A supply that is plentiful demands some fresh ideas from the industry Read more
© The Financial Times Ltd 2016 FT and 'Financial Times' are trademarks of The Financial Times Ltd.
A supply that is plentiful demands some fresh ideas from the industry Read more
Markets are inherently prone to volatility. Prices and valuations do not proceed in an orderly and linear fashion. Most important of all, they do not proceed in one direction for very long. The aim of any serious investment strategy should be to call the turning points and buy or sell accordingly. The energy market is at such a turning point and it will be fascinating to see who has the nerve and confidence to invest.
To say that this is a time to buy may sound odd following the criticism of Shell’s purchase of BG Group, which was reluctantly nodded through by fund managers last week. The issue is that the BG deal was based on prices roughly two and a half times above the current level and depends on an incredible forecast of future price trends. The result: a pyrrhic victory for Shell. That mistake, however, does not mean that other potential buyers of energy assets should be put off. At current prices, the time to buy is now. That applies to oil and gas but in different ways the same conclusion can be drawn for almost every part of the energy sector. Read more
We are about to enter the period when companies announce their annual results, declare dividends and reveal strategy updates. Across the energy sector — from the major oil companies to the utilities to the smallest renewables businesses — a huge amount of high-paid time is being devoted to the preparation of slide packs and press briefing notes. After a year of spectacular underperformance, many chief executives will rightly be nervous about the questions they could be asked.
Every individual company has its own particular problems but here are some generic questions that should be addressed to all those leading the main energy businesses across the world. Investors should be very wary of putting their money into any company whose leaders cannot provide straightforward and convincing answers. Read more
Of all those damaged by the oil price collapse, few are in a more difficult position than Russia. High prices have sustained the Russian economy since Vladimir Putin came to power in 1999. Hydrocarbons provide the overwhelming proportion of export revenue. Now something radical may be needed to avert economic collapse and political dissent.
Privatisation is back on the agenda of the international oil industry. Although the prospect of the Saudis selling a share in Aramco has been tantalisingly floated by the Saudi deputy crown prince Mohammed bin Sultan in his interview with the Economist two weeks ago, there are other potential sales that are likely to be completed sooner. The most intriguing is the possibility that the Russian government will sell off another slice of its 69.5 per cent holding in Rosneft. Read more
Of course the answer is obvious. How could anyone be so foolish as to think that a company with earnings of $19bn in 2014, with reserves of 13bn barrels of oil and gas and with daily production of 3m barrels of oil and gas could possibly fail ? How could anyone think of bracketing Royal Dutch Shell with GEC, or ICI or Lehman Brothers — each in their time great companies but now reduced to dust. Perhaps it is impertinent to even ask the question. Surely Shell has survived for a century and more getting through wars, expropriation, an entanglement with Nazi Germany, the horrors of Nigeria and numerous other “crises”?
All true. Shell is undoubtedly one of the world’s great companies — decent, honest, civilised and a world leader in energy technology. But even those attributes do not provide complete protection in a world where the past is no guarantee of the future. Companies can have too much history and too great a sense of their own institutional importance. In a very competitive world no one is ever totally safe. Read more
If you think the fall in the oil price is dramatic and disruptive, take a moment to consider the natural gas market. The world’s three main gas markets — in Europe, the US and Asia – may be distinct but the growth of trade in liquefied natural gas which can take it across the world has linked them. The impact of a swing in one market soon spreads across the globe.
According to the excellent analysis from Energy Aspects, prices for LNG in the key north-east Asian market – the supply into Japan and Korea – are down this year by more than 50 per cent to between $7 and 8 per million British thermal units (Btu), even allowing for a slight seasonal ramp up in the fourth quarter. That is almost 70 per cent down from the peak in 2013.
