When BP met…er…nobody!

It’s good to be back in Houston, Texas although the Oilholic could have done without the very British weather we’re having here. Before getting down to cruder brass tacks and gaining market insight in wake of the oil price slump, one decided to probe the ongoing chatter about BP being sized up suitors.

To being with, this blogger does not believe ExxonMobil is going to takeover BP, has said so quite openly on broadcasting outlets back in England. That sentiment is shared by a plethora of senior commentators the Oilholic has met here in Houston over the past 48 hours. Both financial and legal advisers along with industry insiders remain unconvinced. Hell, even BP employees don’t buy the slant.

For starters if you are ExxonMobil, why would you want a company that has quite a lot of baggage no matter how attractive a proposition it is in terms of market valuation. Let us face it BP’s valuation is pretty low, but a damn sight better than 280p circa it was fetching in the immediate aftermath of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

However, the valuation is where it is for a reason. BP has scored a few legal victories, but the protracted tussle in US courtrooms resulting from the spill's fallout will continue for sometime yet. Secondly, its 19% stake in Russia’s Rosneft, while widely deemed as a positive move in Houston back in 2012, isn’t look all too attractive right now. BP’s latest financial data bears testimony to that.

Now if you were Rex Tillerson that’s not the most attractive partner out there to put it mildly, say Houston contacts who’ve advised the inimitable ExxonMobil boss on the company's previous forays. There are also regulatory hurdles. A hypothetical ExxonMobil takeover would create an oil and gas major with a cumulative revenue base that’d beat the GDP of a basket of mid-tier economies (using World Bank’s data on economic performance).

Finally, you can’t put monetary value on reputational risk. BP’s brand is considerably less toxic with boss Bob Dudley & co working real hard to mend it. Yet, the toxicity would take a while yet to dissipate. It’s not easy to forget the events of April 2010. Any suitor for BP, not just ExxonMobil, would be only too aware of that.

Another strange theory doing the rounds is that Shell might make an approach. This has been visited several times over the years, not least directly by BP’s former boss Lord Browne. The reason it hasn’t taken off is because the Dutch half of Royal Dutch Shell does not want its influence diluted further, which is guaranteed to happen were Shell and BP to merge.

Moving away from the improbable and the lousy, to something more credible - a theory doing the rounds that BP might find a credible white knight in the shape of Chevron. Such a tangent does make ears prick in Houston and gets the odd nod for experts who have seen many a merger and the odd mega merger. 

The only problem is that in more ways than one, Chevron and BP’s North American ventures overlap which isn’t a problem to such an extent in the case of ExxonMobil and Shell. So a BP and Cheveron merger does stack up in theory. However, there would plenty of regulatory hurdles and both parties would need to divest substantially for the merger to be approved by regulators in more than one jurisdiction.

While everything is possible on the BP front, nothing is worth getting excited about. In the interim, an odd investment banker (or two or possibly more) in New York or London will keep pedalling BP’s vulnerability.  But consider this, were a suitor or suitors turn up for BP, it wont hurt your prospects if you happen to be a BP shareholder!

That’s all for the moment folks from Houston, where there are a few strikes, some trepidation and a whole lot of realism in the air! 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 1: Logo of BP © BP Plc. Photo 2: ExxonMobil office signage, Downtown Houston, USA © Gaurav Sharma.

Oil markets & producers on a tricky skating rink

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Forbes click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

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

Hedge Funds have been ‘contangoed’

Recent events may have pushed the Brent front month futures contract back towards US$108 per barrel; but there's no denying some have been 'contangoed'! Ukrainian tensions and lower Libyan production are hard to ignore, even if the latter is a bit of a given.

Nonetheless, for a change, the direction of both benchmark prices this month indicates that July did belong to the physical traders with papers traders, most notably Hedge Funds, taking a beating.

It's astonishing (or perhaps not) that many paper traders went long on Brent banking on the premise of "the only way is up" as the Iraqi insurgency escalated last month. The only problem was that Iraqi oil was still getting dispatched from its southern oil hub of Basra despite internal chaos. Furthermore, areas under ISIS control hardly included any major Iraqi oil production zone.

After spiking above $115, the Brent price soon plummeted to under $105 as the reality of the physical market began to bite. It seems European refiners were holding back from buying the expensive crude stuff faced with declining margins. In fact, North Sea shipments, which Brent is largely synced with, were at monthly lows. Let alone bothering to pull out a map of Iraqi oilfields, many paper traders didn't even bother with the ancillary warning signs.

As Fitch Ratings noted earlier this month, the European refining margins are likely to remain weak for at least the next one to two years due to overcapacity, demand and supply imbalances, and competition from overseas. Over the first half of 2014, the northwest European refining margin averaged $3.3 per barrel, down from $4 per barrel in 2013 and $6.8 barrel in 2012.

Many European refineries have been loss-making or only slightly profitable, depending on their complexity, location and efficiency. They are hardly the sort of buyers to purchase consignments by the tanker-load during a mini bull run. The weaker margin scenario itself is nothing new, resulting from factors including a stagnating economy and the bias of domestic consumption towards diesel due to EU energy regulations

"This means that surplus gasoline is exported and the diesel fuel deficit is filled by imports, prompting competition with Middle Eastern, Russian and US refineries, which have access to cheaper feedstock and lower energy costs on average. Mediterranean refiners are additionally hurt by the interruption of oil supplies from Libya, but this situation may improve with the resumption of eastern port exports," explains Fitch analyst Dmitry Marinchenko.

Of course tell that to Hedge Funds managers who still went long in June collectively holding just short of 600 million paper barrels on their books banking on backwardation. But thanks to smart, strategic buying by physical traders eyeing cargoes without firm buyers, contango set in hitting the hedge funds with massive losses.

