Friday, February 7, 2020

US oil, gas rig count drops 16 to 838 on the week amid disciplined early 2020 outlooks



Appalachia, Permian drop by five rigs each in biggest play changes
Drilling in 2020 looks flat with second-half 2019: Helmerich & Payne
E&P capex projections for 2020 largely down year on year

Houston — The total US oil and natural gas rig count dropped by 16 to 838 on the week, drilling data provider Enverus said Thursday, with the biggest in-basin changes coming from Appalachia amid persistently lower gas prices, and the Permian Basin.

Each of the two basins lost five rigs, bringing the number in the Permian down to 418 rigs and to 46 in Appalachia, a largely gas-prone region, as dismal gas prices stayed largely well below $2/MMBtu.

Appalachia includes both the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale plays. The Marcellus lost four rigs, leaving a total 36, while the Utica lost one rig, leaving 10.

The total US rig count has largely bobbed at or below 840 since late December. Those levels were last seen in February 2017 when the domestic count was rapidly rising in response to oil prices that were then breaking through stalemated levels of below-$50/b the year before.
Crude oil was trading just above $50/b on Thursday.

Intra-basin rig counts largely stayed the same or were up or down by one or two rigs against last week.


DRILLERS SAY US ACTIVITY LOOKS SIMILAR TO H2 2019

Outlooks from North American land drillers this week show a needle that isn't moving much this year compared to 2019, even with a relative bright spot of the Permian Basin, sited in West Texas and New Mexico.

"Capital discipline [by E&P companies] will remain a prevailing theme" for 2020, John Lindsay, CEO of driller Helmerich & Payne, said on his company's earnings call earlier this week.

"We expect industry activity to look similar to the average level experienced during the second half of calendar 2019, which implies a modest increase from current levels," Lindsay said.

Rival land driller Patterson-UTI's rig count bottomed in the fourth quarter, and will "modestly" increase in early 2020, CEO Andy Hendricks said Thursday during his company's Q4 earnings call.

But the Permian, the US' biggest oil basin and also a significant gas basin, is doing well and in Q4 partly offset continued weakness in other basins, Hendricks said.

For example, Patterson's average rig revenue was $23,980/operating day in Q4, while its average rig direct cost was $15,540/operating day, he said. Both figures were higher than expected, although higher costs stemmed from reactivation of more Permian rigs.

MORE PERMIAN RIGS TO OFFSET SOFTNESS ELSEWHERE

Moreover, the level of geographic fluctuation in Patterson's rig count will remain "relatively elevated" in Q1, as more Permian rigs in the field will offset softness elsewhere, Hendricks said.

While many more upstream producers have yet to report Q4 earnings – which typically are paired with their capital budgets for the year – several more have announced capital budgets for 2020. Most will underspend either earlier 2020 targets or last year's actual capital outlays.

For example, ConocoPhillips's spending this year should weigh in at $6.5 billion-$6.7 billion, about 6% under its average projected $7 billion/year capex target for the next decade.

Permian/Bakken Shale producer Oasis Petroleum said its capital spending would be $700 million-$730 million for 2020 -- 5% less than its earlier projected $750 million capital budget.

Rigs in the Bakken remained flat this past week at 54.

Cabot Oil & Gas has pared its 2020 capex substantially year on year to $575 million, down 29% from projected spending last year.

"Faster cycle times, lower costs, and lower commodity prices are pushing down budgets in 2020," investment bank TPH said in a Wednesday investor note. "After updating our models to strip and accounting for lower capital costs, we now see our US upstream capex budgets trending down about 15% in 2020."

Earlier industry projections had US capexes collectively down about 7%-10%.

TPH noted that gas basins are harder hit, and should be down roughly 21%. "We would expect more cuts to potentially come in 2H 2020 as the industry loses hedge coverage heading into 2021," the bank said.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

Corona virus + sanctions may depress tanker market - VesselsValue

A foreman wearing a face mask works as a cargo ship docks at a container terminal of Qingdao port in Shandong province, China while the country is hit by an outbreak of the new coronavirus, February 4, 2020.

http://www.tankeroperator.com/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=11359

A combination of tankers coming onto the market as sanctions are lifted (punishing companies from transporting Iranian cargo) - and the Corona virus - could depress tanker rates, says Vessels Value.
 
