The Keystone XL saga: Views of Toronto analysts

The Oilholic arrived in Toronto, ON for the briefest of visits to find the energy community here in bullish mood about the Keystone XL pipeline project getting a nod of approval from the Obama administration this summer.

Out of a snap, unscientific, random poll of seven energy analysts in downtown Toronto, none of the commentators thought the project’s second application for approval would be turned down this summer by the US Government. Only one analyst thought the second application would face severe delays yet again. On the subject of what next if the unthinkable happens and the US yet again denies approval, most thought Canada can find plenty of takers for Alberta’s most precious resource.

Simply put, if the US does not want oil derived from a bituminous source, there are many takers – as is evident from the interest in the oil sands from burgeoning Asian importers. Make no mistake, the oil sands would be developed, most said. Additionally, there were some predictable quips as well from our friends in Toronto along the lines of “Obama doesn’t have a re-election to fight, so he’ll approve”, “who would the US deal with Canadians or Venezuelans?” or “it could be a shot in the arm for US refinery upgrade projects”.

All of these quips ring true in parts. Furthermore, a recent poll, conducted across the border by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, suggests two-thirds of Americans (66%) favour building the pipeline, which would transport oil from Alberta via the Midwest to Texan refineries. For purposes of its research, Pew polled 1501 adult US citizens between March 13 and 17. The survey result is a pretty convincing one, polled by a very respectable source.

Away from Pew’s findings was a totally unrelated editorial calling for the project’s approval in none other than the Chicago Tribune. The Oilholic is not from Illinois but is quietly confident that President Obama, who was once a senator from the state, does read his local broadsheet. On March 29, printed on page 22, he would have found the lead editorial declaring: “Enough dawdling. Obama should approve the Keystone pipeline.”

Further down the editorial, the paper wrote: “The President is expected to make a decision by this summer. He rejected a Keystone plan a year ago, in the midst of his re-election campaign. This was applauded by some environmental groups and angered the Canadian government. But the most significant impact was this: It kept Americans from getting good-paying jobs.”

Powerful stuff one would say! Canada, you have the support of the President’s (once) local newspaper! Furthermore, most Chicago-based analysts the Oilholic spoke to last week seemed to be clamouring for an approval. Phil Flynn, senior analyst at Price Future Group, said it had been a sad political story symptomatic of dysfunctional US politics and government.

“Here we have a bizarre situation that a pipeline is geopolitically right, but politically...a mess! Democrats had a pop at President George W. Bush tying him with “big oil”; Obama is getting the other end of the stick with people labelling him “big green.” Had he approved the Keystone XL project before it had become a “major issue” in this social media age – well it would not have become an issue at all; just one of the many North American pipelines plain and simple!”

“I see it as a classic case of a bungled energy policy. The Obama administration grossly underestimated the both the importance of Canadian oil sands and American shale and worse still that we could be energy independent. This side of the border, the shale gas revolution happened not because of Washington, but rather despite of Washington,” he said.

Most in the trading community this blogger met in Toronto and Chicago feel an important reason why Keystone XL is going to be approved this time around is because the US labour unions want it badly. Now, hardly any Democrat would flag this up as a reason for approving the project in the summer. Saddest part of it all – for both Canada and the US – is that the Keystone XL project is such a small part of the ongoing energy story of both countries.

Flynn reckons it is all about finding a way to approve it and save face in the summer! “Canadian crude from the oil sands is coming to the market anyway. So the Democrats on Capitol Hill will say America may as well go for it anyway! Mark my word, that’ll be the argument used to peddle the approval,” he concluded.

Moving away from Keystone XL, but sticking with pipelines, ratings agency Moody’s has given thumbs-up to Enbridge’s capital expenditure programme. In a note to clients this morning, Moody's affirmed Enbridge's Baa1 senior unsecured, Baa1 long term issuer, (P)Baa2 subordinate shelf and Baa3 preferred stock ratings.

“The company has taken timely advantage of opportunities that have developed in the North American liquids market over the last few years as a result of regulatory delays in getting new pipelines approved and a persistent liquids pricing differential attributed to tight takeaway capacity, bottlenecks and an inability for shippers to access tidewater and global markets,” the agency said.

According to Moody’s, Enbridge's announced projects are lower risk because they are generally on existing rights of way as either expansions or reversals. “Once this large programme is completed, Enbridge's business risk should be lower due to even greater liquids network diversity,” it added.

Just one more footnote before a farewell to Toronto, the local networks and newspapers are awash with news that Canada's Information Commission is poised investigate claims the Federal government is "muzzling" its scientists.

According to The Globe and Mail, the Commission is investigating seven government departments. These include Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, National Defence, the Treasury Board Secretariat, National Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

A spokesperson said the investigation is in response to a complaint filed by the University of Victoria, BC and the campaign group Democracy Watch. Assistant Information Commissioner Emily McCarthy’s office would be leading the probe. Intriguing story indeed and one to watch out for!

It is almost time to head back home, but before heading up in the air towards London Heathrow, the Oilholic leaves you with a view of a natural wonder which helps Ontario Power and Power Authority of New York harness copious amounts of hydroelectricity – the Niagara Falls.

With even Americans saying the view is better from the Canadian side, the Oilholic simply had to pop over and admire it. So it turned out to be quite a view. Photographed here is the Horseshoe Falls – on the side yours truly has snapped from is Canada and on the other is the USA. Sandwiched between is the Niagara River which drains Lake Erie in to Lake Ontario.

