EU’s ‘least worst’ gas supply scenarios & more

The Oilholic spent last Friday evening downing a few drinks with a 'civil servant' of the diplomatic variety who'd returned back from the recently concluded Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague, where the Ukrainian standoff dominated most conversations. But before you get excited, yours truly has no 'Jack Bauer'-level clearance gossip!

However, with 53 nations represented – there were quite a few suits around, and contrary to popular belief, the stiff suits do gossip! Credible intel does appear to suggest that some Europeans did a very fine 'Clinton post-Lewinsky scandal' impression in a geopolitically fresh context which kinda ran like: "We do not have relations with that man Putin." Of course, they were, as Clinton was back in the day, being a little less frugal with the truth.

The Americans already knew that but didn't say so out of diplomatic courtesy, at least not in public. The Oilholic wouldn't have been so courteous, but then yours truly isn't in the diplomatic service. From the Baltics to the Balkans, Russian exports of natural gas dominate the energy spectrum built on hitherto seemingly inextricable relations, whether amicable or not.

Despite promising to diversify their supplies when the Georgian skirmish happened in 2008, not much has changed, as The Oilholic noted earlier this month. As a direct consequence, US sanctions against Russia appear to better structured compared to European ones which look like a rag-bag of measures to accommodate everyone and annoy no one – especially President Putin, who doesn't really care about them in the first place! Most pressing question is – what now for the EU energy equation?

Just as the suits were winding up, Jaroslav Neverovič, Lithuania's energy minister made an impassioned plea to the US to export more gas to Europe as a possible answer. Just as a sub-context, the Baltic States are busy building LNG import terminals. Headline grabbing it may well have been, what Neverovič said, even if realised, would do little to curb European addiction to Russian gas over the medium term.

Supply-side diversity cannot be achieved in an instant, nor can the US solve the problem. If the capacity of all seven US FERC and DOE approved LNG export terminals (so far) is totalled and it is hypothetically (or rather absurdly) assumed that the entire cargo would be dispatched to Europe – the volume would still only replace around 35% of the current level of Russian gas imports to Europe.

But what has changed is that the Baltic nations, as demonstrated by Neverovič, are clearly alarmed; perhaps, more than they were in 2008. The Poles are mighty miffed too and even the Germans are waking up and smelling the coffee. So what's next? American LNG imports will come, while Norway, UK and the Netherlands’ pooled resources could help the trio. 

However, going beyond that, and to quote a brilliant editorial in The Economist, would mean Europeans relying on Algeria, Qatar, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan which does not seem very savoury. "But the more rogues who sell them gas, the harder it is for any one to hold Europe hostage," it adds! So here's your 'least worst' medium term scenario, preparation for which had to start in 2008 and not in 2014! 

Related to the situation, Fitch Ratings revised the corporate outlooks of nine Russian companies, including those of Gazprom and Lukoil to Negative. As with a situation of this nature there would be losers somewhere and winners elsewhere.

According to the ratings agency, BG, BP, Shell and Total would be among its EMEA rated oil & gas companies that stand to gain from a "potential shift" in EU countries' energy links with Russia over time. On the other hand, Gazprom and Ukraine's Naftogaz – no prizes for guessing – are most likely to find themselves at a competitive disadvantage.

Analysing a scenario where EU countries could be forced to "recast their approach to energy and economic links with Russia over time", as UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has suggested, Fitch said BG, BP,  Shell and Total are well placed.

For instance, BG is participating in three US projects already approved by FERC and DOE to export LNG. BP completed the final investment decision for the Stage 2 development of the Shah Deniz gas field with its local partner State Oil Company of Azerbaijan in December last year. The expansion of the southern corridor gas link to Europe puts these companies in a unique position to diversify EU gas supplies.

Meanwhile, Shell is the first company in the world to develop floating LNG (FLNG) facilities. The technology is an important development for the industry as it reduces both project costs and environmental impact. If Shell is able to replicate the FLNG model it is deploying in Australia to diversify European supplies, it could give the company a competitive advantage over peers.

Finally, Total became the first Western oil major to invest in UK shale prospection after agreeing to take a 40% stake in two licenses that are part of the prospective Bowland Shale in Northern England. The investment could give the company a head start if European shale gas production begins to ramp up in a meaningful way, even though its early days. In fact, its early days in all four cases, and Fitch agreed that supply-side benefits would accrue over time, not overnight.

