Even More SNP Nonsense

[Space Mackerel]

I'll keep it simple for you.

 

Current NS oil production is 900,000 barrels per day.

 

Work out yourself how long, at current rates, with no production decline and no facilities degradation how long it will take to produce 24 billion barrels.

 

Clue - it's 72 years.

 

Add in the production decline of a natural resource like oil and add in the fact that the facilities will never last for 30 years, let alone 72, and you will hopefully accept that 24 billion is nonsense.

 

Work it out for yourself.

 

As for Norway again it's simple and no surprise. The UK fields are at a more advanced stage of depletion than Norway such that operating costs per barrel are higher as the facilities are older and field watercuts higher.

 

But work it out for yourself. How come the UK tax take in 2016 is only 60 million? Are the oil companies all reporting huge profits while avoiding tax? No.

 

Answer - At 50 per barrel the production costs are getting close to the oil price of 50 per barrel, leaving no money left to tax and little left for profit.

 

But no doubt you and Spacey will try to increase tax and thereby sending more fields to abandonment.

 

There is only one solution: the oil price needs to go up soon then all will be happy.

 

In the meantime the U.K. govt is sensibly giving tax concessions to try and keep things going so companies can ride out the storm and return to profitability when the price recovers. But SM seems to also disagree with that approach. Silly SM.

 

Why do you think your SNP are removing oil revenue from future White Paper calculations?

For the second time, try reading it, understanding it and commenting on it, rather than your school calculator accounting nonsense.

 

http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/25/uks-north-sea-oil-revenues-giving-away/

 

 

http://www.chevrontax.info/

 

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/574507cde707eb332424b26a/t/57bd8b6d1b631b72531caed0/1472039836939/ITF+CHEVRON+UK+Long+Report+V13+Low+Res.pdf

 

 

And as far as increasing tax, this is exactly what Labour did with the windfall tax causing a lot of operations to jump to the Norwegian Sector where the tax rate has been constant for years.

[deesidejambo]

For the second time, try reading it, understanding it and commenting on it, rather than your school calculator accounting nonsense.

 

http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/25/uks-north-sea-oil-revenues-giving-away/

 

 

http://www.chevrontax.info/

 

 

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/574507cde707eb332424b26a/t/57bd8b6d1b631b72531caed0/1472039836939/ITF+CHEVRON+UK+Long+Report+V13+Low+Res.pdf

 

 

And as far as increasing tax, this is exactly what Labour did with the windfall tax causing a lot of operations to jump to the Norwegian Sector where the tax rate has been constant for years.

I did read it and commented before. It confirms what I was saying.

 

But let's see -

 

You know the current NS rate is 900,000 bopd

 

You know the oil price is 50

 

You know the UK Govt took 60 million last year.

 

What, specifically, would you do if you were to recommend to an Indy Scottish Govt?

 

What would you do, be specific?

 

Increase tax?

 

Decrease tax?

 

Nationalise?

 

Nothing?

 

Come on, you are in charge, tell everyone what must be done to sustain the NS through these times.

 

Nicola is waiting to hear your wisdom.

 

Same to Coconut Doug and Boris. Let's discuss what the solution is.

[coconut doug]

I'll keep it simple for you.

 

Current NS oil production is 900,000 barrels per day.

 

Work out yourself how long, at current rates, with no production decline and no facilities degradation how long it will take to produce 24 billion barrels.

 

Clue - it's 72 years.

 

Add in the production decline of a natural resource like oil and add in the fact that the facilities will never last for 30 years, let alone 72, and you will hopefully accept that 24 billion is nonsense.

 

Work it out for yourself.

 

As for Norway again it's simple and no surprise. The UK fields are at a more advanced stage of depletion than Norway such that operating costs per barrel are higher as the facilities are older and field watercuts higher.

 

But work it out for yourself. How come the UK tax take in 2016 is only 60 million? Are the oil companies all reporting huge profits while avoiding tax? No.

 

Answer - At 50 per barrel the production costs are getting close to the oil price of 50 per barrel, leaving no money left to tax and little left for profit.

 

But no doubt you and Spacey will try to increase tax and thereby sending more fields to abandonment.

 

There is only one solution: the oil price needs to go up soon then all will be happy.

 

In the meantime the U.K. govt is sensibly giving tax concessions to try and keep things going so companies can ride out the storm and return to profitability when the price recovers. But SM seems to also disagree with that approach. Silly SM.

