US LNG exports to the UK: The ‘Stateside’ Story

The Oilholic finds himself in Chicago IL, meeting old friends and making new ones! A story much discussed this week in the Windy City is US firm Cheniere Energy’s deal to export LNG to UK’s Centrica. More on why it is such a headline grabber later, but first the headline figures related to the deal.

The agreement, inked by Centrica and Cheniere on March 25, sees the latter provide 20-years' worth of LNG shipments starting from September 2018, which according to the former is enough to fuel 1.8 million British homes.

Centrica said it would purchase about 1.75 million metric tonnes per annum of annual LNG volumes for export from the Sabine Pass Project in Louisiana. (see Cheniere Energy’s graphic on the left, click image to enlarge). The contract covers an initial 20-year period, with an option for a 10-year extension.

Centrica, which owns utility British Gas, has fished overseas in recent years as the North Sea’s output plummets. For instance, around the 20th World Petroleum Congress in 2011, it inked deals with Norway’s Statoil and Qatar Petroleum. US companies have also flirted with the export market. So the nature of the deal is not new for either party; the timing and significance of it is.

According to City analysts and their peers here in Chicago, the announcement is a ground breaking move owing to two factors – (1) it’s the first ever long-term LNG supply deal for the Brits and (2) a market breakthrough for a US gas exporter in Europe.

Additionally, it blows away the insistence by the Russians and Qataris to link longer term supply contracts to the crude oil price (hello?? keep dreaming) instead of contracts priced relative to gas market movements. As for gas market prices, here is the math – excluding the recent (temporary) spike, gas prices in the UK are on average 3 to 3.5 times higher than the current price in the US. So we’re talking in the range of US$9.75 to $10.25 per million British thermal units (mmBtu). The Americans want to sell the stuff, the Brits want to buy – it’s a no brainer.

Except – as a contact in Chicago correctly points out – things are never straightforward in this crude world. Sounding eerily similar to what Chatham House fellow Prof. Paul Stevens told the Oilholic earlier this month, he says, “Have you forgotten the politics of ‘cheap’ US gas exports landing up on foreign shores? Even if it’s to our old friends the Brits?”

The US shale revolution has been price positive for American consumers – the exchequer is happy, the political classes are happy and so is the public which sees their country edging towards “energy independence.” (A big achievement in the current geopolitical climate and despite the quakes in Oklahoma).

The only people who are not all that happy, apart from the environmentalists, are the pioneers who persevered and kick-started this US shale gas revolution which was three decades in the making. To quote one who is now happily retired in Skokie, IL, “We no longer get more bang for our bucks anymore when it comes to domestic contracts.”

Another valid argument, from some in the trading community here in Chicago, is that as soon as US gas exports gain traction, bulk of which would head to Asia and not mother England, domestic prices will start climbing. So the Centrica-Cheniere deal, while widely cheered in the UK, has got little more than a perfunctory, albeit positive, acknowledgement from the political classes stateside.

In contrast, across the pond, none other than the UK Prime Minister David Cameron himself took to the airwaves declaring, “Future gas supplies from the US will help diversify our energy mix and provide British consumers with a new long term, secure and affordable source of fuel.”

The Prime Minister is quite right – the UK would rather buy from a ‘friendly’ country. Problem is, the friendly country might cool off on the idea of gas exports, were US domestic prices to pick-up in tandem with a rise in export volumes.

That’s all for the moment from Chicago folks! More from here over the next few days; keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Sabine Pass Project, USA © Cheniere Energy Inc.

By ‘George’! In shale we (Brits) trust?

Delivering his 2013 budget speech on March 20, UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne told a boisterous bunch of British parliamentarians that "shale gas is part of the future and we will make it happen."

 

He added that the government will publish guidelines by June which would set out how local communities could benefit from “their” unconventional gas resources. The UK lifted a temporary moratorium on shale gas fracking in December 2012 after much procrastination.

 

At the time, it was announced that the government would establish a new Office for Unconventional Gas with an emphasis on shale gas and coal-bed methane and the role they could play in meeting the country's energy demand. If anyone doubted the UK government’s intent when it comes to shale prospection, this is your answer. Sadly, intent alone will not trigger a shale revolution.