Going the other way, Gazprom, which supplied around a third of European gas volumes in 2013, faces the prospect of diminishing market share if the EU seeks alternative gas supplies, instead of simply alternative gas routes from Russia around Ukraine. "Europe may finally find the political will to reduce this percentage," Fitch adds.

As for Naftogaz – it's in big trouble alright. Not only could the Ukrainian company face higher prices for gas supplies from Russia accompanied by reduced volumes for internal consumption, the road ahead is anything but certain!

Away from the EU and Ukraine, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne dropped a few crude morsels in his annual budget on March 19 to help British consumers and the industry. Fuel duty was frozen again, while passengers on some long-haul flights originating in the UK are set to pay less tax following a revamp of Air Passenger Duty (APD).

Passengers travelling more than 2,000 miles will pay the band B rate, which varies from £67 to £268, Osborne told parliament. The two highest of the four APD tax bands are to be scrapped from 2015, he added. At present, it is cheaper to fly from the UK to the US than the Caribbean, despite often similar distances, a situation Osborne described as "crazy and unjust". So passengers on long-haul flights to destinations such as India and the Caribbean can expect to pay a lower tax rate soon.

Coming on to industry measures, Osborne also put forward a new incentive for onshore prospection, wherein a portion of profit equal to 75% of a company's qualifying onshore capital expenditure will be exempt from supplementary tax charge.

This portion of the profit will then be subject to tax at 30%, while the remaining profit will be subject to a marginal tax rate of 62%, as is usually the case with oil & gas companies operating in the UK. The bold and much needed move went down well in the currently charged geopolitical atmosphere, unless you happen to be opposed to fracking on principle.

Robert Hodges, director of energy tax services at Ernst & Young, said it was welcome news for the shale gas industry which needs to commit significant investment to prove commercial reserves in the UK.

"The Government also announced it will work with industry to ensure that the UK has the right skills and supply chain in place. This is an important commitment, which will be welcomed by industry, to ensure that the UK maximises the benefit from the development of its indigenous oil and gas resources," he added.

As for the North Sea, we saw some moves on ultra high pressure, high temperature (HPHT) fields with Osborne providing an allowance to exempt a portion of a drilling company's profits from the supplementary charge. The amount of profit exempt will equal at least 62.5% of qualifying capex a company incurs on these projects. The Chancellor also said he would launch a review of the tax regime for the entire sector.

Some were pleased, others not so. Maersk Oil and BG, lead operators of the Culzean and Jackdaw fields, are the first to benefit. Both were cock-a-hoop saying it would lead to the direct creation over 700 jobs, with a potential for up to 8,000 more further down the supply chain. However, the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC) claims changes over drilling rigs and accommodation vessels would cost firms an estimated £145 million in the coming year. Lobby group Oil & Gas UK also expressed concerns on cost escalation, but welcomed other bits thrown up by Osborne.

Away from it all, there's one tiny non-UK morsel to toss up. According to a recent GlobalData report, it appears that Kenya's first oil & gas licensing round is not expected Q4 2014 at the earliest. The first licensing round was originally scheduled for June last year with an offer of eight blocks up for bidding. Then all went a bit quiet. Now GlobalData says it will happen, but plans have temporarily stalled pending the passage of a new energy bill.

Moving on to the price of the crude stuff, last fortnight was pretty much a case of steady as she goes for Brent, while supply-side issues caused a mini spike with the WTI. And, that can only mean one thing - another narrowing of the Brent-WTI spread to single figures.

Factors in the WTI rear-view mirror included supply shrinkage at Cushing, Oklahoma; down for the eighth successive week last Friday and the lowest in two years, according to the EIA. Libyan, Nigerian supply outages had a bearing on Brent, but it's nothing to write home about this fortnight. Much of the risk is already priced in, especially as Libyan outages are something City traders are getting pretty used to and Nigeria is nothing new. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo: Oil pipeline © Cairn Energy

Brent’s liquidity, Nexen, 'crude' Vancouver & more

Last Friday, the Brent forward month futures price plummeted to US$110.65 per barrel thereby losing all of the gains it made in 2013. The WTI price declined in near furious tandem to US$91.92; the  benchmark's lowest intraday price since January 4. An Italian political stalemate and US spending cuts enforced by Congressional gridlock have unleashed the bearish trends. Quite frankly, the troublesome headwinds aren’t going anywhere, anytime soon.

