Hurdles remain for WTI addition to benchmark
Price reporting agency Platts will again attempt to add WTI to its Dated Brent benchmark, but questions remain about the practicality and merits of the move.
Platts is proposing to include WTI Midland cargoes from the US Gulf coast into Dated Brent and the North Sea forward — or Cash BFOE — market. The changes would take effect for cargoes loading in June 2023. It also proposes to increase the size of the North Sea cargoes it assesses for benchmarking purposes, from 600,000 bl to 700,000 bl, to match the typical size of WTI cargoes delivered to Europe. The agency abandoned last year's plan to convert Dated Brent from its fob North Sea status into a cif Rotterdam benchmark, following fierce criticism. Instead, cargoes of WTI trading on a cif Rotterdam basis will be converted to a virtual fob North Sea basis, to bring them into line with Brent, Forties, Oseberg, Ekofisk and Troll. Argus, which competes with Platts to provide oil price assessments and has an equivalent North Sea Dated benchmark, has been running such a price — New North Sea Dated — since 2019.
The difference between the Argus New North Sea Dated price and the proposals from Platts is the inclusion of a 40pc "freight factor", which it is hoped will stop a material drop in the price of Dated Brent once WTI is added. Argus uses a cif Rotterdam WTI assessment in New North Sea Dated, with the cost of freight from Rotterdam to a virtual North Sea fob location subtracted. This virtual fob North Sea WTI price can then be compared with the other five fob North Sea grades in the Dated basket for benchmarking purposes. Platts proposes to use the same system, but to only subtract 40pc of the cross-North Sea freight rate from WTI, thereby inflating the price of WTI relative to the other grades.
Despite this, the effect of including WTI is still likely to be a lower price. WTI regularly trades at a discount to North Sea grades once freight is subtracted. New North Sea Dated was, on average, 74¢/bl lower than North Sea Dated last year, falling to a wide $2.22/bl discount in May (see graph). Even with a 40pc "freight factor", the inclusion of WTI in the benchmark will result in a lower Dated Brent price. WTI set New North Sea Dated as the lowest priced of the six grades 85pc of the time in 2021. If only 40pc of the freight rate had been subtracted, WTI would still have set the benchmark 63pc of the time, Argus estimates.
Known unknowns
The mechanisms for WTI's inclusion into the Cash BFOE contract are similar to proposals last year from BP. The major difference is Platts' insistence that loading programmes at the US Gulf coast would be needed for WTI to be deliverable into the Cash BFOE contract. At present, there are no loading programmes and the lack of clear information about availabilities might prove to be the main obstacle to WTI's inclusion. US exporters currently have optionality to move or cancel WTI loading slots, allowing for pipeline delivery to US refineries instead of the export market if the economics favour it, which they will be reluctant to surrender. Even if programmes are issued, there is no guarantee that cargoes on the programme will all be available for European buyers. Valuing a contract when one side of the supply-demand equation is unknowable could prove difficult.
This is not really Platts' problem to resolve. Platts uses trade in the Cash BFOE contract to assess the forward price that underpins Dated Brent. But the terms of the contract are decided by the market. At present, these terms are codified by Shell in its Suko 90 contract. BP last year volunteered to rewrite the contract.
Platts and Ice carried out a joint consultation into the future of the Brent complex last year. But the latest proposals are Platts' alone. Ice issued a separate statement about working with the industry on "further developing this proposal".
Related news posts
Shale to emerge leaner from M&A boom
Shale to emerge leaner from M&A boom
New York, 1 July (Argus) — The recent flurry of deals in the US shale patch is poised to deliver significant productivity gains, potentially offsetting a drilling slowdown and suggesting that it might well be a mistake to bet against the sector any time soon. Ownership of top shale basins, such as the Permian in west Texas and New Mexico, is increasingly falling into the hands of fewer but larger operators, with the necessary resources to chase technology breakthroughs and drive economies of scale that could support further output growth. The flood of deal-making comes as shale growth is likely to slow after defying all expectations last year. Even as acquirers look to fine-tune their combined portfolios and slow activity in favour of shareholder returns, they will still be targeting ever longer lateral wells that reduce the need for more rigs and hydraulic fracturing (fracking) crews. Fracking multiple wells at the same time and shifting to electric fleets will also help them become more efficient. All in all, shale could continue to be a thorn in Opec's side for years to come. Underestimate US shale at your peril was the title of a recent report from analysts at bank HSBC. "We expect the mergers and acquisitions to result in substantial capital efficiencies," they wrote. Concentrated operations have reduced inefficiencies in the supply chain, and the elimination of downtime has also helped producers become leaner, according to consultancy Wood Mackenzie. But costs remain 15-30pc higher than 2020-21 levels, suggesting scope for further improvements. And while efficiency gains will inevitably become exhausted at some point, opportunities to tackle unproductive processes might still crop up. "The will and the technology are there for some operators, who should be able to keep cutting capex while modestly growing and maintaining shareholder distributions for a while to come," Wood Mackenzie research director for the Lower 48 Maria Peacock says. ExxonMobil flagged $2bn in annual savings from its $64.5bn takeover of shale giant Pioneer, with two-thirds to come from improved resource recovery and the rest from efficiencies. Leading US independent ConocoPhillips says improved technology will help it extend its inventory of top-quality drilling locations in both the Eagle Ford and Bakken basins after its $22.5bn tie-up with Marathon Oil. Return to spender Productivity gains are hardly the preserve of firms that have