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

Puts n’ calls, Russia ‘peaking’ & Peking’s shale

Oil market volatility continues unabated indicative of the barmy nature of the world we live in. On January 25, the Brent forward month futures contract spiked above US$113. If the day's intraday price of US$113.46 is used as a cut-off point, then it has risen by 4.3% since Christmas Eve. If you ask what has changed in a month? Well not much! The Algerian terror strike, despite the tragic nature of events, does not fundamentally alter the geopolitical risk premium for 2013.

In fact, many commentators think the risk premium remains broadly neutral and hinged on the question whether or not Iran flares-up. So is a US$113-plus Brent price merited? Not one jot! If you took such a price-level at face value, then yours would be a hugely optimistic view of the global economy, one that it does not merit on the basis of economic survey data.

 

In an interesting note, Ole Hansen, Head of Commodity Strategy at Saxo Bank, gently nudges observers in the direction of examining the put/call ratio. For those who don’t know, in layman terms the ratio measures mass psychology amongst market participants. It is the trading volume of put options divided by the trading volume of call options. (See graph above courtesy of Saxo Bank. Click image to enlarge)

 

When the ratio is relatively high, this means the trading community or shall we say the majority in the trading community expect bearish trends. When the ratio is relatively low, they’re heading-up a bullish path.

 

Hansen observes: “The most popular traded strikes over the five trading days (to January 23) are evenly split between puts and calls. The most traded has been the June 13 Call strike 115 (last US$ 3.13 per barrel), April 13 Call 120 (US$0.61), April 13 Put 100 (US$0.56) and June 13 Put 95 (US$1.32). The hedging of a potential geopolitical spike has been seen through the buying of June 13 Call 130, last traded at US$0.54/barrel.”

 

The Oilholic feels it is prudent to point out that tracking the weekly volume of market puts and calls is a method of gauging the sentiments of majority of traders. Overall, the market can, in the right circumstances, prove a majority of traders wrong. So let’s see how things unfold. Meanwhile, the CME Group said on January 24 that the NYMEX March Brent Crude had made it to the next target of US$112.90/113.29 and topped it, but the failure to break this month’s high "signals weakness in the days to come."

 

The  group also announced a record in daily trading volume for its NYMEX Brent futures contract as trading volumes, using January 18 as a cut-off point, jumped to 30,250 contracts; a 38% increase over the previous record of 21,997 set on August 8, 2012.

 

From the crude oil market to the stock market, where ExxonMobil finally got back its position of being the most valuable publicly traded company on January 25! Apple grabbed the top spot in 2011 from ExxonMobil which the latter had held since 2005. Yours truly does not have shares in either company, but on the basis of sheer consistency in corporate performance, overall value as a creator of jobs and a general contribution to the global economy, one would vote for the oil giant any day over an electronic gadgets manufacturer (Sorry, Apple fans if you feel the Oilholic is oversimplifying the argument).

 

Switching tack to the macro picture, Fitch Ratings says Russian oil production will probably peak in the next few years as gains from new oilfields are offset by falling output from brownfield sites. In a statement on January 22, the ratings agency said production gains that Russia achieved over the last decade were mainly driven by intensive application of new technology, in particular horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing applied to Western Siberian brownfields on a massive scale.

 

"This allowed oil companies to tap previously unreachable reservoirs and dramatically reverse declining production rates at these fields, some of which have been producing oil for several decades. In addition, Russia saw successful launches of several new production areas, including Rosneft's large Eastern Siberian Vankor field in 2009," Fitch notes.

 

However, Fitch says the biggest potential gains from new technology have now been mostly achieved. The latest production figures from the Russian Ministry of Energy show that total crude oil production in the country increased by 1.3% in 2012 to 518 million tons. Russian refinery volumes increased by 4.5% to 266 million tons while exports dropped by 1% to 239 million tons. Russian oil production has increased rapidly from a low of 303 million tons in 1996.

 

"Greenfields are located in inhospitable and remote places and projects therefore require large amounts of capital. We believe oil prices would need to remain above US$100 per barrel and the Russian government would need to provide tax incentives for oil companies to invest in additional Eastern Siberian production," Fitch says.

