Friday, July 18, 2008

SLB Q2 Results



Schlumberger numbers and color positive for sector: Schlumberger Announces Second-Quarter 2008 Results

HOUSTON, Jul 18, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Schlumberger Limited (NYSE:SLB) today reported second-quarter revenue of $6.75 billion versus $6.29 billion in the first quarter of 2008, and $5.64 billion in the second quarter of 2007.

Income from continuing operations was $1.42 billion -- an increase of 9% sequentially and 13% year-on-year. Diluted earnings-per-share from continuing operations was $1.16 versus $1.06 in the previous quarter, and $1.02 in the second quarter of 2007.

Oilfield Services revenue of $6.07 billion increased 8% sequentially and 22% year-on-year. Pretax segment operating income of $1.70 billion increased 13% sequentially and 13% year-on-year.

WesternGeco revenue of $671 million decreased 1% compared to the prior quarter but increased 1% year-on-year. Pretax segment operating income of $196 million was flat sequentially but decreased 9% year-on-year.

Schlumberger Chairman and CEO Andrew Gould commented, "Strong sequential growth throughout the Eastern Hemisphere led to improved margin performance in all Areas except North America, where the effects of strong growth in the lower forty-eight states and the US Gulf of Mexico were more than offset by a prolonged spring break-up in Canada.

Growth was helped by increased drilling efficiency in the North Sea, improved performance and lower start-up costs on IPM projects in Mexico and Russia, and a favorable exploration mix, particularly in the North Sea, eastern Siberia and South East Asia. The quarter also saw increased demand for well-placement technologies and rigless work as operators strive to increase production from existing fields.

At WesternGeco, sequential revenue growth was essentially flat as increases in Multiclient sales and Data Processing activity were offset by the seasonal drop in Marine activity. Significant increases were recorded in the backlog for land operations and marine bidding activity remained robust.

Bidding activity during the quarter at Oilfield Services was also strong, particularly for Drilling & Measurements, Wireline, and Testing Services. This led to a number of significant contract awards, particularly in the area of drilling services where advances in rotary-steerable systems and well- placement technologies, coupled with increased reliability, are critical to operators in today's environment of very high spread costs for offshore rigs.

At the beginning of the year we predicted a more complex growth pattern for 2008. Notably, we were uncertain of the evolution of North American natural gas activity and the extent to which delays in the completion of new build offshore rigs would affect growth. We anticipated solid increases in the Eastern Hemisphere land rig count.

At the half year, the uncertainty around the direction of natural gas drilling in North America has been removed and extremely high commodity prices have led operators to increase their budgets overseas. We anticipate that approximately 35 new offshore rigs will enter the fleet in the remaining half of the year. The overseas land rig count has evolved much as we predicted. It appears that customers are responding vigorously to current commodity price levels.

In the longer term, we remain convinced that absent a deep worldwide recession leading to a steep drop in demand, higher levels of investment will have to be sustained to bring some equilibrium to the market. We therefore re-iterate our 'stronger for longer' view of the current cycle of exploration and production spending. It is significant that during the quarter the industry estimated an additional 28 new offshore rigs were ordered from shipyards with delivery dates out to 2012 -- increasing the total on order to more than 180."

6 comments:

Anaconda said...

WHERE THE "RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD": NEW OIL & GAS DISCOVERIES

Schlumberger's profit report reflects a healthy industry.

Where the "rubber meets the road" in the oil & gas industry is new discoveries.

That's common sense, right?

Reviewing WorldOil online available at the side-bar for the last quarter (June, May, April) for new discoveries:

A total of 51 new discoveries of oil & gas world-wide were reported.

Now not all of these discoveries are huge, in fact most are medium to small, but each is an additional "straw" and each needed oilfield services companies to supply expertise and material.

All continents reported new discoveries (except Anartica).

And it was spread out pretty evenly: June, disc. 17, May, disc. 16, April, disc. 18.

That's an easy average to figure per month 17 new discoveries a month.

No wonder Schlumberger's profits are healthy: A steady stream of new discoveries keeps them busy and profitable.

Anaconda said...

AN OLDIE, BUT GOODIE: DIAMONDOIDS

This proof has been laid out in detail before on Oil Is Mastery, but because of the argument's scientific power, and 'proved' ability to quiet "fossil" theory advocates, its rollout is always timely.

Here it is again in concise fashion:

All oil has traces of diamondoids, diamonds on the molecular level. All authorities agree, daimonds are only created in the mantle under conditions of ultra-high heat and pressure. Chevron scientists isolated diamondoids, but were only able to create diamondoids using ultra-high heat and pressure.

