Blogs

offshore wind energy market Offshore Wind Energy Market’s Cumulative Offshore capacity Is Expected To Reach to 49,931.6 MW By 2025

According to a new market report published by Credence Research “Global Offshore Wind Energy Market , by foundation type (Monopile, Jacket, Tripod, Floating), by Water Depth (shallow water [up to 29m deep], transient water [30-60m deep] and deep water [60m and above]) and by Geography (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Rest of the World) - Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2017 – 2025,” the offshore wind energy market volume is expected to reach to 49,931.6 MW by 2025 Browse the full offshore wind energy market, by foundation type (Monopile, Jacket, Tripod, Floating), by Water Depth (shallow water [up to 29m deep], transient water [30-60m deep] and deep water [60m and above]) and by Geography (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific and Rest of the World) – Market Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2017 – 2025 Market Insights Offshore wind energy (offshore wind power) is the conversion of wind’s kinetic energy into electrical energy. Uniform and high speeds of wind can be harnessed in offshore environment since it accounts to nil obstruction to wind force. Multiple windmills together constitute to a wind farm. These farms are constructed in the water bodies usually oceans to harvest the energy of wind and convert it into electrical energy. Browse the full report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/offshore-wind-energy-market The offshore wind installations reduces the impact on real estate as in onshore installations. Moreover, wind speed is uniform and consistent in offshore installations, which increases the efficiency of electricity generation. Thus, the offshore wind energy is highly attractive and more promising in terms of power generation and grid connections. Some of the restraining factors of offshore wind installations are wind turbines are exposed to high humidity and salt contents, which affects service life of components due to corrosion, oxidation and increased repair and maintenance costs. In general, the offshore installation costs are much higher than onshore.  The repair maintenance and overhauling operations are also high cost and time consuming as it requires expensive marine operations involvement and are comparatively dangerous. The offshore wind farms operate at high speeds compared to onshore wind farms, hence offshore turbines are more susceptible to high rate of wear and tear, maintenance and repair of moving parts. In the early 2017, Denmark has come up with new recycling process of offshore wind turbine blades, made up of fiberglass. When the wind turbine is de-commissioned, the blades may fall off to the landfill area where it may take many years to decompose. The blades can now be recycled and applied as sound barriers of vehicular traffic along major roads. The key players, developers, suppliers and service providers are Siemens-Gamesa, MHI Vestas Wind Systems A/S, DONG Energy, VattenFall, E.on, GE Wind, Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd., Nordex S.E, China Ming Yang Wind Power Group Ltd, Alstom, Senvion Ltd., Clipper Wind power, and DOOSAN Heavy Industry & Construction. Key Trends: Rising investor confidence in the offshore wind energy market. More financial institutions and Governmental agencies actively investing in the market for development of offshore wind farms. Deployment of 8MW and above wind turbine in European and Chinese farms and its introduction in the respective countries for proposed offshore wind power projects  

JP

johnsonpaul

Niobrara (CO & WY) - update through September 2018

These interactive presentations contain the latest oil & gas production data, from all 9,508 horizontal wells that started production in Colorado and Wyoming since 2009/2010, through September. Since the last post, we’ve also added several other regions in these 2 states, and they are included here. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards In August a new record was set, at over 0.5 million bo/d. After revisions are in I believe September will show a higher level again. Weld County produces about 75% of this output (group production by ‘County’ to see this).   Decline rates are fairly high, and most wells are at or below 20 bo/d after 4 years on production, as you’ll see in the ‘Well quality’ tab. In the ‘Well status’ tab the statuses are shown for all these wells. After selecting only ‘First flow’, you’ll note that the number of wells that started production in July and August (>160) was almost back to the record levels in 2014.   The final tab shows the leading operators and the location of their operated wells. Extraction Oil & Gas tripled its output in the past 1.5 years, and is now the number 3.   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” graph, the average cumulative production of all these horizontal wells is plotted against the production rate. Wells are grouped by the quarter in which production started. A major jump in average well productivity can be seen near the end of 2016, marked by the pink and red curves at the top, after which it has slightly fallen.   The 2nd tab ranks all wells by their cumulative production. The best three horizontal wells since 2009 have now produced more than 0.5 million barrels of oil, and they are all located in Campbell County (WY).   Last week we published a post on gas production in Pennsylvania. Tomorrow (Tuesday), at 10:30 EST, we’ll go over that in more detail in our show at enelyst: enelyst ShaleProfile Briefings channel. If you are not an enelyst member yet, you can sign up for free at www.enelyst.com, using the code: “Shale18” We have upgraded our data release procedure, and are now able to share on a weekly basis our database with ShaleProfile Data subscribers. More info can be found here. Later this week we will have an update on the Eagle Ford, followed by the Permian early next week. Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2PWT8pP   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile  

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

motor gasoline market Motor Gasoline Market Is Expected To Each US$ 1,792.4 Bn by 2024

The latest market report published by Credence Research, Inc. “Global Motor Gasoline Market, By Geography- Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2016 – 2024” the global Motor Gasoline market was valued at US$ 1,134.1 Bn in 2016, and is expected to each US$ 1,792.4 Bn by 2024, expanding at a CAGR of 5.9% from 2016 to 2024. Browse the full report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/motor-gasoline-market Market Insights Global Motor Gasoline market is projected to witness substantial growth over the forecast period. Rapid growth in disposable income of middle class especially in emerging economies of Asia Pacific is expected to fuel the demand for automobiles which in turn is projected to drive the demand for motor gasoline over the forecast period. In 2015, sales of passenger cars reached to 73.9 Mn vehicles out of which sales of passenger vehicles in China and Japan was 21.15 Mn vehicles and 4.22 Mn vehicles respectively. Followed by it, U.S. stood at second position with annual sales of 7.57 Mn vehicles annually. Robust growth in sales of passenger vehicles is projected to fuel the demand for the motor gasoline over the forecast period. However, growing use of alternatives such as LPG, Diesel and CNG as fuels coupled with increasing initiatives of government to promote use renewable fuels is anticipated to restrain the demand for global motor gasoline market during the forecast period (2016-2024). By geography, North America was the largest region in global motor gasoline market in 2015. The growth in the region is fueled by increasing sales of automobiles in the regions especially in U.S. Followed by it, Asia Pacific is anticipated to be the second largest and fastest growing region in global motor gasoline market. China, Japan and India is anticipated to drive the demand for the motor gasoline in the region over the forecast period (2016-2024). Considering the competition, the global motor gasoline market is expected to witness a significant rise in investment in capacity expansion for the production and supply of gasoline to cater the increasing demand for motor gasoline. Further, market has witnessed strategic mergers and collaborations among motor gasoline regional and global players. Such growth strategies are focused on increasing their market penetration in key consuming economies. Download Sample Here: https://www.credenceresearch.com/sample-request/58367 For the purpose of this study, the global motor gasoline market is categorized into: North America Europe Asia Pacific Latin America (LATAM) Middle East and Africa (MEA)  

JP

johnsonpaul

oil storage market size Oil Storage Market Size, Share, Growth, Future Prospects, Competitive Analysis and Forecast 2018 To 2026

The latest report from Credence Research on “Oil Storage Market” market offers comprehensive understanding on market sizes and trends, competitive analysis, and market forecast from 2018 to 2026. Credence Research report helps to discover future business opportunities for stakeholders in this sector by highlighting different aspects such as potential revenues streams, market drivers, opportunities, challenges, issues, and events impacting the “Oil Storage Market” market. “Oil Storage Market” market report covers detailed analysis and forecast for “Oil Storage Market” market segmentation, leading continents along with major countries, and profiles of major companies operating in “Oil Storage Market” market. Browse Full Report with Toc: https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/oil-storage-market Credence Research employs extensive research methodology to derive market size and forecast. Detailed secondary research has been conducted by exploring “Oil Storage Market” related sources, directories, and databases to grasp the market information and dynamics, followed by primary interviews with industry experts, and subject matter expert’s input to further validate the information sourced. Market size estimation involves triangulation of the data obtained from various approaches such as bottom-up, top-down, demand-side, and supply-side. The report studies different segments of “Oil Storage Market” market and provides both, qualitative and quantitative analysis along with competitive landscape, profiling of key players and their preferred development strategies that helps to formulate competitive market strategies and take informed decisions. How this report is useful? The “Oil Storage Market” report will reinforce the strategic decision-making with authentic and reliable market data. It identifies the key competitors operating in the market and their positioning and strategies. The study reveals the new and upcoming technological trends to give you an edge over your competitors. Market data, dynamics, and industry model covered in the report offers clarity on different markets across the value chain and support the decision making regarding entering and exiting the industries. The study also highlights the investment opportunities and revenue pockets present in the market. Download Free Sample Here: https://www.credenceresearch.com/sample-request/58146 Who should buy this report? ·      Stakeholders across the “Oil Storage Market” market value chain. ·      Business development managers ·      CEO’s ·      COO’s ·      Marketing managers ·      Technologists ·      Suppliers ·      Investors ·      Banks ·      Government agencies Major highlights of the study ·      Global “Oil Storage Market” market outlook ·         Classification of the “Oil Storage Market” market based on their major segmentation and Geography ·         Market segments analysis with respect to geographies and their respective countries ·      Industry analysis such as SWOT analysis, Value Chain Analysis, and Porter’s Five Force model for “Oil Storage Market” market ·      Analysis of the key drivers, restraints, and future prospects at global and regional level ·      Market positioning of key players ·      Profiles and competitive dashboard of the leading 10 companies in 2018 at a global level By Reserve Type Commercial Petroleum Reserve Strategic Petroleum Reserve By Geography North America Europe Asia Pacific Latin America Middle-East & Africa (MEA) Key players across the global defoamer’s market value chain are: Oiltanking GmbH, Royal Vopak N.V, Horizon Terminals Ltd and Magellan Midstream Partners L.P., others.  