 

A notable exception is the Caspian Sea shelf where Lukoil, Russia’s second largest oil company, is progressing with its exploration and production programme. The ratings agency does see potential for more joint ventures between Russian and international oil companies in exploring the Russian continental shelf. No doubt, the needs must paradigm, which is very visible elsewhere in the ‘crude’ world, is applicable to the Russians as well.

 

On the very same day as Fitch raised the possibility of Russian production peaking, Peking announced a massive capital spending drive towards shale exploration. Reuters reported that China intends to start its own shale gale as the country’s Ministry of Land and Resources issued exploration rights for 19 shale prospection blocks to 16 firms. Local media suggests most of the exploration rights pertain to shale gas exploration with the 16 firms pledging US$2 billion towards the move.

On the subject of shale and before the news arrived from China, IHS Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin told the World Economic Forum  in Davos that major unconventional opportunities are being identified around the world. "Our research indicates that the shale resource base in China may be larger than in the USA, and we note prospects elsewhere," he added.

 

However, both the Oilholic and the industry veteran and founder of IHS CERA agree that the circumstances which led to and promoted the development of unconventional sources in the USA differ in important aspects from other parts of the world.

“It is still very early days and we believe that it will take several years before significant amounts of unconventional oil and gas begin to appear in other regions,” Yergin said. In fact, the US is benefitting in more ways than one if IHS’ new report Energy and the New Global Industrial Landscape: A Tectonic Shift is to be believed.

In it, IHS forecasts that the "direct, indirect and induced effects" of the surge in nonconventional oil and gas extraction have already added 1.7 million jobs to the US jobs market with 3 million expected by 2020. Furthermore, the surge has also added US$62 billion to federal and state government coffers in 2012 with US$111 billion expected by 2020. (See bar chart above courtesy of IHS. Click image to enlarge)

 

IHS also predicts that non-OPEC supply growth in 2013 will be 1.1 million barrels per day – larger than the growth in global demand – which has happened only four times since 1986. Leading this non-OPEC growth is indeed the surge in unconventional oil in the USA. The report does warn, however, that increases in non-OPEC supply elsewhere in the world could be subject to what has proved to be a recurrent “history of disappointment.”

 

That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Graph: Brent Crude – Put/Call ratio © Saxo Bank, Photo: Russian jerry pump jacks © Lukoil, Bar Chart: US jobs growth projection in the unconventional oil & gas sector © IHS 2013.

The oil market in 2013: thoughts & riddles aplenty

Over a fortnight into 2013 and a mere day away from the Brent forward month futures contract for February expiring, the price is above a Nelson at US$111.88 per barrel. That’s after having gone to and fro between US$110 and US$112 intra-day.

As far as the early January market sentiment goes, ICE Future Europe said hedge funds and other money managers raised bullish positions on Brent crude by 10,925 contracts for the week ended January 8; the highest in nine months. Net long positions in futures and options combined, outnumbered short positions by 150,036 lots in the week ended January 8, the highest level since March 27 and the fourth consecutive weekly advance.

On the other hand, bearish positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of Brent outnumbered bullish positions by 175,478, down from 151,548 last week. It’s the biggest net-short position among this category of market participants since August 14. So where are we now and where will we be on December 31, 2013?

Despite many market suggestions to the contrary, Barclays continues to maintain a 2013 Brent forecast of US$125. The readers of this blog asked the Oilholic why and well the Oilholic asked Barclays why. To quote the chap yours truly spoke to, the reason for this is that Barclays’ analysts still see the Middle East as “most likely” geopolitical catalyst.

“While there are other likely areas of interest for the oil market in 2013, in our view the main nexus for the transmission into oil prices is likely to be the Middle East, with the spiralling situations in Syria and Iraq layered in on top of the core issue of Iran’s external relations,” a Barclays report adds.

Macroeconomic discontinuities will continue to persist, but Barclays’ analysts reckon that the catalyst they refer to will arrive at some point in 2013. Nailing their colours to mast, well above a Nelson, their analysts conclude: “We are therefore maintaining our 2013 Brent forecast of US$125 per barrel, just as we have for the past 21 months since that forecast was initiated in March 2011.”

Agreed, the Middle East will always give food for thought to the observers of geopolitical risk (or instability) premium. Though it is not as exact a science as analysts make it out to be. However, what if the Chinese economy tanks? To what extent will it act as a bearish counterweight? And what are the chances of such an event?

