Oil, Tip TV & a ‘timely’ Bloomberg report

Brent continues to slip and WTI is along for the slide-ride too. Over the last two weeks, we’ve seen price floors getting lowered only to be breached again sooner than most expect. The Oilholic’s latest 5-day assessment saw both benchmarks as well as the OPEC basket of crudes end the week below US$90 per barrel on Friday.

One has been putting forward a short position argument on Brent since the summer to the readers of this blog and in columns for Forbes. As the tale goes, yours truly has pretty much got the call right, except for a few weeks over one month. Speculators, including but not limited to hedge funds, triumphed in June using the initial flare-up in Iraq as pretence for driving the futures price up. Market fundamentals were never going to support a price spike to $115, as was the case back then.

Those banking on backwardation were bound to get left holding barrels of paper crude on their books that they never needed in the first place for anything other than trading for profit. As the date of the paper contract got desperately close to where you might have to turn up with a tanker at the end of a pipeline, hedge funds that went long in June ended up collectively holding just shy of 600 million paper barrels on their books.

Smart, strategic buying by physical traders eyeing cargoes without firm buyers made contango set in hitting the hedge funds with massive losses. The week to July 15 then saw hedge funds and other speculators cut their long bets by around 25%, reducing their net long futures and options positions in Brent to 151,981 from 201,568 according to ICE.

Physical traders, had finally taught paper traders a long overdue lesson that you can’t cheat market fundamentals for very long. So it was a pleasure expanding upon the chain of thought and discuss other ‘crude’ matters with Nick 'the Moose' Batsford and his jolly colleagues at Tip TV, on October 6. Here’s a link to the conversation for good measure. 

Overall dynamic hasn’t altered from May. To begin with, of the five major global oil importers – China, India, Japan, US and South Korea – importation by four of the aforementioned is relatively down, with India being the odd one out going the other way. Secondly, if an ongoing war in the Middle East is unable to perk-up the price, you know the macroeconomic climate remains dicey with the less said about OECD oil demand the better.

Thirdly, odd as it may seem, while Iraqi statehood is facing an existential threat, there has been limited (some say negligible) impact on the loading and shipment of Basra Light. This was the situation early on in July and pretty much remains the case early October. There is plenty of crude oil out there while buyers are holding back.

Now if anything else, hedge funds either side of the pond have wised up considerably since the July episode. Many of the biggest names in the industry are net-short and not net-long at present, though some unwisely betting on the ‘only way is long’ logic will never learn. Of course, Bloomberg thinks the story is going. One has always had a suspicion that the merry team of that most esteemed data and newswire service secretly love this blog. Contacts at SocGen, Interactive Brokers and a good few readers of ADVFN have suggested so too.

Ever since the Oilholic quipped that hedge funds had been contangoed and went on to substantiate it on more than one occasion via broadcast or print, this humble blog has proved rather popular with ‘Bloomberg-ers’ (see right, a visit earlier this week). Now take this coincidental October 6 story, where Bloomberg claims "Tumbling Oil Prices Punish Hedge Funds Betting on Gains."

Behind the bold headline, the story doesn’t tell us how many hedge funds took a hit or the aggregate number of paper barrels thought to be on their books. Without that key information, the story and its slant are actually a meaningless regurgitation of an old idea. Let’s face it – ideas are not copyrighted. Some hedge fund somewhere will always lose money on a trading call that went wrong, but what’s the big deal, what’s new and where’s the news in the Bloomberg story? Now what happened in July was a big deal.

The 4.1% jump in net-long positions as stated in the Bloomberg report, only for the Saudis to adjust their selling price and cause a further oil price decline, does not signify massive blanket losses for the wider hedge funds industry. Certainly, nothing on July’s loss scale has taken place over the last four weeks either for the WTI or Brent, whether we use ICE or CFTC data.

So here’s some advice Bloomberg if you really feel like probing the matter meaningfully. In the style of Mr. Wolf from Pulp Fiction, if the Oilholic “is curt here, it’s because time is a factor” when putting these things together, “so pretty please with sugar on top” - 

(a) Try picking up the phone to some physical traders of the crude stuff, as price aggregators do, in order to get anecdotal evidence and thoughts based on their internal solver models, not just those who pay way too much for expensive data terminals and have never felt or known what a barrel of crude oil looks like. It'll help you get some physical market context. 

(b) Reconcile at least two months of CFTC or ICE data either side of the pond to get a sense of who is electronically holding what. 

(c) Take the aggregated figure of barrels held at a loss/profit to previous month as applicable, be bold and put a round figure estimate on what hedge funds might well be holding to back up loss/profit slant.

Or (d) if you don’t have the tenacity to do any of the above, email the Oilholic, who doesn’t fix problems like Mr. Wolf, but doesn’t bite either. In the meantime of course, we can keep ourselves fully informed with news about Celine Dion’s whereabouts (see above left, click to enlarge), as Will Hedden of IG Group noted in a recent tweet – the kind of important market moving news that reminds us all how good an investment a Bloomberg terminal is! 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 2014. Photo 1: Shell Oil Rig, USA © Shell. Photo 2: Bloomberg's visit to the Oilholic, Oct 6, 2014 © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 3: Bloomberg Terminal with Celine Dion flashes © Will Hedden, IG Group, August 2014.

Brent’s spike: Bring on that risk premium

Last week, the Brent forward-month futures contract was within touching distance of capping an 11-week high. On May 22, we saw the new July contract touch an intraday level of US$110.58; the highest since March 3. In fact, Brent, WTI as well as the OPEC crude basket prices are currently in 'three figure territory'.

Libyan geopolitical premium that's already priced in, is being supported by the Ukraine situation, and relatively positive PMI data coming out of China. Of these, if the latter is sustained, the Brent price spike instead of being a one-off would lend weight to a new support level. However, the Oilholic is not alone in the City in opining that one set of PMI data from China is not reason enough for upward revisions to the country's demand forecasts.

As for the traders' mindset the week before the recent melee, ICE's Commitments of Traders report for week of May 20 points to a significant amount of Brent buying as long positions were added while short positions were cut, leaving the net equation up by 15% on the week at 200,876. That's a mere 31,000 below the record from August 2013.

Away from crude pricing, S&P Capital IQ reckons private equity acquisitions in both the energy and utilities sectors are "poised for a comeback".

Its research indicates that to date this year, the value of global leveraged buyouts in the combined energy and utilities sectors is approaching $16 billion. The figure exceeds 2013's full-year total of $10 billion. Extrapolating current year energy and utility LBO deal value, 2014 is on pace for the biggest year for such deals since 2007, S&P Capital IQ adds (see table on left, click to enlarge).

