A Syrian muddle, Barclays on Brent & more

The Brent forward month futures contract for August spiked above US$106 per barrel in intraday trading on Friday at one point. Most analysts cited an escalation of the Syrian situation and the possibility of it morphing into a wider regional conflict as a reason for the 1%-plus spike. The trigger was Obama administration’s reluctant acknowledgement the previous evening of usage of chemical weapons in Syria. The Oilholic’s feedback suggests that more Europe-based supply-side market analysts regard a proactive US involvement in the Syrian muddle as a geopolitical game-changer than their American counterparts. There is already talk of Syria become as US-Russia proxy war.

Add to that Israel’s nervousness about securing its border, jumpiness in Jordon and behind the scenes manipulation of the Assad regime and Syria by Iran. In an investment note, analysts at Barclays have forecasted Brent to climb back to the Nelson figure of 111. Yet a deeper examination of what the bank’s analysts are saying would tell you that their take is not a reactive response to Syria.

In fact, Barclays cites supply constriction between OPEC members as a causative agent, specifically mentioning on-going problems in Nigeria, Libya and shipment concerns in Iraq. For what its worth, and appalling as it might well be, Syria's conflict is only being priced in by traders in passing in anticipation of a wider regional geopolitical explosion, which or may not happen.

Away from OPEC and Syria, the Sudan-South Sudan dispute reared its ugly head again this week. A BBC World Service report on Thursday said Sudan had alleged that rebels based in South Sudan attacked an oil pipeline and Diffra oilfield in the disputed Abyei region. The charge was denied by South Sudan and the rebels.

 

The news follows Sudan’s call for a blockade of South Sudan's oil from going through the former’s pipelines to export terminals to take effect within 60 days. The flow of oil only resumed in April. Both Sudan and the South are reliant on oil revenue, which accounted for 98% of South Sudan's budget. However, the two countries cannot agree how to divide the oil wealth of the former united state. Some 75% of the oil lies in the South, but all the pipelines…well run north.

 

As the geopolitical analysts get plenty of food for thought, BP’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy noted that global energy consumption grew by 1.8% in 2012, with China and India accounting for almost 90% of that growth. Saudi Arabia remained the world’s top producer with its output at 11.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) followed by Russia at 10.6 million boepd. However, the US in third at 8.9 million boepd gave the “All hail shale” brigade plenty of thought. Especially, as BP noted that 2012 saw the largest single-year increase in US oil production ever in the history of the survey.

 

Moving on to corporate news, Fitch Ratings said Repsol's voluntary offer to re-purchase €3 billion of preference shares will increase the group's leverage, partially offsetting any benefit from the proceeds of its recent LNG assets divestment (revealed in March). This reduces the potential for an upgrade or Positive Outlook on the group's 'BBB-' rating in the near term, the agency added. Repsol's board voted in May to repurchase the preference shares partly with cash and partly with new debt.

 

Finally, Tullow Oil has won its legal battle, dating back to 2010, over tax payable on the sale of oilfields in Uganda. On Friday, the company said a UK court had ruled in favour of its indemnity claim for $313 million in its entirety (when the Uganda’s government demanded over $400 million in capital gains tax after Heritage Oil sold assets in the country to Tullow in a $1.45 billion deal).

 

Heritage said it would now evaluate its legal options and could launch an appeal. When the original deal between Heritage and Tullow was concluded, Tullow paid the Ugandan Revenue Authority $121.5 million – a third of the original $405 million tax demand – and put the remaining $283.5 million into an escrow account.

 

That’s all for the moment folks! The Oilholic has arrived in Belfast ahead of 2013 G8 Summit in Northern Ireland under the UK’s presidency, where Syria, despite the meeting being an economic forum, is bound to creep up on the World leaders’ agenda. As will energy-related matters. So keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Veneco Oil Platform, California, USA © Rich Reid / National Geographic.

OPEC & the downward bias in Black Gold’s value

The OPEC ministers have packed-up and left with no real surprises as the cartel maintained its daily output at 30 million barrels per day (bpd). But in the absence of any real surprises from OPEC, the downward bias in the direction of leading oil futures benchmarks is getting stronger, given the perceived oversupply and a flat, if not dicey, macroeconomic climate. The Brent forward month futures contract plummeted to nearly US$100, seeing a near 2.5% dip from last week (click on graph to enlarge). Given that the trading community had already factored in the outcome of the 163rd OPEC meeting even before it concluded, most appear to be waiting to see whether the US Federal Reserve continues with its monetary stimulus programme. Even if it does so, given the macroeconomic permutations, it is not worth holding your breath for a ‘crude’ bounceback.

 

Far from cutting production, there seem to be murmurs and concern in the hawkish camps of Iran and Venezuela about constantly improving production levels in Iraq. Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi, Iraq’s oil minister, confirmed at a media scrum in Vienna that the country plans to start production at two of its largest oilfields within “a matter of weeks.”

 

Production commencement at Majnoon (which is imminent) and Gharraf (due in July), followed by a third facility at West Qurna-2 (due by December if not earlier) would lift Iraqi capacity by 400,000 bpd according to al-Luaibi. The country’s current output is about 3.125 million bpd. The additional capacity would bolster its second position, behind Saudi Arabia, in the OPEC output league table.

 

The Iraqis have a monetary incentive to produce more of the crude stuff. Sadly for OPEC, it will come at a time the cartel does not need it. Instead of adherence, there will be further flouting of the recently agreed upon quota by some members. Iraq is not yet even included in the quota (and may not be until late into 2014).

 

Non-OPEC supply is seeing the ranks of the usual suspects Russia and Norway, joined ever more meaningfully by Brazil, Kazakhstan, Canada and not to mention (and how can you not mention) – the US, courtesy of its shale supplies and more efficient extraction techniques at Texan conventional plays. So a downward bias will prevail – for now.

