Crude talking points of the last two weeks

In a fortnight during which the Bank of England hired a man whose signature appears on Canadian banknotes as its new governor, the oil & gas world reiterated its own cross-border nature, when an American firm sold a Kazakh asset to an Indian company. That firm being ConocoPhillips, the asset being its 8.4% stake in Kazakh oil field Kashagan and the Indian buyer being national oil company (NOC) ONGC Videsh – all signed, sealed and delivered in a deal worth around US$5.5 billion.

 

Even with an after-tax impairment of US$400 million, the deal represents a tidy packet for ConocoPhillips as it attempts to cut its debt. Having divested its stake in Russia’s Lukoil, the American oil major has already beaten its asset sale programme target of US$20 billion. So when the final announcement came, it was not much of a surprise as Kazakhstan government officials had revealed much earlier that a move was on the cards.

 

Still it is sobering to see ConocoPhillips divest from Kashagan – the world's biggest oilfield discovery by volume since 1968. It may hold an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil. Phase I of the development, set to begin next year, could yield around 8 billion barrels, a share of which ONGC is keenly eyeing.

India imports over 75% of the crude oil it craves and is in fact the world's fourth-biggest oil importer by volume. Given this dynamic, capital expenditure on asset with a slower turnaround may not be an immediate concern for an Indian NOC, but certainly is for investors in the likes of ConocoPhillips and its European peers.

On the back of a series of meetings between investors and its EMEA natural resources & commodities team in London, Fitch Ratings recently revealed that elongated upstream investment lead times and a (still) weak refining environment in Western Europe remain a cash flow concern for investors.

 

They seemed most concerned about the lead time between higher upstream capex and eventual cash flow generation and were worried about downward rating pressure if financial metrics become strained for an extended period. It is prudent to mention that Fitch Ratings views EMEA oil & gas companies' capex programmes as measured and rational despite a sector wide revised focus on upstream investment.

 

For example, the two big beasts – BP and Royal Dutch Shell – are rated 'A'/Positive and 'AA'/Stable respectively; both have increased capex by more than one-third for the first 9 months of 2012 compared to the same period last year. Elsewhere in their chats, unsurprisingly Fitch found that refining overcapacity and weak utilisation rates remain a concern for investors in the European refining sector. Geopolitical risk is also on investors' minds as they look to 2013.

 

While geopolitical events may drive oil prices up, which positively impact cash flow, interruptions to shipping volumes may more than offset gains from these price increases – negatively impacting both operating cash flow and companies' competitive market positions. Away from capex concerns, Fitch also said that shale gas production in Poland could improve the country's security of gas supplies but is unlikely to lead to large declines in gas prices before 2020.

In a report published on November 26, Arkadiusz Wicik, Fitch’s Warsaw-based director and one of the most pragmatic commentators the Oilholic has encountered, noted that shale gas production in Poland, which has one of the highest shale development potentials in Europe, would lower the country's dependence on gas imports. Most of Poland's imports currently come from Russia.

 

However, Wicik candidly noted that even substantial shale gas production by 2020, is unlikely to result in large declines in domestic gas prices.

 

"In the most likely scenario, shale gas production, which may start around 2015, will not lead to a gas oversupply in the first few years of production, especially as domestic gas demand may increase by 2020 as several gas-fired power plants are planned to be built. If there is a surplus of gas because shale gas production reaches a significant level by 2020, this surplus is likely to be exported," he added.

 

In actual fact, if the planned liberalisation of the Polish gas market takes place in the next few years, European spot gas prices may have a larger impact on gas prices in Poland than the potential shale gas output.

 

From a credit perspective, Fitch views shale gas exploration as high risk and capital intensive. Meanwhile, the UK government was forced on the defensive when a report in The Independent newspaper claimed that it was opening up 60% of the country’s cherished countryside for fracking.

 

Responding to the report, a government spokesperson said, "There is a big difference between the amount of shale gas that might exist and what can be technically and commercially extracted. It is too early to assess the potential for shale gas but the suggestion more than 60% of the UK countryside could be exploited is nonsense."

 

"We have commissioned the British Geological Survey to do an assessment of the UK's shale gas resources, which will report its findings next year," he added.

 

Barely had The Independent revealed this ‘hot’ news, around 300 people held an 'anti-fracking' protest in London. Wow, that many ‘eh!? In defence of the anti-frackers, it is rather cold these days in London to be hollering outside Parliament.