Meanwhile, in its verdict on the Russo-Chinese 30-year natural gas supply contract, Fitch Ratings notes that Gazprom can go ahead with exporting eastwards without denting European exports. But since we are talking of 38 billion cubic metres (cm) of natural gas per annum from Gazprom to CNPC, many, including this blogger, have suggested the Kremlin is hedging its bets.

After all, the figure amounts to a quarter of the company's delivery quota to Europe. However, Fitch Ratings views it is as a case of Gazprom expanding its client portfolio, and for a company with vast untapped reserves in eastern Russia its basically good news.

In a recent note to clients, the ratings agency said: "Gazprom's challenge historically has been to find ways to monetise its 23 trillion cm reserves at acceptable prices – and the best scenario for the company is an increase in production. The deal is therefore positive for the company's medium to long term prospects, especially if it opens the door for a further deal to sell gas from its developed western fields to China in due course."

While pricing was not revealed, most industry observers put it at or above $350 per thousand cm. This is only marginally lower than Gazprom's 2013 contract price with its Western European customers penned at $378 per thousand cm. As for upfront investment, President Vladimir Putin announced a capital expenditure drive of $55 billion to boot. That should be enough to be getting on with it.

Just before one takes your leave, here's an interesting Reuters report by Catherine Ngai on why the 'sleepy market' for WTI delivery close to East Houston's refineries is (finally) beginning to wake up. 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. Table: Global LBOs in the energy & utilities sector © S&P Capital IQ, May 2014.

‘INA’ grumpy mood: MOL & Croatia’s government

The Oilholic finds himself in a jovial mood in sunny Zagreb. However, Hungarian oil company MOL and the Croatian Government are being rather grumpy with each other these days. The reason behind it all is the management of INA or Industrija Nafte, Croatia's national oil company in which the government holds around a 45% stake and MOL a slightly higher 47% stake.

INA has its origins in state-ownership, followed by privatisation; a trend which is not uncommon in this part of the world. It has an E&P arm with ongoing activity closer to home in the Adriatic Sea and Pannonian Basin, and abroad in Egypt and Angola. It also had gas exploration projects in Syria, brought to an abrupt halt in wake of the country's civil war.

INA's R&M operations include both of the Croatia's strategic refining assets – namely Rijeka Refinery (capacity 90,000 bpd) and Sisak Refinery (60,000 bpd) and retail forecourts. According to local analysts and whatever one can gather from media outlets, tension between MOL and Zagreb has been simmering since 2011.

Strain is evident and both parties are so at each other that it is out in the open. A scribe tells yours truly that MOL feels the Croatian Ministry of Economics is riddled with red tape and has conjured up a bad regulatory framework for the sector in general, which is hurting INA by default.

However, Minister Ivan Vrdoljak says it is MOL that has "failed" to deliver on its promise of incremental strategic investment. Another bone of contention is INA's loss-incurring gas trading arm which the government was supposed to have taken over but hasn't so far.

As if that was not enough, a Croatian court found former Prime Minister Ivo Sanader guilty of allegedly taking a bribe from MOL in 2008 for permitting it to gain market dominance. Both Sanader and MOL deny the charge. The country's Supreme Court is currently considering Sanader's appeal against his 10-year sentence, passed by the lower court while he remains behind bars on a multitude of charges.

Meanwhile, an informed source says trust between MOL and the Croatian government "is right out of the window". Sounds much better when locals say so in Croatian, but sadly the Oilholic cant replicate the sound-bite not being able speak any. Those in the outside world might be forgiven for wondering what the fuss is about and its all to do with upstream operations rather than the country's two refineries. INA operates these out of necessity to meet domestic distillate demand above than anything else.

For it, the Pannonian basin holds very good potential. According to the US Geological Survey, the area could have something in the region of 350 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) by conservative estimates. The figure could rise to lower four digits if overtly optimistic regional projections are followed, so yours truly won't follow them.

Everyone from the Romanians to the Austrians want in, and Croats and Hungarians – should they stop their squabbling – could jointly work on their share too in this hydrocarbon hungry world. Additionally, the north Adriatic Sea offshore prospection is currently yielding INA (and its Italian partner Eni) 15.8 million boe per day.

The latest round of talks aimed at resolving the dispute have been going on since last September, with very little to show for. The next round of talks is scheduled for the end of the month. Here's hoping 'crude' sense prevails or their partnership mementos from 2003 might just end up in the City's Museum of Broken Relationships (see left). In the interim, please take any quips, claims and figures touted by either party with a pinch of salt!

Away from it all, one footnote to boot before yours truly enjoys some cultural pursuits and beverages here – ICE's latest commitment of traders report for the week ending April 29 noted that bets on a rising Brent price have risen to their highest in eight months as money managers, including hedge funds, increased their net long position in Brent crude by 0.3% to 204,488, marking a fourth successive week of increases.

Traders in the category decreased their long positions by 2,464, but the number of short positions also fell, by 3,039 to 47,800, the lowest level since the end of August. That's all from Zagreb 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: St. Mark’s Church as seen from Lotrščak Tower, Zagreb, Croatia. Photo 2: The Museum of Broken Relationships, Zagreb, Croatia © Gaurav Sharma, May 2014.

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)

Banality of forecasts predicated on short-termism

Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! So the Brent crude price sank to a weekly loss last week; the first such instance in roughly a month. Is the Oilholic surprised? Not one jot. What yours truly is surprised about is that people are surprised! One sparrow does not make spring nor should we say one set of relatively positive Chinese data, released earlier this month, implies bullish trends are on a firm footing.

The Chinese news was used as a pretext by some to go long on the Brent forward month futures contract for March as it neared its closure (within touching distance of US$120 per barrel). And here we are a few days later with the Brent April contract dipping to a February 15 intraday price of US$116.83 on the back of poor industrial data from the US.

 

The briefest of spikes of the week before was accompanied by widespread commentary on business news channels that the price would breach and stay above the US$120 mark, possibly even rise above US$125. Now with the dip of the past week with us, the TV networks are awash with commentary about a realistic possibility that Brent may plummet to US$80 per barrel. You cannot but help laughing when spike n’ dips, as seen over the past few weeks, trigger a topsy-turvy muddle of commentators’ quotes.