 

In fact, Morgan Stanley did not even wait for the OPEC meeting to end before downgrading oil services firms, mostly European ones, based on the conjecture that IOCs as well as NOCs (several of whom hail from OPEC jurisdictions) would allocate relatively lower capex towards E&P.

 

Robert Pulleyn, analyst at Morgan Stanley, wrote and the Oilholic quotes: “With oil prices the key determinant of industry operating cash flow, and given our expectation for an increasingly range bound price environment, we expect industry-operating-cash-flow growth to fall from 14% compound annual growth rate (since 2003) to about 3% in the future. We expect capex growth to fall to around 5% a year to 2020, compared to 18% compound annual growth rate since 2003.”

 

Of the five it downgraded on Thursday – viz. Vallourec, SBM Offshore, CGG Veritas, TGS-NOPEC and Subsea 7 – only the latter avoided a dip in share price following the news. However, Morgan Stanley upgraded John Wood Group, saying it is better positioned to withstand a lower growth outlook for industry spending.

 

As for the price of the crude stuff itself, many analysts didn’t wait for OPEC either with Commerzbank, Société Générale and Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BoAML) all sounding bearish on Brent. BoAML cut its Brent crude price forecasts to $103 per barrel from $111 for the second half of 2013, citing lower global oil demand, rising supplies and higher inventories. The bank expects the general weakness to persist next year and reduced its 2014 average Brent price outlook from $112 to $105 per barrel. So there you have it and that’s all from Vienna folks!

 

Since it’s time to say Auf Wiedersehen, the Oilholic leaves you with a view of the city’s Irrgarten and Labyrinth at the Schönbrunn Palace grounds (see right). Once intended for the amusement of Austro-Hungarian royalty and their guests, this amazing maze is now for the public’s amusement.

 

While visitors to this wonderful place are getting lost in a maze for fun, OPEC ministers going round in circles over a key appointment to the post of Secretary General is hardly entertaining. At such a challenging time for it, the 12-member oil exporters’ club could do with a bit of unity. Yet it cannot even unite behind a single candidate for the post – something which has been dragging on for a year – as rivals Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to hold out for their chosen candidate for the post. Furthermore, it’s taken an ugly sectarian tone along Shia and Sunni lines.

 

Worryingly, this time around, neither the Saudis nor the Iraqis are in any mood for a compromise as the rest of the 10 members wander around in a maze feeling dazed about shale, internal rivalries, self interest and plain old fashioned market anxieties. The Oilholic maintains it’s premature to suggest that a rise in unconventional production is making OPEC irrelevant, but its members are unwittingly trying really hard to do just that! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Graph: World crude oil futures benchmarks to May 25, 2013 © Société Générale. Photo: Irrgarten & Labyrinth, Schönbrunn Palace, Vienna, Austria © Gaurav Sharma 2013.

As expected OPEC quota stays at 30 mbpd!

As widely expected and in line with market expectations, the 163rd OPEC meeting of ministers ended with the 12 members of the oil exporting club keeping their official collective production quota right where it was – at 30 million barrels per day (bpd).

 

OPEC noted that the “relative steadiness” of crude oil prices during 2013 (to-date) was an indication that the market was adequately supplied, with “the periodic price fluctuations being a reflection of geopolitical tensions.”

 

However, the cartel felt that whilst world economic growth was projected to reach 3.2% in 2013, up from 3% in 2012, downside risks to the global economy, especially in the OECD region, remain unchecked.

 

OPEC said that world oil demand is expected to rise from 88.9 million bpd in 2012 to 89.7 million bpd in 2013, driven “almost entirely” by the non-OECD regions. It also projected non-OPEC supply to grow by 1.0 million bpd.

 

OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, “Taking these developments into account, the second half of the year could see a further easing in fundamentals, despite seasonally-higher demand. In light of the foregoing, we have in decided that member countries should adhere to the existing production ceiling of 30 million bpd.”

 

El-Badri was not prepared to discuss the individual members’ quotas, a figure which OPEC no longer releases for publication. The Secretary General also revealed that no agreement was reached over the election of his successor with the same three candidates – viz the two protagonists Majid Munif (Saudi Arabia) and Gholam-Hussein Nozari (Iran) with compromise candidate Thamir Ghadban (an Iraqi official) – being in the frame.

 

“The candidates remain the same, but if a fresh name comes up then we will examine his/her credentials in the usual way,” the Secretary General said. In his response to the debate about shale’s impact on OPEC members’ fortunes and a possible rise in their spare capacity, El-Badri said the impact of unconventional oil production remains uncertain and if it resulted in a rise in OPEC’s spare capacity then there was no reason to be alarmed.

 

“I am in the business of conventional. The way I see it is that if it is a causative factor in a rise in OPEC’s spare capacity then I say why not? What’s the harm? The International Energy Agency (IEA) cannot have it both ways. Before the shale debate began, the agency expressed alarm at the perceived lack of OPEC’s spare capacity. Now when there is a perception that our spare capacity would rise, they again see it as a problem,” he added.

 

El-Badri said OPEC members would, if required, take steps to ensure market balance and reasonable price levels for producers and consumers, and respond to developments that might place oil market stability in jeopardy. OPEC said its next meeting will convene in Vienna, Austria, on Dec 4, 2013. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri speaks at the conclusion of the 163rd OPEC meeting of ministers © Gaurav Sharma, May 31, 2013.

A historical perspective on oil and world power

Throughout his illustrious career, academic Peter Randon Odell enriched the available oil and gas market commentary and analysis of his time, writing close to 20 books and numerous research papers. In 1970, Odell wrote arguably one of his most authoritative works on the subject – Oil and World Power. He went on to update and revise it no less than eight times with the last imprint reaching bookshelves in 1986.

