Fed Bubble Bursts in $550 Billion of Energy Debt: Credit Markets By Christine Idzelis and Craig Torres – Dec 11, 2014, 10:59:52 AM

The danger of stimulus-induced bubbles is starting to play out in the market for energy-company debt.

Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations. Research firm CreditSights Inc. predicts the default rate for energy junk bonds will double to eight percent next year.

“Anything that becomes a mania — it ends badly,” said Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management. “And this is a mania.”

The Fed’s decision to keep benchmark interest rates at record lows for six years has encouraged investors to funnel cash into speculative-grade securities to generate returns, raising concern that risks were being overlooked. A report from Moody’s Investors Service this week found that investor protections in corporate debt are at an all-time low, while average yields on junk bonds were recently lower than what investment-grade companies were paying before the credit crisis.

Borrowing costs for energy companies have skyrocketed in the past six months as West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, has dropped 44 percent to $60.46 a barrel since reaching this year’s peak of $107.26 in June.

Yields Surge

Yields on junk-rated energy bonds climbed to a more-than-five-year high of 9.5 percent this week from 5.7 percent in June, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. At least three energy-related borrowers, including C&J Energy Services Inc. (CJES ▼ -3.13% 12.07), postponed financings this month as sentiment soured.

“It’s been super cheap” for energy companies to obtain financing over the past five years, said Brian Gibbons, a senior analyst for oil and gas at CreditSights in New York. Now, companies with ratings of B or below are “virtually shut out of the market” and will have to “rely on a combination of asset sales” and their credit lines, he said.

Companies rated Ba1 and lower by Moody’s and BB+ and below by Standard & Poor’s are considered speculative grade.

Stimulus Effect

The Fed’s three rounds of bond buying were a gift to small companies in the capital-intensive energy industry that needed cheap borrowing costs to thrive, according to Chris Lafakis, a senior economist at Moody’s Analytics in West Chester, Pennsylvania.

Quantitative easing “has been one of the keys to the fast, breakneck pace of the growth in U.S. oil production which requires abundant capital,” Lafakis said.

One of those to take advantage was Energy XXI Ltd. (EXXI ▼ -1.39% 2.84), an oil and gas explorer, which has raised more than $2 billion in the bond market in the past four years.

The Houston-based company’s $750 million of 9.25 percent notes, issued in December 2010, have tumbled to 64 cents on the dollar from 106.3 cents in September, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. They yield 27.7 percent.

Energy XXI got its lenders in August to waive a potential violation of its credit agreement because its debt had risen relative to its earnings, according to a regulatory filing. In September, lenders agreed to increase the amount of leverage allowed.

Bubble Risk

“We think the sell-off has been a little over done,” said Greg Smith, a vice president in Energy XXI’s investor relations department. “People are trading us as though we’re distressed.”

The company has “plenty of liquidity,” Smith said. “Come January we’ll be free cash flow positive,” which is “a rarity in this business,” he said.

The debt rout is one of the latest examples of a boom and bust in U.S. markets as unprecedented Fed stimulus fuels a hunt for yield. The fallout has been limited so far, yet the longer the Fed holds its benchmark lending rate near zero, the greater the risk of more consequential bubbles, according to former Fed governor Jeremy Stein.

“To the extent that highly accommodative monetary policy courts risks to the economy further down the road, there is more of a live trade-off than there was at 8 percent unemployment” said Stein, now a Harvard University professor.

Joblessness of 5.8 percent in November was about half a percentage point away from the Fed’s estimate of full employment, or the lowest level of labor market slack the economy can sustain before companies bid up wages.

Job Creation

Employment in support services for oil and gas operations has surged 70 percent since the U.S. expansion began in June 2009, while oil and gas extraction payrolls have climbed 34 percent.

“There are distortions in multiple markets,” said Lawrence Goodman, president of the Center for Financial Stability, a monetary research group in New York. “It is like a Whac-A-Mole game: You don’t know where it is going to pop up next.”

Fed Chair Janet Yellen said in a July 2 speech in Washington that she saw “pockets of increased risk-taking,” including in the corporate debt markets.

Midstates Petroleum Co. (MPO ▼ -11.56% 1.30) is spending about $1.15 drilling for every dollar earned selling oil and gas. Outspending cash flow is the norm for many companies in the U.S. shale boom.