JP

johnsonpaul

naphtha market Naphtha Market Size, Share Is Expected To Reach US$ 230.9 Bn by 2030

The latest market report published by Credence Research, Inc. “Naphtha Market, By Product Type and By Geography- Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2016 – 2030,” the global naphtha market was valued at US$ 102.6 Bn in 2016, and is expected to reach US$ 230.9 Bn by 2030, expanding at a CAGR of 5.97% from 2016 to 2030. Click Here for Full Report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/naptha-market Market Insights Global naphtha market is projected to witness significant growth over the forecast period. Growing demand for naphtha as a feedstock in petrochemical industry is projected to drive the demand for naphtha over the forecast period. Increasing use of plastic products fueling the demand for the polypropylene and polyethylene which in turn is driving the demand for naphtha used as a feedstock for the production olefins and aromatics using in production of paints and coatings. Further, naphtha also finds application in blending with gasoline. Growing demand for gasoline is anticipated to augment the growth of global naphtha market. Moreover, recent technological advancement such as development of advance furnace materials, advanced distillation column and alternative technologies such as hydro- pyrolysis of naphtha and catalytic cracking of naphtha saves approximately 10% of the energy which in turn reduces the production cost. Thus, making naphtha the preferred feedstock for the end use applications. Growing chemical industry especially in Asia Pacific is projected to drive the global naphtha market during the forecast period (2016-2030). However, growing use of alternatives such as LPG for the production of propane and butane are expected to restrain the growth of global naphtha market during the forecast period (2016-2030). By Product type, heavy naphtha segment was the most dominant segment in 2015 and anticipated to continue its dominance of over the forecast period. The segment is projected to witness stable growth during the forecast period. Light naphtha segment is expected to be the fastest growing segment during the forecast period. Growing use of light naphtha in petrochemical steam crackers is anticipated to fuel the demand over the forecast period (2016-2030). By application, chemical segment was observed to be the largest segment in 2015 in global naphtha market. Increasing use of naphtha as a feedstock for the production of materials such as polyethylene and polypropylene in petrochemical industry is projected to fuel the growth of naphtha over the forecast period (2016-2030). Considering the competition, the global naphtha market is expected to witness a significant rise in investment in capacity expansion for the production and supply of naphtha. Further, market has witnessed strategic mergers and collaborations among naphtha regional and global players. Such growth strategies are focused on increasing their market penetration in key consuming economies. Download Free Sample Request: https://www.credenceresearch.com/sample-request/58350 By Product Heavy Naphtha Light Naphtha By Application Chemical Energy/Fuels Others By Grography North America Europe Asia Pacific Latin America (LATAM) Middle East and Africa (MEA)

JP

johnsonpaul

Increasing Natural Gas Production and Increasing Trade Of Oil & Gas Products Drive The Growth Of Pipeline Leak Detection System Market For Oil & Gas Industry

Market Insights: Global leak detection system market is expected to gain momentum with growing pipeline network and increasing demand for fossil fuels. Advancement in technology has facilitated the pipeline operators to remote monitoring of pipeline operations. Global pipeline network is about 3.5 million kilometers which is responsible for movement of oil & gas products across the globe. Pipelines are considered to be the safest and the most efficient mode of transportation of hydrocarbons as they are hazardous in nature and any spillage or leakage can results in huge loss to the product owner as well as to the environment. Leakage is considered as the most common problem in pipeline operations which not only results in product loss but also can results accidents with huge potential to damage nearby environment. Recent accident happened in recent past such as explosion in gas pipeline in Minnesota, U.S., and eruption of natural gas pipeline in Nebraska in 2014 has bought in legislation for the pipeline carrying hazardous products to mandatory have leak detection system. Thus, global leak detection system market for oil & gas industry is anticipated to driven by factors such as increasing natural gas production, increasing trade of oil & gas products coupled with growing pipeline infrastructure and associated regulatory policies. However, volatile oil prices restricting cash flow of the oil producers which is likely have a negative impact on upcoming pipeline project which in turn is expected to restrain the demand for pipeline leak detection system in oil & gas industry. Competitive Insights: Global leak detection system market for oil & gas industry is segmented on the basis of technology, product type and geography. By technology, negative pressure wave segment is projected to be the most dominant segment due to easy installation along with low installation cost. Considering segment product type, the natural gas segment to be the largest segment over the forecast period (2016-2023) owing to increasing production of shale gas coupled with growing increasing number of gas based economies. The key players in the market are focusing on research & development of new technologies to enhance accuracy of their products. Overall, global pipeline leak detection system market is projected to register significant growth over the forecast period (2016-2023). Key Trends: Merger & Acquisition
Development of new technologies

Kumar Satyam

Kumar Satyam

Growing demand for electricity drive the growth of Transformer Oil Market

Market Insights Increasing power demand due to growth in industrial, commercial and residential establishments fueling the demand for electricity across the globe which in turn is driving the demand for transformers subsequently increase the demand for transformer oil. Besides this, favorable government initiatives in key consuming economies such as India to completely move to electric vehicles on the road by 2030 which is expected to fuel the electricity consumption in India which is subsequently fueling the demand for transformer oil. Furthermore, rapid growth in rural electrification due to various government initiatives in emerging economies such as India and China is expected to impel the growth in demand of transformer which is subsequently projected to drive the demand for transformer oil over the forecast period. However, growing inclination towards dry type transformer and corrosive nature of transformer oil due the presence of sulfur content is projected to hamper the growth of transformer oil over the forecast period (2017-2025). Competitive Insights: Global transformer oil market is segmented on the basis of type, application and geography. By type, mineral oil based segment was the most dominant segment in global transformer oil market in 2016 and anticipated to continue its dominance over the forecast period. Easy availability and affordable prices are projected to be the growth drivers of the segment. Based on application, distribution transformer segment accounted for the largest share in global transformer oil market. Growing demand for electricity due to growing urbanization and rural electrification projected to drive the growth of the segment. On the basis of geography, Asia Pacific was estimated to be the largest market for transformer oil in 2016 and projected to maintain its dominance during the forecast period. Rapid urbanization and growing industrial manufacturing and high growth in rural electrification is expected to impel the electricity consumption in the region which in turn is anticipated to drive the growth of the segment during the forecast period. Major players in global transformer oil market are investing in research and development, merger and acquisition with focus on improve their product portfolio and market penetration. Overall, global transformer oil market is anticipated to register significant growth over the forecast period (2017-2025). Key Trends: -  Merger & Acquisition -  Investment in R&D

Kumar Satyam

Kumar Satyam

Base Oil Market – What Factors will drive the Market in Upcoming Years and How it is Going to Impact on Global Industry The report covers outlook and research for the Base Oil market on a worldwide and regional level.

The purpose of the report is to illustrate the state of the market of Base Oil, to present actual information about the volumes of production, exports, imports, consumption and the state of the market, the changes that took place in 2017, and also, to build a forecast for the growth of the industry in the medium term until 2026. Browse here for full report: https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/base-oil-market Why was the report written? This report is the result of an extensive survey drawn from Credence Research’s exclusive panel of leading global market industry executives; it provides data and analysis on buyer investment, acquisition, and developments within the global market research. It includes key topics such as global Base Oil buyer expenditure and procurement behaviors and strategies and recognizes the threats and possibilities within the industry, economic outlook trends, and business confidence within global industry executives. Most secondary research reports are based on general industry drivers and do not understand the industry executives’ attitude and changing behaviors, creating a gap in presenting the business outlook of the industry; in an effort to bridge this gap, Credence Research created this primary research-based report by gathering the opinions of multiple stakeholders in the value chain of the global industry. What is the current market landscape and what is changing? Executives from the global industry anticipate an increase in levels of consolidation, with 55% of respondents projecting an increase in merger and acquisition (M&A) activities in 2017. The report on the market of Base Oil contains: Analysis and forecast of Base Oil market dynamics; Analysis of domestic production, market shares of the main market players; Analysis of exports and imports; Analysis of factors, leading the development of the Base Oil market; Assessment and forecast of Base Oil market development; Financial and business profiles of the leading companies in the Base Oil industry. Scope – Up to date working Base Oil data by major regions in the world, the forecast of planned capacity additions by 2026 – The annual breakdown of capital expenditure spending on proposed Base Oil for the period 2018 to 2026 – Planned Base Oil additions and capital expenditure spending by key countries and companies across the world – Planned capital expenditure spending on new Base Oil projects by region, key countries, and companies – Details of major planned Base Oil projects in the world up to 2026 Also you can request us for sample in pdf with more details and graph:https://www.credenceresearch.com/sample-request/57908  

CR

Radhe thakur

Europe Offshore Wind Energy Market Is Expected To Reach 29.8 GW By 2024

Europe Offshore Wind Energy Market Is Expected To Reach 29.8 GW By 2024: Increasing Investment In Offshore Wind Energy Market Is Projected To Drive The Growth Of Europe Offshore Wind Energy The latest market report published by Credence Research, Inc. “Europe Offshore Wind Energy Market, By Geography- Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2016 - 2024,” the Europe offshore wind energy market was 13.4 GW in 2016, and is expected to reach 29.8 GW by 2024, expanding at a CAGR of 12.0% from 2016 to 2024. Market Insights Europe offshore wind energy market is projected to witness robust growth owing to increasing investment in offshore wind energy projects. Rising energy demand and growing concerns over the emission of greenhouse gases is influencing the governments to promote the adoption renewable energy source such as wind and solar. Increasing investment in the offshore wind projects especially in Europe is anticipated to fuel the growth of offshore wind energy market. However, high cost of installation, delayed regulatory approvals and stringent labour laws are factors expected to restraint the growth of Europe offshore wind energy market during the forecast period (2016-2024). U.K. was the largest market for offshore wind energy in 2015 among all European countries. Increasing investment in offshore wind energy projects from private sector coupled with favorable government policies such as Energy Act, 2013 and establishment of Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Task Force to achieve levelised costs of offshore wind to £100 per MW/h by 2020 represent high growth for the offshore wind energy market during the forecast period (2016-2024). Germany is projected to be the fastest growing segment among all European countries during the forecast period. High number of approved and pipeline projects coupled with increasing investment from private sector in offshore wind energy is anticipated to fuel the growth of offshore wind energy in the region. The country is anticipated to witness addition of 4.5 GW capacity of installation offshore wind energy from under construction projects in next five years. Further, approval of new projects and pipeline projects is projected to expand the installation capacity to 9.4 GW by 2020. The country also holds second largest market share on terms of installation capacity in Europe. The country is projected to gain significant market share by 2023. Other regions such as Denmark and Netherlands are also anticipated to witness high growth during the forecast period (2016-2024). Considering the competition, the Europe offshore wind energy market is expected to witness a significant rise in investment in research and development with the focus to reduce installation cost of offshore wind installations. Further, market has witnessed strategic mergers and collaborations among Europe offshore wind energy regional and global players. Such growth strategies are focused on increasing their market penetration in consuming economies. Browse the full Europe Offshore Wind Energy Market - Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2016 – 2024 report at https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/europe-offshore-wind-energy-market

CR

Radhe thakur

Solar Tracker Market Research with Size, Industry impacting factors, Share and Forecast to 2023

