Talk:PetroChina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Energy     (Rated Start-Class) Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article is on a subject of mid importance within energy. Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Business and Economics (Rated stub-Class) Business and economics Portal This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. WikiProject Companies (Rated stub-Class) Companies Portal This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject China     (Rated Start-Class) This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

PetroChina has huge loss from refining operations on domestic market caused by regulated motor fuel prices, so, obviously, main reason of it's high profitability is e&p segment and low taxes on oil and gas production.

Do you have proof to back it up or is this just mindless babbling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.245.62 (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ptrochina.gif

Image:Ptrochina.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed text

I removed the following text from the intro:

, to make PetroChina the largest company in the world and the first company with market capitalization at USD $1 trillion.^[1]

We're looking at NYSE:PTR, right? I see that the 52 week high is 266.81 (in November 2007). I do not see any stock split or anything like that. There are (and were) 1.79 billion shares. Therefore, the total market capitalization would have been $266.81 * 1.79 * 10^9 = $477.6 billion. This would still make it smaller than Exxon-Mobil's peak of $518 billion (and current $495 billion). Also, since then, PTR's total market cap has fallen to $319 billion (many thought that, like many parts of China's economy, the company was overvalued.

Did BBC or somebody else miscalculate? Or did they use some cute manipulation with PPP? PPP is overused and not relevant here. Unless the company gives some discount to Chinese citizens based on purchasing power, the price of their stock is the same in any country. Ufwuct (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)