Solstad has a solvency problem not (just) a liquidity problem…

The motions of Grace, the hardness of the heart; external circumstances.

Pascal, Pensee 507

“Lend without limit, to solvent firms, against good collateral, at ‘high rates’.”

Bagehot

I disagree with Solstad on this:

It has therefore been decided to commence negotiations with lenders and other stakeholders to improve the overall liquidity situation and to create a robust long-term platform for the Company.

Solstad doesn’t just have a liquidity problem it has a solvency problem. They may have enough broker valuation certificates to keep the auditors happy that the assets add up to the liabilities in a balance sheet sense, but in reality does anyone really believe that the fleet can service ~NOK 30bn in debt? Solstad fails a balance sheet test under a realistic set of assumptions. The fact is if the banks really thought they could sell the vessels for the outstanding debt and be made whole they would have done so long ago. This situation has been allowed to continue, despite clear evidence to the public protestations of its success, because the creditors have no good options. A liquidity problem can be solved with more short-term measures but a solvency problem is endemic and structural and requires a fundamental adjustment. Bagehot’s dictum of lending freely when in crisis relied on the collateral being of high quality and the crisis being temporary in nature, a situation that clearly does not apply here where there has been a structural industry shift.

I’m struggling to see why you would create Solstad today in its current form and my base view is if you can’t answer that question then you don’t have a viable business model in the current market. The scale of the credit write-downs that need to occur here to keep the business alive are just so large it is hard to know if Solstad are just good at PR or good at avoiding reality. I don’t know what the number is but the debt must need to be reduced somewhere in the range of NOK 15-20bn to make Solstad a viable business? The rump of Deep Sea Supply will never be a viable business. And then it needs equity…

The only way to get equity is to find an investor who is going to potentially get such a big return on their investment that the creditors get nearly nothing. There is probably someone willing to make that trade but it is a small pool and it offers the creditors nothing. Market sentiment, as opposed to the actual market, has worsened substantially since MMA pulled of the most successful OSV equity based solution. There is no guarantee that Solstad will survive this encounter with creditors intact and almost a certainty a very different beast will emerge. I am not even sure now splitting the subsea fleet from the supply tonnage will make much difference? The subsea fleet has a large number of marginal vessels that still need scale to survive and given many are being hawked out on windfarm work there is no guarantee their value will “recover” in percentage terms more than a supply vessel. And when some of them come of contract the day rates will also be dramatically reduced.

Systemically it will be interesting to see what happens here. The banks will be desperate not to be handed the keys to Solstad, but as Pacific Radiance in Singapore has shown getting someone to come in behind the banks in the capital structure is tough (with exceptionally good reason). The size of the write-offs the banks would have to take to induce this will make for some uncomfortable meetings in the coming days. Surely soon auditors will force companies to use market transactions (like the recent SDSD FS Arundel for $2.8m!) as the actual realistic value not this “willing buyer/willing seller” ruse?

Not everyone can survive a downturn on the scale we have seen. If the banks somehow, and it will be hard, find a way of keeping the money flowing then all it guarantees is that another company will go. And it will have to be another large “unthinkable” one at that, because there is simply not enough work, and unlikely to be for the next couple of years, for all the supply companies to survive.

The other missing piece of this puzzle is the changing financial structure of the industry and the huge amounts of equity that need to be raised to keep it viable. All the banks behind Solstad have no intention of lending to similar companies for the forseeable future, and every bank is the same, this is a systemic issue directly related to depressed vessel values. But as the contract coverage has shortened so the economic rationale for leverage has also disappeared: lending against a PSV on a 5 x 365 contract is very different to one on a 270 day contract. That sort of spot market risk is essentially equity risk and the average day rate needed to make this economically viable is significantly above current levels. An industry which needs to cover 365 costs on a 270 day utilisation year is again a very different economic model from the past for offshore supply and it only reinforces the size of the adjustment the industry still requires. This is an industry that will significantly delverage going forward and that will mean far more (expensive) equity levels and lower asset values.