 

The Oilholic has always maintained that a swift British replication, or for that matter a wider European replication, of a US fracking heaven is unlikely and not just because there isn’t a one size fits all model to employ.

 

The shale bonanza stateside is no geological fluke; rather it bottles down to a combination of geology, tenacity and inventiveness. Add to that a less dense population than the British Isles, a largely conducive legislative and environmental framework, and a far superior pipeline network and access equation.

 

Furthermore, as Chatham House fellow Prof. Paul Stevens pointed out last week, “The American shale revolution got where it is today through massive investment, commitment towards research and development and over two decades of perseverance. I don’t see that level of commitment here.” Neither does the Oilholic.

 

Agreeing with Stevens is Dr. Tim Fox, head of energy and environment at the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers, who opined that it was important for government not to see shale gas as the “silver bullet many claim it is”.

 

“Shale gas is unlikely to impact greatly on energy prices in the UK and we must avoid becoming hostage to volatile gas markets by not being over-reliant on gas,” he added.

 

Well at least the Chancellor is trying to do something and you can’t beat a man down for that. Especially as that is not the only thing he’s trying on the energy front. Addressing the subject of decommissioning in the North Sea, Osborne said the government would enter into contracts with companies in the sector operating in the offshore region to provide "certainty" over tax relief measures.

 

The proposals are also designed to allow the tax effect of decommissioning costs to be sufficiently certain to allow companies to move to a post tax calculation in field security agreements. Andrew Lister, energy tax partner at KPMG, notes, "With hundreds of such agreements in the North Sea it will take many months to understand whether the proposals have had the desired result of freeing up capital and making late life assets more attractive for new investors."

 

"Nonetheless, the oil & gas industry in the North Sea – having endured the shock tax announced in the Budget two years ago – will welcome the announcements on decommissioning certainty, which should support extraction of the UK’s precious oil resources to the tune of billions. Certainty on tax relief for decommissioning costs will encourage companies to invest in the North Sea as the proposals should provide the assurance companies have been wanting on the availability of tax deductions," he added.

 

Osborne also revealed the two successful bidders for the government’s £1 billion support for Carbon Capture and Storage (CC&S) projects as – the Peterhead Project in Aberdeenshire and the White Rose Project in Yorkshire. Away from the direct fiscal measures, one particular move made by the Chancellor also has implications for the energy sector.

 

He pledged to abolish the stamp duty levied on small company shares traded on markets such as the London Stock Exchange's AiM, to end what he described as a "perceived bias" in the tax system "favouring debt financing over equity investment". You could hear the cheers in the City within minutes of the announcement.

 

The London Stock Exchange, for its part, described the move as a “bold and decisive growth-orientated policy…” to which the Oilholic would add, “a policy that would improve the take-up of shares in small independent oil & gas upstarts who often list on the AiM.”

 

Finally, moving away from the UK budget, but sticking with Parliament, the Oilholic recently had the pleasure of meeting and interviewing Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee, for CFO World (for the full interview click here). This veteran parliamentarian has taken upon herself and her committee to make the issue of corporate tax avoidance a mainstream subject in the UK.

 

Ever since it emerged last year that the likes of Starbucks, Amazon and many others were employing aggressive tax avoidance schemes to mitigate their British tax exposure, Hodge has been on the case. They quipped "we’re not doing anything illegal", she famously quipped back, "we’re not accusing you of being illegal; we’re accusing you of being immoral!"

 

End result, we’ve got everyone from the OECD to the G8 discussing corporate tax avoidance. And oh – Starbucks are 'voluntarily' paying more tax in the UK too! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’! 

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament, London, UK © Gaurav Sharma. Photo 2: Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the UK public accounts committee (left) with the Oilholic (right) © Gaurav Sharma.

Crude thoughts, an event, few articles & a lecture!

