Are you serious Mr President?

Ah, the joys of the oil market! Yet another day of volatility is all but guaranteed. Nearly a fortnight into February, it’s increasingly looking like how it was in January, and how it’s likely to be in March - an uptick of 2-6% followed by a slump of 2-6% in headline oil futures prices on repeat mode.

In the meantime, we have descended into the realm of the ridiculous. If you believe market chatter – it goes something like the Russians will cut oil production, only if the Saudis agree. They’ll cut only if the Iranians agree, who say it’s the Saudis and their allies who should make room for additional Iranian production. 

It is manifestly apparent, that should there be a coordinated OPEC and non-OPEC oil production cut excluding Canada and the US, the only producers to benefit would be the ones in North America. Such a cut would at most provide a short-term bounce of $7-10 per barrel, enabling shale producers, who were coping and managing just fine at $35 per barrel, to come back into the game and hedge better for another 12-18 months, as one wrote on Forbes. 

The Oilholic suspects both Russian and Saudi policymakers know that already. Which is why, it is a borderline ridiculous idea for parties who know very well that the market will take its own course, and any attempts to manipulate it artificially could have the very opposite effect some in OPEC such as Nigeria and Venezuela are hoping for. 

Meanwhile, each US oil inventory update makes Brent and WTI dance. With the latter currently below $30 barrel, US President Barack Obama has come up with his own sublime contribution to a ridiculous market. 

News emerged earlier this week that Obama has proposed a $10.25 per barrel levy on oil extracted in the US! According to Treasury projections, the levy, which would be applied to both imported and domestically-produced oil but won’t be collected on US oil shipped overseas, would raise  $319 billion over 10 years.

The plan would temporarily exempt home-heating oil from the tax. According to Obama, it "creates a clear incentive for private sector innovation to reduce America's reliance on oil and invest in clean energy technologies that will power our future."

The levy would be collected from oil companies to boost spending on transportation infrastructure, including mass transit and high-speed rail, and autonomous vehicles. However, noble the intention might be, its timing, execution and rate cap are completely barmy. In fact so barmy, the President knows there is no chance a Republican-controlled Congress would pass it. 

Without going into a costing analysis, oil companies would (a) be hit hard, and (b) almost certainly attempt to pass it over to consumers. Domino effect in terms of jobs and consumer spending adds another layer, making it extremely unpopular. So only a President who has no more elections to fight can come up with such a policy at such a time for the 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 2016. Photo: White House, Washington DC, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2008.

US oil exports could level crude playing field

It has taken 40 years but US politicians finally found the timing, inclination and effort required to get rid of a legislative relic dating back to the Arab oil embargo of 1975 – a ban on exporting the country's crude oil that has plagued the industry for so long for reasons that no longer seem relevant.

Late on Friday, when news of the lifting of the ban arrived, the Oilholic could scarcely believe it. As recently as July 2014, this blogger opined in a Forbes column that movement on this front was highly unlikely until after the US Presidential election. However, in this instance, one is both pleasantly surprised as well as glad to have been proved wrong.

US producers, including independent upstarts behind the country’s shale bonanza, would now be able to sell their domestically produced barrels out in the international market competing with those already having to contend with a global supply glut.

Let's not kid ourselves, lifting of the ban would not necessarily lead to a significant spike in US oil exports over the short-term. However, it at least levels the playing field for the country’s producers should they want to compete on the global markets. It is also price positive for WTI as a crude benchmark leading it to compete better and achieve parity (at the very least) with global benchmarks in the spirit of free market competition.

Of course, in keeping with the shenanigans long associated with political circles in Washington DC, lifting of the ban came as part of a $1.1 trillion spending bill approved by the Senate that will fund the government until 2016.

The spending bill also includes tax breaks for US solar and wind power, and a pledge by both errant Republicans and Democrats not to derail a $500 million grant to the UN Green Climate Fund.

No matter what the political trade-offs were like, they are certainly worth it if the reward is the end of an unnecessary and redundant ban. 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: Alaska Pipeline, Brooks Range, USA © Michael S. Quinton / National Geographic

Keystone XL revisited, some results & fossil fuels

Despite it having been a mad few days of 'crude' results, the Oilholic feels there is only one place to start this post – the US State Department's recent take on the Keystone XL project.

The Department's review of the project or should you like formalities – its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – noted that it had "no objections" on any major environmental grounds to the cross-border 1,179 mile-long Alberta to Texas pipeline extension project.

Its take, of course, pertains to 875 miles of proposed pipeline construction across US jurisdictional control which has been the subject of immense controversy with everyone from the American workers' unions [flagging-up job creation] to environmentalists [warning about risk of spillage] weighing in.

So is the end of the saga close with a thumbs-up from the State Department? Sadly, not quite, not yet! A 30-day public comment period has begun and is scheduled to end on March 7. During this time, "members of the public and other interested parties" are encouraged to submit comments on "the national interest determination."

Then the ultimate decision has to be made by the ditherer-in-chief, President Barack Obama, who is yet to make his mind up, pending reviews from "other government agencies" and the public at large.

As expected, the State Department's statement is full of waffle. Hoping not to annoy either those for or against the project, it took no firm stances in the Oilholic's opinion. However, there is one very clear, in fact explicit, conclusion by the department, from this blogger's reading of it – Alberta's oil sands will be developed Keystone XL or not!

In a related development impact assessment, it also noted – perhaps in no small part down to recent incidents and accidents – that using the rail network to transport crude was an even worse option than the pipeline itself, if a carbon footprint was the deciding factor. The so-called "other agencies", most notably the Environmental Protection Agency, now have around 90 days to comment before the State Department finally issues its "final" recommendation to the President.

Then there would be no excuses or reasons for stalling left and we should know either ways by the summer. One thing is for sure, the Americans have formally acknowledged that cancelling the pipeline extension won't stop E&P activity in the oil sands. So if that's what the environmentalists are after, there's some food for thought. One wishes, the State Department read this blog more often. Yours truly could have saved them a lot of time and money in reaching such a blatantly obvious conclusion.

For TransCanada's sake, which first applied for a permit from the US government as far back as 2008, the Oilholic hopes the US$7 billion project does go ahead. Stepping away from pipeline politics, to some 'crude' financial results over the past week, one cannot but feel for BG Group's Chief Executive Chris Finlayson.

In a geopolitically sensitive industry, Finlayson's team could not be apportioned blame when he announced that group earnings would dip by 33% on an annualised basis to around $2.2 billion, owing to unrest in Egypt. In the backdrop of domestic strife, the Egyptian government has not honoured agreements covering BG Group's share of gas from fields in the country, with high levels of gas being diverted to the domestic market.

Unable to fulfil its export obligations, the company had to serve force majeure notices to affected buyers and lenders, in effect releasing all sides from contractual obligations for circumstances beyond their control. Hence, a company deemed to be high-flier in the oil & gas world was - albeit temporarily - made to look like a low-flapper boosted by occasional gusts of gas...er sorry wind!

As Egypt accounts for over 20% of its annual production at present – BG Group's profit warning made its shares take a plastering following the trading update on January 27, dipping 18% at one point. The price is currently in the £10 to £11 range and most analysts are nonplussed. For instance, Liberum Capital cut BG Group to hold from buy, with the target cut from £14.75 to £12.80. Investec analyst Neill Morton cut the group's EPS forecast for 2014 and 2015 by 22% and 16% respectively.

"However, we do not believe that a takeover is likely (or even possible?) for a $60 billion company which is likely to command a substantial takeover premium. The key challenges over the next 18 months are the developments in Brazil and Australia which still run the risk of further issues, in our view (for e.g. the Brazil development is being done by Petrobras)," Morton added.

While BG Group was warning on profits, supermajor Shell wasn't exactly covering itself in glory. Following on from a pretty substantial profits warning, Shell's profits [outstripping the effect of oil price fluctuations came] in at $2.9 billion for the last quarter of 2013, down from $5.6 billion noted over the same period in 2012. The market was already well prepared for a dip in performance from Shell, but much to this blogger's surprise, new chief executive Ben van Beurden said the company's strategy presentation [slated for March 13] would contain no fresh targets on production, capex and asset disposal.

Odd indeed, and if one might humbly add – Shell's asset disposal, especially if similar drives at BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are to be used as measuring rods, seems a bit random! The Anglo-Dutch company said it was targeting disposals of $15 billion in the current financial year, and had stopped exploration in Alaska.

Its stake in the Australian Wheatstone project is expected to go, and a 23% stake in the Brazilian Parque das Conchas (BC-10) offshore project already has gone, subject to regulatory approvals. Ratings agency Fitch said such moves were positive, but added: "It remains to be seen whether Shell will take the opportunity that this flexibility affords it to retrench, or be tempted into shareholder friendly actions that could threaten its 'AA' credit rating."

Finally, ExxonMobil – biggest of the publicly traded IOCs by market value – also saw its profits below market expectations after a failure to offset declining production with fresh reserves. For the fourth quarter, it posted a net income of $8.35 billion, or $1.91 per share, compared with $9.95 billion, or $2.20 per share, over the same quarter in 2012. Those picky analysts were hoping for $1.92 to $1.94 per share – some will never be pleased!

Forget the analysts, here's an interesting article on what Warren Buffet sees in ExxonMobil to help draw conclusions on the "quintessential defensive stock." In response to his company's latest financials, chief executive Rex Tillerson promised to move ahead with new exploration projects.

Away from results, oil majors and minors ought to take notice as it seems oil might be overtaken by coal as the dominant primary energy source worldwide by 2017, according to the IEA. Adding further weight to this hypothesis, Worldwatch Institute's recent Vital Signs Online study noted that natural gas increased its share of energy consumption from 23.8% to 23.9% during 2012, coal rose from 29.7% to 29.9%, while oil fell from 33.4% to 33.1%.

Coal, natural gas, and oil, collectively accounted for 87% of global primary energy consumption in 2012. Finally, OPEC's 'long-standing' Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri has said its member nations will be able to handle the extra oil "expected to come from Iran, Iraq and Libya" to head off any oversupply.

We believe you sir, but it'll be kinda hard to keep a trio gagging for an export impetus to toe the line, say us supply-side analysts. Hopefully, oversupply or even the perception of oversupply should bring the price of the crude stuff down a fraction and may be price positive for consumers. Hence, a month into 2014, yours truly stands by his price forecast. 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 email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: The White House, Washington DC, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2008. Photo 2: Shell tanker truck at Muscat International Airport, Oman © Gaurav Sharma, August 2013.

Sights & sounds from the G8 in Enniskillen

As the G8 circus prepares to leave town, with the Lough Erne Declaration firmly signed, it is time to reflect on the town and the folks who played host to the leaders of the eight leading industrialised nations. Wherever this blogger went, asked for directions, picked-up something in a shop, had a meal or a beer, you name it – he was greeted by helpful people with welcoming smiles.

The leaders’ motorcades were met with much gusto, especially by local school children “Welcoming the G8” even when there wasn’t a leader inside the cars zipping by! Bless them! On Monday, the townsfolk got a pleasant surprise to see President Barack Obama and Prime Minister David Cameron waving to them from a vehicle in the same motorcade.

