石油服务与设备2025展望：“大开放”深度研究

1、Oil Services & EquipmentThe View to 2025: Deep Dive Into the Great Wide OpenNorth America Equity ResearchJune 2020Oil Services & Equipment Sean C. Meakim, CFAAC 212-622-6684 HYPERLINK mailto:sean.meakim sean.meakim Bloomberg JPMA MEAKIMJ.P. Morgan Securities LLCSee the end pages of this presentation

2、 for analyst certification and important disclosures, including non-US analyst disclosures.J.P. Morgan does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity

3、of this report. Investors should consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision.Oil Services, Equipment & Drilling Coverage UniverseFinancial Data & ValuationCompanyTicker Rating PT Upside Price Div. Yie ld Mkt CapEVTurnoverPrice/EarningsEV/EBITDAPrice/BookFree Cash

4、 Flow Yie ld$/sh%$/sh%$,bn$,bn$,mm20162017201820192020e2021e20162017201820192020e2021eCurrent5-Yr Avg20162017201820192020e2021eBaker HughesBKROW$16(8%)$17.334.2%17.921.584.5N/AN/A27.2x20.8xN/A48.9x10.0 x8.6x7.5x7.1x11.1x10.1x1.6xN/A52%(5%)4%12%1%10%HalliburtonHALN$10 (24%)$13.081.4%11.521.0292.2N/A1

5、0.7x6.9x10.6xN/AN/A9.6x5.9x4.8x5.7x11.8x17.9x1.7x3.4x(22%)10%10%8%8%1%SchlumbergerSLBN$16 (18%)$19.612.5%27.240.9288.717.1x13.1x12.1x13.3xN/AN/A6.4x6.0 x6.0 x6.2x11.9x15.0 x1.7x2.3x10%6%9%10%6%3%Large Cap Service Avg(17%)2.7%18.927.817.1x11.9x15.4x14.9x-48.9x8.6x6.8x6.1x6.3x11.6x14.3x1.7x2.9x13%4%8%

6、10%5%5%Cactus Inc.WHDOW$18(9%)$19.711.8%1.51.58.8N/A15.8x12.3x10.6x49.2xN/A43.7x13.3x7.1x6.5x16.2x26.3x4.3xN/A0%0%7%10%9%3%Dril-QuipDRQOW$3613%$32.00-1.10.810.715.8xN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A6.3x13.7x45.6x14.6x19.6x20.9x1.1x1.5x18%7%1%0%4%7%TechnipFMCFTIOW$1792%$8.841.5%4.04.538.45.2x8.0 x11.3x14.6x19.8x9.3x2.

7、1x2.3x2.9x2.9x4.4x3.7x1.0 x1.3x17%(5%)(14%)10%6%11%National Oilw ell VarcoNOVN$145%$13.35-5.26.955.4N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A21.4x11.3x7.6x7.8x22.5x43.3x0.9x0.9x13%13%5%9%4%7%Oceaneering InternationalOIIUW$6.44-0.61.39.68.9xN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A3.5x5.8x9.2x8.1x10.2x12.9x1.0 x1.5x37%7%(11%)2%3%6%Oil States Intern

8、ationalOISN$5.78-0.40.65.4N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A11.4x16.7x4.8x6.1xN/AN/A0.4x1.1x44%21%5%24%31%12%TenarisTSN$13 (10%)$14.453.6%8.58.615.0N/A15.9x9.8x11.5xN/AN/A13.2x9.2x5.6x6.3x19.9x38.4x0.8x1.4x1%(7%)3%14%13%7%Capital Equipment Avg18%2.3%3.03.510.0 x13.3x11.1x12.3x34.5x9.3x14.5x10.3x11.8x7.5x15.5x24.3x1