The Chevron scientists also found that the deepest oil in the Gulf of Mexico had the highest concentration of diamondoids with the highest degree of molecular complexity. Why? The deeper oil is subject to less 'filtering' by the terrestial medium. The farther oil travels in the terrestrial medium, the more diamondoids are stripped out.

The conclusion is straightforward enough: diamondoids, like diamonds, are created in the mantle in conjunction with oil.

The crust is an environment of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction.

Diamonds are not created in the crust and neither are diamondoids.

Oil is an ultramafic mineral,as is diamond (formed in ultra-high heat and pressure), and obeys the rules of all mineral formation dictated by the heat and pressure gradient. By the way, this also dictates oil's formation & dissolution.

Oil is a mineral -- unique in certain respects, but still a mineral.

Anaconda said...

A DEBATE ON ABIOTIC THEORY

This debate was conducted on Seeking Alpha: Confirmatory bias and oil investing.

Anaconda: "The article is right on. This kind of thing happens all the time.

If you are long on oil -- your greed is turning to fear.

Greed and fear -- at its most basic 'the market' is controlled by these two emotions.

There is no "peak" of oil in the foreseeable future.

Oil is a mineral, not the remnant of 'organic detritus'.

The scientific basis is clear.

And, yes, geologists have been caught up in the above psychology for decades. check out Oil Is Mastery. And learn the truth about oil."


Fossil advocate: "I disagree with your thesis because geology beats physiology. Peak oil is absolute and your physiology cannot accept the evidence of geology."

Anaconda: "A lot of oil bulls on this commentary -- or is it just BULL? You are right, geology beats psychology -- but geology is wrong about the origin of oil. Oil is a mineral. Why do you think the oilfield services companies are riding high? If there wasn't much more oil out there to find, it wouldn't matter how high was the price of oil. Oilfield services companies are in the business to find oil.

The U.S. plateau in the '70s was when oil was regulated, some as low as $3 a barrel -- big surprise oil companies weren't looking for oil.

The continental margin is where the truly big deposits of oil are and that has just begun to be explored.

That's why day rates for deepwater, deep-drilling rigs are at record highs.

'Markets' are determined, not so much by the logic of words as by the sterner logic of facts.

Demand destruction is real -- "Peak" oil is false.

"Peak" oil is rubbish Oil Is Mastery.

If you want to look at the science of oil then Oil Is Mastery is the place -- your blind devotion to "Peak" oil will make you a poor fellow.

Your arogance will be your downfall."

Fossil advocate: "Oil is a mineral ? hardly. over geologic time thermodynamics says all hydrocarbons will become methane and graphite (the only question being the rate of the transformation), under some conditions of heat & pressure some of the graphite will become a metastable phase - called diamond."

Anaconda: "All oil has traces of diamondoids, diamonds on the molecular level. All authorities agree, daimonds are only created in the mantle under conditions of ultra-high heat and pressure. Chevron scientists isolated diamondoids, but where only able to create diamondoids using ultra-high heat and pressure.

The conclusion is straightforward enough: diamondoids, like diamonds, are created in the mantle in conjunction with oil.

Your idea isn't confirmed by science -- the crust is an environment of methane creation and hydrocarbon destruction.

Certainly not diamond creation.

Try getting your science right and you might have an once of credibility.

Oil is an ultramafic mineral (formed in ultra-high heat and pressure) and obeys the rules of all mineral formation dictated by heat and pressure gradient. By the way, this also dictates oil's formation & dissolution.

Oil is a mineral -- unique in certain respects, but still a mineral."

Fossil advocate: "anaconda - huh? oil is not found in igneous formations (otherwise all of the canadian precambrian shield would be full of oil). oil is found in sedimentary formations where there is a caprock to stop upward migration (otherwise you have a labrea or trinidad type tar pit). in the initial 1930's explorations in saudiland, the geologists were looking for foraminifera. they knew that where you found foram fossils there was likely to be an oilpool below."

Anaconda: "Good ploy -- change the subject -- don't respond to my point about diamondoids and your obvious mistaken diamond comment.

But going to your new point: "oil is not found in igneous formations (otherwise all of the canadian precambrian shield would be full of oil).

Wrong, again. There is oil found in igneous formations, i.e., the White Tiger oil field off Vietnam's coast and many other examples.

And, yes, there is oil found in precambrian formations. And as far as the Canadian shield -- where do you think all that tar sand came from. Tar sand is generally a high atomic weight, long chain hydrocarbon that never was buried deep enough, according to "fossil" theory to create kerogen. "Diagenesis" is a made-up word for a made up "process" that has no scientific basis or experimental backup.

