The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

[touchring]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

From all the talk about China, though, it might end up spitting out "take a class in Mandarin..."

That won't be necessary for now, but if you have young kids, it will be better to send them for Chinese classes for the following reasons:

1. Mandarin is difficult to master for adult Western language speakers.
2. 30 years is about the time when China will be 35% of world GDP.
3. 30 years is about when oil will have almost dried up and favors economies developed on expensive oil.

[GRG55]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

In most developing jurisdictions with government ownership of the mineral resources (Asia, Middle East, Russia. etc.) the foreign companies enter into Production Sharing Contracts. These vary by juridiction, but generally contain a "cost oil" provision that defines the split of production (usually in favour of the foreign partner) during the period that the foreign partner's capital investment is being recovered, and then a "profit oil" provision that defines the post-payout production split in favour of the host country. These PSC's also contain prescriptions for defining recoverable initial and subsequent capex, eligible operating costs, a mathmatical formula that adjusts for product pricing, and sometimes defines the joint marketing arrangements (so host country and foreign partners are not competing with each other with product from the same source).

During the low price cycle in the late 1990's many of these agreements contained minimum rate-of-return guarantees to the foreign partners in case prices fell even further. However, these arrangements also meant that the host governments gained the bulk of the economic rent if/when prices rose above expectations. It's those agreements, such as in Russia, that did not contemplate the level of price increases that have caused the most political problems for host governments.

In short, what these mean is that as oil prices soar, Big Oil gets little incremental benefit in these contracts, except for a faster pay-out of their invested capex in the newest projects. With the petro-dollars building up the host countries now have the financial capacity to invest directly and the need for foreign capital from Big Oil is much reduced, removing one of their historical competitive advantages. The other competitive advantage, technology, also no longer applies as most of that is coming from the service sector companies. The one exception is particularly difficult reservoirs or environments (heavy oil, thermal or miscible floods, deep water offshore, that sort of thing).

Integrated Big Oil is responding by shifting to more foreign projects in the downstream refining and petrochemical sectors (Exxon just announced a new petrochemical complex in Singapore) where they still have proprietary technologies, market access, and operating capabilities of interest to host countries.

Here's a subsequent WSJ article that also touches on jk's question:

November 9, 2007

How Big Oil Is Forced To Share the Wealth As Crude Prices Rise, Contracts Give Nations More of the Output Pie By GUY CHAZAN November 9, 2007; Page A12 LONDON -- Oil at $100 a barrel is a bane for fuel consumers. But it isn't entirely a boon for major oil companies, either. The rub: The economics of the production deals governing some of the world's biggest oil fields stipulate that the higher the oil price, the less production and reserves oil companies get. Host countries such as Nigeria, Angola and Azerbaijan gain a bigger share. • The Trend: As crude prices rise, Western oil companies get a smaller share of production at some of their most important oil fields, especially under what are known as production-sharing agreements. • Who's Hurt: With less production and fewer bookable reserves, Western oil companies may become less attractive to investors, who may seek value elsewhere. • Who Benefits: Large state-controlled companies could see their shares rise as investors looking for alternatives consider their greater access to untapped reserves within restricted borders. Investors and analysts judge oil giants in part by their ability to pump more crude and find new reserves. So a decline can have an impact on the way markets perceive Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC, Total SA and others. What these major companies lose in terms of volume they can make up for in profitability. "Any fall in volumes is going to be more than offset by the $30" rise in crude prices over recent months, said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer. Oil companies "will make much more money in the fourth quarter than in the third." The production loss comes amid other headaches, such as rising costs, volatility and margin pressure in refining partly because of high oil prices. Also, the higher oil climbs, the more countries are encouraged to renegotiate contracts to get a bigger cut. "In general, it is the governments who are the big winners when prices reach new heights," Bob Dudley, chief executive of BP's TNK-BP Russian joint venture, said last week. Exxon last week reported third-quarter net profit of $9.41 billion. But that was lower than a year ago. BP and ConocoPhillips also said profits fell, and output for most majors declined. The companies cite the advantages of high crude prices. In the early phases of an expensive project, "a higher price means you accelerate your cost recovery, which is a good thing," said one BP executive, adding that price fluctuations balance out over the life of a contract. They also have little choice -- the richest deposits in nations with fewer constraints have already been found. State oil companies directly controlled 37% of global reserves at the end of 2005 and will account for nearly three-quarters of total oil production by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. With oil revenue swelling their treasuries, oil-producing countries have less need to draw more foreign capital. "The majors are like dinosaurs," said Stephen Thornber, global equity fund manager at Threadneedle in London. "Their production is flat or falling, and their returns are under pressure." He has shifted to state oil companies where production is on the rise, and also likes oil-service companies, which provide equipment and services and benefit from higher prices. One of the biggest hits companies are taking is on production-sharing contracts. Investors bear costs but can recover them from production before having to share much revenue with the host government. High oil prices mean investors recover costs more quickly and have to start sharing what is known as "profit oil" with the host country earlier than planned. Citigroup found that 31% of the production from major European oil companies is based on production-sharing deals and that percentage is expected to rise to 46% by 2012. With oil at $100 a barrel, Citigroup said, the participants in one BP-led project in Azerbaijan would receive 50% less than they would have with oil at $25 a barrel. BP declined to discuss terms. Exxon, Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips all said recent production declines were partly because of contracts giving governments more oil when prices rise. Total, which has one of the highest levels of exposure to such contracts, this week trimmed its 2007 target for output growth to 1% from 2%. Link: http://online.wsj.com/public/article...839986885.html