The first known effort to harness these waters for power generation was made by one Daniel Joncaire who built a small canal above the falls to power his sawmill in 1759, according to a local park official. Today, if the US (Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant and the Lewiston Pump Generating Plant) and Canadian (Sir Adam Beck I and II) power generation facilities are pooled, the total power production would be 4.4 gigawatts! That’s all from Toronto 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: Toronto’s Skyline and Lake Ontario, Canada. Photo 2: The Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada © Gaurav Sharma.

For US President, the Oilholic endorses 'neither'!

Whilst lounging on Hawaii’s beautiful White Sands Beach in Kona, the Oilholic wondered if the dear readers of this blog know what is a Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa (pronounced ‘humu – humu – nuku – nuku – apa – wapa’)? Revelation on what it is and how it relates to energy policy stances of President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney follows. The Presidential debates are over, all banners are up and the speeches are reaching a last minute fervour as Romney and Obama begin the concluding phases of their face-off ahead of the November 6, 2012 US Presidential election day.

As decision day draws nearer, the Oilholic endorses neither as both leading candidates have displayed a near lack of vision required to steer US energy policy in light of recent developments. The USA, despite its oil imports dynamic, believe it or not is the world’s third largest producer of crude oil by volume and among the market leaders in the distillates business.

With the next generation of independent wildcatters’ knack for finding value and economies of scale for small volumes (mostly in Texas and North Dakota), shale oil and an overall rise in countrywide oil output, things can only get better with the right man in charge at the White House. Additionally, the shale gas bonanza bears testimony to just about everything from American ingenuity and the benefits of an impressive pipeline (to market) network to a favourable legislative framework.

Yet both Obama and Romney sound unconvincing on respective plans for the energy industry despite their country’s domestic good fortune in recent years. The President’s policy has been a near failure while his opponent’s plans are insipid at best. Starting with the President first, since the Oilholic is in his birthplace of Hawaii and having arrived from California which hasn’t voted Republican in recent decades, bar the exception of Ronald Regan’s bid for the White House.

On the plus side, the Obama administration has opened up new US regions to oil and gas prospection though red tape persists. It has made noteworthy moves as a proponent of energy efficiency and energy economy drives for motorists and businesses alike. But on this briefest of note, the positivity ends. The BP Deepwater Horizon spill was as much about the failure of the company involved, as it was about the initial fuzzy response of the Obama administration followed by political points scoring as public anger grew when the spill wasn’t plugged for months.

Then of course there is the Solyndra boondoggle and supposed plans for “clean coal” where the less said the better, unless you are an opponent of the President. Shenanigans of the US Congress put paid to any plans he may have had for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Then of course there are politically fishy manoeuvres ranging from not offering proactive support to shale prospection and delaying the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada until after the election and to reach (and then again subsequently threaten to reach) US strategic petroleum reserves as petrol prices rose at US pumps.

Yet for all of his incompetence, the American energy industry is not in an unhappy place thanks largely to the Bush administration’s recognition of the domestic reserve potential and Dick Cheney’s super-aggressive push on shale. What is disappointing is that it could have been much better under Obama but wasn’t. Remember all those “Yes we can” posters of his from the 2008 campaign. The Oilholic was hard pressed not to find at least one Obama banner once every four or five streets in major Californian metropolitan areas on a visit back then (using Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Sacramento as a basis).

Last week in San Diego yours truly found none and this week in Hawaii has been the same. For the US energy business, the absence of “Yes we can” banners conveys the same metaphorical message of being let down perhaps as the rest of the country. Things are tagging along in the energy business despite of Obama not because of anything in particular that he has done. Of course, he did make a tall claim of a cut in US oil imports from the Middle East which is true. However, the Oilholic agrees with T. Boone Pickens on this one – yes the US production rise has contributed to reduced importation of crude oil but so has the dip in economic performance which cuts energy usage and makes the citizenry energy frugal. What has Obama done?

Well so much so for the President, but what about his challenger? Sigh...The Right Honourable Mitt Romney’s policy is to make (and switch) a policy on the go accompanied by jumbled statements. Or, in something that would make the fictitious British civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby from BBC’s political satire Yes Minister proud – the Romney campaign’s policy is not to have a policy unless asked about a particular facet of the energy business.

So what do we know so far? Romney stands for less regulation, a more lenient approach to environmental regulations and will cut addiction to subsidies. But political waffle aside, all we have had is him blast Obama over the Solyndra affair, call for a repeal of Clean Air Act without outlining his ‘clean’ alternative and a proposal to allow wind power subsidies to lapse (again without spelling out the Romney plan for Wind Power).

He flags up the shale boom without being mindful that it too needed incentives to begin with before market forces kicked-in. Admittedly, the wind energy sector works to a different dynamic and is indeed subsidy addicted. But a quip to cut subsidies without a cohesive back-up plan reeks of political opportunism. The only way Romney scores better than Obama on energy policy is that he is not Obama and who knows if that might be reason enough to vote for good ol’ Mitt.

Both men have the fuzziest of plans with erratic changes in stance suited to the political climate in an election year. This brings us back to the Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa which is the Hawaiian state fish from the tropical reef triggerfish family. The local name simply means "the fish that grunts like a pig" for the sound it makes when caught. It is also prone to sudden erratic changes in position and swimming patterns while negotiating the Hawaiian coral reefs according to a local marine biologist. Kinda like the two main US Presidential candidates isn’t it?

That’s all from Hawaii folks as the Oilholic prepares for the long journey home. It has been a memorable week in another memorable part of America. Alas, all good things must come to an end. Yours truly leaves you with a photo of Hawaiian residents of the Punaluʻu Black Sand beach – the Hawksbill and Green sea turtles (above right) and moi at Old Kona State Airport recreation beach and park.

