Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

Shale is a productive business
Accounting tricks can't grow to be $250 billion a year industries

True, actually less than half that: "Before its bankruptcy on December 3, 2001, Enron employed approximately 29,000 staff and was a major electricity, natural gas, communications and pulp and paper company, with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion" :rotfl:

Martyn1981

GreatApe wrote: »

So shale is a scam Ponzi
Everyone on green cheerleaders dot com knows this to be a fact
You can have your own options but not your own facts
Facts that are determined by green cheerleaders dot com
:rotfl:

Shale is not a Ponzi
Shale is a productive business
Accounting tricks can't grow to be $250 billion a year industries

You are in such deep confirmation bias it's amusing to read

Do not confuse revenue with profits nor profitability.

Shale Industry Has Destroyed 80% Of Its Value Since 2008

Schlotterbeck calculates that the industry as a whole has destroyed 80 percent of its value since 2008. It turns out that the so-called shale revolution is a revolution as much in investor stupidity as it is in technology, a technology that can't seem to produce actual industry profits. The former CEO added that there have been 172 bankruptcies among exploration and production companies engaged in the shale oil and gas business just since 2015

America’s shale firms don’t give a frack about financial returns

Shale’s second coming is testament to Texan grit. But the industry’s never-say-die spirit may explain why it has done next to nothing about its dire finances. The business has burned up cash for 34 of the last 40 quarters, according to figures on the top 60 listed E&P firms collected by Bloomberg, a data provider. With the exception of airlines, Chinese state enterprises and Silicon Valley unicorns—private firms valued at more than $1bn—shale firms are on an unparalleled money-losing streak. About $11bn was torched in the latest quarter, as capital expenditures exceeded cashflows. The cash-burn rate may well rise again this year.

Cash flow still weak at U.S. shale firms, stock prices underperform

HOUSTON, April 2 (Reuters) - U.S. shale producers last year again spent more money than they collected, extending a years-long streak of putting oil output above cash flow and investor returns, according to a Reuters analysis of top independent producers.

All but seven of 29 of these producers last year spent more on drilling and shareholder payouts than they generated through operations, according to securities filings. Total overspending by the group was $6.69 billion in 2018, according to Morningstar data provided to Reuters by the Sightline Institute and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

An investor who put $100 into the S&P 500 Oil & Gas Exploration & Production Index in 2013 would have had $58.99 at the end of 2018. Similar $100 investments were worth just $9 in Whiting Petroleum Corp, $33.51 in Apache and $38.88 in Devon, according to financial filings. By contrast, $100 in the S&P 500 grew to $150.33 over the same period.

“This is a critical moment” for shale producers, said Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at think tank Sightline Institute. “They’ve lost the confidence of the investors.”

U.S. Oil Companies Find Energy Independence Isn’t So Profitable

In the last four years, roughly 175 oil and gas companies in the United States and Canada with debts totaling about $100 billion have filed for bankruptcy protection. Many borrowed heavily when oil and gas prices were far higher, only to collectively overproduce and undercut their commodity prices. At least six companies have gone bankrupt this year, and Weatherford International, the fourth-leading oil services company, which owes investors $7.7 billion, is expected to file for bankruptcy protection on Monday.

US Shale Companies are Burning through Cash

Just about 10 percent of U.S. shale companies had a positive cash flow in the first quarter of 2019, meaning the majority of companies are burning through cash, according to energy research firm Rystad Energy.

After studying the financial performance of 40 U.S. shale companies, Rystad found just four reported a positive cash flow balance in 1Q 2019. This is down from the recent norm of 20 percent.

US shale an 'unmitigated disaster' with industry hundreds of billions in debt - shale pioneer

The message is not a new one. The shale industry has been burning through capital for years, posting mountains of red ink. One estimate from the Wall Street Journal found that over the past decade, the top 40 independent US shale companies burned through $200 billion more than they earned. A 2017 estimate from the WSJ found $280 billion in negative cash flow between 2010 and 2017. It’s incredible when you think about it – despite the record levels of oil and gas production, the industry is in the hole by roughly a quarter of a trillion dollars.

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

True, actually less than half that: "Before its bankruptcy on December 3, 2001, Enron employed approximately 29,000 staff and was a major electricity, natural gas, communications and pulp and paper company, with claimed revenues of nearly $101 billion" :rotfl:

Shale is a profitable very successful business

What the green cheerleaders dot com deniers don't understand is cashflow and profit

A business can be profitable and have negative cashflow

A business can have negative cash flow and be profitable for a long time this is what happens if the business is growing and using external cash to grow faster than it can with just internal cash

What I'd say is that businesses aren't stupid they won't invest huge sums into failing projects.
This doesn't mean every single business investment is profitable far from it, but on average business is very profitable and shale is such a huge scale and been going on for a decade that any internet expert claims of unprofitable Ponzi will be met with a :rotfl:

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Do not confuse revenue with profits nor profitability.