An interesting conundrum is whether Standard Drilling and Solstad can really co-exist? I mean either you can buy vessels for a few million and bring them to the most sophisticated market in the world and make money against historic tonnage, or you can’t? At the moment both companies are a financial disaster but surely a recovery story really only works for one company as a logical proposition? There is no indication that the Solstad vessels are trading at a premium in the PSV market to the Standard Drilling/ Fletcher vessels which gives you an idea of what the Solstad fleet would be worth in an open market sale. The same is true for the high-end AHTS fleet where rates remain locked at marginal costs (or below on a 365/economic basis) and competition shows no sign of abating.

Solstad has also provided a natural experiment into the limits of synergy realisation versus the depth of this industry depression: quite simply consolidation alone will not be sufficient. All year Solstdad has highlighted the cost synergies it has achieved by combining with DeepSea Supply (in default before the first quarterly results) and Farstad (in default before the second quarterly results). But these are insignificant in relation to overall running costs and the level of day rate reductions E&P companies have extracted from OSV (and rig) operators. Pretending that consolidation alone is an answer now lacks credibility. New business models need to emerge and a fundamental factor of these will be collectively less supply and capacity.

The Solstad announcement presages a horror season of Q3 reporting coming up across the OSV sector. As I said some time back the summer simply hasn’t come in terms of the volume or value of work for either the supply firms or the subsea contractors. The cash crunch is coming. New money will be come on extortionate terms and prices to reflect the risks involved and not everyone will get it. Rebalancing is beginning to start in earnest and the fact is this market is the “recovery”: a slightly busier summer to build up a cash reserve to cover the costs of an expensive an under-utilised winter. The new normal – lower for longer is the reality of offshore supply and subsea.

Shale versus offshore: SLB version

In 1984, a cellphone weighed two pounds, was nothing but a telephone, and cost $10,277 in today’s $. Today, a smartphone is also a camera, radio, television set, alarm clock, newspaper, photo album, voice recorder, map, and compass, and cost as little as $99…

Human Progress

A lot of press being made about the Schlumberger comments regarding shale reaching its production limits. Coincidentally(?) The Economist has a leader and an article on the same this week. I don’t have the technical knowledge to get into the Parent/Child well productivity debate  but I note this is not the first time the death of shale productivity has been forecast (particularly eagerly by the offshore community for obvious reasons).

What was less reported was this nugget from the same SLB results:

Offshore Angola, Sand Management Services deployed a combination of technologies for Total E&P Angola to save more than $100 million and gain an estimated 1 million BOE of incremental production in the Kaombo deepwater development. Combining the OptiPac* openhole Alternate Path‡ gravel-pack service with OSMP* OptiPac service mechanical packers enabled the customer to achieve target production with six wells instead of the planned eight. This combination of technologies enabled effective zonal isolation of complex stacked reservoirs in one field, while in another field the water shutoff capability of the technology enabled accelerated production. [Emphasis added]

SLB appears to have developed a technology that has reduced the number of wells by 25%? That will signficantly lower the cost of the development but at the cost of rig and vessel days as well as lower subsea well orders if applicable in other developments.

This is the future of offshore. More work onshore and less offshore proportionately where the costs and risks are significantly higher. Productivity increases like this, not based on selling high capital equipment below cost, will be important for the industry.

I am also not convinced shale productivity is decreasing. The declining demand (and margins) faced by SLB and HAL could well be the result of larger E&P companies internalizing costs and driving them down as they seek to “mass produce” shale oil. We shall see… The BHGE rig count was at levels not seen since 2015 last week.

There is actually a much bigger change going on in the supply chain. In the old offshore geographically dispersed fields and rigs made using contractors like Schlumberger the logical option from both a cost and skills point-of-view. But when you are committed to a region like the Permian (or Bakken etc) you have critical mass and it makes sense to internalise those skills and capabilities.

Shale has dropped significantly in cost terms and a plateau of some sort should be expected. But shale is a mass production technology and the slow relentless grind of an annual 1 or 2% productivity input is still a real issue for offshore where each development is to a certain extent custom designed and therefore subject to limited economies of scale. That is true for the rigs and vessels throughout the supply chain as much as it is for the field lay-out and wells. Offshore needs companies like SLB to produce innovations as described above but the future of offshore is having less assets do more for similar outcomes.

