CC BY
33
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ НАУЧНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ «ИННОВАЦИОННАЯ НАУКА» №6/2015 ISSN 2410-6070
УДК 339
Д.В. Сухорукова
Студентка 1-го курса магистратуры факультета МФФ
Преподаватель кафедры ИЯ-1 Финансовый Университет при Правительстве РФ Г.Москва, Российская Федерация
OIL EXTRACTION PROFITABILITY Аннотация
В данной статье рассмотрены параметры соотношения цены на нефть и рентабельности её добычи в различных регионах мира. Проанализированы данные, представленные экспертами в данной области, и сделаны выводы о взаимосвязи статистических данных. Выявлена определенная закономерность между проанализированными показателями. На основе проведенного исследования спрогнозировано дальнейшее развитие ситуации в нефтяной отрасли.
Ключевые слова
Oil extraction, profitability, price decline, unprofitable production, complete shutdown, extraction costs.
In this article we would like to give an insight into the recent economic fluctuations connected with oil market perturbations. The expansion of the US oil extraction has immediately influenced the price levels and led to an instant decrease in oil price all over the world. We are focusing on the interconnection between oil price decline and the estimation of oil extraction profitability. How do the current events affect the amount of extraction costs? Are all companies in different countries ready to face such drastic changes? Is there any evidence that the situation is going to stay the same?
Since the beginning of the decline in oil prices Russian companies have been trying to prove that even in case of sharp price decrease, they will survive. According to the Russian media the costs of oil extraction in Russia and Saudi Arabia is approximately the same, which means that, for example, one of the leading oil companies, RosNeft, will be able to stay afloat even if the price falls down to $30 per barrel. However, this situation will still have an impact, even if not on the company itself, then on its contributions to the state budget. In previous years, the company has accounted for a great part of taxes from the oil companies. In 2013 it transferred RU2,7 trillion to the federal budget, last year this number amounted to RU3,05 trillion. It is evident that this one company manages to account for 52% of oil and gas revenue in national budget.
Before the crisis the cost of oil extraction was $4-5 for a barrel that is without a doubt could be considered a kind of a world record. It is, however, important to remember that this number does not reflect all costs concerning oil extraction. If we take into consideration all possible expenses, the average costs are around $11. This is the result of the economic changes that affected currency rates and oil prices. [1] The representatives of Russian oil companies are now focusing on the fact that their $5 costs equal costs in Saudi Arabia, which is considered to be a positive sign.
RosNeft experts keep on insisting that even if the price falls down to $30, the company will be able to remain intact as its production is not influenced by such a change. Is there any way that the company has to react to this though? There is actually. RosNeft will have to stop investing in field development until the price comes back up. This can be viewed definitely as a necessary step that will let the company cope with the situation without any great financial losses.
Russian companies are not the only ones that have been greatly influenced by the recent economic changes. According to certain forecasts the situation with the termination of oil extraction is quite problematic, simply because in most cases the process of restarting extraction is very expensive. That is why for many companies it is more logical to avoid it at any cost. The most reasonable solution is storing the extracted oil hoping that eventually the price goes up and a company sells its reserves without major losses. [3]
The situation with oil extraction profitability differs depending on the areas. Some of them can survive the $30 price level, some of them do not. We are going to comment on four levels of oil prices ranging from $60 to $40 and their connection with extraction areas.
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ НАУЧНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ «ИННОВАЦИОННАЯ НАУКА» №6/2015 ISSN 2410-6070
First of all, we should start off with $60. Does this level seem even at least dangerous? At first it did. When the decline had only begun and the prices reached this mark, it caused a general concern. Later on the situation began to deteriorate leading to even further downfall. If we look at the articles, surveys and analyses from September of 2014, we see the experts discussing the profitability of extracting oil that could eventually be sold for only $60. They forecast the possibility of this price and do not take into account the possible degradation of the situation. As we know right now the analysts are concerned with much lower prices that are influencing oil companies on a greater scale than six months ago.
In January the price was $60 per barrel and the oil extraction was not considered unprofitable. We are presenting the main conclusions made by journalists based on the Wood Mackenzie analysis. [5] Though the oil companies continued their work with this price level, they started to analyze the situation more seriously as they had to predict further changes and take them into account. According to one of the sources in January the US production wells were expected to be the first to stall extraction. Five states were in a hazardous position: North Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, Oklahoma and New Mexico. The situation with oil prices could affect these regions more severely than others due to the fact that in each of these states oil sphere provides a great amount of jobs. Therefore any kind of crisis could lead to major lay-offs.
The next level of prices - $50 - also was not seen as a very risky one, though it would definitely lead to a decrease in profits. The first to be affected by it would be British oil-fields in the North Sea. The suspension of extraction could be a real disaster. For example, in case of any kind of halt in the UK oil wells will not be able to restart extraction because some of them are too old and their operation cycle is coming to an end. [6] If some companies feel that it would be possible to continue working in order to avoid possible extra expenditure, they will try to store the extracted oil as long as possible and sell it later for a higher price.
According to the experts the price of $40 would also have little impact on the companies all over the world. We are going to present the information on the interdependence between price levels and the amount of oil that would become unprofitable in Table 1.
Table 1.
Unprofitable Oil.
Price level, $ Unprofitable oil, barrel Share of world extracted oil, % Affected countries
40 1,5 mln 1,5 Canada
45 400 000 0,4 The US
50 190 000 0,2 The UK, the US
As we see from the table the decrease of oil prices causes the increase of oil unprofitability. However, these amounts are not considered to be strikingly catastrophic in terms of the world supplies. That is why, even when a field does not bring as much profit as it used to, it is very unlikely that the producer would make a decision to shut down the extraction. He/she will try to store as much as possible. To continue production is seen as a logical step especially in case of large projects such as oil sands and mature fields in the North Sea.