9、.4x1.3x19%5%(1%)10%10%8%Core LaboratoriesCLBN$15 (30%)$21.550.2%1.01.329.514.3x10.8x10.5x12.4x28.5x32.9x11.5x9.5x8.5x9.7x17.1x18.4x14.6xN/A13%11%9%7%9%5%NexTier Oilf ield SolutionsNEXOW$565%$3.03-0.60.75.9N/A10.6x4.3xN/AN/AN/AN/A2.1x1.1x1.6x10.6x21.0 x0.8xN/A(27%)(43%)16%1%8%(4%)Liberty Oilf ield Se

10、rvicesLBRTN$5(13%)$5.75-0.61.04.2N/A2.2x2.7x8.8xN/AN/AN/A3.6x2.3x3.7x18.4x39.1x1.2xN/A(12%)(30%)14%11%(1%)(1%)National Energy Services ReunitedNESROW$12106%$5.83-0.50.91.211.5x8.3x6.7x7.7x14.6x8.9x8.3x6.1x5.3x4.6x4.4x3.6x0.6xN/A(2%)(8%)9%7%(1%)(3%)Nine Energy ServicesNINEN$2.00-0.10.40.9N/AN/A1.3xN/

11、AN/AN/A34.8x6.4x2.5x3.1xN/AN/A0.7xN/A(26%)(81%)87%62%(4%)(26%)ProPetro HoldingPUMPOW$629%$4.65-0.50.58.4N/A7.2x1.7x1.5xN/AN/AN/A3.4x1.2x0.9x3.7x10.7x0.5xN/A(20%)(48%)27%9%16%2%Select Energy ServicesWTTRN$5.55-0.60.51.9-13.2x5.7x10.1xN/AN/A33.5x4.6x2.1x3.0 x45.8xN/A0.8xN/A(10%)(26%)11%16%13%(0%)Small

12、/Mid Cap Avg31%0.2%0.60.812.9x8.7x4.7x8.1x21.5x20.9x22.0 x5.1x3.3x3.8x16.7x18.6x2.7x-(12%)(32%)25%16%6%(4%)NOW Inc.DNOWN$7.63-0.80.77.4N/AN/A21.0 x32.0 xN/AN/AN/AN/A6.3x7.9xN/AN/A1.1x1.2x28%(14%)7%25%14%(1%)MRC GlobalMRCOW$825%$6.40-0.51.66.4N/AN/A11.0 x14.8xN/AN/A22.2x8.8x5.6x7.8x22.4xN/A0.9x1.9x35

13、%(13%)(5%)42%55%2%Energy Distribution Avg25%-0.71.1-16.0 x23.4x-22.2x8.8x6.0 x7.9x22.4x-1.0 x1.5x32%(14%)1%34%34%0%Helmerich & PayneHPOW$18 (21%)$22.734.4%2.42.673.5N/AN/A40.8x15.0 xN/AN/A8.3x6.1x3.9x3.5x15.7xN/A0.7x1.4x12%6%4%18%8%(2%)Nabors IndustriesNBRUW$40.04-0.33.513.4N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A5.7x6.5

14、x4.7x4.4x6.6x9.1x0.2x0.7x62%(228%)(49%)91%43%(16%)Patterson-UTI EnergyPTENUW$4.441.8%0.81.721.5N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A7.9x3.1x2.1x2.8x9.5x22.9x0.3x1.1x29%(23%)9%39%15%9%Onshore Drilling Avg(21%)0.9%1.22.6-40.8x15.0 x-7.3x5.2x3.5x3.6x10.6x16.0 x0.4x1.0 x34%(81%)(12%)49%22%(3%)Noble CorpNEUW$0.16-0.03.81.8

15、N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A4.2x7.7x11.1x11.6x19.6x29.3x0.0 x0.2x1241%947%(56%)(202%)(366%)(732%)TransoceanRIGUW$1.50-0.98.649.51.2xN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A4.5x7.1x8.1x9.2x10.2x11.4x0.1x0.3x102%110%53%(5%)(61%)(63%)ValarisVALUW$0.35-0.16.37.1N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A5.4x11.4x24.4x41.8xN/AN/A0.0 x0.3x3775%0%(1283%)(1218%)(100

