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

It’s grim up North… And the labour theory of value…

It’s Grim Up North.  The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu

Ricardo, Marx, and Mill believed that prices were determined by how much people had, in the past, invested. And that blinded them to any understanding of the workings of the market.

Friedrich Hayek

[I am not really a Hayek fan (in case anyone is interested). But he was a very smart guy who understood social and economic change processes better than most. Beyond that you get diminishing returns. As an aside I have been too busy to blog much lately, which is a shame as some really interesting things have been happening, but it doesn’t seem to have affected my visitor numbers much, which just goes to show maybe my silence is more valuable.]

The Oil and Gas UK 2018 Economic Report is out. For the North Sea supply chain there is no good news. There is clearly a limited offshore industry recovery underway as we head towards the end of summer. However, the market is plagued by overcapacity, and while service firms without offshore assets are starting to see some positive gains, if you are long on floating assets chances are you still have a  problem, it is only the severity that varies.

The UKCS is what a declining basin looks like: fewer wells of all types being drilled and dramatically lower capital expenditure. There is no silver lining here: an asset base built to deliver 2013/14 activity levels simply has too many assets for the vastly reduced flow of funds going through the supply chain. The report makes clear that the base of installed infrastructure will decline and there will be a relentless focus on cost optimisation to achieve this.

UK Capital Investment 2018.png

The volume of work may be increasing marginally but the overall value may even down on 2017 at the lower end of the 2018 forecast (purple box). Clearly £10bn being removed from the oil and gas supply chain, c. 60% down on 2014, is a structural change.

And the OpEx numbers unsurprisingly show a similar trend:

UKCS OpEx 2018.png

Party like it’s 2012 says Oil and Gas UK. Unfortunately a lot more boats and rigs were built since then.

Unit Operating Costs 2018.png

An unsurprisingly the pressure on per barrel costs seems to have reached the limits of downward pressure.

This should make supply chain managers seriously consider what their investment plans are for assets specific to the region and the likelihood of assets having to work internationally to be economic. It should also make people reassess what stuff is actually worth in a market that has reduced in size by that quantum and from which there is no realistic path to 2014 activity levels.

Technip paid $105m for the Vard 801, about $55m/45% discount to the build cost. Such a deal seems realistic to me. Some of the deals I have seen in offshore remind me of The Labour Theory of Value: if you dig a massive hole that costs a lot it must therefore be worth a lot. In reality with so much less cash floating around for assets that will service the UKCS an asset is worth the cash it can generate over its life, and the fact that it is substantially less than its replacement cost is just another clear example of how the industry will reduce its invested capital  as production levels in the basin decline. Like airlines offshore assets have a high marginal cost to operate and disposable inventory which is why you can lose so much money on them.

Boskalis appears to have paid an average of c. $60m for the two Nor vessels which equates to a similar discount on an age weighted basis. Quite where this leaves Bibby needing to replace the 20 year old Polaris and 14 year old Sapphire is anyone’s guess. But it is not a comfortable position to be in as the clear number four by size (in terms of resource access) to have competitors funding their newest assets on this basis. Yes, the shareholders may have paid an equivalent discount given the company value they brought in at, but if you want to sell the business eventually then you need a realistic economic plan that the asset base can self-fund itself, and at these sort of prices that is a long way off. Without an increase in the volume and value of construction work 4 DSV companies looks to be too many and this will be true for multiple asset classes.

As a mild comparison I came across this article on $Bloomberg regarding Permian basin mid-stream investment:

Operations in the Permian that gather oil and gas, and process fuel into propane and other liquids, have drawn almost $14 billion in investment since the start of 2017, with $9.2 billion of that coming from private companies..

That is just one part of the value chain. I get you it’s not a great comparison, but the idea is simply the ability to raise capital and deploy it in oil production, and it is clear that for Permian projects that is relatively easy at the moment. The sheer scale of the opportunities in the US at the moment is ensuring it gets attention and resources that belie a strictly “rational” basis of evaluation.