 

Why do you think your SNP are removing oil revenue from future White Paper calculations?

I'm not disputing 900,000 barrels a day or the fact that it would take 72 years. I think you are arguing with yourself on that point.

 

What i have stated is that Ian wood claimed not so long ago that there was 24 billion bbls. That is a matter of record. He of course meant that 24 billion was the figur that could be extracted in certain circumstances. 24 billion is not "nonsense" as you suggest but it is price, tax and technology dependent and these factors do not appear favourable at the moment.

 

You are making an assumption that price doesn't change and that new tachnologies and investment will not help extraction rates, increasing economically recoverable deposits. As far as the UK is concerned you may be right but the Norwegians have a different view. In any case the physical reserves in the U.K. sector of the North Sea far exceed 24billion bbls. I know this because only 46% of the oil in the existing fields has been recovered and there are still fields to be found. The argument is around the viabilty of oil extraction and not it's actual existence. That's why Wood said what he did and it's why so many agreed with him at the time.

 

It may be that UK fields are older and more depleted than Norway's but that is not relevant. In the link i posted it shows a difference in revenue of over ?400 billion despite producing less in Norway. http://www.resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue

 

This figure is almost equal to total U.K. oil revenues are you suggesting that the shortfall can be explained purely because UK fields are older and more expensive? The report offers more realistic suggestions

 

Even if there is only 8-10billion bbls left for economic exploitation we should stop the big companies selling to smaller outfits who offset acquisition cost against tax and pay nothing. They also allow the bigger companies to walk away from their environmental responsibilities. We should control the exploitation rates of our finite resources even if there isnt much left or much financial gain to be had. Allowing the market to dictate what we do is what has led to this financial disaster.

 

The report shows the oil companies have stolen our resources and there is nothing to suggest they are not still doing it. I'm afraid your explanation is a little too simple even for me.

[Space Mackerel]

I did read it and commented before. It confirms what I was saying.

 

But let's see -

 

You know the current NS rate is 900,000 bopd

 

You know the oil price is 50

 

You know the UK Govt took 60 million last year.

 

What, specifically, would you do if you were to recommend to an Indy Scottish Govt?

 

What would you do, be specific?

 

Increase tax?

 

Decrease tax?

 

Nationalise?

 

Nothing?

 

Come on, you are in charge, tell everyone what must be done to sustain the NS through these times.

 

Nicola is waiting to hear your wisdom.

 

Same to Coconut Doug and Boris. Let's discuss what the solution is.

Stable tax percentage over many years so oil companies can plan long strategic investmen and recoveryt. As my mate said and I therefor said many posts ago.

 

http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/petroleum-tax/

 

78% tax ^^^

[deesidejambo]

I'm not disputing 900,000 barrels a day or the fact that it would take 72 years. I think you are arguing with yourself on that point.

 

What i have stated is that Ian wood claimed not so long ago that there was 24 billion bbls. That is a matter of record. He of course meant that 24 billion was the figur that could be extracted in certain circumstances. 24 billion is not "nonsense" as you suggest but it is price, tax and technology dependent and these factors do not appear favourable at the moment.

 

You are making an assumption that price doesn't change and that new tachnologies and investment will not help extraction rates, increasing economically recoverable deposits. As far as the UK is concerned you may be right but the Norwegians have a different view. In any case the physical reserves in the U.K. sector of the North Sea far exceed 24billion bbls. I know this because only 46% of the oil in the existing fields has been recovered and there are still fields to be found. The argument is around the viabilty of oil extraction and not it's actual existence. That's why Wood said what he did and it's why so many agreed with him at the time.

 

It may be that UK fields are older and more depleted than Norway's but that is not relevant. In the link i posted it shows a difference in revenue of over ?400 billion despite producing less in Norway. http://www.resourcegovernance.org/blog/did-uk-miss-out-%C2%A3400-billion-worth-oil-revenue

 

This figure is almost equal to total U.K. oil revenues are you suggesting that the shortfall can be explained purely because UK fields are older and more expensive? The report offers more realistic suggestions

 

Even if there is only 8-10billion bbls left for economic exploitation we should stop the big companies selling to smaller outfits who offset acquisition cost against tax and pay nothing. They also allow the bigger companies to walk away from their environmental responsibilities. We should control the exploitation rates of our finite resources even if there isnt much left or much financial gain to be had. Allowing the market to dictate what we do is what has led to this financial disaster.