16、8%)(978%)Offshore Drilling Avg-0.36.21.2x-4.7x8.7x14.5x20.9x14.9x20.4x0.0 x0.3x1706%353%(429%)(475%)(479%)(591%)Coverage Group Avg13%1.9%3.55.710.5x10.5x11.6x13.1x28.0 x25.0 x13.0 x7.5x7.6x7.5x14.8x19.7x1.5x1.3x11%(20%)7%19%12%1%As of June 3, 2020.Source: Bloomberg, company filings, J.P. Morgan esti

17、mates. 2SLB Revenue Base and EBITDA MarginAnnual and Cumulative Performance (RHS) SLB v. S&P500Into the Great Wide OpenWe advocate for a “normalized” approach to OFS valuations; with the stocks -90% from their peak, theres potential for tactical trades in the next 1-2 years as oil prices and activit

18、y reflate towards mid-cycleThe range of potential outcomes next cycle appears particularly wide given the specter of shifts in hydrocarbon consumption and supply dynamics over the coming decadeSLB FY2 EBITDA Estimate RevisionsSLB EV/FY2 EBITDAAs activity recovers to the next mid-cycle, portions of t

19、he sector could be (episodically) rewarded with higher share prices, even if secular deflation continues its sclerotic attack on profits and cashSupply & Demand Dislocations Likely Need Thru 2021 to ResolveThe bottom may be in for crude oil demand as COVID-19 restrictions are eased, though many road

20、blocks stand in the way of a V-shaped recoveryA reduction in mass transportation and commuting, along with a slow recovery in travel, likely means we dont see a return to normal demand until late 2021An extension to existing OPEC+ production cuts could see oil markets move to a deficit by mid-summer

21、Global Spare Oil Storage Capacity (mm/d)Global Crude Oil Demand Contraction (mmb/d)2,4002,0001,6001,200800400Jan-20Feb-20Mar-20Apr-2000-5-10-15-20Oct-20Nov-20Dec-20-25Jan-20Feb-20Mar-20Apr-20May-20Jun-20Jul-20Aug-20Sep-20Oct-20Nov-20Dec-20-30May-20Jun-20Jul-20Aug-20Sep-20Flight Activity (% pre-COVID

22、) v. Fuel Demand (mm/d)Apple-U.S. Driving Mobility Trend v. U.S. Gas Supplied (KBD)Recapping the 2015-2019 Cycle: Short Cycle Long CycleThe international rig count fell 10% from the prior cycle average to just over 1,000 rigs (75%/25% land/offshore) through 2015-2019; spending fell 50%, while produc

23、tion remained flatU.S. rig count effectively halved in the latest cycle v. 2009-2014 levels, while production increased 38%Average annual Brent prices teetered between $40-$70, averaging $56/bbl through 2015-2019Secular deflation driven by technology lowered cost/boe while undermining profitability

24、of the supply chainNon-OPEC Liquids Production Indexed to 2009Global Rig Count CAGRs by CycleGlobal E&P Capex and Exploration % of Total (RHS)5Source for all figures on this slide: Baker Hughes, Rystad, J.P. Morgan Euro Oils Research, J.P. Morgan estimates, Bloomberg15%10%5%0%-5%2000-20032003-200820

25、09-20142015-2019Annual Brent Price Since 2000International Rig CountU.S. Land Rig CountShort Cycle Leads, Secular Deflation Continues, OPEC OscillatesAfter a period of dislocation, global oil demand resumes its previous run rate of 1mmb/d in annual demand growthOils gravitational center remains near

26、 $60 Brent, with oscillations between $40-$70; capital discipline proves enduringOPEC+ remains key to the markets balancing act, shale plus Middle Eastern OPEC deliver most of the call on upstream with very little demand met by non-U.S. non-OPECOFS earnings power looks biased lower cycle/cycleU.S. I

