Ripple From Russia: R.I.P. BP?
The stewards of Big Oil have to be watching the latest brawl in Russia with a sense of dread. For their brother, BP, is fighting not merely to save its assets in Russia; it's fighting for its life.BP itself is rapidly becoming vulnerable as an acquisition target. And for the handful of companies of Big Oil, that's a picture of their own possible future.
For months now, we've been treated to a spectacle of three or four Russian oligarchs making BP miserable. These fellows -- the billionaire oligarchs and BP -- are 50-50 partners in a highly lucrative oil concern that they call TNK-BP. The company accounts for a full quarter of BP's entire global production, and a fifth of its reserves.
The oligarchs want something from the Brits, and the result has been the usual Russian treatment: visits from countless inspectors, summonses to the prosecutor's office, visa trouble.
Yet the TNK-BP dustup no longer has the ring of expropriation as usual.
In the latest development, the concern's BP-appointed CEO, Robert Dudley, fled Russia in secret and is now hiding out in some undisclosed place, prepared, according to BP, to continue running TNK-BP from a distance. I asked a BP adviser why Dudley is behaving so mysteriously. Couldn't he have set up shop like a normal CEO in London? Perhaps this is part of the antagonists' PR war? "I do not know anything about the location except that he is operating as CEO for both [the Russians and BP], and London might not be the most appropriate location," he emailed me in response.
After some three decades of petro-nationalism in the Middle East and elsewhere, Big Oil is accustomed to the puffed-out chest, the boot, and picking up the pieces. It has found a modus vivendi in most cases.
Recall previous bouts of trouble in Russia: In December 2006, Shell responded to a similar onslaught at Sakhalin II -- at the time the world's largest combined oil and natural gas project -- by going to the Kremlin and crying uncle. The response was some advice -- sell half your shares at below-market rates to Gazprom. The result is that Shell, now with 27% of Sakhalin II instead of 55%, is still in business in Russia. And just six months later, BP was forced to sell out entirely from Kovytka, a supergiant natural gas field. BP sold its expulsion publicly as a fair deal, considering that in exchange it was embarking on a worldwide partnership with Gazprom. This partnership was crucial, because BP and the rest of Big Oil is finding it almost impossible to acquire new reserves to replenish what they pump each year; combinations with national energy companies like Gazprom are one way of maintaining one's bulk.
But not so fast. That BP-Gazprom partnership has yet to materialize. Indeed, BP's hopes for this partnership seem not just wishful, but hubristic. Because part of its calculus appeared to be ceding control of TNK-BP to Gazprom, which ostensibly would buy out the oligarchs while leaving BP with a sizeable remaining chunk.
TNK-BP was never a stable grouping, and seems always to have been bound for divorce court. But BP's talks with Gazprom appear to have accelerated the estrangement. The oligarchs seem to have believed that BP planned to sell them out in exchange for a global lifeline from Gazprom.
And, as Yulia Latynina, the respected Russian commentator puts it, the oligarchs responded "in the most brutal manner. They effectively said ..., 'We're the big guys around here.' [What followed] was a shoot-out. The other side shot better."
Here is where the gunfight appears to diverge from Big Oil's prior confrontations in Russia. Previously, the Kremlin has halted the hostilities once a targeted Big Oil company surrenders. But not in this case: BP has made clear that it's prepared to surrender control to one of the state-owned Russian companies, yet that's not been enough.
One is led to the conclusion that control in fact isn't good enough. It looks like Russia may want all of TNK-BP. And it also may not mind Big Oil understanding that, even if the state stands aside in a turf battle, the BPs of the world aren't tough enough to hold their own in Russia's brutal business environment. It may be a warning to all foreigners doing business there.
Richard Gordon, an experienced observer of Russian oil, sees it slightly differently. He told me last week that the Russians want BP to reduce its share considerably -- to 25% or less. At that point, Gordon said, it's up to BP to decide whether it has faith that TNK-BP would be run well enough, and, "if they don't have faith in the company, why remain a partner?"
In The Guardian today, Oppenheimer's Fadel Gheit, one of Wall Street's most seasoned oil analysts, advised BP to get out. "It's a bit like Manchester United losing Ronaldo," Gheit said. "It would take time to recover -- a blow but not fatal."
What happens next? Wall Street would pummel BP's share price were it to lose or leave TNK-BP, which would make the company a highly attractive target for acquisition. In that case, Gheit thinks that ExxonMobil is the only Big Oil company with deep enough pockets to buy BP.
But both Gordon and Gheit think that BP might act first and seek out its own merger partner because, as Gordon put it, it's better to "do a deal than be done to." Gheit told The Guardian that a logical BP partner would be Shell, "with [BP CEO] Tony Hayward running both companies."
Yet why are the Big Oil companies the only perceived merger partners? As Big Oil seeks access to China and the Middle East, wouldn't their national companies and sovereign wealth funds seek equal treatment?
Harvard Business School will no doubt chronicle the brawl as a case for how the game of energy is changing. But Big Oil is observing more closely, because this is its own future.
Photo: lawkeven
Rights: Creative Commons
Labels: big oil, BP, Exxon, fridman, Gazprom, hayward, medvedev, oil and the glory, peak oil, Putin, putin's labyrinth, Russia, Shell, tnk-bp


5 Comments:
Great post, Steve - I'm especially intrigued by the "modus vivendi" - or how the private sector decides to react to lawless behavior by the state. I think the BP experience with Kovykta is a prime example of how playing along with the Kremlin's demands is not a winning strategy (I would also mention that they got cornered into being the first foreign company to participate in a Yukos auction - which they didn't win - as well as sink $1 billion into Rosneft's IPO. Both moves appeared to be designed to please the state).
Or maybe even look at Bill Browder, who was one of the most enthusiastic boosters of Russia's investment environment, arguing that Putinism is vastly misunderstood by Western media. We all know what happened to him there.
Now Mechel has lost $6 billion since Thursday and appears to be applying this very same "modus vivendi" by agreeing with every criticism raised by Putin, and announcing their clear willingness to do whatever necessary that the state requires.
I think that by definition the "solution" becomes worse than the problem when a company proclaims that its #1 obligation is to the whims of an authoritarian state rather than to its shareholders.
I think that when Harvard's Business School is going to look back on the "modus vivendi" solutions to resource nationalism, they might reconsider the wisdom of Royal Dutch Shell and BP, and consider what other international law strategies they could've brought to bear to protect their legitimate investments and rights.
James? US or British companies seeking international law strategies, given the propensity of the US and British governments for "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", would certainly cause tears from gut-busting laughter from the non-US, non-UK world.
James makes an important point that accommodating Russia has not been a winning strategy, at least for major oil companies. Anonymous, the difference between our system and Russia's is that we in theory distinguish between government policy and commerce, moderated by the rule of law.
The fact that BP exposed itself to political interference by Tony Blair's presence at the signing of the TNK-BP merger agreements during Putin's state visit to Britain may be an object lesson. Most American majors would instinctively oppose such political endorsement. It remains to be seen how well the Schroeder-Merkel/E.On, Sarcozy/Total, Berlosconi/ENI strategy of cooptation works for Europe and its energy companies.
Any update? I saw in the BusinessWeek article of 31.08.08 the Editor's note about a secret Hayward and Fridman meeting. Any other whispers?
Thanks for the comments folks. This story won't go away. And the news looks worse and worse for BP. One knowledgeable friend with whom I shared coffee this morning suggests a winning outcome: The Kremlin shrinks both BP and the Russian oligarchs down to size, probably forcing them to accept a low, low per-share payoff but allowing them at least to stay in the game. On the losing side, as we've suggested previously on O & G, BP could be pushed out entirely. Best Steve
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home