For starters, the Oilholic thinks the chances are 'slim-ish', but if you’d like to put a percentage figure to the element of chance then Michael Haigh, head of commodities research at Société Générale, thinks there is a 20% probability of a Chinese hard-landing in 2013. This then begs the question – are the crude bulls buggered if China tanks, risk premium or no risk premium?

Well China currently consumes around 40% of base metals, 23% major agricultural crops and 20% of ‘non-renewable’ energy resources. So in the event of a Chinese hard-landing, not only will the crude bulls be buggered, they’ll also lose their mojo as investor confidence will be battered.

Haigh thinks in the event of Chinese slowdown, the Brent price could plummet to US$75. “A 30% drop in oil prices (which equates to approximately US$30 given the current value of Brent) would ultimately boost GDP growth and thus pull oil prices higher. OPEC countries would cut production if prices fall as a result of a China shock. So we expect Brent’s decline to be limited to US$75 as a result,” he adds.

Remember India, another major consumer, is not exactly in a happy place either. However, it is prudent to point out the current market projections suggest that barring an economic upheaval, both Indian and Chinese consumption is expected to rise in 2013. Concurrently, the American separation from international crude markets will continue, with US crude oil production tipped to rise by the largest amount on record this year, according to the EIA.

The independent statistical arm of the US Department of Energy, estimates that the country’s crude oil production would grow by 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2013 to 7.3 million bpd. While the rate of increase is seen slowing slightly in 2014 to 600,000 bpd, the total jump in US oil production to 7.9 million bpd would be up 23% from the 6.4 million bpd pumped domestically in 2012.

The latest forecast from the EIA is the first to include 2014 hailing shale! If the agency’s projections prove to be accurate, US crude oil production would have jumped at a mind-boggling rate of 40% between 2011 and 2014.

The EIA notes that rising output in North Dakota's Bakken formation and Texas's Eagle Ford fields has made US producers sharper and more productive. "The learning curve in the Bakken and Eagle Ford fields, which is where the biggest part of this increase is coming from, has been pretty steep," a spokesperson said.

So it sees the WTI averaging US$89 in 2013 and US$91 a barrel in 2014. Curiously enough, in line with other market forecasts, bar that of Barclays, the EIA, which recently adopted Brent as its new international benchmark, sees it fall marginally to around US$105 in 2013 and falling further to US$99 a barrel in 2014.

On a related note, Fitch Ratings sees supply and demand pressures supportive of Brent prices above US$100 in 2013. “While European demand will be weak, this will be more than offset by emerging market growth. On the supply side, the balance of risk is towards negative, rather than positive shocks, with the possibility of military intervention in Iran still the most obvious potential disruptor,” it said in a recent report.

However, the ratings agency thinks there is enough spare capacity in the world to deal with the loss of Iran's roughly 2.8 million bpd of output. Although this would leave little spare capacity in the system were there to be another supply disruption. Let’s see how it all pans out; the Oilholic sees a US$105 to US$115 circa for Brent over 2013.

Meanwhile, the spread between Brent and WTI has narrowed to a 4-month low after the restart of the Seaway pipeline last week, which has been shut since January 2 in order to complete a major expansion. The expanded pipeline will not only reduce the bottleneck at Cushing, Oklahoma but reduce imports of waterborne crude as well. According to Bloomberg, the crude flow to the Gulf of Mexico, from Cushing, the delivery point for the NYMEX oil futures contract, rose to 400,000 bpd last Friday from 150,000 bpd at the time of the temporary closure.

On a closing note, and going back to Fitch Ratings, the agency believes that cheap US shale gas is not a material threat to the Europe, Middle East and Africa’s (EMEA) oil and gas sector in 2013. It noted that a lack of US export infrastructure, a political desire for the US to be self-sufficient in gas, and the prevalence of long term oil-based gas supply contracts in Europe all suggest at worst modest downward pressure on European gas prices in the short to medium term.

Fitch’s overall expectation for oil and gas revenues in EMEA in 2013 is one of very modest growth, supported by continued, if weakened, global GDP expansion and potential supply shocks. The ratings agency anticipates that top line EMEA oil and gas revenue growth in 2013 will be in the low single digits. There remains a material – roughly 30% to 40% – chance that revenue will fall for the major EMEA oil producers, but if so this fall is unlikely to be precipitous according to a Fitch spokesperson.

