Japan’s return to Iranian market ‘complicated’

The Oilholic is back in Tokyo, some 6,000 miles east of London, and is finding Japan Inc. rather content with a crude oil buyers’ market. In fact, if anything, even the relatively higher oil price, has fallen to a third of the level this blogger noted when he was last here (in September 2014).

One outstanding issue – of re-establishing ties with the Iranian market – remains ‘complicated’ to quote analysts and legal professionals in the Japanese capital. Up until 2006, the point of the first wave of stringent UN sanctions on Iran against its nuclear programme, Tokyo enjoyed good ties with Tehran, symbolised first among other things by its stake in the Islamic republic’s Azadegan oilfield. 

However, that was then, and by 2010 matters progressively worsened as the US and European Union moved to impose yet more stringent sanctions on Iran following an escalation of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and the West’s wariness of it. 

Subsequently, Japan duly shunned Iran in wake of international sanctions, even if it wasn’t easy for the largest liquefied natural gas importer and third-largest net importer of crude oil and oil products in the world to do so. Following Iran’s return to the international fold and a lifting of international sanctions, unsurprisingly Japan’s government was among the first to follow China in resuming ties with the country’s oil and gas sector, and the wider economy. 

In February, a framework was also put in place under which Tehran would guarantee $10 billion in investment projects financed by the coveted Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and insured by Nippon Export and Investment finance. There’s one nagging problem though – the US is yet to fully lift its sanctions on Tehran and that makes Japanese banks, heavily intertwined with American financial system, wary of participating.

Unless commercial banks participate and capital flow mechanisms are established, JBIC cannot finance a project. And in any case an international remittance system needs to work, and major commercial banks, not just Japanese ones, need to resume normal operation before things can get off the ground. Not much of that has happened. 

Experts at law firm Baker & McKenzie’s Tokyo office say the appetite for investment in Iran is definitely there, yet very few Japanese companies have actually signed deals on account of risk associated with falling foul of US sanctions. 

Of course, leading law firms are ever willing to conduct due diligence to protect their clients’ foray into Iran. Furthermore, Washington has lifted sanctions on non-US banks, but nothing is quite so straightforward.

Partial US sanctions require anyone international banks deal with in Iran is not on the US Treasury’s “Specially Designated Nationals” (SDN) roster. The sanctions also cover any company that’s 50% or over 50% owned by an entity or person blocked by the US State Department, even if the company in question is not on the Treasury Department’s SDN roster. 

The only ‘crude’ saving grace is that a stagnant Japanese economy’s demand for oil is at its lowest since 1988, while glut troubled suppliers are queuing up twice over to sell their cargo at discounted prices. Given current oil and gas market permutations, the headache is as much Iran’s to contend with. That’s all from Tokyo 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: Tokyo Skyline from Sumida River ferry, Tokyo, Japan © Gaurav Sharma, March 2016.

Crude viewpoints from the Bay Area

The Oilholic finds himself in the San Francisco Bay Area yet again for the briefest of visits. By force of habit, one couldn't help doing a bit of tanker spotting from a vantage point some 21 floors above on a gloriously sunny day. More importantly, it's always a pleasure to discuss the stock market prices of companies behind what these metallic behemoths at sea are carrying.

The trading community appears to be in bullish mood close the midway point of 2014. Yours truly spoke to seven traders based here, most of whom had a buy recommendation on the big four services companies, which is not entirely unexpected. Five also had a buy recommendation on EOG Resources, a company the Oilholic admits has largely gone under his radar and Enterprise Products Partners, which hasn't.

 

The former, according IHS Energy data, saw a 40% rise in value to just under US$46 billion in 2013, making the company the largest market capitalisation gainer for upstream E&P companies last year. Now that is something. It is blatantly obvious that the liquids boom in North America is beginning to drive investment back into all segments of the oil & gas sector.

 

"Stock market is rewarding those with sensible exposure to unconventional plays. Hell if it goes on the way it has, I might even recommend Canadian E&P firms more frequently, Keystone XL or not," quips one trader. (Not to detract from the subject at hand, but most said even if Keystone XL doesn't get the go ahead from the Obama administration, future isn't so bleak for Canadian E&P; music to the ears of Chinese and Korean businessmen in town.)

