DOCSLIB.ORG

Company Peer Group Analysis IHS Herold

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Companies & Transactions Company Peer Group Analysis IHS Herold 29 May 2018 Contacts Hassan Eltorie, Research and Analysis Associate Director ∙ [email protected], +1 713 369 0244 Confidential. © 2018 IHS Markit™. All rights reserved. IHS Markit | Company Peer Group Analysis Higher oil prices outweigh rising Key implications interest rates so far; debt investors For the 45 companies in the IHS Markit North continue to express confidence in American E&P peer group (composed of Small, Midsized, and Large E&Ps), the April 2018 average bond E&Ps, as most 2018 bond yields to yield to maturity (YTM) declined slightly from maturity lower than 2017 September 2017, dropping from 8.0% to 7.7%, indicating continued debt investor confidence in E&Ps. The Hassan Eltorie, Research and Analysis Associate Director decline is even more encouraging when factoring in recent increases in the federal funds rate, from 1.25% in September 2017 to the current 1.75%. This examination of bond yield-to-maturity (YTM) rates for the 45 companies in the IHS Markit North American Of the 45 companies, 18 had increases in the April 2018 E&P peer group (composed of Small, Midsized, and Large bond average YTM compared with September 2017, but E&Ps) is an update from our previous, 22 September 2017 for almost all of the 18, the increase was 1% or less. For report. During the oil boom, E&Ps financed rocketing 24 companies, there was a decline in the April 2018 production growth and sizable cash flow deficits with average YTM compared with September 2017, with the cheap money during a low interest rate environment. Total largest declines concentrated in the high- and debt for the companies doubled from $125 billion in 2010 moderate-risk E&Ps. For 3 companies, there was no to $250 billion in 2015, as shown in the chart below. As change in YTM. debt ballooned and as oil prices collapsed, as many as 160 North American E&Ps declared bankruptcy or commenced For the companies with investment-grade securities, strategic reviews. the current average spread of 146 basis points versus US Treasuries is significantly lower than the average of 377 As E&Ps emerge from the rubble of the 2014 oil price points reached in February 2016, when oil prices collapse and move solidly into recovery, debt burden bottomed out. Even more encouraging, the current fears remain. Our previous report allayed fears of a debt yield spread is lower than the 182 basis points in early reckoning by showing that high yields on E&P bonds was 2014, when oil was hovering around the $100/bbl mark. an issue for the few, but not the many. In this update, our research reinforces our previous conclusions, drawing continued on next page 3 North American E&P peer group debt trends $250,000 8.0 $225,000 7.0 $200,000 6.0 $175,000 5.0 $150,000 $125,000 4.0 $100,000 3.0 $75,000 2.0 Total debt to EBITDA times EBITDA to debt Total $50,000 1.0 $25,000 Total debt & preferred stocks ($ millions) ($ stocks & debt preferred Total $0 0.0 2004 Q1 2004 Q2 2004 Q3 2004 Q4 2005 Q1 2005 Q2 2005 Q3 2005 Q4 2006 Q1 2006 Q2 2006 Q3 2006 Q4 2007 Q1 2007 Q2 2007 Q3 2007 Q4 2008 Q1 2008 Q2 2008 Q3 2008 Q4 2009 Q1 2009 Q2 2009 Q3 2009 Q4 2010 Q1 2010 Q2 2010 Q3 2010 Q4 2011 Q1 2011 Q2 2011 Q3 2011 Q4 2012 Q1 2012 Q2 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1 2013 Q2 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2015 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2016 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2017 Q1 2017 Q2 2017 Q3 2017 Q4 Total Debt Total Debt to EBITDA (quartely) Source: IHS Markit © 2018 IHS Markit Confidential. © 2018 IHS Markit™. All rights reserved. 