been active participants in the $200bn of shale deals seen over the past year. For example, US independent EOG, which has sat out the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) boom so far, plans to deliver the same level of growth for this year as seen in 2023 with four fewer rigs and two fewer fracking fleets. "Technology has evolved so much that you can go and drill horizontal wells in these and exploit that technology and you can get just absolutely outstanding returns," chief operating officer Jeff Leitzell says. Still, almost half of oil and gas executives recently polled by the Dallas Federal Reserve think that US oil output will be "slightly lower" if consolidation continues over the next five years. But the answer differed by company size. All executives from E&P firms that produce 100,000 b/d or more envisaged "no impact". Service company executives are more concerned: "Consolidation by E&P firms has curtailed investment in exploration," one said. "Our hope is that it's a temporary situation that will work itself out as the integration is completed." And even though the prolific Permian basin is due to peak before the end of the decade, analysts forecast robust growth in the intervening years. Relatively high oil prices that remain above breakeven costs and efficiency gains — which will shift the mix of wells to newer and more productive ones — will be the main drivers, according to bank Goldman Sachs. By Stephen Cunningham US tight oil production Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
US Supreme Court ends 'deference' to regulators
Washington, 28 June (Argus) — The US Supreme Court's conservative majority, in one of its most significant rulings in years, has thrown out a landmark, 40-year-old precedent under which courts have offered federal agencies significant leeway in deciding how to regulate the energy sector and other industries. In a 6-3 ruling that marks a major blow to President Joe Biden's administration, the court's conservatives overturned its 1984 ruling Chevron v. NRDC that for decades has served as a cornerstone for how judges should review the legality of federal regulations when a statute is not clear. But chief justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said experience has shown the precedent is "unworkable" and became an "impediment, rather than an aid" for courts to analyze what a specific law requires. "All that remains of Chevron is a decaying husk with bold pretensions," the opinion said. For decades, under what is now known as Chevron deference, courts were first required to review if a law was clear and if not, to defer to an agency's interpretation so long as the government's reading was reasonable. But the court's majority said the landmark precedent has become a source of unpredictability, allowing any ambiguity in a law to be a "license authorizing an agency to change positions as much as it likes." Roberts wrote that the federal courts can no longer defer to an agency's interpretation "simply because" a law is ambiguous. "Chevron is overruled," Roberts writes. "Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority." The court's ruling, named Loper Bright Enterprises v. Gina Raimando, focuses on lawsuits from herring fishers who opposed a rule that could require them to pay about $710 per day for an at-sea observer to verify compliance with regional catch limits. The US Commerce Department said it believes it interpreted the law correctly, but the fishers said the "best interpretation" of the statute was that it did not apply to herring fishers. The court's three liberal justices dissented from the ruling, which they said will likely result in "large-scale disruptions" by putting federal judges in the position of having to rule on the merits of a variety of scientific and technical judgments, without the benefit of expertise that regulators have developed over the course of decades. Overturning Chevron will put courts "at the apex" of policy decisions on every conceivable topic, including climate change, health care, finance, transportation, artificial intelligence and other issues where courts lack specific expertise, judge Elena Kagan wrote. "In every sphere of current or future federal regulations, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role," Kagan wrote. The Supreme Court for years has been chipping away at the importance of Chevron deference, such as a 2022 ruling where it created the "major questions doctrine" to invalidate a greenhouse gas emission rule limits for power plants. That doctrine attempts to prohibit agencies from resolving issues that have "vast economic and political significance" without clear direction from the US Congress. That has led regulators to be hesitant in relying on Chevron to defend their regulations in court. The Supreme Court last cited the precedent in 2016. The ruling comes a day after the Supreme Court's conservatives, in another 6-3 ruling , dramatically curtailed the ability of the US Securities and Exchange Commission — and likely many other federal agencies — to use in-house tribunals to impose civil penalties. The court ruled those enforcement cases instead need to be filed as jury trials. That change is expected to curtail enforcement of securities fraud, since court cases are more resource-intensive. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Libya’s oil minister asks PM to clarify who's in charge
Libya’s oil minister asks PM to clarify who's in charge
