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

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…

Capping the price of oil… The Visible Hand of US managerialism…

It is impossible to understand where I am coming from on this blog it without grasping the implications of the graph above (also used here). The graph from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas earlier this year highlights the level at which it is profitable for E&P companies to drill new wells. Clearly this is well below the current oil price. The price signal is strong: drill more wells.

Shale oil production is not resource constrained. There is no shortage of rocks to frac or sand to feed the beast. Pioneer estimate there is in excess of 250 years supply in the Permian basin alone at significantly higher production rates than today. There might be a shortage of rocks to frac at an economically efficient price but that answers a different question. The limiting factor on shale is not resource availability but the technical and organisational constraints associated with its growth. The constraints shale faces in the US are organisational: raising capital, training people, building pipelines and new rigs, all the challenges of maximising a known process. Over time no economy in the world is more adept at solving these challenges than the US economy. Chandler called it The Visible Hand and he was right.

This is a massive change from the recent era of offshore domination. Shale is a mass production process where unit costs are constantly being driven down. Offshore was a custom process: each field development was a one-off, each rig and vessel (largely) were one-off’s, each tender was a one-off. The whole chain was geared to custom solutions and while it was efficient at high volumes it is not a deflationary process. The Brazilian pre-salt finds while enormous in size led to a cost explosion throughout the industry and not one it has fully recovered from. The Harsh Environment UDW rigs while significantly more capable than jack-ups did not reduce per barrel costs they just helped us access a scarce resource that we didn’t think we could get from anywhere else. We were happy to pay the price.

It is a very different world now. It is all well and good for the $FT to claim “Shell hails bounceback towards deepwater drilling” but the story carries a more modest message:

“Deepwater can compete if not demonstrate higher returns because of fundamental cost reduction,” he said. “Break-even prices in deepwater — we are now talking $30 per barrel.”…

“It’s great to have both in the portfolio and we are growing our shales business . . . but in terms of sheer cash flow delivery our deepwater has significantly more cash flow potential,” said Mr Brown.

We are into deepwater at $30 a barrel Shell are saying, but we like the competitive tension of shale and we will keep our options open. The upside is in other words capped.

I think the price of oil is therefore capped in the long-run, and I stress that because an industry run with minimal stocks and a highly interconnected supply chain is always going to have short-run volatility, at the rate at which the US shale industry can organise and finance itself and supply marginal production. Eventually the oil price will be capped at what these producers can profitably supply to the market because over time they will continue to grow production significantly. This is an industry with very low barriers to entry and a wealth of subcontractors who can supply kit, and while the offshore rig count has had a fairly minimal improvement globally over the last year there is an almost .9 correlation to the oil price and the US land rig count:

IMG_0845.jpg

There is a good article here as well about how in the long-run refineries can process various types of sweet/sour and light/heavy. Again there will be a short-run transition for some refineries who cannot handle light sweet crude but the processes are known and it is simply a cost-optmisation exercise between cheaper light-sweet crude versus more expensive heavy-Brent (for example).

This is clearly a long transition but it strikes me as an inevitable one. US shale production will over time increase as the capital intensity and investment deepens. The huge capital and organisational requirements this will entail ensures this is not an overnight process, but it is a continuous process and one where the inertia now seems unstoppable. This is why I strongly believe that the offshore industry demand curve has lost its correlation with the oil price and a far more complex demand line needs to be plotted for companies.

Offshore’s golden age post 2000 simply didn’t have this competitive supply source, and certainly not one with a major deflationary bias, to compete with. Every strong recovery in global demand led to a straight linear investment in offshore as the only marginal source of supply… ‘there is no easy oil’ people used to say as cost inflation took hold of the offshore industry. But now there is and not only that it appears to be getting cheaper to access it as well.

Shale doesn’t have a cash flow issue …and the limits of expansion…

Yesterday the $WSJ had this article on the economics and cash flows of the shale industry. The overall point is logical that if cost increases continue the cost of capital may go up for shale producers and point to it reaching the economic limits of its expansion. I agree with the general thrust of the article in that if the industry isn’t as profitable as forecast the cost of capital will increase, but this comment is being taken out of context by some:

IMG_0786.jpg

Of course they didn’t… they are investing for even higher production next year… the comment “within their means” is pejorative and not a reflection of economic reality. That is a sign of confidence from the firms and their financial backers that their output can be sold at a profitable price. The price signal from both the oil and the capital markets is strong.

