The Long Arm Of The Stock Market

This morning, on the NYSE, the shares of BP PLC opened at $36.91. That was $6, or 14%, below Friday’s close of $42.95.

On April 19, the day before the Deepwater Horizon oil rig went kaboom, BP closed at $59.48. Since then, the shares have lost 38% of their value.

In dollar terms, stockholder wealth has dropped from $186 billion on April 19 to $116 billion this morning.

Presumably, that’s significant enough to get the attention of other oil companies too? One certainly hopes that there has been a sudden explosion, industry-wide, of keen interest in beefing up safety standards as well as the capability for handling deep-water oil spills quickly and effectively.

Incidentally, did you know that in Canada, when oil companies drill in the environmentally sensitive Arctic region, they are required to drill a relief well right along with the main well? Such a requirement would allow an instant reaction to disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Naturally, BP is on record as opposing this policy:

…shortly before the U.S. disaster, BP and other oil companies urged Canadian regulators to drop a requirement stipulating that companies operating in the Arctic had to drill relief wells in the same season as the primary well.

Comments

  1. AB says:

    Spot on but if you check BPs stock price over the past year or so you’ll see it’s been this low before – last March when the bottom fell out of the price of crude. Even though they should be they are not done yet.

  2. Quidam says:

    No I don’t know that “in Canada, when oil companies drill in the environmentally sensitive Arctic region, they are required to drill a relief well right along with the main well?”

    They aren’t.

    They are required to have the capability of drilling a relief well in the same season that the original well is made.

    https://www.one-neb.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe?func=ll&objId=594087&objAction=browse

    Having the capability is not the same as actually doing it.

  3. sarabeth says:

    Your link just points to a collection of links.

    Which is the actual link which shows that they are only “required to have the capability of drilling a relief well in the same season that the original well is made” rather than actually having to drill the relief well the same season, as Reuters said?

    And if the provision is really that vague and toothless, why would BP and other oil companies be opposing it?

  4. Quidam says:

    My links are to the Canadian National Energy Board website, eight of the thirteen links on the page specifically reference “Same Season Relief Well Capability” which is self explanatory, however this one defines the term:

    https://www.one-neb.gc.ca/ll-eng/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/90463/589151/594086/594087/594075/A1R6K9_-_National_Energy_Board_to_Review_Northern_Drilling_Policy.pdf?nodeid=594076&vernum=0

    “Same season relief well capability is the ability to drill a relief well in the same season in which the original well was drilled. The practice is intended to help control a blowout and reduce the impact of hydrocarbons being released into the Arctic Ocean. The NEB regulates these drilling activities under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act.”

    I have referenced the primary source, the NEB, You have referenced a news article. Reporters make mistakes. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to reference an authoritative source that supports your claim.

    The provision is neither vague or toothless, it requires the drilling company to show that it has the capability to do it and it is currently preventing drilling in the Beaufort Sea. Oil companies are opposing it because is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. If a blowout occurred late in the short season (which is when one might be expected as it takes time to reach the reservoir) it would be impossible – even if a relief well were predrilled.

  5. sarabeth says:

    What’s with the tone of your comment # 4?

    I cited a Reuters story in support of my post. That’s actually considered perfectly kosher in respectable blogging circles.

    And yes, respected publications and wire services make errors all the time. I’m not responsible for Reuters‘ errors, though. (That’s why bloggers cite and provide links to sources, so that readers can make their own inferences about the reliability of the information.)

    The phrase “Same Season Relief Well Capability” used in the kind of letters that the first few links represented can hardly be said to be proof of anything. Apart from anything else, merely using the phrase does little to clarify what the policy actually is at present.

    And I really don’t understand your getting shirty after you play some kind of link Russian roulette, providing 13 links without any indication of which one contains relevant and meaningful information about the relief well policy.

    Also, for the record, the link you identify in comment 4 defines same season relief well capability, but it does nothing to clarify what the policy in respect of same season relief well capability actually is. (So much for the great superiority of your primary sources. For a clear statement of the policy, you find yourself having to fall back on a news article.)

    Just to be clear, you are now saying:
    a) Canadian government policy doesn’t require oil companies to actually drill relief wells the same season as the exploratory well, it just requires them to have the capability to do so.
    b) For BP, this is not a toothless policy.
    c) This is because “If a blowout occurred late in the short season (which is when one might be expected as it takes time to reach the reservoir) it would be impossible – even if a relief well were predrilled.”

