The subtle rise of the OFS innovators

Going back to the turn of 1990s, vertical drilling or forcing the drill bit down a carefully monitored well-shaft into a gentle arc was the best E&P companies could hope from contractors in their quest for black gold.

That’s until those innovators at Oilfield Services (OFS) firms - the guys who often escape notice despite having done much of heavy work involved in prospection and extraction - came up with commercially viable ways for directional drilling. The technique, which involves drilling several feet vertically before turning and continuing horizontally thus maximising the extraction potential of the find, transformed the industry. But more importantly, it transformed the fortunes of the innovators too.

The Oilholic has put some thought into how 21st century OFS firms ought to be classified, if a linear examination by market capitalisation and size is ignored for a moment. After acquiring gradual industry prominence from the 1970s onwards, OFS firms these days could be broadly grouped into three tiers.

The first tier would be the makers and sellers of equipment used in onshore or offshore drilling. Some examples include Cameron International, FMC Technologies and National Oilwell Varco with a market capitalisation in the range of US$10 billion to $30 billion. Then come the 'makers-plus' who also own and lease drill rigs – for example Seadrill, Noble and Transocean with a market cap in a similar sort of a range.

 

And finally there are the big three 'full service' OFS companies Baker Hughes, Halliburton and the world’s largest – Schlumberger. The latter has a market cap of $110 billion plus, last time the Oilholic checked. That’s more than double that of its nearest rival Halliburton. Quite literally, Schlumberger's market cap could give many big oil companies a run for their money. However, if someone told you back in the 1980s that this would be the case in August 2013 – you could be excused for thinking the claimant was on moonshine!

 

The reason for the rise of OFS firms is that their innovation has been accompanied by growing global resource nationalism and maturing wells. The path to prosperity for the services sector began with low margin drilling work in the 1980s and 1990s being outsourced to them by the IOCs. Decades on, the firms continue to benefit from historical partnerships with the oil majors (and minors) aimed at maximising production at mature wells alongside new projects.

 

However, with a rise in resource nationalism, while NOCs often prefer to keep IOCs at arm's length, the same does not apply to OFS firms. Instead, many NOCs choose to project manage exploration sites themselves with the technical know-how from OFS firms. In short, the innovators are currently enjoying, in their own understated way, the best of both worlds! Unconventional prospection from deepwater drilling to the Arctic is an added bonus.

 

If you excluded all of North America, drilling activity is at a three-decade high, according to the IEA and available rig data trends. The Baker Hughes rig count outside North America climbed to 1,333 in June, the highest level in 30 years. Presenting his company’s seventh straight quarterly profit last month, a beaming Paal Kibsgaard, chief executive of Schlumberger, named China, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Iraq among his key markets.

 

Of the four countries named by Kibsgaard, Australia is the only exception where an NOC doesn’t rule the roost, vindicating the Oilholic’s conjecture about the benefits of resource nationalism for OFS firms.

 

Rival Halliburton also flagged up its increased activity and sales in Malaysia, China and Angola and added that it is banking on a second half bounceback in Latin America this year. By contrast, Baker Hughes reported a [45%] fall in second quarter profit, mainly due to weak margins in North America, given the gas glut stateside.

 

Resource nationalism aside, OFS players still continue (and will continue) to maintain healthy partnerships with the IOCs. None of the big three have shown any inclination of owning oil & gas reserves and most of the big players say they never will.

 

Some have small equity stakes here and a performance based contract there. However, this is some way short of ownership. Besides, if there is one thing the OFS players don’t want – it's taking asset risk on their balance sheets in a way the likes of Shell and ExxonMobil do and are pretty good at.

 

Furthermore, the IOCs are major OFS clients. Why would you want to upset your oldest clients, a relationship that is working so well even as the wider industry is undergoing a hegemonic and technical metamorphosis?

