Foreign investors play large role in U.S. shale industry

April 8, 2013

By PennEnergy Editorial Staff 

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration

13 Twitter

2 LinkedIn

20 Share

In early 2013, Sinochem, a Chinese company, entered into a $1.7 billion joint venture with Pioneer Natural Resources to acquire a stake in the Wolfcamp Shale play in West Texas. This investment highlights a renewed trend toward foreign joint ventures. Since 2008, foreign companies have entered into 21 joint ventures with U.S. acreage holders and operators, investing more than $26 billion in tight oil and shale gas plays.

Investment in shale plays in the United States totaled $133.7 billion between 2008 and 2012, as part of 73 deals. Joint ventures by foreign companies accounted for 20% of these investments. The rest of the investments were either part of outright acquisitions—such as the Australian BHP Billiton oil company's acquisition of Petrohawk Energy Corp.—or were joint ventures among American companies (such as Hess and Noble Energy with Consol Energy) and financial institutions.

Most of the foreign investment in these joint ventures involved buying a percentage of the host company's shale play acreages through an upfront cash payment with a commitment to cover a portion of the drilling cost. Foreign investors in joint ventures pay upfront cash and commit to cover the cost of drilling extra wells within an agreed-upon time frame, usually between 2 to 10 years. Both U.S. and foreign companies benefit from these deals. U.S. operators get financial support, while foreign companies gain experience in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing that may be transferable to other regions. Plus, foreign companies can operate in a stable market with a sound legal system and low political risk. In addition, exploration and development opportunities are decreasing in much of the rest of the world. While foreign companies may pay sizable initial costs through joint ventures, these deals can be considered a cost of entry to the development of hydrocarbons through the latest technology.

Most of the recent joint venture deals with foreign companies shifted from the dry natural gas plays to more liquids-rich areas such as the Eagle Ford, Utica, and Wolfcamp—a trend similar to domestic operations. All shale plays contain some liquids, but those with a higher liquid-to-gas ratio are more attractive because of the higher value of hydrocarbons that have crude oil and petroleum liquids in addition to natural gas.

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/04/foreign-investors-play-large-role-in-u-s--shale-industry.html?cmpid=EnlWeeklyPetroApril122013

Successful negotiation tactic used for electric power In India

Finding the Right Process in India

EDITED BY PON_STAFF ON MARCH 6TH, 2013 / CRISIS NEGOTIATIONS

• inShare
•  Comment
•  
• 

In 1995, a new government came into power in the Indian state of Maharashtra and canceled a 20-year power purchase agreement with the Dabhol Power Company, a joint-venture formed by Enron, General Electric, and Bechtel. Claiming that the deal was improper and even illegal, the government declared publicly that it would not renegotiate.

When the government recognized that it had no other options to secure power, it began to soften its position. But if renegotiations were to take place, the parties would need a process that would preserve the government’s dignity and prestige. Ultimately, the government chose to appoint a “review panel” consisting of disinterested energy experts to reexamine the project. The panel met with Dabhol representatives and project critics, and then submitted a proposal to the government that contained the terms of a renegotiated electricity supply agreement that both sides accepted.

The use of an expert panel to conduct what amounted to a renegotiation, in lieu of face-to-face discussions between the two sides, served to protect governmental dignity. The panel’s independent status also assured the public that the renegotiated agreement protected Indian interests.

http://www.pon.harvard.edu/?p=33991/?mqsc=E3476229&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=PON%20Harvard+Negotiation%20Insider%20Tuesday&utm_campaign=Negotiation_Insider_03122013

Marketing owns telephone lead qualification

Marketing and Sales have long been at odds over whether it’s better to generate a large volume of leads or if it’s better to generate fewer, higher quality leads. Anyone involved in Sales or Marketing today, however, knows that the volume game is over. But the question still lingers: How do you get Marketing to deliver the high quality leads that Sales wants and expects?

While there are several ways to improve the quality of Marketing leads, I think one of the best solutions is to have Marketing manage the telephone lead qualification process. Here’s why.

Marketing Doesn’t Have Near-Term Quotas to Close Deals

The reality of Sales departments is that salespeople live quarter to quarter, and they have to hit a quota each quarter in order to stay in the good graces of their department. While this is a great incentive for keeping your sales team motivated to bring in revenue, that same incentive be counterproductive in the lead qualification process.

If a salesperson is worrying about whether their going to hit their quota for the quota, most are going to go after the low-hanging fruit or the big deals because this is what will bring in near-term revenue. It’s part of the reason that, according to a SiriusDecisions report, sales only calls 20 percent of all leads sent by Marketing.

Unfortunately, not every lead is ready to buy–or even ready to speak with a salesperson. So that prospect needs to speak with someone that can move them along the qualification process and find out more about their needs. While many companies keep this function within their Sales department, I think that Marketing is better equipped to handle this process. I think this for two reasons.