Later, the two leaders also visited Enniskillen Integrated Primary School, attended by both Catholic and Protestant children, on the outskirts of Enniskillen. It was established, as a place of reconciliation and peace, in wake of the 1987 IRA Poppy Day bombing which resulted in 12 local fatalities. The bomb may have killed and maimed but didn’t break the community here, says one resident. The town itself got a complete makeover with every building spruced-up, primed and painted, according to locals and as is apparent.

However, like any other High Street in the British Isles, Enniskillen is no exception from the economic downturn, with retailers either going under or vacating premises. Yet, instead of boarding these shops up, their glass panes had a façade of wallpaper showing people and products inside, perhaps to convey a positive illusion for cars zipping past.

The protestors were here in numbers too, and in spirit as far away as Belfast and London. Everyone from anti-poverty campaigners to food scarcity examiners, from rights and environmental groups to fair trade advocates were here in numbers. Amnesty International’s protest ‘display’ on the arms-supplying shenanigans by G8 nations was the most eye-catching one for the Oilholic.

There is one mute point though. It seems the militant element largely stayed away and most of the protesters, barring few nutcases, engaged and sent their message out peacefully. That the Lough Erne Resort is surrounded by water supplemented by miles of metal fences, multiple security checkpoints and around 8,000 security personnel, certainly ensured the G8 2013 Summit saw far fewer protestors relative to the norm in recent years.

Swimming, sailing, paddling and canoeing in the waters around Lough Erne Resort were banned for the duration of the summit, but not fishing! That’s all from Enniskillen folks which is getting back to normalcy. Before his departure back to London via Belfast, the Oilholic leaves you with some views from the G8 summit through the lens of his non-professional but supremely effective automatic camera. Click on images(s) to enlarge. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!
 

A 'wallpapered' shop in Enniskillen

Enniskillen Castle



Waters 'off limits' says PSNI

Police comb River Erne

 

Amnesty Intl makes its point on Syria

Police personnel from around UK make their way back home from Belfast City airport

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photos: As captioned, images from the G8 2013 summit in Northern Ireland © Gaurav Sharma, June 16-19, 2013.

Crude bits of the ‘Lough Erne Declaration'

As predicted, Russia and the West's differing positions for and against supporting the Assad regime in Syria threatened to overshadow everything else at the G8 Summit here in Lough Erne Resort, Enniskillen, Northern Ireland but mercifully didn’t.

The leaders of the group of eight leading industrialised nations, meant to promote trade and dialogue at this forum, did make some progress and provided lots of hot air…er sorry…soundbites. The outcome of talks was grandiosely dubbed the 'The Lough Erne Declaration'. But before that, the European Union and the US finally agreed to 'start talks' on a new trade pact while not losing sight (or to the detriment) of ongoing negotiations with Canada.

The trade talks had been under threat from a potential French veto, but EU ministers agreed to their demand "or exclusion of the film and television industry from the talks". On to crude notes, the leaders thankfully did not indulge in silly talk of doing something to 'bring down the price of oil' (and leave it to market forces) just because the Brent contract is at US$100-plus levels.

 

There were also no wide-ranging discussions about price levels of crude benchmarks, apart from individual non-Russian grumbling that they should be lower. More importantly, the G8 thinks the state of their respective economies would hopefully act as a correcting mechanism on prices in any case. The leaders agreed that global economic prospects "remain weak".

 

Ironically, just as US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke was issuing soundings stateside about easing-up on quantitative easing, they noted that downside risks have reduced thanks in part to "significant policy actions taken in the US, euro area and Japan, and to the resilience of major developing and emerging market economies".

 

The leaders said most financial markets had seen marked gains as a result. "However, this optimism is yet to be translated fully into broader improvements in economic activity and employment in most advanced economies. In fact, prospects for growth in some regions have weakened since the Camp David summit." You bet they have!

 

The Lough Erne declaration had one very significant facet with implications for the oil and gas industry along with mining. The G8 leaders said developing countries should have corporate identification data and the capacity to collect the taxes owed to them and other countries had "a duty to help them".

 

The move specifically targets extractive industries. It follows revelations that many mining companies use complex ownership structures in the Netherlands and Switzerland to avoid paying taxes on the natural resources they extract in developing countries. Hence, the G8 agreed that mining companies should disclose all the payments they make, and that "minerals should not be plundered from conflict zones".

 

Speaking after the declaration was signed, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We agreed that oil, gas and mining companies should report what they pay to governments, and that governments should publish what they receive, so that natural resources are a blessing and not a curse." Good luck with that Sir!

 

And that dear reader is that! Here are the links to this blogger's reports for CFO World on tax, trade, economy and US President Barack Obama’s soundbites (to students in Belfast), should they interest you. Also on a lighter note, here is a report from The Sun about Obama's idiotic gaffe of calling UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne – "Jeffery" Osborne on more than one occasion and his bizarre explanation for it.

 

So the leaders' motorcades have left, the ministerial delegations are out and the police – who did a great job – are packing it in. Out of the eight leaders and EU officials in Lough Erne, the Oilholic felt Canadian PM Stephen Harper looked the most relaxed while German Chancellor Angela Merkel looked least cranky among her European peers. Guess they would be, as both economies are the only ones in the G8 still rated as AAA by all three ratings agencies.

 

That's all from Enniskillen folks! Should you wish to read the so called Lough Erne Declaration in full, it can be downloaded here. Despite the pressures of reporting, the buzz of a G8 Summit and the hectic schedule, yours truly could not have left without visiting Enniskillen Castle (above right) in this lovely town full of welcoming, helpful people with big smiles.

The location's serenity is a marked contrast from the Russians versus West goings-on at Lough Erne. It's a contrasting memory worth holding on to. And on Syria, both sides agreed to disagree, but expressed the urgency to hold a 'peace summit.' Sigh! Not another summit? Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Lough Erne Resort, Enniskillen, Northern Ireland © Invest NI. Photo 2: Enniskillen Castle, Northern Ireland © Gaurav Sharma, June 18, 2013.