 

Success though, does not come cheap especially as it's all about innovation. As a share of annual sales, Schlumberger spent as much on R&D as ExxonMobil, Shell and BP, did using 2010-11 exchange filings. And sometimes, unwittingly, taking the BP 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill as an example, the guys in background become an unwanted part of a negative story; Transocean and Halliburton could attest to that. None of this should detract observers from the huge strides made by OFS firms and the ingenuity of the pioneers of directional drilling. And there's more to come!

 

Moving on from the OFS subject, but on a related note, the Oilholic read an interesting Reuters report which suggests oil & gas shareholder activism is coming to the UK market. Many British companies, according to the agency, have ended up with significant assets, including cash, relative to their shrunken stock market value.

 

Some of these have lost favour with mainstream shareholders and are now attracting investors who want to push finance bosses and board members out, access corporate cash and force asset sales. An anonymous investment banker specialising the oil & gas business, told Reuters, rather candidly: "It's a very simple model. You don't have to take a view on the value of the actual assets or know anything about oil and gas. You just know the cash is there for the taking."

 

Finally, linked here is an interesting Bloomberg report on how much the Über-environmentally friendly Al Gore is worth and what he is up to these days. Some say he is 'Romney' rich! 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: Rig in the North Sea © BP

BP’s settlement expensive but sound

As BP received the biggest criminal fine in US history to the tune of US$4.5 billion related to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, the Oilholic quizzed City analysts over what they made of it. Overriding sentiment of market commentators was that while a move to settle criminal charges in this way was expensive for BP, it was also a sound one for the oil giant.

 

Beginning with what we know, according to the US Department of Justice (DoJ), BP has agreed to plead guilty to eleven felony counts of misconduct or neglect of ships officers relating to the loss of 11 lives, one misdemeanour count under the Clean Water Act, one misdemeanour count under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and one felony count of obstruction of Congress.

 

Two BP workers - Robert Kaluza and Donald Vidrine - have been indicted on manslaughter charges and an ex-manager David Rainey charged with misleading Congress according to the Associated Press. The resolution is subject to US federal court approval. The DoJ will oversee BP handover US$4 billion, including a US$1.26 billion fine as well as payments to wildlife and science organisations.

 

BP will also pay US$525 million to the US SEC spread over three years. The figure caps the previous highest criminal fine imposed on pharmaceutical firm Pfizer of US$1.2 billion. City analysts believe BP needed this settlement so that it can now focus on defending itself against pending civil cases.

 

“It was an expensive, but necessary closure that BP needed on one legal fronts of several,” said one analyst. The 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and released millions of barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico which took 87 days to plug.

 

The company is expected to make a final payment of US$860 million into the US$20 billion Gulf of Mexico compensation fund by the end of the year. BP’s internal investigation about the incident had noted that, “multiple companies, work teams and circumstances were involved over time.”

 

These companies included Transocean, Halliburton, Anadarko, Moex and Weatherford. BP has settled all claims with Anadarko and Moex, its co-owners of the oil well and contractor Weatherford. It received US$5.1 billion in cash settlements from the three firms which was put into the Gulf compensation fund.

 

BP has also reached a US$7.8 billion settlement with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, a group of lawyers representing victims of the spill. However, the company is yet to reach a settlement with Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig and engineering firm Halliburton. A civil trial that will determine negligence is due to begin in New Orleans in February 2013.

 

Jeffrey Woodruff, Senior Director at Fitch Ratings, felt that the settlement was a positive move but key areas of uncertainty remained. “Although the settlement removes another aspect of legal uncertainty, it does not address Clean Water Act claims, whose size cannot yet be determined. It is therefore too early for us to consider taking a rating action,” he added.

 

Fitch said in July, when revising the company's Outlook to Positive, that BP should be able to cover its remaining legal costs without impairing its financial profile, and that a comprehensive settlement of remaining liabilities for US$15 billion or less would support an upgrade.

 

Recent asset sales have also strengthened BP's credit profile. Last month, BP posted a third quarter underlying replacement cost profit, adjusted for non-operating items and fair value accounting effects, of US$5.2 billion. The figure is down from US$5.27 billion recorded in the corresponding quarter last year but up on this year's second quarter profit of US$3.7 billion.

