06 December 2017

Harshad Dixit, Halliburton; Gaurav Dixit, ONGC; Stephen Forrester, NOV

Exploration and production (E&P) companies often invest in assets outside their home country; in fact, many of these companies have groups specifically dedicated to evaluating overseas investment opportunities. For example, ONGC Videsh, which is the overseas arm of Indian national oil company Oil and Natural Gas Corp. (ONGC), owns participating interests in 38 oil and gas assets in 17 countries. The sole business of ONCG Videsh is to prospect for oil and gas acreages outside of India for exploration, development, and production. Another example comes from Mexico, where the recently concluded shallow-water bid round saw 20 individual companies and 16 consortia from 15 countries bid on 15 shallow-water blocks in the Gulf of Mexico.

The reasons for investment diversification across political borders vary from seeking the highest-quality assets, increasing energy security for the home country, or transferring relevant technologies and skills to hedging geopolitical risks or engaging in diplomacy. The technocommercial evaluation of these assets by investors provides for an exciting work experience for E&P industry professionals. The process is not purely technical or limited to the evaluation of the asset’s production performance. Careful consideration is also given to the business environment, fiscal policy stability, and political stability of the country, among other factors.

Oil and gas companies maintain a balanced portfolio of exploration, development, and production assets, and the proportion of these assets is governed by the company’s overall strategy. Risk-averse companies may prefer to farm into a producing asset and acquire a stake as a nonoperating partner. Companies with exploration experience and risk appetite may bid on government auctions for exploration blocks or farm into exploration assets.

Some companies focus on successful exploration and prefer to make a profitable exit by selling their stake before the development of the asset begins. E&P companies, in general, seek out investments in assets based on their corporate risk profile and production and/or reserve booking and replenishment targets.

Most companies have an asset-screening process for new investments. This is designed to reduce the opportunities to be evaluated to a manageable and practical number. The screening criteria may be a combination of:

1. Technical considerations—based on asset quality and the company’s expertise and experience
2. Financial considerations—based on the amount of investment, expected post-tax returns, cash flow constraints
3. Geopolitical considerations—based on political stability of the region, fiscal regimes, safety considerations

Technical Considerations

The essential technical questions in their simplest form are:

• How much hydrocarbon is present?
• How much hydrocarbon can be economically recovered?

Exploration assets require extensive analysis by geologists, petrophysicists, and geophysicists, with an emphasis on seismic data availability, data quality, and information availability from nearby analogue fields. Development or producing assets are more production-oriented—for these fields, reservoir performance analysis, reservoir modeling, and field development planning are usually more important than seismic interpretation. As the number of wells increases and production histories grow longer, confidence in earth models (geocellular or static models) and reservoir simulation models (dynamic models) increases.

Typically, the seller provides a data package, which can be purchased at a nominal price by interested investors to perform their own analysis. For exploratory blocks the data package generally includes available seismic data, geology reports, well logs, and core reports. For producing assets the data package may contain information on production history, well designs, complete asset models (including both earth and dynamic models), surface facility designs, and evacuation options.

In addition to the expected hydrocarbon volumes, production rates, and drilling schedules, there is also the element of development costs. Estimation of capital expenditure (drilling costs and facilities costs) and operating expenditure influences asset profitability. There are multiple software tools available that use historical, regional cost databases to provide estimates of capital and operating expenditures based on the development plan. It is interesting to note that depending on the phase of the development, these cost estimates can vary by as much as ±40%. During the tendering and procurement stage, for example, the cost estimates are well-defined and stay within a ±5% range. Relevant health, safety, and environment considerations, such as the age and condition of existing infrastructure and the history of safe operations, are also accounted for.

Financial Considerations

Oil and gas assets in the exploration and appraisal stage usually require large investments with a long gestation period, but development assets or producing assets may offer a quicker payout. The investing company must align the magnitude of the investments and the cash flow schedule with its corporate cash flow planning.

Companies often elect to bid as a consortium, with each partner having a varied stake and the largest stakeholder usually operating the assets. Depending on its technical capabilities and presence (or lack thereof) in the region, a company may choose to opt for an operating stake or a nonoperating stake in the consortium.

The project’s profitability is calculated based on the revenue and cost estimates and compared using standard measures such as net present value, internal rate of return, return on investment, and payback period. Due to fluctuations in the price of oil and uncertainty in production profiles, the ability of revenue streams to hit certain predetermined targets is not always guaranteed; depending upon the lease or concession duration, these forecasts may have to be prepared for 10 to 40 years. A longer concession period implies higher uncertainty in revenue and costs. The economic calculations must always be weighed against all technical, financial, and geopolitical risks. (For more details refer to Economic Evaluation of Oil and Gas Projects.)

Geopolitical Considerations

Some regions may have unstable governments, safety risks for employees, risks of pilferage and/or theft, and supply disruptions. The threat may even be political in nature. An abrupt change in fiscal and monetary policy, for example, could change tax rates and impact profitability. Independent rating agencies, including the Global Peace Index, Political Stability Index, and Ease of Doing Business Index, among others, prepare yearly rankings of countries that are useful as screening tools for investors to avoid assets that come with high geopolitical risk.

Countries with higher risk will often, however, offer a better reward; as such, many companies continue investing in high-risk areas to chase high returns. Additionally, a review of the legal structure and tax regime in the country of operation is needed to accurately calculate post-tax profits and other bidding parameters.

