Oil will rally in 2021 but joy would be short-lived

Oh what a 'crude' year 2020 turned out to be as the Covid-19 pandemic ravaged the global economy and our lives, and even briefly created the aberration of negative oil prices back in April. Few would be unhappy to see the back of 2020, and the Oilholic is most certainly among them.

However, as a new trading year beckons, it is best cut out the din, and trade both the direction of the oil market as well as energy stocks with a level head. First off, all the doomsday oil demand decline scenarios from earlier in the year, of as much as 20 million barrels per day (bpd) on 2019 levels, simply did not materialise.

The actual figure is likely to be shy of 9 million bpd, which, while wiping out nearly a decade's worth of demand growth on an annualised basis, is nowhere near as catastrophic. Economic signals point to a rebound in post-pandemic demand when human mobility, consumption and core economic activity, especially in East Asia and the Indian subcontinent begin a rapid bounce back in 2021.

So what of the oil price? Using Brent as a benchmark, the Oilholic envisages a short-lived bounce to $60 per barrel before/by the midway point of the year, and on the slightest nudge that civil aviation is limping back to normal. However, yours truly firmly believes it won't last.

That's because the uptick would create a crude producers' pile-on regardless of what OPEC+ does or doesn't. Say what people might, US shale isn't dead and there remains a competitive market for American crude, especially light sweet crude, that will perk up in 2021.

Other non-OPEC producers will continue to up production on firmer oil prices as well. And finally, a Joe Biden White House would bring incremental Iranian barrels into play even if the return of the Islamic Republic's barrels is more likely to be a trickle rather than a waterfall. All of the above factors will combine to create a sub-$60/bbl median for the demand recovery year that 2021 will be. And the said price range of $50-60 will be just fine for many producers.

As for energy stocks, who can escape the battering they took in 2020. By the Oilholic's calculations, valuations on average fell by 35% on an annualised basis, and nearly 50% for some big names in the industry. 

However, based on fundamentals, where the oil price is likely to average in 2021 (~base case $55/bbl), portfolio optimisation and an uptick in demand, yours truly expects at least a third of that valuation decline to be clawed back over the next 12 months. And depending on how China and India perform, we could see a 15-20% uptick.

Of course, not all energy stocks will shine equally, and the Oilholic isn't offering investment advice. But if asked to pick out of the 'crude' lot – the horses yours truly would back in 2021 would be BP and Chevron. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'! Here's to 2021!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

To email: journalist_gsharma@yahoo.co.uk

© Gaurav Sharma 2020. Photo: Terry McGraw/Pixabay

Gauging crude sentiments in Houston Town

The Oilholic is back in Houston, Texas for a plethora of events and another round of crude meetings. The weather in the oil and gas capital of the world at the moment seems to be mirroring what’s afoot in the wider industry, for there's rain, clouds, thunderstorms and the occasional ray of sunshine.

The industry’s mood hasn’t progressively darkened though; in fact it’s a bit better compared to when yours truly was last here exactly 12 months ago. Dire forecasts of $20 per barrel have not materialised, and forecasts of shale players in mature viable plays surviving at $35+ per barrel are appearing to be true. Additionally, the oil price is sticking in the $40-50 range.

That’s not to say another round of hedging will save everyone; bankruptcies within the sector continue to rise stateside. On the plus side US oil exports are now permitted and the speed with which President Barack Obama did away with a decades old embargo came as a pleasant surprise to much of the industry both within and beyond Houston. 

Finally, the US Energy Information Administration's recently released International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) projects that world energy consumption will grow by 48% between 2012 and 2040.

Most of this growth will come from countries that are not in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including countries where demand is driven by strong economic growth, particularly in Asia, says the Department of Energy’s statistics arm. Non-OECD Asia, including China and India, account for more than half of the world's total increase in energy consumption over the projection period. 

Plenty of exporting potential for US oil then! That’s all for the moment from Houston 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: Downtown Houston, Texas, US © Gaurav Sharma.

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.

A superb dissection of global oil & gas depletion

Any analysis of oil and gas depletion is always tricky and often coloured by opposing arguments, disinformation, politics, tangential debates about the resource curse hypothesis and extractive techniques. Given this backdrop, veteran industry analyst Colin J. Campbell’s attempt to tackle the subject via his Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion, currently in its second edition, is nothing short of historic.

 

This epic work banks on decades of painstaking research undertaken by Campbell in his quest to provide definitive and pragmatic commentary on the subject of depletion. Nine parts and 77 chapters split this weighty, authoritative volume on the subject; wherein part by part, page by page it examines oil and gas depletion by region and jurisdictions. Not only has geology been taken into consideration but also the political climate of each region and country in question. The author also discusses the impact of emergent technologies and the costs involved relative to each E&P jurisdiction with a separate examination of conventional and unconventional sources.

Accompanying discourse on the history of the oil and gas business is carved up into two halves – the first half discusses the formation of the oil industry, which oversaw (or rather fuelled) the exponential growth of the global economy. The second half talks of a contraction as the easy to extract supplies dwindle, and the barrel spent per barrel extracted equation starts getting more and more worrying.

 

Campbell also discusses reporting practices and industry data interpretation techniques. The Atlas switches seamlessly to a country-by-country analysis in alphabetical order by continent. Every country imaginable in the context of the oil and gas business and even those that are unimaginable in mainstream discourse about our 'crude' world are examined, substantiated by industry data and accompanying graphics.

 

For purposes of reviewing the contents, the Oilholic selected 10 jurisdictions commonly associated with the E&P industry and another 10 jurisdictions, hitherto considered net oil importers. This blogger was quite simply blown away by sincerity and effort of the research, along with the brevity with which jurisdictional summation was provided duly taking each country’s 'crude' history into the equation. As a reader, you appreciate a book when it adds to your knowledge; Campbell’s Atlas certainly did it for yours truly.

 

If you are looking for an authoritative analysis of oil and gas depletion, minus caricature, clichés and political statements, but full of rational and apolitical scrutiny of the costs involved with extracting oil and gas, then look no further than this book. For an evolving industry, which has a finite natural resource as its core offering, Campbell’s Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion is likely to stand the test of time.

The Oilholic is happy to recommend this book, and humbled to provide a review for the research conducted by an analyst of Campbell's credentials. The Atlas will educate and inform those interested in the oil and gas industry's future and the challenges it faces – be they existential or commercial. In particular, those professionals involved with policymaking, petroleum economics, history of the oil and gas business, academia and market analysis.

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front Cover - Campbell’s Atlas of Oil and Gas Depletion © Springer 2013

On a 'crude' UK raid, IEA & the 'Houston glut'

There was only story in London town last week, when late in the day on May 14, European Commission (EC) regulators swooped down on the offices of major oil companies having R&M operations in the UK, investigating fuel price fixing allegations. While the EC did not name names, BP, Shell and Statoil confirmed their offices had been among those ‘visited’ by the officials.

 

More details emerged overnight, as pricing information provider Platts admitted it was also paid a visit. The EC said the investigation relates to the pricing of oil, refined products and biofuels. As part of its probe, it will be examining whether the companies may have prevented others from participating in the pricing process in order to "distort" published prices.

 

That process, according to sources, is none other than Platts’ Market On Close (MOC) price assessment mechanism. "Any such behaviour, if established, may amount to violations of European antitrust rules that prohibit cartels and restrictive business practices and abuses of a dominant market position," the EC said, but clarified in the same breath that the raids itself did not imply any guilt on part of the companies.

 

The probe extends to alleged trading malpractices dating back almost over 10 years. All oil companies concerned, at least the ones who admitted to have been visited by EC regulators, said they were cooperating with the authorities. Platts issued a similar statement reiterating its cooperation.

 

So what does it mean? For starters, the line of inquiry is nothing new. Following a very vocal campaign led by British parliamentarian Robert Halfon, the UK's Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigated the issue of price fixing and exonerated the oil companies in January. Not satisfied, Halfon kept up the pressure and here we are.

 

"I have been raising the issue of alleged fuel price fixing time and again in the House of Commons. With the EC raids, I'd say the OFT has been caught cold and simply needs to look at this again. The issue has cross-party support in the UK," he said.

 

In wake of the raids, the OFT merely said that it stood by its original investigation and was assisting the EC in its investigations. Question is, if, and it’s a big if, any wrongdoing is established, then what would the penalties be like and how would they be enforced? Parallels could be drawn between the Libor rate rigging scandal and the fines that followed imposed by US, UK and European authorities. The largest fine (to date) has been CHF1.4 billion (US$1.44 billion) awarded against UBS.

 

So assuming that wrongdoing is established, and fines are of a similar nature, Fitch Ratings reckons the companies involved could cope. "These producers typically have between US$10 billion and US$20 billion of cash on their balance sheets. Significantly bigger fines would still be manageable, as shown by BP's ability to cope with the cost of the Macondo oil spill, but would be more likely to have an impact on ratings," said Jeffrey Woodruff, Senior Director (Corporates) at Fitch Ratings.

 

Other than fines, if an oil company is found to have distorted prices, it could face longer-term risks from damage to its reputation. While these risks are less easy to predict and would depend on the extent of any wrongdoing, scope does exist for commercial damage, even for sectors with polarising positions in the public mind, according to Fitch. Given we are in the 'early days' phase, let's see what happens or rather doesn't.

 

While the EC was busy raiding oil companies, the IEA was telling the world how the US shale bonanza was sending ripples through the oil industry. In its Medium-Term Oil Market Report (MTOMR), it noted: "the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market."

 

While geopolitical risks persist, according to the IEA, market fundamentals were indicative of a more comfortable global oil supply/demand scenario over the next five years at the very least. The MTOMR projected North American supply to grow by 3.9 million barrels per day (mbpd) from 2012 to 2018, or nearly two-thirds of total forecast non-OPEC supply growth of 6 mbpd.

 

World liquid production capacity is expected to grow by 8.4 mbpd – significantly faster than demand – which is projected to expand by 6.9 mbpd. Global refining capacity will post even steeper growth, surging by 9.5 mbpd, led by China and the Middle East. According to the IEA, having helped offset record supply disruptions in 2012, North American supply is expected to continue to compensate for declines and delays elsewhere, but only if necessary infrastructure is put in place. Failing that, bottlenecks could pressure prices lower and slow development.

