TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Future oil and gas development: Some harsh realities (Part 1 of 2)
No matter who wins the presidential election, the winner will have to tackle the harsh realities now faced by the oil and gas industry
Change Size
N
o matter who wins the presidential election, the winner will have to tackle the harsh realities now faced by the oil and gas industry. These realities, in a nutshell, are: oil production is declining, gas production is stagnant. The present infrastructure for gas distribution is inadequate.
The legal framework for future development is in dire need of immediate repair, and the much-discussed draft bill amending the 2001 Oil and Gas Law does not provide any encouragement about the future.
Many of the production-sharing contracts (PSC) are expiring in the next five years. Together, these production blocks amount to about 80 percent of our current total national production of oil, which now stands at a mere 820,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd).
Resolving the issue of contract extensions is long overdue if we want to avoid an even steeper production decline in the near future.
We have not even touched upon the ever increasing price tag of fuel subsidies, which are bleeding and crippling our economy.
These are such deeply disturbing realities that even the most optimistic among former oil and gas
executives like myself become dismayed by the apparent lack of urgency about tackling these harsh realities. But rhetoric and politics seem to take priority over the reality in the field.
At the recent Indonesian Petroleum Association (IPA) Convention these concerns were again voiced during the keynote speeches. This country is still a major hydrocarbon province. The remaining potential is still considerable. But one can not eat potential. The potential needs to be monetized.
That interest will not be be served if that mineral wealth stays in the belly of the earth. In the 1970s that goal was nearly achieved. In 1966, when Indonesia launched the PSC concept, our national production stood at 500,000 bopd. Ten years on, in 1977, our national oil production had reached 1,683,000 bopd! We had more than tripled production within 10 years by 1977.
With the tripling of production and quadrupling of oil prices in the late 1970s, we were economically and financially in great shape to join the ranks of other Asian tigers.
We had become the world's number one exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). But instead of continuing on this upward trend, we fell off, because we started to bureaucratize the industry and virtually stopped exploring.
______________
How can we so easily discount the remaining oil potential without really scientifically evaluating it?
_____________________
Consequently, we failed to embark upon more field development, to offset the decline from major
existing fields.
The reason for the reversal was the reluctance of investors to spend exploration dollars in the absence of long requested incentive programs and due to crippling micro-management. Today we are down to about 820,000 bopd. Cepu is said to be our only near-term hope for reversing the trend.
According to the existing wisdom among oil and gas pundits, it will take one new production block the size of Cepu to be put on stream each year for at least the next five years to reverse the decline.
I am not a geologist but I am an optimist and I do not agree with a pessimistic prediction.
Since only about 50 percent of the known sedimentary basins have been touched by the drill, how can we so easily discount the remaining oil potential without really scientifically evaluating it?
Remember, back in the 1980s people were inclined to write off Papua as a viable oil and gas province having not found any hydrocarbon potential to speak of since up to that point only minor discoveries had been made.
Then, in 1990, ARCO discovered huge gas reserves at Wiriagar, which later became Tangguh. Of course such developments will carry a much higher risk and consequently require a much higher level of funding.
In order to define remaining conventional and non-conventional oil and gas potential we need to do three things immediately ' namely, explore, explore and explore.
But exploration is high risk. There's only a small chance that a dollar spent on exploration will turn into a commercial venture.
That means that the banks will not touch it with a 10-foot pole. You can not go to any bank to borrow money for exploration.
Banks are risk averse. So where does one go to find the exploration dollar? We have two choices: use your own funds (equity) or find a willing investor.
Fortunate for us there still are investors willing to risk their own money on Indonesian exploration, despite the minimum government encouragement and support.
We need all the collaboration we can get. The future developments are going to be expensive! Of course there is a price to pay for collaboration as well but under the PSC system it is paid back, in kind, out of production, if there is production. Not out of the state budget.
The going wisdom is never risk your own money! If there is a guy out there daring enough to risk his own money who is prepared to swallow his losses if exploration is not successful, by all means use him. It would be foolish not to.
Which brings me to the next point. Why were we so successful back in the 1970s? What was the 'secret'? I have been asked that question frequently because I worked in that era and became the CEO of a major producer at that time.
There was no 'secret', no magic potion. What happened in the 1970's was that the companies that had secured a PSC were all genuine explorers and developers.
Real oil field hands who had worked oil and gas fields all over the world from the Middle East to Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela.
They were used to hardships and difficult government relations and uncertain oil prices. They were bonafide investors. Gas was not even on the radar screen then. Gas was a by-product of oil that needed to be flared.
These companies came to stay, not for a year or two but they signed up for 30 years and most of these early PSCs got extended by another 20 years because they kept finding new fields. These were the Conocos, ARCOs, Unocals, Chevrons, Totals of this industry.
They were all here and most are still here. They are proven friends and love this country. They provide the exploration dollars.
They are prepared to provide the funds to drill in deep water and in remote areas. Because of their early successes, others followed in the late 1980s and 1990s thinking it was easy money.
These followers were often broker types, both foreign and local, looking for a quick profit, in and out, not planning to dig in for the long term. Some secured a PSC through political connections, thus blocking potential acreage by not spending enough, just biding time to peddle the asset not much later for a handsome profit.
This is one reason why our national production declined, because so many of the followers did not intend to stay for the duration. I hasten to add that this episode had a positive side also in that certain national companies like Medco, Star Energy and EMP were born in that same period and they did well and we should respect them for their enterpreneurial attitude and for their contribution to the country.
___________________
The writer is the former president and resident manager of ARCO Indonesia. He also served as president commissioner of PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero), Tbk. He is a senior advisor at the Law Office of Hakim dan Rekan in Jakarta. He teaches business subjects at the Business School of Binus University in Jakarta and remains an industry observer. The opinions expressed are his own.