 

Sometimes the Oilholic thinks many in the analyst community only cater to the spread betters! Look at the here, the now and have a flutter! Don’t put faith in the wider real economy, don’t examine the macroeconomic environment, just give a running commentary on price based on the news of the day! Nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing – except don’t try to pass it off as some sort of a science! This blogger has consistently harped on – even at times sounding like a broken record to those who read his thoughts often – that the risk premium provided by the Iranian nuclear standoff is broadly neutral.

 

So much so, that the reason the Brent price has not fallen below US$100 is because the floor is actually being provided by the Iranian situation on a near constant basis. But that’s where it ends unless the country is attacked by Israel; the likelihood of which has receded of late. Syria’s trouble has implications in terms of its civil war starting a broader regional melee, but its production is near negligible in terms of crude supply-side arguments.

 

Taking all factors into account, as the Oilholic did last month, it is realistic to expect a Brent price in the range of US$105 to US$115. To cite a balanced quote, Han Pin Hsi, the global head of commodities research at Standard Chartered bank, said that oil should be trading at US$100 per barrel at the present moment in time were supply-demand fundamentals the only considering factors.

 

In recent research, Hsi has also noted that relatively lower economic growth as well as the current level of tension in the Middle East has already been “priced in” to the Brent price by the wider market. Unless either alters significantly, he sees an average price of US$111 per barrel for 2013.

 

Additionally, analysts at Société Générale note that along with the usual suspects – sorry bullish factors – now priced in, Brent could see some retracement on profit-taking, though “momentum and sentiment are still bullish”. The French bank’s analyst, Mike Wittner, notes that just as the Saudis have (currently) cut production, concerns over prices being “too high” will cause them to increase production. “In short, our view is that Brent has already priced in all the positive news, and it looks and feels toppy to us,” he wrote in an investment note. “Toppy” – like the expression (slang for markets reaching unstable highs whereupon a decline can be expected if not imminent)!

 

On a related note, in its short-term energy outlook released on February 12, the EIA estimates the spread between WTI and Brent spot price could be reduced by around 50% by 2014. The US agency estimates that the WTI will average US$93 and US$92 in 2013 and 2014 respectively, down from US$94 in 2012. It expects Brent to trade at US$109 in 2013 and edge lower to US$101 in 2014, down from the 2012 average of US$112.

 

Elsewhere in the report, the EIA estimates that the total US crude oil production averaged 6.4 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012, an increase of 0.8 million bpd over 2011. The agency’s projection for domestic crude oil production was revised to 7.3 million bpd in 2013 and 7.8 million bpd in 2014.

 

Meanwhile, money managers have raised bullish positions on Brent crude to their highest level in two years for a third successive week. The charge, as usual, is lead by hedge funds, according to data published by ICE Futures Europe for the week ended February 5.

 

Net-long positions, in futures and options combined, outnumbered net-short positions by 192,195 lots versus a figure of 179,235 the week before; a rise of 6.9% according to ICE’s latest Commitment of Traders report. It brings net-long positions to the highest level since January 2011, the month the current data series began.

 

On the other hand, net-short positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of the crude stuff outnumbered bullish positions by 249,350, compared with 235,348 a week earlier. It is the eighth successive weekly increase in their net-short position, ICE Futures Europe said.

 

Moving away from pricing matters, a few corporate snippets worth flagging up - starting with Gazprom. In a call to investors and analysts earlier this month, the Russian state energy giant finally appeared to be facing-up to greater competition in the European gas market as spot prices and more flexible pricing strategies from Norway’s Statoil and the Qataris put Gazprom’s defence of its conventional oil-indexation pricing policy to the test.

 

Gazprom ceded market share in defence of prices last year, although it did offer rebates to selected customers. However, it appears to be taking a slightly different line this year and aims to cede more ground on prices in a push to bag a higher market share and prop up its overall gas exports by volume.

 

Gazprom revealed that it had paid out US$2.7 billion in 2012 in refunds to customers in Europe, with the company planning another US$4.7 billion in potential price cuts this year in order to make its pipeline gas prices competitive with spot prices and incentivise European customers to make more voluminous gas purchases.

 

Commenting on the move, analysts at IHS CERA noted, “Increasing gas sales volumes by retaining the oil-indexation pricing strategy and then retroactively offering price discounts may be a difficult proposition, however, particularly if Ukraine, Gazprom’s largest gas export customer, continues to reduce its Russian gas purchases in response to Gazprom’s refusal to cut prices.”

 

“Rather than continuing to react to changing market conditions by offering lower prices to customers, Gazprom may need to take a more proactive approach to reducing its gas export prices in order to incentivise customers to buy more gas from the Russian gas firm this year,” they concluded.

 

Finally, TAQA, the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, said in a statement over the weekend that a new oilfield has been discovered in the North Sea. It reported that two columns of oil have been found since drilling began in November at the Darwin field, about 80 miles north-east of the Shetlands.

 

The field is a joint venture between the Abu Dhabi state-owned company and Fairfield Energy. TAQA acquired some of BP’s North Sea assets for US$1.1 billion in November 2012. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Andrew Rig, North Sea © BP.  Graph: World crude oil benchmarks © Société Générale Cross Asset Research February 14, 2013.

Final ‘crude’ points of 2012

As 2012 draws to a close, a few developments over the last fortnight are worth mulling over, ahead of uncorking the champagne to usher in the New Year. But first, a word on pricing - the final ICE Brent February futures contract price cut-off noted by the Oilholic came in at US$110.96 per barrel with US budget talks in the background.

 

Over the last two weeks, and as expected, the cash market trade was rather uneventful with a number of large players starting the countdown to the closure of their books for the year. However, the ICE’s weekly Commitment of Traders report published on Christmas Eve made for interesting reading.

 

It suggested that money managers raised their net long positions in Brent crude futures (and options) by 11.2% in the week that ended on December 18; a trend that has continued since November-end. Including hedge funds, money managers held a net long position of 106,138 contracts, versus 95,447 contracts the previous week.

 

Away from Brent positions, after due consideration the UK government finally announced that exploration for shale gas will resume albeit with strict safety controls. Overall, it was the right decision for British consumers and the economy. It was announced that there would be a single administrative authority to regulate and oversee shale gas and hydraulic fracking. A tax break may also apply for shale gas producers; further details are due in the New Year.

 

Close on the heels of UK Chancellor George Osborne’s autumn statement and the shale announcement, came a move by Statoil to take a 21-year old oil discovery in the British sector of the North Sea off its shelf.