IMG_0957.JPG

That is what a growth basin looks like. The narrative is all positive. Once short-term infrastructure challenges are resolved that stock of drilled but uncompleted will be turned into production wells.

Oil and Gas UK go to great pains to explain the economic potential of the UKCS. But finance isn’t strictly rational and I still feel they need to be realistic about the cycle time tradeoff offshore entails. Shale, as we have seen, has an enormously flexible cost base relative to offshore and that has value.

The comments I make below are part of a bigger piece that I keep wanting to write but a) don’t have the time; and, b) probably doesn’t work for a blog format. But I think the impact of the private equity companies taking over North Sea assets needs to be realistically assessed.

Don’t get me wrong here I am a massive supporter of them. In terms of the volume of cash, and the ability to buy and invest at the bottom of the cycle, the North Sea would clearly have been worse off without private equity. But the results are in and there has not been a development boom… there has been a focus on the best economic assets that may make the fields last longer, but that is a different test. There may clearly have been an investment boom relative to what there would have been without private equity money, but again that is a slightly different point.

Private equity firms have a much higher cost of capital than traditional E&P companies and at the margin that will limit the number of projects they fund. The focus on lowering costs and returning cash as quickly as possible, often to compensate for how hard it will be for the owners to exit such sizeable positions, also adds to the change in the investment and spend dynamic (on the downside obviously). I am genuinely interested to see how these large multi-billion dollar investments are exited given how much trouble the super-majors are having at getting out.

Private equity may well be the future of the North Sea but that has huge implications for the supply chain. It is also worthwhile pointing out that while the smaller companies maybe able to sweat old assets they have a limit for larger projects. Quad 204 is a classic project where it is hard to see even one of the largest PE backed companies having the technical skills and risk appetite to take on such a vast project.

The majority of the larger deals also involved significant vendor financing from the sellers. Shell had to lend Chrysaor $400m of the $3bn initial consideration. This happened not through generosity, or a desire to maintain economic exposure to the assets, but because debt finance from the capital markets or banks was simply unavailable even to such large and sophisticated buyers. Siccar Point went to the Norwegian high-yield market in January borrowing $100m at 9% for five years. The fact is finance is scarce, and when available expensive, and this is impacting the ability of E&P projects to get financed. Enquest has had to do a deeply discounted rights issue, and borrow off BP, to complete Sullam Voe.

The E&P majors are helping to finance their own exit because it is the only way they can get out. The turnaround from that to an investment boom that could raise asset values in the supply chain is a long one.

In order to make money in this environment the E&P companies, particularly those backed by private equity, are focusing on driving down costs and limiting Capex with a ruthless efficiency and commitment few in the supply chain believed possible long-term. Where offshore assets are concerned the oversupply situation only assists with this. I met one of the private equity investors last week and I can assure you there is no pressure to replace old assets, safety first definitely, economics and finance second just as definitely.

The reality for the supply chain is this is a market where it will be very hard to make money for a very long time, and in reality the glory days of 2012-2014 look extremely unlikely to return. The Oil and Gas UK report gives some important data in explaining why.

Capital reallocation and oil prices…

The above graph comes from Ocean Rig in their latest results where despite coming in with numbers well below expectations they are doing a lot of tendering. At the same time ICIS published this chart…

IMG_0770

It is my (strongly held) view that these two data points are in fact correlated.

I saw an offshore company this week post a link to the oil price as if this was proof they had a viable business model. Despite the rise in the oil price in the last year there has been only a marginal improvement in conditions for most companies with offshore asset exposure.  There is sufficient evidence around now that the shape and level of the demand curve for offshore services, particularly at the margin, is in fact determined by the marginal rate of substitution of shale for offshore by E&P companies. That is a very different demand curve to one that moved almost in perfect correlation to the oil price in past periods.

