Perspectives on a changing energy landscape

That we're in the midst of a profound change in the energy markets in unquestionable. However, fossil fuels still remain the default medium of choice. Within those broader confines, the oil market is seeing a supply-driven correction of the sort that probably occurs once in a few decades.

Meanwhile, peak oil theorists are in retreat following in the footsteps of peak coal theorists last heard of during a bygone era. However, what does it all mean for the wider energy spectrum, where from here and what are the stakes?

Authors and industry experts Daniel Lacalle and Diego Parrilla have attempted to tackle the very questions in their latest work The Energy World is Flat: Opportunities from the end of peak oil (published by Wiley).

In a way, the questions aren’t new, but scenarios and backdrops evolve and of course have evolved to where we currently are. So do the answers, say Lacalle and Parrilla as they analyse the past, scrutinise the present and draw conclusions for future energy market pathways.

In this book of 300 pages, split by 14 interesting chapters, they opine that the energy world is flat principally down to "ten flatteners" along familiar tangents such as geopolitics, reserves and resources, overcapacity, demand displacement and destruction, and of course the economics of the day. 

Invariably, geopolitics forms the apt entry-point for the discussion at hand and the authors duly oblige. As the narrative subtly moves on, related discussions touch on which technologies are driving the current market changes, and how they affect investors. Along the way, there is a much needed discussion about past and current shifts in the energy sphere. You cannot profit in the present, unless you understand the past, being the well rounded message here.

“New frontiers” in the oil and gas business, today’s “unconventional” becoming tomorrow’s “conventional”, and resource projections are all there and duly discussed.

To quote the authors, the world has another 1.5 trillion barrels of proven plus probable reserves that are both technically and economically viable at current prices and available technology, and another 5 trillion-plus barrels that are not under current exploration parameters but might be in the future. Furthermore, what about the potential of methane hydrates?

Politics, of course, is never far from the crude stuff, as Lacalle and Parrilla note delving into OPEC shenanigans and the high stakes game between US shale, Russian and Saudi producers leading to the recent supply glut – a shift with the potential to completely alter economics of the business.

What struck the Oilholic was how in-depth analysis has been packaged by the authors in an engaging, dare one say easy reading style on what remains a complex and controversial discussion. For industry analysts, this blogger including, it’s a brilliant and realistic assessment of the state of affairs and what potential investors should or shouldn’t look at.

The Oilholic would be happy to recommend the book to individual investors, energy economists, academics in the field and of course, those simply curious about the general direction of the energy markets. Policymakers might also find it well worth their while to take notice of what the authors have put forward.

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: Front Cover – The Energy World is Flat: Opportunities from the end of peak oil © Wiley Publishers, Feb, 2015.

Notes on a scandal from an ex-Enron pragmatist

When the Enron scandal broke and that icon of corporate America filed for bankruptcy on December 1, 2001, the Oilholic was as stumped by the pace of events as those directly impacted by it. In the months and years that were to follow, bankruptcy proceedings for what was once 'America's Most Innovative Company' according to Fortune, turned out to be the most complex in US history.

It soon emerged that one of Enron's own – Dr Vincent Kaminski – a risk management expert especially headhunted in 1990s from Salomon Brothers and appointed Managing Director for Research, had repeatedly red flagged practices within the energy company's corridors of corporate power.

Alas, in a remarkably stupendous act, Kaminski and his team of 50 analysts, while specifically hired to red flag were often ignored when and where it mattered. Cited cautions ranged from advising against the use of creative accounting, "terminally stupid" structuring of Enron's special purpose vehicles (SPVs) to conceal debt by then CFO Andrew Fastow, and the ultimately disastrous policy of securing Enron's debt against stock in the corporation itself.

What transpired has been the subject of several books – some good (especially Elkind & McLean's), some bad and some opportunistic with little insight despite grandiose pretensions to the contrary. Having lapped all of these up, and covered the scandal in a journalistic capacity, the Oilholic had long wanted to meet the former risk manager of Enron.

At last, a chance encounter in 2012, followed by a visit to Houston last November, finally made it possible. These days Kaminski is an academic at Rice University and has written no less than three books; the latest one being on energy markets. Yet, not a single one on the Enron fiasco, one might inquire, for a man so close to it all?

