Shell Divests, BP Invests and Libya Implodes!

Earlier on Monday, oil giant Shell announced its intentions to sell most of its African downstream businesses to Swiss group Vitol and Helios Investment Partners for US$1 billion adding that it will create two new joint ventures under the proposed deal.

The first of these JVs will own and operate Shell's existing oil products, distribution and retailing businesses in 14 African countries, most notably in Egypt, Morocco, Kenya, Uganda and Madagascar.

The second JV will own and operate Shell's existing lubricants blending plants in seven countries. The move is in line with Shell’s policy of divesting its non-core assets. It sold US$7 billion of non-core assets in 2010. While Shell was divesting in Africa, BP was investing in India via a strategic oil & gas partnership with Reliance Industries.

Both companies will form a 50:50 joint venture for sourcing and marketing hydrocarbons in India. The agreement will give BP a 30% stake in 23 oil and gas blocks owned by Reliance including 19 off the east coast of India. Market feedback suggests the deal is heavily weighted towards gas rather than the crude stuff.

In return for the stake, BP will invest US$7.2 billion in the venture and a further US$1.8 billion in future performance-related investments. The combined capital costs are slated to be in the region of US$20 billon with local media already branding it as the largest foreign direct investment deal in India by a foreign company.

Switching focus to the Middle Eastern unrest, what is happening from Morocco to Bahrain is having a massive bearing on the instability premium factoring in to the price of crude. However, the impact of each country’s regional upheaval on the crude price is not uniform. I summarise it as follows based on the perceived oil endowment (or the lack of it) for each country:

• Morocco (negligible)
• Algeria (marginal)
• Egypt (marginal)
• Iran (difficult to gauge at the moment)
• Tunisia (negligible)
• Bahrain (marginal)
• Libya (substantial)

Of these, it is obvious to the wider market that what is happening in Libya is one of concern. More so as the unrest has become unruly and the future may well be uncertain as the OPEC member country accounts for around 2% of the daily global crude production.

Italian and French oil companies with historic ties to the region are among those most vulnerable, though having said so BP also has substantial assets there. Austria’s OMV and Norway’s Statoil are other notable operators in Libya. A bigger worry could be if Iran erupts in a similar unruly way. Given the international sanctions against Iran, oil majors are not as involved there as they are in Libya. However, the question Iran’s crude oil endowment and its impact on the oil markets is an entirely different matter.

Finally, the ICE Brent crude forward month futures contract stood at US$108.25 per barrel, up 5.6% in intraday trading last time checked. I feel there is at least US$10 worth of instability premium in there, although one city source reckons it could be as high as US$15. The "What if" side analysts (as I call them) are having a field day - having already moved their focus from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Vintage Shell gasoline pump, Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, California, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2010

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