Shale Industry Has Destroyed 80% Of Its Value Since 2008

America’s shale firms don’t give a frack about financial returns

Cash flow still weak at U.S. shale firms, stock prices underperform

U.S. Oil Companies Find Energy Independence Isn’t So Profitable

US Shale Companies are Burning through Cash

US shale an 'unmitigated disaster' with industry hundreds of billions in debt - shale pioneer

Only one of these two can be true

A: Shale industry has discovered a way to fool hundreds, thousands, of financial institutions and investors for over a decade and lose money but was able to cover it up and over the decade was able to create an oil industry only second to Saudi Arabia and a gas industry second to none

B: The people over at green cheerleaders dot com have no idea what they are talking about

GreatApe

Ending an un-economic industry will not crash the US. And BEV's can solve the problem of purchasing foreign oil.

It isn't uneconomic despite what the people over at green cheerleaders dot com would have your confirmation bias believe

Re banning shale wouldn't bankrupt the USA.
Sure nothing could bankrupt the USA.

What will limit any president isn't 'will this bankrupt us' but 'will this kill jobs and prosperity' which a ban on shale certainly would and it would be concentrated economic harm which is even worse

Re BEVs will save the day....
A ban on shale in 2020 would knock out 9mbpd of oil production
You expect BEV production to go from nil to 100% overnight to cover that shortfall?
Even going to 100% BEV production overnight wouldn't cover that fall
So a shale ban in the USA isn't going to happen anyone claiming they will do it is anl liar or stupid

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

What I'd say is that businesses aren't stupid they won't invest huge sums into failing projects.

"Enron, seeing stability after the merger, began to look overseas for new possible energy opportunities in 1991. Enron's first such opportunity was a natural gas power plant utilizing cogeneration that the company built in Teesside, UK. The power plant was so large it could produce up to 3% of the United Kingdom's electricity demand with a capacity of over 1,875 megawatts" ... now completely unused and scheduled for demolition. This plant mainly used CCGTs whose cost-effectiveness you regularly laud.

"Enron's unscrupulous actions were often gambles to keep the deception going and so increase the stock price. An advancing price meant a continued infusion of investor capital on which debt-ridden Enron in large part subsisted." Sounds familiar.

GreatApe wrote: »

This doesn't mean every single business investment is profitable far from it, but on average business is very profitable and shale is such a huge scale and been going on for a decade

Enron lasted from 1985 to 2001. When the end came, it came quickly.

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

A ban on shale in 2020 would knock out 9mbpd of oil production
You expect BEV production to go from nil to 100% overnight to cover that shortfall?

According to the BBC the drone strikes knocked out 5.7mbpd of oil production overnight, and the USA claims not to be bothered at all and will just use up some of their reserves to meet the shortfall, so...

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

B: The people over at green cheerleaders dot com have no idea what they are talking about

The articles Martyn posted weren't from greencheerleaders dot anything, but were in fact from oilprice.com, The Economist, Reuters, New York Times, Rigzone.com and RT. It's only the last of those whose reliability and neutrality I would doubt.

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

According to the BBC the drone strikes knocked out 5.7mbpd of oil production overnight, and the USA claims not to be bothered at all and will just use up some of their reserves to meet the shortfall, so...

Losing 10 mbpd for ever via a shale oil/gas ban is the best part of 3,600 million barrels per year every year.

Losing 5.7 mbod for perhaps two weeks is 80 million barrels for one year
The difference is at least 45 X realistically closer to 100 X impact since reserves can less afford to cover 3,600 barrels Vs 80 million

But even the Saudi attacks were not trivial
They cost the UK consumer $16 million per day until production is recovered
And they result in a roughly $1 billion per day wealth transfer from consumers to producers

Trying to argue that a shale ban would be trivial is stupid and clearly wrong

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

The articles Martyn posted weren't from greencheerleaders dot anything, but were in fact from oilprice.com, The Economist, Reuters, New York Times, Rigzone.com and RT. It's only the last of those whose reliability and neutrality I would doubt.

Marty and presumably your good self do not seem to understand the difference between profit and cashflow

The Economist article for instance says cashflow has been negative

Marty somehow uses that as evidence for his assertion that shale industry is a Ponzi nowhere in the Economist article does it say or suggest the shale industry is a Ponzi