Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent oilfield services feasibility study consultant preparing lender-, SBA-, and USDA-facing studies for pressure pumping, wireline, workover, water handling, rental tools, fabrication, and field equipment businesses. An oilfield services credit is a derived-demand credit: revenue does not come from oil prices directly but from the drilling, completion, and workover activity those prices fund, arriving with a lag and falling faster than it rises. The analysis works from activity indicators in the service area to fleet utilization, pricing, and the customer concentration that decides how quickly a downturn reaches the borrower.
Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the agency, never the borrower. Fixed fee quoted within one business day; standard delivery in ten to fifteen business days from a complete data room. 4,000+ engagements since 1998 covering $41.2 billion in evaluated project value. So far in 2026: 41 engagements and $1.54 billion evaluated — 17 SBA, 11 USDA.
Oilfield-services feasibility is rig-count arithmetic disciplined by contract quality: the active drilling and completion activity within the service radius, the operator relationships and master service agreements behind the revenue assumption, utilization and day-rate or stage-rate economics by service line, and the equipment reinvestment cycle that consumes apparent margin. The category's cyclicality is modeled honestly, with coverage tested at activity levels below the current count.
The analysis uses basin rig and completion counts, service-pricing surveys, customer-concentration review, and equipment cost and life data. The model presents revenue by service line with utilization sensitivity as the controlling stress case.
Every Wert-Berater financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, so any reviewer can stress any input. Deliverables comprise a complete narrative report and the linked Excel model, with ten-year pro forma, sensitivity analysis at ±5, 10, and 15 percent, interest-rate stress from +0.5 to +3.0 percent, and ratio analysis benchmarked against RMA and IBISWorld data.
SBA engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8, including its debt-service-coverage minimums of 1.15x operating and 1.00x global. USDA engagements follow RD Staff Instruction 5001 across the Business & Industry, Community Facilities, REAP, and Value-Added Producer Grant programs. Conventional engagements are built to the lender's stated coverage standard, typically 1.20x. Oil, gas, and heavy-industrial projects reach us through conventional and institutional lending most commonly, with USDA B&I applicable to qualifying rural energy and processing assets and SBA programs serving owner-operator support businesses; each study is prepared to the corresponding compliance standard, with environmental and regulatory conditions precedent stated plainly.
Wert-Berater has completed and published an oilfield services feasibility study in Troy, Michigan. That engagement is representative of how the firm approaches the sector: service demand built from drilling and completion activity in the areas the business actually serves rather than from national averages, equipment utilization and pricing tested against the operator's own historical records, and customer concentration reported as a stated credit risk rather than absorbed into a revenue average. Across 4,000+ engagements since 1998, the same discipline applies — fully linked models with no hardcoded values, assumptions sourced and footnoted, and coverage tested under downside cases before a determination is issued. Independence is non-negotiable: determinations follow the evidence and are not revised under pressure, and studies are built to pass lender, agency, and third-party review without exception items.
An oilfield services feasibility study consultant establishes where the work comes from, how much of it the business can capture, at what price, and what happens to coverage when activity turns down. Because demand is derived rather than direct, the analysis starts one step upstream: the drilling, completion, and workover activity in the specific basins and counties the business serves, the operators generating that activity, and the service intensity each well requires for the particular service line in question.
From that activity base the study builds addressable demand, tests the share the business can realistically win against the competitors already serving those operators, and converts share into revenue through fleet or crew capacity, utilization, and realized pricing. The engagement is economic and financial. Wert-Berater does not perform drilling, completion, mechanical, or equipment engineering, does not certify equipment condition or capability, and does not issue reserve or geological opinions. Technical and inspection reports prepared by qualified parties are treated as inputs.
A study for an oilfield services or equipment business covers more ground than a standard commercial feasibility engagement because the revenue stream is inseparable from basin-level drilling and completion activity, contract structure, and equipment condition. The written narrative addresses market position, competitive supply, financial projections, and every material condition a lender must resolve before committing capital. The linked Excel model is delivered alongside the narrative so that any reviewer can open it, change an input, and watch every downstream figure recalculate.