The 2013 G8 summit, Syria & crude prices

There is a certain measure of positive symbolism in being here in Northern Ireland for the 2013 G8 summit. Who would have imagined when the Good Friday agreement was signed in 1998, that 15 years later the then sectarian strife-torn province would host the leaders of the eight leading industrialised nations for their annual shindig?

That point was not lost on US President Barack Obama, among the few who didn’t express apprehensions, when UK PM David Cameron announced the venue for the summit last year. Cameron wanted to send a message out to the world that Northern Ireland was open for business and based on what yours truly has seen and heard so far, that's certainly a view many share.

 

Addressing an audience of students in Belfast, Obama said, "Few years ago holding a summit of world leaders in Northern Ireland would have been unthinkable. That we are here today shows the progress made in the path to peace and prosperity [since 1998]."

"If you continue your courageous path towards permanent peace, and all the social and economic benefits that come with it, that won't just be good for you. It will be good for this entire island, for the United Kingdom, for Europe; and it will be good for the world," he added.

Here we all are in Belfast heading to a quaint old town called Enniskillen. Of course, the Oilholic won’t be making his way there in a style befitting a president, a prime minister or a gazillion TV anchors who have descended on Northern Ireland, but get there - he most certainly will - to examine the 'cruder' side of things.

It has barely been a year since the G8 minus Russia (of course) griped about rising oil prices and called on oil producing nations to up their production. "We encourage oil producing countries to increase their output to meet demand. We stand ready to call upon the International Energy Agency (IEA) to take appropriate action to ensure that the market is fully and timely supplied," the G7 said in a statement last August.

Of course since then, we’ve had the US 'Shale Gale', dissensions at OPEC and rising consumption of India and China according to the latest data. The smart money would be on the G7 component of the G8 not talking about anything crude, unless you include the geopolitical complications being caused by Syria, which to a certain extent is overshadowing a largely economic summit.

That wont be a shame because its not for politicians to fiddle with market mechanisms. Nonetheless, the Brent forward month futures touched a 10-week high close to US$107 a barrel on Monday before retreating. Despite a lull, if not a downturn, in OECD economic activity, the benchmark remains in three figures.

Syria's impact on oil markets is negligible, but a prolonged civil war there could affect other countries in the Middle East, worse still drag a few oil producers in. Yet a stalemate between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the West has already become apparent here at the G8. There will, as expected, be no agreement on Syria with the Russians supporting the Assad regime and the West warily fretting over whether or not to supply the Syrian rebels with arms.

Away from geopolitics and the G8, in an investment note to clients, analysts at investment bank Morgan Stanley said the spread between WTI and Brent crude will likely widen in the second half of 2013, with a Gulf Coast "oversupply driving the differential".

The banks notes, and the Oilholic quotes, "WTI-Brent may struggle to narrow below US$6-7 per barrel and likely needs to widen in 2H13 (second half 2013)." That’s all for the moment from Belfast folks, as the Oilholic heads to Enniskillen! In the interim, yours truly leaves you with a view of Belfast's City Hall. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: City Hall, Belfast, Northern Ireland © Gaurav Sharma, June 17, 2013

A Syrian muddle, Barclays on Brent & more

The Brent forward month futures contract for August spiked above US$106 per barrel in intraday trading on Friday at one point. Most analysts cited an escalation of the Syrian situation and the possibility of it morphing into a wider regional conflict as a reason for the 1%-plus spike. The trigger was Obama administration’s reluctant acknowledgement the previous evening of usage of chemical weapons in Syria. The Oilholic’s feedback suggests that more Europe-based supply-side market analysts regard a proactive US involvement in the Syrian muddle as a geopolitical game-changer than their American counterparts. There is already talk of Syria become as US-Russia proxy war.

Add to that Israel’s nervousness about securing its border, jumpiness in Jordon and behind the scenes manipulation of the Assad regime and Syria by Iran. In an investment note, analysts at Barclays have forecasted Brent to climb back to the Nelson figure of 111. Yet a deeper examination of what the bank’s analysts are saying would tell you that their take is not a reactive response to Syria.

In fact, Barclays cites supply constriction between OPEC members as a causative agent, specifically mentioning on-going problems in Nigeria, Libya and shipment concerns in Iraq. For what its worth, and appalling as it might well be, Syria's conflict is only being priced in by traders in passing in anticipation of a wider regional geopolitical explosion, which or may not happen.

Away from OPEC and Syria, the Sudan-South Sudan dispute reared its ugly head again this week. A BBC World Service report on Thursday said Sudan had alleged that rebels based in South Sudan attacked an oil pipeline and Diffra oilfield in the disputed Abyei region. The charge was denied by South Sudan and the rebels.

 

The news follows Sudan’s call for a blockade of South Sudan's oil from going through the former’s pipelines to export terminals to take effect within 60 days. The flow of oil only resumed in April. Both Sudan and the South are reliant on oil revenue, which accounted for 98% of South Sudan's budget. However, the two countries cannot agree how to divide the oil wealth of the former united state. Some 75% of the oil lies in the South, but all the pipelines…well run north.

 

As the geopolitical analysts get plenty of food for thought, BP’s latest Statistical Review of World Energy noted that global energy consumption grew by 1.8% in 2012, with China and India accounting for almost 90% of that growth. Saudi Arabia remained the world’s top producer with its output at 11.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) followed by Russia at 10.6 million boepd. However, the US in third at 8.9 million boepd gave the “All hail shale” brigade plenty of thought. Especially, as BP noted that 2012 saw the largest single-year increase in US oil production ever in the history of the survey.

