Saudi oil minister & the Oilholic’s natter

Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Ali Al-Naimi said the global oil market remains well supplied, in response to a question from the Oilholic. Speaking here in Vienna, ahead of the closed session of oil ministers at the 163rd OPEC meeting, the kingpin said, “The supply-demand situation is balanced and the world oil market remains well supplied.”

Asked by a fellow scribe how he interpreted the current scenario. “Satisfactory” was the short response. Al-Naimi also said, “Enough has been said on shale. North American shale production adds to supply adequacy. Is it a bad thing? No. Does it enter into the geopolitical equation and hegemony? Yes of course. Geopolitics has evolved for decades along with the oil industry and will continue to. What’s new here?!” And that, dear readers, was that.

Despite being pressed for an answer several times, Al-Naimi declined to discuss the subject of choosing a successor to OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri.

 

The Saudis are expected to battle it out with the Iranians for the largely symbolic role, but one that is nonetheless central to shaping OPEC policies and carries a lot of prestige. As in December, the Saudis are proposing Majid Munif, an economist and former representative to OPEC. Tehran wants its man Gholam-Hussein Nozari, a former Iranian oil minister, installed. Compromise candidate could be Iraq’s Thamir Ghadban.

 

The tussle between Iran and Saudi Arabia about the appointment has been simmering for a while and led to a stalemate in December. As a consequence, El-Badri’s term was extended. Anecdotal evidence suggests the Iranians, as usual, are being difficult.

Saudi Oil mins al-Naimi: Oil mrkt supply-demand situation ideal; equation is balanced & market remains well supplied twitter.com/The_Oilholic/s…
— Gaurav Sharma (@The_Oilholic) May 31, 2013

More so, Al-Naimi appeared to the Oilholic to be fairly relaxed about the Shale ruckus, but the Iranians are worried about perceived oversupply. (Only the Nigerians appear to be jumpier than them on the subject of shale). Iran's oil exports, it must be noted, are at their lowest since 2010 in wake sanction over its nuclear programme.

Away from the tussle, Abdel Bari Ali Al-Arousi, oil minister of Libya and alternate President of the OPEC Conference, said the world oil demand growth forecast for 2013 is expected to increase by 0.8 million barrels per day (bpd).

Total non-OPEC supply has seen a slight upward adjustment to 1.0 million bpd for the year. “This situation is likely to continue through the third and into the fourth quarters as we head into the driving season. Our focus will remain on doing all we can to provide stability in the market. This stability will benefit all stakeholders and contribute to growth in the world economy. However, as we have repeatedly said, this is not a job for OPEC alone. Every stakeholder has a part to play in achieving this,” he added.

Rounding off this post, on the subject of hegemony, it always makes the Oilholic smirk and has done so for years, that the moment the scribes are let in - the first minister they rush for (yours truly included) is the man from Saudi Arabia. That says something about hegemony within OPEC. That's all for the moment from Vienna folks, updates throughout the day and the weekend! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Ali Al-Naimi speaking at the 163rd OPEC meeting of ministers © Gaurav Sharma, May 31, 2013.

Shale & the 163rd OPEC ministers’ summit

The Oilholic has exchanged the blustery wind and rain in London for the blustery wind and rain in Vienna ahead of 163rd OPEC meeting of ministers here on May 31, which half the world’s media and energy analysis community have already dubbed a ‘non-event’. The other half are about to! Industry commentators here and beyond think the 12 member group is going to hold its current production quota at just above 30 million barrels per day (bpd).

 

Even before yours truly boarded the flight from London Heathrow, a Rotterdam based contact in the spot trading world suggested one needn’t have bothered with the market having already factored-in an “as you were” stance by OPEC. This is borne out in further anecdotal evidence; the futures market on leading benchmarks has been bearish in the past 48 hours (not solely down to OPEC).

 

Accompanying overtones describing the meeting as a non-event is the sentiment that OPEC is being haunted by North America’s shale revolution. As if with perfect timing, the US EIA announced on Thursday that the country's crude-oil supplies rose 3 million barrels for the week ended May 24, to 397.6 million barrels; the highest level on record since it began collecting data in 1978.

 

Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) added its take on North American production scenarios by suggesting that demand for OPEC's oil is expected to plummet as production from the US (and Canada) increases by a fifth to 11.9 million bpd by 2018, compared with this year.

 

Additionally, Iraqi production is returning to health. So to put things into context, by 2020 the IEA expects Iraq's oil output to more than double to 6.1 million bpd and were this to happen, OPEC’s unofficial production could rise well above 36 million bpd. As a knee-jerk reaction, the cartel – according to the agency – would have to withhold up to 2.3 million bpd from the market by 2015 (with its spare capacity rising well above 7 million bpd).

 

Given all of this, you might be excused for thinking the global crude market was facing a supply glut and everything was gloomy from OPEC’s standpoint. Yet, the price of oil – Brent or OPEC’s own basket of crude(s) – is still above US$100 per barrel. That’s exactly where most in OPEC want it to be.

 

Arriving a day (or two) ahead of the meeting, 7 out of 12 OPEC ministers have told various media outlets that a US$100 price was acceptable, where it needs to be and “necessary” for investment.  These include senior government officials from Angola, Ecuador, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Venezuela. A US$100 floor price is a uniting theme it seems and most have sounded intent on holding the current official production quota!

 

The conjecture is that as long that floor is maintained, the cartel won’t be cutting production. In fact, OPEC kingpin and Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Ali al-Naimi, who has been in Vienna since May 28, has said existing conditions represent the best environment possible for the market in the face of economic headwinds and that “demand is great.” Despite the best efforts of scribes, bloggers, wiremen and analysts collective, neither Iran nor Venezuela, both of whom are always pushing for cuts to boost the price, have uttered much in the past 24 hours.

 

In contrast, Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi, oil minister for Iraq, OPEC’s second-largest producer, said, “There is balance between demand and supply, and this is reflected on prices, they are stable. We don’t want any shock to the market, the stability of prices is important for the global economy.”

 

The Oilholic thinks the cartel will maintain status quo until the floor dips to US$80 per barrel, if it does. However, the unity will disappear the moment the oil price dips below US$99 with Venezuela and Iran being among the first to start clamouring for another production quota cut.

 

This brings us back to the hullabaloo about North American shale (and unconventional E&P) versus OPEC! The right wing commentators and the US media plus politicians of all stripes – some of whom of conveniently forget Canada’s part in the North American energy spectrum – make it sound as if OPEC, which still accounts for just over 40% of the world’s crude oil market, would suddenly become irrelevant overnight.

 

The IEA, as the Oilholic noted a few weeks ago, described it as nothing short of a paradigm shift in the context of the oil market, although in not these exact words. Then there is the dilemma of OPEC ministers – who are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. If an OPEC minister acknowledges the impact of North American shale, he is described in the media as one who is resigned to the cartel’s decline. Conversely, if an OPEC minister dismisses it, the rebuttal is that he’s doing so because he’s scared!

 

Here is an example from this afternoon, when Iraqi minister al-Luaibi was asked for a comment, he said, “The US shale oil production increase – although it has some impact, it's not a significant impact on oil production or exports, and as you all might notice OPEC countries are all producing more oil than the agreed quota ceiling.”

Now, instead of the Oilholic doing so, do your own research on how the quote has been reported stateside? It will vindicate the sentiment expressed in the previous paragraph. Yours truly is not belittling the shale revolution stateside – but how on earth can the current level of incremental production be maintained beyond the medium term is beyond common sense. So its worth getting excited about but not overexcited about it too! Furthermore, a bit of pragmatism is needed in this debate – one which the Oilholic saw in a brilliant article in the FT by Ajay Makan.

 

In the column, Makan notes how within OPEC there is divide between the relatively comfortable Gulf producers (for e.g. Saudi Arabia) and the rest (most notably Iran, Venezuela and African members). The Saudis have welcomed the impact of shale as they can afford the price falling below US$100 level but some of their peers in OPEC can’t. For some more than the others, “a reckoning appears inevitable, particularly if growth in demand slows,” writes Makan.

 

Then again, beyond supply scenarios, it is worth asking whose shale bonanza is it anyway? First and foremost it is, and as the Oilholic was discussing with Phil Flynn of Price Futures a couple of months ago, price positive for American consumers, followed by LNG importing Asian jurisdictions. While Indian and Chinese policymakers are hardly jumping for joy and will for the foreseeable future continue to rely on OPEC members (and Russia) for majority of their crude cravings, some in the US are already fretting about what US exports would mean for domestic prices!

 

A group – America’s Energy Advantage – backed by several prominent US industrial brands including Alcoa, Huntsman chemicals and Dow Chemical, has claimed that "exporting proceeds of shale (to be read 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."

 

Boone Pickens, in a brilliant riposte, has asked can the US do what it has been criticising OPEC for since the cartel's inception and restrict exports? The inimitable industry veteran has a point! That's all for the moment from Vienna folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. OPEC logo on HQ exterior, Vienna, Austria © Gaurav Sharma.

A superb dissection of global oil & gas depletion

Any analysis of oil and gas depletion is always tricky and often coloured by opposing arguments, disinformation, politics, tangential debates about the resource curse hypothesis and extractive techniques. Given this backdrop, veteran industry analyst Colin J. Campbell’s attempt to tackle the subject via his Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion, currently in its second edition, is nothing short of historic.

 

This epic work banks on decades of painstaking research undertaken by Campbell in his quest to provide definitive and pragmatic commentary on the subject of depletion. Nine parts and 77 chapters split this weighty, authoritative volume on the subject; wherein part by part, page by page it examines oil and gas depletion by region and jurisdictions. Not only has geology been taken into consideration but also the political climate of each region and country in question. The author also discusses the impact of emergent technologies and the costs involved relative to each E&P jurisdiction with a separate examination of conventional and unconventional sources.

Accompanying discourse on the history of the oil and gas business is carved up into two halves – the first half discusses the formation of the oil industry, which oversaw (or rather fuelled) the exponential growth of the global economy. The second half talks of a contraction as the easy to extract supplies dwindle, and the barrel spent per barrel extracted equation starts getting more and more worrying.

 

Campbell also discusses reporting practices and industry data interpretation techniques. The Atlas switches seamlessly to a country-by-country analysis in alphabetical order by continent. Every country imaginable in the context of the oil and gas business and even those that are unimaginable in mainstream discourse about our 'crude' world are examined, substantiated by industry data and accompanying graphics.

 

For purposes of reviewing the contents, the Oilholic selected 10 jurisdictions commonly associated with the E&P industry and another 10 jurisdictions, hitherto considered net oil importers. This blogger was quite simply blown away by sincerity and effort of the research, along with the brevity with which jurisdictional summation was provided duly taking each country’s 'crude' history into the equation. As a reader, you appreciate a book when it adds to your knowledge; Campbell’s Atlas certainly did it for yours truly.

 

If you are looking for an authoritative analysis of oil and gas depletion, minus caricature, clichés and political statements, but full of rational and apolitical scrutiny of the costs involved with extracting oil and gas, then look no further than this book. For an evolving industry, which has a finite natural resource as its core offering, Campbell’s Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion is likely to stand the test of time.

The Oilholic is happy to recommend this book, and humbled to provide a review for the research conducted by an analyst of Campbell's credentials. The Atlas will educate and inform those interested in the oil and gas industry's future and the challenges it faces – be they existential or commercial. In particular, those professionals involved with policymaking, petroleum economics, history of the oil and gas business, academia and market analysis.

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front Cover - Campbell’s Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion © Springer 2013

On a 'crude' UK raid, IEA & the 'Houston glut'

There was only story in London town last week, when late in the day on May 14, European Commission (EC) regulators swooped down on the offices of major oil companies having R&M operations in the UK, investigating fuel price fixing allegations. While the EC did not name names, BP, Shell and Statoil confirmed their offices had been among those ‘visited’ by the officials.

 

More details emerged overnight, as pricing information provider Platts admitted it was also paid a visit. The EC said the investigation relates to the pricing of oil, refined products and biofuels. As part of its probe, it will be examining whether the companies may have prevented others from participating in the pricing process in order to "distort" published prices.

 

That process, according to sources, is none other than Platts’ Market On Close (MOC) price assessment mechanism. "Any such behaviour, if established, may amount to violations of European antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices and abuses of a dominant market position," the EC said, but clarified in the same breath that the raids itself did not imply any guilt on part of the companies.

 

The probe extends to alleged trading malpractices dating back almost over 10 years. All oil companies concerned, at least the ones who admitted to have been visited by EC regulators, said they were cooperating with the authorities. Platts issued a similar statement reiterating its cooperation.

 

So what does it mean? For starters, the line of inquiry is nothing new. Following a very vocal campaign led by British parliamentarian Robert Halfon, the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated the issue of price fixing and exonerated the oil companies in January. Not satisfied, Halfon kept up the pressure and here we are.

 

"I have been raising the issue of alleged fuel price fixing time and again in the House of Commons. With the EC raids, I'd say the OFT has been caught cold and simply needs to look at this again. The issue has cross-party support in the UK," he said.

 

In wake of the raids, the OFT merely said that it stood by its original investigation and was assisting the EC in its investigations. Question is, if, and it’s a big if, any wrongdoing is established, then what would the penalties be like and how would they be enforced? Parallels could be drawn between the Libor rate rigging scandal and the fines that followed imposed by US, UK and European authorities. The largest fine (to date) has been CHF1.4 billion (US$1.44 billion) awarded against UBS.

 

So assuming that wrongdoing is established, and fines are of a similar nature, Fitch Ratings reckons the companies involved could cope. "These producers typically have between US$10 billion and US$20 billion of cash on their balance sheets. Significantly bigger fines would still be manageable, as shown by BP's ability to cope with the cost of the Macondo oil spill, but would be more likely to have an impact on ratings," said Jeffrey Woodruff, Senior Director (Corporates) at Fitch Ratings.

 

Other than fines, if an oil company is found to have distorted prices, it could face longer-term risks from damage to its reputation. While these risks are less easy to predict and would depend on the extent of any wrongdoing, scope does exist for commercial damage, even for sectors with polarising positions in the public mind, according to Fitch. Given we are in the 'early days' phase, let's see what happens or rather doesn't.

 

While the EC was busy raiding oil companies, the IEA was telling the world how the US shale bonanza was sending ripples through the oil industry. In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR), it noted: "the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market."

 

While geopolitical risks persist, according to the IEA, market fundamentals were indicative of a more comfortable global oil supply/demand scenario over the next five years at the very least. The MTOMR projected North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day (mbpd) from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 mbpd.

 

World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 mbpd – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 mbpd. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 mbpd, led by China and the Middle East. According to the IEA, having helped offset record supply disruptions in 2012, North American supply is expected to continue to compensate for declines and delays elsewhere, but only if necessary infrastructure is put in place. Failing that, bottlenecks could pressure prices lower and slow development.

 

Meanwhile, OPEC oil will remain a key part of the oil mix but its production capacity growth will be adversely affected by "growing insecurity in North and Sub-Saharan Africa", the agency said. OPEC capacity is expected to gain 1.75 mbpd to 36.75 mbpd, about 750,000 bpd less than forecast in the 2012 MTOMR. Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will lead the growth, but OPEC's lower-than-expected aggregate additions to global capacity will boost the relative share of North America, the agency said.

 

Away from supply-demand scenarios and on to pricing, Morgan Stanley forecasts Brent's premium to the WTI narrow further while progress continues to be made in clearing a supply glut at the US benchamark’s delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, over the coming months. It was above the US$8 mark when the Oilholic last checked, well down on the $20 it averaged for much of 2012.However, analysts at the investment bank do attach a caveat.

Have you heard of the Houston glut? There is no disguising the fact that Houston has been the recipient of the vast majority of the "new" inland crude oil supplies in the Gulf Coast [no prizes for guessing where that is coming from]. The state's extraction processes have become ever more efficient accompanied by its own oil boom to complement the existing E&P activity.

 

Lest we forget, North Dakota has overtaken every other US oil producing state in terms of its oil output, but not the great state of Texas. Yet, infrastructural limitations persist when it comes to dispatching the crude eastwards from Texas to the refineries in Louisiana.

 

So Morgan Stanley analysts note: "A growing glut of crude in Houston suggests WTI-Brent is near a trough and should widen again [at least marginally] later this year. Houston lacks a benchmark, but physical traders indicate that Houston is already pricing about $4 per barrel under Brent, given physical limitations in moving crude out of the area."

 

The Oilholic can confirm that anecdotal evidence does seem to indicate this is the case. So it would be fair to say that Morgan Staley is bang-on in its assessment that the "Houston regional pricing" would only erode further as more crude reaches the area, adding that any move in Brent-WTI towards $6-7 a barrel [from the current $8-plus] should prove unsustainable.

 

Capacity to bring incremental crude to St. James refineries in Louisiana is limited, so the Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) will continue to trade well above Houston pricing; a trend that is likely to continue even after the reversal of the Houston-Houma pipeline – the main crude artery between the Houston physical market and St. James.

 

On a closing note, it seems the 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' affair escalated last week with the Bank of England joining the chorus of indignation. It all began earlier this month when news emerged of Bloomberg's practice of giving its reporters "limited" access to some data considered proprietary, including when a customer looked into broad categories such as equities or bonds.

 

The scoop – first reported by the FT – led to a full apology by Matthew Winkler, Editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, for allowing journalists "limited" access to sensitive data about how clients used its terminals, saying it was "inexcusable". However, Winkler insisted that important and confidential customer data had been protected. Problem is, they aren't just any customers – they include the leading central banks in the OECD.

 

The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have all said they were examining the use of data by Bloomberg. However, the language used by the Bank of England is the sternest so far. The British central bank described the events at Bloomberg as "reprehensible."

 

A spokesperson said, "The protection of confidential information is vital here at the bank. What seems to have happened at Bloomberg is reprehensible. Bank officials are in close contact with Bloomberg…We will also be liaising with other central banks on this matter."

 

In these past few days there have been signs that 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' is growing bigger as Brazil’s central bank and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (the Chinese territory's de facto central bank) have also expressed their indignation. Having been a Bank of England and UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) correspondent, yours truly can personally testify how seriously central banks take issue with such things and so they should.

 

Yet, in describing Bloomberg's practice as "reprehensible", the Bank of England has indicated how serious it thinks the breach of confidence was and how miffed it is. The UK central bank has since received assurances from Bloomberg that there would be no repeat of the issue! You bet! 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: Abandoned gas station © Todd Gipstein / National Geographic 

UK Oil & Gas Inc. - The Thatcher Years!

The Oilholic has patiently waited for the fans and despisers of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to quieten down, in wake of her death on April 8, 2013, before giving his humble take on what her premiership did (or in many cases didn’t) for the UK oil and gas Inc. and what she got in return.

 

Her influence on the North Sea exploration and production certainly got a mention in passing in all the tributes and brickbats thrown at the Iron Lady, the longest serving (1979-1990) and only female British Prime Minister. The world’s press ranging from The Economist to the local paper in her former parliamentary constituency – The Hendon & Finchley Times (see covers below) – discussed the legacy of the Iron Lady; that legacy is ‘cruder’ than you think.

 

In the run-up to Thatcher's all-but-in-name state funeral on April 17, the British public was bombarded with flashbacks of her time in the corridors of power. In one of the video runs, yours truly glanced at archived footage of Thatcher at a BP production facility and that said it all. Her impact on the industry and the industry’s impact itself on her premiership were profound to say the least.

 

Academic Peter R. Odell, noted at the time in his book  Oil and World Power (c1986) that, “Countries as diverse as Finland, France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Norway and Britain had all decided to place oil partly, at least, in the public sector.” A later footnote observes, “Britain’s Conservative government, under Mrs. Thatcher, subsequently decided [in 1983] to ‘privatize’ the British National Oil Corporation (BNOC) created by an earlier Labour administration.”

 

The virtue of private free enterprise got instilled into the UK oil and gas industry in general and the North Sea innovators in particular thanks to Thatcher. But to say that the industry somehow owed the Iron Lady a debt of gratitude would be a travesty. Rather, the industry repaid that debt not only in full, but with interest.

 

Just as Thatcher was coming to power, more and more of the crude stuff was being sucked out of the North Sea with UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) being much richer in those days than it certainly is these days. The UK Treasury, under her hawk-eyed watch, was quite simply raking it in. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, government revenue from the oil and gas industry rose from £565 million in fiscal year 1978-79 to £12.04 billion in 1984-85. That is worth over three times as much in 2012 real-terms value, according to a guesstimate provided by a contact at Barclays Capital.

 

Throughout the 1980s, the Iron Lady made sure that the revenue from the [often up to] 90% tax on North Sea oil and gas exploration and production was used as a funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of economic reform. Over three decades on from the crude boom of the 1980s, Brits do wish she had examined, some say even adopted, the Norwegian model.

 

That she privatised the BNOC does not irk the Oilholic one bit, but that not even a drop of black gold and its proceeds – let alone a full blown Norwegian styled sovereign fund – was put aside for a rainy day is nothing short of short-termism or short-sightedness; quite possibly both. One agrees that both macroeconomic and demographical differences between Norway and the UK complicate the discussion. This humble blogger doubts if the thought of creating a sovereign fund didn’t cross the Iron Lady’s mind.

 

But unquestionably, as oil and gas revenue was helping in feeding the rising state benefits bill at the time – all Thatcher saw in Brent, Piper and Cormorant fields were Petropounds to balance the books. And, if you thought the ‘crude’ influence ended in the sale of BNOC, privatisation drives or channelling revenue for short-term economic rebalancing, then think again. Crude oil, or rather a distillate called diesel, came to Thatcher’s aid in her biggest battle in domestic politics – the Miners’ Strike of 1984.

 

Pitting her wits against Arthur Scargill, the National Union of Mineworkers’ (NUM) hardline, stubborn, ultra-left leader at the time, she prevailed. In March 1984, the National Coal Board (NCB) proposed to close 20 of the 174 state-owned mines resulting in the loss of 20,000 jobs. Led by Scargill, two-thirds of the country's miners went on strike and so began the face-off.

 

But Thatcher, unlike her predecessors, was ready for a prolonged battle having learnt her lesson in an earlier brief confrontation with the miners and knew their union’s clout full well based on past histories. This time around, the government had stockpiled coal to ensure that power plants faced no shortages as was the case with previous confrontations.

 

Tongue-tied in his vanity, Scargill had not only missed the pulse of the stockpiling drive but also failed to realise that many UK power plants had switched to diesel as a back-up. Adding to the overall idiocy of the man, he decided to launch the strike in the summer of 1984, when power consumption is lower, than in the winter.

 

Furthermore, he refused to hold a ballot on the strike, after losing three previous ballots on a national strike (in January 1982, October 1982 and March 1983). The strike was declared illegal and Thatcher eventually won as the NUM conceded a year later in March 1985 without any sizable concessions but with its member having borne considerable hardships. The world was moving away from coal, to a different kind of fossil fuel and Thatcher grasped it better than most. That the country was a net producer of crude stuff at the time was a bonanza; the Treasury’s to begin with as she saw it.

 

The Iron Lady left office with an ‘ism’ in the shape of 'Thatcherism' and bred 'Thatcherites' espousing free market ideas and by default making capitalism the dominant, though recently beleaguered, economic system of our time. Big Bang, the day [October 27, 1986] the London Stock Exchange's rules changed, following deregulation of the financial markets, became the cornerstone of her economic policy.

 

In this world there are no moral absolutes. So the Oilholic does not accept the rambunctious arguments offered by left wingers that she made ‘greed’ acceptable or that the Big Bang caused the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Weren’t militant British unions who, for their own selfish odds and ends, held the whole country to ransom throughout the 1970s (until Thatcher decimated them), greedy too? If the Big Bang was to blame for a global financial crisis, so was banking deregulation in the UK in 1997 (and elsewhere around that time) when she was not around.

 

Equally silly, are the fawning accolades handed out by the right wingers; many of whom – and not the British public – were actually instrumental in booting her out of office and some of whom were her colleagues at the time. Let the wider debate about her legacy be where it is, but were it not for the UK oil and gas Inc., there would have been no legacy. Luck played its part, as it so often does in the lives of great leaders. As The Economist noted:

 

“She was also often outrageously lucky: lucky that the striking miners were led by Arthur Scargill, a hardline Marxist; lucky that the British left fractured and insisted on choosing unelectable leaders; lucky that [Argentine] General Galtieri decided to invade the Falkland Islands when he did; lucky that she was a tough woman in a system dominated by patrician men (the wets never knew how to cope with her); lucky in the flow of North Sea oil; and above all lucky in her timing. The post-war consensus was ripe for destruction, and a host of new forces, from personal computers to private equity, aided her more rumbustious form of capitalism.”

 

They say that the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez stage-managed 'Chavismo' and bred 'Chavistas' from the proceeds of black gold. The Oilholic says 'Thatcherism' and 'Thatcherites' have a ‘crude’ dimension too. Choose whatever evidence you like – statistical, empirical or anecdotal – crude oil bankrolled Thatcherism in its infancy. That is the unassailable truth and 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: Baroness Margaret Thatcher’s funeral cortege with military honours, April 17, 2013 © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Front page of the Hendon & Finchley Times, April 11, 2013. Photo 3: Front cover of the The Economist, April 13, 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.