When supply remains adequate (or shall we say perceived to be adequate) and key buyers are not in a mood to buy in the volumes they normally do down to operational constraints, you know you've been 'contangoed' as forward month delivery will come at a sharp discount to later contracts!

Now the retreat is clear as ICE's latest Commitments of Traders report for the week to July 15 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. If the window of scrutiny is extended to the last week of June, the Oilholic would say that's a reduction of nearly 40%.

As for the European refiners, competition from overseas is likely to remain high, although Fitch reckons margins may start to recover in the medium term as economic growth gradually improves and overall refining capacity in Europe decreases. For instance, a recent Bloomberg survey indicated that of the 104 refining facilities region wide, 10 will shut permanently by 2020 from France to Italy to the Czech Republic. No surprises there as both OPEC and the IEA see European fuel demand as being largely flat.

Speaking of the IEA, the Oilholic got a chance earlier this month to chat with its Chief Economist Dr Fatih Birol. Despite the latest tension, he sees Russian oil & gas as a key component of the global energy mix (Read all about it in The Oilholic's Forbes post.)

Meanwhile, Moody's sees new US sanctions on Russia as credit negative for Rosneft and Novatek. The latest round of curbs will effectively prohibit Rosneft, Novatek, and other sanctioned entities, including several Russian banks and defence companies, from procuring financing and new debt from US investors, companies and banks.

Rosneft and Novatek will in effect be barred from obtaining future loans with a maturity of more than 90 days or new equity, cutting them off from long-term US capital markets. As both companies' trade activities currently remain unaffected, Moody's is not taking ratings action yet. However, the agency says the sanctions will significantly limit both companies' financing options and could put pressure on development projects, such as Novatek's Yamal LNG.

No one is sure what the aftermath of the MH17 tragedy would be, how the Ukrainian crisis would be resolved, and what implications it has for Russian energy companies and their Western partners. All we can do is wait and see. 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: Oil pipeline © Cairn Energy

EU’s Russian gas, who gets what & BP’s Bob

The vexing question for European Union policymakers these days is who has what level of exposure to Russian gas imports should the taps get turned off, a zero storage scenario at importing nations is assumed [hypothesis not a reality] and the Kremlin's disregard for any harm to its coffers is deemed a given [easier said than done].

Depending on whom you speak to, ranging from a European Commission mandarin to a government statistician, the figures would vary marginally but won't be any less worrying for some. The Oilholic goes by what Eurogas, a non-profit lobby group of natural gas wholesalers, retailers and distributors, has on its files.

According to its data, the 28 members of the European Union sourced 24% of their gas from Russia in 2012. Now before you say that's not too bad, yours truly would say that's not bad 'on average' for some! For instance, Estonia, Finland, Lativia and Lithuania got 100% of their gas from Russia, with Bulgaria, Hungary and Slovakia not far behind having imported 80% or more of their requirements at the Kremlin's grace and favour.

On the other hand, Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UK have nothing to worry about as they import nothing or negligible amounts from Russia. Everyone in between the two ends, especially Germany with a 37% exposure, also has a major cause for concern.

And it is why Europe can't speak with one voice over the Ukrainian standoff. In any case, the EU sanctions are laughable and even a further squeeze won't have any short term impact on Russia. A contact at Moody's says the Central Bank of the Russian Federation has more than enough foreign currency reserves to virtually guarantee there is no medium term shortage of foreign currency in the country. Industry estimates, cited by the agency, seem to put the central bank's holdings at just above US$435 billion. EU members should know as they contributed handsomely to Russia's trade surplus!

Meanwhile, BP boss Bob Dudley is making a habit of diving into swirling geopolitical pools. Last November, Dudley joined Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Kareem al-Luaibi for a controversial visit to the Kirkuk oilfield; the subject of a dispute between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurdistan. While Dudley's boys have a deal with the Iraqi Federal government for the oilfield, the Kurds frown upon it and administer chunks of the field themselves to which BP will no access to.

Now Dudley has waded into the Ukrainian standoff by claiming BP could act as a bridge between Russia and the West. Wow, what did one miss? The whole episode goes something like this. Last week, BP's shareholders quizzed Dudley about the company's exposure to Russia and its near 20% stake in Rosneft, the country's state-owned behemoth.

In response, Dudley quipped: "We will seek to pursue our business activities mindful that the mutual dependency between Russia as an energy supplier and Europe as an energy consumer has been an important source of security and engagement for both parties for many decades. We play an important role as a bridge."

"Neither side can just turn this off…none of us know what can happen in Ukraine," said the man who departed Russia in a huff in 2008 when things at TNK-BP turned sour, but now has a seat on Rosneft's board.

While Dudley's sudden quote on the crisis is surprising, the response of BP's shareholders in recent weeks has been pretty predictable. Russia accounts for over 25% of the company's global output in barrels of oil equivalent per day (boepd) terms. But, in terms of booked boepd reserves, the percentage rises just a shade above 33%.

However, instead of getting spooked folks, look at the big picture – according to the latest financials, in petrodollar terms, BP's Russian exposure is in the same investment circa as Angola and Azerbaijan ($15 billion plus), but well short of anything compared to its investment exposure in the US.

Sticking with the  crudely geopolitical theme, this blogger doesn't always agree with what the Henry Jackson Society (HJS) has to say, but its recent research strikes a poignant chord with what yours truly wrote last week on the Libyan situation.

The society's report titled - Arab Spring: An Assessment Three Years On (click to download here) - noted that despite high hopes for democracy, human rights and long awaited freedoms, the overall situation on the ground is worse off than before the Arab Spring uprisings.

