Money "IS" everything... - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

06/15/2008 06:47:46 PM · #51

Originally posted by David Ey:

Being that profit margins are figured after everything is paid, what if one company pays it's 10 exec's wages and bonuses of, say 10% of sales and another pays it's 10 exec. 60% of sales and both had sales of 100 billion, which company would you like to work for, if you were not one of the 10 executives? Which would you rather invest in?
Of the two 100 billion in sales, which will the government net the most income?

As to question #1, I would like, first of all, to work for a company is ethical and morally upright in their business practices, treats their employees with respect, gives ME the opportunity to utilize the talents I have, and, in addition, provides the opportunity to learn and stretch those talents, AND, all of those things being equal, the one that pays ME the most. The amount that they pay their executives is WAY, WAY down the list of elements affecting my decision.

As to question #2, again, if both companies are equally ethical and morally responsible in their business practices ( I do not invest in tobacco companies, for example ), I would prefer to invest in the one that generated the greatest potential return on investment ( as should any investor ) - and that is something that cannot be determined merely on the basis of one or two year's profits or profit margins. If investing were as easy as looking at a company's profit margins, Mutual Fund managers would not be in business.

As to question #3 - I don't exactly understand what you are asking. If you are asking which will generate the most tax revenue to the government, then it's not possible to determine from the example data provided, since taxes are based on profits, not sales, and you didn't provide profit figures.

Edited to add:

If Company 1 pays $10 billion to its executives ( 10% of sales ), but it's profit margin is 1% ( $1 billion ) because its expenses ( including executive salaries ) were $99 billion, and company 2 pays $60 billion to its executives, but it's profit margin is 30% ( $30 billion ) because its expenses ( including executive salaries ) were only $70 billion, then company 2 would have much more money to distribute to its shareholders ( $30 billion vs. $1 billion ).

Message edited by author 2008-06-15 19:16:54.

Louis

Nikon D800

06/16/2008 07:46:39 AM · #52

Originally posted by RonB:

If any absurdity is evident, it is that tax rates should be governed by dollar amounts. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax is one of the foundations of Communism - ref: The Communist Manifesto

So? Reliance on capital and a cozy relationship between government and big business is a hallmark of National Socialism, but I would hardly say the West's economic situation is putting us on a sure road to fascism.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/16/2008 08:06:53 AM · #53

Originally posted by RonB:

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax is one of the foundations of Communism - ref: The Communist Manifesto

Surely you are not suggesting that every country which has a progressive or graduated income tax system is to be viewed as having a Communist inclination. Perhaps you are confusing Communism with Socialism... they aren't quite the same.

Ray

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/16/2008 09:31:57 AM · #54

Originally posted by RonB:

2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS. When it comes to profit MARGINS, Microsoft doesn't even rank in the top 100 companies in the world (nor, truth be known, does ExxonMobil) - see Companies with the 100 Highest Profit Margins.

The following couple of articles explain how ExxonMobil uses two different measures of profitability depending on the audience they are addressing -- "profit margin" when addressing the public, and "return on capital employed" (ROCE) when speaking to its shareholders. Apparently, industry analysts think the ROCE measure of profitability is the more accurate one.

Oil Profits are Dizzy with Spin

Other Side of Exxon's Mouth

"This is not another piece about oil prices. It is about how the media cover the oil industry and its political machinations. Over the past year, and with increasing intensity lately, the oil industry has engaged in a massive propaganda offensive claiming that its profits are no higher than many other industries. It makes this claim by comparing its return on sales with those of other industries. This is intentionally misleading and deceptive.

"In the most basic sense, [profit] is the reward that the entrepreneurs get for taking the risks and putting up the money. Profit is what the investors get back for putting up money. Profit is not the return on sales or revenue; it is the return on the dollars invested. It is this return on capital that enables the market to direct investment where it will make the most money, and be used most efficiently. It is at the heart of why we consider our economic system efficient. It is why we call it â��capitalism.â�� Comparing the return on sales for firms in different industries is meaningless. It tells you nothing to know that Microsoft earned a 27 percent return on revenue while Verizon earned only 6.6 percent on its sales.

