Crude profit taking & Browne’s Shale hypothesis

Concerns over a conflict in the Middle East involving Iran did ease off last week but apparently not far enough to prevent a further slide in the price of the crude stuff. A relative strengthening of the US dollar was also seen supporting prices to the upside despite Eurozone woes. So Brent resisted a slide below US$107 on Friday while the WTI resisted a slide below US$91 a barrel.

In fact, the WTI August contract reached a high of US$92.94 while Brent touched US$108.18 at one point; the highest for both benchmarks since May 22. This meant that the end of last week saw some good old fashioned profit taking with conditions being perfect for it.

However, on this crude Monday afternoon, we see both benchmarks dipping again. When the Oilholic last checked, Brent was resisting a slide below US$102 per barrel while the WTI was resisting a US$88 level. With the Middle East risk premium easing marginally, City traders have turned their attention to Spain.

Last week the country’s government predicted that the Spanish recession may well extend into next year. Additionally, the regional administration of Valencia asked for federal help from Madrid to balance its books. So what have we learnt over the last seven or eight trading sessions and what has changed? Well not much except that oil price forecasting often resembles an inexact task based on fickle market conjecture.

The bullish sentiments of last week were an aberration prompted by the perceived risk of a conflict in the Middle East which the Iranians would be incredibly barmy to trigger. Add the temporary lowering of oil production courtesy a Norwegian strike and you provide the legs to a perfect short term prancing bull!

Existing economic fundamentals and current supply demand scenarios did not merit last week’s pricing levels either side of the pond. The Oilholic agrees with the EIA’s opinion that the Brent price would indeed range between US$97.50 and US$99.50 a barrel up until the end of 2013. Analysts at investment banks and ratings agencies are also responding.

For instance, Société Générale has downgraded Brent price estimates by 10% over 2012-14, from US$117 a barrel to US$105. The French bank views oil market fundamentals as neutral for the rest of the year. Nonetheless, should the Brent price weaken below US$90, like others in the City, Société Générale says a Saudi response is to be expected.

For what it is worth, at least Brent’s premium to the WTI has been constantly taking a knock. By some traders' accounts, it is presently below US$15 a barrel for the September settlement contract having been at US$26.75 at one point over Q4 2011. As a direct consequence of the linkage between waterborne light sweet crudes, the Louisiana Light Sweet’s premium to the WTI is down as well to around US$16 a barrel according to Bloomberg.

Moving away from pricing, Lord Browne – the former boss of BP and a director of fracking firm Cuadrilla – believes shale prospection would rid the US of oil imports. Speaking in Oxford at the Resource 2012 forum on water, food and energy scarcity, Browne said the US will not need to import any crude within two decades.

He quipped that the amount of shale gas in the US was effectively “infinite". On a sombre note, Browne said, “Shale gas has a very bad reputation, as a result of the weak players cutting corners. Regulation tightening would be welcome."

His Lordship is known to be a member of the “All hail shale” brigade. Back in March he told The Independent newspaper that if fracking took off meaning fully in the UK, it could generate 50,000 British jobs. The country could very well need its own shale drive especially as a government watchdog recently warned of declining oil and gas revenues.

A consultation period is currently underway in London. All UK fracking activity ground to a halt last year, when a couple of minor quakes majorly spooked dwellers of Lancashire where Cuadrilla was test fracking. Given the incident and environmental constrictions, the Oilholic suspects that Lord Browne knows it is too early to get excited about shale from a British perspective. However, Americans see no cause for curbing their enthusiasm. That’s all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil tankers in English Bay, British Columbia, Canada © Gaurav Sharma 2012.

Brent & the ‘crude’ fortnight to Friday the 13th!

Despite crude economic headwinds, the Brent forward month futures price spiked back well above US$100 per barrel on July 3. No one was convinced it’d stay there and so it proved to be barely a week later. Since then it has lurked around the US$100 mark. Our crude friends in the trading community always like to flag up supply shocks – some real some and some perceived along with some profit taking thrown in the mix.

The Norwegian oil industry strike which began on June 24 was a very real threat to supply. When oil industry workers down tools in a country which is the world’s fifth largest exporter of the crude stuff, then alarm bells ought to ring and so they did. Being a waterborne crude benchmark, Brent was always likely to be susceptible to one of its main production sources. The Louisiana Light’s fluctuation over the hurricane season stateside would be a fair analogy for the way Brent responded to the news of the strike.

