Showing posts with label GlobalData. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GlobalData. Show all posts

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Of long calls and more Colombian barrels

Despite an awful lot of bearishness in the market, and global inventories showing no tangible signs of rebalancing, the Oilholic finds the number of long plays in the market to be astounding.

In fact, US shale producers are in their element, and producing comfortably at the current oil price range. 

As the International Energy Agency noted at the recently concluded 22nd World Petroleum Congress - "the only oil producing region that has actually seen a rise in investment has been American shale, where compared to 2016, investments are up 53%."

Here are yours truly's thoughts in greater detail via a Forbes op-ed. Away from the oil price, given  a sequence of the OPEC meeting, a trip to New York and the World Petroleum Congress, a report on Colombian oil production - published by GlobalData earlier in the month - escaped this blogger's attention. 

It is well worth a crude read, for the research and analysis outfit suggests Colombia is well on track to reinvigorate its upstream sector after the oil price shock. 

"Improvements already made to the country's royalty framework will benefit licenses currently held in the exploration phase, which may provide some stimulus in the short to medium term, and more flexible licensing procedures are likely to lead to greater uptake of available exploration acreage. However, based on recent life-cycles from exploration to production any newly awarded areas over the next two years will be unlikely to add significant production before 2025," GlobalData notes. 

This could change; and as for offshore development, Colombia represents one of the most competitive regimes in Latin America and interest in its Caribbean exploration has been steadily growing over recent years. 

The fiscal regime, according to GlobalData, is currently geared to foster investment with a regionally and internationally low fiscal take. The government is reportedly planning to include areas in the Caribbean Sea as part of the open areas to be made available in 2018, and a recent large gas discovery in the area by Anadarko highlights the potential of this underexplored region.

Colombia's Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos (ANH) is set to open onshore areas in the North and Northwest of the country in the Sinú-San Jacinto, Llanos Orientales and Medio Valle del Magdalena basins on an open basis and adding areas in the Caguan-Putamayo basin in 2018, with the number of areas available for exploration potentially rising from 20 to 40. 

The country's current production level is in the region of 706,000 barrels per day (bpd). While that is considerably below its 2015 peak of 1.005 million bpd, more barrels are imminent over the medium term. 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 follow The Oilholic on IBTimes UK click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

© Gaurav Sharma 2017. Photo: Oil tankers in the Persian Gulf off Musandam Peninsula, Oman © Gaurav Sharma 2013.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

‘Cash-all-gone’ project and [Too Much] Oil and [Less] Money Conference

After billions of dollars being spent, delays and pipeline leaks, Kazakhstan's offshore Caspian Sea located Kashagan oilfield – often dubbed ‘cash-all-gone’ by the wider energy industry – is back onstream with its first cargo having been dispatched and a gradual uptick in production to 370,000 barrels per day (bpd) expected by the fourth quarter of 2017.

Discovered at the turn of the millennium, the much maligned Kashagan has cost at least $50 billion so far. A report by CNN Money back in 2012 claimed a staggering $116 billion had been spent, something that those involved hotly contest. Deemed the main source of supply for the Kazakhstan-China Oil pipeline, the field also has a $5 billion stake in it owned by China.

While its good news all around, the only issue is that one of the most expensive offshore oil projects in the world is coming onstream at a time when the oil price is lurking around $50 per barrel and the market is wishing there were fewer barrels of the crude stuff rather than more.

With all gathering and processing infrastructure in place for a 2013 start, including 20 pre-drilled production wells, Kashagan could have captured the upside of record high oil prices if had production continued as planned back then, say the good folks at research and consulting outfit GlobalData. However, a pipeline leak scuppered it all back then and triggered another protracted delay.

Anna Belova, GlobalData’s Senior Oil & Gas Analyst, says,"Instead, the project has restarted in today's oversupplied market, and while the oil price has rebounded, the current levels would not justify Kashagan's full cycle capital expenditure (capex), which exceeds $47 billion to date."

