Page 1383 of 1437 FirstFirst ... 3838831283133313731381138213831384138513931433 ... LastLast
Results 13,821 to 13,830 of 14368

Thread: Politics Thread

  1. #13821
    Supporting Member Strange Brew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Denver, Co
    Posts
    4,799
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    You probably have extra cash lying around if you are buying back your own stock.

    The Exxon write down was for dry gas assets they had purchased in the past, that exist in the lower 48 states. No mention of refineries, or refinery upgrades.

    https://www.naturalgasintel.com/exxo...off-the-table/
    Pretty common thing to do buybacks Paul. Nothing nefarious to see here.
    Official XUHoops Resident Legal Scholar.
    (Do not take this seriously)

  2. #13822
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    18,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Yeah, you do make it up. You have only spewed BullShit trying to connect some “write off” of “Dry Gas resources” that aren’t even near the number. Good Grief, indeed!!
    I don’t have to “Take it up with Exxon”. All I have to do is research their 2020 Annual Report.

    I’ll admit that I cannot say that the $25 billion was necessarily used to “upgrade” the refineries, but it logical to say that Exxon, because of excess and oppressive EPA regulation caused them to have to spend $25 billion to either change or take those properties off line or take a charge for them which reduced capacity and crimped supply.
    I'm going to try one more, and for the last time, to straighten this out.
    I am not spewing bullshit to connect some number to a write off of dry gas reserves. I am quoting directly from Exxon.
    If you cannot understand that, I don't know what the hell to do.
    This is their 8 K from November 30, 2020:

    https://ir.exxonmobil.com/node/31031...9911302020.htm

    In that statement for the SEC, they note:
    This effort included a re-assessment of dry gas assets, primarily in North America, which previously had been included in the Company’s future development plans. Under the plan as approved, the Company no longer plans to develop a significant portion of its dry gas portfolio, including a portion of the Company’s resources in the Appalachian, Rocky Mountains, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, and Arkansas regions of the U.S. as well as resources in Western Canada and Argentina. The
    decision not to develop these assets will result in non-cash, after-tax charges of approximately $17 billion to $20 billion
    in the Company’s fourth quarter 2020 results. The Company does not expect any material future cash expenditures related to these impairments.
    They took the $20 billion dollar "impairment" in 2020 on their "dry gas reserves." They may have taken other write-offs on equipment, but this is what we've been talking about. I hope you can take their publicized word for it.

    Edit: from their year end report, dry gas reserves would be "property" and the impairment would be "• a significant decrease in the market price of a long-lived asset;". The assets were over-valued on their books.
    Last edited by paulxu; 06-17-2022 at 07:38 AM.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  3. #13823
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    18,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Brew View Post
    Pretty common thing to do buybacks Paul. Nothing nefarious to see here.
    Good point. I wasn't ascribing a nefarious intention. Was commenting on their nice cash position after record profits, that led them to start buying stock back.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  4. #13824
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    20,825
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    I'm not going to feel sorry for the oil companies.
    Can't find the 2021 total taxes of 40 billion on their statements. Their statements show $7.6 billion in taxes. However, on 280 billion in sales, 40 would only be 14%.
    In the year they show a loss of $20 billion, they also have an "unusual" charge of $25 billion. Can't find an explanation for that so far.

    https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quot...come-statement
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    I'm going to try one more, and for the last time, to straighten this out.
    I am not spewing bullshit to connect some number to a write off of dry gas reserves. I am quoting directly from Exxon.
    If you cannot understand that, I don't know what the hell to do.
    This is their 8 K from November 30, 2020:

    https://ir.exxonmobil.com/node/31031...9911302020.htm

    In that statement for the SEC, they note:


    They took the $20 billion dollar "impairment" in 2020 on their "dry gas reserves." They may have taken other write-offs on equipment, but this is what we've been talking about. I hope you can take their publicized word for it.
    Nice try but now you are bullshitting yourself. Last I checked , $20 billion is not $25 billion. Did you flunk math??
    In your original post of ‘not feeling sorry for the oil companies, YOU yourself cited an unexplained $25 billion unusual charge, not $20 billion. Nowhere in there is an “dry gas reserve” charge of $25 billion in that report. I combed through the Exxon 2020 Annual report and have clearly pointed out to you what the $25 billion impairment was for to explain it to you but you just can’t accept that you are full of it. It is right in the annual report that a $25.3 billion impairment was taken in PP&E. It’s on page 64. Pretty damn clear.
    Your numbers don’t add up Paul and you started this circus trying to trash an oil company for price gouging when there is nothing of the sort going on.
    It is clear that the $25 billion number that you could not explain was for PP&E impairment which is Property Plant & Equipment. I even explained the Impairment definition. THAT is your mystery $25 billion charge. Your attempt at tying it to some nebulous “dry gas” write off is just that- hot gas.
    The link between the Wall Street Journal report about how your boy Biden has discouraged oil supply, and production, and Exxon having to reduce refinery capacity because of onerous EPA regulations and Biden’s orders are direct. Like all Libs you try to blame a company for a problem that your Lib policies created, but it’s not working this time, if it ever does.
    Give it up. Your numbers don’t add up and you have proven zero. The charade is over. Don’t open Pandora’s box unless you are willing to deal with the consequences.