Service demand is reconstructed from activity indicators rather than assumed to grow with the sponsor's sales plan. The study examines rig count and permit activity in the service area, well completions and workover frequency, and the operator mix generating that work, using state commission records and published activity data. Demand is then translated into units the business actually sells — stages, jobs, rental-days, crew-days, or units fabricated — through a service-intensity assumption that is stated and defended rather than embedded.
The service radius is a hard constraint and is treated as one. Equipment mobilization cost and crew logistics limit how far a business can profitably work, so the addressable market is bounded by that radius rather than by basin or state totals. Where the sponsor's projection assumes work outside the economic service area, the study either supports it with a stated basing or staging plan and its cost, or it removes that volume from the base case and says so. Activity cyclicality is modeled explicitly: service demand lags commodity price on the way up and contracts faster on the way down.
Capacity, utilization, and price are modeled as three separate variables because they fail separately. Capacity is established from the actual equipment or crew count and its realistic operating availability, net of maintenance downtime and repositioning. Utilization is tested against the operator's own history where a record exists, and against comparable operations where the business is a startup; a utilization assumption that exceeds anything the business or its peers have sustained is reported rather than accepted.
Pricing is examined for durability. Day rates and job pricing in oilfield services compress quickly when activity falls, because equipment is mobile and idle capacity chases work into adjacent markets. The study therefore tests realized pricing against the range the service line has actually exhibited through a cycle, not against peak-market rates, and identifies the combination of utilization and price at which coverage falls to the lender's minimum. Where pricing power rests on a technical differentiation or a preferred vendor position, the durability of that advantage is assessed rather than assumed permanent.
Oilfield services businesses are frequently built on a small number of operator relationships, and concentration is often the single largest credit risk. The study quantifies revenue attributable to the largest one, three, and five customers, examines the tenure and stability of each relationship, and re-tests coverage on the loss of the largest customer. Where concentration is material, it is reported as a stated finding rather than smoothed into an average.
Contract structure is read as written. Master service agreements, dedicated or committed-capacity arrangements, and pure call-out work create very different revenue certainty, and the study distinguishes them explicitly — a master service agreement typically establishes terms without committing volume, and is not treated as contracted revenue. Payment terms and receivable ageing receive particular attention, because service businesses carry operator payment risk directly and working-capital strain during a slowdown commonly precedes a coverage failure.
Equipment-intensive service businesses fail on capital as often as on revenue. The study establishes the acquisition or fabrication cost of the fleet, its expected service life under the duty cycle it will actually run, and the maintenance cost that duty cycle generates. Maintenance is separated into routine and major component overhaul, because a model that carries only routine maintenance understates cost in exactly the years when major components come due.
A replacement reserve is required in the pro forma rather than left to residual cash flow. Where the equipment's economic life is shorter than the loan amortization, that mismatch is reported as a structural finding. Used-equipment values are examined against the same cycle that drives revenue, since collateral in this sector is worth least precisely when the borrower is most likely to need it — a correlation the study states explicitly for the lender rather than leaving to the appraisal.
Demand for oilfield services is not estimated from regional economic data or population trends; it is counted from drilling and completion activity that is observable in public and commercial records. The analysis begins with state oil and gas commission permit filings and well completion reports, which establish how many wells are being drilled and completed within the geographic service radius and which operators are responsible for that activity. Baker Hughes and similar rig-count series provide a time-series baseline, but permit-level data is more granular and more useful for a service-area analysis.
Operator identity matters because it determines contract accessibility. SEC filings and state regulatory disclosures for publicly traded operators reveal capital expenditure guidance and drilling program commitments, which are the upstream driver of service demand. Trade association data from organizations such as the Petroleum Equipment & Services Association supplements public filings with pricing and utilization benchmarks by service line.
Competitive supply is inventoried from state contractor license registries, Dun & Bradstreet and similar commercial databases, and direct market reconnaissance. The analysis identifies which service providers hold active operating authority in the basin, estimates their aggregate capacity, and notes any capacity additions announced through equipment purchase filings or press disclosures. The result is a demand-to-supply ratio by service line, not a single market-size figure, because coverage depends on utilization, not on aggregate market volume.