[jk]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

What these major companies lose in terms of volume they can make up for in profitability. "Any fall in volumes is going to be more than offset by the $30" rise in crude prices over recent months, said Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer.

what this does is accelerate the return, but at the expense of future returns. it's like pumping out a fixed reservoir, i suppose. the faster you pump, the faster you make money, the faster you reach empty.

[GRG55]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

From a discussion in November last year:

...The very idea that anyone in OPEC felt "...bound by output targets...", as oil rose from $60 to $70 to $80 to $90+, demonstrates a remarkable ignorance, on the part of this Reuters reporter, of the basic human emotion of greed, and the deeply concentrated power structures within many OPEC member nations that facilitate acting on that emotion for unimaginable personal riches. It's a fairly safe bet that every producable/transportable/marketable barrel in OPEC is already onstream...and has been for some time...

Today we heard OPEC acknowledge the same thing:

OPEC Has `No Magic Solution' to Record Oil Price

By Ayesha Daya
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- OPEC has ``no magic solution'' to crude's surge to a record above $135 a barrel today, Qatar's oil minister said. Prices are ``out of the hands of OPEC'', Libya's top oil official added.

``We are producing at our maximum,'' Qatar's Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said today in a phone interview from Doha. ``We don't see a shortage in supply.''

``We are not in charge anymore,'' Libya's Shokri Ghanem told Bloomberg Television. ``OPEC is producing as much as the market wants. It is speculation, it is geopolitics, it is dollar erosion'' that are behind the gains, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLgCVSf8nFXs

[metalman]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

From a discussion in November last year:

Today we heard OPEC acknowledge the same thing:

OPEC Has `No Magic Solution' to Record Oil Price

By Ayesha Daya
May 22 (Bloomberg) -- OPEC has ``no magic solution'' to crude's surge to a record above $135 a barrel today, Qatar's oil minister said. Prices are ``out of the hands of OPEC'', Libya's top oil official added.

``We are producing at our maximum,'' Qatar's Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah said today in a phone interview from Doha. ``We don't see a shortage in supply.''

``We are not in charge anymore,'' Libya's Shokri Ghanem told Bloomberg Television. ``OPEC is producing as much as the market wants. It is speculation, it is geopolitics, it is dollar erosion'' that are behind the gains, he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aLgCVSf8nFXs

if it's generally accepted as fact that all the oil that can be dug up and put on the market at ten years ago development costs and current production costs is already online, why not oil quickly rising to $300 or more – far more? how does a market price oil at the end of a 100 years of development of a global economy predicated on excess oil capacity? you'd expect a period of confusion and disorientation... then a period of realization... then of panic...

i'll play the contrarian... if T. Boone Pickens and others are correct, and opec is suddenly truthful... then isn't oil far too cheap? aren't "speculators" underbidding future oil prices? but then opec is blaming speculators...

this shit is confusing. and, btw, the saudis still have the "we'll switch to euros" card to play at the right time down the road. they are the last holdout.