For instance, Libyan oil production has dramatically fallen by 80% as neighbouring Tunisia's economy is now dependent on international aid. Egypt's economy, suffering from a substantial decrease in tourism, has hit its lowest point in decades, while at the same time Yemen's rate of poverty is at an all-time high.

Furthermore, extremist and fundamentalist activity is rising in all surveyed states, with a worrying growth in terror activities across the region. As for democracy, HJS says while Tunisia has been progressing towards reform, Libya's movement towards democracy has failed with militias now effectively controlling the state. Egypt remains politically highly-unstable and polarised, as Yemen's botched attempts at unifying the government has left many political splits and scars.

Moving on to headline crude oil prices, both benchmarks have closed the gap, with the spread in favour of Brent lurking around a $5 per barrel premium. That said, supply-side fundamentals for both benchmarks haven't materially altered; it's the geopolitical froth that's gotten frothier. No exaggeration, but we're possibly looking at a risk premium of at least $10 per barrel, as quite frankly no one knows where the latest Eastern Ukrainian flare-up is going and what might happen next.

Amidst this, the US EIA expects the WTI to average $95.60 per barrel this year, up from its previous forecast of $95.33. The agency also expects Brent to average $104.88, down 4 cents from an earlier forecast. Both averages and the Brent-WTI spread are within the Oilholic's forecast range for 2014. 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: Sullom Voe Terminal, UK © BP

The Bosphorus, a 'Wild Project' & Turkish politics

The Oilholic spent better parts of the afternoon in pouring rain examining the strategic maritime artery known to world as the Bosphorus, a strait that forms the boundary between Europe and Asia and splits Istanbul.

For nearly 7 hours, yours truly criss-crossed on ferries from Kabataş on Istanbul's European side to Kadıköy on the Asian side, back to Eminönü on European side [where ancient Byzantium was built] and finally a return journey up and back from Rumelifeneri, Sariyer, passing twice under the Bosphorus and the Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges.

The said journeys ensured this blogger got a true picture of how busy the world's narrowest natural strait is and it's getting busier with oil and LNG tankers going back and forth from the Black Sea. Excluding local traffic, roughly around 132 ships pass through the Bosphorus on a daily basis, making it the second densest maritime passage after the Strait of Malacca. 

The Oilholic is no naval man, but aboard a vessel on Bosphorus - given the blind bends and S-shaped turns - often one couldn't spot ships approaching from the opposite direction at several points. As if natural and geographical challenges weren't enough, the heavy municipal ferry traffic linking Istanbul's European and Asian sides make navigation even trickier.

The photo (on the right, click to enlarge) is an apt illustration - clicked from a ferry one is aboard, zipping past a Greek tanker, behind which is another ferry, behind which is another tanker in the distance. This is a typical day's navigation for captains of ships passing through here on a murky day like today.

On either side of the Bosphorus live around 14 million souls who call Istanbul home. Makes you think – what if there is a collision? According to Istanbul University, modern navigation techniques have considerably [and thankfully] reduced incidents. Nonetheless, since the end of World War II there have been over 450 incidents on record.

Of the 26 incidents classified as 'major', eight involved tankers and almost all collisions resulted in a crude oil, petroleum or other distillate spill of some description. The worst incident happened nearly 20 years to this day, on March 13, 1994 when a Cyprus registered tanker collided with a bulk carrier resulting in 27 deaths, the spillage of 9,000 tons of petroleum and combustion of another 20,000 tons. The blaze lasted for four days and tanker was completely burnt. Not only was the marine environment harmed, but traffic was suspended for several days.

However long ago the incident may have taken place (and there have been others albeit less serious ones since), it chills people here to this day. Most of the oil shipments originate from Russian ports. Local sources say around 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) to 3.2 million bpd move through the Turkish straits, which include the Marmara Sea, Çanakkale (or Dardanelles, the separation point of the Gallipoli Peninsula from Asia) and of course the Bosphorus.

The cumulative volume for each year almost singularly depends on how Russian exporters shift their load per annum between Baltic and Black Sea ports. So getting his thinking cap on, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, just before seeking re-election for a third term in 2011, announced the 'Kanal İstanbul' project – an idea first mooted in the 16th century.

The PM said that ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic (founded in 1923), the nation needed a "crazy, magnificent" project. The idea is to carve up an artificial canal that would be 50km long, 150m wide and 25m deep. Istanbul itself would turn into two peninsulas and an island courtesy of the artificial re-jigging.

The published measurements carry a message. Any structural engineer would tell you that a canal of the above dimensions would certainly be capable of handling very large crude carriers (VLCCs). This would cut the need for suezmaxes (largest ship measurement capable of transiting through the Suez Canal conventionally capable carrying 1 million barrels) from criss-crossing the Turkish Straits as frequently as they do these days.

It could also help Erdoğan, currently facing local elections and umpteen demonstrations, circumvent the Montreux Convention, which gives Turkey a mandate over the Bosphorus, but allows free passage of civilian ships while restricting passage of naval warships not belonging to Black Sea bordering nations. Critics say the PM is looking to bypass the Montreux Convention, but supporters say he's making a case for good business, while appearing to do his bit for the ecology as well.

Alas a pre-election promise of 2011 and one that's morphed into pre-2014 local elections plan doesn't appear to be properly costed. The figure in the Turkish press is US$10 billion. It's sent all the project financiers this blogger has contacted about it scratching their heads. The headline project valuation is just too low for a project of this magnitude, in fact highly improbable, given the lira's fortunes at the moment.

However, a government official told this blogger that "finance won’t be a problem" while another said "it won’t be needed" as the Turkish Government will self-finance with Phase I already underway. Doubtless, some Russian help – if asked for – would be forthcoming. Ironically, it's a Russian financier, whose kids are [of course] studying in England, who told yours truly, "Erdoğan's project cost estimate is as you British say – a load of bollocks!!"

