Saturday, May 30, 2020
Friday, May 29, 2020
China Scoops Up Cheap Nigerian Oil
The submersion of East Asian markets into coronavirus-induced
recession has pulled down several major oil producers, most notably
Nigeria whose breakeven price is well above $100 per barrel (Fitch puts
it at $144 per barrel). Depending on its crude production for 60% of
government revenue, Nigeria was confronted with a double whammy of
falling oil prices and general economic decline – to the extent that
Lagos has applied for some 7 billion in SARS-COV-2-related emergency
funds provided by the IMF and the World Bank. Nigeria’s credit ratings
were downgraded by both S&P and Fitch (Moody’s kept the negative
outlook without downgrading) and things seemed as if the most populous
country in Africa might be in for some serious trouble.
Part of
the anxiety was due to the fact that Nigeria agreed to participate in
the unprecedented Russia-Saudi Arabia-United States crude production
curtailment and vowed to drop output levels by some 300kbpd to an
overall level of 1.4mbpd (do not be confused by the ostensibly higher
level of crude exports, Nigerian condensates are out of the question and
will remain left out from the deal itself). The Nigerian Oil Ministry
even went as far as to say that they expect 2.8 billion in additional
revenue from being part of the OPEC+ deal. Initially, however, whilst
Nigeria’s commitment to the deal entirely laudable, it seemed as if
OPEC+ was removing only a fraction of barrels that entered the market.
Graph 1. Nigeria’s Crude Exports in 2017-2020 (in million barrels per day).
Source: Thomson Reuters.
Now
Nigeria can finally let off a brief sigh of relief as the return of
China has boosted both export prospects and grade differentials. Led by
Saudi Arabia, leading Middle Eastern producers engaged in a
hypercompetitive price war and despite most of West African crudes
remaining one of the most optimal sources for IMO 2020-compliant
products, Nigerian crudes struggled to reach their traditional market
outlets in Asia. The intense price pressure has rendered West African
remarkably attractive after it drove them to multi-year lows – even IMO
2020 favorites like the Equitorial-Guinean Zafiro or Chadian Doba went as low as -7 against Dated Brent, not to speak of the manifold light sweet grades West Africa wields.
Chinese buyers would generally buy only 1-2 cargoes from Nigeria yet
boosted by the economic profitability of West African countries in April
there were 4 vessels sailing off for China and the May 2020 tally went
even further to a whopping 7 cargoes, totaling 9 MMbbls. Interestingly,
both April and May witnessed an Egina cargo loading for China, despite
it being a staple diet of Northwest European refiners. This
reconfiguration of the usual state of things (albeit temporary) is
partially due to the fact that Indian demand, routinely the largest
magnet for Nigerian grades, has subsided somewhat as the
SARS-COV-2-induced lockdown took place there with a delay of several
months. All this means that Nigerian cargoes arriving to China this June
will mark the highest-ever level, whilst West African exports to China
will be the highest since November 2018. Related: Will There Be Another Oil Price War?
As
impressive as the Nigerian export surge to China seems, it would not
have happened without extremely depressed grade differentials. The
combination of Middle Eastern producers cutting OSPs and the coronavirus
demand slump has elicited an unprecedented drop in Nigerian
differentials – from March to April (the OSPs are usually published
around the 15th of the preceding months) almost every single
grade has witnessed a $4-5 per barrel month-on-month decline. Moreover,
differentials were plummeting even harder in terms of real market prices
(since OSPs play a largely indicative role) – after most flagship
Nigerian grades moved to discounts against Dated Brent in March, it took
them more than a month to bottom out in the $-7/-9 per barrel interval
to Dated.
Graph 2. West African Crude Exports to China in 2018-2020 (in million barrels per day).
Source: Thomson Reuters.
The
official selling prices of Nigerian grades present a fairly truthful
picture of their current pricing levels. If the OSPs of light sweet,
predominantly IMO 2020-compliant, Nigerian grades drop in May 2020 to
$-3 or even $-4 per barrel against Dated Brent, the lowest ever
recorded, then surely something is not right. Yet as the June OSPs start
to transpire one can see that a bounce back of differentials is already
taking place, Nigeria’s flagship export streams like Bonny Light or Qua
Iboe are both assessed at $-1.05 per barrel to Dated, with the rest
moving even stronger towards a flat Brent assessment. As Europe comes
back from a multi-month lockdown season, it will rediscover its appetite
for West African crudes, hence the probability of the Nigerian export
surge to China becoming a long-term trend (especially with the
strengthening diffs) is shrinking.
Graph 3. Nigerian Official Selling Prices in 2017-2020 (against Dated Brent).
Source: NNPC.
Nigeria’s
way forward will not be easy – its exports possibilities will be
subdued for a couple of months by its participation in OPEC+, all its
differentials will not go back to pre-corona territory that easily. This
will be especially true of high-gasoline-yield very light grades,
whilst grades with a more balanced mid-distillate yield should become
the best performers of this summer. Nigerian exporters would also need
to keep in mind the risk of increased competition – to name just one
example, the Indian refiner IOC has awarded in a recent purchase tender
in May to the American WTI although almost everyone expected it to buy
Nigerian.
By Viktor Katona for Oilprice.com
Thursday, May 28, 2020
U.S. takes aim at the power behind Venezuela’s Maduro: his first lady
HAPPY UNION: Maduro and Flores formed a political and private
partnership when they both advised an ascendant Hugo Chávez. Maduro
would wink at Flores in early meetings, drawn by her “fiery character.”
REUTERS/Handout/Venezuelan presidency
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/venezuela-politics-flores/
First lady Cilia Flores has a long record as a power broker in
Venezuela. Now, with the help of a jailed former bodyguard, U.S.
prosecutors are preparing to charge her with crimes that could include
drug trafficking and corruption.
CARACAS/WASHINGTON – Four
years ago, a bit player in the Venezuelan leadership was arrested in
Colombia and extradited to the United States to face drug charges. He
proved to be an important catch.
The
man, Yazenky Lamas, worked as a bodyguard for the person widely
considered the power behind President Nicolás Maduro’s throne: first
lady Cilia Flores.
Now,
with help from Lamas’ testimony, the United States is preparing to
charge Flores in coming months with crimes that could include drug
trafficking and corruption, four people familiar with the investigation
of the first lady told Reuters. If Washington goes ahead with an
indictment, these people said, the charges are likely to stem, at least
in part, from a thwarted cocaine transaction that has already landed two
of Flores’ nephews in a Florida penitentiary.
Nicole
Navas, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Justice, declined to
comment on any possible charges against Flores. Flores and her office at
the National Assembly didn’t respond to questions for this article.
Jorge Rodríguez, Venezuela’s information minister, told Reuters in a
text message that its questions about the possible U.S. indictment of
Flores were “nauseating, slanderous and offensive.” He didn’t elaborate.
In
a series of interviews with Reuters, the first Lamas has given since
his arrest, the former bodyguard said Flores was aware of the
coke-trafficking racket for which her two nephews were convicted by a
U.S. court. Flores also used her privileged position, he said, to reward
family members with prominent and well-paid positions in government, a
claim of nepotism backed by others interviewed for this article.
Speaking
behind reinforced glass at the prison in Washington, D.C., where he is
detained, Lamas told Reuters he is speaking out against Flores because
he feels abandoned by the Maduro administration, still ensconced in
power even though many of its central figures, including the president,
have also been accused of crimes. “I feel betrayed by them,” he told
Reuters.
In late March, U.S. prosecutors indicted Maduro and
over a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials on charges of
narco-terrorism and drug smuggling. Maduro, now in his eighth year as
Venezuela’s president, for years sought to flood the U.S. with cocaine,
prosecutors alleged, seeking to weaken American society and bolster his
position and wealth.
