2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
30 päivää sitten
‧28 min
3,6463 NOK/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.11.
3,64%Tuotto/v
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·3 t sittenMaybe a bit of a newbie here but I'm trying to sell and the sale isn't going through, I placed a sell order before opening but the price naturally fell, does this remain as a sell order until that price is reached? It says I still hold the shares, thoughts?
·23 t sitten
Yes — the graph is legitimate, but it should not be read as three equally probable forecasts. It is Sokkeldirektoratet's scenario analysis for the entire Norwegian shelf, not specifically Equinor. They explicitly state that the uncertainty is too great for a regular realistic forecast and that the curves should instead span a possible outcome space. The central message, however, is quite robust: Norwegian oil and gas production has likely passed or is very close to its long-term peak and will fall towards 2050. All three scenarios show this. I would read the three curves like this Low is a rather bleak scenario: low exploration, few new projects, weak investment willingness, and limited technological development. In that case, almost all production disappears by 2050. It is possible, but not what I would use as the main scenario. Basis is roughly “continue approximately as today”. Production falls from just over 4 million barrels of oil equivalents/day to around 1.6 million in 2050, thus more than a halving. This is close to the development the authorities previously called Forventning. High requires active counteraction against the natural decline curve: much exploration, more discoveries, development of discoveries, enhanced recovery, new technology, and continued investment willingness. In that case, production is kept relatively high for another approximately a decade and lands around 2.7 million boe/d in 2050. In Sokkeldirektoratet's underlying material, this corresponds to approximately a halving from 2025. The interesting thing is that 2025 actually became a rather good exploration year. Sokkeldirektoratet describes it as one of the better ones in several years, but at the same time emphasizes that continued high production requires more exploration and investments. This means I would not consider “Lav” as the obvious development today. But this is more important for your Equinor-case than it first seems In the 10-year perspective, the graph is actually an argument against the simple idea we discussed earlier: “Hold Equinor for ten years and let production/profit grow.” That's not really the case. Equinor must continuously replace depletion. An oil field is not like a factory that can produce the same amount for all eternity. Pressure and reserves decrease, and new fields/discoveries must replace production. But there is also a very interesting opposite effect: Decreasing Norwegian production can be positive for the price of the remaining production. If Europe's demand for gas falls slower than Norwegian production and Russian gas simultaneously remains limited, Norwegian gas becomes an increasingly scarce strategic resource. That is why I would primarily distinguish between volume and value. For example, it is entirely possible that Equinor in ten years produces 10–20 % less but still earns more money per share, because gas/oil is more expensive, less profitable assets have disappeared, buybacks have reduced the number of shares, and new projects have higher returns. For your ten-year thought, I would therefore adjust the reasoning I would no longer describe EQNR as: “buy 395 → wait ten years → maybe 800.” Rather: 2026–30: very strong Norwegian production + potentially high energy prices → large cash flows → dividends and buybacks. 2030–36: production starts to become an increasingly significant headwind → buybacks and new projects must compensate for decline → the scarcity value of gas can simultaneously rise. After ~2035: then the question of whether Equinor has succeeded in replacing reserves/production and what Europe actually pays for gas becomes much more important. This actually makes the “Høy” curve quite important for a long-term Equinor owner. To get there requires exactly what one wants to see from Equinor: exploration, technological development, small satellite fields connected to existing infrastructure, and high capital discipline. And a detail I find particularly interesting for our previous winter gas case: Sokkeldirektoratet says that the share of gas in total Norwegian production is expected to continue to increase. So the graph makes me somewhat less positive about “buy and forget for 20 years”, but not significantly less positive about Equinor in the 3–10 year perspective. In that horizon, there is still much production left and much capital can be returned to shareholders before decline becomes the dominant problem.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
30 päivää sitten
‧28 min
3,6463 NOK/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.11.
3,64%Tuotto/v
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·3 t sittenMaybe a bit of a newbie here but I'm trying to sell and the sale isn't going through, I placed a sell order before opening but the price naturally fell, does this remain as a sell order until that price is reached? It says I still hold the shares, thoughts?