After over two decades, the old master’s insight is available once again via a Routledge reprint, under its Routledge Revivals Initiative which aims to re-print academic works that have long been unavailable. While the publisher’s hunt for scholarly reprints is rewinding the clock back to the last 120 years, the Oilholic is not the least bit surprised that Odell’s most popular work is among the first to roll off Routledge’s printing presses for 2013 under the Revivals Initiative.

It was Odell who was among the first to catalogue the oil industry’s commercial clout and pragmatically noted in this book that the oil and gas business was one which no country could do without given the inextricable link between industrialisation and fossil fuels.

Above anything else, this reprinted book offers Odell’s insight on the oil and gas business as it had evolved up and until the 1980s, pre-dating the corporate birth of ExxonMobil, the collapse of the Soviet Union, America’s shale bonanza and resource nationalism to the extent we see today. This in itself makes the reprint of Oil and World Power invaluable.

The reader gets a glimpse of energy hegemony as it was up and until the 1980s and Odell’s insight on issues of the day. From OPEC soundbites to the anxieties of consuming nations, from the decline of International Oil Companies (IOCs) to the rise of National Oil Companies (NOCs) – it’s all there, coupled with changing patterns of oil supply and the dramatic fall in oil prices in 1986.

Yet, Odell’s conclusions in this book, of just over 300 pages split by 11 chapters, sound eerily similar; a sort of a forerunner to what industry commentators are mulling over in this day and age. In fact, the deep links, which he refers to in this book, between oil and gas extraction, conflict, resource nationalism, global politics and economic prowess are as entrenched as ever.

After discussing the bigger picture, the author goes on to offer a fair bit of forward-thinking conjecture on the relationship between the oil and gas business and economic development. There are also subtle hints at the resource curse hypothesis – a discussion which was hardly mainstream in the 1980s but is hotly debated these days.

This reprint bears testimony to the brilliance of Odell in tacking such issues head on. It would be of immense value to students of energy economics, industrial studies, international development, geopolitics and political hegemony. But above all, those looking to probe the history of the oil and gas business must certainly reach out for this engaging volume. 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front Cover – Oil and World Power © Routledge

An arduously researched book on ‘crude’ Russia

When looking up written material on the Russian oil and gas industry, you are (more often than not) likely to encounter clichés or exaggerations. Some would discuss chaos in wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the oligarchs as a typical “Russian” episode of corruption and greed – yet fail to address the underlying causes that led to it. Others would indulge in an all too familiar Russia bashing exercise without concrete articulation. Amidst a cacophony of mediocre analysis, academic Thane Gustafson’s splendid work – Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – not only breaks the mould but smashes it to pieces. This weighty, arduously researched book of just under 700 pages split by 13 chapters does justice to the art of scrutiny when it comes to examining this complex oil and gas exporting jurisdiction; a rival of Saudi Arabia for the position of the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil.

 

It is about power, it is about money, it is about politics but turning page after page, you would realise Gustafson is subtly pointing out that it is a battle for Russia’s ‘crude’ soul. In order to substantiate his arguments, the book is full of views of commentators, maps, charts and tables and over 100 pages of footnotes. The narrative switches seamlessly from discussing historical facts to the choices Russia’s political classes and the country’s oil industry face in this day and age.

 

The complex relationship between state and industry, from the Yeltsin era to Putin’s rise is well documented and in some detail along with an analysis of what it means and where it could lead. In a book that the Oilholic perceives as the complete package on the subject, it is hard to pick favourite passages – but two chapters stood out in particular.

 

Early on in the narrative, Gustafson charts the birth of Russian oil majors Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz and Yukos (and the latter’s dismembering too). Late on in the book, the author examines Russia’s (current) accidental oil champion Rosneft. Both passages not only sum up the fortunes of Russian companies and how they have evolved (or in Yukos’ case faced corporate extinction) but also sum up prevailing attitudes within the Kremlin.

 

What’s more, as crude oil becomes harder and more expensive to extract and Russian production dwindles, Gustafson warns that the country’s current level of dependence on revenue from oil is unsustainable and that it simply must diversify.

 

Overall, the Oilholic is inclined to feel that this book is one of the most authoritative work on Russia and its oil industry, a well balanced critique with substantiated arguments and one which someone interested in geopolitics would appreciate as much as an enthusiast of energy economics.

 

This blogger is happy to recommend Wheel of Fortune to readers interested in Russia, the oil and gas business, geopolitics, economics, current affairs and last but certainly not the least – those seeking a general interest non-fiction book on a subject they haven’t visited before. As for the story seekers, given that it’s Russia, Gustafson has more that few tales to narrate all right, but fiction they aren’t. Fascinating and brilliantly written they most certainly are!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front cover - Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia © Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

‘9-month’ high to a ‘9-month’ low? That's crude!

In early February, we were discussing the Brent forward month futures contract's rise to a nine-month high of US$119.17 per barrel. Fast forward to mid-April and here we are at a nine-month low of US$97.53 – that’s ‘crude’!

The Oilholic forecast a dip and so it has proved to be the case. The market mood is decidedly bearish with the IMF predicting sluggish global growth and all major industry bodies (OPEC, IEA, EIA) lowering their respective global oil demand forecasts.

OPEC and EIA demand forecasts were along predictable lines but from where yours truly read the IEA report, it appeared as if the agency reckons European demand in 2013 would be the lowest since the 1980s. Those who followed market hype and had net long positions may not be all that pleased, but a good few people in India are certainly happy according to Market Watch. As the price of gold – the other Indian addiction – has dipped along with that of crude, some in the subcontinent are enjoying a “respite” it seems. It won’t last forever, but there is no harm in short-term enjoyment.

While the Indians maybe enjoying the dip in crude price, the Iranians clearly aren’t. With Brent below US$100, the country’s oil minister Rostam Qasemi quipped, "An oil price below $100 is not reasonable for anyone." Especially you Sir! The Saudi soundbites suggest that they concur. So, is an OPEC production cut coming next month? Odds are certainly rising one would imagine.