One thing is all but guaranteed; more oil barrels are on their way to the global supply pool. Belova adds: "Current processing capacity for Kashagan’s Phase 1 with all three lines online targets 370,000 bpd, potentially increasing to 450,000 bpd but under the 495,000 bpd capacity.

"With a large number of pre-drilled wells and a multi-stage processing build-up, Kashagan is well positioned to reach its targeted capacity for Phase 1 by 2018. This paves the way for negotiations on full-field development that has a potential bring over 1.1 million bpd to global crude markets."

Wonder if someone has sent the projections to Russia and OPEC? For a real-terms cut of say 1.5 million bpd – should there by one from the first quarter of 2017 onward coordinated by Riyadh and Moscow – would be more or less made up by Kashagan alone within 12 months, forget other non-OPEC producers. What's more, much of it would be going straight via pipeline to China, currently the world's largest importer of crude.

As for the oil price, despite net-shorts being at their lowest in weeks, if US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) data is anything to go by, we are still stuck pretty much either side of $50 per barrel. Here's the Oilholic’s latest take in a Forbes post.

Meanwhile, a veritable who’s-who of oil and gas industry arrived in London last week for the Oil and Money Conference 2016, an industry jamboree that could well have been renamed – "Too Much Oil and Less Money" Conference for its latest installment. Beyond the soundbites and customary  schmoozing, this year's Petroleum Executive of the Year was Khalid Al-Falih, who has been in his job as Saudi Energy Minister for a really long five months, but the accolade one suspects was for his role as Chairman of Saudi Aramco.

However, the good thing about these annual industry shindigs is that you get to meet old friends, among whom the Oilholic counts Deborah Byers, EY’s Oil & Gas Leader and Managing Partner of its Houston Practice as one.

While EY is not in the business of price forecasting, Byers suggests the industry is adjusting to a new normal in the $40-60 per barrel range, one that would be hard to shake-off over the short-term barring a high magnitude geopolitical event.

“Even if OPEC cuts production in November, I believe market rebalancing in its wake would only last for a little while, with non-OPEC production also benefitting from any decision taken in Vienna.”

The pragmatic EY expert also doesn’t buy the argument made in certain quarters that the US either is or could be a swing producer. "In a classic sense, Saudi Arabia is the only global swing producer – it has significant reserves, the tapping of which it can turn up or down at will. You cannot replicate that scenario in non-OPEC markets, including the US. What the American shale sector can do is put a ceiling on the oil price and keep the market in check."

Away from oil prices, one final snippet before the Oilholic takes your leave; Moody's has upgraded all ratings of the beleaguered Petrobras, including the company's senior unsecured debt and corporate family rating (CFR), to B2 from B3, given "lower liquidity risk and prospects of better operating performance" in the medium term.

In a move following the close of markets on Friday, the ratings agency said that Petrobas' liquidity risk has declined over the last few months on the back of $9.1 billion in asset sales so far in 2016 and around $10 billion in exchanged notes during the third quarter, which extended the company's debt maturity profile

However, Moody’s cautioned that plenty still needs to be resolved. For instance, sidestepping existing financial woes, low oil prices, a class action lawsuit, the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)'s civil investigation and the US Department of Justice (DoJ)'s criminal investigation related to bribery and corruption will negatively affect the company's cash position. Afterall, ascertaining the settlement amount remains unclear, and won't be known for some time yet. 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 follow The Oilholic on IBTimes UK click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com 


© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo: Abandoned petrol station in Preston, Connecticut, USA ©
Todd Gipstein/National Geographic.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Volatile yet flat-ish Q1 points to $40-50/bbl price

The first quarter of 2016 has been pretty volatile for oil benchmarks. Yet if you iron out the relative daily ups and downs in percentage terms, both global benchmarks and the OPEC basket are marginally higher than early January (see chart left, click to enlarge). 

Brent, at $37.28 per barrel back then, ended Friday trading at $41.78, while WTI ended at $39.53, up from $37.04 in early January. That’s a fairly flat outcome following the end of a three-month period, but in line with the Oilholic’s conjecture of an initial slow creep above $40 per barrel by June, followed by yet another crawl up to  $50 per barrel (or thereabout) by Christmas (as the Oilholic opined on Forbes).

