The difficult art of marketing ‘Big Oil’

Given the historical and perhaps customary negativity surrounding oil and gas majors in the best of times, working on their marketing pitches and brand equity enhancement is not for the faint hearted.

Environmental disasters and subsequent public relations fiascos in wake of incidents such as Exxon Valdez and BP’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill have only reinforced negative perceptions about ‘Big Oil’ in the minds of many. 

It all dates way back to Standard Oil, a company often castigated for its practices in the last century, writes Mark Robinson, professor of marketing at Virginia International University, in his recent work Marketing Big Oil published by Palgrave Pivot.

With pitfalls aplenty for oil and gas marketing professionals, the author has attempted to offer guidance on the arduous task by going well beyond the mundane 'do’s' and 'don’ts' in a book of just under 160 pages, split into five parts and 17 splendidly sequenced chapters. As it happens, Robinson knows more than a thing or two about marketing Big Oil, having been an industry executive at Deloitte’s Global Energy & Resources Group and ExxonMobil.

His book provides adequate subjective treatment, lessons from history and what approaches to adopt if marketing Big Oil is what you do or intend to do. Starting with the historical context provided by Standard Oil, the author leads readers on to present day challenges faced by oil and gas companies as we’ve come to know them.

The Oilholic really liked Robinson’s no holds barred analysis of marketing and branding exercises undertaken by industry participants and his detailed examination of what worked and what tanked given the millions that were spent. The author says throwing money at a campaign is no guarantor of success as many companies within the sector have found out to their cost.

Managing pitfalls forms an integral part of Robinson’s message; just ask BP with its ‘Beyond Petroleum’ slogan. Perceived disconnect between the slogan, what the company was up to, and subsequent events made it sound farcical. The saga, what went wrong with the campaign and lessons in its wake are described in some detail by the author.

Additionally, a part of the book is dedicated to managing a brand crisis. The entire text is well referenced and accompanied by 14 brand lessons treating various crucial marketing facets. Analysis of the industry's use of social media, e-commerce, mobile apps and digital advertising is fascinating too.

Overall, Robinson’s engaging and timely book on a complex marketing arena brings forth some 'crude' home truths, backed up by historical context and lessons from the corporate world, all weaved into a balanced industry perspective on the state of affairs in a digitally savvy world.

Budding marketing professionals as well as industry veterans, and those interested in how some of world’s biggest oil and gas companies succeed (or fail) in etching their global brand equity would find this book to be a thoroughly good read.

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo: Front Cover – Marketing Big Oil: Brand Lessons from the World's Largest Companies © Palgrave Macmillan, July 2014.

EU’s Russian gas, who gets what & BP’s Bob

The vexing question for European Union policymakers these days is who has what level of exposure to Russian gas imports should the taps get turned off, a zero storage scenario at importing nations is assumed [hypothesis not a reality] and the Kremlin's disregard for any harm to its coffers is deemed a given [easier said than done].

Depending on whom you speak to, ranging from a European Commission mandarin to a government statistician, the figures would vary marginally but won't be any less worrying for some. The Oilholic goes by what Eurogas, a non-profit lobby group of natural gas wholesalers, retailers and distributors, has on its files.

According to its data, the 28 members of the European Union sourced 24% of their gas from Russia in 2012. Now before you say that's not too bad, yours truly would say that's not bad 'on average' for some! For instance, Estonia, Finland, Lativia and Lithuania got 100% of their gas from Russia, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia not far behind having imported 80% or more of their requirements at the Kremlin's grace and favour.

On the other hand, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK have nothing to worry about as they import nothing or negligible amounts from Russia. Everyone in between the two ends, especially Germany with a 37% exposure, also has a major cause for concern.

And it is why Europe can't speak with one voice over the Ukrainian standoff. In any case, the EU sanctions are laughable and even a further squeeze won't have any short term impact on Russia. A contact at Moody's says the Central Bank of the Russian Federation has more than enough foreign currency reserves to virtually guarantee there is no medium term shortage of foreign currency in the country. Industry estimates, cited by the agency, seem to put the central bank's holdings at just above US$435 billion. EU members should know as they contributed handsomely to Russia's trade surplus!

Meanwhile, BP boss Bob Dudley is making a habit of diving into swirling geopolitical pools. Last November, Dudley joined Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi for a controversial visit to the Kirkuk oilfield; the subject of a dispute between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. While Dudley's boys have a deal with the Iraqi Federal government for the oilfield, the Kurds frown upon it and administer chunks of the field themselves to which BP will no access to.

Now Dudley has waded into the Ukrainian standoff by claiming BP could act as a bridge between Russia and the West. Wow, what did one miss? The whole episode goes something like this. Last week, BP's shareholders quizzed Dudley about the company's exposure to Russia and its near 20% stake in Rosneft, the country's state-owned behemoth.

In response, Dudley quipped: "We will seek to pursue our business activities mindful that the mutual dependency between Russia as an energy supplier and Europe as an energy consumer has been an important source of security and engagement for both parties for many decades. We play an important role as a bridge."

"Neither side can just turn this off…none of us know what can happen in Ukraine," said the man who departed Russia in a huff in 2008 when things at TNK-BP turned sour, but now has a seat on Rosneft's board.

While Dudley's sudden quote on the crisis is surprising, the response of BP's shareholders in recent weeks has been pretty predictable. Russia accounts for over 25% of the company's global output in barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) terms. But, in terms of booked boepd reserves, the percentage rises just a shade above 33%.

However, instead of getting spooked folks, look at the big picture – according to the latest financials, in petrodollar terms, BP's Russian exposure is in the same investment circa as Angola and Azerbaijan ($15 billion plus), but well short of anything compared to its investment exposure in the US.

Sticking with the  crudely geopolitical theme, this blogger doesn't always agree with what the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) has to say, but its recent research strikes a poignant chord with what yours truly wrote last week on the Libyan situation.

The society's report titled - Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On (click to download here) - noted that despite high hopes for democracy, human rights and long awaited freedoms, the overall situation on the ground is worse off than before the Arab Spring uprisings.

For instance, Libyan oil production has dramatically fallen by 80% as neighbouring Tunisia's economy is now dependent on international aid. Egypt's economy, suffering from a substantial decrease in tourism, has hit its lowest point in decades, while at the same time Yemen's rate of poverty is at an all-time high.

Furthermore, extremist and fundamentalist activity is rising in all surveyed states, with a worrying growth in terror activities across the region. As for democracy, HJS says while Tunisia has been progressing towards reform, Libya's movement towards democracy has failed with militias now effectively controlling the state. Egypt remains politically highly-unstable and polarised, as Yemen's botched attempts at unifying the government has left many political splits and scars.