Last summer, the US put sanctions on a number of Chinese Tanker owners. Due to the opaque ownership structures of the fleets, charterers stayed well clear of any vessel possibly related, thus reducing the available supply ultimately causing rates to peak at a 10 year high, Vessels Value says.

Combined with terrorist activity in the gulf, and a number of other vessels going out of service to have regulatory equipment installed e.g. exhaust gas scrubbers, the Tanker market has been looking healthy with owners enjoying the increased rates throughout autumn and winter.

There have been a number of additional downward pressures; Chinese New Year and now Coronavirus. These should have an impact on the Chinese use of Tankers, but interestingly the data isn’t showing this. See chart below with no significant downward trend. However, the full impact of the Coronavirus may not have been felt yet so prolonged continuation could present risk to Chinese oil demand, port calls and hence the tanker market. See chart below showing daily crude Tanker port calls in China.

Wednesday, February 5, 2020

Government Agency Warns Global Oil Industry Is on the Brink of a Meltdown

The Brent oil field, off the Scottish coast, is scheduled for decommissioning.
The Brent oil field, off the Scottish coast, is scheduled for decommissioning. Bente Stachowske/Greenpeace

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8848g5/government-agency-warns-global-oil-industry-is-on-the-brink-of-a-meltdown

We are not running out of oil, but it's becoming uneconomical to exploit it—another reason we need to move to renewables as quickly as possible.


A government research report produced by Finland warns that the increasingly unsustainable economics of the oil industry could derail the global financial system within the next few years.

The new report is published by the Geological Survey of Finland (GTK), which operates under the government’s Ministry of Economic Affairs. GTK is currently the European Commission’s lead coordinator of the EU’s ProMine project, its flagship mineral resources database and modeling system.


The report was produced as an internal research exercise for the Finnish government, which until 2019 held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union.

Signed off by GTK’s director of scientific research Dr Saku Vuori, the report is written by GTK senior scientist Dr Simon Michaux of the Ore Geology and Mineral Economics Unit. It conducts a comprehensive global assessment of scientific research into the state of the global oil industry with goal of determining how the risks of a global supply gap could impact mining and mineral production.

The peer-reviewed report calls for the European Commission to consider oil as the world’s most important "critical raw material." Despite offering a scathing critique of conventional peak oil theory, the report arrives at the shock conclusion that the economic viability of the entire global oil market could come undone within the next few years.

Oil, oil everywhere, too costly to drill

The plateauing of conventional crude oil production in January 2005 was one of the triggers of events leading to the 2008 global financial crash, according to the report. As debt built-up in the subprime mortgage sector, the crude oil plateau drove up the underlying energy costs for the entire economy making that debt more difficult to repay—and eventually resulting in catastrophic defaults. The report warns that “unresolved” dynamics in the global energy system were only temporarily relieved due to "Quantitative Easing"—the creation of new money by central banks. A correction is now overdue, it warns.


The report says we are not running out of oil—vast reserves exist—but says that it is becoming uneconomical to exploit it. The plateauing of crude oil production was “a decisive turning point for the industrial ecosystem,” with demand shortfall being made up from liquid fuels which are far more expensive and difficult to extract—namely, unconventional oil sources like crude oil from deep offshore sources, oil sands, and especially shale oil (also known as "tight oil," extracted by fracking).

These sources require far more elaborate and expensive methods of extraction, refining and processing than conventional crude mined onshore, which has driven up costs of production and operations.

Yet the shift to more expensive sources of oil to sustain the global economy, the report finds, is not only already undermining economic growth, but likely to become unsustainable on its own terms. In short, we have entered a new era of expensive energy that is likely to trigger a long-term economic contraction.

The coming crash

‘Quantitative Easing’ or QE as it’s often known in shorthand, consists of massive programs of money creation through central banks purchasing government debt. But the report warns that the scale of QE could pave the way for another financial crash as oil markets become unstable, most likely within half a decade.

The role of QE in propping up the oil industry and wider global economy was not anticipated in traditional peak oil theory, which failed to predict the low oil prices endangering profitability. The report concludes that: “The era of cheap and abundant energy is long gone… Money supply and debt have grown faster than the real economy. Debt saturation and paralysis is now a very real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”

Although the world therefore needs to urgently transition away from fossil fuels, it may well be too late to do so in a way that avoids an economic crisis. And doing so will require industrial civilization as we know it to be fundamentally transformed:

“To phase out petroleum products (and fossil fuels in general), the entire global industrial ecosystem will need to be reengineered, retooled and fundamentally rebuilt," the report notes. "This will be perhaps the greatest industrial challenge the world has ever faced historically.”


