In reporting on the May Offshore Technology Conference in Houston, the Oil & Gas Journal said that "Oil and gas companies are becoming more adept at maintaining long-term business strategy in the face of short-term uncertainty stemming from oil price cycles." In a session on "Coping with price volatility: how will it affect major capital projects," executives discussed cost-cutting measures that include lowering capital budgets and renegotiating contracts.
The responses were hardly revolutionary or even evolutionary. Adjusting budgets is the time honored response to fluctuating oil prices. Unfortunately, the knee-jerk, cash-flow driven reaction is dead wrong. What it amounts to is buying high and selling low.
As profits rise, driven by high oil prices, companies increase spending and operating costs rise driven by restrictions on goods and services. When prices drop, budgets are slashed and oil field activities drop. The recent decline in drilling activity has occurred much faster than in previous down cycles. The herd mentality prevails and oil and gas companies line up to announce reductions.
Where are the contrarians? We believe that the best approach in dealing with the highly volatile oil market is to maintain constant real dollar budgets. This level spending will enable companies to focus on the long-term and take advantage of opportunities during business cycles.
From a strategic position, upstream companies should focus on development during up cycles and exploration in down times. When profits are high, build a cash reserve that can be used to fund projects when revenues drop. For downstream companies, low prices and low demand periods are opportunities to invest in capital projects to add capacity and improve efficiency.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
As gas prices begin to rise again in anticipation for the summer driving season, should we expect prices to reach similar levels as 2008?
At the time of peak prices last year, there was a lot of campaign and other political rhetoric regarding funding, research, and development regarding "alternative energy" sources. Many new companies were founded based on this principle, and I imagine some sponsored by government dollars. Since the peak, a precipitous drop in prices occured, has the interest and funding of these sources also fallen?
What are the principal barriers for oil & gas companies from doing just as you have outlined in your recent post with regards to altering future budgets and hence developing projects depending on the price of crude oil at the time? Is it fear? Concern for adequate return for the shareholder? Or just plain myopia for the future global energy needs?
You have mentioned in a post from last June that the collapse in 1986as having devastating effects on the oil and gas industry, are we seeing some of those effects 23 years later in terms of not having as many forward thinking individuals or great minds within the industry making both sound policy and business decisions.
Thanks for your time.
Corey
Corey has asked many good questions that I will attempt to respond to.
1.) I doubt that prices will reach the highs we saw in the summer of 2008.
2.) The Obama Administration is advocating "alternative energy" sources. The funding of the these projects will await the passage of a comprehensive energy bill.
3.) The barriers in doing what I suggested in terms of levelized spending are the discipline to put some funds away for the rainy day, the herd instinct in the industry, and spending driven by cash flow not available funds. Your comment on shareholder return also factors in the process. Shareholders may view lack of investment as a sign that management has not developed sufficient opportunities. Shareholders also hear the reports of $200/B oil and want the company to continue to invest in anticipation of such a price horizon.
4.) The crash in 1986 resulted in a more cautious industry. The layoffs and company collapses reduced the number of participants. The market conditions did not allow the industry to attract the best talent and that created a gap in the group that would be in the 40-50 age range. These would be the folks that would be your candidates for executive level positions. I wouldn't want to say that the current level of executives doesn't have great minds, but I do know that a lot of sharp young people did not consider oil and gas careers.
Post a Comment