First caveat - I am not well versed in accounting - I know just enough to get me in trouble. I am willing to defer to an expert.
Here's my basic theory - it's simplistic.
1. Suppose you have a contract to sell Dole 100 bushels of apples annually for the next two years. Suppose your total costs per bushel are $5. Suppose you sell those apples for $10 per bushel. Your gross revenue is $1,000 (100 bushels x $10) and your net income is $500 ({100 bushels x $10} - {$5 x 100 bushels}).
2. Year 2. Your costs increase to $10 per bushel. To maintain last year's net income ($500), you'd need to sell the apples for $15 per bushel ({$15 x 100} - ({$10 x 100}). Your gross revenue would increase over last year, from $1,000 to 1,500, YET YOUR NET INCOME REMAINS THE SAME - $500. What you did was pass the cost increases on to your customer.
3. Now, suppose in year two you know you have Dole over a barrel - blight struck other growers. You could elect to charge Dole $20 per bushel. Now your gross revenue is $2,000 ($20 x 100 bushels) and your net income grows to $1,000.
Now, the oil companies claim their profits are due to either increased costs (I hope the above examples show how unlikely that is) or the market is bidding a scarce resource higher (understandable). Others claim price gouging. Here's what I put together from Exxon's SEC filings. The operating revenues and barrels per day come from the SEC filing: the ratio calculation is mine.
2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 Year
358,955 291,252 237,054 200,949 208,715 Op. rev. (mil)
8257 8210 7957 7757 7971 Ttl brls. per day
43.47 35.48 29.79 25.9 26.18 Rev/barrels
In 2001, Exxon's operating revenues were 208,715 million, and total barrels (gas, naptha, aviation fuel, etc.) per day sold were 7,971 thousand. When you divide revenues by barrels sold, the ratio is 26.18. Fast forward to 2005 - the ratio is 43.47.
Here's where some expert commentary would be welcome. If I'm figuring correctly, Exxon's pricing exceeded their cost increases, which would account for increasing profits as sketched out in example 3.
Now it is perfectly conceivable I'm overlooking something.
Educate me!