US crude output & Russia’s fossil fuel abundance

Another week, another upbeat projection for US oil production. The latest one has been put forward by Oslo, Norway-headquartered research and analysis firm Rystad Energy, which projects US production to hit 13.4 million barrels per day (bpd) by December 2019. That's well above 12.3 million bpd total that's emerged from the US Energy Information Administration's latest publication. 

Moving on from the US, abundant and cheap fossil fuels in Russia are likely to slow the country's shift to renewable, according to Moody's, with the rating agency opining that Moscow will struggle to meet its 2024 targets for renewable capacity.

"The future looks brighter for the Russian renewable energy sector from the mid-2020s, however, as old generation fossil fuel-fired capacity retires and controls on emissions tighten," says Julia Pribytkova, Senior Analyst at the agency.

Russia's Energy Strategy aims to tighten controls on CO2 emissions starting from mid-2020s, in part by increasing the share of clean energy, such as nuclear and renewables, improving energy efficiency and introducing caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Away from supply-side chatter, looks like oil benchmarks registered an uptick as the end of the week approached, after having taken a hammering for much of May. Brent still ended the week down 1.86% compared to last Friday (May 31), but WTI futures made a better recovery ending up 0.92%. That’s all for the moment for folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2019. Photo: Oil extraction site in Russia © Lukoil.

That over 10% slump in oil price

As the crazy month of May comes to a close, commentators using the supply constriction and geopolitical risk premium pretexts to big up prices have been left scratching their heads. Using Middle Eastern tension and murmurs of OPEC rolling over production cuts as the backdrop for predicting $80+ Brent prices didn't get anywhere fast. 

Instead prices went into reverse as the US-China trade spat, Brexit, Chinese and German slowdown fears weighed on demand sentiment. Here is yours truly's take via Forbes:

Trump’s trade war rhetoric is a factor in oil demand, but other concerns over the global economy are rightfully cancelling supply constriction arguments https://t.co/7zBKGmM5Fn pic.twitter.com/GWtEMAPROW

— Forbes (@Forbes) May 31, 2019

For what it is worth, at the time of writing this blog post both oil benchmarks are posting a May decline of +10% in what can only be described as a crude market rout. 

Away from the oil price, it seems rating agency Moody's has withdrawn all the ratings of Venezuela's beleaguered oil firm PDVSA including the senior unsecured and senior secured ratings due to "insufficient information." At the time of withdrawal, the ratings were 'C' and the outlook was 'stable'.

With Venezuela in free-fall and its oil production well below 1 million barrels per day (at 768,000 bpd in April) - not much remains to be said. In any case, the US will be importing less and less crude from Latin America not what happens in Caracas, given uptick in its shale-driven output. 

Away from 'crude' matters, the Oilholic also touched on LNG markets. Here is yours truly's take for Forbes on how the US-China trade spat will serve to dampen offtake for US LNG Projects; and here is a missive for Rigzone on the disconnect between US President Donald Trump's rhetoric on American LNG exports to the Baltics versus the ground reality. 

That's all for the moment for mad May folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2019. 

‘Cash-all-gone’ project and [Too Much] Oil and [Less] Money Conference

After billions of dollars being spent, delays and pipeline leaks, Kazakhstan's offshore Caspian Sea located Kashagan oilfield – often dubbed ‘cash-all-gone’ by the wider energy industry – is back onstream with its first cargo having been dispatched and a gradual uptick in production to 370,000 barrels per day (bpd) expected by the fourth quarter of 2017.

Discovered at the turn of the millennium, the much maligned Kashagan has cost at least $50 billion so far. A report by CNN Money back in 2012 claimed a staggering $116 billion had been spent, something that those involved hotly contest. Deemed the main source of supply for the Kazakhstan-China Oil pipeline, the field also has a $5 billion stake in it owned by China.

While its good news all around, the only issue is that one of the most expensive offshore oil projects in the world is coming onstream at a time when the oil price is lurking around $50 per barrel and the market is wishing there were fewer barrels of the crude stuff rather than more.

With all gathering and processing infrastructure in place for a 2013 start, including 20 pre-drilled production wells, Kashagan could have captured the upside of record high oil prices if had production continued as planned back then, say the good folks at research and consulting outfit GlobalData. However, a pipeline leak scuppered it all back then and triggered another protracted delay.

Anna Belova, GlobalData’s Senior Oil & Gas Analyst, says,"Instead, the project has restarted in today's oversupplied market, and while the oil price has rebounded, the current levels would not justify Kashagan's full cycle capital expenditure (capex), which exceeds $47 billion to date."

One thing is all but guaranteed; more oil barrels are on their way to the global supply pool. Belova adds: "Current processing capacity for Kashagan’s Phase 1 with all three lines online targets 370,000 bpd, potentially increasing to 450,000 bpd but under the 495,000 bpd capacity.

"With a large number of pre-drilled wells and a multi-stage processing build-up, Kashagan is well positioned to reach its targeted capacity for Phase 1 by 2018. This paves the way for negotiations on full-field development that has a potential bring over 1.1 million bpd to global crude markets."

Wonder if someone has sent the projections to Russia and OPEC? For a real-terms cut of say 1.5 million bpd – should there by one from the first quarter of 2017 onward coordinated by Riyadh and Moscow – would be more or less made up by Kashagan alone within 12 months, forget other non-OPEC producers. What's more, much of it would be going straight via pipeline to China, currently the world's largest importer of crude.

As for the oil price, despite net-shorts being at their lowest in weeks, if US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) data is anything to go by, we are still stuck pretty much either side of $50 per barrel. Here's the Oilholic’s latest take in a Forbes post.

