Posted on 06/05/2014 5:33:02 AM PDT by ckilmer
We recently declared that the fracking debate was over. Despite clear evidence of the shale boom's local environmental effects, it's probably added about 50 basis points to GDP, shrunk the trade deficit, and created tens of thousands of jobs.
Despite all that, Goldman Sachs believes America has left tons of figurative barrels and cubic feet on the table by not more aggressively investing in spurring demand. While the U.S. share of global upstream (that is, production) investment outpaced funds into Saudi Arabia and Russia by 10:1, the rest of the world outspent the U.S. on demand-side investment — places to put all those resources — by 15:1.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I note with interest that the pre-tax income there was $149, but the taxes were $169, or 113% of the pre-tax income.
That's a fairly high rate.
I believe that taxes were based upon the amount before their financing and restructuring cost. But I’m no accountant.
Really, I just grabbed Devon because I thought of them as one of the better players in shale. I wouldn’t look at numbers from Chesapeake for any reason.
I searched next for Anadarko but run out of time.
But I’m no accountant.
Nor am I. But I'm going to guess that there is a difference here between actual cash flow and accounting for earnings purposes.
I think many people outside the industry, do not understand how greatly cost have risen for an increases in domestic oil production.
In many cases, it is the subscontractors and equipment/material suppliers that are seeing higher profits than the actual oil production companies.
On the debt/tax, I was only guessing. I don’t know, but a tax rate over 100% makes even less sense.
Fair point.
In many cases, it is the subscontractors and equipment/material suppliers that are seeing higher profits than the actual oil production companies.
That's actually pretty fascinating. I can see how that could work - if you're committed to a project, you're committed a project.
On the debt/tax, I was only guessing. I don’t know, but a tax rate over 100% makes even less sense.
Something's definitely going on there that requires further information.
Bill Thomas hasn't seen much cost pressure, particularly because they do most of their own servicing.
Agree. The rest of the article is junk. But I like that Goldman Sachs ratio. That said, Thackney has a better graph.
In fact we really need a catalog of the good graphs that have been posted here.
Darn, I like your graphs.
Most of mine are just from EIA. Our tax dollars at work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.