The report includes forecast and analysis for the Solar Tracker market on a global and regional level. The research gives important data of 2016, 2017 and 2018 along with a projection from 2018 to 2026 based on revenue. The study covers drivers and limitations of the Solar Tracker market along with the impact they have on the trade over the forecast period. Additionally, the report covers the study of possibilities available in the Solar Tracker market on a global level. Browse detail report @  https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/solar-tracker-market Overview: Trackers direct solar modules or panels toward the sun to harness more sunlight. To accumulate maximize energy these trackers change their orientation during the day to follow the sun’s path. Solar trackers are rising in popularity, as it generates more electricity when compared to its stationery counterparts. Furthermore, favorable government initiatives are projected to augment the market growth. However, owing to the more complex technology and moving parts necessary for their operation solar trackers are slightly more expensive than their stationary counterparts which is one of the major factor restraining the market growth. Also, a solar tracker is more prone to be damaged in a rough weather when compared to the actual panels. Owing to supportive regulatory scenario North America and Europe are projected to witness high demand over the next six years. Italy, Spain, U.S., and Germany are the major regional market for solar trackers. On the other hand, Asia Pacific market offers high potential. Emerging economies are upgrading energy infrastructure to meet the rising demand for power. By product type, single axis tracker accounts for major chunk of the market pie when compare to double axis trackers. Single axis trackers are witnessing growth as it is widely used in residential and commercial application and low cost. The market for solar trackers is highly competitive due to presence of large and well established multinationals.  Array Technologies, Inc, Hao Solar Technology Co. Ltd, Titan Tracker SL, and AllEarth Renewables, Inc, among others are some of the prominent players present in this market. Apply here for the free sample copy of the report @ https://www.credenceresearch.com/sample-request/58151 Global solar tracker market is segmented on the following bases: By Technology PV CPV CSP By Product Type Single Axis Dual Axis Application Utility Non-utility By Geography North America U.S. Rest of North America Europe EU7 CIS Rest of Europe Asia Pacific (APAC) China India Rest of APAC Latin America Brazil Rest of Latin America Middle-East & AfricaKey Players Identified in the Solar Tracker Market include but are not limited to: Abengoa Solar, S.A., AllEarth Renewables, Inc, Array Technologies, Inc., SunPower Corporation, Titan Tracker SL, Powerway Renewable Energy Co., Ltd. and First Solar, Inc. among others. Reasons for Buying Solar Tracker market: This report provides pin-point analysis for changing competitive dynamics     It helps in understanding the key product segments and their future It provides pin point analysis of changing competition dynamics and keeps you ahead of competitors It helps in making informed business decisions by having complete insights of market and by making in-depth analysis of market segments Thanks for reading this article; you can also get individual chapter wise section or region wise report version like North America, Europe or Asia. Do You Have Any Query or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry Expert @ https://www.credenceresearch.com/inquiry-before-buying/58151

CR

Radhe thakur

Data Analytics To Play A Crucial Role In Growth Of Oil & Gas Companies In Coming Years

According to a new market research report published by Credence Research “Oil & Gas Analytics Software Market (Operations – Upstream (Exploration and Drilling Analytics, Production Planning & Forecasting Analytics, Field Surveillance and Monitoring Analytics, Equipment Maintenance Management Analytics, Workforce Management Analytics and Asset Performance Analytics), Midstream (Fleet Analytics, Pipeline SCADA Analytics and Storage Optimization Analytics), Downstream (Pricing Analytics, Commodity Trading Analytics,  Refining Analytics and Demand Forecasting Analytics); Deployment Type – On-premise and Hosted) – Growth, Future Prospects and Competitive Analysis, 2018 – 2026”, the global oil & gas analytics software market was valued at US$ 2.34 Bn in 2017 and will be growing at a CAGR of 17.5% during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. Browse the full report at  https://www.credenceresearch.com/report/oil-and-gas-analytics-software-market Market Insights The oil & gas analytics software market expected to grow at a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 17.5% during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. The size of the market stood at stood at US$ 2.34 Bn in 2017. Increasing focus on the part of oil & gas companies to focus on data analytics in order to generate growth is one of the most prominent factors aiding the oil & gas analytics software market growth. In recent years, a growing number of oil & gas companies are implementing analytics with an aim to increase revenue. The advent of big data has further complimented the oil & gas analytics software market growth. Oil & gas companies generate a humungous amount of data and over the years with improvements in the process of data collection, has enabled these companies to efficiently utilize data and improve the business processes. The fact that implementation of data analytics helps oil & gas companies to reduce costs is further bolstering its adoption in companies. Moreover, with real-time analytics gaining in prominence and data continuing to offers significant growth opportunities, the oil & gas analytics software market expected to witness significant growth during the forecast period. However, data privacy and ownership concerns remain major market growth inhibitors. Further, the need for companies to comply with legal and regulatory regulations expected to be another major challenge influencing the market growth negatively. North America stood as the largest market for oil & gas analytics software in 2017 and expected to remain a lucrative market for investment during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. The region held a share of more than 35% of the overall market value. Increasing exploration and production activities in the region has been an important factor contributing to the oil & gas analytics software market growth in North America. In recent years, exploration and production of unconventional oil and shale gas in the region has been on the high, a factor positively influencing the oil & gas analytics software market growth. Some of the major players operating in the oil & gas analytics software market include Hitachi, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Oracle, Northwest Analytics, SAS Institute, SAP AG, Tibco Software, Teradata and Cisco Systems among others. Market Synopsis Key questions answered in this report What was the global oil & gas analytics software market size in 2017 and forecast for 2026? What are the current trends in the oil & gas analytics software market? What are the various valuable opportunities for the players in the market? Which is the largest regional market for oil & gas analytics software? Which region expected to be the fastest growing and why? What are the future prospects for the oil & gas analytics software market? What are the major drivers and restraints influencing the market growth? What are the key strategies adopted by the leading players in market?

CR

Radhe thakur

Marcellus (PA) – update through September 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest gas (and a little oil) production data, from all 8,512 horizontal wells in Pennsylvania that started producing since 2010, through September. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Gas production from horizontal wells came in higher again in September, at 17.4 Bcf/d. Output has grown by about 10% in the 4 preceding months, driven mostly by an increase in well completions; In both August and September, 107 wells started production, the highest since the end of 2014.   This increase in completion activity didn’t have a negative effect so far on well productivity. In the ‘Well quality’ tab you’ll find the production profiles for all these wells, averaged by the year in which they started. Group the wells by the quarter in which they started (using the ‘Show wells by selection’), and you’ll see that the best initial performance came from the wells that started in Q3 this year, at over 13 MMcf/d.   Of the 5 leading operators, Cabot stood out as it increased gas production by 18% in just 2 months (see the final tab). The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate Return” overview shows the relationship between gas production rates, and cumulative gas production, averaged for all horizontal wells that started producing in a certain quarter. Well design has changed significantly over the years; in 2012 about 4 million pounds of proppant was used per completion, on average, while this has recently increased to over 18 million pounds. The plot clearly shows how this has had a positive impact on well productivity. Early next week I will have a new update on the Niobrara.   If you missed our live chat last Tuesday with John Sodergreen and Het Shah, about the Permian Basin, you can still read back our discussion here in the enelyst ShaleProfile Briefings channel. Next week Tuesday, at 10:30 am (EST), we’ll take a closer look at gas production in Pennsylvania, and there is enough time to ask questions. If you are not an enelyst member yet, you can sign up for free at www.enelyst.com, using the code: “Shale18” Happy Thanksgiving! Production data is subject to revisions. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2DVzQLg   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

North Dakota – update through September 2018

These interactive presentations contain the latest oil & gas production data from all 14,050 horizontal wells in North Dakota that started production since 2005, through September. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil production in North Dakota jumped to 1,359 kbo/d in September, a month-on-month increase of more than 5%, which again set a new record. Just over 150 wells were brought into production, the highest number in more than 3 years. The year-to-date number of new producers is now almost the same as for the full 2017 (933 vs. 992).   The 2nd tab (“Well quality”), shows that recent wells are performing initially slightly better than those from 2017. Lateral lengths have slowly increased in the past couple of years, to just over 10k feet on average. Proppant loadings have increased faster, and have more than doubled in the past 4 years, to an average of about 10 million pounds per completion. This is still significantly below the average completion size in the Permian or the Eagle Ford (~15 million pounds).   In the “Well status” tab you can find the status of all these wells. By selecting just the status “DUC”, you’ll find that the number of drilled, but uncompleted wells has fallen in the summer months, to almost a 5-year low.   You can find in the last tab (“Top operators”), that all major operators were able to grow production in September, with Continental Resources clearly in the lead.   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows how all these horizontal wells are heading towards their ultimate recovery, with wells grouped by the year in which production started. You can see more granular and recent data by grouping the wells by quarter or month of first production. The improvements in initial performance in recent years are clearly revealed here. Interestingly, you can see that later in life the wells from 2009-2011 experience a shallower decline than later wells. This holds even if you exclude the wells that have been refractured (which is possible in our online analytics service). Later this week I plan to have a new post on the Marcellus, followed by updates on the Niobrara and the Permian next week.   We are now collaborating with enelyst, an online chat platform for energy traders and analysts. We’ll host a weekly show there every Tuesday at 10:30 am (EST) for about 30 minutes, starting with today! Each time, we’ll take a basin and explain some significant trends in more detail, utilizing the latest insights we get from our ShaleProfile Analytics service, and we are open to Q&A. You can join it live, or later on the day review the discussions at your own leisure. You can join as follows: If you are already an enelyst member: Jump directly to the ShaleProfile Permian basin update this Tuesday at 10:30 am EST by hitting the channel link: Enter the ShaleProfile Briefings Channel If you are not yet an enelyst member: Sign up for free at: www.enelyst.com
Using the code: “Shale18”   For these presentations, I used data gathered from the following sources: DMR of North Dakota. These presentations only show the production from horizontal wells; a small amount (about 30 kbo/d)  is produced from conventional vertical wells. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2S4gJSm   Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

 

