Brent- WTI parity (again) before the year-end!

Before the year is out, we’ve got parity yet again between both benchmarks. Right at the start of the year, the West Texas Intermediate briefly traded at a premium to Brent having achieved parity at $48.05 per barrel on January 15. 

Come the end of the year and we are here again! Parity between both benchmarks was achieved once more at a lower level of $36.40 per barrel on December 22 (see above, click to enlarge), exactly $11.65 lower with WTI in the ascendancy. In fact, the US marker's premium appears to holding.

The OPEC stalemate, peak winter demand and lifting of US exports ban are and will remain price positives for the WTI, as one wrote in a Forbes column. So is this a reversal of the 'crude' pecking order of futures contracts we have gotten used to since 2010? The Oilholic feels its early days yet. However, the development sure makes for an interesting 12 months in more ways than one.

Happy Christmas dear readers, but that’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

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

© Gaurav Sharma 2015. Photo: Bloomberg terminal screen grab showing moment of Brent-WTI parity on December 22, 2015  © Bloomberg.

US oil exports could level crude playing field

It has taken 40 years but US politicians finally found the timing, inclination and effort required to get rid of a legislative relic dating back to the Arab oil embargo of 1975 – a ban on exporting the country's crude oil that has plagued the industry for so long for reasons that no longer seem relevant.

Late on Friday, when news of the lifting of the ban arrived, the Oilholic could scarcely believe it. As recently as July 2014, this blogger opined in a Forbes column that movement on this front was highly unlikely until after the US Presidential election. However, in this instance, one is both pleasantly surprised as well as glad to have been proved wrong.

US producers, including independent upstarts behind the country’s shale bonanza, would now be able to sell their domestically produced barrels out in the international market competing with those already having to contend with a global supply glut.

Let's not kid ourselves, lifting of the ban would not necessarily lead to a significant spike in US oil exports over the short-term. However, it at least levels the playing field for the country’s producers should they want to compete on the global markets. It is also price positive for WTI as a crude benchmark leading it to compete better and achieve parity (at the very least) with global benchmarks in the spirit of free market competition.

Of course, in keeping with the shenanigans long associated with political circles in Washington DC, lifting of the ban came as part of a $1.1 trillion spending bill approved by the Senate that will fund the government until 2016.

The spending bill also includes tax breaks for US solar and wind power, and a pledge by both errant Republicans and Democrats not to derail a $500 million grant to the UN Green Climate Fund.

No matter what the political trade-offs were like, they are certainly worth it if the reward is the end of an unnecessary and redundant ban. 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: Alaska Pipeline, Brooks Range, USA © Michael S. Quinton / National Geographic

Keystone XL farce, Jon Stewart & an OFS merger

Despite much being afoot in the crude oil world, there’s only one place to start and that’s the ongoing farce over the Keystone XL pipeline extension project. A continuation of US President Barack Obama’s dithering over approval of the transnational pipeline extension (from Alberta, Canada to Texas) is not a major surprise. However, an unassailable truth flagged up by none other than comedian and political satirist Jon Stewart certainly is! 

It seems many controversial decisions, including Keystone XL’s approval, were delayed by the Obama administration until after the US mid-term elections undoubtedly to calm worried Democrats (who were in for, and eventually did get, an electoral pasting) so that they didn’t have to take a political stand on these issues one way or another. So when Obama delayed approval of Keystone XL (again!) in April this year, that helped the President’s mates both for and against the project. 

Especially, senators Mary Landreiu (D-Louisiana), Mark Begich (D-Alaska), Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) and Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina) all in red states favouring the project, who then used the delay as a pretext to criticise and "distance themselves" from the president. 

Conversely, blue states Democrats thought they got points for criticising the pipeline extension project to pander to opposing sentiments of their respective electorates. It was supposed to be a win-win situation; except for one thing - they all LOST and Landreiu, who is facing a tough run-off is going to, chuckled Stewart on The Daily Show broadcast for November 6 evening.

This week, the "old" senate rejected approval of Keystone XL, one of its last acts before the new Republican controlled senate convenes. At which point, the "new" senate will approve it and then one assumes the President would veto it. Then Democrat presidential candidate(s), including one Hillary Clinton who is said to be in favour of the pipeline, will take their respective positions either denouncing or praising the decision and so it goes. 

According to the splendid Stewart, it’s a popular tactic known as the “Chickensh*t gambit”. (To view the clip in the US click here, for the UK, click here, for elsewhere not quite sure where!)