 

“The company has realised US$35 billion of its US$38 billion targeted asset disposal programme at end the end of the third quarter of 2012. Proceeds from the sale of its 50% stake in TNK-BP in Russia will further improve its liquidity, supporting our view that the company can meet legal costs without impairing its profile,” Woodruff concluded.

 

Meanwhile, Moody’s noted that the credit rating and outlook for Transocean (currently Baa3 negative), which is yet to settle with BP, was unaffected by the recent development.

 

Stuart Miller, Moody's Senior Credit Officer, said, "The big elephant in the room for Transocean is its potential exposure to Clean Water Act fines and penalties as owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig. The recent agreement between BP and DoJ did not address the claims under the Act."

 

However, he felt that Transocean will ultimately settle with the DoJ, and there was a good chance that the amount may be manageable given the company’s current provision level and cash balances.

 

“But if gross negligence is proven, a very high legal standard, the settlement amount could result in payments by Transocean in excess of its current provision amount,” Miller concluded.

Plenty more to unfold in this saga but that’s all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Gulf of Mexico spill containment area © BP Plc.

Crude India & its ‘One Lakh ki Gaadi’!

After a gap of nearly five years since the Oilholic’s last visit to India, yours truly arrived in Delhi on Friday to witness a ‘crudely’ altered landscape. Every conceivable brand of automobile is now available to Indians for a price. Swanky new shopping malls, new flyovers and never ending housing and commercial construction now grace the Capital’s landscape (and suburbs). All of these are intertwined with a super-congested roads network and a really decent mass transit system.

The Oilholic was particularly keen to spot a ‘One Lakh ki Gaadi’ (INR1 Lakh car) which in other words simply implies a car costing INR10000 (a ‘Lakh’) or US$2000 – the brainchild of Tata Motors. It was launched 2009 amid global headlines. However surprisingly, you’d be hard pressed to locate a Tata Nano (which is its official name) easily in the Indian capital.

It took the Oilholic a good few hours and a walkabout in an underground parking lot to finally locate one to click for his blog. The reason is as clear as the model’s sales data for Tata Motors – the current owners of Jaguar / Land Rover. The company set the Nano’s sales of target at 25,000 per month but in actual fact moves car units well below the target. Its plant which is capable of producing 250,000 Nanos barely manufactures 10,000 a month.

The reason is clearly apparent – the poor man shunned the ‘affordable’ car and status conscious middle and upper class income groups simply did not wish to be associated with it. Safety concerns also hit sales sentiment after news emerged that a number of Nanos saw engine fires.

Furthermore, rising Indian inflation has put paid to the “One Lakh” tag as well. The tag was in any case only applicable to base model - sold rather unintelligently without air conditioning in India’s sweltering heat where temperatures often touch 40 degree centigrade. Even the base model now costs INR1.41 Lakh or approximately US$2810 at current exchange rates. Should you need one with all the trimmings, you’d probably need close to INR2 Lakh.

The company is now trying desperately to repair the Nano’s image. According to a Nano dealer in Noida – a Delhi suburb – Tata Motors is coming up with a scheme to double up the car’s warranty to four years and serve up an INR99 per month maintenance contract. Akin to a model employed by Kia motors in nascent markets, Tata Motors is also looking towards providing cheap car loans with down-payments as low as US$300.

The damage might already have been done, but Tata as a conglomerate has been known to rise to far serious challenges. Reversing Indian acceptance of the Nano is as serious as they come. A word to the wise environmentalists who said the Nano would worsen Indian traffic congestion and raise pollution - the country has managed both quite well without the One Lakh Car's help! 

Moving briefly away from the Nano and speaking of damage, Transocean continues to feel the effects of the BP-Deepwater Horizon Gulf of Mexico spill. On Thursday (Jan 26th), while the Oilholic was up in the air heading to India, a US court ruled that Transocean would be protected under the contract indemnity agreement for claims for compensation by third parties.