Moving on from pricing matters, a new report from GlobalData suggests crude refining capacity is set to increase worldwide from 96.2 million bpd in 2015 to 118.1 million bpd by 2020, registering a total growth of 18.5%.

In line with market expectations, the research and consulting firm agrees that global growth will be led by China and Southeast Asia. A total of $170 billion is expected to be spent in Asia alone to increase capacity by around 9 million bpd over the next four years, GlobalData added.

Matthew Jurecky, Head of Oil & Gas Research at the firm said: “The global refining landscape continues its shift eastwards; 40% of global refining capacity is projected to be in Asia by 2020, up from around 30% in 2010.

“China has led this growth, and is projected to have a 15% share of global crude refining capacity by 2020. This activity is putting pressure on other regional refiners, especially now that China has become a net exporter, and will become a larger one.”

In Europe, growth is expected to occur at a substantially slower rate. Although demand is decreasing and is less competitive, older refineries in Western Europe are being closed, these factors are being countered by investment in geographically advantaged and resource-rich Russia, which sees Europe’s capacity increasing marginally from 21.7 million bpd in 2015 to 22.5 million bpd by 2020.

Away the refining world to the integrated majors, with a few noteworthy ratings actions to report – Moody’s has downgraded Royal Dutch Shell to Aa2 with a negative outlook, Chevron to Aa2 with a stable outlook, Total to Aa3 with a stable outlook and reaffirmed BP at A2 with a positive outlook. 

Separately, Fitch Ratings has affirmed Halliburton at A-, with the oilfield services firm’s outlook revised to negative. 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 follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

That 1980s feeling, Saudi Oil, Ebola & more

Brent dipped below US$84 per barrel at one point this week while the WTI is holding above the $80 level. It’ll be interesting to note how the December futures contract fares as the Northern Hemisphere winter approaches with bearish headwinds lurking in the background. From here on, much will depend on what happens at the next OPEC meeting on November 27, where a production cut has the potential to partially stem the decline.

By the time of the meeting in Vienna, we’d already be well into the ICE Brent January contract. The mere possibility of a production cut isn’t enough to reverse the slide at the moment given wider market conditions. But as ever, OPEC members are presenting a disunited front diluting any market sentiments aimed at pricing in a potential cut.

The answer lies in an interesting graphic published by The Economist (click here) indicating price levels major producers would be comfortable with. There are no surprises in noting that Iran, Venezuela and Russia are probably the most worried of all exporters. While several OPEC members prefer at least a $100 price floor, in recent weeks Saudi Arabia has quite openly indicated it can tolerate the price falling below $90.

The Saudis also lowered their asking price in a bid to maintain market share. That’s bad news for most of OPEC, excluding Kuwait and UAE. In turn, Iran responded by lowering its asking price as well even though it can't afford to. So the debate has already started, whether in not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the 1980s which left it with a weakened market share; Saudi Arabia might in fact trigger OPEC discord and a slump akin to 1986.

While the Oilholic doubts it, certain OPEC members wouldn’t be the only ones hurt by the Saudi stance which abets existing bearish trends. US shale and Canadian oil sands exploration and production (E&P) enthusiasts will be troubled too. While the oil price is tumbling, the price of extracting the crude stuff isn’t.

Fitch Ratings says Brent could dip to $80 before triggering a self-correcting supply response with shale oil drillers cutting investment in new wells. Anecdotal evidence sent forth by the Oilholic’s contacts in Calgary point to similar sentiments being expressed in relation to the oil sands. 

The steep rate at which production from shale wells declines mean companies have to keep drilling new wells to maintain production. Fitch estimates median full-cycle costs for E&P companies have fallen to about $70 in the US. The marginal barrel, not the median one, balances supply and demand and determines price, so the point at which capex falls will probably be higher.

