![]() |
|
Spaces home Kevin's spacePhotosProfileFriendsMore ![]() | ![]() |
Kevin's space |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
March 17 Offshore drillingI've been writing a little bit about Exxon and Schlumberger lately. I got interested in these companies and the petroleum industry in general because it they are such a gigantic part of the economy (a huge chunk of the top 10 most profitable companies are in the industry).
Most of my blogging so far has been to explore the financial statements from Exxon and Schlumberger. I like knowing the numbers, but I also wanted to have some sense of what's really going on at the ground level. There was a great article called Dispatch from the Oil Frontier in Popular Mechanics. The article focused on off shore drilling, which I saw quite a bit of from a distance on my cruise in the Carribean. Not surprisingly, much of the oil on solid ground has been excavated and companies like Shell have moved underwater. The author estimates there might be as much as 56 billion barrels of oil. For comparison, Exxon last year produced about 4 billion barrels of oil in 2007. So there's a lot to be had, but by no means an unlimited supply.
Some quotes and impressions from the article...
That's a staggering depth when you think about getting the equipment to dig and pump when you're hundreds of miles out in the ocean on a relatively tiny oil rig.
I was curious how you get down that deep when you're in the middle of no where, and the article helped me start piecing it together.
I also figured you can't really have humans down there at that depth, given the pressure. Indeed this is the case:
I had already seen a little bit on TV about life on these rigs, and it was interesting to read more about it.
I can picture some guy on the smoking deck looking back at the cruise ships, each lit up like a Christmas tree against the dark horizon, going through the shipping lane in the Gulf of Mexico.
Financially, it would be no surprise if the price of oil was going up, because this stuff is expensive. That made it easier to understand why you'd want the Schlumberger approach of low capital investment and high human investment.
February 27 Going public is not magicJust came across this http://www.jacksonfish.com/blog/2008/02/04/and-this-is-why-going-public-is-a-non-goal/ and was reminded of a class I took this summer on corporations. I had a good realization in that class that really public markets afford a specialization or division of labor that focuses on capital allocation and leaves management to someone else. If you don't need that specialization of capital allocation from someone else, and you don't want to be beholden to that, you really shouldn't be going public. There's lots of excitement around IPOs and public companies, so a lot of people assume that's the only route to go.
It's also not clear trading publicly in the market is so great anymore. There is so much regulation, that now we're seeing lots of private acquisitions. Copyrights, patents and taxesInteresting write up in Slashdot about patents: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/27/0018224&from=rss
This might be the first time in a long time I've read something I agreed with in Slashdot that wasn't out and out capitalism bashing. While I hate the notion of property taxes for your home (since it means your home is constantly on rent from the government), I actually thing the notion of requiring payment for legal protection of intellectual property is intriguing. It would be a source of reveneue without requiring force since you could always choose whether to get the legal protection. You do not need the legal protection to live (unless we allow stupid stuff like ovelry generic patents or patenting DNA). It also has the happy side effect of limiting frivilous patents from people who camp on ideas, but do nothing productive with them.
I need to think more about this. But wanted to flag it as interesting. February 22 yuckFrom the January 5, 2008 Republican Debate:
Going to have to swallow hard. February 20 401(k) participationIn my argument about Exxon, I talked about the profit sharing that goes on in 401(k) plans. At the time I didn't know how many people actually have 401(k)s. There'sa good article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23255937/ that says:
That's not quite as many people as I would have hoped, but certainly a ton of capital. That's on average $54,000 in each 401(k) account.
For my own 401(k) I am going to reduce my small cap exposure. I think they had a great 5 year run after the dot com bust, but I wonder whether they're well positioned to cash in on the flattening global economy. My father in law who work's as a consultant in this field suggested beefing up on the Fidelity Contrafund, saying it's very well run.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|