Maduro’s office didn’t
respond to requests for comment. In a televised speech after the
indictments, he dismissed the charges against him and his colleagues as a
politically motivated fabrication by the administration of
U.S. President Donald Trump. “You are a miserable person, Donald Trump,”
he said.
The March
indictments and the possible charges against Flores come amid a fresh
campaign by Washington to increase pressure on Maduro. His enduring grip
on power, some U.S. officials say, is a source of frustration for
Trump.
Starting in
2017, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned the Socialist leader along
with his wife and other members of the Maduro “inner circle.” The swipe
at Flores enraged Maduro. “If you want to attack me, attack me,” he
said in a televised speech at the time. “But don’t mess with Cilia,
don’t mess with the family.”
Leveraging
the economic fallout from the coronavirus crisis in Venezuela, the
White House now hopes it can topple a leader who has weathered years of
tightening economic sanctions, civil unrest and international isolation.
Washington
has accused Maduro and his circle of looting Venezuela of billions of
dollars. But it’s unclear how much personal wealth he and Flores
possess. Neither the president nor the first lady disclose income
statements, tax returns or other documents pertaining to their personal
finances. After U.S. prosecutors charged Maduro, the Justice Department
said it had seized more than $1 billion in assets belonging to dozens of
defendants connected to the case. The charges didn’t detail those
assets or specify who holds them.
Flores
is a longtime strategist and kingmaker in the ruling Socialist party.
She first gained prominence as a lawmaker and confidante of the late
Hugo Chávez, Maduro’s predecessor and mentor. She doesn’t hold an
official role in Maduro’s cabinet. Still, the probe against her
underscores the vast influence she wields, particularly in helping
Maduro outmaneuver rivals inside and outside Venezuela.
In addition
to Lamas, Reuters interviewed more than 20 people close to and familiar
with Flores. They portray her as a shrewd and stealthy politician who
now brandishes much of the power of her husband’s office, demanding
important briefings even before the president and personally negotiating
with foreign emissaries, rival lawmakers and others.
When
the opposition-led National Assembly tried to oust Maduro last year,
Flores ordered security officials to deliver intelligence on the matter
directly to her, according to Manuel Cristopher Figuera, the head of the
country’s intelligence agency then. Figuera was one of a handful of
senior Venezuelan officials who at the time considered trying to
negotiate an exit from power by Maduro with the United States. Figuera
fled Venezuela when the effort failed.
“Flores has always been behind the curtain, pulling the strings,” Figuera told Reuters.
Flores
has sought personal concessions in recent years in negotiations with
the United States. According to five people familiar with the
discussions, Flores instructed intermediaries to ask U.S. envoys for
liberty for her jailed nephews. In exchange, these intermediaries said
Venezuela would release six imprisoned executives of Citgo Petroleum
Corp, the U.S. refining unit of Venezuela’s state-run oil company. The
executives, arrested by Venezuela in 2017 and charged with embezzlement,
are widely considered by human rights activists and many in the
business community to be political prisoners.
That overture, reported here for the first time, failed.
But
Washington knows Flores’ clout. “She is probably the most influential
figure other than Maduro,” Fernando Cutz, a senior White House adviser
on Latin America during Trump’s first year in office, told Reuters.
Earlier
this year, according to people with knowledge of her efforts, Flores
personally pressed crucial opposition lawmakers to support a Maduro ally
to head the National Assembly, until then considered the last
independent government institution in the country. As Reuters reported
in March, people familiar with lobbying of the lawmakers say ruling party operatives paid bribes to rivals who switched sides. Reuters couldn’t determine whether Flores played any role in such payments.
Little is known about the
first lady outside Venezuela, particularly the extent of her role in
Maduro’s government and her dealings that help it survive. In their
first interrogation of Lamas after his arrest in Colombia, U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration agents had one request, he recalled: “Tell us
about Cilia Flores,” they said.
Michael D. Miller, a DEA spokesman, referred questions regarding the case to the Justice Department.
Lamas,
now 40, spent over a decade guarding Flores – first when she was a
lawmaker and headed the National Assembly, later when she became first
lady. After his extradition in 2017, Lamas agreed to a plea deal with
U.S. prosecutors, according to a confidential Justice Department
document reviewed by Reuters. The agreement hasn’t been previously
reported.
In the plea
deal, Lamas admitted to charges of drug trafficking and agreed to
cooperate as a witness in investigations related to his case. The
Colombian court order that approved his extradition, also reviewed by
Reuters, said Lamas conspired to ship cocaine from Venezuela on
U.S.-registered aircraft. Neither the Colombian court order nor the
Justice Department document mention Flores, Maduro or others in the
family.
Because of
the terms of the plea agreement – he said he is still awaiting
sentencing and continues to testify in related investigations – Lamas
declined to discuss specifics about the case against him. His lawyer in
Washington, Carmen Hernandez, also declined to comment.
The
information he is providing investigators, including details on Flores’
alleged role in the drug-trafficking plan by her nephews, is deemed
credible by U.S. authorities, according to people familiar with the
probes. Mike Vigil, a former DEA chief of international operations, told
Reuters the DEA gives “high significance” to Lamas’ testimony.
“Revolutionary calling”
Flores
was born October 15, 1956, in Tinaquillo, a small city in northwestern
Venezuela. The youngest of six siblings, she lived in a mud-brick shack
with a dirt floor, locals recall. Her father was a salesman, traveling
to nearby towns to hawk sundry goods. While still a child, she and her
family moved to Caracas, Venezuela’s capital.
A
good pupil, Flores enrolled in a private university and studied
criminal law. There, she met Maikel Moreno, a lifelong friend and a
lawyer she would eventually help become Venezuela’s chief justice.
Moreno, a Maduro ally and a controversial figure in his own right,
was one of those indicted by Washington last March. Moreno didn’t
respond to requests for comment; in a tweet, he denounced Washington for
trying to “hijack Venezuelan justice.”
As
a student, Flores showed little interest in politics, according to
people who knew her. She worked part-time at a police station,
transcribing statements from witnesses, and married a longtime
boyfriend, a police detective, with whom she had three boys. Upon
earning her law degree, she worked for most of the next decade as a
defense attorney for a private firm.
In 1989, a fuel hike
sparked riots that shook Caracas and awakened in Flores what she later
described to state television as a “revolutionary calling.” Hundreds of
protesters, angry with corruption and widening inequality in the
oil-producing country, died in clashes with security forces.
The
event, known as the Caracazo – roughly, the big Caracas awakening –
also inspired Chávez. As inflation, food shortages and other hardships
worsened, Chávez, an Army lieutenant colonel, in 1992 staged a failed
coup. He was arrested and jailed at a military barracks.
Flores
discovered a hero. She took to spraypainting Chávez’s name around
Caracas. “I saw him in that moment as I would in the 20 years I spent
near him,” she later told state television. “Authentic.”
She
sent Chávez a letter offering to aid his defense. He accepted. Soon she
was counseling Chávez and helping him answer letters from thousands of
supporters.
On one
early visit, she met a Caracas union leader who was also advising
Chávez: Maduro. In a televised speech years later, Maduro said he was
drawn to her “fiery character.” He began to wink at her, he said.
As
it happened, both were divorcing their spouses. They began dating and
eventually became a couple. “We shared the same dreams,” Flores later
told state television.
In
1994, Chávez received a presidential pardon. Flores and other advisors
suggested he reinvent himself as a civilian and rally support with
promises to empower the poor. By 1997, Flores was part of the campaign
committee that would secure Chávez’s election the next year as
president. Maduro was elected as a legislator.
Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Oil on Floating Storage Soars to Record Highs, But Peak Still Some Way Off
Floating storage already in excess of 180 mil barrels. Freight rates stay elevated as storage tightens spot tonnage. Inland storage crisis may have been averted but demand still in doldrums.
Oil on floating storage is now at its highest level in the history of
the oil market and despite modest signs of a demand recovery, industry
sources and analysts say the peak for these volumes is still some way
off.
There are some signs that oil is starting to improve based on global
road traffic and congestion data as travel restrictions start to ease.
But looking at the amount of oil on water on a real time ship tracking
platform, there are many signs that the imbalance of supply and demand
remains very skewed.
There are currently more than 200 million barrels of oil and products
on floating storage, representing around 5% of global carrying
capacity, according to data from S&P Global Platts trade flow
software cFlow.
Around 10-20% of the global tanker fleet represents a reasonable
ceiling for floating storage, which would allow the storage of around
400 million-800 million barrels of crude and products, according to
Platts Analytics.
Energy research firm Kpler estimates that floating storage volumes
were as high at 180 million barrels for the week beginning May 11,
making it the largest ever volumes for oil on floating storage.
This is a rise of almost 95% in the past two months, as data showed
that floating volumes of crude and oil products were as high as 92.09
mill barrels for the week beginning March 9. The data includes volume of
commodities on tankers that are idled offshore for seven days or more.
“Floating volumes are likely to keep going up in the next few months
as many vessels that were recently fixed on floating storage are still
sailing to their destinations or in some cases have not been loaded,”
Erik Broekhuizen, head of Tanker Research & Consulting at Poten
& Partners, said recently during a webinar.
But there are some signs that oil on water is beginning to decline as
production cuts from OPEC+ along with involuntary production cuts from
the US, Canada, Brazil and Norway start to come into play.
Oil on water, which includes the total volume of crude and products
on tankers, was estimated to be around 1.25 billion barrels for the week
beginning May 11, from 1.30 billion barrels the previous week.
Freight Impact
Shipping sources remain skeptical about whether oil on water will
start to fall unless demand does start to rise steadily and more
production cuts are enacted. And, looking at the tanker market, sources
say it could be a long time before any balance is close to being found.
“Oil going on water is still set to increase given the overproduction compared to current demand,” said Paul Marsh, research director at Navig8 said during a webinar.
“How long it will take to unwind oil from ships is a million dollar-question,” he said. “There
are widely diverging views about when this is set to happen, but it
will surely take more time to offload storage than it took to build it.
This could be anywhere between one and two years, maybe more.”
Shipping sources noted that despite a slight fall in crude cargo
inquiries, freight rates for VLCC and Suezmax tankers had found some
support from time charter bookings
With so many tankers booked on time charter, the tonnage list on the
spot market has tightening considerably, pushing up freight. “New ships are being booked on time charter given the overproduction, although the rate has slowed“, a shipbroker said.
He said demand for West African crude still remained particularly lackluster. “The spot market is looking bleak in the long term given the low demand,” he said. “We are seeing a number of cargoes unsold in June, which would mean more vessels would go on storage.”
During the floating storage rush at the end of March, time charter
bookings for short periods of around six months were estimated at around
$120,000/day for VLCCs, and periods up to one year at around
$85,000/day.
Ship owners are continuing to ask for expensive rates despite weaker
spot market. This week, VLCC daily earnings for spot fixtures were
estimated at around $55,000/day, according to Marsh.
Pace of Recovery
Production cuts from OPEC and its allies came into place this month
and with hefty involuntary shut-ins from producers in the US, Canada,
Brazil and Norway, supply is beginning to fall.
But demand remains in the doldrums and despite slight improvements,
the fundamentals remain far from ideal. The International Energy Agency
continued to call on oil producers to do more to contain the impact of
the coronavirus on the oil markets.
“Demand will not jump from one day back to levels we had before
the crisis and we still have a huge amount of surplus and plus a lot of
floating oil around the world, so therefore one needs to be very careful
if one doesn’t want to change,” the IEA’s executive director Fatih Birol said during a webinar.
Platts Analytics said the fall in production so far this month had
helped to avert an inland storage crisis and that $25-30/b was a fair
value for Dated Brent for the coming months.
“The current supply losses, OPEC’s determination, and trend
towards opening up point to stronger oil prices than we believed
earlier,” it said in a note. “[But] we are not overly bullish
as much anxiety persists, particularly around demand and the impact of
opening up from lockdowns on the infection rate.”
Amount of Stored Oil Expected to Peak in 2nd Quarter, EIA Says
The amount of crude oil in storage tanks is expected to peak in the second quarter, before demand significantly increases around the world.
Storage tanks around the world added 6.6 million barrels of oil per day during the first quarter, but that accelerated to 11.5 million barrels per day in the second quarter as shutdown orders related to the coronavirus pandemic stunted travel and economic activity, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said Tuesday.
Those shutdown orders are expected to ease around the world during summer, boosting demand and oil prices, the EIA said.
Starting in the third quarter, the EIA said, global consumption of
crude oil, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other products will increase
for at least six consecutive quarters — reducing inventories and raising
prices. The price of U.S. oil was just above $30 on Tuesday.
Global consumption of oil, gasoline and other related products is
expected to average 92.6 million barrels per day in May, an 8 percent
decrease from 100.7 barrels per day during the same time period last
year, the EIA reported.
Economic growth and global consumption of crude oil and other fuels
is expected to increase in 2021 but remain lower than 2019 levels, the
agency said.
Tuesday, May 26, 2020
A new oil price war is just a few dollars per barrel away
The oil market has had a month of significant recovery. Since the
historic cuts by Saudi Arabia and Russia took hold, and the US shale
industry began to contract, crude prices have jumped around 70 percent
and seem to have established a “floor” at $30 a barrel and a trading
range of around $35.
That is nowhere near enough for oil-producing states that count on
energy revenue to fund their budgets, but it is a move in the right
direction after the carnage of “Black Monday.” It shows that the oil
market can be at least partly regulated by supply actors, even in the
midst of the most savage demand destruction in history because of global
economic lockdowns.
The recovery was mainly due to signs that the energy-guzzling economies
of East Asia — principally China, Japan and South Korea — were resuming
economic activity at a faster-than-anticipated rate, and also the
realization that “tank top” — exhaustion of the world’s storage capacity
— was not going to happen.
The big storage facility at Cushing, Oklahoma, was never at serious risk
of breaching capacity, and demand for expensive floating storage is
declining.
There is still a lot that could go wrong like a serious second wave of
coronavirus or a complete rupture in trade relations between the US and
China but, barring these, the outlook for oil is better than you might
have reasonably expected a month ago. Analysts are looking at an average
of around $35 this year and perhaps more than $50 in 2021.
A lot is riding on the OPEC+ deal led by Saudi Arabia and Russia. This
will be the subject of talks at the OPEC meeting next month, when
participants will have to decide whether to reduce the level of cuts
from 23 percent to 18 percent of output. There is a considerable body of
opinion within the organization that the 23 percent level should be
adhered to for an extended period. Saudi Arabia has already gone even
further than that, with an extra one million barrels per day reduction,
backed by other Gulf producers.The other significant variable in the
OPEC equation is the level of compliance with the cuts. Russia, which
has long argued that big cuts were impossible for its oil business
because of geological and climatic reasons, appears to have found a way
around those challenges.
For Iraq, Nigeria and Libya, the financial situation is dire enough to
distract them from the precise terms of the OPEC+ deal and maybe tempt
them to sell as much as possible while prices hold.
But the big imponderable is in US shale. On all the indicators — well
shut-ins, fall in rig count, job losses and bankruptcies — the past
month has been savage, especially in the Texas heartland of the
industry, as the price of West Texas Intermediate fell through the
floor.
