G7’s crude gripe, “Make oil prices dive”

As the Oilholic prepares to bid goodbye to Dubai, the G7 group of finance ministers have griped about rising oil prices and called on oil producing nations to up their production. They would rather have Dubai Mall’s Waterfall with Divers enclosure (pictured left) act as a metaphor for market direction! It is causing some consternation in this OPEC member jurisdiction and so it should.

 

First the facts – in a communiqué released on the US Treasury’s website yesterday, the G7 ministers say they are concerned about the impact of rising oil prices on the global economy and were prepared to act. Going one step further the ministers called on producing nations, most read OPEC, to act and now.

 

"We encourage oil producing countries to increase their output to meet demand. We stand ready to call upon the International Energy Agency (IEA) to take appropriate action to ensure that the market is fully and timely supplied," the statement notes. We have been here before back in March when American motorists were worried about prices at the pump and President Barack Obama was in a political quandary.

 

Now of course he is barely months away from a US Presidential election and here we are again. In fact the Canadians aside, all leaders elsewhere in the G7 are facing political pressure of some kind or the other related to the crude stuff too. Cue the statement and sabre rattling of releasing strategic petroleum reserves (SPRs)!

 

OPEC and non-OPEC producers' viewpoint, and with some reason, is that the market remains well supplied. Unfortunately plays around paper barrels and actual availability of physical barrels have both combined to create uncertainty in recent months.

 

On the face of it, at its last meeting OPEC – largely due to Saudi assertiveness – was seen producing above its set quota. Oil prices have spiked and dived, as the Oilholic noted earlier, but producers’ ability to change that is limited. Fear of the unknown is driving oil prices. As Saadallah Al Fathi, a former OPEC Secretariat staff member, notes in his recent Gulf News column, “prices seem to move against expectations, one way or another.”

 

Al Fathi further notes that the (West/Israel’s) confrontation with Iran is still on, but it is not expected to flare up. “Even the embargo on Iranian oil is slow to show in numbers, but may become more visible later,” he adds. While an oil shock following an Israeli attack on Iran could be made up by spare capacity, the room for another chance geopolitical complication or natural disaster would stretch the market. This is what spooks politicians, a US President in an election year and the market alike.

 

However, rather than talk of releasing SPRs for political ends now and as was the case in June 2011, the Oilholic has always advocated waiting for precisely such an emergency! While it has happened in the past, it is not as if producers have taken their foot off the production pedal to cash in on the prevailing bullish market trends at this particular juncture.

 

Away from G7’s gripe, regional oil futures benchmark – the Dubai Mercantile Exchange (DME) Oman Crude (OQD) – has caught this blogger’s eye. Oman’s production is roughly below 925,000 barrels per day (bpd) at present. For instance, in June it came in at 923,339 bpd. However, this relatively new benchmark is as much about Oman as Brent is about the UK. It is fast acquiring pan-regional acceptance and the November futures contract is seen mirroring Brent and OPEC basket crude prices. Its why the DME created the contract in the first place. Question is will it have global prowess as a 'third alternative' one day?

 

Elsewhere, the UAE has begun using the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline (ADCOP). It will ultimately enable Abu Dhabi to export 70% of its crude stuff from Fujairah which is located on the Gulf of Oman bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian threats to close the passage in the process. However the 400km long pipeline, capable of transporting 1.5 million bpd, comes at a steep price of US$4 billion.

 

Sticking with the region, it seems Beirut is now the most expensive city to live in the Middle East according to Mercer’s 2012 Worldwide Cost of Living survey. It is followed by Abu Dhabi, Dubai (UAE), Amman (Jordan) and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia). On a global footing, Tokyo (Japan) tops the list followed by Luanda (Angola), Osaka (Japan), Moscow (Russia) and Geneva (Switzerland).

 

Meanwhile unlike the ambiguity over Dubai’s ratings status, Kuwait has maintained its AA rating from Fitch with a ‘stable’ outlook supported by rising oil prices and strong sovereign net foreign assets estimated by the agency in the region of US$323 billion in 2011.

 

Finally, on a day when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says Iran has doubled production capacity at the Fordo nuclear site, Tehran has called for ridding the world of nuclear weapons at the Non Aligned Movement (NAM) summit claiming it has none and plans none. Yeah right! And  the Oilholic is dating Cindy Crawford! That’s all from Dubai folks; it’s time for the big flying bus home to London! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Waterfall at the Dubai Mall, UAE © Gaurav Sharma

IEA on demand, Lavrov on Iran plus crude chatter

In its latest monthly report, the IEA confirmed what the Oilholic has been blogging for the past few months on the basis of City feedback – that the likelihood of another global recession will inhibit demand for crude oil this year, a prevalent high oil price might in itself hit demand too and seasonally mild weather already is.