Quite frankly, forget the benchmark; the strike saw Norwegian oil production dip by 13% and its gas output by 4% over the 16 days that it lasted. So when a Reuters report came in that Norway's government had used emergency powers to step in and force offshore oil and gas workers back to work, more than the bulls eased off.

The dispute, which is by no means over, concerns offshore workers' demand for the right to retire early, at 62, with a full pension. The row revolves around the elimination of a pension add-on introduced in 1998 for workers who retire (at 62), five years ahead of Norway's official retirement age and three years ahead of the general age for oil workers.

Accompanying a very real supply shock in the shape of the Norwegian strike were empty threats from Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz in wake of the EU sanctions squeeze. Traders put two and two together and perhaps came-up with 22 out of a sense of mischief.

First of all, the Iranians would be mighty silly if they decided to close the Strait of Hormuz with the US Fifth fleet lurking around. It just would not work and Iran would hurt itself more for the sake of what would at best be a temporary disruption. Secondly, City estimates, for instance the latest one being put out by Capital Economics, suggest that the US and EU sanctions could ultimately reduce oil exports from Iran by as much as 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd).

While it is serious stuff for Iran, the figure is less than 2% of global supply. As such hardly anyone in the City expects the implementation of sanctions on Iran to be a game-changer from a pricing standpoint.

“We maintain our view that the imminent tightening of Western sanctions on Iran is unlikely to have anywhere near as large an impact on global oil prices as many had feared. Demand is weakening and other suppliers are both able and willing to meet any shortfall. Admittedly, much could still depend on how the Iranian regime chooses to respond,” said Julian Jessop of Capital Economics.

Causative effect of such a market sentiment predictably sees Brent back in US$90s to lower US$100 range. In fact Capital Economics, Société Générale, Moody’s and many other forecasters have a US$70-100 per barrel forecast for Brent for the remainder of the year.

A spokesperson for Moody’s told the Oilholic that the agency has lowered its crude price assumptions to US$100/barrel for Brent and US$90/barrel for WTI in 2012, with an additional expected decline to US$95/barrel for Brent and US$85/barrel for WTI in 2013.

Moody's also expects that the spread between benchmark Brent and WTI crude will narrow to about US$5 in 2014. In a report, the agency adds that a drop in oil prices and jitters over economic conditions in Europe, the US and China suggest the global exploration and production sector (E&P) will see its earnings grow more slowly over the next 12 to 18 months.

As such, Moody's expects E&P industry EBITDA to grow in the mid-to-high single digits year on year through mid-2013. Expectations for EBITDA growth in the sector above 10% would suggest a positive outlook, while a retreat of 10% or more would point to a negative outlook. Moody's changed its outlook for the E&P industry to stable from positive on June 27, 2012.

The agency also expects little change in US natural gas prices before the end of 2013 with a normal winter offering the best near-term support for natural gas prices as increased utility and industrial demand will ramp up slowly.

On the corporate front, in an interesting fortnight Origin Energy announced that the Australia Pacific LNG project (APLNG) – in which its stake is at 37.5% after completion of Sinopec's additional equity subscription – has received board approval for Final Investment Decision (FID) for the development of a second LNG train.

The expanded two-train project is expected to cost US$20 billion for a coal seam gas (CSG) to liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Queensland, Australia. Elsewhere, India’s Essar Energy subsidiary Essar E&P Ltd is to sell a 50% stake in Vietnam's offshore gas exploration block 114 to Italy’s ENI.

Under the terms of the transaction, which is still subject to approval from the Vietnamese government, ENI is also assuming operator status for the block. Yours truly guesses the Indian company finally decided it was time to indulge in a bit of risk diversification.

Continuing with corporate stuff, the Oilholic told you BP’s planned divestment in TNK-BP won’t come about that easily or smoothly. One of its oligarch partners - Mikhail Fridman - has alleged that there are no credible buyers for BP’s 50% stake in the dispute ridden Russian venture.

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on June 29, Fridman said, "We doubt it has any basis in fact. They are trying to buy time, to reassure investors."

However, BP said it stood by its announcement. It also announced an agreement to sell its interests in the Alba and Britannia fields in the British sector of the North Sea to Mitsui for US$280 million. The sale includes BP’s non-operating 13.3% stake in Alba and 8.97% stake in Britannia. Completion of the deal is anticipated by the end of Q3 2012, subject to UK regulatory approvals.