2 29 May 2018 IHS Markit | Company Peer Group Analysis particular support from the recent oil price rally, which has boosted debt investor confidence in oil companies despite Key implications - continued rising interest rates. Whether the rally in oil prices proves For the companies with noninvestment-grade sustainable remains to be seen, but a consensus has grown securities, the current average spread of 421 basis points around a rising interest rate environment. How E&P bond is significantly lower than the average spread of 1,467 yields react to the changing environment is something we points that occurred in early 2016. The current average will be monitoring. spread is higher than the 357 basis points in early 2014 and is in line with the 431 basis points in September For the 45 North American E&Ps in the overall peer group, 2017, the last time we did this report. the average YTM in April 2018 was 7.7%, down slightly from 8.0% in September 2017, indicating continued debt According to our analysis of debt repayment schedules investor confidence in the E&Ps. The decline is even more based on 2017 year-end public filings for the Large, encouraging when factoring in recent increases in the Midsized, and Small E&P subgroups, the amount of federal funds rate, which rose from 1.25% in September principal payments due has declined 15% on a rolling 2017 to the current 1.75%. Of the 45 companies, 18 had five-year basis, compared with 2015 year-end filings. increases in the April 2018 average YTM compared with This likely indicates that most of the companies have September 2017, but for the vast majority of the 18, the increase was 1% or less. For 24 companies, there was a decline in the April 2018 average YTM compared with 2014 to be of little concern, given the radical changes in September 2017, with the biggest declines concentrated in commodity pricing, the evolutionary structural changes in the high- and moderate-risk E&Ps. For 3 companies, there the industry, and the rise in the federal funds rate. was no change in the April 2018 average YTM compared with September 2017. We divided the 45 E&Ps into four groups according to amount of credit risk. Group 1 is high credit risk, For the 45 companies, average YTM rates for April 2018 and containing the 6 companies with April 2018 bond yields September 2017 remain higher than the average of 5.4% in above 10%. Ultra Petroleum’s YTM nearly doubled to 54% 2014, when oil prices were trading at $100/bbl and balance from September 2017, and Petroquest’s YTM increased sheets were more robust. But we consider the difference by 1.9 percentage points. Callon Petroleum’s YTM nearly between the average YTM rate in April 2018 and that of doubled to 11.7%, while W&T’s YTM was halved. For this % of companies in our sample with change in 2018 YTM compared with 2017 YTM 40% 53% 7% Source: IHS Markit Higher Same Lower © 2018 IHS Markit Confidential. © 2018 IHS Markit™. All rights reserved. 3 29 May 2018 IHS Markit | Company Peer Group Analysis Group 1 2018-2017 2018-2014 2017-2014 S&P YTM YTM YTM % Debt credit Company Ticker 2018 YTM 2017 YTM 2014 YTM difference difference difference to cap rating Ultra Petroleum Corp UPL 51.5 27.2 4.7 24.3 46.7 22.5 34% B+ Halcon Res Corp HK 21.0 26.3 8.2 -5.3 12.8 18.1 81% B- Petroquest Energy Inc PQ 19.1 17.2 8.0 1.9 11.1 9.2 54% CCC+ EP Energy Corp EPE 15.2 20.2 6.2 -5.0 9.0 14.0 91% NA Group 1 Callon Petroleum CPE 11.7 5.8 10.8 5.9 0.9 -5.0 191% B W&T Offshore Inc WTI 10.1 19.6 6.9 -9.5 3.2 12.7 53% CCC Source: IHS Markit © 2018 IHS Markit Group 2 2018-2017 2018-2014 2017-2014 S&P YTM YTM YTM % Debt credit Company Ticker 2018 YTM 2017 YTM 2014 YTM difference difference difference to cap rating Sanchez Energy Corp SN 9.6 11.9 6.2 -2.4 3.4 5.8 101% B Athabasca Oil Corp ATH.TO 9.5 11.4 8.9 -1.9 0.6 2.4 26% B- Comstock Res Inc CRK 9.5 14.8 6.9 -5.3 2.6 7.9 17% CCC+ Group 2 Denbury Res Inc DNR 8.2 17.3 5.6 -9.1 2.6 11.7 32% CCC+ Approach Resources Inc AREX 8.1 11.6 6.5 -3.5 1.7 5.1 16% NR Source: IHS Markit © 2018 IHS Markit group, the average YTM increased from 19.4% in September average YTM declined from 14.8% to 9.5%. The average 2017 to 21.4% in April 2018. Excluding Ultra’s extremely YTM for the group declined from 13.4% in September 2017 high, outlier YTM, the average yield for the high-risk group to 9.0% in April 2018. actually declined from 17.8% in September 2017 to 15.4% in April 2018. Group 3, dominated by Midsize E&Ps, is low credit risk. For the group, the average YTM declined from 6.5% in Group 2 is moderate credit risk. For this group, average September 2017 to 5.9% in April 2018. Most of the YTM YTM in April 2018 declined from September 2017 for changes were between 0.5 and 1.5 percentage points. Bill all companies, with rates falling to 8.1–9.6%.
Recommended publications
  • Petroleum News Bakken 121513 Petroleum News 082904

