Why Keystone XL’s delay is not such a bad thing!

Over the last fortnight the Oilholic has been examining the fallout from the US government’s announcement delaying a decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and its decision to explore alternative routes for it from Alberta, Canada to Texas, USA (See map. Click image to enlarge).

To begin with, it gave Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper an opportunity trumpet his country's new-found assertiveness in the energy sphere. A mere three days after the US State department announced the delay, Harper told President Obama, whom he met at the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Hawaii, that his government was working to forcefully advance a trade strategy that looks towards the Asia Pacific.

Harper had strong language for the President and told reporters that since the project will now be delayed for over a year, Canada must (also) look elsewhere. "This highlights why Canada must increase its efforts to ensure it can supply its energy outside the United States and into Asia in particular. And that in the meantime, Canada will step up its efforts in that regard and I communicated that clearly to the president,” he said.

Of course, this version differs significantly from what the White House said but it gives you a flavour of the frustration being felt in Canada. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) says the US government’s decision was disappointing given the three years of extensive analysis already completed and after the US government’s own environmental impact assessment determined the proposed Keystone XL pipeline routing would not have an undue environmental impact.

CAPP President Dave Collyer, whom the Oilholic met back in March, said, “Keystone XL is not about America using more oil, it’s about the source of America’s oil – Canada or elsewhere. It’s also about common economic and geopolitical interests between Canada and the US. While the Keystone delay is unfortunate, we respect the United States regulatory process and remain optimistic the pipeline will be approved on its strong environmental, economic and energy security merits.”

CAPP also seeks to look at the positives and maintains that Canadian oil sands production will not be impacted in the near term and other alternatives are being pursued to ensure market access over the medium term. Simply put, delaying Keystone XL will motivate exploration of other markets for Canadian crude oil products as the Canadian PM has quite clearly stated.

Moving beyond the geopolitical scenario, ratings agency Moody's feels the Keystone XL delay is credit positive for TransCanada Pipelines (TCPL) – the project saga’s chief protagonist – although it does not change TCPL's A3 Senior Unsecured rating or stable outlook given the relative size of the Keystone XL project to TCPL's existing businesses.

In a note to clients on Nov 11, the agency noted that the announcement was likely to cause a material delay in the potential construction of that pipeline, which will actually benefit TCPL's liquidity, leverage and free cash flow, providing the company with a greater financial cushion with which to undertake the project if and when it is fully approved.

Moody's also does not expect the Company to undertake share buybacks with the funds not invested in Keystone XL due to the approval delay. TCPL's liquidity will improve as the construction delay will defer over $5 billion of additional capex (compared to TCPL's total assets of approximately $46 billion).

Furthermore, 75% of additional costs associated with the delay or rerouting is expected to be largely borne by the shippers rather than TCPL. Moody's expects the shippers to agree to a project delay, but that is not certain.

“While the delay may reduce TCPL's growth prospects in the medium term, that is not a major influence in the Company's credit rating. Should the project ultimately be cancelled, Moody's expects that the pipe, which is the largest component of the $1.9 billion that TCPL has already invested in the project and which is already reflected in the company's financial statements, would be repurposed to other projects that would presumably generate additional cash to TCPL over the medium term,” it concludes.

Since then, the US state of Nebraska and TCPL have agreed to find a new route for the stalled pipeline that would ensure it does not pass through environmentally sensitive lands in the state. The deal with Nebraska would see the state fund new studies to find a route that would avoid the Sandhills region and the Ogallala aquifer.

However, the deal will not alter the timeline for a US Federal review, according to the State Department. That means, as the Oilholic noted earlier, the Obama Administration will not have to deal with the issue until after the 2012 election. While that’s smart politics, its dumb energy economics. Right now it appears that the Canadians have less to lose than the Americans.