Smart Technology Needs Smart Regulators

The title of this article piece caught my ear when I was watching a debate that was held at the recent Bali Fintech conference, where the President of Indonesia made an outstanding speech that was appreciated by many members attending, he made one reference to the popular series "The Game of Thrones" where he said "Several great houses, great families, battle each other fiercely to seize control over the ‘Iron Throne' He also made the following statements: "Preventive excessive government interference too early in the process of innovation". "Give the innovative the confidence to experiment without having the fear of civil or criminal liability". A recent article published in the Jakarta Post in reference to geothermal, where Pak Prijandaru Effendi the chairman of the Indonesian Geothermal Association (API) dismissed the government's claims of the geothermal success story, where he said that this has needed more than three decades to succeed. In my opinion four very good statements, there is no doubt that regulations are holding back innovation and technology in many sectors of industry in the country including the exploration industry. There is no doubt that excessive government interference is holding back development and there is no doubt that the fear of being victimised because you have made a business decision which was not successful in terms of financial loss is helping to increase Indonesia's imports for oil and gas as well as delaying the geothermal development that Indonesia has so much potential for. Geothermal development does take time, on average from the early exploration stage to production can take eight years or more, in some cases it has taken 15 years, therefore taking credit for geothermal that is coming online today has taken many years of development as well as huge amounts of money, (much of which has been lost by the investor), is not correct. There are worrying signs that the targets set by the government for renewable energy will not be met, it is understood that this has been verbally stated that instead of 2025 it will now be 2030. It is fair to say that the government of Indonesia has not invested as it should have done in the natural resources that it has in its own backyard, the reliance of investors in the past is not what the future holds. Many of the geothermal power plants that have been developed have been in areas that shall I dare say easier to develop than several of the options that are available today, geothermal is a complex and difficult resource to develop, hence the reason that so many coal-fired plants have been and still continue to be developed, the cost difference of a coal-fired plant compared to a geothermal plant is substantial. Geothermal Development costs US$8 million per 1 MW (in comparison to US$2 - 3 million for coal) or approximately US$400 million for a mid-sized 50 MW plant. The four statements highlighted what is and is not happening in the geothermal, oil and gas industries, which is down to the people who are a part of the "Game of Thrones" in Indonesia. They are stopping what the President is saying should happen. There is also another added problem, which is supported by a comment from Fintech, "Geopolitics is becoming more important than energy", it certainly appears that way with the run-up to the election next April. I was in a recent meeting where I was told that the government's exploration budget for 2018 is 60 billion Rupiah (less for 2019), or US$4.1 million, this is a very small amount of money considering the cost of conventional exploration methods. We have heard so often that Indonesia needs to explore and it needs investment, but if you are only going to invest peanuts yourself, how will you attract other investors? Another person told me that it appears that Indonesia has lost the appetite for exploration, if this is the case, why are they complaining about the cost of importing oil to meets its daily demand? A recent regulation to lift the charges for oil and gas block data was made, this previously could cost up to US$80,000. The move is an attempt to attract more companies to bid in the upstream sector, This is an interesting development, but will it really attract more interest? As far as I am aware, the data that is available is normally of a poor quality and any investor will be taking a very high risk in bidding for any block based on this data. It is considered that the cost of US$80, 000 is very small and that investors would be willing to pay far above this sum if there was reliable data available. "The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of a low price is forgotten" Personally, I am not seeing that the government is looking at the real problem that is not attracting investors, scrapping the charge for oil and gas data is scratching the surface of what needs to be done, what needs to be done is simple, exploration with technology that is supported by conventional exploration methods. Knowing the full potential of any area is important. Giant, mature oil fields all have potential, hidden geothermal reservoirs also have potential, we just need to know where they are and what they contain. Why are they not developing areas that do contain large resources, such as one area in Lampung that contains one billion barrels of oil, or another area that is reported to have 40 billion barrels of oil? When a respected person mentioned these to me, I said, who is listening, he replied, “no one”. Business conducive regulations are needed, smart technology is needed, they both go hand in hand, this does not appear to be the case in Indonesia at this time. Technology and financing are two different sides of the coin. Technology providers are NOT supposed to bring financing, the Indonesian government is expecting both. This article was written by myself and was published in the Jakarta Post on Friday 16th of November 2018.

George A Barber

George A Barber

 

Pt. 2 Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles - the crucial difference between a Media Interview and a Presentation?:  Conclusions

Pt. 2 Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles - the crucial difference between a Media Interview and a Presentation?:  Conclusions The Presentation might now continue as follows (from Pt.1)  ... "The West's rush for EV's still requires inhumane conditions and poverty to persist  - e.g. in DRC mines, where the biggest cobalt reserves are currently found. The West's clean air comes at a high human cost. All this for EV car batteries, (also batteries for smartphones, tablets etc).    There's another elephant in the room. EV's will require a vast infrastructure of electric charging points. Think of all those huge apartment blocks housing car owners.  Both EV's and HV's need a large amount of initial energy. EV's need it continuously to feed the huge infrastructure of charging points. The demand will keep growing as well. HV's need it to produce the hydrogen fuel itself, but the vehicle fuelling infrastructure is already present with networks of petrol stations. Natural Gas and LNG are still vital for generating the energy of EV's and HV's. (Renewables are too inconsistent and paltry; subsidised by high energy bills - which penalises the poor, not the rich - create more emissions in their manufacture, construction, maintenance and dismantling than they re-pay, and in the case of solar panels are full of toxic waste that cannot be disposed of)."Green is not as green as it appears to be. On top of which environmentalists are very quiet on the carnage being meted out to flying creatures.  Hydrogen vehicle fuel is making ground. Germany has just launched its first hydrogen train. California and Hawaii are just two US states fully developing hydrogen fuel. NASA uses hydrogen fuel to launch space shuttles.   Natural Gas - LNG (and nuclear, where the waste is not "waste" but a resource that can be returned to) are abundant sources for generating the energy required to produce the Hydrogen. Mozambique is becoming a new supplier in Africa   So, the presentation might then come to its conclusion: Hydrogen is a simple element; found throughout the universe. It doesn't come from exploiting human poverty. What are the HV emissions? Water."   Here's the point and the crucial difference between the Presentation and the Media Interview.    In the Presentationwe tend to work towards our conclusions, showing the proof on the way. In the Media Interview(especially TV, Radio and any broadcast) you might only have 15-30 seconds to give an answer, so always start with your conclusion. You can elaborate on the reasons if you then have some more time to use.   Contact: rogercrisp@gmx.co.uk / rogercrisp.com / Linkedin: Roger Crisp (Consultancy) Media Advisor & Trainer / Speaker-Presenter on: - Dealing effectively with the Media (TV, Radio, Press, Blog, Vlog) - Climate Change - Energy

Roger Crisp

Roger Crisp

 

Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles - the crucial difference between a Media Interview and a Presentation? pt.1

Electric and Hydrogen Vehicles - the crucial difference between a Media Interview and a Presentation? pt.1 "The West's rush for EV's lacks perspective. The main forces pushing the EV industry are rarely mentioned, nor is the 'elephant in the room' ". This is a good clear start to a Presentation but terrible for a Media interview. There might not be time to add the details.   The Presentation continues ... "The two main forces are: the guilt-agenda of green lobbying power on governments and industry; and resulting government initiatives pushing EV's in a bid to signal green credentials and garner votes. The 'elephant' is about how all the massive extra amount of required electricity will be produced - certainly it won't be by renewables, which represent, even now, only a tiny percentage of world energy production.  Natural Gas and LNG are currently abundant, relatively clean, excellent sources of electricity generation and fuel for vehicles. China despite its lip service to Greenery is currently building coal-fired power stations. Germany is unwinding its Green leadership and exploiting coal again to reduce domestic and industrial costs."  How would the Media Interview best be started? See the Presentation's conclusion in part 2. Contact: rogercrisp@gmx.co.uk / rogercrisp.com Speaker & Conference Presenter on Energy - Climate Change / Media Interview Advisor & Trainer

Roger Crisp

Roger Crisp

 

So About That Petronas Dividend From Its Cash Reserves

The Petronas Dividend of RM 30 Billion has been in the Malaysia news lately. Here's an excerpt from an article yesterday: Pakatan MP questions need to use Petronas reserves for special dividend A Pakatan Harapan MP today questioned the rationale in using 36% of national oil company Petroliam Nasional Bhd’s cash reserves for the special dividend of RM30 billion. Wong Chen (PH-Subang) pointed out that Petronas’ cash reserves, as of last year, stood at RM128 billion, and the profit after tax was RM46 billion. “This worries me because we know there is a huge possibility Malaysia will be stuck in the trade war between US and China. “If we use all the money now, the financial power of RM54 billion, we may run out of ‘financial bullets’ when the crisis really hits,” he said in the Dewan Rakyat when debating the Budget 2019. The RM30 billion special dividend is part of RM54 billion that Putrajaya is asking from Petronas next year. It will be utilised to fully settle the outstanding tax refunds estimated at RM37 billion — RM18 billion in income tax and RM19 billion in goods and services tax (GST). Wong stated that while he understood Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng’s anger and frustration in inheriting the financial woes of the previous administration, he was of the view that Parliament needs a guarantee that a special dividend of this nature cannot be repeated in next year’s budget.   Yesterday, I had commented on LinkedIn a bit about this. Generally, my view is that if this is a one-off higher than normal dividend from Petronas, then it shouldn't be a problem. My concern is if this is an old crutch that is getting long in the tooth from decades-old age and too much reliance on Petronas to provide money. For some perspective, let me turn back the clock a couple years, when I interviewed Dr. Mahathir about Petronas in 2016. Here is an excerpt of my one-on-one interview: Interview with Former Petronas Advisor Dr. Mahathir Mohamad Dr.  Mahathir bin Mohamad was the 4th Prime Minister of Malaysia. He held the post for 22 years from 1981 to 2003, making him Malaysia's longest-serving Prime Minister. After stepping down as Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir took on the role of Petronas Advisor in 2003. On March 11 2016, the Malaysian government terminated the services of Dr. Mahathir, due to a political dispute between former Prime Minister Mahathir and the current Prime Minister Najib Razak. The Prime Minister's Office said in a brief statement that the Cabinet had discussed the actions of Dr. Mahathir, and decided that since he was "no longer supporting the current Government, he should no longer hold any position related to the Government." On 30th March 2016, Dr. Mahathir was kind enough to agree to an interview with Oilpro Moderator Tom Kirkman, to discuss Petronas. ... Question:  In August 2015, the Petronas CEO told reporters that Petronas had RM 126 billion in cash reserves.
And in January 2016, the Petronas CEO told reporters that Petronas had RM 88 billion in cash reserves.
That's a RM 38 billion reduction in Petronas cash reserves in 5 months.
What is your opinion on Petronas current cash reserves? Dr. Mahathir:  Well, Petronas is regarded by the government as some kind of cash cow.  When the government is short of money, or needs to have some investment, usually they pump it off on Petronas.  And currently, the government is really short of money.  They have mismanaged things, including borrowing huge sums of money.  So they are in deficit.  And what we do know is that they have been cutting back on budgets, by 20% last year, and again 20% this year.   I am told that Petronas was told to make up for the loss of government revenue.  And of course Petronas reply was that they need the money for their capex. They have to invest all the time.  I think the rumors are they were told “Look, you are a government company. You are 100% owned by the government. Whatever you earn belongs to the government.  You give the money to the government, then you can borrow.  If you need money, you can borrow.” It would seem that the government finds difficulty borrowing.  So, asking Petronas, which has more credit-worthiness, I think, is the way for them to borrow.
  Things have changed quite a bit since that interview in March 2016. Personally, I think Dr. Mahathir and Lim Guan Eng (the Finance Minister) and the new federal government are doing an overall great job in rescuing and repairing the country's financial mess, left behind by the previous administration.  Notably, working to clean up the mess of 1MDB. And I understand a stop-gap measure of increasing the Petronas Dividend this year to help alleviate the budgetary shortfall as the federal government works to pay down earlier commitments and reduce debt.  Again, cleaning up the financial nuclear fallout from 1MDB won't happen overnight. This time around, Petronas actually has sufficient cash reserves to pay a higher dividend. Compare that with the situation a couple years ago... here's another question and answer from my interview in 2016: Question: Petronas has recently stated that they may have to borrow money in order to pay their RM 16 billion dividend for 2016. Petronas originally wanted to pay only RM 9 billion in dividends for this year, but the government announced that Petronas was going to pay RM 16 billion in dividends for this year. About a month ago, Petronas announced that they will likely have to go in debt in order to pay the government dividend this year.  Do you have an opinion about that? Dr. Mahathir: Well, I think the government, as I said just now, is short of money. Petronas will have problems paying them more than what Petronas can afford. But the government is in such a desperate state, that they don’t care what happens to Petronas. As I said just now, Petronas can borrow money more than the government can borrow. So Petronas will have to cough up the amount of money that the government directs it to pay to the government.     Again, if this is a one-off higher than normal Dividend this year from Petronas, then it should be no problem. Next year, the dividend should be reduced, to allow Petronas to re-invest more in new Exploration & Production activities, both domestic and overseas.   Just my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.   “I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine.  He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.” – Thomas Paine (1737-1809)  