Professor Nate Hagens, a former Vice President at investment firms Salomon Brothers and Lehman Brothers who now teaches ecological economics at the University of Minnesota, said he "finds the report quite plausible."

"But our institutions and policies and expectations are ‘energy blind’,” he told me. He believes that the report’s warning of a coming economic crisis is very likely.

“We optimize around growth, which requires energy which requires carbon energy,” he said. “We have created approaching 300 trillion dollars in financial claims, on a finite amount of high quality resources... All in all, we’ve created too many claims for future energy and resources to support.”

From Saudi peak to shale bubble

The report offers the first independent public government assessment concluding that Saudi Arabia, once the world’s largest oil producer, is now probably approaching (and may already have passed) a production peak.

The study cites accelerating rig counts amid disproportionately low oil output as mounting evidence of the Saudi oil sector’s declining productivity. It also cites data from the recent IPO held by the Saudi national oil firm, Aramco, indicating that production levels from the country’s largest field, Ghawar, is 1.2 million barrels lower than previously claimed, suggesting the field is nearing maturity.
Meanwhile, as Saudi Arabia has been unable to keep up with demand, US shale has stepped in, contributing to the vast bulk of new global oil supply since 2005—71.4 percent of it to be exact.


The rest of the international oil market is dominated by Russia and Iraq, with other members of the OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) consortium of Middle East oil producers overall contributing just 22 percent of total supply, barely enough to cover losses from countries whose production has been declining.

A bubble ready to burst

The report warns that global production growth may therefore soon stall due to the dodgy debt-driven economics of the US shale industry. While Saudi Arabia will no longer be able to ramp up production much, the US shale oil sector could be on the brink of unravelling due to massive unrepayable debts, declining production rates, and poor well quality.

While the productivity of shale oil wells has increased at first glance, the report says this has come at the expense of “observable decreases in real productivity.” Increasing production “has come at a cost of increased lateral drilling per hole and the increase of water, chemical, and proppant.”

So while average production from fracked US shale wells increased between 2010 and 2018 by 28 percent, in the same period water injection, chemical and proppant use increased by 118 percent. The report says this indicates the huge spike in extraction costs.


Meanwhile, the report warns that most shale oil companies experience negative cash flow due to mounting unrepayable debt levels. As a result, we are fast approaching a point where investors are losing faith in the industry, which is now running out of money to sustain continued operations amidst declining profitability.

The exact date of a peak in US shale oil production is difficult to estimate, but the report concludes that production “is likely to be in terminal decline within the next 5 to 10 years, with the possibility that it has already peaked due to contraction of upstream capital investment.”


If that happens, it would mean we can no longer rely on the principal source of oil behind global production growth.

According to World Oil, two major oil industry service providers, Halliburton and Schlumberger, already believe that despite production reaching record highs, US shale oil fracking has already peaked and is in a period of sustained contraction.

A global peak?

The report is heavily critical of conventional peak oil theory, which predicted that global oil production would peak and decline shortly after 2000 due to ‘below-ground’ geological depletion, leading to permanently spiralling oil prices. The approach is described as “too simplistic” for overlooking “the complex and dynamic interactions of a number of issues around the oil industry (most notably geopolitical actions and the effect on Quantitative Easing).”

But the report also dismisses the now fashionable rejection of the entire relevance of peak oil. Although there is “plenty of oil left,” it is “increasingly expensive to access”.

The current economic system cannot sustain oil prices above $100 a barrel and keep growing, while producers for most new fields cannot sustain profits at prices as low as $45 a barrel without more borrowing.

According to Dr. Michaux, the global economy is therefore caught between a rock and a hard place. “Oil prices will be held low for a time,” he explained. “The problem is all consumers at all scales in all sectors are saturated with debt. Costs are going up, while the ability to generate wealth is contracting.”


This means that although the oil industry can’t cope with the lower prices, the global economy can’t cope with high prices. “I now see peak oil as being defined by a contracting window between an oil price high enough to keep producers in business and a price low enough for consumers to access oil derived goods and services,” said Michaux.