Moving away from Keystone XL, the crude markets began the week with a bang as the ICE Brent forward month futures contract climbed over US$3 to US$109 per barrel but the rise across the pond was more muted with WTI ending the day at US$98.20 unable to hold on to earlier gains. Jack Pollard, analyst at Sucden Financial Research, feels that Middle-Eastern tensions provided significant support to the upside momentum.

“Yesterday we had the first day of Egyptian elections, with the final vote not due until early to middle January and the interim prospect of further violence could maintain volatility. Furthermore, the pressure on Syria increased even further with some suggesting a no-fly zone could be in the offing,” he said.

However, the Oilholic and Pollard are in agreement that the main market driver emanated from Iran. “Ever since the IAEA report on November 8th we have seen the possibility of supply disruptions contribute to crude oil price’s resilience relative to the rest of the commodity complex. On Monday, we heard reports that Iran’s government had officially voted in favour of revising down their diplomatic relations with the UK, ejecting the ambassador. Should the situation escalate further, the potential for upside could increase significantly, disproportionately so for Brent,” Pollard concludes.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Map: All proposals of Canadian & US Crude Oil Pipelines © CAPP (Click map to enlarge)

Keystone XL, politics & the King’s Speech

Even before the original Keystone cross-border pipeline project aimed at bringing Canadian crude oil to the doorstep of US refineries had been completed, calls were growing for an extension. The original pipeline which links Hardisty (Alberta, Canada) to Cushing (Oklahoma) and Patoka (Illinois) became operational in June 2010, just as another, albeit atypical US-Canadian tussle was brewing.

The extension project – Keystone XL first proposed in 2008, again starting from Hardisty but with a different route and an extension to Houston and Port Arthur (Texas) is still stuck in the quagmire of US politics, environmental reticence, planning laws and bituminous mix of the Canadian oil sands.

The need for extension is exactly what formed the basis of the original Keystone project – Canada is already the biggest supplier of crude oil to the US; and it is only logical that its share should rise and in all likelihood will rise. Keystone XL according to one of its sponsors – TransCanada – would have the capacity to raise the existing capacity by 591,000 barrels per day though the initial dispatch proposal is more likely to be in the range of 510,000 barrels.

Having visited both the proposed ends of the pipeline in Alberta and Texas, the Oilholic finds the sense of frustration only too palpable more so because infrastructural challenges and the merits (or otherwise) of the extension project are not being talked about. To begin with the project has a loud ‘fan’ club and an equally boisterous ‘ban’ club. Since it is a cross-border project, US secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to play the role of referee.

A pattern seems to be emerging. A group of 14 US senators here and 39 there with their counterparts across the border would write to her explaining the merits only for environmental groups, whom I found to be very well funded – rather than the little guys they claim to be – launching a counter representation. That has been the drill since Clinton took office.

One US senator told me, “If we can’t trust the Canadians in this geopolitical climate then who can we trust. Go examine it yourself.” On the other hand, an environmental group which tries to get tourists to boycott Alberta because of its oil sands business tried its best to convince me not to land in Calgary. I did so anyway, not being a tourist in any case.

Since 2008, TransCanada has held nearly 100 open houses and public meetings along the pipeline route; given hundreds of hours of testimony to local, state and federal officials and submitted thousands of pages of information to government agencies in response to questions. The environmentalists did not tell me, but no prizes for guessing who did and with proof. This is the kind of salvo being traded.

Send fools on a fool’s errand!

It is not that TransCanda, its partner ConocoPhillips and their American and Canadian support base know something we do not. It is a fact that for some years yet – and even in light of falling gasoline consumption levels – the US would remain the world’s largest importer of crude oil. China should surpass it, but this will not happen overnight.

The opponents of oil sands have gotten the narrative engrained in a wider debate on the environment and the energy mix. Going forward, they view Keystone XL and other incremental pipeline projects in the US as perpetuating reliance on crude oil and are opposing the project on that basis.

