Entry Strategy for Engineering Service Providers in the Energy Sector

Entry Strategy for Engineering Service Providers in the Energy Sector

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

© 2013, HCL Technologies. Reproduction Prohibited. This document is protected under Copyright by the Author, all rights reserved.

Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... 2

Industry Landscape ................................................................................................................................... 3

R&D Landscape ........................................................................................................................................... 4

M&A mergers and acquisitions of Big4 ................................................................................................ 5

The North American Market .................................................................................................................... 6

Market Trends ........................................................................................................................................... 6

Challenges ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Solutions Proposed to Drive Outsourcing ................................................................................................ 9

References .................................................................................................................................................. 10

Author Info ................................................................................................................................................... 10

AbstractEngineering services providers in India are waking up to the demands in the emerging energy vertical. Today,

energy as a business segment is a major revenue driver for many engineering service providers and is also

attracting the attention of many smaller players.

Energy as a business majorly consists of these four sub-domains: oil and gas, nuclear energy, renewable

energy, and power generation. Of these four, oil and gas thrives highly on outsourcing. In nuclear energy,

process engineering is sacrosanct and hence not outsourced. Renewable energy and power generation

haven’t seen the quantum of R&D investment which oil and gas has been witnessing over the past few years

and will witness over the next few decades.

For new entrants, there is no easy answer to which areas to invest in and which areas to focus on for optimum

profitability. This paper attempts to guide the Engineering services organization on how to manage their R&D

investments based on the challenges, industry drivers, and the market trends existing in the oil and gas

industry.


Entry Strategy for Engineering Service Providers in the Energy Sector / 2

Industry Landscape

When a market penetration strategy is developed, it encompasses targeting a set of companies which are

normally Tier-I suppliers to the big players in that industry and gradually moving up the value chain to become

a Tier I supplier. However, the same strategy cannot be applied to the oil and gas industry, which comprises of

Upstream, Midstream and Downstream sectors. Here, a large amount of R&D investment is flowing in Oil and

Field Services (OFS) and upstream sectors. Despite environmental concerns and lack of viability of alternate

fuels, oil dominates global energy consumption with 33.1%, natural gas with 23.9%, and coal with 30%. The

focus is shifting more towards oil because coal is replacing the consumption of natural gas and coal alone

cannot suffice all the needs of global energy2. Global oil trade accounted for 62% of total global Imports in

2012 i.e. up from 57% a decade ago1. Hence, there is an increased pressure on the world’s O&G companies to

extract more and more oil. This in turn, is driving investment in Exploration and Production (E&P), eventually

resulting in major investment in OFS and drilling.

The usual suspects for investment are big E&P players like Chevron, BP etc. Before proceeding further, we

need an understanding of the companies placed in E&P and OFS. The global E&P majors can be classified3 as

follows:

Of the top 10 largest oil producing companies, only 3 are IOCs. NOCs control as much as 90% of global oil

reserves which is in contrast to the situation in the 1970s when 7 IOCs used to control 85% of global oil

reserves.4 In the last couple of decades, NOCs have taken help from OFS companies to claim best acreage from

oilfields which was once a significant offering of oil majors. A tightening market also drew demand for new

technology in drilling and 3D seismology, which helped OFS firms to grow faster. Shrinking oil wells and

increasing demand for oil prompted the oil and field services (OFS) companies to invest significantly to come

out with more accurate drilling solutions which had greater efficiency. Gradually, IOCs themselves became

dependent on the expensive OFS kits in the 1990s. The urge of IOCs and NOCs to explore new avenues has

resulted in their partnering up to explore remote locations. This can be summarized in Figure 1.


a) National Oil Companies (NOC) are fully or majority owned by national governments. NOCs can be broadly

classified as

• An extension of Government or operating as Government Agency like Saudi Arabian Oil Company

(ARAMCO) or;

• A company operating with strategic and Operational Autonomy like Petrobras in Brazil and Statoil

from Norway.

b) International Oil Companies (IOC) / ‘Supermajors’ / ‘Big Oil’ are the six largest, non-state owned companies.

They include BP (UK), Chevron Corp. (USA), ConocoPhillips Company (USA), ExxonMobil Corp. (USA), Royal Dutch Shell

Plc (Netherlands-UK), and Total SA (France).


R&D Landscape

OFS companies wererelatively very smalltill 1980’s when Oilmajors decided tooutsource drilling

OFS companies wererelatively very small till 1980’s when tighteningOil market drew demand for new technology

Impending futureoil supply shockdemanded OFS companiesto extract more

Oil firms are searchingharder in remote placeslike Arctic and deepseas of Brazil

Demand of OFS servicesfar outstrips supplyin geographicallyremote areas

Typically, OFS companies involve in risk sharing model with NOCs. For e.g. Schlumberger will agree to a

measure of payment-for-performance. If it can drill more oil, then it can charge a premium.