Meanwhile, a veritable who’s-who of oil and gas industry arrived in London last week for the Oil and Money Conference 2016, an industry jamboree that could well have been renamed – "Too Much Oil and Less Money" Conference for its latest installment. Beyond the soundbites and customary  schmoozing, this year's Petroleum Executive of the Year was Khalid Al-Falih, who has been in his job as Saudi Energy Minister for a really long five months, but the accolade one suspects was for his role as Chairman of Saudi Aramco.

However, the good thing about these annual industry shindigs is that you get to meet old friends, among whom the Oilholic counts Deborah Byers, EY’s Oil & Gas Leader and Managing Partner of its Houston Practice as one.

While EY is not in the business of price forecasting, Byers suggests the industry is adjusting to a new normal in the $40-60 per barrel range, one that would be hard to shake-off over the short-term barring a high magnitude geopolitical event.

“Even if OPEC cuts production in November, I believe market rebalancing in its wake would only last for a little while, with non-OPEC production also benefitting from any decision taken in Vienna.”

The pragmatic EY expert also doesn’t buy the argument made in certain quarters that the US either is or could be a swing producer. "In a classic sense, Saudi Arabia is the only global swing producer – it has significant reserves, the tapping of which it can turn up or down at will. You cannot replicate that scenario in non-OPEC markets, including the US. What the American shale sector can do is put a ceiling on the oil price and keep the market in check."

Away from oil prices, one final snippet before the Oilholic takes your leave; Moody's has upgraded all ratings of the beleaguered Petrobras, including the company's senior unsecured debt and corporate family rating (CFR), to B2 from B3, given "lower liquidity risk and prospects of better operating performance" in the medium term.

In a move following the close of markets on Friday, the ratings agency said that Petrobas' liquidity risk has declined over the last few months on the back of $9.1 billion in asset sales so far in 2016 and around $10 billion in exchanged notes during the third quarter, which extended the company's debt maturity profile

However, Moody’s cautioned that plenty still needs to be resolved. For instance, sidestepping existing financial woes, low oil prices, a class action lawsuit, the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC)'s civil investigation and the US Department of Justice (DoJ)'s criminal investigation related to bribery and corruption will negatively affect the company's cash position. Afterall, ascertaining the settlement amount remains unclear, and won't be known for some time yet. 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 IBTimes UK click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com 

© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo: Abandoned petrol station in Preston, Connecticut, USA ©

Todd Gipstein/National Geographic.

Oil bust of 2015 worse than you thought

While much of Wall Street appears to be at peace with the ‘lower for longer’ oil price slant, new research suggests the industry slump of 2015 was not as bad as we thought stateside; it was actually much worse! 

According to ratings agency Moody's, the oil bust that began in 2015 may turn out to be on par with the telecoms industry collapse of the early 2000s, and worse still it continues to fester. 

Both in terms of the number of recorded bankruptcies, as well as the recovery rates for creditors – 2015 was annus horribilis, with 2016 showing signs of making it look tame.

David Keisman, Senior Vice President at Moody's, says the agency recorded 17 oil & gas bankruptcies in 2015, with 15 coming from the Exploration & Production (E&P) sector, one from oilfield services, and one from drilling. Furthermore, Moody's E&P bankruptcies have accelerated in 2016, with the year-till-date figure about double that for all of 2015.

"The jump in oil and gas defaults that was driven by slumping commodity prices, was primarily responsible for the increase in the overall US default rate in 2015 and continues to fuel it in 2016. When all the data is in, including 2016 bankruptcies, it may very well turn out that this oil & gas industry crisis has created a segment-wide bust of historic proportions," Keisman adds.

That’s because during the telecoms collapse, Moody's recorded 43 company bankruptcies in the three-year period between 2001 and 2003.

Revealing further data, the agency said firm-wide recovery rates for E&P bankruptcies from 2015 averaged only 21%, significantly lower than the historical average of 58.6% for all E&P bankruptcies filed prior to 2015, and the overall historical average of 50.8% for all types of corporates that filed for bankruptcy protection between 1987-2015.

At the instrument level, reserve based loans on average recovered 81%, significantly lower than the 98% recovered in prior energy E&P bankruptcies from 1987-2014. Similarly, other bank debt instruments also on average recovered much less than in previous bankruptcies. For their part, high yield bonds recovered a dismal 6%, compared to a recorded rate in the low 30% in previous E&P bankruptcies.

Finally, Moody’s also notes that “distressed exchanges did little to stave off bankruptcies. More than half of the E&P companies that completed distressed exchanges ended up filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection within a year.”

The agency's sobering take follows those of its ratings industry rivals, with Fitch noting that all European oil majors are likely to generate large negative free cash flows for the full-year 2016, and S&P observing that energy and natural resources segment has the highest concentration of global corporate defaults by sector accounting for 65 issuers, or 56%, of the 117 defaults worldwide in the year to August-end. 

Away from industry doom and gloom, and just before yours truly bids goodbye to the Big Apple, one had the invitation to attend the ICIS Kavaler Award Gala reception sponsored by the Chemists Club at the City’s Metropolitan Club. 

This year’s winner was British serial Industrialist Jim Ratcliffe, the founder of chemicals firm Ineos. According to ICIS, Ratcliffe is the first foreign winner of the award, decided by his peers in the chemicals business. 

Pre-gala, the Oilholic had a drink to that; albeit one which was shaken not stirred, quite like much of the oil & gas industry is at the moment. That’s all from New York folks, with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania calling next! 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 IBTimes UK click here. 

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo 1: Wall Street Signage, New York, USA. Photo 2: The Oilholic in The Big Apple © Gaurav Sharma, September 2016

Volatile yet flat-ish Q1 points to $40-50/bbl price

The first quarter of 2016 has been pretty volatile for oil benchmarks. Yet if you iron out the relative daily ups and downs in percentage terms, both global benchmarks and the OPEC basket are marginally higher than early January (see chart left, click to enlarge). 