While this is positive for Transocean, the Court also ruled the company would not be indemnified for any punitive damages or for any civil penalties and fines assessed to Transocean, if any, under the Clean Water Act (2005). Ratings agency Moody's believes partial summary judgment is credit negative for Transocean with up to US$10 billion of debt affected. That’s all for the moment folks, keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: The Tata Nano © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

Speaking @ OPEC & WPC plus Dec's trading lows

It’s been a hectic few weeks attending the OPEC conference in Vienna and the 20th World Petroleum Congress in Doha, but the Oilholic is now happily back in London town for a calm Christmas. In fact, a more than passive interest in the festive period’s crude trading lows is all what you will get for the next fortnight unless there is a geopolitical mishap. However, before we discuss crude pricing, this humble blogger had the wonderful experience of doing a commentary hit for an OPEC broadcast and moderating a Baker & McKenzie seminar at the WPC.

Starting with OPEC, it was a pleasure ditching pricing and quotas for once in Vienna and discussing the infrastructure investment plans of its 12 member nations in OPEC webcast on December 14th. The cartel has announced US$300 billion of upstream infrastructure investment between 2011 and 2015.

The market is right in believing that Kuwait and Qatar would lead the new build and give project financiers considerable joy. However, intel gathered at the WPC suggests the Algerians could be the surprise package. (To watch the video click here and scroll down to the seventh video on the 160th OPEC conference menu)

This ties-in nicely to the Baker & McKenzie seminar at the WPC on December 7th where the main subject under the microscope was investment opportunities for NOCs.

Six legal professionals attached to Baker's myriad global practices, including familiar names from their UK office, offered the audience insight on just about everything from sources of funding to a reconciliation of different drivers for NOCs and IOCs in partnerships.

Once the panel discussion was over, the Baker partners were kind enough to allow the Oilholic to open the floor for some lively questioning from the audience. While the Oilholic did most of the probing and Baker professionals did most of the answering, the true credit for putting the seminar and its research together goes to Baker’s Emily Colatino and Lizzy Lozano who also clicked photos of the proceedings.

Now from crude sound-bites to crude market chatter post-OPEC, as the end of last week saw a major sell off. Despite the price of crude oil staging a minor recovery in Monday’s intraday trading; both benchmarks were down by over 4 per cent on a week over week, five-day cycle basis on Tuesday. Since the festive period is upon us, trading volumes for the forward month futures contracts will be at the usual seasonal low over the Christmas holidays. Furthermore, the OPEC meeting in Vienna failed to provide any meaningful upward impetus to the crude price level, which like all traded commodities is witnessing a bearish trend courtesy the Eurozone crisis.

Sucden Financial Research analyst Myrto Sokou notes that investors remained very cautious towards the end of last week and were prompted towards some profit taking to lock in recent gains as WTI crude was sliding down toward US$92 per barrel level.

“After market close on Friday, Moody’s downgraded Belgium by two notches to Aa3, as liabilities associated with the Dexia bailout and increased Eurozone risks were cited as key factors. In addition, market rumours on Friday of a France downgrade by S&P were not followed up, though the agency did have server problems during the day. Suspicion is now that they will wait until the New Year to conclude review on Eurozone’s second largest economy,” Sokou said in a note to clients.

Additionally, crude prices are likely to trade sideways with potential for some correction higher, supported by a rebound in the global equity markets. “However, should the US dollar strengthen further we expect some pressure in the oil market that looks fairly vulnerable at the moment,” Sokou concludes.

Away from pricing projections, the Reuters news agency reports that Libya has awarded crude oil supply contracts in 2012 to Glencore, Gunvor, Trafigura and Vitol. Of these Vitol helped in selling rebel-held crude during the civil war as the Oilholic noted in June.

On to corporate matters and Fitch Ratings has upgraded three Indonesian oil & gas utilities PT Pertamina (Persero) (Pertamina), PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Persero) (PLN) and PT Perusahaan Gas Negara Tbk (PGN) to 'BBB-' following the upgrade to Indonesia's Long-Term Foreign- and-Local-Currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) to 'BBB-' from 'BB+'. The outlooks on all three entities are Stable, agency said in a note on December 15th.