    So, is it your contention that “same season relief well capability” means that an oil company must have the capability to complete a relief well in the same season under all possible circumstances (which would include a blowout occurring on the penultimate day of the season)?

    In case you have any doubts, it is my contention that that cannot be the meaning of the phrase, because that definition would be tantamount to a ban on drilling.

    Also, you will really have to explain how if a relief well is pre-drilled (which presumably means drilled right along with the exploratory well) then it is somehow not completed in the same season as the exploratory well.

    There is no doubt that the Reuters article I cited seems to be inaccurate. And I’m glad you came along and pointed that out.

    But you really should have somebody look at that chip on your shoulder. And, at the very least, I think, things you have confidently pronounced to be self-explanatory are really anything but.

  6. Quidam says:

    a) Yes
    b) Yes
    c) Yes
    “In case you have any doubts, it is my contention that that cannot be the meaning of the phrase, because that definition would be tantamount to a ban on drilling.”

    That in a nutshell is the complaint of the oil companies. The season in the far North is 50 – 60 days, as the BP blowout is showing a relief well can take 90 days to complete. The wells the companies plan to drill will take more than one season to drill

    The concern of the government and NEB is that in those circumstances a blowout could be uncontrolled for several years.

    A relief well could be partly pre-drilled, but it would have to stop safely above the reservoir – otherwise it’s at risk of blowout itself. In the event of a blowout on the primary well the relief well would have to be extended to intersect the primary well, the casing milled and the blowout brought under control – that could easily take a season in itself.

    The NEB policy is long standing but it was not written with the very short season in the far north in mind – hence the review of the policy.

    I’m sorry if my post seemed snippy, but I think the phrase “same season relief well capability” is self explanatory. There has been a huge amount of misinformation spread about the blowout and perhaps I find it more annoying than I should.

  7. sarabeth says:

    If the phrase was self-explanatory, we wouldn’t have to discuss what it actually means, would we?

    In fact, it’s still not clear to me what it means under the circumstances. Especially since having the capability to do something does not guarantee that you are actually able to do it in any given circumstance.

    So I’m not sure that being unable to complete a relief well in the same season in the event of any given spill can be deemed to constitute proof that you didn’t have the capability. It seems to me there would be endless lawsuits with the oil company in question arguing that there are all sorts of reasons outside their control why they couldn’t complete the relief well in this instance even though they did have the capability.

    As such, the provision may not quite have the teeth it appears to have.

  8. Quidam says:

    What it means that the company applying for the permit must present a credible plan, that satisfies the NEB, that they could, if necessary, drill a relief well in the same season as the primary well.
    The time to determine this is before the permit is issued, rather than after things failed.
    It does require that the regulators (the NEB) have the expertise and independence to accurately assess and rule on the plan.
    Since no company has been able to even produce a credible plan, no permits have been issued for the Beaufort Sea despite the loud objections of the oil companies. That sounds like teeth to me.

  9. Quidam says:

    This 1991 report on Beaufort Sea drilling describes the existing relief well contingency policy (which dates back to 1976) and goes into far more detail about blowout scenarios and the timing around seasons than you likely want to know.

    http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/misc/33796.pdf

    It’s a scanned paper document so unfortunately it’s not searchable

  10. sarabeth says:

    I do still think oil companies probably couldn’t be sued ex post for not having the capability if they are actually unable to complete a relief well the same season.

    But the teeth, as you point out, come from having to satisfy the NEB up front that you have the capability. In other words, the effectiveness of the provision depends crucially on the independence and integrity of the NEB. So, this system probably wouldn’t work for us in the US.

  11. Quidam says:

    The purpose of regulations isn’t to provide grounds to sue. However failure to comply with the terms of a drilling permit would incur penalties, including shutting down operations, fines and even criminal charges

    A blowout like the BP one isn’t the result of a single error. It resulted from a series of errors, shortcuts, fudging etc that went on for some time. Some of which were condoned by the MMS

    The BOP hydraulic leaked, the batteries were flat, the cementing plan was flawed, the cementing job was skimped, the cementing bond log was skipped, the job was rushed and risks taken.

    The US has had eight years of explicit deregulation but worse, emasculation of its oversight bodies so they haven’t enforced the regulations they do have (which are not that different from Canadian or European regulations). That can be fixed but it will have to come from the top – and money to hire expert inspectors and pay them well enough that they don’t quit to join the oil companies

    It could and should be industry funded. The industry as a whole has and will suffer from the fallout from any failure