Growing bankruptcy crisis in global oil and gas industry

Discussion of the latest Peak Oil news (please also check the Website News area below)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Lord Beria3
Posts: 5066
Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
Location: Moscow Russia
Contact:

Growing bankruptcy crisis in global oil and gas industry

Post by Lord Beria3 »

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/05/12/oil-m12.html
Lower oil prices have bankrupted dozens of major oil and gas companies since 2015. Moreover, a sharp increase in bankruptcies in the month of April suggests that the worse is yet to come.

A total of 69 major oil and gas companies, with $34.3 billion in debts, have gone bankrupt since 2015, according to a report released earlier this month by Haynes and Boone law firm. In April 2016 alone, 11 significant companies went under. These companies cumulatively held $14.9 billion worth of debt, making April 2016 account for 43 percent of the total bankruptcy debt since the beginning of 2015.

Charles Gibbs, a company-restructuring lawyer, told Reuters that the second quarter of 2016 would have even more bankruptcies than the first. The global consulting and professional service firm Deloitte, meanwhile, predicts that a third of global oil and gas companies, 175 corporations, are at risk of bankruptcy.

Forbes cites a Bernstein Research prediction that before 2019 there will be $70 billion in defaults in the global gas and oil industry and $400 billion worth of risky debt. So far, there has been $34.3 billion in defaults, much of that centered in “unconventional” oil and gas producers. For example, the largest failure so far has been the Canadian-listed company Pacific Exploration and Production, which mines Venezuela’s Orinoco bitumen, also known as tar or oil sands. The company had $5.3 billion in debt.
“Unconventional” fields, such as shale formations, which require hydraulic fracturing, tar sands, and deep-sea offshore reserves, have costs of production far higher than “conventional” oil. While Ghawar, the largest Saudi Arabian field, has a cost of production close to $1 a barrel, an average shale well in the Bakken field in North Dakota only begins to break even at $69 a barrel, according to a recent Scotia Bank estimate.
In 2014, Brent Crude Oil (the international standard for oil price), was a little over $110 per barrel. Since then its price has declined rapidly, descending to nearly $35 per barrel at the start of this year. The rout has devalued US energy company stocks by more than $1 trillion . The spot price, which has risen to about $47.50 at the time of writing, remains highly volatile.

At the beginning of December 2015, the downturn had already led to 250,000 workers being laid off around the world. Tens of thousands more workers have been laid off this year, with more to come.
The crisis in the oil industry is of immense significance and could spark a broader meltdown of the fragile global financial system.

Reuters writes, “U.S. oil and gas companies sold about $350.7 billion in debt between 2010 and 2014, the peak years of the oil-and-gas boom, with junk bonds making up more than 50 percent of all issuance.” By comparison, $177.1 billion in US telecommunication bonds were sold between 1998 and 2002 before the implosion of that industry. However, only 10 percent of those were junk bonds.

A larger sell-off of these bonds could cause a larger panic in US financial markets, where many institutions rely on unprecedented low interest rates to remain afloat.
Greer predicted that the mass defaults in the oil/gas sector would trigger another financial crisis - looks like it is getting closer...

Presumably, we could see oil prices go lower in the short term but lead to a massive supply crunch a few years down the line as depletion accelerates.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 2587
Joined: 21 Sep 2011, 12:02
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Post by BritDownUnder »

Difficult to know whether you can pick up production on a 'half fracked' oil field.

Does anyone know? From my limited knowledge the fracking and all the money is spent up front to open up the oil bearing rock, right? And then the oil flows out easily afterwards.

Maybe the wells from the bankrupt companies are still flowing and the money is going to the bankruptcy receivers.
G'Day cobber!
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

BritDownUnder wrote:Difficult to know whether you can pick up production on a 'half fracked' oil field.

Does anyone know? From my limited knowledge the fracking and all the money is spent up front to open up the oil bearing rock, right? And then the oil flows out easily afterwards.

Maybe the wells from the bankrupt companies are still flowing and the money is going to the bankruptcy receivers.
The flow from a fracked field will deplete by about 40% over a year and virtually stop after two years so these fields have to be refracked on a regular basis to maintain flows. After a couple of frackings new wells have to be drilled and fracked, although these can be drilled from the same fracking pad. The companies go bankrupt because they don't get continuous flows from their wells and have to keep refracking and drilling. This redrilling accounts for the huge number of drilling rigs employed in the US.