The PM simply describes the project rather mildly as his "Çılgın Proje" or "Wild Project" and by the looks of things, it certainly is wild. Don't know what the final costs would be, but the target is to have it ready by 2023. As for Russian crude, Ukraine stand-off or not, Baltic or Black Sea routes, it'll ship unabated. Last year, just as Rosneft was eyeing acquisition of TNK-BP, the world largest independent oil trading house Vitol and rival Glencore (now Glencore-Xstrata) agreed to lend $10 billion to the Russian giant to help it finance the acquisition.

In exchange, both the trading houses received a guarantee of future oil supply. A simple Google search would tell you, its not the largest oil trading deals in history, but its right up there dear readers. For Erdoğan, a former mayor of Istanbul, the project would be about his legacy to Turkey, along with a third Bosphorus suspension bridge – Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge – which is scheduled to open in May 2015.

However, right now under his watch Turkey appears to be in a fight for its soul. Erdoğan's "mildly Islamist" (as The Economist prefers to call it) Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi or AK Party is hugely popular in rural areas but not quite so in urban centres.

Since arriving on March 8, right up and until this afternoon, as the Oilholic prepares to fly out, there have been repeated protests and clashes in Taksim Square. Even if you are a couple of miles away from the flashpoints, the smell of tear gas is around. It all erupted in May last year with mass protests. The political context is well-documented in the mainstream media as is Erdoğan's tussle with his once mentor cleric Muhammed Fethullah Gülen.

The latest casualty in these god awful political melees was 15-year old Berkin Elvan, who died yesterday following 269 days in a coma after being hit on the head by a tear gas canister last year. He didn't commit a crime say locals; he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught in a skirmish while out to buy bread for his mother.

Erdoğan can build his legacy around urban developments, bridges, canals and superefficient shipping lanes, he can put forward uncosted grandiose dreams, but if lives like Berkin's are the price for his fixation to power, then something is inherently wrong with Turkish politics and the way the PM thinks. On this unusually sad note, that's all from Istanbul folks. Sorry for the temporary digression from what this blog is about, but it's difficult not to feel anything. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

Addendum, Mar 15: According to a BBC World service report, as further clashes following the death of Berkin Elvan have spread well beyond Istanbul to 30 other towns, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has claimed that the boy had links to "terrorist organisations"…Along with most of Istanbul, the Oilholic despairs!

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 1: The Bosphorus Bridge. Photo 2: Traffic in the Bosphorus. Photo 3: Tanker in the Bosphorus. Photo 4: Election fever in Istanbul, Turkey © Gaurav Sharma, March 2014.

Crude prices: Syrian conundrum & bearish trends

As the immediate threat of a US-led campaign against Syria recedes, some semblance of decidedly bearish calm has returned to the oil markets. The last two weeks have seen steady declines in benchmark prices as the Assad regime agreed to a Russian-led initiative aimed at opening up the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal to international inspection. Jury is still out on whether it will work, but that’s enough to keep the oil market bulls in check.

 

Supply-side analysts also took comfort from the improving situation in terms of Libyan production. However, an appreciable caveat needs to be taken into account here. Libya’s oil production has recovered, but only to about 40% of its pre-war rate of 1.6 million barrels per day (bpd), and is currently averaging no more than 620,000 bpd, according to the government.

 

A further lull in violence in Egypt has helped calm markets as well. Much of the market fear in this context, as the Oilholic noted from Oman a few weeks ago, was invariably linked to the potential for disruption to tanker traffic through the Suez Canal which sees 800,000 barrels of crude and 1.5 million barrels of petroleum distillate products pass each day through its narrow confines.

 

Furthermore, it wasn’t just the traffic between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea via the canal that was, and to a certain extent still is, an area of concern. Disturbances could also impact the Suez-Mediterranean pipeline which ferries through another 1.7 million bpd. Syria, Libya and Egypt aside, Iran is sending conciliatory notes to the US for the first time in years in its nuclear stand-off with the West.

 

Factoring in all of this, the risk premium has retreated. Hence, we are seeing are near six-week lows as far as the Brent forward month futures contract for November goes. There is room for further correction even though winter is around the corner. On a related note, the WTI’s discount to Brent is currently averaging around US$5 per barrel and it still isn’t, and perhaps never will be, sufficiently disconnected from the global geopolitical equation.

 

Shame really, for in what could be construed further price positive news for American consumers, the US domestic crude production rose 1.1% to 7.83 million bpd for the week that ended September 13. That’s the highest since 1989 according to EIA. At least for what it’s worth, this is causing the premium of the Louisiana Light Sweet (LLS) to the WTI to fall; currently near its lowest level since March 2010 (at about $1.15 per barrel).

 

Moving away from pricing matters, the Oilholic recently had the chance to browse through a Fitch Ratings report published last month which seemed to indicate that increasing state control of Russian oil production will make it harder for private companies to compete with State-controlled Rosneft. Many commentators already suspect that.

 

Rosneft's acquisition of TNK-BP earlier this year has given the company a dominant 37% share of total Russian crude production. It implies that the state now controls almost half of the country's crude output and 45% of domestic oil refining.

 

Fitch analyst Dmitri Marinchenko feels rising state control is positive for Rosneft's credit profile but moderately negative for independent oil producers. “The latter will find it harder to compete for new E&P licences, state bank funding and other support,” he adds.

 

In fact, the favouring of state companies for new licences is already evident on the Arctic shelf, where non-state companies are excluded by law. However, most Russian private oil producers have a rather high reserve life, and Marinchenko expects them to remain strong operationally and financially even if their activities are limited to onshore conventional fields.

