Great for jobs and business and less layoffs methinks.
15 replies (most recent on top)
The thickest people in the oil industry work in oil service so anything can happen. Who cares if you cut your own throats.
This one has me worried with this one, every trial run is with a poor organization with a history of not paying the regular service or sales contracts prices. So why on earth are they going to pay for a even bigger invoice or recognize or share of the profits - plus it relies on decent oil prices. They have already started the write-downs at the same time as buying in more, clients must be laughing at the naivety of SLB!
This appears like a gambling addict who thinks the next big gamble will get them out of the debt, or in SLB case the board are self-medicating themselves in their financial gambling addition by buying into another "big win" chance or take more risk.
This will sink SLB, the comedy part if BHI or HAL copy them.
Let us imagine the following scenario…
1) Country decides to take advantage of Schlumbergers’ generous offer to fund everything until the oil is sold.
2) Country then stockpiles oil for some time in the (vain) hope that prices will increase.
3) More oil is stockpiled as the country is not paying de nada until the oil is sold.
4) Country sits on large assets which it has not paid for and can sell whenever they fancy.
I am sure that the top brains at Schlumberger would have thought of this scenario and have planned accordingly.
ile, when I said this has nothing to do with layoff I meant it does not reduce layoff risk or bring more jobs.
If fact I agree with you, the first practice in reducing cost is getting rid of liabilities, in this case employees.
I apologise for confusion.
Did, don't be angry at him, he is a recieptionist probably!
Personally, I like diversifying but this games has a huge financial risk on top of current biggest slb challenge:
1) cash!!! Fact!
2) The Bolivarian companies whom slb started this kind of join venture still haven't paid the bill and owe slb billions. Fact!
3) desperation for revenue is not a good reason to leave your core business and jumping into the business of your clients and competing with them! Fact!
4) BH did this 20 years ago in Myanmar but stopped it due to above risk. Fact!
5) vertical expansion, brings concern on it imperial role as a service company and also help clients to shift to Baker Hughes! Fact!
On the other hand becoming a full partner (i.e a producer with equity and influence) is a different risk! fact!
The big question remains is :
Will slb employees get coupon or discount on gas in slb petrol station?
pey you're just as dumb as the current slb executives. How could slb buy Chevron if CVX has a market cap 2.4 times that of slb and in the most recent quarter CVX made 1.45 billions while slb lost 74 mils?
I heard that when the ship is sinking the captain and crew would step on their customers to escape.
This has nothing to do with layoffs? So, how is SLB management paying for the shopping spree? Money doesn't grow on trees. More debt leads to more cost reduction, which means more layoffs.
Nobody can touch us now? Ha Ha! Yeah, sure! Competing with your own customers in a sinking ship... What does it mean?
Who cares. Oil industry is dying anyway.
This isn't the first time slb is doing similar approach, for sure if pass experiences were failure then they were not ending up to expand the scope. One caveat is slb entering competition with their customer! But again, slb knows the era of major service sector with legacy tech is over, this is the chance of survival.
Timeline, we are talking about years of planning and running operation, so most of people won't be here by the time this game starts!
We don't need Chevron to give us contracts because we will just buy them out and take their assets from them and do a better job of producing them...........so they better watch their step bucko
Big blue is back
Its already started with slb losing contracts from their long term client Chevron in the Gulf of Mexico.
I agree with efo, if this increases share value or dividend then this is going to be good. This could be a winning gamble though.
However, this has nothing to do with layoff or job security or more employment.
The is a strategic masterstroke by Paal. Nobody can touch us now with services and oil production - we are #1 now in everything. Power is good for jobs.
Have you seen the price of oil and do you see that it will be low for years...........only the desperate will take up this gormless offer... Ecuador, Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia etc.
You obviously know nothing about supply and demand aligned with general economic principles. Back to second grade for you my lad and start studying like a champ. This will be a disaster of apocalyptic proportions.
As you are obviously living with your parents, bull up on cash flow over extended periods relating to prior and extended investments coupled with indeterminate realisation of selling price. Mix that with dealing with countries who are less than truthful and it does not take a Harvard mind to see the whole sorry debacle.
It has never worked.