Fossil advocate says: "oil is found in sedimentary formations where there is a caprock to stop upward migration (otherwise you have a labrea or trinidad type tar pit)."

Correct. But the 'source' is not remnant of organic detritus.

The Saudi oil field Ghawar is the largest oil field in the world. The Ghawar complex is performing extremely well. The field has been on production since the 1950s and is steady at roughly 5 million bopd.

A 19 mile cube of oil has been produced at Ghawar. Roughly 100,000 feet high -- organic detritus supplied that?

But getting back to my point -- what about diamondoids in all oil?

And, again, no diamonds aren't formed in the crust."

Fossil advaocate:
"Adamantane". interesting material, I will have to do some more reading. alta/sask tar sands - deposits are found to the southwest of the precambrian shield. how did the sand get there? fossil beach from before the cordilleran upthrust? further to the southwest lots of coal, gas (sulfurous) and oil. lots of sedimentary rocks in the canadian rockies (folded formations). oil & coal (lignite = juvenile coal) are found in southern saskatchewan (northern portion of williston basin), also potash (evaporative residue). no oil in northern ontario or quebec, all precambrian. i suppose we will have to go to the moon & drill for oil there.
ghawar - 19 mile cube. not very impressive compared to all the coal seams in the u.s.a. how much subsidence has occurred there as a result of production? there has been a lot of subsidence in the los angeles basin due to oil removal, I've heard numbers like 15 feet in places."

Anaconda: "The tar sands? You're the one that needs organic detritus to "cook" in the crust, but there's no evidence to support the idea that the tar sand was ever deep enough to "cook." Abiotic theory doesn't require made-up words to describe make believe "processes." Rather, millions of years ago there was a massive 'outpouring' of hydrocarbons to the surface and it has been degrading ever since.

Sulphur is many times mixed in with crude oil, as in 'sour' crude oil. Sulphur is a 'solfataric' mineral that emanates from vents -- sorry, there aren't any large organic detritus sources of sulphur.

Lignite is brown coal that derives from peat bogs -- the one organic source of "coal." Its composition is materially different from anthracite coal or hard coal.

Guess, you gave up on your previous point -- yes, there is plenty of oil in igneous rocks.

The Lost Soldier Field in Wyoming has oil pools at every horizon of the geological section, from the Cambrian sandstone overlying the basement to the upper Cretaceous deposits. A flow of oil was also obtained from the basement itself. Hydrocarbon gases are not rare in igneous and metamorphic rocks of the Canadian Shield.

Potash and dolomite are examples of how wrong geology is at times. Dolomite is an ultramafic (formed in ultra-high heat and pressure) and is found in association with oil in 80% of the oil discoveries in North America, There is the Dolomites mountain chain in Italy (comprised of dolomite), yet geology has no answer because they think it's strictly a sedimentary mineral.

Potash is another mineral that geology holds as sedimentary, but evidence suggests it isn't. It's a mineral that is made of potassium carbon and oxygen -- K2CO3, there are variations -- such is the case with most minerals.

Sorry to disappoint you but coal seams are also abiotic -- 800 foot coal seam in Australia -- sorry, that isn't from organic detritus

Subsidence doesn't disprove or prove either theory.

Your response to Ghawar doesn't explain how all that organic detritus collected at one spot.

Also, 70% of the giant oil fields are located over tectonic faults.

Jack, you're breaking down "geologists say" isn't proof of anything.

Actually, Colorado "oil shale" are the sedimentary remains of lakes where heavy oil, high atomic weight oil, C215H330 leached into the lakes from oil seeps in the raparian watershed. Just like the hundreds of heavy oil seeps in California and in Iraq where oil bubbles from the ground like in the Beverly Hill Billies.

C215H330 atomic weight hydrocarbons doesn't come from marine algae.

Bitumen is also heavy atomic weight long chain hydrocarbons where the volatiles have evaporated oil to leave the solids behind.

Bitumens have been found in igneous rock in Syria with no evidence of sedimentary rocks in the area.

Gotta follow up on those tar sands, since you make so much of them. The enormous quantities of hydrocarbons in the Athabasca tar sands in Canada would have required vast amounts of source rocks for their generation in the conventional discussion, when in fact no source rocks have been found.

Oil is an ultramafic mineral."

Anaconda said...

Confirmatory bias and oil investing .

Anaconda said...

Apparently I have more to learn about hyperlinking.

Quantum_Flux said...

[a href="websiteurl"]Hypertext[/a]

except with > and < signs