Crude market, Russia & fretting over Afren

There's been an unsurprising calm in the oil market given the existing supply-side scenario, although the WTI's slip below three figures is more down to local factors above anything else.

Demand stateside is low while supplies are up. Additionally, the CVR Refinery in Coffeyville, Kansas which uses crude from Cushing, Oklahoma and churns 115,000 barrels per day (bpd) is offline and will remain so for another four weeks owing to a fire. It all means that Brent's premium to the WTI is now above US$7 per barrel. Despite (sigh) the latest Libyan flare-up, Brent itself has been lurking either side of $105 level, not as much down to oversupply but rather stunted demand. And the benchmark's current price level has triggered some rather interesting events.

Brent's premium to Dubai crude hit its lowest level in four years this week. According to Reuters, at one point the spread was as low as $1.20 following Monday's settlement. The newswire also reported that Oman crude actually went above Brent following settlement on July 31, albeit down to thin trading volumes.

Away from pricing, the Oilholic has been busy reading agency reports on the impact of the latest round of sanctions on Russia. The most interesting one came from Maxim Edelson of Fitch Ratings, who opined that sanctions could accelerate the decline of Siberian oilfields.

Enhanced recovery techniques used in these fields are similar to those used for shale oil extraction, one of the target areas for the sanctions. As the curbs begin to hit home and technology sales to the Russian oil & gas sector dry up, it will become increasingly harder to maintain rate of production from depleting West Siberia brownfields.

As brownfields are mature, major Russian oil companies are moving into more difficult parts of the existing formations. For example, GazpromNeft, an oil subsidiary of Gazprom, is increasingly relying on wells with horizontal drilling, which accounted for 42% of all wells drilled in 2013 compared to 4% in 2011, and multi-stage fracking, which was used in 57% of high-tech wells completed in 2013, up from 3% in 2011.

"In the medium term, [EU and US] measures are also likely to delay some of Russia's more ambitious projects, particularly those on the Arctic shelf. If the sanctions remain for a very long time they could even undermine the feasibility of these projects, unless Russia can find alternative sources of technology or develop its own," Edelson wrote further.

Russian companies have limited experience in working with non-traditional deposits that require specialised equipment and "know-how" and are increasingly reliant on joint ventures (JVs) with western companies to provide technology and equipment. All such JVs could be hit by sanctions, with oil majors such as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP, oil service companies Schlumberger, Halliburton and Baker Hughes, and Russia's Rosneft, GazpromNeft and to a lesser extent LUKOIL, Novatek and Tatneft, all in the crude mix.

More importantly, whether or not Russia's oil & gas sector takes a knock, what's going on at the moment coupled with the potential for further US and EU sanctions on the horizon, is likely to reduce western companies' appetite for involvement in new projects, Edelson adds.

Of course, one notes that in tune with the EU's selfish need for Russian gas, its sanctions don't clobber the development of gas fields for the moment. On a related note, Fitch currently rates Gazprom's long-term foreign currency Issuer Default Rating (IDR) at 'BBB', with a 'Negative' outlook, influenced to a great extent by Russia's sovereign outlook.

Continuing with Russia, here is The Oilholic's Forbes article on why BP can withstand sanctions on Russia despite its 19.75% stake in Rosneft. Elsewhere, yours truly also discussed why North Sea exploration & production (E&P) isn't dead yet in another Forbes post.

Finally, news that the CEO and COO of Afren had been temporarily suspended pending investigation of alleged unauthorised payments, came as a bolt out of the blue. At one point, share price of the Africa and Iraqi Kurdistan-focussed E&P company dipped by 29%, as the suspension of CEO Osman Shahenshah and COO Shahid Ullah was revealed to the London Stock Exchange.

While the wider market set about shorting Afren, the company said its board had no reason to believe this will negatively affect its stated financial and operational position.

"In the course of an independent review on the board's behalf by Willkie Farr & Gallagher (UK) LLP of the potential need for disclosure of certain previous transactions to the market, evidence has been identified of the receipt of unauthorised payments potentially for the benefit of the CEO and COO. These payments were not made by Afren. The investigation has not found any evidence that any other Board members were involved," it added.