Changing Environment

The Houston-based company’s $700 million of 9.25 percent notes due in June 2021 have plummeted to 53.5 cents from 108 cents at the beginning of September, according to Trace. The debt is rated Caa1 by Moody’s and B- by S&P.

Representatives of Midstates didn’t respond to phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Some borrowers are under pressure just a few months after selling new debt. Sanchez Energy Corp.’s $1.15 billion of 6.125 percent notes maturing in January 2023, issued this year, have tumbled to 77 cents from 101 cents in September, according to Trace. Proceeds from the bonds were partly used to fund a purchase of Eagle Ford shale assets from Royal Dutch Shell Plc. (RDSA ▲ 0.78% 25.97)

“The company has planned for and is poised to rapidly adapt to a changing commodity price environment,” Tony Sanchez, III, chief executive officer of Sanchez Energy, said in a statement yesterday.

The Houston-based company expects to fully fund its 2015 capital program from operating cash flow and cash on hand without drawing on its revolving credit line, the statement said.

Magnum Hunter

Sanchez Energy has never had positive free cash flow. Michael Long, chief financial officer, didn’t return a call seeking comment.

“Oil companies that have high funding costs in the Eagle Ford and the Bakken shale plays are the ones that are most exposed right now due to lower crude prices,” Gary C. Evans, chief executive officer of Magnum Hunter Resources (MHR ▼ -4.16% 3.46) Corp., said in a phone interview.

Magnum Hunter’s $600 million of 9.75 percent debt due in 2020 has tumbled to 84.5 cents from 109 cents in September, Trace data show. The notes are rated CCC by S&P and yield 13.9 percent.

Evans said Houston-based Magnum Hunter sold almost all of its oil properties over the last year and a half and is now predominantly a gas company.

Default Risk

“We’ve insulated ourselves,” Evans said. For other energy borrowers at risk, “the liquidity squeeze” will probably occur in March or April when banks re-calculate have much they may borrow under their credit lines based on the value of their oil reserves.

Deutsche Bank analysts predicted in a Dec. 8 report that about a third of companies rated B or CCC may be unable to meet their obligations should oil prices drop to $55 a barrel.

“If you keep oil prices low enough for long enough, there is a pretty good case that some of the weakest issuers in the high-yield space will run into cash-flow issues,” Oleg Melentyev, a New York-based credit strategist at Deutsche Bank, said in a telephone interview.

For Related News and Information: Junk Fervor Cools as Oil Rout Upends Energy Debt: Credit Markets Junk Backing Shale Boom Faces $11.6 Billion Loss: Credit Markets Shale Boom’s Allure to Wall Street Tested by Drop in Oil Prices Oil Slump Heaps Bond Losses in $50 Billion Glut: Credit Markets Drillers Piling Up More Debt Than Oil Hunting Fortunes in Shale

To contact the reporters on this story: Christine Idzelis in New York at cidzelis@bloomberg.net; Craig Torres in Washington at ctorres3@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Shannon D. Harrington at sharrington6@bloomberg.net Caroline Salas Gage, Faris Khan

Advertisements

Mexico’s President Signs Energy Overhaul Into Law

Wall Street Journal

LATIN AMERICA NEWS

Mexico’s President Signs Energy Overhaul Into Law

Legislation Ends Monopoly of State-Owned Petróleos Mexicanos

By

JUAN MONTES
Dec. 20, 2013 3:06 p.m. ET
MEXICO CITY—Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto signed into law Friday a bill that ends the monopoly of state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos in oil and gas, opening new horizons for private-sector investment in the world’s ninth-largest oil producer.

The energy bill, Mr. Peña Nieto’s wager to lift stagnant oil production and unleash economic growth, was passed by lawmakers in just 10 days. Congress gave final approval on Thursday of last week after two days of debates, and a required majority of state legislatures, 26 of the country’s 31, approved the constitutional amendment by this week.

“This year, we Mexicans have decided to overcome myths and taboos in order to take a large stride toward the future,” Mr. Peña Nieto said in a speech at the National Palace.

Mr. Peña Nieto became the first president in more than 50 years to propose and pass in Congress changes to the constitution on the subject of oil. The last one was Adolfo López Mateos in 1960, and that was to reinforce a state monopoly set up in 1938 when former President Lázaro Cárdenas expropriated the oil industry and turned oil into a nationalist symbol of Mexican sovereignty.

Under the changes, Mexico’s oil market will go from being run by a single player, state-firm Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, to a competitive one in which private oil and gas firms will be allowed to explore for and produce hydrocarbons. Pemex will continue to be state-owned, with preferential rights to bid for oil blocks.