 

“We also expect domestic competition in the natural gas sector to increase as Novatek and Rosneft take on Gazprom in the market to supply large customers such as utilities and industrial users. These emerging gas suppliers are able to supply gas at lower prices than the fully regulated Gazprom. But this intensified competition should not be a significant blow to Gazprom as it generates most of its profit from exports to Europe, where it has a monopoly.”

 

There is a possibility that this monopoly could be partly lifted due to political pressure from Rosneft and Novatek. But even if this happens, Marinchenko thinks it is highly likely that Gazprom would retain the monopoly on pipeline exports – which would continue to support its credit rating.

 

Continuing with the region, Fitch also said in another report that the production of the first batch of the crude stuff from the Kashagan project earlier this month is positive for Kazakhstan and KazMunayGas. The latter has a 16.8% stake in the project.

 

Eni, a lead member of North Caspian Operating Company, which is developing Kashagan, has said that in the initial 2013-14 phase, output will grow to 180,000 bpd, compared with current output from Kazakh oilfields of 1.6 million bpd. Kashagan has estimated reserves of 35 billion barrels, of which 11 billion barrels are considered as recoverable.

 

The onset of production is one reason Fitch expects Kazakhstan's economic growth rate to recover after a slight slowdown in 2012. Meanwhile, KazMunayGas expects the Kashagan field to make a material contribution to its EBITDA and cash flow from next year, the agency adds.

 

Increased oil exports from Kashagan will also support Kazakhstan's current account surplus, which had been stagnating thanks to lower oil prices. However, Fitch reckons foreign direct investment may decline as the first round of capital investment into the field slows.

 

What's more, China National Petroleum Company became a shareholder in Kashagan with an 8.3% stake earlier this month. Now this should certainly help Kazakhstan increase its oil supplies to China, which are currently constrained by pipeline capacity. Watch this space! 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: Oil production site, Russia © Lukoil

An arduously researched book on ‘crude’ Russia

When looking up written material on the Russian oil and gas industry, you are (more often than not) likely to encounter clichés or exaggerations. Some would discuss chaos in wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the oligarchs as a typical “Russian” episode of corruption and greed – yet fail to address the underlying causes that led to it. Others would indulge in an all too familiar Russia bashing exercise without concrete articulation. Amidst a cacophony of mediocre analysis, academic Thane Gustafson’s splendid work – Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – not only breaks the mould but smashes it to pieces. This weighty, arduously researched book of just under 700 pages split by 13 chapters does justice to the art of scrutiny when it comes to examining this complex oil and gas exporting jurisdiction; a rival of Saudi Arabia for the position of the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil.

 

It is about power, it is about money, it is about politics but turning page after page, you would realise Gustafson is subtly pointing out that it is a battle for Russia’s ‘crude’ soul. In order to substantiate his arguments, the book is full of views of commentators, maps, charts and tables and over 100 pages of footnotes. The narrative switches seamlessly from discussing historical facts to the choices Russia’s political classes and the country’s oil industry face in this day and age.

 

The complex relationship between state and industry, from the Yeltsin era to Putin’s rise is well documented and in some detail along with an analysis of what it means and where it could lead. In a book that the Oilholic perceives as the complete package on the subject, it is hard to pick favourite passages – but two chapters stood out in particular.

 

Early on in the narrative, Gustafson charts the birth of Russian oil majors Lukoil, Surgutneftegaz and Yukos (and the latter’s dismembering too). Late on in the book, the author examines Russia’s (current) accidental oil champion Rosneft. Both passages not only sum up the fortunes of Russian companies and how they have evolved (or in Yukos’ case faced corporate extinction) but also sum up prevailing attitudes within the Kremlin.

 

What’s more, as crude oil becomes harder and more expensive to extract and Russian production dwindles, Gustafson warns that the country’s current level of dependence on revenue from oil is unsustainable and that it simply must diversify.

 

Overall, the Oilholic is inclined to feel that this book is one of the most authoritative work on Russia and its oil industry, a well balanced critique with substantiated arguments and one which someone interested in geopolitics would appreciate as much as an enthusiast of energy economics.

 

This blogger is happy to recommend Wheel of Fortune to readers interested in Russia, the oil and gas business, geopolitics, economics, current affairs and last but certainly not the least – those seeking a general interest non-fiction book on a subject they haven’t visited before. As for the story seekers, given that it’s Russia, Gustafson has more that few tales to narrate all right, but fiction they aren’t. Fascinating and brilliantly written they most certainly are!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front cover - Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia © Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Speculators, production & San Diego’s views

It is good to be in the ‘unified’ port of San Diego, California for a few days to get some crude views, especially those of the trading types who have a pad on the city’s Ocean Beach waterfront looking out to the Pacific. While the view from one of their living room windows is a testament to the current serenity of the Pacific Ocean (an example on the left), markets are anything but serene with politicians blaming paper traders for the current volatility.

Instead of shrugging and quipping ‘typical’, most admit candidly that the ratio of paper (or virtual) barrels versus physical barrels will continue to rise. Some can and quite literally do sit on the beach and trade with no intention of queuing at the end of pipeline in Cushing, Oklahoma to collect their crude cargo.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the ratio of paper versus physically traded barrels has risen from 8:1 at the turn of millennium to as high as 33:1 in 2012. Furthermore, one chap reminds the Oilholic not to forget the spread betting public. “They actually don’t even enter the equation but have a flutter on the general direction of crude benchmarks and in some cases – for instance you Brits – all winnings are tax free,” he added.