Figure 1 - The Rise of OFS Companies

The propensity of R&D Spend is way higher in OFS companies (who are committed to ‘accurate drilling’ and

‘reduced TTM’) than in exploration and production companies - be it IOCs or NOCs. Major IOCs are cutting their

budgets and are depending on OFS companies for new technology. Therefore, OFS companies have increased

their R&D expenditure. This is also demonstrated by the high number of oil and field (OFS) patents as

compared to those filed by IOC’s/NOC’s.

The contrast for all these firms is shown in figure 2 as of FY 2012.





M&A mergers and acquisitions of Big4

Schlumberger42,149

21,360

15,215

28,503

7,519

10,992

8,502

268,082

62,004

231,000

467,153

453,123

375,580

1168

497

257

460

121

92

63

1079

221

648

1314

1042

674

Revenues R&D Spend0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

R & D Spend as % of Net Sales

Supe

rmaj

ors

Big

4

Baker Hughes

Weatherford International

Halliburton

Aker Solutions

Technip

Cameron International

Total

Conoco Phillips

Chevron

Royal Dutch Shell

Exxon Mobil O & G Exploration & Production ‘E&P’ Co.s

Oilfield Services (2012, $Mn)

BP

Now, OFS firms are pushing technological boundaries to

extract more oil from unexplored landscapes and are

building prowess by re-engineering their E&P processes.

This investment in higher effectiveness will lead to higher

revenues. All this can be achieved through sustained and

increasing R&D spend. This has been illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 2 - R&D Landscape

Figure 3 – R&D Spending of OFS Firms

Figure 4 – M&A in oilfield equipment services

The oilfield Services market is fragmented. Each big OFS

firm has different strengths, and plenty of smaller ones

have niche specialization. There is a fair amount of

competition in most parts of the oilfield services industry.

From advanced drilling to deep sea rigs, a dwindling

number of OFS firms are providing such services through

technology acquisition as shown in Figure 4.7

No.

of.

Dea

ls

Aver

age

Dea

l Siz

e

$00

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

H2 2010 H1 2011 H2 2011 H1 2012



The North American Market

Market Trends

Overall, a lot of consolidation has been taking place in the market over the past 2 to 3 years. The average no.

of M&A deals varied between 60 to 140, with deal sizes ranging from $100 Million to $260 Million. It was also

observed that the maximum M&A deals took place in North America – almost double that of Europe.

For all of the Big 4 in Oil and Field services (OFS), North America has been a big market, with the US being the

main geography for Schlumberger, Baker Hughes and Halliburton. A more economical reason for the due

importance to North America is its resources in the form of oil and shale gas in US, shale gas in Canada and

oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.

The North American market is suffering from

excess capacity in pressure pumping and

hydraulic fracking market. Moreover, the market

appeal is prompting new entrants to enter the

market increasing pressure on the existing

players to reduce the prices. This has hugely

impacted the Big 4 as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 – Impact on Big 4 due to price reduction

Q3,2011 27% 23%

Q3,2012 14.1% 10.5%

Q3,2013 10.8% Yet to declare

NA Operating Margin Baker Hughes Halliburton

Oil prices govern the viability of E&P projects

Customers are demanding advanced equipment and technology to keep pace with the challenges of

expanding frontiers and harsher operating environments. The pressure on OFS companies is very high

to innovate and increase capital investment. These Companies continue to spend capital in excess of

operational cash flow with only a modest increment in Return on Capital Employed (ROCE).

Capital budgets govern new exploration projects

Oil producers delay exploration-related new expenditures, until they have ascertained their fiscal budget.

This situation is corroborated by a steady increase in the oil-directed rig count in the first two quarters

and the subsequent fall in later half of Q3 and complete Q4.

1. Capital Spending

2. Periodicity



Challenges

Business Intelligence, Consultancy Services are the next big avenues to help mitigate risks

OFS companies like Schlumberger sell technology and software to analyze raw seismic data and

consulting services to help customers plan drilling. With prevailing charter rates on ultra-deep water drill

ships exceeding $600,000, high-quality geophysical data is critical to saving money and avoiding a ‘DRY

HOLE’.

Gas prices hit bottom in 2012, leading to closure of many oil and gas projects. Increasing efficiency and

rising production of gas in oil-rich places have offset the sharp decline in US gas rigs. Availability of

relatively inexpensive substitute fuels like coal in utility plants has marred business prospects. Producers

don’t see an upside in pricing to start production.

NOCs are muscling with IOCs, claiming best acreage in past decade with OFS, which they used to do

before with IOCs. Small OFS firms have become aggressive for e.g. Mitchell Energy has developed

hydro-fracking technology for shale gas.

Move towards risk mitigation with safer technology. Raised prices not an issue.

Smaller projects are offered instead of long term contracts and partnerships which turn out to be

inexpensive in the long term. This is also a move towards not playing with new technology as

demonstrated by the Macondo disaster.9

Oil producers began outsourcing drilling and allied activities to oil and field services (OFS) firms.