Firstly, Marketing isn’t worried about hitting near-term closed deal quotas. This allows the marketer to engage a prospect in a more open and honest conversation about their needs, purchase timeframe, budget and other factors that comprise typical qualification criteria. Beyond that, Marketing departments need to become more responsible for the quality of leads that they send to Sales. By asking Marketing to manage the qualification process, they’re intimately tied to the quality of lead they’re asking Sales to close.

In order to make this work, however, Marketing departments need to be methodical about who they hire, how they compensate and how the lead qualification process is managed–and improved. Here are four tips for managing this process.

1. Hire at the Junior Level

In any role, hiring the right person is critical. For the role of lead qualifier, you want someone energetic, competitive and willing to a lot of spend time on the phone. And you want them to junior enough to grow into a different Sales or Marketing role. Beyond that, you want someone that can really drive a phone conversation and has the inquisitive nature to to dig beneath the surface to uncover information from the prospect.

2. Compensate with a Sales-like Pay Structure

The biggest driver in increasing the quality of Marketing leads is to tie compensation to the sale. The easiest way to do that is to start them off at a base salary and offer a commission based on the total revenue of closed deals. You can also add incentives for qualification accuracy such as an additional bonus for a great Sales-accepted lead metric.

3. Decide How to Route Leads

The natural lead category breakdown is to create three buckets of leads: qualified leads, disqualified leads and leads that need to be nurtured. All of these are fairly self-explanatory but the last one is worth elaborating on. The real opportunity for shifting this role to Marketing is that you can dedicate someone to nurturing leads with a human touch. As such, there should be an intense focus on the nurturing aspect of lead qualification.

4. Improve Sales and Marketing Alignment

While this is a long-standing issue in companies across the globe, it’s a necessary area of focus for making this model work. You need Sales and Marketing to have regular meetings about lead qualification criteria to have Sales understand why Marketing is disqualifying certain leads (and to double-check that they’re not disqualifying a few hidden gems). The best way to manage this process is to have Marketing and Sales meet frequently. Start off having weekly meetings, then move to once a month afterwards.

While this is not an exhaustive list of what needs to happen, I think these are the key areas of focus. If you follow these steps, you can create a Marketing team that both drives more sales and is more accountable and better able to see its contribution to revenue.

What do you think about this approach? If you have some thoughts, I’d love for you to contact me at Software Adviceon my blog at: Marketing Should Own Lead QUalification or to simply email me directly atderek@softwareadvice.com. I look forward to hearing from you.

http://successfulworkplace.com/2012/10/19/marketing-owns-telephone-lead-qualification/

Social Media Is a Corporate Blind Spot for B2B Execs

by Lenna Garibian  |  

December 18, 2012

  |  130 views

6
inShare

Email

More than one-third (36%) of US executives say they either never consider (7%) or rarely consider (29%) their company's social media reputation when making important business decisions, according to a survey from Zeno Group.

B2B executives are even more likely than their B2C counterparts to ignore their company's social media reputation when considering a business decision, and they tend to be slower to respond to damaging online articles or social media posts.

Below, additional findings from the 2012 Zeno Digital Readiness Survey, conducted by Harris Interactive.

Among the executives surveyed:

• 43% of those working for B2B companies say they either never consider (10%) or rarely consider (33%) their social media reputation when making a business decision, whereas 57% either always consider (21%) or sometimes consider (36%) social media when making a decision.
• 30% of those working for B2C brands say they either never consider (1%) or rarely consider (29%) consider their social media reputation when making a business decision, whereas 70% either always consider (35%) or sometimes consider (35%) social media when making a decision.

Moreover, B2Bs are slower than B2Cs to respond to negative online content.

When confronted with a damaging article or social-media post, 43% of B2B execs say they believe their firms can respond effectively within a 24-hour period, compared with 63% of B2C execs who say the same:

Some 13% of B2B execs say their firm would not engage an audience online at all to defend its reputation, compared with only 6% of B2C execs who say the same.

Execs in larger firms (those with more than 10,000 employees) are more likely than smaller firms (fewer than 10,000 employees) to say they always or sometimes consider their company's social media reputation (71% vs. 55%): 

Similarly, the findings by company size in terms of revenue show that larger firms (with revenue of $10 billion or more) are more likely than smaller ones (less than $5 billion in revenue) to respond within 24 hours to a damaging issue online (63% vs. 42%).

Geography also plays a role in social readiness. Execs in the northeast are far more likely than those in the western region of the US to be concerned about their company's social media reputation (72% vs. 49%).

About the data: The Zeno Digital Readiness Survey was conducted online among 300 US corporate executives (VPs, CEOs, presidents, and chairmen) at companies with revenue of $1 billion or more, by Harris Interactive, October 4-11, 2012.

Read more: http://www.marketingprofs.com/charts/2012/9718/social-media-is-a-corporate-blind-spot-for-b2b-execs#ixzz2FPvsEG3K