At peace and reasonably mellow in the Houston suburb of The Woodlands, which he calls home, the former Enron executive says, even though it rankles, the whole episode was "in the past", and despite what was said in the popular press – neither was he the only one warning about impending trouble ahead nor could he have altered Enron's course on his own.

"A single person cannot stop a tanker and I wasn't the only insider who warned that there were problems on the horizon. Looking back, I always approached every problem at Enron in good faith, gave the best answers I could come up with on risk scenarios, based on the information I had and my interpretation of it, even if bosses did not like it.

"If honesty was deemed too candid or crude then so be it! Whatever I did at Enron, the red flags I raised, was what I was paid for. Nothing less could have been expected of me; I saw it as my fiduciary duty."

He agrees that Enron's collapse was a huge blow to Houston's economy and overall wellbeing at the time. "There was a chain reaction that affected other parts of the regional economy. In fact, energy trading and marketing itself went through a crisis which lasted a few years."

To this day, Kaminski says he has no way of knowing whether justice was done or not and isn't alone in thinking that. "By the time of the final winding-up process, Enron had about 3,000 entities created all over the world. It was an extremely complex company."

But does the current generation of Rice University students ask him about Enron? "Right now, I am teaching a different generation. Most of my students are typically 25 to 30 years old. When the Enron scandal unfolded [over a decade ago] they were teenagers. A lot has happened in the corporate world since then, which they have had to take in as they've matured. The financial tsunami that was the global financial crisis, and what emerged in its wake, dwarfed what happened at Enron. For them, Enron is but a footnote in corporate history."

"That scandal devastated public trust in one brand, however big it may have been at the time. But the global financial crisis eroded public trust in an entire sector – investment banking. Perhaps as a result, Enron's collapse has ceased to generate as much interest these days. That's a pity! Depending on one's point of view, the extent of the use [or misuse] of SPVs and the number that was discovered at collapsing financial institutions in 2007-09, was several times over what was eventually catalogued at Enron."

Hence, the ex-Enron executive turned academic doubts whether the world really learnt from the scandal. "Enron was a warning from history, from the energy business to other sectors. I describe my former employer as a canary in a coal mine demonstrating the dangers of excessive leverage, of having a non-transparent accounting system and all those sliced and diced SPVs."

"Pre-crisis, the financial sector was guilty of formally removing 'potentially' bad assets from the parent company to SPVs. However, in real financial terms that wasn't the case. When things took a turn for the worse, all the assets and liabilities put on to SPVs came back to be reabsorbed into the balance sheets."

Formally they were separate and 'special', Kaminski notes, but for all practical reasons there was no effective transfer of risk.

"Rewind the clock back and there was no effective transfer of risk in the case of Enron either when its horror story of SPVs and creative accounting came out in all its unsavoury detail. So if lessons were learnt, where is the evidence? Now, let's forget scruples for a moment and simply take it as a basic mistake. Even so, there is no evidence lessons were learned from the Enron fiasco."

He adds that those who don't have an open mind will never learn. "This is not exclusive to the energy business or financial services. It's perhaps true of everything in life. Arrogance and greed also play a part, especially in the minds of those who think they can somehow extricate themselves when the tide turns."

As early as 2004-05, the Rice University academic says he was debating with colleagues that a financial crisis could be on the horizon as the US property market bubbled up.

"Some people branded me as crazy, some called me pessimistic. They said the world is mature enough to manage the situation and progress in economic and financial sciences had created tools for effective management of market and credit risks. Some even agreed that we'll have a train wreck of a global economy, but to my amazement remarked that they knew how to "get out in time."

Kaminski says while it can be true of individuals who can perhaps get out in time, it cannot be true of large corporations and the entire financial system. "They would invariably take a hit, which in some cases – as the financial crisis showed – was a fatal hit. Furthermore, the financial system itself was scarred on a global scale."

Over the years, this blogger has often heard Kaminski compare chief risk officers (CROs) to food tasters in medieval royal courts.

"Indeed, being a risk manager is a job with limited upside. You cannot slow 'acting poison' and the cooks don’t like you as you always complain that the food tastes funny. So if they catch you in a dark place, they will rough you up!" he laughs.

"I have said time and again that risk managers should be truly independent. In a recent column for Energy Risk, I gave the example of the CRO at Lehman Brothers, who was asked to leave the room when senior executives were talking business. It is both weird and outrageous in equal measure that a CRO would be treated in this way. I would resign on the spot if this happened to me as a matter of principle."

