Exxon Sees Record Profit

[Mayonnaise]

Exxon Mobil Sees Record Profit for U.S. Co.

By Associated Press
Published January 30, 2006, 8:28 AM CST

IRVING, Texas -- Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday -- $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year -- as the world's biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products. The results exceeded Wall Street expectations and Exxon shares rose nearly 3 percent on premarket trading.

The company's earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter of 2005.

Exxon's profit for the year was also the largest annual reported net income in U.S. history, according to Howard Silverblatt, a stock market analyst for Standard & Poor's. He said the previous high was Exxon's $25.3 billion profit in 2004.

The results for the latest quarter included a $390 million gain related to a litigation settlement. Excluding special items, earnings were $10.32 billion, or $1.65 per share. The result topped Wall Street's expectations. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial predicted earnings of $1.44 per share.

Exxon shares rose $1.79, or 2.9 percent, to $63.08 in premarket activity.

Quarterly revenue ballooned to $99.66 billion from $83.37 billion a year ago but came in shy of the $100.72 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter, which was the first time a U.S. public company generated more than $100 billion in sales in a single quarter.

By segment, exploration and production earnings rose sharply to $7.04 billion, up $2.15 billion from the 2004 quarter, reflecting higher crude oil and natural gas prices. Production decreased by 1 percent due to the lingering effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which battered the Gulf Coast in August and September.

The company's refining and marketing segment reported $2.39 billion in earnings, as higher refining and marketing margins helped offset the residual effects of the hurricanes.

Exxon's chemicals business saw earnings, excluding special items, decline by $413 million to $835 million, as higher materials costs squeezed margins.

For the full year, net income surged to $5.71 per share from $3.89 per share in 2004. Annual revenue grew to $371 billion from $298.04 billion.

[DogBoy]

Advocacy? Safety? I must have missed that part of your post.

[ken cummings]

There is some point to your post? Aside from making me admire EXXON for being so successful.

[DataJunkie]

must....purchase.....stock

[genec]

Advocacy? Safety? I must have missed that part of your post.

How about this simple "advocacy" connection... Don't wanna see huge oil companies making profit off of charging too much at the pump... something that is bad for the consumer overall... then don't use their products... Ride a bike and go car free.

What would happen to the oil companies if everyone stopped driving???

[Mayonnaise]

The point is quite simple, in our car dominated culture the oil companies are reaping huge profits that enable us to destroy the environment and close our minds to alternatives in transportation. The money has a direct correlation to the massive environmental issues facing humanity in this century. Issues that threaten all life on the planet.

Any right minded cyclist should be sickened by theses profits and motivated to do something about it. It should be a clear signal that indeed life is out of balance.

[twahl]

Any right minded cyclist should be sickened by theses profits and motivated to do something about it. It should be a clear signal that indeed life is out of balance.

Seems to me that any right minded person that didn't use gasoline would be laughing at the people that are continuing to buy bigger and less efficient vehicles, continuing to pay increased prices, and continuing to whine about it. The oil companies are providing what is demanded by consumers. That doesn't make them the villains any more than the farmers in South America that are growing coca plants. No demand, no supply.

[DataJunkie]

Is the fact that a cyclist rides a non gasoline powered vehicle enough? Or should we start a rally outside Exxon's headquarters?

[DogBoy]

... Don't wanna see huge oil companies making profit off of charging too much at the pump...

Why do you think they charge too much?

[DogBoy]

The point is quite simple, in our car dominated culture the oil companies are reaping huge profits that enable us to destroy the environment and close our minds to alternatives in transportation. The money has a direct correlation to the massive environmental issues facing humanity in this century. Issues that threaten all life on the planet.

Any right minded cyclist should be sickened by theses profits and motivated to do something about it. It should be a clear signal that indeed life is out of balance.

OK, I got it. You are advocating for an environmental issue. Let me know if you get around to advocating for cycling issues.

[pricklycommute]

Good for Exxon. Not suprising since the per barrel cost on the global market went up so much last year. Profits are not inherently a bad thing. Without profits none of us would have jobs.

I think we should boycott Coke instead. It costs them 5 cents to make a $1.00 bottle!

[Mayonnaise]

To advocate against oil profits is to advocate for cycling. To advocate for a greener lifestyle is to advocate for cycling. To raise awareness of massive oil profits is to advocate for cycling.

We cannot live in this country without some oil dependancy but we can at least be aware of how insidious it is.