Over the short-term, Fitch considers a resurgence of supply disruptions and positive action from OPEC as the most likely catalysts for a rebound in prices. “But without these, further declines might be possible, especially if evidence grows of further weakening of global demand or increasing OPEC spare capacity,” the agency adds.

Longer term, an uptick in economic activity in China and India will contribute to a growth in oil demand. However, what we’re dealing with is short-term weakness. IEA demand growth for 2015 has been revised by 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) and 2014’s estimate by 200,00 bpd. The Oilholic suspects Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE are only too aware of this and capable enough to withstand it.

Dorian Lucas, analyst at Inenco, says, “We’re seeing the largest in over two years spurred by accumulating evidence of waning global demand, whilst buoyant supply continues to drown the market. The extent to which supply has buoyed is evident when assessing September 2014 in isolation. Global oil supply rose over 900,000 bpd to total of 93.8 million bpd, this is over 2.5 million bpd higher than the same time last year.”

What happens at OPEC’s next meeting would depend on the Saudis. The Oilholic still rates the chances of a production cut at 40%. One feels that having the capacity to withstand a short-term price shock, Saudi Arabia wouldn’t mind other producers squirming in the interest of self-preservation.

Meanwhile, the industry is also grappling with the unfolding Ebola outbreak which has claimed thousands of lives in West Africa. Unsurprising anecdotal evidence is emerging of companies having difficulty in finding engineering experts, roughnecks or support staff willing to work at West African prospection sites.

In order to get a base case idea, browse job openings at a recruitment site (for example – Rigzone) and you’ll find pay rates for working in West Africa climb above sub-zero winter working rates on offer at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada. Three recruitment consultants known to this blogger have expressed similar sentiments.

While most of the drilling is offshore, workers' compounds are onshore in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Additionally, local workers return to their homes mingling with the general population at risk of getting infected. The fear is putting off workers, and many companies have internal moratoriums on travel to the region.

Forget workers, even investors are having second thoughts for the moment. Both Reuters and USA Today have reported caginess at ExxonMobil about the commencement of offshore drilling in Liberia at the present moment in time.The company already restricts non essential travel by its employees to the region. Shell and Chevron have similar safeguards in an industry heavily reliant on expat workers.

GlobalData says of the affected African countries only Nigeria is equipped to handle the Ebola outbreak.  GDP of the said countries is likely to take a hit from loss of lives and revenue. International SOS, a Control Risks Group affiliate company which provides integrated medical, clinical, and security services to organisations with international operations, has been constantly updating advice for corporate travel to Guinea, Liberia or Sierra Leone, the current one being to avoidance all non-essential travel to the region.

Fitch Ratings says at present, the Ebola outbreak does not have any credit ratings implications for E&P companies in the region. Alex Griffiths, Head of EMEA, Natural Resources and Commodities, notes: “Our key consideration is how well the companies manage the Ebola risk. From a risk rating standpoint, we’re in early days. Fitch will continue to monitor the situation over the coming months.”

Away from Ebola, here’s the Oilholic’s take via a Forbes post on the future of integrated IOCs. Lastly, news has emerged that Statoil CEO Helge Lund has been appointed CEO of the much beleaguered BG Group with effect from March 2015. The soon to be boss said he was looking forward to working with BG’s people “to develop the company’s full potential.”

The announcement was roundly cheered in the City given the high regard Lund is held in by the wider oil and gas industry. To quote Investec analyst Neill Morton, “BG still faces challenges, but we believe it has a better chance of addressing them with Lund on board.”

We shall see whether Statoil’s loss is indeed BG Group’s gain. 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 follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo: Vintage Shell Fuel Pump, San Francisco, USA © Gaurav Sharma.

Saturday, March 29, 2014

EU’s ‘least worst’ gas supply scenarios & more

The Oilholic spent last Friday evening downing a few drinks with a 'civil servant' of the diplomatic variety who'd returned back from the recently concluded Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, where the Ukrainian standoff dominated most conversations. But before you get excited, yours truly has no 'Jack Bauer'-level clearance gossip!