No conclusive findings have yet been reached and the investigation is ongoing. In the Oilholic's humble opinion the market has overreacted and a bit of perspective is required. The company itself remains in a healthy position with a solid income stream and steadily rising operating profits. Simply put, the underlying fundamentals remain sound.

As of March 31 this year, Afren had no short-term debt and cash reserves of $361 million. In 2013, the company improved its debt maturity profile by issuing a $360 million secured bond due 2020 and partially repaying its $500 million bond due 2016 (with $253 million currently outstanding) and $300 million bond due 2019 (with $250 million currently outstanding).

So despite the sell-off given the unusual development, many brokers have maintained a 'buy' rating on the stock pending more information, and rightly so. Some, like Investec, cautiously downgraded it to 'hold' from 'buy', while JPMorgan held its 'overweight' recommendation on the stock. There's a need to keep calm, and carry on the Afren front. 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: Russian Oilfields © Lukoil

UK Oil & Gas Inc. - The Thatcher Years!

The Oilholic has patiently waited for the fans and despisers of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to quieten down, in wake of her death on April 8, 2013, before giving his humble take on what her premiership did (or in many cases didn’t) for the UK oil and gas Inc. and what she got in return.

 

Her influence on the North Sea exploration and production certainly got a mention in passing in all the tributes and brickbats thrown at the Iron Lady, the longest serving (1979-1990) and only female British Prime Minister. The world’s press ranging from The Economist to the local paper in her former parliamentary constituency – The Hendon & Finchley Times (see covers below) – discussed the legacy of the Iron Lady; that legacy is ‘cruder’ than you think.

 

In the run-up to Thatcher's all-but-in-name state funeral on April 17, the British public was bombarded with flashbacks of her time in the corridors of power. In one of the video runs, yours truly glanced at archived footage of Thatcher at a BP production facility and that said it all. Her impact on the industry and the industry’s impact itself on her premiership were profound to say the least.

 

Academic Peter R. Odell, noted at the time in his book  Oil and World Power (c1986) that, “Countries as diverse as Finland, France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Norway and Britain had all decided to place oil partly, at least, in the public sector.” A later footnote observes, “Britain’s Conservative government, under Mrs. Thatcher, subsequently decided [in 1983] to ‘privatize’ the British National Oil Corporation (BNOC) created by an earlier Labour administration.”

 

The virtue of private free enterprise got instilled into the UK oil and gas industry in general and the North Sea innovators in particular thanks to Thatcher. But to say that the industry somehow owed the Iron Lady a debt of gratitude would be a travesty. Rather, the industry repaid that debt not only in full, but with interest.

 

Just as Thatcher was coming to power, more and more of the crude stuff was being sucked out of the North Sea with UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) being much richer in those days than it certainly is these days. The UK Treasury, under her hawk-eyed watch, was quite simply raking it in. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) data, government revenue from the oil and gas industry rose from £565 million in fiscal year 1978-79 to £12.04 billion in 1984-85. That is worth over three times as much in 2012 real-terms value, according to a guesstimate provided by a contact at Barclays Capital.

 

Throughout the 1980s, the Iron Lady made sure that the revenue from the [often up to] 90% tax on North Sea oil and gas exploration and production was used as a funding source to balance the economy and pay the costs of economic reform. Over three decades on from the crude boom of the 1980s, Brits do wish she had examined, some say even adopted, the Norwegian model.

 

That she privatised the BNOC does not irk the Oilholic one bit, but that not even a drop of black gold and its proceeds – let alone a full blown Norwegian styled sovereign fund – was put aside for a rainy day is nothing short of short-termism or short-sightedness; quite possibly both. One agrees that both macroeconomic and demographical differences between Norway and the UK complicate the discussion. This humble blogger doubts if the thought of creating a sovereign fund didn’t cross the Iron Lady’s mind.