The process of implementing the law kicks off immediately. Pemex has three months to choose which of its existing exploration and production areas it wants to retain for itself and demonstrate that it has the capacity to exploit them. The Energy Ministry will have up to six months to approve Pemex’s choice.

The Energy Ministry will then launch the first bidding rounds for new areas of exploration for oil and gas, mainly in deep water and shale gas, which could happen in the last quarter of next year or in 2015.

The government will be able to become a partner with private firms in these new areas through different types of contracts, including licenses and deals to share the oil production. Pemex also will be able to award the new contracts, which go beyond the restrictive service contracts that the state firm always has used to farm out exploration and production work. Private firms will also be allowed to own and operate oil refineries.

The energy overhaul also liberalizes the generation, distribution and sale of electricity, opening up the state-owned utility CFE to direct competition.

The bill amends three key articles of the Mexican constitution—25, 27 and 28—which form the legal core of the country’s nationalistic oil laws. Constitutional changes are accompanied by several temporary dispositions detailing points that secondary legislation must contain. Congress has until the end of April pass the legislation.

Write to Juan Montes at juan.montes@wsj.com

Daniel Yergin: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots

  • The Wall Street Journal
  • OPINION
  • October 14, 2013, 7:26 p.m. ET

Daniel Yergin: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots

The oil embargo 40 years ago spurred an energy revolution. World production is 50% higher today than in 1973.

  • DANIEL YERGIN

Forty years ago, on Oct. 17, 1973, the world experienced its first “oil shock” as Arab exporters declared an embargo on shipments to Western countries. The OPEC embargo was prompted by America’s military support for Israel, which was repelling a coordinated surprise attack by Arab countries that had begun on Oct. 6, the sacred Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur.

With prices quadrupling in the next few months, the oil crisis set off an upheaval in global politics and the world economy. It also challenged America’s position in the world, polarized its politics at home and shook the country’s confidence.

Yet the crisis meant even more because it was the birth of the modern era of energy. Although the OPEC embargo seemed to provide proof that the world was running short of oil resources, the move by Arab exporters did the opposite: It provided massive incentive to develop new oil fields outside of the Middle East—what became known as “non-OPEC,” led by drilling in the North Sea and Alaska.

The Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in Alaska five years before the crisis. Yet opposition by environmentalists had prevented approval for a pipeline to bring the oil down from the North Slope—very much a “prequel” to the current battle over the Keystone XL pipeline. Only in the immediate aftermath of the embargo did a shaken Congress approve a pipeline that eventually added at its peak as much as two million barrels a day to the domestic supply.

image

image

© Corbis

A Connecticut filling station in 1974 amid the oil embargo.

The push to find alternatives to oil boosted nuclear power and coal as secure domestic sources of electric power. The 1973 crisis spawned the modern wind and solar industries, too. By 1975, 5,000 people were flooding into Washington, D.C., for a conference on solar energy, which had been until then only “a subject for eco-freaks,” as one writer noted at the time.

That same year, Congress passed the first Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, which required auto makers to double fuel efficiency—from 13.5 miles per gallon to 27 miles per gallon—ultimately saving about two millions barrels of oil per day. (The standards were raised in 2012 to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025). France launched a “war on energy waste,” and Japan, short of resources and fearing that its economic miracle was at risk, began a drive for energy efficiency. Despite enormous growth in the U.S. economy since 1973, oil consumption today is up less than 7%.

The crisis also set the stage for the emergence of new importers that have growing weight in the global oil market. In 1973, most oil was consumed in the developed economies of North America, Western Europe and Japan—two thirds as late as 2000. But now oil consumption is flat or falling in those economies, and virtually all growth in demand is in developing economies, now better known as “emerging markets.” They represent half of world oil consumption today, and their share will continue to increase. Exporting countries will increasingly reorient themselves to those markets. Last month, China overtook the U.S. as the world’s largest net importer of oil.

A lasting lesson of the crisis years is the power of markets and their ability to adjust to disruptions, if government allows them to. The iconic images of the 1970s—gas lines and angry motorists—are trotted out whenever some new disruption happens. Yet those gas lines weren’t the result of markets. They were the largely self-inflicted result of government interference in markets with price controls and supply allocation. Today, the oil market is much more transparent owing to the development of futures markets.

