Indeed. though that can come with a higher cost of capital, potentially smaller size of market, etc. Industry is today still reasonably large and healthy...would be good to figure out at least some options (e.g., additional industry insurance), especially while in an upcycle
Great pointing out the policy risks and cannot look to the past (no risk because little exported). The risk of future policy wanting to limit exports of “our oil and gas is worth thinking about. But a longish comment on tier 1 vs 2 shale. There is group think that this is a big deal. I disagree. The industry has gotten better extracting from shale. A decade ago no one believed the Haynesville could be economical at $3 gas. In the Permian, there is So Much room for improvement of oil extraction per block of rock (which is different from rate per well--which is a poor metric because it is easy to game). With application of some science and some engineering, what is now considered to be tier 2 rock can definitely produce more oil per block than has been produced from tier 1 rock. A point. There is, as has happened off and on in the past, enthusiasm for re-fracturing as an economic positive. Re-fracturing is really proof that you screwed up the first time. This is analogous to manufacturing cars. Toyota taught the industry (and over time kicked Detroit’s ass) that it is better to spend the money up front on proper design and manufacturing than to remanufacture and recall. where re-fracturing makes sense today, it should be looked at as a big failure of the past. Maybe technology moved and that’s the reason for the failure, but I see today almost no companies really applying continuous improvement technologies. Or spends modest amounts on really understanding the subsurface (like building airplane wings without spend on testing the metallurgy-it’s crazy). While running a manufacturing company i implemented Toyota processes so speak from experience. Having this be C Suite word salad is worse than a waste of time. It has to become institutional DNA.
A final story. Ford had a group from Toyota tour Dearborn after Ford (thought they) had put in great quality systems. Like their Quality is Job One campaign, for which they had big banners strung around the factory. Obviously proud of this campaign, they asked their Japanese guests what they thought. The reply. “Why do you need signs to tell people this? “. The point being, if you have to put it on a banner, it isn’t in your workers’ DNA, so it will not succeed. I can assure you. Continuous improvement is not in our industry’s DNA at anywhere near the level of Toyota et al. If it had been for the past decade, then we would likely be extracting +50% more oil from each block of unconventional rock.
Steve, thank you for your comment. And I agree, what's next for "Tier 1" may well be current Tier 2 or 3 becoming Tier 1-ish. Over a long enough period of time, I'd say there is little doubt all of that resource will eventually get developed. I think there is a reasonable debate on pace, timing, and current oil price required and the scope and timing of that oil price required to come down. Could well happen seamlessly without further oil px gains...or might require a super cycle to motivate...or something in between.
Very good analysis, Arjun. I work in Midland for a small independent (as I have commented before), and the trends I see for the shales:
1) Rig counts are not going to increase substantially for the reasons you note, but also because the larger players are consolidating leasehold to drill longer laterals (the standard is now 3-milers). Thus, the acreage can be developed with the same or fewer rigs.
2) consolidation will continue as the larger E&Ps with cash will buy out others (XOM & PXD for example)
3) The effects of pressure depletion will become more pronounced as more crude is produced. Namely, Gas-oil ratios (GORs) will continue to rise as reservoir pressures drop below bubble point. I am already seeing this in newer completions where initial production rates are very high, but oil declines are much steeper over the first year than previously as gas production increases or stays higher longer. Gas takeaways out here will continue to be constrained, and we will probably over-build the pipelines just as gas, too, starts to decline dramatically.
4) As bottom-hole pressures decline, operators will face more problems with paraffin and scale build-up, especially in the Spraberry wells. This will increase operating expenses as more chemical treatments and well interventions (workovers) are needed.
I can think of more, but these are the big ones that the US shale industry will face over the next ten years.
Never underestimate the power of private credit capital to replace publIc sources constrained by ESG. They understand return on investment.
Indeed. though that can come with a higher cost of capital, potentially smaller size of market, etc. Industry is today still reasonably large and healthy...would be good to figure out at least some options (e.g., additional industry insurance), especially while in an upcycle
Loved the added personal history commentary in the global oil space. Thank you!
Thank you Marcus!
Thank you Arjun. As always, very interesting and valued.
Always appreciate the kind words Martin, thank you.
Great pointing out the policy risks and cannot look to the past (no risk because little exported). The risk of future policy wanting to limit exports of “our oil and gas is worth thinking about. But a longish comment on tier 1 vs 2 shale. There is group think that this is a big deal. I disagree. The industry has gotten better extracting from shale. A decade ago no one believed the Haynesville could be economical at $3 gas. In the Permian, there is So Much room for improvement of oil extraction per block of rock (which is different from rate per well--which is a poor metric because it is easy to game). With application of some science and some engineering, what is now considered to be tier 2 rock can definitely produce more oil per block than has been produced from tier 1 rock. A point. There is, as has happened off and on in the past, enthusiasm for re-fracturing as an economic positive. Re-fracturing is really proof that you screwed up the first time. This is analogous to manufacturing cars. Toyota taught the industry (and over time kicked Detroit’s ass) that it is better to spend the money up front on proper design and manufacturing than to remanufacture and recall. where re-fracturing makes sense today, it should be looked at as a big failure of the past. Maybe technology moved and that’s the reason for the failure, but I see today almost no companies really applying continuous improvement technologies. Or spends modest amounts on really understanding the subsurface (like building airplane wings without spend on testing the metallurgy-it’s crazy). While running a manufacturing company i implemented Toyota processes so speak from experience. Having this be C Suite word salad is worse than a waste of time. It has to become institutional DNA.
A final story. Ford had a group from Toyota tour Dearborn after Ford (thought they) had put in great quality systems. Like their Quality is Job One campaign, for which they had big banners strung around the factory. Obviously proud of this campaign, they asked their Japanese guests what they thought. The reply. “Why do you need signs to tell people this? “. The point being, if you have to put it on a banner, it isn’t in your workers’ DNA, so it will not succeed. I can assure you. Continuous improvement is not in our industry’s DNA at anywhere near the level of Toyota et al. If it had been for the past decade, then we would likely be extracting +50% more oil from each block of unconventional rock.
Steve, thank you for your comment. And I agree, what's next for "Tier 1" may well be current Tier 2 or 3 becoming Tier 1-ish. Over a long enough period of time, I'd say there is little doubt all of that resource will eventually get developed. I think there is a reasonable debate on pace, timing, and current oil price required and the scope and timing of that oil price required to come down. Could well happen seamlessly without further oil px gains...or might require a super cycle to motivate...or something in between.
Very good analysis, Arjun. I work in Midland for a small independent (as I have commented before), and the trends I see for the shales:
1) Rig counts are not going to increase substantially for the reasons you note, but also because the larger players are consolidating leasehold to drill longer laterals (the standard is now 3-milers). Thus, the acreage can be developed with the same or fewer rigs.
2) consolidation will continue as the larger E&Ps with cash will buy out others (XOM & PXD for example)
3) The effects of pressure depletion will become more pronounced as more crude is produced. Namely, Gas-oil ratios (GORs) will continue to rise as reservoir pressures drop below bubble point. I am already seeing this in newer completions where initial production rates are very high, but oil declines are much steeper over the first year than previously as gas production increases or stays higher longer. Gas takeaways out here will continue to be constrained, and we will probably over-build the pipelines just as gas, too, starts to decline dramatically.
4) As bottom-hole pressures decline, operators will face more problems with paraffin and scale build-up, especially in the Spraberry wells. This will increase operating expenses as more chemical treatments and well interventions (workovers) are needed.
I can think of more, but these are the big ones that the US shale industry will face over the next ten years.
Thank you Dan....appreciate your comment.