 

Meanwhile, OPEC oil will remain a key part of the oil mix but its production capacity growth will be adversely affected by "growing insecurity in North and Sub-Saharan Africa", the agency said. OPEC capacity is expected to gain 1.75 mbpd to 36.75 mbpd, about 750,000 bpd less than forecast in the 2012 MTOMR. Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will lead the growth, but OPEC's lower-than-expected aggregate additions to global capacity will boost the relative share of North America, the agency said.

 

Away from supply-demand scenarios and on to pricing, Morgan Stanley forecasts Brent's premium to the WTI narrow further while progress continues to be made in clearing a supply glut at the US benchamark’s delivery point of Cushing, Oklahoma, over the coming months. It was above the US$8 mark when the Oilholic last checked, well down on the $20 it averaged for much of 2012.However, analysts at the investment bank do attach a caveat.

Have you heard of the Houston glut? There is no disguising the fact that Houston has been the recipient of the vast majority of the "new" inland crude oil supplies in the Gulf Coast [no prizes for guessing where that is coming from]. The state's extraction processes have become ever more efficient accompanied by its own oil boom to complement the existing E&P activity.

 

Lest we forget, North Dakota has overtaken every other US oil producing state in terms of its oil output, but not the great state of Texas. Yet, infrastructural limitations persist when it comes to dispatching the crude eastwards from Texas to the refineries in Louisiana.

 

So Morgan Stanley analysts note: "A growing glut of crude in Houston suggests WTI-Brent is near a trough and should widen again [at least marginally] later this year. Houston lacks a benchmark, but physical traders indicate that Houston is already pricing about $4 per barrel under Brent, given physical limitations in moving crude out of the area."

 

The Oilholic can confirm that anecdotal evidence does seem to indicate this is the case. So it would be fair to say that Morgan Staley is bang-on in its assessment that the "Houston regional pricing" would only erode further as more crude reaches the area, adding that any move in Brent-WTI towards $6-7 a barrel [from the current $8-plus] should prove unsustainable.

 

Capacity to bring incremental crude to St. James refineries in Louisiana is limited, so the Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) will continue to trade well above Houston pricing; a trend that is likely to continue even after the reversal of the Houston-Houma pipeline – the main crude artery between the Houston physical market and St. James.

 

On a closing note, it seems the 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' affair escalated last week with the Bank of England joining the chorus of indignation. It all began earlier this month when news emerged of Bloomberg's practice of giving its reporters "limited" access to some data considered proprietary, including when a customer looked into broad categories such as equities or bonds.

 

The scoop – first reported by the FT – led to a full apology by Matthew Winkler, Editor-in-chief of Bloomberg News, for allowing journalists "limited" access to sensitive data about how clients used its terminals, saying it was "inexcusable". However, Winkler insisted that important and confidential customer data had been protected. Problem is, they aren't just any customers – they include the leading central banks in the OECD.

 

The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have all said they were examining the use of data by Bloomberg. However, the language used by the Bank of England is the sternest so far. The British central bank described the events at Bloomberg as "reprehensible."

 

A spokesperson said, "The protection of confidential information is vital here at the bank. What seems to have happened at Bloomberg is reprehensible. Bank officials are in close contact with Bloomberg…We will also be liaising with other central banks on this matter."

 

In these past few days there have been signs that 'Bloomberg Snoopgate' is growing bigger as Brazil’s central bank and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (the Chinese territory's de facto central bank) have also expressed their indignation. Having been a Bank of England and UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) correspondent, yours truly can personally testify how seriously central banks take issue with such things and so they should.

 

Yet, in describing Bloomberg's practice as "reprehensible", the Bank of England has indicated how serious it thinks the breach of confidence was and how miffed it is. The UK central bank has since received assurances from Bloomberg that there would be no repeat of the issue! You bet! 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: Abandoned gas station © Todd Gipstein / National Geographic 

By ‘George’! In shale we (Brits) trust?

Delivering his 2013 budget speech on March 20, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told a boisterous bunch of British parliamentarians that "shale gas is part of the future and we will make it happen."

 

He added that the government will publish guidelines by June which would set out how local communities could benefit from “their” unconventional gas resources. The UK lifted a temporary moratorium on shale gas fracking in December 2012 after much procrastination.

 

At the time, it was announced that the government would establish a new Office for Unconventional Gas with an emphasis on shale gas and coal-bed methane and the role they could play in meeting the country's energy demand. If anyone doubted the UK government’s intent when it comes to shale prospection, this is your answer. Sadly, intent alone will not trigger a shale revolution.

 

The Oilholic has always maintained that a swift British replication, or for that matter a wider European replication, of a US fracking heaven is unlikely and not just because there isn’t a one size fits all model to employ.

 

The shale bonanza stateside is no geological fluke; rather it bottles down to a combination of geology, tenacity and inventiveness. Add to that a less dense population than the British Isles, a largely conducive legislative and environmental framework, and a far superior pipeline network and access equation.

 

Furthermore, as Chatham House fellow Prof. Paul Stevens pointed out last week, “The American shale revolution got where it is today through massive investment, commitment towards research and development and over two decades of perseverance. I don’t see that level of commitment here.” Neither does the Oilholic.

 

Agreeing with Stevens is Dr. Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers, who opined that it was important for government not to see shale gas as the “silver bullet many claim it is”.

 

“Shale gas is unlikely to impact greatly on energy prices in the UK and we must avoid becoming hostage to volatile gas markets by not being over-reliant on gas,” he added.

 

Well at least the Chancellor is trying to do something and you can’t beat a man down for that. Especially as that is not the only thing he’s trying on the energy front. Addressing the subject of decommissioning in the North Sea, Osborne said the government would enter into contracts with companies in the sector operating in the offshore region to provide "certainty" over tax relief measures.

 

The proposals are also designed to allow the tax effect of decommissioning costs to be sufficiently certain to allow companies to move to a post tax calculation in field security agreements. Andrew Lister, energy tax partner at KPMG, notes, "With hundreds of such agreements in the North Sea it will take many months to understand whether the proposals have had the desired result of freeing up capital and making late life assets more attractive for new investors."

 

"Nonetheless, the oil & gas industry in the North Sea – having endured the shock tax announced in the Budget two years ago – will welcome the announcements on decommissioning certainty, which should support extraction of the UK’s precious oil resources to the tune of billions. Certainty on tax relief for decommissioning costs will encourage companies to invest in the North Sea as the proposals should provide the assurance companies have been wanting on the availability of tax deductions," he added.

 

Osborne also revealed the two successful bidders for the government’s £1 billion support for Carbon Capture and Storage (CC&S) projects as – the Peterhead Project in Aberdeenshire and the White Rose Project in Yorkshire. Away from the direct fiscal measures, one particular move made by the Chancellor also has implications for the energy sector.

 

He pledged to abolish the stamp duty levied on small company shares traded on markets such as the London Stock Exchange's AiM, to end what he described as a "perceived bias" in the tax system "favouring debt financing over equity investment". You could hear the cheers in the City within minutes of the announcement.

 

The London Stock Exchange, for its part, described the move as a “bold and decisive growth-orientated policy…” to which the Oilholic would add, “a policy that would improve the take-up of shares in small independent oil & gas upstarts who often list on the AiM.”

 

Finally, moving away from the UK budget, but sticking with Parliament, the Oilholic recently had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee, for CFO World (for the full interview click here). This veteran parliamentarian has taken upon herself and her committee to make the issue of corporate tax avoidance a mainstream subject in the UK.

 

Ever since it emerged last year that the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and many others were employing aggressive tax avoidance schemes to mitigate their British tax exposure, Hodge has been on the case. They quipped "we’re not doing anything illegal", she famously quipped back, "we’re not accusing you of being illegal; we’re accusing you of being immoral!"

 

End result, we’ve got everyone from the OECD to the G8 discussing corporate tax avoidance. And oh – Starbucks are 'voluntarily' paying more tax in the UK too! 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: Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, London, UK © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee (left) with the Oilholic (right) © Gaurav Sharma.

‘Oh Frack’ for OPEC, ‘Yeah Frack’ for IEA?

In a space of a fortnight this month, both the IEA and OPEC raised “fracks” and figures. Not only that, a newly elected President Barack Obama declared his intentions to rid the USA of “foreign oil” and the media was awash with stories about American energy security permutations in wake of the shale bonanza. Alas, the whole lot forgot to raise one important point; more on that later.

 

Starting with OPEC, its year-end calendar publication – The World Oil Outlook – saw the oil exporters’ bloc acknowledge for the first time on November 8 that fracking and shale oil & gas prospection on a global scale would significantly alter the energy landscape as we know it. OPEC also cut its medium and long term global oil demand estimates and assumed an average crude oil price of US$100 per barrel over the medium term.

 

“Given recent significant increases in North American shale oil and shale gas production, it is now clear that these resources might play an increasingly important role in non-OPEC medium and long term supply prospects,” its report said.

 

The report added that shale oil will contribute 2 million barrels per day (bpd) towards global oil supply by 2020 and 3 million bpd by 2035. If this materialises, then the projected rate of incremental supply is over the daily output of some OPEC members and compares to the ‘official’ daily output (i.e. minus the illegal siphoning / theft) of Nigeria.

 

OPEC’s first acknowledgement of the impact of shale came attached with a caveat that over the medium term, shale oil would continue to come from North America only with other regions making “modest” contributions over the longer term at best. For the record, the Oilholic agrees with the sentiment and has held this belief for a while now based on detailed investigations in a journalistic capacity (about financing shale projects).

 

OPEC admitted that the global economy, especially the US economy, is expected to be less reliant on its members, who at present pump over a third of the world's oil and have around 80% of planet’s conventional crude reserves. Pay particular attention to the ‘conventional’ bit, yours truly will come back to it.

 

According to the exporters’ bloc, global demand would reach 92.9 million bpd by 2016, down over 1 million from its 2011 report. By 2035, it expects consumption to rise to 107.3 million bpd, over 2 million less than previous estimates. To put things into perspective, global demand in 2011 was 87.8 million bpd.

 

Partly, but not only, down to shale oil, non-OPEC output is expected to rise to 56.6 million bpd by 2016, up 4.2 million bpd from 2011, the report added. So OPEC expects demand for its crude to average 29.70 million bpd in 2016; much less than its current output (ex-Iraq).