Midstream companies are in many cases offering good returns akin to their friends in the services sector, given their connect to the shale plays. Okay now before you all get hot under the collar, we're merely talking returns and relative stock valuation here and not size. And for those of you who are firm believers of the 'size does matter' hypothesis, latest available IHS Energy data does confirm that the 16 largest IOCs it monitors posted a combined market capitalisation of $1.7 trillion at the end of 2013, a little over 10% above their value the year before.

Yet, oil majors continue to divest, especially on the refining & marketing (R&M) side of the business and occasionally conventional E&P assets where plays don't gel well with their wider objectives. Only last week, BP sold its interests in four oilfields on the Alaska North Slope for an undisclosed sum to Hilcorp.

The sale included BP's interests in the Endicott and Northstar oilfields and a 50% interest in each of the Liberty and the Milne Point fields. Ancillary pipeline infrastructure was also passed on. The fields accounted for around 19,700 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd). Putting things into context, that's less than 15% of the company's total net production on the North Slope alone and near negligible in a global context.

BP said the deal does not affect its position as operator and co-owner of Prudhoe Bay nor its other interests in Alaska. But for Hilcorp, which would become the operator of Endicott, Northstar and Milne Point and their associated pipelines and infrastructure pending regulatory approval, it is a sound strategic acquisition.

Going back to the core discussion, smart thinking could, as the Bay Area traders opine, see all sides (small, midcap and IOCs) benefit over what is likely to be seminal decade for the North American oil & gas business between now and 2024-25.

As Daniel Trapp, senior energy analyst at IHS and principal author of the analysis firm's Energy 50 report, noted earlier this year in a note to clients: "While economic and geopolitical uncertainty will certainly continue driving energy company values, it is clear that a thought out and well-executed strategy positively affects value.

"This was particularly true with companies that refocused on North America in 2013, notably Occidental, which saw its value expand 24%, and ConocoPhillips, which grew 23% in value."

There seem to be good vibes about the performance of North American refiners. As promised to the readers, yours truly wanted to know what people here felt. Ratings agency Moody's said earlier this month that North American refiners could retain their advantage over competitors elsewhere in the globe, with cheaper feedstock, natural gas prices, and lower costs contributing to 10% or higher EBITDA growth through mid to late 2015.

Those with investments and stock exposure in US refiners reckon the Moody's forecast is about right and could be beaten by a few of the players. A few said Phillips 66 would be the one to watch out for. Question is – what will these companies do with their investment dollars going forward in light higher profits, as the case for pumping in more capex into existing infrastructure is not clear cut, despite the need for Gulf Coast upgrades.

Additionally, most anecdotal evidence here in California suggests tightening emissions law in the state is price negative in particular for Tesoro and Valero, but Phillips 66 could take a hit too. In essence, not much has changed in terms of the legal parameters; only their impact assessment in 2014-15 is yet to reach investors' mailboxes.

On a related note, here is an interesting piece from Lior Cohen of the Motley Fool, examining the impact of the shrinking Brent-WTI spread on refiners. Valero and Marathon's first quarter performance could be negatively impacted as the spread narrows, the author reckons.

Overall, in the Oilholic's opinion what appears to be an abundance of low-cost feedstock from inexpensive domestic crude oil supply will continue to benefit US refiners. While North American refiners should be content with abundance, Europeans are getting pretty discontent about their reliance on Russian gas.

Despite obvious attempts by the European Union to belatedly wean itself off Russian gas, Fitch Ratings reckons the 28 member nations group would be pretty hard pressed to replace it. In fact, an importation ban on Russian gas to the EU would cause substantial disruption to Europe's economy and industry, according to the agency.

Painting a rather bleak picture, Fitch noted in a recent report that the immediate aftermath of such a move would see the region suffer from gas shortages and high prices due to its limited ability to reduce demand, source alternative supplies and transport gas to the most affected countries.