That’s all for the moment folks! One doubts if oil traders are as superstitious about a Nelson or the number 111 as English cricketers and Hindu priests are, so here’s to Crude Year 2013. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Holly Rig, Santa Barbara, California, USA © James Forte / National Geographic.

A meeting, an appointment & Vienna’s icy chill!

The Oilholic finds himself back in Vienna for the 162nd meeting of OPEC ministers and his first snowfall of the festive season; the latter has eluded him back home in London. Here is a view of Vienna's snow-laced Auer Welsbach Park and it’s not the only place where things are a bit chilly. The OPEC HQ here could be one place for instance!

For this time around, accompanying the usual tussles between the Saudis and Iranians, the doves and the hawks, is the additional stress of appointing a successor to OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri, a genial Libyan, who is nearing the end of his second term.

Finding a compromise candidate is usually the order of the day but not if 'compromise' is not a by-word for many of its members. Trouble has been brewing since OPEC members last met in June. As a long term observer of the goings-on at OPEC, the Oilholic can say for certain that all the anecdotal evidence he has gathered seems to suggest a clash is imminent. That’s hardly a surprise and it could not have come at a worse time.

OPEC has forecast a 5% drop in demand for its crude oil in wake of shale supply and other unconventional oil from non-OPEC jurisdictions hitting the market in a troubling global macroeconomic climate. It also acknowledged for the first time that shale oil was of concern and then got into a debate with the IEA whether (or not) US production could overtake Saudi Arabia’s by 2020. In light of all this, OPEC could seriously do with some strong leadership at this juncture.

Sources suggest three 'potential' candidates are in the running to succeed el-Badri. Two of these are Thamir Ghadhban of Iraq and Gholam-Hossein Nozari of Iran. Both have served as their country’s respective oil ministers. The third man is Majid Munif; an industry veteran and a former Saudi OPEC adviser. Now, the Oilholic uses the world ‘potential’ above for the three men only guardedly.

Historical and recent acrimony between the Iranians and Saudis needs no documentation. It has only been a year and half since an OPEC meeting broke-up in acrimony and er...highly colourful language! This puts the chances of either one of them settling for the other’s candidate as highly unlikely. Iran is also miffed about the lack of support it has received in wake of international sanctions on its oil industry by several importing jurisdictions.

Some here suggest that Ghadhban of Iraq would be the compromise candidate for the post. However, sources within four MENA OPEC member delegations have told the Oilholic that they are backing the Saudi candidate Munif. Yours truly cannot predict whether they’ll have a change of heart but as things stand, a compromise banking on the appointment of an Iraqi is just not working out.

Never say ‘never’ but the possibility of el-Badri continuing is remote as well. He is not allowed more than two terms under OPEC rules. In order to assuage both the Iranian and the Saudis, perhaps an Ecuadorian or an Angolan candidate might come forward. While such a candidate may well calm tempers in the room, he (or she, there is after all one lady at the table) is highly unlikely to wield the leverage, clout or respect that el-Badri has commanded over his tenure.

As Kuwait prepares to hold the rotating presidency of the cartel, a stalemate over the Secretary General’s appointment, according to most here, is detrimental to “market stability”. How about it being detrimental to OPEC itself at a time when a medium term, possibly long term, rewriting of the global oil trade is perhaps underway?

That's all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo:  Snowfall at Auer-Welsbach Park, Vienna, Austria © Gaurav Sharma, December 2012.

Crude talking points of the last two weeks

In a fortnight during which the Bank of England hired a man whose signature appears on Canadian banknotes as its new governor, the oil & gas world reiterated its own cross-border nature, when an American firm sold a Kazakh asset to an Indian company. That firm being ConocoPhillips, the asset being its 8.4% stake in Kazakh oil field Kashagan and the Indian buyer being national oil company (NOC) ONGC Videsh – all signed, sealed and delivered in a deal worth around US$5.5 billion.

 

Even with an after-tax impairment of US$400 million, the deal represents a tidy packet for ConocoPhillips as it attempts to cut its debt. Having divested its stake in Russia’s Lukoil, the American oil major has already beaten its asset sale programme target of US$20 billion. So when the final announcement came, it was not much of a surprise as Kazakhstan government officials had revealed much earlier that a move was on the cards.