Unconventional verus offshore demand at the margin…

Economic growth occurs whenever people take resources and rearrange them in ways that are more valuable. A useful metaphor for production in an economy comes from the kitchen. To create valuable final products, we mix inexpensive ingredients together according to a recipe. The cooking one can do is limited by the supply of ingredients, and most cooking in the economy produces undesirable side effects. If economic growth could be achieved only by doing more and more of the same kind of cooking, we would eventually run out of raw materials and suffer from unacceptable levels of pollution and nuisance. Human history teaches us, however, that economic growth springs from better recipes, not just from more cooking. New recipes generally produce fewer unpleasant side effects and generate more economic value per unit of raw material…

Every generation has perceived the limits to growth that finite resources and undesirable side effects would pose if no new recipes or ideas were discovered. And every generation has underestimated the potential for finding new recipes and ideas. We consistently fail to grasp how many ideas remain to be discovered. The difficulty is the same one we have with compounding. Possibilities do not add up. They multiply.

Paul Romer (Nobel Prize winner in Economics 2018)

Good article in the $FT today on Shell’s attitude to US shale production:

Growing oil and gas production from shale fields will act as a “balance” for deepwater projects, the new head of Royal Dutch Shell’s US business said, as the energy major strives for flexibility in the transition to cleaner fuels. Gretchen Watkins said drilling far beneath oceans in the US Gulf of Mexico, Brazil and Nigeria secured revenues for the longer-term, but tapping shale reserves in the US, Canada and Argentina enabled nimble decision-making.

“The role that [the shale business] plays in Shell’s portfolio is one of being a good balance for deepwater,” Ms Watkins said in her first interview since she joined the Anglo-Dutch major in May…

Shell is allocating between $2bn and $3bn every year to the shale business, which is about 10 per cent of the company’s annual capital expenditure until 2020 and half of its expected spending on deepwater projects. [Emphasis added].

Notice the importance of investing in the energy transition as well. For oil companies this is important and not merely rhetoric. Recycling cash generated from higher margin oil into products that will ensure the survival of the firm longer term even if at a lower return level is currently in vogue for large E&P companies. 5 years ago a large proportion of that shale budget would have gone to offshore, and 100% of the energy transition budget would have gone to upstream.

The graph at the top from Wood MacKenzie is an illustration of this and the corollary to the declining offshore rig numbers I mentioned here. Offshore is an industry in the middle of a period of huge structural change as it’s core users open up a vast new production frontier unimaginable only a short period before. The only certainty associated with this is lower structural profits for the industry than existed ex ante.

Note also the split that the – are making between high CapEx deepwater projects and shale. Shell’s deal yesterday with Noreco was a classic case of getting out of a sizable business squarely in the middle of these: capital-intensive and not scalable (but still a great business). PE style companies will run these assets for cash and seem less concerned about the decom liabilities.

You can also see this play out in terms of generating future supply and the importance of unconventional in this waterfall:

Shale production growth

As you can see from the graph above even under best case assumptions shale is set to take around 45% of new production growth. When the majority of the offshore fleet was being built if you had drawn a graph like this people would have thought you were mad – and you would have been – it just highlights the enormous increase in productivity in shale. All this adds up to a lack of demand momentum for more marginal offshore projects. The E&P companies that are investing, like Noreco, have less scale and resources and a higher cost of capital which will flow through the supply chain in terms of higher margin requirements to get investment approval. This means a smaller quantity of approved projects as higher return requirements means a smaller number of possible projects.

Don’t believe the scare stories about reserves! The market has a way of adjusting (although I am not arguing it is a perfect mechanism!):

Running Out of Oil.png

Long-term North Sea subsea demand…

One of the reasons I don’t believe smaller contractors can survive in the North Sea is the change in rig demand. You can argue, although I wouldn’t, that there is going to be a boom in rig demand that might happen quickly. But for subsea to grow there has to be a CapEx boom, and unless someone can explain to me how that happens without a surge in rigs working then clearly that isn’t happening anytime soon. Funding will run out for marginal contractors long before the rigs generate enough work at this rate given the lag time between rig and subsea projects.

I made the above graph from the Baker Hugher Rig Count. The data is stark and shows that based on current rig levels the UK subsea industry must face a large contraction in construction and tie-in work in the upcoming months. The UK rig count peaked in Jan 2013 at 22 working rigs, that has dropped to 7 in Sep 18. In Norway, as can be seen from the dark blue area, the rig count peaked in Dec 12 at 25, reached that again in Sep 13, and apart from an aberration of 9 in Oct 16 has never really dropped below the upper teens, although there are currently 13 working.

