Of PetroChina, Gazprom and Hackers!

But first...Brent remains well into US$100+ per barrel territory while WTI remains in sub-US$90 region. Let’s face it the Nymex WTI-ICE Brent spreads remain extremely weak and it is becoming a recurring theme. The front-month spread even capped -US$16 per barrel mark (US$16.29 to be exact) on Feb 11; the date of expiry of the Brent forward month futures contract.

Moving away from pricing, it emerged last week that Russia’s Gazprom reported a fall in profits from RUR173.5 billion to RUR160.5 billion; an annualised dip of 9% for the quarter from July to Sept 2010 period. The cost of purchasing oil and gas jumped 29% according to the state owned firm while operational costs rose 12%. Dip in profit even prompted Russian PM Putin to “ask” them to raise their game.

Elsewhere, the “All Hail Shale” brigade had to contend with PetroChina – the Chinese state-controlled energy firm – acquiring a 50% stake in a Canadian Shale Gas project run by Encana. The stake cost is pegged at a cool US$5.4 billion. PetroChina already has majority stakes in two oil projects in Canada with Encana. There doesn’t appear to be much of a ruckus about the Chinese shopping in Canada. I guess Canadians are less uptight about Chinese investment in perceived strategic energy assets than the Americans.

Finally, computer security firm McAfee claimed in a report published on February 10th that hackers have attacked networks of a number of oil and gas firms for a good few years now. The full report is available for downloading here and it makes for interesting reading. However, I am not entirely surprised by the revelations.

In a nutshell, McAfee claims that in a series of co-ordinated attempts at least a dozen multinational oil, gas and energy companies were targeted – named by it as Night Dragon attacks – which began in November 2009. Five firms have now confirmed the attacks, it adds.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Oil tanker © Michael S. Quinton/National Geographic Society

BP's loss, Brent’s Gain & Worries over Suez Traffic

To begin with, Brent’s strength relative to its American counterpart index continues, as the ICE Brent forward month futures contract climbed to US$101.01, last time I checked today. There are pressures to the upside bolstering the price rise, but impact of the Egyptian political crisis on traffic through the Suez Canal is not as clear cut as many popular media commentators make it out to be.

According to wires and international broadcasters, the Suez Canal is still functioning as normal and continues to be heavily guarded by the Egyptian forces. So while the potential of traffic disruption is there, I am not so sure how it can manifest itself so soon in a meaningful way. There are other factors behind, as I noted yesterday, in Brent’s strength.

Elsewhere, if you haven’t heard BP has reported an annual loss of US$4.9 billion for 2010, it’s first, though unsurprising annual loss since 1992. This compares rather unfavourably with a profit of US$13.9 billion the oil major recorded in 2009. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill has blown a Macondo sized whole in its books, though the company said it would restore its dividend payment to shareholders hitherto suspended in wake of the Gulf spill.

Another key announcement was BP’s decision to sell two US oil refineries in Texas and California thereby halving its refining capacity in the US. The sale includes the Texas City refinery, where 15 workers were killed in an explosion in 2005 – the site of BP’s last disaster in the States prior to Macondo.

The announcement vindicates my analysis for Infrastructure Journal back in November. BP is not alone; the oil majors no longer regard refining as central to their business. There’s a part of me that thinks BP would have sold its refinery assets, even if the Gulf of Mexico tragedy had not happened. The incident only brought the sale forward.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Macondo containment, Gulf of Mexico, USA © BP Plc

ETFs, Brent's Strength & ExxonMobil's Russian Deal

There seem to be more backers of the theory that Brent is winning the crude battle of the indices. I certainly believe Brent provides a much better picture of the global oil markets over WTI. Back in May 2010, I blogged that David Peniket, President and COO of Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) Futures Europe, gave Brent his backing. SocGen joined the ever-growing chorus last week. In a note to clients, the French banking major noted that Brent is a much better barometer of the global oil markets, where both crude and product demand have been strong.

Regarding premium between Brent and WTI, SocGen analysts note: “First, preliminary Euroilstock data showed a 4.2 Mb crude stockdraw in December. When this month-on-month per cent change is applied to the end-November OECD Europe crude stock figures from the IEA, the result in end-December European crude stocks that are below average; this is in sharp contrast to the near-record high stocks at Cushing.”

Additionally, oil field technical problems have caused some supply losses in the North Sea and planned pipeline maintenance at the Gullfaks field, in Norway, was also announced last weekend. Moving away from the North Sea, news has emerged that Roseneft and ExxonMobil have penned a deal for oil and gas exploration in the Black Sea, though intricacies and value of the deal is as yet unknown.

Finally, SocGen’s Mutual Fund & ETF report published last week makes for interesting reading; a sort of a continuation of trends noted by the wider market in general. It notes that the commodity rally was supported by US$23 billion inflows in 2010 (click on graphics to enlarge). Over the past 6 months, the rally in commodity prices has been significant (CRB index +27%) and directly associated with the expected pick-up in demand, but reallocation to protect against inflation has clearly played a role as well.

However, SocGen observed that Precious metals, and not energy, dominated commodity inflows. Precious metals were by far the largest category in commodity ETPs (including ETFs, ETCs and ETNs) accounting for 76% of US$157 billion assets under management and they continue to attract most of the inflows.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Graphics © SGCIB Cross Asset Research, Jan 19, 2011

Of IEA, OPEC and the Hoo-Hah over BP & Rosneft

Both the IEA and OPEC are now more upbeat about the global economic recovery over 2011, which could mean only one thing – an upward revision of global crude oil demand. Starting with the IEA, the agency says it now expects global crude demand to rise by 1.4 million barrels a day in year over year terms over 2011 to 89.1 million barrels per day; a revision of 360,000 barrels per day compared to its last forecast.