 

On December 21, the Norwegian company approved a US$7 billion plan to develop its Mariner project, the biggest British offshore development in over a decade. According to Statoil, it could produce around 250 million barrels of oil or more over a 30-year period and could be brought onstream as early as 2017 with a peak output of 55,000 barrels per day.

 

Mariner, which is situated 150 km southeast of the Shetland Islands, was discovered in 1981. The Oilholic thinks Statoil’s move is very much down to the economics of a Brent oil price in excess of US$100 per barrel. Simply put, now would be a good time to develop this field in inhospitable climes and make it economically viable.

 

Being the 65.11% majority stakeholder in Mariner, Statoil would be joined by minority stakeholders JX Nippon E&P (28.89%) and Cairn Energy (via a subsidiary with a 6% stake).

 

Elsewhere, Moody's changed the outlook for Petrobras’ A3 global foreign currency and local currency debt to negative from stable. It said the negative outlook reflects the company's rising debt levels and uncertainty over the timing and delivery of production and cash flow growth in the face of a massive capital budget, rising costs and downstream profit pressures.

 

“We also see increasing linkage between Petrobras and the sovereign, with the government playing a larger role in the offshore development, the company's strategic direction, and policies such as local content requirements that will affect its future development plans,” said Thomas S. Coleman, senior vice president, Corporate Finance Group at Moody’s.

 

That’s all for 2012 folks! A round-up of crude year 2012 to follow early in the New Year; in the interim here’s wishing you all a very Happy New Year. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Vintage Shell pump, San Francisco, USA © Gaurav Sharma.

EIA’s switch to Brent is telling

A decision by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) this month has sent a lot of analysts and industry observers, including yours truly, crudely quipping “we told you so.” That decision is ditching the WTI and adopting Brent as its benchmark for oil forecasts as the EIA feels its domestic benchmark no longer reflects accurate oil prices.

Ok it didn't say so as such; but here is an in verbatim quote of what it did say: "This change was made to better reflect the price refineries pay for imported light, sweet crude oil and takes into account the divergence of WTI prices from those of globally traded benchmark crudes such as Brent."

Brent has traded at US$20 per barrel premium to WTI futures since October, and the premium has remained in double digits for huge chunks of the last four fiscal quarters while waterborne crudes such as the Louisiana Light Sweet have tracked Brent more closely.

In fact, the EIA clearly noted that WTI futures prices have lagged behind other benchmarks, as rising oil production in North Dakota and Texas pulled it away from benchmark cousins across the pond and north of the US border. The production rise, for lack of a better word, has quite simply 'overwhelmed' the pipelines and ancillary infrastructure needed to move the crude stuff from Cushing (Oklahoma), where the WTI benchmark price is set, to the Gulf of Mexico. This is gradually changing but not fast enough for the EIA.

The Oilholic feels it is prudent to mention that Brent is not trouble free either. Production in the British sector of the North Sea has been declining since the late 1990s to be honest. However the EIA, while acknowledging that Brent has its issues too, clearly feels retail prices for petrol, diesel and other distillates follow Brent more closely than WTI.

The move is a more than tacit acknowledgement that Brent is more reflective of global supply and demand permutations than its Texan cousin. The EIA’s move, telling as it is, should please the ICE the most. Its COO said as early as May 2010 that Brent was winning the battle of the indices. In the year to November, traders have piled on ICE Brent futures volumes which are up 12% in the year to date.

Furthermore, prior to the OPEC output decision in Vienna this week, both anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests hedge funds and 17 London-based money managers have increased their bets on Brent oil prices rising for much of November and early December. Can’t say for last week as yours truly has been away from London, however, as of November 27 the net long positions had risen to 108,112 contracts; a spike of 11k-plus.

You are welcome to draw your own conclusions. No one is suggesting any connection with what may or may not take place in Vienna on December 12 or EIA opting to use Brent for its forecasts. Perhaps such moves by money managers and hedge funds are just part of a switch from WTI to Brent ahead of the January re-balancing act. However, it is worth mentioning in the scheme of things.

In other noteworthy news, Stephen Harper’s government in Canada has finally approved the acquisition of Nexen by China’s CNOOC following a review which began on July 23. Calgary, Alberta-headquartered Nexen had 900 million barrels of oil equivalent net proven reserves (92% of which is oil with nearly 50% of the assets developed) at its last update on December 31, 2011. The company has strategic holdings in the North Sea, so the decision does have implications for the UK as well.

CNOOC’s bid raised pretty fierce emotions in Canada; a country which by and large welcomes foreign direct investment. It has also been largely welcoming of Asian national oil companies from India to South Korea. The Oilholic feels the Harper administration’s decision is a win for the pragmatists in Ottawa. In light of the announcement, ratings agency Moody's has said it will review Nexen's Baa3 senior unsecured rating and Ba1 subordinated rating for a possible upgrade.

Meanwhile, minor pandemonium has broken out in Brazil’s legislative circles as president Dilma Rousseff vetoed part of a domestic law that was aimed at sharing oil royalties across the country's 26 states. Brazil’s education ministry felt 100% of the profits from new ultradeepwater oil concessions should be used to improve education throughout the country.

But Rio de Janeiro governor Sergio Cabral, who gets a windfall from offshore prospection, warned the measure to spread oil wealth across the country could bankrupt his state ahead of the 2014 soccer world cup and the 2016 summer Olympic games. So Rousseff favoured the latter and vetoed a part of the legislation which would have affected existing oil concessions. To please those advocating a more even spread of oil wealth in Brazil, she retained a clause spreading wealth from the “yet-to-be-explored oilfields” which are still to be auctioned.

Brazil's main oil-producing states have threatened legal action. It is a very complex situation and a new structure for distributing royalties has to be in place by January 2013 in order for auctions of fresh explorations blocks to go ahead. This story has some way to go before it ends and the end won’t be pretty for some. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Pipeline, Brooks Range, Alaska, USA © Michael S. Quinton/National Geographic.

Crude markets & the Eurozone mess

The Eurozone sad show continues alternating from a Greek tragedy to an Italian fiasco and woes continue to hit market sentiment; contagion is now – not entirely unexpectedly – seen spreading to Italy with the country’s benchmark debt notes rates rising above the 7% mark at one point deemed ‘unsustainable’ by most economists. Inevitably, both crude benchmarks took a plastering in intraday trading earlier in the week with WTI plummeting below US$96 and Brent sliding below US$113. Let’s face it; the prospect of having to bailout Italy – the Eurozone’s third largest economy – is unpalatable.

