Price correction, Saudis hurt Canada & Russia!

Finally, we have a price correction which saw both global oil benchmarks reflect the wider macroeconomic climate accompanied by a dip in stock markets and a downgrade of 15 of the world’s largest banks by Moody’s. NYMEX WTI forward month futures contract fell below US$80 per barrel on Thursday for the first time since October 2011 while Brent is just about resisting the US$90-level trading at US$90.77 when last checked.

The benchmarks have shown bearish trends for almost three months but they were still not reflecting the wider macroeconomic climate; until yesterday that is. The ‘only way is up’ logic based on a linear supply-demand permutation oversimplifies the argument as the current situation demonstrates. Factors such as the absence of QE3 by the US Federal Reserve, a stronger US Dollar, and weaker Chinese, Indian and European data finally influenced market sentiment – not to provide the perfect storm but to provide the perfect reality! A decline in German business confidence levels reinforces bearish trends which will last for a while yet.

Despite negative sentiments and the possibility of Brent trading below US$100 per barrel for prolonged periods between now and Q1 2013, OPEC did not cut its quota last week. Saudi Arabia, which is so dominant within the cartel, actually wanted to send the price lower as it can contend with Brent falling to US$85 per barrel.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Saudis not only kicked a sanction hit Iran (maybe gleefully) but delivered bad news for Russia (perhaps intentionally) and Canada (almost certainly unwittingly). Saudi rivalry with Iran has more than a ‘crude’ dimension, but one with Russia almost certainly revolves around market dominance. The Oilholic’s hypothesis is that this intensified when Russian production first overtook Saudi production in 2009.

As the world’s leading producer for over two years, Moscow was causing Riyadh some discomfort. So the Saudis raised their game with the Libyan conflict and Iranian sanctions giving them ample excuses to do so. Constantly flouting OPEC production quotas, this February Saudi Arabia regained its top spot from Russia. Now with prices in reverse, it is the Russians who are sweating having rather bizarrely balanced their budget by factoring in an oil price in the circa of US$110 to US$120 per barrel.

Several independents, ratings agencies (for example S&P) and even former finance minister Alexei Kudrin repeatedly warned Russia about overreliance on oil. The sector accounts for nearly 70% of Russian exports and Vladimir Putin has done little to alter that dynamic both as prime minister and president in successive tenures.

Realising the Russian position was not going to change over the short term and with a near 10% (or above) dip in production at some of their major fields; the Saudis ramped up their production. A masterstroke or precisely a deft calculated hand played by Minister Ali Al-Naimi planked on the belief that amid bearish trends the Russians simply do not have the prowess, or in fact the incentive, to pump and dump more crude on the market has worked.

A Russian production rise to 10 million bpd is possible in theory, but very difficult to achieve in practice in this macroeconomic climate. So the markets (and the Saudis) expect Russia to fall back on their US$500 billion in reserves to balance the books over the short to medium term rather than ramp-up production. Furthermore, unless the Russians invest, the Saudis’ hand will only be strengthened and their status as ‘crude’ stimulus providers enhanced.

Canada’s oil sands business while not a direct Saudi target is indeed an accidental victim. The impact of a fall in the price of crude will also be very different as Canada’s economy is far more diversified than Russia’s. Instead of a decline in production, the ongoing oil sands and shale prospection points to a potential rise.

Canadian prospection remains positive for Canadian consumers and exporters alike; provincial and federal governments want it, justice wants it, PM wants it and the public certainly want it. However, developing the Athabasca oil sands and Canadian shale plays (as well as US’ Bakken play) is capital and labour intensive.

For the oil sands – holding the world’s second largest proven oil resource after Saudi Arabia’s Dhahran region – to be profitable, crude price should not plummet below US$60 per barrel. Three visits by the Oilholic to Calgary and interaction with colleagues at CAPP, advisory, legal and energy firms in Alberta between 2008 and 2011 threw up a few points worth reiterating amidst this current crude price correction phase. First of all, anecdotal evidence suggests that while it would rather not, Alberta’s provincial administration can even handle a price dip to US$35 to 40 per barrel.