[GRG55]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

if it's generally accepted as fact that all the oil that can be dug up and put on the market at ten years ago development costs and current production costs is already online, why not oil quickly rising to $300 or more – far more? how does a market price oil at the end of a 100 years of development of a global economy predicated on excess oil capacity? you'd expect a period of confusion and disorientation... then a period of realization... then of panic...

i'll play the contrarian... if T. Boone Pickens and others are correct, and opec is suddenly truthful... then isn't oil far too cheap? aren't "speculators" underbidding future oil prices? but then opec is blaming speculators...

this shit is confusing. and, btw, the saudis still have the "we'll switch to euros" card to play at the right time down the road. they are the last holdout.

One of the factors that may be holding back an all out [and IMO wholly unnecessary] panic is that there is certainly oil that is available that:

1. is not producable [today]; Nigerian violence, Iraq violence, Venezuelan politics, and so forth.
2. is not transportable [today]; For example last year I was asked to evaluate an oil property in the Caspian region. No problem developing it, but we could not figure out how to get the stuff out of there to a refinery; no pipe, no roads.
3. is not marketable [again, today]; That's the heavy oil that I believe can be produced right now, and could be tankered right now, if only someone, somewhere had some refinery capacity to handle it.

I say "today" because these situations never remain static. And therein lies the risk of assuming that, "like housing", oil prices only go up.

I really believe the conventional heavy, sour stuff is the medium-term (now to, say, 2012) wild card. We have an appetite for premium single-malt, which cannot be produced fast enough to meet current consumption trends, but if we have to we can find a way to live with the cheap stuff (Cutty Sark, anyone?), or even what we brew in the backyard still (it'll never be confused with Ardbeg Provenance 1974, but hell it gets the job done ).

[metalman]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

One of the factors that may be holding back an all out [and IMO wholly unnecessary] panic is that there is certainly oil that is available that:

1. is not producable [today]; Nigerian violence, Iraq violence, Venezuelan politics, and so forth.
2. is not transportable [today]; For example last year I was asked to evaluate an oil property in the Caspian region. No problem developing it, but we could not figure out how to get the stuff out of there to a refinery; no pipe, no roads.
3. is not marketable [again, today]; That's the heavy oil that I believe can be produced right now, and could be tankered right now, if only someone, somewhere had some refinery capacity to handle it.

I say "today" because these situations never remain static. And therein lies the risk of assuming that, "like housing", oil prices only go up.

I really believe the conventional heavy, sour stuff is the medium-term (now to, say, 2012) wild card. We have an appetite for premium single-malt, which cannot be produced fast enough to meet current consumption trends, but if we have to we can find a way to live with the cheap stuff (Cutty Sark, anyone?), or even what we brew in the backyard still (it'll never be confused with Ardbeg Provenance 1974, but hell it gets the job done ).

cutty sark! got a hangover just thinking about it.

can the crappy crude by refined into gasoline that can be run in the cars we have on the road today? if not, impies...

1. new cars or
2. new refiners or
3. or both and rolled back pollution laws

and that don't happen fast whereas the single malt is running out in a hurry, no?

[GRG55]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

...On your question our views appear broadly similar. My mental model is that the upstream sector (your "wet oil"?) explorer/producers are perpetually long physical oil by virtue of holding reserves in the ground. The only way they can reduce their physical long position is to produce and sell.

The offset to this physical long are the refinery capacity owners, who are perpetually short physical crude (their raw inventory is irrelevant compared to annual throughput). Being short physical means that rising crude prices hurt their business, and that's exactly what we saw in the 3Q '07 reports released in the past couple of weeks.

