In the Williston basin in North Dakota, we currently have over 310,000 net acres of significant resource potential, which we estimate to be about 250 million net barrels. Our production in the basin has tripled since we entered the area over 1.5 years ago. We have recently slowed our drilling activity and significantly reduced our rig count in the basin as a result of cost pressures. While well costs have subsequently declined modestly, we will only increase our rig count when costs come down enough to make returns competitive with the rest of our portfolio. We believe that over the long term, our resource base in the Williston basin represents a significant opportunity for the company.A question (taken out of context):
You've added acreage in the Bakken. You've got a huge acreage position in California. Presumably, it doesn't make sense to just sit on these assets. Asset sales, joint ventures, bringing in others to drill this stuff, is that part of the plan? Or practically speaking, what does it really mean to cut CapEx when you've been building up these big acreage positions over the years?Answer (taken out of context):
So I view it as sort of a deferral mechanism, rather than just sort of cutting it. But if they can't -- if they can't generate the returns in some of the assets, we might farm some out to people who might operate more efficiently.
***************
Question (taken out of context):And I think it was a couple of years ago, you were pretty honest about -- classically, you guys are an EOR company, not a shale drilling company. You're now kind of again going after that same operational execution ability. Do you have to acquire a company that can do this stuff for you?Answer (taken out of context):
No, I don't think so. It was 2 years ago, we had this exact conversation in New York. And I said that, we were shifting the business from a -- for want of a better word, an EOR acquisition company/acquisition company to something that was more operational and more traditional. And I said that was not going to be easy, and I was right. And we've lowered -- I don't know how to say it, the average experience level, I guess is the politically correct way of saying it, of the people. And so some more mistakes have been made than might otherwise have been made. But I think we're getting there, I hope we're getting there. I'm just in a hurry because I'm older than the average.Go to the link to see the entire Q&A exchange. The analysts seemed concerned about OXY's experience in California. No real questions about North Dakota because OXY was more direct about that. But California leaves one with more questions, I think.
Bruce, thanks for posting this. It mirrors exchanges we've had on your site (MDW).
ReplyDelete1. OXY's Bakken (shale) inexperience is reflected in their well results.
2. Their indifference/slowing pace has been obvious. So now we learn they're awaiting lower drilling costs, or to possibly sell it off (my selfish personal preference).
OXY is large enough. They can sit on this for years (once HBP). Though I believe their money would be better spent training their crews to successful develop these shales, rather than just waiting for lower drilling costs. That is to say, a poor producer at $7.5 million isn't a great improvement over a poor producer at $9 million. I'd suggest attempting to hire some experienced staff away from those who already know how to unlock these Bakken wells. Feel free to pass this along to OXY's CEO. ;)
Great point: just waiting for lower costs is not the answer.
DeleteI have to spend some more time with the transcript, but it certainly sounded like OXY was also being challenged by results in California. It was always my impression that OXY was going to re-focus their assets in California as they minimized ops in North Dakota, but it certainly appeared that California was not turning into any cake walk either. The whole tone of the Q&A (in the transcript; I didn't hear the live broadcast) seemed a bit tense, if that's the right word.