Crude take: $60 Brent price is (still) about right

Does the Iranian nuclear settlement make a $60 per barrel Brent price seem too optimistic as a median level for the current year - that's the question on most oil market observers' minds. Even before delving into City chatter, the Oilholic believes the answer to that question in a word is ‘no’.

For starters, the settlement which had been on the cards, has already been priced in to a certain extent despite an element of unpredictability. Secondly, as yours truly noted in a Forbes column - it will take better parts of 12 months for Iran to add anywhere near 400,000 barrels per day (bpd), and some 18 months to ramp up production to 500,000 bpd.

Following news of the agreement, Fitch Ratings noted that details of the condition of Iran's production infrastructure might well be sketchy, but with limited levels of investment, it is likely that only a portion of previous capacity can be brought back onstream without further material reinvestment. 

“We would expect to see some increases in production throughout the course of 2016 but that this would be much less than half of the full 1.4 million bpd that was lost,” said Alex Griffiths, Managing Director at the ratings agency.

“It will require significant investment and expertise - for which Iran is likely to want to partner with international oil companies. These projects typically take many months to agree, as oil companies and governments manoeuvre for the best terms, and often years to implement.”

Thirdly, it is also questionable whether Tehran actually wants to take the self-defeating step of ‘flooding’ the market even if it could. The 40 million or so barrels said to be held in storage by the country are likely to be released gradually to get the maximum value for Tehran’s holdings. Fourthly, the market is betting on an uptick in demand from Asia despite China's recent woes. The potential uptick wont send oil producers' pulses racing but would provide some pricing comfort to the upside.

Finally, IEA and others, while not forecasting a massive decline, are factoring in lower non-OPEC oil production over the fourth quarter of this year. Collectively, all of this is likely to provide support to the upside. The Oilholic’s forward projection is that Brent could flirt with $70 on the right side of Christmas, but the median for 2015 is now likely to come in somewhere between $60-$62.5. 

Yet many don’t agree, despite the oil price returning to largely where it was actually within the same session's trading itself on day of the Iran announcement. For instance, analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch still feel Iran could potentially raise production back up by 700,000 bpd over the next 12 months, adding downside pressure on forward oil prices of $5-$10 per barrel. 

On the other hand, analysts at Barclays don't quite view it that way and the Oilholic concurs. Like Fitch, the bank’s team neither see a huge short-term uptick in production volumes nor the oil price moving “markedly lower” from here as a result of the Iranian agreement.

“We believe that the market will begin to adjust, whether through higher demand, or lower non-OPEC supply in the next couple years but only once Iran’s contribution and timing are made clear. For now, OPEC is already producing well above the demand for its crude, and this makes it worse,” Barclays analysts wrote to their clients. 

“We do not expect the Saudis to do anything markedly different. Rather, they will take a wait and see approach.”

One thing is for sure, lower oil prices early on in the third quarter would have as detrimental an effect on the quarterly median, as early January prices did on the first quarter median (see above right, click to enlarge). End result is quite likely to ensure the year-end average would be in the lower $60s. 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

The Bears are back in Crude town!

It seems the Bears are back in Crude town and are hoping to lurk around for a little while yet. So this week begins like last week ended with the TV networks screaming how crude it all is. Well a look at either benchmark reveals a decline of above US$3 per barrel in Monday’s intraday trading alone and both benchmarks if observed over a seven-day period display a dip of 7% and above, more pronounced in the US given the “not so smart” political shenanigans related to the debt ceiling and S&P’s ratings downgrade of the country for the first time in its history.

The Oilholic cannot quite understand why some people are either shocked or displaying a sense of shock over the downgrade because the writing was on the wall for profligate America. As politicians on both sides were more interested in points scoring rather than sorting out the mess, what has unfolded is more sad than shocking. Given the US downgrade and contagion in the EU, short term trends are decidedly bearish for crude markets. However, if it goes beyond the average market scare and develops into a serious recessionary headwind then Brent could finally fall below US$100 per barrel and WTI below US$80.