I think these are fundamentally different businesses, although there is a long standing school of thought that integrating them somehow makes for a superior business. I disagree completely; so much that in 1997, as the "supermajor" M&A was gathering momentum, I voluntarily left "Big Oil". I firmly believed that integration was a busted business model, that the creation of the "supermajors" was the last gasp of brontosaurus after the meteor hit, and these companies would underperform. Nothing that has happened in the past decade has changed my mind (Integrated oil is like running a long/short hedge fund with all the pair trades in completely independent economic sectors). The reserves problem in Shell, production difficulties in BP, and recent earnings issues in Exxon and Conoco/Phillips (with oil hitting all time highs!) suggest to me that these companies will ultimately be broken up into the independent constituents you listed (with Wall St. making fees coming and going).

As you noted the paper market has long outgrown its original intent, and now has its own FIRE economy dynamic, occasionally seemingly divorced from the realities of the physical markets.

As you know from your work, the economics of refining demands very high capacity utilization rates, so there is a rational tendency by every player to avoid being the one with any surplus. I'm not sure if that is what you meant by "manage collectively". I doubt there's any highly organized effort on the part of oil companies to collectively manage demand, but they're all responding simultaneously to the same signals.

In the latter stages of the 1970's petroleum boom the Kuwaiti's responded to the perceived looming oil shortage by expanding into refining and retailing outside their home market (primarily Europe with their "Q8" brand). I find it rather interesting that Saudi Aramco is now doing something similar, albeit more cautiously through a Chinese JV, in SE Asia. In both cases "demand management", through control of refining & retail capacity, under an expected future constrained crude supply scenario may have been part of the thinking. The situation certainly bears watching.

The "rationalization" of the major integrated oil companies continues:

ConocoPhillips: Note the relationship between perceived political risk and the geography of the divestment-investment decisions the company has been making.

HOUSTON, April 4, 2012 - ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP] announced today that its board of directors has given final approval for the spin-off of its downstream businesses. The resulting upstream company will keep the ConocoPhillips name and will be led by Chairman and CEO Ryan Lance. The downstream company, led by Chairman and CEO Greg Garland, will be known as Phillips 66. Both companies will be headquartered in Houston...Following the distribution of Phillips 66 common stock, Phillips 66 will be an independent, publicly traded company, and ConocoPhillips will retain no ownership interest...

02-16-2012 ConocoPhillips Announces Sale of Vietnam Business Unit
08-22-2012 ConocoPhillips Sells Interest in Russian Joint Venture NaryanMarNefteGaz
10-05-2012 ConocoPhillips Opts Out of Exploration in Two Peru Blocks
11-26-2012 ConocoPhillips Announces Intention to Sell Interest in North Caspian Sea Production Sharing Agreement (Kashagan)
12-18-2012 ConocoPhillips Announces Intended Sale of Algerian Business Unit
12-20-2012 ConocoPhillips Announces Further Progress on Asset Disposition Program with Intended Sale of Nigerian Business Unit

HOUSTON, May 9, 2012 --- ConocoPhillips [NYSE:COP] is nearing the completion of its three-year repositioning plan designed to deliver long-term value, the company said today at its Annual Meeting of Stockholders. The repositioning plan to optimize the company’s portfolio was initiated in 2010 and has delivered enhanced total shareholder returns.

“We have delivered peer-leading total shareholder returns over the course of our repositioning plan,” said Ryan Lance, chairman and chief executive officer. “During this period we have increased our dividend rate by 32 percent and repurchased $17 billion of our shares. We have divested more than $21 billion of nonstrategic assets, which resulted in improved financial returns and cash returns on capital employed. In addition, our portfolio is more closely focused on assets that can drive long-term growth.”...

... From 2013 forward, the company expects to generate 3 to 5 percent annual production and margin growth from major development projects already under way in the onshore United States, Canadian heavy oil sands, United Kingdom and Norwegian North Sea, Malaysia and Australia. ConocoPhillips will also maintain its commitment to shareholders by offering a sector-leading dividend and targeting annual increases in distributions...



ExxonMobil: Continuing to slowly divest itself of downstream assets while it makes a signficant bet on upstream shale gas and shale oil plays in North America and western Europe (and maybe Russia!).