The US EIA weekly report which indicated a draw of 1.37 million barrels of crude oil, against a forecast of a 400,000 build provided respite, and things have become calmer over the last 24 hours. Jack Pollard, analyst at Sucden Financial Research, noted on Thursday that crude prices gathered some modest upside momentum to recover some of Wednesday’s losses as equities pared losses and Italian debt yields come off their record highs.

“One important factor for crude remains the Iranian situation with Western diplomats adopting a decidedly more hard-line approach to their rhetoric. For example, the French Foreign Minister has said the country is prepared to implement ‘unprecedented sanctions’ on Iran whilst William Hague, British Foreign Secretary, has said ‘no option is off the table’. Should the geopolitical situation deteriorate, the potential for supply disruptions from OPEC’s second largest producer could provide some support to crude prices,” Pollard notes.

From a Brent standpoint, barring a massive deterioration of the Iranian scenario, the ICE Brent forward curve should flatten in the next few months, mainly down to incremental supply of light sweet crude from Libya, end of refinery maintenance periods in Europe and inventories not being tight.

In an investment note to clients, on October 20th, Société Générale CIB analyst Rémy Penin recommended selling the ICE Brent Jan-12 contract and simultaneously buying the Mar-12 contract with an indicative bid @ +US$1.5/barrel. (Stop-loss level: if spread between Jan-12 and Mar-12 contracts rises to +US$2.5/barrel. Take-profit level: if spread drops to 0.)

The Oilholic finds himself in agreement with Penin even though geopolitical risks starting with Iran, followed by perennial tensions in Nigeria, and production cuts in Iran and Yemen persist. But don’t they always? Many analysts, for instance at Commerzbank, said in notes to clients issued on Tuesday that the geopolitical climate justifies a certain risk premium in the crude price.

But Penin notes, rather dryly, if the Oilholic may add: “All these factors have always been like a Damocles sword over oil markets. And current disruptions in Nigeria, Yemen and Iraq are already factored in current prices. If tensions ease, the still strong backwardation should as well.”

Additionally, on November 1st, his colleagues across the pond noted that over the past 20 years, when the NYMEX WTI forward curve has flipped from contango into backwardation, it has provided a strong buy signal. Société Générale CIB, along with three others (and counting) City trading houses recommend buying WTI on dips, as the Oilholic is reliably informed, for the conjecture is not without basis.

There is a caveat though. Société Générale CIB veteran analyst Mike Wittner notes that it is important to take into account the fact that crude oil stocks at Cushing, Oklahoma, consist not only of sweet WTI-quality grades but also of sour grades. “Most market participants, including us, do not know the exact breakdown between sour and sweet crudes at Cushing, but the recent move into backwardation suggests that there is little sweet WTI-quality crude left,” he adds.

Société Générale CIB analysts believe market participants who are reluctant to go outright long WTI in the current highly uncertain macroeconomic environment may wish to consider using the WTI sweet spot signal to go long WTI against Brent. Any widening of the forward-month Brent-WTI spread towards US$20 represents a trading opportunity, as the spread should narrow to at least US$15 and possibly to as low as US$10 before year-end, on the apparent shortage of WTI and increasing supply of Atlantic Basin waterborne sweet crude.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Trans Alaska Pipeline © Michael S. Quinton / National Geographic

Sucden to Soc Gen: The fortnight’s crude chatter

The last two weeks have been tumultuous for the oil market to say the least. This morning, the ICE Brent crude forward month futures price successfully resisted the US$100 level, while WTI’s resistance to US$80 level has long since crumbled. Obviously, the price of crude cannot divorce itself from the global macroeconomic picture which looks pretty grim as it stands, with equity markets plummeting to fresh new lows.

Bearish sentiments will persist as long as there is uncertainty or rather the "Greek tragedy" is playing in the Eurozone. Additionally, there is a lack of consensus about Greece among EU ministers and their next meeting - slated for Oct 13th - has been cancelled even though attempts are afoot to allay fear about a Greek default which hasn’t yet happened on paper.

Sucden Financial Research’s Myrto Sokou notes that following these fragile economic conditions across the Eurozone and weak global equity markets, the energy market is under quite a bit of pressure.

“The stronger US dollar weighs further to the market, while investors remain cautious and are prompted to some profit-taking to lock-in recent gains. We know that there is so much uncertainty and nervous trading across the markets at the moment, as the situation in the Eurozone looks daunting, “ready for an explosion”. So, we expect crude oil prices to remain on a downside momentum for the short-term, with WTI crude oil retesting the US$70-$75 range, while Brent consolidating around the US$98-$100 per barrel,” Sokou adds.

Many in the City opine that some commodities are currently trading below long term total costs, with crude oil being among them. However, in the short-run, operating costs (the short run marginal costs) are more important because they determine when producers might cut supply. Analysts at Société Générale believe costs should not restrict prices from dropping, complementing their current bearish view on the cyclical commodities.

In a note to clients on Sep 29th, they noted that the highest costs of production are associated with the Canadian oil sands projects, which remain the most expensive source of significant new supply in the medium to long term (US$90 represents the full-cycle production costs).

“However global oil supply is also influenced by political factors. It should also be noted that while key Middle East countries have very low long term production costs, social costs also need to be added to these costs. These costs, in total, influence production decisions; consequently, this may cause OPEC countries cutting production first when, in fact textbook economics says they should be the last to do so,” they noted further.

Furthermore, as the Oilholic observed in July – citing a Jadwa Investment report – it is commonly accepted by Société Générale and others in the wider market that Saudi Arabia needs US$90-$100 prices to meet its national budget; and this is particularly true now because of large spending plans put in place earlier this year to pre-empt and counter public discontent as the Arab Spring unfolded.

Therefore, in a declining market, Société Générale expects long-dated crude prices to show resilience around that level but prices are still significantly higher than the short-run marginal costs so their analysts see room for further declines.

Concurrently, in its September monthly oil market report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) cut its forecast for global oil demand by 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 89.3 million bpd in 2011, and by 400,000 bpd to 90.7 million bpd in 2012. Factoring in the current macroeconomic malaise and its impact on demand as we’ve commenced the final quarter of 2011, the Oilholic does not need a crystal ball to figure out that IOCs will be in choppy waters for H1 2012 with slower than expected earnings growth.

In fact ratings agency Moody’s changed its outlook for the integrated oil & gas sector from positive to stable in an announcement last week. Francois Lauras, Vice President & Senior Credit Officer - Corporate Finance Group at Moody’s feels that the weakening global macroeconomic conditions will lead to slower growth in oil consumption and an easing in current market tightness over the coming quarters, as Libyan production gradually comes back onto the market.