While geopolitical factors such as the Iranian tension and Nigerian strikes have supported bullish trends of late, the IEA notes that Q4 of 2011 saw consumption decline on an annualised basis when compared with the corresponding quarter of 2010. As a consequence, the agency feels inclined to reduce its 2012 demand growth forecast by 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) from its last monthly report to 1.1 million barrels.

"Two inherently destabilising factors are interacting to give an impression of price stability that is more apparent than real. The first is a rising likelihood of sharp economic slowdown, if not outright recession, in 2012. The second factor, which is counteracting bearish pressures, is the physical market tightening evident since mid-2009 and notably since mid-2010," it says in the report.

The IEA also suggests that a one-third downward revision to GDP growth would see this year's oil consumption unchanged at 2011 levels. On the Iranian situation and its threat to disrupt flows in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil output passes, the agency notes, “At least a portion of Iran's 2.5 million bpd crude exports will likely be denied to OECD refiners during second half 2012, although more apocalyptic scenarios for sustained disruption to Strait of Hormuz transits look less likely.”

Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has weighed in to the Iran debate with his own “chaos theory”. According to the BBC, the minister has warned that a Western military strike against Iran would be "a catastrophe" which would lead to "large flows" of refugees from Iran and would "fan the flames" of sectarian tension in the Middle East. Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak earlier said any decision on an Israeli attack on Iran was "very far off".

Meanwhile, one of those companies facing troubles of its own when it comes to procuring light sweet crude for European refiners is Italy’s Eni which saw its long term corporate credit rating lowered by S&P from 'A' from 'A+'. In addition, S&P removed the ratings from CreditWatch, where they were placed with negative implications on December 8, 2011.

Eni’s outlook is negative according to S&P and the downgrade reflects the ratings agency’s view that the Italian oil major’s business risk profile and domestic assets have been impaired by the material exposure of many of its end markets and business units to the deteriorating Italian operating environment. Eni reported consolidated net debt of €28.3 billion as of September 30, 2011. Previously, Moody’s has also reacted to the Italian economy versus Eni situation over Q4 2011.

Elsewhere conflicting reports have emerged about the Obama administration’s decision to deny a permit to Keystone XL project something which the Oilholic has maintained would be a silly move for US interests as Canadians can and will look elsewhere. Some reports said the President has decided to deny a permit to the project while others said a decision was unlikely before late-February. This article from The Montreal Gazette just about sums up Wednesday's conflicting reports.

When the formal rejection by the US state department finally arrived, the President said he had been given insufficient time to review the plans by his Republican opponents. At the end of 2011, Republicans forced a final decision on the plan within 60 days during a legislative standoff.

The Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, criticised the Obama administration for its failure over a project that would have created "hundreds of thousands of jobs" while the President responded by starting an online petition so that the general population can express its opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

The merits and demerits of the proposal aisde, this whole protracted episode represents the idiocy of American politics. Canadians should now seriously examine alternative export markets; something which they have already hinted at. The Oilholic's timber trade analogy always makes Canadians smile. (Sadly, even Texans agree, though its no laughing matter).

On the crude pricing front, the short term geopolitically influenced bullishness continues to provide resistance to the WTI at the US$100 per barrel level and Brent at US$111. Sucden Financial's Myrto Sokou expects some further consolidation in the oil markets due to the absence of major indicators and mixed signals from the global equity markets, while currency movements might provide some short-term direction. “Investors should remain cautious ahead of any possible news coming out from the Greek debt talks,” Sokou warns.

Finally, global law firm Baker & McKenzie is continuing with its Global Energy Webinar Series 2011-2012 with the latest round – on International Competition Law – to follow on January 25-26 which would be well worth listening in to. Antitrust Rules for Joint Ventures, Strategic Alliances and Other Modes of Cooperation with Competitors would also be under discussion. Thats all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil Refinery, Quebec, Canada © Michael Melford / National Geographic.

Crude mood swings, contagion & plenty of chatter

There is a lot going on at the moment for commentators to easily and conveniently adopt a bearish short term stance on the price of crude. Take the dismal US jobs data, Greek crisis, Irish ratings downgrade and fears of contagion to begin with. Combine this with a relatively stronger dollar, end of QE2 liquidity injections, the finances of Chinese local authorities and then some 50-odd Chinese corporates being questioned and finally the US political standoff with all eyes on the Aug 2 deal deadline or the unthinkable.