The 1970s were also years of natural-gas shortages, which turned into a bitter political issue, particularly within the Democratic Party. Many at the time attributed these shortages to geology, but they too were the result of regulation and price controls. What solved the shortages wasn’t more controls but their elimination, which resulted in an oversupply that became known as the “gas bubble.” Today, abundant natural gas is the default fuel for new electricity generation. The lesson is that markets and price signals can work very efficiently, and surprisingly swiftly, even in crises, if they are allowed to.

There will be future energy disruptions because there is still much political risk around oil. In 2013, the Middle East is still in turmoil, but the alignments are different. In 1973, Iran was one of America’s strongest allies in the Middle East. Tehran didn’t participate in the embargo and pushed oil into the market. But since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Washington and Tehran have been adversaries. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, which was at the center of the 1973 embargo, is now America’s strongest Arab ally.

The real lesson of the shock of 1973 and the second oil shock set off by the overthrow of Iran’s shah in 1979 is that they provided incentives—and imperatives—to develop new resources. Today, total world oil production is 50% greater than in 1973. Exploration in the North Sea and Alaska was only the beginning. In the early 1990s, offshore production expanded farther out into the Gulf of Mexico, opening up deep water as a new oil frontier. In the late 1990s, Canadian oil sands embarked on an era of growth that today makes them a larger source of oil than Libya before its 2011 civil war.

Most recent is the development of “tight oil,” the spinoff from shale gas, which has increased U.S. oil output by more than 50% since 2008. This boom in domestic output increases energy supply, and combined with shale gas has a much wider economic impact in jobs, investment and household income. As these tight-oil supplies increase, and as the U.S. auto fleet becomes more efficient, oil imports have declined. Imports reached 60% of domestic consumption in 2005, but they are now down to 35%—the same level as in 1973.

As the U.S. imports less oil it also produces more to the benefit of energy security. There are several million barrels of oil now missing from the world oil market, owing to sanctions on Iranian oil, disappointments in Iraqi production, and disruptions to varying degrees in Libya, South Sudan, Nigeria and Yemen. The shortfall is being partly made up by Saudi Arabia, which is producing at its highest level.

But the growth in U.S. oil output has been crucial in compensating for the missing barrels. Without it, the world would be looking at higher oil prices, there would be talk of a possible new oil crisis, and no doubt Americans would once again start seeing images of those gas lines and angry motorists from 1973.

Mr. Yergin, vice chairman of IHS, is the author of “The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World” (Penguin Press, 2012).

A version of this article appeared October 15, 2013, on page A19 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why OPEC No Longer Calls the Shots.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

www.djreprints.com

More U.S. oil is moving via truck, barge and train than at any point since 1981

COMMODITIES Updated August 26, 2013, 12:07 a.m. ET

Pipeline-Capacity Squeeze Reroutes Crude Oil

More U.S. oil is moving via truck, barge and train than at any point since 1981

By RUSSELL GOLD CONNECT

More crude oil is moving around the U.S. on trucks, barges and trains than at any point since the government began keeping records in 1981, as the energy industry devises ways to get around a pipeline-capacity shortage to take petroleum from new wells to refineries.

Getty Images

Oil container cars sit at a train depot outside Williston, N.D.

The improvised approach is creating opportunities for transportation companies even as it strains roads and regulators. And it is a precursor to what may be a larger change: the construction of more than $40 billion in oil pipelines now under way or planned for the next few years, according to energy adviser Wood Mackenzie.

“We are in effect re-plumbing the country,” says Curt Anastasio, chief executive of NuStar Energy LP, a pipeline company in San Antonio. Oil is “flowing in different directions and from new places.”

U.S. oil production has reached its highest level in two decades, while imports have fallen dramatically. A system built to import oil and deliver it to coastal refineries has become ill-equipped to handle rising production in Texas, North Dakota and Canada’s Alberta province.

“All of the pipes are pointed in the wrong direction,” says Harold York, an oil researcher at Wood Mackenzie. “We are turning the last 70 years of oil-industry history in North America on its head, and we are turning it on its head in the next 10 to 15 years.”

With oil prices persistently above $100 a barrel, companies drilling new wells don’t want to forgo revenue while they wait years for new pipelines. That leaves them with trucks, trains and barges to move an increasing amount of crude.

Oil delivered to refineries by trucks grew 38% from 2011 to 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, while crude on barges grew 53% and rail deliveries quadrupled. Although alternatives are growing rapidly, pipelines and oceangoing tankers remain the primary method for delivering crude to refineries.