You can cycle down 30 miles along the Kona coastline and stop every 15 mins to ask “Is that a view? Or is that a view?” and you’ll conclude that that’s a view! The people are lovely, the food is great, the place oozes natural history and tales of human history. Since this blogger also drove 260 miles circling the entire Big Island via its main highway with the help of veteran local tour guide John Mack, one can confirm that different parts of this Hawaiian isle get 11 of the 13 climate ranges known to mankind.

It is a privilege to have spent a week here, where for a change blogging on oil did not reign supreme. Next stop Los Angeles International followed by London Heathrow – a day long up in the air affair! Keep reading; keep reading it ‘crude’ – but its goodbye to the ‘Aloha’ state!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: White Sands Beach Park, Kona. Photo 2: Oilholic at the Old Kona State Airport recreation beach park, Kona Kailua. Photo 3: Punaluʻu Black Sand beach, Hawaii, USA © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

What prospective Albertan pipelines mean for BC

If a new permit application by TransCanada for the Keystone XL pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas does not get approved after the US 2012 presidential elections, attention will shift towards expanding the pipeline network westwards within Canada. If the project does get approved, well attention would still shift towards expanding the pipeline network westwards within Canada.

The Oilholic’s conjecture is that policy debate within Canada is already factoring in a westward expansion of pipelines eyeing exports via the Pacific Coast to China, Japan, India and beyond, whether the Keystone XL pipeline extension gets built or not. When US President Barack Obama did not grant approval to the original Keystone XL pipeline application earlier this year, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed his ‘disappointment’, had a candid conversation with Obama at an Asia Pacific leaders summit and then got on a plane to China.

He has also been to India on a high level mission in recent memory. At the 20th World Petroleum Congress in Doha last year, Indian officials listened intently to what was coming out of the Canadian camp. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has already noted increasing interest from Korean and other Asian players as well when it comes to buying in to both crude oil reserves and natural gas in Western Canada. Club it all together and a westward expansion is inevitable.

Central to a westward expansion is British Columbia (BC), the Canadian province neighbouring Alberta, which could become as important in terms of pipeline infrastructure as Alberta is in terms of the crude stuff itself. From the standpoint of a ‘crude’ analogy, the situation is a bit like South Sudan (which has all the resources) and Sudan (which has the infrastructure to bring the resource to market) with a good Canadian fortune of zero conflict or geopolitical flare-ups. Thankfully for Canada and the importers club, Albertans and British Columbians also get along a tad better than their Sudanese counterparts and what is Alberta’s gain could also be BC's gain.

Last year, over a meeting with the Oilholic in Calgary, Dave Collyer, President of CAPP, noted, “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.”

At present, there are five major pipelines that are directly connected to the Albertan supply hubs at Edmonton and Hardisty – Enbridge Mainline, Enbridge Alberta Clipper, Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain, Kinder Morgan Express, and of course the original TransCanada Keystone pipeline.

Of these, the Trans Mountain system transports crude to delivery points in BC, including the Westridge dock for offshore exports, and to a pipeline that provides deliveries to refineries in the US state of Washington. It is the only pipeline route to markets off the West coast and is currently operating as a common carrier pipeline where shippers nominate for space on the pipeline without a contract. Since May 2010, the pipeline has been in steady apportionment.

Excess demand for this space is expected to continue until there is additional capacity available to transport crude oil to the west coast for export according to CAPP. The available pipeline capacity depends on the amount of heavy crude oil transported. (For example, in 2010, about 27% of the volumes shipped were heavy crude oil).

So four more have been proposed via BC (see map above) – namely Enbridge Northern Gateway (from Bruderheim, Alberta to Kitimat, BC, Capacity: 525,000 barrels per day), Kinder Morgan TMX2 (from Edmonton, Alberta to Kamloops, BC, Capacity: 80,000 bpd), Kinder Morgan TMX3 (from Kamloops, BC to Sumas, BC, Capacity: 240,000 to 300,000 bpd) and Kinder Morgan TMX Northern Leg (Rearguard/Edmonton, Alberta to Kitimat, BC, Capacity: 400,000 bpd).

Given that it’s green BC in question, there already are legal impediments as well as a major bid to address the concerns of the Native Indian First Nations communities according to the Oilholic’s local feedback here. Environmental due diligence should be and is being taken seriously on the West Coast. Then there is the spectre of a socialist NDP provincial government or a hung parliament at the next elections in BC which could hamper activity and investment.

Taking in to account all this, realistically speaking not much may start happening before 2015, but there is a growing belief within the province that happen it most likely will and the benefit to the provincial economy would manifold. To begin with jobs, direct construction related to the proposed pipelines and revenues spring to mind. Additionally, there is likely to be a decade long rise in service sector jobs in the province.

Then given that BC has a proven crown agency in Partnerships BC which since its inception has been building generally bankable infrastructure projects; an ancillary social infrastructure boom to cater to what would become a burgeoning Kitimat and Kamloops is also within the realm of possibility.

Over the last ten days the Oilholic has gathered the thoughts of legal professionals, financial advisers, provincial civil servants and last but certainly not the least the average British Columbian you’d run into in a bar or a Starbucks. The overriding emotion was one of positivity though everyone acknowledges the impediments.

Furthermore, many think the pipelines would assist in diversifying BC's economy which is largely reliant on tourism and timber to include yet another key sector without necessarily compromising its green credentials and a record of accommodating the First Nations Native Indian population. That’s all from Canada folks! Yours truly is off to Houston, Texas. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Map: Proposed (in dotted lines) and existing pipelines to the West Coast of Canada © CAPP 2011.