27、ndependent E&P OutspendsGlobal Base Case Rig Count AssumptionInternational Rig Count OutlookSource for all figures on this slide: EIA, Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan estimates, Baker Hughes.3,000International LandInternational OffshoreU.S. LandU.S. Offshore2,0001,000-Range Bound Oil Outlook (WTI, $/bbl)6Sen

28、sitizing NAM Activity and Production Based on OPEC+ PolicyOur U.S. base case reflects “high” and “low” scenarios for land activity, dependent upon degree of OPEC+ restraint.In a low case, we picture roughly half of the incremental barrels (+500k/day growth) are delivered by shale, driving theU.S. la

29、nd rig count to 550, better than today but still insufficient to tighten the market for rigs or frac crews.In a high case, we envisage OPEC+ restraint driving higher oil prices ($10-15/bbl), allowing most of the 1-1.2mmb/d demand growth to be met by shale, lifting the land rig count to 750 and likel

30、y tightening the market for rigs and hp.We model $5/bbl of WTI driving 250k/d production growth, requiring 100 / 40 more “normalized” rigs / frac spreads.U.S. Onshore Scenario Analysis v. Prior Cycles U.S. Rig Count by JPMe Growth Cases (mb/d)Bear Case Base Case Base Case Bull Case (Low)(High)2015-2

31、0192009-2014Average WTI PriceLow-$30sLow-$40sLow-$50s$60+$53$87Annual Oil ProductionGrowth (mmbbl/d)Flat+500+1,000+1,500+1,038*+750Average U.S. Land Rig Count375-425525-575725-775950-1,0508701,712Average U.S. Oil Rig Count310-350460-500640-680880-920697961Average U.S. Gas Rig Count60-8070-9080-10090

32、-110172751Average U.S. Frac SpreadCount150-175200-250275-325400-4503461,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 -Bull CaseBase Case (High)Base Case (Low)Bear Case20192020e2021e2022e2023e2024e2025eU.S. Rig Count Recovery by CycleU.S. Land Rig Count Trends from 2009200%1985-871997-992001-022008-092014-16May-1

33、6150%100%50%0%-50% 2,0001,8001,6001,4001,2001,000800600400200 0200920102011201220132014201520162017201820197Source for all figures on this slide: Baker Hughes, Genscape, Bloomberg, J.P. Morgan E&P Research,J.P. Morgan OFS estimates.Sticky Supply, Fat Tail Productivity Leave OFS Without GrowthWe assu

34、me global oil demand reaches plateau by mid-decade, though operators would still need to replenish base declinesConsumer trends of shying away from fossil fuels intensify, COVID-19 response potentially accelerates oil demand peakShale productivity displays a fat tail; technology potentially addresse

35、s key concerns (i.e. parent-child well interference)Bear Scenario Total Liquids Demand (mmb/d)Mix of EVs as % of New Cars Sold10510095908580 Share of Energy Demand and Growth to 204020,0007.1%1.1%0.3%1.7%-0.1%1.3%18,00016,00014,00012,00010,0008,0006,0004,0002,000-U.S. Oil and Gas Rig Count v. Onshor

36、e Oil Production (BearCAGRs199520172040OilGasCoalNuclearHydroRenewables8Source for all figures on this slide: J.P. Morgan estimates, J.P. Morgan Commodities Research,J.P. Morgan U.S. E&P Equity Research, BP World Energy Outlook 2019.Supply Shortfalls from Shale Productivity and Conventional Declines

37、Solid oil demand growth of +1mmb/d as alternative sources prove inadequate to meet emerging energy growthWith the increasing mix of child wells (from zero in 2012 to 25-33% in 2019) that would only continue growing in order to meet +1mmbb/d in demand growth the industry is at risk of average product

38、ivity rolling overOffshore breakevens have become far more competitive this cycle and we would expect operators to deploy capital in deeper waters once short cycle production growth is exhausted; acceleration of conventional field declines would helpJPMe Potentially Required Cumulative Oil CapexU.S.