Moving on to headline crude oil prices, both benchmarks have closed the gap, with the spread in favour of Brent lurking around a $5 per barrel premium. That said, supply-side fundamentals for both benchmarks haven't materially altered; it's the geopolitical froth that's gotten frothier. No exaggeration, but we're possibly looking at a risk premium of at least $10 per barrel, as quite frankly no one knows where the latest Eastern Ukrainian flare-up is going and what might happen next.

Amidst this, the US EIA expects the WTI to average $95.60 per barrel this year, up from its previous forecast of $95.33. The agency also expects Brent to average $104.88, down 4 cents from an earlier forecast. Both averages and the Brent-WTI spread are within the Oilholic's forecast range for 2014. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo: Sullom Voe Terminal, UK © BP

A festive spike, ratings agencies & Omani moves

It's the festive season alright and one to be particularly merry if you'd gone long on the price of black gold these past few weeks. The Brent forward month futures contract is back above US$110 per barrel.

Another (sigh!) breakout of hostilities in South Sudan, a very French strike at Total's refineries, positive US data and stunted movement at Libyan ports, have given the bulls plenty of fodder. It may be the merry season, but it's not the silly season and by that argument, the City traders cannot be blamed for reacting the way they have over the last fortnight. Let's face it – apart from the sudden escalation of events in South Sudan, the other three of the aforementioned events were in the brewing pot for a while. Only some pre-Christmas profit taking has prevented Brent from rising further.

Forget the traders, think of French motorists as three of Total's five refineries in the country are currently strike ridden. We are talking 339,000 barrels per day (bpd) at Gonfreville, 155,000 bpd at La Mede and another 119,000 bpd at Feyzin being offline for the moment – just in case you think the Oilholic is exaggerating a very French affair!

From a French affair, to a French forex analyst's thoughts – Société Générale's Sebastien Galy opines the Dutch disease is spreading. "Commodity boom of the last decade has left commodity producers with an overly expensive non-commodity sector and few of the emerging markets with a sticky inflation problem. Multiple central banks from the Reserve Bank of Australia, to Norges bank or the Bank of Canada have been busy trying to mitigate this problem by guiding down their currencies," he wrote in a note to clients.

Galy adds that the bearish Aussie dollar view was gaining traction, though the bearish Canadian dollar viewpoint hasn't got quite that many takers (yet!). One to watch out for in the New Year! In the wind down to year-end, Moody's and Fitch Ratings have taken some interesting 'crude' ratings actions over the last six weeks. Yours truly can't catalogue all, but here's a sample.

Recently, Moody's affirmed the A3 long-term issuer rating of Abu Dhabi National Energy Company (TAQA), the (P)A3 rating for TAQA's MYR3.5 billion sukuk  programme, the (P)A3 for TAQA's $9 billion global medium-term note programme, the A3 rated debt instruments and the P-2 short-term issuer rating. Baseline Credit Assessment was downgraded to ba2 from ba1; with a stable outlook. It also upgraded the issuer rating of Rosneft International Holdings Limited (RIHL; formerly TNK-BP International) to Baa1 from Baa2.

Going the other way, it changed Anadarko's rating outlook to developing from positive. It followed the December 12 release of an interim memorandum of opinion by the US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York regarding the Tronox litigation.

The agency also downgraded the foreign currency bond rating and global local currency rating of PDVSA to Caa1 from B2 and B1, respectively, and maintained a negative outlook on the ratings. Additionally, it downgraded CITGO Petroleum's corporate family tating to B1 from Ba2; its Probability of Default rating to B1-PD from Ba2-PD; and its senior secured ratings on term loans, notes and industrial revenue bonds to B1, LGD3-43% from Ba2, LGD3-41%.

Moving on to Fitch Ratings, given what's afoot in Libya, it revised the Italy-based Libya-exposed ENI's outlook to negative from stable and affirmed its long-term Issuer Default Rating and senior unsecured rating at 'A+'. 

It also said delays to the production ramp-up at the Kashagan oil field in Kazakhstan were likely to hinder the performance of ENI's upstream strategy in 2014. Additionally, Fitch Ratings affirmed Shell's long-term Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'AA' with a stable outlook.

Moving away from ratings actions, BP's latest foray vindicates sentiments expressed by the Oilholic from Oman earlier this year. Last week, it signed a $16 billion deal with the Omanis to develop a shale gas project.

Oman's government, in its bid to ramp-up production, is widely thought to offer more action and generous terms to IOCs than they'd get anywhere else in the Middle East. By inking a 30-year gas production sharing and sales deal to develop the Khazzan tight gas project in central Oman, the oil major has landed a big one.

BP first won the concession in 2007. The much touted Block 61 sees a 60:40 stake split between BP and Oman Oil Company (E&P). The project aims to extract around 1 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day of gas. The first gas from the project is expected in late 2017 and BP is also hoping to pump around 25,000 bpd of light oil from the site.

The oil major's boss Bob Dudley, fresh from his Iraqi adventure, was on hand to note: "This enables BP to bring to Oman the experience it has built up in tight gas production over many decades."

Oman's total oil production, as of H1 2013, was around 944,200 bpd. As the country's ministers were cooing about the deal, the judiciary, with no sense of timing, put nine state officials and private sector executives on trial for charges of alleged taking or offering of bribes, in a widening onslaught on corruption in the sultanate's oil industry and related sectors.

Poor timing or not, Oman ought to be commended for trying to clean up its act. That's all for the moment folks! Have a Happy Christmas! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Oil Rig © Cairn Energy.

The Kurdish question & a ‘Dudley’ sin?

The autonomous region of Kurdistan within Iraq's borders is drawing 'crude' headlines yet again. It's that old row about who controls what and gives rights for E&P activity in the region – the Federal administration in Baghdad or the provincial administration in Erbil?

 

The historical context is provided by Gulf War I, when allied forces imposed a no-fly zone, and the Kurds subsequently pushed Saddam Hussein's forces back outside the provincial border. That was 1991, this is 2013 – a lot has changed for Iraq, but one thing hasn't – Iraqi Kurdistan is as autonomous today, as it was back then.

 

In fact, it is more prosperous and an oasis of calm compared to the rest of the Federal state. One simple measure is that the rest of Iraq ravaged by sectarian conflict and Gulf War II still only provides its citizens with about an average of 6 to 7 hours of electricity per day. The average resident of Erbil gets 22 hours and sees infrastructural spending all around, driven by targeted revenue from oil and gas licensing and exports.

Since 2006, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has been granting rights for exploration within its borders to firms from Norway to the US, with much gusto and on better terms, many say, than the Federal administration in Baghdad. The Iraqi government in turn says KRG has no right to do so.

 

Mutual consternation came to a head in January when BP and Baghdad reached an agreement to revitalise the northern Kirkuk oilfield. Since jurisdictional mandate over the oilfield and the city is hotly contested by both sides, KRG declared the deal to be illegal on grounds that it was not consulted.