IMG_0778.JPG

Source: BH Rig Count, IEA Oil Price, TT

This week two large transactions took place in the pipeline space. The commonality in both is new money comping into pipeline assets that E&P companies own. Over time the E&P companies hope they make more money producing oil than transporting it. But they have found some investors who for a lower rate of return are happy just carrying the stuff. More capital is raised and the cycle continues. On Friday as well Exxon Mobil was confirmed as the anchor customer for a new $2bn Permian Highway pipe. These are serious amounts of capital with the Apache and Oxy deals alone valued combined at over $6bn and shale producers confirming they are raising Capex.

When I people talk of an offshore “recovery” as a certainty I often wonder what they mean and what they think will happen to shale in the US? There strike me as only three outcomes:

  1. At some point everyone realises that shale technology doesn’t work in an economic sense and that this investment boom has all been a tremendous waste of money. Everyone stops investing in shale and goes back to using offshore projects as the new source of supply. I regard this as unlikely in the extreme.
  2. Technology in shale extraction reaches a peak and unit costs struggle to drop below current levels. In particular sand and water as inputs (which are not subject to dramatic productivity improvements but are a major cost) rise in cost terms and lower overall profitability at marginal levels of production. This would lead to a gradual reduction in investment as a proportion of total E&P CapEx and a rebalancing to offshore. Possible.
  3. Capital deepening and investment combined with technology improvements cause a virtuous cycle in which per unit costs are reduced consistently over many years. Such a scenario, and one I think is by far the most likely, would place consistent deflationary pressure on the production price of oil and would lead to shale expanding market share and taking a larger absolute share of E&P CapEx budgets on a global basis. This process has been the hallmark of the US mass production economy and has been repliacted in many industries from automobiles to semiconductors. Offshore would still be competitive but would be under constant deflationary pressure and given the long life of the assets and the supply demand balance would gradually converge at a “normal” profit level where the cost of capital was covered by profits.

I don’t know what the upper limit of shale expansion in terms of production capacity. I guess we are there or near-abouts there at the moment, but I also don’t really see what will make it stop apart from the limits or organizational ability and manpower?

It is worth noting that a lot of shale has been sold for significantly less than the highly visible WTI price (delivery Midland  not Cushing):

IMG_0765.JPG

And Bakken production is at a record:

IMG_0764.JPG

Each area creates its own little ecosystem which deepens the capital base and either lowers the unit costs or takes in used marginal capital (i.e. depreciated rigs) and works them to death. The infrastructure created by the temporary move away from the Permian may just create other marginal areas of production.

I think “the recovery”, defined here as offshore taking production and CapEx share off shale, looks something like this model from HSBC:

IMG_0783.JPG

I suspect it’s about 2021 under this scenario that the price signal starts kicking in to E&P companies that at the margin there are more attractive investment opportunities to hit the green light on. That’s a long way off and is completely dependent on some stability in the market until then, but under a fixed set of assumptions seems reasonable. Note however the continued growth of shale which must take potential volume from offshore at the margin.

The offshore industry needs to get to grips with the challenges this presents (I have some more posts on this on the Shale tag). Mass production is deflationary, indeed that is it’s purpose. Shale is deflationary in the sense of adding supply to the world market but also deflationary in terms of consistently lowering unit costs via improving the efficiency of the extraction process and the technology. Offshore was competitive because it opened up a vast new source of supply, but it has not been deflationary on a cost basis (until the crash caused its assets to be offered at below their economic cost).

I’ve used this graph before (it comes from this great article) it highlights that the 1980s and 1990s had generally deflationary oil prices based on tight-monetary policy and weaker economic growth expectations. Ex-Asia the second part of that equation is a given today and US$ strength means oils isn’t cheap in developing countries. As the last couple of weeks have reminded us there is no natural law that requires the oil price to be in a constant upward trajectory.

Inflation adjusted WTI price.png

 

The current oil price…

“You cannot improve a signal if you do not know what it signals”.