Brent, at $37.28 per barrel back then, ended Friday trading at $41.78, while WTI ended at $39.53, up from $37.04 in early January. That’s a fairly flat outcome following the end of a three-month period, but in line with the Oilholic’s conjecture of an initial slow creep above $40 per barrel by June, followed by yet another crawl up to  $50 per barrel (or thereabout) by Christmas (as the Oilholic opined on Forbes).

Moving on from pricing matters, a new report from GlobalData suggests crude refining capacity is set to increase worldwide from 96.2 million bpd in 2015 to 118.1 million bpd by 2020, registering a total growth of 18.5%.

In line with market expectations, the research and consulting firm agrees that global growth will be led by China and Southeast Asia. A total of $170 billion is expected to be spent in Asia alone to increase capacity by around 9 million bpd over the next four years, GlobalData added.

Matthew Jurecky, Head of Oil & Gas Research at the firm said: “The global refining landscape continues its shift eastwards; 40% of global refining capacity is projected to be in Asia by 2020, up from around 30% in 2010.

“China has led this growth, and is projected to have a 15% share of global crude refining capacity by 2020. This activity is putting pressure on other regional refiners, especially now that China has become a net exporter, and will become a larger one.”

In Europe, growth is expected to occur at a substantially slower rate. Although demand is decreasing and is less competitive, older refineries in Western Europe are being closed, these factors are being countered by investment in geographically advantaged and resource-rich Russia, which sees Europe’s capacity increasing marginally from 21.7 million bpd in 2015 to 22.5 million bpd by 2020.

Away the refining world to the integrated majors, with a few noteworthy ratings actions to report – Moody’s has downgraded Royal Dutch Shell to Aa2 with a negative outlook, Chevron to Aa2 with a stable outlook, Total to Aa3 with a stable outlook and reaffirmed BP at A2 with a positive outlook. 

Separately, Fitch Ratings has affirmed Halliburton at A-, with the oilfield services firm’s outlook revised to negative. 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

Fitch joins Moody’s in cutting oil price estimates

Barely a month after Moody’s drastically revised its oil price assumptions, rival Fitch Ratings followed suit last week. Writing to clients, Fitch said its new base case is for Brent and WTI oil prices to average $35 per barrel in 2016. 

It had previously expected oil to average $45 per barrel. However, Fitch’s long-term base case price assumptions remain unchanged at $65 per barrel. The ratings agency said its drastic revision was down to a combination of stock build-up over the mild winter, higher-than-expected OPEC production in January and increasing evidence that global economic growth for the year will be weaker than previously forecast.

“This suggests there will still be a supply surplus in the second half of 2016, albeit reduced from current levels, and that markets will probably only reach a balance in 2017. Even then, very high inventories will limit price increases,” Fitch added.

In light of recent volatility, Fitch’s reworking of price assumptions is hardly a surprise, and on Jan 21st rival Moody’s had done likewise. The latter lowered its 2016 price estimate for both Brent WTI to $33 per barrel.

In Moody’s case, for Brent, it marked a $10 per barrel reduction from the rating agency's previous estimate, and for WTI, a $7 reduction. It currently expects both benchmark prices to rise by $5 per barrel on average in 2017 and 2018. The move also represented Moody’s second revision is as many months, having already slashed estimates back in December.

Terry Marshall, Senior Vice President at the ratings agency, said, "OPEC countries continue high levels of production in the battle for market share, contributing to the current oil glut despite moderate consumption growth by key consumers such as China, India and the US.

“In addition, we expect the rise in Iranian oil output this year to offset or exceed production cuts in the US."

So more cheer for the bears it seems, but little else. Volatility is likely to persist until June, but for the record, the Oilholic expects a very gradual climb in the oil price towards $50 per barrel from then onwards, as one wrote in a recent Forbes column. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo: Oil production facility © Cairn Energy

Get used to crude swings & volatility

Oil markets are likely to face further bouts of volatility. When Saudi Arabia and Russia, together with Venezuela and Qatar, offered the false hope of a so-called production freeze packaged in the shape of market support last week, the Oilholic wasn't the only one who did not buy it.

Predictably, oil futures rose by over 7% towards the middle of last week, but rapidly slipped into negative territory as Iran, while welcoming the move, did not say whether it would participate. In any case, the move itself was a farce of international proportions.

The Russians can’t raise their production further, while the Saudis have little exporting to room to justify a further output hike. So for market consumption it was packaged as a freeze, subsequently undermined by both countries who said they had no intentions of cutting production. It might well have been the first joint move on output matters between OPEC and non-OPEC producers, but it virtually came to naught.

Unless a clear pattern of production declines appears on the horizon, market volatility will persist. That sort of clarity won’t arrive at least before June, with swings between $25-40 likely to continue, and yes a drop to $20 is still possible.

OPEC will need to announce a real terms production cut of 1.5 million barrels per day to make any meaningful short-term difference to the oil price by $7-10 per barrel, and even that may not be sustainable with non-OPEC producers likely to be the primary beneficiaries of such a move.

Expect more of the same, and more downgrades of oil and gas companies by ratings agencies of the sort the market has gotten used to in recent months. After Fitch Ratings downgraded Shell last week, Moody’s moved to place another 29 of its rated US exploration and production firms on review for downgrade over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the latter also said continued low oil prices could have an increasingly negative impact on banks across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). This could occur both directly - by a weakening in governments' capacity and willingness to support domestic banks - and indirectly, through a weakening of banks' operating conditions, Moody’s added.