London, 28 June (Argus) — Libya's sidelined oil minister Mohamed Oun has called on Tripoli-based prime minister Abdelhamid Dbeibeh to clarify who is in charge of the ministry. The question of who runs the oil ministry has been unclear since Oun returned to work on 28 May after a temporary suspension was lifted by a state watchdog. During his absence, Oun was replaced by oil ministry undersecretary Khalifa Rajab Abdulsadek, who represented Libya at the latest Opec+ meeting on 2 June. Dbeibeh has continued to recognise Abdulsadek as oil minister since Oun's return to work. In a lengthy statement defending his record, Oun complained that Dbeibeh has cut off all communication with him and that it is impossible to carry out his duties under such conditions. "The presence of a legitimate minister and an illegal minister" is creating confusion in the sector, Oun added. Dbiebeh was seen as a key player behind the initial removal of Oun. Argus understands that Oun's suspension was part of an attempt to clear the way for state-owned NOC to move ahead with key oil and gas projects the he opposed. But the move received pushback from powerful figures including the head of Libya's presidential council and the country's central bank governor, leading to Oun's suspension being lifted. "I don't expect this issue to be resolved any time soon. Dbiebeh is unlikely to want to get into a fight given his weakening position over the past few weeks," Jalel Harchaoui, a Libya specialist at the UK's Royal United Services Institute, told Argus . Although the position of oil minister in Libya has been largely relegated to a nominal role — and much less powerful than the chairman of NOC — Oun has successfully used his role to galvanise public opinion against deals and policies promoted by the government and NOC. Libya remains politically fragmented, with rival governments based in the east and west of the country, and control of Libya's oil sector is coveted by a wide array of factions tussling for power. The north African country produces just above 1.2mn b/d of crude and wants to boost this to around 2mn b/d, but this will only be possible if it can advance long-stalled projects. By Aydin Calik Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Biden, Trump trade attacks in presidential debate
Biden, Trump trade attacks in presidential debate
Washington, 28 June (Argus) — The first presidential debate of the 2024 election drew out few new details on energy policy, as President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump hammered each other on issues such as inflation and the state of the US economy. The debate, held in Georgia on Thursday without a live audience, marked the first time Biden and Trump have shared a stage since their last debate in 2020. Biden, who is trailing Trump in many polls, at times struggled to clearly articulate his policy positions — or even to be heard — while Trump repeatedly sought to blame Biden for issues such as high inflation and the outbreak of military conflicts in Ukraine and Israel. "He has not done a good job," Trump said. "And inflation is killing our country. It is absolutely killing us." The substance of the debate was largely overshadowed by the candidates' inability to dispel voters' concerns about them. Needing to put to rest worries about his age, the 81-year-old Biden often appeared feeble and confused. Trump refused to acknowledge he lost the last election and continued to defend the mob that attacked the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. Biden throughout the debate defended his record on the economy, while focusing many of his attacks on Trump's personal conduct, including Trump's conviction on 34 counts in a case involving alleged hush money payments to an adult film star. Biden also criticized Trump's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, which Biden said ultimately contributed to high inflation. "He didn't do much at all," Biden said. "By the time he left, things were in chaos." The debate repeatedly focused on federal tax policy, particularly a range of tax cuts enacted during Trump's presidency that are set to expire in 2025. A key provision of that tax package cut the top corporate tax rate to 21pc from 35pc. Biden said he would make the tax system more fair by increasing taxes on the wealthy, while arguing that Trump's policies would result in higher inflation and additional costs for consumers. Trump has said he would extend the expiring tax cuts, which are expected to cost $4 trillion over a decade, in addition to seeking deeper tax cuts and a 10pc tariff on all imports. Trump said he rejected the findings of many independent economists that such a tariff would drive up prices for consumers and add to inflation. "It's just going to cause countries that have been ripping us off for years — like China and many others, in all fairness to China — it's going to just force them to pay us a lot of money." Biden argued Trump's policies would result in higher inflation and additional costs for consumers. "He now wants to tax you more by putting a 10pc tariff on everything that comes into the United States of America," Biden said. Trump pivoted to issues such as energy and regulations when he was asked about his actions during the attack on the Capitol. "On January 6, we were energy independent," Trump said. And when pressed on whether he would pursue policies to deal with climate change, Trump focused on having "clean air" and "clean water", while defending his decision to pull the US out of the Paris climate accord. "It was a rip off of the United States, and I ended it because I didn't want to waste that money," Trump said. Biden said Trump did not do a "damn thing" when in office to clean up the air and water and criticized his inaction on climate change. Biden defended his suite of climate rules and support for clean energy, but he failed to tout passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which provided support for electric vehicles, renewable energy and advanced manufacturing. On foreign policy, Trump insisted that a variety of global conflicts would have never occurred if he was in office. He contended that the war in Ukraine would abruptly be resolved if he were re-elected. "I'll have that war settled," Trump said. "I will get it settled, and I'll get it settled fast before I take office." Biden defended his record on foreign policy, saying he ushered through crucial support that has helped in the defense of Ukraine and Israel. Biden said that stood in contrast to Trump, who he said "encouraged" Russian president Vladimir Putin to invade other countries and has threatened to undermine Europe's defenses against military attacks. "This is a guy who wants to pull out of NATO," Biden said. The debate occurred just days before the US Supreme Court is expected to decide whether Trump, or any other president, should be immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in office. Trump's attorneys have argued he should be immune from prosecution for any official acts while holding office, which could affect a criminal charge that he sought to undermine the 2020 election. By Chris Knight Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2024. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.
Business intelligence reports
Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.
Learn more