However, with 53 nations represented – there were quite a few suits around, and contrary to popular belief, the stiff suits do gossip! Credible intel does appear to suggest that some Europeans did a very fine 'Clinton post-Lewinsky scandal' impression in a geopolitically fresh context which kinda ran like: "We do not have relations with that man Putin." Of course, they were, as Clinton was back in the day, being a little less frugal with the truth.

The Americans already knew that but didn't say so out of diplomatic courtesy, at least not in public. The Oilholic wouldn't have been so courteous, but then yours truly isn't in the diplomatic service. From the Baltics to the Balkans, Russian exports of natural gas dominate the energy spectrum built on hitherto seemingly inextricable relations, whether amicable or not.

Despite promising to diversify their supplies when the Georgian skirmish happened in 2008, not much has changed, as The Oilholic noted earlier this month. As a direct consequence, US sanctions against Russia appear to better structured compared to European ones which look like a rag-bag of measures to accommodate everyone and annoy no one – especially President Putin, who doesn't really care about them in the first place! Most pressing question is – what now for the EU energy equation?

Just as the suits were winding up, Jaroslav Neverovič, Lithuania's energy minister made an impassioned plea to the US to export more gas to Europe as a possible answer. Just as a sub-context, the Baltic States are busy building LNG import terminals. Headline grabbing it may well have been, what Neverovič said, even if realised, would do little to curb European addiction to Russian gas over the medium term.

Supply-side diversity cannot be achieved in an instant, nor can the US solve the problem. If the capacity of all seven US FERC and DOE approved LNG export terminals (so far) is totalled and it is hypothetically (or rather absurdly) assumed that the entire cargo would be dispatched to Europe – the volume would still only replace around 35% of the current level of Russian gas imports to Europe.

But what has changed is that the Baltic nations, as demonstrated by Neverovič, are clearly alarmed; perhaps, more than they were in 2008. The Poles are mighty miffed too and even the Germans are waking up and smelling the coffee. So what's next? American LNG imports will come, while Norway, UK and the Netherlands’ pooled resources could help the trio. 

However, going beyond that, and to quote a brilliant editorial in The Economist, would mean Europeans relying on Algeria, Qatar, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan which does not seem very savoury. "But the more rogues who sell them gas, the harder it is for any one to hold Europe hostage," it adds! So here's your 'least worst' medium term scenario, preparation for which had to start in 2008 and not in 2014! 

Related to the situation, Fitch Ratings revised the corporate outlooks of nine Russian companies, including those of Gazprom and Lukoil to Negative. As with a situation of this nature there would be losers somewhere and winners elsewhere.

According to the ratings agency, BG, BP, Shell and Total would be among its EMEA rated oil & gas companies that stand to gain from a "potential shift" in EU countries' energy links with Russia over time. On the other hand, Gazprom and Ukraine's Naftogaz – no prizes for guessing – are most likely to find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Analysing a scenario where EU countries could be forced to "recast their approach to energy and economic links with Russia over time", as UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has suggested, Fitch said BG, BP,  Shell and Total are well placed.

For instance, BG is participating in three US projects already approved by FERC and DOE to export LNG. BP completed the final investment decision for the Stage 2 development of the Shah Deniz gas field with its local partner State Oil Company of Azerbaijan in December last year. The expansion of the southern corridor gas link to Europe puts these companies in a unique position to diversify EU gas supplies.

Meanwhile, Shell is the first company in the world to develop floating LNG (FLNG) facilities. The technology is an important development for the industry as it reduces both project costs and environmental impact. If Shell is able to replicate the FLNG model it is deploying in Australia to diversify European supplies, it could give the company a competitive advantage over peers.

Finally, Total became the first Western oil major to invest in UK shale prospection after agreeing to take a 40% stake in two licenses that are part of the prospective Bowland Shale in Northern England. The investment could give the company a head start if European shale gas production begins to ramp up in a meaningful way, even though its early days. In fact, its early days in all four cases, and Fitch agreed that supply-side benefits would accrue over time, not overnight.

