Drilling for Value, Pt. 4: The Economics of Petroleum Exploration and Production

Note: this post has been heavily redacted since its original data of publication in order to expand on the fundamentals of petroleum geology and the upstream business elsewhere. 

Summary

  • Economic models use assumptions which simplify the effects of accounting, taxes, regulations, and other minutiae in order to glean insights into the drivers of market behavior and value.
  • The effects depletion and commoditization, relatively low cash costs, and often prohibitive resource replacement costs drive the endemically cyclical petroleum investment cycle
  • Petroleum economics are strongly levered to petroleum prices and other extrinsic factors.
  • Maintaining a sufficiently low cost of supply is the primary operational lever capable of creating long-term investment value in the upstream business.
  • Timings of costs are a key consideration for evaluating investment decisions — known discount rates simplify decisions regarding timing preferences.

Figure 1: Pecos, Texas Oilfield
February-22-Hogue-1937-Pecos-AOGHS
Source: Alexander Hogue. Pecos, Texas Oilfield. 1937

The Economics of the Upstream Petroleum Industry
The economics of the petroleum extraction is overwhelmingly colored by the economic factors of depletion and commoditization. Due to the fact that production depletes limited natural resources, the upstream industry must constantly explore for and develop additional resources. Given that the capital investments required to replace depleted resources are usually quite significant in relation to operating costs, resource replacement is a primary driver of costs. Commoditization describes the lack of differentiation in upstream business models and their end products. As a direct result of commoditization, the value propositions of upstream businesses are strongly levered to external market conditions (i.e., namely prices). Taken together, high replacement costs and supplier susceptibility to external market conditions have resulted in endemically cyclical petroleum supplies and prices.

Continue reading

On Market Efficiency: Market Fair Value Estimates and the True Cost of Capital

In the world of investing and corporate finance, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) casts a long shadow. EMH states that a sufficiently liquid market reflects the “correct” price at all times. Since efficient markets factor in all known and relevant information at all times, it is therefore practically futile to attempt to predict the future direction of market prices. In other words, a blindfolded monkey throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal has about the same chance as beating the market averages as any professional investor. At one extreme, the founder of Vanguard Investments Jack Bogle revolutionized the mutual fund industry around cheap indexing, which he posited as the solution to efficient markets. At the other, Warren Buffet’s seminal essay, The Super-Investors of Graham and Doddes-ville, defends the notion that right-headed investors can carve out a significant edge [1. The Super-Investors of Graham and Doddes-ville]. In the middle, you have the greater majority of investors who will likely cede that both extremes contain some amount of the truth. Even 2013 Nobel Laureate Eugene Fama, of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, who is credited with developing EMH, has stated that “[asset prices] are typically right and wrong about half the time” [2. The Super-Brainy Quote]. Being able to determine when they are right and when they are wrong is the holy grail to traders and investors alike. In order to investigate how correctly assets prices reflect all known information, we must develop an intuition and methodology for estimating the fair value of an asset. As we will discuss, just because a methodology is descriptive does not mean it is predictive (i.e., correlation does not imply causation).
Continue reading

The Ten Pillars of Quality Investing or: How I Learned to Stop Dumpster Diving for Undervalued Stocks

After recently having completed testing on a general method of discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis for estimating a broad basket of stocks’ intrinsic values, I became more concerned with “quality”. While DCFs remain the foundation of any sound business valuation, I discovered they are highly sensitive to the assumptions and data used. Slightly changing a minute detail can drastically influence the result causing an attractive investment to all of sudden seem not so attractive and vice versa. While relative valuation methods were a natural alternative (Wall Street’s preferred choice, in fact) to circumvent the sensitivity issues, I was inclined to believe that an ability to define robust ‘quality factors’ would complement the ideological purity of the discounted cash flow approach much better. The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that a good company can indeed also be a good investment.
Continue reading

Grading the Gurus

FORWARD REMARKS
I used to think of myself as contrarian, but after completing my most recent research project, “Grading the Gurus” (which I presented at the last MBIIM) , I now realize that I only appear to be a contrarian. I’ll spare you the discourse on how I came to that for now, but I’ll make sure to include it in my closing remarks.

For those who were unable to join us last Sunday, I thought I would summarize the presentation and the following discussion. Without further ado…

INTRODUCTION TO ‘THE PROBLEM’
Like my previous post says, “I have often wondered if it makes any sense to pay attention to investing gurus.” And there certainly are a lot of them. Most of which seem to promise you that they’ve found the “secret” to easy money, whether that be a method of valuing companies or assessing the market’s future direction. However, evidence suggests otherwise as it has been proven that 85% of mutual funds have underperformed “dumb” index funds over the last 40 years. This means that all those fancy folks that went to fancy schools and wear fancy neckties are not as smart as “passive” investors. Therein lies the problem…

Continue reading

The Usual Suspects: A Preview of Sunday’s Investing Presentation

I am going to give a brief talk this Sunday as part of the brand new Meetup Group, Monterey Intelligent Investors. The details are as follow:

Sunday, August 4, 2013
10:00 AM to Cafe Lumiere
365 Calle Principal, Monterey, CA

Grading the Gurus
I have often wondered if it makes any sense to pay attention to investing gurus. I’m talking about the greats; the legends; the Warren Buffets; The Benjamin Grahams; those with real followings, real track records, and, most importantly, real philosophies. In brief, I want to ask questions and query data in such a way that will help people place the “usual suspects” into one of three groups:

Continue reading

S&P 500 Historical Valuation

Dr. Robert Shiller is a leading authority on behavioral finance, a field that attempts to get at the heart of market economics. What’s at this heart? People, naturally. What’s the point? I argue that it behooves traders and investors alike to retain some degree of insulation from the general population’s view on value, and instead rely on a more rational definition of value. Schiller’s cyclically-adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) and Price-to-Earning-to-Growth (CAPEG) ratios are indeed very simple, rational, and hold a great degree of predictive power.

Continue reading