This resulted in them minimizing their R&D expenditure and losing their innovation focus. In the process,

OFS firms started prioritizing R&D investment which is a significant growth avenue. Market fragmentation

is observed even in technology landscape. The development of hydro-fracking technology by Mitchell

Energy is a good example.

3. New Business Segments

4. Fall in US Rig Counts

5. Aggression among NOCs and Small OFS Firms

6. Smaller Projects

1. Thought Leadership Position Not yet Occupied



Due to low entry barriers, many small players have entered into oil and field services (OFS) market. There

is an oversupply of once premium services like Pressure-Pumping. The OFS companies are trying to

maintain profit margin by operational expertise, and stay put on prices.

Middle East and Asia lead the pace with an upbeat outlook, posting a 7% increase in revenue and

expanding margins by 126 basis points for oilfield major Schlumberger. The stagnant North American

market has proved to be a sales challenge.

Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) as a % of revenue, has increased by over five points since 2008. Selling,

General and Administrative Expenses (SG&A) as a % of revenue has remained in check. Raw material costs

including steel, MRO, pipes, fuels, manufacturing and labor have escalated and eroded profitability. Oil

field services companies are redoubling their efforts to improve operating performance and, in many

cases, adopting proven methods and tools.

The debt levels of companies have gradually risen up. The aftermath of economic slowdown and low

interest rates have resulted in leveraged borrowing by the oil and field (OFS) firms.

An aging workforce and lack of interest towards working in oil and gas industry among young graduates

has resulted in reduced talent pools10, 11. Almost half the workforce is retiring in Oil & Gas Industry. This

problem is resonating across different business segments and companies in O&G Industry.

Supply chains with new operating bases in the Northeastern and North Central U.S., West Africa, Central

Asia, and Brazil, have become increasingly complex and expensive. Demand for robust products which

can perform in harsh conditions is increasing with a renewed focus on products displaying superior

capabilities in remote environments.

2. Commoditization of Market

3. Shift in Regional Focus

4. Cost Management

5. Economic Health of Companies

6. Scale Of Operations

7. Talent Crisis



As most of the workforce in the oil & gas industry is on the verge of retiring, the O&G companies will need

short term solutions to cope up with this talent crisis. Thus, a potential ESO partner can help convert

workforce fixed costs into variable costs by outsourcing.

Oil and gas companies have operations located globally in far away locations

like Arctic, North Sea, and Middle East. An ESO partner can help globalize

operations and revolutionize maintenance with cloud services, electronic

manuals, and smart product services and technology convergence.

With the changing regulations and monitoring progress involving huge

turnover times and unjustified capital expenditure, ESPs can be used for

helping with regulatory compliance and permit management.

Companies are focused on identifying areas to upgrade and reduce old

infrastructure. ESPs can protect valuable capital infrastructure by way of

enterprise architecture platform.

3. Convert fixed costs into variable costs

Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) is very low as compared to 4 years back. Investments have resulted

in huge debts. Almost $780 bn. in oil & gas supply infrastructure is going to be invested every year12.

A potential ESO partner can help monetize R&D Investment through its services.

2. Monetize R&D Investment

As it has been the seen, the thought leadership position has not been occupied yet. An ESP can also be

relied upon to propose innovation breakthroughs than just using them as a provider of cheaper labor.

1. Innovation Arbitrage

Solutions proposed to drive outsourcing

4. Globalize Operations

5. Addressing policy regulations and compliances

6. Infrastructure Upgrades



Designed By: Mayuri Infomedia

Vishal BalaniHCL Engineering and R&D Services

Author Info

This whitepaper is published by HCL Engineering and R&D Services.

The views and opinions in this article are for informational purposes only and should not be considered as a substitute for professional business advice. The use herein of any

trademarks is not an assertion of ownership of such trademarks by HCL nor intended to imply any association between HCL and lawful owners of such trademarks.

For more information about HCL Engineering and R&D Services,

Please visit http://www.hcltech.com/engineering-rd-services

Copyright@ HCL Technologies

All rights reserved.

1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy

2. A Tale of two Energy Commodities

3. E&P Major Classification

4. Global Share of Oil Reserves

5. Oil Gas Reality Check 2013 by Deloitte

6. Annual Reports of Big 4, Supermajors and OFS Companies

7.Oilfield Equipment &Services Report by Clearwater Corporate Finance LLP

8. Risks in Recovery – A report from Alix Partners

9. The unsung masters of the oil & gas Industry

10. Outsourcing in the Oil & Gas Industry by Tholons Dec.2007

11. The Big Crew Change ‘Managing the Talent Crisis in India’s Oil & Gas sector’ by Booz & Co.

12. ‘What is next in the Oil & Gas Industry’ by Chatham House

13. How is Outsourcing fueling the Oil & Gas Industry by HfS Research

14. OFS Analysis and Outlook

15. BHI Earnings Call Transcript Q3, 2013

References

www.mayuri.co.in

Entry Strategy for Engineering Service Providers in the Energy Sector

Technology

Transcript of Entry Strategy for Engineering Service Providers in the Energy Sector