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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

BP’s settlement expensive but sound

As BP received the biggest criminal fine in US history to the tune of US$4.5 billion related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Oilholic quizzed City analysts over what they made of it. Overriding sentiment of market commentators was that while a move to settle criminal charges in this way was expensive for BP, it was also a sound one for the oil giant.

 

Beginning with what we know, according to the US Department of Justice (DoJ), BP has agreed to plead guilty to eleven felony counts of misconduct or neglect of ships officers relating to the loss of 11 lives, one misdemeanour count under the Clean Water Act, one misdemeanour count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and one felony count of obstruction of Congress.

 

Two BP workers - Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine - have been indicted on manslaughter charges and an ex-manager David Rainey charged with misleading Congress according to the Associated Press. The resolution is subject to US federal court approval. The DoJ will oversee BP handover US$4 billion, including a US$1.26 billion fine as well as payments to wildlife and science organisations.

 

BP will also pay US$525 million to the US SEC spread over three years. The figure caps the previous highest criminal fine imposed on pharmaceutical firm Pfizer of US$1.2 billion. City analysts believe BP needed this settlement so that it can now focus on defending itself against pending civil cases.

 

“It was an expensive, but necessary closure that BP needed on one legal fronts of several,” said one analyst. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and released millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico which took 87 days to plug.

 

The company is expected to make a final payment of US$860 million into the US$20 billion Gulf of Mexico compensation fund by the end of the year. BP’s internal investigation about the incident had noted that, “multiple companies, work teams and circumstances were involved over time.”

 

These companies included Transocean, Halliburton, Anadarko, Moex and Weatherford. BP has settled all claims with Anadarko and Moex, its co-owners of the oil well and contractor Weatherford. It received US$5.1 billion in cash settlements from the three firms which was put into the Gulf compensation fund.

 

BP has also reached a US$7.8 billion settlement with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, a group of lawyers representing victims of the spill. However, the company is yet to reach a settlement with Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig and engineering firm Halliburton. A civil trial that will determine negligence is due to begin in New Orleans in February 2013.

 

Jeffrey Woodruff, Senior Director at Fitch Ratings, felt that the settlement was a positive move but key areas of uncertainty remained. “Although the settlement removes another aspect of legal uncertainty, it does not address Clean Water Act claims, whose size cannot yet be determined. It is therefore too early for us to consider taking a rating action,” he added.

 

Fitch said in July, when revising the company's Outlook to Positive, that BP should be able to cover its remaining legal costs without impairing its financial profile, and that a comprehensive settlement of remaining liabilities for US$15 billion or less would support an upgrade.

 

Recent asset sales have also strengthened BP's credit profile. Last month, BP posted a third quarter underlying replacement cost profit, adjusted for non-operating items and fair value accounting effects, of US$5.2 billion. The figure is down from US$5.27 billion recorded in the corresponding quarter last year but up on this year's second quarter profit of US$3.7 billion.

 

“The company has realised US$35 billion of its US$38 billion targeted asset disposal programme at end the end of the third quarter of 2012. Proceeds from the sale of its 50% stake in TNK-BP in Russia will further improve its liquidity, supporting our view that the company can meet legal costs without impairing its profile,” Woodruff concluded.

 

Meanwhile, Moody’s noted that the credit rating and outlook for Transocean (currently Baa3 negative), which is yet to settle with BP, was unaffected by the recent development.

 

Stuart Miller, Moody's Senior Credit Officer, said, "The big elephant in the room for Transocean is its potential exposure to Clean Water Act fines and penalties as owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The recent agreement between BP and DoJ did not address the claims under the Act."

 

However, he felt that Transocean will ultimately settle with the DoJ, and there was a good chance that the amount may be manageable given the company’s current provision level and cash balances.

 

“But if gross negligence is proven, a very high legal standard, the settlement amount could result in payments by Transocean in excess of its current provision amount,” Miller concluded.

Plenty more to unfold in this saga but that’s all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Gulf of Mexico spill containment area © BP Plc.

A brilliant catalogue of ‘crude’ expressions

As paper barrels increasingly get the upper hand in an intertwined global network of crude oil and distillates trading, whether it is the virtual crude you are after or the physical stuff – getting a hang of the market jargon is crucial.

 

Perhaps you are familiar with terms such as contango, backwardation or crack spreads – as many readers of this blog would be. But can you confidently define what a PIONA test is? Or for that matter what’s a No. 6 Fueloil? Or maybe what demulsibility implies to in a crude context or what are charter parties?

 

If you are stumped or curious or unsure or perhaps all three, then – The Oil Traders’ Word(s) – a brilliant compendium of ‘crude’ knowledge containing oil traders’ expressions, trading floor jargon, measurements, metrics and terms put together by Statoil executive Stefan Van Woenzel is just the tonic!

 

In a painstaking endeavour, Van Woenzel has penned the A to Z of oil trading jargon banking on his decades of experience as a trader. In order to put the veracity of his research work to test, the Oilholic subjected The Oil Traders’ Word(s) to a simple test. To begin with yours truly tallied common oil trading expressions to check the author’s description of them, then on to terms that only readers with a mid to high level of investment knowledge would be familiar with and finally to random jump searches by alphabet.

 

The Oilholic is delighted to say that Van Woenzel’s ‘glossary-plus’ emerges with full marks and more on all counts. Expressions, words and jargon aside, metric to imperial measures and explanatory notes make this work of just under 550 pages one of the most purposeful reference books of the oil sector. With close to 2,000 definitions, one would struggle to find a better or even a comparable product to the author’s arduous effort.

This book is not limited to a role of a ‘crude’ dictionary or an industry communications guide. Going beyond that, Van Woenzel has shared his two decades-plus worth of industry wisdom with readers in a separate chapter. Overall, it was a joy to read the book and put the glossary to a very enjoyable test. A multibillion dollar industry must appreciate the value of the author’s commendable research.

 

For his humble part, the Oilholic would be happy to recommend it to fellow ‘crude’ individuals, oil & gas executives, oil traders, energy project financiers, shipping personnel, banking sector professionals, energy journalists and academics. Students of economics, business and energy studies might also find it worth their while to have it handy. If you needed a one-stop oil industry jargon guide, then this book really is the ‘real deal’.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Front Cover – The Oil Traders' Word(s) © AuthorHouse.