 

Still it is sobering to see ConocoPhillips divest from Kashagan – the world's biggest oilfield discovery by volume since 1968. It may hold an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil. Phase I of the development, set to begin next year, could yield around 8 billion barrels, a share of which ONGC is keenly eyeing.

India imports over 75% of the crude oil it craves and is in fact the world's fourth-biggest oil importer by volume. Given this dynamic, capital expenditure on asset with a slower turnaround may not be an immediate concern for an Indian NOC, but certainly is for investors in the likes of ConocoPhillips and its European peers.

On the back of a series of meetings between investors and its EMEA natural resources & commodities team in London, Fitch Ratings recently revealed that elongated upstream investment lead times and a (still) weak refining environment in Western Europe remain a cash flow concern for investors.

 

They seemed most concerned about the lead time between higher upstream capex and eventual cash flow generation and were worried about downward rating pressure if financial metrics become strained for an extended period. It is prudent to mention that Fitch Ratings views EMEA oil & gas companies' capex programmes as measured and rational despite a sector wide revised focus on upstream investment.

 

For example, the two big beasts – BP and Royal Dutch Shell – are rated 'A'/Positive and 'AA'/Stable respectively; both have increased capex by more than one-third for the first 9 months of 2012 compared to the same period last year. Elsewhere in their chats, unsurprisingly Fitch found that refining overcapacity and weak utilisation rates remain a concern for investors in the European refining sector. Geopolitical risk is also on investors' minds as they look to 2013.

 

While geopolitical events may drive oil prices up, which positively impact cash flow, interruptions to shipping volumes may more than offset gains from these price increases – negatively impacting both operating cash flow and companies' competitive market positions. Away from capex concerns, Fitch also said that shale gas production in Poland could improve the country's security of gas supplies but is unlikely to lead to large declines in gas prices before 2020.

In a report published on November 26, Arkadiusz Wicik, Fitch’s Warsaw-based director and one of the most pragmatic commentators the Oilholic has encountered, noted that shale gas production in Poland, which has one of the highest shale development potentials in Europe, would lower the country's dependence on gas imports. Most of Poland's imports currently come from Russia.

 

However, Wicik candidly noted that even substantial shale gas production by 2020, is unlikely to result in large declines in domestic gas prices.

 

"In the most likely scenario, shale gas production, which may start around 2015, will not lead to a gas oversupply in the first few years of production, especially as domestic gas demand may increase by 2020 as several gas-fired power plants are planned to be built. If there is a surplus of gas because shale gas production reaches a significant level by 2020, this surplus is likely to be exported," he added.

 

In actual fact, if the planned liberalisation of the Polish gas market takes place in the next few years, European spot gas prices may have a larger impact on gas prices in Poland than the potential shale gas output.

 

From a credit perspective, Fitch views shale gas exploration as high risk and capital intensive. Meanwhile, the UK government was forced on the defensive when a report in The Independent newspaper claimed that it was opening up 60% of the country’s cherished countryside for fracking.

 

Responding to the report, a government spokesperson said, "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted. It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense."

 

"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year," he added.

 

Barely had The Independent revealed this ‘hot’ news, around 300 people held an 'anti-fracking' protest in London. Wow, that many ‘eh!? In defence of the anti-frackers, it is rather cold these days in London to be hollering outside Parliament.

 

Moving on to the price of the crude stuff, Moody’s reckons a constrained US market will result in a US$15 per barrel difference in 2013 between the two benchmarks – Brent and WTI – with an expected premium in favour of the former. Its recently revised price assumptions state that Brent crude will sell for an average US$$100 per barrel in 2013, US$95 in 2014 and US$90 in the medium term, beyond 2014. While the price assumption for Brent beyond 2014 is unchanged, the agency has revised both the 2013 and 2014 assumptions.

 

For WTI, Moody’s has left its previous assumptions unchanged at US$85 in 2013, 2014 and thereafter. Such a sentiment ties-in to the Oilholic’s anecdotal evidence from the US and what many in City concur with. So Moody’s is not alone in saying that Brent’s premium to WTI is not going anywhere, anytime soon. Even if the Chinese economy tanks, it’ll still persist in some form as both benchmarks will plummet relative to market conditions but won’t narrow up their difference below double figures.