Prior to the onset of recent bearish trends, Bank of America said the upper limit for Brent crude will rise from US$140 per barrel this year to US$175 in 2017 because of constraints on supply. It added that WTI may slip to “US$50 within the next two years” amid booming North American supply. Meanwhile, ratings agency Moody’s expects strong global crude prices in the near term and beyond, with a continued US$15 per barrel premium in favour of Brent versus WTI over 2013.

Moody's still assumes that Brent crude will sell for an average US$100 per barrel in 2013, US$95 in 2014, and US$90 in the medium term, beyond 2014. For WTI, the agency leaves its previous assumptions unchanged at US$85 in 2013, 2014 and thereafter. Away from the fickle pricing melee, there was a noteworthy development last month in terms of Brent’s liquidity profile as a benchmark, which is set to be boosted.

On February 19, Platts proposed the introduction of a quality premium for Ekofisk and Oseberg crudes; two of the four grades constituting the Dated Brent marker. A spokesperson said the move would increase transparency and trading volumes in Dated Brent. The proposal came a mere fortnight after Shell’s adjustments to its trading contract for three North Sea blends including Brent.

The oil major said it would change its contract (SUKO 90) for buying and selling to introduce a premium for the delivery of higher quality Brent, Ekofisk and Oseberg grades. Previously, it only used the Forties grade which was typically the cheapest Brent blend and thus used to price the benchmark by default. BP has also agreed to Shell’s amended pricing proposals in principle.

The Oilholic thinks it is prudent to note that even though Platts is the primary provider of price information for North Sea crude(s), actual contracts such as Shell’s SUKO 90 are the industry’s own model. So in more ways than one, a broad alignment of the thinking of both parties (and BP) is a positive development. Platts is requesting industry feedback on the move by March 10 with changes being incorporated with effect from shipments in May.

However, there are some subtle differences. While Shell has proposed an inclusion of Brent, Platts is only suggesting premiums for Oseberg and Ekofisk grades. According to published information, the oil major, with BP’s approval, has proposed a 25% premium for Brent and Oseberg based on their difference to the Forties differential, and a 50% premium for Ekofisk.

But Platts, is seeking feedback on recommending a flat 50% premium for both Oseberg and Ekofisk. Nonetheless, at a time of a dip in North Sea production, a change of pricing status quo aimed at boosting liquidity ought to be welcomed. Furthermore, there is evidence of activity picking up in the UK sector of the North Sea, with Oil and Gas UK (OGUK), a body representing over 320 operators in the area, suggesting last month that investment was at a 30-year high.

OGUK said companies invested £11.4 billion in 2012 towards North Sea prospection and the figure is expected to rise to £13 billion this year. It credited UK Chancellor George Osborne’s new tax relief measures announced last year, which allowed gas fields in shallow waters to be exempt from a 32% tax on the first £500 million of income, as a key factor.

However, OGUK warned that reserves currently coming onstream have not been fully replaced with new discoveries. That is hardly surprising! In fact, UK production fell to the equivalent of 1.55 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012, down by 14% from 2011 and 30% from 2010. While there may still be 24 billion barrels of oil to be found in the North Sea, the glory days are not coming back. Barrel burnt per barrel extracted or if you prefer Petropounds spent for prospection are only going to rise.

From the North Sea’s future, to the future of a North Sea operator – Canada’s Nexen – the acquisition of which by China’s state-owned CNOOC was finally approved on February 26. It took seven long months for the US$15.1 billion takeover to reach fruition pending regulatory approval in several jurisdictions, not least in Canada.

It was announced that shareholders of the Calgary, Alberta-based Nexen would get US$27.50 in cash for each share, but the conditions imposed by Canadian (and US) regulators for the deal to win approval were not disclosed. More importantly, the Harper administration said that CNOOC-Nexen was the last deal of its kind that the Canadian government would approve.

So it is doubtful that a state-controlled oil company would be taking another majority stake in the oil sands any time soon. The Nexen acquisition makes CNOOC a key operator in the North Sea, along with holdings in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa, Middle East and of course Canada's Long Lake oil sands project (and others) in Alberta.