    Petroleum News Bakken 121513 Petroleum News 082904

    page Statoil hits 14th top IP well 8 in 22 weeks Vol. 2, No. 35 • www.PetroleumNewsBakken.com A weekly newspaper for industry and government Week of December 15, 2013 • $2.50 l NATURAL GAS Producing amid the windrows Finishing touches NDPC flaring task force to submit recommendations to NDIC in January By MAXINE HERR “The nature of this business is that VERN WHITTEN PHOTOGRAPHY For Petroleum News Bakken drillers drill, operators operate, and they he North Dakota Petroleum Council, NDPC, sign a long-term contract with a gas Tflaring task force is putting finishing touch- processing company and they walk es on its recommendations to reduce flaring in the away.” —Department of Mineral Resources Director state. Lynn Helms In September, Gov. Jack Dalrymple requested the development of a task force to study the prob- Wells pumping on a Hess Corporation pad in the Traux field subcommittee has some recommendations that southeast of Williston in southern Williams County, N.D. lem and provide some solid solutions to the North needed further review. Dakota Industrial Commission. The task force “We want to give it a good review and make will present its findings at the Jan. 29 commission sure membership and everyone’s ready,” Dille ND operators increasing well meeting. said. “We want to get it as good as we can. As far Task force Chairman Eric Dille of EOG densities to even higher levels as recommendations on flaring, goals, and crite- Resources told Petroleum News Bakken that the ria, we have developed some targets we think we North Dakota operators continue to increase well densi- task force had hoped to present at the Dec.
  • Oil & Gas Risk Service

    Oil & Gas Risk Service

    IHS ENERGY Oil & Gas Risk Service Why IHS Energy Oil and Gas Providing a global view of Risk Service? comparative investment risks in • An oil & gas industry - focused approach to risk assessment across the upstream oil and gas sector 130 producing and frontier territories. Analysis and monitoring of above-ground • Created and produced by petroleum factors that affect the profitability of E&P capital sector experts. investments and continuing operations. • Designed specifically for use in oil & gas industry workflows The Oil and Gas Risk Service (OGRS) provides executives in corporate strategy - from new business and risk management, business development and new ventures, and corporate to strategy to portfolio security with forward-looking analysis on above-ground petroleum sector risks in and risk evaluation. hydrocarbon producing and frontier countries. OGRS analysis is built around our proprietary risk methodology, which evaluates 130 countries and territories against 21 factors to offer clients an objective and systematic way to compare risk between Clients Receive: countries and at different stages of the investment cycle. • Timely, essential OGRS clients receive timely briefs and research notes on current events and expert analysis, developments influencing the above-ground upstream risk environment, incorporating IHS as well as in-depth special reports and quarterly presentations. These features Energy data, work together to create a comprehensive view enabling clients to understand, forecasts and mapping tools. manage and mitigate risk in new country entry, project assessment, portfolio evaluation, and strategic planning. • Insight into the dynamics shaping policy choices in producing countries and emerging exploration frontiers. • Identification of future points of risk and the impact on upstream investment.
  • Itraxx Europe & Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List