OPEC also revised its global oil demand forecast putting demand growth at 1.2 million barrels a day for the year; an upward revision of 50,000 barrels per day from its last estimate. In its monthly report, the cartel also noted that demand for its own crude is expected to average 29.4 million barrels of oil per day in 2011; an upward revision of 200,000 barrels over the previous forecast.

Both OPEC and IEA expect the increase in crude oil demand to be driven entirely by emerging markets, while OECD demand is projected to reverse to its "underlying, structural decline in 2011," according to the latter. Their respective response to the forecasts is one of understandable contrasts.

Nobuo Tanaka, head of the IEA, said a subsequent "alarming" rise in the oil price would be damaging. "We are concerned about the speed of the rising oil price, which can harm the growth of economies. If the current price continues, it will have a negative impact," he added. However, OPEC remains unmoved, as the forward month futures spread between Brent and WTI crude continues to widen to US$5-plus in favour of the latter. Both benchmarks lurk close to the US$100-mark.

OPEC’s position unsurprisingly is that the market remains well supplied. Cartel members UAE, Iran, Venezuela and Algeria say they are not concerned about a US$100 per barrel price. In fact, Venezuela's Energy Minister, Rafael Ramirez, described the price of $100 as "fair value" while speaking to the Reuters news agency. There are no prizes for guessing that an emergency meeting of the cartel to raise production is highly unlikely!

Now to the BP-Rosneft tie-up which sent the markets into a tizzy. In a nutshell, news of BP’s acquisition of a 9.5% stake in Rosneft which in turn would bag a 5% stake in BP was good, but it did not quite merit the response it got. Markets cheered it; environmentalists jeered it (given the open invitation to dig in the Arctic).

Rest of the narrative is a bit barmy. First of all, agreed it is a solid deal but given the involvement of a company 75% owned by the Russian government – I am unsure how it would be instrumental or for that matter detrimental to the UK’s petroleum security. Surely, the jury should still be out on that one. Secondly, this in no way implies that BP has turned its back on the US market in light of recent events as some market commentators have opined.

Finally, it is more of a marriage of convenience rather than a historic deal. Rosneft needed technical expertise and does not care much for political rhetoric in western markets about digging deeper and deeper for crude. BP needs access to resources. Both parties should be happy and it is rumoured in the Russian press that TNK-BP would also like a slice of the potentially lucrative Arctic ice cake. Away from the main event, the sideshow was just as engaging.

Curiously city sources revealed that BP did not use its preferred broker JPMorgan Cazenove, but rather opted to go with London-based Lambert Energy Advisory. It did amuse some in the City. All I can say is good luck to Philip Lambert. Finally, talking of the little guys in this crude world – have you heard of AIM-listed Matra Petroleum?

Last I checked, this independent upstart expects to be producing a rather modest 600-700 barrels per day by H1 2011 and its share price is around 3.52p. So assuming, Brent caps US$100-plus by end of H1 2011 and Matra delivers – the share price could treble in theory. I am not making a recommendation – let’s call it an observation!

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo © Adrian R. Gableson

Crude Year 2011 Begins With a Bang

I must say the New Year has commenced with a flurry of crude news. Traders and oil men had barely resumed work for the first trading day of 2011 that the IEA declared rising oil prices to be a risk to economic recovery. In a publication on Jan 5th, the agency said oil import costs for OECD countries had risen 30% in the past year to US$790 billion which is equal to a loss of income of 0.5% of OECD gross domestic product (GDP).

Speaking to the BBC’s world service, IEA’s Fatih Birol said, "There is definitely a risk of major negative implications for the global economy." I agree and accept this, but truth be told we are some way away from a US$150-plus per barrel high. This morning though, the Brent forward month futures contract was flirting with the US$100 mark. The cold weather we have had either side of the pond does generally tend to support crude prices.

Analysts at SocGen believe the Alaska pipeline shutdown, following a leak, provided only limited support to WTI. Last weekend, a minor leak was discovered at Pump Station 1 on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) causing a shutdown on the pipeline and prompting Alaska North Slope (ANS) production to be cut from 630,000 bpd to just 37,000 bpd. The pipeline, which carries almost 12% of US crude output, should be restarted "soon", according to its operator Alyeska which is 47% owned by BP, while ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobile have 28% and 20% stakes respectively.

Continuing with forecasts, a new report from ratings agency Moody’s notes that oil prices should stay "moderately high" in 2011, boosting energy companies that produce crude and natural gas liquids, but weak natural gas prices will continue to dog the energy sector this year. More importantly, rather than the volatility of recent years, Moody's expects a continuation of many of the business conditions seen in 2010, despite the Macondo incident.

Steven Wood, managing director of Moody's Oil and Gas/Chemicals group believes that certain business conditions will tighten during the year, and pressures could emerge beyond the near term. Moody's price assumptions – which are not forecasts, but guidelines that the agency uses in its evaluations of credit conditions – call for moderately high crude prices of US$80 per barrel for 2011, along with natural gas prices of US$4.50 per million Btus.

Elsewhere, a US government commission opined in a report that 'bad management' led to BP disaster. Across the pond in London, a parliamentary committee of British MPs raised "serious doubts" about the UK's ability to combat offshore oil spills from deep sea rigs. However, they stopped short of a calling for a moratorium on deep sea drilling noting that it would undermine British energy security.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Veneco Oil Platform, California © Rich Reid / National Geographic