Given the current geopolitical climate, environmental groups in California and British Columbia impressed upon this blogger that stunting Alberta’s oil sands – hitherto the second largest proven oil reserve after Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar extraction zone – would somehow send American oilholics to an early bath and force a green age. This is a load of nonsense.

Au contraire, it will increase US dependency on Middle Eastern oil and spike the price. Agreed the connection is neither simple nor linear – but foreign supply will rise not fall. Keystone XL brings this crude foreign product from a friendly source.

Everyone in Alberta admits work needs to be done by the industry to meet environmental concerns. However, a 'wells to wheels' analysis of CO2 emissions, most notably by IHS CERA and many North American institutions has confirmed that oil sands crude is only 5 to 15 per cent ‘dirtier’ than US sweet crude mix.

The figure compares favourably with Nigerian, Mexican and Venezuelan crude which the US already imports. So branding Canadian crude as dirty and holding up Keystone XL on this basis is a bit rich coming from the US. Keystone XL increases US access to Canadian crude. Who would the Americans rather buy from Canada or Venezuela? Surveys suggest the former.

The pragmatists at CAPP

Over a meeting in Calgary, Dave Collyer, President of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) told the Oilholic that they have always viewed Keystone XL as an opportunity to link up Western Canada to the US Gulf coast market, to replace production that would otherwise be imported by the US from overseas sources most notably Venezuela and Mexico where production is declining according to available data. There are also noticeable political impediments in case of the former.

“We don’t see this pipeline extension as incremental supply into that orbit, rather a replacement of existing production through a relatively straightforward pipeline project, akin to many other pipeline projects and extensions that have been built into the US,” Collyer said.

Energy infrastructure players, market commentators and CAPP make another valid point – why are we not debating scope of the Keystone XL project and its economic impact and focussing on the crude stuff it would deliver across the border? CAPP for its part takes a very pragmatic line.

“Do we think there is legitimacy in the argument that is being made against Keystone? No (for the most part) but the reality is that there has to be due consideration in the US. I would assume the US State Department is in a position where it has no alternative but to employ an abundance of caution to ensure that all due processes are met. What frustrates Canadians and Americans alike is the length of time that it has taken. However, at the end of the day when we get that approval and it is a robust one which withstands a strict level of scrutiny then it’s a good thing,” Collyer said.

T I M B E R!

Canadians and Americans first started bickering about timber, another Canadian resource needed in the US, about taxation, ethics, alleged subsidies and all the rest of it way back in 1981. Thirty years later, not much has changed as they are still at it. But these days it barely makes the local news in Canada each time the Americans take some reactive action or the other against the timber industry. Reason – since 2003 there has been another buyer in town – China.

In 2010, timber sales from Canada to China (and Japan to a lesser extent) exceed those to the US. Over the last half-decade timber exports from the province of British Columbia alone to China rose 10 times over on an annualised basis. Moral of the story, the US is not the only player in town whatever the natural resource. Canadians feel a sense of frustration with the US, and rightly so according to Scott Rusty Miller, managing partner of Ogilvy Renault (soon to be part of Norton Rose) in Calgary.

“We are close to the US, we are secure and we have scruples. Our industry is more open to outside scrutiny and environmental standards than perhaps many or in fact any other country the US imports crude oil from – yet there are these legal impediments. Scrutiny is fine. It’s imperative in this business, but not to such an extent that it starts frustrating a project,” Miller noted.

Ask anyone at CAPP or any Toronto-based market analyst if Canada could look elsewhere – you would get an answer back with a smile; only the Americans probably would not join them. The Oilholic asked Collyer if Americans should fear such moves.

His reply was, “As our crude production grows we would like access to the wider crude oil markets. Historically those markets have almost entirely been in the US and we are optimistic that these would continue to grow. Unquestionably there is increasing interest in the Oil sands from overseas and market diversification to Asia is neither lost on Canadians nor is it a taboo subject for us.”