[smurfy]

Thank you, Mayo, for posting this.

I don't have a car right now but this morning I had to pay $2.49/gal for the goddamned rental car I just returned. POS is a gas hog despite the four-cyl engine! Or maybe I haven't driven a car for awhile and I forgot what it was like.

In some ways I hope the oil companies make more huge profits so maybe consumers will finally wake up out of thier slumber and realize that THEY are part of the problem and will change thier ways because they will be so sickened and appalled by the greedy energy companies raking in billions of thier money they worked so hard for. One can only wish!

Well I will smirk now as I ride my bike to work and ride the bus home at night.

[supcom]

To advocate against oil profits is to advocate for cycling.

No, it's not. Advocating for cycling as to promote the use of bikes. Advocating "against oil profits" is just being against the petroleum industry.

To advocate for a greener lifestyle is to advocate for cycling. To raise awareness of massive oil profits is to advocate for cycling.

No, it's not. This is environmental advocacy. Environmental advocacy is not bicycle advocacy. While bicycling can be a part of an environmentally friendly lifestyle, it is not a requirement.

[dobber]

No, it's not. This is environmental advocacy. Environmental advocacy is not bicycle advocacy. While bicycling can be a part of an environmentally friendly lifestyle, it is not a requirement.


Didn't you get the memo? Cycling advocacy means being against Bush, WalMart, Petroleum, Cars, Car Drivers and Law Enforcement.

Fight the fight !!

[rvabiker]

Somebody forgot to take capitalism 101...supply and demand my friends.

[genec]

Why do you think they charge too much?

Because they can.

Meanwhile record profits point to the result of "screwing the consumer... "

[twahl]

Didn't you get the memo? Cycling advocacy means being against Bush, WalMart, Petroleum, Cars, Car Drivers and Law Enforcement.

Fight the fight !!

You forgot Halliburton, suburbs, fast food, logging, and aerosol cans.

[supcom]

You forgot Halliburton, suburbs, fast food, logging, and aerosol cans.

Running water, medical science, telecommunications, and anything not biodegradable.

[twahl]

Running water, medical science, telecommunications, and anything not biodegradable.

Damn there goes my bike. Rubber tires, tubes, and tape, and lots of aluminum. Let's not forget the paint!

[kf5nd]

Hey Mayonnaise-for-brains,

We need oil prices to be high and for energy companies of all stripes to make money. High prices are forcing businesses, consumers, and government users to find a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Actually, oil prices aren't high enough. They need to be closer to $100 per barrel before people really start changing their behavior.

The fact that energy companies make money signals investors to invest in new energy technologies, that they are not going to lose their shirts in the process, like they did in the 1970s when they invested in alternative energy.

You want low energy prices for consumers and alternative energy and conservation. Those three things are not compatible. You can't have all of them at the same time.

[scarry]

OK, I got it. You are advocating for an environmental issue. Let me know if you get around to advocating for cycling issues.


Cycling is an enviromental issue. Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.times-up.org/

[skookum]

Its (mostly) demand from China that is pushing up the price of oil.
If you are sitting on reserves that you developed when WTI was $35.00/bbl, you have made a big profit.
Its like if you bought a house ten years ago for $200 000 and its now worth $500 000.

[Bekologist]

T Boone Pickett and the rest of the real oil boys began to drive BBL prices on crude up on the futures markets about the same time round robin energy futures trading led to the downfall of Enron....similar circumstances (corporate profiteering) have led to artifically inflated oil and gas prices. It's not the war in Iraq, exploration costs, or civil unrest in Namibia and the Congo,

it's profiteering on the part of the oil companies. Supply side economics model driven by greedy comodities future traders.

[twahl]

Cycling is an enviromental issue. Have you been living under a rock?

http://www.times-up.org/

Again, it's very simple. Cycling can be part of being environmentally friendly. My great-grandmother never drove a car despite spending most of her life in the age of the automobile. Nor did she ride a bicycle. There a many cyclists that put their bikes on a rack to go drive someplace they feel comfortable to ride, are they not cyclists? There are many environmentalists that do not ride a bike, does this mean that their environmental concerns are invalid? The two can be brought closely together, but posting concerns about Exxon's obscene profits is not directly a cycling advocacy issue. For that matter it's not even an environmental advocacy issue.

[Bekologist]

no wanting to be part of Big Oil seems like a bicycle advocacy issue in my opinion.