39、 Oil and Gas Rig Count v. Onshore Oil Production (BullCumulative missing capex c$1tn$bn70060050040030020010002003E2006E2009E2012E2015E2018E2021E2024E2027E2030ERequired Oil CapexPrevailing SpendJPME Oil Capex (2003-2020E)Filling the WedgeNon-OPEC Decline Ratesmb/d1201008060402015E2018E2021E2024E2027E

40、2030ESupply from new fields post 2019Supply from pre-peak fields25Non-OPEC liquids supply - mb/d20151050OnshoreShallowwaterIncreasing decline ratesDeepwaterUltra DeepwaterNon-US OthersUS ShaleBase decline (fields onstream pre-2019)2015-2019 JPMe Demand - JPM Base CaseSource for all figures on this s

41、lide :J.P. Morgan Euro Oils Research estimates, W ood Mackenzie. 92019E2020E2025E2030EInvestors Call for FCF Restrain Growth, or Just Require Higher WTI?Reports of the shale revolutions death may prove to be exaggerated once again this cycle. The chorus of investors demanding higher free cash genera

42、tion from E&Ps via slower, more measured growth has only grown louder.Instead of long-cycle filling the wedge, if shales breakevens are forced higher by increased capital costs (to fund higher FCF yields), we think spot oil prices could shift higher to induce sufficient production out of the U.S. on

43、shore.U.S. Rig Count by Annualized Growth Scenario (mb/d)U.S. Rig Count v. U.S. Total Liquids Production (RHS)We think an additional $5-10 of higher spot prices could be enough to induce the required production and meet investors FCF demands.1,200 1,000 800 600 400 20020192020e2021e2022e2023e2024e20

44、25e+1,500k+1,250k+1,000k+750k+500k+250kFlat2,500U.S. Rig Count2,0001,5001,000500-20,000US RigsUS ProdTotal Liquids Production (kbd)15,00010,0005,000-Normalized U.S. Oil Production Growth and Land Rig CountIndependent U.S. Operator Outspends (Capex/CFO)1,600 1,4001,2001,0008006004002000Flat+250k+500k

45、+750k+1,000k+1,250k+1,500kAnnual Production Growth (LHS, mb/d)Normalized Land Rig Count (RHS)Source for all figures on this slide: Baker Hughes, Genscape, Bloomberg, EIA, J.P. Morgan E&P Research, J.P. Morgan OFS estimates.1,1001,0009008007006005004003001080%60%40%20%0%-20%-40%“Normalized” Activity

46、Biased Lower ex-Middle EastLast cycle rig activity only slipped -10-15% but operators secured a 50% capex cut as efficiencies, cost-out and pricing concessions allowed for massive deflationOffshore markets to deliver lower activity levels cycle over cycle due to a general lack of rig contract backlo

47、g and long- cycle FIDs witnessed in 2015, as well as continued (though more modest) efficiency gainsBase Case: rig count -10% cycle/cycle, or 900 (700/200 on/off); non-U.S., non-OPEC continues to tread water as it has for the past decade, occasionally bolstered by a world-class project (e.g. Liza, S

48、verdrup)International Rig Count and JPMe ScenariosDeepwater Rig Count Trends1,4001,2001,000800600400200-LandOffshore Average2502252001751501251007550Capex Trends by Asset Type (2020-2030)Non-U.S., Non-OPEC Supply Growth16%14%12%10%8%6%4%2%0%DeepwaterShallow waterShaleOther Onshore$300$250$200$150$10

49、0$50$01.5Supply Drowth (mb/d)1.00.50.0-0.5-1.0-1.5-2.0-2.52019E2021E2023E2025E2027E2029ETotal Capex 2030 ($bn)CAGR 2020-2025eCAGR 2025-2030OnshoreShallow waterDeepwaterUltra-deepwater UnconventionalOil SandsOthersSome Caution Given Cognitive Dissonance b/w Equities & Oil MarketsEnergy equities have