He also thinks CROs should be reporting directly to the board rather than the CEO because they need true independence. "Furthermore, the board should not have excessive or blind confidence in any C-suite executive just because the media has given him or her rock-star status."

A switch from the corporate world to academia has certainly not diminished Kaminski’s sense of humour and knack for being candid.

"Maybe having your CEO on the cover of Business Week [Cue: Enron's then CEO Jeff Skilling] could be the first warning sign of trouble! The second signal could be a new shining tower [see above left - what was once Enron’s is now occupied by a firm Skilling called a 'dinosaur' or legacy oil company – Chevron] and the third could be your company's name on a stadium! Our local baseball team – Houston Astros – called a stadium that was 'Enron Field' their home, then 'Enron Failed'. Thankfully, it's now shaken it off and is simply Minute Maid Park [a drinks brand from Coca-Cola's portfolio]."

"But jokes apart, excessive reliance or confidence in any single individual should be a red flag. I feel it's prudent to mention that I am not suggesting companies should not reward success, that's different. What I am saying is that the future of a company should not rely on one single individual."

Switching to 'crude' matters, Kaminski says trading remains an expensive thing for energy companies and is likely to get even costlier in light of higher capital requirements for registering as a swap dealer and added compliance costs. "So the industry will go through a slowdown and witness consolidation as we are already seeing."

On a more macro footing, he agrees that the assetization of black gold will continue as investors seek diversity in uncertain times. As for the US shale bonanza versus the natural gas exports paradigm, should exports materialise in incremental volumes, the [domestic] price of natural gas will eventually have to go up stateside, he adds.

"Right now, the price [of US natural gas] is low because it is abundant. However, to a large extent that abundance is down to it being cross-subsidised by the oil industry [and natural gas liquids]. I believe in one economic law – nothing can go on forever.

"As far as the LNG business is concerned, it will still be a reasonably good business, but not with the level of profitability that most people expect, once you add the cost of liquefaction, transportation, etc."

The Oilholic and the ex-Enron pragmatist also agreed that there will be a lot of additional capacity coming onstream beyond American shores. "We could be looking at the price of natural gas in the US going up and global LNG prices going down. There will still be a decent profit margin but it's not going to be fantastic," he concludes.

And that's your lot for the moment! It was an absolute pleasure speaking to Dr Kaminski! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: Dr Vincent Kaminski at El Paso Trading Room, Rice University, Houston. Photo 2: Chevron Houston, formerly the Enron Towers. Photo 3: Dr Kaminski & the Oilholic, in The Woodlands, Texas, USA © Gaurav Sharma, November 22, 2013.

Puts n’ calls, Russia ‘peaking’ & Peking’s shale

Oil market volatility continues unabated indicative of the barmy nature of the world we live in. On January 25, the Brent forward month futures contract spiked above US$113. If the day's intraday price of US$113.46 is used as a cut-off point, then it has risen by 4.3% since Christmas Eve. If you ask what has changed in a month? Well not much! The Algerian terror strike, despite the tragic nature of events, does not fundamentally alter the geopolitical risk premium for 2013.

In fact, many commentators think the risk premium remains broadly neutral and hinged on the question whether or not Iran flares-up. So is a US$113-plus Brent price merited? Not one jot! If you took such a price-level at face value, then yours would be a hugely optimistic view of the global economy, one that it does not merit on the basis of economic survey data.

 

In an interesting note, Ole Hansen, Head of Commodity Strategy at Saxo Bank, gently nudges observers in the direction of examining the put/call ratio. For those who don’t know, in layman terms the ratio measures mass psychology amongst market participants. It is the trading volume of put options divided by the trading volume of call options. (See graph above courtesy of Saxo Bank. Click image to enlarge)

 

When the ratio is relatively high, this means the trading community or shall we say the majority in the trading community expect bearish trends. When the ratio is relatively low, they’re heading-up a bullish path.

 

Hansen observes: “The most popular traded strikes over the five trading days (to January 23) are evenly split between puts and calls. The most traded has been the June 13 Call strike 115 (last US$ 3.13 per barrel), April 13 Call 120 (US$0.61), April 13 Put 100 (US$0.56) and June 13 Put 95 (US$1.32). The hedging of a potential geopolitical spike has been seen through the buying of June 13 Call 130, last traded at US$0.54/barrel.”