Secondly, between Q2 2007 and Q1 2008 when the price of crude reached dizzy heights, oilfield services companies and engineering firms hired talent at top dollar only to fire six months later when the price actually did plummet to US$37 per barrel in wake of the financial crisis. Following a wave of redundancies, by 2010 Calgary and Fort McMurray were yet again witnessing a hiring frenzy. The cyclical nature of the industry means this is how things would be. Canadians remain committed to the oil & gas sector and in this blogger’s humble opinion can handle cyclical ups and downs better than the Russians.

Finally, Canada neither has a National Oil Company nor is it a member of any industry cartel; but for the sake of pure economics it too needs a price of about US$80 a barrel. On an even keel, when the price plummets or the Saudis indulge in tactical production manoeuvres, as is the case at present, you’d rather be a Canadian than a Russian.

The Oilholic has long suspected that the Saudis look upon the Canadians as fellow insurers working to prevent ‘oil demand destruction’ and vying for a slice of the American market; for them the Iranians and Russians are just market miscreants. That the market itself is mischievous and Canadians might join the 'miscreants' list if proposed North American pipelines come onstream is another matter! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: Russian pump jacks © Lukoil. Photo 2: Red Square, Moscow, Russia © Gaurav Sharma 2004. Photo 3: Downtown Calgary, Alberta, Canada © Gaurav Sharma 2011.

Why Keystone XL’s delay is not such a bad thing!

Over the last fortnight the Oilholic has been examining the fallout from the US government’s announcement delaying a decision on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and its decision to explore alternative routes for it from Alberta, Canada to Texas, USA (See map. Click image to enlarge).

To begin with, it gave Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper an opportunity trumpet his country's new-found assertiveness in the energy sphere. A mere three days after the US State department announced the delay, Harper told President Obama, whom he met at the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Hawaii, that his government was working to forcefully advance a trade strategy that looks towards the Asia Pacific.

Harper had strong language for the President and told reporters that since the project will now be delayed for over a year, Canada must (also) look elsewhere. "This highlights why Canada must increase its efforts to ensure it can supply its energy outside the United States and into Asia in particular. And that in the meantime, Canada will step up its efforts in that regard and I communicated that clearly to the president,” he said.

Of course, this version differs significantly from what the White House said but it gives you a flavour of the frustration being felt in Canada. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) says the US government’s decision was disappointing given the three years of extensive analysis already completed and after the US government’s own environmental impact assessment determined the proposed Keystone XL pipeline routing would not have an undue environmental impact.

CAPP President Dave Collyer, whom the Oilholic met back in March, said, “Keystone XL is not about America using more oil, it’s about the source of America’s oil – Canada or elsewhere. It’s also about common economic and geopolitical interests between Canada and the US. While the Keystone delay is unfortunate, we respect the United States regulatory process and remain optimistic the pipeline will be approved on its strong environmental, economic and energy security merits.”

CAPP also seeks to look at the positives and maintains that Canadian oil sands production will not be impacted in the near term and other alternatives are being pursued to ensure market access over the medium term. Simply put, delaying Keystone XL will motivate exploration of other markets for Canadian crude oil products as the Canadian PM has quite clearly stated.

Moving beyond the geopolitical scenario, ratings agency Moody's feels the Keystone XL delay is credit positive for TransCanada Pipelines (TCPL) – the project saga’s chief protagonist – although it does not change TCPL's A3 Senior Unsecured rating or stable outlook given the relative size of the Keystone XL project to TCPL's existing businesses.

In a note to clients on Nov 11, the agency noted that the announcement was likely to cause a material delay in the potential construction of that pipeline, which will actually benefit TCPL's liquidity, leverage and free cash flow, providing the company with a greater financial cushion with which to undertake the project if and when it is fully approved.

Moody's also does not expect the Company to undertake share buybacks with the funds not invested in Keystone XL due to the approval delay. TCPL's liquidity will improve as the construction delay will defer over $5 billion of additional capex (compared to TCPL's total assets of approximately $46 billion).

Furthermore, 75% of additional costs associated with the delay or rerouting is expected to be largely borne by the shippers rather than TCPL. Moody's expects the shippers to agree to a project delay, but that is not certain.