Tankers in English Bay & Canada's Confidence

The Oilholic headed to downtown Vancouver from the suburbs this afternoon, up on Burrard Street, turning right on Davie Street, down Jervis Street straight through to Sunset Beach in order to get a look in at the English Bay which is quite a sight. Standing bang in the middle of the beach, to your left would be Granville Island, the Burrard Bridge overlooking it and Granville Bridge reaching out to it.

To your right would be two more beaches and Stanley Park on the Vancouver Downtown Peninsula and looking out to the horizon you’ll see pristine waters of the Bay littered with tankers (see image above on the left, click to enlarge). The view is a vindication of Western Canada’s growing crude credentials and its clout in the world of oil & gas exports. Yours truly and other onlookers would often spot the odd oil or LNG tanker on the horizon making its way to or from Vancouver Harbour and docking bays on the inlet towards Port Moody. However, this afternoon the Oilholic counted 12 tankers - the most yours truly has ever counted on five previous visits to the Bay!

There is a new found confidence in the Canadian energy business and a palpable shift in the balance of economic prowess from a manufacturing-led East Coast/Eastern dominated macroeconomic dynamic of the 1950s to a natural resources-led West Coast/Western dominated economy since 2005 or thereabouts. Furthermore, an ever mobile financial services sector with its hubs in Montreal and Toronto now looks increasingly Westwards. Law firms and advisory firms are increasing their presence in Western Canada by expanding practices and a network of partners in Calgary and Vancouver.

Calgary now has more corporate headquarters than Montreal. Of the top 20 most profitable Canadian companies by exchange filings in 2010, eight were natural resources companies with a Western Canadian slant (viz. Suncor, Barrick, Imperial Oil, PCS, Teck, CNR, Goldcorp and EnCana).

A recently spurned merger between natural resources and banking sector(s) dominated stock exchanges of London (LSE) and Toronto (TSX) would have been ideal. But much to the dismay of the Oilholic, the Canadians involved wanted to go it alone and whether you agree or not. In more ways than one LSE and TSX are rivals, especially when it comes to attracting mining companies.

Switching tack to big shots in Ottawa – well to begin with Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an Alberta man. Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and the inimitable Rt. Hon. Joe Oliver – the country’s Natural Resources Minister and the most vocal among his G7 peers with an identical ministerial portfolio – are all ‘Western’ Canadians.

Having visited Canada on an annual basis since 2001, the Oilholic has seen the transformation of Canadian politics and the country’s economy first hand and it has been extraordinary in a positive sense. Harper’s “ocean of oil soaked sand” in Northern Alberta has more of the crude stuff than any other crude exporting country bar Saudi Arabia. Let’s not forget the Saudis’ reserves position has been verified by Aramco, Canada’s has been subjected to scrutiny by half world’s independent verifiers of different political leanings and persuasions.

The total value Canada’s natural resources according to various estimates at 2009 prices comes in at US$1.1 trillion to US$1.6 trillion, with the bituminous bit and shale alone accounting for at least 45% per cent of that depending on which financial analyst or economist you speak to.

“Canada’s biggest advantage as an oil exporter in the eyes of the world is that it’s no Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, in a business full of unsavoury characters, dealing with Canadians makes for a welcome change,” quips one patriotic analyst on condition of anonymity.

In the oil business there are no moral absolutes and no linear path to the Promised ‘Crude’ Land. Canada will have its fair share of challenges related to extracting, refining and marketing the oil. The will to do so is certainly there and so are the buyers. The Oilholic’s timber trade analogy has won him quite a few beers from Canadians and pragmatic macro analysts who loved it. There is an unassailable truth here – American dithering and often unjust punitive action against Canadian timber exports in the 1990s lead a Liberal party-governed Canada to look Eastwards to Japan and China.

Fast forward to 2011-2012 and history is repeating itself with President Obama’s dithering over Keystone XL (although TransCanada’s reputation in relation to leaks has not helped either). Akin to the 1990s, there are other buyers in town for the Canadian crude stuff, with India joining the tussle for Canadian attention along with Japan, South Korea and China.

When a Liberal-led Canadian federal government looked elsewhere in the 1990s to market and sell its dominant natural resource at the time, if the US government thinks a present-day Conservative government with a parliamentary majority and a forceful character like Stephen Harper at the helm won’t do likewise (and sooner) when it comes to oil, then they are kidding themselves more than anyone else.

The presence of Korean, Indian and Chinese NOCs can be felt alongside top 20 IOCs in Calgary. Not a single oil major worth its weight in crude oil has chosen to ignore the oil sands, just as onlookers at Sunset Beach can’t ignore tankers on the English Bay horizon. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil & LNG tankers on the English Bay horizon, British Columbia, Canada © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

Canadian & Russian supply risk scenarios

Happy Easter folks! Following on from California, the Oilholic is once again back in Beautiful British Columbia, as vehicle licence plates from the province would point out, should you need reminding in these serene picturesque surroundings. When talking non-OPEC supply of the crude stuff – Russia and Canada always figure prominently in recent discussions, the latter more so than ever.

In fact, when it comes to holding exposure to oil price sensitivity, as recommended by some analysts for the next two quarters, via mixed bag of investments – Russian equities and “natural resources linked” (and not yet showing signs of Dutch disease) Forex including the Russian Rouble and the Canadian dollar are flagged-up more often than ever. In fact the Canadian Dollar, often called south of the border by Americans as the “Loonie” (based on a common bird on the CAD$1 coin), is proving pricier and more worthy than the world’s reserve currency itself in the post-Global financial crisis years.