    I admitted my mistake when I postured that the $25 billion was for refinery upgrades BUT, it was still Facility impairment related thereby reducing refinery capacity partially causing the current situation. Why don’t you admit that you are totally off base in your posturing here and your number mis-connection?
    Last edited by Masterofreality; 06-17-2022 at 08:13 AM.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  5. #13825
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    18,106
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    I admitted my mistake when I postured that the $25 billion was for refinery upgrades BUT, it was still Facility impairment related thereby reducing refinery capacity partially causing the current situation. Why don’t you admit that you are totally off base in your posturing here and your number mis-connection?
    This all started when I noted that their "loss" on the 2020 income statement of 20 billion might not have happened without an unusual charge of 25 billion.
    I have found 20 of the 25 billion unusual charge. It was for an impairment of their natural gas reserves (can't you read their 8K statement?).
    Not sure what the other 5 billion was for, but I'm damn sure that 20 billion of the total 25 was for "dry gas reserves" as noted directly from Exxon
    I'm going to take their word for it, not yours. I don't know how to help you read:
    The decision not to develop these assets will result in non-cash, after-tax charges of approximately $17 billion to $20 billion
    Those are Exxon's words...not mine.
    They took a 20 billion impairment in 2020 on the write down of these dry gas reserves. They said they would, and did.
    It had absolutely nothing to do with plant, equipment, EPA regulations or anything except bringing an asset to fair market value.
    I don't know what the other 5 billion is for.
    I stand by my original point that they would not have had a (paper) loss without these gas reserve write down. They didn't "lose" any money .
    Impairments have no direct impact on cash on hand.

    And then I went back and looked at Forbes.
    In fact, the Forbes analysis of Exxon's 10 K for 2020 here, noted the impairment for gas reserves as over 24 billion:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...h=7c0ac3336980
    A fact they pointed to directly in the 10 K here:
    https://www.newconstructs.com/wp-con..._2020-10-K.png

    The bottom line is that they seemed to have increased their 20 billion estimate from Nov 2020, to an actual impairment of 24 billion by the end of the year, as duly noted in their 10 K...almost all of the 25 billion "unusual" charge. None of the 24 billion had anything to do with plant, equipment or EPA regulations.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  6. #13826
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    20,825
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    This all started when I noted that their "loss" on the 2020 income statement of 20 billion might not have happened without an unusual charge of 25 billion.
    I have found 20 of the 25 billion unusual charge. It was for an impairment of their natural gas reserves (can't you read their 8K statement?).
    Not sure what the other 5 billion was for, but I'm damn sure that 20 billion of the total 25 was for "dry gas reserves" as noted directly from Exxon
    I'm going to take their word for it, not yours. I don't know how to help you read:

    Those are Exxon's words...not mine.
    They took a 20 billion impairment in 2020 on the write down of these dry gas reserves. They said they would, and did.
    It had absolutely nothing to do with plant, equipment, EPA regulations or anything except bringing an asset to fair market value.
    I don't know what the other 5 billion is for.
    I stand by my original point that they would not have had a (paper) loss without these gas reserve write down. They didn't "lose" any money .
    Impairments have no direct impact on cash on hand.

    And then I went back and looked at Forbes.
    In fact, the Forbes analysis of Exxon's 10 K for 2020 here, noted the impairment for gas reserves as over 24 billion:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatsp...h=7c0ac3336980
    A fact they pointed to directly in the 10 K here:
    https://www.newconstructs.com/wp-con..._2020-10-K.png

    The bottom line is that they seemed to have increased their 20 billion estimate from Nov 2020, to an actual impairment of 24 billion by the end of the year, as duly noted in their 10 K...almost all of the 25 billion "unusual" charge. None of the 24 billion had anything to do with plant, equipment or EPA regulations.
    STILL DOESN’T add up! For Gawd’s sake STOP IT. “Exxon’s “Words” are laid out in the Annual Report. Not Forbes.
    $20 million, $24 million whatever in Paul’s twisted pretzel logic. The Annual report page 64 clearly shows PP&E impairment of $25.3 billion.
    Keep shouting all you want. Your President is a screw up and so are his minions causing $6.00 gas to soon be a reality due to their idiotic policies.
    I am done with this ponderous garbage topic. I’ve proven my statement. Case closed.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  7. #13827
    Hall of Famer GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    31,391
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post

    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"
    Why are we still fighting about this? These are literally quotes from notes 3 and 9 to the 2020 financial statements. They add up to $25 billion.

  8. #13828
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    18,106
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Why are we still fighting about this? These are literally quotes from notes 3 and 9 to the 2020 financial statements. They add up to $25 billion.
    Because, as you note:

    "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"

    And apparently that isn't good enough, and it must have been for plant and equipment charges due to the EPA, even if Exxon says it's not. It may be due to not understanding the PP&E includes "property" as well as plant and equipment.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  9. #13829
    Hall of Famer GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    31,391
    $25 billion would be a serious refinery upgrade! Like, upgrading to a new refinery!

  10. #13830
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,436
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    Because, as you note:

    "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"

    And apparently that isn't good enough, and it must have been for plant and equipment charges due to the EPA, even if Exxon says it's not. It may be due to not understanding the PP&E includes "property" as well as plant and equipment.
    Good grief Paul, just admit you're wrong! Just admit you fell for another lie!

    This horse has been dead for days now....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •