Mar 06, 2014 11:00
viafiddlingfrog,
art,
philosophy,
india,
music,
independence,
rbs,
light,
programming,
arctic,
scotland,
society,
fandom,
vianancylebov,
cities,
life,
predator,
time,
corruption,
advice,
globalwarming,
russia,
sex,
viagominokouhai,
complaints,
meaning,
ukraine,
children,
ethics,
ocean,
links,
gunsnroses,
passwords,
boats,
technology,
cute,
livejournal,
funny,
comics,
video,
epicfail,
conventions,
banking,
depression,
antarctic,
learning,
gender,
robots,
apology,
poverty,
happiness,
mathematics
I managed to track down a sample page of the report I think the figure is based on.
Sure, enough, crew costs per year for a Handy Sized Tanker $1,547k out of total operating costs of $2,828 for a % of 43.3%.
But looking at what’s in operating costs, or rather what’s not in operating costs I’m not sure the 44% figure means much. The % quoted seems to exclude from operating costs fuel and financing costs.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I hear you on the fixed asset verification. When I worked for a power company I was once asked by the new audit trainee how I knew that my fixed asset register was materially correct and that no one had stolen any of the kit.
I replied (rather haughtily, because, auditors) that there was only one asset on my fixed asset register, a 1MW power station, a massively complicated machine weighing several hundred tonnes, and unless he had urgent news that Liverpool and Manchester were suffering a huge black out I could be pretty certain that no one had stolen it. Furthermore, there was a picture of it in the file.
Mark to market on our long term power sale agreements was always the complicated bit. Both for us and for the audit team.
Reply
"I replied (rather haughtily, because, auditors)..." Yeah, I've been on the other end of that a few times!
Reply
I genuinely try not to be discourtious towards auditors. I have often been praised for my diplomacy and restraint but the guy in the story was being a total fudd.
Reply
Leave a comment