CAPP has noted increasing interest from Chinese, Korean and other Asian players when it comes to buying in to both crude oil reserves and natural gas in Western Canada. Interest alone does not create a market – but backed up by infrastructure at both ends, it strengthens the relationship between markets Canadians have traditionally not looked at. All of this shifts emphasis on Canadian West coast exports.

“Is it going to be straightforward to get a pipeline to the West coast – we’ll all acknowledge that it’s not. For instance, Enbridge has its challenges with the Gateway pipeline. There is an interest in having an alternative market. There are drivers in trying to pursue that and I would say collectively this raises the “fear” you mention and with some factual basis. However, the US has been a great market and should continue to be a great market...while some caution is warranted,” he concluded.

The King’s speech

We’re not talking about Bertie, (King George VI of England) but Barack (The King of gasoline consumers and the US President). On March 30th, the King rose and told his audience at Georgetown University that he would be targeting a one-third reduction in US crude imports by 2025.

“I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we have got to look at neighbours like Canada and Mexico that are stable, steady and reliable sources,” he added. While I am reliably informed that the speech was not picked up by Chinese state television, the Canadian press went into overdrive. The Globe and Mail, the country’s leading newspaper, declared “Obama signals new reliance on oil sands.”

Shares of Canadian oil and service companies rose the next day on the Toronto Exchange, even gas producers benefited and 'pro-Keystone XL' American senators queued up on networks to de facto say “We love you, we told you so.” Beyond the hyped response, there is a solid reason. Keystone XL bridges both markets – a friendly producer to a friendly consumer with wide ranging economic benefits.

According to Miller, “Refining capacity exists down south. Some refineries on the US Gulf coast could be upgraded at a much lower cost compared to building new infrastructure. There are economic opportunities for both sides courtesy this project – we are not just talking jobs, but an improvement of the regional macro scenario. Furthermore, however short or long, it could be a shot in the arm for the much beleaguered and low-margin haunted refining business.”

The pipeline could also help Canadians export surplus crude using US ports in the Gulf and tax benefits could accrue not just at the Texan end but along the route as well. That the oil sands are in Canada is a geological stroke of luck, given the unpredictability of OPEC and Russian supplies. The US State Department says it will conclude its review of Keystone XL later this year. Subjecting this project to scrutiny is imperative, but bludgeoning it with impediments would be ‘crudely’ unwise.

This post contains excerpts from an article written by the Oilholic for UK's Infrastructure Journal. While the author retains serial rights, the copyright is shared with the publication in question.

Gaurav Sharma 2011 © Gaurav Sharma and Infrastructure Journal 2011. Map: All proposals of Canadian & US Crude Oil Pipelines © CAPP (Click map to enlarge)

Oh the market ‘insouciance’ outside is frightful!

It is no longer strange to see Americans and Canadians complain about the rising price of gasoline. After all, it’s the price at the pump which hurts us all – something which has seen a steady rise.

A short-term respite is quite frankly not in sight; more so for Europeans but complaints from North American consumers and change in consumption patterns (in relative terms) have grown in the last five years. Although some in the English town of Bradford, who pay more for their petrol/per litre than North Americans, got a temporary one-off respite according to the BBC, after the station staff put a decimal point in the wrong place. The story is hilarious, aptly timed for April Fools Day and one for the little guy troubled by rising inflation in UK.

US President Obama finally pointed to Canada, Mexico as reliable sources of crude oil and said they could play their part in his consuming nation’s bid to slash imports from unfriendly governments. Both countries rank higher than Saudi Arabia in terms of crude exports to the US, so very welcome quotes – but as with all else about him – a bit late.

The short-term problem – and a global one it is too – is the widening of premium between easier to refine sweet crude oil and sour crude which is the opposite. Anecdotal evidence, either side of the Atlantic is that refiners (either European or European subsidiaries of overseas owners), are paying record physical premiums to secure supplies of sweet crude in wake of the Libyan stand-off.

