Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
Abstract
.....................................................................................................................................................
Market Trends
...........................................................................................................................................
Challenges ...................................................................................................................................................
References ..................................................................................................................................................
10
10
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
Abstract
Engineering services providers in India are waking up to the demands in the emerging energy vertical. Today,
energy as a business segment is a major revenue driver for many engineering service providers and is also
attracting the attention of many smaller players.
Energy as a business majorly consists of these four sub-domains: oil and gas, nuclear energy, renewable
energy, and power generation. Of these four, oil and gas thrives highly on outsourcing. In nuclear energy,
process engineering is sacrosanct and hence not outsourced. Renewable energy and power generation
havent seen the quantum of R&D investment which oil and gas has been witnessing over the past few years
and will witness over the next few decades.
For new entrants, there is no easy answer to which areas to invest in and which areas to focus on for optimum
protability. This paper attempts to guide the Engineering services organization on how to manage their R&D
investments based on the challenges, industry drivers, and the market trends existing in the oil and gas
industry.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
Industry Landscape
When a market penetration strategy is developed, it encompasses targeting a set of companies which are
normally Tier-I suppliers to the big players in that industry and gradually moving up the value chain to become
a Tier I supplier. However, the same strategy cannot be applied to the oil and gas industry, which comprises of
Upstream, Midstream and Downstream sectors. Here, a large amount of R&D investment is owing in Oil and
Field Services (OFS) and upstream sectors. Despite environmental concerns and lack of viability of alternate
fuels, oil dominates global energy consumption with 33.1%, natural gas with 23.9%, and coal with 30%. The
focus is shifting more towards oil because coal is replacing the consumption of natural gas and coal alone
cannot suce all the needs of global energy2. Global oil trade accounted for 62% of total global Imports in
2012 i.e. up from 57% a decade ago1. Hence, there is an increased pressure on the worlds O&G companies to
extract more and more oil. This in turn, is driving investment in Exploration and Production (E&P), eventually
resulting in major investment in OFS and drilling.
The usual suspects for investment are big E&P players like Chevron, BP etc. Before proceeding further, we
need an understanding of the companies placed in E&P and OFS. The global E&P majors can be classied3 as
follows:
a) National Oil Companies (NOC) are fully or majority owned by national governments. NOCs can be broadly
classied as
An extension of Government or operating as Government Agency like Saudi Arabian Oil Company
(ARAMCO) or;
A company operating with strategic and Operational Autonomy like Petrobras in Brazil and Statoil
from Norway.
b) International Oil Companies (IOC) / Supermajors / Big Oil are the six largest, non-state owned companies.
They include BP (UK), Chevron Corp. (USA), ConocoPhillips Company (USA), ExxonMobil Corp. (USA), Royal Dutch Shell
Plc (Netherlands-UK), and Total SA (France).
Of the top 10 largest oil producing companies, only 3 are IOCs. NOCs control as much as 90% of global oil
reserves which is in contrast to the situation in the 1970s when 7 IOCs used to control 85% of global oil
reserves.4 In the last couple of decades, NOCs have taken help from OFS companies to claim best acreage from
oilelds which was once a signicant oering of oil majors. A tightening market also drew demand for new
technology in drilling and 3D seismology, which helped OFS rms to grow faster. Shrinking oil wells and
increasing demand for oil prompted the oil and eld services (OFS) companies to invest signicantly to come
out with more accurate drilling solutions which had greater eciency. Gradually, IOCs themselves became
dependent on the expensive OFS kits in the 1990s. The urge of IOCs and NOCs to explore new avenues has
resulted in their partnering up to explore remote locations. This can be summarized in Figure 1.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
remote areas
seas of Brazil
to extract more
Typically, OFS companies involve in risk sharing model with NOCs. For e.g. Schlumberger will agree to a
measure of payment-for-performance. If it can drill more oil, then it can charge a premium.
R&D Landscape
The propensity of R&D Spend is way higher in OFS companies (who are committed to accurate drilling and
reduced TTM) than in exploration and production companies - be it IOCs or NOCs. Major IOCs are cutting their
budgets and are depending on OFS companies for new technology. Therefore, OFS companies have increased
their R&D expenditure. This is also demonstrated by the high number of oil and eld (OFS) patents as
compared to those led by IOCs/NOCs.