The wells remain in place for several years but over time the concrete and steel linings are attacked by the backflow of toxic, corrosive fluids and the well integrity is lost. This is one of the worries over pollution of water supplies over time.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
raspberry-blower
Posts: 1868
Joined: 14 Mar 2009, 11:26

Post by raspberry-blower »

BritDownUnder wrote:Difficult to know whether you can pick up production on a 'half fracked' oil field.

Does anyone know? From my limited knowledge the fracking and all the money is spent up front to open up the oil bearing rock, right? And then the oil flows out easily afterwards.

Maybe the wells from the bankrupt companies are still flowing and the money is going to the bankruptcy receivers.
This should help answer your questions, BDU.
Bankruptcy alone cannot rebalance the oil markets. Instead, natural well depletion and a lack of new investment are the driving forces that are reducing production over time. Those forces will continue in the future, but for now investors will just have to be patient and not get ahead of themselves.
Sums it up - along with Ken's comments that these oilfields will continue to be environmental hazard zones long after all pumping operations have ceased
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Total seems to want to go beyond petroleum.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... ssil-fuels
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

User avatar
clv101
Site Admin
Posts: 10604
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Contact:

Post by clv101 »

kenneal - lagger wrote:
BritDownUnder wrote:Difficult to know whether you can pick up production on a 'half fracked' oil field.

Does anyone know? From my limited knowledge the fracking and all the money is spent up front to open up the oil bearing rock, right? And then the oil flows out easily afterwards.

Maybe the wells from the bankrupt companies are still flowing and the money is going to the bankruptcy receivers.
The flow from a fracked field will deplete by about 40% over a year and virtually stop after two years so these fields have to be refracked on a regular basis to maintain flows. After a couple of frackings new wells have to be drilled and fracked, although these can be drilled from the same fracking pad. The companies go bankrupt because they don't get continuous flows from their wells and have to keep refracking and drilling. This redrilling accounts for the huge number of drilling rigs employed in the US.

The wells remain in place for several years but over time the concrete and steel linings are attacked by the backflow of toxic, corrosive fluids and the well integrity is lost. This is one of the worries over pollution of water supplies over time.
Yeah, it's the key difference between fracked (tight) oil and conventional.

With fracking you spend money on the original drilling and fracking, and see production. But the production rate declines rapidly. To maintain a given rate, you have to keep spending. In any given year, the production rate is, in the first order, proportional to the previous year's spending.

With conventional oil you spend money on the original drilling, and see production. But here the production declines slowly. In any given year, the production rate is, in the first order, proportional to the cumulative spending over the last couple of decades.

One system is driven by on going operational expenditure, and higher extraction rates require higher ongoing expenditure. The other can be seen more in terms of capital expenditure, with extraction rates determined by the cumulative past investment.

As we know a lot of new recent production has been from tight oil, and we know expenditure has fallen we can expect tight oil to disappear as fast as it arrived over the next few years. Against the slow background decline of conventional oil (and wild cards like the Alberta forest fire) I think there's a good chance 2015 will have seen the highest all liquids extraction rate.
User avatar
Mark
Posts: 2563
Joined: 13 Dec 2007, 08:48
Location: NW England

Post by Mark »

Jobs at risk as Shell looks to shut Manchester office as oil prices plunge:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... t-11239351

Shell, which has a total UK workforce of 7,500, employs 700 staff in Manchester. Bosses say employees at its Manchester office will be offered redeployment.

Oil giant Shell is pushing ahead with plans to cut jobs and close offices in the wake of the plunging oil price and its takeover of BG Group. The cost-cutting drive will trigger three office closures, including the former BG Group headquarters at Thames Valley Park, Reading; BG's offices at Albyn Place, Aberdeen; and Shell's Brabazon House office, Manchester. It has also asked staff at the Thames Valley site to apply for voluntary redundancy, while a separate voluntary severance programme has been rolled out to "some UK employees" as oil prices remain persistently low. The energy giant employs 700 staff and contractors in Manchester - but the firm say around half work from home. The firm has previously revealed that lower oil prices and its merger with BG Group would lead to 10,300 job losses. It has already made 7,500 job cuts through an efficiency drive, with 2,800 jobs also being lost from its tie-up with BG Group. However, the company claim that Manchester workers may be given the option of home working or relocation following the closure of Brabazon House. Huibert Vigeveno, BG Group chief executive, revealed the office shake-up during an announcement at the Thames Valley Park. He said: "We now have the outcomes of the UK office footprint review. One of the review's recommendations was to consolidate all Shell's London and South East based operations into central London. "Our intention is therefore to close the Thames Valley Park campus by the end of this year.