Right now, as Stephen Schork, veteran analyst and editor of The Schork Report, notes: "Oil is in a continued a bear run, but there's still a considerable amount of length from a Wall Street standpoint, so it smells like more of a liquidation selloff."

By the way, it is worth pointing out that at various points during this and the past week, the front-month Brent futures was trading at a discount to the next month even after the May settlement expired on April 15th. The Oilholic counted at least four such instances over the stated period, so read what you will into the contango. Some say now would be a good time to bet on a rebound if you fancy a flutter and “the only way is up” club would certainly have you do that.

North Sea oil production is expected to fall by around 2% in May relative to this month’s production levels, but the Oilholic doubts if that would be enough on a standalone basis to pull the price back above US$100-mark if the macroclimate remains bleak.

Meanwhile, WTI is facing milder bear attacks relative to Brent, whose premium to its American cousin is now tantalisingly down to under US$11; a far cry from October 5, 2011 when it stood at US$26.75. It seems Price Futures Group analyst Phil Flynn’s prediction of a ‘meeting in the middle’ of both benchmarks – with Brent falling and WTI rising – looks to be ever closer.

Away from pricing, the EIA sees US oil production rising to 8 million barrels per day (bpd) and also that the state of Texas would still beat North Dakota in terms of oil production volumes, despite the latter's crude boom. As American companies contemplate a crude boom, one Russian firm – Lukoil could have worrying times ahead, according to Fitch Ratings.

In a note to clients earlier this month, the ratings agency noted that Lukoil’s recent acquisition of a minor Russian oil producer (Samara-Nafta, based in the Volga-Urals region with 2.5 million tons of annual oil production) appeared to be out of step with recent M&A activity, and may indicate that the company is struggling to sustain its domestic oil output.

Lukoil spent nearly US$7.3 billion on M&A between 2009 and 2012 and acquired large stakes in a number of upstream and downstream assets. However, a mere US$452 million of that was spent on Russian upstream acquisitions. But hear this – the Russian firm will pay US$2.05 billion to acquire Samara-Nafta! Unlike Rosneft and TNK-BP which the former has taken over, Lukoil has posted declines in Russian oil production every year since 2010.

“We therefore consider the Samara-Nafta acquisition as a sign that Lukoil is willing to engage in costly acquisitions to halt the fall in oil production...Its falling production in Russia results mainly from the depletion of the company's brownfields in Western Siberia and lower than-expected production potential of the Yuzhno Khylchuyu field in Timan-Pechora,” Fitch Ratings notes.

On a closing note, the Oilholic would like to share a brilliant article on the BBC's website touching on the fallacy of the good biofuels are supposed to do. Citing a Chatham House report, the Beeb notes that the UK's "irrational" use of biofuels will cost motorists around £460 million over the next 12 months. Furthermore, a growing reliance on sustainable liquid fuels will also increase food prices. That’s all for the moment folks. Until next time, keep reading, keep it crude! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com 

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

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.

End of Q1 2013 trade @ CBOT & hot air on shale

As trading came to a close for Q1 2013 at the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) on Thursday afternoon, the Oilholic saw crude oil futures rise during the last session of the first quarter aided undoubtedly by a weaker dollar supporting the prices. However, yours truly also saw something particularly telling – fidgeting with the nearest available data terminal would tell you that Brent crude futures slipped nearly 1 percent over Q1 2013. This extended a near-1 percent dip seen in Q4 2012. Overall, Brent averaged just around the US$112 per barrel level for much of 2012 and the Brent-WTI premium narrowed to its lowest level in eight months on March 28. That said, it must be acknowledged that US$112 is still the highest ever average annual price for the benchmark as far as the Oilholic can remember.

In its quarter ending oil market report, the CME/CBOT said improved sentiment towards Cyprus was seen as a supportive force helping to lift risk taking sentiment in the final few days before Easter. On the other hand, concerns over ample near term supply weighed on nearby calendar spreads, in particular the Brent May contract.

In fact, the May versus June Brent crude oil spread narrowed to its slimmest margin since July 2012. Some traders here indicated that an unwinding of the spread was in part due to an active North Sea loading schedule for April and prospects for further declines in Cushing, Oaklahoma supply.

Away from price issues, news arrived here that ratings agency Moody’s reckons an escalation in the cost of complying with US federal renewable fuel requirements poses a headwind for the American refining and marketing industry over the next two years (and potentially beyond if yours truly read the small print right).

Moody’s said prices were spiking for renewable identification numbers (RIN) which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to track whether fuel refiners, blenders and importers are meeting their renewable-fuel volume obligations.

Senior analyst Saulat Sultan said, "US refining companies either amass RINs through their blending efforts or buy them on the secondary market in order to meet their annual renewable-fuel obligations. It isn't yet clear whether recent price increases reflect a potential shortfall in RIN availability in 2014, or more structural and permanent changes for the refining industry."

The impact of higher RIN prices will depend on a company's ability to meet its RIN requirements internally, as well as the amount of RINs it can carry over to 2014 and gasoline export opportunities, Sultan says. Refiners carried over about 2.6 billion excess RINs to 2013 from 2012, but the EPA expects a lower quantity to be carried over to 2014.

"RIN purchasing costs can be sizable, even while refiners are generally enjoying a period of strong profitability, such as they are now. Integrated refining and marketing companies including Phillips 66, Marathon Petroleum and Northern Tier Energy LLC are likely to be better positioned than sellers that do not blend most of their gasoline, such as Valero Energy, CVR Refining LLC and PBF Energy, or refiners with limited export capabilities, such as HollyFrontier," Sultan added.

