Always, there was oil ...
Map of Central Asia
View map

Steve LeVine covers foreign affairs for BusinessWeek. He previously was correspondent for Central Asia and the Caucasus for The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times for 11 years. Putin’s Labyrinth, his next book, is about the concurrent revival of Russia's global influence, and its unexplained string of high-profile murders. It will be published October 30.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



A Blog on Central Asia,
the Caucasus and Russia

Friday, February 15, 2008

The End of Big Oil

For those interested in the history and future of Big Oil, I've got a piece in The New Republic this week on how one or two of the companies might survive despite their stubborn resistance to change. TNR is a pay site but if you take a free trial subscription you can read the whole piece, plus a few other items that look interesting this week. Here are the first few paragraphs.


When historians one day dissect the long arc of humankind’s use of fossil fuels, they may very well zero in on October 9, 2006, as a turning point for Big Oil. That’s when it became clear that the major oil companies—the giants that had survived numerous predicted extinctions and gone on to ever-greater profit and influence—were undergoing a tectonic shift and would either reinvent themselves or die. It’s the day Moscow dashed the hopes of five major oil companies from three countries and announced that Russia itself, and not they, would develop the biggest new natural gas field on the planet, an undersea Arctic reservoir called Shtokman.

Shtokman is the oilman’s Angelina Jolie: much-coveted but out of reach. Experts believe it contains the carbon fuel equivalent of 23 billion barrels of oil—that in an industry that considers a field of one billion barrels gigantic. Shtokman alone contains sufficient energy to power all of Europe for several years, and the world’s big oil companies had sought rights to it for years.

In another time, Russia’s declaration that its natural gas behemoth, Gazprom, would develop such a field would have set off peals of laughter among Western oilmen. Gazprom lacked the know-how to keep production at its current fields from declining; how would it manage a technological feat under the deep, icy waters of the Barents Sea? But there was nothing humorous about Russia’s plans. Gazprom knew it wasn’t capable of drilling the field; instead, it planned to hire Big Oil to do so. Big Oil would be its employee.

That notion flew in the face of oil-industry orthodoxy, which says that big potential profits accrue to those who assume big risks. If a company developed an oilfield, it was rewarded with the gold star used by Wall Street to measure oil company value—the rights to “booked reserves,” in industry parlance. Booked reserves consist of how much oil and natural gas a company controls, and thus can sell at some point at, say, $95 per barrel or $260 per 1,000 cubic meters. The Securities and Exchange Commission measures booked reserves, and investors regard them as the main determinant of a company’s fundamental worth. Yet now Gazprom was suggesting stripping the Western oil giants of that incentive—they would be unable to book Shtokman’s natural gas. The industry mood has become even more somber over the last half-year as two European companies—France’s Total and Norway’s StatoilHydro— actually agreed to Russia’s terms.

The truth is that any of the oil majors—with the possible exception of Exxon Mobil—eventually would have. Why? Because oilmen know that, despite recent unprecedented profits—Exxon alone reported a record $11.7 billion in net income for the fourth quarter of 2007—they are on the decline. The combined booked reserves of the world’s biggest five companies have shrunk by almost 20 percent on average since 1999, according to a paper by Rice University’s James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy. Shtokman is a blueprint for how the major oil companies are increasingly being treated around the world. Today, state oil companies and ministries from countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Russia control somewhere between 80 percent and 90 percent of the world’s known oil and natural gas reserves. And, over the next two decades and beyond, those countries are going to ask foreign oil companies to serve as their contract employees in the same way that Gazprom brought on Total and Statoil.

Big Oil, then—the indomitable giant symbolized by the pitiless John D. Rockefeller—is dying. At the very least, it will soon have to fundamentally change the way it does business. But the shock of Shtokman is merely a tremor compared with the coming revolutionary transition to a non- carbon energy economy. Big Oil could transcend its current woes and weather that future revolution—perhaps even lead it—if it reinvented itself as Big Energy, striving to develop renewable power sources like wind and solar, or even to deliver the industry’s holy grail: a clean energy mechanism that renders fossil fuels obsolete. True, no one yet knows what the revolution
will look like; but the odd thing is that, for the most part, the oil companies don’t seem to care.

continued (free trial subscription required)

Labels: , , , , , , ,

posted by Steve at

8 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

We had a visitor from BP here on the West coast a week or so ago. He seemed to be even more pessimistic about the future of Big Oil than your scenario suggests. He said that they may not have a role in the future - all their technology comes from Halliburtons of the world and there is no reason why Gazprom cannot go directly to the source.

Pavel

February 15, 2008 11:11 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Hi Pavel. That's most interesting when you get the guys right in the industry wringing their hands. Begging the question -- what are they doing about it? How senior was this fellow?

February 15, 2008 12:30 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The guy was a senior advisor, but he is not an oilman himself. He did not have time to elaborate, but my sense was that they don't think there is much they can do.

Pavel

February 15, 2008 10:10 PM  
Blogger The Energy Standard team said...

I think the situation could be even worse than what Pavel suggests.

Most of the technology/equipment being sold by Haliburton, is being built in China.

Why not skip that middle-man as well and go straight to the REAL source?

Cheaper and easier to do deals with (compared to the politically constrained western companies).

This was already apparent in the 2007 oil service industry conference in Asia.

February 17, 2008 5:12 AM  
Anonymous Black Swan said...

Steve -

This is a good piece that hopefully opens the eyes of the public to the changing future that the oil majors face.

I wonder if the recent deals that Total and others have cut are too shortsighted. In an industry characterized by booms and busts, a decision-making framework that is long-term focused and disciplined will always win the day. That's why I'd put my money on Tillerson and the boys at XOM.

There's a reason they are so damn arrogant.

February 18, 2008 1:14 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

Energy Standard: you raise an excellent point that I neglected -- again, China is the free radical in the equation. Let's see what Sinopec does.

Black Swan: I don't put a lot of store in arrogance as a sure marker of future success. Discipline is another matter; it can spell the difference between utter failure and triumph. In this case, logic -- and the survival instinct -- as you say points to Exxon having an ace up its sleeve. They are mighty quiet about that ace.

Thanks for the comments and best, Steve

February 18, 2008 1:31 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

What do you think about Chavez kind of 'whimpering down' after XOM's latest press? Is it all about the processing facilities in New Orleans or is Chavez finally figuring out that his rhetoric is empty, domestically? Just curious on your views.

Agree with you wholeheartedly on the 'reinvention'. Shell has tried (not sure how successfully) to position itself as 'greener' and 'cleaner' with wind farms and hydrogen cell initiatives, but I don't think these projects yet approach profitability.

February 19, 2008 3:13 AM  
Blogger Steve said...

Hi Brian. Chavez seems to be to be an irrepressible force of nature. So I wouldn't say he is tailoring his rhetoric either to domestic impact, or to what Exxon has or has not said. Perhaps he figured that he had taken that episode as far as it would go? In general,I think the U.S.pays far too much attention to Chavez. There's a good lesson, I think, in the adage that the most painful punishment for any loudmouth is to be ignored.

Regarding Shell -- I found no public evidence that any of the members of Big Oil is truly in pursuit of the holy grail of energy. I believe that one or more are doing more than is conspicuous, but it's not clear if that includes Shell.

Thanks for the comments and best, Steve

February 19, 2008 11:33 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home