Going the other way, Gazprom, which supplied around a third of European gas volumes in 2013, faces the prospect of diminishing market share if the EU seeks alternative gas supplies, instead of simply alternative gas routes from Russia around Ukraine. "Europe may finally find the political will to reduce this percentage," Fitch adds.

As for Naftogaz – it's in big trouble alright. Not only could the Ukrainian company face higher prices for gas supplies from Russia accompanied by reduced volumes for internal consumption, the road ahead is anything but certain!

Away from the EU and Ukraine, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne dropped a few crude morsels in his annual budget on March 19 to help British consumers and the industry. Fuel duty was frozen again, while passengers on some long-haul flights originating in the UK are set to pay less tax following a revamp of Air Passenger Duty (APD).

Passengers travelling more than 2,000 miles will pay the band B rate, which varies from £67 to £268, Osborne told parliament. The two highest of the four APD tax bands are to be scrapped from 2015, he added. At present, it is cheaper to fly from the UK to the US than the Caribbean, despite often similar distances, a situation Osborne described as "crazy and unjust". So passengers on long-haul flights to destinations such as India and the Caribbean can expect to pay a lower tax rate soon.

Coming on to industry measures, Osborne also put forward a new incentive for onshore prospection, wherein a portion of profit equal to 75% of a company's qualifying onshore capital expenditure will be exempt from supplementary tax charge.

This portion of the profit will then be subject to tax at 30%, while the remaining profit will be subject to a marginal tax rate of 62%, as is usually the case with oil & gas companies operating in the UK. The bold and much needed move went down well in the currently charged geopolitical atmosphere, unless you happen to be opposed to fracking on principle.

Robert Hodges, director of energy tax services at Ernst & Young, said it was welcome news for the shale gas industry which needs to commit significant investment to prove commercial reserves in the UK.

"The Government also announced it will work with industry to ensure that the UK has the right skills and supply chain in place. This is an important commitment, which will be welcomed by industry, to ensure that the UK maximises the benefit from the development of its indigenous oil and gas resources," he added.

As for the North Sea, we saw some moves on ultra high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) fields with Osborne providing an allowance to exempt a portion of a drilling company's profits from the supplementary charge. The amount of profit exempt will equal at least 62.5% of qualifying capex a company incurs on these projects. The Chancellor also said he would launch a review of the tax regime for the entire sector.

Some were pleased, others not so. Maersk Oil and BG, lead operators of the Culzean and Jackdaw fields, are the first to benefit. Both were cock-a-hoop saying it would lead to the direct creation over 700 jobs, with a potential for up to 8,000 more further down the supply chain. However, the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) claims changes over drilling rigs and accommodation vessels would cost firms an estimated £145 million in the coming year. Lobby group Oil & Gas UK also expressed concerns on cost escalation, but welcomed other bits thrown up by Osborne.

Away from it all, there's one tiny non-UK morsel to toss up. According to a recent GlobalData report, it appears that Kenya's first oil & gas licensing round is not expected Q4 2014 at the earliest. The first licensing round was originally scheduled for June last year with an offer of eight blocks up for bidding. Then all went a bit quiet. Now GlobalData says it will happen, but plans have temporarily stalled pending the passage of a new energy bill.

Moving on to the price of the crude stuff, last fortnight was pretty much a case of steady as she goes for Brent, while supply-side issues caused a mini spike with the WTI. And, that can only mean one thing - another narrowing of the Brent-WTI spread to single figures.

Factors in the WTI rear-view mirror included supply shrinkage at Cushing, Oklahoma; down for the eighth successive week last Friday and the lowest in two years, according to the EIA. Libyan, Nigerian supply outages had a bearing on Brent, but it's nothing to write home about this fortnight. Much of the risk is already priced in, especially as Libyan outages are something City traders are getting pretty used to and Nigeria is nothing new. 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: Oil pipeline © Cairn Energy

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Crude permutations of the Ukrainian stand-off

When the Russo-Georgian skirmish happened in 2008, European policymakers got a stark reminder of how reliant they were on Russian natural gas. Regardless of the geopolitics of that conflict, many leading voices in the European Union, especially in Germany, vowed to reduce their reliance on Russian gas.