Meanwhile, Moody’s said the Aa3 ratings and stable outlooks of CNOOC Ltd and CNOOC Group will remain unchanged after the acquisition of Nexen. The agency would also continue to review for upgrade the Baa3 senior unsecured rating and Ba1 subordinated debt rating of Nexen.

Moving away from Nexen but sticking with the region, the country’s Canadian Business magazine asks, “Is Vancouver the new Calgary?”  (Er…we’re not talking about changing weather patterns here). The answer, in 'crude' terms, is a firm “Yes.” The Oilholic has been pondering over this for a good few years. This humble blogger’s research between 2010 and present day, both in Calgary and Vancouver, has always indicated a growing oil & gas sector presence in BC.

However, what is really astonishing is the pace of it all. Between the time that the Oilholic mulled about the issue last year and February 2013, Canadian Business journalist Blair McBride writes that five new oil & gas firms are already in Vancouver. Reliable anecdotal evidence from across the US border in general, and the great state of Texas in particular, suggests more are on their way! Chevron is a dead certain, ExxonMobil is likely to follow.

One thing is for certain, they’re going to need a lot more direct flights soon between Vancouver International and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental airport other than the solitary Continental Airlines route. Hello, anyone from Air Canada reading this post?

Continuing with corporate news, Shell has announced the suspension of its offshore drilling programme in the Arctic for the rest of 2013 in order to give it time to “ensure the readiness of equipment and people.” It was widely expected that prospection in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska would be paused while the US Department of Justice is looking into safety failures.

Shell first obtained licences in 2005 to explore the Arctic Ocean off the Alaskan coastline. Since then, £3 billion has been spent with two exploratory wells completed during the short summer drilling season last year. However, it does not mask the fact that the initiative has been beset with problems including a recent fire on a rig.

Meanwhile, Repsol has announced the sale of its LNG assets for a total of US$6.7 billion to Shell. The deal includes Repsol’s minority stakes in Atlantic LNG (Trinidad & Tobago), Peru LNG and Bahia de Bizkaia Electricidad (BBE), as well as the LNG sale contracts and time charters with their associated loans and debt. It’s a positive for Repsol’s credit rating and Shell’s gas reserves.

As BP’s trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill began last month, Moody’s said the considerable financial uncertainty will continue to weigh on the company’s credit profile until the size of the ultimate potential financial liabilities arising from the April 2010 spill is known.

Away from the trial, the agency expects BP's cash flows to strengthen from 2014 onwards as the company begins to reap benefits of the large roster of upstream projects that it is working on, many of which are based in high-margin regions. “This would help strengthen the group's credit metrics relative to their weaker positioning expected in 2013,” Moody’s notes.

One final bit of corporate news, Vitol – the world's largest oil trading company –  has posted a 2% rise in its 2012 revenue to US$303 billion even though volumes traded fell and profit margins remained under pressure for much of the year. While not placing too much importance on the number, it must be noted that a US$300 billion-plus revenue is more than what Chevron managed and a first for the trading company.

However, it is more than safe to assume Chevron’s profits would be considerably higher than Vitol’s. Regrettably, other than relying on borderline gossip, the Oilholic cannot conduct a comparison via published sources. That’s because unlike listed oil majors like Chevron, private trading houses like Vitol don’t release their profit figures.

That’s all for the moment folks. But on a closing note, this blogger would like to flag-up research by the UK’s Nottingham Trent University which suggests that Libya could generate approximately five times the amount of energy from solar power than it currently produces in crude oil!

The university’s School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment found that if the North African country – which is estimated to be 88% desert terrain – used 0.1% of its landmass to harness solar power, it could produce almost 7 million crude oil barrels worth of energy every day. Currently, Libya produces around 1.41 million bpd. Food for thought indeed! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Oil tanker, English Bay, BC, Canada. Photo 2: Downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada © Gaurav Sharma

North Sea’s glory days have long gone

Oil extracted from North Sea once made UK the world’s six-biggest producer of oil and natural gas. However, the tide turned after 1999 when production peaked at 4.5 million barrels per day. Estimates suggest that production is down nearly 40% since then.

At end of 2006 and 2007, UK production had dropped to 2.9 million and 2.8 million barrels per day respectively, indicative of a terminal decline. Geologists are not yet suggesting the North Sea oil has nearly run out. Government and private sector research indicates there is still about 15 to 25 billion barrels beneath the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). However, all the “easy oil”, to be read as easier to extract, has nearly dwindled.