Given the divergence in both benchmark levels, analysts these days offer different forecasts for both with increased vigour via a single note. For instance, the latest investment note from Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BoAML) sees Brent stabilising at US$80 and WTI at US$60 in the face of mild recessionary headwinds. However, the Oilholic agrees with their assertion there would be a Brent claw-back to prior levels as OPEC turns the taps off.

“In the US, we would see landlocked WTI crude oil prices stabilising at a much lower level, as OPEC supplies are of little relevance to the supply and demand balances for crude oil in the Midwest. With shale output still projected to increase substantially over the next few months, we believe that WTI crude oil prices could briefly drop to US$50/barrel under a recession scenario only to recover back up towards US$60/barrel as shale oil output is scaled back,” BoAML analysts noted further.

Over the short term, what looks bearish (at worst) or mixed (at best) for crude, is evidently bullish for precious metals where gold is the vanguard of the bubble. Does it make sense – no; is it to be expected – yes! Nevertheless, long term supply/demand permutations suggest an uptick in crude prices is more than likely by middle of 2012 if not sooner.

Moody's expects oil prices to remain high through 2012 which will support increasing capital spending by exploration and production (E&P) companies worldwide as they re-invest healthy cash flow streams. About 70% of capital spending will take place outside of North America, with Latin American companies including Brazilian operator Petrobras leading the way, according to a report published July-end.

Additionally, development activity in the 2010 Macondo oil spill-affected Gulf of Mexico – while building some momentum – is still hampered by a slow permit process, says the report.

However, Stuart Miller, vice president at Moody’s notes, "But the industry might approach the top of its cycle during the next year as shorter contracts and lower day rates change the supply/demand balance."

Understandably, high risk, high reward modus operandi of the E&P business will remain more attractive as opposed to the refining and marketing (R&M) end of the crude business as the only way is up given when it comes to long term demand. Even the non demand-driven oil upsides (for example – as seen from Q2 2002 to Q2 2003 and Q3 2007 to Q3 2008) were a shot in the arm of E&P elements of the energy business (as well as paper traders).

Moving on to other chatter, Mercer’s cost of living survey found Luanda, the capital of Angola as the world's most expensive city for expatriates. It topped the survey for the second successive year, followed by Tokyo in Japan and N'Djamena in Chad. New to the top 10 were Singapore, ranked eighth, and Sao Paulo in Brazil, which jumped from 21st to 10th. The Oilholic sees a hint of crudeness in there somewhere.

Meanwhile, the National Iranian Oil Company, which does not get to flex its muscles very often in wake of international sanctions, got to do so last week at the expense of crude-hungry India. The burgeoning Indian economy needs the oil but US sanctions on Iran make it difficult to send international bank payments.

As a result Indian companies have been looking for alternative ways to make payments to Iran after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) halted a clearing mechanism at the end Q4 2010. In the interim, the cash-strapped oil rich Iranians threw a strop threatening to cut off supplies to India if payments were not made by August 1, 2011.

However, it now emerges that at the eleventh hour both sides agreed to settle the bill as soon as possible. Well when 400,000 barrels per day or 12% of your crude count is at stake – you have to find novel ways to make payments. The “first” part of the outstanding bill we are told would be paid within a few days.

Crudely sticking with India, that same week, the Indian government finally gave a formal “conditional” approval to LSE-listed mining group Vedanta Resources for its takeover of Cairn Energy's India unit. However, approval came with a condition that Cairn India and India's state-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corp (ONGC) share the royalty payment burden of crude production from their Rajasthan fields.

ONGC owns a 30% stake in the block but pays royalties on 100% of the output under a "royalty holiday" scheme dating from the 1990s aimed at promoting private oil exploration.