Khalid Howladar, senior credit officer at Moody's, said, "Despite low oil prices and a high dependency on oil revenues across the GCC countries, banks' ratings in the region continue to benefit from their governments' willingness to tap accumulated wealth to support counter-cyclical spending."

But continued oil price declines signal "increasing challenges" to the sustainability of this dynamic, he added.

Finally, some news from the North Sea to end with – Genscape has flagged up the shutdown and restart of BP’s 1.15mn bpd Forties Pipeline System in a note to clients. It caused the April ICE Brent futures contract price to spike before falling slightly on February 12, but nothing to be overtly concerned about.

The system was shut due to an issue at the Kinneil fractionaction terminal, located where the flow from the North Sea on the Forties pipeline system is stabilised for consumption. Elsewhere, North Sea E&P firm First Oil is reportedly filing for involuntary administration, according to the BBC.

Enquest and Cairn Energy will takeover its 15% stake in Kraken field, east of Aberdeen in the British sector of the North Sea. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo: Oil rig in the North Sea © BP

Ho hum moves for fewer oil drums

In case you have been on another planet and haven’t heard, after weeks of chatter about coordinated oil output cuts by OPEC and non-OPEC producers, we finally had some movement. The Oilholic deploys the word 'movement' here rather cagily.

Three OPEC members led by heavyweight Saudi Arabia, with Qatar and Venezuela in tow, joined hands with the Russians, to announce a production ‘freeze’ at January’s output levels  on Tuesday, provided ‘others’ agree to do likewise. 

The most important others happen to be Iraq and Iran who haven’t exactly come out in support of the said freeze just yet. Even if they do agree, or in fact all OPEC members agree, the freeze would come at production levels deemed to be historical highs for both the Russians and OPEC. In case of the latter, industry surveys and data from aggregators as diverse as Platts and Bloomberg points to all 12 exporting OPEC nations collectively pumping above 32 million barrels per day.

Predictably, the oil futures market treated the news of the 'freeze' with the sort of disdain it deserved. The price remains stuck in the range where it has been and short-term volatility is likely to last; so much of what transpired was, well, exceedingly boring from a market standpoint, excepting that it was the first instance of OPEC and non-OPEC coordinated action in 15 years. 

If OPEC really wants to support prices, an uptick in the region of $7-10 per barrel would require the cartel to introduce a real terms cut of 1.5 million bpd. Even then, the gains would short-term, and the only people benefitting would be North American players. Some of them are the very wildcatters, whose tenacity for surviving when oil is staying ‘lower for longer’, OPEC has so far failed to work out with any strategic coherence. Expect more of the same in a market that's still awash with crude oil. 

Finally, just before one takes your leave, it seems Moody's has placed on review for downgrade the Aa3 ratings of China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), Sinopec Group, Sinopec Corp, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC Group) and CNOOC Limited.

The ratings agency has also placed on review for downgrade the ratings of the Chinese national oil companies' rated subsidiaries, including Kunlun Energy Company Limited, CNPC Finance (HK) Limited, CNPC Captive Insurance Company Limited, CNOOC Finance Corporation Ltd, and Sinopec Century Bright Capital Investment Limited.

In a statement, Moody’s said global rating actions on many energy companies, reflect its efforts to "recalibrate the ratings in the energy portfolio to align with the fundamental shift in the credit conditions of the global energy sector." Can’t argue with that! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2016. Photo: Oil exploration site in Russia © LukOil

A crude rout & all those downgrades

Both Brent and WTI futures are trading at their lowest levels since 2008 and previous weeks have offered some spectacular declines, if there is such a thing as that!

Biggest of the declines were noted when Brent fell by 12.65% and WTI by 11.90% between Friday, December 4th and Friday, December 11th using 2130 GMT as the cut-off point for 5-day week-on-week assessment. Following that, like January, we had another spread inversion in favour of the WTI, with the US benchmark trading at a premium to global proxy Brent for a good few sessions before slipping lower, as both again got dragged lower in lacklustre post-Christmas trading.

It all points to the year ending just as it began - with a market rout, as yours truly explained in some detail via a recent Forbes post. With nearly 3 million barrels per day of surplus oil hitting the market, the scenario is unavoidable. While the situation cannot and will not last, oversupply will not disappear overnight either. 

The Oilholic reckons it will be at least until the third quarter of 2016 before the glut shows noticeable signs of easing, mostly at the expense of non-OPEC supplies. That said, unless excess flow dips below 1 million bpd, it is doubtful ancillary influences such as geopolitical risk would come into play. 

For the moment, one still maintains an end-2016 Brent forecast near $60 per barrel and would revisit it in the New Year. Much will depend on the relative strength of the dollar in wake of US Federal Reserve’s interest rate hike, but Kit Juckes, Head of Forex at Societe Generale, says quite possibly commodity markets fear even a dovish Fed!

Meanwhile, with the oil market rout in full swing, rating agencies are queuing up predictable downgrades and negative outlooks. Moody’s described the global commodity downturn as “exceptionally severe in its depth and breadth” and expects it to be a substantial factor driving the number of defaults higher on a global basis in 2016.

Collapsing commodity prices have placed a significant strain on credit quality in the oil and gas, metals and mining sectors. These sectors have accounted for a disproportionately large 36% of Moody’s downgrades and 48% of defaults among all corporates globally so far this year. The agency anticipates continued credit deterioration and a spike in defaults in these sectors in 2016.

Over the past four weeks, we’ve had Moody's downgrade several household energy companies, including all ratings for Petrobras and ratings based on the Brazilian oil giant's guarantee, covering the company's senior unsecured debt rating, to Ba3 from Ba2. Concurrently, the company's baseline credit assessment (BCA) was lowered to b3 from b2. 

