A f&*^up of immense proportions….

You know it takes a lot of gumption to put this statement out…:

We are ahead of our plan to become a premier, fully integrated, global EPCI provider, with product solutions spanning on-shore and off-shore from concept to commissioning

When you have just written off ~$750m, burned through operating cash of $221m in the quarter,  have had to undertake a capital raise (~$300m in private redeemable share placement and increase working capital facilities), and sell businesses with $1.5bn in revenue… McDermott shares at the time of pixel are down around 45% to $7.

Which part of the plan was that?

The MDR and CBI merger was always about stopping someone buying them. Instead, as was obvious at the time, they have ended up with a bunch of on-shore, low- margin, construction contracts, which management didn’t know enough about to due diligence properly. There is no return from here. McDermott will never have enough capital now to compete as a new entrant to transition into deepwater as a tier 1 player, and never have sufficient skill to bid the CBI business properly. You can start to write their obituary now. In time the offshore business could well be sold to Subsea 7 for a fraction what they gave it  away to the CB&I shareholders for.

Deepwater to fund shale and renewables…

From a great article in the $FT today:

For the Anglo-Dutch major, drilling far beneath oceans is essential for raising the funds for investments that will steer it through an uncertain energy transition.

“The responsibility deepwater has is to generate the cash that is going to pay for shales and for renewables,” said Wael Sawan, Shell’s head of deepwater exploration and production. “From 2020 we start to pay the bills for the organisation,” added Mr Sawan…

The company is banking on this new profit centre — alongside conventional fossil fuels, integrated gas and its refining arm — to cover the dividend, finance debt and pay for the investments that will future-proof Shell.

Likely to have made some shareholders in companies like Seadrill (shares down 23% in the last month) and Tidewater (shares down 27% in a fortnight) choke on their cornflakes this morning…,

The never appearing subsea CapEx boom…

The graph above highlights why comments about the impending offshore capex boom, long prophesied as a certainty by true believers, maybe a long time coming… What the graph shows effectively is that the Energy Select Sector ETF (a proxy for all S&P 500 E&P companies) has significantly underperformed in percentage terms the price increase in WTI (oil) throughout 2018. Not only that the rebased price volatility of oil is high.

E&P shareholders have been saying loudly they want money back from E&P companies not a capex driven option on a future supply shortage. The easiest way for E&P companies to give shareholders comfort at this point, and hopefully boost the share price, is to reduce their forward commitments to long-lived expensive projects (deepwater) and focus on shorter payback projects (shale) to supply volume. From the $FT:

Investors have been pushing executives to cut costs, reign in investments in the type of oil megaprojects that might take decades to pay back, and focus on generating cash, either for dividends or share buybacks. Bernstein Research said this week that companies were responding, noting that those who had raised capital expenditure in the second quarter had been taught a lesson.

“Investors punished E&Ps that raised guidance by 230 basis points on average,” said Bob Brackett at Bernstein.

You read comments all the time about how it is a “certainty” that high oil prices and reserve rundown must, as if some metaphysical law, lead to increased offshore activity. It simply isn’t true. The shareholders don’t want it for a whole host of good reasons: the energy transition, the benefits of higher prices and reduced supply, price volatility when making long commitments etc. This week Equinor reduced CapEx forecasts $1bn for 2019 (from $11bn to $10bn), Total confirmed theirs at the lower limit, and Conoco Phillips did the same. All the E&P companies are making similar noises. You can come up with some really complex reasons for this or just accept the CEO’s are being consistent externally and internally: they are rationing capex reasoning the upside of doing so is better than the downside.

There has been change in perceptions and market sentiment since the last energy rebound in 2008/09:

IMG_1064.JPG

If E&P companies are not going to get share price appreciation through sentiment they will have to do it the old fashioned way through dividends and share buy-backs; and cutting back CapEx is the single most important lever they control to do this.

Yes subsea project approvals are increasing (from WoodMac <50m boe):

WM Subsea FID.png

But in order for there to a “boom”, one that would influence day rates and utilisation levels across the offshore and subsea asset base, marginal operators have to be able, and willing, to spend and that simply isn’t the case. There is a flight to larger projects, with larger operators, who are ruthless about driving down price. So yes, spend levels are increasing, but check out the size of the absolute decline from the North Sea (from the $FT):

Investments in new North Sea projects have hit £3bn in 2018, the highest level since 2015, after two oil and gas projects received regulatory approval from authorities on Monday…

Capital investments in new North Sea fields were less than £500m in both 2016 and 2017, down from £4.6bn in 2015, but were much higher before the downturn, reaching as much as £17bn in 2011.

£17bn to to less than £500m!!! Seriously… just complete a structural change in the market and the supply chain needs to reduce massively in size and capacity to reflect a drop like that. And a recovery at £3bn is still less than 20% of the 2011 which the fleet delivered (and 30% down on 2015): volumes might be up but the drop in value is just too extreme for anything other than the major players to hold out here. It goes without saying a vastly larger number of businesses are viable with £17bn flowing through the market than £500m. The North Sea might be an extreme example by global levels but it’s illustrative of a worldwide trend.

E&P companies are spending increasing sums on shorter-cycle, potentially lower margin, projects because of the flexibility it offers in uncertain times. Subsea and offshore expenditure and volumes will be up in 2019 but not at the levels to keep some of the more speculative ventures alive.

You can obviously make money from shale…

From the Conoco Phillips Q3 2018 results today… a $600m turnaround in the Lower 48 (shale) on this time last year… and yes CP is investing more in Lower 48 than earnings… mainly I suspect because the return on capital looks so good…

COP dates

CP Capex Q3 2018.png

It is quite amazing you can see an article titled this:

Red Flags on U.S. Fracking Disappointing Financial Performance Continues

And then get a table like this:

FCF Shale.png

My views on this here…With the onshore rig count near an all time it actually looks like good financial performance is encouraging even greater investment… something the offshore community should understand well.

#capitaldeepening #productivity

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