Rising prices change the economics again. Not many shale operators are
viable at $30, but as the price creeps upward it makes sense for them to
start thinking of pumping again. Upward of $40, there could be a
renewed surge in shale production.
This would drop a spanner in the works of the global industry. It would
make no sense at all for Saudi Arabia to continue with its
market-changing cuts, which are exacting a big price in terms of lost
revenue, if the US was swamping the world with oil again. The battle for
market share — with the Kingdom turning the pumps full throttle again —
would be back on.
We’re not there yet by any means. Much depends on whether President
Donald Trump’s administration adds the oil industry to its list of
sectors needing support in the big pandemic support package struggling
through Congress. The Democrats don’t like that idea but, in an election
year and with promises of environmental concessions by Big Oil, they
might be persuaded.
Even as the oil industry congratulates itself on its policy response to
the pandemic, it has to be aware that a new oil price war is just a few
dollars per barrel away.
• Frank Kane is an award-winning business journalist based in Dubai. Twitter: @frankkanedubai
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News' point-of-view
Monday, May 25, 2020
Friday, May 22, 2020
Majority of marine fuel buyers anticipate price rises, but limited risk management in place
Despite
recent low bunker prices a significant proportion of marine fuel buyers
still do not have any risk management strategies in place to mitigate
anticipated price rises.
Two
thirds of LQM Petroleum Services clients polled in a webinar last week
(12 May) thought that marine fuel prices would rise in the next 12
months. But at the same time, only half the participants said that they
currently use risk management strategies to mitigate this risk.
“This
trend reflects the wider industry’s understanding of the tools
available to manage bunker price volatility,” said LQM Chief Executive
Daniel Rose. “But we were encouraged by the fact that three quarters of
participants on our call stated that they would be interested in locking
in today’s low prices.”
LQM
Petroleum Services is a hybrid bunker broker and trader which protects
itself from energy price changes by entering into fuel oil swap
agreements.
“We
fully understand the reluctance by some owners and charterers to enter
into the fuel oil futures market: it’s an area which leaves some
overwhelmed and those with relatively small clip sizes feeling
overlooked,” said Daniel Rose. “But we’re in the unique position of
being both a broker and experienced trader. We can guide potential
participants through the entire process and help clients manage their
specific hedging needs.”
He noted that the fuel swaps market has independent credible benchmark pricing, robust clearing solutions and good liquidity. “These are the fundamentals for a successful futures market,” he said.
Opinions
as to the duration of the current market volatility were less
clear-cut. 21% of the webinar participants thought that current
conditions would continue only for the next three months; 32% thought
between three and six months whilst 36% felt that six to 12 months a
more likely scenario.
Several shipowners, charterers and traders attended the webinar and responded to the poll.
Thursday, May 21, 2020
Crisis Talk — with Christophe Salmon, CFO of Trafigura, on hedging oil’s biggest crash
Christophe Salmon
Group Chief Financial Officer
https://www.globalcapital.com/article/b1llwshx6tvfs7/crisis-talk-with-christophe-salmon-cfo-of-trafigura-on-hedging-oils-biggest-crash
As a crucial middleman in the oil business, Trafigura has had to cope
with concerns about the creditworthiness of some of its counterparts,
and unprecedented volatility in the oil price that saw the West Texas
Intermediate (WTI) contract turn negative at the end of April.
Christophe Salmon, the company’s chief financial officer, explained how
the company has coped with the crisis, and how its funding approach,
based on deep banking relationships and a secured financing structure,
proved resilient to the chaos around it.
When did you realise how serious the crisis would be?
Let’s not forget that the virus crisis started in China much earlier than March 2020, when it reached Europe.
We have a strong presence all around the globe, and we could already see in January the impact of the virus. Our directly employed staff in China went off for Chinese New Year and did not come back to the office for more than a month.
With our team of analysts we saw, probably a bit earlier than others, that the virus issue in China was having a huge impact on the economy and was more serious than was realised in Europe. This gave us more time to think and to assess the consequences of the virus for the types of commodities we trade.
We needed to continue to run our business without impairing our risk management framework, and we can say now, two months into the lockdowns in India and Europe, that it is mission accomplished in that respect. It was a big effort from our business continuity teams — in our back office in India, for example, we had to make sure everyone had sufficient bandwidth to be able to connect directly into our systems and to maintain the integrity of our information technology.
The second challenge, though, was responding to the rapidly changing market conditions.
The commodity that has seen an extraordinary level of volatility has been oil. We have seen the oil price crashing with this combination of a shock in demand and a shock in supply. Opec+ turning on the taps to the market at the same time as global demand was crashing drove the price down very significantly. We have since seen a big effort from Opec+ to reduce supply, but then prices began to collapse again because everyone could see that the effort to contain supply was not at the level of the demand destruction.
All these changes in the space of perhaps eight weeks amounted to something that had never been seen before, and we reached the extreme point of the April maturity of the Nymex WTI contract turning negative one day before the maturity date.
Our job as a commodities trader is to balance physical supply and demand. This shock in demand has triggered a huge need for the market to absorb excess supply and to place this excess supply into storage. Companies like Trafigura and a few of our competitors have stored very significant volumes of crude oil all around the globe to respond to this shock.
The market has gone deeply into contango, and is incentivising physical players to store and sell oil on a forward basis, with the price difference covering the storage costs, and allowing companies engaged in this “cash and carry” strategy to profit.
Companies like Trafigura and a few other peers have done very well in this period by being able to absorb the shock.
Practically speaking, if you have a quantity of crude oil which isn’t sold, we have a reverse derivative position on Nymex or ICE, which fully mitigates and balances any drop in the cash price of the physical leg.
A commodity trading firm is naturally long physical and short derivatives — when the oil price collapses, the derivatives market will transfer to you a lot of margin. So when the oil price collapsed, we received a lot of money back from the exchange. With this cash, we adjusted the loan-to-value of the inventories with our banks.
We have structured our financing so that banks finance the mark-to-market value of the inventory, with the mark performed typically every week.
So when the price goes down, we receive our margin first and we pay that to the banks over the week. It’s always easier when you receive the cash first, and you use the cash to amortise or adjust the value of your financing against the physical inventory.
When the market goes up, the process goes in reverse — we have to pay up front to meet a margin call on the derivatives, and get the money back from the banks the following week when the banks adjust their funding to the increased value of the inventory.
A physical commodity that’s properly hedged, properly insured and managed from an operational perspective can be seen as quasi-cash — that’s why the banks are comfortable financing 100% of it.
A second point, and probably a reason we had an easier life than others in the recent volatility, is that we need to deploy less working capital to finance the same volume of oil. A cargo of oil that was worth $70m in January, is now worth $30m — the same molecules, same crude oil but the value has more than halved.
The main pillar of Trafigura’s funding is to grant security to its banks over the inventories that the banks are financing — and that is the most robust type of funding you can have in place, because banks adjust their funding volumes based on the same value that drives your funding needs.
During these crises, a company like Trafigura always has a low level of utilisation of its credit lines — during the whole of the crisis in March and April we were able to maintain a significant liquidity position and low utilisation, because of the drop in commodities prices.
Sometimes the correlation between the hedging instrument and the commodity is not perfect. In the context of the Covid-19 crisis and the high level of volatility, we have seen an increase in our value-at-risk, but our VaR was kept at below 1% of our group equity.
Value-at-risk is there, but it’s an amount that’s small in the grand scheme of things.
So we have worked very carefully through our credit department and commercial division to make sure counterparty or performance risk was properly understood and properly measured and mitigated.