“These rating actions reflect Petrobras' elevated refinancing risks in the face of deteriorating industry conditions that make it more difficult to raise cash through asset sales; tighter financing conditions for companies in Brazil and in the oil industry, coupled with the magnitude of eventual needs to finance debt maturities; as well as the company's negative free cash flow,” Moody’s explained.

It also downgraded Schlumberger Holdings to A2; with its outlook changed to negative for Holdings and Schlumberger. "The downgrade of Schlumberger Holdings to A2 reflects the expected large increase in debt outstanding related to the adjustment of its capital structure following the Cameron acquisition," commented Pete Speer, Moody's Senior Vice President.

Corporate family rating of EnQuest saw a Moody’s downgrade to B3 from B1 and probability of default ratings to B3-PD from B1-PD. Of course, it’s not just oilfield and oil companies feeling the heat; Moody’s also downgraded the senior unsecured ratings of Anglo American and its subsidiaries to Baa3 from Baa2, its short term ratings to P-3 from P-2, and so it goes in the wider commodities sphere.

In the past week, outlook for Australia’s Woodside Petroleum outlook was changed to negative, while the ratings of seven Canadian and 29 US E&P companies were placed on review for downgrade. And so went the final month of the year. 

Not just that, the ratings agency also cut its oil price assumption for 2016, lowering Brent estimates to average $43 from $53 per barrel in 2016, and WTI to $40 from $48 per barrel. Moody’s said “continued high levels of oil production” by global producers were significantly exceeding demand growth, predicting the supply-demand equilibrium will only be reached by the end of the decade at around $63 per barrel for Brent. 

While, the Oilholic doesn’t quite agree that it would take until the end of the decade for supply-demand balance to be achieved, mass revisions tell you a thing or two about the mood in the market. Meanwhile, at a sovereign level, Fitch Ratings says low oil prices will continue to weigh on the sovereign credit profiles of major exporters in 2016. Of course, the level of vulnerability varies.

“In the last 12 months, we have downgraded five sovereigns where oil revenues accounted for a large proportion of general government and/or current external receipts. Another three - Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Republic of Congo - were not downgraded but saw Outlook revisions to Negative from Stable,” the agency said in a pre-Christmas note to clients.

It is now all down to who can manage to stay afloat and maintain production as the oil price stays ‘lower for longer’. Non-OPEC producers will in all likelihood run into financing difficulties, as one said in an OPEC webcast on December 4, with Brent ending 2015 over 35% lower on an annualised basis.

Finally, the Oilholic believes it is highly unlikely a divided OPEC will vote for a unanimous production cut even at its next meeting in June. For what’s it worth, $35 per barrel could be the norm for quite a bit of 2016. So in 12 months’ time, the oil and gas landscape could be very, very different. That’s all for 2015 folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Graph: Oil benchmark Friday closes, Q4 2015 © Gaurav Sharma / Oilholics Synonymous Report, December 2015. Photo: Gaurav Sharma speaking at the 168th OPEC Ministers' Meeting in Vienna, Austria © OPEC Secretariat.

Upstream woes denting midstream prospects

In wake of weak oil prices, the upstream side of this ‘crude’ world is going through the worst cyclical downturn in years. The Oilholic’s most conservative of estimates sees the situation staying the way it is, if not worsening, for at least another 15 months.

In fact, one feels fresh investment towards exploration and production (E&P) could remain depressed for as much as 18 to 24 months. Both Fitch Ratings and Moody’s have negative outlooks on the upstream industry, as 2015 looks set to end as the year with the lowest average Brent price since 2005.

National Oil Companies (NOCs), bleeding cash reserves in order to stay in the game and put rivals out of it, are maximising existing onstream capabilities. Meanwhile, International Oil Companies (IOCs) looking to cut costs, are delaying final investment decisions on E&P projects at the moment.

As one wrote on Forbes, Big Oil is gearing up for a $60 breakeven oil price for the next three years and capital expenditure cuts of 10%-15% in 2016 with far reaching consequences. Of course, the pain will extend well beyond the obvious linear connection with oilfield services (OFS) and drilling companies.

Global midstream growth is getting hammered by E&P cuts too, according anecdotal evidence from reliable contacts at advisory firms either side of the pond. Most point to a Moody’s subscriber note issued on November 6, that set out the ratings agency’s stable outlook on the US midstream sector, but also suggested that industry EBITDA [Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortisation] growth will struggle to cap 5% in 2016.

Andrew Brooks, Senior Analyst at Moody’s, noted: "For the past five years, the midstream industry has rapidly ramped up investment in infrastructure projects to serve the E&P industry's extensive investment in US oil and gas shale resource plays. 

"But now deep cuts in the E&P sector and continued low oil and natural gas prices will limit midstream spending through at least early 2017."

There was a sense in Houston, Texas, US when the Oilholic last went calling in February and again in May this year that midstream companies have already built much, if not most, of the infrastructure required for US shale production. Therefore it is only logical for ratings agencies and analysts to suggest incremental EBITDA growth will slow as fewer new shale and tight oil assets go into service. 

Only thing in midstream players' favour over the next, or quite possibly two, lean fiscal year(s) is the linkage they provide between producers and downstream markets. In Moody’s view this need would mitigate some of the risk of slower growth, even if gathering and processing margins remain at cyclical lows.

"And the midstream sector should be more insulated from contract renegotiation risk with upstream operators having less flexibility to force price concessions on midstream services companies than they have had with OFS firms and drillers," Brooks concluded.

So all things considered, midstream is perhaps not as deeply impacted as E&P, OFS segments of the oil and gas business, but suffering it most certainly 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 2015. Photo: Pipeline signage, Fairfax, Virginia, USA © O. Louis Mazzatenta / National Geographic

Grappling with volatility in a barmy crude market

The oil market is not making a whole lot of sense at present to a whole lot of people; the Oilholic is admittedly one of them. However, wherever you apportion the blame for the current market volatility, do not take the convenient route of laying it all at China’s doorstep. That would be oversimplification!