Additionally, everyone is second guessing what crude price the Saudis would be comfortable with and MENA supply fears are easing. Quite frankly, all of these factors may collectively do more for the cause of those wishing for bearish trends than the IEA’s announcement last month – no not the one about the Golden Age of gas, but the one about it being imperative to raid strategic petroleum reserves in order to ‘curb’ rising prices! The Oilholic remains bullish and is even more convinced that IEA’s move was unwarranted and so are his friends at JP Morgan.

In an investment note, they opined that the effectiveness of IEA’s coordinated release is a matter of some debate and crude prices have rebounded quickly. “But while the US especially has demonstrated a willingness to use oil reserves as a stimulus tool in what has become a rather limited toolbox, a second release will require higher prices and a far more arduous task to achieve unity,” they concluded.

Now, going beyond the short to medium term conjecture, the era of cheap oil, or shall we say cheap energy is fading and fast. An interesting report titled – A new world order: When demand overtakes supply – recently published by Société Générale analysts Véronique Riches-Flores and Loïc de Galzain confirms a chain of thought which is in the mind of many but few seldom talk of. Both analysts in question feel that the last long cycle, which extended from the middle of the 1980s to the middle of the 2000s, was shaped by an environment that strongly favoured the development of supply; the next era will in all likelihood be dictated by demand issues.

Furthermore, they note and the Oilholic quotes: “According to our estimates, energy demand will at least double if not triple over the next two decades. This is significantly more than the IEA is currently projecting, with the difference being mainly attributable to our projections for emerging world energy consumption per capita, which we estimate will considerably rise as these countries develop. Applied to the oil market, these projections mean that today’s proven oil reserves, which are currently expected to meet 45 years of global demand based on the present rate of production, would be exhausted within 15-22 years.”

IEA itself estimates that demand will grow by an average of 1.47 million barrels a day (bpd) in 2012, up from the current 2011 average of 1.2 million bpd. Moving away from crystal ball gazing, Bloomberg’s latest figures confirm that record outflows from commodity ETPs (ETF, ETC and ETN) observed in May slowed abruptly. According to SG Cross Asset Research apart from net inflows into precious metals – the biggest sub-segment measured by assets under management – other categories such as Energy and base metals saw limited net outflows (see table on the left, click to enlarge).

Meanwhile, the London Stock Exchange (LSE) was busy welcoming another new issuer of ETFs – Ossiam – on to its UK markets on Monday. It is already the largest ETF venue in Europe by number of issuers; 20 to be exact. According to a spokesperson there are 481 ETFs listed on the LSE. In H1 2010 there were 369,600 ETF trades worth a combined £19 billion on the Exchange's order book, a 40.3% and 33.5% increase respectively on the same period last year.

Switching to corporates and continuing with the LSE, today Ophir Energy plc was admitted to the Main Market. The company listed on the Premium segment of the Main Market and raised US$375 million at admission and has a market capitalisation of US$1.28 billion.

Ophir is an independent firm with assets in a number of African countries particularly Tanzania and Equatorial Guinea. Since its foundation in 2004, the company has acquired an extensive portfolio of exploration interests consisting of 17 projects in nine jurisdictions in Africa.

The company is one of the top five holders of deepwater exploration acreage in Africa in terms of net area and could be one to watch. So far it has made five discoveries of natural gas off Tanzania and Equatorial Guinea and has recently started drilling in the offshore Kora Prospect in the Senegal Guinea Bissau Common Zone. For the LSE itself, Ophir brings the number of companies with major operations in sub-Saharan Africa listed on its books to 79.

Across the pond, Vanguard Natural Resources (VNR) announced on Monday that it will buy the rest of Encore Energy Partners LP it does not already own for US$545 million, gaining full access to the latter’s oil-heavy reserves. While its shares fell 8% on the news, the Oilholic believes it is a positive statement of intent by VNR in line with moves made by other E&P companies to secure reserves with an eye on bullish demand forecasts over the medium term.

Meanwhile, a horror story with wider implications is unfolding in the US, as ExxonMobil’s Silvertip pipeline leaked oil into the Montana stretch of the Yellowstone River on July 1. The company estimates that almost 42,000 gallons may have leaked and invariably questions were again asked by environmentalists about the wisdom of giving the Keystone XL project the go-ahead. This is not what the US needed when President Obama was making all the right noises – crudely speaking that is.