Asset evaluation studies are multifaceted and time-bound, with sellers often having fixed disinvestment timelines and government auctions of blocks always having deadlines. Sometimes the first-mover advantage comes into play when there is no structured bidding timeline defined by the seller. A team of experienced, multidisciplinary experts performs these evaluations rapidly, sometimes in timeframes of weeks rather than months. Specialized software tools and information databases are available for these studies, with some companies outsourcing them to technical, financial, and legal consultants to expedite completion. High-value investments require the best quality of due diligence. Predicting the profitability of multibillion-dollar investments in oil and gas assets, after all, is no easy task.

Forbes Leadership Forum, CONTRIBUTOR, News, Commentary, and Advice About Leadership

This article is by John Coleman, the coauthor of Passion & Purpose: Stories from the Best and Brightest Young Business Leaders and a chief administrative officer at a large Atlanta-based financial institution. 

I’m often frustrated by the prevailing conversation around work-life balance, which tends toward unhelpful or misleading oversimplifications. In the prototypical discussion, “work”—a person’s professional pursuits—is something to be held at bay lest it consume “life”—a person’s family time and personal pursuits.

The unwritten assumption here is that people naturally prioritize the professional over the personal, and that the “things that really matter” are those outside a person’s career pursuits. It also assumes everyone’s life follows a similar model—a career crafted primarily for professional and financial gain and a family at home requiring care and attention.

But what is the result of striking this balance? Articles on work-life balance almost never ask what we’re striving to balance for— what is the goal of the exercise. They assume that a certain number of hours sprinkled at work, at home, at the gym or with friends will yield a good life. But these articles rarely articulate what this good life looks life. And they rarely contemplate those who take alternative paths with their personal or professional lives—people whose work is at home raising children or those who never enter a long-term romantic relationship and instead focus on their careers (which can of course offer great purpose) or their friends.

Consequently, we’ve been conceiving of the topic of work-life balance all wrong. And I’d posit a new way in which to explore the issue by fundamentally redefining the terms. Starting with the end in mind, the goal most of us are striving for is fulfillment and human flourishing—both others’ and ours. This might be something like the old Aristotelian concept of eudaemonia. It is not just a happy or balanced life—though it may be happy—but a good life, one lived for worthy purposes and, in a way, uplifting to others.

A new framework for flourishing

If this is the goal, then I’d suggest we re-conceive of the two fundamental terms of the work-life debate. Rather than thinking of “work” as “things we do at an office” or our professional pursuits, I’d term work anything we have to do. And I’d term “life” anything we want to do. Perhaps you could think of it in a matrix like this:

In this construct, all of our meaningful activities, personal and professional, have elements of both work and life. At home, for example, I have a number of responsibilities—things I have to do—that I consider work: Changing diapers, doing loads of laundry, hanging curtains. If my personal life were made up of only these things I’d never want to go home. They’re not fun, and they’re the price I pay for the responsibilities I assume as a husband and father—fulfilling because they are purposeful. But there are a lot of fun activities, too—things I want to do: Jumping on the trampoline with my kids, going to concerts with my wife, having dinner discussions with good friends. These things are joyful.

Similarly, at work, we all have responsibilities—certain committee meetings, difficult conversations with colleagues, lengthy PowerPoint presentations, and so on. These are the necessary evils we take on as part of our purposeful commitment to our workplaces and our colleagues. And then there are the fun parts—lively problem-solving sessions, innovation, synthesizing new concepts or ideas in writing. We accept the sacrifices because they must be done for our own good or the good of others. And we embrace the activities that bring us joy because they energize us.

Have you ever felt that your life—at work and at home—was all “work”? At the office you may feel like you’re stuck only doing things you must do, rather than anything you enjoy. At home, you’re caught running errands, doing housework r dealing with problems rather than enjoying friends, family or hobbies. This is drudgery—it may have purpose—but it’s joyless and draining.

On the other hand, imagine a life with no responsibilities. It might sound wonderful. But flitting from interest to interest without really sacrificing anything or taking on the burdens of others would end up being hollow and superficial—an easy but shallow and purposeless existence.

Worst of all would be to live without joy or purpose—rudderless and unhappy all at once.

Best, of course, is to live a life that combines purposeful commitment to self (things like character-building and self-improvement) and to others, enriched by the joy of friends, fulfilling hobbies and professional pursuits, and meaningful time with loved ones. This kind of life is flourishing and fulfilling.

Restoring balance, finding fulfillment

This framework allows us to approach to topic of work-life balance differently.

First, it is flexible enough to accommodate varying life choices and stages of life—accounting for single people, marrieds, grandparents, office workers, entrepreneurs, those who stay home to take care of kids, and everyone in between—while assuring that no matter our chosen recipe for life, the ingredients are measured to leave us nourished and fulfilled.

Second, this frame forces us to monitor each sphere of life for the balance of purpose and enjoyment, acknowledging we need both in everything we do. Am I investing in and sacrificing for others—colleagues, family members and friends? Or am I living happily but superficially for myself? Am I providing for those I care for but finding life joyless? Knowing this balance, we can address it—shedding responsibilities when we need to, adding joyful activities where they’re called for, and finding ways to discover the joy even in life’s difficult or routine activities.

Finally, seeking this kind of fulfilling balance would force us to shift focus from the process of work-life balance (“Am I spending enough time doing x, y, or z?”) and turn to the goal of life itself: personal and professional flourishing. The questions then become: What does flourishing and fulfillment look like for me? Where do I find meaning? What makes me happy—at work or at home? And what matters enough—whether children or a professional cause—that I am willing to sacrifice for it? Asking these questions assures that any conversation about balance actually centers us on something fulfilling.

How do you think about “work” and “life”? Is your balance a good mix of things you have to do and those you want to do? And is it oriented towards flourishing? Taking a fresh look at balance can leave us purposeful, joyful and fulfilled.