[marcusverus]

Yup. Every field that is a necessary input. Of course, physics could count every company that produced oil, whereas financial services could only count the specific activities that were financed. Giving Exxon a loan for a new office building does not mean you get credit for all of their oil production revenues.

[airstrike]

Capital markets and banks fund every single project undertaken by public companies. The only other alternative is private funding, but in which case it's still financing and investors objectively get credit for it – it's why they get rewarded!

This exercise is completely pointless. At best, it serves to show people's biases.

[marcusverus]

Physics unlocks oil production in that it is an absolute prerequisite. Debt funding isn't an absolute prerequisite, just the preferred funding approach.

This exercise provides valuable data, for example would you rather government research dollars go toward academic research into Chemical Engineering, Physics, or Aerospace? Data from this sort of study can inform that sort of decision.

[airstrike]

> Debt funding isn't an absolute prerequisite, just the preferred funding approach.

Right, but I'm not arguing the Oil & Gas industry depends on debt funding. I'm arguing it depends on funding, period. And that funding is obtained through capital markets, generally, which includes equity raises as well. Even in private markets, someone will be performing valuation on the potential project and calculating expected returns, which will drive the decision on whether to extract the oil – and whether it's done today or in the future.

You need funding even to do basic research, so organizing all of that is a key aspect of the process, just as managing these businesses is.

> This exercise provides valuable data

Does it? That seems like an assumption. It attempts to provide valuable data, but some of us are arguing it doesn't. It could be garbage in, garbage out. Bad data is worse than no data.

> would you rather government research dollars go toward academic research into Chemical Engineering, Physics, or Aerospace?

I think this is a pretty limited framework for making such big decisions. I'd prefer deep research into each of these industries with qualitative discussion on which are the most promising ones for the next 25-50 years, an analysis of what other governments are doing, what is best covered by the private sector, what is the best form of government investment, and the expected return on any of these investments. Anything else is just too shortsighted.