“While the delay may reduce TCPL's growth prospects in the medium term, that is not a major influence in the Company's credit rating. Should the project ultimately be cancelled, Moody's expects that the pipe, which is the largest component of the $1.9 billion that TCPL has already invested in the project and which is already reflected in the company's financial statements, would be repurposed to other projects that would presumably generate additional cash to TCPL over the medium term,” it concludes.

Since then, the US state of Nebraska and TCPL have agreed to find a new route for the stalled pipeline that would ensure it does not pass through environmentally sensitive lands in the state. The deal with Nebraska would see the state fund new studies to find a route that would avoid the Sandhills region and the Ogallala aquifer.

However, the deal will not alter the timeline for a US Federal review, according to the State Department. That means, as the Oilholic noted earlier, the Obama Administration will not have to deal with the issue until after the 2012 election. While that’s smart politics, its dumb energy economics. Right now it appears that the Canadians have less to lose than the Americans.

Moving away from Keystone XL, the crude markets began the week with a bang as the ICE Brent forward month futures contract climbed over US$3 to US$109 per barrel but the rise across the pond was more muted with WTI ending the day at US$98.20 unable to hold on to earlier gains. Jack Pollard, analyst at Sucden Financial Research, feels that Middle-Eastern tensions provided significant support to the upside momentum.

“Yesterday we had the first day of Egyptian elections, with the final vote not due until early to middle January and the interim prospect of further violence could maintain volatility. Furthermore, the pressure on Syria increased even further with some suggesting a no-fly zone could be in the offing,” he said.

However, the Oilholic and Pollard are in agreement that the main market driver emanated from Iran. “Ever since the IAEA report on November 8th we have seen the possibility of supply disruptions contribute to crude oil price’s resilience relative to the rest of the commodity complex. On Monday, we heard reports that Iran’s government had officially voted in favour of revising down their diplomatic relations with the UK, ejecting the ambassador. Should the situation escalate further, the potential for upside could increase significantly, disproportionately so for Brent,” Pollard concludes.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Map: All proposals of Canadian & US Crude Oil Pipelines © CAPP (Click map to enlarge)

Keystone XL, politics & the King’s Speech

Even before the original Keystone cross-border pipeline project aimed at bringing Canadian crude oil to the doorstep of US refineries had been completed, calls were growing for an extension. The original pipeline which links Hardisty (Alberta, Canada) to Cushing (Oklahoma) and Patoka (Illinois) became operational in June 2010, just as another, albeit atypical US-Canadian tussle was brewing.

The extension project – Keystone XL first proposed in 2008, again starting from Hardisty but with a different route and an extension to Houston and Port Arthur (Texas) is still stuck in the quagmire of US politics, environmental reticence, planning laws and bituminous mix of the Canadian oil sands.

The need for extension is exactly what formed the basis of the original Keystone project – Canada is already the biggest supplier of crude oil to the US; and it is only logical that its share should rise and in all likelihood will rise. Keystone XL according to one of its sponsors – TransCanada – would have the capacity to raise the existing capacity by 591,000 barrels per day though the initial dispatch proposal is more likely to be in the range of 510,000 barrels.

Having visited both the proposed ends of the pipeline in Alberta and Texas, the Oilholic finds the sense of frustration only too palpable more so because infrastructural challenges and the merits (or otherwise) of the extension project are not being talked about. To begin with the project has a loud ‘fan’ club and an equally boisterous ‘ban’ club. Since it is a cross-border project, US secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to play the role of referee.

A pattern seems to be emerging. A group of 14 US senators here and 39 there with their counterparts across the border would write to her explaining the merits only for environmental groups, whom I found to be very well funded – rather than the little guys they claim to be – launching a counter representation. That has been the drill since Clinton took office.

One US senator told me, “If we can’t trust the Canadians in this geopolitical climate then who can we trust. Go examine it yourself.” On the other hand, an environmental group which tries to get tourists to boycott Alberta because of its oil sands business tried its best to convince me not to land in Calgary. I did so anyway, not being a tourist in any case.