    Itraxx Europe & Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List

    iTraxx Europe & Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List March 2021 Copyright © 2021 IHS Markit Ltd T180614 iTraxx Europe & Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List 1 iTraxx Europe Series 35 Final Membership List......................................... 3 2 iTraxx Europe Series 35 Final vs. Series 34.............................................. 7 3 iTraxx Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List ................................... 8 4 iTraxx Crossover Series 35 Final vs. Series 34........................................11 5 Further information ...................................................................................12 Copyright © 2021 IHS Markit Ltd | 2 T180614 iTraxx Europe & Crossover Series 35 Final Membership List 1 iTraxx Europe Series 35 Final Membership List iTraxx Sector IHS Markit Ticker IHS Markit Long Name Autos & Industrials AIRBSE AIRBUS SE Autos & Industrials VLVY AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO Autos & Industrials AKZO AKZO NOBEL N.V. Autos & Industrials ALSTOM ALSTOM Autos & Industrials AAUK ANGLO AMERICAN PLC Autos & Industrials AZN ASTRAZENECA PLC Autos & Industrials BAPLC BAE SYSTEMS PLC Autos & Industrials BASFSE BASF SE Autos & Industrials BYIF BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Autos & Industrials BMW BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Autos & Industrials BOUY BOUYGUES Autos & Industrials CNHIND CNH INDUSTRIAL N.V. Autos & Industrials STGOBN COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN Autos & Industrials COMPFIAG COMPAGNIE FINANCIERE MICHELIN SA Autos & Industrials CONTI CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Autos & Industrials DAMLR DAIMLER
  • Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation

    Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation

    Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation February,February 20192018 Prepared for Breakthrough Energy Coalitionby by IHS Markit and Energy Futures Initiative Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation, February 2019 1 Foreword We are pleased to submit our report, “Advancing the Landscape of Clean Energy Innovation.” In this report we describe today’s U.S. ecosystem of clean energy innovation from the perspectives of technological potential, investment patterns, institutional roles, and public policy. The report identifies critical strengths and weaknesses of this ecosystem and offers recommendations for making that ecosystem more effective. It examines the different technology readiness stages through which innovation passes and the importance of feedback among those stages. It also discusses the significant opportunities to accelerate the pace of clean energy innovation that are presented by rapid advances occurring today across a myriad of technologies originating outside the energy sector. We would like to emphasize three observations from our report. • First, the U.S. has shown over many decades an unparalleled capacity to nurture energy innovation. This capacity reflects a rich and durable collaboration among government, universities, research institutions, industry, and entrepreneurs. This collaboration is grounded in the belief that energy innovation contributes importantly to economic growth, energy security, and environmental stewardship. • Second, even with our capacity to innovate, and even with the emergence of innumerable technological opportunities, there are significant challenges in moving forward with clean energy technology. These challenges arise from the sheer size and complexity of existing systems, the degree to which these systems are embedded in our economy, and the high public expectations of safety and reliability they must meet.
  • International Upstream Database

    International Upstream Database

    International Upstream Database I IHS Markit’s International E&P and Basins information is the most comprehensive and reliable dataset available to oil and gas industry professionals today. Commercial and subsurface workflows are greatly enhanced by our content and expertise which can be accessed through dedicated IHS Markit tools or by direct connection to many industry-standard analytical and spatial platforms. With technical teams positioned around the globe, up to date E&P data is researched daily by our regional, highly experienced experts with proficiencies in more than 30 languages and covering more than 215 countries. Our teams maintain an unparalleled communication network with operators, national oil companies, government agencies and service companies worldwide enabling the tracking, reporting and analysis of industry activity providing critical detail for decision makers. Our content enables our users to assess opportunities at any scale. Providing detailed insights across the exploration and production arena, from regional prospectivity to company portfolio benchmarking. Opportunity Screening ‒ Analyse country and basin entry opportunities such as available farm-ins and license rounds, gain critical insights into peer group activities and exploration trends including recent discoveries and key high impact wells. Basin and Play Analysis ‒ Use the wealth of geologic detail contained within IHS Markit’s exploration and production database to assist with regional to play scale basin analyses and understand petroleum systems and play fairways. ‒ Use our extensive well coverage to high-grade the most prospective basin areas. Understand the risks and opportunities of established and prospective plays including reservoir-level volumetrics. ‒ Undertake systematic basin & reservoir analogue research with our extensive reservoirs database at your disposal.

