Wayne says:
Thu, 12th Jun 200810:04 am 

Have to take issue with, "Apparently Mr. Simon and his Exxon buddies inhabit a world in which billions and billions of profits can still represent a loss. What a world."

Mr. Simon said, "Current earnings are down to only 4 cents a gallon." He's not saying they're taking a loss but that they're making less of a profit per gallon of product sold. Now it is possible to still post record profits under that circumstance if they simply sell that much more product. And of course, I highly doubt that gas is the only product that contributes to Exxon Mobil's bottom line (see: http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/products.aspx….

But your point, that oil companies are evil, is still well taken.

Chris says:
Thu, 12th Jun 20086:03 pm 

Wow I wish gas was only $4 a barrel. Then we'd be paying $0.0003 per gallon at the pump!

Nice typo there

mike says:
Tue, 17th Jun 200811:05 pm 

wow chris you are right, nice typo… but dumb dumb it doesn't say anywhere in this blog (except for your comment) that gas is four dollars a barrel. also there are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel. dragging this on… one 42 gallon barrel of oil produces 19.5 gallons of gasoline… now say you were to have, just for instance a barrel of gasoline that contained 42 gallons, it would be $0. 095 per gallon… learn how to read and do simple mathematical calculations before you knock someones ideas, k my special lil buddy?

Suzie - George Washi says:
Mon, 23rd Jun 20086:33 am 

Wayne:

He’s not saying they’re taking a loss but that they’re making less of a profit per gallon of product sold. Now it is possible to still post record profits under that circumstance if they simply sell that much more product.

I understand that of course that is what Mr. Simon meant. My issue is with the way in which he sought to use this as a buffer against Congressional criticism. He basically was saying "See? We're taking a loss as well! We're not screwing the public! We have to roll with the economy just like all of you!"

Even though from an economic standpoint this statement is correct, the fact that his company posted record-breaking profits, destroys such a defense.

Perhaps Exxon's profit margin is down… that doesn't mean they are in any threat of going under. Mr. Simon sought to sidestep any responsibility during this crisis. Normally I'm not an anti-corporation type of person. In this case, however, I believe that given the fact that Exxon profits from the special place gas occupies within the country as an inelastic good, there is a moral obligation to help out in some way when prices skyrocket, rather than hide behind a profit margin.

anyway says:
Mon, 23rd Jun 20087:50 am 

in chris' defense, when this was originally posted the title did, indeed, read "$4 barrel." i see it has since been edited. at the time i thought about writing a response similar to the one left by chris– thank god i didn't, or i would have suffered the wrath of mike! btw, the only way to hurt an oil company is to buy less of their product. any "pressure" from the government in the form of a windfall profit tax will just be passed on to the consumer. oil companies have seen what we are capable of paying, and they won't go back. they will always be able to "justify" why the price keeps rising. in the usa we sold our souls to the devil years ago when we decided to move to the suburbs and not invest in public transportation, building our lifestyle around automobiles (hey, it seemed like a good idea at the time!). now it's time to try to get our souls back. and no, it won't be easy, but it has to be done. somewhere on this earth exists the last drop of oil. do we really have to wait until that drop of oil gets pumped out of the ground before we realize that we are fighting a losing battle if we keep living as we now do?

Suzie - George Washi says:
Mon, 23rd Jun 20088:04 am 

I'm from Los Angeles– one of the biggest felons in this story– unfortunately, however much I and my parents may wish to change our driving habits there's only so much we can do given the city's current infrastructure. The public transportation is laughable– the "metro rail" only services downtown and some other select locations.This is a major problem with the idea of simply cutting back gas consumption. My parents would love to! But short of investing in an expensive hybrid there's not much one can do.

anyway says:
Mon, 23rd Jun 20088:52 am 

true. there's not much "one" can do. but if every"one" does a little something (combine trips, eliminate others, do without) it all adds up. as i said, it won't be easy. but to say there's not much one person can do is to admit defeat and continue down a dangerous path. i lived in l.a. for a few years. i never saw as many shiney, new, clean suv's as i did there. not to pick on l.a., but i seriously doubt if even 10% of those suv's ever saw a dirt road or snowy mountain pass. however, they sure did look fabulously impressive stuck in traffic on the 405!

Suzie - George Washi says:
Mon, 23rd Jun 200810:48 am 

Yep the SUVs are quite ridiculous but the amount on the roads has decreased thanks to the gas price spike which hit CA before the rest of the country. I'm not saying there's not much one person can do– I live in DC now and I walk everywhere I possibly can. I'm simply saying that in some places it's far more difficult than others.

Take SUVs in CA for example. A few years ago they were all the rage (not even that long ago really) for soccer moms, etc. Families invested in them as great road-trip cars. Suddenly gas prices rise and while in the long run they would save tons of money buying a smaller car, if they don't have that money right now they're stuck with the giant gas-guzzler. Trade-in values for SUVs are at major lows as well btw.

That's my point– that cutting down in places such as LA really is impossible for many.

The fight in places like CA must take place in Sacremento to gain funding for metrorails and bullet-trains to provide tenable alternatives.