 

The Oilholic feels it is prudent to point out that tracking the weekly volume of market puts and calls is a method of gauging the sentiments of majority of traders. Overall, the market can, in the right circumstances, prove a majority of traders wrong. So let’s see how things unfold. Meanwhile, the CME Group said on January 24 that the NYMEX March Brent Crude had made it to the next target of US$112.90/113.29 and topped it, but the failure to break this month’s high "signals weakness in the days to come."

 

The  group also announced a record in daily trading volume for its NYMEX Brent futures contract as trading volumes, using January 18 as a cut-off point, jumped to 30,250 contracts; a 38% increase over the previous record of 21,997 set on August 8, 2012.

 

From the crude oil market to the stock market, where ExxonMobil finally got back its position of being the most valuable publicly traded company on January 25! Apple grabbed the top spot in 2011 from ExxonMobil which the latter had held since 2005. Yours truly does not have shares in either company, but on the basis of sheer consistency in corporate performance, overall value as a creator of jobs and a general contribution to the global economy, one would vote for the oil giant any day over an electronic gadgets manufacturer (Sorry, Apple fans if you feel the Oilholic is oversimplifying the argument).

 

Switching tack to the macro picture, Fitch Ratings says Russian oil production will probably peak in the next few years as gains from new oilfields are offset by falling output from brownfield sites. In a statement on January 22, the ratings agency said production gains that Russia achieved over the last decade were mainly driven by intensive application of new technology, in particular horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing applied to Western Siberian brownfields on a massive scale.

 

"This allowed oil companies to tap previously unreachable reservoirs and dramatically reverse declining production rates at these fields, some of which have been producing oil for several decades. In addition, Russia saw successful launches of several new production areas, including Rosneft's large Eastern Siberian Vankor field in 2009," Fitch notes.

 

However, Fitch says the biggest potential gains from new technology have now been mostly achieved. The latest production figures from the Russian Ministry of Energy show that total crude oil production in the country increased by 1.3% in 2012 to 518 million tons. Russian refinery volumes increased by 4.5% to 266 million tons while exports dropped by 1% to 239 million tons. Russian oil production has increased rapidly from a low of 303 million tons in 1996.

 

"Greenfields are located in inhospitable and remote places and projects therefore require large amounts of capital. We believe oil prices would need to remain above US$100 per barrel and the Russian government would need to provide tax incentives for oil companies to invest in additional Eastern Siberian production," Fitch says.

 

A notable exception is the Caspian Sea shelf where Lukoil, Russia’s second largest oil company, is progressing with its exploration and production programme. The ratings agency does see potential for more joint ventures between Russian and international oil companies in exploring the Russian continental shelf. No doubt, the needs must paradigm, which is very visible elsewhere in the ‘crude’ world, is applicable to the Russians as well.

 

On the very same day as Fitch raised the possibility of Russian production peaking, Peking announced a massive capital spending drive towards shale exploration. Reuters reported that China intends to start its own shale gale as the country’s Ministry of Land and Resources issued exploration rights for 19 shale prospection blocks to 16 firms. Local media suggests most of the exploration rights pertain to shale gas exploration with the 16 firms pledging US$2 billion towards the move.

On the subject of shale and before the news arrived from China, IHS Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin told the World Economic Forum  in Davos that major unconventional opportunities are being identified around the world. "Our research indicates that the shale resource base in China may be larger than in the USA, and we note prospects elsewhere," he added.

 

However, both the Oilholic and the industry veteran and founder of IHS CERA agree that the circumstances which led to and promoted the development of unconventional sources in the USA differ in important aspects from other parts of the world.

“It is still very early days and we believe that it will take several years before significant amounts of unconventional oil and gas begin to appear in other regions,” Yergin said. In fact, the US is benefitting in more ways than one if IHS’ new report Energy and the New Global Industrial Landscape: A Tectonic Shift is to be believed.

In it, IHS forecasts that the "direct, indirect and induced effects" of the surge in nonconventional oil and gas extraction have already added 1.7 million jobs to the US jobs market with 3 million expected by 2020. Furthermore, the surge has also added US$62 billion to federal and state government coffers in 2012 with US$111 billion expected by 2020. (See bar chart above courtesy of IHS. Click image to enlarge)

 

IHS also predicts that non-OPEC supply growth in 2013 will be 1.1 million barrels per day – larger than the growth in global demand – which has happened only four times since 1986. Leading this non-OPEC growth is indeed the surge in unconventional oil in the USA. The report does warn, however, that increases in non-OPEC supply elsewhere in the world could be subject to what has proved to be a recurrent “history of disappointment.”