Most new discoveries contain less than 50 million barrels; minuscule amount by global standards. Harder to extract oil requires additional investment as production becomes more and more capital intensive. Research by Oil and Gas UK (OGUK) suggests that there are already signs of a sharp slowdown in exploration and appraisal drilling activity. In its Economic Report (2009), it noted that the first quarter of 2009 saw a 78% drop in the number of exploration wells drilled.

OGUK expects investment to fall significantly and fears it could even drop below £3 billion in 2010. Historic data suggests investment stood at £4.9 billion in 2007. Furthermore, a fall in the value of the pound sterling against the US dollar and relatively smaller discoveries per exploratory project would imply that 2010 would result in investment of a comparable level yielding less than one third of the oil did in 2001.

OGUK is not shying away from admitting things are not what they used to be. To its credit, the lobby group meaningfully acknowledges UK’s internal “Peak Oil” argument. It believes the surge in oil price during 2007 and 2008 masked a steady decline in the competitiveness of UKCS extraction.

Pure economics also comes into the picture. Quite frankly, despite a decline in relative value of the pound sterling, it is clear that UK oil and gas exploration projects will lose out to other regions around the world which offer more substantial investment opportunities on better terms. For instance, Cairn Energy (LSE: CNE) made its mark in the North Sea, but is banking its future strategy on South Asia (India and Bangladesh), Tunisia and Greenland.

UKCS' decline is unlikely to be stemmed unless the government provides tax breaks to ensure some semblance of competitiveness, according to business lobby groups. Even at the time of the oil price touching dizzy heights of US$147 per barrel many were concerned. I recollect a conversation I had at a House of Commons event early in 2008 with Geoff Runcie, Chief Executive, Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce (AGCC) and Howard Archer, chief UK economist, IHS Global Insight.

Runcie believed that despite repeated warnings of escalating oil extraction costs, the UK oil industry had to contend with two major tax increases in recent years. He said that investment in real terms had fallen by £1 billion between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2008, despite rising commodity prices.

Archer noted that giving tax breaks to oil companies at a time when crude oil price was at $147 per barrel, household energy prices were rising and oil companies were booking record profits, was politically suicidal for any government. The financial tsunami that followed over 2008-09 and the current precarious state of the UK public purse currently makes allowance for such tax breaks unthinkable.

Furthermore, energy economists believe North Sea investment was hit both ways. High oil price masked under-investment and made tax breaks unpalatable for most of 2007-08. Subsequently, a greater decline in activity was an obvious consequence of a lower oil price which fell to $34 per barrel in December 2008 with no tax break in sight for entirely different reasons.

Despite evidence to the contrary, fall in oil production and two of Scotland’s largest banks being owned by the UK taxpayer, the Scottish National Party (SNP) still bases its case for Scottish Independence on North Sea oil deposits, majority of which lie in what could geographically be described as Scottish waters. The figures may add up today, but do not stand up to scrutiny for much longer. SNP does find common ground with oilmen and lobbyists who wish to see more exploratory activity west of Shetland Islands. Even before significant prospecting, geologists believe it could hold up to 4 billion barrels of oil.

However, commencing projects in the area is not easy. A sea bed with prospective hydrocarbons stored at high pressures, inhospitable climate and a lack of infrastructure temper enthusiasm as easier exploration options are available globally. Total has got one gas project going which was commenced in 2007. It believes the West of Shetland area represents about 17% of UK’s remaining oil and gas resource base and could contribute up to 6% of the country's gas requirements by 2015.

If even a new exploratory zone represents 17% of what is left, one wonders how much actually does remain. Shetland Islands Council EDU sees the inevitable but not immediate decline. West Shetland will not prevent the North Sea’s decline. Furthermore, several government papers between 2003 and 2007 recognise the problem. However, in my opinion none of the papers seem to provide any concrete contingency plans when and if, as expected, UKCS production falls to a third of its 1999 peak level sometime between 2020 and 2030.

Concurrently, Office for National Statistics (ONS) data after the second quarter of 2007 suggests the UK is fast becoming a net importer of crude for the first time in decades. Glory days have long, off-shore industry faces tough challenges, government finances are precarious and no one is in denial. In short, it’s a jolly rotten mess, albeit one which has been in the pipeline for some time.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © BP Plc, Andrew Rig, N. Sea