Net Income At Saudi Aramco Tops $33 bn in the first half of 2017!

[damirUSBiH + 327]

Saudi Aramco, the world’s largest oil producer, made $33.8bn in net income in the first six months of 2017, according to a media report citing details of the Saudi state energy giant’s finances. The numbers, revealed by Bloomberg, would be the first glimpse into the company’s accounts ahead of a planned initial public offering. According to the report, Saudi Aramco paid the Saudi government a total of $58.4bn in the first half of 2017, including $18.5bn of royalties on its revenue and an additional $39.9bn in income taxes.
 

[franco + 96]

Hm... Nice. Keep going. First the Saudis wanted $60 per barrel(https://on.wsj.com/2IMMrid) Then they wanted $70. (https://on.wsj.com/2GSHjZe)  
Now they want $80. At some point, we'll be back to the Naimi days of $100 being a fair price for a barrel.

[Petar + 76]

OPEC’s fair price is always above the current one.

[Pavel + 384]

One key question in that circle - how weak will USD be vs index in that $100 scenario?

[pinto + 293]

Not as weak as previous cycle if net-crude exporter by that time, though probably no high, positive rho either

[ThunderBlade + 231]

Wonderful music to Crown Prince MBS ears!

[jpZelabal + 63]

Profit = greed. In times of uncertainty they say only Allah knows where the oil prices would be, and when there is their mega ipo they trgt 80 dollars , where they were at 25 to 30 dollars. 

[damirUSBiH + 327]

Profit and power. But things are not going in a good direction for the Middle East.  Iran, Russia, Syria, Israel, Russia, U.S. ... smell of smoke and fire.

[Pavel + 384]

Aramco is the most important lever in the hands of MbS. Mohammed bin Salman is hungry and ambitious. He has risen from relative obscurity to consolidate massive power in a short space of time, thanks to his father's rise to King in 2015. Already responsible for the war in Yemen, MbSalman now wants to sell shares in Aramco to fund his McKinsey-sponsored economic reform programme as well as a huge sovereign fund that will help Saudi Arabia sustain a future less dependent on oil. So far he has already shown..

[franco + 96]

Their accounts and profits were a strictly confidential secret. Until now. And, now we can see the Aramco is the world’s most profitable company.

[ThunderBlade + 231]

And that will be the one rare glimpse we ever get into oil and its magical benefactors of goodwill.

[Seleskya + 50]

I like how that Aramco info was "leaked" ... haha. Nothing 'leaks' from Aramco. 

[TraderTate + 186]

But if it wasn't 'leaked', why are the Saudi's saying the information is inaccurate?

[Rodent + 1,424]

1 minute ago, TraderTate said:

But if it wasn't 'leaked', why are the Saudi's saying the information is inaccurate?

What better way to confirm it was a leak?

[Royalblood + 14]

but the key figures no one's mentioned are the production costs and the cash from operations. 

Cash from ops is over $52 billion, compared to Exxon's $16 billion.

And that's because production is $4 to $5 per barrel ... 

Numbers certainly weren't 'leaked' without someone being ordered to do so. Obviously, it makes Aramco look good ahead of its public offering. 

[TraderTate + 186]

so can it attract the targeted $2 trillion offering with these numbers?

[Rodent + 1,424]

unknown, as I didn't see anything about reserves in these figures.

3 hours ago, TraderTate said:

so can it attract the targeted $2 trillion offering with these numbers?

 

[Rodent + 1,424]

3 hours ago, Royalblood said:

Cash from ops is over $52 billion, compared to Exxon's $16 billion.

And that's because production is $4 to $5 per barrel ... 

• That $52 billion was for H1 2017, when oil was trading in the low $50s.
• Meanwhile, Shell's cash from ops was about half that figure--except they only produced a quarter of the oil Aramco did. 

[BeamMeUp + 11]

39 minutes ago, Rodent said:

• That $52 billion was for H1 2017, when oil was trading in the low $50s.
• Meanwhile, Shell's cash from ops was about half that figure--except they only produced a quarter of the oil Aramco did. 

So Aramco cost/bbl is $4, Shell is $20.  But Shell is raking in more cash per barrel when its costs per barrel are 5 times that of Aramco? I don't understand.

[Missy + 43]

5 hours ago, franco said:

Hm... Nice. Keep going. First the Saudis wanted $60 per barrel(https://on.wsj.com/2IMMrid) Then they wanted $70. (https://on.wsj.com/2GSHjZe)  
Now they want $80. At some point, we'll be back to the Naimi days of $100 being a fair price for a barrel.

We'll never be back to $100 oil. The costs no longer justify this, therefore producers will always be able to undercut each other on costs.

[Rodent + 1,424]

On 4/13/2018 at 12:08 PM, TraderTate said:

so can it attract the targeted $2 trillion offering with these numbers?

One analyst is saying oil would need to be at $120 per barrel to generate the 2 trillion Saudi thinks Aramco is worth. 

Also saw Aramco's disappointing downstream results. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Aramco-H1-2017-Downstream-Profit-Significantly-Trailed-Big-Oil.html

[TraderTate + 186]

yep, there's another thread on that

[Ivy Chang 0]

bin Salman may be hungry and ambitious; does he really understand people? When an IPO begins at $80/per share, how many average persons in the U.S. will buy Aramco shares? Maybe they'll buy 1 or 2 shares.

[TraderTate + 186]

they want $80/barrel oil prices, not share prices, just to clarify.