As a result of this combination of geological challenges and above-ground market constraints, Michaux’s government study warns that a global peak in total oil production is either “imminent” over the next few years, or may already have happened, possibly in November 2018. But we will only be able to fully confirm the peak around five years after the fact.

More than half the world’s oil producing countries are now in decline, the report claims, with the bulk of new production concentrated among just six main producers. When looking specifically at crude oil operations, the report says, about 81 percent of the world’s oil fields are now in decline, with the rate of discoveries of new oil fields declining to record lows.

By 2040, this means the world would need to replace over four times the current crude oil output of Saudi Arabia, just to keep output consistently flat.

Rather than global oil supply being constrained simply by the volume of oil deposits in the ground, as conventional peak oil theory assumes, the report says that it is instead constrained “by the number of economically viable projects available to be developed at a low enough production cost.”


Currently, the bulk of continued expansion in global supply is dependent on the United States. With the US shale sector on the verge of breakdown, the report warns that the “window of oil market viability is closing, which suggests the resumption of the 2008 correction will be soon.”

According to Dr. Hagens, this new analysis confirms that “‘peak oil’ is now really about ‘peak credit.’ If we can somehow continue to keep growing our financial claims to allow us access to future energy today, we’ll continue to be able to extract the next most costly tranche of hydrocarbons.”

But as debt levels are becoming dangerously unstable, this can only continue for so long; and only pushes the problem forward, making future oil decline rates steeper. Eventually the situation will become unworkable. He argues that it’s the “global credit orgy of the last 50 years,” but especially since 2008, that has kept the growth engine growing.

I asked Hagens whether he agrees with the report’s verdict that an overall peak could therefore be imminent. “I find it extremely plausible,” he said.

Global reset and the need for a new industrial paradigm

Because we are “using finance to paper over this biophysical gap”, he added, this will eventually “lead to a deflationary pulse in global economies.”

Levels of global debt are now thoroughly out of control, the report says—finding that US government debt creation has been approximately twice the rate of economic growth over the last 40 years. By increasing the volume of debt, countries were able to maintain growth as costs of energy went up. As a result, most national economies now have debt to GDP ratio exceeding 90 percent, which means that they need to go further into debt just to keep their economies functioning while maintaining debt repayments.


Growth in GDP therefore amounts to a “debt fueled mirage,” according to the report. As we have not properly planned for the possible phasing out of fossil fuel energy, it is entirely possible that as energy systems, oil in particular, come to contract, we could witness “the peak of industrial output per capita sometime in the next few years.”

As oil markets become unreliable, the report urges, the world needs to develop “an entirely new energy system based around an entirely different paradigm.” The report calls on technical professionals and policymakers to focus on how “to create a high technology society” based on a smaller clean energy footprint that isn’t reliant on endless material growth. “If this is not achieved, the alternative is the degradation (and fragmentation) of the current industrial ecosystem.”

In short, this means we need an extremely rapid shift to renewables, along with a total reorganization of how our societies function for the coming post-fossil fuels world.

All major industrial nations need to “work together in how to transition away from oil and fossil fuels in general,” the report concludes, warning: “The alternative is conflict.” Industrial civilization will need to “evolve” into “a lower energy consumption profile with less complexity,” based on a “complete restructure of the demand side of energy requirements.”

Right now, though, “no one is preparing for this,” said Hagens. “Not only are we speeding, but we are wearing energy blind-folds at the same time. But the momentum of our current system forces us to have conversations about a bigger system not a smaller one—so the correct and valid plans and blueprints are not discussed… It is a perfect storm—and when the waters recede we are going to have smaller, simpler and more local, regional economies.”

Tuesday, February 4, 2020

Enclosed Spaces: The Importance of Ventilation

Credit: Don Sly
Enclosed Space Ventilation


By Don Sly 01-25-2020 08:03:18 

Thanks very much to The Maritime Executive for your kind invitation to rethink our maritime industry's programs for safe confined space entry and repairs.  

My name is Don Sly, and during these last 45 years I have tested the safety of some 200,000 maritime confined spaces. After the testing (when I find the space "Safe for Workers") I testify thus on a Marine Chemist Certificate so that workers will know the space has been responsibly tested and will perhaps take some hints on strategies to keep the space "Safe" as repairs proceed.   

