Talk:PetroChina/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 $319 billion (many thought that, like many parts of China's economy, the company was overvalued.
Did BBC or somebody else miscalculate? Or did they use some cute manipulation with PPP? PPP is overused and not relevant here. Unless the company gives some discount to Chinese citizens based on purchasing power, the price of their stock is the same in any country. Ufwuct (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Simple, because PetroChina is listed at NYSE, Hong Kong, and Shanghai, so the total of the three is over US$ 1 trillion.Mxiong (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- CNN today also said that PC was the first 'trillion-dollar' company, before its stocks slipped back. Seems like something worth mentioning:) Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like it's been completely removed now, has this been debunked? More recent articles have been talking about Apple possibly becoming the first trillion dollar company, so I guess this old news... Forbes, Daily Mail. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
What is PetroChina doing in sustainability engineering?
I would like the major fossil fuel company articles to indicate how they intend to transition to carbon-neutral fuels such as this work and "power to gas." I need to know whether they support emerging chemical engineering research such as catalysts for carbon-neutral transportation fuels, whether they are working on compressed air energy storage such as [1] and [2], airborne wind turbines such as [3], and on extracting carbon from seawater such as this PARC method in order to solve their long-term corporate viability issues. I do not believe it is possible to have a truly balanced article on a fossil fuel company without some indication of their long term prospects. Tim AFS (talk) 04:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I also need to know whether they are developing electrical grid energy storage in their existing expended oil and gas caverns along with mineshafts and mines for pumped-storage hydroelectricity where ordinary hydroelectric power is unavailable. Tim AFS (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)