Concurrently, increasing ethanol blending, which is used to generate enough RINs to comply with federal regulations, raises potential legal issues for refiners. This is because gasoline demand is flat or declining and exceeding the 10% threshold (the "blend wall") could attract lawsuits from consumers whose vehicle warranties prohibit using fuel with a higher percentage. However, Moody's does not believe that companies will raise the ethanol content without some protection from the federal government. 

Meanwhile, all the hot air about the ‘domestic dangers’ and ‘negative implications’ of the US exporting gas is getting hotter. A group – America’s Energy Advantage – has hit the airwaves, newspapers and wires here claiming that "exporting LNG carries with it the potential threat of damaging jobs and investment in the US manufacturing sector as rising exports will drive up the price of gas to the detriment of domestic industries."

So who are these guys? Well the group is backed by several prominent US industrial brands including Alcoa, Huntsman chemicals and Dow Chemical. Continuing with the subject, even though only one US terminal – Sabine Pass – has been permitted to export the fruits of the shale revolution, chatter in forex circles is already turning to shale oil and gas improving the fortunes of the US Dollar!

For instance, Ashok Shah, investment director at London & Capital, feels this seismic shift could improve growth prospects, reduce inflation and diminish the US current account deficit, with significant ramifications for long-term investors.

"For the past decade we have seen the US Dollar in decline, on a trade weighted basis. I believe the emergence of shale oil as a viable energy source looks set to have a considerable impact on the US dollar, and on the global economy as a whole," Shah said.

"Furthermore, a lower oil price will drive lower global headline inflation benefiting the US in particular - and a lower relative inflation rate will be a positive USD driver, improving the long-term purchasing power of the currency," he added.

The Russians are stirring up too. Last week, Gazprom and CNPC signed a 30-year memorandum to supply 38 billion cubic meters (bcm) to 60 bcm of natural gas from Eastern Siberian fields to China from 2018. The negotiations haven’t concluded yet. A legally binding agreement must be signed by June and final documents by the end of the year, covering pricing and prepayment terms. Let us see the small print before making a call on this one. On a related note, ratings agency Fitch says Gazprom is unlikely to offer any meaningful gas price concessions to another one of its customers – Naftogaz of Ukraine – in the short term owing to high spot prices for natural gas in Europe, currently being driven by the continued cold weather.

Sticking with the Russian front, Rosneft, which recently completed the acquisition of TNK-BP, has negotiated an increase in its oil shipments to China from the current 15mtpa to as much as 31mtpa in exchange for a pre-payment, and has agreed on a number of joint projects in exploration, refining and chemicals production with CNPC and Sinopec.

This is it for this post; it is time to bid goodbye to Chicago and Lake Michigan’s shoreline and hop 436 miles across the Great Lakes to say hello to Lake Ontario’s shoreline and Toronto. The Oilholic leaves you with a view of the waterfront and the city’s iconic buildings; the Willis Tower (once Sears Tower is on the left of the frame above).

It’s been a memorable adventure to Illinois, not least getting to visit  CBOT – the world’s oldest options and futures exchange. Leaving is always hard, but to quote Robert Frost – “I have promises to keep, and miles before I go to sleep.” That’s all from the Windy City 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: Exterior of the Chicago Board of Trade. Photo 2: Chicago's Skyline and Lake Michigan, Illinois, USA © Gaurav Sharma.

Crude thoughts from 141 West Jackson Blvd

A visit to Chicago would not be complete without setting foot inside 141 West Jackson Boulevard – the Chicago Board of Trade’s (CBOT) iconic abode – and gathering the pulse of the market straight from the world's oldest futures and options exchange. Over 50 different options and futures contracts are traded here, including ‘cruder’ ones, via close to 4000 member traders both electronically and through open outcrys; so plenty to observe and discuss.

There was only one man though whom the Oilholic had in mind – the inimitable Phil Flynn of Price Futures Group, veteran market analyst and the doyen of the business news broadcasters. The man from the “South Side” of Chicago has never been one to sit on the fence in all the years that yours truly has been mapping his market commentary. And he wasted no time in declaring that the WTI could reassert itself in the Battle of the Benchmarks pretty soon.

“First, let’s take the Brent-WTI differential into perspective. It narrowed to US$13 at one point today [March 28] and it will continue to narrow, albeit in fits and starts. We’ll come back to this point. WTI’s claw-back in terms of market stature could be down to simple nuts and bolts stuff! The US could – and I think will – become a treble impact jurisdiction – i.e. one of the world’s largest consumer, producer and exporters of crude oil somewhere between 2015-2018; if you believe the current market projections. So what could be a better way to get a sense of the global energy market than to have all of that rolled into one contract?”

Flynn reckons people were behind the curve in awarding Brent a victory in the Battle of the Benchmarks. “Everyone says these days that Brent is more reflective of global conditions. My take is that they should have reached this conclusion five years ago and it’d have been fine! Yet now when the clamour for Brent being the leading benchmark is growing, market supply and demand dynamics are changing for the better here in the US and for the worse in the North Sea.”

The veteran market commentator says the period of Brent being a global benchmark will be akin to the "rise and fall of the Roman Empire" through no fault of its champions but rather that of "late adopters" who missed the pulse of the market which was ticking differently back in 2007-08 with the rise of Asian crude oil consumption.

“There is a lot of politics in anointing the ‘favoured’ benchmark. As a trader I don’t care about the politics, I go with my gut instinct which tells me the problems associated with the WTI – for instance the Oklahoma glut – are being tackled while Brent’s are just beginning. WTI is liquid, has broad participation and also has the backdrop giving an indication of what supply and demand is. Therein, for me, lies the answer.”

Flynn also feels the technicals tell their own story. In December, he called a WTI low of US$85 and the top at US$97 and was vindicated. “It is flattering to look like some kind of a genius but it was pure technical analysis. I think there was a realisation that oil was undervalued at the end of 2012 (fiscal cliff, dollar-cross). When that went away, WTI had a nice seasonal bounce (add cold weather, improving US economy). It’s all about playing the technicals to a tee!”