I also received a comment yesterday with a link to this comment. I don’t think this is a big deal to anyone with a basic understanding of finance because they get this… but then again I have lost count of the number of people who repeat back to me that no one makes money from shale.

I wonder if this isn’t becoming part of the great “Gotcha” narrative that aims to prove that shale isn’t a viable production methodology? Like the CEO of Shell is going to wake up next Tuesday and say “after reading the article in the WSJ we are going to stop investing in shale. Thank goodness I read that or I would never have realised we will never make money from it!” As if those investing literally tens of billions had no idea of the cash flow profile of their assets?

The overall article is interesting only in that it points to what appears to be the current “productive efficiency” of shale, not its demise. The point of the article isn’t that you can’t make money from shale it is that at the margin now it is becoming less profitable and that may affect the pricing of capital. Bear in mind before you read the rest of this post the scale of the increase in absolute oil production shown in the graph above and the amount of capital required to finance this.

For those not versed in accounting cash flow negative might seem like a big deal but it’s not. A casflow statement is made up of Cash From Operations [CFO] (+/-) Cash flows from investing [CFI](+/-) Cash flows from financing [CFF]. It balances with the cash at bank at the start of the period and at the end. Free Cash Flow to the firm is simply the sum of the first two… You would expect the number to be negative in a capital-intensive industry, like shale oil extraction, when you are seeking to grow output volumes significantly, particularly when a number of firms are new entrants into the industry and not financing from retained earnings. You are spending capital to get future revenue and you need to borrow or raise equity to do this. Collectively as all the firms in the industry deepen the capital base for ever higher production they are using more cash than they are generating currently. (I am aware that there are a number of definitions of Free Cash Flow but this appears to be the Factset one and the generally accepted one of FCFF).

If you buy an offshore drilling rig for $1bn and get 100m in operating cash flow for year 1 then your (highly simplified and representative) cash flow statement reads: CFO +100m: CFI -$1bn. That is your “Free Cash Flow” [FCF] is -$900m. It is balanced (all going well) by CFF +900. You own an oil rig that lasts for 20 years but in year 1 you were down $900m in FCF. You can buy as many rigs as you want and be FCF negative (like Seadrill) for as long as you can keep CFF >= CFO+ CFI  i.e. you have access to debt or equity markets. That is all that is happening in shale collectively.

If these were operating cash flow negative then there would be a massive issue. But as this research from the Dallas Federal Reserve (March 2018) makes clear there is no problem with operating cash:

des1701c1.gif

Or indeed with profitably drilling wells at the current oil price (i.e. including financing):

des1701c2

For as long as investors believe that in the future the oil price attainable by these E&P companies is sufficient to return capital, and funding markets remain open, then spending more on Operating Income + CapEx combined is no problem. There is rollover risk in the debt but that is a seperate risk and appears to be pretty minimal at the moment.

Pioneer is an embodiment of this: in the first six months of 2018 it generated ~$1.5bn from operations (i.e. selling oil and gas) [CFO], spent ~$1bn on investments (actually nearly $2bn but it sold some stuff as well) [CFI], and then paid back debt of $450m and purchased ~$50m of shares. But some smaller companies who have come in recently will have spent far more on CapEx than they will earn in CFO.

When I have talked about the ‘virtuous cycle’ of capital deepening in prior posts this is part of that network effect of decreasing risks and increasing returns for all involved in the ecosystem. E.g. if Trafigura build an export facility for 2m b/per day it lowers the risk for every E&P company (and their financiers) that they can sell more oil profitably. So more investment comes into the sector in an ever-expanding circle, lower costs, replacing labour with capital. That is what appears to be happening here. The limits of this process are there and are hinted at in the WSJ:

IMG_0787.jpg

Permian production will be up 19-24% according to Pioneer so it’s not all bad. Costs are increasing as the Permian reaches the constraints of labour and capital as has been well documented. Some of these will disappear with new pipelines and other capital deepening, e.g. a replacement of capital over labour as excess surplus is currently trucked or railed out, but some will continue given the huge increase in absolute production volumes. It is no surprise that with such a huge percentage increase in production that at the margin each incremental barrel becomes more expensive in the short-run, but then the capital deepening effect will kick in and the long-run cost curve will decline, as always in mass-production, and then the unit costs drop again… ad infinitum

Pioneer are saying with that statement is that their marginal output on capital is declining slightly this year as cost increases have not kept pace with productivity improvements. That isn’t surprising because the sheer volume of output increased has consistently surprised on the upside. If the project costs increase 10% and this isn’t covered with higher prices and/or productivity improvements then investors will change their price of capital to reflect diminished expectations.

US-Shale-Production-Outlook-Revised-Upward-Repeatedly-20160210-v2

But this production capacity isn’t going away. The rigs have been built. The pipelines have been, or are being, built; the same goes for export terminals etc. The capital base of the industry has increased massively and is facing some teething problems. But in a little 4 over years the US tight oil industry has driven US production up to over 11m b/ per day in 2018, over 6m b/ per day of that from shale up from ~4m b/ per day in 2017.

What should really worry those in the offshore community is that this is an industry that increased production 50% in a calendar year before hitting the limits of economic growth, and it did this while increasing productivity and lowering unit costs. Someone isn’t waking up next Tuesday and realising it has all been a massive mistake and turning the tap of funding or production off. The US shale industry is a deep and entrenched part of the energy mix now. Current forecasts might be out by a few hundred thousand barrels a day but they are not going to be out by millions. This production is real and permanent with profound implications.

The core logic of the WSJ article is surely right: A rise in the costs of shale relative to output signals the limit of the economic efficiency and therefore the diminishing returns to capital may make it more expensive for shale E&P firms to fund new projects. Shale and offshore compete for E&P company CapEx and if the cost of funding shale projects rises (on a productivity measured basis) that should increase relative demand for offshore as a substitute. But the Free Cash Flow from an offshore project is massively negative in the short-run and over time has higher yields, whereas the reduced CapEx commitment, despite its lower margin, is one of the chief attractions of shale. Cash for investment is not the issue.

I think it sits uncomfortably with forecasters who claim that day rates for jack-ups will double within two years, or other such notions, and it does not seem to be incorporated in the strategic planning assumptions of a large number of offshore companies or investors where the logical outcomes of such data sit uncomfortably. The offshore industry built a fleet to handle 2013 demand when shale was producing ~2.5m barrels a day, it is now producing 6m and is growing faster than the overall oil market growth and forecast to do so until 2021 at least.

Hard strategic questions arise for the offshore industry: how do we compete in an industry which faces potentially declining market share for our underlying product at the margin? How do we compete in an industry when a competitor with a different business model has taken 10% of global market share in the space of 5 years and we buy 25 year assets funded on short-term contracts? What level of asset base shrinkage does the offshore industry require to be competitive? How many firms will have to liquidate given this necessary shrinkage? What will the surviving firms look like? How much can they realistically expect to make? What are our assets worth?

There are a lot more questions based around this logic. But if you are simply expecting a day-rate increase and a demand side boom based on shale magically running out of cash at some future point I think you are going to be very disappointed.

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

 

Weekend shale read… The Red Queen for offshore…

“Well, in our country,” said Alice, still panting a little, “you’d generally get to somewhere else—if you run very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing.”

“A slow sort of country!” said the Queen. “Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”

Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carrol

Applied to a business context, the Red Queen can be seen as a contest in which each firm’s performance depends on the firm’s matching or exceeding the actions of rivals. In these contests, performance increases gained by one firm as a result of innovative actions tend to lead to a performance decrease in other firms. The only way rival firms in such competitive races can maintain their performance relative to others is by taking actions of their own. Each firm is forced by the others in an industry to participate in continuous and escalating actions and development that are such that all the firms end up racing as fast as they can just to stand still relative to competitors.

THE RED QUEEN EFFECT: COMPETITIVE ACTIONS AND FIRM PERFORMANCE

Derfus et al., 2008

 

Stressing output is the key to improving productivity, while looking to increase activity can result in just the opposite.