In March, he expressed a desire to include Canadian and Mexican oil in the US energy mix, in May he said new leases would be sold each year in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve, and oil and gas fields in the Atlantic Ocean would be evaluated as a high priority. To cap it all, last month, the President reaffirmed that despite the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, drilling there remained a core part of the country's future energy supply and new incentives would be offered for on and offshore development. Leases already held but affected by the President's drilling moratorium, imposed in wake of the BP spill, would be eligible for extensions, he added. The ExxonMobil leak may not impact the wider picture but will certainly darken the mood on Capitol Hill.

Russians and Norwegians have no hang-ups about crude prospection in inhospitable climates – i.e. the Arctic. Details are now emerging about an agreement signed by the two countries in June which came into effect on July 7. Under the terms, both countries’ state oil firms – i.e. Russia’s Gazprom and Norway’s Statoil – will divide up their shares of the Barents Sea. USGS estimates from 2008 suggest the Arctic was likely to hold 30% of the world's undiscovered gas and 13% of its oil.

Finally, Sugar Land, Texas-based Industrial Info Resources (IIR) came-up with some interesting findings on the Canadian oil sands. In a report last week, the research firm noted that Canada's Top 10 metals and minerals industry projects are large scale oil sands and metal mining endeavours, with the No. 1 being in Alberta's oil sands.

IIR observed that what was once considered a “large project” was now being dwarfed by “megaprojects”. Not long ago a project valued at CAD$1 billion was considered a mega project; now the norm is more in the region of CAD$5 billion (and above) for a project to earn that accolade. Not to mention the fact that the Canadian dollar has been stronger in relative terms in recent years and not necessarily suffering from a mild case of the Dutch disease like its Australian counterpart. IIR’s findings take the Oilholic nicely back to his visit to Calgary in March, a report he authored for Infrastructure Journal and a conversation he had with veteran legal expert Scott Rusty Miller based in Canada's oil capital. We concurred that while the oil sands developments face myriad challenges they are certainly on the way up. The Canadians are developers with scruples and permit healthy levels of outside scrutiny more than many (or perhaps any) other jurisdictions.

IIR recorded US$176 billion worth of oil sands projects and all of the projected investment capital, except for one project in Utah, is in Alberta. It is becoming more likely than ever that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s dream of Canada becoming an energy super power will be realised sooner rather than later.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo 1: Pump Jacks Perryton, Texas © Joel Sartore, National Geographic. Photo 2: Shell Athabasca Oil Sands site work © Royal Dutch Shell. Table: Global Commodity ETPs: Inflows analysis by category © Société Générale July 2011.

Discussing Offshore, BP & all the rest on TV

After researching the impact of BP’s disaster on offshore drilling stateside using Houston as a hub to criss-cross North America for almost a month, I published my findings in a report for Infrastructure Journal noting that both anecdotal and empirical evidence as well as industry data suggested no material alteration when it comes to offshore drilling activity. The reason is simple enough – the natural resource in question – crude oil has not lost its gloss. Consumption patterns have altered but there is no seismic shift; marginally plummeting demand in the West is being more than negated in the East.

So over a year on from Apr 20, 2010, on that infamous day when the Deepwater Horizon rig at the Macondo oil well in Gulf of Mexico exploded and oil spewed into the ocean for 87 days until it was sealed by BP on July 15, 2010, the oilholic safely observes that if there was a move away from offshore – its clearly not reflected in the data whether you rely on Smith bits, Baker Hughes or simply look at the offshore project finance figures of Infrastructure Journal.

After publication of my report on the infamous first anniversary of the incident, I commented on various networks, most notably CNBC (click to watch), that (a) while offshore took a temporary hit in the US, that did not affect offshore activity elsewhere, (b) no draconian knee-jerk laws were introduced though the much maligned US Minerals Management Service (MMS) was deservedly replaced by Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) and (c) Brazil is fast becoming the “go to destination” for offshore enthusiasts. Finally as I blogged earlier, the sentiment that BP is somehow giving up or is going to give up on the lucrative US market – serving the world biggest consumers of gasoline – is a load of nonsense!

So what has happened since then? Well we have much more scrutiny of the industry – not just in the US but elsewhere too. This increases what can be described as the diligence time load – i.e. simply put the legal compliance framework for offshore projects. Furthermore, without contingency plans and costly containment systems, the US government is highly unlikely to award offshore permits. So the vibe from Houston is that while the big players can take it; the Gulf may well be out of reach of smaller players.