The Oilholic is particularly keen to stress Mr. Lauras’ latter assertion about Libya and that he is not alone in thinking that earnings growth is likely to slow across the sector in 2012. Moody’s notes that as crude oil prices ease and pressure persists on refining margins and downstream activities slower earnings are all but inevitable. This lends credence to the opinions of those who advocate against the integrated model. After all, dipping prices are not likely to be enjoyed by IOCs in general but among them integrated and R&M players are likely to enjoy the current unwanted screening of the Eurozone “Greek tragedy” the least.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Alaska Pipeline, Brooks Range, USA © Michael S. Quinton / National Geographic

ConocoPhillips’ move is a sign of crude times

US major ConocoPhillips' announcement last Friday that it will be pursuing the separation of its exploration and production (E&P) and refining and marketing (R&M) businesses into two separate publicly traded corporations via a tax-free spin-off R&M to COP shareholders does not surprise the Oilholic. 

Rather, it is a sign of crude times. Oil majors are increasing turning their focus to the high risk, high reward E&P side of things rather than the R&M business where margins albeit recovering at the moment, continue to be abysmal. Most oil majors  are divesting their refinery assets, and even BP would have done so, regardless of the Macondo tragedy forcing its hand towards divestment. 

ConocoPhillips’ decision should not be interpreted as a move away from R&M – nothing in the oil business is either that simple or linear. However, it certainly tells us where its priorities currently lie and how it feels the integrated model is not the best way forward. This is in line with industry trends as the Oilholic noted last November. 

Meanwhile, following the announcement, ratings agency Moody's says it may review ConocoPhillips' ratings for possible downgrade with approximately US$19.6 billion of rated debt being affected. This includes A1 senior unsecured and other long-term debt ratings of the parent company and its rated subsidiaries. 

Tom Coleman, Moody's Senior Vice-President notes that the distribution to shareholders of the large R&M business could weaken the credit profile of ConocoPhillips and result in a downgrade of its A1 rating. 

"Our review will focus on the company's capital structure following the spin-off, including the potential for debt reduction by ConocoPhillips, along with its financial policies and growth objectives going forward as a stand-alone E&P company," he concludes. 

The wider market is waiting to get a clearer understanding of the oil major’s plans for debt reduction, capital structure and financial policies as an independent E&P. Continuing with corporate deals, BHP Billiton made a strategic swoop for Petrohawk Energy. The cash acquisition, also announced last Friday, to the tune of US$12.1 billion, will give it access to shale oil and gas assets across Texas and Louisiana. BHP’s latest move follows its earlier decision to buy Chesapeake Energy's Arkansas-based gas business for US$4.75 billion. 

Meanwhile, figures released by Brazil’s Petrobras for the month of June indicate that the company’s domestic production rose 3.5% on an annualised basis. The results were boosted by the resumption of production on platforms that had been undergoing scheduled maintenance in the Campos Basin, and startup of a new well connected to platform Jubarte field's P-57 in the Espírito Santo section of the Campos Basin. The Extended Well Test (EWT) in the Campos Basin's Aruanã field also started up in late June.

However, its international output was down 5.6% on an annualised basis due to operating issues and tax payments in Akpo, Nigeria. Petrobras' average oil and natural gas production (both domestic and overseas) amounted to 2,641,508 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boed), 2.13% up on the total figure for May 2011. 

Finally, European woes are weighing on the crude markets. With the NYMEX August crude futures contract due to expire on Wednesday, intraday trading at one point, 1045 GMT to be precise, saw it down 0.31% or 33 cents at US$96.91 a barrel. Concurrently, the September ICE Brent futures contract was down 0.6%, 74 cents at US$116.44 a barrel. 

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo 1: COP Refinery & Oil Platform collage © ConocoPhillips

Well ‘Why-EA’? Agency wilts as politicians win!

Earlier this afternoon, for only the third time in its history, the IEA asked its members to release an extra 60 million barrels of their oil stockpiles on to the world markets.

The previous two occasions were the first gulf war (1991) and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005). That it has happened given the political clamour for it is no surprise and whether or not one questions the wisdom behind the decision, it is a significant event.

The impact of the move designed to stem the rise of crude prices was felt immediately. At 17:15GMT ICE Brent forward month futures contract was trading at US$108.45 down 4.99% or US$5.74 in intraday trading while the WTI contract fell 3.64% or US$3.51 to US$91.46.

Nearly half of the 60 million barrels would be released from the US government’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). In relative terms, UK’s contribution would be three million barrels – which tells you which nation the IEA was mostly looking to. The agency’s executive director Nobuo Tanaka feels the move will contribute to “well-supplied markets” and ensure a soft landing for the world economy.

This begs the question if the market is “well-supplied” especially with overcapacity at Cushing (Stateside) why now? Why here? For starters, and as the Oilholic blogged earlier, some politicians like Senator Jeff Bingaman – a Democrat from New Mexico and chairman of the US Senate energy committee – have been clamouring for his country’s SPR to be raided to relieve price pressures since April.

OPEC’s shenanigans earlier this month gave them further ammunition amid concerns that the summer or “driving season” rise in US demand would cause prices to rise further still. That is despite the fact that the American market remains well supplied and largely unaffected by 132 million barrels of Libyan light sweet crude oil which the IEA reckons have disappeared from the market (until the end of May since the hostilities began).

Nonetheless, all this mega event does is add to the market fear and confirm that a perceptively short term problem is worsening! Long term hope remains that the Libyan supply gap would be plugged. Releasing portions of the SPRs would not alleviate market concerns and could even be a disincentive for the Saudis to pump more oil – although they made it blatantly obvious after the OPEC meeting deadlock on June 8 that they will up production. Now how they will react is anybody's guess?

Jason Schenker, President and Chief Economist of Prestige Economics, feels that while the decision is price bearish for crude oil in the immediate term, these measures are being implemented with the intent to stave off significantly higher prices in the near and medium term.

In a note to clients, Schenker notes: “The fact that the IEA had to go to these lengths in the second year of an expanding business cycle says something very bullish about crude oil prices in the medium and long term. The global economy is up against a wall in terms of receiving additional oil supplies to meet demand. Additional demand or supply disruption would have a massively bullish impact on prices. After all, releasing emergency inventories is a last resort.”

But must we resort to last resorts, just yet? While Sen. Bingaman would be happy, most in the market are worried. Some moan that Venezuelan and Iranian intransigence in Vienna brought this about. For what it is worth, the market trend was already bearish, Libya or no Libya. Concerns triggered by doubts about the US, EU and Chinese economies were aplenty as well as the end of QE2 liquidity injections coupled with high levels of non-commercial net length in the oil markets.

