Reuters: US ambassador to Libya dead

[Barrister]

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

[Jacob]

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.

[grumbler]

In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.

You'd take his word over that of Shell itself?

If Viking says "Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not" but Shell says that it is, indeed, "in Saudi," then I'll believe Shell.

[grumbler]

Better tell Shell that.  It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."

Yes and?

And you said that they were not "in Saudi."  You were wrong.

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.

This is what we call a "weasel."  You can't dance around the fact that you said shell wasn't there, and they are.

[Barrister]

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company.

Just because you say that doesn't make it true.

In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.

I would take Viking's word on a number of technical aspects of the oil industry, but not on this question.  In my previous employment as a private sector lawyer in Calgary I did work for a number of "oil companies".  Te thing is that there is no definition of what is or is not an "oil company" - it is a term without any legal importance.  I have never heard it argued that oilfield service companies are not "oil companies".

I can even give you an example.  Take CAPP - the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.  They have two categories of membership - Producers and Associates.  So they certainly take the position that you can be a member of CAPP while not physically producing oil.

http://www.capp.ca/aboutUs/membership/Pages/default.aspx

[Jacob]

In this on case I'd be inclined to take Viking's word, since he works in the oil industry.

You'd take his word over that of Shell itself?

If Viking says "Halliburton, Baker, Schlumberger and Weatherford are in Saudi while Shell, Esso and BP are not" but Shell says that it is, indeed, "in Saudi," then I'll believe Shell.

I'm less concerned about whether they're "in" than whether they are "owning and operating oil wells" which was the statement BB replied to.

[Jacob]

I would take Viking's word on a number of technical aspects of the oil industry, but not on this question.  In my previous employment as a private sector lawyer in Calgary I did work for a number of "oil companies".  Te thing is that there is no definition of what is or is not an "oil company" - it is a term without any legal importance.  I have never heard it argued that oilfield service companies are not "oil companies".

I can even give you an example.  Take CAPP - the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.  They have two categories of membership - Producers and Associates.  So they certainly take the position that you can be a member of CAPP while not physically producing oil.

http://www.capp.ca/aboutUs/membership/Pages/default.aspx

The interesting part of the conversation for me is the information about how the oil industry is organized in Saudi Arabia; the information provided by Viking. The usual semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word "in" and the term "oil company" is much less interesting. Yes, Viking is quibbling too, but since he's providing actual information I'm much less concerned about how his idiosyncratic definition differs from your idiosyncratic definition.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes and?

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.

Yes and?

Your post was responding to Seedy's comment: 

it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades. 

They did before Aramco's nationalization, afterwards, and still today. 

[CountDeMoney]

Yes and?

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.

Yes and?

Your post was responding to Seedy's comment: 

it's not like oil companies had compounds of Americans living separate, distinct lives in Saddam's Baghdad like we've had in Saudi Arabia for decades. 

They did before Aramco's nationalization, afterwards, and still today.

But hey, you and I never worked on a rig on the North Sea, so what Dan Yergin and Anthony Sampson tell us doesn't matter.

[grumbler]

I'm less concerned about whether they're "in" than whether they are "owning and operating oil wells" which was the statement BB replied to.

Since no one is arguing that they are "owning and operating oil wells" in Saudi Arabia, I don't think your distinction has any meaning.

Viking is now arguing (as a weasel from his argument that " [t]here is one oil company in Saudi, that is Saudi Aramco, there are no others" when it was pointed out that there were, in fact, other oil companies in "Saudi") that Shell isn't an oil company because it doesn't own or operate wells in Saudi Arabia.  You may not care that he is arguing this, but I don't understand why you are even participating in the discussion if you don't care.

[grumbler]

The interesting part of the conversation for me is the information about how the oil industry is organized in Saudi Arabia; the information provided by Viking. The usual semantic quibbling about the meaning of the word "in" and the term "oil company" is much less interesting. Yes, Viking is quibbling too, but since he's providing actual information I'm much less concerned about how his idiosyncratic definition differs from your idiosyncratic definition.

Viking was "providing actual information," as I was, and BB is.  The difference is that Viking is making his "actual information" up (like the claim that Shell wasn't present at all in Saudi Arabia) and BB and I are not only giving actual information, but links where you can confirm it.

[The Brain]

[Jacob]

Good point, grumbler. I'm out

[Viking]

Better tell Shell that.  It thinkis it has a presence in "Saudi."

Yes and?

And you said that they were not "in Saudi."  You were wrong.

Whatever they are doing in Saudi is NOT owning and operating oil wells; that is what makes you an oil company. Refinery and Expat pensions? That makes you a chemical or financial services company.

This is what we call a "weasel."  You can't dance around the fact that you said shell wasn't there, and they are.

I don't think I am weasling. Shell are not in saudi as an oil company. The don't own or operate oil wells. That is what I meant when I said they were not "in saudi". I could have used Shell E&P to specify Shell the oil company rather than Shell the refinery or Shell the gas station. But none of you know what E&P is.

Shell is not an oil company in Saudi, it may be doing other things, but it is not an oil company in that country.

Baker, SLB, Halliburton and Weatherford are oilfield service companies in saudi. 

[Barrister]

Where do you get your definition of "oil company" such that oilfield service companies aren't "oil compnies"?

It's a complicated world out there, and ultimately who "owns" the oil rights itself is hardly the most important fact in who does what.