Both those for and against the project should despair over the state of affairs. However, on the bright side they’ll be plenty of material for Stewart to bring a bit of laughter into our lives. As for the Canadian side, they are a patient bunch and among their ranks are some who quietly (and somewhat correctly) believe their country's need for the pipeline is diminishing as China's footprint on the global crude oil market grows ever bigger than that of the US. 

Meanwhile, by sheer coincidence barely days after the Oilholic went on Tip TV to discuss the challenging climate for oilfield services (OFS) companies (including why the Kentz takeover in August by SNC-Lavalin would not have happened now at the price it did back then), came the mother of all moves – Halliburton’s for Baker Hughes.

In case you’ve been on another planet and haven’t heard, Halliburton has agreed to buy rival Baker Hughes in a cash and shares deal worth US$34.6 billion. The transaction has been approved by both companies' boards of directors and is expected to close in late 2015, pending regulatory approval. As the oil price has fallen by a third since the summer, demand for OFS has cooled and a coming together of the second and third placed services providers makes sense in a cyclical industry.

Nonetheless, the announcement and speed of agreement took many by surprise. Dave Lesar, CEO of Halliburton, told CNBC's Squawk on the Street program on Tuesday that Baker Hughes brings complimentary product lines to the merger which his company does not have.

“Production chemicals is one, artificial lift is another, so from that standpoint they [Baker Hughes] do have some technology that we do not have. Plus they have some fantastic people in their talented organisation. Combine that with out talent and I think we’re putting together the industry bellwether.”

“Both companies are growing. We’re going to hire 21,000 people just at Halliburton this year, not only blue collar but white collar and professionals. You add that to capability and the growth we’re seeing out at Baker…I think it expands career opportunities.”

Lesar also said he had a top notch team in place to address anti-trust concerns which might involve divestments of up to $7.5 billion. The Halliburton CEO added that the response from big ticket clients, including several National Oil Companies (NOCs), had been great. “Feedback from almost of our customers, including NOCs has been pretty positive, where a stronger, more developed organisation can help them in ways neither Baker nor Halliburton could have done standing on our own.”

“Furthermore, we would not have done this deal if I did not believe that we could get this through the regulatory bodies,” Lesar said. There you have it, and it’d cost $3.5 billion in payments to Baker if he is wrong and regulators block the deal.

The Halliburton CEO largely sidestepped commenting on the Keystone XL farce and the oil price tumble, except adding on the latter point that: “We’re not in the bunker yet!” As OPEC meets on November 27, the market is in a sort of “pause still” mode. Brent is lurking just below $80 level, while the WTI is around the $75 level (see right, click to enlarge).

The Oilholic’s gut instinct, as one told Tip TV, is that OPEC has left it too late to act and should have made a call one way or another via an extraordinary meeting when the Brent fell below $85. So if they cut now, will it have the desired impact?

Meanwhile, Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE), says repealing the ban on US crude oil exports will not only create hundreds of thousands of jobs and grow the economy, it will benefit consumers by “lowering gasoline prices” contrary to opinion expressed in certain quarters. That conclusion, it says, is supported by no less than seven independent economic studies. These include the Brookings Institution, IHS Energy, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, and the US Government Accountability Office, among others. 

Finally, Fitch Ratings says the 25% drop in the oil price since July is likely to lift economic growth prospects, improve terms of trade, and have a potentially positive credit impact for a number of Asian economies if the lower prices are sustained below $90 level through 2015.

Most major Asian economies - including China, Japan, Korea and Thailand - would see an effective overall income boost from sustained lower oil prices, the agency said. In addition, countries with large oil import needs facing external adjustment pressures such as Indonesia and India are among the best positioned to see a positive impact on sovereign credit profiles, although the broader policy response will matter too, it added. 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, October, 2014. Photo 1: Keystone XL pipeline © CAPP / Fox News as featured on the Daily Show. Photo 2: The Democrat hopefuls and John Stewart on the Daily Show. Photo 3: John Stewart’s “Obama & the Pussycrats”, The Daily Show, November 6, 2014 © Comedy Central / Daily Show November, 2014. © Graph: Oil benchmark prices 5-day assessment October/November 2014 © Gaurav Sharma 2014.

Keystone XL, politics & the King’s Speech

Even before the original Keystone cross-border pipeline project aimed at bringing Canadian crude oil to the doorstep of US refineries had been completed, calls were growing for an extension. The original pipeline which links Hardisty (Alberta, Canada) to Cushing (Oklahoma) and Patoka (Illinois) became operational in June 2010, just as another, albeit atypical US-Canadian tussle was brewing.