Paul Gauguin

 

The IEA has done a review of shale companies financing and for those hoping that they represent some sort of ephemeral phenomenon that will pass as soon as the junk bond market closes, well rates decline, or some other exogenous event arises, they are likely to be disappointed. It’s a short read and well worth the effort. I called shale an industrial revolution the other day and the IEA post is a good short precis on how this came about in financial stages.

SPE also has had some good articles recently on the constant productivity the shale industry is using to drive down costs. This one on Equinor for example:

One of the drawbacks of the status quo is that it requires small armies of field personnel to interpret SCADA data and then adjust set-points to get pumping units back into optimal operating ranges. This manual process can consume half-an-hour per well to complete; downtime that quickly adds up in a field of hundreds.

“What we are talking about is having the machine do that entire workflow,” Chris Robart, Ambyint’s president of US operations said…

The Bakken project comes after a pilot that included 50 of Equinor’s wells, which saw a net production increase of 6%—considerably larger uplift figures were seen from those wells suffering from under-pumping.

Or this one dealing with Parent/ Child wells, which a few months ago seemed to be the latest reason to explain why shale wasn’t a sustainable form of energy, but the industry has solved part of this problem through “cube development”:

But the prize for coining the term cube development goes to Encana Corporation, which says the strategy has increased early well productivity in one of its Permian fields by 70% over the past 2 years. Despite the term’s growing popularity within engineering circles, some companies continue to use different terms such as QEP’s “tank-style completions” for what is seen as the same general practice.

I don’t understand the technology but I have faith that day-in day-out new techniques are being developed that will drive down the costs of extraction and production in the shale industry. You need to be a technical pessimist, which in this age is hard, to believe this productivity direction cannot continue (see Citi here).

Over time the offshore industry will change to compete with shale. The economic force of competition will ensure this. But in order to compete it will need to reduce the cost and time of being offshore dramatically and focuson on high-flow low lift cost projects. Something well underway in the Gulf of Mexico at the moment.

There are huge moves in offshore to improve productivity: all righty focused on spending lowering cost and reducing time to first oil. Some, but by no means all, contractors focused on engineering are starting to see improved profitability. But the sunk investments made in offshore vessels, jack-ups, and rigs have largely had their equity wiped out in the last few years and this is enabling the offshore industry to compete on price and risk in terms of capital allocation from E&P companies. For as long as that is it’s only, or major, competitive advantage all that beckons is an industry that slowly runs down its capital base until project cost inflation can rise. Something that becomes ever more distant the more competitive shale becomes. I realise it’s a bleak prognosis but there isn’t much else on offer.

Oil prices, technology, volatility, and productivity…

Oil prices are unusually prone to volatility because both supply and demand are insensitive or “sticky” in responding to price changes in the short term, while storage is limited and costly.

Robert McNally, Rapidan Energy Group

 

Last week Citi’s lead oil analyst came out and said he thought oil prices might dip to $45 per barrel in 2019 and be in the $45-65 per barrel range by the end of 2019. This contrasts with Goldman Sachs ($70-80), Morgan Stanley ($85), and Bernstein ($100). I don’t have a view on the oil price, all this shows you is that intelligent, well-informed analysts, with almost endless resources, can vary in their forecasts by around ~50-100%. Read the whole story to understand how looking at exactly the same data set as all the other equally capable analysts Citi’s analyst reaches such a different conclusion.

What this really shows is model risk: a few percentage points difference in key input variables, even over a short space of time, can have a huge influence over the outcomes. And actually, there are in reality too many influences to model them all accurately: Will there be a supply outage in Libya? What will happen with Iranian oil? What will happen in Venezuela? And these are just a few of the big geopolitical questions alone. You need a forecast for many planning assumptions but in the short-run the oil price is a random walk.

A good example is this graph from the EIA showing the difference between their February prediction of US oil prediction and the current one:

IMG_0717

If you are wondering why your jack-up, rig, or vessel isn’t quite getting the utilisation or day rate you were looking for in that graph may lie the answer? It’s a bold Board that sanctions too many projects in this environment, and in fact the one that is, Exxon Mobil with the huge Guyana finds, is getting slammed by the stock market. Barclays, summing up the “market view” saying:

IMG_0718.JPG

Shale isn’t a swing producer as McNally makes clear, but it does have a much shorter-term impact on the market in way that nothing did prior to 2013. But it also isn’t a given that offshore will have a cost or volume advantage over offshore in 10 years time: companies need to hedge their bets if they are large portfolio corporations. McNally has published ‘Crude Volatility‘ which may make  my summer reading list.