Since 2008, TransCanada has held nearly 100 open houses and public meetings along the pipeline route; given hundreds of hours of testimony to local, state and federal officials and submitted thousands of pages of information to government agencies in response to questions. The environmentalists did not tell me, but no prizes for guessing who did and with proof. This is the kind of salvo being traded.

Send fools on a fool’s errand!

It is not that TransCanda, its partner ConocoPhillips and their American and Canadian support base know something we do not. It is a fact that for some years yet – and even in light of falling gasoline consumption levels – the US would remain the world’s largest importer of crude oil. China should surpass it, but this will not happen overnight.

The opponents of oil sands have gotten the narrative engrained in a wider debate on the environment and the energy mix. Going forward, they view Keystone XL and other incremental pipeline projects in the US as perpetuating reliance on crude oil and are opposing the project on that basis.

Given the current geopolitical climate, environmental groups in California and British Columbia impressed upon this blogger that stunting Alberta’s oil sands – hitherto the second largest proven oil reserve after Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar extraction zone – would somehow send American oilholics to an early bath and force a green age. This is a load of nonsense.

Au contraire, it will increase US dependency on Middle Eastern oil and spike the price. Agreed the connection is neither simple nor linear – but foreign supply will rise not fall. Keystone XL brings this crude foreign product from a friendly source.

Everyone in Alberta admits work needs to be done by the industry to meet environmental concerns. However, a 'wells to wheels' analysis of CO2 emissions, most notably by IHS CERA and many North American institutions has confirmed that oil sands crude is only 5 to 15 per cent ‘dirtier’ than US sweet crude mix.

The figure compares favourably with Nigerian, Mexican and Venezuelan crude which the US already imports. So branding Canadian crude as dirty and holding up Keystone XL on this basis is a bit rich coming from the US. Keystone XL increases US access to Canadian crude. Who would the Americans rather buy from Canada or Venezuela? Surveys suggest the former.

The pragmatists at CAPP

Over a meeting in Calgary, Dave Collyer, President of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) told the Oilholic that they have always viewed Keystone XL as an opportunity to link up Western Canada to the US Gulf coast market, to replace production that would otherwise be imported by the US from overseas sources most notably Venezuela and Mexico where production is declining according to available data. There are also noticeable political impediments in case of the former.

“We don’t see this pipeline extension as incremental supply into that orbit, rather a replacement of existing production through a relatively straightforward pipeline project, akin to many other pipeline projects and extensions that have been built into the US,” Collyer said.

Energy infrastructure players, market commentators and CAPP make another valid point – why are we not debating scope of the Keystone XL project and its economic impact and focussing on the crude stuff it would deliver across the border? CAPP for its part takes a very pragmatic line.

“Do we think there is legitimacy in the argument that is being made against Keystone? No (for the most part) but the reality is that there has to be due consideration in the US. I would assume the US State Department is in a position where it has no alternative but to employ an abundance of caution to ensure that all due processes are met. What frustrates Canadians and Americans alike is the length of time that it has taken. However, at the end of the day when we get that approval and it is a robust one which withstands a strict level of scrutiny then it’s a good thing,” Collyer said.

T I M B E R!

Canadians and Americans first started bickering about timber, another Canadian resource needed in the US, about taxation, ethics, alleged subsidies and all the rest of it way back in 1981. Thirty years later, not much has changed as they are still at it. But these days it barely makes the local news in Canada each time the Americans take some reactive action or the other against the timber industry. Reason – since 2003 there has been another buyer in town – China.

In 2010, timber sales from Canada to China (and Japan to a lesser extent) exceed those to the US. Over the last half-decade timber exports from the province of British Columbia alone to China rose 10 times over on an annualised basis. Moral of the story, the US is not the only player in town whatever the natural resource. Canadians feel a sense of frustration with the US, and rightly so according to Scott Rusty Miller, managing partner of Ogilvy Renault (soon to be part of Norton Rose) in Calgary.

“We are close to the US, we are secure and we have scruples. Our industry is more open to outside scrutiny and environmental standards than perhaps many or in fact any other country the US imports crude oil from – yet there are these legal impediments. Scrutiny is fine. It’s imperative in this business, but not to such an extent that it starts frustrating a project,” Miller noted.