 

"This downward revision, together with updated estimates of OPEC production capacity over the medium term, implies that OPEC crude oil spare capacity is expected to rise beyond 5 million bpd as early as 2013-14," OPEC said.

 

"Long term oil demand prospects have not only been affected by the medium term downward revisions, but by higher oil prices too…oil demand growth has a notable downside risk, especially in the first half of 2013. Much of this risk is attributed to not only the OECD, but also China and India," it added.

 

So on top of a medium term crude oil price assumption of US$100 per barrel (by its internal measure and OPEC basket of crudes, which usually follows Brent not WTI), the bloc forecasts the price to rise with inflation to US$120 by 2025 and US$155 by 2035.

 

Barely a week later, IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol – who at this point in 2009 was discussing 'peak oil' – created ripples when he told a news conference in London that in his opinion the USA would overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015. Not only that, he told scribes here that by 2017, the USA would become the world's largest oil producer ahead of the Saudis and Russians. 

 

Realising the stirrings in the room, Birol added that he realised how “optimistic” the IEA forecasts were sounding given that the shale oil boom was a new phenomenon in relative terms.

 

"Light, tight oil resources are poorly known....If no new resources are discovered after 2020 and plus, if the prices are not as high as today, then we may see Saudi Arabia coming back and being the first producer again," he cautioned.

 

Earlier in the day, the IEA forecasted that US oil production would rise to 10 million bpd by 2015 and 11.1 million bpd in 2020 before slipping to 9.2 million bpd by 2035. It forecasted Saudi Arabia’s oil output to be 10.9 million bpd by 2015, 10.6 million bpd in 2020 but would rise to 12.3 million bpd by 2035.

 

That would see the world relying increasingly on OPEC after 2020 as, in addition to increases from Saudi Arabia, Iraq will account for 45% the growth in global oil production to 2035 and become the second-largest exporter, overtaking Russia.

 

The report also assumes a huge expansion in the Chinese economy, which the IEA said would overtake the USA in purchasing power parity soon after 2015 (and by 2020 using market exchange rates). It added that the share of coal in primary energy demand will fall only slightly by 2035. Fossil fuels in general will remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that, in 2011, rose by 30% to US$523 billion, due mainly to increases in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Fresh from his re-election, President Obama promised to “rid America of foreign oil” in his victory speech prior to both the IEA and OPEC reports. An acknowledgement of the US shale bonanza by OPEC and a subsequent endorsement by IEA sent ‘crude’ cheers in US circles.

 

The US media, as expected, went into overdrive. One story – by ABC news – stood out in particular claiming to have stumbled on a shale oil find with more potential than all of OPEC. Not to mention, the environmentalists also took to the airwaves letting the great American public know about the dangers of fracking and how they shouldn’t lose sight of the environmental impact.

 

Rhetoric is fine, stats are fine and so are verbal jousts. However, one important question has bypassed several key commentators (bar some environmentalists). That being, just how many barrels are being used, to extract one fresh barrel? You bring that into the equation and unconventional prospection – including US and Canadian shale, Canadian oil sands and Brazil’s ultradeepwater exploration – all seem like expensive prepositions.

 

What’s more OPEC’s grip on conventional oil production, which is inherently cheaper than unconventional and is expected to remain so for sometime, suddenly sounds worthy of concern again.

 

Nonetheless “profound” changes are underway as both OPEC and IEA have acknowledged and those changes are very positive for US energy mix. Maybe, as The Economist noted in an editorial for its latest issue: “The biggest bonanza from all this new (US) energy would be if users paid the real cost of consuming oil and gas.”

 

What? Tax gasoline users more in the US of A? Keep dreaming sir! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it crude!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Oil prospection site, North Dakota, USA © Phil Schermeister / National Geographic.

An intensely ‘crude’ few days @WPC

In keeping with the intensity of World Petroleum Congresses of the past, the Oilholic’s first two days here have been – well – intense. The 20th WPC opened with customary aplomb on Dec 4th with an opening ceremony where feeding 5,000 delegates was a bit slow but the Qatari Philharmonic Orchestra tried its best to perk things up and make up for it.

When things began in earnest on Dec 5th – the Oilholic was spoiled for choice on what to and not to blog about and finding the time for it. Beginning with our hosts, in his inaugural address to Congress, Sheikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar highlighted that the event was being held in the Middle East for the first time; a wrong has been right – after all the region exports bulk of the world’s oil.

Welcoming and thanking aside, the Emir made a very important point about why cooperation here among crude importers and exporters is really necessary now more than ever.

“The growing needs for oil and gas requires enormous investments by the exporting countries. The financing of these investments and securing their profitability require the most accurate information possible about the factors affecting the global demand for oil & gas to reduce the degree of risk that these investments may be subjected to,” he said.

“It is not reasonable to ask the Exporting Countries to meet the future needs for these two commodities while at the same time the consumer countries carryout unilateral activities that augment the risks facing these investments,” the Emir concludes. Well said sir – consumers need to get their act together too.

