Oil service sector talks up transition amid recovery

  • Market: Crude oil, Emissions, Natural gas
  • 26/07/21

A recovery in oil prices that is encouraging some US drillers to get back to work — along with brighter upstream investment prospects for leading Opec+ producers as last year's drastic supply cuts are reversed — has not distracted service sector efforts to diversify into clean energy technologies.

The biggest US oil field service companies are expanding into renewables and other lower-carbon sectors, doubling down on a strategy that they embarked upon before last year's Covid-related crash. Baker Hughes, Schlumberger and Halliburton are all seeing opportunities offered by the energy transition as the oil industry faces unrelenting pressure to clamp down on emissions.

Baker Hughes, which is rebranding itself as an energy technology company, predicts "significant growth" in its transition initiatives in the next 5-10 years — including hydrogen and carbon capture, utilisation and storage — as the "clean energy ecosystem continues to evolve". The scale of its clean energy ambitions can be seen in a recent tie-up with Norway's Borg CO2 on a carbon capture and storage hub that aims to sequester up to 90pc of emissions from a cluster of industrial sites. "That's a great opportunity for us because we think those industrial clusters are going to continue to emerge elsewhere in the world as well," Baker Hughes chief executive Lorenzo Simonelli says. The company also expects a "step-up" in its LNG activities.

Schlumberger launched its Transition Technologies portfolio during the second quarter, which it says can help customers meet their climate goals by eliminating flaring, minimising carbon footprints and expanding electrification. The company is also targeting net zero emissions across its value chain by 2050.

Halliburton says that another four firms have joined its clean energy technology lab in Houston as part of its goal to "advance and scale cleaner, affordable energy". The company, which is the largest hydraulic fracturing (fracking) services provider, also flags high demand for low-emissions fracking equipment amid limited supply. Earlier this year, it carried out the first grid-powered fracking operation. It is also deploying digital technology and automation in drilling operations as operators pursue continued cost savings.

Oil be back

But the sector is still gearing up to take advantage of what Halliburton chief executive Jeff Miller describes as the early stages of a "multi-year up-cycle" in the oil sector, with international and North American markets expected to grow simultaneously for the first time in seven years, as global oil demand recovers from the coronavirus slump. "We anticipate double-digit annual international spending growth at least over the next couple of years" led by national oil companies, Miller says. Baker Hughes expects a similar level of growth in the international sector, led by increased drilling in the Middle East and Russia, and sees that momentum continuing into 2022.

Drilling and completion spending in North America will "also grow double digits annually over the next two years", Miller predicts, although it will not return to pre-pandemic levels. Baker Hughes sees modest growth in US oil field services for the remainder of this year, with privately owned shale drillers seeking to capitalise on higher oil prices while their publicly listed peers exercise drilling restraint — a trend that is also expected to continue into next year. The increasing demand for oil field services equipment should help the sector to start raising its prices. "Pricing is beginning to return in North America now and is expected to lag internationally where contract durations are longer," Miller says.

Oil service firms' 1H results$mn
Company1H211H20±%
Profit
Schlumberger730-10,810na
Halliburton397-2,693na
Baker Hughes-520-10,422na
Revenue
Schlumberger10,85712,811-15
Halliburton7,1588,233-13
Baker Hughes9,92410,160-2
North America revenue
Schlumberger2,0553,277-37
Halliburton2,9733,509-15
Baker Hughesnanana
Oil service firms' 2Q results$mn
Company2Q212Q20±%
Profit
Schlumberger431-3,434na
Halliburton227-1,676na
Baker Hughes-68-195na
Revenue
Schlumberger5,6345,3565
Halliburton3,7073,19616
Baker Hughes5,1424,7369
North America revenue
Schlumberger1,0831,097-1
Halliburton1,5691,04950
Baker Hughesnanana

Sharelinkedin-sharetwitter-sharefacebook-shareemail-share

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

News
28/03/24

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

Stalling climate finance an energy security risk : WRI

London, 28 March (Argus) — The "best bet" to achieving global energy security is through mitigation funding and multilateral cooperation, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI highlighted that governments are funding more domestic renewable energy projects but have increased oil and gas production in the name of "energy security" at home in the years following the Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The recent rebrand of energy transition funding to energy security funding has allowed some developed nations to justify domestic oil and gas licences and drag their feet on multilateral financial commitments. This is causing "real worry" among climate-vulnerable developing nations, WRI chief executive Ani Dasgupta said. He said that although the initial "shock" to the world's energy markets after the invasion of Ukraine "quickly went away", it has triggered "real worry among poorer countries that when push comes to shove, it won't be an even game, or have a fair outcome." Developing countries have long complained about the lack of access to climate funding. Richer nations have only recently met the $100bn/yr target in climate finance to developing countries agreed in 2009, while discussions on setting a new climate finance goal for 2025 at Cop 29 in Baku in November could prove difficult. President of the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) Denis Sassou-Nguesso said last year that the $100bn/yr in climate financing to developing countries promised by rich countries "never reached us", adding that the annual UN Cop climate conferences have become little more than a talking shop. "Just after the invasion of Ukraine, every country started to think about energy security," Dasgupta said. "In theory, good things could have happened, countries could have concluded that their best bet to getting energy security is by going renewable". But it was not the case in key consumer countries or regions, Dasgupta pointed out. China bought the majority of Russian gas following the EU's withdrawal, he said, and has since upped production at coal-fired power stations despite an "extraordinary" acceleration towards renewables set for 2023-28, according to Paris-based energy watchdog IEA . In Europe, the UK and Norway continue to award new oil and gas licences . "In the US, the fossil fuel lobby argues that the best route to energy security is to invest more in fossil fuels". But the best route is to invest in more renewables, he said. "Even if the US produces a large amount of oil and gas, it is still a traded commodity, and so you have to pay a price for it that is set globally." The US special presidential co-ordinator for energy security Amos Hochstein has also suggested in September that a widening climate finance gap could ultimately threaten global security. "We have seen the percentage of dollars spent on the energy transition outside the OECD, in developing and middle income countries actually go down instead of up…" By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Read more
News

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025


28/03/24
News
28/03/24

Australia to delay mandatory climate reporting to 2025

Sydney, 28 March (Argus) — Australia's biggest companies will likely face mandatory climate reporting from 1 January 2025, six months later than originally planned, according to a bill the Australian federal government introduced in parliament. Under the revised proposal, the country's largest companies and financial institutions will need to start disclosing their climate-related risks and opportunities, including scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, within their annual sustainability reports from 1 January 2025 instead of 1 July as previously intended . Scope 3 emissions disclosure will continue to be required from the second year of reporting. Companies will be arranged in three groups, with group 1 entities including companies meeting at least two of three criteria: more than A$500mn ($324mn) of annual revenues, over A$1bn of gross assets, 500 or more employees. Group 2 companies will have lower thresholds — above A$200mn of revenues, $500mn of assets and 250 employees — and will start reporting from the financial year starting on 1 July 2026. Reporting for group 3 entities — those with more than A$50mn of revenues, $25mn of assets and 100 employees — will begin from 1 July 2027. The 1 January 2025 start date might be pushed further to 1 July 2025, if the bill does not become law before 2 December. It will now be debated in parliament and needs to pass both houses, the Senate and the House of Representatives, before receiving royal assent. Its approval will support more investment in renewable energy as well as help companies and investors manage climate risks, the government said. Companies are currently not required to report their scope 3 emissions under Australia's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act, which is used to measure and report GHG emissions and energy production and consumption. Scope 3 can include emissions within supply chains that occur inside or outside Australia, such as emissions from the combustion of Australian coal or LNG exported to other countries. By Juan Weik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears vote: Update


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears vote: Update

Updates scheduled timing of vote in first paragraph. New York, 27 March (Argus) — The Louisiana state senate is scheduled to vote next week on a bill seeking to clarify pipeline servitude rights and expedite pipeline crossing disputes, advancing legislation promoted by three natural gas pipeline companies involved in a legal battle with US midstream giant Energy Transfer. Natural gas transmission projects by Williams, Momentum Midstream and DT Midstream — which aim to connect growing production out of the prolific Haynesville shale to a wave of new LNG export terminals along the US Gulf coast — have been put on hold while legal proceedings between Energy Transfer and DT Midstream play out. All three companies' proposed pipelines would cross Energy Transfer's own Tiger pipeline in northern Louisiana. The three pipeline companies' projects propose an excessive number of crossings over the Tiger line, an attorney for Energy Transfer argued in a Louisiana senate committee last week, and Energy Transfer has the servitude rights to stop them. But Energy Transfer's "unique" interpretation of the civil code on pipeline crossings is hurting the economy of Louisiana, the author of the bill , Louisiana senator Alan Seabaugh (R), said last week. By blocking the construction of new pipelines out of the Haynesville, Energy Transfer is eliminating jobs and taxes that would be created by new infrastructure, he said. Moreover, by arguing its servitude rights extend above and below its existing pipeline "to the center of the earth," Energy Transfer is "asserting a right that nobody has ever asserted before," Seabaugh said. The Seabaugh bill clarifies that, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a contract, pipeline servitude rights extend only to the physical space occupied by the pipeline and any space necessary to maintain it. The contract stipulating Energy Transfer's servitude rights for the Tiger pipeline is silent on the subject of that vertical, underground space, according to bill supporters. "This really isn't about pipeline crossings — this is about controlling market share," said Jimmy Faircloth, attorney for Momentum Midstream. But the pipeline industry has been amicably working together for decades to allow for reciprocal crossings, Energy Transfer attorney Kay Medlin said. By ripping up this convention over a dispute involving so many crossings, and forcing an expedited legal proceeding for something which "is not a minor process," the Seabaugh bill threatens an industry "that ain't broke," she said. "This legislation will break it, and you will likely spend years trying to fix it, if you ever can," Medlin said. The Seabaugh bill is a companion to two bills which passed 100-0 and 99-0, respectively, in the Louisiana House of Representatives on 21 March. Those bills seek to clarify the law on pipeline crossings and to expedite proceedings on pipeline crossing disputes. By Julian Hast Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Baltimore bridge collapse to raise retail fuel prices