Tom Kirkman

Tom Kirkman

US - update through July 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from 95,093 horizontal wells in 10 US states, through July. Cumulative oil and gas production from these wells reached 9.3 Gbo and 102.9 Tcf. Ohio and West Virginia are deselected in most dashboards, as they have a greater reporting lag. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards Oil and gas production from horizontal wells kept setting new records through the first 7 months of this year. The 5,600 new producers contributed ~2.2 million bo/d and 10.4 Bcf/d in July, versus 4,600 new producers in the same period last year (which contributed 1.6 million bo/d and 9.1 Bcf/d in July last year).   The steady increases in well productivity between 2012 and 2017 are clearly visible in the 2nd tab, ‘Well quality’, where the oily basins have been preselected. Almost 12 thousand wells were completed in these plays in 2014, more than in any other year, which is why this curve is drawn with the greatest thickness. The final tab shows the production and location of the wells operated by the largest operators, as measured by their cumulative production in the past decade. The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: This “Ultimate recovery” overview shows the relationship between production rates and cumulative production over time. The oil basins are preselected, and wells are grouped by the year in which production started. You can see in the graph above that the 7,600 wells that started in 2017 recovered on average almost 100 thousand barrels of oil in the first 8 months on production, while declining from 600 bo/d to 274 bo/d. More recent and granular data can be seen by grouping the wells by the quarter or month in which production started.   The 2nd tab, ‘Cumulative production ranking’, ranks all counties with horizontal production based on cumulative oil production. McKenzie and Mountrail counties, both in North Dakota, are in the lead, but Karnes (Eagle Ford) and Weld (Niobrara) are catching up on the number 2. Early next week I will have a new post on North Dakota, which will soon release September production data. In our ShaleProfile Analytics service we keep all data up-to-date on a daily basis, and for most states we already have August or even September production in. If you’re interested, you can request a demo or trial here. Production data is subject to revisions. For these presentations, I used data gathered from the sources listed below. FracFocus.org Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. Similar as in Texas, lease/unit production is allocated over wells in order to estimate their individual production histories. Montana Board of Oil and Gas New Mexico Oil Conservation Commission North Dakota Department of Natural Resources Ohio Department of Natural Resources Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Texas Railroad Commission. Individual well production is estimated through the allocation of lease production data over the wells in a lease, and from pending lease production data. West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection West Virginia Geological & Economical Survey Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2DBiiE9     Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

Thoughts on Multiculturalism in Europe

Twenty-plus years ago I lived in England, had a Sri Lankan boyfriend, an Israeli best friend who shared a flat with a Palestinian guy, and a Persian housemate. This is still my idea of multiculturalism. Yet 20 years later what I read and see about Europe -- and Turkey but that's a different question altogether -- suggests the multicultural model governments have been shoving down people's throats has begun to backfire and it is backfiring spectacularly. Take the hidden camera film about the encapsulated Muslim neighbourhoods in Paris. This is no spin and no fake news. I have a friend who lives and Paris and she has vouched for the genuineness of these neighbourhoods. There are similar places in Germany, too, if we are to believe none other than Angela Merkel, who said in an interview such encapsulated areas have no place in the German society. Ironic, given she put a lot of effort into taking migration to ridiculous levels. Then there's Denmark, where I saw (hopefully because I only had three days) multiculturalism still working, probably because the country, as far as I remember, limited its intake of economic (sic) refugees. There I saw people of various colors all smiling and friendly, as befits one of the happiest nations in the world. And then I saw a boy that eyed me suspiciously for several minutes until I felt extremely uncomfortable (I went out to smoke and forgot the keys to the Airbnb, okay? Don't tell anyone). That one single boy is new to the country, I'm sure. I really hope he won't look at this very typical Middle Eastern way at people in five years. Because he will have assimilated. Assimilation is the only sensible way of actually accomplishing multiculturalism that doesn't give rise to racist extremists. I will here quote Mr. Schwarz, an expat in a country neighbouring his home one, who, after 20 years here says "We" when he talks about the locals and "they" when he talks about his countrymen and countrywomen. The only way to have a decent life in a foreign country even one that is culturally close to your home one, is to assimilate, learn the language and the culture, and make it your own. This emphatically does not suggest you need to give up your own culture or religion. What it does suggest is that if you want to live in a society you need to become a part of it, rather than an appendage that feeds from a society, operates in it, but remains a separate part of that society and, ultimately, does not contribute to the greater good. That's what encapsulation is all about and to me, it is the one single negative aspect of the recent migration waves that can bring the whole European Union down. How did we get here? We need to thank PC gone mad and congenital human stupidity. The more you force a group of people to accept something new and unfamiliar as normal and familiar without giving them enough time to process this thing, the more they will clench their teeth and refuse to eat it. The pendulum, as I like to say, always swings. The further it swings into one direction, the further it will then swing into the opposite one. it's just one of these laws that can't be violated. And personally, I believe Western Europe is being so stupid because they have no group memory of the Ottoman empire ruling over them. We do although we won't continue to have this memory for long as history is being rewritten. Literally.

Marina Schwarz

Marina Schwarz

Eagle Ford - update through July 2018

This interactive presentation contains the latest oil & gas production data from all 21,344 horizontal wells in the Eagle Ford region, that started producing since 2008, through July. Visit ShaleProfile blog to explore the full interactive dashboards In July 228 horizontal wells started production, the highest number in more than 3 years. Although the graph above shows a dip in production in July, this is partially because of reporting lag, and I expect that when these wells have a full month on production in August total output will show a bump.   Average production profiles haven’t changed much in the past couple of years, especially since 2017, as you can see in the ‘Well quality’ tab. Laterals (at ~ 7k feet) didn’t get any longer in 2018, while proppant intensity increased with about 10%. More information on these trends can be learned in our ShaleProfile Analytics service.   EOG is already for more than 5 years the top oil producer in this area, and it currently operates about 20% of total production capacity (“Top operators”).   The ‘Advanced Insights’ presentation is displayed below: In this “Ultimate Recovery” overview, the relationship between production rates and cumulative production is revealed. Wells are grouped by the year in which production started. These curves appear to bend slightly downwards, hinting at a hyperbolic decline with a b-value smaller than 1. Production profiles with a harmonic decline (= hyperbolic decline with a b-value of 1) show up on this type of plot as a straight line. The wells that started in 2014 (the year which saw the greatest number of new producers), are on track to recover on average 150 thousand barrels of oil (and ~0.6 Bcf of natural gas) before hitting a production rate of 30 bo/d.   Devon and ConocoPhillips are still showing the best well results on average, as measured by the cumulative oil production in the first 2 years (see “Productivity ranking”).   Early next week we will have a post on all 10 covered US states.   Production data is subject to revisions, especially for the last few months. For this presentation, I used data gathered from the following sources: Texas RRC. Production data is provided on lease level. Individual well production data is estimated from a range of data sources, including regular well tests, and pending data reports. FracFocus.org   Visit our blog to read the full post and use the interactive dashboards to gain more insight http://bit.ly/2Jtl5zq     Follow us on Social Media: Twitter: @ShaleProfile
Linkedin: ShaleProfile
Facebook: ShaleProfile

shaleprofile

shaleprofile

 