 

Moving on to corporate news, Fitch Ratings said Repsol's voluntary offer to re-purchase €3 billion of preference shares will increase the group's leverage, partially offsetting any benefit from the proceeds of its recent LNG assets divestment (revealed in March). This reduces the potential for an upgrade or Positive Outlook on the group's 'BBB-' rating in the near term, the agency added. Repsol's board voted in May to repurchase the preference shares partly with cash and partly with new debt.

 

Finally, Tullow Oil has won its legal battle, dating back to 2010, over tax payable on the sale of oilfields in Uganda. On Friday, the company said a UK court had ruled in favour of its indemnity claim for $313 million in its entirety (when the Uganda’s government demanded over $400 million in capital gains tax after Heritage Oil sold assets in the country to Tullow in a $1.45 billion deal).

 

Heritage said it would now evaluate its legal options and could launch an appeal. When the original deal between Heritage and Tullow was concluded, Tullow paid the Ugandan Revenue Authority $121.5 million – a third of the original $405 million tax demand – and put the remaining $283.5 million into an escrow account.

 

That’s all for the moment folks! The Oilholic has arrived in Belfast ahead of 2013 G8 Summit in Northern Ireland under the UK’s presidency, where Syria, despite the meeting being an economic forum, is bound to creep up on the World leaders’ agenda. As will energy-related matters. So keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Veneco Oil Platform, California, USA © Rich Reid / National Geographic.

The Keystone XL saga: Views of Toronto analysts

The Oilholic arrived in Toronto, ON for the briefest of visits to find the energy community here in bullish mood about the Keystone XL pipeline project getting a nod of approval from the Obama administration this summer.

Out of a snap, unscientific, random poll of seven energy analysts in downtown Toronto, none of the commentators thought the project’s second application for approval would be turned down this summer by the US Government. Only one analyst thought the second application would face severe delays yet again. On the subject of what next if the unthinkable happens and the US yet again denies approval, most thought Canada can find plenty of takers for Alberta’s most precious resource.

Simply put, if the US does not want oil derived from a bituminous source, there are many takers – as is evident from the interest in the oil sands from burgeoning Asian importers. Make no mistake, the oil sands would be developed, most said. Additionally, there were some predictable quips as well from our friends in Toronto along the lines of “Obama doesn’t have a re-election to fight, so he’ll approve”, “who would the US deal with Canadians or Venezuelans?” or “it could be a shot in the arm for US refinery upgrade projects”.

All of these quips ring true in parts. Furthermore, a recent poll, conducted across the border by the non-partisan Pew Research Center, suggests two-thirds of Americans (66%) favour building the pipeline, which would transport oil from Alberta via the Midwest to Texan refineries. For purposes of its research, Pew polled 1501 adult US citizens between March 13 and 17. The survey result is a pretty convincing one, polled by a very respectable source.

Away from Pew’s findings was a totally unrelated editorial calling for the project’s approval in none other than the Chicago Tribune. The Oilholic is not from Illinois but is quietly confident that President Obama, who was once a senator from the state, does read his local broadsheet. On March 29, printed on page 22, he would have found the lead editorial declaring: “Enough dawdling. Obama should approve the Keystone pipeline.”

Further down the editorial, the paper wrote: “The President is expected to make a decision by this summer. He rejected a Keystone plan a year ago, in the midst of his re-election campaign. This was applauded by some environmental groups and angered the Canadian government. But the most significant impact was this: It kept Americans from getting good-paying jobs.”

Powerful stuff one would say! Canada, you have the support of the President’s (once) local newspaper! Furthermore, most Chicago-based analysts the Oilholic spoke to last week seemed to be clamouring for an approval. Phil Flynn, senior analyst at Price Future Group, said it had been a sad political story symptomatic of dysfunctional US politics and government.

“Here we have a bizarre situation that a pipeline is geopolitically right, but politically...a mess! Democrats had a pop at President George W. Bush tying him with “big oil”; Obama is getting the other end of the stick with people labelling him “big green.” Had he approved the Keystone XL project before it had become a “major issue” in this social media age – well it would not have become an issue at all; just one of the many North American pipelines plain and simple!”

“I see it as a classic case of a bungled energy policy. The Obama administration grossly underestimated the both the importance of Canadian oil sands and American shale and worse still that we could be energy independent. This side of the border, the shale gas revolution happened not because of Washington, but rather despite of Washington,” he said.

Most in the trading community this blogger met in Toronto and Chicago feel an important reason why Keystone XL is going to be approved this time around is because the US labour unions want it badly. Now, hardly any Democrat would flag this up as a reason for approving the project in the summer. Saddest part of it all – for both Canada and the US – is that the Keystone XL project is such a small part of the ongoing energy story of both countries.

Flynn reckons it is all about finding a way to approve it and save face in the summer! “Canadian crude from the oil sands is coming to the market anyway. So the Democrats on Capitol Hill will say America may as well go for it anyway! Mark my word, that’ll be the argument used to peddle the approval,” he concluded.

Moving away from Keystone XL, but sticking with pipelines, ratings agency Moody’s has given thumbs-up to Enbridge’s capital expenditure programme. In a note to clients this morning, Moody's affirmed Enbridge's Baa1 senior unsecured, Baa1 long term issuer, (P)Baa2 subordinate shelf and Baa3 preferred stock ratings.

“The company has taken timely advantage of opportunities that have developed in the North American liquids market over the last few years as a result of regulatory delays in getting new pipelines approved and a persistent liquids pricing differential attributed to tight takeaway capacity, bottlenecks and an inability for shippers to access tidewater and global markets,” the agency said.

According to Moody’s, Enbridge's announced projects are lower risk because they are generally on existing rights of way as either expansions or reversals. “Once this large programme is completed, Enbridge's business risk should be lower due to even greater liquids network diversity,” it added.

