The end of Big Oil?

No, it's not what it seems like. Oil companies aren't going to dissapear. But we are seeing a shift in the oil & gas industry and it's not clear to me if this is something temporary. Breaking Views, via The New York Times, points out the shift:
U.S. oil companies are becoming less liquid - but not in a financial sense. With natural gas so plentiful Big Oil is fast becoming Big Gas. Shareholders may be underestimating the impact of the shift on future returns while an unexpected advantage is tipping to the oiliest majors.

America's energy titans are finding it ever harder to ramp up oil output. Exxon Mobil is on track to pump 5 percent less this year than in 2005 according to Barclays Capital forecasts. Instead the company has turned to gas for growth. A big project in Papua New Guinea and the XTO acquisition are accelerating the shift. Gas which accounted for 38 percent of Exxon's output in 2005 could account for up to 48 percent next year.

Exxon isn't alone. Rivals ConocoPhillips and to a lesser extent Chevron are also bloating with gas. The trend looks ominous. Oil offers much fatter margins and in the United States sells for almost three times more than gas for the same quantity of energy.

...

With even oily Chevron drifting towards gas, Occidental Petroleum - which still gets 75 percent of its output from the black gold - may wind up the last of the majors to deserve the moniker Big Oil. It is pricier than its three biggest rivals - trading at 14 times expected 2010 earnings compared to an average of about 9.5. But its significantly lower exposure to gas justifies the premium and then some.
If you are investing in the energy complex, you may want to consider the implications of the shift towards natgas. The article seems to imply that oil has higher profit margin than natgas so that's something to keep in mind when looking at historical data.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Thoughts on the stock market - March 2020

Image
Right now, DJIA has a P/E of 16.8 and forwand P/E of 15.1, whereas S&P 500 is at 20.1 with forward P/E of 15.8. Source: WSJ market Data If you ignore interest rates and inflation expectations--both of these influence valuations but depends on your macro call-- the market is not cheap. Long-term P/E is around 15. Trailing P/E is around 20% (Dow) to 40% (S&P500) higher than average. Forward P/E is in line with long term average but that assumes a strong V recovery. Consensus forecast is for profits to drop 1.2% in 2020. In 2008, it dropped 25.4% so current forecast is a very mild recession. Covid-19 coronavirus is not going to last more than a few months but these forecasts are still too rosy in my opinion. So I wouldn't rely on forward P/E. The richly valued (mostly tech or high quality) have not fallen much but the distressed ones have. So if you want to outperform in the long run, I think one’s choice right now is to: • Wait for market to fall another, say...
✖ READ MORE >>>

Warren Buffett's Evolution and his Three Investment Styles

Image
A Young Warren Buffett In a comment to one of my posts , Mark Carter, who incidentally appears to have a  good blog worth checking out , asked: "Buffett Prime is 1970's to early 1990's" Could you elaborate? I have vaguely indicated how I view Warren Buffett in the past, but I thought I would detail my view of his investing behaviour. This is more of an opinion piece and many others would disagree with me (if you do, I'm curious to hear your thoughts). I don't follow Warren Buffett as closely as many value investors so I may get some facts wrong. My view is that Warren Buffett went through three different phases, with each consisting of different investment techniques. The overall investment theory remained the same—what people call value investing—but his execution, tactics, and strategy differs across the three phases. Some people may break up his career into additional periods but my feeling is that the three I will describe essentially capt...
✖ READ MORE >>>

Hugh Hendry discussion at the Alternative Investment Conference

Thanks to Value Investing World for bringing this Hugh Hendry interview to my attention. I may not agree with all the things—short-term orientation of hedge funds is actually worse IMO; the sharp pencil effect doesn't always work—but Hendry is a true contrarian and worth listening. Like Marc Faber or Jim Rogers, you also can't take everything Hugh Hendry says seriously. I had always felt Hugh Hendry was firmly in the deflation camp but I get the feeling that he is now opening up to high-inflation possibilities. Otherwise, his stance appears to be similar to past opinions.
✖ READ MORE >>>