Meanwhile, a Petrobras communiqué suggests that this December, the combined daily output of the Brazilian major and its partners exceeded 200,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day (boe/day) in the promising Santos Basin. The company said that on December 6, two days after operations began at well RJS-686, which is connected to platform FPSO Cidade de Angra dos Reis (the Lula Pilot Project), the total output operated by Petrobras at the Santos Basin reached 205,700 boe/day.

This includes 144,100 barrels of oil and condensate, in addition to 9.8 million cubic meters of natural gas (equivalent to an output of 61,600 boe), of which 8.5 million cubic meters were delivered to the Monteiro Lobato Gas Treatment Unit (UTGCA), in Caraguatatuba, and 1.3 million cubic meters to the Presidente Bernardes Refinery (RPBC) Natural Gas Unit, in Cubatão, both in the state of São Paulo.

Finally, ratings agency Moody's notes a potential sizable lawsuit against Chevron Corporation in Brazil could have a negative impact on the company, but it is too early to judge the full extent of any future liability arising from the lawsuit.

Recent news reports indicate that a federal prosecutor in the state of Rio de Janeiro is seeking BRL20 billion (US$10.78 billion) in damages from Chevron and Transocean Ltd. for the offshore oil leak last month. The Oilholic thinks Transocean’s position is more troublesome given it’s a party to the legal fallout from the Macondo incident.

That’s all for the moment folks – a crude year-ender to follow in early January! In the interim, have a Happy Christmas! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo 1: Gaurav Sharma on OPEC's 160th meeting live webcast from Vienna, Austria on Dec 14, 2011 © OPEC Secretariat. Photo 2 & 3: The Oilholic at Baker & McKenzie seminar on investment opportunities for NOCs at the 20th World Petroleum Congress in Doha, Qatar on Dec 7, 2011 © Lizzy Lozano, Baker & McKenzie.

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

BP's still going ‘Beyond Petroleum’ in Houston

It is difficult to say whether Texans in general and Houstonians in particular are more irritated or more disappointed with BP. Perhaps the answer is a combination of both, but anti-British the Texans are not. Many here feel let down by the company, a sentiment which had already been on the rise following the Texas City refinery blast in March 2005. News that the company is now trying to sell the asset does not assuage that feeling here.

Many opine that when things were going horribly wrong in the Gulf of Mexico, BP could have done better, sought more cooperation from the government and not insisted it can handle things on its own. Some also blame their government of complacency for not intervening sooner and forcing BP’s hand.

Nearly a year on, while a sense of disappointment has not subsided, no one here seriously believes BP has turned its back on a lucrative American market – a withdrawal from refining and marketing ends of the business is more likely. I think it is a dead certainty from a strategic standpoint.

Now this ties in nicely to the company’s "Beyond Petroleum" campaign from a few years back. There was a fair bit of scepticism about it in England and elsewhere. However, it seems the company continues to go beyond petroleum in Houston. In 2006, BP said it would set up its alternative energy business in Houston on top of an existing solar business in Frederick, Maryland.

Five years hence and despite all what has happened, it is still going or rather has been kept going based on the 33rd floor of this city’s iconic Bank of America Center building on 700 Louisiana Street (see left). Asked about its prospects, the company did not return the Oilholics’ call. However, I visited the iconic building anyway courtesy of other occupants, especially Mayer Brown LLP, for which I am grateful.

The next 12 months are crucial for BP. Americans are a largely forgiving bunch, but as Texans say forgiving is one thing, forgetting is another matter! And many have pointed out their disgust at Transocean and Halliburton too. Unfortunately for BP – the 'crude' muck stops with them.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Bank of America Center, Houston, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2011

Crude Sort of a Month (So far)

We are nearing the end of September and crude oil just cannot shake off the linkage with perceived (rather than prevalent) risks to the health of the global economy. In fact, for lack of a better phrase - the “on” or “off” risk has been causing price fluctuation for some eight weeks now.

My contacts in the City also voice concerns about the next round of G20 opting for further regulation on commodities trading. Although it is the kind of rhetoric they have indeed heard time and again over the decades; it irks their collective psyche.

