US oil/gas rig count falls for 4th month to Oct 2021 low, Baker Hughes says
June 27 (Reuters) - U.S. energy firms cut the number of oil and natural gas rigs operating for a fourth month in a row to the lowest since October 2021, energy services firm Baker Hughes said in its closely followed report on Friday.
The oil and gas rig count, an early indicator of future output, fell by seven to 547 in the week to June 27.
Baker Hughes said oil rigs fell by six to 432 this week, also their lowest since October 2021, while gas rigs decreased by two to 109.
In June, drillers cut 16 oil and gas rigs, putting the total count down for a fourth month in a row for the first time since June 2024.
The oil and gas rig count declined by about 5% in 2024 and 20% in 2023 as lower U.S. oil and gas prices over the past couple of years prompted energy firms to focus more on boosting shareholder returns and paying down debt rather than increasing output.
The independent exploration and production (E&P) companies tracked by U.S. financial services firm TD Cowen said they planned to cut capital expenditures by around 3% in 2025 from levels seen in 2024.
That compares with roughly flat year-over-year spending in 2024, and increases of 27% in 2023, 40% in 2022 and 4% in 2021.
Even though analysts forecast U.S. spot crude prices would decline for a third year in a row in 2025, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected crude output would rise from a record 13.2 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2024 to around 13.4 million bpd in 2025.
On the gas side, the EIA projected an 84% increase in spot gas prices in 2025 would prompt producers to boost drilling activity this year after a 14% price drop in 2024 caused several energy firms to cut output for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic reduced demand for the fuel in 2020.
The EIA projected gas output would rise to 105.9 billion cubic feet per day (bcfd) in 2025, up from 103.2 bcfd in 2024 and a record 103.6 bcfd in 2023. (Reporting by Scott DiSavino Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Unilever to pay $1.5 billion for men's grooming brand Dr Squatch, FT reports
Unilever is paying $1.5 billion (1.09 billion pounds) to buy men's personal care brand Dr Squatch from private-equity firm Summit Partners , the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing sources. The deal was announced earlier this week by all three parties, without disclosing financial details. Unilever reiterated on Friday that it will not disclose the terms of the deal, while Summit Partners did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment outside of regular business hours. Reuters could not immediately verify the FT report. Reuters reported last year that Summit was exploring a sale of the men's grooming brand at a valuation of more than $2 billion. Launched in 2013 by founder and CEO Jack Haldrup , and named after the mythical creature Sasquatch, Dr Squatch started out by selling handmade bar soaps for men. The Los Angeles-based company currently sells deodorant, hair care products, colognes, lotions and other personal care products through its website and at brick-and-mortar stores. Unilever said earlier that the acquisition of Dr Squatch would complement its men's personal care offerings, which include Axe and Dove Men+Care deodorants, and that it would scale Dr Squatch internationally.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Coal India to invest ₹1,067 crore in Talcher Fertilizers
State-owned CIL on Friday said it will invest a little over ₹1,067 crore in Talcher Fertilizers Ltd by way of acquiring shares through rights issue. Talcher Fertilizers Ltd was incorporated in 2015 as a joint venture company of GAIL (India) Ltd, Coal India Ltd (CIL), Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd ( RCF ) and Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (FCIL) for revival of FCIL's Fertilizer unit by setting up a coal gasification based fertilizer plant at Talcher, Odisha. GAIL (India), CIL and RCF each holds 33.333 per cent in Talcher Fertilizers. In a filing to BSE, CIL said it will acquire 1,06,75,06,771 equity shares at a face value of ₹10 each. The transaction is likely to be completed by July 9. Coal India accounts for over 80 per cent of domestic coal production. Talcher Fertilizers Ltd project, India's first coal gasification-based ammonia urea plant with a planned capacity of 12.7 lakh tonne per annum, has struggled to maintain its timeline since contracts were awarded to China's Wuhuan Engineering Company Ltd (WECL) in September 2019. As of February 28, 2025, the overall project completion stands at 65.66 per cent, with Outside Battery Limit (OSBL) packages reaching 77.62 per cent completion, Minister of State for Chemicals and Fertilisers Anupriya Patel had informed the Lok Sabha. Several OSBL components, including pipe rack, plant lighting, Boiler-1, raw water treatment plant, and DM water plant, have reached advanced stages of mechanical completion, she said. The project, initially targeted for commissioning in September 2024, has missed its deadline due to pandemic-related disruptions that began when COVID-19 emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, the headquarters of the main contractor. Joint venture partners and the TFL board are conducting regular reviews of the project's progress, while TFL maintains frequent video conferences with WECL to resolve pending engineering issues, the minister added.
