The Bosphorus, a 'Wild Project' & Turkish politics

The Oilholic spent better parts of the afternoon in pouring rain examining the strategic maritime artery known to world as the Bosphorus, a strait that forms the boundary between Europe and Asia and splits Istanbul.

For nearly 7 hours, yours truly criss-crossed on ferries from Kabataş on Istanbul's European side to Kadıköy on the Asian side, back to Eminönü on European side [where ancient Byzantium was built] and finally a return journey up and back from Rumelifeneri, Sariyer, passing twice under the Bosphorus and the Fatih Sultan Mehmet bridges.

The said journeys ensured this blogger got a true picture of how busy the world's narrowest natural strait is and it's getting busier with oil and LNG tankers going back and forth from the Black Sea. Excluding local traffic, roughly around 132 ships pass through the Bosphorus on a daily basis, making it the second densest maritime passage after the Strait of Malacca. 

The Oilholic is no naval man, but aboard a vessel on Bosphorus - given the blind bends and S-shaped turns - often one couldn't spot ships approaching from the opposite direction at several points. As if natural and geographical challenges weren't enough, the heavy municipal ferry traffic linking Istanbul's European and Asian sides make navigation even trickier.

The photo (on the right, click to enlarge) is an apt illustration - clicked from a ferry one is aboard, zipping past a Greek tanker, behind which is another ferry, behind which is another tanker in the distance. This is a typical day's navigation for captains of ships passing through here on a murky day like today.

On either side of the Bosphorus live around 14 million souls who call Istanbul home. Makes you think – what if there is a collision? According to Istanbul University, modern navigation techniques have considerably [and thankfully] reduced incidents. Nonetheless, since the end of World War II there have been over 450 incidents on record.

Of the 26 incidents classified as 'major', eight involved tankers and almost all collisions resulted in a crude oil, petroleum or other distillate spill of some description. The worst incident happened nearly 20 years to this day, on March 13, 1994 when a Cyprus registered tanker collided with a bulk carrier resulting in 27 deaths, the spillage of 9,000 tons of petroleum and combustion of another 20,000 tons. The blaze lasted for four days and tanker was completely burnt. Not only was the marine environment harmed, but traffic was suspended for several days.

However long ago the incident may have taken place (and there have been others albeit less serious ones since), it chills people here to this day. Most of the oil shipments originate from Russian ports. Local sources say around 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd) to 3.2 million bpd move through the Turkish straits, which include the Marmara Sea, Çanakkale (or Dardanelles, the separation point of the Gallipoli Peninsula from Asia) and of course the Bosphorus.

The cumulative volume for each year almost singularly depends on how Russian exporters shift their load per annum between Baltic and Black Sea ports. So getting his thinking cap on, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, just before seeking re-election for a third term in 2011, announced the 'Kanal İstanbul' project – an idea first mooted in the 16th century.

The PM said that ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic (founded in 1923), the nation needed a "crazy, magnificent" project. The idea is to carve up an artificial canal that would be 50km long, 150m wide and 25m deep. Istanbul itself would turn into two peninsulas and an island courtesy of the artificial re-jigging.

The published measurements carry a message. Any structural engineer would tell you that a canal of the above dimensions would certainly be capable of handling very large crude carriers (VLCCs). This would cut the need for suezmaxes (largest ship measurement capable of transiting through the Suez Canal conventionally capable carrying 1 million barrels) from criss-crossing the Turkish Straits as frequently as they do these days.

It could also help Erdoğan, currently facing local elections and umpteen demonstrations, circumvent the Montreux Convention, which gives Turkey a mandate over the Bosphorus, but allows free passage of civilian ships while restricting passage of naval warships not belonging to Black Sea bordering nations. Critics say the PM is looking to bypass the Montreux Convention, but supporters say he's making a case for good business, while appearing to do his bit for the ecology as well.

Alas a pre-election promise of 2011 and one that's morphed into pre-2014 local elections plan doesn't appear to be properly costed. The figure in the Turkish press is US$10 billion. It's sent all the project financiers this blogger has contacted about it scratching their heads. The headline project valuation is just too low for a project of this magnitude, in fact highly improbable, given the lira's fortunes at the moment.

However, a government official told this blogger that "finance won’t be a problem" while another said "it won’t be needed" as the Turkish Government will self-finance with Phase I already underway. Doubtless, some Russian help – if asked for – would be forthcoming. Ironically, it's a Russian financier, whose kids are [of course] studying in England, who told yours truly, "Erdoğan's project cost estimate is as you British say – a load of bollocks!!"

The PM simply describes the project rather mildly as his "Çılgın Proje" or "Wild Project" and by the looks of things, it certainly is wild. Don't know what the final costs would be, but the target is to have it ready by 2023. As for Russian crude, Ukraine stand-off or not, Baltic or Black Sea routes, it'll ship unabated. Last year, just as Rosneft was eyeing acquisition of TNK-BP, the world largest independent oil trading house Vitol and rival Glencore (now Glencore-Xstrata) agreed to lend $10 billion to the Russian giant to help it finance the acquisition.

In exchange, both the trading houses received a guarantee of future oil supply. A simple Google search would tell you, its not the largest oil trading deals in history, but its right up there dear readers. For Erdoğan, a former mayor of Istanbul, the project would be about his legacy to Turkey, along with a third Bosphorus suspension bridge – Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge – which is scheduled to open in May 2015.

However, right now under his watch Turkey appears to be in a fight for its soul. Erdoğan's "mildly Islamist" (as The Economist prefers to call it) Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi or AK Party is hugely popular in rural areas but not quite so in urban centres.

Since arriving on March 8, right up and until this afternoon, as the Oilholic prepares to fly out, there have been repeated protests and clashes in Taksim Square. Even if you are a couple of miles away from the flashpoints, the smell of tear gas is around. It all erupted in May last year with mass protests. The political context is well-documented in the mainstream media as is Erdoğan's tussle with his once mentor cleric Muhammed Fethullah Gülen.

The latest casualty in these god awful political melees was 15-year old Berkin Elvan, who died yesterday following 269 days in a coma after being hit on the head by a tear gas canister last year. He didn't commit a crime say locals; he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught in a skirmish while out to buy bread for his mother.

Erdoğan can build his legacy around urban developments, bridges, canals and superefficient shipping lanes, he can put forward uncosted grandiose dreams, but if lives like Berkin's are the price for his fixation to power, then something is inherently wrong with Turkish politics and the way the PM thinks. On this unusually sad note, that's all from Istanbul folks. Sorry for the temporary digression from what this blog is about, but it's difficult not to feel anything. Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

Addendum, Mar 15: According to a BBC World service report, as further clashes following the death of Berkin Elvan have spread well beyond Istanbul to 30 other towns, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has claimed that the boy had links to "terrorist organisations"…Along with most of Istanbul, the Oilholic despairs!

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

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: The Bosphorus Bridge. Photo 2: Traffic in the Bosphorus. Photo 3: Tanker in the Bosphorus. Photo 4: Election fever in Istanbul, Turkey © Gaurav Sharma, March 2014.

Turkey's Russian connection: Bazaars to barrels

The Oilholic finds himself in a soggy Istanbul, with Turkey in the middle of election fever and the Black Sea in the grip of a Cold War style stand-off over Ukraine.

Before landing here, yours truly ran in to a Moody's spokesperson at BA's Heathrow T5 lounge. It seems that the ratings agency predictably sees Gazprom and Russia's banking sector taking a hit, if recent notes to subscribers are anything to go by. With 52% of Gazprom's exports to Europe currently routed through Ukraine and the country contributing up to 8% of its revenues, there is trouble ahead. Nonetheless, it can cope pretty well in the face of an escalation.

When it comes to the banking sector, Moody's reckons the aggregated exposure could be as high as US$30 billion. The Kremlin is likely to step in if needs be but it won't be needed as the figure equates to less than 2% of system assets. Interestingly, just before dashing off to our respective flights, our friend from Moody's gently nudged the Oilholic and quipped, "Wait till you get to Istanbul and see NATO member Turkey's exposure to Russia." And so this blogger came, he saw and he wondered!

We'll come to the barrels later, lets start with the bazaars first. Despite the unusually miserable weather, the city is packed with Russian tourists. From the metro to the tourist spots, you cannot escape Russian chatter in the background. "For sale" signs in retail outlets are up in two languages – Turkish and Russian. In expanding its tourism sector and wider economy, Turkey has welcomed Russian tourists and business investments with open arms including a favourable visa regime for over 10 years now.

The results are tangible. With the Turkish Lira in throes of unpredictability, every big ticket item – from designer stuff and marquee labels to high value Turkish handicrafts – is priced by retailers here in euros; with quite a few Russians around with more than a few euros.

Digressing from retail to banks, the exposure of Turkish banking institutions to Russia is harder to quantify as the current macroclimate in the country [not Ukraine & NATO] has conspired to turn the situation fluid. Unfortunately, no one wants to nail a figure on record as forex permutations are making life difficult extremely difficult for the analysts, but off record it is certainly not "as high as Ukraine."

Excluding exposure of Russian banks to Turkish infrastructure project finance exercises, $5 billion to 10 billion is a reasonable conservative guesstimate. From banks, rather crudely to barrels – Russia is Turkey's 6th largest export market. Mostly consumables, textiles and manufactured goods worth $3 billion were exported by Turkey to Russia in 2012.

What came back from Russian shores was $27 billion worth of imports including crude oil, distillates, natural gas and iron and steel that same year. Of the said figure, $17.26 billion were oil & gas imports! Using a dollar valuation at constant exchange rate (which has been anything but constant), we are looking at a 625% jump in Russian "imports" between 2002 and 2012. The said percentage need not be sensationalised as the starting point was a low base, but it gives you an idea of NATO Turkey's exposure to [and reliance on] Russia.

Furthermore, the Bosphorus is a major maritime artery for oil & gas shipments via the Black Sea. Exports from the Russian loading port of Novorossyisk by tankers via the Turkish straits have been rising steadily over the last 10 years. Recognising this, Turkey even has an embassy in Novorossyisk.

Recently, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk, in sync with the Oilholic, was correctly berating Germany for its exposure to Russian gas and why it would give the EU a weaker hand over the Ukrainian tussle.

"Germany's reliance on Russian gas can effectively limit European sovereignty. I have no doubt," Tusk told reporters, ahead of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s visit to his country. [Ouch!]

Maybe Tusk ought to look at fellow NATO member Turkey too. If the diplomatic row continues to escalate, Turkey would find it very hard to indulge in verbal or economic jousts with Russia. It took a very vocal stand with Syria, but one suspects it may not be the case this time around. Banks, bazaars and barrels could all feel the squeeze – it's what colleagues in the analyst community down here openly acknowledge.

However, you don't need them or the Oilholic. All you need to do is take the tram from Istanbul's Grand Bazaar through to Kabataş, the last stop on the European shore of the Bosphorus, between Beşiktaş and Karaköy. The journey will help you reach the same conclusions unaided by charts, graphs and economic gobbledegook. And here's hoping, the weather is kinder to you than it has been to the Oilholic. That's all for the moment from Istanbul folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

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

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: Eminonu Waterfont, Istanbul, Turkey Photo 2: Greek oil tanker Scorpio passes through the Bosphorus, Turkey. ©  Gaurav Sharma, March 2014.

Crude permutations of the Ukrainian stand-off

When the Russo-Georgian skirmish happened in 2008, European policymakers got a stark reminder of how reliant they were on Russian natural gas. Regardless of the geopolitics of that conflict, many leading voices in the European Union, especially in Germany, vowed to reduce their reliance on Russian gas.

The idea was to prevent one of the world's leading exporters of natural gas from using its resource as a bargaining tool should such an episode occur again. Now that it has, as the Ukrainian crisis brings Russia and West into yet another open confrontation, the Oilholic asks what happened to that vow. Not much given the scheme of things! What's worse, the Fukushima meltdown in Japan and a subsequent haphazard dismissal of the nuclear energy avenue by many European jurisdictions actually increased medium-term reliance on mostly Russian gas.

According to GlobalData, Russian gas exports to Europe grew to a record of 15.6 billion cubic feet per day last year. The US, which is not reliant on Russian natural resources, finds itself in a quandary as EU short-termism will almost certainly result in a toning down of a concerted response by the West against Russia in the shape of economic sanctions.

The human and socioeconomic cost of what's happening in Crimea and wider Ukraine is no laughing matter. However, President Vladimir Putin should be allowed a smirk or two at the idiocy and short-sightedness of the EU bigwigs – reliant on him for natural gas but warning him of repercussions! Therefore, sabre rattling by Brussels is bound to have negligible impact.

Meanwhile, Russia's Gazprom has said it will no longer offer Ukraine discounted gas prices because it is over US$1.5 billion in payment arrears which have been accumulating for over 12 months. Additionally, Rosneft could swoop for a Ukrainian refinery, according to some reports. While economic warfare has already begun, this blogger somehow does not see Russians and Ukrainians shooting at each other; Georgia was different.

Having visited both countries in the past, yours truly sees a deep familial and historic bond between the two nations; sadly that's also what makes the situation queasy. The markets are queasy too. Ukraine was hoping for a shale gas revolution and Crimea – currently in the Kremlin's grip – has its own shale bed. In November 2013, Chevron signed a $10 billion shale gas production sharing agreement with the Ukrainian government to develop the western Olesska field. Shell followed suit with a similar agreement.

Matthew Ingham, lead analyst covering North Sea and Western Europe Upstream at GlobalData, says shale gas production was inching closer. "Together with the UK and Poland, Ukraine could see production within the next three to four years."

However, what will happen from here is anyone's guess. A geopolitical bombshell has been dropped into the conundrum of exploratory and commercial risks.

Away from gas markets, the situation's impact on the wider crude oil market could work in many ways. First off, rather perversely, a mobilisation or an actual armed conflict is price positive for regional oil contracts, but not the wider market. A linear supply shortage dynamic applies here.

An economic tit-for-tat between Russia and the EU, accompanied by a conflict on its borders, would hurt wider economic confidence. So a prolonged escalation would be price negative for the Brent contract as economic activity takes a hit. Russia can withstand a dip in price by as much as $20 per barrel; but worries would surface should the $90-resistance be broken. To put things into perspective, around 85% Russia's oil is sold to EU buyers.

Finally, there is the issue of Ukraine as a major transit point for oil & gas, even though it is not a major producer of either. According to JP Morgan Commodities Research over 70% of Russia's oil & gas flow to Europe passes through Ukrainian territory. In short, all parties would take a hit and the risk premium, could just as well turn into a news sensitive risk discount.

Furthermore, in terms of market sentiment, this blogger notes that 90% of the time all of the risk priced and built into the forward month contract never really materialises. So this then begs the question, whose risk is it anyway? The guy at the end of a pipeline waiting for his crude cargo or the paper trader who actually hasn't ever known what a physical barrel is like!

The situation has also made drawing conclusions from ICE's latest Commitments of Traders report a tad meaningless for this week. Speculative long positions by hedge funds and other money managers that the Brent price will rise (in futures and options combined), outnumbered short positions by 139,921 lots in the week ended February 25, prior to the Ukrainian escalation.

For the record, that is the third weekly gain and the most since October 22. Net-long positions rose by 18,214 contracts, or 15%, from the previous period. ICE also said bearish positions by producers, merchants, processors and users of the North Sea crude outnumbered bullish wagers by 266,017 lots, rising 8.2% from the week before.

Away from Ukraine and on to supply diversity, Norway's Statoil has certainly bought cargo from a land far, far away. According to Reuters, Statoil bought 500,000 barrels of Colombian Vasconia medium crude, offered on the open market in February by Canada's Pacific Rubiales.

When a cargo of Columbian crude is sold by a Canadian company to Norwegian one, you get an idea of the global nature of the crude supply chain. That's if you ever needed reminding. The US remains Pacific Rubiales' largest market, but sources say it is increasing its sales to Europe.

Finally, in the humble opinion of yours truly, Vitol CEO Ian Taylor provided the soundbite of the International Petroleum Week held in London last month.

The boss of the world's largest independent oil trading firm headquartered in serene Geneva opined that Dated Brent ought to broaden its horizons as North Sea production declines. The benchmark, which currently includes Brent, Forties, Oseberg and Ekofisk blend crudes, was becoming "less effective" according to Taylor.

"We are extremely concerned about Brent already not becoming a very efficient or effective benchmark. It’s quite a concern when you see that production profile. Maybe the time has come to really broaden out Dated Brent," he said.

Broadening a benchmark that's used to price over half the world's crude could include Algeria's Saharan Blend, CPC Blend from the Caspian Sea, Nigeria's Bonny Light, Qua Iboe and Forcados crudes and North Sea grades DUC and Troll, the Vitol CEO suggested.

Taylor also said Iran wasn't going to be "solved anytime soon" and would stay just about where it is in terms of exports. The Oilholic couldn't agree more. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'! 

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here
To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com 

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo: Pipelines & gas tank, Russian Federation © Rosneft (TNK-BP archives)

Why Dated Brent is no ‘Libor scandal in waiting’

The Oilholic was asked at a recent industry event whether he thought or had heard any anecdotal evidence about Brent being 'crooked' and susceptible to what we saw with financial benchmarks like Libor. Perhaps much to the annoyance of conspiracy theorists, the answer is no! A probe by the European Commission (EC), which included raids on the London offices of several oil companies and Platts last year, and an ongoing CFTC investigation into trading houses stateside, seems to have triggered the recent wave of questions.

Doubts in the minds of regulators and the public are understandable and very valid, but that an offence on an industry-wide scale can be proved beyond reasonable doubt is another matter. The UK's Office of Fair Trading has already investigated and cleared all parties raided by the EC. Furthermore, it stood by its findings as news of the EC raids surfaced.

As far as price assessment mechanisms go, only Platts' Market on Close (MoC) has faced allegations. It is cooperating with the EC and nothing has emerged so far. Competing methods, for instance ones used by Argus Media, another price reporting agency (PRA), were neither part of the investigation nor have been since.

Let's set all of this aside and start with the basics. A monthly cash-settled future is calculated on the difference between the daily assessment price for Dated Brent (the price assigned on a date when North Sea crude will be loaded onto a tanker) and the ICE daily settlement price for Brent 1st Line Future. Unless loaded as cargo, a North Sea oil barrel – or any barrel for that matter – retains the wider trading metaphor of a paper barrel.

Now as far as the Dated Brent component goes, agreed the PRAs are relying on market sources to give them information about bids, offers and supply-side deals. However, the diversity of sources should mitigate any attempt to manipulate prices by a group of individuals submitting false information. In the case of Libor, the BBA, a single body used to collate the information. In Brent's case, there is more than one PRA. None of these act as some sort of a centralised monopolistic data aggregation body. For what it's worth, anybody with even a minute knowledge of oil & gas markets would know the fierce competition between the two main PRAs.

Don't get the Oilholic wrong – collusion is possible in theory whereby traders gang-up and provide the PRAs with false pre-agreed information to skewer the objectivity of the assessment. However, the supply-side dynamic can wobble on the back of a variety of factors ranging from rig maintenance to an accident, a geopolitical event to actions of other market participants. So how many or how few would be required to fix prices and which PRA would be targeted, when and by how much and so on, and so on!

Then hypothetically let's assume all the price-fixers and factors align, given the size of the market – even if rigging did happen – it'd be localised and cannot be anything on the global scale of fixing that we have seen with the Libor revelations to date. Take it all in, and the allegations look silly at best because the 'collusion dynamic', should there be such a thing, cannot possibly be akin to what went on with Libor.

The EC wants to regulate PRAs via a proposed mandatory code and there is nothing wrong with the idea on the face of it. However, one flaw is that in a global market, buyers and sellers are under no obligation to reveal the price to the PRAs. Many already don't in an ultracompetitive crude world where cents per barrel make a difference depending on the size of the cargo.

If the EC compels traders to reveal information, trading would move elsewhere. Dubai for once would welcome them with open arms and other benchmarks would replace European ones. Anyway, enough said and the last bit is not farfetched! Finally, if fixing on the scale of the Libor scandal is discovered in oil markets and the Oilholic is proved wrong, this blogger would be the first to put his hand up!

Coming on to the current Brent forward month futures price, the last 5-day assessment provided plenty of food for thought. Supply disruptions in Libya (down by 100,000 bpd) and Angola (force majeure by BP potentially impacting 180,000 bpd) kept the contract steady either side of US$109 per barrel level, despite tepid US economic data. That said, stateside the WTI remained stubbornly in three figures on the back of supply side issues at Cushing, Oklahoma. The Oilholic reckons that's the fifth successive week of gains.

Meanwhile, the ICE's latest Commitment of Traders report for the week to February 11 notes that hedge funds and other money managers raised their net long position by 29.6% to 109,223; the highest level since the last week of 2013. The Brent price rose by around $4 a barrel over the stated period. By contrast, the previous week's net long position of 84,276 was the lowest since November 2012.

Away from pricing issues to its impact,  Fitch Ratings said in a recent report that production shortfalls and strategy changes to appease equity holders were a greater threat to the ratings of major Western European oil companies than a prolonged downturn in crude prices.

The ratings agency's stress test of the sector indicated that a Brent price of $55 per barrel would put pressure on credit quality, but compensating movements in cost bases and capex would give most companies a fighting chance at preserving rating levels.

Alex Griffiths, head of natural resources and commodities at Fitch, said, "With equity markets increasingly focussed on returns, bond yields near historical lows and oil prices forecast to soften, the chances of companies increasing leverage to benefit equity holders have risen. The European companies that have reported so far this year have generally resisted this pressure – but it may increase as the year goes on."

Separately, the agency also noted that a fall of the rouble would benefit Russian miners more than oil exporters. For both sectors, the currency's limited decline will strengthen earnings and support their credit profile, but ratings upgrades are unlikely without indications that the currency has settled at a new lower level.

To give the readers some context, the rouble has depreciated by 8% against the US dollar since the first trading day of the year and is down 17% from the end of 2012.

Depreciation of a local currency is generally good news for a country's exporters, but the effect on Russian oil exporters is less pronounced due to taxation and hence is less likely to result in positive rating actions in the future, Fitch said.

From Russia to the US, where there are widespread reports of a flood of public comments arriving at door of the State Department with public consultation on Keystone XL underway in full swing. See here's what yours truly does not get – you can have your comments included in the wider narrative, but are not obliged to give your details even under a confidentiality clause. This begs the question – how do you differentiate the genuine input, both for and against the project, from a bunch of spammers on either side?

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy has approved Sempra Energy's proposal to export LNG to the wider market including export destinations that do not have free trade agreement countries with the US. The company, which has already signed Mitsubishi and Mitsui of Japan and GDF Suez of France, could now spread its net further afield from its proposed export hub in Louisiana.

Elsewhere, Total says its capex budget is $26 billion for 2014, and $24 billion for 2015, down from $28 billion in 2013. No major surprises there, and to quote an analyst at SocGen, the French oil major "is sticking to its guns with more downstream restructuring being a dead certainty."

After accusations of not being too ambitious in its divestment programme, Shell said it could sell-off of its Anasuria, Nelson and Sean platforms in the British sector of the North Sea. The three platforms collectively account for 2% of UK production. Cairn Energy has had a fair few problems of late, but actress Sienna Miller and model Kate Moss weren't among them. That's until they took issue with one of the company's oil rigs blotting the sea off their party resort of Ibiza, Spain, according to this BBC report.

Finally, the pace of reforms and general positivity in the Mexican oil and gas sector is rubbing off on PEMEX. Last week, Moody's placed its Baa1 foreign currency and global local currency ratings on review for an upgrade.

In a note to clients, Tom Coleman, senior vice president at Moody's, wrote: "Mexico's energy reform holds out prospects for the most far ranging changes we have seen to date, benefiting both Mexico's and PEMEX's growth profiles in the medium-to-longer term."

And just before yours truly takes your leave, OPEC says world oil demand will increase by 1.09 million bpd, or 1.2%, to 90.98 million bpd from 89.89 million bpd in 2013. That's an upward revision of 1.05 million bpd in 2014. Non-OPEC supply should more than cover it methinks. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: Oil tankers in English Bay, British Columbia, Canada © Gaurav Sharma, April 2012. Photo 2: Oil exploration site © Lukoil.

Keystone XL revisited, some results & fossil fuels

Despite it having been a mad few days of 'crude' results, the Oilholic feels there is only one place to start this post – the US State Department's recent take on the Keystone XL project.

The Department's review of the project or should you like formalities – its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – noted that it had "no objections" on any major environmental grounds to the cross-border 1,179 mile-long Alberta to Texas pipeline extension project.

Its take, of course, pertains to 875 miles of proposed pipeline construction across US jurisdictional control which has been the subject of immense controversy with everyone from the American workers' unions [flagging-up job creation] to environmentalists [warning about risk of spillage] weighing in.

So is the end of the saga close with a thumbs-up from the State Department? Sadly, not quite, not yet! A 30-day public comment period has begun and is scheduled to end on March 7. During this time, "members of the public and other interested parties" are encouraged to submit comments on "the national interest determination."

Then the ultimate decision has to be made by the ditherer-in-chief, President Barack Obama, who is yet to make his mind up, pending reviews from "other government agencies" and the public at large.

As expected, the State Department's statement is full of waffle. Hoping not to annoy either those for or against the project, it took no firm stances in the Oilholic's opinion. However, there is one very clear, in fact explicit, conclusion by the department, from this blogger's reading of it – Alberta's oil sands will be developed Keystone XL or not!

In a related development impact assessment, it also noted – perhaps in no small part down to recent incidents and accidents – that using the rail network to transport crude was an even worse option than the pipeline itself, if a carbon footprint was the deciding factor. The so-called "other agencies", most notably the Environmental Protection Agency, now have around 90 days to comment before the State Department finally issues its "final" recommendation to the President.

Then there would be no excuses or reasons for stalling left and we should know either ways by the summer. One thing is for sure, the Americans have formally acknowledged that cancelling the pipeline extension won't stop E&P activity in the oil sands. So if that's what the environmentalists are after, there's some food for thought. One wishes, the State Department read this blog more often. Yours truly could have saved them a lot of time and money in reaching such a blatantly obvious conclusion.

For TransCanada's sake, which first applied for a permit from the US government as far back as 2008, the Oilholic hopes the US$7 billion project does go ahead. Stepping away from pipeline politics, to some 'crude' financial results over the past week, one cannot but feel for BG Group's Chief Executive Chris Finlayson.

In a geopolitically sensitive industry, Finlayson's team could not be apportioned blame when he announced that group earnings would dip by 33% on an annualised basis to around $2.2 billion, owing to unrest in Egypt. In the backdrop of domestic strife, the Egyptian government has not honoured agreements covering BG Group's share of gas from fields in the country, with high levels of gas being diverted to the domestic market.

Unable to fulfil its export obligations, the company had to serve force majeure notices to affected buyers and lenders, in effect releasing all sides from contractual obligations for circumstances beyond their control. Hence, a company deemed to be high-flier in the oil & gas world was - albeit temporarily - made to look like a low-flapper boosted by occasional gusts of gas...er sorry wind!

As Egypt accounts for over 20% of its annual production at present – BG Group's profit warning made its shares take a plastering following the trading update on January 27, dipping 18% at one point. The price is currently in the £10 to £11 range and most analysts are nonplussed. For instance, Liberum Capital cut BG Group to hold from buy, with the target cut from £14.75 to £12.80. Investec analyst Neill Morton cut the group's EPS forecast for 2014 and 2015 by 22% and 16% respectively.

"However, we do not believe that a takeover is likely (or even possible?) for a $60 billion company which is likely to command a substantial takeover premium. The key challenges over the next 18 months are the developments in Brazil and Australia which still run the risk of further issues, in our view (for e.g. the Brazil development is being done by Petrobras)," Morton added.

While BG Group was warning on profits, supermajor Shell wasn't exactly covering itself in glory. Following on from a pretty substantial profits warning, Shell's profits [outstripping the effect of oil price fluctuations came] in at $2.9 billion for the last quarter of 2013, down from $5.6 billion noted over the same period in 2012. The market was already well prepared for a dip in performance from Shell, but much to this blogger's surprise, new chief executive Ben van Beurden said the company's strategy presentation [slated for March 13] would contain no fresh targets on production, capex and asset disposal.

Odd indeed, and if one might humbly add – Shell's asset disposal, especially if similar drives at BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips are to be used as measuring rods, seems a bit random! The Anglo-Dutch company said it was targeting disposals of $15 billion in the current financial year, and had stopped exploration in Alaska.

Its stake in the Australian Wheatstone project is expected to go, and a 23% stake in the Brazilian Parque das Conchas (BC-10) offshore project already has gone, subject to regulatory approvals. Ratings agency Fitch said such moves were positive, but added: "It remains to be seen whether Shell will take the opportunity that this flexibility affords it to retrench, or be tempted into shareholder friendly actions that could threaten its 'AA' credit rating."

Finally, ExxonMobil – biggest of the publicly traded IOCs by market value – also saw its profits below market expectations after a failure to offset declining production with fresh reserves. For the fourth quarter, it posted a net income of $8.35 billion, or $1.91 per share, compared with $9.95 billion, or $2.20 per share, over the same quarter in 2012. Those picky analysts were hoping for $1.92 to $1.94 per share – some will never be pleased!

Forget the analysts, here's an interesting article on what Warren Buffet sees in ExxonMobil to help draw conclusions on the "quintessential defensive stock." In response to his company's latest financials, chief executive Rex Tillerson promised to move ahead with new exploration projects.

Away from results, oil majors and minors ought to take notice as it seems oil might be overtaken by coal as the dominant primary energy source worldwide by 2017, according to the IEA. Adding further weight to this hypothesis, Worldwatch Institute's recent Vital Signs Online study noted that natural gas increased its share of energy consumption from 23.8% to 23.9% during 2012, coal rose from 29.7% to 29.9%, while oil fell from 33.4% to 33.1%.

Coal, natural gas, and oil, collectively accounted for 87% of global primary energy consumption in 2012. Finally, OPEC's 'long-standing' Secretary General Abdalla Salem El-Badri has said its member nations will be able to handle the extra oil "expected to come from Iran, Iraq and Libya" to head off any oversupply.

We believe you sir, but it'll be kinda hard to keep a trio gagging for an export impetus to toe the line, say us supply-side analysts. Hopefully, oversupply or even the perception of oversupply should bring the price of the crude stuff down a fraction and may be price positive for consumers. Hence, a month into 2014, yours truly stands by his price forecast. That's all for the moment folks! Keep reading, keep it 'crude'!

To follow The Oilholic on Twitter click here.

To follow The Oilholic on Google+ click here.

To email: gaurav.sharma@oilholicssynonymous.com

© Gaurav Sharma 2014. Photo 1: The White House, Washington DC, USA © Gaurav Sharma, April 2008. Photo 2: Shell tanker truck at Muscat International Airport, Oman © Gaurav Sharma, August 2013.