 

Firing a return salvo, Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi called the production and export of oil from Kurdistan to be an act of "smuggling" and threatened to cut the region's [17%] spending allocation from the federal budget as well as take legal action against Western firms digging up Kurdistan, beginning with London-listed Genel Energy (the first such firm to export from the region).

Neither Genel Energy nor the administration paid heed to that threat. Baghdad and BP did likewise with KRG's moans over Kirkuk. Then the US State Department issued an advisory to all American oil firms operating in Kurdistan that they could be liable for legal damages from Baghdad. Doubtless, the rather handsomely rewarded legal eagles at their end advised them not to worry too much.

An "as-you-were" lull lasted for roughly 10 months, when last week in an extraordinary development, Bob Dudley, CEO of BP, joined al-Luaibi and officials from the Iraqi state-run North Oil Company to pay a controversial visit to the Kirkuk oilfield in a show of support. Why Dudley took the decision to go himself instead of sending a deputy is puzzling and paradoxically a bit obvious as well.

 

In making an appearance himself, Dudley wanted to show how important the Kirkuk deal is. Yet a deputy of his would have drawn a similar two-fingered gesture from KRG, as his visit did. Playing it cool, a source at BP said its only intention is to revive production at Kirkuk, an oilfield which at the turn of millennium saw an output of 900,000 barrels per day (bpd), but can barely manage less than a third of it today.

 

BP has the technical know-how to improve the field's output, but how it will extricate itself from the quagmire of the area's politics is anybody's guess. An Abu Dhabi based source says both sides are entrenched at Kirkuk. BP will have access to the Federally-administered side of the Kirkuk field, namely the Baba and Avana geological formations. But one formation – Khurmala – is inside the Kurdish provincial borders and being is developed by the KAR group.

 

Furthermore, there is another twist in the linear fight between Baghdad and Erbil – Kirkuk's governor Najimeldin Kareem, a man of Kurdish origin, has backed the Federal deal with BP. Dudley left the oilfield without saying anything concrete on record, leaving it to the Iraqis to do most of the talking.

 

The Iraqi Oil Ministry chose to describe Kareem's backing "as securing the complete support from the local government of Kirkuk" in order to commence developing Kirkuk. Hmm…but whose Kirkuk is it anyway? The primary beneficiary of Kurdish oil exports is Turkey; the closest market where the aforementioned Genel Energy delivers most of its output to.

 

Where the tussle will lead to is unpredictable – but it hasn't deterred either BP from signing up a deal with Baghdad or the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total with Erbil. This brings us back to why Dudley went himself – well, when his peers such as Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's boss, have showed-up in Erbil, there was perhaps little choice left. If the regional politics goes out of control, the bosses of oil firms would have only themselves to blame for getting so close to the Iraqi wrangles most say they are least interested in.

 

At the centre of it all is the thirst for black gold. KRG is providing generous production sharing and contract conditions within its autonomous borders, while Baghdad has quite possibly given equally generous terms to BP for Kirkuk. The oil major has already announced a US$100 million investment in the oilfield.

 

Giving KRG the last word in the verbal melee – in September 2012, even before the recent salvos had been fired in earnest and the CEOs had come calling, Ashti Hawrami, Minister for Natural Resources of KRG, said something rather blunt on BBC’s Hard Talk programme which explains it all: "To put it politely, if I have million barrels of oil to produce in two years time, the market needs it, Iraq needs it and at the end of the day we are going to win that battle."

 

There are 50 plus firms already helping him achieve that objective. With geological surveys projecting that Kurdistan potentially has 45 billion barrels of the crude stuff, many of these firms are working with the KRG contrary to advice given by their own governments.

 

And as if to rub it in further into his Federal counterpart, Hawrami quipped, "Kurdistan's investment and spending plans are more structured…Why is Baghdad buying F-16s when Iraqis have little more than 4 hours of electricity per day on average [much worse than the inhabitants of Iraqi Kurdistan]." OUCH!

 

Moving away from Iraqi politics, Brent's $106 per barrel floor has not only been breached, but was smashed big time last week. As noted, hedge funds are indeed feeling the pinch, for instance high-flier Andy Hall's $4 billion baby – Astenbeck Capital Management.

 

According to Reuters, Astenbeck is down 5% as of Oct-end, largely due to the slump in Brent prices. Even though Hall's team have diversified into palladium, platinum and soft commodities, it'd be remarkable if the fund is able to avoid its first annual loss in six years. However, one shouldn't be too hard on Astenbeck as the average energy fund on Chicago's Hedge Fund Research Index, is down 4.45%. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Exploration site in Kurdistan © Genel Energy plc

North Sea & the 'crude' mood in Aberdeen

The Oilholic spent the wee hours of this morning counting the number of North Sea operational support ships docked in Aberdeen Harbour. Interestingly enough, of the nine in the harbour, six were on the Norwegian ships register.

Whether you examine offshore oil & gas activity in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea or the British sector, there is a sense here that the industry is enjoying something of a mini revival if not a full blown renaissance. As production peaked in the late 1990s, empirical evidence that oil majors had begun looking elsewhere for better yields started emerging. Some even openly claimed they’d given up.

Over a decade later, with new extraction techniques and enhanced hydrocarbon recovery mechanisms in vogue – a different set of players have arrived in town from Abu Dhabi National Energy Company (TAQA) to Austria's OMV, from Canada's Talisman Energy to China's Sinopec. Oil recovery from mature fields is now the talk of the town.

Even the old hands at BP, Shell and Statoil – who have divested portions of their North Sea holdings – seem to be optimistic. The reason can be found in the three figure price of Brent! Most commentators the Oilholic has spoken to here, including energy economists, taxation experts, financiers and one roughneck [with 27 years of experience under his belt] are firmly of the view that a US$100 per barrel price or above supports the current level of investment in mature fields.

One contact remarks that the ongoing prospection and work on mature fields can even take an oil price dip to around $90-level. "However, anything below that would make a few project directors nervous. Nonetheless, the connect with between Brent price fluctuation and long term planning is not as linear as is the case between investment in Canadian oil sands projects and the Western Canadian Select (WSC) price."      

To put some context, the WSC was trading at a $30 per barrel discount to the WTI last time yours truly checked. Concurrently, Brent's premium to the WTI, though well below historic highs, is just shy of $10 per barrel. Another contact, who retains faith in the revival of the North Sea hypothesis, says it also bottles down to the UK's growing demand for natural gas.

"It's what'll keep West of Shetland prospection hot. Furthermore, and despite concern about capacity constraints, sound infrastructural support is there in the shape of the West of Shetland Pipeline (WOSP) which transports natural gas from three offshore fields in the area to Sullom Voe Terminal [operated by BP]."

