What $100 Oil Means

Yesterday's runup in oil prices was a mere blip -- two publicity-seeking traders appear simply to have sought barroom talk as the guys who made history's first buy over $100, then quickly sold at a small loss. But, coming the first business day of the new year, it's dramatized the new energy world in which we live.

I recommend an excellent piece today by my former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal -- Neil King, Chip Cummins and Russell Gold -- that sums up the themes we've been discussing on this blog, and takes them further.

In the hundred-dollar carbon fuel world, Big Oil is no longer in charge. Exxon, Shell and Chevron have been overtaken by Gazprom, Aramco and Qatar Petroleum. If you're an investor, the best long-term bets are some of these majority state-owned energy companies, and the technology-rich oil services companies being hired to work for them.

One takeaway point from the Journal piece is that Exxon -- the most successful of any of the Big Oil giants -- has only the 13th-largest oil reserves among the world's oil companies. The twelve biggest are all state-owned. This is a hugely important factoid -- Wall Street bases its valuations of oil companies on the reserves they own. So, logically speaking, they are headed for lower valuations. "Western oil companies now control only about one in ten barrels of the world's proven reserves," the piece says.

Another point is the enormous shift of wealth to these petro-states from consuming nations such as the U.S. At current prices, the Middle Eastern and Central Asian producers will earn around $750 billion this year.

For motorists, all of this means that, short of a recession, gasoline prices aren't likely to go down this year, but only up. If there's a hard hurricane season, they're likely to go extremely high.

The causes are an enormous increase in demand from China and India, along with only slowly rising production from the petro-states. There's actually a lot of oil sloshing around the world, but much of it is the wrong kind. It's heavy and sulfur-laden crude, which most refineries can't process. New refineries that can are on the way, but it'll be three or four years before they come on line.

Photo: gjofili
Rights: Creative Commons

Blow to Bush: Russia Says No New Sanctions on Iran

Russia today joined China in a public rejection of the Bush administration's effort to increase sanctions on Iran. In Moscow, Russian and Iranian officials announced that they moved closer to finalizing Russian construction of a $1 billion nuclear power plant near the southern Iranian city of Bushehr.

The agreement in itself is unimpressive -- another of those interim pacts in which the parties agree to do something later, in this case to finalize a timetable for completing the plant, which is at the heart of Western concerns about Iran's uranium enrichment program.

But it puts meat on Vladimir Putin's resistance to further Iranian sanctions after a U.S. intelligence estimate last week said Iran had stopped trying to develop nuclear arms four years ago. The Bush administration has continued to push for stepped-up sanctions, saying the new intelligence doesn't mean that Iran is less dangerous.

The Russian position makes it even harder for Bush to get agreement since China on Sunday made its feelings on the matter known when Sinopec, the Chinese oil company, signed a $2 billion oil contract with Iran.

Photo: Daniella Zalcman
Rights: Creative Commons

China Replies: No New Sanctions Against Iran

China has replied to President Bush’s request for a tougher global stand against Iran. Sinopec, the Chinese company, today signed a $2 billion contract to develop a supergiant Iranian oilfield called Yadavaran.

The field is impressive, with an estimated 3 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. But the lousy terms show that Iran is still in the driver’s seat. Still insisting on fixed profit rather than the industry-standard big-risk-big-possible-reward formula, Iran gave Sinopec just a 14.98% rate of return.

In addition, production will be extremely slow. The contract calls for just 185,000 barrels a day. By comparison, the BP-led developers of next-door Azerbaijan's offshore – which contains just under twice Yadavaran's reserves – plan to ship 1.5 million barrels a day when it’s at maximum production in the next decade.

But the message is clear. The U.S. has lost the punch of its main claim against Iran – that it’s trying to build a nuclear bomb; a fresh intelligence estimate says that Tehran stopped doing so four years ago. So that has made it difficult for Bush to step up the isolation of Iran in what he asserts is the best way to get it to halt its enrichment of uranium.

China’s action shows that Iran will find ways around the western embargo.

Photo: Leithcote
Rights: Creative Commons

Don Quixote and Exxon's Contrarian Gamble

Does Exxon Mobil know something that the rest of Big Oil doesn't? Or is Exxon on a noble but ultimately quaint and quixotic quest for the old days?