Between Russia and Canada, given that the latter has a more diverse range of exports, the Russians have a bigger problem when it comes to oil price swings. In fact, ratings agency S&P reckons that a sustained fall in the price of oil could damage the Russian economy and public finances and consequently lead to a cut of the long-term sovereign rating.

"We estimate that a US$10 decline in oil prices will directly and indirectly lead to a 1.4% of GDP decline in government revenues. In a severe stress scenario, where a barrel of Urals oil drops to, and stays at, an average US$60, we would expect the general government to post a deficit above 8% of GDP. In that scenario, the long-term ratings on the Russian Federation could drop by up to three notches," says S&P credit analyst Kai Stukenbrock.

The rise in oil prices over the past decade has supported an expansionary fiscal policy, while still allowing the country to build up fiscal reserves. Still, fiscal expansion, not least significant countercyclical spending during the recent crisis, has led to a significant increase in expenditures relative to GDP.

As a result, despite record revenues from oil in 2011, S&P estimates the general Russian government surplus at merely 0.8% of GDP. To balance the budget in 2012, the agency thinks the government will require an average oil price of US$120 per barrel.

While former Russian finance minister Alexei Kudrin has also expressed fears of Russian over reliance on the price of oil, most analysts have a base price range of US$90 to 100 for 2012. So a fear it may well be; it remains what it is – a fear! Another ratings agency – Moody’s noted last month that as a result of financial flexibility built up over the past two years, rated Russian integrated oil & gas companies will be able to accommodate volatility in oil prices and other emerging challenges in 2012 within their current rating categories.

"In 2011, rated Russian players continued to demonstrate strong operating and financial results, underpinned by elevated oil prices," says Victoria Maisuradze, an Associate Managing Director in Moody's Corporate Finance Group. "Indeed, operating profits are likely to remain stable in 2012 as an increased tax and tariff burden will offset the benefits of high crude oil prices. All issuers have stable outlooks and our outlook for the sector is stable."

Nevertheless, developing reserves in new regions remains a major challenge for Russia as traditional production areas deplete; a problem which the Canadians don’t have to contend with. In 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose hand is now politically more stronger than ever, told an audience in London that Canada was ranked third in the world for gas production, seventh in oil production, the market leader in hydroelectricity and uranium. He described it six years ago as “just the beginning.”

Harper’s journey to make Canada an ‘energy superpower’ is well and truly underway. The Oilholic charted the view from Calgary on his visit to Alberta last year and has followed the shenanigans related to the US ‘dis’-approval of Keystone XL pipeline project over the course of 2011-12. Over the coming days, yours truly would revisit the subject with a take on prospective exports to Asia via British Columbia.

Continuing with non-OPEC supplies, the Oilholic’s old contact in Warsaw – Arkadiusz Wicik, Director of Energy, Utilities and Regulation at Fitch Ratings – believes Shale gas in Poland could still be a game changer for the country's energy sector despite the disappointing shale gas reserve estimate published in March by the Polish Geological Institute (PGI).

PGI assessed most likely recoverable shale gas reserves to be between 0.35 and 0.77 trillion cubic meters (tcm), which is about one-tenth the 5.3 tcm estimated by the US Energy Information Administration in April 2011. PGI estimates maximum recoverable shale gas reserves at 1.92 tcm.

Wicik believes it is still too early to make any meaningful assumptions about the future of shale gas in Poland, believed to have one of the highest development potentials in Europe. “Less than 20 exploration wells have been drilled by domestic and foreign companies, in many cases with disappointing results. From a credit perspective, we view shale gas exploration as high risk and capital intensive. Partnerships among domestic companies to share exploration risks and costs, or more participation by foreigners would be positive,” he says.

Exploration by Poland's energy companies at an early stage gives them a chance to become major players should the commercial availability of gas be proven over the next several years. This was not the case in the US, where the shale gas industry was developed by a number of smaller, independent players as the Oilholic noted in a special report for Infrastructure Journal. Large US oil and gas companies have only recently started to be active in the sector, mostly through acquisitions.

Wicik notes, “We do not expect that the success in the US, which led to about a 50% decrease in US gas prices between 2008 and 2011, will be easily replicated in Poland. Commercial production in the first five to 10 years is unlikely to substantially lower gas prices given high breakeven costs. Also, Poland and the US differ both in terms of shale formations and the gas market structure.”

A number of foreign companies already have exploration concessions for shale gas in Poland, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips (through a service agreement with Lane Energy), Marathon Oil and Eni. Local players that have been granted exploration concessions include PGNiG, PKN Orlen, Grupa Lotos and Petrolinvest.

Another three large domestic companies - PGE, Tauron, and KGHM - also plan to enter shale gas exploration. In January 2012, they signed three separate letters of intent with PGNiG regarding cooperation in shale gas projects. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil Refinery, Quebec, Canada © Michael Melford / National Geographic.

IEA on demand, Lavrov on Iran plus crude chatter

In its latest monthly report, the IEA confirmed what the Oilholic has been blogging for the past few months on the basis of City feedback – that the likelihood of another global recession will inhibit demand for crude oil this year, a prevalent high oil price might in itself hit demand too and seasonally mild weather already is.

While geopolitical factors such as the Iranian tension and Nigerian strikes have supported bullish trends of late, the IEA notes that Q4 of 2011 saw consumption decline on an annualised basis when compared with the corresponding quarter of 2010. As a consequence, the agency feels inclined to reduce its 2012 demand growth forecast by 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) from its last monthly report to 1.1 million barrels.

"Two inherently destabilising factors are interacting to give an impression of price stability that is more apparent than real. The first is a rising likelihood of sharp economic slowdown, if not outright recession, in 2012. The second factor, which is counteracting bearish pressures, is the physical market tightening evident since mid-2009 and notably since mid-2010," it says in the report.