  • Digitalization of Exploration and Resource Development

    Digitalization of Exploration and Resource Development Questions driving the future direction of the digitalization of E&RD Data ML algorithms Where does the data Who owns the IP—algorithm “...The oil and (and its associated IP) developers or data owners; gas companies What data is shared? reside when it’s in the cloud? whose data improves the decided last week What data is kept proprietary? algorithms? not to fund the drilling of the stratigraphic wells ... Instead, the group has decided Can the industry generate all to collaborate on What will an organization’s core insights needed for greater success What are the new data management subsurface competencies be? from the data it already has? business models strategies and use Developing the algorithms or (e.g., XaaS) that advances in big adapting them? will be enabled by data operations digitalization of E&RD? to find new ways of identifying exploration targets.” Upstreamonline, 2018 Industry progression toward digitalization of E&RD “Aim is to integrate everything together. It’s such a big job, start by doing something small first” Subsurface Digital Team, Major E&P firm, 2018 Improve efficiency • Automate repetitive tasks • Accelerate the pace required to arrive 15-25% Transformed workflows Traditional workflows at a decision efficiency • High level of domain gain? • Streamlined activities expertise • Automated toward • Time consuming, autonomous tedious, repetitive tasks • Integrated across functions Characterize and reduce uncertainty and lifecycle • Incomplete information • Incorporate
  • Archrock, Inc. AROC (DB) Baker Hughes BHGE

    Archrock, Inc. AROC (DB) Baker Hughes BHGE

    Abraxas Petr. AXAS (RM) Helix Energy HLX (MWM) Sanchez Engy SN (RM) Anadarko APC (CM) Helmerich/Payne HP (DB) Sanchez Mid. SNMP (GV) Apache APA (CM) Hi-Crush Partners HCLP (MWM) Schlumberger SLB (DB) Archrock, Inc. AROC (DB) HighPoint Res. HPR (BC) Silverbow SBOW (RM) Baker Hughes BHGE (DB) Hornbeck Offsh HOS (DB) Smart Sand SND (MWM) Basic Energy BAS (DB) Independ. Cont. ICD (DB) Solaris Oilfield SOI (MWM) Berry Petrol. BRY (BC) Innospec Inc IOSP (RS) Southwestern SWN (CM) Bristow Grp BRS (DB) Jones Energy JONE (RM) SRC Energy SRCI (BC) Cabot Oil COG (CM) Key Energy Svcs. KEG (DB) Sundance SNDE (BC) Cactus, Inc. WHD (MWM) Kosmos Energy KOS (CM) Superior Engy SPN (DB) Callon Petl. CPE (RM) Lilis Energy Inc. LLEX (RM) TEAM Inc. TISI (MWM) Carrizo Oil CRZO (RM) Lonestar Res. LONE (RM) TechnipFMC plc FTI (MWM) Centennial Rs CDEV (BC) Mammoth Energy TUSK (DB) TETRA TTI (MWM) Chaparral CHAP (RM) Matador Res. MTDR (BC) Thermon Grp THR (MWM) Chart Industr GTLS (MWM) McDermott Intl. MDR (MWM) Tidewater TDW (RS) Chesapeake CHK (CM) Nabors Industries NBR (DB) Transocean RIG (GV) C&J Energy CJ (DB) National Oilwell NOV (MWM) Unit Corp. UNT (BC) CNX Midstr. CNXM (GV) Newfield Expl NFX (RM) US Silica Hld SLCA (MWM) Comstock CRK (RM) Newpark Res. NR (GV) Weatherford WFT (DB) Concho Res. CXO (CM) Noble Energy NBL (CM) Whiting Pet WLL (BC) Contango MCF (RM) Noble Corp. NE (GV) Wildhorse WRD (BC) Continental Rs CLR (BC) Noble Midstream NBLX (GV) WPX Ergy WPX (BC) Covia Holdings CVIA (MWM) Northern Oil NOG (BC) Core Lab.
  • BLM Prohibited Holdings List 2021