TETRA Technologies: A Diamond In The Rough That Can Triple In The Next Year

This article was recently published on Seeking Alpha.  It might be of general interest to this community and, of course, I would be interested in any comments that might help to prove or disprove my thesis.   TETRA Technologies: A Diamond In The Rough That Can Triple In The Next Year Summary Tetra Technologies, Inc. (TTI) is a deeply undervalued small cap energy services company that will not stay so small and undervalued for long. Excluding its controlling investment in CSI Compressco (CCLP), the stock sells at an enterprise value multiple of just 4.0x run-rate EBITDA, despite strong free cash flow generation and growth prospects. The company's breakthrough new CS Neptune completion fluid has a multi-billion dollar market opportunity ahead of it, with >80% EBITDA margins, no competition and long term patent protection. The company recently signed a joint marketing and development agreement with industry leader Halliburton to distribute this product globally. TTI stock can double just to get to the low end of my fair value range.  Over the next year, it can triple and more. TETRA Technologies, Inc. (TTI) is a smallish company that’s been around for a long time. Until recently, it has been an unremarkable company, sort of both everywhere and nowhere at the same time. As I will explain in this lengthy article, I think that is about to change in a big way. Against its most recent closing price of $3.65, I think the stock is easily headed into the teens over the next year or two. I think this is a stock to own right here, right now, because not only is it extremely cheap but I think perceptions could begin to change rapidly starting with the upcoming Q3 conference call. INTRODUCTION TETRA is an oil and gas service company now focused squarely on three businesses: high technology completion fluids, which will benefit from both increasing shale drilling and, particularly, the accelerating recovery in deepwater drilling; water and flowback services, which will benefit from the increased importance of water management in shale drilling; and compression sales and services, in which it participates through its ownership and control of CSI Compressco, LP (CCLP), a separate publicly-traded MLP. As I will explain, I think that TETRA is well positioned to assume a position of technological leadership in both the completion fluids and water management businesses. Its investment in CSI Compresso is valuable, but in my opinion, may ultimately be a candidate for divestiture.   INVESTMENT THESIS Over the last year, TETRA has quietly and remarkably transformed itself into a focused company with the potential for market leadership in two large and growing oil services markets: completion fluids, where it has a blockbuster new ultra-high-margin product; and water and flowback services, where it is the number two provider of such services nationwide. Over the past year, the company has sold divisions, shed liabilities, and reduced and refinanced its debt. Where the “old” TETRA was a bit of a mish-mash with no particular corporate logic; the “new” TETRA is a highly focused company with a coherent and well-defined corporate strategy. In my opinion, the new TETRA is a winner—a long-term growth story that can double over the short term and triple or quadruple beyond that. While I am bullish on energy related stocks, most of them are highly cyclical and inextricably tied to the commodity price. TETRA has a unique set of secular growth drivers that most other energy stocks do not have. Investors haven’t yet taken notice, but I think they are about to. TETRA last closed at $3.65, at the lower end of its range over the last year. While analyst targets are in the $6 to $8 range, I conclude a value between $8.38 and $13.09 per share. MAY 31, 2018: TETRA HOLDS AN “INVESTOR DAY” CONFERENCE On May 31, 2018, TETRA management held an “investor day” conference in New York City in which the CEO, CFO and the heads of all their divisions gave lengthy presentations and answered questions. This may be the first time this company has ever hosted such an event. Certainly, it is the first time in recent memory. I think the best way to analyze this investor day is in terms of human nature. Hosting an investor day is a lot like hosting a dinner party to celebrate your new house. You wouldn’t be doing it if you didn’t feel proud of what you had accomplished and where you were headed. It is a sign that management is both excited by their prospects and confident they can deliver. It may also be a sign that they think their stock is a real opportunity.   I was very impressed with the company’s 117-page analyst day presentation. Clearly, a lot of thought and effort went into this presentation. Not only did management explain their business and corporate strategy coherently, they put forth explicit 2018 guidance for each of their business units. I don’t think they would have done that unless they were confident the could deliver at least as much as they promised. In fact, on their earnings call just two months later, they already began raising guidance, however modestly. I have been following TETRA closely since their investor day presentation. At the time, I didn’t see any need to rush out and buy, but I’ve recently changed my mind. I think the time to buy is now, in front of what I think will be strong Q3 earnings and a meaningful upward revision to Q4 guidance. As well, I think 2019 is shaping up to be a breakout year. Nobody knows a company better than its own management. But, for obvious reasons, management cannot tell us everything they know. Looking back on the investor day presentation, and what has happened since then, I am convinced that management likely has in store a string of important positive announcements that will cause investors to fundamentally revalue the company significantly higher. SINCE INVESTOR DAY Since the investor day, the company has made three important announcements. First, the company announced a joint marketing and development agreement with Halliburton (HAL) for its revolutionary new CS Neptune completion fluid. Halliburton is one of the global leaders in drilling and completions fluids and controls about a quarter of the market. Driven by Halliburton's global reach, I think revenue and profits from this single product alone can cause the stock to at least double over the next year. Second, the company reported very strong Q2 revenues of $260 million (versus analyst estimates of $238 million) and earnings per share of $0.04 (versus analyst estimates of $0.01). Third, the company raised both 2018 revenue and EBITDA guidance, although by not nearly as much as the Q2 outperformance would suggest.   TETRA will report Q3 earnings in early November and I expect that it may represent a critical inflection point in how the company is perceived by investors. I expect the company will report a strong quarter and raise Q4 guidance, perhaps substantially. Management may also give a preview of 2019 guidance. FLUIDSDOC: CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE Before I begin, let me give credit where credit is due. Fellow Seeking Alpha contributor, Fluidsdoc, has been writing about TETRA for more than the past year, and it is their enthusiasm for their new Neptune completion fluid product that initially drew me in. According to their Seeking Alpha profile, they are an industry expert. Now, Fluidsdoc has been recommending TETRA for the past year and, frankly, they have been early. As I will explain, they connected the dots between what happened in 2017 and what will happen in 2019 and beyond far faster than the market, which in fact still hasn’t connected those dots. That’s often what happens when you know too much and that’s a large part of the opportunity in TETRA today. When it comes to completion fluids, Fluidsdoc is the ultimate industry insider. I’m pretty sure they are going to be right on TETRA. Even if they are only half right, this will be a very rewarding stock. Let’s now go through each of TETRA’s operating divisions. COMPLETIONS FLUIDS & PRODUCTS TETRA’s Completion Fluids & Products division is an industry leader with a greater than 30% market share for high value fluids. When transitioning from drilling a well to completing a well, completion fluids are used to displace the drilling mud while keeping downhole pressure intact. If you want to know more about the technical details of these fluids, I urge you to read Fluidsdoc’s many articles. They are the real thing when it comes to understanding the science and application of these fluids. For the purposes of this article, suffice it to say, if you are completing a well, you will need completions fluids. Depending on the type of well you are completing, the fluid you will use can range from a relatively low-cost commodity fluid like calcium chloride for a typical shale well to a very expensive and highly engineered fluid using hazardous or even rare elements for a high-pressure, high-temperature deepwater well.   Source: Company presentation While TETRA provides fluids for both onshore and offshore completions, what is really driving my excitement is their new CS Neptune product for the complex and expensive wells in the deep waters offshore. This is where the big companies spend the big money and a single project can run into the many billions of dollars. Every well that uses the company’s Neptune completion fluid can add millions to the bottom line. That’s a lot for a small company like TETRA. (With 126 million shares outstanding, each well can potentially add a couple of pennies of EPS.) As Fluidsdoc explains, there have traditionally been two alternatives for deepwater completion fluids. The first, zinc bromide, is extremely toxic, bio-accumulates in the food chain and is a known teratogen, meaning it causes fetal malformation. These health, safety and environmental issues are real. The U.S. has classified zinc brines as "marine pollutants" and they are prohibited from use in the North Sea altogether. The second alternative, a cesium formate based brine, does not have the same environmental risks, but is extremely expensive and its use frequently difficult to justify. A cesium formate based completion fluid can cost up to ten times as much as a zinc bromide fluid. In sum, what TETRA has done is to develop a revolutionary new zinc-free completion fluid which is far superior to what exists today. Because it is zinc-free, it has none of the health, safety and environmental issues associated with a zinc bromide fluid; and because it uses no cesium formate, its cost is very reasonable. According to Fluidsdoc, both Schlumberger and Halliburton, the two leading completion fluids companies, have been working to come up with a zinc-free alternative. They have been unable to do so and, as they write,   According to the company, CS Neptune was developed for use in a multi-billion-dollar investment deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico. Had a zinc-based fluid been used on this project, a separate FPSO (floating production storage and offloading) unit would have had to be contracted just to dispose of the zinc-laden fluid. In other words, the E&P company would have had to hire one of these (as in the picture below) just to dispose of the contaminated fluid. Source: Company presentation All-in, the use of CS Neptune resulted in savings of greater than $100 million. That’s a huge savings and explains why this product can command such high margins. According to the company’s 2017 annual report, (Emphasis mine.) The critical question is, is this true or is this just so much corporate puffery? This is where Fluidsdoc comes in. According to Fluidsdoc,   And, If so, that’s enormously consequential from a financial perspective. Let’s take a look at the potential financial impact of Neptune on the company.Source: Company filings, author's calculations Neptune is a product in its infancy. In Q2 and Q3 of 2017, TETRA provided Neptune completion fluids for a major Gulf of Mexico project. While this was not the first well that Neptune was used on, it was the first truly large-scale application of Neptune on an ultra-high-value well. What we don’t know is exactly how much revenue and EBITDA were generated by this project. But we can guess. Just looking at how both revenue and EBITDA popped during those two quarters (and also taking into consideration the typical seasonal strength in Q2) suggests that this single project generated in the range of an incremental $20-25 million in revenues at an EBITDA margin of at least 80%. That really made me sit up and take notice. There are two important takeaways here. First, if Neptune gains traction, it can drive an enormous amount of profitability with virtually no incremental capital investment. Second, Neptune earnings deserve a high multiple and can catalyze a fundamental revaluation of the company. So, the next question is, how big is this market? According to the company, there is an untapped market opportunity of over 600 offshore leases with wells that could benefit from CS Neptune. As shown below, 143 of these are in the North Sea, where Norway has banned zinc-based fluids for environmental reasons. Another 224 are in the Gulf of Mexico, where TETRA has already proven the success of Neptune.   Source: Company presentation Using the company’s estimate of 600 wells, at an average of $5 million per well, would suggest a $3 billion revenue opportunity. (Recall, that a single large project can potentially generate up to $20-25 million in revenue, so this estimate may be conservative.) At an 80% margin that’s close to a $2.5 billion profit opportunity. That’s a lot of opportunity for a small company like TETRA. In its investor day presentation, TETRA disclosed that it wanted to partner with a “global drilling and fluids market leader” to enhance its distribution and service capabilities for Neptune. That’s actually a tall order for a small company but, on July 2, just over a month later, TETRA was able to announce that it had signed a global marketing and development agreement with Halliburton. The fact that a company like Halliburton would team up with TETRA is a strong testament to the importance and potential reach of this unique product. Once again, the best analysis of this event comes from Fluidsdoc, who wrote, This gets back to something I said earlier. While management knows what’s going on better than anyone else, they obviously cannot disclose everything they know. But sometimes they can hint. For example, on the May 31 investor day, management stated that one of its goals was to “partner with [a] global drilling and fluids market leader” for the distribution of Neptune. Obviously, the deal with Halliburton was at a substantially advanced stage by then. In retrospect, management’s statement of strategy was more in the nature of a hint of what was to come.   So, when TETRA management writes, “The success of the Neptune technology project simply cannot be overstated,” and when they describe Neptune as “transformational, disruptive technology” what are they really trying to say? Is it a hope, an opinion, or a hint? I don’t know the answer, but given their recent track record, I’m open to the possibility that it may be a hint. I also found Fluidsdoc’s next statement extremely interesting. This is how I interpret this statement. “Every major service company has been looking to create equivalent fluids technology.” In other words, Schlumberger has been trying hard but, despite its considerable resources, has thus far been unable to duplicate what TETRA has done. Industry giants like Schlumberger need to figure out a “response.” In other words, Neptune presents a significant enough competitive threat to Schlumberger’s base fluids business that they cannot afford to just ignore it. Neptune is a patented technology and, it looks like their lawyers have sewn things up pretty tightly. Cf., Fluidsdoc’s August 18, 2017 article on TETRA where they wrote, “I'm not sure that CS Neptune is patentable or not; there just isn't enough information disclosed about it yet.” TETRA has a track record with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf of Mexico. Clearly, this “multi-billion-dollar investment well” in the Gulf of Mexico was with Exxon Mobil. I’m sure that’s pretty common industry information but, as an outsider, I did not know that. For ratification of an important new industry technology, you cannot get much better than that. If you read carefully, there's a lot of good information there. So, let’s return to my earlier question, how big and important is the market for CS Neptune? The answer is that it is big enough and important enough for Schlumberger and Halliburton both to have been seeking to develop a zinc-free drilling brine; and it is big enough and important enough for Halliburton to partner with TETRA when it found it could not duplicate its success. Remember, Tetra is not a large company and so it does not take all that much to move the needle here.   And what about Schlumberger? Fluidsdoc doesn’t say specifically, but notes, I read that statement to mean that Schlumberger is a long way from having a competitive product. The Halliburton Marketing and Development Agreement In the short term, the agreement with Halliburton will dramatically accelerate the global acceptance and reach of Neptune. That’s why I am excited about the stock in the short term. Once investors figure this out, the shares should start trading meaningfully higher. Remember, stocks anticipate. Here’s the full text of the press release announcing the agreement,   What’s important is that this more than a joint marketing agreement. It is also a joint technology sharing and development agreement. On the second quarter conference call, the company gave further clarification on the both the short term and long term potential for this agreement. But, as I said, the real opportunity is even bigger than that.   As Fluidsdoc notes, In other words, the joint agreement with Halliburton is really just the beginning. Expect to see more products based on the combination of Neptune and Halliburton technology. The potential for Neptune to be used as a base drilling fluid as well suggests the potential for dramatically higher volumes. If all of this bears fruit, I would not be surprised to see a more formal tie-up, such as between Schlumberger and M-I Drilling and, perhaps eventually, such as between Schlumberger and parent company Smith. Financial Results and Guidance The fluids division had a really terrific Q2—much more terrific than it looked. Source: Company filings, author's calculations As can be seen, Q2 fluid revenue increased 44% sequentially and 3.4% year-over-year. While Q2 tends to be seasonally strong as a result of the European chemicals business, what’s notable is that results even increased year-over-year despite significant Neptune revenues in the year ago quarter and none in the current quarter. Without any contribution from Neptune, margins could not of course match the year ago quarter, but nevertheless they improved substantially on a quarter-over-quarter basis, rising from 11.7% to 17.9%.   