Flynn sees the current WTI price as being close to a short-term top. “Now that’s a scary thing to say because we’re going into the refining season. It is so easy to say pop the WTI above US$100. But the more likely scenario is that there would a much greater resistance at about the price level where we are now.”

Were this to happen, both the Oilholic and Flynn were in agreement that there could be a further narrowing between Brent and WTI - a sort of “a meeting in the middle” with WTI price going up and Brent falling.

“The WTI charts look bullish but I still maintain that we are closer to the top. What drives the price up at this time of the year is the summer driving season. Usually, WTI climbs in March/April because the refiners are seen switching to summer time blends and are willing to pay-up for the higher quality crudes so that they can get the switchover done and make money on the margins,” he says.

His team at Price Futures (see right) feels the US seasonal factors are currently all out of whack. “We’ve recently had hurricanes, refinery fires, the Midwest glut, a temporary gas price spike – which means the run-up of gasoline prices that we see before Memorial Day has already happened! Additionally, upward pressure on the WTI contracts that we see in March/April may have already been alleviated because we had part of the refinery maintenance done early. So barring any major disasters we ‘may not’ get above US$100,” he adds.

As for the risk premium both here and across the pond, the CBOT man reckons we can consider it to be broadly neutral on the premise that a US$10 premium has already been priced in and has been for some time now.

“The Iran issue has been around for so long that it’s become a near permanent feature. The price of oil, as far as the risk premium goes, reflects the type of world that we live in; so we have an in-built risk premium every day.”

“Market wizards could, in theory, conjure up a new futures gimmick solely on the “risk premium in oil” – which could range between US$3 to US$20 were we to have a one! Right now we have a US$7 to US$10 premium “near” permanently locked in. So unless we see a major disruption to supply, that risk premium is now closer to 7 rather than 10. That’s not because the risks aren’t there, but because there is more supply back-up in case of an emergency,” he adds.

“Remember, Libya came into the risk picture only because of the perceived short supply of the (light sweet) quality of its crude. That was the last big risk driven volatility that we had. The other was when we were getting ready for the European embargo on Iranian crude exports,” he adds.

With the discussion done, Flynn, with his customary aplomb, remarked, “Let’s show you how trading is done the Chicago way.” That meant a visit down to the trading pit, something which alas has largely disappeared from London, excluding the London Metals Exchange.

While the CBOT was established in 1848, it has been at its 141 West Jackson Boulevard building since 1930 and so has the trading pit. “Just before the Easter break, volumes today [March 28] are predictably lower. I think the exchange record is 454 million contracts set 10 years ago,” says Flynn.

As we stepped into the pit, the din and energy on the floor was infectious. Then there was pin drop silence 10 seconds before the pit traders awaited a report due at 11:00 am sharp...followed by a loud groan.

“No need to look at the monitors – that was bearish all right; a groan would tell you that. With every futures contract, crude including, there would be someone who’s happy and someone who’s not. The next day the roles would be reversed and so it goes. You can take all your computers and all your tablets and all your Blackberries – this is trading as it should be,” says Flynn (standing here on the right with the Oilholic).

In July 2007, the CBOT merged with the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) to form the CME Group, a CME/Chicago Board of Trade Company, making it a bigger market beast than it was. Having last visited a rather docile trading pit in Asia, the Oilholic was truly privileged to have visited this iconic trading pit – the one where many feel it all began in earnest.

They say the Czar’s Russia first realised the value of refining Petroleum from crude oil, the British went about finding oil and making a business of it; but it is the United States of America that created a whole new industry model as we know it today! The inhabitants of this building in Chicago for better parts of 80 years can rightly claim “We’re the money” for that industry.

That’s all from the 141 West Jackson Boulevard folks! It was great being here and this blogger cannot thank Phil Flynn and Price Futures Group enough, not only for their time and hospitality, but for also granting access to observe both their trading room and the CBOT pit. More from Chicago coming up! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: The Chicago Board of Trade at West Jackson Boulevard (left) with the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (right), Chicago, USA. Photo 2: Phil Flynn (standing in the centre) with his colleagues at Price Futures Group. Photo 3: Phil Flynn (right) with the Oilholic (left) at the CBOT trading floor © Gaurav Sharma 2013.

US LNG exports to the UK: The ‘Stateside’ Story

The Oilholic finds himself in Chicago IL, meeting old friends and making new ones! A story much discussed this week in the Windy City is US firm Cheniere Energy’s deal to export LNG to UK’s Centrica. More on why it is such a headline grabber later, but first the headline figures related to the deal.

The agreement, inked by Centrica and Cheniere on March 25, sees the latter provide 20-years' worth of LNG shipments starting from September 2018, which according to the former is enough to fuel 1.8 million British homes.

Centrica said it would purchase about 1.75 million metric tonnes per annum of annual LNG volumes for export from the Sabine Pass Project in Louisiana. (see Cheniere Energy’s graphic on the left, click image to enlarge). The contract covers an initial 20-year period, with an option for a 10-year extension.

Centrica, which owns utility British Gas, has fished overseas in recent years as the North Sea’s output plummets. For instance, around the 20th World Petroleum Congress in 2011, it inked deals with Norway’s Statoil and Qatar Petroleum. US companies have also flirted with the export market. So the nature of the deal is not new for either party; the timing and significance of it is.

According to City analysts and their peers here in Chicago, the announcement is a ground breaking move owing to two factors – (1) it’s the first ever long-term LNG supply deal for the Brits and (2) a market breakthrough for a US gas exporter in Europe.

Additionally, it blows away the insistence by the Russians and Qataris to link longer term supply contracts to the crude oil price (hello?? keep dreaming) instead of contracts priced relative to gas market movements. As for gas market prices, here is the math – excluding the recent (temporary) spike, gas prices in the UK are on average 3 to 3.5 times higher than the current price in the US. So we’re talking in the range of US$9.75 to $10.25 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). The Americans want to sell the stuff, the Brits want to buy – it’s a no brainer.