Net production from the two fields averages around 7,000 barrels of oil equivalent per day. It is yet another example of BP’s smart management of its asset portfolio in wake of Macondo as the company refocuses on pastures and businesses new.

Elsewhere in the North Sea, Dana Petroleum expects to start drilling at two new oil fields off Shetland named - Harris and Barra – by Q2 2013. The first crude consignment from what’s described as the Western Isles project will come onstream in 2015. A spokesperson said field production could run for 15 years.

The region needs all the barrels it can pull as the UK’s budgetary watchdog – the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – has projected that future oil and gas revenues from the North Sea may be much lower than previous forecasts.

OBR sees the Brent prices rise from US$95/barrel in 2016 to US$173/barrel in 2040. “This compares lower with a projection in our assessment last year of a rise from US$107/barrel in 2015, rising to US$206/barrel in 2040," a spokesperson said.

As a result the OBR now projects tax receipts will be about 0.05% of GDP by 2040-41; half the level it projected in last year. It identified lower projected oil and gas prices as the key driver for the reduced figures given this year. The Oilholic won’t be called upon to vote on Scottish independence; but if yours truly was a Scottish Nationalist then there’d be a lot to worry about.

Finally, it looks like UK regulator – the Takeover Panel – has had enough of the protracted battle for the takeover of Cove Energy between Royal Dutch Shell and Thailand's PTTEP. It has given both parties a deadline of July 16 to make their final offers.

The Takeover Panel announced on Friday 13, July 2012 that if no offer is accepted by the said date, the sale of Cove will be decided by an auction on July 17. It could be lucky for neither, if they pay over the odds. That’s all for the moment folks. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: North Sea oil rig © Cairn Energy.

Charting the love-hate relationship with big oil

If the oil companies had answers to the energy crisis, and in some cases maybe they do, would you believe them? Given that most of us grow up loathing big oil for a multitude of reasons ranging from environmental to monetary ones while filling up the gas tank, all thoughts put forward by energy companies become suspect.

Or as the author of the book – Why we hate the oil companies? Straight talk from an energy insider – asks, would you accept the fox’s plan for the hen coop? Written by none other than John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell, it examines what’s behind the energy companies' swagger or perceived swagger.

Having made the transition from being a mere consumer of gasoline to the president of a major oil company, Hofmeister attempts to feel the pulse of public sentiment which ranges from indifference to pure hatred of those who produce the crude stuff. Spread over 270 pages split by 14 chapters, this book does its best to offer a reasonably convincing insider’s account of the industry.

Along the way it dwells on how politicians and special interest groups use energy misinformation and disinformation to meet their own odds and ends in a high stakes game. Hofmeister founded the US Citizens for Affordable Energy; an American grassroots campaign aimed changing the way the US looks at energy and energy security.

So this book benefits from his thoughts on solving energy issues, offering targeted solutions on affordable and clean energy, environmental protection and sustained economic competitiveness. The tone is a surprisingly frank one and research is solid. It is also no corporate waffle from an oilman lest sceptics dismiss it as such without reading it.

The Oilholic believes it even throws up some pragmatic solutions which appear sound at least on paper. So while there is little not to like about the book, there is one glaring caveat. It is just way too American in its scope. Yours truly is happy to recommend this book to our friends across the pond in North America; but readers elsewhere while appreciating the narrative, may come to the same conclusion.

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Front Cover – Why we hate the oil companies? Straight talk from an energy insider © Palgrave Macmillan

Price correction, Saudis hurt Canada & Russia!

Finally, we have a price correction which saw both global oil benchmarks reflect the wider macroeconomic climate accompanied by a dip in stock markets and a downgrade of 15 of the world’s largest banks by Moody’s. NYMEX WTI forward month futures contract fell below US$80 per barrel on Thursday for the first time since October 2011 while Brent is just about resisting the US$90-level trading at US$90.77 when last checked.

The benchmarks have shown bearish trends for almost three months but they were still not reflecting the wider macroeconomic climate; until yesterday that is. The ‘only way is up’ logic based on a linear supply-demand permutation oversimplifies the argument as the current situation demonstrates. Factors such as the absence of QE3 by the US Federal Reserve, a stronger US Dollar, and weaker Chinese, Indian and European data finally influenced market sentiment – not to provide the perfect storm but to provide the perfect reality! A decline in German business confidence levels reinforces bearish trends which will last for a while yet.