Two or three months after the beginning of the crisis, we have not had material issues in this period with counterparty risk. One can say that it is a matter of time. The conditions of our counterparties really depend on how long the virus crisis lasts — are we out for another one month, three months or six months? There is only so much pain that certain industries can sustain. We are, however, confident that the end of the lockdown, combined with significant stimulus from public policies, are limiting the downside for the global economy.
In the normal course of business, we try to mitigate risks as much as we can — we are very significant users of all the credit risk mitigants, you can imagine. CDS not so much, though, because the companies where the CDS market is available are only a tiny portion of the client base.
But we are very significant users of bank letters of credit, or silent payment guarantees from banks, and of insurance. Trafigura is a significant buyer of credit insurance in the Lloyds market in London.
In this crisis, we have tried to be proactive, and to mitigate the credit risk we have to take, and to decrease it. We have put more emphasis on getting down-payments from our clients, or having a letter of credit covering our next shipment.
The benefit of this funding mix is that you can put a face to a name. For me, it is not “Bank XYZ”, it’s “Mr ABC”, where we have had a relationship lasting for years.
Especially during crisis times, the debt capital markets can be very volatile and very sentiment-driven. With banks, you have a person or a group of expert people to talk to, which in a stressful environment can be a much more reliable partner.
So we have no intention of changing this funding approach.
We have around 135 banks in our group, as one of our core principles in funding has been diversification. Each of these banks has their competitive edge — some banks are funding transactions in South America that others cannot because they don’t have any regional expertise. Some banks have expertise in the financing of metals in sub-Saharan Africa, and the others have not.
We try to find the right match between our needs and the bank’s expertise — that’s why we have so many banks around the world.
But we do have a core group of around 20 banks, which have a billion dollars or more of mainly secured self-liquidating facilities out to Trafigura, with whom we have an even more privileged relationship, even more of a partnership approach.
For a short period of time, perhaps two to three weeks, we saw a significant increase in cost of funds, which basically offset the drop in the Libor rate. The net effect for us was almost a flat price.
But the increased cost of funds for the banks was temporary — the mechanisms of the central banks to inject liquidity to banks and to the debt capital markets meant the funding pressure subsided. But there was a lag between the announcements and the execution.
Since the second half of April and [in the first half of] May, things have more or less come back to normal.
So companies that are either speculating, or lack the proper risk management frameworks, get into trouble. We have seen a number of bankruptcies of smaller regional players, especially in southeast Asia, and this has put a lot of strain on the banks, who will have to provide for these losses.
But they are looking to the large players like Trafigura as a kind of flight to quality. We have seen a stress on the bank side, not targeted at the leaders of the sector, but at the medium-sized regional players, who may have more difficulty accessing funding.
We expect an acceleration of the consolidation of the sector around the big players, but also an acceleration of the development of solutions such as blockchain in trade finance — we are working with the government of Singapore, the International Chamber of Commerce and a few banking partners on a blockchain solution to secure transaction and save cost.
During the course of March and April, we have put in place additional credit monitoring for some of these obligors in the programme.
But we are a long-term player in our sectors, so our business counterparts which are here today will be there tomorrow — sometimes with a different shape, but they will be there.
So we wanted to make sure that we act in partnership with our end buyers. In a number of cases, that meant we had requests from some clients for deferred payment. In each case, we have had a very bespoke approach, depending on our analysis of the credit situation of the client, and the quality of the long-term relationship.
This was going on through March and April, but since the end of April we have not seen any new requests for payment deferrals — an acknowledgement that our clients have absorbed the shock, or found ways to monitor and manage their liquidity in an appropriate fashion.
The last time when prices really went to the rock bottom — when Brent was at $12 and WTI at $11 — was in the late 1990s. During these years you had major consolidation. Total bought Elf and Fina, Chevron bought Texaco, same thing with Exxon Mobil.
Any period where there is a significant decrease in oil prices, you have M&A.
The big event of the past few years is the very rapid development of the US shale oil and gas production. Now, the production of US, Saudi Arabia and Russia are almost at the same level.
In the US, this is not one single company, it is multiple companies, and especially in the shale industry, you have multiple very small companies.
Some are going to go bankrupt and will be merged into bigger companies — probably some of the US oil majors will take the opportunity to consolidate the E&P sector.
Having said that, being private doesn’t mean opaque — we publicly release our financials twice a year, and the quality of our financials is the same as for listed companies.
The second point — we do not have a public rating, and we like to keep it that way. We have an implicit low investment grade rating, and that is what our core banks see in their internal models. We like to keep it that way because, at the end of the day, we are extracting most of our funding from banks which understand our business model rather than making credit decisions on the basis of a third party rating.
In addition, holding a rating could cause Trafigura to take more short-term-focused decisions in order to maintain a particular rating level, which would conflict with the group focus on long-term value creation.
We have a strong presence all around the globe, and we could already see in January the impact of the virus. Our directly employed staff in China went off for Chinese New Year and did not come back to the office for more than a month.
With our team of analysts we saw, probably a bit earlier than others, that the virus issue in China was having a huge impact on the economy and was more serious than was realised in Europe. This gave us more time to think and to assess the consequences of the virus for the types of commodities we trade.
What were the main challenges for Trafigura?
The first challenge was, at a basic level, to make sure the company continued to run as a business. We are not an investment firm, we are trading physical commodities, moving goods from point A to point B, and that requires a lot of manpower in chartering ships, managing the finance, contracts and so on.We needed to continue to run our business without impairing our risk management framework, and we can say now, two months into the lockdowns in India and Europe, that it is mission accomplished in that respect. It was a big effort from our business continuity teams — in our back office in India, for example, we had to make sure everyone had sufficient bandwidth to be able to connect directly into our systems and to maintain the integrity of our information technology.
The second challenge, though, was responding to the rapidly changing market conditions.
The commodity that has seen an extraordinary level of volatility has been oil. We have seen the oil price crashing with this combination of a shock in demand and a shock in supply. Opec+ turning on the taps to the market at the same time as global demand was crashing drove the price down very significantly. We have since seen a big effort from Opec+ to reduce supply, but then prices began to collapse again because everyone could see that the effort to contain supply was not at the level of the demand destruction.
All these changes in the space of perhaps eight weeks amounted to something that had never been seen before, and we reached the extreme point of the April maturity of the Nymex WTI contract turning negative one day before the maturity date.
Our job as a commodities trader is to balance physical supply and demand. This shock in demand has triggered a huge need for the market to absorb excess supply and to place this excess supply into storage. Companies like Trafigura and a few of our competitors have stored very significant volumes of crude oil all around the globe to respond to this shock.
The market has gone deeply into contango, and is incentivising physical players to store and sell oil on a forward basis, with the price difference covering the storage costs, and allowing companies engaged in this “cash and carry” strategy to profit.
Companies like Trafigura and a few other peers have done very well in this period by being able to absorb the shock.
How does that storage trade and the volatility in oil affect your funding?
Trafigura does not take any speculative position on outright commodity price. We are never long or short on the commodity we trade, we always hedge our market risk position on the flat price.Practically speaking, if you have a quantity of crude oil which isn’t sold, we have a reverse derivative position on Nymex or ICE, which fully mitigates and balances any drop in the cash price of the physical leg.
A commodity trading firm is naturally long physical and short derivatives — when the oil price collapses, the derivatives market will transfer to you a lot of margin. So when the oil price collapsed, we received a lot of money back from the exchange. With this cash, we adjusted the loan-to-value of the inventories with our banks.
We have structured our financing so that banks finance the mark-to-market value of the inventory, with the mark performed typically every week.
So when the price goes down, we receive our margin first and we pay that to the banks over the week. It’s always easier when you receive the cash first, and you use the cash to amortise or adjust the value of your financing against the physical inventory.
