Market capitalization and enterprise value of the world's leading publicly traded oil and gas corporations as an indicator of the investment attractiveness of domestic vertically integrated oil and gas companies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subject. The article considers the market capitalization and the enterprise value of the twenty five leading publicly traded oil and gas companies within 2006 through 2018. Objectives. The aim of the study is to determine the current level of values of the market capitalization and the enterprise value of the leading publicly traded oil and gas companies, as well as identify the key trends in their changes within the studied period, and identify the factors that have caused these changes. Methods. For the study, I used comparative, and financial and economic analyses, and generalization of materials of the companies' consolidated financial statements. Results. The article determines the changes in the market capitalization and enterprise value of the leading publicly traded corporations in the industry, and identifies the main factors that contributed to the transformation. A decrease in market capitalization was revealed. Comparison of corporations from the USA, Canada, Europe, China, Brazil and Russia shows the country factor impact. The market valuation of independent companies is more affected by changes in oil prices than the capitalization of integrated corporations. Large transactions with assets cause a change in the balance sheet value of equity capital and can affect capitalization. It is established that the period under review is characterized by an increase in the total net debt of companies. This serves as a negative factor for the total market valuation. Conclusions. The aggregate market valuation of the leading publicly traded oil and gas corporations does not get changed significantly over an extended period. But the industry increases the debt burden, which negatively affects the market capitalization of companies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".