The UK sector has seen peak-to-trough declines far in excess of Norwegian levels where demand has been more constant. There are a host of reasons for this including tax and industrial policy that I don’t want to get into: but the net result is clear that in Norway offshore activity is far less volatile in demand terms. Exposure as a pure UK subsea business means accepting a large decrease in the size of the opportunity.

As a follow-up to my thoughts yesterday clearly this puts Bibby under pressure. Bibby’s core competency of diving is useless in Norway (as the company has no NORSOK compliant dive vessel) and it has been unable to crack the ROV led market against DeepOcean, Reach and Ocean Installer, all of whom have strong Equinor connections and have made substantial local investments. In the UKCS a large amount of the recent rig work has been concentrated on West-of-Shetland work where there is little, if any, diving involved in the projects.

Boskalis recently won the contract for the Tyra redevelopment subsea (including diving) scope. Bibby did the original work on Tyra and it was surely a high profile priority for them to win? IRM diving has never been that profitable but the project work was. Bibby may have a large hedge fund as a shareholder (and debt owner) but that doesn’t help them. Putting that you have your shareholders’ support on the accounts only highlights it is needed to be regarded as a going concern by your auditors (necessary if you aren’t going to write the debt off). As Vard found to their dismay having a large hedge fund back a diving venture is no guarantee of getting paid when they decide to exit the industry. Customers signing large value orders over a multi-year period with Bibby may rightly be nervous that the company has the financial strength to finish their contract. Work-in-progress is merely an unsecured creditor in insolvency event.

It’s not good for Ocean Installer either. Whereas Bibby is a specialist in one area of the market OI is a generalist contractor that relied on a booming market. It has no rigid-pipelay spread or differentiating competitive advantage. Anyone can hire a vessel with a big crane and some shore based engineers and provide exactly what they do. Because of this they are a price taker in a competitive market, and the price at the moment is low. Providing day-rate engineers in China is a fully low-rent activity. Equinor has Reach and DeepOcean and whether they want to support OI as a charity project remains to be seen.

My thesis isn’t complicated (or original): when the market boomed it drew in new entrants as demand expanded rapidly and money flowed through the industry. But now the demand isn’t there and given the scale of the pullback it is the marginal contractors, the ones who entered the industry because of the booming conditions, who will be the first to go. The market adjustment from the supply side of subsea has a lot of adjustment to go before it catches up with the amount of project work that can be generated based on current rig working levels.

If only it wasn’t a ship…

For those who want a little clarity re: my comments on Standard Drilling yesterday it really comes down to this paragraph in their most recent financial results:

Looking at the performance of the vessels there is a positive EBITDA (adj.) excluding start-up cost, dry dock, special survey and maintenance in Q2 18 of USD 0,4 million (Q2 1.7 negative USD 1,1 million) from chartering out the 5 large –sized PSV’s. Including the ownership in PSV Opportunity AS (25.53%) and in Northern PSV AS (25.53%) the group netted a positive EBITDA (adj.) excluding start-up cost, dry dock, special survey and maintenance of USD 0,2 million (Q2 17 negative USD 1,5 million).

To put this in laymans terms: the company has calculated an adjusted cash flow and said “hey, if the costs of dry docks, survey, and maintenance were excluded from the running of these assets we would have made 0.x million”…Excluding maintenance????!…But then it wouldn’t be a ship would it?  It would be like a property which you purchased in a property crash and then held onto paying only land tax until the value recovered? But the whole point of why buying a ship in a downturn is really risky is because it has running costs so excluding those is just an offence to common sense. EBITDA is a flawed metric at the best of times, adjusted EBITDA is close to meaningless.

Also, as can be seen from PSV Opportunity I, the start-up, dry dock, survey costs etc are material so excluding them is also deliberate obsfucation:

PSV OP I Structure.png

Source: PSV Opportunity I Information Memorandum

If only they hadn’t purchased ships … but they did…

The slow fade to obscurity and Gell-Mann amnesia…

Dum loquimur, fugerit invida ætas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero.

(While we speak, envious time will have fled; seize today, trust as little as possible in tomorrow.)

