Brent-WTI Spread.... More Fundamental than Market Perceives

(This article was published in Cotizalia on Feb 17th 2011)

I write to you this week from Oman. Impressive country, producing 900 thousand barrels of oil a day, and 9% of GDP from oil revenues, which finances amazing investments in infrastructure and civil works from Musqat to Salalah and other cities that are downright impressive.

As a country, it's an example of how different the countries of the area are, despite the Western media efforts to put them all in the same basket of so-called risk of Egyptian contagion.

Another week and now that the Egyptian crisis has been solved, the market continues to focus on that country and the risk involved in the Suez Canal for crude supplies. And there is no real risk. The importance of the Suez Canal for the transportation of crude oil has fallen sharply in recent decades. During the 60s and 70s, almost 10% of global oil traffic passed through the canal. Today, it's less than 1%. Moreover, as the three largest companies working in the channel say, the traffic is roughly balanced, with 55% of oil on ships heading north (992 thousand barrels/day) and 45% (about 850 thousand barrels/day) due south. Any problem in the Canal is, first, negligible for the transit of oil and, second, very easy to re-route around the Horn of Africa, an increase of transit time of less than 15 days.

For those who care about Egypt and the Sumed pipeline, just remind them that it only moves 1.1 million barrels per day despite having a capacity of 2.4 million barrels per day. And as a good friend of EGPC told me, there are few safer places than this pipeline, where the army has more troops than any city in the country except Cairo.

And in this environment we find the Brent and WTI spread at historical highs. Two clear effects: first the inflationary impact on Brent added to the deflationary impact on WTI to create the largest differential between the two ever seen: $14.5/bbl. Also very wide differential relative to other crude, Bonny Light (Nigeria), in particular, and Asian Tapis.

Let's start by explaining what justifies the weakness of WTI:

Inventories at Cushing (at Oklahoma) are at historically high levels. 50% higher than the average for the past five years (25022). The problem is that the WTI weakness shows the growing isolation of the North American market and infrastructure problems to evacuate excess oil.

WTI crude trades on the basis of inventories at Cushing, in the middle of the American continent, and it is hard to move oil out of the area (called PAD II) or the large refineries on the Gulf.

1) There is enough transport capacity to carry crude from the Gulf to the center of the continent, but not vice versa. The fact that the Enbridge pipeline has had problems has increased the glut of crude in Cushing.

2) There has been an increase in exports of crude oil (oil sands) from Canada to the U.S., which increases the overcapacity in Cushing. Transcanada launched the second phase of its Keystone pipeline, which attracts even more crude to Cushing bottleneck.

3) The increase in U.S. domestic production, including Bakken, is also filling the stores in Cushing. The over-production in the U.S. is partly because the gas companies take advantage of high oil prices to produce more natural gas liquids, whose price is close to oil, in order to fund production of natural gas which today at $4/mmbtu, is not giving the best economics, actually very poor returns. Therefore they compensate for the low profitability of the gas with the price of associated liquids.

Add the fact that three refineries have been closed for maintenance, and we have the perfect storm. Excess production of high oil prices, withdrawal of the American system because of lack of infrastructure, and reduced refinery demand .

Meanwhile, Brent is affected some powerful inflationary forces:

1) The decline of production from Norway and North Sea, that previously functioned as a cushion against price increases, and does not produce that effect anymore.

2) The increase in OPEC oil transit to Asia, and rising domestic demand in exporting countries have reduced the oil for export. Saudi Arabia expects to increase its exports by 1 million barrels per day, but, for now, demand does not justify it.

3) The perception of geopolitical risk and the effect that we mentioned of transport cost increase. The market assumes that the cost of transport must rise. We are already seeing freight day rates recover, particularly in the VLCC segment, as I commented with Oman Oil. Having seen the Baltic Dry Index tumble to record lows due to excess spare capacity of ships, we could start to envision a horizon of recovery. Very gradual, and certainly not to be bullish, because overcapacity still exists (especially in the Capesize and Panamax segments.) And if freight costs rise, the chance to evacuate American crude to Europe is reduced.

As I mentioned two years ago on the differential between gas (Henry Hub) and oil, it is very dangerous to play against a very clear structural effect of isolation of a market, the American, in which the administration has no intention of promoting improvements in the system, and as a result, crude oil and domestic gas (WTI and Henry Hub) at lows is a clear boost from the country's competitiveness.

Further read:

http://energyandmoney.blogspot.com/2010/01/revolution-of-shale-gas.html

http://energyandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/06/iea-releasing-strategic-reserves.html

Lybia In Flames And The Clash of Civilizations

How naive we were. We thought that the riots in Egypt were going to wake up a sort of semi-hippy dream of peaceful transition to an oasis of Western-style liberal democracy.

The Western world is increasingly lost, and we believe our own illusions. And the illusion is over.

On Tuesday, Colonel Gaddafi slashed all expectations and brought us back to reality . From the balcony of one of his homes, speaking to a virtual audience as the camera focused a huge golden statue of a fist crushing a military aircraft, he reminded us that the delusions of peace and democracy were just that, delusions. The picture was worth a thousand words. The Colonel is not resigned to be another Mubarak .

Until last week, the risk to the energy market appeared to be limited because the process in Egypt and Tunisia was contained with no impact on the supply of oil and gas. Tunisia and Egypt were not high-risk countries. The protests were relatively peaceful. They had weak governments. The army was close to the people. None of the two countries owes large sums to Western banks and governments, and none was a significant net exporter of oil (both net importers of 25 thousand barrels per day in 2010 due to growing demand).

Libya is different . Because Libya is a large net exporter and the real army "is" Gaddafi's 120 thousand soldier. Because Gaddafi arrived in 1969 when he was 27 years old in a coup that many thought would fail, and has shaped the country to his image and personality, with a mixture of Islam, iron hand, socialism, capitalism and good old totalitarianism ... and there he has remained, longer than any of the international leaders, rivals or friends.

Now anarchy is about to explode along the risk of breaking up the country in tribal areas. And if that happens, billions of western investments into the country will be wiped out.

The Western press shows a country seemingly unanimous in their demands and objectives. Nothing is further from the truth. The Libyan population is extremely diverse, proud and a machine of military prowess. Both Italy and the late Ottoman Empire are aware of the risk of facing the Libyan tribes. Of the 140 tribes in the country, thirty are considered highly relevant as agglutinating powers, of which four have real influence in the circles of power. The tribe Misurata is one of them, particularly strong in two cities, Benghazi and Darneh. The tribes Beni Hilal Beni Salim have goals and interests that are perceived to be opposed to Colonel Gaddafi, but another, the Magariha tribe, is considered very close to the leader, although some observers believe it may be precisely this one which could instigate a coup. The risk of civil war and dismemberment of the state is far from negligible. And democracy or Alliance of Civilizations? No way.

Do not forget that Colonel Gaddafi has been a unique dictator, only comparable to Saddam Hussein in his mix of charisma, influence and iron fist control of a highly complex ethnic puzzle. Rumors that Gaddafi has a personal army of 120k mercenaries (compared to 50k of the official army), willing to blast wells and refineries and defend his position, make Libya a dangerous powder keg and the similarities with the Iraq of Saddam Hussein in 1991 are quite significant.

Also, do not forget that the Libyan leader has gone from being public enemy number one in the seventies and eighties to one of the most defended by politicians of all colors. While he was self-proclaimed defender of Palestine, the "anti-imperialism" of Cuba and of Islam, he also became a major trading partners for Italy, the US and UK, laying down his weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and collaborating with the West in the war on terror.

This led to a huge flow of Western investment between 2001 and 2010, particularly Italian. And Libyan oil concessions are some of the most attractive margins and returns for firms in the country. Lybia has also been one of the largest investors in Italy, with c€50bn in investments including Fiat,Unicredit and ENI.

Colonel Gaddafi from this balcony reminds us that we have much to lose. And that the examples of Egypt and Tunisia are nothing more than that, examples. That MENA (Middle East and North Africa) is not the EU. Each country is a world of ethnic, tribal, religious and military power. And the risk of further deterioration and lengthening of the crisis is not small, bringing to mind the memory of Saddam Hussein in 1991, whom also seemed trapped after the massacres of Kurds and Shiites and still remained 12 more years in power. And the information I receive from the Middle East reminds me that Bahrain, Syria and Jordan will not be comparable to Egypt and Tunisia.

Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and UAE still remain in relative calm. They should stay that way. Saudi Arabia has announced measures to increase social security protection, subsidies for housing and job creation as well as increasing the budget for charity and reduction of citizens' bank debt. From our European paternalism we may criticize what we want, but do not forget the importance of balance in geopolitics. I recommend "The Lesser Evil" by Michael Ignatieff. Because things can get much nastier.

Libya produces 1,661,000 barrels per day of crude, 80% of them for export, and 16BCM of natural gas. It has about 44 billion barrels of oil reserves and 54 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves . And unlike in Egypt, supply shortages are a reality.

ENI, OMV, and Repsol, have the highest Lybian exposure, with 20%, 24% and 7% respectively of its net asset value in the country. They all announced on Tuesday the evacuation of nearly all staff in the country.

Supplies of gas to Italy through the Greenstream pipeline have been suspended. This means 8BCM of gas and nearly 80% of supplies from Libya to Italy, which accounts for 10% of the total supply of gas to the country.

The reason why the commodities market has reacted more strongly to Libya than the Egyptian crisis lies not only in the aggressiveness and forcefulness of the government's response to the demonstrations, but the fact that the majority of Libya's production is exported. If we consider that there is a risk of cuts in oil production because of the crisis in the MENA region, the net exported barrels (total production minus domestic demand) of Libya, Yemen and Bahrain account for 1.7 million barrels a day, almost 1.8% global production.

Today those possible "lost" barrels can easily be replaced immediately by barrels of spare capacity from Saudi Arabia (4 million barrels a day). But the contagion risk, and inaction of the West are starting to shift the market's mind to the possibility that the spare capacity of OPEC as a whole, 5.5 million barrels a day can evaporate rapidly, and then find ourselves in a really problematic environment.

But the danger is complacency and to think that this ends here, and stay looking and waiting. Italy at least has a chance to mitigate the Libyan risk due to its access to Russian gas from Gazprom. But for Spain, although Libya is irrelevant within the total supply, the real risk lies in Algeria, followed by Qatar and Egypt. Algeria was no less than 30% of gas supplies to Spain in 2010, Qatar and Egypt 15% 8%. And Algeria, in terms of geopolitical risk, comes after Libya . Do not forget that in Algeria there were intense protests in January, but also years ago, long before the crisis erupted in Tunisia and Egypt.

Those who mention nationalization risks should not forget that that process already occurred. The vast majority of producing countries nationalized all their reserves between 1951 and 1980. But, as mentioned here two weeks ago, oil companies are going to be, as they have been for decades, the ones paying in this situation. All those investors who have been driven to buy shares of large integrated oil stocks in a Bear Market forget that they are mere concessionaires and that the PSC (Production Sharing Contracts) are at risk of further cuts, at best, or fall into the limbo of a long and tedious administrative chaos. And it should be noted that the Libyan PSCs are some of the most attractive.

In the end, Samuel Huntington was quite right in his indispensable book, "The Clash of Civilizations." Most of the instigators of the riots don't seek Western democracy. They seek regime change and conquest. Huntington did not predict that the detonating force would be the implosion of some Middle Eastern countries First, implosion, in which the Internet has played an undeniable detonator effect, and after explosion. And the shock wave could be coming towards the European Union.