Now just how deep is 'deepwater' drilling as the term is dropped around quite casually? According a Petrobras engineer with whom I sat down to discuss this over a beer – if we are talking ultra-deepwater drilling – then by average estimates one can hit the ocean floor at 7,000 feet, followed by 9800 feet of rock layer and another 7,000 feet of salt layer before the drillbit hits the deep-sea oil. This is no mean feat – its actually quite a few feet! Yet no one is in a mood to give-up according to financial and legal advisers and the sponsors they advise both here in London and across the pond in Houston.

To cite an example, on Oct 12, 2010 – President Obama lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf. By Oct 21, Chevron had announced its US$7.5 billion offshore investment plans there – a mere 9 days is all it took! Whom are we kidding? Offshore is not dead, it is not even wounded – we are just going to drill deeper and deeper. If the demand is there, the quest for supply will continue.

As for the players involved in Macondo, three of the five involved – BP, Anadarko Petroleum and Transocean – may be hit with severe monetary penalties, but Halliburton and Cameron International look less likely to be hit by long term financial impact.

How Transocean – which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig – manages is the biggest puzzle for me. Moody's currently maintains a negative outlook on Transocean's current Baa3 rating. This makes borrowing for Transocean all that more expensive, but not impossible and perhaps explains its absence from the debt markets. How it will copes may be the most interesting sideshow.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Gaurav Sharma on CNBC, April 20, 2011 © CNBC

Oh the market ‘insouciance’ outside is frightful!

It is no longer strange to see Americans and Canadians complain about the rising price of gasoline. After all, it’s the price at the pump which hurts us all – something which has seen a steady rise.

A short-term respite is quite frankly not in sight; more so for Europeans but complaints from North American consumers and change in consumption patterns (in relative terms) have grown in the last five years. Although some in the English town of Bradford, who pay more for their petrol/per litre than North Americans, got a temporary one-off respite according to the BBC, after the station staff put a decimal point in the wrong place. The story is hilarious, aptly timed for April Fools Day and one for the little guy troubled by rising inflation in UK.

US President Obama finally pointed to Canada, Mexico as reliable sources of crude oil and said they could play their part in his consuming nation’s bid to slash imports from unfriendly governments. Both countries rank higher than Saudi Arabia in terms of crude exports to the US, so very welcome quotes – but as with all else about him – a bit late.

The short-term problem – and a global one it is too – is the widening of premium between easier to refine sweet crude oil and sour crude which is the opposite. Anecdotal evidence, either side of the Atlantic is that refiners (either European or European subsidiaries of overseas owners), are paying record physical premiums to secure supplies of sweet crude in wake of the Libyan stand-off.

The quality of Libyan sweet crude is excellent and as a short-term problem starts resembling a longer termed stand-off, the market is getting spooked as no one can make up their minds about who is in charge of the country. That’s despite the on / off media reports of oil being loaded on to tankers both on the rebels’ side and Gaddafi’s side.

End result - Brent Crude forward month futures (May) contract, more reflective of global conditions, has spiked to a 30-month high. Oilholic believes this is no ordinary or linear spike resulting from a geopolitical bias/risk premium to the upside. Rather it is clearly reflective of the rise in price differentials between sweet and sour crude in wake of Libya and hence impacts Brent as a benchmark to a greater extent than the WTI.

As early as a fortnight ago, the IEA rightly warned that we are underestimating the impact of the temporary (or otherwise) loss of Libyan sweet crude on traded paper barrels. In its monthly report for March, it noted, "Market insouciance may change abruptly as April approaches, when global crude demand is expected to increase by around 1 million barrels a day as Atlantic Basin refinery maintenance ends."

Sweet crude varieties are trading at a premium of US$2.80 to US$4.10 per barrel above sour varieties, according to the Oilholic’s sources. This is the highest for some time. Try as they might, Saudis won’t materially alter this; the premium has solid foundations!

Finally before I leave Canada for San Francisco, here is a brilliant editorial in The Economist about European nations trying to forget embarrassing ties in the Middle East and a BBC report on Transocean’s 'crude' announcement of bonuses related to their "best year of safety."

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Gas Station, Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2011

A Bashed-up BP and a Desperate President

Just how much political capital is worth is one tough question? President Obama is playing a strange and desperate game in his repetitive bashing of BP over the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A clear strategy seems to be emerging – whenever the President feels the heat, he calculates that a rant (sprinkled with real or staged anger) against BP will help. It makes for good political theatre and to a certain extent it plays out well to an American audience. Having trawled the blogosphere as well as key US news reports, I found very little, if any, mention of Transocean or Halliburton or the fact that it was a rig built, operated and managed by Americans.