Unfortunately, at the time of that peak many companies got carried away and set in train dozens of new LNG projects worldwide. The complex technology of liquefaction means that each project is expensive – costing at least $5bn and often much more. Of the projects planned dozens have been cancelled, often forcing investors to write off substantial sums. But the bad news is that many are still under construction. Once work has begun, it is very hard for companies to go back on a major investment decision. Read more
Russia is coming in from the cold. A full-scale reset of the relationship with the international community is well underway. A country that was a pariah state a few weeks ago, isolated by sanctions, is rapidly becoming an essential ally. What does this sudden turn of events mean for the energy business?
The reason for the reset is clear: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The common enemy is the Islamist militant group Isis. For the Germans and for Chancellor Angela Merkel the destabilisation of Syria has opened up a flood tide of refugees. The warm welcome offered initially in Germany, Sweden and a few other parts of Europe has chilled. Something must be done to stop the flow at source.
For the French and many others across Europe, terrified by last week’s awful events in Paris, the identity of the enemy in Syria and the Middle East has also come into sharp focus. The same is true in Moscow where the downing of a Russian airliner over the Sinai desert has made those in the Kremlin realise that they, too, face a ruthless enemy. When set against the challenge of Isis nothing else matters much. Ukraine and all the other disputes can be assigned to a distant back burner — not solved but not allowed to get worse. It is time to work together. Read more
Eni’s announcement that it has made a world-scale gas discovery off the Egyptian coast is undoubtedly good news both for the Italian company and for Egypt, even if the hype and the over-optimistic timetable that some are talking about need to be balanced by some consideration of the challenges still be to be resolved. But the discovery should have an even wider impact because it confirms the view that the Nile and Levant basins are the most prospective, underexplored areas in the world.
With oil prices back down to $50 a barrel for Brent crude, a falling gas price and its share of the European energy market declining, the Russian economy is in real trouble. The situation is dangerous because the problems cannot easily be corrected. The risk is that the economic problems could lead to political instability both within Russia and around its borders.
Anyone wanting to understand the historical context for what is happening in Russia should read Restless Empire a newly published book written around a series of maps which take go back to the emergence of the Slavs some 5000 years BC. The book, edited by the late Ian Barnes who sadly died before publication, is beautifully presented and free of the biased commentary so often associated with histories of Russia. The maps in particular are fine examples of immaculate design applied to the presentation of complex data. I only wish there were more maps, and in particular more on the production and trade in energy that dominates the modern Russian economy. Read more
Casual readers of the media coverage of the energy business could be forgiven for getting the impression that the coal industry is on its last legs. “Coal is dying and it’s never coming back”; “King Coal’s stages of grief”; “The noose tightening on the coal industry”. Those are typical headlines from the past few weeks. The coal industry, it would seem, is being rapidly destroyed by the combination of public policies on climate change and carbon emissions and by the development of a range of alternative energy supplies – from shale gas to solar. This sense of an industry in decline is reinforced by the rhetoric of the campaigns advocating disinvestment from fossil fuels in general and coal in particular. If you have Oxford University, Michael Bloomberg and the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund against you what hope can there be? The impression of an industry in terminal decline does not, however, quite reflect the reality. Reports of the death of coal owe more to wishful thinking than to any analysis of what is actually happening. Read more
Great companies become and stay great by taking big bets. The art of betting is, of course, about understanding the odds and being prepared and able to lose if it comes to it. Every big company in the world has been through that process — the only difference in the oil and gas industry is that the numbers are bigger. The general rule of betting in the corporate world is not to put at risk more than 10 per cent of the total business. For the biggest, that leaves plenty of scope.
So there is nothing wrong in principle with taking big bets. What is, puzzling, though is when a company with a record of deep caution stretching back to the second world war makes a series of bets that all run contrary to the conventional wisdom. The company concerned is Shell, which in the past few months has placed three huge bets. Read more
Politicians and policy makers can only focus on one problem at a time. With all attention concentrated on Greece for the past month there is a real danger that an even greater problem is developing, almost unnoticed, in Ukraine. The economy there is in deep trouble. A further collapse, perhaps triggered by a debt default, could lead to an outflow of refugees that would make the problem of migrants crossing the Mediterranean look trivial. Energy is at the heart of the crisis but could just possibly be part of the solution.