Nonetheless, on his latest visit to the USA, yours truly sees the supply and demand dynamic stateside undergoing a slow but sure change. In fact old merchant navy hands in San Diego, which is a unified port because the air and sea ports are next to each other, would tell you that American crude import and export dispatch patterns are changing. Simply put, with shale oil (principally in Eagle Ford) and rising conventional production in Texas and North Dakota in the frame and the economy not growing as fast as it should – the US is importing less and less of the crude stuff from overseas.

The IEA projects a fall of 2.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in imports by US refiners and reckons the global oil trading map and direction of oil consignments would be redrawn by 2017. Not only the US, but many nations with new projects coming onstream would find internal use for their product. India’s prospection drive and Saudi Arabia’s relatively new oilfield of Manifa are noteworthy examples.

So a dip in Middle Eastern crude exports by 2017 won’t all be down to an American production rise but a rise in domestic consumption of other producer nations as well. Overall, the IEA reckons 32.9 million bpd will trade between different regions around the globe; a dip of 1.6 million bpd over last year. With some believing that much of this maybe attributed to dipping volumes of light sweet crude demanded by the US; the thought probably adds weight to Eastward forays of oil traders like Vitol, Glencore and Gunvor. Such sentiments are also already having an impact on widening Brent’s premium to the WTI with the latter not necessarily reflecting global market patterns.

Elsewhere, while the Oilholic has been away, it seems BP has been at play. In a statement to the London Stock Exchange on Monday, BP said it had agreed 'heads of terms' to sell its 50% stake in Russian subsidiary TNK-BP to Rosneft for US$28 billion via a mixture of US$17.1 billion cash and shares representing 12.84% (of Rosneft). BP added that it intends to use US$4.8 billion of the cash payment to purchase a further 5.66% of Rosneft from the Russian government.

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said, “TNK-BP has been a good investment and we are now laying a new foundation for our work in Russia. Rosneft is set to be a major player in the global oil industry. This material holding in Rosneft will, we believe, give BP solid returns.”

With BP’s oligarch partners at AAR already having signed a MoU with Rosneft, the market is in a state of fervour over the whole of TNK-BP being bought out by the Russian state energy company. Were this to happen, Rosneft would have a massive crude oil production capacity of 3.15 million bpd and pass a sizeable chunk of Russian production from private hands to state control. It would also pile on more debt on an already indebted company. Its net debt is nearing twice its EBITA and a swoop for the stake of both partners in TNK-BP would need some clever financing.

Continuing with the corporate front, the Canadian government has rejected Petronas' US$5.4 billion bid for Progress Energy Resources. The latter said on Sunday that it was "disappointed" with Ottawa’s decision. The company added that it would attempt to find a possible solution for the deal. Industry Minister Christian Paradis said in a statement on Friday that he had sent a letter to Petronas indicating he was "not satisfied that the proposed investment is likely to be of net benefit to Canada."

Meanwhile civil strife is in full swing in Kuwait according to the BBC World Service as police used tear gas and stun grenades to disperse large numbers of people demonstrating against the dissolution of parliament by Emir Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah whose family have ruled the country for over 200 years.

In June, a Kuwaiti court declared elections for its 50-seat parliament in February, which saw significant gains for the Islamist-led opposition, invalid and reinstated a more pro-government assembly. There has been trouble at the mill ever since. Just a coincidental footnote to the Kuwaiti unrest – the IEA’s projected figure of 2.6 million bpd fall in crude imports of US refiners by 2017, cited above in this blog post, is nearly the current daily output of Kuwait (just to put things into context) ! That’s all from San Diego folks! It’s nearly time to say ‘Aloha’ to Hawaii. But before that the Oilholic leaves you with a view of USS Midway (above right), once an aircraft carrier involved in Vietnam and Gulf War I and currently firmly docked in San Diego harbour as a museum. In its heydays, the USS Midway housed over 4,000 naval personnel and over 130 aircraft.

According to a spokesperson, the USS Midway, which wasn’t nuclear-powered, had a total tank capacity of 2.5 million gallons of diesel to power it and held 1.5 million gallons of jet fuel for the aircraft. It consumed 250,000 gallons of diesel per day, while jet fuel consumption during operations came in at 150,000 gallons per day during flying missions. Now that’s gas guzzling to protect and serve before we had nuclear powered carriers. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: Ocean Beach, San Diego. Photo 2: USS Midway, California, USA © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

On another BP sale, another Chavez term & more

A not so surprising news flash arrived this week that BP has finally announced the sale of its Texas City refinery and allied assets to Marathon Petroleum for US$2.5 billion. A spokesperson revealed that the deal included US$600 million in cash, US$1.2 billion for distillate inventories and another US$700 million depending on future production and refining margins.

 

Following the Carson oil refinery sale in California, the latest deal ratchets BP’s asset divestment programme up to US$35 billion with a target of US$38 billion within reach. It is time for the Oilholic to sound like a broken record and state yet again that – Macondo or no Macondo – the oil major would have still divested some of its refining and marketing assets regardless.

 

However, for fans of the integrated model – of which there are quite a few including ratings agencies who generally rate integrated players above R&M only companies – the head of BP's global R&M business Iain Conn said, "Together with the sale of our Carson, California refinery, announced in August, the Texas City divestment will allow us to focus BP's US fuel investments on our three northern refineries."

 

Things have also picked-up pace on the TNK-BP front. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that BP’s Russian partners in the venture Alfa Access Renova (AAR) would rather sell their stake than end-up in a ‘devalued’ partnership with Kremlin-backed rival Rosneft. On Wednesday, the Russian press cited sources claiming a sale of BP’s stake to Rosneft has the full backing of none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Now that is crucial.