Nov 16, 2011
FAIRFAX, Va. — Representing what it calls “the last market announcement in our strategy to convert our company-owned retail assets to a branded wholesaler business,” Exxon Mobil Corp. told CSP Daily News that it is divesting 236 company-owned gas stations in New Jersey.

January 26, 2012
Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Esso (Thailand) Pcl, a unit of Exxon Mobil Corp., rose to the highest in eight months in Bangkok trading after the Kao Hoon newspaper reported the U.S. company may soon complete the sale of its stake in the refinery.

Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012
Exxon selling refinery unit for $4 billion
Exxon Mobil Corp. is selling its Japanese refining and marketing business to partner TonenGeneral Sekiyu K.K. in a $3.9 billion deal

Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:39pm EDT
Trafigura's Puma Energy buys fuel stations, refineries
* Deal follows Exxon's divestment of Argentina downstream
MEXICO CITY, March 29 (Reuters) - Puma Energy, a subsidiary of oil trader Trafigura [TRAFG.UL] said on Tuesday it agreed to buy Exxon Mobil Corp's (XOM.N) downstream oil businesses in six Central American countries.

Jul 5, 2012
Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), the world’s biggest energy company by market value, is weighing a sale of its German Esso gas station chain, according to people familiar with the process. The unit, which includes more than 1,100 gas stations in Germany, may fetch more than 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion)...

9/20/12 Shale Gas Development is an American Success Story, says XTO President
9/20/12 ExxonMobil to Increase Production and Acreage in Bakken Oil Shale Region
10/17/12 ExxonMobil Canada Acquires Celtic Exploration Ltd., Including Liquids-Rich Montney Shale Acreage
12/6/12 Rosneft and ExxonMobil Sign Agreement for Western Siberia Tight Oil Pilot Project
2/1/12 ExxonMobil Licenses Oil Sands Steam Injection Technology to Baker Hughes]




BP: A chronic underperformer after its acquisition binge, even before Macondo

October 25, 2011 9:18 am
BP raises disposals target to $45bn

BP has raised its target for disposals to $45bn and promised to boost pay-outs to shareholders as the UK oil group said it had reached “a definite turning point” after last year’s devastating Gulf of Mexico spill.

The higher divestment target – up by $15bn from a previous level of $30bn – came as BP reported replacement cost profit, which strips out the value of oil and gas inventory, of $5.14bn for the third quarter, slightly higher than expected.

The result was down by 3 per cent from the previous quarter, but higher than the $1.85bn it reported in the same quarter last year when the company took a large charge related to the Gulf of Mexico spill.

Production for the period was also lower, slumping 12 per cent to 3.31m barrels of oil equivalent a day compared with the same period last year...

27 March 2012 BP Agrees Sale of Southern Gas Assets (UK North Sea) to Perenco
01 June 2012 BP Notifies Partners of its Intention to Pursue a Potential Sale of its Interest in TNK-BP
25 June 2012 BP to Sell Jonah Gas Operations in Wyoming, U.S.
26 June 2012 BP Announces Sale of Interests in Alba and Britannia Fields (UK North Sea) to Mitsui & CO., LTD.
10 August 2012 BP To Sell Texas Midstream Gas Assets
13 August 2012 BP Agrees to Sell Carson Refinery and ARCO Retail Network in US Southwest to Tesoro for $2.5 Billion
08 October 2012 BP Agrees to Sell Texas City Refinery to Marathon Petroleum Corporation for $2.5 Billion, Marking Second Major Milestone in Strategic Refocus of U.S. Downstream Business
25 October 2012 BP Cancels Plans for US Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
28 November 2012 BP to Sell Package of Central North Sea Assets to Taqa for $1.1 Billion
30 November 2012 BP Completes Sale of Non-Strategic US Gulf of Mexico Assets to PXP
27 November 2012 BP Sells its Bottle and Wholesale LPG and Petgaz Autogas Businesses in Turkey to Oteko Group
17 December 2012 BP Announces Sale of Non-Operated Interest in Sean to SSE PLC19 December 2012 BP to Sell Yacheng Gas Field in China to KUFPEC




Shell: Royal Dutch Shell did not really embrace the "supermajor" strategy and avoided much of the M&A hysteria of the late 1990s.