Horace

For this will to deceive that is in things luminous may manifest itself likewise in retrospect and so by sleight of some fixed part of a journey already accomplished may also post men to fraudulent destinies.

Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian 

Amid the seeming confusion of our mysterious world, individuals are so nicely adjusted to a system, and systems to one another, and to a whole, that by stepping aside for a moment man exposes himself to a fearful risk of losing his place forever.

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

Michael Crichton

Fearnley Securities resumes OSV coverage as slow pickup starts to take shape…Analyst Gustaf Amle places buy ratings on Tidewater and Standard Drilling at a time market is experiencing a slow recovery…

Tradewinds

Energy companies and investors are focused on profits and reluctant to boost spending even after crude prices surged to four-year highs, a senior Goldman Sachs banker said on Thursday…

But this time round, the barriers for investments are high, with investors seeking returns of as much as 15 to 20 percent from multi-billion dollar oil and gas projects, Fry said.

“In the near term the focus is on returns as opposed to growth for the sake of growth,”

Big Oil still reluctant to open spending taps: Goldman

I haven’t written much lately a) because I have been busy with an LNG project I am working on, and b) because it’s a bit like Groundhog Day at the moment: a bunch of offshore companies come out with bad results and tell you it’s grim out there and then a bunch of Norwegian investment banks and consultants write reports about what a good time it is to invest. In the same way the relentless expansion of shale continues apace so to does the inevitable decline in value of the offshore fleet and the capital intensity required to maintain it.

Offshore supply is so grim, with such vast oversupply, it is not even worth the effort to rebut some of the more outlandish claims being made. But if you buy Standard Drilling shares expecting the World Wide Supply Vessels to reocver anything like 60% of their historical value I wish you luck, the money would probably be better spent on lottery tickets, but good luck. If you have relied on one of these above-mentioned reports it is likely you are suffering from Gell-Mann amnesia, forgetting the false positives these self-same analysts saw before (this time it’s different…)

On the contracting/subsea side in the North Sea a denouement slowly approaches regarding capacity and the number of firms. I am interested in the North Sea not only because I worked in that market but also as a quite specialised market, with a small number of players and potential assets, it is as close to a natural experiment in economics as you are likely to get. So when you see a load of small firms losing cash, charging rates below what it would cost them to replace capital equipment, and competing against diversified and well capitalised multi-national corporations, the most likely scenario is that sooner or later their private equity owners decide they are not worth putting money into and they are shut down.

It isn’t the only scenario: the investment industry is awash with liquidity, every PE house wants to be the hero that called the bottom of the market right before it boomed. This idea found its ultimate expression in Borr Drilling, but York Capital buying Bibby Offshore was based on a similar sentiment. The problem is that the price of oil has doubled and the amount of offshore work has remained relatively fixed. Next year (apparently?) the oasis in the desert will appear…

Despite the music journalist from Aberdeen claiming that the management reshuffle at Ocean Installer a few months back was just a small thing and all about focus, this week the ex-CEO left to join DOF Subsea. No one would have had more share options in OI than Steinar, and I bet DOF Subsea wasn’t buying any out: when insiders know the shares are worthless you can bet they are. Even a PE house as big as Hitec Vision has to admit sometimes they cannot keeping pumping money into such a marginal venture as OI with such clearly limited upside for an exit? McDermott and OI couldn’t agree on price and unless another bidder can be conjured up to pay more for a business than you could build it from scratch then it’s days are surely numbered?

OI is a subscale business with a few chartered vessels and is exposed to their charter rates rising if the market booms. The downside is limited to zero for equity and but the upside effectively capped. It is no one’s fault it is just a subscale firm in a remarkably unattractive industry from a structural perspective. Eventually, just as with M2, the grown-ups take charge and face reality. As my shore-based offshore engineering guru reminded me: only a well-timed exit from the Normand Vision kept the business open as long as it has been in all likelihood.

But in the long-run OI has no competitive advantage and will be lucky to earn a cost of capital beyond Reach or other such comparable firms, certainly not one to move the needle on a PE portfolio for Hitec. Is there a market in Norway big enough to keep OI as a Reach competitor? I doubt that despite it being a favoured Equinor outcome.

DOF Subsea revealed in it’s most recent numbers that it only makes a ~9% EBITDA margin on projects (excluding the long-term pre-crash Brazil boats).