The idea was to prevent one of the world's leading exporters of natural gas from using its resource as a bargaining tool should such an episode occur again. Now that it has, as the Ukrainian crisis brings Russia and West into yet another open confrontation, the Oilholic asks what happened to that vow. Not much given the scheme of things! What's worse, the Fukushima meltdown in Japan and a subsequent haphazard dismissal of the nuclear energy avenue by many European jurisdictions actually increased medium-term reliance on mostly Russian gas.

According to GlobalData, Russian gas exports to Europe grew to a record of 15.6 billion cubic feet per day last year. The US, which is not reliant on Russian natural resources, finds itself in a quandary as EU short-termism will almost certainly result in a toning down of a concerted response by the West against Russia in the shape of economic sanctions.

The human and socioeconomic cost of what's happening in Crimea and wider Ukraine is no laughing matter. However, President Vladimir Putin should be allowed a smirk or two at the idiocy and short-sightedness of the EU bigwigs – reliant on him for natural gas but warning him of repercussions! Therefore, sabre rattling by Brussels is bound to have negligible impact.

Meanwhile, Russia's Gazprom has said it will no longer offer Ukraine discounted gas prices because it is over US$1.5 billion in payment arrears which have been accumulating for over 12 months. Additionally, Rosneft could swoop for a Ukrainian refinery, according to some reports. While economic warfare has already begun, this blogger somehow does not see Russians and Ukrainians shooting at each other; Georgia was different.

Having visited both countries in the past, yours truly sees a deep familial and historic bond between the two nations; sadly that's also what makes the situation queasy. The markets are queasy too. Ukraine was hoping for a shale gas revolution and Crimea – currently in the Kremlin's grip – has its own shale bed. In November 2013, Chevron signed a $10 billion shale gas production sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government to develop the western Olesska field. Shell followed suit with a similar agreement.

Matthew Ingham, lead analyst covering North Sea and Western Europe Upstream at GlobalData, says shale gas production was inching closer. "Together with the UK and Poland, Ukraine could see production within the next three to four years."

However, what will happen from here is anyone's guess. A geopolitical bombshell has been dropped into the conundrum of exploratory and commercial risks.

Away from gas markets, the situation's impact on the wider crude oil market could work in many ways. First off, rather perversely, a mobilisation or an actual armed conflict is price positive for regional oil contracts, but not the wider market. A linear supply shortage dynamic applies here.

An economic tit-for-tat between Russia and the EU, accompanied by a conflict on its borders, would hurt wider economic confidence. So a prolonged escalation would be price negative for the Brent contract as economic activity takes a hit. Russia can withstand a dip in price by as much as $20 per barrel; but worries would surface should the $90-resistance be broken. To put things into perspective, around 85% Russia's oil is sold to EU buyers.

Finally, there is the issue of Ukraine as a major transit point for oil & gas, even though it is not a major producer of either. According to JP Morgan Commodities Research over 70% of Russia's oil & gas flow to Europe passes through Ukrainian territory. In short, all parties would take a hit and the risk premium, could just as well turn into a news sensitive risk discount.

Furthermore, in terms of market sentiment, this blogger notes that 90% of the time all of the risk priced and built into the forward month contract never really materialises. So this then begs the question, whose risk is it anyway? The guy at the end of a pipeline waiting for his crude cargo or the paper trader who actually hasn't ever known what a physical barrel is like!

The situation has also made drawing conclusions from ICE's latest Commitments of Traders report a tad meaningless for this week. Speculative long positions by hedge funds and other money managers that the Brent price will rise (in futures and options combined), outnumbered short positions by 139,921 lots in the week ended February 25, prior to the Ukrainian escalation.