 

Moving on to the price of the crude stuff, Moody’s reckons a constrained US market will result in a US$15 per barrel difference in 2013 between the two benchmarks – Brent and WTI – with an expected premium in favour of the former. Its recently revised price assumptions state that Brent crude will sell for an average US$$100 per barrel in 2013, US$95 in 2014 and US$90 in the medium term, beyond 2014. While the price assumption for Brent beyond 2014 is unchanged, the agency has revised both the 2013 and 2014 assumptions.

 

For WTI, Moody’s has left its previous assumptions unchanged at US$85 in 2013, 2014 and thereafter. Such a sentiment ties-in to the Oilholic’s anecdotal evidence from the US and what many in City concur with. So Moody’s is not alone in saying that Brent’s premium to WTI is not going anywhere, anytime soon. Even if the Chinese economy tanks, it’ll still persist in some form as both benchmarks will plummet relative to market conditions but won’t narrow up their difference below double figures.

 

Finally, on the noteworthy corporate news front, aside from ConocoPhillips’ move, BP was in the headlines again for a number of reasons. Reuters’ resident Oilholic Tom Bergin reported in an exclusive that BP is planning a reorganisation of its exploration and production (E&P) operations. Citing sources close to the move, Bergin wrote that Lamar McKay, currently head of BP's US operations, will become head of a new E&P unit; a reinstatement of a role that was abolished in 2010 in the wake of the oil spill.

 

Current boss Bob Dudley split BP's old E&P division into three units on his elevation to CEO to replace Tony Hayward, whose gaffes in during the Gulf of Mexico oil spill led to his stepping down. BP declined to comment on Bergin’s story but few days later provided an unrelated newsworthy snippet.

 

The oil giant said it had held preliminary talks with the Russian government and stakeholders in the Nordstream pipeline about extending the line to deliver gas to the UK. BP said any potential extension to the pipeline was unlikely to be agreed before mid-2013.

 

The pipeline’s Phase I, which is onstream, runs under the Baltic Sea bringing Russian gas into Germany. A source described the move as “serious” and aimed at diversifying the UK’s pool of gas supplying nations which currently include Norway and Qatar as North Sea production continues to wane. As if that was not enough news from BP for one fortnight, the US government decided to "temporarily" ban the company from bagging any new US government contracts.

 

The country's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said on November 28 that the move was standard practice when a company reaches an agreement to plead guilty to criminal charges as BP did earlier in the month. New US E&P licences are made available regularly, so BP may miss out on some opportunities while the ban is in place but any impact is likely to be relatively ephemeral at worst. No panic needed!

 

On a closing note, in a move widely cheered by supply side industry observers, Shell lifted its force majeure on Nigeria's benchmark Bonny Light crude oil exports on November 21 easing supply problems for Africa’s leading oil producer. The force majeure, implying a failure to meet contractual obligations due to events outside of corporate control, on Bonny Light exports came into place on October 19 following a fire on a ship being used to steal oil. It forced the company to shut down its Bomu-Bonny pipeline and defer 150,000 barrels per day of production.

 

However, Shell said that force majeure on Nigerian Forcados crude exports remains in place. Forcados production was also stopped owing to damage caused by suspected thieves tapping into the Trans Forcados Pipeline and the Brass Creek trunkline. As they say in Nigeria - it’s all ok until the next attempted theft goes awry. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Oil Rig, USA © Shell

‘Oh Frack’ for OPEC, ‘Yeah Frack’ for IEA?

In a space of a fortnight this month, both the IEA and OPEC raised “fracks” and figures. Not only that, a newly elected President Barack Obama declared his intentions to rid the USA of “foreign oil” and the media was awash with stories about American energy security permutations in wake of the shale bonanza. Alas, the whole lot forgot to raise one important point; more on that later.

 

Starting with OPEC, its year-end calendar publication – The World Oil Outlook – saw the oil exporters’ bloc acknowledge for the first time on November 8 that fracking and shale oil & gas prospection on a global scale would significantly alter the energy landscape as we know it. OPEC also cut its medium and long term global oil demand estimates and assumed an average crude oil price of US$100 per barrel over the medium term.

 

“Given recent significant increases in North American shale oil and shale gas production, it is now clear that these resources might play an increasingly important role in non-OPEC medium and long term supply prospects,” its report said.

 

The report added that shale oil will contribute 2 million barrels per day (bpd) towards global oil supply by 2020 and 3 million bpd by 2035. If this materialises, then the projected rate of incremental supply is over the daily output of some OPEC members and compares to the ‘official’ daily output (i.e. minus the illegal siphoning / theft) of Nigeria.