Ask anyone at CAPP or any Toronto-based market analyst if Canada could look elsewhere – you would get an answer back with a smile; only the Americans probably would not join them. The Oilholic asked Collyer if Americans should fear such moves.

His reply was, “As our crude production grows we would like access to the wider crude oil markets. Historically those markets have almost entirely been in the US and we are optimistic that these would continue to grow. Unquestionably there is increasing interest in the Oil sands from overseas and market diversification to Asia is neither lost on Canadians nor is it a taboo subject for us.”

CAPP has noted increasing interest from Chinese, Korean and other Asian players when it comes to buying in to both crude oil reserves and natural gas in Western Canada. Interest alone does not create a market – but backed up by infrastructure at both ends, it strengthens the relationship between markets Canadians have traditionally not looked at. All of this shifts emphasis on Canadian West coast exports.

“Is it going to be straightforward to get a pipeline to the West coast – we’ll all acknowledge that it’s not. For instance, Enbridge has its challenges with the Gateway pipeline. There is an interest in having an alternative market. There are drivers in trying to pursue that and I would say collectively this raises the “fear” you mention and with some factual basis. However, the US has been a great market and should continue to be a great market...while some caution is warranted,” he concluded.

The King’s speech

We’re not talking about Bertie, (King George VI of England) but Barack (The King of gasoline consumers and the US President). On March 30th, the King rose and told his audience at Georgetown University that he would be targeting a one-third reduction in US crude imports by 2025.

“I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we have got to look at neighbours like Canada and Mexico that are stable, steady and reliable sources,” he added. While I am reliably informed that the speech was not picked up by Chinese state television, the Canadian press went into overdrive. The Globe and Mail, the country’s leading newspaper, declared “Obama signals new reliance on oil sands.”

Shares of Canadian oil and service companies rose the next day on the Toronto Exchange, even gas producers benefited and 'pro-Keystone XL' American senators queued up on networks to de facto say “We love you, we told you so.” Beyond the hyped response, there is a solid reason. Keystone XL bridges both markets – a friendly producer to a friendly consumer with wide ranging economic benefits.

According to Miller, “Refining capacity exists down south. Some refineries on the US Gulf coast could be upgraded at a much lower cost compared to building new infrastructure. There are economic opportunities for both sides courtesy this project – we are not just talking jobs, but an improvement of the regional macro scenario. Furthermore, however short or long, it could be a shot in the arm for the much beleaguered and low-margin haunted refining business.”

The pipeline could also help Canadians export surplus crude using US ports in the Gulf and tax benefits could accrue not just at the Texan end but along the route as well. That the oil sands are in Canada is a geological stroke of luck, given the unpredictability of OPEC and Russian supplies. The US State Department says it will conclude its review of Keystone XL later this year. Subjecting this project to scrutiny is imperative, but bludgeoning it with impediments would be ‘crudely’ unwise.

This post contains excerpts from an article written by the Oilholic for UK's Infrastructure Journal. While the author retains serial rights, the copyright is shared with the publication in question.

Gaurav Sharma 2011 © Gaurav Sharma and Infrastructure Journal 2011. Map: All proposals of Canadian & US Crude Oil Pipelines © CAPP (Click map to enlarge)

Some Crude Chatter from Moody’s & Other Stuff

There’s been some interesting chatter from Moody’s these past seven days on all things crude. Some of these stood out for me. Early last week in a note to clients, the rating agency opined that CNOOC Ltd's Aa3 issuer and senior unsecured ratings would not be immediately affected by the Chinese company's additional equity investment of US$2.47 billion in its 50% joint-venture Bridas Corp.

The investment represents CNOOC's share of funding contributions for Bridas to purchase a remaining 60% interest in Pan American Energy, which is engaged in E&P ops in South America. Bridas plans to fund 70% of its purchase by equity and 30% by debt or additional contributions from shareholders.

CNOOC is funding its equity contribution to Bridas with internal resources on hand. The transaction would give it an additional 429 million BOE of proved reserves and 68,000 bpd daily production in South America, according to Moody’s. Completion of the transaction is expected to take place during H1 2011, that’s of course government and regulatory approvals pending.