 

The report shows the oil companies have stolen our resources and there is nothing to suggest they are not still doing it. I'm afraid your explanation is a little too simple even for me.

The 24 billion came from Salmond, not Wood. And he lied because he conflated in-place volumes with potential recoverable reserves. That's a common trick that I have used myself in the past to fool investors.

 

Anyway, what speficically would you do in the current situation?

 

What would you do if you were oil minister in the Indy Scotland Govt?

 

Serious question. Not trying to be glib but we can argue all day about the past and who's fault everything was but we are where we are and I'd like to hear your suggested way forward.

[deesidejambo]

Stable tax percentage over many years so oil companies can plan long strategic investmen and recoveryt. As my mate said and I therefor said many posts ago.

 

http://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/economy/petroleum-tax/

 

78% tax ^^^

So you would change nothing that is currently in place? So the nasty Tories are doing the correct thing?

 

How would you encourage more exploration given the large numbers of rigs currently stacked in the Forth, Tay, and Cromarty firths?

 

Why are the oil companies not taking advantage of the basement rig rates?

 

You can give your answer but mine is again simple- the reason for little or no exploration is because, at $50 per barrel, the likely payback is zero.

 

So your interpretation of no exploration is?

[Space Mackerel]

So you would change nothing that is currently in place? So the nasty Tories are doing the correct thing?

 

How would you encourage more exploration given the large numbers of rigs currently stacked in the Forth, Tay, and Cromarty firths?

 

Why are the oil companies not taking advantage of the basement rig rates?

 

You can give your answer but mine is again simple- the reason for little or no exploration is because, at $50 per barrel, the likely payback is zero.

 

So your interpretation of no exploration is?

I like this Yoon now.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/business/north-sea-oil-industry-will-recover-in-5-years-ian-wood-1-4036757

[deesidejambo]

I like this Yoon now.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/business/north-sea-oil-industry-will-recover-in-5-years-ian-wood-1-4036757

A year old. Keep up.

 

Note he calls for further tax concessions and admits many fields are cash flow negative.

 

So back to the question that you avoided.

 

What, specifically, would you do to encourage exploration? Only two wells to date in 2017.

 

Nothing? You admit you would do nothing at all, thereby confirming the current Tories are doing the correct thing.

[Space Mackerel]

A year old. Keep up.

 

Note he calls for further tax concessions and admits many fields are cash flow negative.

 

So back to the question that you avoided.

 

What, specifically, would you do to encourage exploration? Only two wells to date in 2017.

 

Nothing? You admit you would do nothing at all, thereby confirming the current Tories are doing the correct thing.

It's a year into his 5 year prediction.

 

Everything will start to creep up in due course as article below demonstrates.

 

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/highlights/13936/oil-set-for-longest-gain-this-year-as-biggest-field-halts-production.

 

What the Tories do is immaterial as President Nic will be calling the shots soon enough, within 5 years.

[Roxy Hearts]

What is wrong with the mindset of the cannae dae its?

 

The country that gave us modern economics can't function with its own resources and they're not good according to them.

 

Let us manage them as I'm sure 5,000,000 excluding the cannaes will be delighted given the chance.

 

It's chronic chat that we have a resource that's used as a political football!

 

NS oil is a bounty we should be happy to have instead of bickering over figures. IMO.

[deesidejambo]

It's a year into his 5 year prediction.

 

Everything will start to creep up in due course as article below demonstrates.

 

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/highlights/13936/oil-set-for-longest-gain-this-year-as-biggest-field-halts-production.

 

What the Tories do is immaterial as President Nic will be calling the shots soon enough, within 5 years.

So you admit you will do nothing.

 

Apart from whining about the nasty Tories even though you wouldn't change their policy towards the oil industry.

[Space Mackerel]

So you admit you will do nothing.

 

Apart from whining about the nasty Tories even though you wouldn't change their policy towards the oil industry.

I'm not involved in the extraction of natural gas or oil at all.

 

In that PDF, if you actually read it, you would have noticed the Australian government fined Chevron ?2.8 billion for their dodgy accounting networks.

 

But you obviously endorse tax evasion seeing you're a Tory [emoji53]

[deesidejambo]

I'm not involved in the extraction of natural gas or oil at all.

 

In that PDF, if you actually read it, you would have noticed the Australian government fined Chevron ?2.8 billion for their dodgy accounting networks.