Overall, most expect crude oil prices to remain in the range of $73 to $85 until at least Q1 2011. Analysts at Société Générale CIB actually have a much wider ranged forecast to the tune of US$70 to US$85. In the oil business its best to avoid generalisations especially when it comes to forecasts, but a return to a US$100 plus price is not forecast by much of the wider market before Q1 2012 at the earliest.

Furthermore, crude stocks haven’t altered all that much. Société Générale CIB’s Global Head of Oil Research Mike Wittner notes in a recent investment note that:

“Despite 12 months of global economic recovery, stocks are little changed from a year ago, and are still at the top of their five-year range. OECD combined crude and product inventories remain stubbornly high at over 61 days forward cover. In other words, the increase in crude and product consumption over recent quarters has been matched by an increase in supply of about the same magnitude.”

In fact the big story, which Wittner also alludes to in his note, is the surprisingly large increase in supply from non-OPEC exporters while the cartel’s output itself has been stable. Looking ahead to the OPEC summit on Oct 14, which I will be attending in Vienna, the cartel is widely tipped to hold production levels steady at 29.0 million barrels per day.

Elsewhere in this crude world, Moody’s outlined potential Deepwater Horizon disaster liabilities for Transocean in an interesting report published on Monday. The report notes that Transocean’s credit risk has increased due to the disaster, although it is hard to quantify by how much.

While much depends on unknown variables, Transocean's stake is likely to be limited to 10% of the total liabilities, which could reach as much as US$60 billion, Moody's said. The recent downgrade of Transocean's long-term credit rating to Baa3 from Baa2 reflects that.

Kenneth Austin, Vice President & Senior Credit Officer at Moody's, feels that Transocean has sufficient cash, free cash flow and credit arrangements to address a US$6 billion responsibility without losing its investment-grade rating. “But any damages beyond that could force the company to consider ways to raise additional capital," he added.

For now, Transocean's indemnification agreement with BP - the largest partner and operator of the Deepwater Horizon rig and Macondo well - leaves BP responsible for the damages, unless the oil giant challenges the agreement in court, the report said.

Finally, the wider market has got word on what is being touted as the mother of all energy stock floatation’s and the largest share issue in corporate history – i.e. Petrobras’ attempt to raise something in the region of US$64.5 to US$74.7 billion. News emerged on Thursday that the final valuation was US$70 billion.

Following my earlier query, a company spokeswoman told me that Petrobras issued 2.4 billion common shares priced at BRL 29.65 (US$17.12) each and 1.87 billion preferred shares at BRL26.30 (US$15.25) each. The capital from the much delayed IPO will finance development of offshore drilling in the country’s territorial waters. The Brazilian government also gets its fair “share” in return for giving Petrobras access to up to 5 billion barrels of oil.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo: Oil Drill Pump, North Dakota, USA © Phil Schermeister / National Geographic Society

Eni’s Rating Downgrade & Other News

Moody's Investors Service lowered the long-term senior unsecured ratings of Eni S.p.A. (Eni) and its guaranteed subsidiaries to Aa3 from Aa2 and the senior unsecured rating of Eni USA Inc. to A1 from Aa3. In a note on Monday, it said the outlook for all ratings is stable.

Eni qualifies as a Government-Related Issuer (GRI) under Moody's methodology for such entities, given its 30.3% direct and indirect ownership by the Italian state. The downgrade reflects Moody's expectation that deleveraging process initiated by Eni management and recovery in the group's credit metrics will be gradual and unlikely to restore sufficient headroom to help underpin its business case analysis within the Aa range.

In other news, the U.S. EIA has cut its forecast for global oil demand in light of lower forecasts for global growth. EIA now expects global oil consumption to rise by 1.4 million barrels per day in 2011 against last month's projection of 1.5 million barrels. The consumption growth forecast for 2010 was unchanged at 1.6 million barrels per day.

On the pricing front, the EIA expects spot West Texas Intermediate crude prices to average US$77 a barrel in Q4 2010, down from its previous forecast of US$81. It added that crude prices are likely to climb to US$84 by the end of 2011.