These were the results of the analyses made at the end of 2014 and at the beginning of 2015 that showed that even at $40 per barrel most producers would not decide to halt the extraction. Currently the price is holding around $60, which, according to the facts presented in this article, is not the worst case scenario for the producers. At this level companies would rather prefer to keep on extracting oil because only an insignificant amount of it is unprofitable. The experts predict that the price will not go up much higher because the oil supply is believed to be increasing, which lowers the possibility of price increase. Список использованной литературы:
1. expert.ru/2015/01/28/rossii-ne-strashnyi-i-30-dollarov-za-barrel/
2. vestifinance.ru/articles/51771
3. barentsobserver.com/rn/energiya/2014/11/pochemu-dobycha-neffi-v-barencevom-more-stanovitsya-nerentabelnoy-10-11
4. 1tv.ru/news/print/275911
5. woodmac.com/public/views/low-oil-prices-halt-production
6. woodmac .com/public/industry-views/12525277
7. ogjrussia.com
© Д.В. Сухорукова, 2015
МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ НАУЧНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ «ИННОВАЦИОННАЯ НАУКА» №6/2015 ISSN 2410-6070
УДК 332.135
И.Н.Сычева
директор Института экономики и управления
Е.С.Пермякова старший преподаватель Алтайский государственный технический университет
им. И.И. Ползунова г. Барнаул, Российская Федерация
ОСНОВНЫЕ ТЕНДЕНЦИИ ПРИГРАНИЧНОГО СОТРУДНИЧЕСТВА АЛТАЙСКОГО КРАЯ И РЕСПУБЛИКИ КАЗАХСТАН
Аннотация
В статье рассматривается внешнеэкономическое сотрудничество Алтайского края с приграничными регионами Республики Казахстан. Рассматривается динамика и структура внешнеторгового оборота регионов в условиях функционирования Евразийского экономического союза.
Ключевые слова
Приграничные регионы, внешнеторговый оборот, торгово-экономическое сотрудничество,
Евразийский экономический союз.
Республика Казахстан стабильно является основным внешнеторговым партнером Алтайского края. Это связано с тем, что регионы обладают немалым потенциалом для развития международного приграничного сотрудничества: Алтайский край на юге и западе имеет общую границу с Восточно-Казахстанской и Павлодарской областями Казахстана, протяженность которой составляет более 850 км. К тому же по территории Алтайского края проходят транспортные сети федерального и международного значения, что создает возможности для интеграции края в межгосударственное сотрудничество.
Между Алтайским краем и Республикой Казахстан на протяжении долгих лет поддерживаются интенсивные торгово-экономические отношения. Сотрудничество Алтайского края с приграничными областями Казахстана регулируется двумя соглашениями о торгово-экономическом, научно-техническом и культурном сотрудничестве с Акиматом Восточно-Казахстанской и Павлодарской областями с планами мероприятий по их реализации на 2014-2015 годы.
Проведем анализ динамики внешнеторгового оборота Алтайского края и Республики Казахстан за 2012-2014гг. По оценочным данным в 2012 году внешнеторговый оборот составил 571,9 млн. долл. США, их них экспорта - 440,9 млн. долл. США (77,1%), импорта -131 млн. долл. США (22,9%) [1]. В 2013 году произошло значительное сокращение внешнеторгового оборота Алтайского края с Казахстаном на 23,8%, что составило 435,8 млн. долл. США. Доля экспорта уменьшилась до 261,0 млн. долл. США (59,9%), величина импорта по сравнению с 2012г. снизилась до 174,8 млн. долл. США, однако доля импорта в общем объеме товарооборота возросла до 40,1%. В 2014 году наблюдалось незначительное увеличение внешнеторгового товарооборота на 6,3% относительно 2013 года. Несмотря на это товарооборот не смог достичь уровня 2012 г. и составил более 463 млн. долл. США. Величина экспорта и импорта, а также их структура остались практически неизменными. На экспорт в 2014 г. пришлось порядка 287,4 млн. долл. США (62%), на импорт - 176 млн. долл. США (38%) [1]. По данным 2012-2014гг. о структуре внешнеторгового товарооборота двух регионов можно сделать вывод, что отношения Алтайского края с Казахстаном направлены в большей степени на экспорт, нежели на импорт. Однако в 2013-2014гг. доля импорта в Казахстан в общем товарообороте двух регионов увеличилась почти в 2 раза, что говорит об изменении данной тенденции в сторону постепенного уравнения доли экспорта и импорта.
В целом объем внешнеторгового оборота Алтайского края с Республикой Казахстан составляет примерно треть всего внешнеторгового оборота края. Так, в 2012 г. доля Казахстана во внешней торговле края составила 37%, в 2013 г. этот показатель незначительно снизилась на 3,7%, а в 2014 г. при росте в 5% относительно 2013г. доля достигла новою уровня в 38,3% (рисунок 1). Видно, что экспортные поставки в Казахстан занимают достаточно значимый процент от общего экспорта Алтайского края. В 2012 г. данный показатель составил - 45,8%, что почти половина всего экспорта осуществляемого Алтайским краем, однако в 2013 г. он снизился до 32,7%, но в 2014 г. снова наблюдался рост на 4,3% относительно 2013г. А вот доля
