Putin, Sakhalin, and The Lion's Purr

A narrative familiar to all oilmen with long exposure to Russia is under way: With cash reserves running down and insufficient economic relief in sight, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, his growl turned into a purr, is welcoming back Western oil companies to work Russia's natural gas fields.

So how should Shell and Total -- both of them the recipients of Putin's renewed niceness -- respond? Are Putin's past revocations of deals, expulsions from fields at knock-down rates, and ho-hum attitude toward shakedowns reason not to do business with him now that Russia is trouble?

Specifically, Shell is being offered an unspecified role in the highly complex, offshore Sakhalin 3 and Sakhalin 4 natural gas projects (BP walked away from the latter last month after drilling dry holes). Total signed a smallish, $900 million deal to work with Russia's independent Novatek on the Termokarstovoye natural gas field, and Putin says it's "entirely possible" that the French company will be permitted to work on future stages of the supergiant Shtokman natural gas field.

The subtext is a World Bank projection last week that Russia's economy won't recover to pre-crisis growth until at least 2012; and an International Energy Agency forecast this week that any global oil supply shortage -- and thus a possible return to $100-plus-a-barrel prices -- isn't likely before 2013.

The necessity for the involvement of foreigners who still have access to credit -- such as Big Oil -- seems plain: Shtokman's developers said in December that the global credit crisis may delay field development.

In other words, for Russia there's little noticeable light at the end of the tunnel. And Moscow needs to be sure that Gazprom can remain the country's most powerful economic driver.

More subtext: O&G readers recall that in 2006, Russia unleashed environmental regulators onto Shell in order to persuade it to relinquish its majority stake in Sakhalin-2 to Gazprom for what many analysts at the time regarded as a comparative firesale price of $7.6 billion. The same year, Total had a similar experience when Rosneft canceled a $3 billion partnership in the Vankor oilfield. Exxon Mobil has been forced to sell the natural gas from its Sakhalin I project at cut-rate prices within Russia rather than as it had planned in higher-paying China, as Paul Ausick reports at 24/7 Wall Street. And then there's long-suffering BP, which, in a series of fresh indignities this year while the Kremlin has stood by, has been powerless as its Russian partners in TNK-BP have steadily swallowed control of the oil-rich venture.

David Lee Smith at Motley Fool suggests that Shell's apparent agreement to let bygones be bygones and embrace the extended hand is "goofy." But Tim Newman, a Briton who lives on Sakhalin and blogs at White Sun of the Desert, writes that Shell will be wise to demand international bank guarantees in exchange for fresh investment. Short of that, Newman says, expect "another round of blubbering and hurt feelings in five years time." Over at TPRR, Tim Pendry argues that the totality of events reflects Russia's "complex gamble on events."

Pendry and Newman are both right. While seeking foreign investment at home, and failing to arrest serious depletion of its domestic fields, Gazprom still hasn't abandoned its geopolitically driven global dealmaking. In addition to continuing to promise to build new multi-billion-dollar gas pipelines into Europe, it signed a deal with Nigeria last week promising $2.5 billion in exploration investment there.

Meanwhile, another natural gas row is on the near horizon between Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine has a $4.2 billion bill coming due to Gazprom on July 7th, and lacks the money to pay. As Carl Mortished at The Times of London reports, the European Union is attempting to get some emergency money for the Ukrainians from the International Monetary Fund or the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The good news is that the latest dust-up is not occurring in the dead of winter.



Whether or not another jump in the deep end is wise, in the end Russia is a prime example of Big Oil's history of returning for more to the scene of its greatest debacles. The reason is the usual one: These behemoths need to book fresh reserves, and they are hard to come by.

In Total's case, for instance, the French company capitalized on an alliance not only with Gazprom, which owns 19% of Novatek, its local partner, but with oil-trading king Gennady Timchenko, a favored old KGB friend of Putin's, who owns 18% of the company.