Fredrich Hayek

Trump 1 July.JPG

The oil price is hitting new highs but I don’t think this is going to have a dramatic effect on offshore for the next couple of years if at all. This is a supply constraint, particularly in relation to the Iran sanctions, and therefore this needs to resolved through the price mechanism in the short-term as all other swing producers are maxed out in terms of capacity as Libya and Venezeula also encounter problems.

This is a completely different investment narrative to the 2008-2014 boom. Then the rising price was viewed by the market as a reponse to rising Asian demand and the costs of developing new marginal sources of supply. The core of the rising price story was a demand driven boom.

No rational E&P company increases investments in 10-20 year fields in response to a price fluctuation with clear geo-political roots that could all be resolved in a relatively short period of time. By the time the field is built and delivered the political situation could have been resolved and then  the extra capacity will just lower the price. I could be wrong but I find it incomprehensible that Iran can be kept out of the international oil market forever. For these sort of changes in supply the changes in supply and demand need to be met with the pricing mechanism.  Some short-term changes in operating expenditure to boost production may become viable but not a wholesale commissioning of new fields.

As the Brookings Institute notes Trump seems to be pushing for regime change as the goal in Iran and the Saudis may have promised air cover with 2m b/d (and the strong administration links to Israel will also be coming into play here). This is a short term issue and maybe if the price gets too high here, and no one really believes the Saudi Arabia can come up with that sort of number in the short-term, then that will cause a change in policy. But I doubt it… Price will be the relief valve for what extra production OPEC cannot cover in the short-term.

As I have mentioned here before I think the link between the oil price and the demand for offshore services has altered fundamentally. Simply claiming now that a supply driven change will automatically be positive for offshore in a substative way is I think wrong and does not account for the difference between a demand driven expansion and a supply constricted shortage.

The bull case for oil… but does it really matter for offshore anyway?

I’m basically an iconoclast by nature and therefore I want to believe things like this:

Burgrabben “Crude Oil: Are you ready for triple digit prices”

And it’s a smart piece of work with loads of really interesting data points. But it is also a variation of “shale can’t possibly work” which I have heard now many times, with a million different reasons, all generally based on shale/tight oil reaching a technical frontier. Subsequently over the years this has been shown to wrong as productivity constantly improves. But if you want the bull case it’s been written for you…

I think it is very hard to believe though that major investors and E&P companies have got this so wrong? A lot of large companies seem to have some fairly explicit forecasts about their production levels and would look very stupid backtracking on the scale some of the shale pessimists seem to think will happen. Surely before the supermajors make major acquisitions they talk to a shale engineer and say “you know like if we buy these wells this will work right?” And maybe more than one and get some opinions? And then some really smart engineers in-house put their names to this? The fact a small number of people seem to think, not for the first time, they have caught out everyone else with something they hadn’t thought of strikes me as a low probability event. I get this goes against everything I say about investment bubbles at times… it’s just this time…

There is also a large section on a “supply gap” with other assets and that maybe true… the market will respond to higher prices just not as quickly as some people hope. I will leave it at that. For the record I have no view on the oil price, in the short run I think it’s a random walk as I always say, and in the long run, the very long run, I believe in technology. But it’s a risky and cyclical business and in a rational world you need a high rate of return to cover for this. Clearly an industry operating at a price level below that of marginal production costs will see a rise in price for a commodity like oil which has an inelastic demand curve.

My major point here is that even if the oil price recovers demand conditions for the offshore industry are extremely unlikely to return to the 2013 type years. Shale only needed to take 5% of global production to drop utilisation rates for offshore assets and change the industry economics over a very short time span. The offshore industry used to need very high utilisation levels and day rates to make the economics work and I find it hard to see a scenario where this will return quickly. Even this report acknowledges the cycle times in offshore and is clear about the increasing role of shale in an absolute sense. The fact remains a larger portion E&P capital expenditure for the next few years is focused on shale/tight oil in an environment where CapEx budgets have been cut. Unless someone can explain to you how they expect a bounce-back in demand that deals with that fact then it isn’t a sensible explanation.