The quality of Libyan sweet crude is excellent and as a short-term problem starts resembling a longer termed stand-off, the market is getting spooked as no one can make up their minds about who is in charge of the country. That’s despite the on / off media reports of oil being loaded on to tankers both on the rebels’ side and Gaddafi’s side.

End result - Brent Crude forward month futures (May) contract, more reflective of global conditions, has spiked to a 30-month high. Oilholic believes this is no ordinary or linear spike resulting from a geopolitical bias/risk premium to the upside. Rather it is clearly reflective of the rise in price differentials between sweet and sour crude in wake of Libya and hence impacts Brent as a benchmark to a greater extent than the WTI.

As early as a fortnight ago, the IEA rightly warned that we are underestimating the impact of the temporary (or otherwise) loss of Libyan sweet crude on traded paper barrels. In its monthly report for March, it noted, "Market insouciance may change abruptly as April approaches, when global crude demand is expected to increase by around 1 million barrels a day as Atlantic Basin refinery maintenance ends."

Sweet crude varieties are trading at a premium of US$2.80 to US$4.10 per barrel above sour varieties, according to the Oilholic’s sources. This is the highest for some time. Try as they might, Saudis won’t materially alter this; the premium has solid foundations!

Finally before I leave Canada for San Francisco, here is a brilliant editorial in The Economist about European nations trying to forget embarrassing ties in the Middle East and a BBC report on Transocean’s 'crude' announcement of bonuses related to their "best year of safety."

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Gas Station, Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2011

Yachting, Golfing & Blogging after BP's Oil-spill

As the BP-spill, its containment, aftermath, costs and impact on the industry are scrutinised from all possible angles, side issues which dominate the headlines are about as farcical as they can be. It emerged on June 20 that BP’s egregious CEO Tony Hayward took a break from overlooking the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and committing a series of PR disasters, to spend a day with his teenage son on Father’s day, yachting off the “pristine” (as many American media outlets stress) coast of the UK.

US politicians never loathe showing false anger and lost no time in criticising him, with the charge being led by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. However, it then emerged that President Obama, carted off for a few rounds of golf taking the Vice-President along for the ride, that’s after attending a baseball game for good measure. This enabled his opponents to level the same criticism at him and made his Chief of staff look like a jack-ass (as if he needed any help in that department).

Blogger Scott Coen asked why different rules should apply for both men facing criticism for the handling of the ongoing spill? As did UK's Telegraph newspaper. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele couldn’t agree more putting in his two bits worth. Some were busy revealing how much in political campaign donations had President Obama taken from BP. Turns out he's on top of the pile. Wonder if they will even exchange Christmas cards this year.

Yours truly also felt the need to go beyond his own blog – say a thing or two on BBC reporter Robert Peston and Mark Mardell Blogs. (Click image icons below for text)

As everyone big or small exchanges hot air, tragically the oil spill is far from being plugged amid worries that Tropical storm Alex might hit the spill area this week thereby hampering containment operations.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © BBC

A Bashed-up BP and a Desperate President

Just how much political capital is worth is one tough question? President Obama is playing a strange and desperate game in his repetitive bashing of BP over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A clear strategy seems to be emerging – whenever the President feels the heat, he calculates that a rant (sprinkled with real or staged anger) against BP will help. It makes for good political theatre and to a certain extent it plays out well to an American audience. Having trawled the blogosphere as well as key US news reports, I found very little, if any, mention of Transocean or Halliburton or the fact that it was a rig built, operated and managed by Americans.

Obama can’t bash BP and see all of the pain being felt across the Pond. As many commentators on either side of the Atlantic, including the BBC’s Business Editor Robert Peston, have noted nearly 40% of its shares are held in the US. The financial pain will and perhaps already is being felt in Britain – whether we’re talking pension funds or investment trust ISAs. But the Brit’s wallets, Gulf Coastline Residents and wildlife would not be the only ones to suffer.