While further hydrocarbon discoveries have been made atop what's already onstream, they are not yet in the process of being developed. That's partially down to prohibitive costs and partially down to concerns about WOSP's capacity. However, that's not dampening the enthusiasm in Aberdeen.

Five years ago, many predicted a rig and infrastructure decommissioning bonanza to be a revenue generator and become a thriving industry itself. "But enhanced oil recovery schemes keep pushing this 'bonanza' back for another day. This in itself bears testimony to what's afoot here," says one contact.

UK Chancellor George Osborne also appears to be listening. In his budget speech on March 20, he said that the government would enter into contracts with companies in the sector to provide "certainty" over tax relief measures. That has certainly cheered industry players in Aberdeen as well the lobby group Oil & Gas UK.

"The move by the Chancellor gives companies the certainty they need over the tax treatment of decommissioning. At no cost to the government, it will speed up asset sales and free up capital for companies to use for investment, extending the productive life of the UK Continental Shelf," a spokesperson says, echoing what many here have opined.

Osborne's budget speech also had one 'non-crude' bit of good news for the region. The Chancellor revealed that one of the two bidders for the UK government's £1 billion support programme for Carbon Capture and Storage (CC&S) is the Peterhead Project here in Aberdeenshire. Overall, the industry sounds optimistic, just don't mention the 'R-word'. Scotland is due to hold a referendum on September 18, 2014 on whether it wants to be independent or remain part of the United Kingdom.

Hardly any contact in a position of authority wants to express his/her opinion on record with the description of political 'hot potato' attributed to the referendum issue by many. The response perhaps is understandable. It's an issue that is dividing colleagues and workforces throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.

General consensus among commentators seems to be that the industry would be better off in a 'United' Kingdom. However, even it were to become a 'Disunited' Kingdom come September 2014, industry veterans believe the global nature of the oil & gas business and the craving for hydrocarbons would imply that the sector itself need not be spooked too much about the result. National opinion polls suggest that most Scots currently prefer a United Kingdom, but also that a huge swathe of the population is as yet undecided and could be swayed either way.

In a bid to conduct an unscientific yet spirited opinion poll of unknown people since known ones were unwilling, the Oilholic quizzed three taxi drivers around town and four bus drivers at Union Square. Result – two were in the 'Yes to independence' camp, four were in the 'No' camp and one said he'd just about had enough of the 'ruddy question' being everywhere from newspapers to radio talk shows, to a stranger like yours truly asking him and that he couldn't give a damn!

Moving away from the politics and the projects to the crude oil price itself, where black gold has had quite a fortnight in the wake of a US political stalemate with regard to the country's debt ceiling. Nervousness about the shenanigans on Capitol Hill and the highest level of US crude oil inventories in a while have pushed WTI’s discount to Brent to its widest in nearly three months by this blogger's estimate.

Should the unthinkable happen and the political stalemate over the US debt ceiling not get resolved, it is the Oilholic's considered viewpoint that Brent is likely to receive much more support at $100-level than the WTI, should bearish trends grip the global commodities market. This blogger has maintained for a while that the WTI price still includes undue froth in any case, thereby making it much more vulnerable to bearish sentiment. 

Just one final footnote, before calling it a day and sampling something brewed in Scotland – according to a recent note put out by the Worldwatch Institute, the global commodity 'supercycle' slowed down in 2012. In its latest Vital Signs Online trends report, the institute noted that global commodity prices dropped by 6% in 2012, a marked change from the dizzying growth during the commodities supercycle of 2002-12, when prices surged an average of 9.5% per annum, or 150% over the stated 10-year period.

Worldwatch Institute says that during the supercycle, the financial sector took advantage of the changing landscape, and the commodities market went from being "little more than a banking service as an input to trading" to a full-fledged asset class; an event that some would choose to describe as "assetization of commodities" and that most certainly includes black gold. Supercycle or not, there is no disguising the fact that large investment banks participate in both financial as well as commercial aspects of commodities trading (and will continue to do so).

Worldwatch Institute notes that at the turn of the century, total commodity assets under management came to just over $10 billion. By 2008 that number had increased to $160 billion, although $57 billion of that left the market that year during the global financial crisis. The decline was short-lived, however, and by the end of the third quarter in 2012, the total commodity assets under management had reached a staggering $439 billion.

Oil averaged $105 per barrel last year and a slowdown in overall commodity price growth was indeed notable, but Worldwatch Institute says it is still not clear if the so-called supercycle is completely over. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: North Sea support ships in Aberdeen Harbour. Photo 2: City Plaque near ferry terminal, Aberdeen, Scotland © Gaurav Sharma, October 2013.

On a 'crude' UK raid, IEA & the 'Houston glut'

There was only story in London town last week, when late in the day on May 14, European Commission (EC) regulators swooped down on the offices of major oil companies having R&M operations in the UK, investigating fuel price fixing allegations. While the EC did not name names, BP, Shell and Statoil confirmed their offices had been among those ‘visited’ by the officials.

 

More details emerged overnight, as pricing information provider Platts admitted it was also paid a visit. The EC said the investigation relates to the pricing of oil, refined products and biofuels. As part of its probe, it will be examining whether the companies may have prevented others from participating in the pricing process in order to "distort" published prices.

 

That process, according to sources, is none other than Platts’ Market On Close (MOC) price assessment mechanism. "Any such behaviour, if established, may amount to violations of European antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices and abuses of a dominant market position," the EC said, but clarified in the same breath that the raids itself did not imply any guilt on part of the companies.

 

The probe extends to alleged trading malpractices dating back almost over 10 years. All oil companies concerned, at least the ones who admitted to have been visited by EC regulators, said they were cooperating with the authorities. Platts issued a similar statement reiterating its cooperation.

 

So what does it mean? For starters, the line of inquiry is nothing new. Following a very vocal campaign led by British parliamentarian Robert Halfon, the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated the issue of price fixing and exonerated the oil companies in January. Not satisfied, Halfon kept up the pressure and here we are.

 

"I have been raising the issue of alleged fuel price fixing time and again in the House of Commons. With the EC raids, I'd say the OFT has been caught cold and simply needs to look at this again. The issue has cross-party support in the UK," he said.

 

In wake of the raids, the OFT merely said that it stood by its original investigation and was assisting the EC in its investigations. Question is, if, and it’s a big if, any wrongdoing is established, then what would the penalties be like and how would they be enforced? Parallels could be drawn between the Libor rate rigging scandal and the fines that followed imposed by US, UK and European authorities. The largest fine (to date) has been CHF1.4 billion (US$1.44 billion) awarded against UBS.

 

So assuming that wrongdoing is established, and fines are of a similar nature, Fitch Ratings reckons the companies involved could cope. "These producers typically have between US$10 billion and US$20 billion of cash on their balance sheets. Significantly bigger fines would still be manageable, as shown by BP's ability to cope with the cost of the Macondo oil spill, but would be more likely to have an impact on ratings," said Jeffrey Woodruff, Senior Director (Corporates) at Fitch Ratings.