"By using a return on sales to make comparisons between industries, the oil industry is engaging in a gross deception. It is simply lying. No other word works. And the oil firms know better. They certainly do not talk that way to investors or the financial community." - excerpted from The oil industry low-balls profits and the press goes along

06/16/2008 12:36:16 PM · #55

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

2) While we might all agree that Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world, your statement about their profitability is not relevant to the points in my post about profit MARGINS. When it comes to profit MARGINS, Microsoft doesn't even rank in the top 100 companies in the world (nor, truth be known, does ExxonMobil) - see Companies with the 100 Highest Profit Margins.

The following couple of articles explain how ExxonMobil uses two different measures of profitability depending on the audience they are addressing -- "profit margin" when addressing the public, and "return on capital employed" (ROCE) when speaking to its shareholders. Apparently, industry analysts think the ROCE measure of profitability is the more accurate one.

Oil Profits are Dizzy with Spin

Other Side of Exxon's Mouth

"This is not another piece about oil prices. It is about how the media cover the oil industry and its political machinations. Over the past year, and with increasing intensity lately, the oil industry has engaged in a massive propaganda offensive claiming that its profits are no higher than many other industries. It makes this claim by comparing its return on sales with those of other industries. This is intentionally misleading and deceptive.

"In the most basic sense, [profit] is the reward that the entrepreneurs get for taking the risks and putting up the money. Profit is what the investors get back for putting up money. Profit is not the return on sales or revenue; it is the return on the dollars invested. It is this return on capital that enables the market to direct investment where it will make the most money, and be used most efficiently. It is at the heart of why we consider our economic system efficient. It is why we call it â��capitalism.â�� Comparing the return on sales for firms in different industries is meaningless. It tells you nothing to know that Microsoft earned a 27 percent return on revenue while Verizon earned only 6.6 percent on its sales.

"By using a return on sales to make comparisons between industries, the oil industry is engaging in a gross deception. It is simply lying. No other word works. And the oil firms know better. They certainly do not talk that way to investors or the financial community." - excerpted from The oil industry low-balls profits and the press goes along

If you were to take the time to research Microsoft's ROCE ( as I did ), you would find that it is a staggering 79% - far and away higher than the more modest 31% of ExxonMobil as reported in the linked article. Likewise, with a little research you would find that the ROCE for BOEING Corporation is 50.8%. Even AT&T, at a more modest 25.7%, is almost as high as that of the top five oil companies combined ( at 27%, according to the linked article ).

Again, it would appear that the media wants to demonize oil companies because they are an easy target in the current climate.

So, speaking of SPIN, it appears that the author of the linked article engaged in quite a bit of his own, in failing to provide comparative data for any other large corporations, and the reasons for that omission are now obvious.

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 12:37:06.

06/16/2008 01:05:10 PM · #56

FYI - A list of the 100 most ethical companies. Here

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

06/16/2008 01:28:26 PM · #57

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

FYI - A list of the 100 most ethical companies. Here

Thanks for the link. That is a most interesting list.

FYI, that list shows ( and proves ) that ethical companies CAN have high profit margins and high ROCE's.
The first company on the list is Honeywell Int'l - a company with a pre-tax profit margin of 9.8% and an ROCE of 53.5% ( much higher than that of ExxonMobil ).
Nike had a profit margin of 14% and an ROCE of 33.9%, both of which are higher than ExxonMobil's equivalent numbers.

I could continue, but I think that I have provided enough evidence that the demonization of oil companies because of either their profit margins, or because of their ROCE's is simply not justified.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/16/2008 02:55:33 PM · #58

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - A list of the 100 most ethical companies. Here

Thanks for the link. That is a most interesting list.

FYI, that list shows ( and proves ) that ethical companies CAN have high profit margins and high ROCE's.
The first company on the list is Honeywell Int'l - a company with a pre-tax profit margin of 9.8% and an ROCE of 53.5% ( much higher than that of ExxonMobil ).
Nike had a profit margin of 14% and an ROCE of 33.9%, both of which are higher than ExxonMobil's equivalent numbers.

I could continue, but I think that I have provided enough evidence that the demonization of oil companies because of either their profit margins, or because of their ROCE's is simply not justified.

I could digest your argument were it not for the fact that I am not as dependant on those companies you allude to as I am of the Petroleum giants.