Meanwhile, as you know, BP published its internal report into the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and the resultant oil spill last week. Given the ol’ day job of mine, I wanted to read it cover to cover – all 193 pages of it – before blogging about it. Having finally read it, goes without saying the oil giant is stressing on the fact that a "sequence" of failures caused the tragedy for which a "number of parties" were responsible. (To be read as Transocean and Halliburton)

In the report, conducted by BP's head of safety Mark Bly, the oil giant noted eight key failures that collectively led to the explosion. Most notably, BP said that both its staff as well and Transocean staff interpreted a safety test reading incorrectly "over a 40-minute period" which should have flagged up risks of a blowout and action could have been taken on the influx of hydrocarbons into the well.

BP was also critical of the cementing of the well - carried out by Halliburton - and the well’s blowout preventer. The report also notes that improved engineering rigour, cement testing and communication of risk by Halliburton could have identified flaws in cement design and testing, quality assurance and risk assessment.

It added that a Transocean rig crew and a team working for Halliburton Sperry Sun may have been distracted by "end-of-well activities" and important monitoring was not carried out for more than seven hours as a consequence.

Furthermore, BP said that there were "no indications" Transocean had tested intervention systems at the surface as was required by its company policy before they were deployed on the well. Crew may have had more time to respond before the explosion if they had diverted escaping fluids overboard, the report added.

BP’s outgoing Chief Executive Tony Hayward said, “To put it simply, there was a bad cement job and a failure of the shoe track barrier at the bottom of the well, which let hydrocarbons from the reservoir into the production casing. The negative pressure test was accepted when it should not have been, there were failures in well control procedures and in the blowout preventer; and the rig's fire and gas system did not prevent ignition.”

So there we have it – the oil giant is not absolving itself of the blame, but rather spreading it around. It came as no major surprise that both Halliburton and Transocean criticised and dismissed the report - though not necessarily in that order. The story is unlikely to go away as a national commission is expected to submit a report to President Barack Obama by mid-January 2011 followed by a Congressional investigation. The U.S. Justice department may yet step in as well if evidence of criminal wrongdoing of some sort emerges.

Away from the BP spill saga, French energy giant Total said last week that it could sell its 480 petrol stations in the UK as part of a strategic review of its British downstream operations as it refocuses on its core upstream strength and well something had to give.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo: US Oil rig © Rich Reid / National Geographic Society

Yachting, Golfing & Blogging after BP's Oil-spill

As the BP-spill, its containment, aftermath, costs and impact on the industry are scrutinised from all possible angles, side issues which dominate the headlines are about as farcical as they can be. It emerged on June 20 that BP’s egregious CEO Tony Hayward took a break from overlooking the Gulf of Mexico oil spill and committing a series of PR disasters, to spend a day with his teenage son on Father’s day, yachting off the “pristine” (as many American media outlets stress) coast of the UK.

US politicians never loathe showing false anger and lost no time in criticising him, with the charge being led by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. However, it then emerged that President Obama, carted off for a few rounds of golf taking the Vice-President along for the ride, that’s after attending a baseball game for good measure. This enabled his opponents to level the same criticism at him and made his Chief of staff look like a jack-ass (as if he needed any help in that department).

Blogger Scott Coen asked why different rules should apply for both men facing criticism for the handling of the ongoing spill? As did UK's Telegraph newspaper. Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele couldn’t agree more putting in his two bits worth. Some were busy revealing how much in political campaign donations had President Obama taken from BP. Turns out he's on top of the pile. Wonder if they will even exchange Christmas cards this year.

Yours truly also felt the need to go beyond his own blog – say a thing or two on BBC reporter Robert Peston and Mark Mardell Blogs. (Click image icons below for text)

As everyone big or small exchanges hot air, tragically the oil spill is far from being plugged amid worries that Tropical storm Alex might hit the spill area this week thereby hampering containment operations.

© Gaurav Sharma 2010. Photo Courtesy © BBC

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