Assessing BP’s settlement with the US authorities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IOC’s bonds, Dragon's shares & Shell’s spill

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd (IOC) issued its much talked about bonds to the tune of US$500 million last week, with a 5.625% rate due in 2021 to fund ongoing and future domestic projects. Banking on the premise of burgeoning demand among other metrics, ratings agency Moody’s gave it a Baa3 rating with a stable outlook.

Through its 10 refineries with a combined capacity of 1.2 million barrels a day, IOC is India’s largest downstream company with a near 40% market share. While it is a publicly listed company, the Indian government owns 78.92% of it. From an Indian majority state-owned behemoth to a LSE-listed upstream company 51% owned by the government of the Emirate of Dubai – Dragon Oil – which was brought to the Oilholic’s attention recently.

Dragon’s share price is nowhere near its own 52-week high of 609p, but past few trading sessions following its H1 interim results have seen its price rise nearly 4% or 20p on average to about 490p in a decidedly bearish environment. (For the record, it is not the biggest LSE-listed riser of the day – that accolade goes to Heritage Oil but that’s a story for another day).

Question is do you buy it? Examining past performance seems to suggest so and Dragon has recorded a 25% average (gross) production growth for H1 2011. Furthermore, the upstream co has set itself a rather ambitious production growth target of 20% on an annualised basis for the year.

For 2011-2013, the company seeks to maintain target of average annual production growth in the range of 10% to 15%. Away from production projections and by force of habit the Oilholic always looks at the EPS which is up 125% year over year for the first half of this year. Additionally, it remains a takeover target for the majority owners (among others).

The Dragon’s central plank or prized asset is prospection in the Cheleken, an offshore Turkmen jurisdictional area in the eastern section of the Caspian Sea. This can be further narrowed down to an operational focus on the re-development of two oil-producing fields - Dzheitune (Lam) and Dzhygalybeg (Zhdanov).

On the ground Dragon looks promising; on paper it looks a shade one-dimensional. From an investor’s standpoint, that would make its shares a reasonable medium term investment. The Oilholic is always partial to the idea of going long; hence Dragon’s shares are appealing within reason.

Moving on to an offshore story of a grave kind, Royal Dutch Shell confirmed that a leak in a flow line leading to the Gannet Alpha oil platform, east of Aberdeen, Scotland, found on Wednesday is “under control with leakage considerably reduced.” According to local sources, a Remote-Operated Vehicle (ROV) has been deployed for inspection checks and to monitor the subsea leak.

Admittedly not much is coming out in terms of information, except for Shell’s claims that the oil would disperse naturally and not reach the UK coastline. The Oilholic finds the lack of information to be frustrating and sincerely hopes Shell is not doing a BP style “underestimation”. At this point there is no reason to believe that is the case.

Finally, both WTI and Brent are in the green up 1.83% and 1.31% in intraday at 15:15GMT. The bears are still in Crude town, but quite possibly taking a breather after last week’s mauling, or as Commerzbank analysts note, “Even if the short term trough appears to be reached, weak physical demand should keep oil prices in check.”

Update 16:45 GMT: Latest estimates from Shell’s press office suggest 216 tonnes or 1,300 barrels had been spilled.

Update 10:30 GMT, Aug 16: Shell says additional leakage has been discovered in the flow line beneath Gannet Alpha platform

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Dzheitune Lam Platform B © Dragon Oil Plc.

Crude Dips but Total Warns of Year-end Price Spike

Crude prices dipped yet again last week, especially towards the end of the week, as bearish trends witnessed in the wider financial markets clobbered commodities. Additionally, the US Department of Energy reported a 1.9 million barrel peak-to-trough decline of crude oil inventories (gasoline and distillate inventories both rose).

The drawdown was above expectations and NYMEX WTI August contract fell 30 cents to US$75.64 a barrel in New York following publication of the report. In fact, crude prices, instead of being the exception, were following the norm as commodities in general suffered their first negative quarter since 2008, if the past three months are anything to go by.

Problem these days is that higher institutional investor participation in commodities markets has without a shadow of doubt, at least in my mind, increased the connection between forex carry trade and stock market fluctuations with commodity assets. Still, most oil market commentators I have spoken to forecast crude prices as well as commodities prices to reverse last week’s losses as the supply and demand scenario has not been fundamentally altered. In fact, it remains strong.

However, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of oil major Total believes crude prices could spike on account of an entirely different reason – the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, he said that while it remained necessary to drill in deep waters to meet global demand for fuel, tougher safety rules could result in higher crude price.

"Total’s policy is clearly towards zero risk. All this means potential additional costs," de Margerie said, adding that oil prices could reach US$90 a barrel by end-2010.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo courtesy © Cairn Energy 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