Three of the biggest consumers are here in full force, i.e. the US, Indian and Chinese delegations; the size of latter’s delegation rivals even the Qatari participation. Completing the BRICs – Brazil and Russia are here seeking partners. Lukoil is looking to expand via investments while Rosneft is seeking a greater interaction with Norway’s Statoil. Brazilian behemoth Petrobras has been flagging its wares including details about the presence of oil at a prospection well (4-BRSA-994-RJS), located in Campos Basin, in the area known as Marlin Complex.

The well, commonly known as Tucura, lies between the production fields of Voador and Marlim, at a water depth of 523 meters. Located 98 km from the shore of Rio de Janeiro State, the well is 3km from Marlin's Field and 2.3 km from the P-20 platform. The discovery was confirmed by sampling in post-salt rock in a reservoir located at a water depth of 2,694 meters.

It follows Petrobras’ confirmation on Nov. 23 about the presence of a good quality oil in well (4-BRSA-1002-SPS), in south Santos Basin, in an area known as Tiro and Sidon. Petrobras CEO José Sergio Gabrielli de Azevedo is busy outlining future plans and the company's activities in Brazil and in the world.

It seems the Brazilian major intends to invest US$225 billion between 2011 and 2015 with almost 60% of this going towards exploration and production projects.

Gabrielli highlighted Brazil as one of the largest and fastest growing markets in the world in terms of oil consumption. By way of comparison, Brazil's annual oil consumption in 2010 was up 2.1%, in contrast to a decline of 0.04% in OECD countries for the same period.

More later; keep reading, keep it crude!

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: 20th World Petroleum Congress Opening Ceremony & Dinner, Dec 4th, 2011 © Gaurav Sharma 2011.

Black Gold @ US$90-plus! No, Surely? Is it?

“You can’t be serious,” was often the trademark thunder of American tennis legend John McEnroe when an umpiring decision went against him. In a different context some commodities analysts might be thundering exactly the same or maybe not. In any case, deep down Mr. McEnroe knew the umpire was being serious.

On a not so sunny Tuesday afternoon in London, ICE Futures Europe recorded Brent crude oil spot price per barrel at US$91.32. This morning the forward month Brent futures contract was trading around US$90.80 to US$91.00. While perhaps this does not beggar belief, it certainly is a bit strange shall we say. I mean just days ago there was the Irish overhang and rebalancing in China and all the rest of it – yet here we are. Société Générale’s Global Heal of Oil research Mike Wittner believes the fundamental goalposts may have shifted a bit.

In a recent note to clients, he opines that underpinned by QE2, the expected environment of low interest rates and high liquidity next year should encourage investors to move into risky assets, including oil. “With downward pressure on the US dollar and upward pressure on inflation expectations, the impact should therefore be bullish for crude oil prices,” he adds.

The global oil demand growth for this year has been revised up sharply to 2.4 Mb/d from 1.8 Mb/d previously by SGCIB, mainly due to an unexpected surge in Q3 2010 OECD demand. The demand growth for next year has also been increased, to 1.6 Mb/d from 1.4 Mb/d previously (although still, as expected, driven entirely by emerging markets).

What about the price? Wittner says (note the last bit), “For 2011, we forecast front-month ICE Brent crude oil near US$93/bbl, revised up by $8 from $85 previously. With continued low refinery utilisation rates, margins are still expected to be mediocre next year, broadly similar to this year. The oil complex in 2011 should again be mainly led by crude, not products.”

YooHoo – see that – “mainly led by crude, not products.” Furthermore, SGCIB believes crude price should average US$95 in H2 2011, in a $90-100 range. Well there you have it and it is a solid argument that low interest rates and high liquidity environment is bullish for oil.

Elsewhere, a report published this morning on Asian refining by ratings agency Moody’s backs up the findings of my report on refinery infrastructure for Infrastructure Journal. While refinery assets are rather unloved elsewhere owing to poor margins, both the ratings agency and the Oilholic believe Asia is a different story[1].

Renee Lam, Moody's Vice President and Senior Analyst, notes: “Continued demand growth in China and India in the short to medium term will be positive for players in the region serving the intra-Asia markets. Given the stabilization of refining margins over the next 12 to 18 months, a further significant deterioration of credit metrics for the sector is not expected.”

While Moody's does not foresee a significant restoration of companies' balance-sheet strength in the near term, they are still performing (and investing in infrastructure) better than their western, especially US counterparts.

[1] Oil Refinery Infra Outlook 2011: An Unloved Energy Asset By Gaurav Sharma, Infrastructure Journal, Nov 10, 2010 (Blog regarding some of the basic findings and my discussion on CNBC Europe about it available here.)

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Graphic: ICE Brent Futures chart as downloaded at stated time © Digital Look / BBC, Photo: Oil Refinery © Shell

Talking Refinery Infrastructure on CNBC

This week marked the culmination of almost a month and a half of my research work for Infrastructure Journal on the subject of oil refinery infrastructure and how it is fairing. Putting things into context, like many others in the media I too share an obsession with the price of crude oil and upstream investment. I wanted to redress the balance and analyse investment in the one crucial piece of infrastructure that makes (or cracks) crude into gasoline, i.e. refineries. After all, the consumer gets his/her gasoline at the gas station – not the oil well. The depth of Infrastructure Journal's industry data (wherein a project’s details from inception to financial close are meticulously recorded) and the resources the publication made available to me made this study possible. It was published on Wednesday, following which I went over to discuss my findings with the team of CNBC’s Squawk Box Europe.