When the market goes up, the process goes in reverse — we have to pay up front to meet a margin call on the derivatives, and get the money back from the banks the following week when the banks adjust their funding to the increased value of the inventory.
A physical commodity that’s properly hedged, properly insured and managed from an operational perspective can be seen as quasi-cash — that’s why the banks are comfortable financing 100% of it.
A second point, and probably a reason we had an easier life than others in the recent volatility, is that we need to deploy less working capital to finance the same volume of oil. A cargo of oil that was worth $70m in January, is now worth $30m — the same molecules, same crude oil but the value has more than halved.
The main pillar of Trafigura’s funding is to grant security to its banks over the inventories that the banks are financing — and that is the most robust type of funding you can have in place, because banks adjust their funding volumes based on the same value that drives your funding needs.
During these crises, a company like Trafigura always has a low level of utilisation of its credit lines — during the whole of the crisis in March and April we were able to maintain a significant liquidity position and low utilisation, because of the drop in commodities prices.
They say there’s no such thing as a perfect hedge — did that matter for you?
What we have left in our business is basis risk, due to the difference in correlation between the derivative contracts and the physical commodities we trade.Sometimes the correlation between the hedging instrument and the commodity is not perfect. In the context of the Covid-19 crisis and the high level of volatility, we have seen an increase in our value-at-risk, but our VaR was kept at below 1% of our group equity.
Value-at-risk is there, but it’s an amount that’s small in the grand scheme of things.
How about counterparty risk?
We were doing well in this period, but some of our business counterparties were not — the airline companies, for instance, and some other big energy users.So we have worked very carefully through our credit department and commercial division to make sure counterparty or performance risk was properly understood and properly measured and mitigated.
Two or three months after the beginning of the crisis, we have not had material issues in this period with counterparty risk. One can say that it is a matter of time. The conditions of our counterparties really depend on how long the virus crisis lasts — are we out for another one month, three months or six months? There is only so much pain that certain industries can sustain. We are, however, confident that the end of the lockdown, combined with significant stimulus from public policies, are limiting the downside for the global economy.
In the normal course of business, we try to mitigate risks as much as we can — we are very significant users of all the credit risk mitigants, you can imagine. CDS not so much, though, because the companies where the CDS market is available are only a tiny portion of the client base.
But we are very significant users of bank letters of credit, or silent payment guarantees from banks, and of insurance. Trafigura is a significant buyer of credit insurance in the Lloyds market in London.
In this crisis, we have tried to be proactive, and to mitigate the credit risk we have to take, and to decrease it. We have put more emphasis on getting down-payments from our clients, or having a letter of credit covering our next shipment.
How about your long-term funding approach?
Today, most of our funding comes from banks. Capital markets funding represents under 10% of our funding needs.The benefit of this funding mix is that you can put a face to a name. For me, it is not “Bank XYZ”, it’s “Mr ABC”, where we have had a relationship lasting for years.
Especially during crisis times, the debt capital markets can be very volatile and very sentiment-driven. With banks, you have a person or a group of expert people to talk to, which in a stressful environment can be a much more reliable partner.
So we have no intention of changing this funding approach.
We have around 135 banks in our group, as one of our core principles in funding has been diversification. Each of these banks has their competitive edge — some banks are funding transactions in South America that others cannot because they don’t have any regional expertise. Some banks have expertise in the financing of metals in sub-Saharan Africa, and the others have not.
We try to find the right match between our needs and the bank’s expertise — that’s why we have so many banks around the world.
But we do have a core group of around 20 banks, which have a billion dollars or more of mainly secured self-liquidating facilities out to Trafigura, with whom we have an even more privileged relationship, even more of a partnership approach.
How did your banking group respond to the crisis?
Especially since the end of March, we have seen the cost of funds increase for some of these banks. The banks have seen huge drawdowns on corporate revolvers, mainly in dollars, and the non-US banks have seen an increase in their cost of funds to access dollars from their original currency through the cross-currency markets.For a short period of time, perhaps two to three weeks, we saw a significant increase in cost of funds, which basically offset the drop in the Libor rate. The net effect for us was almost a flat price.
But the increased cost of funds for the banks was temporary — the mechanisms of the central banks to inject liquidity to banks and to the debt capital markets meant the funding pressure subsided. But there was a lag between the announcements and the execution.
Since the second half of April and [in the first half of] May, things have more or less come back to normal.
What about the issues we have seen with bankruptcies in commodity trading?
When these price movements occur, that is when you see a number of badly managed companies going under in our sector.So companies that are either speculating, or lack the proper risk management frameworks, get into trouble. We have seen a number of bankruptcies of smaller regional players, especially in southeast Asia, and this has put a lot of strain on the banks, who will have to provide for these losses.
But they are looking to the large players like Trafigura as a kind of flight to quality. We have seen a stress on the bank side, not targeted at the leaders of the sector, but at the medium-sized regional players, who may have more difficulty accessing funding.
We expect an acceleration of the consolidation of the sector around the big players, but also an acceleration of the development of solutions such as blockchain in trade finance — we are working with the government of Singapore, the International Chamber of Commerce and a few banking partners on a blockchain solution to secure transaction and save cost.
Have your securitization programmes been affected?
We have a significant trade receivables securitization programme, which has been going for 16 years, and so it has been through a number of different economic cycles. To date there have been no defaults under these programmes — the fact that we deal with a commodity which is essential to our counterparts has been a good mitigant.During the course of March and April, we have put in place additional credit monitoring for some of these obligors in the programme.
But we are a long-term player in our sectors, so our business counterparts which are here today will be there tomorrow — sometimes with a different shape, but they will be there.
So we wanted to make sure that we act in partnership with our end buyers. In a number of cases, that meant we had requests from some clients for deferred payment. In each case, we have had a very bespoke approach, depending on our analysis of the credit situation of the client, and the quality of the long-term relationship.
This was going on through March and April, but since the end of April we have not seen any new requests for payment deferrals — an acknowledgement that our clients have absorbed the shock, or found ways to monitor and manage their liquidity in an appropriate fashion.
What do you expect for the future of the oil industry, given recent market conditions?
What is likely to happen is a combination of bankruptcies in the exploration and production sector, and, as a consequence, mergers and acquisitions.The last time when prices really went to the rock bottom — when Brent was at $12 and WTI at $11 — was in the late 1990s. During these years you had major consolidation. Total bought Elf and Fina, Chevron bought Texaco, same thing with Exxon Mobil.
Any period where there is a significant decrease in oil prices, you have M&A.
The big event of the past few years is the very rapid development of the US shale oil and gas production. Now, the production of US, Saudi Arabia and Russia are almost at the same level.
In the US, this is not one single company, it is multiple companies, and especially in the shale industry, you have multiple very small companies.
Some are going to go bankrupt and will be merged into bigger companies — probably some of the US oil majors will take the opportunity to consolidate the E&P sector.
How has Trafigura’s status as an unrated, private company changed how the crisis has affected you?
More than just being private, we are a partnership. Trafigura is an association of key partners — 700 people out of the 8,000 members of staff at Trafigura are shareholders in the business, and, when you think about it, this is the best system for alignment between management and shareholders. We think this is a key recipe of success.Having said that, being private doesn’t mean opaque — we publicly release our financials twice a year, and the quality of our financials is the same as for listed companies.
The second point — we do not have a public rating, and we like to keep it that way. We have an implicit low investment grade rating, and that is what our core banks see in their internal models. We like to keep it that way because, at the end of the day, we are extracting most of our funding from banks which understand our business model rather than making credit decisions on the basis of a third party rating.
In addition, holding a rating could cause Trafigura to take more short-term-focused decisions in order to maintain a particular rating level, which would conflict with the group focus on long-term value creation.
By Owen Sanderson / 13 May 2020
Wednesday, May 20, 2020
OPEC+ Deal Could Collapse As Oil Prices Shoot Up
The OPEC+ coalition appears determined to ease the global oil glut
and lift the oil prices that had cratered in April because of OPEC+
wrangling and crashing global demand in the pandemic.
Oil prices
have rallied since the start of the new OPEC+ cuts. These cuts, along
with curtailments in North America, have combined with improved global
oil demand and the new notion that the worst of the demand collapse is
likely behind us, to instill confidence in the market that it is now
heading for a deficit.
The more bullish sentiment, however, raises
another question—will producers be tempted by rising crude oil prices
to disregard quotas within OPEC+? Will U.S. shale resume drilling
activity sooner than the market needs it?
OPEC and its partners in
the pact realized early last month that they had underestimated what
turned out to be a devastating impact of COVID-19 on global demand. With
oil revenues for petro states crashing as oil demand and oil prices
collapsed, OPEC’s leader Saudi Arabia and all other producers in the
OPEC+ group soon realized that they need to quickly force the market
into balance to save their oil-dependent economies from taking an
additional hit on top of the pandemic-related slowdown.
Three weeks into the new OPEC+ deal to cut production, the market sentiment has markedly shifted.
When
the pact announced the deal on April 12, analysts were saying that
these cuts—albeit 10 percent of typical global demand—would be ‘too
little too late’ to save the oil market from the abyss.
Now the mood has improved,
and so have oil prices. The price of oil is now 80 percent higher than
it was in mid-April, and analysts are pointing out that the cuts from
OPEC+, combined with economics-driven curtailments in North America to
the tune of 4 million bpd, is bringing the oil market closer to deficit
in the coming months.
Improving global oil demand and faster-than-expected production curtailments from outside the OPEC+ pact are set to push the oil market into deficit in June, Goldman Sachs said last week.
OPEC+--with
huge help from North America’s cuts because of unsustainably low oil
prices for its producers--managed to swing the market mood to
expectations of a deficit as soon as next month. OPEC and its de facto
leader and largest producer, Saudi Arabia, have a track record for
purposefully tightening the oil market whenever Saudi Arabia and perhaps
a few other major oil producers in the cartel have a strong incentive
to see higher oil prices, Reuters analyst John Kemp wrote this week.
This
spring, the Saudis had the biggest incentive to reverse the
flood-them-all-with-oil policy from March and April—money. With oil
prices at $20 or below and demand crashing in the pandemic, the world’s
top oil exporter had to save face and its economy.
So
far, Saudi Arabia, OPEC, and Russia are declaring unwavering support to
market stabilization, promising to go the extra mile to rebalance the
market—and to see higher oil prices.
OPEC members and their ten
non-OPEC partners have slashed oil exports by a massive 5.96 million bpd
for the first 13 days of May compared to April averages, oil-flow
tracking company Petro-Logistics said at the end of last week.
Saudi Arabia has pledged an additional 1 million bpd of cuts on top of its promised cuts as part of the OPEC+ deal. Even Iraq, the biggest cheater in all the previous pacts, said that it is committed to the production cuts.
Saudi Arabia and the leader of the non-OPEC countries, Russia, put out a statement last
week, saying that they “remain firmly committed to achieving the goal
of market stability and expediting the rebalancing of the oil market.”
“We
would like to especially commend the efforts of responsible producers
around the world who have willingly adjusted their production out of a
sense of shared responsibility,” Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz
bin Salman and Russia’s Energy Minister Alexander Novak said.
For
U.S. producers, curtailments have nothing to do with “shared
responsibility”—the economics are unfavorable, storage availability is
still scarce, and demand is still low. The U.S. shale patch has
announced more than 1.5 million bpd in cuts for Q2, lifting the oil
prices and market sentiment over the past two weeks. But with prices
rising, some producers could be tempted to resume activity, nipping a sustained market recovery in the bud.
“Further
strength in the oil market would send the wrong signal to producers,
with them likely more reluctant to cut output in a rallying market,” ING
strategists Warren Patterson and Wenyu Yao said on Wednesday.
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Belying Oil’s Price Volatility, Cushing Has Always Had Ample Storage Space For U.S. Producers’ Crude
AFP via Getty ImagesAn aerial view of a crude oil storage facility is seen on May 5, 2020 in Cushing, Oklahoma. - Using
Cushing is going to fill up! Cushing is filling up!!! Of all the hyperbolic, buffoonish comments uttered by talking heads on CNBC
and in the financial media, this is the worst. According to the most
recent data provided by the EIA, Cushing has 93.346 million barrels of
storage capacity, of which 76.093 million barrels’ worth is classified
as working storage. The EIA’s weekly data showed 65.446 million barrels
in storage at Cushing as of May 8th, a figure that declined by 3
million barrels in last week’s data. So, even at its peak, Cushing was
86.0% full. Then how could Cushing storage possibly be “running out”
with 14% of existing capacity available and more implicitly in reserve?
Cushing has never run out of storage. Cushing never will run out of storage.
In the past eight years, Cushing’s working storage capacity, as
measured by the EIA, has increased 58.5%. The amount of oil stored at
Cushing is more than three times the amount stored there 15 years ago.
America is producing more oil. America’s midstream companies somehow
noticed this trend and have produced more storage tanks in which to
store that oil.
But as the contract for West Texas Intermediate crude for June
delivery finished its trading life Monday at 2:30 ET quoted at $32.13
per barrel, that does not explain what happened the last time. Last
month’s contract (for May delivery) finished trading on April 21st at
$11.57 per barrel, after famously closing at (-$37.63) per barrel on the
day prior to expiration.
Why?
It’s all part of a trade. Last month that trade was “short oil.”
This month the trade became “long oil.” It’s that simple. The
commodities markets are characterized by wild swings in sentiment and
just as wild swings in price. This is why producers and consumers
hedge, and use oil contracts to balance out their natural biases
(producers are naturally short and consumers are naturally long.)
But the headlines in April screamed “oil prices turned negative
because there was no place to put it,” when the government’s own figures
show there was, in fact, ample space to store oil. Why? Well, renting
Cushing storage—controlled by big midstream players—is not as easy as
renting a U-Haul or as scalable as leasing server space from Amazon
AMZN
. As the EIA stated in its April 27th, 2020 Today in Energy publication:
Although EIA data indicate that some storage remains available at
Cushing, some of this physically unfilled storage may have already been
leased or otherwise committed, limiting the uncommitted storage
available for financial contract holders without pre-existing
arrangements. In this case, these contract holders would likely have to
pay much higher rates to storage operators for any uncommitted space
available. Taken together, these factors suggest that the phenomenon of
negative WTI prices is mainly confined to the financial markets.
As with any financial product, when amateurs get caught short market inefficiencies occur.
The existence of the USO oil ETF, a frequent target of my criticism in my Forbes columns,
only exacerbates this situation. Because USO’s sponsor, USCF, states
quite clearly in its many SEC filings that it has no means to take
delivery of physical oil and no desire to do so, USO serves to create
more paper contracts and offset the natural balance of hedging. As
those contracts are rolled—though USO has changed its contract
purchasing/selling process several times in the past month—that creates a
net shortage of the paper, and the markets can get wacky.
So, for those who like to proclaim European superiority over American
methods, the Euros have us beat when it comes to oil pricing. Brent
oil trades only in paper form, and unlike Cushing, Brent is not a
physical town, but a location of offshore platforms (three of four of
which have been shut down as the field matures) in the North Sea. No
one can deliver oil to Brent because there is no such place, although
the contract price is composed of a mix of three other locations that
are actually physically sited.
This is not meant as any disrespect to the good folks of Payne County, Oklahoma. Cushing is important,
and a quick check of any pipeline map would show that most of the U.S.’
massive hydrocarbon superhighways have been built to stop by Cushing to
“count” in oil delivery figures before heading elsewhere to be
refined. The nearest refinery to Cushing is a one-hour drive north up
OK-18 in Ponca City at Phillips 66
PSX
’s facility, and the salt caves that hold the U.S.’
strategic petroleum reserve sit in four sites along the Gulf Coast, the
closest one to Cushing located in Bryan Mound, TX, about 550 miles
away.
So, contrary to the takeaway from articles like this credulous Bloomberg piece,
Cushing has plenty of space. Those who hold short positions in oil may
not want you to believe that, but it's the truth. Remember always that
those same folks are just as likely to be the ones telling you—via
compliant reporters in the mainstream financial media—that all is fine
and dandy in the energy markets when they happen to be long those very
same contracts.
It’s probably best not to listen to them at all.
Monday, May 18, 2020
Oil Price Continues to Rally as Economies Reopen
Oil prices closed on a third straight weekly high on Friday as prices continued to rally on economies reopening from their COVID-19 lockdowns.
Brent was up at $32.50 on Friday’s trading, with West Texas Intermediate
(WTI) on $29.43, as both benchmarks kept up their sustained rallies on
positive market sentiment and hopes of oil prices having bottomed out
during the end of April, which saw WTI going negative.
“Oil prices extended their recovery for a third week running as
sentiment toward demand improves as more countries ease their lockdown
conditions and allow for economic life to return to something
approximating pre-coronavirus conditions,” said Edward Bell, commodity
analyst at Emirates NBD.
“For the month of May alone the improvement in oil futures has been
dramatic: Brent has gained nearly 30% while WTI is up by around 56%.
June WTI futures expire this week but the relative improvement in
sentiment toward crude and easing concerns over whether storage was
reaching tank tops should prevent a repeat of last month’s hysteria when
expiring futures moved into negative prices for the first time ever,”
he added.
Production Cuts Play Their Part
Also assisting with the continued price recovery have been the
production cuts that came into affect from the start of this month
according to Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, as the
worst case scenario of storage facilities reaching full oil capacity
having been averted for now.
“Crude oil continues to push higher and in hindsight the short-lived
collapse to a negative WTI price last month probably saved the market
and set in motion the recovery currently seen.
“Major producers around the world, potentially faced with heightened
risk of tank tops and the price collapse spreading, stepped up their
efforts to cut production. A development which together with a pick-up
in demand was highlighted by the International Energy Agency in their
latest oil market report as key reasons for the recovery seen during the
past month,” he added.
The IEA in their May outlook report revised their global demand
numbers, with demand set to go down by 8.6 million barrels per day (bpd)
this year, from an earlier estimate of 9.3 million bpd. “With estimates
that demand may not fully recover for at least another year, we suspect
that the current recovery may eventually run out of steam.
“Also considering the risk that U.S. shale oil producers, some
desperate to survive, will be able to restart shut-in production as the
price reaches economically viable levels above $30/b,” he added.
Markets Are Rebalancing
Speaking at Adnoc’s virtual majlis last week, Dr Sultan Ahmad Al
Jaber, UAE Minister of State and Group CEO of Adnoc, said signs were
pointing to an oil market that was rebalancing itself. “When it comes to
oil, there are signs that the market has tightened in recent weeks. The
Opec+ agreement, voluntary cuts outside Opec-plus plus, and production
shut-ins are working together to start to rebalance the market.
“This will take time. As economies begin to open up, demand will
follow, but the path to the next normal is not a straight line,” he
added. Al Jaber also highlighted how Adnoc was well positioned to handle
the current downward in prices thanks to its low cost production.
“Through our transformation, we have focused on what we can control
and that is our costs. We’ve been laser-focused on being one of the
lowest-cost producers in the world,” he said.
“This has given us the flexibility and the resilience that we need at
times like these. In this environment, we are continuing to work even
harder to preserve our resources, and maximise our profitability,” Al
Jaber added.
Gulf’s Oil Producers Well Placed for Oil’s Eventual Upturn
As demand for oil crashed amid the coronavirus outbreak, many traders seized the opportunity to store cheap oil stock to resell at a higher price. However, this scenario wasn’t an easy task for everyone.
The shipping costs increased sharply and storage facilities surpassed
the 90 per cent occupancy mark for the first time in five years. This
caused the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) delivery prices for May to
reach a historic negative value for the first time ever.
In other words, the delivery contract owner had to pay the receiver
of the oil shipment, as there was no storage facility available to
accommodate the incoming oil shipments.
The current outlook for the oil market nevertheless is gaining
positive momentum as global lockdowns are starting to ease up in the EU,
China and southeast Asia. These indicators should quickly reflect in a
negative manner on existing oil stockpiles, which will then increase
overall demand and driving prices upwards by July and August as
stockpiles head towards a 60-65 per cent occupancy.
Meanwhile, the implementation of the OPEC+ agreement of reducing 9.7
million barrels per day has served as a moderate market sedative. It has
managed to demonstrate the commitment of OPEC’s major producers – Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait – towards a more balanced market. Their
adoption of a responsible approach is in the best interest of the oil
industry, their fellow OPEC members and allies.
Two weeks after the production agreement came into effect, the three
states pledged an additional combined cut of 1.18 million barrels per
day and raising the total amount contributed by OPEC+ to 10.88 mbd. This
drove Brent crude past the $30 mark for June shipment deliveries.
Sidelining shale
The production cut was not the only factor. The oversupply of crude
due to the shutdown of airports and the global scale of lockdowns
severely reduced demand for fuel, halted major industries which account
for most of the refined products’ consumption, and that in turn
reflected primarily on high-cost unconventional hydrocarbon producers.
The effect of oversupply has driven shale oil producers in the US,
Canada and other parts of the world to shut down their producing wells.
The smaller oil producers with a higher breakeven averages were also
forced to sell their assets at big discounts to larger corporations,
while others filed for bankruptcy, which resulted in a forced production
reduction unlike the voluntary approach by the OPEC majors.
By April, more than 41 smaller producers in the US filed for
bankruptcy as they could not sustain their output with the current
market situation and as debtors and shareholders lost faith in their
feasibility and competitiveness.
Meanwhile, the three largest oil producers in the GCC had announced
before the coronavirus outbreak, plans for more exploration and
production enhancement projects.
They have not been reducing their capital spending plans, even with
market conditions turning extremely fragile unlike international oil
companies (IOCs), which have been suffering much in the current crisis.
The cost of oil extraction is relatively less for the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where it is below the $16 per barrel mark.
Together, they account for a staggering 17.5 mbd of crude oil
production capacity that is unrivaled by any producer in the world. The
18 per cent of global market production capacity at the hands of the
three states have provided a strong negotiating advantage within OPEC.
Their level of coordination has proved to be very resilient through
decades of constructive cooperation for the best interests of OPEC as an
organization and the wider industry. Smaller producers do not enjoy
these competitive advantages.
The government support to national oil companies (NOCs) has earned
the three countries greater leverage and confidence in the global
markets, while other big players such as Occidental Petroleum struggle
with their $40 billion loan.
The NOCs in the Gulf enjoy a much stable cashflow position and have
secured ample reserves during times of higher oil trading prices. This
has encouraged larger consumers such as China and India to further turn
to GCC crude imports.
Given these conditions, the Gulf NOCs are anticipated to be the
biggest beneficiaries in regards to global marketshare as COVID-19
lockdowns ease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)