A surge in gas prices after a ban would probably also have knock-on effects on electricity, coal and oil prices. Industry would bear the brunt of supply shortages as household demand would be given priority. A lengthy ban on Russian gas – described as "a low-probability, but high-impact scenario" would see gas-intensive sectors such as steel and chemicals being heavily hit.

This would accelerate the closure or mothballing of capacity that is suffering from low profitability due to competition from low-cost energy jurisdictions such as the US or Middle East.

In 2013, Russia supplied 145 bcm of gas to Europe, and the latter would have great difficulty in sourcing alternative supplies. "Increased European gas production and North African piped gas could offset a small proportion of this. Tapping into the global LNG market would yield limited volumes as Europe's Russian gas demand equates to nearly half of the world's LNG production, which is already mostly tied to long-term supply contracts. Hence, gas and other energy prices could surge," the agency noted.

In theory, Europe has plenty of unused LNG regasification capacity, which could help replace some Russian supplies. But the majority of plants are located in Southern Europe and the UK, far away from the Central and Eastern European countries that are most reliant on Russian gas. So there you have it, and it should help dissect some of the political hot air. That's all for the moment from San Francisco 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: San Francisco skyline from 4th Street with an oil tanker heading to Oakland in the background. Photo 2: Port of San Francisco, California, USA © Gaurav Sharma April, 2014.

EU’s Russian gas, who gets what & BP’s Bob

The vexing question for European Union policymakers these days is who has what level of exposure to Russian gas imports should the taps get turned off, a zero storage scenario at importing nations is assumed [hypothesis not a reality] and the Kremlin's disregard for any harm to its coffers is deemed a given [easier said than done].

Depending on whom you speak to, ranging from a European Commission mandarin to a government statistician, the figures would vary marginally but won't be any less worrying for some. The Oilholic goes by what Eurogas, a non-profit lobby group of natural gas wholesalers, retailers and distributors, has on its files.

According to its data, the 28 members of the European Union sourced 24% of their gas from Russia in 2012. Now before you say that's not too bad, yours truly would say that's not bad 'on average' for some! For instance, Estonia, Finland, Lativia and Lithuania got 100% of their gas from Russia, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia not far behind having imported 80% or more of their requirements at the Kremlin's grace and favour.

On the other hand, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK have nothing to worry about as they import nothing or negligible amounts from Russia. Everyone in between the two ends, especially Germany with a 37% exposure, also has a major cause for concern.

And it is why Europe can't speak with one voice over the Ukrainian standoff. In any case, the EU sanctions are laughable and even a further squeeze won't have any short term impact on Russia. A contact at Moody's says the Central Bank of the Russian Federation has more than enough foreign currency reserves to virtually guarantee there is no medium term shortage of foreign currency in the country. Industry estimates, cited by the agency, seem to put the central bank's holdings at just above US$435 billion. EU members should know as they contributed handsomely to Russia's trade surplus!

Meanwhile, BP boss Bob Dudley is making a habit of diving into swirling geopolitical pools. Last November, Dudley joined Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi for a controversial visit to the Kirkuk oilfield; the subject of a dispute between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. While Dudley's boys have a deal with the Iraqi Federal government for the oilfield, the Kurds frown upon it and administer chunks of the field themselves to which BP will no access to.

Now Dudley has waded into the Ukrainian standoff by claiming BP could act as a bridge between Russia and the West. Wow, what did one miss? The whole episode goes something like this. Last week, BP's shareholders quizzed Dudley about the company's exposure to Russia and its near 20% stake in Rosneft, the country's state-owned behemoth.

In response, Dudley quipped: "We will seek to pursue our business activities mindful that the mutual dependency between Russia as an energy supplier and Europe as an energy consumer has been an important source of security and engagement for both parties for many decades. We play an important role as a bridge."

"Neither side can just turn this off…none of us know what can happen in Ukraine," said the man who departed Russia in a huff in 2008 when things at TNK-BP turned sour, but now has a seat on Rosneft's board.

