You get to a size that there's no buyer for PE and you have no choice but to go public.

East Texas EF play on the public market would not go well IMO.

My point, moving bigger packages tougher these days.

Especially that acreage. I can't imagine their inventory is going to bolster anyone's current portfolio. They really leaned in on the CHK undeveloped too.

DripAG08 said:

---

East Texas EF play on the public market would not go well IMO.

---

Agreed

Magnolia will probably buy Wildfire at some point. That's a lot to bank on if you're Wildfire though.

Who does Chord come after next now that Enerplus will close on Friday?

https://www.conocophillips.com/news-media/story/conocophillips-to-acquire-marathon-oil-corporation-in-all-stock-transaction-provides-shareholder-distribution-update/

We know that COP tried to get Endeavor

So I guess they turned to MRO quickly after they missed

Aethon buying Tellurian

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/aethon-energy-acquire-tellurian-integrated-110000983.html

Busy day I guess......

Not surprising, but continuing the North Sea retreat....Shell & Exxon selling North Sea assets....

Shell, Exxon near deal to sell North Sea assets to Viaro, sources say

Are you referring to my North Sea post? Which company?

It's obviously just from sources at this point, so rumor. I say not surprising not as anyone familiar with Shell or Exxon but as someone who's with a different operator with North Sea assets. I would probably be more surprised to find out we weren't trying to sell.....

North Sea assets have to deal with that crazy windfall tax.

the Shell/Exxon sale

we have been on the table for divestment for some time now. however, even recently our message has been that it is highly unlikely we would find any buyer for the UK assets.

this asset is split across UK and NL, the most likely outcome up to now was that the NL side would be spun out and sold. so this is definitely a surprise if it's true.

Cyp0111 said:

---

North Sea assets have to deal with that crazy windfall tax.

---

yep, and with labour expected to win elections it is an even less favorable outlook for the future

I think the "non-core" / divestiture game will really pick up later part of this year. Problem in the PE world is that the equity comp/splits do not work that well in the current environment where things are being bought with more favorable yield but will likely struggle to reach the hurdles on exit for mgmt teams.

The part I keep thinking of, absent the smaller publics, the PE groups are going to need to reach for more scale.to get buyers focused.

Comeby! said:

---

With all this massive consolidation across upstream, at a rate which I have never seen in this century, what does that say for employment in the sector? Prior to this run, in the last 5 years, I had not seen a more stringent 'more with less' mentality when it comes to overhead. On the Ops/production side I used to see on average 300 wells/engineer back in the early 2000's (XTO, before XOM), now 800-1000/engineer is more common. I have many very talented former colleagues out on the street right now. At what point does the cycle break and PE or FO's jump back on the 'non-core' asset bandwagon? And what comp model, distribution?

---

It's the only logical conclusion to this consolidation. I know you highlight engineers, but geologists will be the most hard hit in my opinion. Since unconventional plays are all really done on the macro scale, nobody really needs the head count from these mergers. Net rig count from these mergers typically drops. It just means fewer and fewer professional opportunities in the industry and stagnating wages. O&G professionals have been commoditized. The best job security might be continuing to shift towards US land conventional or at the least ops roles. But even conventional roles might run the risk of divestment to PE or something like that.

If your son or daughter was in the engineering program at Texas A&M… Would you recommend they go into petroleum engineering?

Sure everyone wants to suggest mechanical but if you don't get into it, do you think that's a safe degree anymore?

nosoupforyou said:

---

If your son or daughter was in the engineering program at Texas A&M… Would you recommend they go into petroleum engineering?

Sure everyone wants to suggest mechanical but if you don't get into it, do you think that's a safe degree anymore?

---

I graduated before the current engineering school major application system was put in place but I would have thought Petroleum would have been a harder major to get into over Mechanical. Is Petroleum a "fallback" option?