The contrast for all these rms is shown in gure 2 as of FY 2012.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Schlumberger
Big 4
Baker Hughes
Weatherford International
Halliburton
Aker Solutions
Technip
Cameron International
Supermajors
Total
Conoco Phillips
Chevron
Oileld Services (2012, $Mn)
BP
3.00
Revenues
R&D Spend
42,149
1168
21,360
497
15,215
257
28,503
460
7,519
121
10,992
92
8,502
63
268,082
1079
62,004
221
231,000
648
467,153
1314
453,123
1042
375,580
674
100
$200
80
$150
60
$100
40
20
H2 2010
H1 2011
H2 2011
H1 2012
$250
120
$300
140
$50
$0
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
Overall, a lot of consolidation has been taking place in the market over the past 2 to 3 years. The average no.
of M&A deals varied between 60 to 140, with deal sizes ranging from $100 Million to $260 Million. It was also
observed that the maximum M&A deals took place in North America almost double that of Europe.
NA Operating Margin
Baker Hughes
Halliburton
Q3,2011
27%
23%
Q3,2012
14.1%
10.5%
Q3,2013
10.8%
Yet to declare
Market Trends
1. Capital Spending
Oil prices govern the viability of E&P projects
Customers are demanding advanced equipment and technology to keep pace with the challenges of
expanding frontiers and harsher operating environments. The pressure on OFS companies is very high
to innovate and increase capital investment. These Companies continue to spend capital in excess of
operational cash ow with only a modest increment in Return on Capital Employed (ROCE).
2. Periodicity
Capital budgets govern new exploration projects
Oil producers delay exploration-related new expenditures, until they have ascertained their scal budget.
This situation is corroborated by a steady increase in the oil-directed rig count in the rst two quarters
and the subsequent fall in later half of Q3 and complete Q4.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
6. Smaller Projects
Move towards risk mitigation with safer technology. Raised prices not an issue.
Smaller projects are oered instead of long term contracts and partnerships which turn out to be
inexpensive in the long term. This is also a move towards not playing with new technology as
demonstrated by the Macondo disaster.9
Challenges
1. Thought Leadership Position Not yet Occupied
Oil producers began outsourcing drilling and allied activities to oil and eld services (OFS) rms.
This resulted in them minimizing their R&D expenditure and losing their innovation focus. In the process,
OFS rms started prioritizing R&D investment which is a signicant growth avenue. Market fragmentation
is observed even in technology landscape. The development of hydro-fracking technology by Mitchell
Energy is a good example.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
2. Commoditization of Market
Due to low entry barriers, many small players have entered into oil and eld services (OFS) market. There
is an oversupply of once premium services like Pressure-Pumping. The OFS companies are trying to
maintain prot margin by operational expertise, and stay put on prices.
4. Cost Management
Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) as a % of revenue, has increased by over ve points since 2008. Selling,
General and Administrative Expenses (SG&A) as a % of revenue has remained in check. Raw material costs
including steel, MRO, pipes, fuels, manufacturing and labor have escalated and eroded protability. Oil
eld services companies are redoubling their eorts to improve operating performance and, in many
cases, adopting proven methods and tools.
6. Scale Of Operations
Supply chains with new operating bases in the Northeastern and North Central U.S., West Africa, Central
Asia, and Brazil, have become increasingly complex and expensive. Demand for robust products which
can perform in harsh conditions is increasing with a renewed focus on products displaying superior
capabilities in remote environments.
7. Talent Crisis
An aging workforce and lack of interest towards working in oil and gas industry among young graduates
has resulted in reduced talent pools10, 11. Almost half the workforce is retiring in Oil & Gas Industry. This
problem is resonating across dierent business segments and companies in O&G Industry.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
4. Globalize Operations
Oil and gas companies have operations located globally in far away locations
like Arctic, North Sea, and Middle East. An ESO partner can help globalize
operations and revolutionize maintenance with cloud services, electronic
manuals, and smart product services and technology convergence.
6. Infrastructure Upgrades
Companies are focused on identifying areas to upgrade and reduce old
infrastructure. ESPs can protect valuable capital infrastructure by way of
enterprise architecture platform.
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
References
1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy
2. A Tale of two Energy Commodities
3. E&P Major Classication
4. Global Share of Oil Reserves
5. Oil Gas Reality Check 2013 by Deloitte
6. Annual Reports of Big 4, Supermajors and OFS Companies
7.Oileld Equipment &Services Report by Clearwater Corporate Finance LLP
8. Risks in Recovery A report from Alix Partners
9. The unsung masters of the oil & gas Industry
10. Outsourcing in the Oil & Gas Industry by Tholons Dec.2007
11. The Big Crew Change Managing the Talent Crisis in Indias Oil & Gas sector by Booz & Co.
12. What is next in the Oil & Gas Industry by Chatham House
13. How is Outsourcing fueling the Oil & Gas Industry by HfS Research
14. OFS Analysis and Outlook
15. BHI Earnings Call Transcript Q3, 2013
Author Info
Vishal Balani
HCL Engineering and R&D Services
2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.
Designed By: Mayuri Infomedia