On a visit to Moscow and Novosibirsk back in 2004, the Oilholic made a quick realisation based on interaction with those in the know locally – that when it comes to natural resources assets the Kremlin likes to be in control. So if BP and the Russian government have reached some sort of an understanding behind the scene, AAR would be best advised not to scream too loudly.

 

Another hypothesis gaining traction, in wake of AAR’s intention to sell, is that instead of being the seller of its stake in TNK-BP, the British oil major could now turn buyer. BP could then re-attempt a fresh partnership with Rosneft; something which it attempted last year only for it to be scuppered by AAR.

 

There can be any amount of speculation or any number of theories but here again a nod from the Kremlin is crucial. Away from ‘British Petroleum’ (as Sarah Palin and President Obama lovingly refer to it in times of political need) to the British Government which reiterated its support for shale exploration earlier this week.

 

On Monday, Minister Edward Davey of UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) expressed hopes of lifting a suspension on new shale gas exploration. It was imposed in 2011 following environmental concerns about fracking and a series of minor earthquakes in Lancashire triggered by trial fracking which spooked the nation. In near sync with Davey, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that he was considering a 'generous new tax regime' to encourage investment in shale gas.

 

In case you haven’t heard by now, Hugo Chavez is back as president of Venezuela for another six year stint. This means it will be another rendezvous in Vienna for the Oilholic at the OPEC meeting of ministers in December with Rafael Ramirez, the crude Chavista likely to be hawkish Venezuela’s man at the table. Opposition leader Henrique Capriles believed in change, but sadly for the Venezuelan economy grappling with mismanagement of its ‘crude’ resources and 20% inflation, he fell short.

 

On January 10, 2012 when Chavez will be inaugurated for another term as Venezuela's president, he will be acutely aware that oil accounts for 50% of his government’s revenue and increasingly one dimensional economy. Bloomberg puts Chinese lending to Venezuela between 2006 and 2011 at US$42.5 billion. In a staggering bout of frankness, Ramirez admitted in September that of the 640,000 barrels per day (bpd) that Venezuela exported to China, 200,000 bpd went towards servicing government debt to Beijing.

 

The country's oil production is hardly rising. Just as Chavez’s health took a toll from cancer, national oil company PDVSA has not been in good health either. Its cancer is mismanagement and underinvestment. Most would point to an explosion in August when 42 people perished at the Amuay refinery – Venezuela’s largest distillate processing facility as an example. However, PDVSA has rarely been in good health since 2003 when it fired 40% of its workforce in the aftermath of a general strike aimed at forcing Chavez from power.

 

Staying with Latin America, the US Supreme Court has said it will not block a February 2011 judgement from an Ecuadorean court that Chevron must pay US$19 billion in damages for allegedly polluting the Amazonian landscape of the Lago Agrio region. The court’s announcement is the latest salvo in a decade-long legal tussle between Texaco, acquired by Chevron in 2001, and the people of the Lago Agrio.

 

The Ecuadorians and Daryl Hannah (who is not Ecuadorian) wont rejoice as Chevron it is not quite done yet. Far from it, the oil major has always branded the Ecuadorian court’s judgement as fraudulent and not enforceable under New York law. It has also challenged it under an international trade agreement between the US and Ecuador.

 

The latter case will be heard next month – so expect some more ‘crude’ exchanges and perhaps some stunts from Ms. Hannah. That’s unless she is under arrest for protesting about Keystone XL! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’ or Elle Driver might come after you!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: East Plant of the Texas City Refinery, Texas, USA © BP Plc

Why CNOOC’s move matters beyond Canada?

China’s CNOOC has made yet another Canadian acquisition; only its latest one announced earlier this week has global implications in the shape of Nexen. On July 23rd Nexen’s board approved CNOOC’s offer to pay US$27.50 per share valuing their company at US$15.1 billion; a near 60% appreciation on valuation at the close of trading on July 20th.

So why does this acquisition matter? After all, it isn’t the first time the Chinese state-owned firm has acquired a Canadian asset. Only last November, CNOOC bought Canadian oil sands firm Opti Canada for C$2.1 billion. In 2005, it acquired a 16.7% share of MEG Energy, another Canadian oil firm.

A CNOOC communiqué suggests it is operating as any oil company would, i.e. by strategically expanding its reserve base. It says the acquisition, which is yet to be cleared by the Canadian government, would boost its oil reserves by 30%.

In a rather 'crude' world, if this Chinese takeover is approved by the Canadians, CNOOC would take control of the UK's largest producing oil field - Buzzard. This would be on top of the Golden Eagle prospection zone about 43 miles offshore from Aberdeen. Unlike oil sands upstarts, Nexen is a major established global operator and has a significant presence in the North Sea. 

Now if you count Sinopec 49% stake in Talisman's business in the British sector of the North Sea together with hypothetical CNOOC access via a takeover of Nexen; it would in theory give the Chinese control of just under 10% of British oil and gas production in the North Sea!

Understandably, there have been murmurings in the Oilholic’s part of the world. However, there are no loud noises as they would run contrary to the British government’s pro-investment stance and in any case they can’t do much about it. By law, the Canadians can block any foreign investments in the country’s firms exceeding C$330 million if the government believes they are not in Canada's best interests. In 2010, the Canadian government prevented BHP Billiton's US$39 billion hostile takeover of fertiliser firm Potash Corp. The LSE-TSX shenanigans of last year are also well documented.

Chinese firms have not felt as welcome in the US, but in Canada their investment is not considered a taboo subject. So how the Harper government responds in this case, which has far reaching implications beyond Canada, remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, contrary to AAR and tycoon Mikhail Fridman’s assertion that there were no takers for BP’s stake in Russia’s TNK-BP, Russian state giant Rosneft has said it is considering buying the stake. A Roseneft statement earlier this week suggested it was interested in a ‘potential acquisition’.

