Pétrole : le déclin des « majors » se confirme en 2012
Also the opinion of IEA's Executive Director (see bottom comment)
Source/Fuente : Le Monde, le 7 février 2013, 7 de febrero 2013
Blog Matthieu Auzanneau – Oil Man – Chroniques du début de la fin du pétrole, le 5/2/2013
Petróleo: caída de la producción de 4 de los “grandes” en 2012
“Cuatro de las principales compañías petroleras internacionales han registrado nuevamente importantes caídas en su producción de crudo en 2012, de acuerdo con los informes trimestrales presentados estos últimos días. Estas caídas aparecen como tanto más significativas por haberse producido a pesar de las inversiones record aprobadas por Exxon, Chevron, BP y Shell. (Se espera con curiosidad la publicación la semana próxima de los resultados del grupo francés Total).
“El balance del año 2012 debería dar indicaciones claras sobre la bien fundada amenaza de un pico petrolero.
« Quatre des principales compagnies pétrolières internationales ont à nouveau enregistré d'importants déclins de leurs productions de brut en 2012, selon les rapports trimestriels présentés ces derniers jours. Ces déclins semblent d'autant plus significatifs qu'ils se sont produits en dépit des investissements records consentis par Exxon, Chevron, BP et Shell. (On attend avec curiosité la publication la semaine prochaine des résultats du groupe français Total.)
Le bilan de l'année 2012 devrait donner des indications claires sur le bien-fondé de la menace du pic pétrolier.
Ça part mal pour Big Oil.
La production pétrolière du géant américain Exxon a poursuivi son recul en 2012, chutant de pas moins de 5,5 % par rapport à l'année précédente, de 2,31 à 2,18 millions de barils par jour (Mb/j), peut-on lire dans le dernier rapport trimestriel.
Le recul n'épargne aucun continent. »
“La producción petrolera del gigante estadounidense Exxon ha seguido cayendo en 2012, retrocediendo no menos de 5,5% con relación al año anterior, de 2,31 a 2,18 millones de barriles diarios (Mb/d), según consta en su último informe trimestral.
“Tal caída no perdona ningún continente.
“Exxon precisa que la caída de su producción de petróleo se limita a -1,6% si se tienen en cuenta las evoluciones del perímetro de actividad, las desinversiones y los efectos inducidos por las cuotas de la OPEP. La empresa no presenta el impacto de cada uno de estos tres factores de manera separada; no parece pertinente separar las cesiones de activos y las desinversiones, en la medida en que éstas se refieren habitualmente a pozos petroleros en declinación.
“La hija mayor de la Standard Oil ha visto asimismo caer su producción total de gas natural (-6,4%), incluyendo los Estados Unidos (-2,4%) y ello a pesar del “boom” del gas de esquistos [shale gas]. El CEO de Exxon, Rex Tillerson, admitió en junio que con el gas de esquistos, su compañía estaba “perdiendo su camisa”.
The most quotable quote of ExxonMobil chief Rex Tillerson‘s talk last week at the Council on Foreign Relations was his lament that current ultra-low natural gas prices were having on oil and gas drillers. “What I can tell you is the cost to supply is not $2.50. We are all losing our shirts today. You know, we’re making no money. It’s all in the red.”
Source: FORBES, July 3, 2012
« Exxon précise que le déclin de sa production de pétrole se limite à - 1,6 %, si l'on tient compte des évolutions de périmètre d'activité, des désinvestissements et des effets induits par les quotas de l'Opep. La compagnie ne présente pas l'impact de chacun de ces trois facteurs séparément ; il ne semble guère pertinent d'écarter les cessions d'actifs et les désinvestissements, dans la mesure où ceux-ci concernent habituellement des puits pétroliers en déclin.
La fille aînée de la Standard Oil a vu également baisser sa production totale de gaz naturel (- 6,4 %), y compris aux Etats-Unis (- 2,4 %) et ce malgré le "boom" des gaz de schiste. Le PDG d'Exxon, Rex Tillerson, a admis en juin qu'avec les gaz de schiste, sa compagnie était en train de "perdre [sa] chemise".