 

Other than fines, if an oil company is found to have distorted prices, it could face longer-term risks from damage to its reputation. While these risks are less easy to predict and would depend on the extent of any wrongdoing, scope does exist for commercial damage, even for sectors with polarising positions in the public mind, according to Fitch. Given we are in the 'early days' phase, let's see what happens or rather doesn't.

 

While the EC was busy raiding oil companies, the IEA was telling the world how the US shale bonanza was sending ripples through the oil industry. In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR), it noted: "the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market."

 

While geopolitical risks persist, according to the IEA, market fundamentals were indicative of a more comfortable global oil supply/demand scenario over the next five years at the very least. The MTOMR projected North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day (mbpd) from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 mbpd.

 

World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 mbpd – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 mbpd. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 mbpd, led by China and the Middle East. According to the IEA, having helped offset record supply disruptions in 2012, North American supply is expected to continue to compensate for declines and delays elsewhere, but only if necessary infrastructure is put in place. Failing that, bottlenecks could pressure prices lower and slow development.

 

Meanwhile, OPEC oil will remain a key part of the oil mix but its production capacity growth will be adversely affected by "growing insecurity in North and Sub-Saharan Africa", the agency said. OPEC capacity is expected to gain 1.75 mbpd to 36.75 mbpd, about 750,000 bpd less than forecast in the 2012 MTOMR. Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will lead the growth, but OPEC's lower-than-expected aggregate additions to global capacity will boost the relative share of North America, the agency said.

 

Away from supply-demand scenarios and on to pricing, Morgan Stanley forecasts Brent's premium to the WTI narrow further while progress continues to be made in clearing a supply glut at the US benchamark’s delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, over the coming months. It was above the US$8 mark when the Oilholic last checked, well down on the $20 it averaged for much of 2012.However, analysts at the investment bank do attach a caveat.

Have you heard of the Houston glut? There is no disguising the fact that Houston has been the recipient of the vast majority of the "new" inland crude oil supplies in the Gulf Coast [no prizes for guessing where that is coming from]. The state's extraction processes have become ever more efficient accompanied by its own oil boom to complement the existing E&P activity.

 

Lest we forget, North Dakota has overtaken every other US oil producing state in terms of its oil output, but not the great state of Texas. Yet, infrastructural limitations persist when it comes to dispatching the crude eastwards from Texas to the refineries in Louisiana.

 

So Morgan Stanley analysts note: "A growing glut of crude in Houston suggests WTI-Brent is near a trough and should widen again [at least marginally] later this year. Houston lacks a benchmark, but physical traders indicate that Houston is already pricing about $4 per barrel under Brent, given physical limitations in moving crude out of the area."

 

The Oilholic can confirm that anecdotal evidence does seem to indicate this is the case. So it would be fair to say that Morgan Staley is bang-on in its assessment that the "Houston regional pricing" would only erode further as more crude reaches the area, adding that any move in Brent-WTI towards $6-7 a barrel [from the current $8-plus] should prove unsustainable.

 

Capacity to bring incremental crude to St. James refineries in Louisiana is limited, so the Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) will continue to trade well above Houston pricing; a trend that is likely to continue even after the reversal of the Houston-Houma pipeline – the main crude artery between the Houston physical market and St. James.

 

On a closing note, it seems the 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' affair escalated last week with the Bank of England joining the chorus of indignation. It all began earlier this month when news emerged of Bloomberg's practice of giving its reporters "limited" access to some data considered proprietary, including when a customer looked into broad categories such as equities or bonds.

 

The scoop – first reported by the FT – led to a full apology by Matthew Winkler, Editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, for allowing journalists "limited" access to sensitive data about how clients used its terminals, saying it was "inexcusable". However, Winkler insisted that important and confidential customer data had been protected. Problem is, they aren't just any customers – they include the leading central banks in the OECD.

 

The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have all said they were examining the use of data by Bloomberg. However, the language used by the Bank of England is the sternest so far. The British central bank described the events at Bloomberg as "reprehensible."

 

A spokesperson said, "The protection of confidential information is vital here at the bank. What seems to have happened at Bloomberg is reprehensible. Bank officials are in close contact with Bloomberg…We will also be liaising with other central banks on this matter."

 

In these past few days there have been signs that 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' is growing bigger as Brazil’s central bank and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (the Chinese territory's de facto central bank) have also expressed their indignation. Having been a Bank of England and UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) correspondent, yours truly can personally testify how seriously central banks take issue with such things and so they should.

 

Yet, in describing Bloomberg's practice as "reprehensible", the Bank of England has indicated how serious it thinks the breach of confidence was and how miffed it is. The UK central bank has since received assurances from Bloomberg that there would be no repeat of the issue! You bet! That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Abandoned gas station © Todd Gipstein / National Geographic 

UK Oil & Gas Inc. - The Thatcher Years!

The Oilholic has patiently waited for the fans and despisers of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to quieten down, in wake of her death on April 8, 2013, before giving his humble take on what her premiership did (or in many cases didn’t) for the UK oil and gas Inc. and what she got in return.

 

Her influence on the North Sea exploration and production certainly got a mention in passing in all the tributes and brickbats thrown at the Iron Lady, the longest serving (1979-1990) and only female British Prime Minister. The world’s press ranging from The Economist to the local paper in her former parliamentary constituency – The Hendon & Finchley Times (see covers below) – discussed the legacy of the Iron Lady; that legacy is ‘cruder’ than you think.

 

In the run-up to Thatcher's all-but-in-name state funeral on April 17, the British public was bombarded with flashbacks of her time in the corridors of power. In one of the video runs, yours truly glanced at archived footage of Thatcher at a BP production facility and that said it all. Her impact on the industry and the industry’s impact itself on her premiership were profound to say the least.

 

Academic Peter R. Odell, noted at the time in his book  Oil and World Power (c1986) that, “Countries as diverse as Finland, France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Norway and Britain had all decided to place oil partly, at least, in the public sector.” A later footnote observes, “Britain’s Conservative government, under Mrs. Thatcher, subsequently decided [in 1983] to ‘privatize’ the British National Oil Corporation (BNOC) created by an earlier Labour administration.”

 

The virtue of private free enterprise got instilled into the UK oil and gas industry in general and the North Sea innovators in particular thanks to Thatcher. But to say that the industry somehow owed the Iron Lady a debt of gratitude would be a travesty. Rather, the industry repaid that debt not only in full, but with interest.

