The weekend noise around OPEC+ highlights the critical importance of a healthy N. America oil & gas industry, without which the world is unlikely to alleviate energy poverty while also addressing climate change. Some questions:
2/ Why block/impede North America oil pipelines/infrastructure while begging OPEC+ for more supply? Canada is our friend and a pretty great country. Can’t say the same for some other parts of the world.
3/ Why discourage development of Canada’s oil sands or US shale while encouraging Saudi, UAE, Iraq, and Russia (?!?!?) to boost its output? And Iran might get to return but Canada pipes need to be blocked? WTF?
4/ The oil & gas industry for its part needs to get on its front foot in addressing climate challenges, with methane an obvious addressable problem. It is possible to move away from deny and delay while not succumbing to appease and perish.
5/ There are circa 2 billion humans that do not have reliable access to energy. None of them will start with a Tesla and very few will have distributed solar. The world’s least advantaged critically need secure and affordable oil & gas. So do the billions of working/middle class.
6/ Demonizing the oil & gas industry will fail to reduce energy poverty, is negative for energy security, and will ensure that whatever climate progress that could occur will get pushed further to the right. The world needs a healthy and responsible N American oil & gas industry.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1 of 6/ Excellent essay by @JasonBordoff. In my words, killing Big Oil does not kill society’s desire to drive, fly, trade, conduct business, and aspire for middle class+ lifestyles.
2/ A few Qs: Do climate activists really want a world where OPEC+ gains market share? Why deter Canadian oil supply but not Iranian or Russian supply? Why not encourage governments to take serious steps to enforce ACTUAL mpg gains (hint: CAFE hasn’t worked)?
3/ Big Oil’s biggest issue is insufficient profitability over the past decade and it isn’t even that Big anymore at <3% of S&P. Medium Oil may be more accurate? Climate activism is currently aligned with traditional shareholders that want less CAPEX and more dividends. Thank you.
1 of 8/ ROCE and the Path Back for Old Energy, Part 3
An Easter weekend continuation of my Saturday thread series on the potential for improved ROCE from Old Energy. I focus on what is possible for the well-run…not what we all already know is bad about the laggards.
2/ In the pre-super cycle decade of 1991-2000, 16 companies generated 10%+ ROCE, including 13 integrateds (BP, AN, ARC, CHV ,TX, XON, MOB, MRO, OXY, P, REP, STO, TOT), 2 E&Ps (EOG, SU), and 1 service (SLB). The Sweet 16 averaged a 17% ROCE. Legacy tickers used, in memorium.
3/ Of the pre-super cycle good ROCE-ers, 11 generated positive operating free cash flow (cash flow from ops less CAPEX). The 5 that didn’t — OXY, P, STO, EOG, and SU — were near break-even. Those 5 show that while positive FCF is helpful, it is not a prerequisite to good ROCE.
1 of 10/ ROCE vs Well IRRs and the Path Back for Old Energy
Since the shale revolution, there is a massive disconnect between promised well-level IRRs and actual, corporate-level returns on capital employed (ROCE) for the oil industry.
2/ Oil producers promised 30%-50%+ well IRRs at seemingly conservative oil prices (<$50/bbl). Over the previous 5 and 10 years, WTI averaged $51 and $68/bbl. Corresponding median ROCE for Old Energy averaged +0.6% and 3.9%. What the heck!?!
3/ Why the crazy big gap? It appears that numerous ongoing costs were not reconciled including for acreage, infrastructure, less successful drilling, DUC builds, etc. Why ignore so many costs? I have no explanation.
1 of 15/ Bubble psychology from the perspective of a retired stock analyst
When you first make a big call as an analyst, the doubters come out en masse as you are going against the overwhelming consensus. Initially, you are way right and everyone else is wrong. Then it switches.
2/ In 2004, we first published our call that oil could rise to a sustained $50-$80 range, a time everyone KNEW oil would never stay over $25. Many thought oil would only reach $50 if Saudi collapsed, after which the world economy would sink. Oil blew through $50 without calamity.
3/ In 2004, everyone had a 1970s mindset on what would cause oil to spike and and a ‘90s mindset on what would follow. Recency bias, anchoring, and a bunch of related terms were operating in full force. The market was willing to assume away an entire structural move. Bad idea.
As someone who called a then coming super-spike era for oil markets in 2004, but failed to get off in 2008 until well into the downturn, the current innovation/Bubble stock gurus seem to be making many of the same mistakes I made.
2/ The idea that your favorite innovation/Bubble stock never discounted 0-1% Treasuries is as dumb as when I said oil equities weren’t discounting $140 and “only” $90-$100/bbl (or something like that). The market is almost certainly discounting better conditions than you realize.
3/ The idea that we were using “conservative” normalized assumptions for oil equities I sincerely thought was true. However, it didn’t matter. When you are toward the end of massive bull market, no one else is using conservative assumptions.
1 of6/ Energy S&P 500 weight and the path back to respectability.
For most of my 30 year career, Energy has been 8%-15% of the SPX. This cycle it troughed below 2%, less than Utilities or Materials, rendering Old Energy irrelevant for generalist PMs.
2/ With the sharp recovery from pre-vaccine lows last October, Energy is now back through 3% and above Utes and Materials. Unlike the latter 2 sectors, Energy has a history of a much more sizable SPX weight.
3/ As Old Energy recovers, I don’t think it can or will remain ignored. In the same way we had a massive fundamental and momentum overshoot on the downside, structurally better ROCE can combine with renewed interest to take it back up.