Some for instance like Phil Flynn, analyst at PFG Best, think the IEA’s move was “the final nail in the coffin for the embattled oil markets.” Let’s see what the agency itself makes of its move 30 days from now when it reassesses the situation.

Those interested in the intricacies of this event would perhaps also like to know how the sale takes place but we only have the US example to go by. Last time it happened – under the Bush administration on September 6, 2005 – of the 30 million barrels made available, only 11 million were actually sold to five bidders by the US energy department. Nine of a total of 14 bidders were rejected, with deliveries commencing in the third week of the month. What the take-up would be in all IEA jurisdictions this time around remains to be seen.

Medium term price sentiments according to the Oilholic’s feedback have not materially altered and so they shouldn’t either. An average of five City forecasts sees Brent at US$113.50 in Q3 2011, US$112.50 in Q4 11 and US$115 in Q1 2012. Finally, most city forecasters, and to cite one, remain “marginally” bullish for 2012 though no one, this blogger including, sees a US$150 price over 2012.

Finally to all of the Oilholic's American readers concerned about the rising price of gas, spare a thought for some of us across the pond. OPEC’s research suggests (click graph above) that much higher taxes in most national jurisdictions in this part of the world means we pay way more than you guys. That is not changing any time soon. Releases of SPRs woould not meaningfully ease price pressures at the pump for us.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Gas Station, Sunnyvale, California, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2011. Graphics: Who gets what from a litre of Oil? © OPEC Secretariat, Vienna 2010.

IEA, OPEC & a few more bits on BP

It has been a month of quite a few interesting reports and comments, but first and as usual - a word on pricing. Both Brent crude oil and WTI futures have partially retreated from the highs seen last month, especially in case of the latter. That’s despite the Libyan situation showing no signs of a resolution and its oil minister Shukri Ghanem either having defected or running a secret mission for Col. Gaddafi depending on which news source you rely on! (Graph 1: Historical average annual oil prices. Click on graph to enlarge.)

Either way, the 159th OPEC meeting in Vienna which the Oilholic will be attending in a few weeks promises to be an interesting one; we’re not just talking production quotas here. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is also expected to be in Austrian capital – so it should be fun. The market undoubtedly still craves and will continue to crave the quality of crude that Libya exports but other factors are now at play; despite whatever Gaddafi may or may not be playing at.

Contextualising the Libyan situation, Société Générale CIB analyst Jesper Dannesboe notes that Cushing (Oklahoma), the physical delivery point for WTI crude oil, has recently been oversupplied resulting in contango at the very front end of the WTI forward curve.

“This situation is likely to persist until at least mid-2012 as higher supply to Cushing from Canadian oil sands and from North Dakota should result in high Cushing stocks as new pipelines from Cushing to the coast will not be ready until late 2012 at the earliest. This makes it attractive to put on WTI time spreads further out the forward curve at backwardation as they should over time roll into contango,” he wrote in a note to clients.

Dannesboe also observes that while the entire Brent crude oil forward price curve is currently in backwardation (i.e. near-dated prices higher than further-dated prices) out to about 2017, the front-end of the WTI crude oil forward price curve has remained in contango.

The Brent forward curve flipped from contango to backwardation in late February as a result of the unrest in the Middle East & North Africa (MENA). However, contango at the front-end of the WTI forward curve has persisted because WTI's physical delivery point, Cushing (US midcontinent), has remained oversupplied despite a generally tight global market for sweet crude as a result of the loss of Libyan exports, he concludes.

Meanwhile, ahead of the OPEC meeting, the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for “action” from oil producers that will help avoid the negative global economic consequences which a further sharp market tightening could cause. Its governing board meeting last Thursday expressed “serious concern” that there are growing signs the rise in oil prices since September is affecting the economic recovery. As ever, the IEA said it stood ready to work with producers as well as non-member consumers.

The Oilholic also recently had the pleasure of reading a Fitch Ratings report, authored earlier this month in wake of the Libyan situation, which notes that the airline sector is by far the most vulnerable to rising oil and gas prices of all corporate sectors in the EMEA region given the heavy weight of fuel costs in operating cost structures (20%-30%), execution risks from companies' use of hedging instruments to mitigate their fuel exposure and fierce industry competition. (Graph 2: Price movement - Jet fuel vs. Brent oil. Click on graph to enlarge)

Erwin van Lumich, a Managing Director in Fitch's corporate departments, said, "The gap between the jet fuel price curve and the Brent curve narrowed to approximately 13% during 2010, with airlines in emerging markets generally most exposed to fuel price fluctuations due to a lack of market development for fuel hedging."

It gives food for thought that a temporary impact of the Icelandic volcanic ash can send jitters down the spine of airline investors but the jet fuel pricing spread, airlines’ hedging techniques (or the lack of it) and how it might impact operating margins is mostly raised at their AGMs. Where there are losers, there are bound to be winners but Fitch notes that the ratings of companies in the extractive industries are not expected to benefit from the price increases as the agency uses a mid-cycle pricing approach to avoid cyclical price changes having an impact on ratings. At this stage, Fitch does not anticipate a revision to its mid-cycle price deck to an extent that it would result in rating changes.

Finally, a couple of things about BP. To begin with, BP’s share swap deal with Rosneft failing to meet the May 16th deadline does not imply by default that that deal would not happen. In wake of the objection of AAR – its TNK-BP joint venture partner – there are still issues to be resolved and they will be in the fullness of time contrary to reports on the deal’s demise. A source close to the negotiations (at AAR not Rosneft) says talks are continuing.

Continuing with BP, it finally got recognition that blame for the Macondo incident is not exclusively its. Mitsui (which holds 10% of the well’s licence) and Anadarko (25%) had both blamed accident on BP’s negligence, refusing to pay or bear costs. However, Mitsui finally agreed to settle claims relating to the disaster with BP. It now agrees with BP that it was the result of oversights and mistakes by multiple parties. Undoubtedly, the pressure will now be on Anadarko to settle with BP.

According to US government figures, BP has paid out US$20.8 billion. It has invoiced Mitsui for approximately US$2.0 billion with the Japanese company expected to pay half of that at the present moment in time. A US trial on limitation of liabilities is expected to rule on the issue of gross negligence by parties concerned sometime over Q1 2012. Watch this space!