[Shell’s CEO Peter] Voser commented: “We have worked hard to generate a strong pipeline of investment opportunities for Shell, and we put the emphasis firmly on a competitive financial performance. Shell’s investment programmes create cashflow growth, which in turn funds our dividends...Capital efficiency is a key part of Shell’s strategy. Divestments are expected to be $2-3 billion in 2012...Net capital investment will be some $30 billion in 2012, with over ~80% Upstream, of which 60% will be in North America and Australia.

Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s biggest oil company, will sell its retail fuels business in 14 African countries for $1 billion as part of a plan to streamline its marketing operation worldwide...Shell may put assets from five more countries into the venture...Hague-based Shell is targeting asset sales of as much as $5 billion this year, Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said an earnings report on Feb. 3. The company has sold about $30 billion of assets worldwide over the last five years.

03 Sep 2012 SPDC completes sale of Nigerian oil mining lease
05 Sep 2012 SPDC completes sale of the seventh Nigerian Oil Mining Lease
10 Sep 2012 Shell accepts offer for working interest in Gulf of Mexico Holstein asset
09 Nov 2012 SPDC completes 8th Nigerian Oil Mining Lease sale

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

The "rationalization" of the major integrated oil companies continues:

A couple things.

Any chance they're cashing up because they believe some of those locations will become "non-permissible" in the future due to further nationalization and shift in geopolitical power?

I'm surprised at West African divestiture, although in the specific case of Nigeria is has always had significant potential to go kaboom.

No mention whatsoever of Venezuela.

Would you anticipate a significant ramp up in North American/Western energy company investment in Venezuela after Chavez dies and if the government becomes more conducive to foreign investment security?

[GRG55]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

A couple things.

Any chance they're cashing up because they believe some of those locations will become "non-permissible" in the future due to further nationalization and shift in geopolitical power?...

That is most certainly one factor. But at the end of the day these decisions are based on risk-adjusted return expectations, and there are many other risk factors other than political risk in that equation.

I'm surprised at West African divestiture, although in the specific case of Nigeria is has always had significant potential to go kaboom.

No mention whatsoever of Venezuela.

Would you anticipate a significant ramp up in North American/Western energy company investment in Venezuela after Chavez dies and if the government becomes more conducive to foreign investment security?

You have to go back to 2007 to delve into the opening salvos in the lastest round for Venezuela. The Chinese and the Russians are the ones pouring money into the Orinoco now. But 1) Russia doesn't need Venezuelan oil; 2) China is extremely poorly placed geographically to import it economically; and 3) the USA still has most of the specialized refining capacity needed to handle the stuff.

Exxon and Conoco have exited the country and taken Venezuela to the ICSID. The Venezuelan's themselves don't feel inclined to be bound by any such rulings:

World Bank Confirms Venezuela's Exit From Investment Dispute Body

01/26/2012| 05:50pm US/Eastern

The World Bank confirmed Thursday it had received official notice announcing the exit of Venezuela from the organization's international arbitration body and said the move would become final in six months.

Venezuela will no longer be part of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, or ICSID, as of July 25, according to a short statement posted on the forum's website.

In response to Venezuela's notification, which was forwarded Tuesday, "the World Bank has notified all ICSID signatory States of...Venezuela's denunciation of the ICSID Convention," the statement said.

Earlier this month, President Hugo Chavez renewed his long-standing complaints against the ICSID and said he would not accept the tribunal's rulings...

Almost two dozen ICSID cases have been filed against Venezuela by foreign companies seeking billions of dollars in compensation for seized assets, including complaints filed by U.S. oil majors ConocoPhillips (COP) and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM). Other claimants include Canadian miner Crystallex International Corp. (CRYXF) and Ohio-based bottle maker Owens-Illinois Inc. (OI).

[lakedaemonian]

Re: The Ambiguity of what's happening in Oil vs. Inflation

Found this on another forum:

My latest issue of Saudi Aramco World has a notice posted inside, highlighting a free disk containing "all texts, photographs, maps and illustrations as they appeared in the original printed copies, as well as searchable subject, author and title indexes from 1960 onward.

Request it by email from saworld@aramcoservices.com