Question: Who's As Seductive As Gazprom? Answer: Schlumberger
What is Big Oil’s default answer to periods of trouble? Merge. It happened during the $10-a-barrel oil phases of the 1980s, and again in the 1990s. That’s why we’ve got Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco, ConocoPhillips and BP-Amoco-Arco. So why would it happen now, with oil around $100 a barrel? Because that price camouflages the industry’s deep, long-term crisis. Majority state-owned companies like Gazprom, Aramco and Venezuela's Pdvsa own between 80% and 90% of the world’s known energy reserves, and are quite content to develop them themselves. For the Big Oil companies, there's no visible, long-term growth under the current business model.
Think Detroit.
That leaves Big Oil the traditional option of merging itself into the future. Two of the likeliest courtship targets I see areThe Big Oil companies are vastly enlarging their natural gas component. That’s where Exxon’s growth is, for example -- in the Qatari natural gas fields. So a merger with Gazprom would be a natural, providing any company instant access to the world’s largest gas reserves. For Gazprom, merger with a Big Oil giant would provide instant fulfillment of its ambitions to be accepted in the West, and to be both an oil and gas company.
Both Big Oil and
As for Schlumberger, here’s a company that’s profiting from Big Oil's decision in the 1980s and 1990s to slim down by jettisoning its talented geologists, its drilling operations, and much of its research function. Schlumberger took that trend the opposite direction by bulking up with these very same capabilities.
Now, with the national oil companies disinterested in partnering but only in using western oil giants' technology, it’s companies like Schlumberger that are welcome in all these countries. So if a Big Oil company actually owned Schlumberger, that would be a good foot in the door.
Who would merge with Schlumberger is anyone’s guess -- Shell, BP, Exxon, Total, Chevron?
And what about a merger of the giants themselves – Schlumberger and Gazprom? The Business Week story says that Schlumberger’s
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: Gazprom, natural gas, nigeria, oil book, Russia, russia book, schlumberger


2 Comments:
Steve,
I think that you and the author are very wrong on this. SLB et al are interesting as long as they are service providers and nothing more. SLB has a very clear "no equity" in reserves policy, albeit you can argue that IPM is taking it back down the equity path.
This is as much a story of oilfield services price inflation as a result of oil prices as it is about SLB's early investment in Russia.
I'll go out on a limb and call this as a counter indicator to oilfield services in Russia - the oil companies are investing in rigs again (see the press release from Imperial Energy today) which means that the cyclical nature of this business is kicking in.
Hi Ruminator. Companies can start from scratch and buy rigs, or they can buy into already-existing, up-and-running operations. The economies of scale don't work for companies the size of Imperial. They cannot get from A to B absent dealing with the Schlumbergers of the world. And Schlumberger is catching on to the low returns of contracting, as the Business Week story showed. Its more recent contracts include a piece of the action should production exceed a certain level.
Thanks for the comment.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home