It is safe to say this blogger hasn’t seen anything quite as barmy over the last decade, not even during the post Lehman Brothers kerfuffle as a US financial crisis morphed into a global one. That was in the main a crisis of demand, what’s afoot is one triggered first and foremost by oversupply. 

As one noted in a recent Forbes column, the oversupply situation – not just for oil but a whole host of commodities – merits a deeper examination. The week before we saw oil benchmarks plummet after the so-called ‘Black Monday’ (August 24) only for it recover by Friday and end higher on a week-over-week basis compared to the previous week’s close (see graph above, click to enlarge)

This was followed on Monday, August 31 by some hefty gains of over 8% for both Brent and WTI. Yet at the time of writing this blog post some 48 hours later, Brent had shed over 10% and the WTI over 7% on Tuesday but again gained 1.72% and 1.39% respectively on Wednesday.

The reasons for driving prices down were about as fickle as they were for driving them up and subsequently pulling them down again, and so it goes. When the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported on Monday that the country’s oil production peaked at just above 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in April, before falling by more than 300,000 bpd over the following two months; those in favour of short-calling saw a window to really go for it.

They also drew in some vague OPEC comment (about wanting to support the price in tandem with other producers), knowing full well that the phoney rally would correct. The very next day, as the official purchasing managers’ index for Chinese manufacturing activity fell to 49.7 in August, from the previous month’s reading of 50, some serious profit-taking began.

As a figure below 50 signals a contraction, while a level above that indicates expansion, traders found the perfect pretext to drive the price lower. Calling the price higher based on back-dated US data on lower production in a heavily oversupplied market is about as valid as driving the price lower based on China’s manufacturing PMI data indicative of a minor contraction in activity. The Oilholic reckons it wasn’t about either but nervous markets and naked opportunism; bywords of an oversupplied market.

So at the risk of sounding like a broken record, this blogger again points out – oversupply to the tune of 1.1-1.3 million bpd has not altered. China’s import level has largely averaged 7 million bpd for much of the year so far, except May. 

Yours truly is still sticking to the line of an end of year Brent price of $60 per barrel with a gradual supply correction on the cards over the remaining months of 2015 with an upside risk. Chances of Iran imminently flooding the market are about as likely as US shale oil witnessing a dramatic decline to an extent some in OPEC continue to dream off.

But to get an outside perspective, analysts at HSBC also agree it may take some time for the market to rebalance fully. “The current price levels look completely unsustainable to us and a combination of OPEC economics and marginal costs of production point to longer-term prices being significantly higher,” they wrote in a note to clients.

The bank is now assuming a Brent average of $55.4 per barrel in 2015, rising to $60 in 2016 and $70-80 for 2017/18. Barclays and Deutsche Bank analysts also have broadly similar forecasts, as does Moody’s for its ratings purposes.

The ratings agency sees a target price of $75 achieved by the turn of the decade, but for yours truly that moment is bound to arrive sooner. In the meantime, make daily calls based on the newsflow in this barmy market. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it crude!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Graph: Oil benchmark Friday closes, Jan 2 to Aug 28, 2015 © Gaurav Sharma, August 2015.

Assessing BP’s settlement with the US authorities

BP’s recent settlement with the US authorities does not end the company's legal woes related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, but it is a vital step in the direction of bringing financial closure to the accident.

When the oil major announced on July 2, that it had reached agreements in principle to settle all federal and state claims arising from the oil spill at a cost of up to $18.7 billion spread over 18 years, markets largely welcomed the move. On a day when the crude oil futures market was in reverse, BP’s share price rose by 4.69% by the close of trading in London, contrary to prevailing trading sentiment, as investors absorbed the welcome news. 

Above anything else, the agreement provides certainty about major aspects of BP's financial exposure in wake of the oil spill. As per the deal, BP’s US Upstream subsidiary – BP Exploration and Production (BPXP) – has executed agreements with the federal government and five Gulf Coast States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Under the said terms, BPXP will pay the US government a civil penalty of $5.5 billion over 15 years under the country’s Clean Water Act.

It will also pay $7.1 billion to the US and the five Gulf states over 15 years for natural resource damages (NRD), in addition to the $1 billion already committed for early restoration. BPXP will also set aside an additional $232 million to be added to the NRD interest payment at the end of the payment period to cover any further natural resource damages that are unknown at the time of the agreement.

A total of $4.9 billion will be paid over 18 years to settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast states, while up to $1 billion will be paid to resolve claims made by more than 400 local government entities. Finally, what many thought was going to be a prolonged tussle with US authorities might be coming to an end via payments, huge for some and not large enough for others, spread over a substantially long time frame.

BP’s chief executive Bob Dudley described the settlement as a “realistic outcome” which provides clarity and certainty for all parties. “For BP, this agreement will resolve the largest liabilities remaining from the tragic accident and enable the company to focus on safely delivering the energy the world needs.”

The impact of the settlement on the company’s balance sheet and cashflow will be “manageable” and allow it to continue to invest in and grow its business, said chief financial officer Brian Gilvary. As individual and business claims continue, BP said the expected impact of these agreements would be to increase the cumulative pre-tax charge associated with the spill by around $10 billion from $43.8 billion already allocated at the end of the first quarter.

While the settlement is still awaiting court approval, credit ratings agencies largely welcomed the move, alongside many City brokers whose notes to clients were seen by the Oilholic. Fitch Ratings said the deal will considerably strengthen BP’s credit profile, which had factored in “the potential for a larger settlement that took much longer to agree”.