Ironic that American automakers are laying off 10s of thousands of workers at the same time oil companies are seeing record profits.....

I hear too, that Canada is pretty rich in the oil reserves, eh? Lots of sweet light crude is going to be extracted from oil sands in Canada in the coming decades.....

We'd best be a little bit nicer to you hockey loving touque wearers living in that strange country just to the north of US...

[genec]

Hey Mayonnaise-for-brains,

We need oil prices to be high and for energy companies of all stripes to make money. High prices are forcing businesses, consumers, and government users to find a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

Actually, oil prices aren't high enough. They need to be closer to $100 per barrel before people really start changing their behavior.

The fact that energy companies make money signals investors to invest in new energy technologies, that they are not going to lose their shirts in the process, like they did in the 1970s when they invested in alternative energy.

You want low energy prices for consumers and alternative energy and conservation. Those three things are not compatible. You can't have all of them at the same time.


How about if the high prices were simply due to scarcity, rather than "unseen" market forces... which resulted in obscene profits... Totally different models there.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You forgot Halliburton, suburbs, fast food, logging, and aerosol cans.
AND you forgot the evils of TV, organized team sports (except cycling), detached homes with a backyard, pesticides, supermarket foods, and shopping malls.

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The point is quite simple, in our car dominated culture the oil companies are reaping huge profits that enable us to destroy the environment and close our minds to alternatives in transportation. The money has a direct correlation to the massive environmental issues facing humanity in this century. Issues that threaten all life on the planet.

Any right minded cyclist should be sickened by theses profits and motivated to do something about it. It should be a clear signal that indeed life is out of balance.
Take it to the Car-Free Forum

[Mayonnaise]

you’re right, it isn’t a requirement, but it certainly is a logical progression: weaning Americans, or at the very least raising their awareness, from their oil gluttony will improve conditions for cyclists. At the very least it can potentially reduce the number of cars on the road and perhaps encourage others to use cycling as an alternative form of transportation.

I never said anything about wanting low gas prices. I am saying is Exxon's profits illustrate that we are living our lives out of balance.

And while it is unrelated, a Wal Mart just opened this weekend across the street and instantly our quality of life suffered.

[slagjumper]

There is more than supply and demand issues here. First high gas prices tend to cause more people to buy and use bikes, so profit away. Trouble is that Exxon is managing the supply so that there are less outages, which cause nice, huge price spikes. It seems likely that any multinational involved in the world oil business has blood on its hands either directly or indirectly through the governments and militaries of oil producing contries. So seems like the issue is more of human rights and international business ethics, (not ok to do x in the home country, but no problem doing it in some far away third world country.)

Finnally there is the problem for capitolism when a few entities get so much money that they can control the release of new technologies and fuels. So even though there are millions of cars that can run on ethenol, there is none available, because the likes of Exxon are not ready to switch to something with less margin.

What about the health effects. If you think that cigie smoking in public places is wrong, you have to agree that petrochemical fuels, cause much expense to public health bills.

[rvabiker]

Instantly? I find that hard to believe...but another discussion for another forum.

[twahl]

Yeah, I'm afraid I've forgotten quite a few things that I'm supposed to despise because I like to ride a bike.

The oils companies are making a lot of money. While I don't buy into the "we've invested as much as we've made in the last 10 years" crap, I do know that even the big oil companies are in fact investing in alternative fuels research. They have to if they want to continue to exist, and they money they make is what keep that research funded privately rather than through taxpayer funds. Same people whose pockets are being raided for the most part, but one source is because of choices that are made while the other is inflicted on everyone without much say in the matter.

A snippet from Exxon's web site:

"In addition to our own extensive research activities, ExxonMobil sponsors a wide range of energy research programs at universities and other institutions. For example, we are a cofounder and plan to invest up to $100 million in the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University.

The GCEP initiative unites scientific and engineering researchers with private industry in the search for new, commercially viable energy technologies that can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a world scale. This effort includes identifying the most promising technologies, accelerating their commercial applications, and overcoming cost, performance, and safety issues."

Other companies are making similar efforts. Why shouldn't these efforts be made on the shoulders of people using their existing products?

[Mayonnaise]

Instantly, there were three times as many cars as before. Instantly, there were policeman parked in the center of the street directing traffic when there were none before. Instantly, the lines at the stop lights were massive when they were passable before. Instantly, the parking lot was jam packed when it was a field before. Instantly the smell of exhaust reached my backyard when it never did before. Instantly I knew I couldn’t go near that mess without a bus load of stress. Instantly.

