Topic: Long term OIL - page 33. (Read 91936 times)

Well, I think the value has less to do with how many bpd it produces and more to do with total assets. The oil reserves Aramco owns are where the 2-3 trillion dollar valuation would come from. When Aramco files an IPO, they will have to disclose with the SEC exactly what their reserves are in their S-1 statement, which will give investors a clear picture of the financial asshets of the company, and let everyone calculate for themselves what the valuation should be.

You: there are no such things as known oil reserves.
You: Saudi Arabia doesn't disclose oil reserves because it's a "top state secret."

Ignoring the fact that your two premises directly contradict each other, I demonstrated both to be wrong, and yet you persist in posting garbage about how right you are. It's tired, and you haven't had an intelligent or thoughtful post in several weeks on the topic, so welcome to my block list. It's very sparse, but you've definitely earned it. I'll check back after awhile to see if you've improved the quality of your posts any to warrant unblocking, but I won't be engaging any more of your nonsense posts.

I'm sorry but you turn out to be wrong not only in your conclusions, but in your premises too, wtf. Naturally, you could produce a correct result by offsetting one error with another, but you insist so much on the correctness of the math applied (as if it could fix things or let you get away, huh), so you really don't have any choice in this aspect. I mean the projection for one hundred years you mentioned, not your hypothetical example, of course (you won't get away with that either)

Which happens to be bullshit now, so we don't have to wait a hundred years to actually see that with our own eyes

Do you understand this means that the notion is mostly useless for 'economic modelling' on a global scale? That for one group of people (which has access to one source of data) this number ('a known oil reserve', lol) will have one value, and for another group (which works with a different source) quite another? While a third think tank, most knowledgeable of all and having most reliable sources of information, will obviously refrain from making any projections at all (God forbid making a truthful one) and just keep silence, to retain their competitive edge and preserve obscurity...

I don't mind you posting nonsense (but welcome reading everything I write, wow) since you are cornering yourself further down and making a funnier fool of yourself with all your petty math (which is irrelevant)

Obviously things didn't worked out the way they had hoped for. Most of the American shale oil producers are still there, pumping out the oil. Iran and Russia have also increased their daily output.


I have seen many articles in Bloomberg and Google Finance claiming that Aramco might be worth up to $3 trillion. I am quite skeptical about this. Rosneft produces about 4.5 million barrels a day, and still its market cap is only around $50 billion. What makes Aramco 100 times more expensive than Rosneft?

I found this interesting: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/saudi-arabia-ousts-longtime-oil-minister/ar-BBsKjIO?ocid=ansmsnnews11

Saudi Arabia has sacked their long term oil minister among a broader government reshuffling.


The problem is they can't control spending to the point they need to. They are selling off a piece of Aramco to raise funds in light of their massive deficits and a need to transition the economy away from oil and not currently having the resources to do it.

You missed the point. All the numbers in that example were completely made up to demonstrate how the math works in an overly simplified hypothetical, since some people in this thread have demonstrated an inability to understand simple math. Economic modeling is actually far more complex and takes into account a great number of variables and complex data sets. But it follows that if you can't understand simple math problems, you won't understand complex ones.

A known oil reserve is oil we've found in the ground or countries have declared they have access to. So much for "top state secrets":  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#OPEC_countries  Quit being such an ignorant fuckwit already. I stopped reading everything you wrote after that because you've proven yourself unable to post anything worth reading.

Its all an estimate of course as we know for sure that world population will not be similar over 164 years.    It could vary greatly as it has over the previous 164 years so its hard to say how long oil will last even if we had a hard limit for amount available.    Much oil drilled is never extracted completely (or even close) as it becomes uneconomical, similar to how coal was taken from mines abandoned but later further mined as technology allowed closer mining and safer limits to how far they could expand

Nobodys dumb, in 164 years I expect we rely on oil less - just a guess!

