Catfights and Bystanders in Russia

Russia is getting harder and harder for BP, whose executives are now getting kicked out of the country. That's not wholly surprising, since the British company is still operating by the old, pre-Putin-era rules that allowed Big Oil to own half or more of a large oil field. But there's something different about this dust-up, and that's that the Kremlin isn't stepping in to make clear the price of peace. The reason may be that the price isn't yet clear because the Dmitry Medvedev Kremlin hasn't decided who is going to control the spoils of the state.

The normal course of business when a western oil company has been shellacked in Russia is that it's been communicated a relatively clear state objective (usually that the Kremlin wants control of the field to go to Gazprom or Rosneft). BP knows this, since almost exactly a year ago it voluntarily agreed to a shellacking when it sold a 63% holding in Kovytka, a huge natural gas field, to Gazprom. (BP also was shellacked involuntarily by its current Russian partners in 1999.)
This time, BP says it's received no such alert. Indeed, the Kremlin says it's staying completely out of what it calls an internal matter between BP and its Russian partners in TNK-BP, which accounts for a full quarter of the British company's annual production.

Today, BP's Robert Dudley, who is CEO of TNK-BP, said his visa hasn't been renewed, and that he'll probably have to leave Russia by the end of July. It's the same for around 79 foreign BP employees.

The Russian partners -- oligarchs Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg, Len Blavatnik and German Khan -- say they are simply seeking a larger say in how TNK-BP does business.

I talked to a BP adviser who asked that his name not be used. What he reckons is that we are watching a defensive maneuver.

It goes like this: All parties know that eventually the Kremlin is going to insist on TNK-BP being controlled by Gazprom or Rosneft. There also seems to be a presumption -- although I personally am not convinced of this -- that it's the Russian oligarchs who will be forced out, since they bring only money and no expertise to the oilfields. So, according to this scenario, the oligarchs are seeking to get control of some or all of BP's holding so that when, say, Gazprom comes along, they command a "control premium" in the negotiations, and can demand more money.

For the record, one of the oligarchs has told me by email that this scenario is inaccurate. "The aim is to have a bit more [of an] independent company and get liquidity options with much higher valuation than now (within the next 1-2 years)," he said. In other words, TNK-BP could be worth much more in a couple of years than now, when the Russians could think about selling out.

However, for argument's sake, sticking with the BP adviser's assertion: if Gazprom or Rosneft are to step in, where are they? And why are their executives claiming they aren't interested?

According to this BP adviser, it's because of a power struggle within the Kremlin between officials associated with Gazprom, and those associated with Rosneft. The outcome will decide "who is advantaged in the Kremlin."

I found this explanation compelling. Why else would the Kremlin stand aside and let this go on?

Photo: gaborcselle
Rights: Creative Commons

More on the Baku Bluff

A friend has passed along a fascinating speech I'd missed early this month by Bill Schrader, who runs BP's operations in Azerbaijan. In it, Schrader says that BP and its Big Oil partners in Baku can pump almost 70% more oil from their offshore Caspian fields there than they previously thought, or an increase of 3.6 billion barrels. The total now will be close to 9 billion barrels.

At a time of scarce positive news from the world's oilfields, Schrader doesn't imply the onset of a flood of new oil to the market. But he does mean that Baku's 1 million-barrel-a-day production will last longer -- it was thought that this peak would terminate in five years; now it can be extended for another six years, through 2019. With North Sea and Alaskan oil on the decline, that's a bit of a cushion. I don't have a link to the June 4 speech itself, but here is Platt's coverage if it.

Yet, for the O and G audience, I couldn't help shaking my head. You will recall that, back in the 1990s, when recalcitrant BP was under pressure from Washington and Azerbaijan to build a non-Russian pipeline from Baku to the Mediterranean, the company replied that it would love to, but that there simply wasn't enough oil.

Why, then-BP representative Terry Adams said again and again, there are just 4 billion barrels of oil offshore, and at least 6 billion would be necessary to economically warrant the proposed Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. That naturally was before BP discovered that it needed Washington's approval to buy Arco. Then BP said: Did we say we needed 6 billion barrels? We meant 5 billion! And what do you know? We have found another billion barrels offshore! How do you like that? So let's go ahead and build that pipeline! The 1,000-mile line went live two years ago, and ships a million barrels of oil a day to the world market.