I am moved to a "rethink" of our industry's "safe-work-in-confined-spaces" strategy by three articles I have recently seen.   

The first was the "...Shocking Spike in Confined Space Deaths" as reported by the International Transport Workers Federation. The "shocking spike" involved three crewmembers killed while de-watering a drill-rig's leg with a trash pump. Carbon monoxide, of course.  

And I have at hand two offerings in The Maritime Executive on the same topic: confined space safety.  

The first is by ex-tankerman John Ratcliffe who detailed confined space testing in the "old days."

The second author is my friend and fellow Marine Chemist Don Raffo. Don recommended Marine Chemists as premier candidates to accomplish timely, documented analysis of confined space hazards in ship repair.   

Mr. Ratcliffe and Mr. Raffo wrote in support of the maritime industrial world's present regulatory approach to confined space hazards. That is, the traditional ship repair confined space testing protocol.  

This approach, enshrined in the legal structures of OSHA and the insurance industry, demands electronic analysis of airborne contaminants as the gateway strategy for dealing with confined space dangers.

First, let's review that rule: Before allowing entry, says OSHA's chapter (Subpart B) on Confined Spaces, "The Employer shall ensure that atmospheric testing is performed in the following sequence: oxygen content, flammability, and then toxicity." 

Note that since the regs are written in numerical detail, testing to demonstrate compliance must also provide documented test results in percentages and parts per million.  

And how is that done? By chromatographic, thermal-conductivity, infrared, electrochemical, and/or platinum-bead-based electronic test gear. It is very expensive. Then, this gear must be maintained and repaired. Expensive. Gear-calibration must be checked each day used. Expensive. Workers must be trained to use and interpret the gear. Expensive. And the time taken from production to do proper sampling, testing and analysis: very costly. 

My re-thinking mode reinforces what I have observed: that in less organized, less supportive, less safety-committed workplaces, electronic testing of confined space air is hit/miss or unavailable, as noted by ex-tankerman Mr. Ratcliffe. It is not a big reach, therefore, to suppose that high costs play a role.  

I fear, therefore, that when we Safety Professionals assume universal compliance and neglect real-life training to deal with substantial noncompliance, we may be shorting the more underserved workers.  
In other words, training maritime workers and supervisors in the benefits of confined space air-testing is just half the story.  

We should follow that sermon with an emphasis on the positive role of routine, forced ventilation in making confined spaces safe... I am talking about the routine use of blowers and ducts.    

And after many years' hands-on experience with both confined spaces and the regulations that govern them, it is my considered opinion that a worker who does not appreciate the importance of ventilation in confined space safety has not been properly trained to deal with the expected dangers.  

In workplaces where air testing may be neglected, ventilation fans and ducts should be set up and ready to go before the bolts are off the manhole cover. Also, this ventilation should be expected to run for an hour minimum before workers enter, and may be continued as the work goes on. 

Why do I recommend routine forced air movement? Because the most acute dangers of confined spaces are airborne. Thus, routine air changes always benefit workers. Moreover, such baseline ventilation does not replace, but actually complements, the electronic analysis of a space's air. In fact, ventilation must be set up anyway when contaminants are found. Plus, ventilation must always accompany "hot work" repairs.  

Considering costs, ventilators are a lot cheaper than electronic test gear; are probably already at hand; and don't need a lot of training to make them work.

Because my re-thinking has me worried about the cost of testing confined spaces, our discussion would be incomplete without considering the cost of the Marine Chemist. Since safety gear is by nature expensive, and Chemist's do not work for the minimum wage, I acknowledge that I my invoice may add to the cost of evaluating a vessel's confined spaces. But I consider that my expertise and enthusiasm make the toll worthwhile.  

My ventilation "re-think" has just scratched the surface of proper worker confined space training.   

OSHA, for instance, demands, in addition to a pre-entry meter survey of confined space air, a "visual inspection" of the tank interior. OSHA wants us thereby to control physical hazards such as unexpected energy ("Lock-Out-Tag-Out,) unsecured piping, defective staging, slippery and unguarded work surfaces. While such dangers are unrelated to air quality (and hence are not discovered by electronic test methods) their control is nonetheless absolutely essential to safe entry. And don't forget the Employer's duty to have spaces re-inspected "as often as necessary" as long as entry and repairs continue.