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Graphics © Fitch Ratings, May 2011

First thoughts from Houston…mine & others'

It is good to be back in the city that made the oil trade a business! With both ICE Brent and West Texas Intermediate forward month futures contract benchmarks above US$100 per barrel, Houston should be a happy place on this beautiful Thursday morning. Following a breakfast meeting with some ‘crude’ contacts, the viewpoints to emerge were more nuanced than I’d thought and some were in line with my chain of thoughts.

But first things first, last I checked WTI forward month futures contract was at US$106.35/b and ICE Brent at US$115.60/b. An energy partner at a law firm, a commodities trader, an industry veteran and an oil executive were all in agreement that geopolitical bias for crude prices – well – is almost always to the upside. Recent events in the Middle East and whats going on Libya in particular is having more of an impact on the Brent spread, as it is more reflective of global conditions. WTI is more reflective of conditions in the US mid-west and as such many here believe even US$100-plus does not reflect market demand vs. supply fundamentals.

Only medium term concern here, moving away from the geopolitical bias, is the perceived bottleneck associated with pipeline capacity (from Alberta, Canada) to Cushing and then southwards. This is unlikely to be relieved until 2013 (TCPL Keystone XL) or 2014 (Enbridge) and lets not forget the associated politics of it all.

The Libya situation, most experts here say, may create a short-term spike for both crude benchmarks, more so in Brent’s case – but it is not going to be 2008 all over again – in the words of four experienced Texans and the pragmatic SocGen analyst Mike Wittner.

Furthermore, market commentators here believe that over the next three quarters both speculative activity and investor capital flow in to the crude market (or shall we say the paper crude market) will be highly tactical as the current geopolitical risk premium (hopefully) eases gradually.

As expected, local feedback suggests utilisation rates of refineries and LNG terminals locally is still low. While I attach a caveat that four experts do not speak for the whole state, the belief here in Texas is that refining margins, which have been pathetic for the past six quarters may show some recovery towards the end of 2011.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Pump Jacks, Perryton, Texas © Joel Sartore/National Geographic

Market Chatter on ‘Crude’ effects of Instability

As allied forces start bombing Libya and the full damage – both physical and reputational – to the nuclear generated power industry in wake of the earthquake in Japan is known, it is time to move beyond ranting about how much instability premium is actually there in the price of crude oil to what its impact may be. Using the Brent forward month futures contract as a benchmark, conservative estimates put the premium at US$10 but yet looser ones put it at US$20 per barrel at the very least.

It is also getting a bit repetitive to suggest that fundamentals do not support such a high price of crude, even if the geopolitics is taken out of it. Thing is even profit taking at some point is not likely to cool the hot prices in the short term and the market has already started chatting about the impact. The tragic earthquake in Japan has added another dimension. Until nuclear power generation gets back on track in Japan, in order to meet their power demand the Japanese will increase the use of hydrocarbons as they have no other choice.

Regarding the latter point, Ratings agency Moody's says that displaced demand from Japan's nuclear shutdown will shift to Asia-Pacific thermal-energy producers such as Australia's upstream Woodside Petroleum (Moody’s rating Baa1 negative), Indonesia's thermal-coal miner Adaro (Ba1 stable), Korea's refiner SK Innovation (Baa3 Stable), and Thailand's petrochemical firm PTT Chemical (Baa3 review for upgrade).

Renee Lam, a Moody's vice president in Hong Kong, says, "These firms and others in the region can capitalise on near- and longer-term displaced demand as Japan must now rely more on non-nuclear fuel." Lam also expects global crude prices to remain high, despite a near-term drop from dislocation in Japan.

She further notes, "Refinery shutdowns in Japan, accounting for 9% of Asian capacity and 2% of global capacity, have pushed up Asian refining margins. Strong margins benefiting non-Japanese, regional refineries should continue at least in the near term. We expect strong results for our rated refiners in the first half of this year."

Additionally, Fitch Ratings says airlines and European Gas-Fired Utilities Unprepared for Current Oil Spike and that the substantial increase in oil prices in a short time frame has caught many corporate energy consumers off guard, as they are not properly hedged to cope with such high oil price levels. In a scenario of sustained high oil prices, corporate issuers that are heavily exposed to oil-related commodities feedstock are likely to face a direct impact on their earnings.

In the agency’s view, management teams may be reluctant to hedge the oil price at these high levels, in anticipation of a softening in the oil price once geopolitical tensions subside. Fitch also considers it possible that banks might be less keen to finance oil option contracts at such high levels, as they do not want to take the risk of a continued rally in the price of crude.

As oil price volatility remained fairly low in 2010, airlines seem to have been hedging less and are now more vulnerable to the current spike. In the current high oil price environment, an increasing number of airlines are taking a wait-and-see approach in anticipation of a softening of the oil price and perhaps due to higher hedging costs. In Fitch's view, sustained oil prices well in excess of US$100 per barrel could negatively affect the operating performance and creditworthiness of high intensity corporate energy consumers and may also hamper the global economic recovery.

Analysts at SocGen CIB note that the forward curve for Brent is currently in backwardation (nearby premium, forward discount) for the next 5 years, reflecting concerns over growing physical tightness in the crude markets. Especially, in light of the NATO/allied forces bombardment of Gaddafi forces last night, the market is pricing in an extended Libyan shutdown of crude exports. About 1 million barrels per day of crude oil production has been cut and Libya’s major exporting ports are now closed.

As Nymex WTI-ICE Brent spreads have been less weak, SocGen analysts note that the front month spread has traded around -US$9.75/b on Tuesday vs -US$15/b one week ago. They opine that the recent strength of the WTI / Brent spreads has not really been due to the decreasing risk-premium of Brent, but more to very strong inflows of money on WTI-linked instruments.

In a note to clients last week, they note and I quote: “Indeed, the last CFTC COT report shows that the net position of the non-leveraged investments on WTI hit a new record high. This is so large that even the swap dealers now have a negative net position on WTI futures.”

I feel it is prudent to mention (again!!!) that this blogger, all main ratings agencies and a substantial chunk of commentators in the City believe that a large portion of the current oil price spike has been driven by speculative activity rather than supply fundamentals. Oil supply has remained more or less balanced as most other oil producing nations have raised their production levels in order to keep overall production largely unaffected – so far that is!

Finally, here’s an interesting segment of CNBC's Mad Money programme, where Jim Cramer talks oil n’ gas in the US state of North Dakota. It’s relatively small from a global standpoint, but could be important from an American one.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Oil Drill Pump, North Dakota © Phil Schermeister, National Geographic Society