In perhaps a touch of irony, Total CEO Christophe de Margerie said after the signing, "I don't think it's difficult to work in Russia. One only needs to learn to work efficiently with Gazprom, Novatek and Rosneft."

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

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

Two Hours in Astana

My mother's lawyer boyfriend once offered up some legal advice when I was in a dispute with a contractor: It'll all be settled on the courthouse steps. In other words, even though logic says it's less stressful to resolve one's differences at once, and the final deal often doesn't differ much from what's offered along the way, the actual practice is that one or both parties simply won't walk over the line until the very last possible moment.

So it apparently was yesterday in a settlement of the months-long dispute over the supergiant Kashagan oilfield. Recall that new development of this 13-billion-barrel behemoth has been stalled since the summer over a five-year delay in first oil, and a huge cost overrun.

Take a look at the timeline of the weekend events. At the invitation of Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev, the chairmen of most of the world's biggest oil companies had readied to pile in to the capital of Astana for a resolution last Friday. They were put off for two days before meetings finally commenced. The trouble was already apparent when Christophe de Margerie, CEO of France's Total, met with the state oil company on Saturday, then simply left town; that's something that a CEO simply doesn't do when an important president has summoned you.

That left Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson, Eni's Paolo Scaroni and Shell's Jeroen van der Veer meeting for nine full hours -- until midnight -- at a restaurant with Prime Minister Karim Masimov.

At 1:56 a.m. today local time, Bloomberg's Nariman Gizitdinov and Lucian Kim filed the following lead paragraphs in a story:

Eni and partners failed to reach an agreement with the Kazakhstan government over stakeholdings in the Kashagan oil field, Eni Chief Executive Officer Paolo Scaroni said, adding he doesn't expect to return to the central Asian nation ``for a long time.'' ``We haven't reached an agreement yet,'' Scaroni said in an interview early today in Astana, the Kazakh capital, after a nine-hour meeting with Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Masimov and the chief executives of companies including Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

Less than two hours later, at 3:49 a.m. local time, Reuters filed the following:

Kazakhstan's KazMunaiGas has reached a deal with an Eni-led consortium over developing the giant Kashagan oil field which will give it an equal share in the project with the largest shareholders. In a statement, the Kazakh company said all companies in the consortium … had agreed unanimously to the new terms.

What happened during those two hours?

The deal on the courthouse steps. Here is a pretty good Bloomberg piece on the deal. Here's Guy Chazan's from The Wall Street Journal.

By the look of things, Masimov and the state oil company pushed matters pretty far and seemed so unlikely to budge that, to put it bluntly, the CEOs of both Eni -- the field operator -- and Total threw up their hands.

At which point Nazarbayev probably stepped in and told his negotiators to agree more or less with the last deal on the table. This is conjecture, but seems likely in the context of how previous disputes in Kazakhstan have been settled.

“Now, a fair decision has been made,” the president’s official web site quoted him as saying in a meeting with company representatives today after the resolution was announced. He said, “After long and difficult negotiations, the Kazakhstani side has protected its interests. … We have prevented a breach of the contract, which was possible if we did not agree.”

Takeaways from the deal: According to The Wall Street Journal, the companies will make an immediate, good-faith payment of $300 million to Kazakhstan. Over the life of the contract, which expires in 2041, they will pay an additional $5 billion to the country, depending on the price of oil. And they will begin to pay the money earlier than previously agreed.

Kazakhstan will pay a sweetheart price of $1.78 billion for about 8% of Kashagan, raising its share of the field to 16.8%, the same as Total, Shell, Eni and Exxon.

After Kashagan comes on line in 2011, Eni will lose operatorship. Kazakhstan appear to have won the final say on how the field is run, with the four top shareholders divvying up duties for developing it.

Photo: jordigraells
Rights: Creative Commons

Free Lunch at Kashagan

Kazakhstan has offered up another important piece to the jigsaw puzzle in terms of what it wants to allow development to proceed on the suspended supergiant Kashagan oilfield.

A free ride.