While Dudley's sudden quote on the crisis is surprising, the response of BP's shareholders in recent weeks has been pretty predictable. Russia accounts for over 25% of the company's global output in barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) terms. But, in terms of booked boepd reserves, the percentage rises just a shade above 33%.

However, instead of getting spooked folks, look at the big picture – according to the latest financials, in petrodollar terms, BP's Russian exposure is in the same investment circa as Angola and Azerbaijan ($15 billion plus), but well short of anything compared to its investment exposure in the US.

Sticking with the  crudely geopolitical theme, this blogger doesn't always agree with what the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) has to say, but its recent research strikes a poignant chord with what yours truly wrote last week on the Libyan situation.

The society's report titled - Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On (click to download here) - noted that despite high hopes for democracy, human rights and long awaited freedoms, the overall situation on the ground is worse off than before the Arab Spring uprisings.

For instance, Libyan oil production has dramatically fallen by 80% as neighbouring Tunisia's economy is now dependent on international aid. Egypt's economy, suffering from a substantial decrease in tourism, has hit its lowest point in decades, while at the same time Yemen's rate of poverty is at an all-time high.

Furthermore, extremist and fundamentalist activity is rising in all surveyed states, with a worrying growth in terror activities across the region. As for democracy, HJS says while Tunisia has been progressing towards reform, Libya's movement towards democracy has failed with militias now effectively controlling the state. Egypt remains politically highly-unstable and polarised, as Yemen's botched attempts at unifying the government has left many political splits and scars.

Moving on to headline crude oil prices, both benchmarks have closed the gap, with the spread in favour of Brent lurking around a $5 per barrel premium. That said, supply-side fundamentals for both benchmarks haven't materially altered; it's the geopolitical froth that's gotten frothier. No exaggeration, but we're possibly looking at a risk premium of at least $10 per barrel, as quite frankly no one knows where the latest Eastern Ukrainian flare-up is going and what might happen next.

Amidst this, the US EIA expects the WTI to average $95.60 per barrel this year, up from its previous forecast of $95.33. The agency also expects Brent to average $104.88, down 4 cents from an earlier forecast. Both averages and the Brent-WTI spread are within the Oilholic's forecast range for 2014. 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: Sullom Voe Terminal, UK © BP

Crude permutations of the Ukrainian stand-off

When the Russo-Georgian skirmish happened in 2008, European policymakers got a stark reminder of how reliant they were on Russian natural gas. Regardless of the geopolitics of that conflict, many leading voices in the European Union, especially in Germany, vowed to reduce their reliance on Russian gas.

The idea was to prevent one of the world's leading exporters of natural gas from using its resource as a bargaining tool should such an episode occur again. Now that it has, as the Ukrainian crisis brings Russia and West into yet another open confrontation, the Oilholic asks what happened to that vow. Not much given the scheme of things! What's worse, the Fukushima meltdown in Japan and a subsequent haphazard dismissal of the nuclear energy avenue by many European jurisdictions actually increased medium-term reliance on mostly Russian gas.

According to GlobalData, Russian gas exports to Europe grew to a record of 15.6 billion cubic feet per day last year. The US, which is not reliant on Russian natural resources, finds itself in a quandary as EU short-termism will almost certainly result in a toning down of a concerted response by the West against Russia in the shape of economic sanctions.

The human and socioeconomic cost of what's happening in Crimea and wider Ukraine is no laughing matter. However, President Vladimir Putin should be allowed a smirk or two at the idiocy and short-sightedness of the EU bigwigs – reliant on him for natural gas but warning him of repercussions! Therefore, sabre rattling by Brussels is bound to have negligible impact.

Meanwhile, Russia's Gazprom has said it will no longer offer Ukraine discounted gas prices because it is over US$1.5 billion in payment arrears which have been accumulating for over 12 months. Additionally, Rosneft could swoop for a Ukrainian refinery, according to some reports. While economic warfare has already begun, this blogger somehow does not see Russians and Ukrainians shooting at each other; Georgia was different.