Houston, 27 March (Argus) — The collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, is more likely to increase regional gasoline prices than diesel due to additional freight costs and certain route restrictions. Suppliers in the region have so far signaled that the effect on broader markets will be minimal, but regional prices will likely rise, especially as peak summer demand season begins with Memorial Day weekend in late May. The bridge closure could pose more problems for gasoline supply than diesel, since gasoline cannot be transported through the Fort McHenry (I-95) and Baltimore Harbor (I-895) tunnels — the two other major roads that cross the Patapsco River at Baltimore — while there are no restrictions on diesel, according to the Maryland Transportation Authority (MTA). Fuel wholesaler Global Partners said yesterday that it would like to see hours of service waivers for trucking in the region to minimize fuel supply disruption to customers, but the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is yet to issue one. Elevated retail prices are likely to be limited to the immediate Baltimore area but could spill over into neighboring markets should trucking markets remain tight due to rerouting, market sources told Argus . Fuel markets in eastern Maryland can be supplied by PBF's 171,000 b/d Delaware City, Delaware, refinery and two further plants in Pennsylvania — Monroe Energy's 190,000 b/d Trainer refinery and PBF's 160,000 b/d Paulsboro refinery. To the north, United Refining runs a 65,000 b/d plant in Warren, Pennsylvania, and along the Atlantic coast Phillips 66 operates the 259,000 b/d Bayway refinery in Linden, New Jersey. PBF, Monroe and United did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the bridge collapse is affecting refinery operations. Phillips 66 declined to comment on commercial activities. Still, the five nearby refineries — representing all the Atlantic coast's 850,000 b/d of crude processing capacity — are unlikely to see their operations curtailed by limits in shipping products to Maryland. With no refinery in the state of Maryland, most fuels are delivered to Baltimore by Gulf coast refiners on the Colonial Pipeline. Global Partners, which operates a terminal just west of the collapsed bridge, said yesterday it is primarily supplied by the pipeline and expects product flows to continue. Several terminals in the Baltimore Harbor and the nearby Port Salisbury can also receive small vessels and barges of road fuels from Delaware and Pennsylvania, according to the Maryland Energy Administration (MEA). The Port of Baltimore — which remains closed since the collapse — took delivery of 24,000 b/d of gasoline and under 2,000 b/d of distillates from barges and small vessels in 2019, about three percent of the Atlantic coast's refining capacity. "A closure of the Port of Baltimore while the Colonial Pipeline is open would not significantly disrupt fuel supply," the MEA wrote in a 2022 analysis of liquid fuels supply in the state. By Nathan Risser Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

News

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears senate vote


27/03/24
News
27/03/24

Louisiana pipeline crossing bill nears senate vote

New York, 27 March (Argus) — The Louisiana state senate is scheduled to vote tonight on a bill seeking to clarify pipeline servitude rights and expedite pipeline crossing disputes, advancing legislation promoted by three natural gas pipeline companies involved in a legal battle with US midstream giant Energy Transfer. Natural gas transmission projects by Williams, Momentum Midstream and DT Midstream — which aim to connect growing production out of the prolific Haynesville shale to a wave of new LNG export terminals along the US Gulf coast — have been put on hold while legal proceedings between Energy Transfer and DT Midstream play out. All three companies' proposed pipelines would cross Energy Transfer's own Tiger pipeline in northern Louisiana. The three pipeline companies' projects propose an excessive number of crossings over the Tiger line, an attorney for Energy Transfer argued in a Louisiana senate committee last week, and Energy Transfer has the servitude rights to stop them. But Energy Transfer's "unique" interpretation of the civil code on pipeline crossings is hurting the economy of Louisiana, the author of the bill , Louisiana senator Alan Seabaugh (R), said last week. By blocking the construction of new pipelines out of the Haynesville, Energy Transfer is eliminating jobs and taxes that would be created by new infrastructure, he said. Moreover, by arguing its servitude rights extend above and below its existing pipeline "to the center of the earth," Energy Transfer is "asserting a right that nobody has ever asserted before," Seabaugh said. The Seabaugh bill clarifies that, unless explicitly stated otherwise in a contract, pipeline servitude rights extend only to the physical space occupied by the pipeline and any space necessary to maintain it. The contract stipulating Energy Transfer's servitude rights for the Tiger pipeline is silent on the subject of that vertical, underground space, according to bill supporters. "This really isn't about pipeline crossings — this is about controlling market share," said Jimmy Faircloth, attorney for Momentum Midstream. But the pipeline industry has been amicably working together for decades to allow for reciprocal crossings, Energy Transfer attorney Kay Medlin said. By ripping up this convention over a dispute involving so many crossings, and forcing an expedited legal proceeding for something which "is not a minor process," the Seabaugh bill threatens an industry "that ain't broke," she said. "This legislation will break it, and you will likely spend years trying to fix it, if you ever can," Medlin said. The Seabaugh bill is a companion to two bills which passed 100-0 and 99-0, respectively, in the Louisiana House of Representatives on 21 March. Those bills seek to clarify the law on pipeline crossings and to expedite proceedings on pipeline crossing disputes. By Julian Hast Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more