There are multiple interpretations of that timely shift. My own is that both sides exaggerated -- Washington elevated the volume of oil in order to promote the region; the oil companies under-estimated, partly to get a better transit fee deal from Georgia and Turkey.

As for the current energy environment, the Shepherd speech I think informs the current panic-stricken atmosphere. All the information isn't necessarily out there.

Photo: CarbonNYC

Rights: Creative Commons

What BP Has to Fear

Why are we hearing BP chairman Peter Sutherland accuse his Russian partners of being thieves? Is the latest oil drama in Moscow truly a rough, 1990s-style grab for assets, as BP has cast its dustup with the Russian oligarchs Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg and Len Blavatnik?

The short answer seems to be no.

On the first question, BP's public indignance appears to reflect an understanding that it faces a threat not just to its Russian assets, which comprise a third of the company's entire worldwide reserves, but to control of BP itself. And in the second case, the oligarchs have stated -- and I think it's true -- that they simply disagree with how BP has managed their joint company, called TNK-BP. As 50% owners of the company, they want a greater say in its operation, including an expansion overseas. And they want the current CEO, Robert Dudley, to be sacked.

BP could simply accede to these demands, and get on with business. That doesn't currently seem likely, one reason being that Sutherland could have difficulty climbing down after taking the altercation so personally.

Short of such a concession, one finds two potential outcomes, neither of them pleasant for BP:

In the worst case (for BP), the largest single block of its own shares -- about 10% of them -- will come to be owned by the four Russian oligarchs. That is one suggestion by the oligarchs -- that the dispute be settled by an exchange of their TNK-BP shares for BP shares. In this scenario, BP has said that it would sell control of TNK-BP to a Russian state company, probably Gazprom or Rosneft. The takeaway from this outcome is BP culture could be forced to change by such assertive new shareholders. Imagine Carl Icahn on steroids.

In the less unfavorable outcome, BP would cut its losses and sell out its half-interest in TNK-BP. The buyer again would be either Gazprom or Rosneft, and the price would be far less than the generally quoted market value of $20 billion-$25 billion. BP would argue that any sum above $7 billion -- appoximately the price it paid for its share five years ago -- would be gravy. But in fact, it would be fleeing a genuine fear of the first scenario.

By its hands-off behavior, the Kremlin seems happy to watch BP twisting. Don't look for assistance from President Dmitry Medvedev.

Photo: Joe Shlabotnik

Rights: Creative Commons

Putin's Wealth

The FT's Catherine Belton and Neil Buckley weigh in with an impressive story that attempts to penetrate the question of Vladimir Putin's personal fortune. This enterprise -- the documentation of what Putin is worth -- will require a long, ongoing and determined effort. But Belton and Buckley try to peal away a layer.

The piece involves Gunvor, the Swiss-based oil trading company that has miraculously (Hey, we're just really good businessmen) grabbed control of a third of Russia's oil exports. One public owner of Gunvor is Gennady Timchenko, a reclusive and long-time buddy of Putin's. The FT links Timchenko to Surgutneftegas, which Russian polical analyst Stanislav Belkovsky has asserted to many of us for over a year partly belongs to Putin. As the FT reports, when Bill Browder -- until a couple years ago Russia's biggest foreign cheerleader as the head of Hermitage Capital Management -- sought to find out who really owned Surgutneftegas, he suddenly could no longer get a visa.

Putin swats away suggestions regarding his personal share of Russia's economic boom. But those who have hung around the former Soviet Union for awhile know that his dismissals are not exceedingly convincing. Personal wealth is a prerequisite to rule in this rough neighborhood; one simply is not taken seriously among former Soviet power brokers unless one has one's own, enormous cash stash. But the hard evidence is almost impossible to obtain; I think the only case of such proof has involved Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev, and that emerged only after a perfect storm of bungling.

The trouble at BP: For some time, it has appeared that BP could lose control of its main asset in Russia, its share of TNK-BP. The thinking has been that Gazprom is intent on grabbing control of TNK-BP, by either forcing out BP or its Russian partners. The arrival of tax inspectors at TNK-BP's offices in recent months seemed to buttress this view, given that that's precisely what signaled trouble for Shell before it was forced to hand over control of the gigantic Sakhalin-II natural gas field to Gazprom.