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Economic Times
Can builders invoke force majeure clause to delay possession? Know what RERA says
You've been waiting ages for your dream home, and you've always paid all your home loan EMIs on time. But even after all this, actually getting the keys to your flat feels like a distant dream. Why? The developer is not giving you any clear answers, just keeps throwing around the term ' force majeure', which basically means 'uncontrollable circumstances', to justify these delays. But what exactly are these circumstances, also known as 'force majeure ' situations? Do distressed homebuyers have any legal recourse against such delays under RERA? Read on to know more. All you should know about the force majeure clause Section 6 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 allows developers to apply for extensions when their projects face delays caused by ' force majeure' events. These events are generally unforeseeable and beyond the builder's control, and so, they need more time to finish the project. Also Read: Even RERA won't help if you commit these 6 mistakes while buying a property According to the Act, a 'force majeure' event is defined as a 'case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature affecting the regular development of the real estate project'. Adds Advocate Pranav Gupta, legal advisor at the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Associations of India (CREDAI) and expert in real estate matters, 'Real estate developers can use events such as earthquakes, floods, pandemics (e.g., COVID-19), and court injunctions as valid grounds for invoking force majeure '. 'While force majeure i s a legitimate defense, its misuse is a frequent point of litigation. Builders often attempt to classify generic commercial difficulties under this clause, but courts have insisted on a strict interpretation. Judicial pronouncements require developers to show a causal nexus, which means that the event must directly impede performance. To avail relief under this clause, developers must submit credible documentary evidence and a formal application using Form REP-V. ', he explains. Experts say that while RERA has no statutory obligation to grant extensions, it generally does provide extra time to builders in cases of court orders, or the pandemic, where such extensions were granted en masse. Also Read: RERA impact: Homebuyer to get Rs 65 lakh compensation for delay of over 9 years in possession of a home in Delhi NCR However, project extensions on the grounds of financial constraints, shortage of raw materials, or workforce unavailability do not qualify for relief under this clause, since they are seen as occupational risks on the part of the developer. But, according to Harshit Batra, whose firm deals in real estate matters, ' force majeure circumstances also includes, but are not limited to bans/ orders/ regulations on mining activities, regulation of the construction and development activities by the authorities like the National Green Tribunal, Hon'ble Courts and other quasi-judicial authorities on account of the environmental conditions, restrictions on usage of water, shortage of labour and materials, lockdowns, etc'. How long can builders keep extending projects by enforcing force majeure clause? As per Section 6 of the RERA Act, a promoter can request an extension of up to one year by providing valid reasons for the project's though the law specifies that developers can't keep asking for indefinite extensions to delay their delivery obligations, it also mandates that 'no application for extension of registration shall be rejected unless the applicant has been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter'. This means that if the relevant authorities haven't reviewed this extension application, the project might be stuck in a limbo, which also means that there is not much that homebuyers can do regarding the project. According to Gupta, any attempt to stretch this one-year limit under Section 6 must be grounded in documented, exceptional conditions. 'Courts have frowned upon habitual extensions sought under the pretext of continuing uncertainty. But, the key principle here is proportionality — a temporary disruption cannot justify indefinite postponement', he says. Can builders include clauses in the sale agreement that facilitate the auto-extension of the project delivery date? Sometimes, in a bid to protect themselves, builders might try to include auto-extension clauses in the sale agreements, which could potentially give them blanket power to postpone handing over possession, using vague justifications. Frequently, these clauses try to bypass the legal options that the buyers have regarding delivery schedules. However, experts have pointed out that such one-sided clauses are not generally enforceable in standard builder-buyer agreements, and RERA also overrides these clauses. Also, under various other laws, such as the Indian Contract Act and the Consumer Protection Act, such unfair terms can be struck down as unreasonable. Generally, most model RERA sale agreement clearly state that 'the promoter assures to hand over possession of the plot/ unit/ apartment for residential/commercial/industrial/ IT/ any other usage (as the case may be) along with parking (if applicable) as per agreed terms and conditions unless there is delay due to ' force majeure ', court orders, government policy/ guidelines, decisions affecting the regular development of the real estate project. 'If the completion of the project is delayed due to the above conditions, then the allottee agrees that the promoter shall be entitled to the extension of time for delivery of possession of the Plot/ Unit/ Apartment for Residential/ Commercial/ Industrial/ IT/ any other usage (as the case may be)', it further adds. However, it does not state any standard timeline for such extensions, which potentially leaves room for ambiguity. In case the project does not go through due to such ' force majeure ' situations, the allotment automatically stands terminated. Not only will the promoter have to refund the entire amount to the allottee within 90 days, but also inform them 30 days before the termination, adds Batra. Can RERA grant extensions without first consulting buyers involved in the project? 'Starting May 2025, a public notice is required to be issued, i.e. the extensions granted by the relevant RERA will have been made subject to the issuance of public notice in prominent newspapers inviting objections towards the grant of such extensions under Section 6 and for consideration under Section 7(3). This now forms part of a mandatory requirement on the part of promoters', per Batra. Gupta says that while there is no statutory obligation to seek buyer input, RERA's decisions can be challenged if they seem arbitrary or lack transparency. Buyers' associations are free to seek a legal review if such extensions are granted without due process or documentation.
