No prizes for guessing who made these two statements recently:
‘While the very near-term outlook remains subdued, the main drivers of seismic demand – the long-term need for reserve replacement, energy security and sustained exploration investment – continue to strengthen.’
‘The long-term outlook for oil and gas exploration continues to strengthen. Increased focus on energy security, reserve replacement, and supply resilience is driving renewed interest in exploration activity, while higher long-term demand expectations further reinforce the need for new discoveries.’
These comments on recent financial company results come from Irene Waag Basili and Kristian Johansen, CEOs respectively of Shearwater GeoServices and TGS. Both must be weary of talking up a market that just won’t budge, insisting that an upturn in oil company spending on seismic exploration and production is inevitable to replenish obviously declining reserves, if not now, then sometime soon. We have heard these same sentiments expressed by industry leaders in the seismic services sector for at least a decade, and it would be nice they were right. It is what stakeholders need to hear in order to continue supporting the geoscience activities of the big three, Viridien being the other, all operating with uncomfortable levels of debt.
'Time to play devil’s advocate'
This may be as good as any time to play devil’s advocate. Should we somehow be changing the conversation? Rather than asking how long before a serious uplift in seismic activity is ever going to materialise, is it time to refocus? In other words, change the mindset and accept that the big E&P spend is never going to happen and review future business strategy in this light. Even if things did turn around, how much difference would it make? The history of seismic upturns is not good.
Just to recap, any hopes that the turmoil from the US-Israeli war on Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could alter the fundamentals of the global energy supply and demand have been illusory. A mid-year report from analyst Wood Mackenzie points out that, at the beginning of 2026, the industry was anticipating a difficult year with planned oil output likely to suppress oil price. Instead, it estimates that the global upstream sector could accumulate a whopping cash windfall of $495 billion this year, half of this going to the largest IOCs and NOCs.
Does this offer some hope that this bonanza will somehow find its way into exploration budgets? Unlikely. According to Tom Ellacott, senior vice president, corporate research at Wood Mackenzie, ‘What is perhaps most telling about the corporate response to the turbulent macro forces impacting the oil and gas sector is just how little changed. Most players have adopted a wait-and-see approach to the market turmoil, preferring to accumulate cash on the balance sheet rather than return it to shareholders or increase investment.’
Commentators love to talk about capital discipline, but there’s more to it than that. Some of the reasons could be uncomfortable for the seismic business. Westwood Global Energy Group noted recently, ‘Over the period 2015-2025 Brazil saw the most data acquired (~132,000 km²) followed by Turkey, Egypt, USA and Norway, although exploration marine 3D acquired in USA was entirely acquired using ocean bottom receivers and no exploration streamer data has been acquired in the US Gulf since 2019. Only one exploration 3D survey was acquired in Norway in 2025.’ These are not great statistics. It implies that the application of seismic survey data on any scale is not what has kept global oil and gas production going for the past 10 years. Westwood draws the obvious conclusion that ‘We may see more data being acquired, but ultimately this may be limited by the size of the fleet and the inventory of streamers available. Significant advances in seismic imaging have been made over recent years, particularly by combining legacy streamer data with new ocean bottom node data and reprocessing of legacy data is likely to continue.’
One issue for oil companies is how much full-on, new seismic will they ever need when so much legacy data can be subject to ever more ingenious reprocessing technology. The strategy of targeting existing reserves and near-field opportunities adopted by oil companies for the past decade or so has not resulted in the predicted boom in ocean bottom node (OBN) seismic data acquisition. An exception has been the Middle East, but the massive undertakings by companies such as ADNOC and Saudi Aramco are now winding down. At the time of writing there were eight OBN projects active worldwide and nine towed streamer surveys (outside China).
Technology considerations aside, the avalanche of reasons, short-term and long-term, for oil companies holding back on big exploration projects that the seismic world would welcome are legion. All boil down to uncertainty over future global demand for oil and gas, something that the International Energy Agency and all the other authoritative forecasters have never been able to calibrate. Expecting more electric vehicles on the road, more wind and solar power, some technology advances, etc. to reduce hydrocarbon dependence is somewhat predictable. But what about continuing climate-driven disasters? Is the time coming when a largely passive public starts demanding action?
Clearly the plight of the oil industry-related seismic business, which, among other things, is perilously close to losing its appeal for a new generation of science-minded students, is obvious to everyone. Exploring new geoscience markets has not so far realised much of value compared with oil and gas or created many new career choices.
'Dealing with the cards they are dealt'
Companies have too much capital, equipment and personnel committed reinvent themselves overnight, thousands of jobs are at stake. Nor can they fight the market, which determines demand for seismic equipment and services. They have to deal with the cards they are dealt. However, they could be more aggressive. Maybe it is a fantasy, but public meetings on the impending crisis and its consequences would be a start; holding the line on pricing (not so complicated with so few players), sometimes refusing to bid on unreasonable survey conditions, being fairly remunerated for research and development, etc. would all change the business climate from a passive waiting game to due recognition of geoscientific value.
Probably completely out of context, but remember that in Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett’s iconic play, Godot never did turn up.
Views expressed in Crosstalk are solely those of the author, Andrew McBarnet, EAGE Editor Emeritus. He can be contacted at andrew@andrewmcbarnet.com.