 

Finally, on the noteworthy corporate news front, aside from ConocoPhillips’ move, BP was in the headlines again for a number of reasons. Reuters’ resident Oilholic Tom Bergin reported in an exclusive that BP is planning a reorganisation of its exploration and production (E&P) operations. Citing sources close to the move, Bergin wrote that Lamar McKay, currently head of BP's US operations, will become head of a new E&P unit; a reinstatement of a role that was abolished in 2010 in the wake of the oil spill.

 

Current boss Bob Dudley split BP's old E&P division into three units on his elevation to CEO to replace Tony Hayward, whose gaffes in during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill led to his stepping down. BP declined to comment on Bergin’s story but few days later provided an unrelated newsworthy snippet.

 

The oil giant said it had held preliminary talks with the Russian government and stakeholders in the Nordstream pipeline about extending the line to deliver gas to the UK. BP said any potential extension to the pipeline was unlikely to be agreed before mid-2013.

 

The pipeline’s Phase I, which is onstream, runs under the Baltic Sea bringing Russian gas into Germany. A source described the move as “serious” and aimed at diversifying the UK’s pool of gas supplying nations which currently include Norway and Qatar as North Sea production continues to wane. As if that was not enough news from BP for one fortnight, the US government decided to "temporarily" ban the company from bagging any new US government contracts.

 

The country's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on November 28 that the move was standard practice when a company reaches an agreement to plead guilty to criminal charges as BP did earlier in the month. New US E&P licences are made available regularly, so BP may miss out on some opportunities while the ban is in place but any impact is likely to be relatively ephemeral at worst. No panic needed!

 

On a closing note, in a move widely cheered by supply side industry observers, Shell lifted its force majeure on Nigeria's benchmark Bonny Light crude oil exports on November 21 easing supply problems for Africa’s leading oil producer. The force majeure, implying a failure to meet contractual obligations due to events outside of corporate control, on Bonny Light exports came into place on October 19 following a fire on a ship being used to steal oil. It forced the company to shut down its Bomu-Bonny pipeline and defer 150,000 barrels per day of production.

 

However, Shell said that force majeure on Nigerian Forcados crude exports remains in place. Forcados production was also stopped owing to damage caused by suspected thieves tapping into the Trans Forcados Pipeline and the Brass Creek trunkline. As they say in Nigeria - it’s all ok until the next attempted theft goes awry. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil Rig, USA © Shell

‘Oh Frack’ for OPEC, ‘Yeah Frack’ for IEA?

In a space of a fortnight this month, both the IEA and OPEC raised “fracks” and figures. Not only that, a newly elected President Barack Obama declared his intentions to rid the USA of “foreign oil” and the media was awash with stories about American energy security permutations in wake of the shale bonanza. Alas, the whole lot forgot to raise one important point; more on that later.

 

Starting with OPEC, its year-end calendar publication – The World Oil Outlook – saw the oil exporters’ bloc acknowledge for the first time on November 8 that fracking and shale oil & gas prospection on a global scale would significantly alter the energy landscape as we know it. OPEC also cut its medium and long term global oil demand estimates and assumed an average crude oil price of US$100 per barrel over the medium term.

 

“Given recent significant increases in North American shale oil and shale gas production, it is now clear that these resources might play an increasingly important role in non-OPEC medium and long term supply prospects,” its report said.

 

The report added that shale oil will contribute 2 million barrels per day (bpd) towards global oil supply by 2020 and 3 million bpd by 2035. If this materialises, then the projected rate of incremental supply is over the daily output of some OPEC members and compares to the ‘official’ daily output (i.e. minus the illegal siphoning / theft) of Nigeria.

 

OPEC’s first acknowledgement of the impact of shale came attached with a caveat that over the medium term, shale oil would continue to come from North America only with other regions making “modest” contributions over the longer term at best. For the record, the Oilholic agrees with the sentiment and has held this belief for a while now based on detailed investigations in a journalistic capacity (about financing shale projects).

 

OPEC admitted that the global economy, especially the US economy, is expected to be less reliant on its members, who at present pump over a third of the world's oil and have around 80% of planet’s conventional crude reserves. Pay particular attention to the ‘conventional’ bit, yours truly will come back to it.