- ·23 t sittenYes — the graph is legitimate, but it should not be read as three equally probable forecasts. It is Sokkeldirektoratet's scenario analysis for the entire Norwegian shelf, not specifically Equinor. They explicitly state that the uncertainty is too great for a regular realistic forecast and that the curves should instead span a possible outcome space. The central message, however, is quite robust: Norwegian oil and gas production has likely passed or is very close to its long-term peak and will fall towards 2050. All three scenarios show this. I would read the three curves like this Low is a rather bleak scenario: low exploration, few new projects, weak investment willingness, and limited technological development. In that case, almost all production disappears by 2050. It is possible, but not what I would use as the main scenario. Basis is roughly “continue approximately as today”. Production falls from just over 4 million barrels of oil equivalents/day to around 1.6 million in 2050, thus more than a halving. This is close to the development the authorities previously called Forventning. High requires active counteraction against the natural decline curve: much exploration, more discoveries, development of discoveries, enhanced recovery, new technology, and continued investment willingness. In that case, production is kept relatively high for another approximately a decade and lands around 2.7 million boe/d in 2050. In Sokkeldirektoratet's underlying material, this corresponds to approximately a halving from 2025. The interesting thing is that 2025 actually became a rather good exploration year. Sokkeldirektoratet describes it as one of the better ones in several years, but at the same time emphasizes that continued high production requires more exploration and investments. This means I would not consider “Lav” as the obvious development today. But this is more important for your Equinor-case than it first seems In the 10-year perspective, the graph is actually an argument against the simple idea we discussed earlier: “Hold Equinor for ten years and let production/profit grow.” That's not really the case. Equinor must continuously replace depletion. An oil field is not like a factory that can produce the same amount for all eternity. Pressure and reserves decrease, and new fields/discoveries must replace production. But there is also a very interesting opposite effect: Decreasing Norwegian production can be positive for the price of the remaining production. If Europe's demand for gas falls slower than Norwegian production and Russian gas simultaneously remains limited, Norwegian gas becomes an increasingly scarce strategic resource. That is why I would primarily distinguish between volume and value. For example, it is entirely possible that Equinor in ten years produces 10–20 % less but still earns more money per share, because gas/oil is more expensive, less profitable assets have disappeared, buybacks have reduced the number of shares, and new projects have higher returns. For your ten-year thought, I would therefore adjust the reasoning I would no longer describe EQNR as: “buy 395 → wait ten years → maybe 800.” Rather: 2026–30: very strong Norwegian production + potentially high energy prices → large cash flows → dividends and buybacks. 2030–36: production starts to become an increasingly significant headwind → buybacks and new projects must compensate for decline → the scarcity value of gas can simultaneously rise. After ~2035: then the question of whether Equinor has succeeded in replacing reserves/production and what Europe actually pays for gas becomes much more important. This actually makes the “Høy” curve quite important for a long-term Equinor owner. To get there requires exactly what one wants to see from Equinor: exploration, technological development, small satellite fields connected to existing infrastructure, and high capital discipline. And a detail I find particularly interesting for our previous winter gas case: Sokkeldirektoratet says that the share of gas in total Norwegian production is expected to continue to increase. So the graph makes me somewhat less positive about “buy and forget for 20 years”, but not significantly less positive about Equinor in the 3–10 year perspective. In that horizon, there is still much production left and much capital can be returned to shareholders before decline becomes the dominant problem.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
30 päivää sitten
‧28 min
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
3,6463 NOK/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.11.
3,64%Tuotto/v
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·3 t sittenMaybe a bit of a newbie here but I'm trying to sell and the sale isn't going through, I placed a sell order before opening but the price naturally fell, does this remain as a sell order until that price is reached? It says I still hold the shares, thoughts?
- ·23 t sittenYes — the graph is legitimate, but it should not be read as three equally probable forecasts. It is Sokkeldirektoratet's scenario analysis for the entire Norwegian shelf, not specifically Equinor. They explicitly state that the uncertainty is too great for a regular realistic forecast and that the curves should instead span a possible outcome space. The central message, however, is quite robust: Norwegian oil and gas production has likely passed or is very close to its long-term peak and will fall towards 2050. All three scenarios show this. I would read the three curves like this Low is a rather bleak scenario: low exploration, few new projects, weak investment willingness, and limited technological development. In that case, almost all production disappears by 2050. It is possible, but not what I would use as the main scenario. Basis is roughly “continue approximately as today”. Production falls from just over 4 million barrels of oil equivalents/day to around 1.6 million in 2050, thus more than a halving. This is close to the development the authorities previously called Forventning. High requires active counteraction against the natural decline curve: much exploration, more discoveries, development of discoveries, enhanced recovery, new technology, and continued investment willingness. In that case, production is kept relatively high for another approximately a decade and lands around 2.7 million boe/d in 2050. In Sokkeldirektoratet's underlying material, this corresponds to approximately a halving from 2025. The interesting thing is that 2025 actually became a rather good exploration year. Sokkeldirektoratet describes it as one of the better ones in several years, but at the same time emphasizes that continued high production requires more exploration and investments. This means I would not consider “Lav” as the obvious development today. But this is more important for your Equinor-case than it first seems In the 10-year perspective, the graph is actually an argument against the simple idea we discussed earlier: “Hold Equinor for ten years and let production/profit grow.” That's not really the case. Equinor must continuously replace depletion. An oil field is not like a factory that can produce the same amount for all eternity. Pressure and reserves decrease, and new fields/discoveries must replace production. But there is also a very interesting opposite effect: Decreasing Norwegian production can be positive for the price of the remaining production. If Europe's demand for gas falls slower than Norwegian production and Russian gas simultaneously remains limited, Norwegian gas becomes an increasingly scarce strategic resource. That is why I would primarily distinguish between volume and value. For example, it is entirely possible that Equinor in ten years produces 10–20 % less but still earns more money per share, because gas/oil is more expensive, less profitable assets have disappeared, buybacks have reduced the number of shares, and new projects have higher returns. For your ten-year thought, I would therefore adjust the reasoning I would no longer describe EQNR as: “buy 395 → wait ten years → maybe 800.” Rather: 2026–30: very strong Norwegian production + potentially high energy prices → large cash flows → dividends and buybacks. 2030–36: production starts to become an increasingly significant headwind → buybacks and new projects must compensate for decline → the scarcity value of gas can simultaneously rise. After ~2035: then the question of whether Equinor has succeeded in replacing reserves/production and what Europe actually pays for gas becomes much more important. This actually makes the “Høy” curve quite important for a long-term Equinor owner. To get there requires exactly what one wants to see from Equinor: exploration, technological development, small satellite fields connected to existing infrastructure, and high capital discipline. And a detail I find particularly interesting for our previous winter gas case: Sokkeldirektoratet says that the share of gas in total Norwegian production is expected to continue to increase. So the graph makes me somewhat less positive about “buy and forget for 20 years”, but not significantly less positive about Equinor in the 3–10 year perspective. In that horizon, there is still much production left and much capital can be returned to shareholders before decline becomes the dominant problem.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt