Assessing BP’s settlement with the US authorities

BP’s recent settlement with the US authorities does not end the company's legal woes related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but it is a vital step in the direction of bringing financial closure to the accident.

When the oil major announced on July 2, that it had reached agreements in principle to settle all federal and state claims arising from the oil spill at a cost of up to $18.7 billion spread over 18 years, markets largely welcomed the move. On a day when the crude oil futures market was in reverse, BP’s share price rose by 4.69% by the close of trading in London, contrary to prevailing trading sentiment, as investors absorbed the welcome news. 

Above anything else, the agreement provides certainty about major aspects of BP's financial exposure in wake of the oil spill. As per the deal, BP’s US Upstream subsidiary – BP Exploration and Production (BPXP) – has executed agreements with the federal government and five Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Under the said terms, BPXP will pay the US government a civil penalty of $5.5 billion over 15 years under the country’s Clean Water Act.

It will also pay $7.1 billion to the US and the five Gulf states over 15 years for natural resource damages (NRD), in addition to the $1 billion already committed for early restoration. BPXP will also set aside an additional $232 million to be added to the NRD interest payment at the end of the payment period to cover any further natural resource damages that are unknown at the time of the agreement.

A total of $4.9 billion will be paid over 18 years to settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast states, while up to $1 billion will be paid to resolve claims made by more than 400 local government entities. Finally, what many thought was going to be a prolonged tussle with US authorities might be coming to an end via payments, huge for some and not large enough for others, spread over a substantially long time frame.

BP’s chief executive Bob Dudley described the settlement as a “realistic outcome” which provides clarity and certainty for all parties. “For BP, this agreement will resolve the largest liabilities remaining from the tragic accident and enable the company to focus on safely delivering the energy the world needs.”

The impact of the settlement on the company’s balance sheet and cashflow will be “manageable” and allow it to continue to invest in and grow its business, said chief financial officer Brian Gilvary. As individual and business claims continue, BP said the expected impact of these agreements would be to increase the cumulative pre-tax charge associated with the spill by around $10 billion from $43.8 billion already allocated at the end of the first quarter.

While the settlement is still awaiting court approval, credit ratings agencies largely welcomed the move, alongside many City brokers whose notes to clients were seen by the Oilholic. Fitch Ratings said the deal will considerably strengthen BP’s credit profile, which had factored in “the potential for a larger settlement that took much longer to agree”.

Should the agreement be finalised on the same terms, it is likely to result in positive rating action from the agency. Fitch currently rates BP 'A' with a ‘Negative Outlook.’

Alex Griffiths, Managing Director, Fitch Ratings, said: “While BP had amassed ample liquidity to deal with most realistic scenarios, the scale and uncertain timing of the payment of outstanding fines and penalties remained a key driver of BP's financial profile in our modelling, and had the potential to place a large financial burden on the company amid an oil price slump.

“The certainty the deal provides, and the deferral of the payments over a long period, gives BP the opportunity to improve its balance sheet profile and navigate the current downturn.”

Meanwhile, Moody's has already changed to ‘positive’ from ‘negative’ the outlook on A2 long-term debt and Prime-1 commercial paper ratings of BP and its guaranteed subsidiaries. In wake of the settlement, the ratings agency also changed to ‘positive’ from ‘negative’, its outlook on the A3 and Baa1 Issuer Ratings of BP Finance and BP Corporation North America, respectively.

Tom Coleman, a Moody's Senior Vice President, said: “While the settlement is large, we view the scope and extended payout terms as important and positive developments for BP, allowing it to move forward with a lot more certainty around the size and cash flow burden of its legal liabilities.

“It will also help clarify a stronger core operating and credit profile for BP as it moves into a post-Macondo era.”

The end is not within sight just yet, but some semblance of it is likely to attract new investors. BP's second quarter results are due on July 28, and quite a few eyes, including this blogger’s, will be on the company for clues about the future direction. But that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Support ships in the Gulf of Mexico © BP

‘Unfit’ Brent, OPEC’s health & market volatility

As the August Brent futures contract traded firmly below US$65 a barrel days after publication of the latest Saudi production data, London played host to the ninth round of the World National Oil Companies Congress.

In case you haven’t heard, the Saudis pumped 10.31 million barrels per day in May – the subject of many a chat at the event, atop of course why Algerian and Iranian officials, who usually turn up in numbers at such places (going by past experience), were conspicuous by their absence.

The congress threw up some interesting talking points. To enliven crude conversations, you can always count on Chris Cook (pictured above), former director of the International Petroleum Exchange (now ICE) and a research fellow at UCL, who told the Oilholic that Brent – deemed the global proxy benchmark by the wider market – has had its day and was unfit for purpose.

“I have been saying so since 2002. The number of crude oil cargoes from the North Sea has been diminishing steadily. On that basis alone, how can such a benchmark be representative of a global market?”

Cook would not speculate on what might or might not happen at the Iranian nuclear talks, but said the entry of additional Iranian crude into the global supply pool was inevitable. “With India and China at the ready to import Iranian crude, Europeans and Americans would have to come to some sort of accommodation with rest of the world’s take on the country's oil.”

In line with market conjecture among supply-side analysts, the industry veteran agreed it would be foolhardy to assume Iran might try to flood the oil market with its crude, a move that is likely to drive the oil price even lower in an already oversupplied market. Cook also declared that OPEC was on life support as it struggles to grapple with current market conditions.

With oil benchmarks stuck in the $50-75 range, Keisuke Sadamori, Director of Energy Markets & Security at the International Energy Agency, said a “firmer dollar” and current oversupply would make a short to medium term escape from the said price bracket pretty unlikely. (Here is one’s Sharecast report for reference). 

Earlier in the day, Andy Brogan, global oil and gas transactions leader at EY, noted that the industry would have to contend with volatility for a while. “There appears to be little confidence in a medium term bounce in the price of oil. With the industry in the midst of a profound change, IOCs have recently gone through a very rigorous review of their portfolio.”

Brogan opined that this would have implications for their partnerships with NOCs and fellow IOCs going forward. With the old tectonic plates shifting, IOCs wanting to conserve cash, NOCs craving a bout of further independence and the oil price stuck in a rut, that’s something worth pondering over. But that's all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Chris Cook, former director of the International Petroleum Exchange and research fellow at UCL, speaking at World National Oil Companies Congress, London, UK, June 16, 2015 © Gaurav Sharma.

OPEC’s hunt for an ‘equitable’ oil price

The OPEC meeting is over, quota stays at 30 million barrels per day, and by the way – it was never a quota but rather a recommendation in Secretary General Abdalla El-Badri’s own words.

From now until December, when OPEC meets next, member nations would be contemplating what constitutes an equitable price (whether or not that’s achievable given the state of the market) and use that as a basis for deliberations next time around. Both benchmarks ended sharply lower on Friday relative to the previous week’s closing price after OPEC’s decision. Brent shed 3.51% on its May 29 closing price while the WTI lost 2.32%. OPEC’s daily basket price came in at US$59.67 a barrel, right before it reached its latest decision.

In fact, OPEC’s average monthly basket price tells its own story. A graph drawn by the Oilholic (see above left, click to enlarge) based on OPEC data, shows the price falling from an average of $107.89 in June 2014 to $62.24 in May; a decline of 42.31% in that time. It went down a cliff between June and January, before recovering to where we are at the moment.

This blogger firmly believes we are stuck here or hereabouts for a while, as probably do most oil producers (OPEC or non-OPEC). While most would want as high a price as possible, what would they deem as equitable? The figure varies, but when asked about the current price level, Saudi oil minister Ali Al-Naimi quipped: “You can see that I am not stressed, I am happy.”

Of course, the price threshold point ensuring Al-Naimi’s happiness would be a lot lower than regional rivals Iran or Iraq. The Iranians expressed a desire for $75, the uppermost and highly unlikely top range of the Oilholic’s short-term forecast.

Angola, Nigeria, Ecuador and Venezuela said $80 was their equitable price. One suspects, Venezuela – in the midst of an economic crisis – needs a three-figure price but cast its lot with those quoting the highest, even if its $20 short of what it is after.

When quizzed about the oil price, El-Badri said, “OPEC does not have a so-called oil price target; we leave that to the market.

“I agree that there are income disparities within OPEC. We have rich oil exporters and poor oil exporters; our decision in November [to hold production] as well as what we have decided today is in the interest of all members.”

The rich ones – Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Kuwait – met well before the OPEC seminar and the subsequent minister's summit, and agreed on keeping the production ceiling where it was at 30 million bpd.

OPEC's production actually came in at 30.93 million bpd in April, and could unofficially be anywhere between 31.5 to 32 million bpd depending on which recent industry survey you choose to rely on. It’s probably why El-Badri downgraded OPEC’s “quota” into a “members’ recommendation”. The Oilholic though couldn’t help noticing there was quiet satisfaction within OPEC about the market not getting materially worse between its meetings with little prospect of prices getting entrenched below $40.

One does not see it coming either. As we enter the latter half of the year, focus will shift towards global economic growth and how it supports demand for crude oil. OPEC noted the global economic recovery had stabilised, albeit with growth at moderate levels.

In the current year, global GDP growth is projected at 3.3%, and expected to be at a slightly higher level of 3.5% for 2016. As a consequence, OPEC expects world oil demand to increase in the second half of 2015 and in 2016, with growth driven by non-OECD countries.

Of course, the said growth levels wont see the oil price shoot up given more than adequate supplies, but will probably see 8 out of 12 OPEC members pretty content, whether they get what they say is their equitable price or not. That’s that from the 167th OPEC meet; time to head back to London town. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com 

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Graph: Monthly average OPEC Basket Price (June 2014 to May 2015) © Gaurav Sharma / Data Source: OPEC.

No change at OPEC, 30mbpd is the 'official' quota

It was over in a jiffy – that’s the best explanation one can come up with. So the OPEC ministers arrived at 10am CET, did their customary presser, opening note came in, sandwiches followed (nothing worse than keeping analysts and scribes hungry) and then time slot for the formal quota announcement kept getting revised from 1600CET to 1530CET to 1430CET. Before you knew it – in came Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri at 1400CET to convey what everybody had already factored in, the ‘official quota’ stays at 30 million barrels per day (bpd).

Official quota in inverted commas because we all know OPEC is pumping way more than that. Surveys suggest that between the 12 member, the exporters’ collective led by Saudi Arabia is producing over 31.5 million bpd. Even OPEC’s official monthly report from April put production at 30.93 million bpd. With demand tepid and the oil price neither here not there, but better than January, where was the incentive to change, as one opined last month.

In fact, the Oilholic is getting quite used to filing an end of conference blog post from here titled “no change at OPEC” often followed by “in line with market expectation”. Quite like the 166th meeting, that number 167 followed the recent norm was hardly a surprise. Perhaps they'd had enough of each other at OPEC International Seminar which came before the meeting. 

But as one’s good friend Jason Schenker, President of Prestige Economics, says “Oil has always been a story of demand”; El-Badri & co. saw tepid demand and responded leaving production as it was.

OPEC is indeed forecasting world oil demand to increase in the second half of 2015 and in 2016, with growth driven by non-OECD countries. But nothing quite like what it was in 2014.

There was one rather intriguing development, for according to El-Badri it seems we’ve all got it wrong. The so-called, OPEC production quota, it turns out isn’t a quota at all. "It is not a quota as such, but rather a recommendation given to members which we expect them to take," said the longstanding Secretary General.

He also said OPEC in fact had no target price, when asked if the Iranians' opinion that US$75 per barrel would be adequate was a view he shared.

“OPEC does not have a so-called oil price target. I agree that there are income disparities within OPEC. We have rich oil exporters and poor oil exporters; our decision in November [to hold production] as well as what we have decided today is in the interest of all members.”

On the supply side, non-OPEC growth in 2015 is expected to be just below 700,000 barrels per day, which is only around one-third of the growth witnessed in 2014. That's all from Vienna for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. OPEC Secretariat, Helferstorferstrasse 17, Vienna, Austria © Gaurav Sharma

OPEC's 167th meet: The crude story so far

The Oilholic is back in Vienna, camped up here in the Austrian capital for OPEC’s latest deliberations with an extended round of market chatter in the shape of the organisation’s once-in-two years International Seminar (which concluded on Thursday) ahead of the minister’s summit.

Not all 12 OPEC members are having sleepless nights. The mood in some camps is pretty placid, and not at all dark as some would have you believe. Two days of the international seminar have been fascinating. The sixth in the series saw a procession of CEOs come and go, but Ryan Lance, CEO of ConocoPhillips, delivered a blinder of a speech telling his hosts – shale was here to stay. 

Representing the buyers’ club, Indian Petroleum Minister Dharmendra Pradhan bluntly called for a revision of terms and conditions on which his country, a major client of OPEC exporters, imports oil. Both comments stood out for the Oilholic in terms of robustness. Here’s one take in a column for Forbes.

There were plenty of spot reports for Sharecast to share around too. In wake of the oil price decline, several CEOs – including CEO of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van Beurden, Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne, Eni Claudio Descalzi and Chevron chairman & CEO John Watson - called for a rethink in industry strategy (click here for report). 

Emerging market demand or non-OECD demand remained a recurring theme for OPEC as well as wider industry commentators with member ministers and Big Oil bosses queuing up to point out Asia is where most of their crude product’s demand will come from. 

Even before the ministers have convened there is palpable sense here in Vienna, that OPEC would not move to alter its production quota of 30 million barrels per day (bpd), given that it’s already ‘officially’ pumping 930,000 bpd more than that, with unofficial estimates putting it some 1.5 million barrels above.

There’s always the element of surprise, but that element seems to be missing here, especially on crude matters. Finally, the Oilholic leaves you with a view of OPEC Gala Dinner on Wednesday night (see above right) where one met a lot of old friends and made yet newer ones. This post is just to get the ball rolling, more from Vienna, very, very shortly. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo 1: OPEC's 6th International Seminar, Hofburg Palace, Vienna © OPEC Seminar Gala Dinner, Vienna City Hall, Austria, June 2015.

US oil production decline much less than feared

As the latest visit to Houston, Texas nears its conclusion, the Oilholic walked wistfully past a petrol station in the Lone Star state. What European motorists wouldn’t give for US$2.49 (£1.61) per US gallon (3.79 litres) to fill up their cars. That was the price was this morning (see left)!

Ditching wistfulness and moving on to price of the crude stuff, the latest energy outlook report from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) sees Brent averaging $61 per barrel in 2015, with WTI averaging around $55. The EIA also expects a decline in crude oil production stateside from June onwards through to September.

However, there is little anecdotal evidence here on the ground in Houston to suggest the Eagle Ford is slowing down if activity elsewhere is. Furthermore, feedback from selected attendees at two events here – Baker & McKenzie’s 2015 Oil & Gas Institute 2015 and the Mergermarket Energy Forum – alongside most experts this blogger has spoken to since arrival, point to the said production decline being much less than feared.

On average, most opined that we’d be looking at a decline of between 35,000 to 45,000 barrels per day (bpd) this year. It would imply that US production would still stay within a very respectable 9.1 to 9.3 million bpd range with much of the drop coming from North Dakota. As if with eerie timing, American Eagle’s filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, following its inability to service debt on plays in North Dakota (and Montana), provided a near instant case in point.

Overall picture is less clear for 2016. If the oil price stays where it is, we could see a US production decline in the region of 60,000 to 100,000 bpd. EIA has estimated the decline might well be towards the upper end of the range. 

It comes after analysts at Goldman Sachs labelled the recent oil prices “rally” as being a bit ahead of itself. Or to quote their May 11 email to clients in verbatim: “While low prices precipitated the market rebalancing, we view the recent rally as premature.

“The oil market focus has dramatically shifted over the past month, from fearing a breach of US crude oil storage capacity to reflecting a well under way oil market rebalancing. We view this shift in sentiment and positioning as excessive relative to still weak fundamentals.”

The Oilholic has repeatedly said over the past six weeks that both benchmarks are likely to stay within the $50-75 barrel range, as the decline in the number of operational oil rigs stateside was not high enough (yet) to trigger persistently lower US production. EIA data and feedback here in Houston supports such conjecture.

Meanwhile, the front page of the Financial Times loudly, but bleakly, declared on Tuesday that “more than $100 billion of projects” were on ice with Canada hit the hardest. According to the newspaper’s research, Shell, BP, Statoil and ConocoPhillips have all led moves to curtail capital spending on 26 major projects in 13 countries.

Speaking of ConocoPhillips, its CEO Ryan Lance has joined an ever increasing chorus stateside of oil industry bosses calling on the US government to lift its 40-year plus ban on crude exports. 

At a conference in Asia, Lance told Bloomberg that the Houston-based oil and gas producer had sufficient production capacity stateside to cater the global market and ensure stable domestic supply. Right, so there’s no danger to Houstonians paying $2.49 per gallon to fill up their cars then?

To be fair, the ConocoPhillips boss is not alone in calling for a lifting of the ban. Since last July, the Oilholic has counted at least 27 independents, many mid-tier US-listed oil and gas producers including Hess Corp and Continental Resources, and almost all of the majors voicing a similar opinion.

They can say what they like; there won’t be any movement on this front until there is a new occupant in the White House. That’s all from Houston on this visit folks, its time for the big flying bus home. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Price display board at a Shell Petrol Station in Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, May 2015.

Talking Russia, China, shale 'debt' & more in Texas

The Oilholic finds himself in Houston, Texas for Baker & McKenzie’s 2015 Oil & Gas Institute. When yours truly was last in Texas back in February, the mood was rather sombre as leading oil futures benchmarks were still on a downward slide.

That was then, what we have now is stagnancy in the US$50-75 per barrel price range which probably encompasses both the WTI and Brent. We are not getting away from the said range anytime soon as one noted in a column for Forbes last Friday before flying out here.

Given the nature of such discourse, some delegates here at the Institute agreed and others disagreed with the Oilholic’s take on the short-term direction of the oil markets, especially as a lot is going on in this ‘crude’ world that such industry events are particularly sound in bringing to the fore.

The 2015 instalment of this particular Baker & McKenzie event had a great array of speakers and delegates – from Shell to Citigroup, Cameron International to Chevron. The legal eagles, the macroeconomists, the internationalists, the sector specialists, the industry veterans, and of course the opinionated, who never sit on the fence on matters shaping the direction of the market, were all there in good numbers.

(L to R) Louis J. Davis, Greg McNab, Natalie Regoli, James Donnell and David Hackett of Baker & McKenzie discuss the North American Market in wake of the oil price decline

The situation in Russia propped up fairly early on in proceedings. Alexey Frolov, a legal expert from Baker & McKenzie’s Moscow office, was keen to point out that it was not just the sanctions that were hurting Russia’s oil & gas industry; related macroeconomics of the day was sapping confidence away as well.

But Frolov also pointed to a degree of resilience within Russian confines, and a more flexible domestic taxation regime which was helping sustain high production levels unseen since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It does remain unclear though how long Russia can keep this up.

Meanwhile, Cameron International’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Brad Eastman flagged up something rather interesting. “We see Chinese companies continue to back rig building projects, even if they are being mothballed elsewhere in the world given the current market conditions. Chinese companies wish to continue their march in to the rig-building industry.”

Here’s China indulging in something that is really bold, some say unusual. So even if no one is exactly queuing up to buy or lease those Chinese rigs, it is another example that China operates on a whole different level to rest of the natural resources players and participants.

As for US shale, people say there is distressed debt out there and the end might be supposedly nigh for some small players. Well hear this – based on the Oilholic’s direct research here in Texas of looking into 37 independent US players, sometimes known as mom n’ pop oil & gas firms, and another 11 mid-sized companies; a dollar of their debt would fetch between 83 cents to 92 cents if hypothetically sold by their creditors.

That’s hardly distressed debt even at the lower end of the range. On hearing the Oilholic’s findings, Louis J. Davis, Chair of Baker & McKenzie’s North America Oil & Gas Practice, said: “An 8 to 17 cents discount does not constitute as distressed. Rewind the clock back to 2008-09 and you’d be looking at 35 to 40 cents to the dollar on unprofitable plays – that’s distress. This is not.”

Quite simply, creditors and investors are keeping the faith. But to curb the Oilholic’s enthusiasm, alas Davis added the words “for now”.

“You have to remember that many players [both large and small] would be coming off their existing oil price hedges by the end of the current calendar year. That’s when we’ll really know who’s in trouble or not.

“However, blanket assumptions that US shale, and by extension some independents are dead in the water, is a load of nonsense. Usual caveats apply to the Bakken players, but nothing I know from clients large or small in the Eagle Ford suggest otherwise,” Davis concluded.

As with events of this nature, the Oilholic of course wears several hats – most notably for Sharecast / Digital Look and Forbes. Hence, it’s worth flagging up other interesting slants and exclusive soundbites mined for these publications by this blogger.

The subject of oil & gas mergers and acquisitions in the current climate dominated the Institute’s morning session, as one wrote on Forbes earlier today. How to deal with the prospect of Iran’s possible return to the crude oil market also came up. Click here for one’s Sharecast report; treading carefully was the verdict of experts and industry players alike.

Separately, a Pemex official described in some detail how UK-listed oil and gas companies were sizing up potential opportunities in Mexico. Lastly, yours truly also had the pleasure of interviewing Anne Ka Tse Hung, a Tokyo-based partner at Baker & McKenzie, for Sharecast on the subject of the LNG industry facing a buyers’ market.

Hung noted that the market in Asia had completely turned on its head for Japanese utilities, from the panic buying of natural gas at a premium in wake of the Fukushima tragedy in 2011, to currently asking exporters to bid for supply contracts as competition intensifies and prices fall. That’s all for the moment from Houston folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: A panel session at the Baker & McKenzie 2015 Oil & Gas Institute, Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, May 2015.

UK election result's impact on British Energy Inc

By all accounts, result of the UK General Election on May 7 was simply stunning. Pollsters got it horribly wrong, Prime Minister David Cameron’s Conservative Party returned with a majority against all expectations, Scottish National Party bagged 56 out of 59 parliamentary seats in the ‘oil hub’ of Scotland - all the ingredients to excite politically minded scribes and the general public alike. The Oilholic began his experience at Ellwood Atfield’s splendid election night bash in Westminster (photo above left) ushering in news of the first exit poll predicting the Conservatives were going to be the largest party with 316 members of parliament.

As events unfolded into early hours of the morning and late afternoon the next day, Cameron’s Conservatives returned with 331 MPs and a slim majority putting to bed all talk of a hung parliament. This blogger was up when Labour heavyweights Ed Balls, Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Liberal Democrats ministers Vince Cable, Ed Davey, Lynne Featherstone and Danny Alexander all lost their seats.

Resignation of the hapless Labour leader Ed Miliband who managed to deliver his party’s worst election result since 1983 followed, along with that of Nick Clegg, now former deputy prime minister and Liberal Democrat leader. Cameron soon walked back into Downing Street after meeting the Queen and telling her he’d now form a majority Conservative government.

Having enjoyed the drama of election night well into sunrise the next day, it’s worth pondering what the result means for the UK’s energy industry in general and the oil and gas business in particular. Afterall, the Oilholic did fret about the direction of the market in his pre-election column for Forbes.

For starters, Ed Miliband’s barmy energy price freeze isn’t going to happen. A daft idea, daftly presented to maximum populist effect just didn’t work and is now in the dustbin of political history. This blogger expects ratings agencies to ease up both on UK-listed energy utilities Centrica, the owner of British Gas, and SSE, another service provider as well as the sector in general. 

Unsurprisingly, both stocks jumped as the entire London market welcomed the result on May 8 morning with the FTSE 100 momentarily returning back above 7,000 points. Nonetheless, Cameron’s government faces a very serious challenge of planning investment towards creaking energy infrastructure – from nuclear to renewables – ensuring the lights are kept on. By some estimates, the required capital expenditure could be as high as £330 billion by 2030.

Switching to the mainstream oil and gas business, both the Conservative victory in the UK and an SNP landslide in Scotland are broadly positive for various reasons. As this blogger has noted before, Chancellor George Osborne’s taxation policies turned positive for the industry towards the end of the last parliament, as the oil price decline began to bite North Sea players. 

Collective measures put into effect back in March imply that the UK’s total tax levy would fall from 60% to 50%, giving a much needed breather to those prospecting in the North Sea. Any further stimulus measures for the better are unlikely to be disrupted by the SNP, even if they do have a broader agenda of roughing up other government programmes both North and South of the Scottish border.

This is broadly good for the industry, as it goes through a challenging period and grapples with the restructuring in Aberdeen triggered by companies as large as BP and as small as independent operations services providers. 

Finally, turning attention to the new energy minister Amber Rudd, a Conservative MP for Hastings, who has been appointed as the successor to Ed Davey; the choice is a great one. Obviously, her credentials are solid or she wouldn’t be here. Gauging the response of the wider industry, most have welcomed the appointment.

Rudd is seen as conscientious and hard working minister. Even Greenpeace sent out a release welcoming her to the job, hoping that she’d bring the same energy to implementing the Climate Change Act, as she did to fight the corner of fisheries in her last government remit.

With a challenging portfolio, Rudd has her work cut out and we wish her well, especially as she sets about the arduous task of attracting investment to the sector. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Ellwood Atfield election night party, May 7, 2015 © Gaurav Sharma

Streamlining ‘crude’ corporations in tough times

In tougher times, operational efficiencies - often brought about by digital streamlining - do matter and the oil and gas business is most certainly going through a rough patch. Yet, despite living in an increasingly digital world, most in the business view IT through a prism of functionality rather than one of enablement and efficiencies. 

Afterall, when you think of the energy business in general and big oil in particular, it is all about physical assets, drilling and generating not servers and computers. Sometimes, a change of circumstances provides the necessary jolt and that circumstance has been the oil price decline. 

As every oil and gas and oilfield services company, large or small, listed or independent is scrambling around to save costs; suddenly many are meaningfully warming up to the premise of IT services management [or ITSM] - a concept that has been around for a while, but has not tickled the fancy of big oil to the same extent as big banking or big pharma.

With IT driven processes streamlining and merging functions ranging from human resource management to data management, organising emergency response to a centralised incident logging platform - the idea is has savings at its core. The Oilholic went exploring its potential at the recently concluded Knowledge 15 Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada; an event put together by ServiceNow (NYSE:NOW), one of the market leaders in the sphere. 

 

The company has been notching up the concept with each passing year. From giving the corporate world its Platform as a Service (PaaS) offering to Software as a service (SaaS), to IT and infrastructure as service, ServiceNow simply defines what it brings to the solutions table these days as “Everything as a Service”.

Banners proudly proclaiming the strategy were all around the Mandalay Bay Convention Centre; venue of the event (see photo above). Everything is indeed in play - name a process optimisation slant, and a solution could be conjured up, as ServiceNow CEO Frank Slootman told this blogger in an exclusive Forbes interview.

And while the oil and gas sector remains behind the curve, attitudes are changing according to Slootman. Most in big oil are keenly observing how alternative energy and utilities companies are adopting ITSM to improve procedures and save costs, as the Oilholic noted in another Forbes article. 

Furthermore, KPMG’s IT advisory partner Phil Crozier opines that a wave of mergers and acquisitions within the sector could further the drive. “Hypothetically speaking, let’s look at Shell’s bid for BG Group. The person who is in-charge of IT operations in that sort of a setting does not get told how to bring two organisations together, merely a percentage of some sorts – say 20% – to take off the cost base.

“Now, the only way you can efficiently achieve those sorts of savings would be via process efficiencies and simplification in the approach taken by the two firms. That’s where digital process optimisation comes in.”

That drive is gathering momentum. The Oilholic found several energy sector executives around the convention floor eagerly exploring ITSM avenues. ServiceNow already counts the likes of Valero, Statoil, GDF Suez, GE Energy and several others among its growing client portfolio in the sector.

However, there is still a long way to go before ServiceNow or its bitter rival BMC can put the sector at par with ITSM adoption at big pharma, big finance or big tech. Anecdotal evidence suggests 2015-16 could see many big oil sceptics recognise the potential, even if under financial duress.

Of course, for the moment, you’ll just have to take the Oilholic’s word for it. One found it very difficult to get sector executives to talk about their potential plans on record. The topic is a sensitive one and outsourcing – which forms a component of all this – has been a political hot potato for better parts of a decade.

Here at Knowledge 15, some delegates even claimed to have reduced their headline back-office costs by as much as 50% over a period of 5 to 8 years. The potential for savings and efficiencies is almost, always accompanied by a reduction in headcount. As for the oil and gas sector, forget the back office - currently its shedding employees back, front and centre.

While it’s hard to be dispassionate about job losses, this is about something deeper. To quote one energy sector executive: “A dollar saved elsewhere in the organisation via effective ITSM solutions deployment for procedural matters, could be spent in upstream operations which is what every oil and gas exploration company is really about.”

IT driven streamlining seems to be finally bringing about that belated realisation for some. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: ServiceNow’s ‘Everything as a service’ banner at Knowledge 15, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2015.

The ostentatious & those 'crude' percentages

The Oilholic finds himself gazing at the bright lights of Las Vegas, Nevada once again after a gap of five years. This gambling hub's uniqueness is often the ostentatious and loud way it goes about itself. The oil market had its own fair share of loud and exaggerated assumptions last week.

Sample these headlines – “Brent spikes to 2015 high”, “Oil markets rally as shale production drops”, “Brent up 10%.” There is some truth in all of this, and the last one is technically correct. Brent did close last Friday up 10.03% relative to the Friday before, while WTI rose 8.41% and OPEC's basket of crude oil(s) rose 10.02% over a comparable period (see graph blow right hand corner).

Bullish yes, bull run nope! This blogger believes market fundamentals haven't materially altered. There is still too much crude oil out there. So what's afoot? Well, given that one is in a leading gambling hub of world, once 'the leading one' by revenue until Macau recently pinched the accolade, it is best to take a cue from punters of a different variety – some of the lot who've been betting on oil markets for decades out of the comfort of Nevada, but never ever turn up at the end of a pipeline to collect black gold.

Their verdict – those betting long are clutching at the straws after enduring a torrid first quarter of the year. Now who can blame the wider trading community for booking a bit of profit? But what's mildly amusing here is how percentages are interpreted by the media 'Las Vegas size', and fanned by traders "clutching at the straws", to quote one of their lot, 'Las Vegas style'.

For the moment, the Oilholic is sticking one's 2015 forecast – i.e. a mid-year equilibrium Brent price of $60 per barrel, followed by a gradual climb upwards to $75 towards the end of the year, if we are lucky and media speculation about the Chinese government buying more crude are borne out in reality. The Oilholic remains sceptical about the latter.

Since one put the forecast out there, many, especially over the last few weeks wrote back wondering if this blogger was being too pessimistic. Far from it, some of the oldest hands in the business known to the Oilholic, including our trader friends here in Las Vegas, actually opine that yours truly is being too optimistic!

The reasons are simple enough – making assumptions about the decline of US shale, as some are doing at the moment is daft! Make no mistake, Bakken is suffering, but Eagle Ford, according to very reliable anecdotal evidence and data from Drillinginfo, is doing pretty well for itself. Furthermore, in the Oilholic’s 10+ years of monitoring the industry, US shale explorers have always proved doubters wrong.

Beyond US shores – both Saudi and Russian production is still marginally above 10 million bpd. Finally, who, alas who, will tell the exaggerators to tackle the real elephant in the room – the actual demand for black gold. While the latter has shifted somewhat based on evidence of improved take-up by refiners as the so called “US driving season” approaches, emerging markets are not importing as much as they did if a quarter-on-quarter annualised conversion is carried out.

Quite frankly, all eyes are now on OPEC. Its own production is at a record high; it believes that US oil production won’t be at the level it is at now by December and its own clout as a swing producer is diminished (though not as severely as some would claim).

Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin declared the country's financial crisis to be over last week, but it seems Russia’s GDP fell between 2% to 4% over the first quarter of this year. The news caused further rumbles for the rouble which fell by around 4.5% last time one checked. The Oilholic still reckons; Russian production cannot be sustained at its current levels.

That said, giving credit where it is due – Russians have defied broader expectations of a decline so far. To a certain extent, and in a very different setting, Canada too has defied expectations, going by separate research put out by BMO Capital and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Fewer rigs in Canada have – again inserting the words 'so far' – not resulted in a dramatic reduction in Canadian production.

Finally, here's an interesting report from the Weekend FT (subscription required). It seems BP's activist shareholders have won a victory by persuading most shareholders to back a resolution obliging the oil major to set out the potential cost of climate change to its business. As if that's going to make a difference - somebody tell these activists the oil majors no longer control bulk of the world's oil – most of which is in the hands of National Oil Companies unwilling to give an inch!

That's all for the moment folks from Las Vegas folks, as the Oilholic turns his attention to the technology side of the energy business, with some fascinating insight coming up over the next few days from here. In the interim, keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Paris Casino on the Las Vegas Strip, Nevada, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2015. Graph: Oil benchmark prices - latest Friday close © Gaurav Sharma, April 17, 2015.

Perspectives on a changing energy landscape

That we're in the midst of a profound change in the energy markets in unquestionable. However, fossil fuels still remain the default medium of choice. Within those broader confines, the oil market is seeing a supply-driven correction of the sort that probably occurs once in a few decades.

Meanwhile, peak oil theorists are in retreat following in the footsteps of peak coal theorists last heard of during a bygone era. However, what does it all mean for the wider energy spectrum, where from here and what are the stakes?

Authors and industry experts Daniel Lacalle and Diego Parrilla have attempted to tackle the very questions in their latest work The Energy World is Flat: Opportunities from the end of peak oil (published by Wiley).

In a way, the questions aren’t new, but scenarios and backdrops evolve and of course have evolved to where we currently are. So do the answers, say Lacalle and Parrilla as they analyse the past, scrutinise the present and draw conclusions for future energy market pathways.

In this book of 300 pages, split by 14 interesting chapters, they opine that the energy world is flat principally down to "ten flatteners" along familiar tangents such as geopolitics, reserves and resources, overcapacity, demand displacement and destruction, and of course the economics of the day. 

Invariably, geopolitics forms the apt entry-point for the discussion at hand and the authors duly oblige. As the narrative subtly moves on, related discussions touch on which technologies are driving the current market changes, and how they affect investors. Along the way, there is a much needed discussion about past and current shifts in the energy sphere. You cannot profit in the present, unless you understand the past, being the well rounded message here.