The IEA also suggests that a one-third downward revision to GDP growth would see this year's oil consumption unchanged at 2011 levels. On the Iranian situation and its threat to disrupt flows in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil output passes, the agency notes, “At least a portion of Iran's 2.5 million bpd crude exports will likely be denied to OECD refiners during second half 2012, although more apocalyptic scenarios for sustained disruption to Strait of Hormuz transits look less likely.”

Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has weighed in to the Iran debate with his own “chaos theory”. According to the BBC, the minister has warned that a Western military strike against Iran would be "a catastrophe" which would lead to "large flows" of refugees from Iran and would "fan the flames" of sectarian tension in the Middle East. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak earlier said any decision on an Israeli attack on Iran was "very far off".

Meanwhile, one of those companies facing troubles of its own when it comes to procuring light sweet crude for European refiners is Italy’s Eni which saw its long term corporate credit rating lowered by S&P from 'A' from 'A+'. In addition, S&P removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed with negative implications on December 8, 2011.

Eni’s outlook is negative according to S&P and the downgrade reflects the ratings agency’s view that the Italian oil major’s business risk profile and domestic assets have been impaired by the material exposure of many of its end markets and business units to the deteriorating Italian operating environment. Eni reported consolidated net debt of €28.3 billion as of September 30, 2011. Previously, Moody’s has also reacted to the Italian economy versus Eni situation over Q4 2011.

Elsewhere conflicting reports have emerged about the Obama administration’s decision to deny a permit to Keystone XL project something which the Oilholic has maintained would be a silly move for US interests as Canadians can and will look elsewhere. Some reports said the President has decided to deny a permit to the project while others said a decision was unlikely before late-February. This article from The Montreal Gazette just about sums up Wednesday's conflicting reports.

When the formal rejection by the US state department finally arrived, the President said he had been given insufficient time to review the plans by his Republican opponents. At the end of 2011, Republicans forced a final decision on the plan within 60 days during a legislative standoff.

The Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, criticised the Obama administration for its failure over a project that would have created "hundreds of thousands of jobs" while the President responded by starting an online petition so that the general population can express its opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The merits and demerits of the proposal aisde, this whole protracted episode represents the idiocy of American politics. Canadians should now seriously examine alternative export markets; something which they have already hinted at. The Oilholic's timber trade analogy always makes Canadians smile. (Sadly, even Texans agree, though its no laughing matter).

On the crude pricing front, the short term geopolitically influenced bullishness continues to provide resistance to the WTI at the US$100 per barrel level and Brent at US$111. Sucden Financial's Myrto Sokou expects some further consolidation in the oil markets due to the absence of major indicators and mixed signals from the global equity markets, while currency movements might provide some short-term direction. “Investors should remain cautious ahead of any possible news coming out from the Greek debt talks,” Sokou warns.

Finally, global law firm Baker & McKenzie is continuing with its Global Energy Webinar Series 2011-2012 with the latest round – on International Competition Law – to follow on January 25-26 which would be well worth listening in to. Antitrust Rules for Joint Ventures, Strategic Alliances and Other Modes of Cooperation with Competitors would also be under discussion. Thats all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil Refinery, Quebec, Canada © Michael Melford / National Geographic.

Examining a crude 2011 & talking Iran vs. 2012

As the Oilholic conjectured at the end of 2010, the year 2011 did indeed see Brent Crude at “around US$105 to US$110 a barrel”. However there was nothing ‘crudely’ predictable about 2011 itself – the oil markets faced stunted global economic growth, prospect of another few quarters of negative growth (which may still transpire) and a Greek crisis morphing into a full blown Eurozone crisis.

The Arab Spring also understandably had massive implications for the instability / risk premium in the price of crude over much of 2011. However, the impact of each country’s regional upheaval on the price was not uniform. The Oilholic summarised it as follows based on the perceived oil endowment (or the lack of it) for each country: Morocco (negligible), Algeria (marginal), Egypt (marginal), Tunisia (negligible), Bahrain (marginal), Iran and Libya (substantial).

Of the latter, when Libya imploded, Europe faced a serious threat of shortage of the country’s light sweet crude. But with Gaddafi gone and things limping back to normal, Libya has awarded crude oil supply contracts in 2012 to Glencore, Gunvor, Trafigura and Vitol. Of these Vitol helped in selling rebel-held crude during the civil war as the Oilholic noted in June.

Meanwhile Iran remains a troubling place and gives us the first debating point of 2012. It saw protests in 2011 but the regime held firm at the time of the Arab spring. However, in wake of its continued nuclear programme, recent sanctions have triggered a new wave of belligerence from the Iranian government including its intention to blockade the Straits of Hormuz. This raises the risk premium again and if, as expected a blanket ban by the EU on Iranian crude imports is announced, the trend for the crude price for Q1 2012 is decidedly bullish.

Société Générale's oil analyst Michael Wittner believes an EU embargo would possibly prompt an IEA strategic release. The price surge – directly related to the Saudi ability to mitigate the Iran effect – would dampen economic and oil demand growth. Market commentators believe an EU embargo is highly likely, especially after it reached an agreement in principle on an embargo on January 4th.

However, a more serious development would be if Iran carries out its threat to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, disrupting 15 million bpd of crude oil flows and we would expect Brent prices to spike into the US$150-200 range albeit for a limited time period according to Wittner.

“A credible threat from missiles, mines, or fast attack boats is all it would take for tanker insurers to stop coverage, which would halt tanker traffic. However, we believe that Iran would not be able to keep the Straits shut for longer than two weeks, due to a US-led military response. The disruption would definitely result in an IEA strategic release. The severe price spike would sharply hurt economic and oil demand growth, and from that standpoint, be self-correcting,” he adds.

