Mmarrkk

Options Trader: Monday Outlook

I read the article and found it to be complete crappola. Not worth my time commenting on anymore. I cut and pasted the comment above and sent it to the author.

If XOM spent more on E&P they would be hammered by Wall Street for a lack of capital discipline. Believe me, I've been in the conference calls and heard the questions and reactions to responses. Plus, I really think the opportunities to spend more are very limited. So to ensure that a risk-based portfolio of investment yields good returns, XOM cannot ramp up extreme wildcat exploration a great deal. That leads to poor results and lots of wasted money. That's the reply to queen nancy and the chosen messiah-O to their cute little "Big Oil isn't drilling on the land they already have" dittie. The land the isn't being drilled is being worked at the science level to determine if there are prospects to be drilled and if the risk/reward equation makes sense.

Paying executives...pretty much think that's a problem across wall street and until Boards of Directors grow independent and with backbone, its not changing. But not a Big OIl exclusive!

Options Trader: Monday Outlook

What's a Monday without a bash of Exxon, eh Phil?

Why is it surprising that XOM pays more to foreign governments than in US taxes? An overwhelming amount of Exxon's work and reserves and production come from foreign countries, so why wouldn't an overwhelming percentage of the fees/taxes/confiscatio... go to those governments?? And why are you so darned interested in driving and Oil and Gas company toward alternatives? Why not have companies specializing in alternatives investing in alternatives and have oil and gas companies investing in oil and gas and returning profit to shareholders? As a shareholder of XOM, I like it when they give me dividiends and buy back stock. That gives me the flexibility to invest that money in alternatives.

To support the earlier figure, I give you stat's from JS Herolds on Exxon's "New Sources" of oil/gas in 2007-2015:

27% from Qatar
20% from West Africa
11% from Canada
10% from Norway
9% from U.S.
8% from Kazakstan

again, why shouldn't the majority of the fees/royalties and taxes go to other countries?

And, instead of just quoted US Fed Income Taxes and compare to all charges/fees to foreign governments, why not be a bit more CONSISTENT and compare total fees paid to US governments via state taxes and royalties to the federal government and the states?? That $5 billion number would grow substantially. And how about the royalties paid to private land/minerals owners? That's a big number too. In foreign countries, there are no payments to private owners as the countries own the minerals. And while you are at it, throww in the production/severance taxes. And make sure you throw in Alaska's 50% production tax that was just implemented (Alaska now has one of the world's highest government takes on oil/gas production!! Hello Hugo Chavez, meet Ms. Palin!).

Beat up Exxon all you want but at least have the intestinal fortitude to do a consistent, like-for-like comparison instead of cheap shotting and then parading the ridiculous "windfall" profits tax around. What next? Maximum wage allowances to go with Minimum wages? Oops, forgot, we have a presidential "messiah" who already thought of that and makes it part of his economic platform.