50、rallied hard off the mid-March lows as spot oil rebounded from negative levels to a (relatively) respectable level in the $30s, though the OSX remains halved YTDDespite the near-term weakness, adding to a half decade of market cap destruction (-90%), the group doesnt offer a compelling value here in

51、 our viewThe stocks risk returning to mid-March lows, or possibly worseEnergy Equities Performance through Recent Macro TurmoilSLB-SPX EV/FY2 EBITDA150%100%50%0%-50%-100%S&P 500OSXXOPAMZXLEDownturn (3/6-3/18)Recovery (3/18-pres)YTDSLB EV/FY2 SalesSLB Returns off EV/Sales Bottom by Cycle70%60%50%40%3

52、0%20%10%0%-10%2000-20032003-20082009-20142015-201990 days180 days1 yearA Defensive Posture Looking for Tactical Openings to Go on OffenseStocks have effectively pulled forward our base “normalized” case, capitalizing an environment that is years awayWe remain skeptical that 2Q20 marks the bottom of

53、the cycle; our 2021 EBITDA estimates remain 10% below StreetInvestors should remain defensively positioned through near-term dislocations, finding opportunities to get more offensive through 2021Scenario analysis suggests cycle/cycle earnings power for the group is biased flat-to-downOFS Balance She

54、et and Cycle ExposureRecent Performance by Balance Sheet BucketLong CycleMixed CycleShort CycleBallastDRQ / FTITSWHD / NEX / LBRT / PUMP / WTTR / HP / DNOWManageableBKR / NESRSLB / CLB / NOV / OIIUntenableHAL / OIS / NBR / NE / RIG / VALPTEN / NINE / MRCSLB Normalized Scenario ComparisonHAL Normaliz

55、ed Scenario ComparisonSLBPrior CycleNorm alized 2015-2019BearBaseBullRevenue ($bn)$31.9$22-$24$24-$26$32-$34EBITDA ($bn)$7.3$3-$4$4-$6$6-$8EBITDA Margin23%14-17%17-23%19-24%FCF ($bn)$2.9$1.4-$1.6$2.0-$2.2$3.4-$3.6FCF/EV Yield7%3-4%5-6%8-9%HALPrior CycleNorm alized 2015-2019BearBaseBullRevenue ($bn)$

56、21.3$17-$19$19-$21$21-$22EBITDA ($bn)$3.6$2-$3$3-$4$4-$5EBITDA Margin17%12-16%16-19%19-23%FCF ($bn)$0.3$0.5-$0.8$0.8-$1.0$1.3-$1.6FCF/EV Yield1%2-4%4-5%6-8%The Five Minute JPM Investment Thesis Recap Our 2020 Outlook and Top PicksYou Can Only Reap What You Sow.Our supply-driven, range-bound oil thes

57、is appears to have lost its floor as OPEC+ disintegrated into an historic period of oil demand suppression. Oil Services is lagging the market by 30% for the fourth consecutive year in 2020, and its relative value v. the S&P has shrunk by -90% since 2014. Still, five years into our bearish call on O

58、FS, our attention is shifting from “how low” can the stocks fall to “how long” until fundamental shift to support a proper upcycle. In the interim, with anemic E&P spending globally set to decline further, aided by tech-induced secular deflation (cost/boe) that has considerably weakened OFS earnings

59、 power. We think investors will gradually separate the wheat (cash generators) from the chaff (cash burners).After an initial period of indiscriminate selling, the balance sheet trade has evolved and has legs, with the ballast balance sheets (1x ND/FY2 EBITDA ) leading and (untenable) leveraged bala

60、nced sheets far behind.Market will continue to separate cash “wheat” from “chaff”. Six-years post-peak, OFS is still plumbing new lows; we believe the stocks will continue to de-rate until free cash yields can better compete with other cyclicals. To arrest the slide, OFS must address the FCF yield n