Continues....
User avatar
BritDownUnder
Posts: 2587
Joined: 21 Sep 2011, 12:02
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW, Australia

Post by BritDownUnder »

America is probably sensible to keep the fracked oil in the ground so long as the conventional stuff is low priced. After all, better for your enemy (and I really mean that most oil producers are enemies of the US) to run down his resources than you. Then pick up your oil production once conventional production has gone into real decline.
G'Day cobber!
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

BritDownUnder wrote:America is probably sensible to keep the fracked oil in the ground so long as the conventional stuff is low priced. After all, better for your enemy (and I really mean that most oil producers are enemies of the US) to run down his resources than you. Then pick up your oil production once conventional production has gone into real decline.
Be nice to think it was a deliberate plan but it is not. I've often thought much the same about the potential oil in ANWAR up in Alaska and the oil off the East coast.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

For the sake of the human population and most of the world's fauna and flora it would be better if tight oil and gas and most of the conventional oil and gas together with coal and lignite were left in the ground forever not just until someone else's runs out.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:For the sake of the human population and most of the world's fauna and flora it would be better if tight oil and gas and most of the conventional oil and gas together with coal and lignite were left in the ground forever not just until someone else's runs out.
The problem being that to leave it in the ground will most certainly kill off much of the worlds population.
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin
Posts: 14287
Joined: 20 Sep 2006, 02:35
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Contact:

Post by kenneal - lagger »

They will die anyway if they burn it through the gross overheating of atmosphere that burning it will cause and the subsequent rise in sea level and loss of prime agricultural land. As someone else said, "The human population is in overshoot."

The difference is that a lot more of the ecosystems upon which we rely will survive if we leave the stuff in the ground and so will a lot more of the people. Burn it and you will destroy most of the ecosystems which support us and even more people will die.

From the propaganda point of view, dig it up and burn it and a few very rich but incredibly stupid people will make a lot more money. Leave it in the ground and a few very rich but incredibly stupid people will make less money and might even go to the wall (we can only hope) and the rest of us might get to enjoy our lives a bit more.

Not a hard choice in my book.
Action is the antidote to despair - Joan Baez
vtsnowedin
Posts: 6595
Joined: 07 Jan 2011, 22:14
Location: New England ,Chelsea Vermont

Post by vtsnowedin »

kenneal - lagger wrote:They will die anyway if they burn it through the gross overheating of atmosphere that burning it will cause and the subsequent rise in sea level and loss of prime agricultural land. As someone else said, "The human population is in overshoot."

The difference is that a lot more of the ecosystems upon which we rely will survive if we leave the stuff in the ground and so will a lot more of the people. Burn it and you will destroy most of the ecosystems which support us and even more people will die.

From the propaganda point of view, dig it up and burn it and a few very rich but incredibly stupid people will make a lot more money. Leave it in the ground and a few very rich but incredibly stupid people will make less money and might even go to the wall (we can only hope) and the rest of us might get to enjoy our lives a bit more.

Not a hard choice in my book.
The problem you will have is not with those very few at the top but with the two or three billion in the middle which will fight over which half dies and which half wins. My guess is that the western world which all has fertility rates at or below replacement will decide that their third of the seven billion are the winners and will seek ways to set the other two thirds against each other to mutually wipe each other out. That two thirds will use all the fossil fuel they can get their hands on in the war effort to be the victors. You can't tell them they have to fight it out with stone tipped spears because some of them already have working nukes.
woodburner
Posts: 4124
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 22:45

Post by woodburner »

vtsnowedin wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:For the sake of the human population and most of the world's fauna and flora it would be better if tight oil and gas and most of the conventional oil and gas together with coal and lignite were left in the ground forever not just until someone else's runs out.
The problem being that to leave it in the ground will most certainly kill off much of the worlds population.
Let's hope so.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Post Reply