Should the agreement be finalised on the same terms, it is likely to result in positive rating action from the agency. Fitch currently rates BP 'A' with a ‘Negative Outlook.’

Alex Griffiths, Managing Director, Fitch Ratings, said: “While BP had amassed ample liquidity to deal with most realistic scenarios, the scale and uncertain timing of the payment of outstanding fines and penalties remained a key driver of BP's financial profile in our modelling, and had the potential to place a large financial burden on the company amid an oil price slump.

“The certainty the deal provides, and the deferral of the payments over a long period, gives BP the opportunity to improve its balance sheet profile and navigate the current downturn.”

Meanwhile, Moody's has already changed to ‘positive’ from ‘negative’ the outlook on A2 long-term debt and Prime-1 commercial paper ratings of BP and its guaranteed subsidiaries. In wake of the settlement, the ratings agency also changed to ‘positive’ from ‘negative’, its outlook on the A3 and Baa1 Issuer Ratings of BP Finance and BP Corporation North America, respectively.

Tom Coleman, a Moody's Senior Vice President, said: “While the settlement is large, we view the scope and extended payout terms as important and positive developments for BP, allowing it to move forward with a lot more certainty around the size and cash flow burden of its legal liabilities.

“It will also help clarify a stronger core operating and credit profile for BP as it moves into a post-Macondo era.”

The end is not within sight just yet, but some semblance of it is likely to attract new investors. BP's second quarter results are due on July 28, and quite a few eyes, including this blogger’s, will be on the company for clues about the future direction. But that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.
To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.
To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Support ships in the Gulf of Mexico © BP

Oil markets & producers on a tricky skating rink

So we had a crude oil price plunge early January, followed by a spike that promptly "un-spiked", only to rise from the ashes and subsequently go down the path of decline again. Expect further slippage, more so as the last week of profit taking takes place before the March futures contracts close, which in ICE Brent’s case would be February 13.

Amid the ups and downs of the last six weeks, headline writers were left tearing their hair on a daily basis switching from "Brent extends rally" to "Oil slides despite OPEC talk of a floor" to "Falling Premiums" to "Crude oil getting hammered" and back to "Oil jumps". All the while commentators queued up with some predicting a return to a US$100 per barrel Brent price "soon", alongside those sounding warnings about a drop to $10.

The actual market reality is both here and nowhere, as we enter a period of constant slides and spikes between $40 and $60. There are those who say the current oil price level cannot be sustained and supply-side analysts, including the Oilholic, who say the current oil production levels cannot be sustained. Both parties are correct – a price spike and a supply correction will happen in tandem, but not overnight.

It will take at least until the summer for sentiments about lower production levels to feed through, if not longer. More so, as many are gearing up to produce more with less, for example in Western Canada where fewer wells would be dug this year, but the production tally would be higher than the previous year. Taking a macro viewpoint, all the chatter of bull runs, bear attacks and subsequent rallies is just that – chatter. Market fundamentals have not materially altered.

Despite the latest Baker Hughes data showing fewer operational rigs compared to this point last year, the glut persists and there is some way to go before it alters. Roughly around 5% of current global oil production is taking place at a loss. Yet producers are biting the bullet wary of losing market share. It'll take a lot longer than a few weeks of negative rig data in the new year, before someone eventually blinks and makes a substantial impact on production levels. The Oilholic reckons it will be around June.

Until then, expect the market to continue skating in the $40 to $60 rink. In fact, there is some justification in OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri’s claim that oil prices have bottomed out. While we could have a momentary dip below $40, something which the Western Canadian Select has already faced. However, by and large benchmark prices have indeed found resistance above $40. 

Having said so, the careful thing to do between now and (at least) June would be to not get carried away by useless chatter. When Brent shed 11.44% in the first five trading days of January, only to more than recover the lost ground by the end of the month (see chart on the right, click to enlarge), some called it a mini-bull run.

Percentages are always relative and often misleading in the volatile times we see at the moment, as one noted in a recent Tip TV broadcast. So mini-bull run claims were laughable. As for the eventual supply correction, capex reduction is already afoot. BP, Shell, BG Group and several other large and small companies have announced spending cuts. A recent Genscape study of 95 US exploration and production (E&P) companies noted a cumulative capex decline of 27%, from $44.5 billion last year to a projected $32.5 billion this year.

Meanwhile, Igor Sechin, the boss of Russia’s Rosneft has denied the country would be the first to blink and lower production in a high stakes game. Quite the contrary, Sechin compared the US shale boom to the dotcom bubble and rambled about the American position not being backed up by crude reserves.

He also accused OPEC along familiar lines of conspiring with Western nations, especially the US, to hurt Russia. Moving away from silly conspiracy theories, Sechin does have a point – the impact of a lower oil price on shale is hard to predict and is currently being put to test. We’ll know more over the next two to three quarters.

However, comparing the shale bonanza to the dotcom bubble suggests wilful ignorance of a few basic facts. Unlike the dotcom bubble, where a plethora of so-called technology firms put forward their highly leveraged, unproven, profit lacking ventures pitched to investors by Wall Street as the next big thing, independent shale oil upstarts have a ready, proven product to sell in barrels.

Of course, operational constraints and high levels of leveraging remain burdensome in a bearish oil market. While that might cause difficulties for fringe shale players, established ones will carry on regardless and find ways to mitigate exposure to volatility.

In case of the dotcom bubble, where some had nothing of proven tangible value to sell, independents tipped over like dominos when the bubble burst, apart from those who had a plan. For instance, the likes of Amazon or eBay have survived and thrived to see their stock price recover well above the dotcom boom levels.