 

That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Graph: Brent Crude – Put/Call ratio © Saxo Bank, Photo: Russian jerry pump jacks © Lukoil, Bar Chart: US jobs growth projection in the unconventional oil & gas sector © IHS 2013.

On finite resources and China’s urges

We constantly debate about the world’s finite and fast depleting natural resources; that everything from fossil fuel to farmable acreage is in short supply. Some often take the line that the quest for mineral wealth would be a fight to the death. Others, like academic Dambisa Moyo take a more pragmatic line on resource scarcity and rationally analyse what is at stake as she has done in her latest book Winner Take All: China’s race for resources and what it means for us.

That the Chinese are in town for more than just a slice of the natural resources cake is well documented. Yet, instead of crying ‘wolf’, Moyo sequentially dissects and offers highly readable conjecture on how China is leading the global race for natural resources be it via their national oil companies, mergers, asset acquisitions, lobbying or political leverage on an international scale.

While cleverly watching out for their interests, the author explains, in this book of just over 250 pages split by two parts containing 10 chapters, that the Chinese are neck-deep in a global resources rush but not necessarily the causative agents of perceived resource scarcity.

However, that they are the dominant players in a high stakes hunt for commodities from Africa to Latin America is unmistakable. For good measure and as to be expected of a book of this nature, the author has examined a variety of tangents hurled around in a resource security debate. The Dutch disease, geopolitics, risk premium in commodities prices, resource curse hypothesis have all been visited versus the Chinese quest by Moyo.

The Oilholic found her arguments on the subject to be neither alarmist nor populist. Rather, she has done something commendable which is examine how we got to this point in the resources debate, the operations of commodity markets and the geopolitical shifts we have seen rather than sensationalise the subject matter. China, the author opines may be leading the race for resources, but is by no means the only hungry horse in town.

Overall, it is a very decent book and well worth reading given its relevance and currency in today’s world. The Oilholic would be happy recommend it to commodities traders, those interested in international affairs, geopolitics, financial news and resource economics. Finally, those who have made a career out of future projections would find it very well worth their while to absorb it from cover to cover.

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here. 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Front cover - Winner Take All © Allen Lane / Penguin Group UK.

Splendid dossier on a secretive "supermajor"

In 1999, the merger of Exxon and Mobil created what could be described as an oil & gas industry behemoth and, using some financial metrics, perhaps also one of the most profitable among the international “supermajors”. Despite being a global entity, for many people ExxonMobil remains an enigma.

 

Its sheer presence on the world stage has its admirers yet critics have labelled it as a polluter, a climate-change denier, a controversial lobbyist, a bully and more. For Pulitzer Prize winning author Steve Coll, there is more to it than meets the eye when it comes to ExxonMobil and its financial performance which is more durable than others in the Fortune 500 list.

 

Minus generalisations or a linear exercise in big oil bashing, this latest work of Coll's – Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power – is a pragmatic book about a global brand which, in the author’s words, became the "most hated"  oil company in America after the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989.

 

That incident itself provides the starting point for a detailed narrative of just under 700 pages, split into two parts – The End of Easy Oil and The Risk Cycle – containing 28 chapters. Banking on his journalistic tenacity and detailed research work including over 400 interviews, declassified documents, legal and corporate records and much more, Coll has pencilled his unique description of this “Private Empire” and it does not disappoint.

 

ExxonMobil has its dogmas, fears, idiosyncrasies, pluses and minuses and the author delves into these based on anecdotal as well as observed evidence. From an obsession with safety post Exxon Valdez to the moving of its headquarters to Irving, Texas, from “the merger” to an insistence on R.O.C.E (Return on Capital Employed) – Coll has tackled it all.

 

The author opines that far from being an attention seeking ruthless corporate giant in bed with politicians, as popular conjecture would have you believe, ExxonMobil’s legendary lobbying in Washington DC was cleverly and aggressively targeted for maximum effect. While it shunned overt politicising of its presence and affairs, the company benefitted from new markets and global commerce that US military hegemony protected the world over. After all, when fighting a tight corner, ExxonMobil often called in a favour from power brokers on Capitol Hill.