But my former colleagues Guy Chazan and Greg White at The Wall Street Journal have a piece that embraces a contrarian view: that Gazprom isn't the villain; the partners themselves are in a catfight. Igor Yurgens, the adviser to President Dmitri Medvedev, told me the same thing in a phone chat a couple of weeks ago.

Robert Amsterdam does a good job of explaining the probable bigger picture -- perhaps there is infighting; but Gazprom is likely still pulling the strings behind the scenes. This Reuters piece about a phantom company suddenly suing TNK-BP is more evidence of this.

Gazprom's goal -- as expressed by Putin himself -- is to obtain energy assets overseas. In order to land a traditional oil deal in Russia today -- one that involves ownership of actual oil or natural gas reserves -- one has to give up similar assets abroad. BP is trying to work such a deal with Gazprom, and the trouble at TNK-BP seems a piece of that negotiation.

Photo: Eclectic Al

Rights: Creative Commons

Big Russian Deals; Motley Fool on Turkmenistan Gas

Cashing out in Russia? One sure signal of Vladimir Putin's actual political plans will be activity in big Russian dealmaking. One of the most active betting lines around the world is how Putin will manage to stay in the driver's seat after he's forced to step down as Russian president in March. If there's a rash of huge buyouts, mergers and share sales, it would be a sign of uncertainty of what comes after the presidential elections. It could mean that some of those who have gotten rich under Putin are cashing out. Dmitry Zhdannikov of Reuters has an interesting piece today suggesting that Gazprom may finally go after half of BP's venture with the Russian-held TNK, and that favored oligarch Oleg Deripaska may want to buy into Norilsk Nickel, the world's biggest producer of nickel and palladium.

Noticing Turkmenistan: I receive lots of emails and calls these days on whether the talk of deals and reform in Turkmenistan is realistic. David Lee Smith over at Motley Fool has a piece talking about the investment side. In a posting yesterday, Smith notes the international contest going on over the republic’s natural gas now that President Saparmurat Niyazov is dead. He’s only putting Turkmenistan on a watch list, which is about right. He does get it wrong when he says that Russia is the republic's only export route – Turkmenistan has a small natural gas pipeline into Iran. But essentially he's on the right track -- yesterday my friend Marat Gurt of Reuters reported a Russian announcement that it’s closer to sealing a pipeline construction deal that would virtually monopolize Turkmen gas. Look for another U.S. or European Union shuttle mission to Ashkabad.

For investment community readers of this blog, take a look at Smith’s prior posts on oil services companies (here and here). Given the coming demise of Big Oil, I’ve been suggesting that shareholders sell the majors and shift to the technology-laden companies that will be in huge demand by the new version of the Seven Sisters – state-owned oil companies in Venezuela, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Kazakhstan and so on.

Photo: Argenberg
Rights: Creative Commons

Bonus: Russian Cutoff and Lord Browne

Two news items of note:

Russian oil cutoff in Germany

Over the last month, Russian oil supplies to Germany have been curtailed in an apparent dispute with Lukoil. The cut of about 50,000 barrels a day, in figures compiled by Reuters, may be restored in the coming days because of a compromise. The supply disruption does not appear on first glance to be linked to the Russian government. But it does come after Russia came under European criticism for cutting supplies to Ukraine and Belarus over the last couple of years. Read Reuters story

Back At Work: John Browne

Officially John Browne is going to work for a seven-year-old private equity company. But while doing so he will work with the repository of the corporate world’s marquee names of the past – the powerful Carlyle Group. He is joining to run the new London office of Riverstone Holdings, which is a partnership with Carlyle in energy investments, Carlyle announced on its Web site.

The 59-year-old Browne brought BP into some of the biggest deals in the former Soviet Union – offshore Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, operatorship of the Baku-Ceyhan Pipeline, and the TNK-BP partnership in Russia.

For years, Browne was Britain’s most famous businessman, and was even knighted as Lord of Madingley. But he withstood unaccustomed tabloid treatment in May when he resigned from BP after a scandal involving a former lover.