Long-term investors are not panicking (yet!) according to my investigations. If anything, from what I hear in the City, many opine now would be a “good time to buy BP shares” on the cheap. One mute point is that crude oil is trading in the circa of US$71 – 77 per barrel in recent weeks. It stood at $74-plus levels the last time I checked. It is not as if crude futures are trading at sub $10 levels, and the US is the only market BP operates in?

I would stress that no one denies the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill is an appalling tragedy in more ways than one. However, drilling in the Gulf is crucial for the energy security of the United States. Obama acknowledged just as much in a speech in March prior to this incident. This morning the International Energy Agency (IEA) opined that a long-term impact on future off-shore supply was unlikely in wake of the incident.

“The longer-lasting impact of Deepwater Horizon on U.S. oil supplies may depend on whether operational negligence on the part of companies or regulators, or rather shortcomings in current operating procedures and regulatory structures, were the key cause. The former might suggest a less profound impact on future oil supply than the latter,” the agency said.

Additionally, the IEA made another interesting comment. It said the US government was now belatedly following the steps taken by the UK after the Piper Alpha disaster (1988) - but noted that scores of new offshore fields were developed in the subsequent demand.

In the interim, what’s influencing markets’ sentiment about BP momentarily is that both the US President and the company’s executives sound desperate given the battering they’ve taken in recent weeks. Neither is helping either which is a real shame.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Logo Courtesy © BP Plc

To Drill or Not to Drill Mr. President?

One cannot but help feeling for President Barack Obama. As a candidate and Democrat nominee for the highest American office, Obama was often sceptical about offshore drilling. While his opponents were screaming “Drill Baby Drill,” the then young senator from Illinois was not convinced for his own reasons – some sound, others well – not all that sound.

As President, facing the ground realities and very real concerns about US energy security, Obama made the correct call on March 31 to permit offshore drilling off the US coastline. His opponents claimed the President was not going far enough. Some on his own side claimed he was pandering to the Republicans.

Sadly, before the dust could settle, on April 20th, an environmentally tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that followed an explosion on an offshore rig, complicated the scenario further. More so executives, from both - oil giant BP which commissioned the rig and Transocean, one of the world’s largest offshore drilling companies, and the rig's operator - did not acquit themselves well in front of American legislators by trying to shift the blame for the incident.

As both companies were trying their hardest to ensure that they do not endear themselves to the American public, the President summed up the emotions, “The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t...There’s enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it. That includes, by the way, the federal government.”

Trouble is, even though he says oil exploration and drilling must still be part of US energy strategy, the issue has become more political than ever. Following the spill, Obama announced a moratorium on new offshore drilling projects unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent another disaster.

Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger said the accident had caused him to drop his support for new offshore drilling in his state. "You turn on the television and see this enormous disaster. You say to yourself, 'Why would we want to take on that kind of risk?” he added.

Across the political divide politicians are asking the very same questions, albeit not for the same reasons. Let us take things into perspective. No one, not least the author of this blog, or people within or outside the oil world including BP (who may have to foot most if not all of the bill to clean up the mess), are suggesting for a moment that what has happened is not terrible and tragic in equal measure.

However, the spill will make it harder for America to follow an energy policy that could actually deliver long-term satisfaction. Some in political circles would try their best to pander to the voting public’s fears for their own gains. Here is a telling fact - before the latest oil spill began on April 20th; the last “big” oil platform leak in the US was 40 years ago. Exxon Valdez incident, though related, cannot be brought into the equation.

So, while any such incident is regrettable to say the least, the figure not only speaks for itself but also indicates that safety standards have improved markedly. However, the figure is something the politicians risk even raising, let alone rely upon to justify offshore drilling and the list does include the President. The oil spill, will be contained and hopefully soon, but US energy policy is currently in a mess and all at sea. Actually it could be both and that in itself is no laughing matter.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © The White House website