[phoebeisis]

Oil companies aren't making big $$ because they are so well run;they are making big $$ because they control a vital resource and they are benefiting from the saber rattling over Iran.Iran has made an extra $25000,000/day the last few weeks since the latest round of price runups-40 days-extra 1 Billion$$.How many Nukes can you buy for $1billion?
The Free Market has absolutely no interest in the national interests of the USA;this is one of the major problems with the free market.It goes where it can get the best return-in the short term-months to years.Governments are supposed to think long term,but ours currently doesn't and hasn't ever(other than outspending the USSR weapons wise,and I'm not sure that that was a planned strategy-maybe it was,maybe not).
We don't leave highways,water supply,flood control,military etc up to the free market.Why not;because they are too important to leave to the whims of the marketplace.Our energy situation is very bad;we are dependent on oil from folks who absolutely hate us.We are literally paying for the NUKE that will be smuggled into the USA.Charlie

[manual_overide]

bikes aren't really very enviro-friendly at all if you think about it. Most are made in China or Taiwan in big, smelly, super-polluting factories that are dirtier than most american car factories. After you buy them, you still aren't completely green. You've got to replace tape, tires, and tubes; many of which do not get recycled. Also there is the regular maintenence. You have degreasers, cleaners, grease, and *gasp* aerosol lubricant!!

So there are a few ways bikes are not clean and green. Also, why does pro-bike have to also be anti-car, anti-business, and/or anti-oil?

[twahl]

Is this the same Walmart that the city of Chicago wouldn't allow to open within city limits because their anti-union labor practices were not in line with the thinking of the citizens of Chicago? The store that received 25,000 applications for a few hundred jobs, and all but about 500 of those applications came from people that listed their residence as an address within the city of Chicago? The Walmart that is estimated to bring it's new home over $1 million in additional annual tax revinues to? So that this poor suburb's local officials are trying to figure out how they are going to spend their new-found wealth thanks to the citizens of Chicago who are going to drive out there to buy things from Walmart? They will, by the way, drive, burning more fossil fuels, because the City of Chicago didn't want the Walmart in city limits.

A whole 'nother point I know, and none of that negates the negative effects on your life. I suffer similar effects from The Washington Post and The Weather Channel reporting how beautiful the fall leaves are. Damn tourists come pouring in to my previously private viewing areas, bringing massive traffic with stinky exhaust fumes and backups and too many people and lots of noise, just like Walmart. Of course that's for a limited time, and Walmart seems to go on forever.

[Bekologist]

twahl = tool of the establishment.
Love your 'personalized' license plate. is your car similar to Helmet Heads?

Does it delude yourself into thinking you're riding your bike while you're actually stuck in traffic, sucking tailpipe, and contributing to global warming, terrorism, and degrading local air quality?

Some of us are very proud of you, Twahl.

[twahl]

Name calling. Sweet.

My license plate serves two purposes. To remind others that cyclists have the right to the road even while I am driving my car, and to show what brand of bike I choose to ride when I am riding my bike. The extra fee I pay each year for that plate goes into a revenue sharing fund between the DMV and a state walking/cycling advocacy group (http://bikewalkvirginia.org/index.html), which I felt was a worthwhile cause. I am not pretending to ride a bike when I am driving my car, the thought never occured to me. Do you often imagine that you are using one form of transportation when you are actually using another? I'm afraid my imagination isn't that good.

I am rarely stuck in traffic and I try to not drive any more than I need to, but carting around groceries for a family of 4 is diffcult on a bicycle. I couldn't give a rat's ass if you or anyone else is "proud" of me.

[genec]

Instantly, there were three times as many cars as before. Instantly, there were policeman parked in the center of the street directing traffic when there were none before. Instantly, the lines at the stop lights were massive when they were passable before. Instantly, the parking lot was jam packed when it was a field before. Instantly the smell of exhaust reached my backyard when it never did before. Instantly I knew I couldn’t go near that mess without a bus load of stress. Instantly.

A Krispy Kreme opened up clost to my place a couple of years ago and instantly it became the destination for thousands... yes, instantly!

The traffic backed up for blocks in both directions while cars idled, spewing their exhaust about... all so folks could get a dozen or so donuts. The police had to post an officer regularly in the area to direct traffic for about 3-4 weeks until the fever pitch for hot Krispy Kremes died down.

Yup, it happens instantly.