While he will be Riverside’s biggest name, he is hardly so in the Carlyle crowd. Former President George H.W. Bush and former British Prime Minister John Major were advisers there. Its current roster includes Richard Darman, former director of the Office of Management and Budget under Bush Sr.; Mack McLarty, former chief of staff to Bill Clinton and president of Kissinger McLarty Associates; Karl Otto Pohl, former president of Germany’s Bundesbank; Arthur Levitt, former head of the SEC; and Norman Pearlstine, who formerly edited both Time and The Wall Street Journal. The Bloomberg story

Expect More Oil Contract Demands on the Caspian

The notice given by Kazakhstan that it may seek a penalty from the developers of the much-delayed super-giant Kashagan oilfield is another sign of push-back by the former Soviet petro-states. The upshot - the likelihood is that there will be renegotiations of contractual terms on both sides of the Caspian in the coming several years. Among the main targets will be BP.

In fact, ENI-operated Kashagan deserves such treatment from Kazakhstan. Its 1997 contract, negotiated by James Giffen, includes a specific penalty clause that is triggered if first oil is not produced according to a specific timetable. That year for first oil was 2005, meaning the companies are already two years late with the probability that the first shipments won't come before 2011 or even 2012.

The indication is that Kazakhstan will leverage the missed deadline -- plus the current hostile oil environment to the north in Russia -- into a higher profit share.

This is just the beginning. After the oil is flowing from Kashagan, Kazakhstan is likely to push for more concessions. Kazakhstan's Tengiz oilfield, in which Chevron and Exxon Mobil hold 75 percent of the shares, is also likely to be under such pressure from the government.

Across the sea in Azerbaijan, the BP-operated offshore fields are also likely to face demands for contractual concessions in the coming years. Neither the leaders of Azerbaijan nor Kazakhstan are blind to the squeeze put on the multinational oil companies in Russia, and to one degree or another will follow suit.

Russia For Now Holds Its Trump Card

President Putin's reprisal today was measured. (Video) He shrewdly held out his ultimate card -- energy -- as ammunition to be used as he believes the need arises.

For his domestic audience, Putin could have done no less than the expulsion of an equal number of British diplomats, and possibly also the imposition of visa restrictions that was announced. The moratorium on terror cooperation can be taken with a grain of salt -- the two sides share concern on the important grounds, and joint efforts will continue.

As noted in a comment to the previous post, Russia and Britain to a degree are tied at the waist financially -- BP for instance desperately needs continued good relations with Moscow for its current and future production and reserve base. But Russian business relies on London's capital markets as well.

Concern about Russia's future attitude toward British business is well-founded. That remains the likeliest ground for Putin's long-term reaction to what, if one listens to his remarks, he seems to regard as an intolerable challenge to Russia's image and its law. BP's investments remain Britain's soft underbelly.

How Moscow Will Respond to Britain's Expulsion of Russian Diplomats

Britain's soft spot in Russia is BP. Watch for Russia's response to today's expulsion announcement not only in a predictable tit-for-tat removal of British diplomats from Moscow, but in a tougher line toward the British oil giant.

In the past, Britain's Russia policy has been led by the requirements of BP, its largest publicly held company. And BP has walked softly with Moscow from the time of the Soviet collapse. In the 1990s, BP opposed the U.S.-backed Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, until it decided that its U.S. interests -- its wish to purchase Arco -- trumped its plans for the former Soviet Union. The British government walked lock-step with BP in the anti-, then abruptly pro-pipeline policies.

In the past few months, BP, like some of the other multinational oil companies, has buckled under to Moscow; they have had to because of the much more challenging global exploration environment. So it is that BP has provided cover to a Russian "auction" of a Yukos property by making a "bid" on it; and it has surrendered its rights to the Kovykta natural gas field.

In expelling four Russian diplomats, Britain has taken a principled stand on the Litvinenko murder case. A component of Moscow's calibrations is likely to take note that a quarter of the global production of Britain's marquee company -- BP -- comes from Russia. That is where President Putin is likely to pressure Britain.

Gazprom Gains BP Gas Field as Putin Tightens Control

June 22 (Bloomberg) -- OAO Gazprom took control of BP Plc's stake in a Siberian deposit with enough natural gas to supply Asia for five years as President Vladimir Putin ends foreign ownership of Russia's biggest energy assets.

State-run Gazprom will pay as much as $900 million for the 63 percent of the Kovykta field held by BP's TNK-BP unit and half its regional pipeline unit, and agreed to set up a $3 billion global venture, executives from the three companies said in the Kremlin today.

Read rest of story

From Steve: The once full-throated multinational oil companies, knocked onto their heels in Russia, ought to be worried about Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, which certainly are watching these events with interest.