 

While the whole book is a thoroughly good read, for the Oilholic, reading Coll’s description of ExxonMobil’s grapples with "resource nationalism" in developing markets (as its oil output in developed jurisdictions started declining) and its management (or otherwise) of operations in inhospitable countries, were the two most interesting passages.

 

From Aceh in Indonesia to the Niger Delta, from the Gulf of Guinea to Chad, ExxonMobil found itself in alien territory and conflicts it had not seen before. But it strategized, adopted, called in favours and more often than not emerged with a result in its favour; if not immediately, then over a period of time, writes Coll.

 

Every saga needs a cast of characters and this one is no exception. One individual and his portrayal by the author stand out. That’s Lee ("Iron Ass") Raymond, ExxonMobil’s inimitable boss from 1993 to 2005. With a doctorate in chemical engineering, boasting Dick Cheney among his friends and a history of denying climate change, Raymond was by all accounts a formidable character and Coll’s description of him does not disappoint. One mute criticism the Oilholic has is that its borderline gossip in parts but one supposes the gossip joins the dots in a weighty narrative.

 

In summation, this blogger found the book to be a definitive one on ExxonMobil and by default a glimpse into the wider ‘crude’ world, it’s wheeling and dealing. The Oilholic would be happy to recommend it to anyone interested in the oil business, its history, market dynamics and the geopolitical climate it is inextricably linked with.

 

Those interested in business, finance and economics would also enjoy this book as would the mainstream non-fiction reader in search of a riveting real world account. Finally, it would also be well worth the while of students of financial journalism to read and learn from Coll’s craft.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Front Cover – Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power © Allen Lane / Penguin Group UK.


In the Realm of Crude “What Ifs”

Last time I checked the ICE Brent forward month futures contract was trading at US$110.46 per barrel up US$4.68 or 4.43% in intraday trading (click on chart to enlarge). It is my considered belief, since fundamentals do not support such a high price at this moment in time that there is at least US$10 worth of instability premium factored in to the price.

Given the number of “what if” analysts doing the rounds of the TV stations today, it is worth noting with the Libyan situation that not only are supply concerns propping up the price but the type of crude that the country supplies is also having an impact. I feel it is the latter point which is reflected more in the crude price than supply disruption. Light sweet crude is the most cost effective variety to refine and while Libyan crude is not as good as American light sweet crude, it is still of a very good quality relative to its OPEC peers.

Now, if exporters such as Saudi Arabia talk of making up the short supply, not all of the Libyan export shortfall can be compensated for with a type of crude the country exports. This is what the speculators are factoring in, though it is worth stating the obvious that Libya is the world 12th largest exporter of crude.

Furthermore, the age-old “what if” question is also hounding trading sentiment, i.e. “What if the house of Saud collapses and there is a supply disruption to the Saudi output?” The question is not new and has been around for decades. Problem is that a lot of the “what ifs” in Middle East and North Africa have turned to reality in recent weeks. If the House of Saud were to fall, it will be a geopolitical impact on crude markets of a magnitude that we have not seen since the Arab oil embargo.

Elsewhere at the International Petroleum Week, advisory firm Deloitte revealed its second full year ranking of UK upstream independent oil companies by market capitalisation. The top three are Tullow, Cairn and Premier Oil in that order, a result similar to end-2009. Tullow’s strength in Ghana helped it to maintain top spot in the sector. Its £11 billion market capitalisation is more than twice the valuation of its closest rival Cairn Energy, which in turn is more than twice the size of third placed Premier Oil. (Click on table below to enlarge)

Cairn continues to excite after agreeing to sell its Indian interests to Vedanta last year and concentrating on Arctic exploration. However, its drilling off the coast of Greenland has yet to yield anything ‘crudely’ meaningful. Another noteworthy point is the entry of Rockhopper Exploration, which is prospecting for crude off the coast of the Falkland Islands, into the top ten at 9th (up from 26th at end-2009).

“We have seen a great deal of volatility in the ranking showing the transformational growth achievable through exploration success. Overall, 2010 was a year of recovery for the UK upstream independent oil and gas sector, with rising oil prices and greater access to capital improving investor sentiment in the sector,” says Ian Sperling-Tyler, associate partner of energy transaction services at Deloitte.

“The improved environment was reflected in a 28% increase in the market capitalisation of the 25 biggest companies in the sector from £25.3 billion to £32.2 billion. In contrast, the FTSE 100 posted a 9% gain,” he adds.