Saipem’s most recent results had a good graphic example of this:

Saipem Q1 2018 backlog.png

Backlog down another 13%… yet Saipem still went long on a USD 275m asset that will keep capacity in the rigid-reel SURF market and force them to lower prices to gain market share. And in fact that asset went to the worst possible competitor for everyone else in the market because Saipem have the resources and technical skills to maximise the value of the Constellation.

Focusing less on the daily change in the spot price of oil and more on the marginal drivers of demand for offshore utilisation would strike me as a better way of gauging industry profitability going forward.

Oil prices, speculators, and supply expansion…

An article from the FT here touches on an issue that has been discussed since there was an oil market:

Who trades oil is changing, however. Investors who bother little with details such as inventories and pipeline flows are replacing dwindling ranks of specialist commodities hedge funds. The shift could alter the way prices are formed…
Then who is driving oil positions higher? Newly prominent oil speculators are not necessarily reacting to news about supply and demand or utterances from Riyadh. Instead, they may be buying and selling oil based on moves in currencies, interest rates or the price of oil itself.

Namely, are speculators affecting the price of oil? You can see from the graph above that the exponential growth of Brent Ice futures contracts, which is cash settled and does not require physical product delivery, bears no relationship to the relative steady increase in the demand for oil. Some demand for these futures clearly reflects increasingly sophisticated financial risk management techniques, but some clearly represents purely speculative capital trading on price moves (often with large amounts of leverage).

There has been an entire industry in trying to ascertain the economic effects of speculators in oil markets. The IMF view is that they have no effect, but reputable economists at institutions such as the St Louis Fed disagree. A good summary is here.

My own (simplified) view, that accords to a well researched positions, is that speculators affect the volatility of the oil price but the not the final price over the long run.  Basic economic logic alone should dictate that if there is an increased amount of capital being invested in an asset class it will cause the price to rise, but when combined with leverage it adds huge volatility (quite simply if you have borrowed money to buy something and the price drops you tend to liquidate quickly to minimise loses). Which is why you see such huge swings in oil investment positions with a clear procyclical bias:

The big long.png

But the major point for those involved in service industries to my mind is that this is part of the explanation why there is not a linear relationship between the oil price and demand for oil field services. Directors at E&P companies make decisions about the long term price but ultimately the market for physically delivered product is more important when investing in production infrastructure, despite the large trading arms of the supermajors,  because they obviously do have deliver in the physical form eventually. They also benefit from miscalculating demand on the upisde through rising prices and a higher ROE on invested capital, so although they give up some amount of market share it’s a fairly small downside for erring on the side of caution.

Too many models that forecast the demand for oilfield services work are based on the forecast oil price rather than physical volume required. Too many management teams in offshore are using a rebound in the oil price as “proof” the “market” will eventually recover in demand terms when it is clear there is no linear relationship. As shale becomes the swing production method of choice offshore demand in particular should be relatively easy to forecast because in the new environment it will be supplying a baseload of physically demanded production while short-term changes in demand are managed by tight-oil. If someone in oil services tells you their business model is fine because the price of oil will rise I would suggest examining things a lot more carefully.

The New Offshore…

Another great graph from Rystad on Friday highlighting increased productivity in shale:

Rystad Av IP30

Offshore isn’t going away as this graph makes clear:

IEA Energy Mix June 2017

But it is going to be different, and the “Demand Fairy” isn’t going to make it like 2014 quickly:

IEA Capex

Change at the margin of an extra 1 or 2% of shale as a share of the energy mix will have a major effect on offshore utilisation and day and day rates. Offshore needs to deal with overcapacity on the supply side and the increasing productivity of shale which will only continue.

Liquidity. Strategy. Execution. Nothing else matters. The New Offshore.