backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 90 comment(s) - last by FITCamaro.. on Jul 17 at 10:59 AM


Not since the days of oil barons, portrayed here by Daniel Day Lewis in recent epic "There Will Be Blood", has oil been so lucrative.  (Source: Miramax)
Oil companies take 7 of top ten global most profitable spots, tech industry contributors also reap rewards

Imagine someone comes up to you on the street and starts talking about what fortunate economic weather the last few months have brought -- they've been able to buy a fleet of sports cars, a palatial mansion in a tropical paradise, and are sending their children to best schools in the country.  If someone made such claims in today's battered economy, they might sound ready for a trip to the local mental ward.  However for a fortunate few, the atmosphere today certainly is this and more.


Those few are the major oil companies and the companies that do business with big oil.  There are many popular misconceptions about big oil.  One is that the companies aren't profitable.  Fortune released its list of the most profitable companies in the world and 7 of the top 10 were major oil companies, including the top spot.  Of these, 5 out of 7 were companies with major holdings in the U.S.

The myth that oil isn't creating huge profits is a favorable one for these companies, who fear their exclusive elite status in the business world may make them a tax target.  The myth may have some rather skewed basis in reality, in that the profit margins (net income, including tax, over net sales revenue) are not as high as some companies.  However, the fact is that oil companies commodity deal in a commodity that has become worth so much, this they don't have to have a large profit margin to make epic profits -- they simply have to sell.

Getting to the Fortune list, topping it is oil giant Exxon Mobile.  Exxon, also the second largest company in the world made a modest $40B USD in profits.  One figure that jumps out when comparing Exxon to the world's largest company, retailer Wal-Mart, is the number of employees.  Wal-Mart, not in the top ten in profit, needed 2,055,000 employees to capture the top spot in size.  Exxon made many times the profit of Wal-Mart with almost a twentieth of the employees -- with 107,100 employees.

Back to the most profitable list, the No. 2 spot is taken by Royal Dutch Shell ($31B USD), the fourth spot by BP ($20B USD), Gazprom (Russian oil, $19B USD) at five, Chevron ($18B USD) at seventh, Petronas (Malaysian oil, $18B USD) at eight, and Total (French owned, $18B USD) at ninth.  General Electric, the first company that is not primarily oil comes in third ($22B USD).  While some of its revenue was driven by GE's NBC studios unit, much of it was driven by sales of oil infrastructure and transportation related supplies -- like gas turbines, locomotives, and jet engines.

If you want to find a business not intimately connected to big oil, you have to drop to sixth to HSBC holdings, an international banking firm.  Outside of banks and oil, the next major company is Toyota at 12th ($15B USD), however it’s easy to see that oil plays a major factor in the widespread success of Toyota's vehicles, which typically boast high fuel economies for their classes.  Rounding off the top twenty, four others are oil companies -- China National Petroleum, BHP Billiton (also vested in diamonds), Petrobras (Brazilian), and ENI (Italian).

If you look at the record not only are 7 of the top 10 oil companies, 11 of the top 20 are as well.  The trend is also that these companies have huge profits with only a fraction of the employees.  While it is fair to say that infrastructure costs for oil are higher than in some businesses, with pipelines, refineries, and shipping to be considered, a major part of the revenue still goes to giving the companies' executives lucrative pay and stock rewards.  For example, last year Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon was given a generous $400M USD severance package.  The current CEO made a more modest, but still strong $16M USD in compensation and stock.

Many misconceptions about oil abound.  One is the myth of peak oil.  While it’s true that oil supplies are finite and somewhat uncertain based on how much of the prospective oil in "hard to get" locations like shales is economically feasible to drill, the fact is oil is not going to run out this week or even ten years from now, even by "worst case" estimates.  The reality, more likely is that oil companies are purposefully keeping supplies tight to keep prices high.  Normally in business, another competitor would come along and offer a competitive product for a lower price, and the other company would be forced to lower their prices and sell more.