The sale, held in impasse since August, has been hit by difficulties resulting from differences between Cairn India and ONGC over the royalties issue. Vedanta (so far) has a 28.5% stake in Cairn India. It wants the government to approve the buyout of another 30% stake in Cairn India from Cairn Energy. Cairn Energy currently owns a 52% stake in Cairn India. Given the government’s greenlight, it should all be settled in a matter of months.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Veneco Oil Platform, California © Rich Reid, National Geographic

BP's still going ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in Houston

It is difficult to say whether Texans in general and Houstonians in particular are more irritated or more disappointed with BP. Perhaps the answer is a combination of both, but anti-British the Texans are not. Many here feel let down by the company, a sentiment which had already been on the rise following the Texas City refinery blast in March 2005. News that the company is now trying to sell the asset does not assuage that feeling here.

Many opine that when things were going horribly wrong in the Gulf of Mexico, BP could have done better, sought more cooperation from the government and not insisted it can handle things on its own. Some also blame their government of complacency for not intervening sooner and forcing BP’s hand.

Nearly a year on, while a sense of disappointment has not subsided, no one here seriously believes BP has turned its back on a lucrative American market – a withdrawal from refining and marketing ends of the business is more likely. I think it is a dead certainty from a strategic standpoint.

Now this ties in nicely to the company’s "Beyond Petroleum" campaign from a few years back. There was a fair bit of scepticism about it in England and elsewhere. However, it seems the company continues to go beyond petroleum in Houston. In 2006, BP said it would set up its alternative energy business in Houston on top of an existing solar business in Frederick, Maryland.

Five years hence and despite all what has happened, it is still going or rather has been kept going based on the 33rd floor of this city’s iconic Bank of America Center building on 700 Louisiana Street (see left). Asked about its prospects, the company did not return the Oilholics’ call. However, I visited the iconic building anyway courtesy of other occupants, especially Mayer Brown LLP, for which I am grateful.

The next 12 months are crucial for BP. Americans are a largely forgiving bunch, but as Texans say forgiving is one thing, forgetting is another matter! And many have pointed out their disgust at Transocean and Halliburton too. Unfortunately for BP – the 'crude' muck stops with them.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Bank of America Center, Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2011

Oil Price, Petroaggressors & a Few Books I've Read

Since last week, the wider commodities market has continued to mirror equities. This trend intensified towards the end of last week and shows no sign of abating. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Brent crude is trading at a premium to its American cousin, a gap which widened over USD$2. On Tuesday (August 31) at 13:00 GMT, the Brent forward month futures contract was trading at US$76.10 a barrel (down 1.1%) versus WTI crude at US$73.83 (down 3.1%) in intraday trading.

This of course is ahead of the US energy department’s supplies update, due for publication on Wednesday. The report is widely tipped to show a rise in crude stockpiles and the US market is seen factoring that in. Overall, the average drop in WTI crude for the month of August is around 8.89% as the month draws to a close.

Having duly noted this, I believe that compared to other asset classes, the slant in oil still seems a more attractively priced hedge than say forex or equities. Nonetheless, with there being much talk of a double-dip recession, many commentators have revised their oil price targets for the second half of 2010.

Last month, the talk in the city of London was that crude might cap US$85 a barrel by the end of the year; maybe even US$90 according to Total’s CEO. Crude prices seen in August have tempered market sentiment. Analysts at BofA Merrill Lynch now believe the oil price should average US$78 per barrel over H2 2010 owing to lower global oil demand growth and higher-than-expected non-OPEC supply.

“Following robust increases in oil demand over the past 12 months on a stimulus-driven rebound, we now see some downside risk as slower growth sets in and OECD oil inventories remain high. Beyond 2011, oil markets should remain tight on solid EM fundamentals and potentially a looser monetary policy stance by EM central banks on the back of the recent crisis in Europe. Curves may flatten further as inventories return to normal levels and seasonal hedging activity picks up,” they wrote in an investment note.