 

OPEC’s first acknowledgement of the impact of shale came attached with a caveat that over the medium term, shale oil would continue to come from North America only with other regions making “modest” contributions over the longer term at best. For the record, the Oilholic agrees with the sentiment and has held this belief for a while now based on detailed investigations in a journalistic capacity (about financing shale projects).

 

OPEC admitted that the global economy, especially the US economy, is expected to be less reliant on its members, who at present pump over a third of the world's oil and have around 80% of planet’s conventional crude reserves. Pay particular attention to the ‘conventional’ bit, yours truly will come back to it.

 

According to the exporters’ bloc, global demand would reach 92.9 million bpd by 2016, down over 1 million from its 2011 report. By 2035, it expects consumption to rise to 107.3 million bpd, over 2 million less than previous estimates. To put things into perspective, global demand in 2011 was 87.8 million bpd.

 

Partly, but not only, down to shale oil, non-OPEC output is expected to rise to 56.6 million bpd by 2016, up 4.2 million bpd from 2011, the report added. So OPEC expects demand for its crude to average 29.70 million bpd in 2016; much less than its current output (ex-Iraq).

 

"This downward revision, together with updated estimates of OPEC production capacity over the medium term, implies that OPEC crude oil spare capacity is expected to rise beyond 5 million bpd as early as 2013-14," OPEC said.

 

"Long term oil demand prospects have not only been affected by the medium term downward revisions, but by higher oil prices too…oil demand growth has a notable downside risk, especially in the first half of 2013. Much of this risk is attributed to not only the OECD, but also China and India," it added.

 

So on top of a medium term crude oil price assumption of US$100 per barrel (by its internal measure and OPEC basket of crudes, which usually follows Brent not WTI), the bloc forecasts the price to rise with inflation to US$120 by 2025 and US$155 by 2035.

 

Barely a week later, IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol – who at this point in 2009 was discussing 'peak oil' – created ripples when he told a news conference in London that in his opinion the USA would overtake Russia as the biggest gas producer by a significant margin by 2015. Not only that, he told scribes here that by 2017, the USA would become the world's largest oil producer ahead of the Saudis and Russians. 

 

Realising the stirrings in the room, Birol added that he realised how “optimistic” the IEA forecasts were sounding given that the shale oil boom was a new phenomenon in relative terms.

 

"Light, tight oil resources are poorly known....If no new resources are discovered after 2020 and plus, if the prices are not as high as today, then we may see Saudi Arabia coming back and being the first producer again," he cautioned.

 

Earlier in the day, the IEA forecasted that US oil production would rise to 10 million bpd by 2015 and 11.1 million bpd in 2020 before slipping to 9.2 million bpd by 2035. It forecasted Saudi Arabia’s oil output to be 10.9 million bpd by 2015, 10.6 million bpd in 2020 but would rise to 12.3 million bpd by 2035.

 

That would see the world relying increasingly on OPEC after 2020 as, in addition to increases from Saudi Arabia, Iraq will account for 45% the growth in global oil production to 2035 and become the second-largest exporter, overtaking Russia.

 

The report also assumes a huge expansion in the Chinese economy, which the IEA said would overtake the USA in purchasing power parity soon after 2015 (and by 2020 using market exchange rates). It added that the share of coal in primary energy demand will fall only slightly by 2035. Fossil fuels in general will remain dominant in the global energy mix, supported by subsidies that, in 2011, rose by 30% to US$523 billion, due mainly to increases in the Middle East and North Africa.

 

Fresh from his re-election, President Obama promised to “rid America of foreign oil” in his victory speech prior to both the IEA and OPEC reports. An acknowledgement of the US shale bonanza by OPEC and a subsequent endorsement by IEA sent ‘crude’ cheers in US circles.

 

The US media, as expected, went into overdrive. One story – by ABC news – stood out in particular claiming to have stumbled on a shale oil find with more potential than all of OPEC. Not to mention, the environmentalists also took to the airwaves letting the great American public know about the dangers of fracking and how they shouldn’t lose sight of the environmental impact.

 

Rhetoric is fine, stats are fine and so are verbal jousts. However, one important question has bypassed several key commentators (bar some environmentalists). That being, just how many barrels are being used, to extract one fresh barrel? You bring that into the equation and unconventional prospection – including US and Canadian shale, Canadian oil sands and Brazil’s ultradeepwater exploration – all seem like expensive prepositions.

 

What’s more OPEC’s grip on conventional oil production, which is inherently cheaper than unconventional and is expected to remain so for sometime, suddenly sounds worthy of concern again.

 

Nonetheless “profound” changes are underway as both OPEC and IEA have acknowledged and those changes are very positive for US energy mix. Maybe, as The Economist noted in an editorial for its latest issue: “The biggest bonanza from all this new (US) energy would be if users paid the real cost of consuming oil and gas.”

 

What? Tax gasoline users more in the US of A? Keep dreaming sir! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it crude!

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Oil prospection site, North Dakota, USA © Phil Schermeister / National Geographic.

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.

A brilliant catalogue of ‘crude’ expressions

As paper barrels increasingly get the upper hand in an intertwined global network of crude oil and distillates trading, whether it is the virtual crude you are after or the physical stuff – getting a hang of the market jargon is crucial.

 

Perhaps you are familiar with terms such as contango, backwardation or crack spreads – as many readers of this blog would be. But can you confidently define what a PIONA test is? Or for that matter what’s a No. 6 Fueloil? Or maybe what demulsibility implies to in a crude context or what are charter parties?

 

If you are stumped or curious or unsure or perhaps all three, then – The Oil Traders’ Word(s) – a brilliant compendium of ‘crude’ knowledge containing oil traders’ expressions, trading floor jargon, measurements, metrics and terms put together by Statoil executive Stefan Van Woenzel is just the tonic!

 

In a painstaking endeavour, Van Woenzel has penned the A to Z of oil trading jargon banking on his decades of experience as a trader. In order to put the veracity of his research work to test, the Oilholic subjected The Oil Traders’ Word(s) to a simple test. To begin with yours truly tallied common oil trading expressions to check the author’s description of them, then on to terms that only readers with a mid to high level of investment knowledge would be familiar with and finally to random jump searches by alphabet.

 

The Oilholic is delighted to say that Van Woenzel’s ‘glossary-plus’ emerges with full marks and more on all counts. Expressions, words and jargon aside, metric to imperial measures and explanatory notes make this work of just under 550 pages one of the most purposeful reference books of the oil sector. With close to 2,000 definitions, one would struggle to find a better or even a comparable product to the author’s arduous effort.

This book is not limited to a role of a ‘crude’ dictionary or an industry communications guide. Going beyond that, Van Woenzel has shared his two decades-plus worth of industry wisdom with readers in a separate chapter. Overall, it was a joy to read the book and put the glossary to a very enjoyable test. A multibillion dollar industry must appreciate the value of the author’s commendable research.

 

For his humble part, the Oilholic would be happy to recommend it to fellow ‘crude’ individuals, oil & gas executives, oil traders, energy project financiers, shipping personnel, banking sector professionals, energy journalists and academics. Students of economics, business and energy studies might also find it worth their while to have it handy. If you needed a one-stop oil industry jargon guide, then this book really is the ‘real deal’.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo: Front Cover – The Oil Traders' Word(s) © AuthorHouse.

For US President, the Oilholic endorses 'neither'!

Whilst lounging on Hawaii’s beautiful White Sands Beach in Kona, the Oilholic wondered if the dear readers of this blog know what is a Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa (pronounced ‘humu – humu – nuku – nuku – apa – wapa’)? Revelation on what it is and how it relates to energy policy stances of President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney follows. The Presidential debates are over, all banners are up and the speeches are reaching a last minute fervour as Romney and Obama begin the concluding phases of their face-off ahead of the November 6, 2012 US Presidential election day.

As decision day draws nearer, the Oilholic endorses neither as both leading candidates have displayed a near lack of vision required to steer US energy policy in light of recent developments. The USA, despite its oil imports dynamic, believe it or not is the world’s third largest producer of crude oil by volume and among the market leaders in the distillates business.

With the next generation of independent wildcatters’ knack for finding value and economies of scale for small volumes (mostly in Texas and North Dakota), shale oil and an overall rise in countrywide oil output, things can only get better with the right man in charge at the White House. Additionally, the shale gas bonanza bears testimony to just about everything from American ingenuity and the benefits of an impressive pipeline (to market) network to a favourable legislative framework.

Yet both Obama and Romney sound unconvincing on respective plans for the energy industry despite their country’s domestic good fortune in recent years. The President’s policy has been a near failure while his opponent’s plans are insipid at best. Starting with the President first, since the Oilholic is in his birthplace of Hawaii and having arrived from California which hasn’t voted Republican in recent decades, bar the exception of Ronald Regan’s bid for the White House.

On the plus side, the Obama administration has opened up new US regions to oil and gas prospection though red tape persists. It has made noteworthy moves as a proponent of energy efficiency and energy economy drives for motorists and businesses alike. But on this briefest of note, the positivity ends. The BP Deepwater Horizon spill was as much about the failure of the company involved, as it was about the initial fuzzy response of the Obama administration followed by political points scoring as public anger grew when the spill wasn’t plugged for months.