Nonetheless, not many in the City see a “high” probability of such a step by Iran. Anyway, enough about Iran; lets resume our look back at 2011 and the release of strategic reserves would be a good joiner back to events of the past year.

Political pressure, which started building from April 2011, onwards saw the IEA ask its members to release an extra 60 million barrels of their oil stockpiles on to the world markets on June 23rd. The previous two occasions were the first gulf war (1991) and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005). That it happened given the political clamour for it is no surprise and whether or not one questions the wisdom behind the decision, it was a significant event.

For what it was worth, the market trend was already bearish at the time, Libya or no Libya. Concerns triggered by doubts about the US, EU and Chinese economies were aplenty as well as the end of QE2 liquidity injections coupled with high levels of non-commercial net length in the oil markets.

On the corporate front, refineries continued to struggle as expected with many major NOCs either divesting or planning to divest refining and marketing (R&M) assets. US major ConocoPhillips' announcement in July that it will be pursuing the separation of its exploration and production (E&P) and R&M businesses into two separate publicly traded corporations via a tax-free spin-off R&M co. to shareholders did not surprise the Oilholic – in fact it’s a sign of times.

Upstream remains inherently more attractive than the downstream business and the cliché of “high risk, high reward” resonates in the crude world. Continuing with the corporate theme, one has to hand it to ExxonMobil’s inimitable boss – Rex Tillerson – for successfully forging an Arctic tie-up with Rosneft so coveted by beleaguered rival BP.

On August 30th, 2011, beaming alongside Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Tillerson said the two firms will spend US$3.2 billion on deep sea exploration in the East Prinovozemelsky region of the Kara Sea. Russian portion of the Black Sea has also been thrown in the prospection pie for good measure as has the development of oil fields in Western Siberia.

The US oil giant described the said deal as among the most promising and least explored offshore areas globally “with high potential for liquids and gas.” If hearts at BP sank, so they should, as essentially the deal had components which it so coveted. However, a dispute with local partner TNK-BP first held up a BP-Rosneft tie-up and then finished it off.

One the pipelines front, the TransCanada Keystone XL project continues to be hit by delays and decision is not expected before the US presidential election; but the Oilholic feels the delay is not necessarily a bad thing. (Click here for thoughts)

The Oilholic saw M&A activity in the oil & gas sector over 2011 – especially corporate financed asset acquisitions – marginally exceeding pre-crisis deal valuation levels. Recent research for Infrastructure Journal – suggests the deal valuation figure for acquisition of oil & gas infrastructure assets, using September 30th as a cut-off date, is well above the total valuation for 2008, the year that the global credit squeeze meaningfully constricted capital flows.

Finally, on the subject of the good old oil benchmarks, since Q1 2009, Brent has been trading at premium to the WTI. This divergence has stood in recent weeks as both global benchmarks plummeted in wake of the recent economic malaise. WTI’s discount reached almost US$26 per barrel at one point in 2011.

Furthermore, waterborne crudes have also been following the general direction of Brent’s price. The Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) increasingly takes its cue from Brent rather than the WTI, and has been for a while. Hence, Brent continues to reflect global conditions better.

Rounding things up, 2011 was a great year in terms of crude reading, travelling and speaking. Starting with the reading bit, 2011 saw the Oilholic read several books, but three particularly stood out; Daniel Yergin’s weighty volume - The Quest, Dan Dicker’s Oil’s Endless Bid and last but not the least Reuters’ in-house Oilholic Tom Bergin’s Spills & Spin.

Switching to crude travels away from London town, the Oilholic blogged from Calgary, Vancouver, Houston, San Francisco, Vienna, Dusseldorf, Bruges, Manama and Doha; the latter being the host city of the 20th World Petroleum Congress. The Congress itself and other signature events in the 2011 oil & gas calendar duly threw up several tangents for discussion.

Most notable among them were the two OPEC summits, the first in June which saw a complete disharmony among the cartel’s members followed by a calmer less acrimonious one in December where a unanimous decision to hold production at 30 million bpd was reached.

On the speaking circuit front, 2011 saw the Oilholic comment on CNBC, Indian and Chinese networks, OPEC webcasts and industry events, most notable among which was the Baker & McKenzie seminar at the World Petroleum Congress which was a memorable experience. That’s all for the moment folks. Here’s to 2012! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil rig © Cairn Energy.

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)

Of Argentina, Petrobras & a few odd pipelines

Last ten days has seen the crude focus shift to Argentina for a multitude of reasons which may be construed as good or bad depending on your point of view. To begin with, BP’s move to sell assets in Argentina has fallen through after its partner withdrew from the deal. BP wanted to sell its 60% stake in Pan American Energy (PAE) to its partner in Argentina, Bridas Energy Holdings, which is subsequently owned by CNOOC, China's largest offshore oil producer.

However, on November 6th CNOOC said it was terminating the deal, signed a year ago as BP was grappling with the fallout from the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The stake sale was worth an estimated US$7 billion and was one of the largest sales agreed by the firm following the disaster. It is understood that BP will now have to repay its US$3.5 billion deposit on the agreement which had been contingent on regulatory approval.

Barely days later, on November 8th, Spanish giant Repsol’s Argentine subsidiary – YPF Sociedad Anónima – said it had found 927 million barrels of recoverable shale oil in Argentina which could catapult the country to the energy elite league.

In a statement, YPF said the discovery – located in the Vaca Muerta basin of Argentina's Neuquen province – "will transform the energy potential of Argentina and South America, boasting one of the world's most significant accumulations of non-conventional resources".