“New frontiers” in the oil and gas business, today’s “unconventional” becoming tomorrow’s “conventional”, and resource projections are all there and duly discussed.

To quote the authors, the world has another 1.5 trillion barrels of proven plus probable reserves that are both technically and economically viable at current prices and available technology, and another 5 trillion-plus barrels that are not under current exploration parameters but might be in the future. Furthermore, what about the potential of methane hydrates?

Politics, of course, is never far from the crude stuff, as Lacalle and Parrilla note delving into OPEC shenanigans and the high stakes game between US shale, Russian and Saudi producers leading to the recent supply glut – a shift with the potential to completely alter economics of the business.

What struck the Oilholic was how in-depth analysis has been packaged by the authors in an engaging, dare one say easy reading style on what remains a complex and controversial discussion. For industry analysts, this blogger including, it’s a brilliant and realistic assessment of the state of affairs and what potential investors should or shouldn’t look at.

The Oilholic would be happy to recommend the book to individual investors, energy economists, academics in the field and of course, those simply curious about the general direction of the energy markets. Policymakers might also find it well worth their while to take notice of what the authors have put forward.

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. © Photo: Front Cover – The Energy World is Flat: Opportunities from the end of peak oil © Wiley Publishers, Feb, 2015.

BG Group’s been ‘Shell-ed’

In case you have been away from this ‘crude' planet and haven’t heard, oil major Royal Dutch Shell has successfully bid for its smaller FTSE 100 rival BG Group in a cash and shares deal valuing the latter at around £47 billion (US$70 billion).

While it’s early days into the current calendar year, the deal, subject to approval by shareholders, could be one of the biggest of 2015 producing a company with a combined value of over £200 billion.

For the Anglo-Dutch oil major, BG Group's acquisition would also add 25% to its proven oil and gas reserves and 20% to production capacity, along with improved access to Australian and Brazilian prospects. BG Group shareholders will own around 19% of the combined group following the deal.

BG Group's new chief executive Helge Lund, who only took up the post last month, will remain with the company while the deal is being worked on. However, he is expected to leave once it is completed walking away with what many in the City reckon to be a £25 million golden goodbye. The Oilholic thinks that’s not too bad a deal for what would come to little over three months of service.

BG Group shareholders, who’ve had to contend with a lacklustre share price for the last 12 months given the company’s poor performance, can also expect a decent windfall should they choose to sell. The bid values BG at around 1,350p per share; a near 50% premium to its closing price of 910.4p on Tuesday. If they decide to hold on to their shares, they’d be likely to receive an improved "Shell of a dividend" from a company that has never failed to pay one since 1945.

Shell chief executive Ben van Beurden said, "Bold, strategic moves shape our industry. BG and Shell are a great fit. This transaction fits with our strategy and our read on the industry landscape around us."

The market gave the news a firm thumbs up. Investec analyst Neill Morton said BG’s long-suffering shareholders have finally received a compelling, NAV-based offer while Shell’s bid was arguably “20 years” in the making.

“We agree that BG’s asset base is better suited to a larger company, but the economics require something approaching Shell’s $90/bl assumption. Consequently, we do not expect a rival bid and are wary of this catalysing a flurry of copycat deals. But we are also mindful that investment bankers can be very persuasive! We suspect Shell aims to re-balance dividends versus buybacks over the long-term. This could imply lower dividend growth,” he added.

As for the ratings agencies, given that the deal completion is scheduled for H1 2016, and quite possibly earlier given limited regulatory hurdles, Fitch Ratings placed Shell's ratings on Rating Watch Negative (RWN) and BG Group's ratings on Rating Watch Positive (RWP).

The agency aims to resolve the Rating Watches on both companies pending the successful completion of the potential transaction and “once there is greater clarity with regard to Shell's post-acquisition strategy and potential synergy effects.” We’re all waiting to hear that, although of course, as Fitch notes – Shell's leverage will increase.

“Our current forecasts suggest that the company's funds from operations (FFO) adjusted net leverage will increase from 1.5x at end-2014 to around 2x in 2015-2017 based on conservative assumptions around the announced $30 billion divestment programme and execution of the announced share buybacks from 2017.”

Moody’s has also affirmed its Aa1 rating for Shell, but quite like its peers changed the company’s outlook to negative in the interim period pending the completion of the takeover. Meanwhile, some City commentators have speculated that Shell's move might trigger a wave of M&A activity in the oil and gas sector.

However, the Oilholic remains sceptical about such a rise in M&A. In fact, one is rather relieved that the Shell and BG Group saga would cool nonsensical chatter about a possible BP and Shell merger (oh well...there's always ExxonMobil).

They’d be the odd buyout or two of smaller AiM-quoted independents, but bulk of the activity is likely to remain limited to asset and acreage purchases. Of course, consolidation within the sector remains a possibility, but we are too early into a cyclical downturn in the oil market for there to be aggressive overtures or panic buying. However, 2016 could be a different matter if, as expected, the oil price stays low.

Moving away from the Shell and BG show, here is one’s take via a Forbes column on how oil markets should price in the Iran factor, following the conclusion of pre-Easter nuclear talks between the Iranians and five permanent members of UN Security Council plus Germany.

Additionally, here’s another one of the Oilholic’s Forbes posts on why a decline in US shale activity is not clear cut. As it transpires, many shale producers are just as adept at coping with a lower oil price as any in the conventional industry. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Vintage Shell petrol pump, San Francisco, USA © Gaurav Sharma

Oil storage, Chinese imports & Afren’s CEO

When the oil price is rocky, it seems storage in anticipation of better days is all the rage. Afterall, it does take two to play contango, as the Oilholic recently opined in a Forbes column. But leaving those wanting to play the markets by the side for a moment, wider industry attention is indeed turning to storage like never before.