Having visited both countries in the past, yours truly sees a deep familial and historic bond between the two nations; sadly that's also what makes the situation queasy. The markets are queasy too. Ukraine was hoping for a shale gas revolution and Crimea – currently in the Kremlin's grip – has its own shale bed. In November 2013, Chevron signed a $10 billion shale gas production sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government to develop the western Olesska field. Shell followed suit with a similar agreement.

Matthew Ingham, lead analyst covering North Sea and Western Europe Upstream at GlobalData, says shale gas production was inching closer. "Together with the UK and Poland, Ukraine could see production within the next three to four years."

However, what will happen from here is anyone's guess. A geopolitical bombshell has been dropped into the conundrum of exploratory and commercial risks.

Away from gas markets, the situation's impact on the wider crude oil market could work in many ways. First off, rather perversely, a mobilisation or an actual armed conflict is price positive for regional oil contracts, but not the wider market. A linear supply shortage dynamic applies here.

An economic tit-for-tat between Russia and the EU, accompanied by a conflict on its borders, would hurt wider economic confidence. So a prolonged escalation would be price negative for the Brent contract as economic activity takes a hit. Russia can withstand a dip in price by as much as $20 per barrel; but worries would surface should the $90-resistance be broken. To put things into perspective, around 85% Russia's oil is sold to EU buyers.

Finally, there is the issue of Ukraine as a major transit point for oil & gas, even though it is not a major producer of either. According to JP Morgan Commodities Research over 70% of Russia's oil & gas flow to Europe passes through Ukrainian territory. In short, all parties would take a hit and the risk premium, could just as well turn into a news sensitive risk discount.

Furthermore, in terms of market sentiment, this blogger notes that 90% of the time all of the risk priced and built into the forward month contract never really materialises. So this then begs the question, whose risk is it anyway? The guy at the end of a pipeline waiting for his crude cargo or the paper trader who actually hasn't ever known what a physical barrel is like!

The situation has also made drawing conclusions from ICE's latest Commitments of Traders report a tad meaningless for this week. Speculative long positions by hedge funds and other money managers that the Brent price will rise (in futures and options combined), outnumbered short positions by 139,921 lots in the week ended February 25, prior to the Ukrainian escalation.

For the record, that is the third weekly gain and the most since October 22. Net-long positions rose by 18,214 contracts, or 15%, from the previous period. ICE also said bearish positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of the North Sea crude outnumbered bullish wagers by 266,017 lots, rising 8.2% from the week before.

Away from Ukraine and on to supply diversity, Norway's Statoil has certainly bought cargo from a land far, far away. According to Reuters, Statoil bought 500,000 barrels of Colombian Vasconia medium crude, offered on the open market in February by Canada's Pacific Rubiales.

When a cargo of Columbian crude is sold by a Canadian company to Norwegian one, you get an idea of the global nature of the crude supply chain. That's if you ever needed reminding. The US remains Pacific Rubiales' largest market, but sources say it is increasing its sales to Europe.

Finally, in the humble opinion of yours truly, Vitol CEO Ian Taylor provided the soundbite of the International Petroleum Week held in London last month.

The boss of the world's largest independent oil trading firm headquartered in serene Geneva opined that Dated Brent ought to broaden its horizons as North Sea production declines. The benchmark, which currently includes Brent, Forties, Oseberg and Ekofisk blend crudes, was becoming "less effective" according to Taylor.

"We are extremely concerned about Brent already not becoming a very efficient or effective benchmark. It’s quite a concern when you see that production profile. Maybe the time has come to really broaden out Dated Brent," he said.

Broadening a benchmark that's used to price over half the world's crude could include Algeria's Saharan Blend, CPC Blend from the Caspian Sea, Nigeria's Bonny Light, Qua Iboe and Forcados crudes and North Sea grades DUC and Troll, the Vitol CEO suggested.

Taylor also said Iran wasn't going to be "solved anytime soon" and would stay just about where it is in terms of exports. The Oilholic couldn't agree more. 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: Pipelines & gas tank, Russian Federation © Rosneft (TNK-BP archives)