Can American Shale Keep It Up?

The New York Times recently published an Op-Ed on the American shale industry that garnered significant attention within the oil and gas community. The piece was written by Bethany McLean, co-author of The Smartest Guys in the Room—the book-turned-documentary that many consider to be the definitive account of Enron and its unraveling.

Much of the attention, including some criticisms, related to McLean's piece centers on its title: “The Next Financial Crisis Lurks Underground.” The author herself admits this likely overstates things, and anyone who reads the piece will find that its not her central thesis.

The real message of the article is that growth in America's shale-oil production may not be sustainable. On this count, McLean could be on to something, at least in terms of questioning the financial returns of the companies leading the revolution.

There's no arguing that the oil and gas industry has a spotty track record when it comes to financial stewardship. In the 1980s, E&Ps were considered the “drunken sailors” of the public markets, spending beyond their means with little regard to the amounts of capital they consumed. There are plenty of reasons as to why this was the case, but the “wildcatter” mentality that existed and was rewarded for so many years in the industry clearly had something to do with it.

Eventually, after years of prodding from fed-up investors, large E&Ps led by the likes of Exxon got religion, installing leaders with greater financial sophistication and discipline. Today, the largest companies remain relatively attentive to the fundamental issue of returns.

But it's small and medium-sized E&Ps driving the shale revolution. These companies seek to simultaneously grow production while proving up reserves. For many, the end game is the eventual sale of their companies to larger players, who are typically more focused on developing proven assets than finding new ones. As a result, for many shale operators, it's the “kicker” at the end that dictates returns.

But here's the rub: we're not aware of any analysis that shows these premium exits are sufficient in number or magnitude to boost the segment's overall returns enough to offset losses from restructurings and bankruptcies, which can soar when oil prices don't cooperate.

Moreover, as McLean points out, many sales of private-equity backed shale companies are to other private equity firms. It's a game of musical chairs in which any excesses remain obscured—that is, until the music stops.

If for every EOG and Pioneer Natural Resources there's a bookend Linn or Chesapeake Energy poised to reveal itself, are long-term shale-oil projections too high? And if so, is crude underpriced?

There's also the question of how to define the shale industry. If you include the oilfield supplier and midstream segments, it's almost certain that the shale industry isn't covering its cost of capital. We wrote about the low returns in the oilfield supplier sector late last year. Sadly, things haven't changed much since.

A comparison of E&P stock-price performance versus suppliers illustrates the point. Since July 2014, when oil prices began their free fall, E&P indexes are down approximately 13% while oilfield suppliers indexes are down approximately 56%. E&Ps can't continue to survive indefinitely on the backs of suppliers.

Old-fashioned myopia is also a problem. Many shale operators like to portray themselves as well-oiled machines built for growth with roads before them that are straight and clear. But the truth is certain risks are often ignored or wished away when the focus is on growth above all else.

The current problem with insufficient “takeaway” capacity in the Permian Basin is a good example. In most E&P companies, the responsibility for procuring the pipeline capacity needed to move produced oil and gas to market falls outside of the operations and supply-chain functions. As a result, pipeline capacity can be taken for granted by those responsible for operations.

Even when pipeline limitations are known, decision-makers tend to believe they will get resolved. But in areas of concentrated drilling with many players, that's often not the case. The result is unexpected curtailments to production—and a damming effect on returns.

All this suggests the need for more complete information. If McLean's suspicions are correct, it wouldn't be the first time the propensity to drill first and ask questions later came back to bite the industry. Either way, the assumption of continued growth in the shale industry is too important and too pervasive to be underpinned by anything other than transparently sound economics.

New service from OilVoice
Trip Shepherd is for companies who need to track their staff in areas of risk.
It's free to use, so we invite you to try it.

Visit source site


Chesapeake Energy CorporationShaleshale oil industryFrackingHydraulic FracturingCrude Oil PriceExxon MobilEOGChesapeake Energy Corporation

More items from dougsheridan

2019 Gasoline Retailers Survey Result Released by EnergyPoint Resaerch

Newly released results from EnergyPoint Research's 2019 Gasoline Retailers Customer Satisfaction Survey show notable changes since last year, with Wawa, Kum & Go, Sheetz and Costco seeing their top-ten rankings improve. In addition, Kwik Fill, Phillips 66 and BJ's Wholesale Club moved into the top ...

Doug Sheridan - EnergyPoint Research

Posted 25 days agoPress

Surviving the Promises of Technology

Over the years  technology  has played a heralded role in the oil and gas industry. It still does today. Pick up any trade publication and chances are you'll find at least one well-worn tribute to its importance. Yet, the fixation on hi-tech hasn't been without problems. It's even been value-destr ...

Doug Sheridan - EnergyPoint Research

Posted 4 months agoOpinion > Baker HughesBHGEAccelerating Technology +6

Apergy, Helmerich & Payne, Rowan Companies and Core Laboratories Garner Top Honors in EnergyPoint Research's 2018-19 Customer Satisfaction Survey

HOUSTON (February 5, 2019) – As suppliers to the oil and gas industry adjust to lower commodity prices and continuing productivity gains in the field, findings from a newly released Oilfield Products & Services Customer Satisfaction Survey conducted by EnergyPoint Research indicate companies rated ...

Doug Sheridan - EnergyPoint Research

Posted 8 months agoPress > ApergyHelmerich & PayneH&P +10

It Pays to Keep Midstream Customers Smiling

Yes, it pays to keep customers smiling. Even in the midstream. As midstream activity quickens in North America, customers are showing preferences for providers with strong operating and project-development skills. Professionalism also matters. The need for solutions is diverse and widespread. C ...

Doug Sheridan - EnergyPoint Research

Posted 11 months agoOpinion > AMLPAndeavor LogisticsCrestwood Midstream +5

Hope Is Not A Strategy

Imagine a contest between two horses. History suggests one of the animals, having lost the majority of its races against the competitor, is the slower of the two. You are given even odds. Would you bet on the slower horse? The answer, of course, is no. Only a glutton for punishment would take even ...

Doug Sheridan - EnergyPoint Research

Posted 1 year agoOpinion > OilfieldsuppliersOil and Gas Industry +7
All posts from dougsheridan