Brent’s decline continues with the forward month futures contract now well and truly below the US$110 per barrel level. In fact, when the Oilholic last checked, a price of US$108.41 was flashing on the ticker. Given that over the past seven days – OPEC, EIA and IEA – have all come out with bearish reports, the current price level should hardly be a surprise.

 

Additionally, both OPEC and IEA appear to be in broad agreement that overall concerns about economic growth in the US and the Eurozone will continue to persist over the short term at the very least. As if that wasn’t enough, the US dollar has reached a seven-month high against a basket of currencies, not least the pound sterling!

 

At such points in recent trading history, geopolitics always lends support to the oil price. Yet further evidence is emerging about the oil & gas community largely regarding the risk premium to be neutral, a theme which this blogger has consistently stressed on since September last year. Many delegates at the recently concluded International Petroleum Week (IP Week) in London, a signature European event, expressed pretty much the same sentiments.

 

Rather than relying on the Oilholic’s anecdotal evidence, here’s an observation from Société Générale analyst Michael Wittner who wrote in an investment note that, “On the geopolitical front, there seemed to be a sort of fatigue (at the IP Week), if not boredom, with the various issues and countries. In addition to Syria and Iran, there was talk about risks in Iraq and Nigeria, and even Chinese-Japanese tensions. Given recent events in Algeria, Egypt, and Mali, we were surprised at how little concern there was about North Africa.”

 

“All agreed that the geopolitical elephant in the room was still Iran, but even here, the fatigue was evident. People were well aware of Israel’s late spring/early summer “deadline”, but they were not excited about it. Some pointed to higher Saudi spare capacity (after recent cuts) and much higher pipeline capacity that could be used to avoid the Straits of Hormuz. Others simply thought that, posturing aside, there was little real appetite for a war against Iran, and that an Iranian bomb was inevitable,” he wrote further. Need we say more?

 

So in summation – tepid crude demand plus fatigued risk premium equals to no short term hope for the bulls! But at least there’s hope for the Brent-WTI spread to narrow, with the former falling and the latter rising on the back of the supply glut at Cushing, Oklahoma showing signs of abating.

 

Away from pricing matters, given that yours truly has been travelling a lot within good old England these past few weeks, there has also been plenty of time to do some reading up on trains! Four interesting articles came up while the Oilholic was experiencing the joys (or otherwise) of British railways.

 

First off, the Wall Street Journal’s Jerry A. Dicolo screams: “Brent barrels to prominence: European oil benchmark poised to overtake WTI as a global gauge.” The Oilholic has some news for the WSJ – Er…Brent is not ‘poised’ to overtake WTI as a global gauge, it has already overtaken it in terms of market sentiment! This blog first mulled the subject as far back as May 2010! Since then, even the EIA has decided to adopt Brent as a benchmark that’s more reflective of global conditions.

 

The second interesting piece of reading material yours truly encountered was a republished Bloomberg wire copy that carried feedback from an Indian refiner. In it, he suggested that the country’s refiners may be forced to halt purchases of Iranian crude as local insurers refuse to cover the risks for any Indian refinery using the Islamic Republic’s oil.

 

Bloomberg cites a certain P.P. Upadhya, Managing Director of the Mangalore Refinery in Southern India as having said, “There’s a problem with getting insurance for refineries processing Iranian oil. If there’s no clarity very soon, we all have to stop buying from Iran or risk operating the refineries without insurance.” Looks like the squeeze on Iran is going into overdrive!

 

Moving on to the third article, here is The Economist's sound take on the late Hugo Chavez’s rotten economic legacy. And finally, a Reuters’ exclusive would have you believe we Brits are planning to bid for US gas to be imported to our shores.

 

An abundance of gas, courtesy of the country’s shale bonanza has certainly lent credence to the US’ gas exporting potential. One would think if the US were to export gas, it would one fine day make its way to the UK. However, a “source” spoken to by Reuters seems to suggest that day is not that far away.

 

Speaking of shale, the Oilholic had the pleasure of listening to a brilliant lecture on the subject from Prof. Paul Stevens, the veteran energy economist and Chatham House fellow. Delivering the Institution of Engineering and Technology’s Clerk Maxwell Lecture for 2013, Prof. Stevens set about exploding the myth of a shale gas revolution taking place in Europe anytime soon.

