It is a shame to spoil natures natural beauty as we can see from the picture that leads this article, Indonesia is blessed with many such areas, in order to preserve nature and what has been given to all of us, we need to explore in an environmentally friendly way and adapt to new ideas, after all, if mankind is to survive, resources will always be required.
Richard Fuller recently published a very interesting article in the Jakarta Post (JP) titled “The risk of losing an important asset – natural gas”. In this article, he mentioned that the cost of 2D, 3D seismic over ten years would be $2 billion, a figure that makes one eyes water, with an extremely long time frame (10 years). It was also stated that by continuing to pursue oil and gas exploration under the historic and current procedures that Indonesia would lose $1.1 trillion in economic benefits, another eye-watering figure, even in Rupiah too many of us.
The Vice President of Indonesia, Jusuf Kalla made a statement at the opening ceremony for the IIGCE conference on 2 August that the cost of exploration for geothermal is quite high, considering the cost of exploration required for the development of one Geothermal Working Area (WKP) is approximately US $20-25 million. We need to bear in mind that one WKP is normally forty to fifty Square Kilometre in size and that the total length of the geothermal arc in Indonesia is 5100 km.
I made the following statements at the IIGCE conference during my presentation which was titled "Exploration Requirements to Achieve the Geothermal Development 2025 Target” that “Speculation should not be a part of the geothermal vocabulary, neither should the common belief that exploration costs are high. Yes, they are if we insist on not accepting or adapting our exploration methods to Innovative Exploration Tools (IET) that do reduce the Time, Cost and Risk of Exploration”.
“Many parts of Indonesia are unexplorable by traditional methods of exploration, large parts of Indonesia's resources potential has not been explored, actual resources are not known. Current pre-drilling practices for geothermal exploration methods are time-intensive, costly and do not achieve active reservoir imaging”.
IET will provide the information and data that will encourage license tender participation and investment, which in turn will generate further interest in the Indonesian geothermal and resource industry”. This also applies to oil, gas, and minerals.
Another article in the JP that was titled “Oil crisis lurks as production drops, consumption soars”, in this article it states that Indonesia has depleted more than 90% of their oil reserves within a period of sixty years, this can not be a true, as Indonesia does not know the actual reserves that it had or has, neither does it know the full potential of the geothermal and mineral resources available, all estimations are speculation, based on extremely experienced consultants and geoscientists reports, who by the way get paid vast sums of money very often from the taxpayers money. These reports are speculation and only become reality when they have been confirmed by exploration, which is unlikely to happen when we look at the eye-watering figures that are being quoted.
There is a Roadmap Project called “Geothermal Island Flores” with cooperation from the British government through FCO-UK at the British Embassy and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). The project is developing a related study "Tariff Model Geothermal Energy and Geothermal Roadmap. It is intended to make Flores a Geothermal showcase for Indonesia. This is a very good idea, although exploration is required.
One of the problems, in my opinion, is that there are far too many companies that have self-interest, they have invested in certain exploration tools and of course want this expensive equipment to be used, drilling companies want to drill more holes, seismic companies want to run more kilometres, do they care if a resource is found or nature is destroyed? The owner of a block, mine or geothermal working area should care as it is them that are paying for very expensive methods of exploration, which by the way has not changed in many years, seismic has been around for 100 years, it makes a noise, we get a return, this is what it did 100 years ago, the principle is the same, the tools have improved tremendously over the years, especially with the processing power with the advent of powerful computers, but at the end of the day, the principle is the same. These tools were designed out of necessity.
Is it not time that new ideas for exploration that enhances our way of doing exploration are used, tools that have been designed by geoscientists, geologists, people of the trade, based on sound and proven geoscience and geology which by the way has also not changed so much over the years. Drilling and seismic companies will be doing more as the overall cost of exploration is reduced, instead of today where they are doing very little work.
Should we not be accepting IET as part of the exploration toolbox? Of course we should, the same way that we accepted in the mid 1980’s new ways of conducting hydrographic surveys which improved the output and the quality of surveys, no one lost jobs, in fact more jobs were created as the ships were able to spend more time at sea collecting data instead of drawing the results by hand.