The Saudis still have a few advantages. Aramco produces crude at very low cost. In some of the fields, the cost of production is as low as $2 per barrel. No other country is having this advantage. So even if the price drops to $45 per barrel, they will still be getting a healthy profit. If they control their spending, then everything will be OK.

There are no "known oil reserves", to begin (or end up) with. These are not even estimates but guesses, and wild guesses at work I'd say. The top oil producer, the Saudi, is keeping their oil reserves numbers a top state secret. The same most certainly pertains to Russia, the Saudi's match and rival. Do you really think that the math of multiplying two numbers (as well as the use of pompous language and repetition of buzzwords) would somehow give more credibility to the result thereof?

What the fuck are you doing here, lol?

Such projections are as meaningless as misleading, math or no math

But you can't even be sure of the accuracy and consistency of the input parameters right now (otherwise we wouldn't see the price of oil galloping up and down). So this projection doesn't make much sense even from a mathematical (probabilistic) point of view

More bad news for oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. Brent crude prices are down to $44.99 per barrel.

http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil-brent.aspx

Increased production from Iraq neutralized the supply disruption from Libya and Nigeria. Once again prices of sub-30 USD per barrel are looking increasingly possible.

Here's an overly simplistic example:

Known oil reserves: 6 trillion barrels.
Global oil consumption rate: 100 million barrels/day
Oil supply: 60,000 days, or 164 years.


Then apparently you say: that's dumb. But you provide no mathematical basis to contest it, yet you just keep saying the math is wrong because.

If you don't understand what a projection is or how to do math, then commenting on how useless projections are makes you look foolish. Now as I said, and you keep ignoring, a projection takes into account everything we know right now and includes likely material changes that could impact the estimate. It could change in either direction, or not at all. That's completely irrelevant. What matters is how long we project the oil supply to last, because that determines economic priorities in an oil-based global economy. How that number changes over time as we get new information is as important as the number itself because it indicates whether and how quickly things are deteriorating.

Go read a projection ffs. They give a baseline and then a range based on likely changes, in both directions, so that they're giving an overall range that's statistically viable. What's clear is you're completely unfamiliar with economic modeling, but you naively continue to sit there and say "nope" and base your assessment on nothing but ignorance, coupled with a steadfast refusal to learn.

Except Saudi Arabia is running large deficits right now, and is actively reforming the government and cutting subsidies because they're worried about their reserves. They are worried. And rightly so.

Oil industry is huge compared to most of the industries. Also the industry has connection with most of the sector which runs a country's economy. Recently the price of oil has increased a little which is a good news for most of the east Asian countries.

The situation in Libya can't be compared to that in the Iraqi Kurdistan.

In Iraq, the government recognizes the Kurdish authorities, and vice-versa. But that is not the case in Libya. Both the sides are fighting against each other (allowing the Libyan faction of the ISIS to expand). Both of them seems to be lacking commonsense. Anyway... good for other oil producing countries such as Russia and Venezuela.

lol how do you mean not that big?
cant you see how much money their making with it. the only thing is
that you need allot of money to invest other wise you've got nothing at all.

Thats sounds similar to the Kurds in North of Iraq and they have proved themselves invaluable in defence of the country, seems foolish not support and allow open commerce in all parts of the country.    The Kurds still argue on taxes and policies relating to oil sales but luckily nobody is at war over it.   The rebels sound on the wrong path there because the damage requires money to fix which only puts them back in the hands of main government.

If rebels gave some percentage of sales taken, they could proceed on the basis of allowing greater quantities  of oil to be processed rather then giving a higher percentage of the profits which I guess is the problem now.  Eventually government would give way  to the lost revenue situation, with broken wells it puts them into stalemate.    The country is so new now that they dont even know how to argue the points I think

The situation there is quite complex. The rebels in the East want to sell their oil, but the government will not allow that. They have impounded tankers carrying rebel oil, and have detained the crew. This in turn has angered the rebels and they are setting fire to the oil wells and destroying the machinery. I don't know which side should be supported here.