Four inputs control the debt-service-coverage ratio in an oilfield services model more than any others. Understanding how each is set and tested is the practical core of the analysis.
The financial model is fully linked with no hardcoded values, producing a ten-year pro forma, annual and period debt-service coverage, and the coverage minimum applicable to the financing program — 1.15x operating and 1.00x global for SBA engagements under SOP 50 10 8, or the lender's stated standard, typically 1.20x, for conventional credits. Working capital is modeled explicitly, including receivable days, because the cash conversion cycle in this sector is long enough to create a coverage problem independent of profitability.
Sensitivity is run on activity level in the service area, utilization, realized pricing, loss of the largest customer, maintenance and replacement capital, receivable collection period, and interest rate. Each is stressed independently and in combination, and the study reports the activity level — expressed in the same units the lender can observe — at which coverage reaches the minimum. Because a downturn compresses utilization and price simultaneously, the combined stress case is presented rather than only the single-variable results.
Credit officers and agency reviewers approach oilfield services projects with a specific set of concerns that differ from those applied to real estate or retail business lending. The cyclicality of the sector is the first issue: a lender needs evidence that the projection is not built on peak-cycle activity levels and that coverage holds at a materially lower rig count. The feasibility study addresses this directly by presenting the base case at a defensible mid-cycle utilization rate and by showing coverage at each stress level in the sensitivity table.
For SBA engagements prepared to SOP 50 10 8, the study documents both the 1.15x operating coverage minimum and the 1.00x global coverage requirement, with the global calculation incorporating all obligations of the borrowing entity and any affiliated guarantors. Customer concentration is an SBA concern because a single operator relationship that represents a dominant share of revenue creates a contingent credit event if that operator reduces its drilling program.
USDA Business & Industry engagements require that the project qualify as a rural business and that the feasibility study address economic impact and repayment ability in terms consistent with RD Staff Instruction 5001. For oilfield services, the rural qualification is often straightforward given basin geography, but the study must still demonstrate that the service market is not already oversupplied by existing providers.
Conventional lenders typically require 1.20x coverage and place additional weight on equipment collateral value, which the study addresses through reinvestment schedule analysis and residual value commentary.
The fee for an oilfield services feasibility study is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of an initial inquiry. No portion of the fee is contingent on the outcome of the study, and the finding is not revised because a sponsor or lender prefers a different conclusion. Fiduciary duty runs to the lender and the reviewing agency.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from the date a complete data room is received. A complete data room for an oilfield services engagement includes historical financial statements, equipment schedules with age and condition data, copies of master service agreements or letters of intent, operator contact references, insurance documentation, and any existing environmental or operating permits. Incomplete submissions extend the timeline; the engagement clock does not start until the data room is complete.
Rush delivery is available and is quoted at the time of engagement. The fixed fee and the rush premium, if applicable, are both stated in the engagement letter before work begins.
Upon delivery, the bound narrative report and the fully linked Excel model are published to a secure client portal. The model remains live in the portal: a reviewer can change any input — utilization rate, day rate, fuel cost, interest rate — and every pro forma line, coverage ratio, and sensitivity table recalculates immediately. This is particularly useful for oilfield services engagements, where a lender may want to run the model at a specific rig-count scenario before credit committee without requesting a revised report.
Service and equipment businesses are financed alongside the producing and processing assets that generate their work. These engagements cover the connected parts of the sector.
The fee is fixed and quoted in writing within one business day of an initial inquiry. It does not vary with the loan amount or the study outcome, and no portion is contingent on a favorable finding. Contact Wert-Berater directly for a quote specific to your project scope; the engagement letter states the fee before any work begins.
Standard delivery is ten to fifteen business days from receipt of a complete data room. For oilfield services engagements, the data room must include financial statements, equipment schedules, master service agreements or letters of intent, and applicable permits. Rush delivery is available and is priced at the time of engagement. The timeline does not begin until the data room is complete.