TNK-BP is jointly owned by AAR and BP. Already troubled relations between the two became further fraught after BP sought to form a separate partnership with Rosneft last year.

As AAR has preferred bidder status, this gives it around 90 days during which BP can talk to – but not sign an agreement with – other parties interested in its stake. BP put up its half of the TNK-BP business up for sale in June. AAR has itself declared an interest in buying BP's share.

Finally, the Oilholic is getting in to the Olympics spirit as well! The Chinese, Russians, Americans, Canadians and athletes of some 200-odd countries are now in London town. The Tower Bridge has got its own fancy Olympics rings (see above) and the Olympic Torch passed from the street in front of this blogger’s humble abode on Thursday (see below)!

For those wondering how the torch was being kept powered-up in some really wretched British weather – there is a liquid fuel canister located about halfway up the torch connected via tiny pipe to the top. Through it, the fuel travels up before it is released out at the top of the torch where the pressure in it decreases and this converts the liquid into gas ignited by a spark. Despite exhaustive enquiries, no one would reveal the flow rate which is special to each Olympic torch.

This has been the case since 1972 and London 2012 is no exception to this rule. Quite a few London 2012 Olympic Torches are up for sale on eBay should any of you wish to get your own now that Olympics opening ceremony is done and the cauldron has been lit in the stadium. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: North Sea oil rig © Shell. Photo 2: Tower Bridge London with Olympic rings. Photo 3: London 2012 Olympic Torch passes through London Borough of Barnet, UK.  © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

BP to call time on 9 years of Russian pain & gain?

After market murmurs came the announcement this morning that BP is looking to sell its stake in Russian joint venture TNK-BP; a source of nine years of corporate pain and gain. As the oil major refocuses its priorities elsewhere, finally the pain aspect has made BP call time on the venture as it moves on.

A sale is by no means imminent but a company statement says, it has “received unsolicited indications of interest regarding the potential acquisition of its shareholding in TNK-BP.”

BP has since informed its Russian partners Alfa Access Renova (AAR), a group of Russian billionaire oligarchs fronted by Mikhail Fridman that it intends to pursue the sale in keeping with “its commitment to maximising shareholder value.”

Neither the announcement itself nor that it came over Q2 2012 are a surprise. BP has unquestionably reaped dividends from the partnership which went on to become Russia’s third largest oil producer collating the assets of Fridman and his crew and BP Russia. However, it has also been the source of management debacles, fiascos and politically motivated tiffs as the partners struggled to get along.

Two significant events colour public perception about the venture. When Bob Dudley (current Chief executive of BP) was Chief executive of TNK-BP from 2003-2008, the Russian venture’s output rose 33% to 1.6 million barrels per day. However for all of this, acrimony ensued between BP and AAR which triggered some good old fashioned Russian political interference. In 2008, BP’s technical staff were barred from entering Russia, offices were raided and boardroom arguments with political connotations became the norm.

Then Dudley’s visa to stay in the country was not renewed prompting him to leave in a huff claiming "sustained harassment" from Russian authorities. Fast forward to 2011 and you get the second incident when Fridman and the oligarchs all but scuppered BP’s chances of joining hands with state-owned Rosneft. The Russian state behemoth subsequently lost patience and went along a different route with ExxonMobil leaving stumped faces at BP and perhaps a whole lot of soul searching.

In wake of Macondo, as Dudley and BP refocus on repairing the company’s image in the US and ventures take-off elsewhere from Canada to the Caribbean – it is indeed time to for the partners to apply for a divorce. In truth, BP never really came back from Russia with love and the oligarchs say they have "lost faith in BP as a partner". Fridman has stepped down as TNK-BP chairman and two others Victor Vekselberg and Leonard Blavatnik also seem to have had enough according to a contact in Moscow.

The Oilholic’s Russian friends reliably inform him that holy matrimony in the country can be annulled in a matter of hours. But whether this corporate divorce will be not be messy via a swift stake sale and no political interference remains to be seen. Sadly, it is also a telling indictment of the way foreign direct investment goes in Russia which is seeing a decline in production and badly needs fresh investment and ideas.

Both BP and Shell, courtesy its frustrations with Sakhalin project back in 2006, cannot attest to Russia being a corporate experience they’ll treasure. The market certainly thinks BP’s announcement is for the better with the company’s shares trading up 2.7% (having reached 4% at one point) when the Oilholic last checked.

From BP to the North Sea, where EnQuest – the largest independent oil producer in the UK sector – will farm out a 35% interest in its Alma and Galia oil field developments to the Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company (KUFPEC) subject to regulatory approval. According to sources at law firm Clyde & Co., who are acting as advisers to KUFPEC, the Kuwaitis are to invest a total of approximately US$500 million in cash comprising of up to US$182 million in future contributions for past costs and a development carry for EnQuest, and of KUFPEC's direct share of the development costs.

Away from deals and on to pricing, Brent dropped under US$100 for the first time since October while WTI was also at its lowest since October on the back of less than flattering economic data from the US, India and China along with ongoing bearish sentiments courtesy the Eurozone crisis. In this crudely volatile world, today’s trading makes the thoughts expressed at 2012 Reuters Global Energy & Environment Summit barely two weeks ago seem a shade exaggerated.

At the event, IEA chief economist Fatih Birol said he was worried about high oil prices posing a serious risk putting at stake a potential economic recovery in Europe, US, Japan and China. Some were discussing that oil prices had found a floor in the US$90 to US$95 range. Yet, here we are two weeks later, sliding down with the bears! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: TNK-BP Saratov Refinery, Russia © TNK-BP