 

But you obviously endorse tax evasion seeing you're a Tory [emoji53]

I've voted SNP more times than I've voted Tory.

 

But like it or not, many fields are now casflow negative, as your new pal Wood confirms, so no tax liability anyway.

 

Good luck with your 24 billion.

[Space Mackerel]

I've voted SNP more times than I've voted Tory.

 

But like it or not, many fields are now casflow negative, as your new pal Wood confirms, so no tax liability anyway.

 

Good luck with your 24 billion.

Don't need any luck, experts say otherwise.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13176436.Wood_s_North_Sea_downgrade_forecast_is_dismissed_by_Oil___Gas_UK/

[Thunderstruck]

A year old. Keep up.

 

Note he calls for further tax concessions and admits many fields are cash flow negative.

 

So back to the question that you avoided.

 

What, specifically, would you do to encourage exploration? Only two wells to date in 2017.

 

Nothing? You admit you would do nothing at all, thereby confirming the current Tories are doing the correct thing.

If it helps, Oil&GasUK puts average cash flow deficit at ?2.6billion for 2016 and rates of return at 0.2%.

 

An example tax breaks for capital investment is the recently commissioned ?3.5billion Total gas plant in Shetland - designed to feed gas from "secret" fields to the West of Shetland to the existing gas pipeline and then to St Fergus. Gas that is used for domestic use and for power generation by SSE.

[Dawnrazor]

I'm not involved in the extraction of natural gas or oil at all.

 

We can tell.

[coconut doug]

The 24 billion came from Salmond, not Wood. And he lied because he conflated in-place volumes with potential recoverable reserves. That's a common trick that I have used myself in the past to fool investors.

 

Anyway, what speficically would you do in the current situation?

 

What would you do if you were oil minister in the Indy Scotland Govt?

 

Serious question. Not trying to be glib but we can argue all day about the past and who's fault everything was but we are where we are and I'd like to hear your suggested way forward.

It came from Wood as has been demonstrated countless times before. The 24billion, 100 dollars a barrel the money for the country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIIW6hg--AA

[deesidejambo]

Don't need any luck, experts say otherwise.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13176436.Wood_s_North_Sea_downgrade_forecast_is_dismissed_by_Oil___Gas_UK/

So explain how this can happen given current rates are a billion barrels every three years.

 

That's the truth of the matter.

 

The data is the truth and the data cannot support any more than 5-10 billion.

 

Explain how you get to 24 billion.

 

You can't.

[Space Mackerel]

So explain how this can happen given current rates are a billion barrels every three years.

 

That's the truth of the matter.

 

The data is the truth and the data cannot support any more than 5-10 billion.

 

Explain how you get to 24 billion.

 

You can't.

You should ask them. Ones a leading oil economist and the other is the leading body in the U.K.

[Space Mackerel]

It came from Wood as has been demonstrated countless times before. The 24billion, 100 dollars a barrel the money for the country.

Game, set and the match Doug [emoji106]

[deesidejambo]

You should ask them. Ones a leading oil economist and the other is the leading body in the U.K.

No I'm asking you.

 

But you have no idea.

 

At 1 billion every 3 years, which is undisputed reality, it is not realistic to produce 24 billion in a sensible time frame.

 

Only a fool would believe it is. Step forward SM.

[reaths17]

Game, set and the match Doug [emoji106]

yip, your whole economic plan is based on a guess, from a mystic.

[Boris]

yip, your whole economic plan is based on a guess, from a mystic.

Most are...

[Space Mackerel]

No I'm asking you.

 

But you have no idea.

 

At 1 billion every 3 years, which is undisputed reality, it is not realistic to produce 24 billion in a sensible time frame.

 

Only a fool would believe it is. Step forward SM.

75 years?

We will be independent in about 70-72 of them. That's a lot of extra pocket money.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[reaths17]

Most are...

i suppose a guess is better than spaced oot dancing about trying not to answer anything.

[Dawnrazor]

i suppose a guess is better than spaced oot dancing about trying not to answer anything.

But not nearly as funny.

[reaths17]

But not nearly as funny.

yeah i can picture it  "chopping his taes off dancing between the swords in his kilt and see you jimmy hat"  while trying to find a link to some obscure blogger on WOS

Edited April 11, 2017 by reaths17

[The Comedian]

No I'm asking you.

 

But you have no idea.

 

At 1 billion every 3 years, which is undisputed reality, it is not realistic to produce 24 billion in a sensible time frame.