Three factors distinguish this asset class: revenue is directly tied to basin drilling and completion activity, which is cyclical and can fall sharply without warning; customer concentration is often high, meaning one operator relationship can represent a dominant share of revenue; and equipment reinvestment consumes apparent margin in ways that simple income-statement review misses. A credible study models all three explicitly.
SBA SOP 50 10 8 requires an independent feasibility study for certain loan types, and the study must be prepared by a qualified third party with no financial interest in the outcome. Wert-Berater engagements are prepared to SOP 50 10 8 standards, including the 1.15x operating and 1.00x global debt-service-coverage requirements. The study does not guarantee approval; that determination rests with the lender and SBA.
The core data room includes three years of historical financial statements, a current equipment schedule with age and condition notes, copies of master service agreements or executed letters of intent, operator references, insurance certificates, and any environmental or operating permits already in hand. Projected capital expenditure schedules and any existing appraisals are also useful. The engagement timeline begins when the data room is complete.
USDA B&I financing is available to businesses in eligible rural areas, and oilfield services companies operating in rural basins frequently qualify on geography. The feasibility study must address repayment ability and economic impact in terms consistent with RD Staff Instruction 5001. Basin location relative to USDA rural eligibility maps should be confirmed early in the process, as urban-adjacent service yards may not qualify.
The consultant builds service demand from drilling, completion, and workover activity in the specific areas the business serves, converts it into the units the business sells, and tests achievable share against the competitors already working for those operators. Capacity, utilization, pricing, customer concentration, maintenance and replacement capital, and working capital are then modeled through to debt-service coverage.
Rig count, permits, and completion activity in the service area establish the activity base, which is then translated into stages, jobs, rental-days, or crew-days through a stated service-intensity assumption. National rig count is not used as a proxy for local demand. The service radius bounds the addressable market, because mobilization cost limits how far the business can profitably work.
Capacity, utilization, and price are modeled as three separate variables. Utilization is tested against the operator's own history, or comparable operations for a startup, and an assumption exceeding anything the business or its peers have sustained is reported rather than accepted. Pricing is tested against the range the service line has exhibited through a full cycle rather than at peak-market rates.
Revenue is attributed to the largest one, three, and five customers, and coverage is re-tested on the loss of the largest. A master service agreement is not treated as contracted revenue, since it typically establishes terms without committing volume. Where concentration is material it is reported as a stated credit finding rather than smoothed into an average.
Yes. A replacement reserve is carried in the pro forma rather than left to residual cash flow, and maintenance is split between routine cost and major component overhaul so later years are not understated. Where the equipment's economic life is shorter than the loan amortization, that mismatch is reported as a structural finding.
No. Wert-Berater does not certify equipment condition or capability and does not perform mechanical or equipment engineering. Inspection reports, appraisals, and technical assessments prepared by qualified parties are treated as inputs, and their assumptions are tested for consistency against the utilization and maintenance assumptions in the financial model.
A downturn compresses utilization and pricing at the same time, so the study presents a combined stress case rather than only single-variable sensitivities. It also reports that used-equipment collateral values fall in the same cycle, meaning recovery value is weakest precisely when the borrower is most likely to need it. Service demand also lags commodity price recovery on the way back up.
Qualify a project. Tell us about the project and the program. We will tell you the truth about it — scope, timeline, and fee confirmed before work begins.
Schedule a Zoom Call →Legal disclosure. Wert-Berater, Inc. offices are mailing addresses only. Following the COVID-19 pandemic the firm has elected to work remotely; its office locations receive mail and are not staffed for visitors or in-person meetings. Headquarters mailing address: 1968 South Coast Hwy, Ste 2382, Laguna Beach, CA 92651.
Wert-Berater, Inc. is an independent provider of feasibility studies and other related services. The firm does not provide financing or equity investment advice, and does not arrange, broker, or place debt or equity capital of any kind.
All appraisal assignments are performed by Bruce E. Jones, MAI, ASA-GC, BCA, CMEA, a member of the Appraisal Institute since 2006, a staff member of Wert-Berater, Inc. and owner of Special Purpose Realty Valuation.