 

Just as Thatcher was coming to power, more and more of the crude stuff was being sucked out of the North Sea with UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) being much richer in those days than it certainly is these days. The UK Treasury, under her hawk-eyed watch, was quite simply raking it in. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, government revenue from the oil and gas industry rose from £565 million in fiscal year 1978-79 to £12.04 billion in 1984-85. That is worth over three times as much in 2012 real-terms value, according to a guesstimate provided by a contact at Barclays Capital.

 

Throughout the 1980s, the Iron Lady made sure that the revenue from the [often up to] 90% tax on North Sea oil and gas exploration and production was used as a funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of economic reform. Over three decades on from the crude boom of the 1980s, Brits do wish she had examined, some say even adopted, the Norwegian model.

 

That she privatised the BNOC does not irk the Oilholic one bit, but that not even a drop of black gold and its proceeds – let alone a full blown Norwegian styled sovereign fund – was put aside for a rainy day is nothing short of short-termism or short-sightedness; quite possibly both. One agrees that both macroeconomic and demographical differences between Norway and the UK complicate the discussion. This humble blogger doubts if the thought of creating a sovereign fund didn’t cross the Iron Lady’s mind.

 

But unquestionably, as oil and gas revenue was helping in feeding the rising state benefits bill at the time – all Thatcher saw in Brent, Piper and Cormorant fields were Petropounds to balance the books. And, if you thought the ‘crude’ influence ended in the sale of BNOC, privatisation drives or channelling revenue for short-term economic rebalancing, then think again. Crude oil, or rather a distillate called diesel, came to Thatcher’s aid in her biggest battle in domestic politics – the Miners’ Strike of 1984.

 

Pitting her wits against Arthur Scargill, the National Union of Mineworkers’ (NUM) hardline, stubborn, ultra-left leader at the time, she prevailed. In March 1984, the National Coal Board (NCB) proposed to close 20 of the 174 state-owned mines resulting in the loss of 20,000 jobs. Led by Scargill, two-thirds of the country's miners went on strike and so began the face-off.

 

But Thatcher, unlike her predecessors, was ready for a prolonged battle having learnt her lesson in an earlier brief confrontation with the miners and knew their union’s clout full well based on past histories. This time around, the government had stockpiled coal to ensure that power plants faced no shortages as was the case with previous confrontations.

 

Tongue-tied in his vanity, Scargill had not only missed the pulse of the stockpiling drive but also failed to realise that many UK power plants had switched to diesel as a back-up. Adding to the overall idiocy of the man, he decided to launch the strike in the summer of 1984, when power consumption is lower, than in the winter.

 

Furthermore, he refused to hold a ballot on the strike, after losing three previous ballots on a national strike (in January 1982, October 1982 and March 1983). The strike was declared illegal and Thatcher eventually won as the NUM conceded a year later in March 1985 without any sizable concessions but with its member having borne considerable hardships. The world was moving away from coal, to a different kind of fossil fuel and Thatcher grasped it better than most. That the country was a net producer of crude stuff at the time was a bonanza; the Treasury’s to begin with as she saw it.

 

The Iron Lady left office with an ‘ism’ in the shape of 'Thatcherism' and bred 'Thatcherites' espousing free market ideas and by default making capitalism the dominant, though recently beleaguered, economic system of our time. Big Bang, the day [October 27, 1986] the London Stock Exchange's rules changed, following deregulation of the financial markets, became the cornerstone of her economic policy.

 

In this world there are no moral absolutes. So the Oilholic does not accept the rambunctious arguments offered by left wingers that she made ‘greed’ acceptable or that the Big Bang caused the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Weren’t militant British unions who, for their own selfish odds and ends, held the whole country to ransom throughout the 1970s (until Thatcher decimated them), greedy too? If the Big Bang was to blame for a global financial crisis, so was banking deregulation in the UK in 1997 (and elsewhere around that time) when she was not around.

 

Equally silly, are the fawning accolades handed out by the right wingers; many of whom – and not the British public – were actually instrumental in booting her out of office and some of whom were her colleagues at the time. Let the wider debate about her legacy be where it is, but were it not for the UK oil and gas Inc., there would have been no legacy. Luck played its part, as it so often does in the lives of great leaders. As The Economist noted:

 

“She was also often outrageously lucky: lucky that the striking miners were led by Arthur Scargill, a hardline Marxist; lucky that the British left fractured and insisted on choosing unelectable leaders; lucky that [Argentine] General Galtieri decided to invade the Falkland Islands when he did; lucky that she was a tough woman in a system dominated by patrician men (the wets never knew how to cope with her); lucky in the flow of North Sea oil; and above all lucky in her timing. The post-war consensus was ripe for destruction, and a host of new forces, from personal computers to private equity, aided her more rumbustious form of capitalism.”

 

They say that the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez stage-managed 'Chavismo' and bred 'Chavistas' from the proceeds of black gold. The Oilholic says 'Thatcherism' and 'Thatcherites' have a ‘crude’ dimension too. Choose whatever evidence you like – statistical, empirical or anecdotal – crude oil bankrolled Thatcherism in its infancy. That is the unassailable truth and that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Baroness Margaret Thatcher’s funeral cortege with military honours, April 17, 2013 © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Front page of the Hendon & Finchley Times, April 11, 2013. Photo 3: Front cover of the The Economist, April 13, 2013.

Brent’s liquidity, Nexen, 'crude' Vancouver & more

Last Friday, the Brent forward month futures price plummeted to US$110.65 per barrel thereby losing all of the gains it made in 2013. The WTI price declined in near furious tandem to US$91.92; the  benchmark's lowest intraday price since January 4. An Italian political stalemate and US spending cuts enforced by Congressional gridlock have unleashed the bearish trends. Quite frankly, the troublesome headwinds aren’t going anywhere, anytime soon.

Prior to the onset of recent bearish trends, Bank of America said the upper limit for Brent crude will rise from US$140 per barrel this year to US$175 in 2017 because of constraints on supply. It added that WTI may slip to “US$50 within the next two years” amid booming North American supply. Meanwhile, ratings agency Moody’s expects strong global crude prices in the near term and beyond, with a continued US$15 per barrel premium in favour of Brent versus WTI over 2013.

Moody's still assumes that Brent crude will sell for an average US$100 per barrel in 2013, US$95 in 2014, and US$90 in the medium term, beyond 2014. For WTI, the agency leaves its previous assumptions unchanged at US$85 in 2013, 2014 and thereafter. Away from the fickle pricing melee, there was a noteworthy development last month in terms of Brent’s liquidity profile as a benchmark, which is set to be boosted.

On February 19, Platts proposed the introduction of a quality premium for Ekofisk and Oseberg crudes; two of the four grades constituting the Dated Brent marker. A spokesperson said the move would increase transparency and trading volumes in Dated Brent. The proposal came a mere fortnight after Shell’s adjustments to its trading contract for three North Sea blends including Brent.