 

He joked that North Dakota might become the next member of OPEC, but one thing is for certain Poland and other European shale enthusiasts are not getting there any time soon. Apart from the usual concerns, often mulled over by the Oilholic, such as jurisdictional prospection moratoriums and population density, pipeline access, environmental regulations etc. being very different between the US and Europe, the good professor pointed out a very crucial point.

 

“Shale rock formation in Europe is very different from what it is in North America. When ExxonMobil was disappointed in Poland, it was not for want of trying. Rather US technology was found lacking when it came to Polish geology. There is no one size fits all! The American shale revolution got where it is today through massive investment and commitment towards research and development (and over two decades of perseverance). I don’t see that level of commitment in Europe,” he said.

 

Speaking to the Oilholic, following his lecture, Prof. Stevens said the export of US gas to the UK was plausible, but that Asia was a much more natural export market for the Americans. “Plus, let’s not forget that the moment US exports start to rise meaningfully, there is always a chance the likes of Congressman Ed Markey might take a nationalistic tone and try to stunt them,” he added.

 

Quite true, after all we got a glimpse of Markey’s intellect via his ‘Bolshoi’ Petroleum remark! That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.
 

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com
 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Sullom Voe Terminal, UK © BP Plc

Brent’s liquidity, Nexen, 'crude' Vancouver & more

Last Friday, the Brent forward month futures price plummeted to US$110.65 per barrel thereby losing all of the gains it made in 2013. The WTI price declined in near furious tandem to US$91.92; the  benchmark's lowest intraday price since January 4. An Italian political stalemate and US spending cuts enforced by Congressional gridlock have unleashed the bearish trends. Quite frankly, the troublesome headwinds aren’t going anywhere, anytime soon.

Prior to the onset of recent bearish trends, Bank of America said the upper limit for Brent crude will rise from US$140 per barrel this year to US$175 in 2017 because of constraints on supply. It added that WTI may slip to “US$50 within the next two years” amid booming North American supply. Meanwhile, ratings agency Moody’s expects strong global crude prices in the near term and beyond, with a continued US$15 per barrel premium in favour of Brent versus WTI over 2013.

Moody's still assumes 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. For WTI, the agency leaves its previous assumptions unchanged at US$85 in 2013, 2014 and thereafter. Away from the fickle pricing melee, there was a noteworthy development last month in terms of Brent’s liquidity profile as a benchmark, which is set to be boosted.

On February 19, Platts proposed the introduction of a quality premium for Ekofisk and Oseberg crudes; two of the four grades constituting the Dated Brent marker. A spokesperson said the move would increase transparency and trading volumes in Dated Brent. The proposal came a mere fortnight after Shell’s adjustments to its trading contract for three North Sea blends including Brent.

The oil major said it would change its contract (SUKO 90) for buying and selling to introduce a premium for the delivery of higher quality Brent, Ekofisk and Oseberg grades. Previously, it only used the Forties grade which was typically the cheapest Brent blend and thus used to price the benchmark by default. BP has also agreed to Shell’s amended pricing proposals in principle.

The Oilholic thinks it is prudent to note that even though Platts is the primary provider of price information for North Sea crude(s), actual contracts such as Shell’s SUKO 90 are the industry’s own model. So in more ways than one, a broad alignment of the thinking of both parties (and BP) is a positive development. Platts is requesting industry feedback on the move by March 10 with changes being incorporated with effect from shipments in May.

However, there are some subtle differences. While Shell has proposed an inclusion of Brent, Platts is only suggesting premiums for Oseberg and Ekofisk grades. According to published information, the oil major, with BP’s approval, has proposed a 25% premium for Brent and Oseberg based on their difference to the Forties differential, and a 50% premium for Ekofisk.

But Platts, is seeking feedback on recommending a flat 50% premium for both Oseberg and Ekofisk. Nonetheless, at a time of a dip in North Sea production, a change of pricing status quo aimed at boosting liquidity ought to be welcomed. Furthermore, there is evidence of activity picking up in the UK sector of the North Sea, with Oil and Gas UK (OGUK), a body representing over 320 operators in the area, suggesting last month that investment was at a 30-year high.

OGUK said companies invested £11.4 billion in 2012 towards North Sea prospection and the figure is expected to rise to £13 billion this year. It credited UK Chancellor George Osborne’s new tax relief measures announced last year, which allowed gas fields in shallow waters to be exempt from a 32% tax on the first £500 million of income, as a key factor.

However, OGUK warned that reserves currently coming onstream have not been fully replaced with new discoveries. That is hardly surprising! In fact, UK production fell to the equivalent of 1.55 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012, down by 14% from 2011 and 30% from 2010. While there may still be 24 billion barrels of oil to be found in the North Sea, the glory days are not coming back. Barrel burnt per barrel extracted or if you prefer Petropounds spent for prospection are only going to rise.

From the North Sea’s future, to the future of a North Sea operator – Canada’s Nexen – the acquisition of which by China’s state-owned CNOOC was finally approved on February 26. It took seven long months for the US$15.1 billion takeover to reach fruition pending regulatory approval in several jurisdictions, not least in Canada.

It was announced that shareholders of the Calgary, Alberta-based Nexen would get US$27.50 in cash for each share, but the conditions imposed by Canadian (and US) regulators for the deal to win approval were not disclosed. More importantly, the Harper administration said that CNOOC-Nexen was the last deal of its kind that the Canadian government would approve.

So it is doubtful that a state-controlled oil company would be taking another majority stake in the oil sands any time soon. The Nexen acquisition makes CNOOC a key operator in the North Sea, along with holdings in the Gulf of Mexico and West Africa, Middle East and of course Canada's Long Lake oil sands project (and others) in Alberta.

Meanwhile, Moody’s said the Aa3 ratings and stable outlooks of CNOOC Ltd and CNOOC Group will remain unchanged after the acquisition of Nexen. The agency would also continue to review for upgrade the Baa3 senior unsecured rating and Ba1 subordinated debt rating of Nexen.

Moving away from Nexen but sticking with the region, the country’s Canadian Business magazine asks, “Is Vancouver the new Calgary?”  (Er…we’re not talking about changing weather patterns here). The answer, in 'crude' terms, is a firm “Yes.” The Oilholic has been pondering over this for a good few years. This humble blogger’s research between 2010 and present day, both in Calgary and Vancouver, has always indicated a growing oil & gas sector presence in BC.

However, what is really astonishing is the pace of it all. Between the time that the Oilholic mulled about the issue last year and February 2013, Canadian Business journalist Blair McBride writes that five new oil & gas firms are already in Vancouver. Reliable anecdotal evidence from across the US border in general, and the great state of Texas in particular, suggests more are on their way! Chevron is a dead certain, ExxonMobil is likely to follow.

One thing is for certain, they’re going to need a lot more direct flights soon between Vancouver International and Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental airport other than the solitary Continental Airlines route. Hello, anyone from Air Canada reading this post?

Continuing with corporate news, Shell has announced the suspension of its offshore drilling programme in the Arctic for the rest of 2013 in order to give it time to “ensure the readiness of equipment and people.” It was widely expected that prospection in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas off Alaska would be paused while the US Department of Justice is looking into safety failures.

Shell first obtained licences in 2005 to explore the Arctic Ocean off the Alaskan coastline. Since then, £3 billion has been spent with two exploratory wells completed during the short summer drilling season last year. However, it does not mask the fact that the initiative has been beset with problems including a recent fire on a rig.

Meanwhile, Repsol has announced the sale of its LNG assets for a total of US$6.7 billion to Shell. The deal includes Repsol’s minority stakes in Atlantic LNG (Trinidad & Tobago), Peru LNG and Bahia de Bizkaia Electricidad (BBE), as well as the LNG sale contracts and time charters with their associated loans and debt. It’s a positive for Repsol’s credit rating and Shell’s gas reserves.

As BP’s trial over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill began last month, Moody’s said the considerable financial uncertainty will continue to weigh on the company’s credit profile until the size of the ultimate potential financial liabilities arising from the April 2010 spill is known.

Away from the trial, the agency expects BP's cash flows to strengthen from 2014 onwards as the company begins to reap benefits of the large roster of upstream projects that it is working on, many of which are based in high-margin regions. “This would help strengthen the group's credit metrics relative to their weaker positioning expected in 2013,” Moody’s notes.

One final bit of corporate news, Vitol – the world's largest oil trading company –  has posted a 2% rise in its 2012 revenue to US$303 billion even though volumes traded fell and profit margins remained under pressure for much of the year. While not placing too much importance on the number, it must be noted that a US$300 billion-plus revenue is more than what Chevron managed and a first for the trading company.

However, it is more than safe to assume Chevron’s profits would be considerably higher than Vitol’s. Regrettably, other than relying on borderline gossip, the Oilholic cannot conduct a comparison via published sources. That’s because unlike listed oil majors like Chevron, private trading houses like Vitol don’t release their profit figures.

That’s all for the moment folks. But on a closing note, this blogger would like to flag-up research by the UK’s Nottingham Trent University which suggests that Libya could generate approximately five times the amount of energy from solar power than it currently produces in crude oil!

The university’s School of Architecture, Design and the Built Environment found that if the North African country – which is estimated to be 88% desert terrain – used 0.1% of its landmass to harness solar power, it could produce almost 7 million crude oil barrels worth of energy every day. Currently, Libya produces around 1.41 million bpd. Food for thought indeed! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo 1: Oil tanker, English Bay, BC, Canada. Photo 2: Downtown Vancouver, BC, Canada © Gaurav Sharma

Banality of forecasts predicated on short-termism

Oh dear! Oh dear! Oh dear! So the Brent crude price sank to a weekly loss last week; the first such instance in roughly a month. Is the Oilholic surprised? Not one jot. What yours truly is surprised about is that people are surprised! One sparrow does not make spring nor should we say one set of relatively positive Chinese data, released earlier this month, implies bullish trends are on a firm footing.

The Chinese news was used as a pretext by some to go long on the Brent forward month futures contract for March as it neared its closure (within touching distance of US$120 per barrel). And here we are a few days later with the Brent April contract dipping to a February 15 intraday price of US$116.83 on the back of poor industrial data from the US.

 

The briefest of spikes of the week before was accompanied by widespread commentary on business news channels that the price would breach and stay above the US$120 mark, possibly even rise above US$125. Now with the dip of the past week with us, the TV networks are awash with commentary about a realistic possibility that Brent may plummet to US$80 per barrel. You cannot but help laughing when spike n’ dips, as seen over the past few weeks, trigger a topsy-turvy muddle of commentators’ quotes.

 

Sometimes the Oilholic thinks many in the analyst community only cater to the spread betters! Look at the here, the now and have a flutter! Don’t put faith in the wider real economy, don’t examine the macroeconomic environment, just give a running commentary on price based on the news of the day! Nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing – except don’t try to pass it off as some sort of a science! This blogger has consistently harped on – even at times sounding like a broken record to those who read his thoughts often – that the risk premium provided by the Iranian nuclear standoff is broadly neutral.

 

So much so, that the reason the Brent price has not fallen below US$100 is because the floor is actually being provided by the Iranian situation on a near constant basis. But that’s where it ends unless the country is attacked by Israel; the likelihood of which has receded of late. Syria’s trouble has implications in terms of its civil war starting a broader regional melee, but its production is near negligible in terms of crude supply-side arguments.

 

Taking all factors into account, as the Oilholic did last month, it is realistic to expect a Brent price in the range of US$105 to US$115. To cite a balanced quote, Han Pin Hsi, the global head of commodities research at Standard Chartered bank, said that oil should be trading at US$100 per barrel at the present moment in time were supply-demand fundamentals the only considering factors.

 

In recent research, Hsi has also noted that relatively lower economic growth as well as the current level of tension in the Middle East has already been “priced in” to the Brent price by the wider market. Unless either alters significantly, he sees an average price of US$111 per barrel for 2013.

 

Additionally, analysts at Société Générale note that along with the usual suspects – sorry bullish factors – now priced in, Brent could see some retracement on profit-taking, though “momentum and sentiment are still bullish”. The French bank’s analyst, Mike Wittner, notes that just as the Saudis have (currently) cut production, concerns over prices being “too high” will cause them to increase production. “In short, our view is that Brent has already priced in all the positive news, and it looks and feels toppy to us,” he wrote in an investment note. “Toppy” – like the expression (slang for markets reaching unstable highs whereupon a decline can be expected if not imminent)!

 

On a related note, in its short-term energy outlook released on February 12, the EIA estimates the spread between WTI and Brent spot price could be reduced by around 50% by 2014. The US agency estimates that the WTI will average US$93 and US$92 in 2013 and 2014 respectively, down from US$94 in 2012. It expects Brent to trade at US$109 in 2013 and edge lower to US$101 in 2014, down from the 2012 average of US$112.

 

Elsewhere in the report, the EIA estimates that the total US crude oil production averaged 6.4 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2012, an increase of 0.8 million bpd over 2011. The agency’s projection for domestic crude oil production was revised to 7.3 million bpd in 2013 and 7.8 million bpd in 2014.

 

Meanwhile, money managers have raised bullish positions on Brent crude to their highest level in two years for a third successive week. The charge, as usual, is lead by hedge funds, according to data published by ICE Futures Europe for the week ended February 5.

 

Net-long positions, in futures and options combined, outnumbered net-short positions by 192,195 lots versus a figure of 179,235 the week before; a rise of 6.9% according to ICE’s latest Commitment of Traders report. It brings net-long positions to the highest level since January 2011, the month the current data series began.

 

On the other hand, net-short positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of the crude stuff outnumbered bullish positions by 249,350, compared with 235,348 a week earlier. It is the eighth successive weekly increase in their net-short position, ICE Futures Europe said.

 

Moving away from pricing matters, a few corporate snippets worth flagging up - starting with Gazprom. In a call to investors and analysts earlier this month, the Russian state energy giant finally appeared to be facing-up to greater competition in the European gas market as spot prices and more flexible pricing strategies from Norway’s Statoil and the Qataris put Gazprom’s defence of its conventional oil-indexation pricing policy to the test.

 

Gazprom ceded market share in defence of prices last year, although it did offer rebates to selected customers. However, it appears to be taking a slightly different line this year and aims to cede more ground on prices in a push to bag a higher market share and prop up its overall gas exports by volume.

 

Gazprom revealed that it had paid out US$2.7 billion in 2012 in refunds to customers in Europe, with the company planning another US$4.7 billion in potential price cuts this year in order to make its pipeline gas prices competitive with spot prices and incentivise European customers to make more voluminous gas purchases.

 

Commenting on the move, analysts at IHS CERA noted, “Increasing gas sales volumes by retaining the oil-indexation pricing strategy and then retroactively offering price discounts may be a difficult proposition, however, particularly if Ukraine, Gazprom’s largest gas export customer, continues to reduce its Russian gas purchases in response to Gazprom’s refusal to cut prices.”

 

“Rather than continuing to react to changing market conditions by offering lower prices to customers, Gazprom may need to take a more proactive approach to reducing its gas export prices in order to incentivise customers to buy more gas from the Russian gas firm this year,” they concluded.

 

Finally, TAQA, the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, said in a statement over the weekend that a new oilfield has been discovered in the North Sea. It reported that two columns of oil have been found since drilling began in November at the Darwin field, about 80 miles north-east of the Shetlands.

 

The field is a joint venture between the Abu Dhabi state-owned company and Fairfield Energy. TAQA acquired some of BP’s North Sea assets for US$1.1 billion in November 2012. That’s all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it ‘crude’!

 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

 

© Gaurav Sharma 2013. Photo: Andrew Rig, North Sea © BP.  Graph: World crude oil benchmarks © Société Générale Cross Asset Research February 14, 2013.