The extension project – Keystone XL first proposed in 2008, again starting from Hardisty but with a different route and an extension to Houston and Port Arthur (Texas) is still stuck in the quagmire of US politics, environmental reticence, planning laws and bituminous mix of the Canadian oil sands.

The need for extension is exactly what formed the basis of the original Keystone project – Canada is already the biggest supplier of crude oil to the US; and it is only logical that its share should rise and in all likelihood will rise. Keystone XL according to one of its sponsors – TransCanada – would have the capacity to raise the existing capacity by 591,000 barrels per day though the initial dispatch proposal is more likely to be in the range of 510,000 barrels.

Having visited both the proposed ends of the pipeline in Alberta and Texas, the Oilholic finds the sense of frustration only too palpable more so because infrastructural challenges and the merits (or otherwise) of the extension project are not being talked about. To begin with the project has a loud ‘fan’ club and an equally boisterous ‘ban’ club. Since it is a cross-border project, US secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to play the role of referee.

A pattern seems to be emerging. A group of 14 US senators here and 39 there with their counterparts across the border would write to her explaining the merits only for environmental groups, whom I found to be very well funded – rather than the little guys they claim to be – launching a counter representation. That has been the drill since Clinton took office.

One US senator told me, “If we can’t trust the Canadians in this geopolitical climate then who can we trust. Go examine it yourself.” On the other hand, an environmental group which tries to get tourists to boycott Alberta because of its oil sands business tried its best to convince me not to land in Calgary. I did so anyway, not being a tourist in any case.

Since 2008, TransCanada has held nearly 100 open houses and public meetings along the pipeline route; given hundreds of hours of testimony to local, state and federal officials and submitted thousands of pages of information to government agencies in response to questions. The environmentalists did not tell me, but no prizes for guessing who did and with proof. This is the kind of salvo being traded.

Send fools on a fool’s errand!

It is not that TransCanda, its partner ConocoPhillips and their American and Canadian support base know something we do not. It is a fact that for some years yet – and even in light of falling gasoline consumption levels – the US would remain the world’s largest importer of crude oil. China should surpass it, but this will not happen overnight.

The opponents of oil sands have gotten the narrative engrained in a wider debate on the environment and the energy mix. Going forward, they view Keystone XL and other incremental pipeline projects in the US as perpetuating reliance on crude oil and are opposing the project on that basis.

Given the current geopolitical climate, environmental groups in California and British Columbia impressed upon this blogger that stunting Alberta’s oil sands – hitherto the second largest proven oil reserve after Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar extraction zone – would somehow send American oilholics to an early bath and force a green age. This is a load of nonsense.

Au contraire, it will increase US dependency on Middle Eastern oil and spike the price. Agreed the connection is neither simple nor linear – but foreign supply will rise not fall. Keystone XL brings this crude foreign product from a friendly source.

Everyone in Alberta admits work needs to be done by the industry to meet environmental concerns. However, a 'wells to wheels' analysis of CO2 emissions, most notably by IHS CERA and many North American institutions has confirmed that oil sands crude is only 5 to 15 per cent ‘dirtier’ than US sweet crude mix.

The figure compares favourably with Nigerian, Mexican and Venezuelan crude which the US already imports. So branding Canadian crude as dirty and holding up Keystone XL on this basis is a bit rich coming from the US. Keystone XL increases US access to Canadian crude. Who would the Americans rather buy from Canada or Venezuela? Surveys suggest the former.

The pragmatists at CAPP

Over a meeting in Calgary, Dave Collyer, President of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) told the Oilholic that they have always viewed Keystone XL as an opportunity to link up Western Canada to the US Gulf coast market, to replace production that would otherwise be imported by the US from overseas sources most notably Venezuela and Mexico where production is declining according to available data. There are also noticeable political impediments in case of the former.

“We don’t see this pipeline extension as incremental supply into that orbit, rather a replacement of existing production through a relatively straightforward pipeline project, akin to many other pipeline projects and extensions that have been built into the US,” Collyer said.

Energy infrastructure players, market commentators and CAPP make another valid point – why are we not debating scope of the Keystone XL project and its economic impact and focussing on the crude stuff it would deliver across the border? CAPP for its part takes a very pragmatic line.

“Do we think there is legitimacy in the argument that is being made against Keystone? No (for the most part) but the reality is that there has to be due consideration in the US. I would assume the US State Department is in a position where it has no alternative but to employ an abundance of caution to ensure that all due processes are met. What frustrates Canadians and Americans alike is the length of time that it has taken. However, at the end of the day when we get that approval and it is a robust one which withstands a strict level of scrutiny then it’s a good thing,” Collyer said.