However, with big oil, the companies all work so closely together to coordinate prices and have such a tight grip on the resources, that a decidedly unique scenario is formed.  There are no little competitors.  And with the knowledge that supplies, though perhaps numerous are finite, the companies are wisely (though perhaps greedily) concluding -- why sell more, when they can make just as much selling less? 

Another myth is that the Middle East is to blame for the high oil prices.  If you look at production, its true a lot comes from the Middle East, they only typically see part of the profits.  Much of the production also comes from other nations like Russia, Norway (third largest exporter), Nigeria, Venezuela, Mexico, etc.  Much of the anger at the Middle East over oil is fuel by racism -- in reality, while some in the Middle East may be "getting rich off oil", there's far more in the U.S., Europe, and Asia getting rich off its sales.

So if the lion's share of the money is here in the U.S., isn't that a good thing?  Not necessarily; while some believe in a "trickle down" style of economics -- the idea of giving money to a few wealthy in the hopes that their spending financially improves everyone from the middle class to the poor -- the money is showing little signs of trickling down.  It's not trickling down to the non-oil investors -- the stock market has been hit hard this year and last, with June being the worst on record since the Great Depression.  It's pushing some industries, like the airline industry to the brink of financial ruin.  And it does not appear to be trickling down to the citizens either, with record rates of foreclosure.

So why is oil, which some consider a purely economic topic worth writing about to the tech industry.  To some the answer is obvious, but for those of you who it isn't, consider the multi-tier effect on the tech industry.  First there's the direct aspects -- oil relies heavily on high tech mechanics with refining, pipelines, and drilling -- making oil a major tech player. 

Secondly, there's the financial impact oil's success, which some economists blame for the bad economy, may be having on the rest of tech industry by reducing consumer spending in face of soaring prices.  Finally, oil consumption and prices relates intimately to theorized global warming and to the drive to adopt alternative energy.

In the end big oil has a profound influence on the entire economy, through its elite status in it, but especially on the tech industry.  With no relief from prices in sight, the government and the consumer face tough choices. 

Should they spend more money invest in alternative energy in hopes of developing cheaper power sources?  Should the government investigate oil companies and tax them if they are found to be deliberately limiting production at the expense of the consumer?  These are the hard questions facing U.S. citizens as they tackle the unique problem of the exclusivity and record profits of the oil industry.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Or...
By GaryJohnson on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 8:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worldwide the demand is neutral.


China? India? The fact is that demand is not neutral in the large countries like these that subsidize the fuel costs. Its rising at such a fast pace, even with the recent lowering of subsidy amount by the Chinese.


RE: Or...
By voodooboy on 7/14/2008 3:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
China? India? The fact is that demand is not neutral in the large countries like these that subsidize the fuel costs. Its rising at such a fast pace, even with the recent lowering of subsidy amount by the Chinese.


...And yet, with an average annual income of between $600 and $800 (US avg. income being about $45,000), a typical Indian pays a lot more for his fuel than the typical American... *sigh*

Numbers:
Current exchange rate: 1$ = Rs.42.9
Avg. price of Petrol in India as of now (per Litre) : Rs.52 ~ $1.21
Avg. price of Gas in the US as of now (per Gallon) : $4.095
1 Gallon (US) = 3.78 litres.

Therefore Avg. price of Gas in the US as of now (per Litre) : ~ $1.08

And mind you, the price of gas in India has hovered around Rs.45/litre or so since the last 2 years. So while the price/gallon was about $2.something a year ago in the US, it's been about $4.something in India for about 2 years (I think a lil more than that) now.

So while I can understand the hardships Americans are facing because of the rising fuel prices, to say that it's because of India and China is an uninformed comment at best.


RE: Or...
By mholler on 7/14/2008 6:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Are they the sole cause of increased fuel prices? Absolutely not, however to say that increased demand for oil in China and India has not contributed to increased prices is ridiculous. Oil is a world market and when demand increases in any area and supply remains the same then prices will rise.

It's also not only attributable to current increases in demand, but also to EXPECTED increases in demand. If demand in those countries continue to grow at the current rate over the next few years, then supply will be stretched even thinner than it is today. It is this fear that fuels speculators and is another factor in the high cost of oil.