Speaking from someone who's still within a decade of having acquired a PE degree, I wouldn't recommend pursuing one. I can't think of a degree tied to a more uncertain S&D picture than petroleum engineering, and I can't imagine with the rising cost of schooling the risk justifying the reward. My graduating class at OU in 2016 had roughly 30% placement in full time O&G work. Being a part of the 70% without a post-grad position and having been denied even interviews for hundreds of other non-petroleum related engineering jobs, it became pretty clear that the degree is tough to market outside of its specified industry. I will caveat my experience, though, by admitting my grades were pretty poor relative to my peers. Regardless, I think getting another engineering degree and pursuing roles within the industry would be easier to accomplish than the reverse.

My son just finished his freshman year and the consensus from talking to many people is to go mechanical, which is more broad and still works great within the oil & gas industry

The problem is that it's very difficult to get in, so does he choose petroleum or just settle on civil?

It's unfortunate because that likely will have an impact on the industry down the road

What about chemical, civil or electrical? Are those harder to get into? He could go that route and still go after a position in the O&G industry but also opens the door to a lot of other options should O&G not workout.

nosoupforyou said:

---

My son just finished his freshman year and the consensus from talking to many people is to go mechanical, which is more broad and still works great within the oil & gas industry

The problem is that it's very difficult to get in, so does he choose petroleum or just settle on civil?

It's unfortunate because that likely will have an impact on the industry down the road

---

I did mechanical and am currently in O&G, I didnt make as much income as the employed Petroleum guys but life has turned out well so far. I've heard Mechanical was very difficult to get in to now, but I would have assumed that Petroleum would have been just as difficult. I guess not if current students are shying away from pursuing that degree.

nosoupforyou said:

---

If your son or daughter was in the engineering program at Texas A&M… Would you recommend they go into petroleum engineering?

Sure everyone wants to suggest mechanical but if you don't get into it, do you think that's a safe degree anymore?

---

The pros and cons of petroleum engineering are the same: Its super focused, creates strong new hires that already know the technical knowledge to succeed early on the OG industry technical side. Petroleum eng is basically infusing two years of on the job training and a light mechanical degree.

The cons are that it doesn't dive deep enough into the mechanical side to be top of the resume stack hirable for a design engineering role. Especially in the age of hyper specialization where people have masters and want design jobs. The deeper cons is that from a hiring side, there are still so many petroleum engineers out there its super easy to fill a role with either an experienced hire or a petroleum eng student. So its extremely tough as a mechanical to get into the pure petroleum office roles like reservoir straight out of college. The field is always open and will take anyone and then it becomes easier to transfer into a petroleum office job.

Most oil and gas jobs at operators don't require petroleum engineering degrees but require paying your dues in the field. And most operators don't need a huge amount of purely petroleum technical experts. And those guys are nearly always masters and phds.

All of my buddies who have comfy office jobs at operators spent their 20s either at downstream plants or upstream field locations.

BrokeAssAggie said:

---

What about chemical, civil or electrical? Are those harder to get into? He could go that route and still go after a position in the O&G industry but also opens the door to a lot of other options should O&G not workout.

---

Looking at it from mostly a subsea perspective, I'm not sure how that would help. Maybe it does more in surface.

Civil wouldn't really apply much other than site prep / design or maybe landman roles. Maybe there's more options in midstream facilities.
Chemical, I know it would apply, but would seem limited to fluids, chemicals and maybe seals.
Electrical would generally be limited to controls or facility design / maintenance.

Mechanical gets mentioned because it allows for a role in just about any OEM or large producer engineering roles as well as moving over to the PM side of things. It seems to be as versatile in O&G as Civil is in construction and development.

Petroleum should pay better, but you're limited to an actual producer company where Mechanical applies to just about any company what produces something or provides service in O&G in general.

FWIW I spoke with someone high up in engineering administration at TAMU recently and this topic came up, the "best" current major. He suggested someone starting out look into materials.

I worked with a RE had his degree in CE. Maybe he was an anomaly? I dunno.