T I M B E R!

Canadians and Americans first started bickering about timber, another Canadian resource needed in the US, about taxation, ethics, alleged subsidies and all the rest of it way back in 1981. Thirty years later, not much has changed as they are still at it. But these days it barely makes the local news in Canada each time the Americans take some reactive action or the other against the timber industry. Reason – since 2003 there has been another buyer in town – China.

In 2010, timber sales from Canada to China (and Japan to a lesser extent) exceed those to the US. Over the last half-decade timber exports from the province of British Columbia alone to China rose 10 times over on an annualised basis. Moral of the story, the US is not the only player in town whatever the natural resource. Canadians feel a sense of frustration with the US, and rightly so according to Scott Rusty Miller, managing partner of Ogilvy Renault (soon to be part of Norton Rose) in Calgary.

“We are close to the US, we are secure and we have scruples. Our industry is more open to outside scrutiny and environmental standards than perhaps many or in fact any other country the US imports crude oil from – yet there are these legal impediments. Scrutiny is fine. It’s imperative in this business, but not to such an extent that it starts frustrating a project,” Miller noted.

Ask anyone at CAPP or any Toronto-based market analyst if Canada could look elsewhere – you would get an answer back with a smile; only the Americans probably would not join them. The Oilholic asked Collyer if Americans should fear such moves.

His reply was, “As our crude production grows we would like access to the wider crude oil markets. Historically those markets have almost entirely been in the US and we are optimistic that these would continue to grow. Unquestionably there is increasing interest in the Oil sands from overseas and market diversification to Asia is neither lost on Canadians nor is it a taboo subject for us.”

CAPP has noted increasing interest from Chinese, Korean and other Asian players when it comes to buying in to both crude oil reserves and natural gas in Western Canada. Interest alone does not create a market – but backed up by infrastructure at both ends, it strengthens the relationship between markets Canadians have traditionally not looked at. All of this shifts emphasis on Canadian West coast exports.

“Is it going to be straightforward to get a pipeline to the West coast – we’ll all acknowledge that it’s not. For instance, Enbridge has its challenges with the Gateway pipeline. There is an interest in having an alternative market. There are drivers in trying to pursue that and I would say collectively this raises the “fear” you mention and with some factual basis. However, the US has been a great market and should continue to be a great market...while some caution is warranted,” he concluded.

The King’s speech

We’re not talking about Bertie, (King George VI of England) but Barack (The King of gasoline consumers and the US President). On March 30th, the King rose and told his audience at Georgetown University that he would be targeting a one-third reduction in US crude imports by 2025.

“I set this goal knowing that we’re still going to have to import some oil. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, obviously we have got to look at neighbours like Canada and Mexico that are stable, steady and reliable sources,” he added. While I am reliably informed that the speech was not picked up by Chinese state television, the Canadian press went into overdrive. The Globe and Mail, the country’s leading newspaper, declared “Obama signals new reliance on oil sands.”

Shares of Canadian oil and service companies rose the next day on the Toronto Exchange, even gas producers benefited and 'pro-Keystone XL' American senators queued up on networks to de facto say “We love you, we told you so.” Beyond the hyped response, there is a solid reason. Keystone XL bridges both markets – a friendly producer to a friendly consumer with wide ranging economic benefits.

According to Miller, “Refining capacity exists down south. Some refineries on the US Gulf coast could be upgraded at a much lower cost compared to building new infrastructure. There are economic opportunities for both sides courtesy this project – we are not just talking jobs, but an improvement of the regional macro scenario. Furthermore, however short or long, it could be a shot in the arm for the much beleaguered and low-margin haunted refining business.”

The pipeline could also help Canadians export surplus crude using US ports in the Gulf and tax benefits could accrue not just at the Texan end but along the route as well. That the oil sands are in Canada is a geological stroke of luck, given the unpredictability of OPEC and Russian supplies. The US State Department says it will conclude its review of Keystone XL later this year. Subjecting this project to scrutiny is imperative, but bludgeoning it with impediments would be ‘crudely’ unwise.

This post contains excerpts from an article written by the Oilholic for UK's Infrastructure Journal. While the author retains serial rights, the copyright is shared with the publication in question.

Gaurav Sharma 2011 © Gaurav Sharma and Infrastructure Journal 2011. Map: All proposals of Canadian & US Crude Oil Pipelines © CAPP (Click map to enlarge)