One of the reasons that I am particularly excited about owning a full position in TETRA right here and right now is because I think that Q3 earnings will be stellar and Q4 guidance will be revised substantially higher. To understand why, let’s take a look at the company’s investor day guidance for the fluids division.Source: Company filings, author's calculations As can be seen above, I have recorded the company’s full-year 2018 guidance in blue and the actual results for the first two quarters in black. In red, I have calculated what each quarter would look like to meet the mid-point of guidance. (For the sake of simplicity, I have assumed that both quarters would be identical.) At the investor day, the company confirmed then full-year revenue guidance for the entire company of $945-$985 million. In fact, this guidance was actually first introduced on the company’s Q1 conference call. What was new at investor day was the breakout of revenue guidance by division. Thus, we can assume that, had the company given the divisional breakout on the Q1 conference call, it would have been mostly the same as what they gave on investor day. Now, here’s where it gets interesting. On the first quarter conference call, management stated, Neptune revenues are so large and consequential that I cannot imagine other than that, if management thought there might be “one to two” opportunities, they would only incorporate one into their formal guidance. To do otherwise would risk falling materially and embarrassingly short of guidance, something I am sure management did not want to do out of the box.   But, on the second quarter conference call, management stated that it now expects revenue from two Neptune wells during the second half of the year. The company also stated, In other words, it seems that current guidance for the remainder of 2018 only includes one Neptune well, but there is a significant likelihood of a second such well. Given that one was already at a “fairly advanced stage in the drilling process,” it’s possible there will be meaningful Neptune revenues in Q3. If so, Q3 could be surprisingly strong and there could be a surprisingly substantial upward revision to Q4 guidance. WATER & FLOWBACK SERVICES DIVISION The second important division at TETRA is their Water & Flowback Services division which provides water services for unconventional wells in North America. The leader in this business is a company called Select Energy Services, Inc. (WTTR), and I have written extensively about why I think water handling and logistics is a very much underappreciated business with strong growth prospects and durable margins. TETRA is number two in the water business. While considerably smaller than Select, they also have a national footprint with operations in all the major shale basins. As far as I know, all the other players are regional. Source: Company presentation   Since TETRA’s water business is, for the most part, very similar to Select’s, I am not going to reiterate what I have written previously. Suffice it to say that water handling and logistics is an increasingly important and mission critical component of unconventional well completions and Select and TETRA are the two publicly traded companies with a national footprint. Readers are urged to read my first two articles on WTTR for more details about this business and why I think it will grow significantly over the next few years. In March 2018, TETRA doubled down on its water business by purchasing Swiftwater for $42 million in cash and 7.772 million shares of stock valued at $28.2 million. This was an excellent acquisition which gives them a substantial market position in the all-important Permian Basin. Currently, TETRA is exposed to the $9.4 billion market for the treatment, flowback, transfer and storage segments of the water business, all of which have substantial growth prospects over the next few years. The company’s objective is to deliver double the growth rate of the industry, which would suggest well better than 20% annual growth. Source: Company presentation One reason I like the water business is because, in addition to the strong growth prospects, it also generates very significant free cash flow. Source: Company presentation As can be seen above, TETRA management is forecasting EBITDA of $60-66 million for 2018 (a number which is likely quite low) against which it has maintenance capex of just $6-7 million. That bespeaks a very high quality of earnings. Management is further investing another $19 to $24 million in growth capex, on which it expects to earn a payback in 18 months or less. That suggests strong EBITDA growth into 2019 and 2020.   Financial Results and Guidance One thing I’ve come to appreciate about management is that they have given very conservative guidance that they have then handily exceeded. For example, at the time of the Swiftwater acquisition in March, they estimated that Swiftwater would contribute $16-20 million in EBITDA for 2018. Swiftwater has already generated EBITDA of $2.3 million for March and $6.8 million for Q2, the first full quarter. As can be seen, water division revenues have been growing significantly and EBITDA margins have improved significantly as well. Source: Company filings, author's calculations While the better part of the growth from Q1:18 to Q2:18 was due to the added two months of Swiftwater revenues, the segment did enjoy significant organic growth as well. On a pro forma basis, assuming Swiftwater had been acquired at the beginning of the first quarter, Q2 water revenues would have grown by 11.2% sequentially. Note also the tremendous margin improvement that the acquisition of Swiftwater has enabled. At the analyst day, management gave guidance for full-year water revenues of $285-295 million and $60-66 million in EBITDA. With the Q2 report now in hand, even the top end of that guidance seems woefully low.Source: Company filings, author's calculations As can be seen above, assuming the top end of the revenue and EBITDA guidance, results for Q3 and Q4 would have to fall very substantially below the Q2 run rate. I don’t think that’s likely. I think it is more likely that EBITDA guidance will be ranged from $60-66 million to perhaps $70-75 million.   On the Q2 conference call, one analyst addressed this issue.   In my opinion, this sounds like a company that is going to meaningfully raise its guidance for this division when it reports Q3 earnings. COMPRESSION SERVICES TETRA’s third important division, Compression, is not so much a division as an investment in a separate, publicly traded company known as CSI Compressco, LP (CCLP). Compressco is a vertically integrated compression company, meaning that they supply compression services, but they also manufacture, sell and support their own equipment. They also provide aftermarket support for third party equipment. For the most part, compression is a mildly cyclical business that fluctuates with oil and gas prices and offers rent-like returns. It is a heavy iron business, requiring lots of assets that are optimally financed by low-cost debt. Currently, this business is coming off the bottom of the cycle and management has done some smart things. First, they paid down their bank debt and issued senior notes, also adding $100 million to their cash balances in the process. The company is now in a comfortable position with no covenants and no debt coming due until 2022 at the earliest. Then, management used this additional money to invest in increasing their available horsepower. Utilizations have rebounded significantly off the bottom and Compressco’s earnings and dividend are set to move higher. Source: Company filings, author's calculations Unlike most of its peers, Compressco is vertically integrated and manufactures its own equipment and provides aftermarket support for its own and third-party compression equipment. As utilization has rebounded, the compression market has gotten tighter and there has been increasing demand for both new equipment and aftermarket service. At June 30, 2018, the company reported the highest backlog in its history, $102.2 million, which reflects an order from a single customer for $67 million—the largest such order in their history. By comparison, its backlog at the year ago period was just $24.0 million. Most of this backlog is expected to be delivered in the second half of 2018, so expect a significantly stronger second half. Whether the company can continue this momentum remains to be seen.   Bottom line, the compression division is in a good place. When management raised guidance on the Q2 conference call, it was entirely attributable to this division. It may not be the most exciting business, but it is headed higher Accounting Considerations Now, this is where things get a little complicated from an analytical standpoint. Essentially, Compressco is its own company (structured as an MLP) and at the last report TETRA owned about 37% of the common LP units, 12.6% of the preferred units and an approximately 1.6% general partner interest. In many ways, TETRA’s interest in CCLP is more in the nature of an investment than a true operating subsidiary. Like any other common holder, it benefits primarily from an appreciation in the value of CCLP stock and any dividends paid by CCLP. Other than that, CCLP is a financially and legally separate entity and there is no commingling of cash or cash flows. To the extent that TETRA owns less than 50% of CCLP, it would normally account for its interest as an equity investment. But, because TETRA also owns the general partner interest, it exerts functional control over CCLP and must therefore consolidate CCLP’s financials with its own. This makes the analysis of TETRA’s financials a bit messy. What do I mean by messy? If you look at TETRA’s most recent balance sheet, you’ll see $810 million of long term debt. The reality is that $632 million of that debt belongs to Compressco and, while TETRA must include that debt on its balance sheet, it is in no way liable for that debt under any conditions. Basically, TETRA owns about a 40% economic interest in Compressco and the best way to think of this is that TETRA’s interest is mostly like that of any common unit holder. But because TETRA must consolidate the financials of CCLP with its own, they seem much more intertwined than they really are. Valuation of Compressco I believe that, notwithstanding TETRA’s effective control over CCLP, its interest should be valued primarily as a standalone equity investment. Therefore, this is how I value TETRA’s interest in CCLP.   • At June 30, 2018, TETRA owned 15,428,587 common units of CCLP. At their last traded price of $5.48, this stake is worth $84.5 million. • TETRA also owned 559,975 shares of CCLP’s Series A preferred units. Over the next year, these shares will convert ratably each month into common units of CCLP. I value these at par, or $5.6 million. • In addition to exercising function control over the company, the general partner interest in CCLP is entitled to 1.6% of CCLP’s dividend payments plus incentive distribution rights as dividends rise beyond a certain level. Beyond the value of the dividend distributions, the value of the general partner is somewhat difficult to establish. The incentive distribution rights are too far out of the money to be a meaningful source of value, but control is worth something. Thus, I am going to somewhat arbitrarily value the general partner at $0 to $30 million. The upper end of that range presumes that TETRA will use its control to monetize its investment in CCLP at a premium, perhaps by selling the company outright. All told, I value TETRA’s interest in CCLP at $90 million to $120 million, most of which is the current market value of its securities holdings in the company. While nominally the largest of the three divisions by both revenue and EBITDA, I believe Compression is actually the least valuable division. It is also likely creating value at the lowest rate compared to the other divisions. I believe its relative value to TETRA will rapidly diminish in importance as compared to the fluids and water divisions. According to the company, there are cross-selling synergies with its other divisions; but I’m just not sure that they are sufficient to warrant keeping the division given the complexity it adds to the capital structure. Compressco is poised to do better and I think that management should use this as an opportunity to monetize their investment. While they could always sell their shares into the market place, the value of having control is they could also sell the company to a third party, likely at a premium. In my opinion, Compressco should be sold because TETRA now has bigger and better fish to fry. Given its control position, why not seek to obtain an acquisition premium?   BALANCE SHEET An important part of TETRA management’s remake of the company has been to clean up its balance sheet. Currently, TETRA has $178 million of debt versus its most recent quarterly EBITDA of $33.9 million. Source: Company filings, author's calculations A sale of CCLP could reduce its debt by at least half or more, freeing up capital which could be invested in either of its two other divisions. VALUING TETRA Before I discuss how to value TETRA, let me discuss how not to value it. Many analysts are valuing the company on a consolidated basis, that is, assigning a unitary target multiple to a consolidated EBITDA figure including Compressco. I don’t think that’s right because each of the company’s three divisions are really quite different in terms of growth prospects, capital intensity and risk. The compression division, in particular, is a horse of a different color. Notwithstanding the consolidated financial presentation, there is no commingling of assets, liabilities or cash flows between TETRA and Compressco, and so it is essentially improper to value them on a consolidated basis. Furthermore, in almost all cases, this unitary multiple is far too low because it does not consider that Neptune is a very large and high multiple product opportunity. I believe the company agrees with me that the correct way to value TETRA is a sum of the parts analysis with the value of Compressco “mapped over” from its public valuation. Source: Company presentation   So, here’s how I value TETRA on a sum of the parts basis. Current Valuation In order to establish a current valuation, I try to establish a reasonable current EBITDA run rate for the fluids and the water divisions. For the fluids division, I use the midpoint of management’s guidance less the reported first half results to establish a current run rate. For the water division, I use the Q2 actual run rate. I believe that both are likely conservative. Source: Company filings, author's calculations As shown above, this yields an enterprise valuation of approximately 4.0x the current run-rate EBITDA. That’s a very attractive valuation for a company that is both generating significant free cash flow yet also has bright growth prospects. Target Valuation Given that the calendar is pushing November, TTI should really be valued on 2019 cash flows. Since management hasn’t given guidance for 2019, I will need to provide my own. I expect that I will have a much better handle on the potential for 2019 by the Q3 earnings call, but for now I will simply grow the run-rate EBITDA by 15% for each division. I think each division is easily capable of significantly exceeding those placeholder estimates. Thus, on the low side, I think the compression division is worth $90 million, which is the market value of TETRA’s ownership position plus the value of its GP dividend interest. On the high side, I think you can add a 30% premium in a change-in-control scenario, resulting in a value of $120 million. As I noted in my articles on WTTR, this is a good business with good growth prospects, modest reinvestment requirements and robust free cash flow generation. It is a better and less capital intensive business than pressure pumping and a very much better business than frac sand, which is now beset by significant oversupply issues. On balance, I think the Water & Flowback Services division is worth at least a 7.0-8.0x multiple. This yields a valuation of $648 million to $741 million for this division.   The Completion Fluids & Products division is the most difficult to value because of the significant potential for Neptune. For now, I am going to value it at 8.0-14.0x the mid-point of current H2:18 EBITDA (the result of subtracting actual H1:18 EBITDA from full-year mid-point guidance of $58.5 million and then annualizing). I understand that’s a bit of a wide range and that a 14x multiple may seem a bit on the high side. But, if Neptune can fulfill even half of its potential, this will seem a very modest valuation in a year’s time. That yields a total value of between $710 million and $1.2 billion for this division.Source: Company filings, author's calculations Adding it all up and adjusting for corporate overhead yields a valuation range of between $8.38 and $13.09. Even the low end of the range is more than a double from these prices. Most of the variation in the valuation comes from the prospects for Neptune. The low end of the valuation range reflects an outcome in which Neptune never amounts to much more than a niche product, used in a handful of wells each year. The upper end of the valuation range assumes meaningful penetration and growth for the product. Remember, Neptune is a groundbreaking product in its infancy with drug-type margins, patent protection and, thus far, no competition. A single Neptune project contributed almost $25 million of revenue and $20 million of EBITDA in less than two full quarters. With two Neptune projects scheduled for the second half, the real question is what can 2019 and 2020 and 2021 produce in terms of Neptune earnings. If the agreement with Halliburton bears significant fruit, even the high end of the valuation range will ultimately prove far too low.   CONCLUSION I believe investors should buy TTI now, ahead of the Q3 earnings report. Even at the lower end of my valuation range, which assumes that Neptune never becomes more than a niche product, the stock can double. If I am right about the prospects for Neptune, this stock can trade in the mid-to-high teens soon enough. Disclosure: I am/we are long TTI WTTR. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