I can opt not to purchase a Honeywell product or forego Nike shoes, but unfortunately I do not have the luxury of doing without heat in the winter months and travelling the 100km back and forth to work every day is not a luxury.

This is one aspect of the argument that unfortunately is not taken into consideration and is perhaps the catalyst which brings such scorn on the Petroleum industry.

Something to consider.

Ray

littlegett

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/16/2008 03:08:25 PM · #59

It seems to me that this argument has absolutely nothing to do with money but perceptions.

1. Oil is dirty, bad for the environment thus making it evil.
2. People hate high gas prices and feel better when they know/believe the oil/gas companies are getting the shaft
3. People do not think about the companies of goods where they accept the prices and are not seen as evil.

Just generalizations of my own opinion.

It is about feeling good, having the consumers, the people feel good. Regardless of any real facts or figures, the general populous just wants to feel good. If making a villain out of the oil companies makes the people feel good than that is what happens.

So to answer the question or comment about why not go after the other companies... because they are not made to be the villain of the story. Why not go after Nike? Well they give us happy feet (not me personally I can not wear the things) and they are a 'good' company. They do not spill tankers of shoes that kill hundreds of thousand of cute little animals.

Perception...

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/16/2008 03:11:27 PM · #60

Originally posted by RonB:

If you were to take the time to research Microsoft's ROCE (as I did), you would find that it is a staggering 79% - far and away higher than the more modest 31% of ExxonMobil as reported in the linked article. Likewise, with a little research you would find that the ROCE for BOEING Corporation is 50.8%. Even AT&T, at a more modest 25.7%, is almost as high as that of the top five oil companies combined (at 27%, according to the linked article).

Again, it would appear that the media wants to demonize oil companies because they are an easy target in the current climate.

So, speaking of SPIN, it appears that the author of the linked article engaged in quite a bit of his own, in failing to provide comparative data for any other large corporations, and the reasons for that omission are now obvious.

The linked article is claiming that a fair comparison is the ROCE of a discrete industry to the ROCE of another industry. So your comparison of one corporation's ROCE (for example, your choice of Microsoft, the most profitable computer software company) to the ROCE of another corporation is NOT a fair comparison, is not relevant to the argument made by the author of the linked article, and the author's failure "to provide comparative data for any other large corporations" does not constitute spin, although it would have been helpful if he had provided the ROCEs for other industries.

06/16/2008 03:26:47 PM · #61

Originally posted by RonB:

Note the absence of any major oil companies from that list.

In fact, I just read an article today that the DOJ is investigating Shell Oil for violations of the FCPA in Nigeria. One of Shell's subsidiaries is accused of bribing officials in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Khazakhstan.

06/16/2008 03:39:54 PM · #62

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by RonB:

If you were to take the time to research Microsoft's ROCE (as I did), you would find that it is a staggering 79% - far and away higher than the more modest 31% of ExxonMobil as reported in the linked article. Likewise, with a little research you would find that the ROCE for BOEING Corporation is 50.8%. Even AT&T, at a more modest 25.7%, is almost as high as that of the top five oil companies combined (at 27%, according to the linked article).

Again, it would appear that the media wants to demonize oil companies because they are an easy target in the current climate.

So, speaking of SPIN, it appears that the author of the linked article engaged in quite a bit of his own, in failing to provide comparative data for any other large corporations, and the reasons for that omission are now obvious.

The linked article is claiming that a fair comparison is the ROCE of a discrete industry to the ROCE of another industry. So your comparison of one corporation's ROCE (for example, your choice of Microsoft, the most profitable computer software company) to the ROCE of another corporation is NOT a fair comparison, is not relevant to the argument made by the author of the linked article, and the author's failure "to provide comparative data for any other large corporations" does not constitute spin, although it would have been helpful if he had provided the ROCEs for other industries.

IF ( big IF ) that is what the linked article was claiming, then WHY, oh WHY, didn't the article make ANY comparison of ANY ( discrete ) industry to any OTHER industry? The NEAREST they came was to compare the ROCE of the top FIVE oil companies combined to ALL U.S. industrial companies combined. Nowhere did they even attempt to make a FAIR comparison, for example: a comparison of ALL oil companies to ALL industrial companies, or a comparison of ALL oil companies to ANY other single industry. I don't believe they could, without discrediting their arguments.