“Chevron, la otra gran empresa petrolera estadounidense, declara un retroceso del 4,6% de sus extracciones de crudo, de 1,85 Mb/d en 2011 a 1,76 Mb/d en 2012.
« Chevron, l'autre firme pétrolière majeure aux Etats-Unis, fait état d'un recul 4,6 % de ses extractions de brut, de 1,85 Mb/j en 2011 à 1,76 Mb/j en 2012. »
« BP registra una abrupta caída de 8,2%, ampliada por las desinversiones masivas aprobadas con el fin de pagar la factura de la marea negra del Golfo de México. La producción de crudo de la grande londinense pasó de 1,29 Mb/d en 2011 a 1,18 Mb/d en 2012
« BP encaisse une dégringolade 8,2 %, amplifiée par les désinvestissements massifs consentis afin de régler la facture de la marée noire du golfe du Mexique. La production de brut de la major londonienne est passée de 1,29 Mb/j en 2011 à 1,18 Mb/j en 2012.
Le PDG de BP, Bob Dudley, a affirmé en janvier que l'hypothèse du pic pétrolier "est de moins en moins fondée".
Shell a enregistré un recul de 2 % de sa production d'or noir, de 1,66 à 1,63 Mb/j. »
“Shell registró una merma del 2% de su producción de oro negro, de 1,66 a 1,63 Mb/d.
« Les dépenses de capital et d'exploration d'Exxon ont augmenté de 8,2 %, pour atteindre 39,8 milliards de dollars en 2012. Celles de Chevron ont crû de 17,5 %, à 34,2 milliards de dollars en 2012. Les dépenses de capital de Shell ont atteint 32,5 milliards en 2012 (+ 23,5 %). BP : 23 milliards de dollars en 2012 (+ 29,3 % par rapport à 2011).
Ces résultats négatifs pour l'année 2012 viennent confirmer la tendance au déclin de la production de brut des majors historiques amorcé à la fin des années 2000 ― une tendance mise au jour sur ce blog.
Le Financial Times est pour l'heure le seul média économique à manifester une certaine d'inquiétude face à cette évolution.
Le premier bilan de l'année 2012 du groupe Total est attendu le 13 février. Les extractions de brut de la firme française ont décliné de manière continue entre 2007 et 2011.
Le recul de la production de brut des majors historiques est en ligne avec les pronostics inscrits dans le dernier rapport annuel de l'Agence internationale de l'énergie, qui anticipe discrètement le déclin de nombreux pays pétroliers anciens et de premier plan.
Le brut d'Irak et d'Arabie Saoudite, ainsi que les huiles de schiste des Etats-Unis sont fréquemment présentés comme étant capables d'inverser la tendance. Là encore, plusieurs premiers indices concernant le bilan de l'année passée apparaissent négatifs. »
« El crudo de Irak y de Arabia Saudita, así como el shale-oil de los Estados Unidos son presentados frecuentemente como capaces de revertir la tendencia. No obstante, respecto a este punto, muchos primeros indicios respecto del balance del año 2012 aparecen como negativos. »
COMENTARIO DE MLD : Las opiniones anteriores lo son del bloggista del diario francés Le Monde: Blog Matthieu Auzanneau – Oil Man – Chroniques du début de la fin du pétrole, le 5/2/2013 (Oil Man – Crónicas del inicio del fin del petróleo)
Sé que entre quienes leen éste, nuestro blog, hay quienes saben realmente mucho sobre petróleo. Sus comentarios serán muy bien recibidos.
Este tema del crudo y del gas de esquistos está en plena discusión; por cierto que no hemos escuchado la última palabra.