I told CNBC (click to watch) that my findings suggest activity in private or public sector finance for oil refinery projects, hitherto a very cyclical and capital-intensive industry currently facing poor margins, is likely to remain muted, a scenario which is not going to materially alter before 2012.

The evidence is clear, integrated oil companies have and will continue to divest in downstream assets particularly refineries because upstream investment culture of high risk, high rewards trumps it.

Growth in finance activity is likely to come from Asia in general and surprise, surprise India and China in particular. It is not that margins are any better in these two countries but given their respective consumers’ need for gasoline and diesel – margins become a lesser concern.

However, in the west, while refiners’ margins remain tight, new and large refinery infrastructure projects would see postponements, if not cancellations. In order to mitigate overcapacity, a number of mainly North American and European refiners or integrated companies will shutdown existing facilities, albeit quite a few of the shutdowns will be temporary.

Geoff Cutmore and Maithreyi Seetharaman probed me over what had materially changed, after all margins have always been tight? Tight yes, but my conjecture is that over the last five years they have taken a plastering. On a 2010 pricing basis, BP Statistical Review of World Energy notes that the 2009 refining average of US$4.00 per barrel fell below the 2008 figure of $6.50 per barrel; a fall of 38.5%. In fact, moving away from the average, on an annualised basis, margins fell in all regions except the US Midwest last year while margins in Singapore were barely positive.

Negative demand has in effect exasperated overcapacity both in Europe and North America. BP notes that global crude runs fell by 1.5 million bpd in 2009 with the only growth coming from India and China where several new refining capacities, either private or publicly financed, were commissioned. Its research further reveals that most of the 2 million bpd increase in global refining capacity in 2009 was also in China and India. Furthermore, global refinery utilisation fell to 81.1% last year; the lowest level since 1994.

In fact does it surprise anyone that non-OECD refinery capacity exceeded that of the OECD for the first time in 2009? It doesn’t surprise me one jot. I see this trend continuing in 2010 and what happens thereafter would depend on how many OECD existing refineries facing temporary shutdown are brought back onstream and/or if an uptick in demand is duly noted by the OECD nations. A hope for positive vibes on both fronts in the short to medium term is well...wishful thinking.

Refineries were once trophy assets for integrated oil companies but in the energy business people tend to have short memories. Alas, as I wrote for Infrastructure Journal (my current employers) and told CNBC Europe (my former employers), now they are the unloved assets of the energy business.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo 1: Gaurav Sharma on Squawk Box Europe © CNBC, Nov 10, 2010, Photo 2: Oil Refinery Billings, Montana © Gordon Wiltsie / National Geographic Society

Moody’s Says Global Integrated Oil Industry Stable

A report published on Wednesday by Moody’s notes that the global integrated oil and gas industry outlook remains stable and the sector is likely to continue seeing a moderate recovery over the next 12-18 months. However, it adds that the recovery could be more subdued for international oil companies (IOCs).

Oil prices have generally averaged over US$75+ per barrel, and Moody’s has joined ranks with the wider market in noting that the oil sector is well past the bottom of the cycle.

Thomas Coleman, a Senior Vice President at Moody's, says, "The integrated oil companies on the whole enjoy a strong and competitive financial position today; with oil prices trading in a moderate level of about US$75 a barrel as the world's leading economies continue to emerge from the serious downturn of 2008-2009."

Overall, the report notes that the demand for crude oil will remain strong outside the OECD, as – well no prizes for guessing – China and other booming economies, most notably India, steadily increase consumption.

The report also notes that IOCs' earnings and cash flow are improving and could rise by almost 20% over the next 12-18 months - thanks to the H1 2010 revival in crude prices - but these companies remain exposed to fairly weak conditions in the refining sector, which is set to take on even more capacity in 2010 and in coming years.

In addition, high inventories worldwide and recent commodity price volatility amid deepening concerns over Eurozone debt issues further illustrate the risks to the sector, according to Moody's. On the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the ratings agency noted that the "costs of drilling in the Gulf will escalate dramatically when the US government's ongoing moratorium ends, though deepwater drilling is unlikely to come to permanent halt."

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo courtesy © Shell

Russian Production Capped Saudi Output in 2009

Russian production of crude oil overtook that of Saudi Arabia in 2009, thereby making the former the world’s leading oil producer, according to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy.

Russian crude production rose 1.5% year over year, increasing the country's global oil output share to 12.9%. This compared favourably, for the Russians at least, with Saudi Arabia’s decline in market share to 12% of global output, following an annualised production fall of 10.6%. The difference may be marginal, but it gives the Russians some much needed bragging rights.

Proven oil global reserves rose by 700 million barrels to 1.33 trillion barrels in 2009, the report adds. It also notes that after the global financial crisis, oil consumption dipped 1.7% or 1.2 million barrels per day last year; highest decline since 1982.

It does seem a shade ironic that BP should be bringing this data while the Gulf of Mexico oil spill saga carries on. However, to be fair, they have been publishing this particular data-set for years and are among the most reliable sources of oil industry data.