Innovative exploration programs will provide the information and data that will encourage license tender participation and investment, which in turn will generate further interest in the Indonesian geothermal and resource industry at a fraction of the costs that have been suggested in this article and in far less time, months rather than years.
Indonesia must elevate the value and level of information given to investors and it must invest to do this, but invest wisely, not with methods that we know carry high-risk. New thinking and new strategies are required to meet this challenge. The government and the industry need to work together to achieve their mutual goals. An examination of government policy related to the exploration industry is also in order, but first and foremost we must further de-risk exploration investment, and use innovative, cost-effective tools which can bridge the gap and at the same time save the unnecessary destruction of our environment by carrying out exploration looking for something that may not exist.
“With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we use it” – Stephen Hawking
Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today
Headline crude prices for the week beginning 20 May 2019 – Brent: US$73/b; WTI: US$63/b
Headlines of the week
Midstream & Downstream
At first, it seemed like a done deal. Chevron made a US$33 billion offer to take over US-based upstream independent Anadarko Petroleum. It was a 39% premium to Anadarko’s last traded price at the time and would have been the largest industry deal since Shell’s US$61 billion takeover of the BG Group in 2015. The deal would have given Chevron significant and synergistic acreage in the Permian Basin along with new potential in US midstream, as well as Anadarko’s high potential projects in Africa. Then Occidental Petroleum swooped in at the eleventh hour, making the delicious new bid and pulling the carpet out from under Chevron.
We can thank Warren Buffet for this. Occidental Petroleum, or Oxy, had previously made several quiet approaches to purchase Anadarko. These were rebuffed in favour of Chevron’s. Then Oxy’s CEO Vicki Hollub took the company jet to meet with Buffet. Playing to his reported desire to buy into shale, Hollub returned with a US$10 billion cash infusion from Buffet’s Berkshire Hathaway – which was contingent on Oxy’s successful purchase of Anadarko. Hollub also secured a US$8.8 billion commitment from France’s Total to sell off Anadarko’s African assets. With these aces, she then re-approached Anadarko with a new deal – for US$38 billion.
This could have sparked off a price war. After all, the Chevron-Anadarko deal made a lot of sense – securing premium spots in the prolific Permian, creating a 120 sq.km corridor in the sweet spot of the shale basin, the Delaware. But the risk-adverse appetite of Chevron’s CEO Michael Wirth returned, and Chevron declined to increase its offer. By bowing out of the bid, Wirth said ‘Cost and capital discipline always matters…. winning in any environment doesn’t mean winning at any cost… for the sake for doing a deal.” Chevron walks away with a termination fee of US$1 billion and the scuppered dreams of matching ExxonMobil in size.
And so Oxy was victorious, capping off a two-year pursuit by Hollub for Anadarko – which only went public after the Chevron bid. This new ‘global energy leader’ has a combined 1.3 mmb/d boe production, but instead of leveraging Anadarko’s more international spread of operations, Oxy is looking for a future that is significantly more domestic.
The Oxy-Anadarko marriage will make Occidental the undisputed top producer in the Permian Basin, the hottest of all current oil and gas hotspots. Oxy was once a more international player, under former CEO Armand Hammer, who took Occidental to Libya, Peru, Venezuela, Bolivia, the Congo and other developing markets. A downturn in the 1990s led to a refocusing of operations on the US, with Oxy being one of the first companies to research extracting shale oil. And so, as the deal was done, Anadarko’s promising projects in Africa – Area 1 and the Mozambique LNG project, as well as interest in Ghana, Algeria and South Africa – go to Total, which has plenty of synergies to exploit. The retreat back to the US makes sense; Anadarko’s 600,000 acres in the Permian are reportedly the most ‘potentially profitable’ and it also has a major presence in Gulf of Mexico deepwater. Occidental has already identified 10,000 drilling locations in Anadarko areas that are near existing Oxy operations.