My "re-think" is somewhat touchy and political because it involves descent to observed detail, as opposed to simply reporting from a world of ideal regulatory compliance. I propose stop-gap ventilation training in response to the "shocking spike." I hope that a more complete worker awareness will both save some lives and also will support those essential confined space regulations that keep our industry viable.

Don Sly is a Marine Chemist.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Monday, February 3, 2020

Kinder Morgan Begins Construction of a Series of Storage Projects

In a Wednesday, March 20, 2019 photo, maritime traffic moves through the Houston Ship Chanel past the site of now-extinguished petrochemical tank fire at Intercontinental Terminals Company in Deer Park, Texas. Air quality and water pollution from the fire's runoff, seen on the right, into the ship channel are some of the concerns in the aftermath of the blaze. (Brett Coomer/Houston Chronicle via AP)
Houston Shipping Channel

Kinder Morgan has begun construction activities on a series of projects at Kinder Morgan’s Pasadena Terminal and Jefferson Street Truck Rack, located on the Houston Ship Channel, it said in its fourth quarter report.

These approximately $125 million projects include increasing flow rates on inbound pipeline connections and outbound dock lines, tank modifications that will add butane blending and vapour combustion capabilities to ten storage tanks, expansion of the current methyl tert-butyl ether storage and blending platform, and a new dedicated natural gasoline (C5) inbound connection.

The improvements are supported by a long-term agreement with a major refiner and are expected to be completed by the end of the second quarter of 2020.

Construction activities have also begun for the butane-on-demand blending system for 25 tanks at KMI’s Galena Park Terminal. The approximately $45 million project will include construction of a 30,000-barrel butane sphere and a new inbound C4 pipeline connection, as well as tank and piping modifications to extend butane blending capabilities to 25 tanks, two ship docks, and six cross-channel pipelines. The project is supported by a long-term agreement with an investment grade midstream company and is expected to be completed in the first quarter of 2021.

Additionally, KMI has begun construction on an expansion of its market-leading Argo ethanol hub. The project, which spans both the Argo and Chicago Liquids facilities, includes 105,000 barrels of additional ethanol storage capacity and enhancements to the system’s rail loading, rail unloading and barge loading capabilities. The approximately $19 million project will improve the system’s inbound and outbound modal balances, adding greater product-clearing efficiencies to this industry-critical pricing and liquidity hub.

Battleground Oil Specialty Terminal Company LLC (BOSTCO), a leading fuel oil storage terminal on the Houston Ship Channel, has authorised a facility upgrade that will add piping to allow for segregation of high sulphur and low sulphur fuel oils. Detailed engineering and design work is underway on the approximately $22 million project, which is expected to be placed in-service in the fourth quarter of 2020. KMI owns a 55 percent interest in and is the operator of BOSTCO.
Q4 results

The company reported a fourth quarter net income of $610 million, compared to $483 million in the fourth quarter of 2018. 

“Our company had another strong quarter with earnings from our base business augmented by the two major projects placed in service during the third and fourth quarters of 2019, Gulf Coast Express Pipeline (GCX) and the Elba Liquefaction project,” said Chief Executive Officer Steve Kean. “We also received several approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for important natural gas projects and are executing on high-return expansion projects in each of our business units.

“We maintained our commitment to fiscal discipline by funding growth capital through operating cash flows, as we have been doing since the first quarter of 2016. Demonstrating this commitment is the fact that during the year we reduced our capital expenditures by more than $300 million, which overwhelmed the slight miss on DCF. The sale of our U.S. Cochin asset, along with our 70 percent interest in KML, both at attractive valuations, helped us further strengthen our balance sheet. In fact, our net debt declined by almost $2.2 billion in the quarter and has now declined by more than $9.4 billion since the third quarter of 2015,” concluded Kean.

Friday, January 31, 2020

Exxon’s Earnings Slump On Poor Petrochemical, Refining Results

An Exxon Mobil refinery in Billings, Mont.


ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) reported on Friday fourth-quarter earnings down from a year earlier, as lower natural gas prices and weak chemical and refining margins were not enough to offset cash flow from asset sales in the quarter.  