María van der Hoeven, Directora Ejecutiva de la IEA, la Agencia Internacional de Energía, publica es su blog el 7 de febrero ppdo.:
"A boom in North American oil production is under way, thanks in part to technological advances that are unlocking millions of barrels of oil that were previously inaccessible. But as these new supplies are extracted, they are facing logistical and policy hurdles above ground. Resolving these challenges is of paramount importance if we are to benefit from this vast resource.
Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are allowing the U.S. oil industry to recover millions of barrels of so-called light, tight oil from shale formations across the middle of the country. U.S. crude oil production has increased by 1.3 million barrels per day (mb/d) in the past two years, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that the U.S. will produce a further 1.4 mb/d by the end of 2014.
But it is no secret that once the oil is extracted from wells in the country's midsection, it often faces a long and complicated journey to refineries, many of which are located on the coasts. Transportation bottlenecks are one of the main reasons U.S. crude trades at a discount to international benchmarks. It is now well-known that landlocked West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude has been trading at a deep discount to other benchmarks such as Brent since production volumes started ramping up two years ago.
What is perhaps less well-known is that internal North American grades fetch even lower prices, trading at a deep discount to WTI itself. Ironically, American end-users do not benefit from this production windfall since U.S. retail product prices are still heavily influenced by international markets.
If this disconnect in prices were to continue, it could threaten the economic viability of these new supplies, potentially stopping the boom in its tracks.
Fortunately, new pipeline and rail capacity is set to open in 2013 that will allow more crude from the Plains states to move to refining hubs to the east and west and along the Gulf Coast. While these are welcome improvements, they will not bring the marketing problems to an end. That is because U.S. crude exports are subject to stiff restrictions, and America's refiners can only absorb so much of the new supplies.
The sale of U.S. crude overseas is governed by the Export Administration Act of 1979, which allows the president to prohibit or curtail the export of commodities -- namely crude -- deemed to be in "short supply." Exceptions do exist, but for the most part U.S. producers are hopelessly constrained in their capacity to export domestic crude to countries other than Canada and Mexico.
U.S. businesses have adapted by exporting refined products -- which are not restricted under U.S. law -- instead of crude. The U.S. refining industry has in effect become a conduit for crude oil exports, allowing rising U.S. crude production to be exported in product form. In just seven years, the U.S. has tripled the amount of products it exports, transforming itself from the world's top product importer to second-largest product exporter, surpassed only by Russia.
Effective as U.S. refiners may have been in mopping up the additional supply and sending it overseas, they have limited capacity to absorb additional barrels of high quality light, low sulphur oil. Much of their capacity is geared to processing cheap, low quality dense, high sulphur grades and maximizing their yield of high-value-added products such as gasoline and diesel.
They have limited appetite for the premium lighter grades from the Eagle Ford and Bakken shale formations. Moreover, U.S. refining capacity is set to grow by less than 300,000 b/d through 2017.
This will not be the first time in the history of the oil industry that changes in technology and market conditions expose a misalignment between resources and regulations. While much of the anxiety about energy resources in recent years has focused on "peak oil" or other aspects of resource scarcity, in fact some of the bigger challenges facing the energy industry lurk not below ground, but above.
Some may see this as a choice between keeping American oil within U.S. borders for reasons of economic security and allowing the U.S. to generate billions of dollars in new export revenues. But market realities suggest a far simpler decision ahead: either U.S. crude is shipped abroad, or it stays in the ground.
While new pipeline links, supplemented with increasingly efficient railroad links, will give producers short-term relief from depressed prices, new export outlets will ultimately be necessary to leverage the full potential and reap the benefits of the new American oil revolution.
Washington will need to address this misalignment, lest the great American oil boom goes bust.
Maria van der Hoeven is executive director of the International Energy Agency.
This article was originally published on 7 February, 2013, in the Financial Times. It is based on analysis that first appeared in the January 2013 issue of the IEA's Oil Market Report, a monthly publication that provides a snapshot of the international oil market and projections for oil supply and demand 12-18 months ahead.
