The lesson that IBM learned (the hard way) was that there is more money to be made from telling people how to use computers than selling (and making them) themselves. So, perhaps, the big oil firms will transition into service providers.
If they don't have this capability right now they can afford to buy it. Buying Halliburton might be expensive, but not for Exxon. Not controlling supplies may even be a blessing in disguise, as the stocks decrease the value of the holdings declines, but the amount need to be paid to service providers to extract it goes up. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
So, perhaps, the big oil firms will transition into service providers.
This trend has been clear for some time. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
How do the oil producing states actually produce the oil? Do they have the knowhow and technical facilities or do they subcontract to specialized firms?
My understanding is that some do - Aramco, Petrobras - other don't - Pemex.
But generally, oil service companies have more access than oil majors. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
What I doubt is how much unique expertise those western companies have to offer to national companies. I'm not convinced the market is so big.
As the example of LNG shows, this is a very rare and hard to replicate competence - no LNG project has ever been run without an oil major involved and in charge.
That requires managerial competence, technical competence (in both cases to hire and control the sub-contractors), a very strong balance sheet, and political 'survafe' (to deal with politicians locally and at home). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