So, you are correct in that China and India are not to blame for the current situation, but they are definitely a significant factor in the market.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 8:51:32 AM , Rating: 5
> "The demand in the U.S. is dropping. Worldwide the demand is neutral. Yet prices in the U.S. and the world continue to rise."

Worldwide, the demand is *not* neutral. China alone increased its demand last year by over 16%:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/29/conte...

Furthermore, world production declined in 2006 and again in 2007...a period in which even US demand was rising (our demand didn't begin to fall until this year, and only by a couple percent).

Still further, you see to believe oil companies somehow choose the price their oil is sold at. They do not. Oil is sold at auction on a global futures market. When people bid more, the price rises...when they bid less, it drops.


RE: Or...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
China's demand is only going to rise as they run out of Coal. Good time to buy into the coal market because China should burn through their supply in the next 3-4 years, after that they need to import it or alternative sources of electricity.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:21:36 AM , Rating: 2
China's coal reserves may look low on paper...but those reserves have actually been rising the past decade. They're finding new coal faster than they're burning it.


RE: Or...
By Eri Hyva on 7/14/2008 9:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well, even in China cars don't use coal.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/08/how-many-d...

Increase in demand of gasoline over 10% per year for many years in a row. And counting .... In 2030 more cars in China than in th US.
And India is more or less doing the same.


RE: Or...
By DeepBlue1975 on 7/15/2008 11:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense.
By 2030 India will have less than 1/4 the cars and population it has today...

Where will the other 75% go?
To the graveyard, all killed by car accidents!


RE: Or...
By ajfink on 7/14/2008 2:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's a good thing the US has some of the largest coal reserves on Earth.

It's too bad it's essentially ecologically off limits due to regulation or uneconomical (at the moment) to extract.

Nuclear/non-crop biofuels (including hydrogen)/other renewables (wind / solar / water) can provide a lot (if not all) of our energy, it's just too bad the companies with the money to develop it have little incentive to do so.


RE: Or...
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2008 8:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
Plenty of investors would love to open a nuclear plant. The return on investment is quite high and guaranteed. Environmentalists are stopping them, not lack of incentive.

Biofuels are held back by profitability. They aren't profitable without massive government subsidies right now. Solar is relatively useless on a massive scale because so much land is required to produce so little power. And its reliability is around 25% (Sorry no internet today because its been cloudy for a week). Wind isn't feasible everywhere. Hydroelectric power isn't feasible everywhere.


RE: Or...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/14/2008 9:56:05 AM , Rating: 1
You are using the term "worldwide" in the sense of that somewhere worldwide demand is increasing. Yes, demand worldwide is not neutral. As I said -- in the U.S. it is dropping, in China and to a lesser extent India it is rising. But as a whole demand is relatively unchanged do the various fluctuations worldwide offsetting each other.

Its true oil pricing is heavily controlled by the futures market, but as you mentioned oil companies can control supplies to regulate prices to some extent. Also major traders on the futures market typically work closely with the major oil producers. Its silly to discount these relationships.

Oil companies may be heavily taxed, but even if they were taxed 50 percent on profits, they'd still be making far more profit than most companies which are much larger.

Oil production is indeed declining, which was my point about the prices seeming artificially high. With the massive profits, high prices, and low supplies, oil companies should be expanding their infrastructure aggressively, but are not.

While some modest expansion has been made, it falls short of what is needed, or what they would logically do in a traditional business sense. Sure you can say "environmentalists are to blame", but even if this was somewhat true in the U.S., they could easily add capacity overseas. Albeit at a slightly higher cost due to shipping, etc.


RE: Or...
By mdogs444 on 7/14/2008 10:12:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sure you can say "environmentalists are to blame", but even if this was somewhat true in the U.S.

Yes, it is true. It's a plain fact. The number of permits & regulations on anything energy related, and now the regulations on cars, and everything else...yes, it is the environmental movement that is to blame for this in the U.S.

But what good news we have, President Bush has just lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling today, 7/14/2008.


RE: Or...
By masher2 (blog) on