The nonsense of releasing US Strategic Petroleum Reserves

Trump is on a mission to contain oil prices and has been sending strong tweets and messages blaming OPEC and supposed ally Saudi Arabia for the current levels of “high” oil prices. The Trump administration’s policies are in complete dissonance as tampering with the Iranian sanctions is a key cause of the tightening of global oil supply and strong noises around US energy independence is in complete opposition to Trump asking OPEC to pump more oil, which illustrates that the US is far from energy independence and still needing to call up OPEC in times of need.

Trump is now considering tapping the US strategic petroleum reserves (“SPR”) in an attempt to lower oil prices in the run up to the US midterm elections; logic being that this will translate into lower prices at the pump. However, his administration may be wrongly conflating the two with no guarantee that a release of SPR will lower gasoline prices.

A release of SPR crude will likely do little to alleviate pump prices. US refiners are already running at near full capacity and additional crude will have limited ability to be absorbed and converted to gasoline domestically. In fact, additional crude on the market will likely depress WTI and increase the profits of the refiners rather than the benefits trickling through to the pumps. Furthermore, the SPR holds light crude whereas the feed slate for US Gulf refiners is typically heavy crude from South America.

The SPR was established in 1975 following the Arab oil embargo in 1973. The US, together with 28 other countries, are required by the International Energy Agency to hold no less than 90 days of import cover measured against the previous year’s net imports. It is designed to meet domestic demand in the case of supply disruptions. In the US, the SPR is held across four sites on the Gulf Coast with a total of 660mmbbl of mostly light crude. They can be released with a 13-day window once the POTUS gives the decision.

Read More

Saudi and Russia dominate gossip columns in run up to June OPEC meeting

As we approach the June OPEC meeting, all eyes on Saudi Arabia and Russia for any clues on the direction they will go on 22nd June. With the sanctions on Iran and imminent collapse of Venezuela, Trump has asked the two power weights to step in to avoid oil prices going any higher. This in itself is ironic as the US has been trying to wean itself off imports and attain energy independence from OPEC, yet it is now openly asking Saudi Arabia to help.

In recent days, both Saudi Arabia and Russia have hinted at wanting to increase production by 300mbopd, although the details remain to be thrashed out- i.e. will it be these two countries shouldering the increase or will it be spread amongst the OPEC members. The path this will take and desire to increase production will be dictated by whether consensus can be reached next week.

On the one hand, keeping a lid of oil prices is important for OPEC to avoid a wave of US production coming onstream with producer hedging. On the other hand, a number of OPEC nations urgently require cash flow from higher oil prices to balance precarious budgets.

If consensus can be reached to increase production, the additional barrels can be met by Saudi Arabia and Russia making up the production but will likely be criticised by other OPEC members of using the opportunity to snatch market share. An alternative would be for the members’ quotas to be renegotiated although this will open up another can of worms. In the case of the latter, it is noted that not all members are in a position to raise production (e.g. Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya which are fraught with domestic difficulties). Finally, OPEC members have been in over compliance so there remains running room to utilise the existing quotas, although this will again be shouldered by Saudi Arabia and Russia.

In the medium and longer term, fundamentals point to a supply shortfall so gradually raising production now will keep prices under control although the path ahead will remain choppy.

Read More

Oil price brave new world

Oil prices have never been easy to predict and despite the vast amount of data points out there, making sense of it all remains a big challenge. Two themes have emerged in the past decade that has changed the landscape and makes understanding the oil markets difficult: emergence of non-sophisticated traders and US exports.

Non-sophisticated traders have replaced traditional traders. These new (and now established) entrants trade off newsflow rather than fundamentals. Whilst the fundamentals have pointed to a positive supply demand picture for oil prices in the past few years, consistent bombardment of rig count and inventory data has meant fundamental trends have not surfaced to the front of mind leading to what can be viewed as depressed oil prices throughout the period 2015-17. With global inventory rebalancing now taking place and this making its way to the headlines, oil prices have begun to correct in 2018. The problem of non-sophisticated traders has been exacerbated by the financialisation of the market leading to increased volume of trade and exit by some traditional traders.

Secondly, US exports has completely redrawn the map for oil trade flows and the market is still learning what this means. Some of the characteristics that the US has exhibited which the market has never seen before is the short-cycle/ability to ramp-up and turn down production in a relatively short space of time, anti-fragile nature of production resilience, ability to store crude behind pipe (drilled uncompleted wells or DUCs) and wide range of crude blends it can produce. In particular OPEC (i.e. Saudi Arabia) has been experimenting with prices to elicit US production data points in order to study US producer behaviour.

A recent topic around US exports is the divergence of the WTI and Brent benchmarks with the widening spread. This has raised the question of the US’ ability to cater to any demand. WTI has been under pressure recently (vs. Brent) as bottlenecks in export pipeline infrastructure have depressed prices. However, there is significant capacity build-out over the near-term which will alleviate this problem and the persistent discount of c.USD10/bbl of WTI along the back-end of the curve is likely unfounded. While WTI and Brent appear to be showing signs of catering to different markets right now rather than a single global market, trends (and spreads) should converge again over time.

Read More

The oil market is recovering

Oil inventories have been worked down and beginning to return to historical normalised levels, driven by a mix of robust demand growth on the one hand and concerted efforts by OPEC plus friends to cap production on the other.

While 12-18 months ago heightened geopolitical tensions and operational outages barely moved oil prices, such events are now needle moving news. The outage of Forties at the end of last year and intermittent headline grabbing conflicts in Libya which cause temporary spikes in oil prices are case in point.

However, RBC argues that understanding the breakdown of the inventory story is critical. Data shows that Asian inventories have been worked down which is key for “pulling” crude out of the Atlantic Basin. On the other hand European storage remains in surplus but the clearing of the Atlantic Basin will support drawdowns of European inventory.

Source: RBC Capital Markets, March 2018

It is therefore clear that while the global picture is moving in the right direction, there remains pockets of over and under supply in different regions. The clearing of North Sea crudes, which will be demonstrated by stronger pricing of regional blends such as Ekofisk vs. benchmark is therefore a secondary data point to monitor together with inventory levels for the next step of the global rebalancing story.

Read More

Oil price contingent payment: Bridging the valuation gap in an uncertain oil price environment

In the current oil price environment, buyer-seller alignment on valuation is likely to be an issue with differences driven by view on the oil price outlook. A number of transactions have stalled or been pulled over the last year. One possible way to bridge this gap is to have a contingent consideration element that is contingent on the recovery of the oil price; the seller benefits from recovery in the oil price if it believes a recovery is forthcoming and the buyer can base upfront payment on a lower price deck and avoid overpaying in the event oil prices do not recover.

Contingent consideration based on the oil price has not been common given Brent has been relatively stable in the ~$100/bbl range in the past few years. Seplat, in its acquisition of Chevron’s assets in Nigeria, is the only recent example of a buyer which has adopted such a payment structure. When structuring such a mechanism, close attention should be paid to a number of key elements:

• Amount: Based on the valuation difference under the two oil price decks, subject to negotiation
• Trigger: Trigger needs to be defined clearly (e.g. oil price refers to realised price or Brent) and responsibilities for monitoring the trigger and notification of the counterparty needs to be set out. In the case of the Seplat transaction, the trigger was oil prices averaging USD90/bbl or above for 12 consecutive months
• Long stop date: Period needs to be sufficiently long and in a timeframe where oil price could realistically recover. A longer period is generally more favourable for the seller and less favourable for the buyer as it gives more time for the trigger to be satisfied. Seplat and Chevron agreed a period of five years in the recent transaction

Seplat / Chevron Transaction Overview

On 5 February 2015, Seplat announced the completion of the acquisition of a 40% WI in OML 53 and 22.5% WI in OML 55 onshore Nigeria from Chevron. Seplat paid USD387mm upfront with a USD39mm (9% of the total potential consideration) contingent payment on oil prices averaging USD90/bbl or above for 12 consecutive months over the next five years.

OML 53 contains the Jisike oil field which produces at 2,000bbl/d (gross). The block also contains the undeveloped Ohaji South gas and condensate field which could utilise the existing facilities which have capacity of 12,000bbl/d and 8mmcf/d; total net resources of 151mmboe.

OML 55 is located in the swamp to shallow water areas of the Niger Delta and contains five producing fields; current gross production of 8,000bbl/d; total net resources of 46mmboe with further oil and gas potential identified on the block.

The transaction fits with Seplat’s strategy of securing, commercialising and monetising natural gas in the Niger Delta with a view to supplying the rapidly growing domestic market. For Chevron, it reduces exposure to the Nigerian onshore which has been affected by bunkering in recent years and further refocuses its portfolio towards North America and the Gulf of Mexico.

Read More