Page added on June 16, 2016
Is the U.S. shale oil industry in trouble? No, it is engaged in a high-stakes competition for market share. As oil flooded the market in 2014-15, prices dropped dramatically and producers began burning midnight oil to manage the downward economic pressures. While some overleveraged companies won’t survive the economic challenge, in true Darwinian fashion, the fittest will prevail.
According to the U.S Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) “Drilling Productivity Report,” it is estimated that by January 2016, daily production in the seven most prolific shale oil and gas areas in the U.S is expected to fall by 116,000 barrels of oil and 365 million cubic feet of gas. Those seven production areas—ranging from the Utica and Marcellus shale deposits in the Northeast and the Bakken, Niobrara, Haynesville, Permian, and Eagle Ford deposits in the middle of the country—accounted for 92 percent of domestic oil production growth and all natural gas production during the years 2011-14.
The decline is directly attributable to a 2014 decision by the Organization of Petroleum-Exporting Countries (OPEC) to produce without regard to market supply. Consequently, a barrel of Benchmark Brent crude oil that brought $114 in June 2014 today brings under $40. OPEC members, particularly Saudi Arabia, can afford the lower price because they can pump oil for as little as $15 a barrel –a competitive advantage American producers cannot match.
In December, OPEC doubled down on its strategy and oil prices hit a seven-year low. The lower price hits OPEC profits too, of course, but the greater harm is done to competing oil producers with higher production costs. Those companies can only stop producing and exploring. Many will fail altogether.
So far, some 250,000 job losses around the world are attributed to the lower prices, about 79 percent of that in oil field-service companies like Schlumberger and Halliburton. Swift Worldwide Resources speculates that more than 10,000 workers have been let go by struggling independent contractors and subcontractors. In keeping with their independent status, such companies typically don’t announce layoffs.
The glut of oil has affected shale oil field operations—OPEC’s primary target—with the number of oil rigs in North America declining 62 percent from December 2014, according to WTRG Economics. Some shale oil producers with high production costs are going bankrupt, while other producers are, in the words of an Oxford Institute for Energy Studies report in November, “[going] into hibernation” or otherwise adjusting as needed.
Many companies are creating different survival adjustments include selling off assets, such as pipelines, to private equity investors, — part of Chesapeake Energy’s strategy– “refracking” wells using newer technologies, and using multi-pad drilling with “walking rigs” that are moved from hole to hole on a single site. Well-endowed companies are shelving Arctic megaprojects (e.g. Royal Dutch Shell) or getting out of deepwater drilling altogether (e.g. ConocoPhillps) in favor of shale oil production. ExxonMobil has drilling rights to 1.5 million acres in the Permian Basin shale formation and in October was looking to acquire more.
As the OPEC challenge continues, producers are implementing ways to keep their heads above water. Many producers are downsizing their employees and finding cost effective means for continual oil production, however despite the temporary strategies that are in place, it is not certain who will survive.
6 Comments on "Increased Oil Competition: Survival of the Fittest"
tita on Thu, 16th Jun 2016 2:51 pm
So much bullshit in this article. And when was it written? It talks about a fall of 116’000 barrels by january 2016, but we are in june 2016 and the fall is already at 800’000 barrels.
penury on Thu, 16th Jun 2016 3:02 pm
It is difficult to keep all of the propaganda straight. Even when you are publishing it, you should proof read for minor errors, i.e dates well in the past when article is printed.
yoshua on Thu, 16th Jun 2016 4:24 pm
Oil producers have of course always two options… to produce or stop producing. At some point they will stop producing… for good.
shortonoil on Thu, 16th Jun 2016 6:11 pm
The Shale Industry has invested over $1 trillion to create an industry with $362 billion in annual gross sales. If it made a 10% profit margin on its gross sales, and paid zero dollars in interest on that money it would take 27 years to repay the principle.
The Shale Industry was a dead horse coming out of the gate; but when senseless speculation is the only game left in town some sucker is likely to show up to back a race that should have never begun to begin with. Shale is the perfect example of Central Bank malfeasance; an attempt to keep the game going to fund Wall Street, and the TBTF banks by consuming our last remaining assets in a fiasco.
Kenz300 on Sat, 18th Jun 2016 7:21 am
Electric cars, trucks, bicycles and mass transit are the future…..fossil fuel ICE cars are the past…………..
Think teen agers vs your grand father…………………. cell phones vs land lines…….
NO EMISSIONS……..climate change is real………
Save money……no stopping at gas stations…..no oil changes……..less overall maintenance……
snag on Sat, 18th Jun 2016 4:08 pm
This article is a boring summary of recent headlines with no insight offered.
Because of Dodd-Frank, the banks had few places they could put the Fed money but they had to get rid of it so they financed oil and gas development. The shale oil boom was financed by Quantitative Easing, but Planet Janet does not seem to realize it – or much of anything else. Her speech and press conference on Wednesday was an hour and a half of confusion, contradiction, and outright babbling. It was entertaining to see the commentators on the various business channels sitting there, almost speechless, in shock that our Fed Chairman had just, once again, made such a public display of incompetence.