 

According to the exporters’ bloc, global demand would reach 92.9 million bpd by 2016, down over 1 million from its 2011 report. By 2035, it expects consumption to rise to 107.3 million bpd, over 2 million less than previous estimates. To put things into perspective, global demand in 2011 was 87.8 million bpd.

 

Partly, but not only, down to shale oil, non-OPEC output is expected to rise to 56.6 million bpd by 2016, up 4.2 million bpd from 2011, the report added. So OPEC expects demand for its crude to average 29.70 million bpd in 2016; much less than its current output (ex-Iraq).

 

"This downward revision, together with updated estimates of OPEC production capacity over the medium term, implies that OPEC crude oil spare capacity is expected to rise beyond 5 million bpd as early as 2013-14," OPEC said.

 

"Long term oil demand prospects have not only been affected by the medium term downward revisions, but by higher oil prices too…oil demand growth has a notable downside risk, especially in the first half of 2013. Much of this risk is attributed to not only the OECD, but also China and India," it added.

 

So on top of a medium term crude oil price assumption of US$100 per barrel (by its internal measure and OPEC basket of crudes, which usually follows Brent not WTI), the bloc forecasts the price to rise with inflation to US$120 by 2025 and US$155 by 2035.

 

Barely a week later, IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol – who at this point in 2009 was discussing 'peak oil' – created ripples when he told a news conference in London that in his opinion the USA would overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015. Not only that, he told scribes here that by 2017, the USA would become the world's largest oil producer ahead of the Saudis and Russians. 

 

Realising the stirrings in the room, Birol added that he realised how “optimistic” the IEA forecasts were sounding given that the shale oil boom was a new phenomenon in relative terms.

 

"Light, tight oil resources are poorly known....If no new resources are discovered after 2020 and plus, if the prices are not as high as today, then we may see Saudi Arabia coming back and being the first producer again," he cautioned.

 

Earlier in the day, the IEA forecasted that US oil production would rise to 10 million bpd by 2015 and 11.1 million bpd in 2020 before slipping to 9.2 million bpd by 2035. It forecasted Saudi Arabia’s oil output to be 10.9 million bpd by 2015, 10.6 million bpd in 2020 but would rise to 12.3 million bpd by 2035.

 

That would see the world relying increasingly on OPEC after 2020 as, in addition to increases from Saudi Arabia, Iraq will account for 45% the growth in global oil production to 2035 and become the second-largest exporter, overtaking Russia.

 

The report also assumes a huge expansion in the Chinese economy, which the IEA said would overtake the USA in purchasing power parity soon after 2015 (and by 2020 using market exchange rates). It added that the share of coal in primary energy demand will fall only slightly by 2035. Fossil fuels in general will remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that, in 2011, rose by 30% to US$523 billion, due mainly to increases in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Fresh from his re-election, President Obama promised to “rid America of foreign oil” in his victory speech prior to both the IEA and OPEC reports. An acknowledgement of the US shale bonanza by OPEC and a subsequent endorsement by IEA sent ‘crude’ cheers in US circles.

 

The US media, as expected, went into overdrive. One story – by ABC news – stood out in particular claiming to have stumbled on a shale oil find with more potential than all of OPEC. Not to mention, the environmentalists also took to the airwaves letting the great American public know about the dangers of fracking and how they shouldn’t lose sight of the environmental impact.

 

Rhetoric is fine, stats are fine and so are verbal jousts. However, one important question has bypassed several key commentators (bar some environmentalists). That being, just how many barrels are being used, to extract one fresh barrel? You bring that into the equation and unconventional prospection – including US and Canadian shale, Canadian oil sands and Brazil’s ultradeepwater exploration – all seem like expensive prepositions.

 

What’s more OPEC’s grip on conventional oil production, which is inherently cheaper than unconventional and is expected to remain so for sometime, suddenly sounds worthy of concern again.

 

Nonetheless “profound” changes are underway as both OPEC and IEA have acknowledged and those changes are very positive for US energy mix. Maybe, as The Economist noted in an editorial for its latest issue: “The biggest bonanza from all this new (US) energy would be if users paid the real cost of consuming oil and gas.”

 

What? Tax gasoline users more in the US of A? Keep dreaming sir! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it crude!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Oil prospection site, North Dakota, USA © Phil Schermeister / National Geographic.