In the Eagle Ford, a large four-year-old South Texas oil field, production has grown to more than 500,000 barrels a day, from less than 1,000 in 2009, according to state statistics. Getting that torrent out of the sparsely populated region has required modifications to the oil-delivery system.

For example, last year NuStar reversed a 16-inch pipeline built to carry crude imported from Africa and Europe northward from the Port of Corpus Christi. Now, the pipeline flows south, taking delivery from hundreds of trucks that fill up at individual wells. Some of the 175,000 barrels a day moving through the pipe is loaded onto barges at Corpus Christi and towed toward refineries near Houston.

Earlier this year, Phillips 66 began putting some of this crude on ships for a 2,200-mile journey around Florida to its refinery in Linden, N.J.

The heavy trucks moving Eagle Ford crude are causing headaches for residents and local officials, ripping up roads and causing traffic tie-ups.

“These are rural roads built for 10 cars an hour, and now it’s 100 vehicles an hour, and 75 of them are 80,000-pound trucks,” says Tom Voelkel, president of Dupre Logistics LLC. The Lafayette, La., company started hauling crude in Eagle Ford in November 2011 and has more than 100 drivers full time in the region.

The Texas Legislature appropriated $450 million this year to repair and improve roads in oil-producing counties. “It doesn’t even begin to reach where it needs to reach,” says Daryl Fowler, the chief elected county official in Cuero, Texas, about a hundred miles southeast of San Antonio.

“We’ve seen a fourfold increase in congestion around here,” he says. “The roads are crumbling.”

In July, the Texas transportation department decided to convert 83 miles of state road in six oil-boom counties from pavement to gravel, to reduce repair costs and slow traffic.

Trucks filled with Eagle Ford crude are also heading 100 miles west to a barge canal. The first barge of crude departed in September 2011, heading south toward the Gulf of Mexico and refineries near Houston. Now the canal moves 1.6 million barrels a month, says Jennifer Stastny, executive director of the Port of Victoria.

“It’s like putting your 5-year-old to bed one night and he wakes up the next morning as a 16-year-old, with the appetite and demands of a 16-year-old,” she says.

In North Dakota, trains move 69% of the state’s 800,000 barrels a day of crude, according to state figures. Energy companies say they value rail’s ability to deliver crude to the highest-paying markets.

But the deadly runaway crude train crash in Canada’s Quebec province in July, which incinerated a small town and killed at least 47 people, highlighted the risks of the mile-long crude trains crisscrossing the country. The U.S. government is imposing new regulations on oil shipments by rail.

Some state regulators wonder if their local efforts leave them prepared for a train accident, in part because federal railroad rules pre-empt state and local control over trains.

In Washington state, “we can’t say [to train operators] you have to have oil-spill contingency plans in order to operate,” says Curt Hart, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Ecology. “We do that for oil tankers, barges, large commercial vessels and refineries.”

Home to five refineries, the state levies a per-barrel tax on crude delivered by tankers and barges, which pays for spill-response officials and inspectors. The tax doesn’t apply to rail shipments.

The American Association of Railroads says it is prepared for growing crude shipments because it has long carried hazardous cargoes. In 2008, major U.S. railroads carried 9,500 carloads of crude, the association says, and are on pace this year to carry 389,000.

Most industry analysts believe that while crude on trains will last, truck and barge traffic will decline once new pipelines come into service.

Environmental groups have criticized some pipeline projects, including the Keystone XL, meant to move Canadian oil to Gulf Coast refineries. The federal government is still studying the Keystone pipeline and has yet to issue needed permits.

Steve Kean, president and chief operating officer of Kinder Morgan Inc., one of several interrelated companies that own or operate 82,000 miles of North American pipeline, says government agencies thoroughly vet new projects.

Falling imports, infrastructure investments and increased manufacturing are just some of the benefits of newly abundant energy supplies, he says. “This has got to be one of the best things that has happened in our economy in the past 10 years. It is better than the iPad.”

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit

http://www.djreprints.com

Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers

Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers

The spending slowdown by international companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc comes amid a series of write-downs of oil and gas shale assets, caused by plunging prices and disappointing wells. Photographer: Julia

Schmalz/Bloomberg

Oil companies are hitting the brakes on a U.S. shale land grab that produced an abundance of cheap natural gas — and troubles for the industry.
The spending slowdown by international companies including BHP Billiton Ltd. (BHP) and Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) comes amid a series of write-downs of oil and gas shale assets, caused by plunging prices and disappointing wells. The companies are turning instead to developing current projects, unable to justify buying more property while fields bought during the 2009-2012 flurry remain below their purchase price, according to analysts.

Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers
The deal-making slump, which may last for years, threatens to slow oil and gas production growth as companies that built up debt during the rush for shale acreage can’t depend on asset sales to fund drilling programs. The decline has pushed acquisitions of North American energy assets in the first-half of the year to the lowest since 2004.
“Their appetite has slowed,” said Stephen Trauber, Citigroup Inc.’s vice chairman and global head of energy investment banking, who specializes in large oil and gas acquisitions. “It hasn’t stopped, but it has slowed.”

Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers
North American oil and gas deals, including shale assets, plunged 52 percent to $26 billion in the first six months from $54 billion in the year-ago period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. During the drilling frenzy of 2009 through 2012, energy companies spent more than $461 billion buying North American oil and gas properties, the data show.
Lost Ranking
Prior to this year, oil and gas transactions ranked among the top two in total deal values every year since 2005, except 2008 when they were fourth. So far this year, oil and gas isn’t among the top five.

Shale Grab in U.S. Stalls as Falling Values Repel Buyers
The land grab began more than a decade ago when improved drilling methods and a process called hydraulic fracturing, which cracks rock deep underground to release oil and natural gas, opened up new production in previously untappable shale fields.
The rush accelerated in 2004 as more shale fields in North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Ohio were identified, opening new troves of petroleum and the prospect of energy independence in North America.
As overseas buyers moved in, booming production soon led to oversupplies, and gas prices plunged to a 10-year low in 2012, forcing companies to write-down the value of some of their assets. Companies were also hurt when some fields thought to be rich in oil proved to contain less than anticipated.
Write Downs
That shortfall caused Shell to write down the value of its North American holdings by more than $2 billion last quarter. Shell, based in The Hague, paid $6.7 billion for North American energy assets in seven transactions since 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
The company told investors this month that it expects its North American oil and gas exploration to remain unprofitable until at least next year. “The major acreage deals are behind us now,” Shell Chief Executive Officer Peter Voser said in a conference call with analysts.
BHP said it would cut the value of its Arkansas shale assets by $2.8 billion. During a May 14 conference presentation, CEO Andrew Mackenzie said capital and exploration spending will “decline significantly” to around $18 billion in 2014, and continue to fall after that.
As companies reassess holdings, they’ve begun curtailing drilling in some fields, selling off lackluster properties and redirecting investments to storage terminals and gas processing plants.
Cash Shortfalls
Firms depending on asset sales to help finance drilling may not have enough money to pay for higher oil and gas production, said Eric Nuttall, who oversees C$70 million ($68 million) at Sprott Asset Management LP in Toronto. That could slow output growth, especially as companies try to avoid taking on more debt.
“A lot of companies have let leverage get out of hand,” he said, speaking about Canadian firms.
Those companies that have to sell assets will likely fetch lower prices, said Fadel Gheit, an analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. in New York. Producers with the highest debt levels that need cash to fund development, such as Chesapeake Energy Corp. (CHK), of Oklahoma City, are most at risk of having to accept lower offers from buyers, Gheit said in a phone interview.
“People do not sell unless they really need the money to invest in better options,” he said.
Chesapeake Sale
In one of only three oil and gas deals valued at more than $1 billion this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg, Chesapeake sold 50 percent of its oilfield in the Mississippi Lime formation for $1.02 billion to China Petrochemical Corp. in February.
Jim Gipson, a spokesman for Chesapeake, declined to comment.
International buyers that branched into North America in recent years don’t need to buy anything else — for now, said Toshi Yoshida, a partner with law firm Mayer Brown LLP, which advises on cross-border oil and gas deals. A lot of them achieved their primary goals of obtaining a supply of long-term, dollar-denominated commodities and the technology needed to turn shale into energy, Yoshida said.
“They will stay here for a long period of time,” Yoshida said. “They will make additional acquisitions when the time is right.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Matthew Monks in New York at mmonks1@bloomberg.net; Rebecca Penty in Calgary at rpenty@bloomberg.net; Gerrit De Vynck in Toronto at gdevynck@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Susan Warren at susanwarren@bloomberg.net