Just one more footnote before a farewell to Toronto, the local networks and newspapers are awash with news that Canada's Information Commission is poised investigate claims the Federal government is "muzzling" its scientists.

According to The Globe and Mail, the Commission is investigating seven government departments. These include Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources, National Defence, the Treasury Board Secretariat, National Research Council of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

A spokesperson said the investigation is in response to a complaint filed by the University of Victoria, BC and the campaign group Democracy Watch. Assistant Information Commissioner Emily McCarthy’s office would be leading the probe. Intriguing story indeed and one to watch out for!

It is almost time to head back home, but before heading up in the air towards London Heathrow, the Oilholic leaves you with a view of a natural wonder which helps Ontario Power and Power Authority of New York harness copious amounts of hydroelectricity – the Niagara Falls.

With even Americans saying the view is better from the Canadian side, the Oilholic simply had to pop over and admire it. So it turned out to be quite a view. Photographed here is the Horseshoe Falls – on the side yours truly has snapped from is Canada and on the other is the USA. Sandwiched between is the Niagara River which drains Lake Erie in to Lake Ontario.

The first known effort to harness these waters for power generation was made by one Daniel Joncaire who built a small canal above the falls to power his sawmill in 1759, according to a local park official. Today, if the US (Robert Moses Niagara Power Plant and the Lewiston Pump Generating Plant) and Canadian (Sir Adam Beck I and II) power generation facilities are pooled, the total power production would be 4.4 gigawatts! That’s all from Toronto folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Toronto’s Skyline and Lake Ontario, Canada. Photo 2: The Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada © Gaurav Sharma.

‘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.

For US President, the Oilholic endorses 'neither'!

Whilst lounging on Hawaii’s beautiful White Sands Beach in Kona, the Oilholic wondered if the dear readers of this blog know what is a Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa (pronounced ‘humu – humu – nuku – nuku – apa – wapa’)? Revelation on what it is and how it relates to energy policy stances of President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney follows. The Presidential debates are over, all banners are up and the speeches are reaching a last minute fervour as Romney and Obama begin the concluding phases of their face-off ahead of the November 6, 2012 US Presidential election day.

As decision day draws nearer, the Oilholic endorses neither as both leading candidates have displayed a near lack of vision required to steer US energy policy in light of recent developments. The USA, despite its oil imports dynamic, believe it or not is the world’s third largest producer of crude oil by volume and among the market leaders in the distillates business.

With the next generation of independent wildcatters’ knack for finding value and economies of scale for small volumes (mostly in Texas and North Dakota), shale oil and an overall rise in countrywide oil output, things can only get better with the right man in charge at the White House. Additionally, the shale gas bonanza bears testimony to just about everything from American ingenuity and the benefits of an impressive pipeline (to market) network to a favourable legislative framework.

Yet both Obama and Romney sound unconvincing on respective plans for the energy industry despite their country’s domestic good fortune in recent years. The President’s policy has been a near failure while his opponent’s plans are insipid at best. Starting with the President first, since the Oilholic is in his birthplace of Hawaii and having arrived from California which hasn’t voted Republican in recent decades, bar the exception of Ronald Regan’s bid for the White House.

On the plus side, the Obama administration has opened up new US regions to oil and gas prospection though red tape persists. It has made noteworthy moves as a proponent of energy efficiency and energy economy drives for motorists and businesses alike. But on this briefest of note, the positivity ends. The BP Deepwater Horizon spill was as much about the failure of the company involved, as it was about the initial fuzzy response of the Obama administration followed by political points scoring as public anger grew when the spill wasn’t plugged for months.

Then of course there is the Solyndra boondoggle and supposed plans for “clean coal” where the less said the better, unless you are an opponent of the President. Shenanigans of the US Congress put paid to any plans he may have had for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Then of course there are politically fishy manoeuvres ranging from not offering proactive support to shale prospection and delaying the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada until after the election and to reach (and then again subsequently threaten to reach) US strategic petroleum reserves as petrol prices rose at US pumps.

Yet for all of his incompetence, the American energy industry is not in an unhappy place thanks largely to the Bush administration’s recognition of the domestic reserve potential and Dick Cheney’s super-aggressive push on shale. What is disappointing is that it could have been much better under Obama but wasn’t. Remember all those “Yes we can” posters of his from the 2008 campaign. The Oilholic was hard pressed not to find at least one Obama banner once every four or five streets in major Californian metropolitan areas on a visit back then (using Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Sacramento as a basis).

Last week in San Diego yours truly found none and this week in Hawaii has been the same. For the US energy business, the absence of “Yes we can” banners conveys the same metaphorical message of being let down perhaps as the rest of the country. Things are tagging along in the energy business despite of Obama not because of anything in particular that he has done. Of course, he did make a tall claim of a cut in US oil imports from the Middle East which is true. However, the Oilholic agrees with T. Boone Pickens on this one – yes the US production rise has contributed to reduced importation of crude oil but so has the dip in economic performance which cuts energy usage and makes the citizenry energy frugal. What has Obama done?

Well so much so for the President, but what about his challenger? Sigh...The Right Honourable Mitt Romney’s policy is to make (and switch) a policy on the go accompanied by jumbled statements. Or, in something that would make the fictitious British civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby from BBC’s political satire Yes Minister proud – the Romney campaign’s policy is not to have a policy unless asked about a particular facet of the energy business.

So what do we know so far? Romney stands for less regulation, a more lenient approach to environmental regulations and will cut addiction to subsidies. But political waffle aside, all we have had is him blast Obama over the Solyndra affair, call for a repeal of Clean Air Act without outlining his ‘clean’ alternative and a proposal to allow wind power subsidies to lapse (again without spelling out the Romney plan for Wind Power).