Obama can’t bash BP and see all of the pain being felt across the Pond. As many commentators on either side of the Atlantic, including the BBC’s Business Editor Robert Peston, have noted nearly 40% of its shares are held in the US. The financial pain will and perhaps already is being felt in Britain – whether we’re talking pension funds or investment trust ISAs. But the Brit’s wallets, Gulf Coastline Residents and wildlife would not be the only ones to suffer.

Long-term investors are not panicking (yet!) according to my investigations. If anything, from what I hear in the City, many opine now would be a “good time to buy BP shares” on the cheap. One mute point is that crude oil is trading in the circa of US$71 – 77 per barrel in recent weeks. It stood at $74-plus levels the last time I checked. It is not as if crude futures are trading at sub $10 levels, and the US is the only market BP operates in?

I would stress that no one denies the Deepwater Horizon Gulf oil spill is an appalling tragedy in more ways than one. However, drilling in the Gulf is crucial for the energy security of the United States. Obama acknowledged just as much in a speech in March prior to this incident. This morning the International Energy Agency (IEA) opined that a long-term impact on future off-shore supply was unlikely in wake of the incident.

“The longer-lasting impact of Deepwater Horizon on U.S. oil supplies may depend on whether operational negligence on the part of companies or regulators, or rather shortcomings in current operating procedures and regulatory structures, were the key cause. The former might suggest a less profound impact on future oil supply than the latter,” the agency said.

Additionally, the IEA made another interesting comment. It said the US government was now belatedly following the steps taken by the UK after the Piper Alpha disaster (1988) - but noted that scores of new offshore fields were developed in the subsequent demand.

In the interim, what’s influencing markets’ sentiment about BP momentarily is that both the US President and the company’s executives sound desperate given the battering they’ve taken in recent weeks. Neither is helping either which is a real shame.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Logo Courtesy © BP Plc

To Drill or Not to Drill Mr. President?

One cannot but help feeling for President Barack Obama. As a candidate and Democrat nominee for the highest American office, Obama was often sceptical about offshore drilling. While his opponents were screaming “Drill Baby Drill,” the then young senator from Illinois was not convinced for his own reasons – some sound, others well – not all that sound.

As President, facing the ground realities and very real concerns about US energy security, Obama made the correct call on March 31 to permit offshore drilling off the US coastline. His opponents claimed the President was not going far enough. Some on his own side claimed he was pandering to the Republicans.

Sadly, before the dust could settle, on April 20th, an environmentally tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that followed an explosion on an offshore rig, complicated the scenario further. More so executives, from both - oil giant BP which commissioned the rig and Transocean, one of the world’s largest offshore drilling companies, and the rig's operator - did not acquit themselves well in front of American legislators by trying to shift the blame for the incident.

As both companies were trying their hardest to ensure that they do not endear themselves to the American public, the President summed up the emotions, “The American people could not have been impressed with that display, and I certainly wasn’t...There’s enough responsibility to go around, and all parties should be willing to accept it. That includes, by the way, the federal government.”

Trouble is, even though he says oil exploration and drilling must still be part of US energy strategy, the issue has become more political than ever. Following the spill, Obama announced a moratorium on new offshore drilling projects unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent another disaster.

Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger said the accident had caused him to drop his support for new offshore drilling in his state. "You turn on the television and see this enormous disaster. You say to yourself, 'Why would we want to take on that kind of risk?” he added.

Across the political divide politicians are asking the very same questions, albeit not for the same reasons. Let us take things into perspective. No one, not least the author of this blog, or people within or outside the oil world including BP (who may have to foot most if not all of the bill to clean up the mess), are suggesting for a moment that what has happened is not terrible and tragic in equal measure.

However, the spill will make it harder for America to follow an energy policy that could actually deliver long-term satisfaction. Some in political circles would try their best to pander to the voting public’s fears for their own gains. Here is a telling fact - before the latest oil spill began on April 20th; the last “big” oil platform leak in the US was 40 years ago. Exxon Valdez incident, though related, cannot be brought into the equation.

So, while any such incident is regrettable to say the least, the figure not only speaks for itself but also indicates that safety standards have improved markedly. However, the figure is something the politicians risk even raising, let alone rely upon to justify offshore drilling and the list does include the President. The oil spill, will be contained and hopefully soon, but US energy policy is currently in a mess and all at sea. Actually it could be both and that in itself is no laughing matter.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © The White House website