    BLM Prohibited Holdings List 2021

    BLM 2021 Prohibited Holdings Guide All employees of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are prohibited from directly or indirectly acquiring interests in Federal lands. This Guide contains information on this prohibition and provides a list of publicly traded stocks that BLM employees, their spouses, and minor or dependent children are prohibited from holding, in the absence of an exception. All BLM employees have a duty to comply with the BLM Organic Act and related ethics regulations. Accordingly, all BLM employees must review their financial investments to ensure that they do not have financial investments in companies on the Prohibited Holding list. Questions may be sent to: [email protected]. Statutory and Regulatory Background Pursuant to the BLM Organic Act (43 U.S.C. § 11) and implementing regulations (43 C.F.R. § 20.401(a); 5 C.F.R. § 3501.103(a)), all BLM employees are prohibited from purchasing or voluntarily acquiring interests in Federal lands. Employees are also barred from owning stock in companies that have interests in Federal lands. 43 C.F.R. § 20.401(2)(B). These prohibitions are designed to avoid conflicts of interest between a BLM employee’s work and his or her personal financial interests and to increase public confidence in the management of Federal lands. Direct interest includes: • Ownership of stocks and other securities that have interests in Federal lands • Participation in earnings from Federal lands; • The right to occupy or use Federal lands; • The right to take any benefit from Federal lands under a contract, grant, lease, permit, easement, rental agreement, or application.
  • Williston Quick Look 4-15-2020.Xlsm

    Williston Quick Look 4-15-2020.Xlsm

    WILLISTON BASIN Wells Put Online Lateral Length (ft) Fluid Intensity (bbls/ft) 6/30/2018 9/30/2018 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 6/30/2018 9/30/2018 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 6/30/2018 9/30/2018 12/31/2018 3/31/2019 OPERATOR SPOTLIGHT 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 4Q18 1Q19 2Q19 3Q19 Operator Well Count* CONTINENTAL RESOURCES 507 22 37 36 45 9,690 9,495 9,702 8,523 19 24 22 25 WHITING PETROLEUM 374 41 9 53 40 9,481 7,225 9,027 8,380 20 27 17 18 HESS 355 35 25 39 33 8,236 10,183 9,800 9,993 20 18 18 19 OASIS PETROLEUM 286 28 12 24 18 7,180 4,811 8,515 8,717 30 53 33 28 MARATHON OIL 236 29 19 31 29 5,081 5,161 8,574 8,813 30 18 19 22 EXXON MOBIL 225 7 31 21 19 9,762 10,026 10,048 8,706 40 40 35 31 CONOCOPHILLIPS 212 13 13 13 13 9,825 10,389 9,657 9,699 18 17 21 18 WPX ENERGY 202 20 13 15 23 7,872 9,661 10,331 9,267 21 16 17 12 KRAKEN OPERATING, LLC 169 19 19 18 15 5,844 8,339 7,303 8,121 35 33 30 26 EQUINOR 161 12 11 9 19 8,289 4,422 8,469 9,135 14 24 13 17 EOG RESOURCES 139 7 14 7,313 10,585 25 25 ENERPLUS 120 1 3 26 11 4,102 9,431 9,743 8,960 30 26 18 30 BRUIN E&P PARTNERS 112 11 5 17 7 4,535 9,860 10,797 10,062 49 23 25 26 PETRO-HUNT 107 75445,5377,75510,0498,67456143639 SLAWSON 104 1957810,1103,75414,5449,22623392929 CRESCENT POINT ENERGY U.S.
  • India's Energy Future in a World of Change

    India's Energy Future in a World of Change

    India’s Energy Future in a World of Change 26-28 October 2020 India Energy Forum in Review Inaugural Address Inaugural Address and Ministerial Dialogue Hon. Shri Narendra Modi, Prime Minister, India H.R.H. Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, Minister of Energy, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Inaugural Address and Closing Remarks Inaugural Address and Ministerial Dialogue Hon. Shri Dharmendra Pradhan, Minister of Petroleum & Natural Gas Hon. Dan Brouillette, Secretary of Energy, and Minister of Steel, Government of India United States Department of Energy 1 Indian Ministerial Dialogue Indian Ministerial Dialogue Hon. Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of Finance and Minister of Hon. Shri Piyush Goyal, Minister of Railways and Minister of Commerce & Corporate Affairs, Government of India Industry, Government of India Ministerial Dialogue New Map of Energy for India The Hydrogen Economy and Closing Remarks Shri Tarun Kapoor, Secretary, H.E. Mohammad Sanusi Barkindo, Secretary Dr. Rajiv Kumar, Vice Chairman, NITI Aayog, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, General, OPEC Government of India Government of India 2 Leadership Dialogue Leadership Dialogue Tengku Muhammad Taufik, President & Group Chief Executive, Bernard Looney, Group Chief Executive, bp p.l.c. PETRONAS Leadership Dialogue Future of Refining & Petrochemicals in a World of Surplus Patrick Pouyanné, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, TOTAL S.A. S.M. Vaidya, Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 3 Technologies to Optimize Costs, Recovery & Emissions in the Upstream Judson Jacobs, Executive Shashi Shanker, Chairman & Director, Upstream Technology, Sunil Duggal, Group Chief Managing Director, Oil and Natural Lorenzo Simonelli, Chairman & IHS Markit Executive Officer, Vedanta Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) CEO, Baker Hughes Growing Share of Gas in India’s Energy Mix: What is realistic? Ernie Thrasher, Chief Executive Michael Stoppard, Chief Meg Gentle, President & Chief Manoj Jain, Chairman & Officer & Chief Marketing Officer, Strategist, Global Gas, IHS Markit Executive Officer, Tellurian Inc.
  • Bain Oil & Gas Brief

