It is an interesting concept, but when I first learned that there were situations that called for deliberately less efficiency for a company, it seemed counter-intuitive.
Does it make sense, in an uber-competitive environment that is, at this point in time, highly regulated for Schlumberger to lay off any excessive operations expenditures? The answer is...maybe.
The oil services industry consists of a marketplace that is drowning in competition. With large parent entities like Halliburton, Precision Drilling, and other field technologies servicing the industry, there is little room for market exit or entry. Instead, there is an arms race of sorts taking place where companies are acquiring smaller operations as a means of expanding its market share.
The looming issue that lingers, and recently disrupted Schlumberger's acquiring Russia's Eurasia Drilling, is government regulation. Without inserting too much politicizing or bias, I will keep this rant direct and to the point: companies participating in a capital marketplace are dis-incentivized to offer competitive and efficient services or products when government regulation or authority prevents them from doing so.
Efficiency is an ongoing process that requires adaptation and resources. So, it may be a time in this industry's history to stand pat and not make any drastic moves until regulatory protocols are updated.
No comments:
Post a Comment