He flags up the shale boom without being mindful that it too needed incentives to begin with before market forces kicked-in. Admittedly, the wind energy sector works to a different dynamic and is indeed subsidy addicted. But a quip to cut subsidies without a cohesive back-up plan reeks of political opportunism. The only way Romney scores better than Obama on energy policy is that he is not Obama and who knows if that might be reason enough to vote for good ol’ Mitt.

Both men have the fuzziest of plans with erratic changes in stance suited to the political climate in an election year. This brings us back to the Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa which is the Hawaiian state fish from the tropical reef triggerfish family. The local name simply means "the fish that grunts like a pig" for the sound it makes when caught. It is also prone to sudden erratic changes in position and swimming patterns while negotiating the Hawaiian coral reefs according to a local marine biologist. Kinda like the two main US Presidential candidates isn’t it?

That’s all from Hawaii folks as the Oilholic prepares for the long journey home. It has been a memorable week in another memorable part of America. Alas, all good things must come to an end. Yours truly leaves you with a photo of Hawaiian residents of the Punaluʻu Black Sand beach – the Hawksbill and Green sea turtles (above right) and moi at Old Kona State Airport recreation beach and park.

You can cycle down 30 miles along the Kona coastline and stop every 15 mins to ask “Is that a view? Or is that a view?” and you’ll conclude that that’s a view! The people are lovely, the food is great, the place oozes natural history and tales of human history. Since this blogger also drove 260 miles circling the entire Big Island via its main highway with the help of veteran local tour guide John Mack, one can confirm that different parts of this Hawaiian isle get 11 of the 13 climate ranges known to mankind.

It is a privilege to have spent a week here, where for a change blogging on oil did not reign supreme. Next stop Los Angeles International followed by London Heathrow – a day long up in the air affair! Keep reading; keep reading it ‘crude’ – but its goodbye to the ‘Aloha’ state!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: White Sands Beach Park, Kona. Photo 2: Oilholic at the Old Kona State Airport recreation beach park, Kona Kailua. Photo 3: Punaluʻu Black Sand beach, Hawaii, USA © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

‘Crude’ views from across the pond

The view on the left is that of the Point Reyes Lighthouse, but more on that later. The Oilholic landed in California on Wednesday to begin yet another North American adventure and instantly noted the annoyance in our American cousins’ voices about rising gasoline prices at the pump.

The extent to which the average American is miffed depends on where he/she buys gasoline which is comfortably in excess of US$4 per gallon with regional and national disparities. For instance in Sunnyvale and Santa Clara CA, gasoline is retailing in the region of US$4.19 to US$4.49 per gallon.

However, head to downtown San Francisco and it jumps by at least 10 cents on average and cross the Golden Gate Bridge towards outlying gas stations and it jumps another 15 cents on top of the Bay Area price. In an election year, President Obama does not want his voters to be miffed, especially as Republican opponents are conjuring up uncosted phantasmal visions of prices at the pump of US$2.50 per gallon.

The President’s answer, based on a credible rumour mill and the US media, might involve diving (again) into the US Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR). The signs are all there – grumbling American motorists, Obama discussing releasing strategic stockpiles with British PM David Cameron, Iranians issuing threats about closing the Strait of Hormuz and overall bullish trends in crude markets.

For its worth, when Obama dived into the SPR last summer, he had the IEA’s support – something which he does not have at the moment. The Oilholic believes it was a silly idea then and would be a silly idea now. Although it pains one to say so, grumbling American motorists do not constitute a genuine emergency like the Gulf War(s) or Hurricane Katrina (in 2005); there is no supply shock of a catastrophic proportion or shall we say a ‘strategic’ need. North Sea Maintenance work, Sudanese tiffs, Nigeria and minor market jitters do not qualify were it not for an US presidential election year.

Besides, a release of IEA’s strategic pool of reserves collectively did very little to curb the price rise last summer. In its wake, price dropped momentarily but rose back to previous levels in a relatively short period of time. On this occasion driven by Asian consumption, a drive to seek alternative supplies away from Iran by consuming nations and short term supply constriction will do exactly that - were its SPR to be raided again by the US.

In fact, most contacts in financial circles on the West Coast share the Oilholic’s viewpoint; even though the WTI closed lower at US$103.22 a barrel on persistent talk of strategic reserve releases in the US media on Friday. The price also breached support in the US$104.20 to US$103.78 circa. Respite will be temporary; Moody’s raised its price assumptions for benchmarks WTI and Brent for 2012 and 2013, on Wednesday (while lowering assumptions for the benchmark Henry Hub natural gas).

The agency assumes an average WTI price of US$95 per barrel for crude in 2012, and US$90 per barrel in 2013. Brent will rise by US$10 per barrel from the agency’s previous assumption, with average prices of US$105 per barrel in 2012 and US$100 per barrel in 2013. That – says Moody’s – is due to the higher risk of a potential supply squeeze caused by the Iran embargo and continued strong demand from China.

Meanwhile, with customary aplomb in an election year, President Obama, “authorised” the usage of new sanctions on buyers of Iranian oil with punitive actions against those who continue to trade in Iranian crude. In a nutshell, if a country or one of its banks, trading houses or oil companies tries to source oil from the Iranian central bank then, at least in theory, they could face being cut off from the US banking system should they not comply by June 28.

However, following on from a law signed in December, Obama admitted that the US has had to make exceptions to countries like Japan, who have already made moves to cut back on Iranian oil. Some like India and China will find innovative ways to get around the sanctions as the Oilholic blogged from Delhi earlier in the year.

One does find it rather humorous that in order to defend his stance on Iran, Obama said US allies boycotting Iranian oil would not suffer negative consequences because there was "enough" oil in the world market and that he would continue to monitor the global market closely to ensure it could handle a reduction of oil purchases from Iran.