[genec]

Also, why does pro-bike have to also be anti-car, anti-business, and/or anti-oil?

For the same reason pro-car can't be more pro-bike...

[Bekologist]

Sorry, Twahl.

like I said, some of us are very proud of you.

You went to Exxon's web site and posted their company line, you defend big oil and you defend Walmart and its business model, i'm still considering you a tool of the establishment. no offense.

I do like the fact you have a special bike advocacy license plate, and glad to hear it doesn't befuddle you like a case of Helmet Head's car confusion....

[twahl]

I defended nothing, I just pointed out the other side of the argument. I actually looked at Exxon's information rather than just posting a report about their profits. How are they spending their profits? Funding research into lower emmisions technologies seems like a fairly responsible action to me, and they can't do that if they aren't making money. Someone is going to get that oil out of the ground and process it for consumption, doesn't it seem like a good idea to look into what else they are doing? Should we really scream out about someone making money from a product that the public demands? Bringing up my previous example, look how well that approach works when it comes to drugs.

I just don't understand how bemoaning Exxon's profits advocates cycling, and I don't understand how bringing it up here helps do anything but cause an arguement. Go commute in traffic wearing a shirt that says "70 miles per gallon of water" or "I get to eat my fuel" on the back. That's getting word out to people that need to hear it.

[kf5nd]

Light sweet crude from Albertan tar sands?

ROTFLMAO !!!!! :D


no wanting to be part of Big Oil seems like a bicycle advocacy issue in my opinion.

Ironic that American automakers are laying off 10s of thousands of workers at the same time oil companies are seeing record profits.....

I hear too, that Canada is pretty rich in the oil reserves, eh? Lots of sweet light crude is going to be extracted from oil sands in Canada in the coming decades.....

We'd best be a little bit nicer to you hockey loving touque wearers living in that strange country just to the north of US...

[Bekologist]

Light sweet crude from Albertan tar sands?

ROTFLMAO !!!!! :D

A canadian oil ministry official or oil exec was calling Alberta oil 'more refined, better than light sweet crude' in a Nightline episode last week.... I've never seen it in a barrel, just going with what the oil industry mucky mucks are calling it.

[dobber]

You went to Exxon's web site and posted their company line, you defend big oil and you defend Walmart and its business model, i'm still considering you a tool of the establishment. no offense.

And you're obviously a tool of the naysayers.

No offense..........

[slagjumper]

I defended nothing, I just pointed out the other side of the argument. I actually looked at Exxon's information rather than just posting a report about their profits. How are they spending their profits? Funding research into lower emmisions technologies seems like a fairly responsible action to me, and they can't do that if they aren't making money. Someone is going to get that oil out of the ground and process it for consumption, doesn't it seem like a good idea to look into what else they are doing? Should we really scream out about someone making money from a product that the public demands? Bringing up my previous example, look how well that approach works when it comes to drugs.

I just don't understand how bemoaning Exxon's profits advocates cycling, and I don't understand how bringing it up here helps do anything but cause an arguement. Go commute in traffic wearing a shirt that says "70 miles per gallon of water" or "I get to eat my fuel" on the back. That's getting word out to people that need to hear it.

Not sure if it was the other side of the argument, but just another pro-exxon argument. For example, it is not ok (legally or morally) for exxon to use the US military to overtly steal or control oil. If a US company goes to Thailand, (or Nigeria like Shell), and gets the government of that country to use its millitary to secure oil, that seems wrong. What is wrong at home is wrong somewhere else isnt it?

Now its like me and my suv. If I sell it and buy a 1976 Honda 600, the person that I sold my suv to will still use it. So what have I gained? Same with Exxon if they pulled out Shell would move in. But that really is not a good justification to kill people. So the multinationals corps have to do other things like sponsor nature shows and research. But, not much of the research is shared for the good of all, but kept to themselves. That's ok, but how much of that research is co-sponsored by the us tax payers?

[skookum]

1) Tar sands oil is light and sweet after it is upgraded, but you have to add diluent. In its natural state it is sticky gooey tar, which is why it has to be mined.

2)Okay where is Exxon using the US military to secure its oil? I must have missed that one.

[genec]

1) Tar sands oil is light and sweet after it is upgraded, but you have to add diluent. In its natural state it is sticky gooey tar, which is why it has to be mined.

2)Okay where is Exxon using the US military to secure its oil? I must have missed that one.

OK but this is a bit of a stretch... no telling who might step in once the "peacekeepers" have left the building...