Except – as a contact in Chicago correctly points out – things are never straightforward in this crude world. Sounding eerily similar to what Chatham House fellow Prof. Paul Stevens told the Oilholic earlier this month, he says, “Have you forgotten the politics of ‘cheap’ US gas exports landing up on foreign shores? Even if it’s to our old friends the Brits?”

The US shale revolution has been price positive for American consumers – the exchequer is happy, the political classes are happy and so is the public which sees their country edging towards “energy independence.” (A big achievement in the current geopolitical climate and despite the quakes in Oklahoma).

The only people who are not all that happy, apart from the environmentalists, are the pioneers who persevered and kick-started this US shale gas revolution which was three decades in the making. To quote one who is now happily retired in Skokie, IL, “We no longer get more bang for our bucks anymore when it comes to domestic contracts.”

Another valid argument, from some in the trading community here in Chicago, is that as soon as US gas exports gain traction, bulk of which would head to Asia and not mother England, domestic prices will start climbing. So the Centrica-Cheniere deal, while widely cheered in the UK, has got little more than a perfunctory, albeit positive, acknowledgement from the political classes stateside.

In contrast, across the pond, none other than the UK Prime Minister David Cameron himself took to the airwaves declaring, “Future gas supplies from the US will help diversify our energy mix and provide British consumers with a new long term, secure and affordable source of fuel.”

The Prime Minister is quite right – the UK would rather buy from a ‘friendly’ country. Problem is, the friendly country might cool off on the idea of gas exports, were US domestic prices to pick-up in tandem with a rise in export volumes.

That’s all for the moment from Chicago folks! More from here over the next few days; keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Sabine Pass Project, USA © Cheniere Energy Inc.

By ‘George’! In shale we (Brits) trust?

Delivering his 2013 budget speech on March 20, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told a boisterous bunch of British parliamentarians that "shale gas is part of the future and we will make it happen."

 

He added that the government will publish guidelines by June which would set out how local communities could benefit from “their” unconventional gas resources. The UK lifted a temporary moratorium on shale gas fracking in December 2012 after much procrastination.

 

At the time, it was announced that the government would establish a new Office for Unconventional Gas with an emphasis on shale gas and coal-bed methane and the role they could play in meeting the country's energy demand. If anyone doubted the UK government’s intent when it comes to shale prospection, this is your answer. Sadly, intent alone will not trigger a shale revolution.

 

The Oilholic has always maintained that a swift British replication, or for that matter a wider European replication, of a US fracking heaven is unlikely and not just because there isn’t a one size fits all model to employ.

 

The shale bonanza stateside is no geological fluke; rather it bottles down to a combination of geology, tenacity and inventiveness. Add to that a less dense population than the British Isles, a largely conducive legislative and environmental framework, and a far superior pipeline network and access equation.

 

Furthermore, as Chatham House fellow Prof. Paul Stevens pointed out last week, “The American shale revolution got where it is today through massive investment, commitment towards research and development and over two decades of perseverance. I don’t see that level of commitment here.” Neither does the Oilholic.

 

Agreeing with Stevens is Dr. Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers, who opined that it was important for government not to see shale gas as the “silver bullet many claim it is”.

 

“Shale gas is unlikely to impact greatly on energy prices in the UK and we must avoid becoming hostage to volatile gas markets by not being over-reliant on gas,” he added.

 

Well at least the Chancellor is trying to do something and you can’t beat a man down for that. Especially as that is not the only thing he’s trying on the energy front. Addressing the subject of decommissioning in the North Sea, Osborne said the government would enter into contracts with companies in the sector operating in the offshore region to provide "certainty" over tax relief measures.

 

The proposals are also designed to allow the tax effect of decommissioning costs to be sufficiently certain to allow companies to move to a post tax calculation in field security agreements. Andrew Lister, energy tax partner at KPMG, notes, "With hundreds of such agreements in the North Sea it will take many months to understand whether the proposals have had the desired result of freeing up capital and making late life assets more attractive for new investors."

 

"Nonetheless, the oil & gas industry in the North Sea – having endured the shock tax announced in the Budget two years ago – will welcome the announcements on decommissioning certainty, which should support extraction of the UK’s precious oil resources to the tune of billions. Certainty on tax relief for decommissioning costs will encourage companies to invest in the North Sea as the proposals should provide the assurance companies have been wanting on the availability of tax deductions," he added.

 

Osborne also revealed the two successful bidders for the government’s £1 billion support for Carbon Capture and Storage (CC&S) projects as – the Peterhead Project in Aberdeenshire and the White Rose Project in Yorkshire. Away from the direct fiscal measures, one particular move made by the Chancellor also has implications for the energy sector.

 

He pledged to abolish the stamp duty levied on small company shares traded on markets such as the London Stock Exchange's AiM, to end what he described as a "perceived bias" in the tax system "favouring debt financing over equity investment". You could hear the cheers in the City within minutes of the announcement.

 

The London Stock Exchange, for its part, described the move as a “bold and decisive growth-orientated policy…” to which the Oilholic would add, “a policy that would improve the take-up of shares in small independent oil & gas upstarts who often list on the AiM.”

 

Finally, moving away from the UK budget, but sticking with Parliament, the Oilholic recently had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee, for CFO World (for the full interview click here). This veteran parliamentarian has taken upon herself and her committee to make the issue of corporate tax avoidance a mainstream subject in the UK.

 

Ever since it emerged last year that the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and many others were employing aggressive tax avoidance schemes to mitigate their British tax exposure, Hodge has been on the case. They quipped "we’re not doing anything illegal", she famously quipped back, "we’re not accusing you of being illegal; we’re accusing you of being immoral!"