The oil major said it would change its contract (SUKO 90) for buying and selling to introduce a premium for the delivery of higher quality Brent, Ekofisk and Oseberg grades. Previously, it only used the Forties grade which was typically the cheapest Brent blend and thus used to price the benchmark by default. BP has also agreed to Shell’s amended pricing proposals in principle.

The Oilholic thinks it is prudent to note that even though Platts is the primary provider of price information for North Sea crude(s), actual contracts such as Shell’s SUKO 90 are the industry’s own model. So in more ways than one, a broad alignment of the thinking of both parties (and BP) is a positive development. Platts is requesting industry feedback on the move by March 10 with changes being incorporated with effect from shipments in May.

However, there are some subtle differences. While Shell has proposed an inclusion of Brent, Platts is only suggesting premiums for Oseberg and Ekofisk grades. According to published information, the oil major, with BP’s approval, has proposed a 25% premium for Brent and Oseberg based on their difference to the Forties differential, and a 50% premium for Ekofisk.

But Platts, is seeking feedback on recommending a flat 50% premium for both Oseberg and Ekofisk. Nonetheless, at a time of a dip in North Sea production, a change of pricing status quo aimed at boosting liquidity ought to be welcomed. Furthermore, there is evidence of activity picking up in the UK sector of the North Sea, with Oil and Gas UK (OGUK), a body representing over 320 operators in the area, suggesting last month that investment was at a 30-year high.

OGUK said companies invested £11.4 billion in 2012 towards North Sea prospection and the figure is expected to rise to £13 billion this year. It credited UK Chancellor George Osborne’s new tax relief measures announced last year, which allowed gas fields in shallow waters to be exempt from a 32% tax on the first £500 million of income, as a key factor.

However, OGUK warned that reserves currently coming onstream have not been fully replaced with new discoveries. That is hardly surprising! In fact, UK production fell to the equivalent of 1.55 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012, down by 14% from 2011 and 30% from 2010. While there may still be 24 billion barrels of oil to be found in the North Sea, the glory days are not coming back. Barrel burnt per barrel extracted or if you prefer Petropounds spent for prospection are only going to rise.

From the North Sea’s future, to the future of a North Sea operator – Canada’s Nexen – the acquisition of which by China’s state-owned CNOOC was finally approved on February 26. It took seven long months for the US$15.1 billion takeover to reach fruition pending regulatory approval in several jurisdictions, not least in Canada.

It was announced that shareholders of the Calgary, Alberta-based Nexen would get US$27.50 in cash for each share, but the conditions imposed by Canadian (and US) regulators for the deal to win approval were not disclosed. More importantly, the Harper administration said that CNOOC-Nexen was the last deal of its kind that the Canadian government would approve.

So it is doubtful that a state-controlled oil company would be taking another majority stake in the oil sands any time soon. The Nexen acquisition makes CNOOC a key operator in the North Sea, along with holdings in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa, Middle East and of course Canada's Long Lake oil sands project (and others) in Alberta.

Meanwhile, Moody’s said the Aa3 ratings and stable outlooks of CNOOC Ltd and CNOOC Group will remain unchanged after the acquisition of Nexen. The agency would also continue to review for upgrade the Baa3 senior unsecured rating and Ba1 subordinated debt rating of Nexen.

Moving away from Nexen but sticking with the region, the country’s Canadian Business magazine asks, “Is Vancouver the new Calgary?”  (Er…we’re not talking about changing weather patterns here). The answer, in 'crude' terms, is a firm “Yes.” The Oilholic has been pondering over this for a good few years. This humble blogger’s research between 2010 and present day, both in Calgary and Vancouver, has always indicated a growing oil & gas sector presence in BC.

However, what is really astonishing is the pace of it all. Between the time that the Oilholic mulled about the issue last year and February 2013, Canadian Business journalist Blair McBride writes that five new oil & gas firms are already in Vancouver. Reliable anecdotal evidence from across the US border in general, and the great state of Texas in particular, suggests more are on their way! Chevron is a dead certain, ExxonMobil is likely to follow.

One thing is for certain, they’re going to need a lot more direct flights soon between Vancouver International and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental airport other than the solitary Continental Airlines route. Hello, anyone from Air Canada reading this post?

Continuing with corporate news, Shell has announced the suspension of its offshore drilling programme in the Arctic for the rest of 2013 in order to give it time to “ensure the readiness of equipment and people.” It was widely expected that prospection in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska would be paused while the US Department of Justice is looking into safety failures.

Shell first obtained licences in 2005 to explore the Arctic Ocean off the Alaskan coastline. Since then, £3 billion has been spent with two exploratory wells completed during the short summer drilling season last year. However, it does not mask the fact that the initiative has been beset with problems including a recent fire on a rig.

Meanwhile, Repsol has announced the sale of its LNG assets for a total of US$6.7 billion to Shell. The deal includes Repsol’s minority stakes in Atlantic LNG (Trinidad & Tobago), Peru LNG and Bahia de Bizkaia Electricidad (BBE), as well as the LNG sale contracts and time charters with their associated loans and debt. It’s a positive for Repsol’s credit rating and Shell’s gas reserves.

As BP’s trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill began last month, Moody’s said the considerable financial uncertainty will continue to weigh on the company’s credit profile until the size of the ultimate potential financial liabilities arising from the April 2010 spill is known.

Away from the trial, the agency expects BP's cash flows to strengthen from 2014 onwards as the company begins to reap benefits of the large roster of upstream projects that it is working on, many of which are based in high-margin regions. “This would help strengthen the group's credit metrics relative to their weaker positioning expected in 2013,” Moody’s notes.

One final bit of corporate news, Vitol – the world's largest oil trading company –  has posted a 2% rise in its 2012 revenue to US$303 billion even though volumes traded fell and profit margins remained under pressure for much of the year. While not placing too much importance on the number, it must be noted that a US$300 billion-plus revenue is more than what Chevron managed and a first for the trading company.

However, it is more than safe to assume Chevron’s profits would be considerably higher than Vitol’s. Regrettably, other than relying on borderline gossip, the Oilholic cannot conduct a comparison via published sources. That’s because unlike listed oil majors like Chevron, private trading houses like Vitol don’t release their profit figures.

That’s all for the moment folks. But on a closing note, this blogger would like to flag-up research by the UK’s Nottingham Trent University which suggests that Libya could generate approximately five times the amount of energy from solar power than it currently produces in crude oil!

The university’s School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment found that if the North African country – which is estimated to be 88% desert terrain – used 0.1% of its landmass to harness solar power, it could produce almost 7 million crude oil barrels worth of energy every day. Currently, Libya produces around 1.41 million bpd. Food for thought indeed! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Oil tanker, English Bay, BC, Canada. Photo 2: Downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada © Gaurav Sharma

Brent’s ‘nine-month high’, Aubrey, BP & more

Oh boy, what one round of positive data, especially from China, does to the oil market! The Brent forward month futures contract for March is within touching distance of a US$120 per barrel price and the bulls are out in force. Last Friday’s intraday price of US$119.17 was a nine-month high; a Brent price level last seen in May 2012. The cause – and you have heard this combination before – was healthy economic data from China, coupled with Syrian turmoil and an Iranian nuclear stalemate.