Despite negative sentiments and the possibility of Brent trading below US$100 per barrel for prolonged periods between now and Q1 2013, OPEC did not cut its quota last week. Saudi Arabia, which is so dominant within the cartel, actually wanted to send the price lower as it can contend with Brent falling to US$85 per barrel.

From a geopolitical standpoint, Saudis not only kicked a sanction hit Iran (maybe gleefully) but delivered bad news for Russia (perhaps intentionally) and Canada (almost certainly unwittingly). Saudi rivalry with Iran has more than a ‘crude’ dimension, but one with Russia almost certainly revolves around market dominance. The Oilholic’s hypothesis is that this intensified when Russian production first overtook Saudi production in 2009.

As the world’s leading producer for over two years, Moscow was causing Riyadh some discomfort. So the Saudis raised their game with the Libyan conflict and Iranian sanctions giving them ample excuses to do so. Constantly flouting OPEC production quotas, this February Saudi Arabia regained its top spot from Russia. Now with prices in reverse, it is the Russians who are sweating having rather bizarrely balanced their budget by factoring in an oil price in the circa of US$110 to US$120 per barrel.

Several independents, ratings agencies (for example S&P) and even former finance minister Alexei Kudrin repeatedly warned Russia about overreliance on oil. The sector accounts for nearly 70% of Russian exports and Vladimir Putin has done little to alter that dynamic both as prime minister and president in successive tenures.

Realising the Russian position was not going to change over the short term and with a near 10% (or above) dip in production at some of their major fields; the Saudis ramped up their production. A masterstroke or precisely a deft calculated hand played by Minister Ali Al-Naimi planked on the belief that amid bearish trends the Russians simply do not have the prowess, or in fact the incentive, to pump and dump more crude on the market has worked.

A Russian production rise to 10 million bpd is possible in theory, but very difficult to achieve in practice in this macroeconomic climate. So the markets (and the Saudis) expect Russia to fall back on their US$500 billion in reserves to balance the books over the short to medium term rather than ramp-up production. Furthermore, unless the Russians invest, the Saudis’ hand will only be strengthened and their status as ‘crude’ stimulus providers enhanced.

Canada’s oil sands business while not a direct Saudi target is indeed an accidental victim. The impact of a fall in the price of crude will also be very different as Canada’s economy is far more diversified than Russia’s. Instead of a decline in production, the ongoing oil sands and shale prospection points to a potential rise.

Canadian prospection remains positive for Canadian consumers and exporters alike; provincial and federal governments want it, justice wants it, PM wants it and the public certainly want it. However, developing the Athabasca oil sands and Canadian shale plays (as well as US’ Bakken play) is capital and labour intensive.

For the oil sands – holding the world’s second largest proven oil resource after Saudi Arabia’s Dhahran region – to be profitable, crude price should not plummet below US$60 per barrel. Three visits by the Oilholic to Calgary and interaction with colleagues at CAPP, advisory, legal and energy firms in Alberta between 2008 and 2011 threw up a few points worth reiterating amidst this current crude price correction phase. First of all, anecdotal evidence suggests that while it would rather not, Alberta’s provincial administration can even handle a price dip to US$35 to 40 per barrel.

Secondly, between Q2 2007 and Q1 2008 when the price of crude reached dizzy heights, oilfield services companies and engineering firms hired talent at top dollar only to fire six months later when the price actually did plummet to US$37 per barrel in wake of the financial crisis. Following a wave of redundancies, by 2010 Calgary and Fort McMurray were yet again witnessing a hiring frenzy. The cyclical nature of the industry means this is how things would be. Canadians remain committed to the oil & gas sector and in this blogger’s humble opinion can handle cyclical ups and downs better than the Russians.

Finally, Canada neither has a National Oil Company nor is it a member of any industry cartel; but for the sake of pure economics it too needs a price of about US$80 a barrel. On an even keel, when the price plummets or the Saudis indulge in tactical production manoeuvres, as is the case at present, you’d rather be a Canadian than a Russian.

The Oilholic has long suspected that the Saudis look upon the Canadians as fellow insurers working to prevent ‘oil demand destruction’ and vying for a slice of the American market; for them the Iranians and Russians are just market miscreants. That the market itself is mischievous and Canadians might join the 'miscreants' list if proposed North American pipelines come onstream is another matter! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: Russian pump jacks © Lukoil. Photo 2: Red Square, Moscow, Russia © Gaurav Sharma 2004. Photo 3: Downtown Calgary, Alberta, Canada © Gaurav Sharma 2011.