However, the crude chatter of the week not just from Moody's, but from the entire market was the agency’s interesting analytical take on oil sands producers’ operating considerations. In a report titled – Analytical Considerations for Oil Sands Producers – the agency notes that while comparing oil sands development and production projects to conventional development and production projects, the former have much larger upfront development costs[1].

Such projects are more likely to incur construction cost overruns, and quite simply take much longer to reach breakeven cash flow. Other features include higher cash operating costs per barrel of oil equivalent, very long reserve life and low maintenance capital expenditures once in production, particularly of mining oil sands operations, the report said.

One might say that parts of the report are predictable but it must be noted that in analysing companies with relatively large oil sands exposure, Moody's balances the negative aspects of the difficult construction period against the anticipated long-term positive contributions from these assets. So well, on balance, I found the principal tenets to be very convincing.

Let us face it, whether peak oil will be here soon or not, “easy oil” (interchangeable with cheap oil) is most certainly gone. Cost overruns are unlikely to deter big oil. So far Shell has invested just under US$10 billion (River Oil Sands), Chevron US$9 billion (Athabasca), ExxonMobil US$5 billion (Kearl Oil sands investment) and BP is said to be catching up via its Sunrise oil sands investment.

Elsewhere, Desire Petroleum’s saga of will they find oil in the Falklands Is. or won't they or worse still when will they give up continues. Its share price saw wild swings and ended in a damp squib (haven’t we heard that before).

On the left, for the umpteenth time, here is Desire’s undesirable share chart (see the day's price nose-dive). To quote The Daily Mail’s inimitable Geoff Foster, “Many professional punters are gluttons for punishment. They continually get suckered into seat-of-your pants oil stocks and more often than not, live to regret it.”

I do not wish to tempt fate, but Desire Petroleum is no Cairn Energy. I do hope for Desire's sake that they do strike black gold in meaningful if not bountiful quantities. However, the market response to a whiff of positive news is nothing short of barmy.

[1] The report is available on Moody's web site.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo: Oil Sands, Canada © Shell, Graphic: Desire Petroleum Share Chart with stated time frame © Digital Look / BBC

BP Swoops for (More) Global Assets

Oil major BP has swooped for assets in Brazil, Azerbaijan and U.S. deepwater Gulf of Mexico from Devon Energy for a price tag of $7 billion as well as giving the latter a 50% stake in its Kirby oil sands holdings in Alberta, Canada, for $500 million.

The 50/50 Canadian joint venture, slated to be operated by Devon, will pursue development of the interest. Devon Energy has also committed to fund an additional $150 million in capital costs on BP’s behalf.

Going into further details, BP said the acquired assets include ten exploration blocks in Brazil, seven of which are in the Campos basin, prospects in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico and an interest in the BP-operated Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) development in the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan.

Apart from diversifying in general, the move was as much about strengthening the British oil major’s foothold in the Gulf of Mexico where it has been a key player for decades. BP will now gain a high quality portfolio in the Gulf with interests in some 240 leases, with a particular focus on the emerging Paleogene play in the ultra-deepwater.

The addition of Devon Energy’s 30% interest in the major Paleogene discovery Kaskida will give BP a 100% interest in the project. The assets also include interests in four producing oil fields: Zia, Magnolia, Merganser, and Nansen. Market commentators have already given the deal a thumbs-up.

Furthermore, Andy Inglis, BP's chief executive of Exploration and Production, told the media that BP’s entry into Brazil will add a major position in another attractive deepwater basin. "Together with the additional new access in the Gulf of Mexico, it further underlines our global position as the leading deepwater international oil company," he added.

BP also hopes to count on Devon Energy's first-hand experience in Canada. "Devon is an experienced operator in the Canadian oil sands with a proven track record of in situ development and production. We expect this transaction will accelerate the development of the Kirby assets and, through the associated crude off-take agreement, provide a secure source of Canadian heavy oil for our advantaged Whiting refinery," Inglis noted.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Logo Courtesy © BP Plc