 

End result, we’ve got everyone from the OECD to the G8 discussing corporate tax avoidance. And oh – Starbucks are 'voluntarily' paying more tax in the UK too! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, London, UK © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee (left) with the Oilholic (right) © Gaurav Sharma.

Crude thoughts, an event, few articles & a lecture!

Brent’s decline continues with the forward month futures contract now well and truly below the US$110 per barrel level. In fact, when the Oilholic last checked, a price of US$108.41 was flashing on the ticker. Given that over the past seven days – OPEC, EIA and IEA – have all come out with bearish reports, the current price level should hardly be a surprise.

 

Additionally, both OPEC and IEA appear to be in broad agreement that overall concerns about economic growth in the US and the Eurozone will continue to persist over the short term at the very least. As if that wasn’t enough, the US dollar has reached a seven-month high against a basket of currencies, not least the pound sterling!

 

At such points in recent trading history, geopolitics always lends support to the oil price. Yet further evidence is emerging about the oil & gas community largely regarding the risk premium to be neutral, a theme which this blogger has consistently stressed on since September last year. Many delegates at the recently concluded International Petroleum Week (IP Week) in London, a signature European event, expressed pretty much the same sentiments.

 

Rather than relying on the Oilholic’s anecdotal evidence, here’s an observation from Société Générale analyst Michael Wittner who wrote in an investment note that, “On the geopolitical front, there seemed to be a sort of fatigue (at the IP Week), if not boredom, with the various issues and countries. In addition to Syria and Iran, there was talk about risks in Iraq and Nigeria, and even Chinese-Japanese tensions. Given recent events in Algeria, Egypt, and Mali, we were surprised at how little concern there was about North Africa.”

 

“All agreed that the geopolitical elephant in the room was still Iran, but even here, the fatigue was evident. People were well aware of Israel’s late spring/early summer “deadline”, but they were not excited about it. Some pointed to higher Saudi spare capacity (after recent cuts) and much higher pipeline capacity that could be used to avoid the Straits of Hormuz. Others simply thought that, posturing aside, there was little real appetite for a war against Iran, and that an Iranian bomb was inevitable,” he wrote further. Need we say more?

 

So in summation – tepid crude demand plus fatigued risk premium equals to no short term hope for the bulls! But at least there’s hope for the Brent-WTI spread to narrow, with the former falling and the latter rising on the back of the supply glut at Cushing, Oklahoma showing signs of abating.

 

Away from pricing matters, given that yours truly has been travelling a lot within good old England these past few weeks, there has also been plenty of time to do some reading up on trains! Four interesting articles came up while the Oilholic was experiencing the joys (or otherwise) of British railways.

 

First off, the Wall Street Journal’s Jerry A. Dicolo screams: “Brent barrels to prominence: European oil benchmark poised to overtake WTI as a global gauge.” The Oilholic has some news for the WSJ – Er…Brent is not ‘poised’ to overtake WTI as a global gauge, it has already overtaken it in terms of market sentiment! This blog first mulled the subject as far back as May 2010! Since then, even the EIA has decided to adopt Brent as a benchmark that’s more reflective of global conditions.

 

The second interesting piece of reading material yours truly encountered was a republished Bloomberg wire copy that carried feedback from an Indian refiner. In it, he suggested that the country’s refiners may be forced to halt purchases of Iranian crude as local insurers refuse to cover the risks for any Indian refinery using the Islamic Republic’s oil.

 

Bloomberg cites a certain P.P. Upadhya, Managing Director of the Mangalore Refinery in Southern India as having said, “There’s a problem with getting insurance for refineries processing Iranian oil. If there’s no clarity very soon, we all have to stop buying from Iran or risk operating the refineries without insurance.” Looks like the squeeze on Iran is going into overdrive!

 

Moving on to the third article, here is The Economist's sound take on the late Hugo Chavez’s rotten economic legacy. And finally, a Reuters’ exclusive would have you believe we Brits are planning to bid for US gas to be imported to our shores.

 

An abundance of gas, courtesy of the country’s shale bonanza has certainly lent credence to the US’ gas exporting potential. One would think if the US were to export gas, it would one fine day make its way to the UK. However, a “source” spoken to by Reuters seems to suggest that day is not that far away.

 

Speaking of shale, the Oilholic had the pleasure of listening to a brilliant lecture on the subject from Prof. Paul Stevens, the veteran energy economist and Chatham House fellow. Delivering the Institution of Engineering and Technology’s Clerk Maxwell Lecture for 2013, Prof. Stevens set about exploding the myth of a shale gas revolution taking place in Europe anytime soon.

 

He joked that North Dakota might become the next member of OPEC, but one thing is for certain Poland and other European shale enthusiasts are not getting there any time soon. Apart from the usual concerns, often mulled over by the Oilholic, such as jurisdictional prospection moratoriums and population density, pipeline access, environmental regulations etc. being very different between the US and Europe, the good professor pointed out a very crucial point.

 

“Shale rock formation in Europe is very different from what it is in North America. When ExxonMobil was disappointed in Poland, it was not for want of trying. Rather US technology was found lacking when it came to Polish geology. There is no one size fits all! The American shale revolution got where it is today through massive investment and commitment towards research and development (and over two decades of perseverance). I don’t see that level of commitment in Europe,” he said.

 

Speaking to the Oilholic, following his lecture, Prof. Stevens said the export of US gas to the UK was plausible, but that Asia was a much more natural export market for the Americans. “Plus, let’s not forget that the moment US exports start to rise meaningfully, there is always a chance the likes of Congressman Ed Markey might take a nationalistic tone and try to stunt them,” he added.

 

Quite true, after all we got a glimpse of Markey’s intellect via his ‘Bolshoi’ Petroleum remark! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Sullom Voe Terminal, UK © BP Plc