The basic story is well known. Since the Maidan demonstrations in November 2013, the Ukrainian economy has shrunk. A 5 per cent fall last year is variously forecast to be followed by a contraction of between 5 and 10 per cent in 2015. Investment has ground to a halt and in the energy sector big potential projects such as the shale gas developments planned by Shell and Chevron have been halted. The fighting in the east has cut off coal supplies to the rest of the country from the 300 mines in the Donbass region. The Russian annexation of Crimea has cut off gas supplies from the developments managed by Chernomorneftegaz in the Black Sea. Ukraine, as a result, has become even more dependent on imports of coal and gas from South Africa, Australia, other parts of Europe and even ironically from Russia. These supplies do not come cheap and in many cases suppliers will only do business if they are paid in advance and in hard currency. Read more
According to the International Energy Agency in their most recent World Outlook the amount of money required to meet energy needs over the next twenty five years is $51tn. That is in real terms measured in 2013 dollars and amounts to approximately 14 times current German gross domestic product.
Energy investment as defined by the IEA includes the exploration, production, distribution, transportation and processing of all forms of energy. It includes new ventures and replacement of the existing capital stock. Some $30tn of the total is expected to be devoted to fossil fuel extraction, transportation and oil refining, while most of the remainder goes to the power sector including $7.4tn to renewables and $1.5tn to nuclear; $8.7tn goes to the development of transmission and distribution systems. This is, of course, an indicative forecast built around the IEA’s assumptions of some progress towards emissions reduction. The detail is less important than the total. Read more
Carbon capture and storage is one of the key elements in the various plans for keeping total emissions within safe limits. Different projections give slightly different numbers but the broad consensus is that the process of sequestration — taking the carbon out of hydrocarbons before they are burnt and then burying it — should account for between a sixth and a fifth of the net reduction needed by 2050 if we are to keep global warming to 2C or less. If CCS doesn’t happen on the scale required, either the level of emissions and the risks of climate change will be higher or some other solution must be found. Sir David King, the former UK government chief scientist, puts it more dramatically: “CCS is the only hope for mankind”
Keeping global warming to 2C means that the amount of CO2 captured and stored must rise steadily to well over 7,000 Mt per annum by the year 2050. Is CCS on this scale likely to happen? As Simon Evans and Rosamund Pearce point out in an excellent article for Carbon Brief, the industrial scale of the operation required to capture and store that amount of CO2 is far greater than the scale of the current international oil industry. Looking objectively at the current state of play the answer must be that it is very, very unlikely. Why? And what can do done about it? Read more
Last week’s decision by the UK’s new energy secretary, Amber Rudd, to approve Centrica’s plans for a dramatic increase in gas imports from Gazprom has cast a cloud of uncertainty over Britain’s policy on sanctions against Russia. In recent months the UK, along with the US, has been one of the strongest advocates of tough sanctions. In Europe, opinion has been more equivocal and divided. The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, called the Russian occupation of Ukraine “a criminal act” when she was in Moscow last weekend. Many in Germany and France, however, see sanctions as pointless. To them, Russia is a neighbour, difficult at times certainly, but a presence to be lived with. Ukraine on this view is of no strategic importance and its multiple problems stem from its own corruption. Now it seems that the UK has switched sides in this debate.
The first thing to be made clear is that Centrica has done nothing wrong. The company’s intention of doing business with Russia was signalled at the AGM three weeks ago when its chairman said that Russia would be a major supplier of gas to Europe for a long time to come. I don’t doubt that Centrica has got a very good deal. Having won approval so easily I wouldn’t be surprised if they do more business with Gazprom. Read more
The election is over and against all expectations we have a clear result. When it comes to energy policy, however, the agenda will be set not by what the Conservative party has promised in its manifesto but by external events. A number of looming issues are already obvious and the government will have no control over most of them.