Finally, in case of US shale players, ingenuity of the wildcatters catapulted them to where they are with a readily marketable product to sell. There is anecdotal evidence of that same ingenuity kicking in tandem with extraction process advancements thereby making E&P activity viable even at a $40 Brent price for many if not all.

So it's not quite like Pets.com if you know what the Oilholic means. Sechin’s point might be valid but its elucidation is daft. Furthermore, US shale players might have troubling days ahead, but trouble is something the Russian oil producers can see quite clearly on their horizon too. Additionally, shale plays have technological cooperation aimed at lowering costs on their side. Sanctions mean sharing of international technology to sustain or boost production as well as lower costs is off limits for the moment for Russia.

On a closing note, its being hotly disputed these days whether and by how much lower oil prices boost global economic activity, as one noted in a recent World Finance journal video broadcast. Entering the debate this week, Moody’s said lower oil prices might well give the US economy a boost in the next two years, but will fail to lift global growth significantly as headwinds from the Eurozone, China, Brazil and Japan would dent economic activity.

Despite lower oil prices, the agency has maintained its GDP growth forecast for the G20 countries at just under 3% in both 2015 and 2016, broadly unchanged from 2014. Moody's outlook is based on the assumption that Brent will average $55 in 2015, rising to $65 on average in 2016. 

It assumes that oil prices will stay near current levels in 2015 because demand and supply conditions are "unlikely to change markedly" in the near future, as The Oilholic has been banging on many a blog post including this one. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Danger of slipping sign. Graph: Oil Benchmark Prices, January 2015 © Gaurav Sharma

OPEC just about gets the basics right

On occasion, signs around Austrian bars and shops selling souvenirs humorously tell tourists to get one basic fact right – there are no kangaroos in Austria! In more ways than one, last week’s OPEC meeting in Vienna was also about getting its 12 member nations to recognise some basic truths – not so much about the absence of marsupials around but rather about  surplus oil in the market.

Assessing demand, which is tepid in any case at the moment, comes secondary when there is too much of the crude stuff around in the first place. Of late, OPEC has become just a part player, albeit one with a 30% share, in the oil market’s equivalent of supermarket pricing wars on the high street, as the Oilholic discussed on Tip TV. Faced with such a situation, cutting production at the risk of losing market share would have been counterproductive.

Not everyone agreed with the idea of maintaining production quota at 30 million barrels per day (bpd). Some members desperate for a higher oil price were dragged around to the viewpoint kicking and screaming. Ultimately, the Saudis made the correct call in refusing to budge from their position of not wanting a cut in production.

Though ably supported by Kuwait, UAE and Qatar in his stance, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi effectively sealed the outcome of the meeting well ahead of the formal announcement. Had OPEC decided to cut production, its members would have lost out in a buyers’ market. Had it decided on a production cut and the Saudis flouted it, the whole situation would have been farcical.

In any case, what OPEC is producing has remained open to debate since the current level was set in December 2011. The so-called cartel sees members routinely flout set quotas. In the absence of publication of individual members’ quotas, who is producing what is never immediately ascertained.

Let’s not forget that Libya and Iraq don’t have set quotas owing to leeway provided in wake of internal strife. All indications are that OPEC is producing above 30 million bpd, in the region of 600,000 barrels upwards or more. Given the wider dynamic, it's best to take in short term pain, despite reservations expressed by Iran, Venezuela and Nigeria, in order to see what unfolds over the coming months.

After OPEC’s decision, the market response was pretty predictable but a tad exaggerated. In the hours following Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri’s quote that OPEC had maintained production in the interest of “market equilibrium and global wellbeing”, short sellers were all over both oil futures benchmark.

By 21:30 GMT on Friday (the following day), both Brent and WTI had shed in excess of $10 per barrel (see right, click to enlarge). That bearish sentiment prevailed after the decision makes sense, but the market also got a little ahead of itself.

The start of this week has been calmer in part recognition of the latter point. Predictions of $40 per barrel Brent price are slightly exaggerated in the Oilholic’s opinion.

Agreed, emerging markets economic activity remains lacklustre. Even India has of late started to disappoint again after an upshot in economic confidence noted in wake of current Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphatic election victory in May. Yet, demand is likely to pick-up gradually. Additionally, a price decline extending over a quarter inevitably triggers exploration and production (E&P) project delays if not cancellations, which in turn trigger forward supply forecast alterations. 

This could kick-in at $60 and provide support to prices. In fact, it could even be at $70 barring, of course, the exception of a severe downturn in which case all bets are off. Much has also been said about OPEC casually declaring it won’t convene again for six months. Part of it fed in to market sentiment last week, but this blogger feels saying anything other than that would have been interpreted as a further sign of panic thereby providing an additional pretext for those going short.

Let’s put it this way - should the oil price fall to $40 there will definitely be another OPEC meeting before June! So why announce one now and create a point of expectation? For the moment, OPEC isn’t suffering alone; many producers are feeling different levels of pain. US independent E&P companies (moderate), Canada (mild), Mexico (moderate) and Russia (severe) - would be this blogger's pain level call for the aforementioned.

The first quarter of 2015 would be critical and one still sees price stabilisation either side of the $70-level. One minor footnote before taking your leave - amidst the OPEC melee last week, a client note from Moody’s arrived into the Oilholic’s inbox saying the agency expects Chinese demand for refined oil products to increase by 3%-5% per annum through 2015. This compares to 5%-10% in 2010-2012.

It also doesn’t expect the benchmark Singapore complex refining margin to weaken substantially below the level of $6 per barrel because lower effective capacity additions and refinery delays will reduce supply, while “the recent easing in oil prices should support product demand.” 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: No Kangaroos in Austria plaque Graph: Weekly closing levels of oil benchmark prices since Oct 3, 2014 to date* © Gaurav Sharma.