Then of course there is the Solyndra boondoggle and supposed plans for “clean coal” where the less said the better, unless you are an opponent of the President. Shenanigans of the US Congress put paid to any plans he may have had for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Then of course there are politically fishy manoeuvres ranging from not offering proactive support to shale prospection and delaying the Keystone XL pipeline project from Canada until after the election and to reach (and then again subsequently threaten to reach) US strategic petroleum reserves as petrol prices rose at US pumps.

Yet for all of his incompetence, the American energy industry is not in an unhappy place thanks largely to the Bush administration’s recognition of the domestic reserve potential and Dick Cheney’s super-aggressive push on shale. What is disappointing is that it could have been much better under Obama but wasn’t. Remember all those “Yes we can” posters of his from the 2008 campaign. The Oilholic was hard pressed not to find at least one Obama banner once every four or five streets in major Californian metropolitan areas on a visit back then (using Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Sunnyvale and Sacramento as a basis).

Last week in San Diego yours truly found none and this week in Hawaii has been the same. For the US energy business, the absence of “Yes we can” banners conveys the same metaphorical message of being let down perhaps as the rest of the country. Things are tagging along in the energy business despite of Obama not because of anything in particular that he has done. Of course, he did make a tall claim of a cut in US oil imports from the Middle East which is true. However, the Oilholic agrees with T. Boone Pickens on this one – yes the US production rise has contributed to reduced importation of crude oil but so has the dip in economic performance which cuts energy usage and makes the citizenry energy frugal. What has Obama done?

Well so much so for the President, but what about his challenger? Sigh...The Right Honourable Mitt Romney’s policy is to make (and switch) a policy on the go accompanied by jumbled statements. Or, in something that would make the fictitious British civil servant Sir Humphrey Appleby from BBC’s political satire Yes Minister proud – the Romney campaign’s policy is not to have a policy unless asked about a particular facet of the energy business.

So what do we know so far? Romney stands for less regulation, a more lenient approach to environmental regulations and will cut addiction to subsidies. But political waffle aside, all we have had is him blast Obama over the Solyndra affair, call for a repeal of Clean Air Act without outlining his ‘clean’ alternative and a proposal to allow wind power subsidies to lapse (again without spelling out the Romney plan for Wind Power).

He flags up the shale boom without being mindful that it too needed incentives to begin with before market forces kicked-in. Admittedly, the wind energy sector works to a different dynamic and is indeed subsidy addicted. But a quip to cut subsidies without a cohesive back-up plan reeks of political opportunism. The only way Romney scores better than Obama on energy policy is that he is not Obama and who knows if that might be reason enough to vote for good ol’ Mitt.

Both men have the fuzziest of plans with erratic changes in stance suited to the political climate in an election year. This brings us back to the Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa which is the Hawaiian state fish from the tropical reef triggerfish family. The local name simply means "the fish that grunts like a pig" for the sound it makes when caught. It is also prone to sudden erratic changes in position and swimming patterns while negotiating the Hawaiian coral reefs according to a local marine biologist. Kinda like the two main US Presidential candidates isn’t it?

That’s all from Hawaii folks as the Oilholic prepares for the long journey home. It has been a memorable week in another memorable part of America. Alas, all good things must come to an end. Yours truly leaves you with a photo of Hawaiian residents of the Punaluʻu Black Sand beach – the Hawksbill and Green sea turtles (above right) and moi at Old Kona State Airport recreation beach and park.

You can cycle down 30 miles along the Kona coastline and stop every 15 mins to ask “Is that a view? Or is that a view?” and you’ll conclude that that’s a view! The people are lovely, the food is great, the place oozes natural history and tales of human history. Since this blogger also drove 260 miles circling the entire Big Island via its main highway with the help of veteran local tour guide John Mack, one can confirm that different parts of this Hawaiian isle get 11 of the 13 climate ranges known to mankind.

It is a privilege to have spent a week here, where for a change blogging on oil did not reign supreme. Next stop Los Angeles International followed by London Heathrow – a day long up in the air affair! Keep reading; keep reading it ‘crude’ – but its goodbye to the ‘Aloha’ state!

© Gaurav Sharma 2012. Photo 1: White Sands Beach Park, Kona. Photo 2: Oilholic at the Old Kona State Airport recreation beach park, Kona Kailua. Photo 3: Punaluʻu Black Sand beach, Hawaii, USA © Gaurav Sharma 2012.