“Stability, stability, stability,” says El-Badri

So the press briefing room has emptied and the OPEC ministers have left the building for first time after failing to cut the cartel’s official output in face of crude price corrections exceeding 10% over a fiscal quarter. Thanks largely to Saudi Arabia, OPEC output stayed right where it was at 30 million bpd. Given the Eurozone crisis and a US, Indian and Chinese slowdown – OPEC members will invariably see Brent trading below US$100 per barrel for extended periods of time over the medium term.

It is doubtful if the Saudis would be too perturbed before the price of Brent slips below US$85 per barrel. As the Oilholic noted last year, studies suggest that is the price they may have budgeted for. Putting things into perspective analysts polled by the Oilholic here in Vienna suggest Iran would need a Brent price of US$110-plus to come anywhere balancing its budget.

However, with all bar the Saudis sweating already, outgoing OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri, whose successor is yet to be decided, probably provided the signature quote of 161st meeting of ministers. Given the long term nature of the oil & gas business and a need for clarity and predictability, the Secretary General demanded ‘stability, stability, stability’.

“Stability for investments and expansion to flourish; Stability for economies around the world to grow; And stability for producers that allows them a fair return from the exploitation of their exhaustible natural resources,” he said in a speech at the OPEC seminar ahead of the meeting.

Problem is the Saudis have taken the message a little bit too literally; oil minister Ali Al-Naimi likened his country’s high production level and its insistence that OPEC’s official quota stays right where it is to a kind of an economic ‘stimulus’ which the world needs right now.

Of course on the macro picture, everyone at OPEC would have nodded in approval when El-Badri noted that fossil fuels – which currently account for 87% of the world's energy supply – will still contribute 82% by 2035.

“Oil will retain the largest share (of the energy supply) for most of the period to 2035, although its overall share falls from 34% to 28%. It will remain central to growth in many areas of the global economy, especially the transportation sector. Coal's share remains similar to today, at around 29%, whereas gas increases from 23% to 25%,” he added.

In terms of non-fossil fuels, renewable energy would grow fast according to OPEC. But as it starts from a low base, its share will still be only 3% by 2035. Hydropower will increase only a little – to 3% by 2035. Nuclear power will also witness some expansion, although prospects have been affected by events in Fukushima. However, it is seen as having only a 6% share in 2035.

For oil, conventional as well as non-conventional resources are ‘sufficient’ for the foreseeable future according to El-Badri. The cartel expects significant increases in conventional oil supply from Brazil, the Caspian, and of course from amongst its own members, as well as steady increases in non-conventional oil and natural gas liquids (e.g. Canada and US).

On the investment front, for the five-year period from 2012 to 2016, OPEC's member countries currently have 116 upstream projects in their portfolio, some of which would be project or equity financed but majority won’t. Quite frankly do some of the Middle Eastern members really need to approach the debt markets after all? Moi thinks not; at best only limited recourse financing maybe sought. If all projects are realised, it could translate into an investment figure of close to US$280 billion at current prices.

“Taking into account all OPEC liquids, the net increase is estimated to be close to 7 million bpd above 2012 levels, although investment decisions and plans will obviously be influenced by various factors, such as the global economic situation, policies and the price of oil,” El-Badri concluded.

That’s all from Austria folks where the Oilholic is surrounded by news from the G20, rising cost of borrow for Spain and Italy, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso ranting, Fitch downgrading India’s outlook, an impending US Federal Reserve decision and the Greek elections! Phew!

Since it’s time to say Auf Wiedersehen and check-in for the last Austrian Airlines flight out of this Eurozone oasis of ‘relative’ calm to a soggy London, yours truly leaves you with a sunny view of the Church of St. Charles Borromeo (Karlskirche) near Vienna’s Karlsplatz area (see above right, click to enlarge). It was commissioned by Charles VI – penultimate sovereign of the Habsburg monarchy – in 1713. Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach, one of Austro-Hungarian Empire’s most renowned architects, came up with the original design with construction beginning in 1716.

However, following Fischer’s death in 1727, it was left to his son Joseph Emanuel to finish the project adding his own concepts and special touches along the way. This place exudes calmness, one which the markets, the crude world and certainly Mr. Barroso could do well with. Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: Empty OPEC briefing room podium following the end of the 161st meeting of ministers, Vienna, Austria. Photo 2: Church of St. Charles Borromeo (Karlskirche), Vienna, Austria © Gaurav Sharma 2012.