The first is the further postponement of the plans for nuclear development starting at Hinkley Point in Somerset. Two new reactors capable of supplying some 7 per cent of total UK electricity demand are planned. The first was originally supposed to be on stream in time to cook Christmas dinner in 2017. But despite the prospect of a lavish price — index linked for 35 years regardless of what happens to global energy prices – and £10bn of even more generous financial guarantees, funding for the investment required is not in place. The reluctance of investors to commit will not be helped by the technical problems in the reactor vessels, which are now under investigation by the French nuclear regulator. This problem has widespread implications for the companies involved (Areva and EDF) and for nuclear development in many countries across the world, starting with France itself. Read more
When I wrote a week ago that the next phase in the energy business would be about restructuring, I hadn’t expected the process to start quite so soon. The question now, after Royal Dutch Shell’s planned purchase of BG Group, is not whether or when that restructuring will take place but rather: who is next?
The bankers must be delighted. After years of touting deals around reluctant boardrooms, a marriage has been arranged and the fees will be enormous. The long dearth of big transactions is over and every company in the sector will now be nervously considering whether they should kill or risk being killed. The process is exciting but fraught with danger — for both hunter and prey. Most mergers are in fact takeovers and most takeovers fail to deliver the anticipated gains in value, often because of cultural differences. It will be fascinating to watch the integration of Shell’s ultra-cautious committee structure with BG’s highly personal buccaneering style.
Beyond that, who? Read more
The urgent attempts by Europe’s leaders to negotiate a solution to the crisis in Ukraine represent an open acknowledgement that the policy of sanctions has so far failed. Mr Putin continues to destabilise the Government in Kiev and to undermine its authority in the east of the country. They may also reflect a growing realisation that sanctions are in danger of backfiring. Greece faces a serious debt crisis but at least the debate on how to resolve that crisis is now being held in the open. we know the options and the risks. In Russia, however, there is another debt crisis which is going unmanaged and which could easily get out of hand. Read more
News has diminished value if it comes from far away. Just as terrorism gets more coverage if it occurs in Paris, much of the analysis of the consequences of falling oil prices has focused on the US shale industry and the North Sea. But spare a thought for some of the other losers, starting with Nigeria where the fall will not only further damage a fragile state but will pose risks which could affect all of us before too long.
It would be good to be able to be optimistic about Nigeria — a country which in the past has been listed as one of the possible economic powerhouses of the 21st century. Remember MINT (Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey), the successor grouping to the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)? Great acronyms invented by the always imaginative Jim O’Neill, but in both cases the groupings look a little shaky and performance is well short of promise. Nowhere more so than in Nigeria, which provides a sharp reminder that even if Opec is broken, oil is still vulnerable to political upheaval. Read more
One of the many lessons to be learnt from the dramatic developments in the world energy market over the past six months is that outcomes are driven primarily by economics – often at the micro level. Another is the extent to which the market, in its rough and ready way, is linked globally and across the range of fuels. In the oil market, for example, a mild downturn in China upset expectations and started to pull down oil prices across the world because China has been the main engine of demand growth. Once the fall began, it turned out that no one had the power to call a halt. The result has been a fall beyond all expectations, with consequences across the world – from Libya to Angola, from Russia to Mexico and Venezuela. In the coal market, prices fell globally because shale gas was pushing coal out of the US power sector and because of Chinese import tariffs. Politicians in one country or another can try to cut themselves off from the underlying economics, but they rarely succeed for long. The economic impacts are not limited to the oil and coal markets. A set of changes beginning in the US is set to transform the global petrochemical business. A surplus of ethane, driven by shale gas development, is undermining the status quo. Read more
|About this blog||About Nick||Commenting|