HC

Mr. Bert

Omnipresent Big Need for Capital... Alternatives?

Smaller producers who are finding it more difficult to secure bank credit, with many loans still under pressure, are seeking new ways to capture funding.  As prices are making it a bit easier to add to the balance sheet, versus $26 per barrel in recent times, new avenues for capital have opened up. We see the increased ability of 'non-bank' capital sources to serve these operators that have a large need for capital.  Reserve Based Lending, (RBLs), are certainly in transition and many smaller operators are simply too small to attract this capital.  Mezzanine debt and some credit funds have typically been the next horizon for capital, but other alternative methods are needed to fulfill this capital need that make sense to these sized operators. Backstory: the Comptroller of the Currency's revised lending guidelines have become stricter and banks are being squeezed.  More than $208 billion in upstream debt existed at the end of 2017, with nearly $75 billion not in compliance with the new banking strictures... So, what does this mean for the producer?  As these mature, some may be renewed, many will not and where there's a gap and if companies can't renew their RBL, they'll need other methods to fund themselves.  Solution for some, not for all: Volumetric Production Payments, (VPPs) on existing production.  Not bank debt, non-recourse and there's no equity relinquished to the private equity bunch.  We love to see PDP assets and can leverage them to grant the capital these firms need effectively and efficiently, usually within 30-45 days, versus the slog through banking procedures. It makes sense that as the traditional methods of funding are under pressure, that direct capital can be accessed through ways that make sense to the operator... he keeps the upside, typically at least 70% with facilities up to $20 million. Always open for discussion!

KH

BlackLine Resources

A New Polymer EOR Technology

Produced Water Mobility Inhibition Polymer Flooding Jay C. Reynolds, Applied Mobility, LLC, Oil City, Louisiana   Numerous reservoirs in the US are prone to early transition to high water production and produce at their economic limits in spite of often having 75-80% or more of their OOIP remaining in these developed and de-risked fields. It is the shallow reservoirs that were discovered first and mis-managed in the early days which are now in the hands of the Mom and Pops, who are notoriously late technology adopters.  This is where the big stranded reserves are in the US. The best combination for this process is homogenous geology, relatively low gravity oil, close well spacing and a strong, active, bottom water drive. That combination makes for early water coning and high percentages of stranded reserves in an active bottom water drive reservoir.   A oil cut (WOR) of 1,000/1 is typical for the Nacatoch B Sand in northwest Louisiana; a terrible Adverse Mobility Ratio. In the Nacatoch B, the oil wells are essentially water wells that make oil as a contaminant once the water cones in.  About 10,000 of these wells were drilled, a significant number during three separate periods of intense promotion because these wells had good flush production and frequently paid out in a couple of months before the water came in.  The reservoir is acting exactly as physics dictates. This oil is 19-21 gravity and it takes pumping the well down about 150’ to provide a sufficient pressure drop to mobilize oil to the well bore and that is impossible without changing the downhole physics at work. Nacatoch oil is about  250 centipoise viscosity while our water is 1 centipoise with permeability as as high as 3,000 millidarcies.  As a consequence, pumping these wells down is impossible because the water channels will expand to accommodate any given pump capacity. These factors, and the large stranded reserves, led to the develop an inexpensive polymer treatment for water control and enhanced oil production for reservoirs with a low permeability contrast such as those of the Caddo Pine Island Field’s massive blanket sand, the Nacatoch B Reservoir.   A dry polyacrylamide polymer of special design is mixed on the fly and injected into the water bearing portion of the sand with a Mobile Gel Unit.   You could think of it as inflating a balloon underground and as long as you are injecting more than you are withdrawing the area affected will continue to expand.  That makes this process site specific, you can keep the ‘polymer balloon’ and the oil on your leasehold instead of mobilizing the oil horizontally, potentially off of your leasehold as with a traditional displacement type polymer flood.  The produced oil and polymerized water is separated in the usual way and the polymerized water, having value now, is recycled.  Bottom line is turning your worst enemy, water, into your best friend.  Think of this as a polymer flood that operates vertically instead of horizontally - that lets oil move in the direction nature wants it to go, vertically. Injection continues until the polymerized water surrounds nearby producing wells.  That lets the operator pump those wells down because the wells no longer have access to low viscosity native water.  This relieves enough hydrostatic pressure in the well bore to let the reservoir energy mobilize the more viscous oil to our well bores at higher rates.  This technique lets an operator keep the oil on their lease while qualifying as Tertiary Enhanced Oil Recovery on a voluntary leasehold unitization basis in many states. Without mobility control the reservoir can only be shown about a 20 psi pressure drop no matter what capacity pump is run.  A 20 psi pressure drop will move all of the water you can possibly pump through a high permeability sand but transports very little oil.  With produced water mobility control the well can now be pumped down.  Mixing polymer into the water dramatically improves the mobility ratio and lets us pump the well down to take advantage of the reservoir pressure. To accomplish polymer placement in the desired portion of the reservoir, we continuously hydrate, blend and inject polymer at our target viscosity. Viscosity is targeted such that the polymer blend preferentially flows into the water productive regions of the sand while not displacing the oil horizontally. This development began by asking, ‘What would the cut be if the water and oil were the same viscosity?” “Change the nature of water and the physics downhole changes and a new equilibrium state with respect to how oil and water move relative to one another is established.  Darcie’s Law tells us that only three things determine the rate of fluid movement through our sand; pressure, viscosity and permeability. Which of those is easiest and cheapest to change on a large scale?  The viscosity of water. Unlike many EOR methods that rely on changing the characteristics of the oil, where the benefit is lost when the oil is produced, the polymerized water is recycled and what used to be our waste product, water, becomes an asset. James Sutphen of SNF added, “This has been a very good collaboration thus far.  Jay has come up with a game changer for a market that was not risk tolerant.  He knew from his perspective as an oil producer the game had to be changed or else geology and depletion would put him out of business.  There is a limit to how much fluid you can produce and separate and stay in operation.” Jay Reynolds (318) 208-1137, jaycreynolds@gmail.com

JR

JCR