06/16/2008 03:51:53 PM · #63

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - A list of the 100 most ethical companies. Here

Thanks for the link. That is a most interesting list.

FYI, that list shows ( and proves ) that ethical companies CAN have high profit margins and high ROCE's.
The first company on the list is Honeywell Int'l - a company with a pre-tax profit margin of 9.8% and an ROCE of 53.5% ( much higher than that of ExxonMobil ).
Nike had a profit margin of 14% and an ROCE of 33.9%, both of which are higher than ExxonMobil's equivalent numbers.

I could continue, but I think that I have provided enough evidence that the demonization of oil companies because of either their profit margins, or because of their ROCE's is simply not justified.

Note the absence of any major oil companies from that list.

Are you holding to the opinion that Petro-Canada, a 27 BILLION dollar company employing over 5,000 people, the 11th largest oil company in Canada, and one that refines 1 out of every 8 gallons of crude oil in the country, is not a "major" oil company?

Sorry, but I would consider Petro-Canada to be a major oil company.

06/16/2008 04:01:21 PM · #64

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
FYI - A list of the 100 most ethical companies. Here

Thanks for the link. That is a most interesting list.

FYI, that list shows ( and proves ) that ethical companies CAN have high profit margins and high ROCE's.
The first company on the list is Honeywell Int'l - a company with a pre-tax profit margin of 9.8% and an ROCE of 53.5% ( much higher than that of ExxonMobil ).
Nike had a profit margin of 14% and an ROCE of 33.9%, both of which are higher than ExxonMobil's equivalent numbers.

I could continue, but I think that I have provided enough evidence that the demonization of oil companies because of either their profit margins, or because of their ROCE's is simply not justified.

Note the absence of any major oil companies from that list.

Are you holding to the opinion that Petro-Canada, a 27 BILLION dollar company employing over 5,000 people, the 11th largest oil company in Canada, and one that refines 1 out of every 8 gallons of crude oil in the country, is not a "major" oil company?

Sorry, but I would consider Petro-Canada to be a major oil company.

Either Shell or Exxon's profits are more than the entire value of Petro-Canada. Shell, for example has 112,000 employees, more than 20x that of Petro-Canada. So, yes, compared to any of the supermajors, Petro-Canada is a Mom and Pop operation.

Message edited by author 2008-06-16 16:01:49.

06/16/2008 04:17:32 PM · #65

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

In fact, I just read an article today that the DOJ is investigating Shell Oil for violations of the FCPA in Nigeria. One of Shell's subsidiaries is accused of bribing officials in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Khazakhstan.

So? The DOJ is doing one of the jobs they are supposed to do - namely "investigating". But just because they're "investigating" doesn't mean that the company is "guilty".
The DOJ is investigating British Aerospace, as well. So what? That doesn't mean they're guilty of anything.

FWIW, Google IS on the list of ethical companies, and in April Google was the target of a DOJ investigation into antitrust practices. I don't know what the outcome of the investigation was, so wouldn't presume to make any judgement before the results are made known.

Speaking of ethics - don't you consider innuendo to be unethical?

06/16/2008 04:37:35 PM · #66

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
In fact, I just read an article today that the DOJ is investigating Shell Oil for violations of the FCPA in Nigeria. One of Shell's subsidiaries is accused of bribing officials in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Khazakhstan.

So? The DOJ is doing one of the jobs they are supposed to do - namely "investigating". But just because they're "investigating" doesn't mean that the company is "guilty".
The DOJ is investigating British Aerospace, as well. So what? That doesn't mean they're guilty of anything.

FWIW, Google IS on the list of ethical companies, and in April Google was the target of a DOJ investigation into antitrust practices. I don't know what the outcome of the investigation was, so wouldn't presume to make any judgement before the results are made known.

Speaking of ethics - don't you consider innuendo to be unethical?

Actually Shell acknowledges the wrongdoing and, in their annual report, admits they may be facing some millions in fines and penalties.

06/16/2008 04:56:15 PM · #67

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
In fact, I just read an article today that the DOJ is investigating Shell Oil for violations of the FCPA in Nigeria. One of Shell's subsidiaries is accused of bribing officials in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Khazakhstan.

So? The DOJ is doing one of the jobs they are supposed to do - namely "investigating". But just because they're "investigating" doesn't mean that the company is "guilty".
The DOJ is investigating British Aerospace, as well. So what? That doesn't mean they're guilty of anything.

FWIW, Google IS on the list of ethical companies, and in April Google was the target of a DOJ investigation into antitrust practices. I don't know what the outcome of the investigation was, so wouldn't presume to make any judgement before the results are made known.

Speaking of ethics - don't you consider innuendo to be unethical?

Actually Shell acknowledges the wrongdoing and, in their annual report, admits they may be facing some millions in fines and penalties.

1) Show me where they acknowledge the wrongdoing.
2) Regarding the FCPA, in their annual report, Shell states:

"In July 2007, Shellâ��s US subsidiary, Shell Oil, was contacted by the US Department of Justice regarding Shellâ��s use of the freight forwarding firm Panalpina, Inc and potential violations of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) as a result of such use. Shell has started an internal investigation and is cooperating with the US Department of Justice and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission investigations. While these investigations are ongoing, Shell may face fines and additional costs."

Note, that they do NOT admit that they may be facing MILLIONS in fines and PENALTIES - they just say fines and additional costs. So. . .

3) Show me where, in their annual report, they admit that they may be facing some MILLIONS in fines and PENALTIES.

06/16/2008 05:02:28 PM · #68

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

According to DMReview.com:

"BACKGROUND: Based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Petro-Canada is a major oil and gas company and a leader in the Canadian petroleum industry."

Perhaps you should take your argument to them - since it's obvious that they agree with me, not you.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

06/16/2008 07:54:37 PM · #69

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Either Shell or Exxon's profits are more than the entire value of Petro-Canada. Shell, for example has 112,000 employees, more than 20x that of Petro-Canada. So, yes, compared to any of the supermajors, Petro-Canada is a Mom and Pop operation.

According to DMReview.com:

"BACKGROUND: Based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Petro-Canada is a major oil and gas company and a leader in the Canadian petroleum industry."

Perhaps you should take your argument to them - since it's obvious that they agree with me, not you.

I don't have to agree with you, in fact, I think you're dead wrong most of the time. I could say that a splinter is a major medical issue, you might think otherwise.

Supermajors

Petro-Canada

Do a comparison. Clearly P-C is not even close in size to even the smallest of the Big Oil companies, regardless of what you say.

I think it's also quite amusing that you, of all people, would be singing the praises of a company that until 2004 was a state run company. Guess there's a little bit of Commie in you after all.

Louis

Nikon D800

06/16/2008 10:03:30 PM · #70

Well, he can still bitch that the CBC is funded by the feds. Of course, funding means nothing. The CBC is still populated with a bunch of left-leaning commie pinkos who'd overthrow the current Conservative government given half the chance.

06/16/2008 11:49:36 PM · #71

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Do a comparison. Clearly P-C is not even close in size to even the smallest of the Big Oil companies, regardless of what you say.

Ah, but I did not say that P-C was close in size to even the smallest of the Big Oil companies. I merely said that they were a "major" oil company. And they are - regardless of what you say.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I think it's also quite amusing that you, of all people, would be singing the praises of a company that until 2004 was a state run company. Guess there's a little bit of Commie in you after all.

Your argument might have some credibility if you could quote ONE single statement of mine that could be considered "singing the praises" of Petro-Canada ( I assume that when yor refer to "a company that until 2004 was a state run company", you mean Petro-Canada - correct me if I'm wrong ).

06/17/2008 12:30:41 AM · #72

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Do a comparison. Clearly P-C is not even close in size to even the smallest of the Big Oil companies, regardless of what you say.

Ah, but I did not say that P-C was close in size to even the smallest of the Big Oil companies. I merely said that they were a "major" oil company. And they are - regardless of what you say.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think it's also quite amusing that you, of all people, would be singing the praises of a company that until 2004 was a state run company. Guess there's a little bit of Commie in you after all.

Your argument might have some credibility if you could quote ONE single statement of mine that could be considered "singing the praises" of Petro-Canada ( I assume that when yor refer to "a company that until 2004 was a state run company", you mean Petro-Canada - correct me if I'm wrong ).