Around the world, Big Oil has been knocked back on its heels by the assertiveness of state-owned oil companies that are both developing their own fields, and competing vigorously in auctions for the rights to oil and gas reserves elsewhere. The upshot is that major oil companies look to be on the verge of a long, unpleasant (for them) decline, with the result that some of them -- such as Italy's Eni -- are scrambling to adapt by forming alliances with the state-owned companies.

Exxon is not only refusing to play along with this scenario, but is in battle around the world in a claim that the prior rules hold.

In Kazakhstan, it was announced this week that Exxon is the lone holdout on an agreement to resume work on supergiant Kashagan, the largest new oilfield on the planet; the rest of the field's big partners -- Europe's Total, Shell and Eni -- have agreed to shave off a bit of their collective shares in the field so that Kazakhstan can become a full partner.

In Russia, too, Exxon is at odds with Moscow's insistence that the company sell natural gas from its giant Sakhalin-I development within Russia instead of at a higher price to China. Meanwhile, the rest of Big Oil has thrown in the towel and done compromise deals with Moscow.

And, as my friend Paul Sampson at Energy Intelligence notes in a story this week, the company is in conflict with Venezuela after abandoning participation in the Orinoco heavy oil project when Hugo Chavez demanded a larger piece of the pie. Exxon and Venezuela are in arbitration over how the company will be compensated. Meanwhile, Total, Chevron, BP and Norway's Statoil went along with Chavez's terms.

In a speech last month in Rome, Exxon Chairman Rex Tillerson said, "Some exporting and importing countries are losing sight of their interdependence. They are responding to the energy challenge by pursuing policies of resource nationalism."

Tillerson is betting that the current phase is a blip. Oil prices ultimately will moderate, his thinking goes, and state-owned companies in Venezuela, Russia, China and elsewhere will be back on Big Oil's doorstep.

Meanwhile, Exxon's strategy is to morph into more of a natural gas company. My former colleague Russell Gold at The Wall Street Journal reported during the summer that more than a third of Exxon's total proven reserves are in the Middle East and Asia; five years ago, Gold said, Exxon reported just a sixth of its reserves from that region. Exxon's biggest play on the planet is Qatar, which accounts for much of its growth.

It seems un-Exxonish to bet one's future on a single country or region. But it's not contrary to company culture to resist change. This is a company that until recently was the biggest corporate funder of the narrow club of greenhouse gas "scientist" deniers. Exxon reduced that funding when it became too public and too embarrassing.

It would be foolish to pass judgment on Exxon's strategy. But it does seem to be betting the house against the tide.

Photo: spotter_nl
Rights: Creative Commons

Is There Political Will on the Caspian?

The presidents of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are in New York this week for the United Nations General Assembly. While together in a neutral environment, they could take the first step to resolving the pipeline morass that has bedeviled their half of the Caspian Sea for fifteen years. That would mean getting out of their luxury hotel suites, dispensing with the hallowed meetings with oilmen lining up to kiss the presidential ring, and announcing that they intend to build a joint oil and natural gas pipeline system across the Caspian to Baku.

Why should they take a rest from such accouterments and risk the predictable firestorm with Russia? Because it’s the only way they will finally obtain a measure of true political independence. Once they make that commitment, oil companies and western governments can help realize it.

Since the Soviet breakup, Russia has wielded what a former National Security Council officer named Sheila Heslin called its “iron umbilical cord” to hold the Caspian republics in check. Heslin’s term referred to the former Soviet energy pipeline system, which channels almost all the region’s oil and natural gas exports through Russia. When it is so moved, Russia just switches off the spigot.

In just one recent example of what it means to be reliant on the Russian system, Chevron and Exxon Mobil last week were effectively forced to agree to a large tariff increase for an oil pipeline that runs from Kazakhstan through Russia, even though it’s private and not ostensibly under Russian state control. The tariff increase is part of a Russian squeeze before it agrees to the companies’ plan to double the pipeline’s capacity and export more oil from Kazakhstan’s supergiant Tengiz oilfield.