While Chevron licks its wounds, it can comfort itself with the fact that it is still the largest current supermajor presence in the Permian, with output there surging 70% in 2018 y-o-y. There could be other targets for acquisitions – Pioneer Natural Resources, Concho Resources or Diamondback Energy – but Chevron’s hunger for takeover seems to have diminished. And with it, the promises of an M&A bonanza in the Permian over 2019.
The Occidental-Anadarko deal:
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook
In April 2019, Venezuela's crude oil production averaged 830,000 barrels per day (b/d), down from 1.2 million b/d at the beginning of the year, according to EIA’s May 2019 Short-Term Energy Outlook. This average is the lowest level since January 2003, when a nationwide strike and civil unrest largely brought the operations of Venezuela's state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), to a halt. Widespread power outages, mismanagement of the country's oil industry, and U.S. sanctions directed at Venezuela's energy sector and PdVSA have all contributed to the recent declines.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on Baker Hughes
Venezuela’s oil production has decreased significantly over the last three years. Production declines accelerated in 2018, decreasing by an average of 33,000 b/d each month in 2018, and the rate of decline increased to an average of over 135,000 b/d per month in the first quarter of 2019. The number of active oil rigs—an indicator of future oil production—also fell from nearly 70 rigs in the first quarter of 2016 to 24 rigs in the first quarter of 2019. The declines in Venezuelan crude oil production will have limited effects on the United States, as U.S. imports of Venezuelan crude oil have decreased over the last several years. EIA estimates that U.S. crude oil imports from Venezuela in 2018 averaged 505,000 b/d and were the lowest since 1989.
EIA expects Venezuela's crude oil production to continue decreasing in 2019, and declines may accelerate as sanctions-related deadlines pass. These deadlines include provisions that third-party entities using the U.S. financial system stop transactions with PdVSA by April 28 and that U.S. companies, including oil service companies, involved in the oil sector must cease operations in Venezuela by July 27. Venezuela's chronic shortage of workers across the industry and the departure of U.S. oilfield service companies, among other factors, will contribute to a further decrease in production.
Additionally, U.S. sanctions, as outlined in the January 25, 2019 Executive Order 13857, immediately banned U.S. exports of petroleum products—including unfinished oils that are blended with Venezuela's heavy crude oil for processing—to Venezuela. The Executive Order also required payments for PdVSA-owned petroleum and petroleum products to be placed into an escrow account inaccessible by the company. Preliminary weekly estimates indicate a significant decline in U.S. crude oil imports from Venezuela in February and March, as without direct access to cash payments, PdVSA had little reason to export crude oil to the United States.
India, China, and some European countries continued to receive Venezuela's crude oil, according to data published by ClipperData Inc. Venezuela is likely keeping some crude oil cargoes intended for exports in floating storageuntil it finds buyers for the cargoes.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, and Clipper Data Inc.
A series of ongoing nationwide power outages in Venezuela that began on March 7 cut electricity to the country's oil-producing areas, likely damaging the reservoirs and associated infrastructure. In the Orinoco Oil Belt area, Venezuela produces extra-heavy crude oil that requires dilution with condensate or other light oils before the oil is sent by pipeline to domestic refineries or export terminals. Venezuela’s upgraders, complex processing units that upgrade the extra-heavy crude oil to help facilitate transport, were shut down in March during the power outages.
If Venezuelan crude or upgraded oil cannot flow as a result of a lack of power to the pumping infrastructure, heavier molecules sink and form a tar-like layer in the pipelines that can hinder the flow from resuming even after the power outages are resolved. However, according to tanker tracking data, Venezuela's main export terminal at Puerto José was apparently able to load crude oil onto vessels between power outages, possibly indicating that the loaded crude oil was taken from onshore storage. For this reason, EIA estimates that Venezuela's production fell at a faster rate than its exports.
EIA forecasts that Venezuela's crude oil production will continue to fall through at least the end of 2020, reflecting further declines in crude oil production capacity. Although EIA does not publish forecasts for individual OPEC countries, it does publish total OPEC crude oil and other liquids production. Further disruptions to Venezuela's production beyond what EIA currently assumes would change this forecast.