Maybe they're major in Canada, if that's how you define major; on a localized Canadian scale. If that means "major" to you, then I'll concede that, using RonB's definition, P-C would be a "major" oil company. I don't consider a national oil company as "major".

Your personal semantics aside, I can buy fuel at stations owned by one of the Big Oil companies locally and around the world. To date, I haven't seen a P-C station here in the states or abroad.

Unless you were just being argumentative, you were the one who mentioned P-C as being on the most ethical companies list. Then again, I forgot who I replied to, so I suppose that nit-picking over minor semantics issues and being argumentative while avoiding the original issue is just what I should expect.

06/17/2008 08:56:59 AM · #73

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think it's also quite amusing that you, of all people, would be singing the praises of a company that until 2004 was a state run company. Guess there's a little bit of Commie in you after all.

Originally posted by RonB:
Your argument might have some credibility if you could quote ONE single statement of mine that could be considered "singing the praises" of Petro-Canada ( I assume that when yor refer to "a company that until 2004 was a state run company", you mean Petro-Canada - correct me if I'm wrong ).

Maybe they're major in Canada, if that's how you define major; on a localized Canadian scale. If that means "major" to you, then I'll concede that, using RonB's definition, P-C would be a "major" oil company. I don't consider a national oil company as "major".

Wow. So you wouldn't consider any of the 13 largest oil companies in the WORLD ( NIOC (Iran), Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), Qatar Pet, ADNOC (UAE), Irtaq NOC, KPC (Kuwait), PDVSA (Venezuela), NNPC (Nigeria), NOC( Libya), Sonatrach (Algeria), Rosneft (Russia), and Petronas (Malaysia)) as "major", even though every one of them is larger than ExxonMobil, which is the largest non-government owned oil company in the world. That explains a lot.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Your personal semantics aside, I can buy fuel at stations owned by one of the Big Oil companies locally and around the world. To date, I haven't seen a P-C station here in the states or abroad.
When's the last time you saw an Occidental Petroleum station? Occidental is the 4th largest U.S. oil and gas company. Not all oil companies maintain retail gasoline outlets.

[quote=Spazmo99]Unless you were just being argumentative, you were the one who mentioned P-C as being on the most ethical companies list.

I did, and they are. But I wouldn't have if you hadn't first introduced the list of ethical ethical companies to this thread yourself ( on 06/16/2008 at 01:05:10 PM. ), then argued that there were no major oil companies on the list that you introduced ( on 06/16/2008 03:26:47 PM ), and finally, argued that P-C wasn't a major oil company.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Then again, I forgot who I replied to, so I suppose that nit-picking over minor semantics issues and being argumentative while avoiding the original issue is just what I should expect.

What is the original issue, and who caused the discussion to digress by introducing ethics into the mix?

Message edited by author 2008-06-17 08:58:04.

06/17/2008 10:01:36 AM · #74

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think it's also quite amusing that you, of all people, would be singing the praises of a company that until 2004 was a state run company. Guess there's a little bit of Commie in you after all.

Originally posted by RonB:
Your argument might have some credibility if you could quote ONE single statement of mine that could be considered "singing the praises" of Petro-Canada ( I assume that when yor refer to "a company that until 2004 was a state run company", you mean Petro-Canada - correct me if I'm wrong ).

Maybe they're major in Canada, if that's how you define major; on a localized Canadian scale. If that means "major" to you, then I'll concede that, using RonB's definition, P-C would be a "major" oil company. I don't consider a national oil company as "major".

Wow. So you wouldn't consider any of the 13 largest oil companies in the WORLD ( NIOC (Iran), Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), Qatar Pet, ADNOC (UAE), Irtaq NOC, KPC (Kuwait), PDVSA (Venezuela), NNPC (Nigeria), NOC( Libya), Sonatrach (Algeria), Rosneft (Russia), and Petronas (Malaysia)) as "major", even though every one of them is larger than ExxonMobil, which is the largest non-government owned oil company in the world. That explains a lot.

And how big are those companies compared to P-C? Do they operate locally, or on the global market?

If P-C ceased to exist, what would the impact be on the global oil market? I can tell you, the effect would be nil. They're a flea on the ass of the global market.

If one of those other companies suddenly stopped the impact would be significant.

Message edited by author 2008-06-17 10:02:46.