 

Only a fool would believe it is. Step forward SM.

 

Here's one for you Deeside.

 

You mentioned it costs ?50 or dollars a barrel to produce however I'm sure I read or was told Enquest and Apache are currently doing it for half that, Apache on the old Forties field which would suggest other companies can do it too?

[deesidejambo]

i suppose a guess is better than spaced oot dancing about trying not to answer anything.

There is no need to guess. Forward forecasting of oil recovery is done by industry analysts all the time based on extrapolation of current rates, application of an established field technical decline trend, followed by application of a reasonable facilities lifetime cutoff.

 

If that is done the number is 5 billion barrels from current fields with a range of uncertainty around it. It can be shown on forecasting plots and reviewed as necessary before input to treasury.

 

Conversely, the 24 billion is a complete guess with no technical support whatsoever.

 

But crack on Spacey and Doug. 24 billion it is!

[Francis Albert]

75 years?

We will be independent in about 70-72 of them. That's a lot of extra pocket money.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Oil like coal and other mining is an extraction industry. They don't go on forever.

[Trapper John McIntyre]

There is no need to guess. Forward forecasting of oil recovery is done by industry analysts all the time based on extrapolation of current rates, application of an established field technical decline trend, followed by application of a reasonable facilities lifetime cutoff.

 

If that is done the number is 5 billion barrels from current fields with a range of uncertainty around it. It can be shown on forecasting plots and reviewed as necessary before input to treasury.

 

Conversely, the 24 billion is a complete guess with no technical support whatsoever.

 

But crack on Spacey and Doug. 24 billion it is!

 

The problem is too many half-wits actually believe it.

[deesidejambo]

Here's one for you Deeside.

 

You mentioned it costs ?50 or dollars a barrel to produce however I'm sure I read or was told Enquest and Apache are currently doing it for half that, Apache on the old Forties field which would suggest other companies can do it too?

Yes that's correct. That's why I said not all fields are uneconomic. If it was all of them the whole NS would shut down.

 

The question is though, how much of the profit goes to the treasury? Apache have been operating for many years now and yet only ?60 million has gone to the Treadury from the whole NS. Where has the tax from Beryl and Forties, Apaches fields, gone?

[Space Mackerel]

Oil like coal and other mining is an extraction industry. They don't go on forever.

Thanks for stating the obvious but even the most Yoon of Yoons knows this.

[deesidejambo]

The problem is too many half-wits actually believe it.

They may as well have said 24 trillion. The morons believe any nonsense they are fed.

[Space Mackerel]

The problem is too many half-wits actually believe it.

That Sir Ian Wood is a right half wit eh?

[Space Mackerel]

They may as well have said 24 trillion. The morons believe any nonsense they are fed.

Scotland is the only country in the world to have shite oil (again) [emoji23]

[Space Mackerel]

Here's one for you Deeside.

 

You mentioned it costs ?50 or dollars a barrel to produce however I'm sure I read or was told Enquest and Apache are currently doing it for half that, Apache on the old Forties field which would suggest other companies can do it too?

They may as well have said 24 trillion. The morons believe any nonsense they are fed.

Awaiting your reply...

[deesidejambo]

That Sir Ian Wood is a right half wit eh?

Yup.

 

He cannot back up 24 billion with technical analysis. It is a total guess.

 

But technical analysis done by normal accepted industry methodology based on real production delivers an auditable result of 5-10 billion.

 

But 24 it is! You and Doug stick with that number.

 

You can have 12 billion each.

[deesidejambo]

 

Awaiting your reply...

I did reply. Keep up.

[Space Mackerel]

Yes that's correct. That's why I said not all fields are uneconomic. If it was all of them the whole NS would shut down.

 

The question is though, how much of the profit goes to the treasury? Apache have been operating for many years now and yet only ?60 million has gone to the Treadury from the whole NS. Where has the tax from Beryl and Forties, Apaches fields, gone?

This guy wants to know the same answer.

 

[deesidejambo]

Thanks for stating the obvious but even the most Yoon of Yoons knows this.

You apparently don't. If you did you would accept that production is declining such that 24 billion is not achievable even in 72 years.

 

Keep on with it though - it shows how gullible you are.

[Space Mackerel]

You apparently don't. If you did you would accept that production is declining such that 24 billion is not achievable even in 72 years.

 

Keep on with it though - it shows how gullible you are.