Elsewhere, Russia's largest privately held oil company - Lukoil - reported a 16% drop in quarterly profits with net profit coming at US$1.95 billion for the April-June period. Revenues rose 28% to US$25.9 billion on an annualised basis. In statement to the Moscow stock exchange, Lukoil said it is coping with the difficult macroeconomic situation and securing positive cash flow thanks to implementing measures aimed at higher efficiency which were developed at the beginning of the year.

The company largely blamed production costs for a dip in its profits which rose 24% for the first half of 2010. In July, US oil firm ConocoPhillips, which owns a 20% stake in Lukoil, said it would sell its holdings. However, the Russian oil major issued no comment on whether it would buy-out ConocoPhillips’ holdings.

Reading investment notes and following the fortunes of Lukoil aside, I recently stumbled upon a brilliantly coined term – “petroaggressors” – courtesy of author and journalist Robert Slater. After all, little else can be said of Iran, Venezuela, Russia and others who are seeking to alter the energy security hegemony from the developed world in favour of the Third world.

In his latest book – Seizing Power: the global grab for oil wealth – Slater notes that the ranks of petroaggressors are flanked by countries such as India and China who are desperate to secure the supply of crude oil with very few scruples to fuel their respective economic growth.

It is mighty hard to imagine life without oil; such has been the dominance of the internal combustion engine on life in the developed world over the last six decades. Now the developing world is catching-up fast with the burgeoning economies of China and India leading the pack. End result is every economy, regardless of its scale is suddenly worried about its energy security. Slater opines that a grab for this finite hydrocarbon may and in some cases already is turning ugly.

In fact he writes that the West, led by the US (currently the world's largest consumer of crude oil), largely ignored the initial signs regarding supply and demand permutations. As the star of the major oil companies declines, Slater writes that their market share and place is being taken not by something better - but rather by state-run, unproductive and politics-ridden behemoths dubbed as National Oil Companies (NOCs).

If the peak oil hypothesis, ethical concerns, price speculation and crude price volatility were not enough, geopolitics and NOCs run by despots could make this 'crude' world reach a tipping point. Continuing on the subject of books, journalist Katherine Burton's latest work - Hedge Hunters: How Hedge Fund Masters Survived is a thoroughly decent one.

In it, she examines the fortunes of key players in the much maligned, but still surviving hedge fund industry. In the spirit of a true oilholic, I jumped straight to Chapter 9 on the inimitable Boone Pickens, before immersing myself in the rest of her book.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo: Oil rig © Cairn Energy Plc

Credit Suisse Revises Oil Price Estimates

Credit Suisse revised its oil price estimates this month. On April 15, in a note to investors, the Swiss bank raised its 2010 oil price estimate from US$70 per barrel to $82.90. Concurrently, the 2011 estimate was raised from $70 to $80. CS analysts noted that $80 per barrel provides “a better balance of an oil price which encourages marginal investment in new production, without crimping demand during the economic recovery phase, than (our) previous forecast of $70 per barrel.”

In a related development, four days later, Bank of America Merrill Lynch noted that the spike in oil prices from $80 per barrel to $87 per barrel came along with a rapid deterioration in the term structure of the WTI market. BoA-ML analysts feel that a surge in demand for storage, as spot oil prices rally, is an unusual event. They suggest that further oil price appreciation is unlikely in the short run.

“Rising on-shore stocks around Cushing, more floating storage in the Middle East, additional non-OPEC crude oil and a partial shutdown of European air space (last week) will likely limit further oil price advances near term. We thus maintain our second quarter 2010 average Brent and WTI crude oil price forecast of $83 per barrel. Looking ahead, we remain structurally bullish and still believe in our average $92 per barrel WTI crude oil forecast for the second half of 2010,” they noted further.

Meanwhile quarterly profits at UK oil giant BP more than doubled in year over year terms, according to results published earlier today. Replacement cost profit for January to March 2010 was $5.6 billion, compared with $2.4 billion for the first quarter of 2009. The figure is also up from the $3.45 billion in profit noted over the fourth quarter of 2009.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © BP Plc