Politics Thread

Printable View

06-16-2022, 01:21 PM
GoMuskies

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulxu

Wait...my posting of Exxon's profit statements from the Wall Street Journal is "spraying bullshit with a firehouse?"

Who knew.

Interesting about their unusual charge being a refinery upgrade required by the EPA. Would love a link to that.

The $7.6 million is income taxes. Look up a few lines to the $30.2 billion in other taxes and duties. The $7.6 on income taxes is on $31.2 of income, so 24.4%.

Here are the notes from the financials on the unusual charges:

"Mainly as a result of declines in prices for crude oil, natural gas and petroleum products and a significant decline in its market capitalization at the end of
the first quarter of 2020, the Corporation recognized before-tax goodwill impairment charges of $611 million in Upstream, Downstream, and Chemical
reporting units. Fair value of the goodwill reporting units primarily reflected market-based estimates of historical EBITDA multiples at the end of the first
quarter. Charges related to goodwill impairments in 2020 are included in “Depreciation and depletion” on the Consolidated Statement of Income"

"In 2020, as part of the Corporation's annual review and approval of its business and strategic plan, a decision was made to no longer develop a significant
portion of the dry gas portfolio in the U.S., Canada and Argentina. The impairment of these assets resulted in before-tax charges of $24.4 billion in
Upstream. Other before-tax impairment charges in 2020 included $0.9 billion in Upstream, $0.5 billion in Downstream, and $0.1 billion in Chemical. In
2019, before-tax impairment charges were $0.1 billion"
06-16-2022, 01:31 PM
paulxu

So, the 25 billion unusual charge on their income statement, which resulted in a paper loss, was really from writing off the worthless goodwill value of assets on their books, not for "EPA required refinery upgrades that are further designed to crimp fossil fuel production."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...h=7c0ac3336980
06-16-2022, 01:34 PM
GoMuskies

I'm not sure I'd call them paper losses. Those were actual investments that were capitalized and were being written down to their current value. The $25 billion represented cash that actually left the building.
06-16-2022, 01:36 PM
Strange Brew

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

I'm not sure I'd call them paper losses. Those were actual investments that were capitalized and were being written down to their current value. The $25 billion represented cash that actually left the building.

Quick question. Were the write downs because those investments lost value due to EPA required upgrades?
06-16-2022, 01:37 PM
GoMuskies

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Quick question. Were the write downs because those investments lost value due to EPA required upgrades?

Unlikely
06-16-2022, 01:38 PM
Strange Brew

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

Unlikely

Thanks Go! Appreciate it.

Sometimes you know enough to ask the question but not enough to answer it. :)
06-16-2022, 01:41 PM
paulxu

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

I'm not sure I'd call them paper losses. Those were actual investments that were capitalized and were being written down to their current value. The $25 billion represented cash that actually left the building.

Good point. Although the investment could have been years ago, certainly some depreciation benefits incurred, but no impact on cash flow in 2020 (I don't think). Maybe it even helped their 2020 tax situation; I don't understand this stuff enough to know.
06-16-2022, 02:14 PM
noteggs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

I think he means a defense team not the defendants. In this case that's the role of Cheney and Kissinger so no, there will be no other side presented.

This correct. Sarcasm goes unnoticed at times.
06-16-2022, 06:21 PM
Masterofreality

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

Unlikely

But they were actual investments that were capitalized. $25 billion “left the building”
It cannot be 100% tracked that all of those investments went into required refinery upgrades, but to keep up with “Climate Change Required” moving targets, it is reasonable that money was invested in that vein. If you don't upgrade, you can't keep producing product. And then companies are forced to by these ludicrous rules that do nothing to help "the climate" but drive up costs.

Bottom line. Paul continues to spew Bullshit that the oil companies are sitting on piles of cash and gouging the public. Untrue
06-16-2022, 06:45 PM
Masterofreality

Quote:

Originally Posted by paulxu

Good point. Although the investment could have been years ago, certainly some depreciation benefits incurred, but no impact on cash flow in 2020 (I don't think). Maybe it even helped their 2020 tax situation; I don't understand this stuff enough to know.

"Could have been". "I don't think". "I don't understand this stuff to know."

Very convincing.