DOF pre-post.png

That one graphic shows you the scale of the change in the industry: contracts signed pre-2014: profitable, business post that? Uneconomic. No firm in the market will be making much more than DOF Subsea in IMR  and that is loss making in an economic sense: a signal to the market that there is severe excess capacity in contracting.

The Chief Strategy Officer of Maersk Supply recently went public and admitted even an oil boom won’t save them (a relatively frank admission for a company seeking a buyer whose only interest must be seeing MSS as a leveraged play on an oil boom!). For Maersk Supply the future is charity projects (waste collection), decom (E&P forced waste collection), deepsea mining, and a crane so clever it will make windfarms more than a zero sum game for the vessel provider. The chances of that being as profitable as helping an oil company get to “first oil” are zero. But still with a big corporate parent Maersk remain there supplying capacity at below economic cost and ensuring “the great recovery” remains an elusive Loch Ness styled creature.

A slow descent into obscurity would seem the best case scenario for OI while the worst case is clearly a suddent stop in funding when the investors realise 2019 will just be another drain on cash. Something the ex CEO and CFO have acknowledged in their career choices…

I fear the same thing for Bibby. Clearly York are delaying spending on the re-branding (required by their acquisition) because they were hoping to sell the business before the year was out. The financial results released make it clear how hard that will be. Not only did they overpay to get into the business they then, despite Bibby having spent £6m on advisers, had to pump in £15m more in working capital. When you have to put 30% more investment into working capital don’t believe the line about customers paying slowly: it was a simple, yet dramatic, complete misundertsanding about how much cash the business could generate and would therefore need. If you really believed Polaris, Sapphire, and the ROV fleet were worth 80m you would take the money and run…

Like OI the most likely, but not the only scenario, is that Bibby is simply ground down by Technip, Subsea 7, and Boskalis. At the moment North Sea DSV day rates are such that they do not come close to covering the funded purchase of a new DSV (likely to be USD 170m), and yet Bibby have a relatively old fleet. The 1999 built Polaris for example only has 10 years life left in her: on a DCF valuation model that means she has a finite life and not a capitalised value. In all probability Polaris simply cannot earn enough money in the next ten years to pay for the deposit on a new-build to replace herself (particularly given the dearth of bank financing). When I talk of capital leaving the industry this is a classic case of how this will happen. Boats can be chartered now but then the value accrues to the owner, a situation Volstad are only too aware of and will take advantage of when the Topaz charter comes up for renewal.

A quiet winter and a couple of dry-docks later in June 2019 and it is going to be hard to convince an investor to put another £15m because the customers just keep paying slowly (sic). A bidding competition to renew the Topaz charter would in effect render the business worthless.

There are other scenarios for these firms. I sometimes think optimism is a mineral in Lofoten. A veritable army of Norwegian investment bankers are no doubt trudging around with pitchbooks and research reports showing that if you just pay them a transaction fee in cash these contracting companies will bring you untold wealth (next year). But the most likely scenario is that a dramatic reduction in demand is followed by a large reduction in supply and at the moment only the first of these outcomes has occured as the previous cyclical nature of the industry has encouraged hope for a demand led revival. “It’s not the despair, Laura. I can take the despair. It’s the hope I can’t stand” as John Cleese famously remarked.

But it is starting to feel like the end of the road… Solstad has become a national embarrasment, OI a vanity project, and Bibby simply a mistake (to name just three examples). Eventually, when all the other possibilities have been exhausted mean reversion and cash needs will begin dictate economic reality.

One of the most bullish offshore data firms recently published this forecast:

IMG_0992

Just remember as a general rule: the larger the orange bar at the bottom (particularly in a relative sense) the less your offshore asset is worth.

[Graph in the header from this Seadrill presentation. Not a graph I suspect that will appear in one from Borr Drilling soon].

Shale and structural change…

The graph above is from the IEA’s most recent energy report. No huge surprises for anyone reading this blog but the historical comparison is interesting. When someone tells you that offshore isn’t facing structural issues this graph would be a good data point to discuss. The IEA is also sounding more confident of shale becoming cash flow positive although as I have said I don’t think that is a big issue. My scepticism of plans that involve buying a load of ‘cheap’ offshore assets and waiting for ‘the inevitable’ recovery continues to grow…