Historical earnings and oil revenues to between 1920 2006

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 74080
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8752

Historical earnings and oil revenues to between 1920 2006




by Christophe » 03/12/06, 14:04

Here is history between 1920 and 1994 of 2004 constant dollar oil revenues (speaking in non-constant currency is an aberration).... This curve is the simple multiplication of 2 curves: world oil consumption and the price of oil quoted in € from 2004.
https://www.econologie.com/l-argent-du-p ... -3297.html

Image

Notes:

1) This figure is obviously EXCLUDING ANY TAX and COST OF REFINING. This is the simple price of the raw material brought to world consumption.

It is therefore necessary to multiply these figures by a factor from 2 to 3 to get the real "weight" of oil in the global economy ...

2) It concerns all oil companies

3) I would now like to compare these gains to the world GDP (in constant recess, of course ...) ...

4) The most recent data between 1995 and 2006 will be the subject of an 2ieme curve ... more precise :) which will lead to one thing: Bush is the Earth's greatest econologist ... but he does not know it : Cheesy:

5) Corrected oil price curve: https://www.econologie.com/le-vrai-prix- ... s-479.html
Last edited by Christophe the 16 / 11 / 08, 14: 28, 3 edited once.
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping

Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 74080
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8752




by Christophe » 04/12/06, 18:52

Here is the continuation:

1) Price of the barrel between 1995 and 2006 (estimate for end 2006 obviously) in constant $ of 2004:

Image

2) 2004 Oil Revenues in $ over the same period:

Image

First remarks:


1) The oil brought back more money in 1980 than currently, despite the growth in demand (31MM in 2006 against 23MM in 1980)!

2) The max / min ratio of oil revenues (2006 / 1998) makes:
- in 5,79 $ from 2004
- in 3,75 € of 2004

In other words: at constant volume an American oil tanker saw its turnover increase by 5,79 between 1998 and 2006 while a European oil tanker "only" by 3,75 ...

Bush is really a bit clever ... but thank you for having multiplied by 6 the oil prices between 1998 and 2006! :)

Sources of these numbers:
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/pe ... _brent.htm
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/pe ... ollar2.htm
http://www.ufip.fr/?rubrique=1&ss_rubri ... 484&id=d_8
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/een ... 071_en.htm
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 5




by bham » 05/12/06, 07:34

Christophe wrote:Bush is really a bit clever ... but thank you for having multiplied by 6 the oil prices between 1998 and 2006! :)


Yes, it is probably a good thing that the price of oil is going up, (and it would have gone up without Bush anyway) but let us not forget the "dark" side: the increase in the price of oil leads to exploration and development. exploitation of oil reserves in remote areas, even protected areas like Alaska because it is finally becoming profitable! So Bush and his oil buddies are winners on all counts ... : Mrgreen:
Is the increase due to increased demand compared to a known production or is it due to manipulation of figures and stock markets? Probably a bit of both.
We could say that faced with expensive oil, the powerful will adapt and develop other sources of energy. Well no, first because the increase is desired by them and then they "adapt" (euphemism) only to earn even more money.
So, the principle remains: fill our pockets now, as long as it's possible, the rest we do not care. : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 74080
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8752




by Christophe » 05/12/06, 08:40

bham wrote:Is the increase due to increased demand compared to a known production or is it due to manipulation of figures and stock markets? Probably a bit of both.


Just compare the increase in demand / supply with that of prices to be sure it is more of your 2th hypothesis than the first one. : Cheesy:
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 5




by bham » 05/12/06, 08:55

Christophe wrote:
bham wrote:Is the increase due to increased demand compared to a known production or is it due to manipulation of figures and stock markets? Probably a bit of both.


Just compare the increase in demand / supply with that of prices to be sure it is more of your 2th hypothesis than the first one. : Cheesy:


Yes, and so if in wishing for an expensive oil, they were actually playing their game. The ecologists in the service of tankers: terrifying no! but is not this the hidden face of the issue? (for oil tankers of course) : Frown:
0 x

Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 74080
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8752




by Christophe » 05/12/06, 09:10

bham wrote:Yes, and so if in wishing for an expensive oil, they were actually playing their game. The ecologists in the service of tankers: terrifying no! but is not this the hidden face of the issue? (for oil tankers of course) : Frown:


Of course! But is not it all the better for the planet (and the reduction of mismanagement)?