María van der Hoeven, Directora Ejecutiva de la IEA, la Agencia Internacional de Energía, publica es su blog el 7 de febrero ppdo.:
"A boom in North American oil production is under way, thanks in part to technological advances that are unlocking millions of barrels of oil that were previously inaccessible. But as these new supplies are extracted, they are facing logistical and policy hurdles above ground. Resolving these challenges is of paramount importance if we are to benefit from this vast resource.
Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are allowing the U.S. oil industry to recover millions of barrels of so-called light, tight oil from shale formations across the middle of the country. U.S. crude oil production has increased by 1.3 million barrels per day (mb/d) in the past two years, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration forecasts that the U.S. will produce a further 1.4 mb/d by the end of 2014.
But it is no secret that once the oil is extracted from wells in the country's midsection, it often faces a long and complicated journey to refineries, many of which are located on the coasts. Transportation bottlenecks are one of the main reasons U.S. crude trades at a discount to international benchmarks. It is now well-known that landlocked West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude has been trading at a deep discount to other benchmarks such as Brent since production volumes started ramping up two years ago.
What is perhaps less well-known is that internal North American grades fetch even lower prices, trading at a deep discount to WTI itself. Ironically, American end-users do not benefit from this production windfall since U.S. retail product prices are still heavily influenced by international markets.
If this disconnect in prices were to continue, it could threaten the economic viability of these new supplies, potentially stopping the boom in its tracks.
Fortunately, new pipeline and rail capacity is set to open in 2013 that will allow more crude from the Plains states to move to refining hubs to the east and west and along the Gulf Coast. While these are welcome improvements, they will not bring the marketing problems to an end. That is because U.S. crude exports are subject to stiff restrictions, and America's refiners can only absorb so much of the new supplies.
The sale of U.S. crude overseas is governed by the Export Administration Act of 1979, which allows the president to prohibit or curtail the export of commodities -- namely crude -- deemed to be in "short supply." Exceptions do exist, but for the most part U.S. producers are hopelessly constrained in their capacity to export domestic crude to countries other than Canada and Mexico.
U.S. businesses have adapted by exporting refined products -- which are not restricted under U.S. law -- instead of crude. The U.S. refining industry has in effect become a conduit for crude oil exports, allowing rising U.S. crude production to be exported in product form. In just seven years, the U.S. has tripled the amount of products it exports, transforming itself from the world's top product importer to second-largest product exporter, surpassed only by Russia.
Effective as U.S. refiners may have been in mopping up the additional supply and sending it overseas, they have limited capacity to absorb additional barrels of high quality light, low sulphur oil. Much of their capacity is geared to processing cheap, low quality dense, high sulphur grades and maximizing their yield of high-value-added products such as gasoline and diesel.
They have limited appetite for the premium lighter grades from the Eagle Ford and Bakken shale formations. Moreover, U.S. refining capacity is set to grow by less than 300,000 b/d through 2017.
This will not be the first time in the history of the oil industry that changes in technology and market conditions expose a misalignment between resources and regulations. While much of the anxiety about energy resources in recent years has focused on "peak oil" or other aspects of resource scarcity, in fact some of the bigger challenges facing the energy industry lurk not below ground, but above.
Some may see this as a choice between keeping American oil within U.S. borders for reasons of economic security and allowing the U.S. to generate billions of dollars in new export revenues. But market realities suggest a far simpler decision ahead: either U.S. crude is shipped abroad, or it stays in the ground.
While new pipeline links, supplemented with increasingly efficient railroad links, will give producers short-term relief from depressed prices, new export outlets will ultimately be necessary to leverage the full potential and reap the benefits of the new American oil revolution.
Washington will need to address this misalignment, lest the great American oil boom goes bust.
Maria van der Hoeven is executive director of the International Energy Agency.
This article was originally published on 7 February, 2013, in the Financial Times. It is based on analysis that first appeared in the January 2013 issue of the IEA's Oil Market Report, a monthly publication that provides a snapshot of the international oil market and projections for oil supply and demand 12-18 months ahead.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario