oil companies. "The fact is this has
been and continues to be a very competitive industry."



Cutting capacity



To be sure, Big Oil has at times had a legitimate reason to be concerned about overcapacity.



Even as the industry sought to reduce capacity, an unprecedented slump in demand during the recession-ridden early 1980s
meant that U.S. refineries could make far more gasoline than needed.



But that didn't last. U.S. refinery capacity dropped from 18.6 million barrels of oil per day in 1981, to 15.7 million barrels
a day in 1998, as demand soared.



The domestic refining industry, which used as little as 70 percent of capacity as recently as the early 1980s, in recent years has
reached as much as 97 percent of capacity - effectively operating at full steam because some capacity is always down for maintenance
or retooling. And that lack of spare capacity makes prices more volatile.



Edward Galante, a senior vice president for ExxonMobil, speaking at an energy conference in Houston in February, said a "dramatic"
spike in global demand for gasoline in 2004 made the market tight.



"And in tighter markets, one can expect higher margins," he said.



But Galante said it was unlikely that any company would invest the billions that it takes to build more refineries in the United States.
He argued that there is still the possibility that demand could decline and refinery margins would follow. Building more capacity, he said,
could contribute to another surplus, returning the industry to the darker days of the early 1980s.



"Some say we have entered a `Golden Age of Refining.'" Galante said. "Of those I ask: How long is an age?"



Clearly, free-market adjustments explain some of the decline in capacity. Inefficient small refineries, for example, were among those
closed. But other forces, say some critics, were also afoot.



"This is an industry rigged for profits," said Jamie Court, president of The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.



"People think it is OPEC that's the reason for high gas prices, and it just isn't so."



The concern about surplus refining capacity remained a recurring theme in the industry, even as use pushed past 90 percent.



In a 1995 internal memo obtained by U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, whose office has investigated the industry in recent years,
Chevron discussed an industry meeting at which an analyst warned that if capacity wasn't reduced further, there would be no
substantial increase in refining margins.



In a 1996 internal memo, Mobil officials called for a "full court press" to stop an independent company from restarting a refinery in
California that might reduce gas prices by 3 cents per gallon. The effort was successful.



Company officials say such efforts reflect legitimate business strategies. "There have been various investigations that have concluded
there has been no wrongdoing by the oil companies and the industry in general," said Carolin Keith, a spokeswoman for ExxonMobil.



And a Texaco memorandum, also in 1996, stated too much capacity was hurting refinery profits.



"Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing demand for gasoline," according to the document.



A spokesman for Chevron, which later acquired Texaco, said the company has continuously upgraded and expanded existing refineries.
He referred to a recent speech by a Chevron executive for the company's position on building new refineries.



Patricia Woertz, executive vice president of Chevron's downstream operations, said expansion of the nation's refining infrastructure
would seem an obvious solution. But Woertz said any company would be hard pressed to find a community that would welcome a new
refinery.



"Even if you believe the investment economics have become more favorable, other discouragements remain," she said at an industry
conference in San Francisco.

 

[73-Driver]

http://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gif[URL="http://www.realcities.com/images/logos/site/realcities/realcities/site_logo.gif"]http://www.realcities.com/images/log.../site_logo.gif[/URL]http://www.realcities.com/images/log...realcities.jpghttp://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gifhttp://www.realcities.com/images/common/spacer.gifhttp://nl.newsbank.com/graphic/transparent.gifhttp://nl.newsbank.com/graphic/transparent.gif




[FONT=Arial,geneva,helvetica][SIZE=+1]Kansas MO)[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,geneva,helvetica]

End of an era

Employees at the Arkansas City refinery first realized their futures might be in jeopardy in 1996.

Total's parent company, based in Paris, France, said it no longer wanted the 56,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Arkansas City. But the company said it hoped to find a new owner.

The refinery had been upgraded over the years and employees had been told by management that it was profitable. So the workers were optimistic that an industry that had been in Arkansas City for nearly a century would continue to be a fixture.

"Many thought it was a done deal," said Jerry Walker, who was one of the refinery's supervisors.

But Walker was skeptical.

Recently sitting in his white-frame house just blocks from where the refinery stood, Walker remembered a trip in 1994 that suggested what was good business for the company wasn't always good for the workers.

Total executives had asked him to accompany them to a refinery in Wynnewood, Okla., that was for sale. After the inspections, the executives and Walker gathered to discuss the day. Walker recalls that one of the executives said Total should buy the refinery, explaining that if it didn't work out they could still close it and take it off the market.

"I think I heard something I wasn't supposed to hear," Walker said.

Still, the future of the Arkansas City refinery seemed secure. Gary Jones, president of Total Petroleum's North American business, visited the refinery in July 1996 and told the employees that a sale was likely.

But on Aug. 12, 1996 - known as Black Monday in Arkansas City - the company gathered the refinery's nearly 200 employees and told them the refinery would be closed. A company spokeswoman told the local newspapers that the sale had fallen through.

"We empathize with the employees who will be laid off as a result of our decision to discontinue crude oil processing at the Arkansas City refinery," Jones said in a prepared statement released when the closure was announced. "This action will, however, make Total Petroleum a stronger company by allowing us to focus our capital and human resources on other areas of the company with a higher profit potential."

Turner, considered one of the country's top refinery experts, was in his Dallas office the day the Arkansas City employees were told that the refinery would close. He said he got a call from a Total executive telling him that the company no longer wanted to sell and the deal was off. Turner said the sales contract was on his desk when the call came in.

"We were on the 5-yard line but they turned us down," he said.

The Arkansas City Traveler newspaper called the refinery's closing "disastrous." Over the years, the community watched as the refinery was dismantled and its parts sold. Today the site is home for a small asphalt and loading business.

Ten months after the Arkansas City refinery closed, Total reported financial results for its North American unit for the quarter ending June 30, 1997. The company singled out strong operations in the Midwest as a reason for a 61 percent increase in operating income for its refineries.

Eventually, Total sold most of its remaining U.S. refineries. Another unit, Total Petrochemical, continues to have an interest in a Port Arthur, Texas, refinery.

Jones took another job with Total overseas. Total executives declined to discuss the Arkansas City closure, or allow Jones to comment.

For many of the refinery's employees, the closing was financially disastrous. Employees who were not at least 55 years old received only a fraction of the projected value of their pensions.

Donald Bruce was 53 and had a full pension estimated to be worth $207,000. He received $70,000. Another employee was just weeks away from reaching 55 when the refinery closed. Other employees offered to donate vacation time so he would qualify for his full pension. The company refused.

"It doesn't make any sense," Bruce said.

A few years after the refinery closed, Greg Kent was still sorting through its remnants.

Kent, the appraiser for Cowley County where the refinery was located, has been in a dispute over the amount of property taxes that should be paid after it was closed. The proceedings have included subpoenas for some of Total's records.

One day Kent was thumbing through records when he was stopped cold by one of the documents. The document revealed that there had been three serious bids for the refinery. Kent said he was "beside himself" as he absorbed what he read.

"Why didn't they take the $37 million and run?" Kent asked. "This was a catastrophe that shouldn't have happened."



[/FONT]

http://nl.newsbank.com/graphic/transparent.gif
[SIZE=-1]Copyright 2005 The Kansas City Star Co.
[/SIZE]

 

[73-Driver]

Yep, these guys made their profits fair and square!

 

[AQ PILOT]

73 - Driver...didn't read the whole article...although it seems to be well written. Here is a question for ya... who says the owners of the refineries have to expose themselves to any risk. If they start up 10 plants and figure that by opening another one will cost them more than they'll make off it, should they be required to? Flip side, if they have 11 plants running but can make more money running only 10, should they keep the 11th open?

I sure as hell don't think so. If people are bitching about it, they should put together a nice little corp of their own and build a refinery. (Yeah, easier said than done, I know) We all know that if something happened to a major oil company and they started losing their collective a$$e$ that there aint a soul out here that would chip in to help them....why shouldn't they make every damn dollar they can?