In Turkmenistan’s case, it has its hopes pinned on a Chinese pledge to link the countries through a $26 billion natural gas pipeline. If it's actually built, the pipeline will be crucial to Central Asia’s economic and thus political independence. But this is the same China that has vowed for a decade to build a much cheaper oil pipeline to Kazakhstan, a pipeline that has yet to be finished. If it takes comparatively long in Turkmenistan, the line should be finished by mid-century.

In the mid-1990s, Azerbaijan and Georgia decided to reject Russia’s energy stranglehold, and spearhead the construction of an oil pipeline to Turkey, avoiding Russia entirely. With then-Azerbaijan leader Heydar Aliyev taking the lead locally, the Clinton administration backed the line on the world stage, and pushed the oil companies to build and finance it. A year ago, the first oil began moving through the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, and natural gas will come, too.

But Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan cut themselves off from the East-West link by refusing to concretely back a trans-Caspian spoke to the Baku hub.

The Kazakh and Turkmen presidents may think that such a pipeline will simply be built, and that then they will use it. But the countries have it reversed – they themselves must take charge of their future.

Turkmenistan Casino

Turkmenistan is getting much attention for its ostensible new attitude toward Big Oil with the death of President Saparmurat Niyazov. Much of the attention focuses on the new Turkmen leadership's deals with competing geopolitical interests -- China, Russia, the U.S. But it remains to be seen whether the country's new leadership has the vision or skill to carve out genuine sovereignty after Niyazov's delusive and false policy of "neutrality."

Here is an interesting piece a week ago from Guy Chazan at The Wall Street Journal. And here is one this week on Eurasianet.org. Here is a key quote from an unidentified Pentagon official in the latter piece: "If there is a new Great Game being played in Central Asia, the most important part is Turkmenistan."

Steve's comment: The lofty "Great Game" similes make one suspicious. Is Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov truly playing a new Great Game, or is he simply in over his head with so many suitors at his door?

We'll have to wait a year or two for an answer. One thing is clear -- the U.S. has been out-classed in terms of reviving a trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline. That simply is not going to happen any time soon.

The idea of a Chinese pipeline is the most interesting, in my view. It meets the U.S. requirement of evading both Russian and Iranian turf, and provides the region some balance in terms of export.


One whopper in the Eurasianet.org piece is worth visiting: the western diplomat who asserts that, unlike its competitors, Washington is not playing a "zero-sum game." For all parties the game is zero-sum.

Russia in the Air

The Central Asia republics joined their two paternalistic neighbors -- Russia and China -- in a military show yesterday. The climax was President Putin's announcement that Russia had resumed long-range flights by its nuclear bombers, and a U.S. announcement that NATO aircraft had scrambled the aircraft. The upshot: The message was not warlike, but it was belligerent. Russia is attempting to demonstrate that its global ambitions are not limited to refineries and pipelines.

The first paragraph of the L.A. Times account: Russian President Vladimir V. Putin on Friday announced reinstatement of the Soviet-era practice of having nuclear bombers routinely make long-distance flights that bring them within striking distance of the United States and its allies. "Today just after midnight, 14 strategic missile aircraft, with support and fuel planes, took off from seven airfields across Russia," Putin said in televised remarks. "Combat duty began in which a total of 20 planes are taking part. From today, combat duty of this kind will be carried out on a regular basis." Read story

Steve's comment: Russia's bomber flight is reminiscent of a similar show that the U.S. put on almost precisely 10 years ago. On Sept. 15, 1997, the U.S. 82d Airborne flew from the U.S. all the way to Kyrgyzstan for a Central Asia military exercise. It was the longest such airborne mission in history, capped by a parachute landing.

It was intended to demonstrate not that the U.S. intended to invade, but that it had the reach and will to get to the region. No one anticipated that, four years later, that would be illustrated in fact with the establishment of a semi-permanent military presence there.

The Russian flight was farce in the sense that Moscow lacks the capability to mount a massive long-range military assault. But in military language, image can be crucial. Russia is saying that it intends over the coming years to take its previously formidible military out of mothballs, and turn it into something of use. That use is surely regional, but given the neighborhood it is something that bears watching.

Here is the first paragraph of a Reuters account of the Shanghai military exercises: CHEBARKUL, Russia - Russia and China staged their biggest joint exercises on Friday but denied this show of military prowess could lead to the formation of a counterweight to NATO. Read story