The Kazakhs, whose move on Kashagan has made some wonder whether the nation is aping Russia's oil nationalism, had already made it clear that they want at least joint control of the field, the largest oil discovery on the planet in more than three decades. Until they get it, plus a big cash payment, they are holding up field development.

Customarily, in order to be operator of an oilfield, one's share must at least match the largest stake held by any other partner. That's meant to ensure that the operator has at least as much investment at stake -- in other words as much to lose if things go wrong -- as anyone else involved. The current operator, Italy's Eni, has 16.6% of Kashagan, as do Exxon Mobil, Shell and France's Total.

So one apprehension regarding Kazakhstan's demands has been who would be called upon to sell part of their ownership in order to increase the state's current 8.3% share and make it equal to or greater than the rest.

That seemed one of the hardest likely nuts to crack in talks under way with the Kazakhs, since none of the foreigners was likely to want to give up some of their share. Then there was the matter of getting the state to pay a market price certainly exceeding $1 billion. (BG sold its 16.6% of the field for $1.8 million in March 2005, a time of much lower world crude oil prices.)

But in a statement Thursday, Energy Minister Sauat Mynbayev raised the idea of the state obtaining joint control without increasing its stake.

"It's not essential for us to raise the share. That's not the main question," the minister said, quoted by Reuters. "What is essential is to approve or disapprove of Kashagan's development plan and budget." Read Reuters story

Kazakhstan seems not to be guilty of petro-state nationalism as much as trying to get the country's so-far horribly managed jewel in the crown to pay out.

But if Kazakhstan's KazMunaiGas obtains an equal footing without sharing equally in investment and field development costs, that would seem to instantly and considerably raise the foreign partners' risk profile for Kashagan.

And one wonders how company lawyers would get that past their boards of directors and shareholders back home.

The Kazakhs Want Control

An article today in The Wall Street Journal advances the ball toward discovering Kazakhstan's wish list if it's to lift the suspension of work at the supergiant Kashagan oilfield. Its apparent aim: to take over.

It’s been evident for some time that Kazakhstan had high demands in mind of the Italian-led developers of Kashagan, particularly after the government halted development of the field last week. But it turns out that far larger and earlier payment of oil profit isn’t the only issue on Kazakhstan's list.

Greg White, my former colleague at the Journal, rang up the Kazakhs’ deputy finance minister, Daulet Ergozhin, who said that the country has its complaints about how Eni, the Italian oil major, is operating the field.

Here is the key paragraph from the piece: Kazakhstan isn't insisting that state oil company KazMunaiGaz become the operator of Kashagan, he noted, but said the government would "look positively" on a proposal to put a Kazakh company in control or jointly operate the project. Read story

Steve's comment: The Kazakhs are interested in operatorship out of pride and prestige, not to mention lucrative contracts for the actual work.

There is a noticeable pattern in how such assertiveness takes place. In Russia, Moscow acted after Shell got far over budget on its Sakhalin II project, and a bit presumptuous that the Russians would simply swallow it. The Russians used that wedge to force concessions from Total and BP.

Similarly, the Kazakhs moved after warning signs about Eni's competence -- a series of huge cost overruns, plus at least a seven-year postponement in first oil. Because of this, the demands of the Kashagan consortium do not say anything negative in my view about the Kazakhs -- the foreigners probably deserved it a long time ago. But they do suggest that similar action will take place in the much better-run supergiant Tengiz and Karachaganak fields.

There will be high tension during the designated 60-day talking period over Kashagan, because the foreigners won't voluntarily agree to cede control of development when they are putting in all the money. If they are forced to, one can imagine one or more of the companies heading for the exits.

One wonders separately about the future of President Nazarbayev's second son-in-law, Timur Kulibayev, whom he has dismissed from his executive position with the state investment fund.

Kulibayev, a billionaire who as Nazarbayev's representative in the oil industry dominates the sphere in Kazakhstan, will definitely be re-appointed to an important government post; Nazarbayev needs him.

One wonders whether that new position will be linked with the crucial operatorship of Kashagan.

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.