 

The Oilholic has said so before, and will say it again – the last two factors touted by market commentators have been broadly neutral in terms of their impact for the last six months. It is the relatively good macroeconomic news from China which is principally behind the rally that nearly saw the Brent price breach the US$120 level.

 

The bull-chatter is already in full force. In a note to clients, Goldman Sachs advised them last week to maintain a net long position in the S&P GSCI Brent Crude Total Return Index. The investment bank believes this rally is "less driven by supply shocks and instead by improving demand."

 

"Global oil demand has surprised to the upside in recent months, consistent with the pick-up in economic activity," the bank adds in an investment note. Really? This soon – on one set of data? One thing is for sure, with many Asian markets shut for the Chinese New Year, at least trading volumes will be lighter this week.

 

Nonetheless, the ‘nine-month high’ also crept into the headline inflation debate in the UK where the CPI rate has been flat at 2.7% since October, but commentators reckon the oil spike may nudge it higher. Additionally, the Brent-WTI spread is seen widening yet again towards the US$25 per barrel mark. On a related note, Enterprise Product Partners said that capacity on its Seaway pipeline to the US Gulf of Mexico coast from Cushing, Oklahoma will remain limited until much later this year.

 

Moving away from pricing, news arrived end-January that the inimitable Aubrey McClendon will soon vacate the office of the CEO of Chesapeake Energy. It followed intense scrutiny over the last nine months about revelations, which surfaced in May, regarding his borrowings to finance personal stakes in company wells.

 

As McClendon announced his departure on January 29, the company’s board reiterated that it had found no evidence to date of improper conduct by the CEO. McClendon will continue in his post until a successor is found which should be before April 1st – the day he is set to retire. The announcement marks a sad and unspectacular exit for the great pioneer who co-founded and led Chesapeake Energy from its 1989 inception in Oklahoma City and has been a colourful character in the oil and gas business ever since.

 

Whatever the circumstances of his exit may be, let us not forget that before the so called ‘shale gale’ was blowing, it was McClendon and his ilk who first put their faith in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The rest, and US’ near self-sufficiency in gas supplies, is history.

Meanwhile, BP has been in the crude news for a number of reasons. First off, an additional US$34 billion in claims filed against BP by four US states earlier this month have provided yet another hurdle for the oil giant to overcome as it continues to address the aftermath of the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

 

However, Fitch Ratings not believe that the new round of claims is a game changer. In fact the agency does not think that any final settlement is likely to be enough to interfere with BP's positive medium term credit trajectory. The latest claims come on top of the US$58 billion maximum liability calculated by Fitch. If realised, the cost of the spill could rise up to as much as US$92 billion.

 

The agency said the new claims should be put in the context of an asset sale programme that has raised US$38 billion. “This excludes an additional US$12 billion in cash to come from the sale of TNK-BP this year – upside in our analysis because we gave BP no benefit for the TNK-BP stake. BP had US$19 billion of cash on its balance sheet at 31 December 2012. That is after it has already paid US$38 billion in settlements or into escrow,” it added.

 

Away from the spill, the company announced that it had started production from new facilities at its Valhall field in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea on January 26 with an aim of producing up to 65,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day in the second half of 2013. Valhall's previous output averaged about 42,000 barrels per day (bpd), feeding crude into the Ekofisk oil stream.

 

Earlier this month, BP also said that both consortiums vying to link Azerbaijan's Shah Deniz gas field in the Caspian Sea, into Western European markets have an equal chance of success. BP operates the field which was developed in a consortium partnership with Statoil, Total, Azerbaijan’s Socar, LukAgip (an Eni, LUKoil joint venture) and others.

 

A decision, whether to pipe gas from the field into Austria via the proposed Nabucco (West) pipeline or into Italy through the rival Trans Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) project, is expected to be made by mid-2013. Speaking in Vienna, Al Cook, head of BP's Azeri operations, said, “I genuinely believe both pipelines at the moment have an equal chance. There's certainly no clear-cut answer at the moment.”

 

BP is aiming for the first gas from Shah Deniz II to be delivered to existing customer Turkey in 2018. Early 2019 is the more likely date for the first Azeri gas to reach Western Europe via this major development often touted as one which would reduce European dependence on Russia for its energy supplies.

 

The Shah Deniz consortium owns equity options in both the pipeline projects and Cook did not rule out that both Nabucco (West) and TAP could be built in the long term. Specifically, BP's own equity options, which are part of the Shah Deniz stakes, are pegged at 20% in TAP and 14% in Nabucco. Cook said BP was not “actively seeking” to increase its stake in either project – a wise choice indeed.

 

On February 4, BP said its Q4 2012 net profit, adjusted for non-operating items, currency and accounting effects, fell to US$3.98 billion from US$4.98 billion recorded over the corresponding quarter last year. Moving away from BP, Royal Dutch Shell posted a 6% dip in 2012 profits to US$27 billion on the back of weak oil and gas prices and lower exploration and production (E&P) margins.

 

The Anglo-Dutch oil major reported Q4 earnings of US$7.3 billion, a rise of 13%. However, on an adjusted current cost of supply basis and one-off asset sales, the profit came in at US$5.58 billion. In particular, Shell’s E&P business saw profits dip 14% to US$4.4 billion, notwithstanding an actual 3% increase in oil and gas production levels. However, the company did record stronger refining margins.

 

Ironically, while acknowledging stronger refining margins, Shell confirmed its decision to close most of its Harburg refinery units in Hamburg, Germany. The permanent shutdown of much of its 100,000 bpd refinery is expected next month in line with completing a deal made with Swedish refiner Nynas in 2011.

 

Finally, in a typical Italian muddle, several oil executives in the country are under investigation following a probe into alleged bribery offences related to the awarding of oil services contracts to Saipem in Algeria. Eni has a 43% stake in Saipem which is Europe’s biggest oil services provider. While the company itself denied wrongdoing, the probe was widened last Friday to include Eni CEO Paolo Scaroni.

 

The CEO’s home and office were searched as part of the probe. However, Eni is standing by their man and said it will cooperate fully with the prosecutor’s office in Milan. So far, Pietro Franco Tali (the CEO of Saipem) and Eni’s Chief Financial Officer Alessandro Bernini (who was Saipem’s CFO until 2008) have been the most high profile executives to step down in wake of the probe. Watch this crude space! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Asian oil rig © Cairn Energy. Photo 2: Gas extraction site © Chesapeake Energy.