Who to believe, one of the industries leading service providers in the NS (retired) or a Yoon ski instructor from one of Fifes most deprived areas?

[deesidejambo]

This guy wants to know the same answer.

 

Like others, he doesn't understand oilfield economics and PR spin.

 

It is very common for companies to claim their production costs are lower than they actually are.

 

This is used to fool investors as to the performance of the company and its leadership.

 

So Apache claiming costs of $25 per barrel will likely not include head office overheads and in some cases shared logistics costs like supply vessels, helicopters etc.

 

So the real production costs are more than 25 hence the gap is smaller than the economist can see..

 

This can be shown up in the audited Company accounts. The money can't have disappeared.

 

I don't have the Apache accounts but either their opcosts are higher than 25 or they have negotiated some means of tax avoidance that would be highly visible in their audited accounts.

[deesidejambo]

Who to believe, one of the industries leading service providers in the NS (retired) or a Yoon ski instructor from one of Fifes most deprived areas?

You think Methil is deprived? Try Ballingry. Or Cowdenbeath.

[Space Mackerel]

Like others, he doesn't understand oilfield economics and PR spin.

 

It is very common for companies to claim their production costs are lower than they actually are.

 

This is used to fool investors as to the performance of the company and its leadership.

 

So Apache claiming costs of $25 per barrel will likely not include head office overheads and in some cases shared logistics costs like supply vessels, helicopters etc.

 

So the real production costs are more than 25 hence the gap is smaller than the economist can see..

 

This can be shown up in the audited Company accounts. The money can't have disappeared.

 

I don't have the Apache accounts but either their opcosts are higher than 25 or they have negotiated some means of tax avoidance that would be highly visible in their audited accounts.

A Professor, repeat Professor of Economics and Public Policy doesn't really understand oilfield economics and PR spin?

 

Also a Professor at St Andrews University I've just noticed!

 

Deary me

Edited April 11, 2017 by Space Mackerel

[deesidejambo]

A Professor, repeat Professor of Economics and Public Policy doesn't really understand oilfield economics and PR spin?

 

Deary me

He hasn't worked in the oil industry.

 

It's quite normal to state your opcosts are lower than reality while your company accounts show the reality, as I explained (for others benefit - you don't understand).

 

He has taken the opcosts statement at face value without checking the accounts.

 

So have you.

 

Silly SM. Still believing all you get fed.

[Space Mackerel]

He hasn't worked in the oil industry.

 

It's quite normal to state your opcosts are lower than reality while your company accounts show the reality, as I explained (for others benefit - you don't understand).

 

He has taken the opcosts statement at face value without checking the accounts.

 

So have you.

 

Silly SM. Still believing all you get fed.

You mean you can fiddle the figures to show an inflated profit or future margin thus deceiving banks, governments and investors out of money on a gamble in the sea?

That's what you're saying? Aye?

 

Mind you, with this set up, it's probably quite easy to do.

 

[deesidejambo]

You mean you can fiddle the figures to show an inflated profit or future margin thus deceiving banks, governments and investors out of money on a gamble in the sea?

That's what you're saying? Aye?

 

Mind you, with this set up, it's probably quite easy to do.

 

No you can't fiddle the accounts. They are easy to interpret and are independently audited in U.K.

 

What you can do is just make unaudited statements like "our production costs are $25 per barrel" and it can fool people like you who don't check the veracity.

 

You also can say "there are 24 billion barrels left to produce" and again suckers will believe that with no supporting technical analysis.

 

But keep on falling for the PR hype. I used to write press statements that were to fool investors but you take the prize as most gullible.

[Space Mackerel]

No you can't fiddle the accounts. They are easy to interpret and are independently audited in U.K.

 

What you can do is just make unaudited statements like "our production costs are $25 per barrel" and it can fool people like you who don't check the veracity.

 

You also can say "there are 24 billion barrels left to produce" and again suckers will believe that with no supporting technical analysis.

 

But keep on falling for the PR hype. I used to write press statements that were to fool investors but you take the prize as most gullible.

I'm sure investors would go over the audited accounts with a fine tooth comb, not your wee sound bites in the Fife Gazette.

[deesidejambo]

 

I'm sure investors would go over the audited accounts with a fine tooth comb, not your wee sound bites in the Fife Gazette. [/quote

 

They do, as do I. That is where you find out the real production forecasts and the real opcosts.

 

But you bash on with your internet fantasies with no supporting data.

 

Let's call it 50 billion.