Moving away from UK independent upstarts to a British major’s deal with an Indian behemoth. Following the BP/Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) announcement about a joint venture, ratings agency Moody's has changed the outlook of the Baa2 local currency issuer rating of RIL from stable to positive. RIL's foreign currency issuer and debt ratings remain unchanged at Baa2 with a stable outlook, as these are constrained by India's sovereign foreign currency ceiling of Baa2.

The rating action follows the company's recent announcement of a transformational partnership agreement with BP that will see the British major take a 30% stake in RIL's 23 Indian oil and gas blocks, including the substantial KG D6 gas field, for an initial consideration of US$ 7.2 billion plus further performance related payments of up to US$ 1.8 billion.

Philipp Lotter, a Senior Vice President at Moody's in Singapore believes the partnership agreement has generally positive credit implications for RIL, both operationally and financially. "The decision to bring on board BP in support of India's domestic gas market development will benefit RIL from BP's deep-water drilling expertise, as well as allow it to share risks and costs of future exploration and infrastructure projects, thus significantly de-risking its upstream exposure," he adds.

However, according to Moody's it is worth noting that the outlook could revert back to stable, if RIL undertakes transformational debt-funded acquisitions, or allocates material liquidity to finance growth that entails higher business risk. A deterioration of retained cash flow to debt below 30% is also likely to reverse any upward rating pressure.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Graphics 1: Brent crude oil chart © Digital Look/BBC Feb 23, 2011, Graphics 2: Leading UK independent oil companies © Deloitte LLP

Shell Divests, BP Invests and Libya Implodes!

Earlier on Monday, oil giant Shell announced its intentions to sell most of its African downstream businesses to Swiss group Vitol and Helios Investment Partners for US$1 billion adding that it will create two new joint ventures under the proposed deal.

The first of these JVs will own and operate Shell's existing oil products, distribution and retailing businesses in 14 African countries, most notably in Egypt, Morocco, Kenya, Uganda and Madagascar.

The second JV will own and operate Shell's existing lubricants blending plants in seven countries. The move is in line with Shell’s policy of divesting its non-core assets. It sold US$7 billion of non-core assets in 2010. While Shell was divesting in Africa, BP was investing in India via a strategic oil & gas partnership with Reliance Industries.

Both companies will form a 50:50 joint venture for sourcing and marketing hydrocarbons in India. The agreement will give BP a 30% stake in 23 oil and gas blocks owned by Reliance including 19 off the east coast of India. Market feedback suggests the deal is heavily weighted towards gas rather than the crude stuff.

In return for the stake, BP will invest US$7.2 billion in the venture and a further US$1.8 billion in future performance-related investments. The combined capital costs are slated to be in the region of US$20 billon with local media already branding it as the largest foreign direct investment deal in India by a foreign company.

Switching focus to the Middle Eastern unrest, what is happening from Morocco to Bahrain is having a massive bearing on the instability premium factoring in to the price of crude. However, the impact of each country’s regional upheaval on the crude price is not uniform. I summarise it as follows based on the perceived oil endowment (or the lack of it) for each country:

• Morocco (negligible)
• Algeria (marginal)
• Egypt (marginal)
• Iran (difficult to gauge at the moment)
• Tunisia (negligible)
• Bahrain (marginal)
• Libya (substantial)

Of these, it is obvious to the wider market that what is happening in Libya is one of concern. More so as the unrest has become unruly and the future may well be uncertain as the OPEC member country accounts for around 2% of the daily global crude production.

Italian and French oil companies with historic ties to the region are among those most vulnerable, though having said so BP also has substantial assets there. Austria’s OMV and Norway’s Statoil are other notable operators in Libya. A bigger worry could be if Iran erupts in a similar unruly way. Given the international sanctions against Iran, oil majors are not as involved there as they are in Libya. However, the question Iran’s crude oil endowment and its impact on the oil markets is an entirely different matter.

Finally, the ICE Brent crude forward month futures contract stood at US$108.25 per barrel, up 5.6% in intraday trading last time checked. I feel there is at least US$10 worth of instability premium in there, although one city source reckons it could be as high as US$15. The "What if" side analysts (as I call them) are having a field day - having already moved their focus from Iran to Saudi Arabia.

© Gaurav Sharma 2011. Photo: Vintage Shell gasoline pump, Ghirardelli Square, San Francisco, California, USA © Gaurav Sharma, March 2010