A statement from the White House acknowledged that "a series of production disruptions in South Sudan, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and the North Sea have removed oil from the market" over Q1 2012. "Nonetheless, there currently appears to be sufficient supply of non-Iranian oil to permit foreign countries to significantly reduce their import of Iranian oil. In fact, many purchasers of Iranian crude oil have already reduced their purchases or announced they are in productive discussions with alternative suppliers," it adds.

Good, then that settles the argument about the need to raid the SPR (or not?). Meanwhile, Moody’s (and others) also reckon the short term scenario is positive for the E&P industry, at least for the next 12-18 months since the global demand for oil that led to a strong price rally for crude and natural gas liquids (NGLs) shows little sign of abating.

In addition, E&P companies could benefit further from heightened geopolitical risk. Moody's crude assumptions hinge on reduced deliveries in Iran beginning mid-summer, when an embargo takes effect, but crude prices could move even higher if Saudi Arabia fails to fill in the supply shortfall. On the flipside, the industry faces some risk from the fragile European economy and could face lower demand if the euro area destabilises in 2012 and 2013.

Meanwhile, back home in the UK, there have been several crude developments. First panic buying ensued when Government issued advice to British motorists that they ought to stock-up in case oil tanker drivers go on strike leading to long queues at the pump. Then the government issued advice not to “panic.”

Now the petrol station owners’ lobby group is demanding talks, according to the BBC. Seven crude hauliers at the heart of the tanker drivers’ dispute are Wincanton, DHL, BP, Hoyer, JW Suckling, Norbert Dentressangle and Turners. They are responsible for supplying 90% of the UK's petrol stations and some of the country's airports. Workers at DHL and JW Suckling voted against strike action but backed action short of a strike in a dispute over “safety and work conditions”.

The run on petrol retail outlets could continue until Easter Monday according to some sources. Continuing with the UK, Total’s leak from the Elgin gas platform, 150 miles off Aberdeen, which has been leaking gas for the past three days is rumoured to be costing the French giant US$1.5 million per day.

Total is the operator (46.17% stake) of the Elgin/Franklin complex, with Eni and BG Energy holding 21.9% and 14.1% interests respectively. Production on the Elgin, Franklin and West Franklin fields, which averages 130,000 barrel of oil equivalent per day (boepd), is now temporarily shut but ratings agencies Fitch Rating’s and Moody’s believe it is not another “Deepwater Horizon.”

“We have not factored into the company's ratings any catastrophic accident on the platform resulting in an explosion, or a dramatic worsening of the current situation. However, we have considered a "worse-than-base-case" scenario where Total may have to shut down the Elgin field to stop the gas leak. This would imply the loss of a producing field that is worth, in net present value terms, €5.7 billion according to third party valuations. Were the field to become permanently unusable it would cost Total €2.6 billion - its share in Elgin - and the company might have to compensate its partners for the remaining €3.1 billion,” notes a Fitch statement.

Total had around €14 billion in cash on balance sheet at December 2011, and about €10 billion in available unused credit lines. Elsewhere, Petrobras' average oil and natural gas output in Brazil and abroad was 2,700,814 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) in February. Considering only the fields in Brazil, production added up to 2,455,636 boepd. In February, oil output exclusively from domestic fields reached 2,098,064 barrels per day, while natural gas production totaled 56,849,000 cubic meters.

Finally, the Oilholic leaves you with a view of the windiest place on the Pacific Coast and the second foggiest place on the North American continent – Point Reyes and its lighthouse built in 1870.

According to the US National Park Service, weeks of fog, especially during the summer months, frequently reduce visibility to hundreds of feet and the historic lighthouse has warned mariners of danger for more than a hundred years.

A US Park Ranger on duty at the Lighthouse said the lens in the Point Reyes Lighthouse is a "first order" Fresnel lens, the largest size of Fresnel lens courtesy Augustin Jean Fresnel of France who revolutionised optics theories with his new lens design in 1823.

Before Fresnel developed this lens, lighthouses used mirrors to reflect light out to sea. The most effective lighthouses could only be seen eight to twelve miles away. After his invention, the brightest lighthouses – including this one – could be seen all the way to the horizon, about twenty-four miles. The Point Reyes Headlands, which jut 10 miles out to sea, pose a threat to each ship entering or leaving San Francisco Bay (click on map to enlarge).

The Lighthouse was retired from service in 1975 when the US Coast Guard installed an automated light. They then transferred ownership of the lighthouse to the National Park Service, which has taken on the job of preserving this fine specimen of American heritage. It is an amazing site and it was a privilege to have seen it and the famous fog.

The area also has a very British connection. The road leading up the rocky shoreline where the lighthouse is situated is named – Sir Francis Drake Boulevard – after the legendary British Navy Vice Admiral and a Crown explorer of the seas. It is thought that Sir Francis’ ship The Golden Hinde landed somewhere along the Pacific coast of North America in 1579, claiming the area for England as "Nova Albion."

The road itself is an east to west traffic linkage in Marin County, California, running just west of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to the trailhead for the Lighthouse right at the end of the Point Reyes Peninsula. His landing place has often been theorised to be at what is now called Drakes Bay on Point Reyes, the western terminus for the boulevard. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: Oilholic at the Point Reyes Lighthouse, California, USA. Photo 2: Valero Gas Station Price Board, Sunnyvale, California, USA. Photo 3: Point Reyes Lighthouse © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 4: Archive photo of Point Reyes Lighthouse in 1870. Photo 5: Map of Point Reyes © Point Reyes Visitor Center / US National Parks Service. Photo 6: Oilholic on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard © Gaurav Sharma.