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/12heart.htm


Oil is at the heart of the crisis that leads towards a US war against Iraq. For more than a hundred years, major powers have battled to control this enormous source of wealth and strategic power. The major international oil companies, headquartered in the United States and the United Kingdom, are keen to regain control over Iraq’s oil, lost with the nationalization in 1972. Few outside the industry understand just how high the stakes in Iraq really are and how much the history of the world oil industry is a history of power, national rivalry and military force.

Why Iraq’s Oil is so coveted by the big companies

Oil in Iraq is especially attractive to the big international oil companies because of three factors:

(1)high quality/high value product
Iraq’s oil is generally of high quality because it has attractive chemical properties, notably high carbon content, lightness and low sulfur content, that make it especially suitable for refining into the high-value products. For these reasons, Iraqi oil commands a premium on the world market.

(2)huge supplies
Iraq’s oil is very plentiful. The country’s proven reserves in 2002 were listed at 112.5 billion barrels, about 11% of the world total. With little exploration since the nationalization of the industry in 1972, many promising areas remain unexplored. Experts believe that Iraq has potential reserves substantially above 200 billion barrels. The Energy Information Administration of the US Department of Energy has estimated that Iraqi reserves could possibly total over 400 billion barrels. If new exploration fulfills such high-end predictions, Iraq’s reserves could prove close to those of Saudi Arabia, now listed at 260 billion barrels but likely also to go considerably higher as well. The Department of Energy assessment says that:

“Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia) along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq’s true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions. Deep oil-bearing formations located mainly in the vast Western Desert region, for instance, could yield large additional oil resources (possibly another 100 billion barrels), but have not been explored.” (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)


(3)exceptionally low production costs, yielding a high per barrel profit
The US Department of Energy states that “Iraq’s oil production costs are amongst the lowest in the world, making it a highly attractive oil prospect.” This is because Iraq’s oil comes in enormous fields that can be tapped by relatively shallow wells, producing a high “flow rate.” Iraq’s oil rises rapidly to the surface, because of high pressure on the oil reservoir from water and from associated natural gas deposits.

More than a third of Iraq’s current reserves lie just 600 meters (1800 feet) below the earth’s surface and some of Iraq’s fields are among the world’s largest. The fabulous Majnoun Field, not yet in production, is said to hold at least 25 billion barrels. According to Oil and Gas Journal, Western oil companies estimate that they can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oilfield development and production costs and including a 15% return. This is similar to production costs in Saudi Arabia and lower than virtually any other country.

By way of comparison, a barrel of oil costs $5 to produce in other relatively low-cost areas like Malaysia and Oman. Production costs in Mexico and Russia might potentially be as low as $6-8 per barrel (higher under current production arrangements by local companies).

Offshore production areas like the North Sea, with expensive platforms, can run to $12-16 a barrel. In Texas and other US and Canadian fields, where deep wells and small reservoirs make production especially expensive, costs can run above $20 a barrel. When world market prices dip below $20 a barrel, the North American fields yield no profit at all, and many are capped, while production in an area like Iraq proves extremely profitable in all market conditions.

Oil companies' future profits (and share prices) depend on their control of reserves. In recent years, as older fields have begun to run out, the companies have faced rising “replacement” costs. According to a 2002 report by energy consultants John S. Herold, finding costs for new reserves rose 60% in 2001, pushing replacement costs to $5.31 a barrel. ExxonMobil, BP and Shell are facing this difficulty. Imagine the lure of the vast Iraqi fields, with little prospecting required, offering nearly free acquisition. As Fadel Gheit of Fahnstock & Co. in New York commented in an article in Dawn, Iraq “would be a logical place in the future for oil companies to replace their reserves.” http://www.dawn.com/2002/12/15/ebr12.htm Another expert called Iraq an “El Dorado” for the oil industry.

Now of course this is old data... but rather difficult running an oil rig while the tanks are still shooting in the background... But it's not as if there isn't some motovation to get in there, eh?

And the Brookings Inst. rather backs up those oil reserves...

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm

And then there is this opinion by the Washington Post...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14

A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia.

So while there is not any current known case of oil man standing hand in hand with military man... let's just say that one may quickly follow the other in certain situations.

[Bekologist]

did you know the American Vice President used to be the CEO of the world's largest oilfield infrastructure supplier?

Not that he had anything to do with Exxon, specifically, or the US military securing oil interests abroad.......