The big area where I agree with Citi/Morse is on technology and productivity.  Morse obviously believes, as I do, that a few percentage points of recovery and technological improvement over the well lifecycle has the potential to radically alter physical oil output assumptions over the long-run. And that is before you get into the wonkish areas such as on what base you forecast the decline volume on.

Against this backdrop is a new wine in the old bottle of peak oil demand: lack of investment and the coming supply shortage. A whole host of energy consulting firms say underinvestment may cause a supply driven price rise: Rystad and Energy Aspects in this WSJ article:

IMG_0712.JPG

This despite the fact that gross investment doesn’t reflect the increased volume of supply gained from each incremental dollar at the moment (a point Morse makes), or the fact that oil companies don’t need the same level of reserves now (and investors don’t want them to pay for them).  Woodmac, who in the latest “gotcha” on why shale won’t work (sic), has now discovered shale well rates decline faster than thought… I’ll bet by 2040 the 800k a day production cited in the article is made irrelevant by productivity improvements in extraction and production techniques. But I guess again it shows how senstive large data models are to small input changes (and how desperate research firms are to have some uncertainty and upside to discuss with certain corporate clients where an element of group think appears to be pervading Board thinking).

“Preparing for the Recovery”

Preparing for the future.png Rystad also run’s strategy days for Maersk Supply and numerous other subsea and offshore companies…. “Hang in there guys the recovery is just around the corner when the supply crunch happens…”… (however remember The Dominant Logic is dangerous?)….

Meanwhile the capital deepening in the US shale industry continues apace. Have a look at the new pipelines going in:

IMG_0716.JPG

Once these are built the price discount will disappear, further raising E&P company profitability and some railway carriages and trucks they displace will still exist (‘unit trains’ with 100+ carriages carry >66 000 barrels). Some will be scrapped but the railway carriages are like offshore vessels: high fixed costs and commitments and low marginal costs. That is a short way of saying they will reduce their costs to compete… and the virtuous cycle will continue with the capital base even deeper.

What really matters for offshore at the moment is the competition for marginal investment dollars. Does an E&P company choose to invest onshore or offshore? The big advantages of shale are potential productivity increases and lower upfront cash costs despite a lower margin (i.e. low CapEx high OpEx), this flexibility has a number of distinct advantages in  an era when forecasts are so divergent. It is worth noting that Shell, Exxon Mobile and Chevron all underperformed the stock market last week despite oil prices having risen signficantly over the last year. Shareholders want their money back in an era of uncertainty, not mega-projects that offer future pay-offs.

In an era when the volatility of oil prices is clearly increasing you can be sure that tight oil will be favoured over long cycle production at the margin. The ability to take margin risk over commitment risk is a key part of the investment making decision process.  The graph above shows how volatile oil prices has been, in particular since 2003. It is irrational to go long on fixed commitments in a age of increasing volatility: just as it is illogical to take on a massive mortgage on a rig or vessel in the current market it is illogical to go long on too many 20 year deepwater developments, and the two symptons are obviously related to the same cause. For a baseload of demand that is logical, but that only works for the larger players with significant market share, at the margin assets and projects become harder to finance.

The other issue driving investment towards shale, in a time of capital discipline, is path dependence. Path dependence is a process where each step forward can only be achieved with the prior steps preceeding it. Deepwater followed shallow water as an extension of the skills developed there.

The productivity benefits of shale are such that larger E&P companies must fear if they miss this technology cycle catching up on the “path” may be too hard or expensive given the dependent steps they will have to get there. History matters.

Offshore will remain an important part of the energy mix. But the price rise of the past 12 months has led to only marginal increases in work and a firm commitment from E&P companies to control CapEx in a manner that breaks with the past. Price rises not increases in long term production projects are the short term adjustment mechanism at the moment. In a era of price volatility and extraordinary technical change the future could look a lot like the present.