While I agree that a healthy US industry is good, I don't see how the acquisitions make the industry better. If anything, I worry that we lose some flexibility and competition and that the resulting, bigger shale entities are easier to target by environmentalists and anti-growth types.
Hopefully, it's just typical corporate officer (agency effect) hubris. And some acquirers just lose some shareholder value, but that the industry structure is not significantly changed.
In any case, it's not like Esso is going to do a better job with their science or long laterals or whatever other silly McKinsey/Goldman justification they've come up with.
P.s. Goldman...they slap em together, they tear em apart. Glorified real estate agents.
As always, a terrific and cogent description of the current situation. It's interesting, as I consider the oil and gas space from my distance (I'm an FX guy), I cannot help but consider Doomberg's view that the current 'scarcity' is a political choice, not a physical one. As well, I concur that if/when prices rise enough such that there is significant pushback from the electorate, regardless of in the US or elsewhere, especially Europe, those political realities will result in more activity to recover reserves. But I'm sure it will be painful between now and then.
The personal note endings of your articles are refreshing. Thanks for providing balanced and reasonable analyses and also sprinkling in some wisdom/advice at the end. Much appreciated, please keep up the informative content.
"What we don't understand is why climate activists and others that are especially focused on climate spend so much time attacking the large, western, publicly-traded firms."
.
really?
1. availability heuristic. most don't look beyond their noses.
2. illusion of control. maybe some engine #1 activity will save the world.
basically it's just foolishness, ignorance and narcissism, as i'm sure you well know.
While I agree that a healthy US industry is good, I don't see how the acquisitions make the industry better. If anything, I worry that we lose some flexibility and competition and that the resulting, bigger shale entities are easier to target by environmentalists and anti-growth types.
Hopefully, it's just typical corporate officer (agency effect) hubris. And some acquirers just lose some shareholder value, but that the industry structure is not significantly changed.
In any case, it's not like Esso is going to do a better job with their science or long laterals or whatever other silly McKinsey/Goldman justification they've come up with.
P.s. Goldman...they slap em together, they tear em apart. Glorified real estate agents.
As always, a terrific and cogent description of the current situation. It's interesting, as I consider the oil and gas space from my distance (I'm an FX guy), I cannot help but consider Doomberg's view that the current 'scarcity' is a political choice, not a physical one. As well, I concur that if/when prices rise enough such that there is significant pushback from the electorate, regardless of in the US or elsewhere, especially Europe, those political realities will result in more activity to recover reserves. But I'm sure it will be painful between now and then.
Well done again!
The personal note endings of your articles are refreshing. Thanks for providing balanced and reasonable analyses and also sprinkling in some wisdom/advice at the end. Much appreciated, please keep up the informative content.
"What we don't understand is why climate activists and others that are especially focused on climate spend so much time attacking the large, western, publicly-traded firms."
.
really?
1. availability heuristic. most don't look beyond their noses.
2. illusion of control. maybe some engine #1 activity will save the world.
basically it's just foolishness, ignorance and narcissism, as i'm sure you well know.
.
and thank you for super-spiked.
Over and over my comment is the same. Even though I repeat myself, I am sincere. Thank you Arjun. You are an important part of my Saturday mornings.