 

But unquestionably, as oil and gas revenue was helping in feeding the rising state benefits bill at the time – all Thatcher saw in Brent, Piper and Cormorant fields were Petropounds to balance the books. And, if you thought the ‘crude’ influence ended in the sale of BNOC, privatisation drives or channelling revenue for short-term economic rebalancing, then think again. Crude oil, or rather a distillate called diesel, came to Thatcher’s aid in her biggest battle in domestic politics – the Miners’ Strike of 1984.

 

Pitting her wits against Arthur Scargill, the National Union of Mineworkers’ (NUM) hardline, stubborn, ultra-left leader at the time, she prevailed. In March 1984, the National Coal Board (NCB) proposed to close 20 of the 174 state-owned mines resulting in the loss of 20,000 jobs. Led by Scargill, two-thirds of the country's miners went on strike and so began the face-off.

 

But Thatcher, unlike her predecessors, was ready for a prolonged battle having learnt her lesson in an earlier brief confrontation with the miners and knew their union’s clout full well based on past histories. This time around, the government had stockpiled coal to ensure that power plants faced no shortages as was the case with previous confrontations.

 

Tongue-tied in his vanity, Scargill had not only missed the pulse of the stockpiling drive but also failed to realise that many UK power plants had switched to diesel as a back-up. Adding to the overall idiocy of the man, he decided to launch the strike in the summer of 1984, when power consumption is lower, than in the winter.

 

Furthermore, he refused to hold a ballot on the strike, after losing three previous ballots on a national strike (in January 1982, October 1982 and March 1983). The strike was declared illegal and Thatcher eventually won as the NUM conceded a year later in March 1985 without any sizable concessions but with its member having borne considerable hardships. The world was moving away from coal, to a different kind of fossil fuel and Thatcher grasped it better than most. That the country was a net producer of crude stuff at the time was a bonanza; the Treasury’s to begin with as she saw it.

 

The Iron Lady left office with an ‘ism’ in the shape of 'Thatcherism' and bred 'Thatcherites' espousing free market ideas and by default making capitalism the dominant, though recently beleaguered, economic system of our time. Big Bang, the day [October 27, 1986] the London Stock Exchange's rules changed, following deregulation of the financial markets, became the cornerstone of her economic policy.

 

In this world there are no moral absolutes. So the Oilholic does not accept the rambunctious arguments offered by left wingers that she made ‘greed’ acceptable or that the Big Bang caused the global financial crisis of 2007-08. Weren’t militant British unions who, for their own selfish odds and ends, held the whole country to ransom throughout the 1970s (until Thatcher decimated them), greedy too? If the Big Bang was to blame for a global financial crisis, so was banking deregulation in the UK in 1997 (and elsewhere around that time) when she was not around.

 

Equally silly, are the fawning accolades handed out by the right wingers; many of whom – and not the British public – were actually instrumental in booting her out of office and some of whom were her colleagues at the time. Let the wider debate about her legacy be where it is, but were it not for the UK oil and gas Inc., there would have been no legacy. Luck played its part, as it so often does in the lives of great leaders. As The Economist noted:

 

“She was also often outrageously lucky: lucky that the striking miners were led by Arthur Scargill, a hardline Marxist; lucky that the British left fractured and insisted on choosing unelectable leaders; lucky that [Argentine] General Galtieri decided to invade the Falkland Islands when he did; lucky that she was a tough woman in a system dominated by patrician men (the wets never knew how to cope with her); lucky in the flow of North Sea oil; and above all lucky in her timing. The post-war consensus was ripe for destruction, and a host of new forces, from personal computers to private equity, aided her more rumbustious form of capitalism.”

 

They say that the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez stage-managed 'Chavismo' and bred 'Chavistas' from the proceeds of black gold. The Oilholic says 'Thatcherism' and 'Thatcherites' have a ‘crude’ dimension too. Choose whatever evidence you like – statistical, empirical or anecdotal – crude oil bankrolled Thatcherism in its infancy. That is the unassailable truth and that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Baroness Margaret Thatcher’s funeral cortege with military honours, April 17, 2013 © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Front page of the Hendon & Finchley Times, April 11, 2013. Photo 3: Front cover of the The Economist, April 13, 2013.