Following publication of the BP report, the International Energy Agency (IEA) revised its 2010 global oil demand forecast upwards by 60,000 barrels a day to 86.4 million barrels, on the basis of above expectation preliminary economic data from the OECD countries.

The new demand forecast suggests annual demand growth is seen up by 1.7 million barrels or 2% year over year from 2009.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © Adrian R. Gableson

OPEC Holds Production as Crude Nears $82.50

In line with market expectations, oil cartel OPEC held its current daily production output quota at 24.845 million barrels following the conclusion of its meeting in Vienna.

In a statement the cartel noted that production increases among oil exporting countries that were not part of OPEC would offset rising global demand for oil. Clarifying its stand, OPEC said that although world oil demand is projected to increase marginally during the year, this rise will be more than offset by the expected increase in non-OPEC supply, meaning that 2010 is likely to witness a decline in the demand for OPEC crude oil for the third consecutive year.

The cartel added that the persistently high OECD stock levels (estimated to currently stand at 59-61 days of forward cover i.e. well above their five-year average) indicate that there has been a contra-seasonal stock build in the first quarter 2010 and the overhang in terms of forward cover is expected to continue throughout the year.

Furthermore, market commentators also believe that OPEC member nations already flout their set quota cap. Overall compliance of quotas is thought to be in the circa of 52% to 58% depending on whom you speak to in the City.

OPEC president, Germanico Pinto, said that while an improvement was seen in the oil market outlook in recent months, there was some way to go before the cartel could feel at ease with the situation. In case the markets get unstable, the cartel stands ready, “to swiftly respond to any developments which might place oil market stability in jeopardy.”

Despite the predictability of the announcement, markets responded with a customary spike largely fuelled by a weaker U.S. Dollar. NYMEX light sweet crude was up 77 cents at $82.47 a barrel, nearing the $82.50 barrier. Concurrently, in London Brent crude was up by 72 cents to $81.25 a barrel on ICE Europe. Next meeting of the cartel is set for Oct 14, 2010 in Vienna.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © Royal Dutch Shell

IEA Belatedly Joins the “Peak Oil” Debate

As 2009 drew to a close, the International Energy Agency (IEA) finally and formally admitted that projections on the timing of oil production reaching its peak were no laughing matter and seriously joined the debate. Previously, the IEA, which advises 28 OECD nations on energy issues, had never really been specific about when it thought conventional sources of oil would peak.

I personally recollect having met someone from the IEA in September 2008 on the back of an OPEC summit that year, who talked at length about the matter in private, but refused to discuss the issue on-record. Over the years, some observers have even alleged that the agency was fudging oil production projections.

This clamour, which had always been lurking in the background, gained traction following a report by Dr. Robert L. Hirsch for the U.S. Department of Energy in which he analysed the possible effects of Peak Oil (Viz. Peaking of world oil production: impacts, mitigation, & risk management). A truncated version of his thoughts was later published by the Atlantic Council of U.S.

Hirsch noted: "The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact, they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking."

In the four years that followed the Hirsch report, many stories in the popular press ran along the lines that all the easy oil and gas in the world had pretty much been found and that tougher times lay ahead. It is an argument which is not hard to dismiss in its entirety. Curiously enough, as an advisory agency to 28 leading economies, the IEA was somehow was not all that keen on discussing it.

All of that was laid to rest over a dramatic few weeks last month. On December 9th, the agency’s eagerly awaited World Energy Outlook 2009 (WEO) noted that conventional oil, from straight-forward to extract sources, is “projected to reach a plateau before” 2030. In the publication, the IEA is seen to have conducted a serious supply-side analysis including the largest oil fields, their rate of production and decline in its research.

Published material suggests that the IEA sees a decline of 7% in year over year terms over the coming years at these extraction site, nearly double the rate of earlier forecasts. Based on the projected rate of decline, the agency estimates that the world would need four new “Saudi Arabias”, a country which has 24% of the world’s proven crude reserves, by 2030 to meet demand. This too is based on the assumption that global demand remains flat at existing levels as does the rate of production decline.

However, quite frankly the agency still prima facie declined to say that the world has currently entered the era of peak oil. Furthermore, in order to perhaps soften its hard assessment, it pointed out that the first half of 2009 saw 10 billion barrels of new oil discoveries; an annual rate previously unheard of! It also said non-conventional sources such as the Athabasca Tar Sands (Canada) should not be discounted either.

Just as sceptics were rounding up on the agency, IEA Chief Economist Dr. Fatih Birol, set out to paint a more pragmatic picture. Having visited some 21 cities in the run-up the WEO’s release, Birol told several media outlets, most notably The Economist and The Guardian newspaper, that the crude production plateau which the agency mentions in the publication, could potentially arrive as early as 2020.

In a much more detailed conversation with The Economist, Birol also made another interesting observation. He said that a worldwide effort to restrict increase in global temperatures to 2 degree centigrade will restrict the increase in global demand for oil to 89 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2030 as opposed to 105 million bpd if no action is taken. That could, in theory, push back peak oil production scenarios as more time would be needed to produce lower-cost oil that remains to be developed.

Watch this space then - for next two decades that is! This argument is far from over. At least the IEA can now dodge accusations that it is not being realistic its assessments and shying away from debate.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy: Martin Rhodes, Essex, England