We are told the US hub of Cushing, Oklahoma has never had it so good were we to rely on Genscape’s solid research on what’s afoot. In trying times, the industry turns to the most economical onshore storage option on the table. For some, actually make that many, Cushing is such a port of call.

As of February-end, Genscape says 63% of Cushing’s storage capacity has already been utilised. Capacity has never exceeded 80%, since Genscape began monitoring storage at Cushing in 2009. So were heading for interesting times indeed!

Meanwhile, the country now firmly established as the world’s top importer of crude oil – i.e. China – might well be forced to import less owing to shortage of storage capacity! Well established contacts in Shanghai have indicated to this blogger that in an era of low prices, Chinese policymakers were strategically stocking up on crude oil.

With Chinese economic data being less than impressive in recent months, it probably explains where a good portion of the 7.1 million barrels per day (bpd) imported by the country in January and February went. However, now that available storage is nearly full, anecdotal evidence suggests Chinese oil imports are going to drop off.

Import volumes for April are not likely to be nearly as strong. As for the rest of the year, the Oilholic expects Chinese imports to stay flat. Furthermore, Barclays analysts believe putting faith in China’s economic growth to support oil prices would be “premature” at best, with the country undergoing structural changes.

On a related note, lower oil prices will also slow the revenue growth of Chinese oilfield services (OFS) companies as their upstream counterparts continue to cut capex. Putting it bluntly, Chenyi Lu, Senior Analyst at Moody’s noted: "In addition to the impact on revenues, Chinese OFS companies will also see their margins weaken over the next two years as their exploration and production customers negotiate lower rates."

Finally, before yours truly takes your leave, it seems the beleaguered London-listed independent upstart Afren has finally named a new CEO following its boardroom debacle. Industry veteran Alan Linn will take-up his post as soon as the company’s “imminent” $300 million bailout is in place. We wish him all the luck, given his task at hand. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Oil pipeline, Fairfax, Virginia, USA © O. Louis Mazzatenta / National Geographic

Oil prices, OPEC shenanigans & the North Sea

It has been a crude fortnight of ups and downs for oil futures benchmarks. Essentially, supply-side fundamentals have not materially altered. There’s still around 1.3 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil hitting the markets in excess of what’s required.

Barrels put in storage are at an all time high, thanks either to those forced to store or those playing contango. US inventories also remain at a record high levels. 

However, the biggest story in the oil market, as well as the wider commodities market, is the strength of the US dollar. All things being equal, the dollar’s strength is currently keeping both Brent and WTI front month futures contracts at cyclical lows. The past five trading days saw quite a few spikes and dives but Friday’s close came in broadly near to the previous week’s close (see graph on the left, click to enlarge).

In the Oilholic’s opinion, a sustained period of oil prices below $60 is not ideal for unconventional exploration. Nonetheless, not all, but a sufficiently large plethora of producers just continue to grin and bear it. While that keeps happening, and the dollar remains strong, oil prices will not find support. We could very well be in the $40-60 range until June at the very least. Unless excess supply falls from 1.3 million bpd to around 750,000 bpd, it is hard to see how the oil price will receive support from supply constriction. 

Additionally, Fitch Ratings reckons should Brent continue to lurk around $55, credit ratings of European, Middle Eastern and African oil companies would take a hit. European companies that went into the slump with stretched credit profiles remain particularly vulnerable.

In a note to clients, Fitch said its downgrade of Total to 'AA-' in February was in part due to weaker current prices, and the weaker environment played a major part in the downgrade and subsequent default of Afren.

"Our investigation into the effect on Western European oil companies' credit profiles with Brent at $55 in 2015 shows that ENI (A+/Negative) and BG Group (A-/Negative) were among those most affected. Both outlooks reflect operational concerns, ENI because of weakness in its downstream and gas and power businesses, BG Group due to historical production delays. Weaker oil prices exacerbate these problems," the agency added.

Of course, Fitch recognises the cyclical nature of oil prices, so the readers need not expect wholesale downgrades in response to a price drop. Additionally, Afren remains an exception rather than the norm, as discussed several times over on this blog.

Moving on, the Oilholic has encountered empirical and anecdotal evidence of private equity money at the ready to take advantage of the oil price slump for scooping up US shale prospects eyeing better times in the future. For one’s Forbes report on the subject click here. The Oilholic has also examined the state of affairs in Mexico in another detailed Forbes report published here.

Elsewhere, a statement earlier this week by a Kuwaiti official claiming that there is no appetite for an OPEC meeting before the scheduled date of June 5, pretty much ends all hopes of the likes of Nigeria and Venezuela in calling an emergency meeting. The official also said OPEC had “no choice” but to continue producing at its current levels or risk losing market share.

In any case, the Oilholic believes chatter put out by Nigeria and Venezuela calling for an OPEC meeting in the interest of self-preservation was a non-starter. Given that we’re little over two months away from the next meeting and the fact that it takes 4-6 weeks to get everyone to agree to a meeting date, current soundbites from the ‘cut production’ brigade don’t make sense.

Meanwhile, the UK Treasury finally acknowledged that taxation of North Sea oil and gas exploration needed a radical overhaul. In his final budget, before the Brits see a General Election on May 7, Chancellor George Osborne cut the country’s Petroleum Revenue Tax from its current level of 50% to 35% largely aimed at supporting investment in maturing offshore prospects.

Furthermore, the country’s supplementary rate of taxation, lowered from 32% to 30% in December, was cut further down to 20% and its collection at a lower rate backdated to January. Altogether, the UK’s total tax levy would fall from 60% to 50%.

Osborne’s move was widely welcomed by the industry. Some are fretting that he’s left it too late. Yet others reckon a case of better late than never could go a long way with the North Sea’s glory days well behind it. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Graph: Tracking Friday oil prices close, year to date 2015 © Gaurav Sharma, March 20, 2015.