Here it reminds me of an anecdote: I heard long ago a speech from the Greens say:
"We must lower the price of gasoline at the pump"
and since that day he has never had my voice ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 5




by bham » 05/12/06, 11:18

Christophe wrote:
bham wrote:Yes, and so if in wishing for an expensive oil, they were actually playing their game. The ecologists in the service of tankers: terrifying no! but is not this the hidden face of the issue? (for oil tankers of course) : Frown:


Of course! But is not it all the better for the planet (and the reduction of mismanagement)?


Maybe yes. It is true that by lowering the price of oil, we increase its consumption and since production does not follow, the price automatically rises (more demand than supply) until the exploitation of new fields, which increase. production eventually becoming greater than demand, which again lowers prices ..... etc. In short, a yoyo effect. My analysis is very simplistic, I just know that there are positive and negative sides, therefore perverse, whatever we do, whether we lower the price of oil or increase it. And I do not feel able to determine which trend is less "serious" for the planet because taking all the ins and outs into account is no easy task.
The solution: I do not have it, it is necessary in any case to leave the carbon-based fossil energy cycle.
0 x
User avatar
zac
Pantone engine Researcher
Pantone engine Researcher
posts: 1446
Registration: 06/05/05, 20:31
Location: piton st leu
x 2




by zac » 05/12/06, 15:18

bham wrote: The ecologists in the service of tankers: terrifying no! but is not this the hidden face of the issue? (for oil tankers of course) : Frown:


Hello

It's not the first time !!!!!

the history of "unleaded" is edifying. Pseudo green c .......... d worked in the tanker plan and everyone followed.

the lead makes acid rain that shaves some forests in the rhur, everyone shouts scandal.

lead is forbidden.

it is replaced by toluene benzene and some other crap.

balance: the shits that replace the lead are less effective as anti-knock so we fit the carburation + 10 / 100 conso, so 10 / 100 digit + for total.
Engines have a shorter life time for car salesmen.
Lead was expensive, new additives that slab, super for the margin.
toluene and benzene are cancerous very good for sanofi and consort, and in addition it saves on pension funds.
10 / 100 of surconso = 10 / 100 of co² in addition not serious one does not pay : Evil:

@+
0 x
Said the zebra, freeman (endangered breed)
This is not because I am con I try not to do smart things.
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 5




by bham » 05/12/06, 16:48

zac wrote:
bham wrote: The ecologists in the service of tankers: terrifying no! but is not this the hidden face of the issue? (for oil tankers of course) : Frown:

It's not the first time !!!!!
the history of "unleaded" is edifying. Pseudo green c .......... d worked in the tanker plan and everyone followed.
the lead makes acid rain that shaves some forests in the rhur, everyone shouts scandal.
it is replaced by toluene benzene and some other crap.
balance: the shits that replace the lead are less effective as anti-knock so we fit the carburation + 10 / 100 conso, so 10 / 100 digit + for total.
Engines have a shorter life time for car salesmen.
Lead was expensive, new additives that slab, super for the margin.
toluene and benzene are cancerous very good for sanofi and consort, and in addition it saves on pension funds.
10 / 100 of surconso = 10 / 100 of co² in addition not serious one does not pay : Evil: @+


Say, stripping your synthesis with sulfuric acid. I'm left baba. I did not know that lead was responsible for acid rain ..... but if it saves money on pension funds it does not make it on Social Security ...... : Mrgreen:
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 74080
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 8752




by Christophe » 14/12/06, 21:40

Zac for the ozone layer is (almost) the same ... the hole was especially in the patents of CFCs which fell in the public domain ... had to find "something" to justify the replacement of this gas ( not necessarily harmless but hey ...) : Cry:
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum - Support the forum doing Useful shopping


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 59 guests