    Bain Oil & Gas Brief

    BAIN OIL & GAS BRIEF Accelerating Capital: 2018 Oil & Gas Industry the affordability of investments on the back of 2017 re- Planning Outlook sults and combining with general investor sentiment eager for signals of “strategy in execution.” Cost-reduction efforts of recent years have laid the groundwork for a return to sensible capital investment in the coming year. Where could we expect to see this growth capital deployed? A sharp deceleration in the oil and gas industry’s • Offshore, midsized oil development projects will capital expenditure accompanied the weak oil prices be in favor. of 2015 and 2016, with global capex down well over • Oil sands have quiet momentum. 40% from its peak (see Figure 1). In 2017, we saw what some have characterized as the industry’s “tapping • More gas projects will be in demand, as many look the brakes,” as cost improvements began yielding to improve the gas-to-oil ratios in their portfolios. some benefits, even as balance sheets still demanded very careful management. • Downstream oil and gas will attract capital, especially in smaller scale infrastructure, customer develop- Heading into 2018, with oil prices firmer and the ment and the expansion of new energy-asset foot- benefit of a much lower operating cost base, the industry prints, including renewable generation. looks set to cautiously press the accelerator, increasing capital spending. A 15% to 20% spending increase • Investment growth in unconventionals may still over 2017 would not be a surprise. On paper, project be cautious, but this sector is much more able to react economics are beginning to look better, improving to short-term, quarterly price and cost signals.
  • Fourth Quarter 2019 Results 1.31.20

    Fourth Quarter 2019 Results 1.31.20

    FOURTH QUARTER 2019 RESULTS 1.31.20 NEIL HANSEN VICE PRESIDENT, INVESTOR RELATIONS AND SECRETARY CAUTIONARY STATEMENT • Statements of future events or conditions in this presentation or the subsequent discussion period are forward-looking statements. Actual future results, including financial and operating performance; demand growth and mix; ExxonMobil’s volume/production growth and mix; the amount and mix of capital expenditures; resource recoveries; production rates; rates of return; development costs; project plans, timing, costs, and capacities; drilling programs and efficiency improvements; product sales and mix; dividend and share purchase levels; cash and debt balances; corporate and financing expenses; and the impact of technology, including impacts on capital efficiency, production and greenhouse gas emissions, could differ materially due to a number of factors including global or regional changes in oil, gas, petrochemicals, or feedstock prices, differentials, or other market or economic conditions affecting the oil, gas, and petrochemical industries and the demand for our products; reservoir performance; the outcome and timing of exploration and development projects; timely completion of construction projects; war and other political, public health, or security disturbances, including shipping blockades or harassment; changes in law or government regulation, including trade, sanctions, tax and environmental regulations; the outcome of commercial negotiations; the impact of commercial terms; opportunities for and regulatory approval of investments or divestments that may arise; the actions of competitors and customers; the outcome of future research efforts; unexpected technological developments and the ability to bring new technology to commercial scale on a cost-competitive basis, including large-scale hydraulic fracturing projects; unforeseen technical difficulties; and other factors discussed here and under the heading "Factors Affecting Future Results" in the Investors section of our web site at exxonmobil.com.