MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2751996010 · doi:10.2118/0917-0012-jpt

Comments: At What Price Profitability?

2017· article· en· W2751996010 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
John Donnelly

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petroleum Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnergy
ThématiqueGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésQuarter (Canadian coin)Profitability indexEarningsOil shaleEconomicsRevenueBusinessAgricultural economicsFinanceEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Editor's column Consensus is growing around the idea that oil prices will fluctuate in the $45–60 bbl range, both in the short term and perhaps even for the long term. This has led to a rash of studies about what this means for operators and service companies in the “new normal.” On the operator side, much of that depends on what oil price translates to profitability, both in the unconventional and conventional sectors. Some anecdotal evidence is trickling in. Public companies reported second quarter earnings in late July and early August. According to earnings reports, 15 of the largest shale producers posted total net losses of $470 million. During that time (April–June), WTI oil prices averaged $48/bbl. That was a marked improvement over the past quarter and past year. Those same companies reported total losses of $3.7 billion in the first quarter of 2017 and losses of $7.4 billion in the second quarter of 2016. The financial improvement in the second quarter came from more efficient operations, cost cutting, and a rise in oil prices. But at what oil price are shale producers profitable? Analysts have thrown around figures of as low as $40/bbl, but a detailed study of the issue by consultancy Wood Mackenzie sheds new light on the subject and is examined on page 47 of this issue. The consensus is that $50/bbl brings most companies closer to profitability than $40/bbl, but perhaps needs to be over $50/bbl to be sustainable. Operators are taking the “lower for longer” outlook seriously and are adapting. Occidental Petroleum announced that it was tying a company-wide compensation plan to the firm being profitable at $40/bbl. Some of the largest majors are beginning to sanction projects once again—although cautiously. More new oil and gas fields were given the green light in the first half of this year than in all of last year, including projects by ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP. But about three-fourths of those conventional projects are expansions of existing fields or satellite developments that tie back to existing pipelines and platforms, according to Wood Mackenzie. Shell, for example, is now tying its Kaikias project in the US Gulf of Mexico to its existing Ursa production hub to limit costs. When BP reported its earnings, Bob Dudley, the company’s chief executive, said the firm was planning on the basis of oil prices being at current levels for the next 5 years. Noted oil historian Daniel Yergin agreed, adding, “The industry is in the middle of re-engineering its processes and its technologies to be a $50/bbl industry, not a $100/bbl industry.” Major oilfield services companies Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Baker Hughes reported increased revenue for the second quarter of 2017 compared with the first quarter, with revenue up 15.8% for Halliburton, 8.2% for Schlumberger, and 6.3% for Baker Hughes. Halliburton earned a slight profit while the two other companies posted net losses. Dave Lesar, chairman of Halliburton, sees a bit of a slowdown coming in shale, saying that producers were “tapping the brakes” on drilling as oil prices remain under $50/bbl and the global supply glut appears to have life left in it.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,721
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,545

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,014
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,284 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchTravaux en français237 207