For the record, that is the third weekly gain and the most since October 22. Net-long positions rose by 18,214 contracts, or 15%, from the previous period. ICE also said bearish positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of the North Sea crude outnumbered bullish wagers by 266,017 lots, rising 8.2% from the week before.

Away from Ukraine and on to supply diversity, Norway's Statoil has certainly bought cargo from a land far, far away. According to Reuters, Statoil bought 500,000 barrels of Colombian Vasconia medium crude, offered on the open market in February by Canada's Pacific Rubiales.

When a cargo of Columbian crude is sold by a Canadian company to Norwegian one, you get an idea of the global nature of the crude supply chain. That's if you ever needed reminding. The US remains Pacific Rubiales' largest market, but sources say it is increasing its sales to Europe.

Finally, in the humble opinion of yours truly, Vitol CEO Ian Taylor provided the soundbite of the International Petroleum Week held in London last month.

The boss of the world's largest independent oil trading firm headquartered in serene Geneva opined that Dated Brent ought to broaden its horizons as North Sea production declines. The benchmark, which currently includes Brent, Forties, Oseberg and Ekofisk blend crudes, was becoming "less effective" according to Taylor.

"We are extremely concerned about Brent already not becoming a very efficient or effective benchmark. It’s quite a concern when you see that production profile. Maybe the time has come to really broaden out Dated Brent," he said.

Broadening a benchmark that's used to price over half the world's crude could include Algeria's Saharan Blend, CPC Blend from the Caspian Sea, Nigeria's Bonny Light, Qua Iboe and Forcados crudes and North Sea grades DUC and Troll, the Vitol CEO suggested.

Taylor also said Iran wasn't going to be "solved anytime soon" and would stay just about where it is in terms of exports. The Oilholic couldn't agree more. 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: Pipelines & gas tank, Russian Federation © Rosneft (TNK-BP archives)

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Talking global 'crude' capex in the Emirates

It is good to be back in the Emirate of Dubai to catch-up with old friends and make yet newer ones! In the scorching heat of 41 C, sitting inside an English Pub (sigh…someone tell these guys yours truly just got off the plane from England) at a hotel right next to ENOC’s Bur Dubai office, new research of a ‘crude’ nature has thrown-up plenty of talking points here.
 
It seems that a report published this morning by business intelligence provider GlobalData projects capital expenditure in the global oil & gas business to come in at US$1.039 trillion by the end of December 2012; a rise of 13.4% on an annualised basis. However, no prizes for guessing that E&P activity would be the primary driver.
 
GlobalData predicts Middle Eastern and African capital spend would be in the region of US$229.6 billion. The figure has been met with nods of approval here in Dubai though one contact of the Oilholic’s (at an advisory firm) reckons the figure is on the conservative side and could be exceeded by a billion or two.
 
North America is likely to witness the highest capex with a US$254.3 billion spend; a 24.5% share of the 2012 figure. GlobalData reckons that renewed market confidence is a direct consequence of the increasing number of oil & gas discoveries (which stood at 242 over 2011 alone), high (or rather spiky) oil prices and emerging and cost effective drilling technologies making deep offshore reserves technically and financially viable.
 
So the ‘All hail shale brigade’ and ‘shale gale’ stateside along with Canadian oil sands would be the big contributors to the total North American spend. The Asia Pacific region could pretty much spend in the same region with a capex of US$253.1 billion.
 
However another facet of the GlobalData report fails to surprise punters at the table wherein it notes that National Oil Companies (NOCs) will lead the way in terms of capex. Though there were some “Hear, Hear(s)” from somewhere. (We try not to name names here of loyal NOC employees, especially if they’ve just walked in from a building next door!)
 
Only thing is, while the Middle Eastern and Chinese NOCs are in the predictable data mix, GlobalData notes that for the 2012–2016 period it is Petrobras which ranks first for capex globally amongst NOCs. As a footnote, ExxonMobil will be atop the IOC list. That’s all for the moment folks! More from Dubai later. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!
 
© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: View of city skyline from Jumeriah beach, Dubai, UAE © Gaurav Sharma 2012.