The discovery is likely to give renewed impetus to the country’s creditors who have been chasing the Argentine government for almost a decade since its default in 2002. Most bondholders took part in debt exchanges in 2005 and 2010, but a brave crew of EM and NML Capital – an affiliate of Elliott management – along with a group of 60,000 individual Italian investors have been bravely holding out and using legal avenues to recoup the US$6 billion-worth of debt plus interest. They may think it’s about time the country paid courtesy of a commodities-led boom.

Regrettably for YPF though, the find came only days after Moody's downgraded Argentine oil & gas companies. These included YPF, Pan American LLC, Petrobras Argentina, Petersen Energia and Petersen Energia Inversora.

According to Moody’s, the ratings downgrade and review for further downgrade were prompted by the new presidential decree requiring oil, gas and mining companies to repatriate 100% of their export proceeds and convert them to Argentine pesos. Previously, oil and gas companies operating in Argentina were permitted to keep up to 70% of their export proceeds offshore.

Neighbouring Brazil’s oil & gas behemoth Petrobras has been busy too. On November 3rd, it announced a new oil discovery in the extreme South Western part of the Walker Ridge concession area, located in the Gulf of Mexico’s ultra-deep waters. The discovery confirms the Lower Tertiary's potential in this area. (see map on the left; click to enlarge)

The discovery – Logan – is approximately 400km southwest of New Orleans, at a water depth of around 2,364 meters (or 7,750 feet). The discovery was made by drilling operations of well WR 969 #1 (or Logan 1), in block WR 969. Further exploration activities will define Logan's recoverable volumes and its commercial potential.

Norway’s Statoil is the consortium's operator, with 35% stake. Petrobras America Inc. (a subsidiary of Petrobras headquartered in Houston, Texas) holds 35% of the stake, while Ecopetrol America and OOGC hold 20% and 10%, respectively.

Petrobras holds other exploratory concession areas in this region, which will be tested later on, growing the Company's operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The Brazilian major is the operator of Cascade (100%) and Chinook (66.7%) oilfields and holds stakes in the Saint Malo (25%), Stones (25%) and Tiber (20%) discoveries, all with significant oil reserves in the Lower Tertiary. Additionally, Petrobras has stakes in the very recent Hadrian South (23.3%), Hadrian North (25%) and Lucius (9.6%) discoveries, all with significant oil reserves and in the Mio-Pliocene.

The company has been pretty busy at home as well, announcing that the first well drilled after the execution of the Transfer of Rights agreement confirmed the extension of the oil reserves located northwest of the Franco area discovery well, in the Santos Basin pre-salt cluster (see map on the left; click to enlarge).

The new well, informally known as Franco NW, is at a water depth of 1860 meters, approximately 188km from the city of Rio de Janeiro and 7.7km northwest of discovery well Franco (or 2-ANP-1-RJS).

The discovery was confirmed by oil samples of good quality (28º API) obtained through cable tests. The well is still in the drilling phase with the aim of reaching the base of the reservoirs containing oil. Once the drilling phase is complete, Petrobras will continue with the investment activities provided in the Mandatory Exploratory Program (or Programa Exploratório Obrigatório, PEO as it’s referred to locally).

From South American discoveries to North American pipelines as it emerged last night that the Obama administration has chickened-out of making a decision on Keystone XL. Faced with the environmental lobby on one side and the Unions craving jobs on the other, the US government has requested further studies on the project which would in theory delay the decision to build the 2700km pipeline well after 2012 presidential election. Frustration across the border in Canada is likely to grow as the Oilholic noted from Calgary earlier this year.

If he rejected the project, Obama could be accused of destroying jobs. If allowed it to go ahead, it could lose him the support of some activists who helped him win the Presidency. So he chose to do what political jellyfish usually do before a crucial vote – nothing.

Additionally, reports surfaced earlier in the week that Houston-based Cardno Entrix – a company involved in the environmental review – had listed developer TransCanada, the pipeline’s sponsor, as a "major client".

A review is now likely to look into this as well as state department emails related to a TransCanada lobbyist who had worked in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. TransCanada says that while it is disappointed with the delay, it continues to “conduct affairs with integrity and in an open and transparent manner.”

Continuing with pipelines, Moody's has assigned a Baa3 rating to Ruby Pipeline's US$1.075 billion senior unsecured notes. The senior unsecured notes have staggered maturities and will be used to refinance US$1.5 billion of project construction loans. The rating outlook is stable.

Stuart Miller, Moody's Vice President and Senior Analyst, said last week that the pipeline is a strategic link that provides diversity of supply to the utilities and industrial markets in Northern California and the Pacific Northwest.

"Hence, the primary drivers for Ruby's Baa3 rating are its initially high leverage tempered by a high level of ship-or-pay firm contracts with counterparties with a weighted average credit rating of Baa1 as well as our expectation that the ratio of debt to EBITDA will rapidly decline to below 4.5x," he concluded.

Ruby's leverage is expected to improve over the next five years as its capital structure includes a five year amortising term loan. Because of the required amortisation, Ruby's leverage, as measured by debt to EBITDA, should decline from approximately 5.2x to less than 4.5x by the end of 2013. Any revenue earned from the 28% un-contracted pipeline capacity would reduce leverage quicker, the agency noted. Finally, Nordstream I gas pipeline came onstream earlier in the week. Here's the WSJ's Oilholic approved take on it.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Map 1: Petrobras prospections in Gulf of Mexico © Petrobras 2011. Map 2: Petrobras in Santos Basin, Brazil (Courtesy: Petrobras)

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)