Exxon’s Q4 earnings slipped by 5 percent on the year to $5.69 billion, while earnings per common share assuming dilution dropped by 6 percent to $1.33.

Adjusted earnings per share came in at $0.41, lower than Wall Street expectations of $0.43.

In Q4, earnings included favorable identified items of about $3.9 billion, mainly a $3.7 billion gain from the sale of Exxon’s upstream assets in Norway. 

Exxon’s full-year earnings in 2019 also dropped, by 31 percent.

“Our operations performed well, while short-term supply length in the downstream and chemicals businesses impacted margins and financial results,” Exxon’s chairman and chief executive officer Darren W. Woods said in a statement.

Exxon’s oil-equivalent production in Q4 2019 was flat on Q4 2018, at 4 million barrels per day, the supermajor said, but noted the ramp-up of development in the Permian shale play, where production rose by 54 percent from the fourth quarter of last year.

While the upstream and the cash from the sale of the Norway upstream business helped Exxon weather the weaker crude oil and natural gas prices, the chemicals and the downstream businesses didn’t perform well in Q4.

“Industry fuels margins were significantly lower than third quarter, reflecting seasonally lower demand and increased supply from reduced industry maintenance,” Exxon said, while it also flagged further weakening of chemicals margins from already depressed levels.

The weaker Q4 performance didn’t come as a surprise amid the low commodity prices and weak profit margins in the chemicals and refining businesses at the end of last year. Yesterday, Shell also attributed its profit slump in Q4 to weak prices and margins.

After the results release, Exxon’s shares were down 2.6 percent in pre-market trade in New York.  
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Tankers Leave Libya Empty as Hopes Fade for End to Blockade

Fighters loyal to the Government of National Accord open fire in the al-Sawani area, south of Tripoli, in 2019. 
 Fighters loyal to the Government of National Accord open fire in the al-Sawani area, south of Tripoli, in 2019. Photographer: Mahmud Turkia/AFP via Getty Images

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-29/tankers-leave-libya-empty-as-hopes-fade-for-end-to-blockade
  • At least four tankers have left ports without loading cargoes
  • Production could fall to almost nothing, NOC chairman warns
Tankers have begun to leave Libyan ports without cargoes after waiting for days for the end of a blockade of the country’s export terminals by forces loyal to Libyan commander Khalifa Haftar.

The blockade has virtually halted crude exports from the North African country, which had been running at about 1 million barrels a days in recent months. More than half of those shipments went to buyers in the Mediterranean, with Italy, Spain and France among the biggest buyers. China has also emerged as a significant market for Libyan crude, with about a fifth of export volumes heading to the world’s biggest oil importer.

Haftar’s forces closed export ports in the Gulf of Sirte in Central Libya and the Hariga terminal in the east of country on Jan. 17. The Mellitah and Zawiya terminals in the west of the country were forced to halt shipments two days later, after flows from the fields that supply them were also stopped. As a result of the port closures, the National Oil Corp. declared force majeure on supplies, which can allow Libya -- home to Africa’s largest-proven oil reserves -- to legally suspend delivery contracts.

At least four tankers, capable of hauling more than three million barrels of crude, have left Libyan ports in the last 24 hours without taking on cargoes, according to tanker tracking data monitored by Bloomberg. More are preparing to leave, according to port agent reports.

The country has almost no storage capacity that could allow onshore fields to continue pumping even though exports are curtailed. Several storage tanks at the Ras Lanuf terminal were destroyed in 2018, reducing the number of operational tanks to three from 13. Only Libya’s two offshore projects -- Bouri and Al Jurf -- are still able to operate normally; they typically each pump about 30,000 barrels a day.

Libyan oil production had fallen to 271,204 barrels a day, the NOC said yesterday in a statement on its Facebook page. The company’s Chairman Mustafa Sanalla told Bloomberg Television on Monday that output could fall as low as 72,000 barrels within days if the situation doesn’t improve.

”It is not exactly clear what Haftar seeks in return for an end to the blockade,” Tim Eaton, senior research fellow at the Chatham House think tank in London, said by email. “There don’t appear to be advanced negotiations in place to bring this to an end,” he added, “The indications are that this blockade has some distance to run.” The departing tankers suggest that buyers are no more optimistic that the blockade will be lifted any time soon.

— With assistance by Prejula Prem, Salma El Wardany, and Grant Smith