Category Archives: Energy

Energy

Energy Opportunities in Brazil

(This article was originally published in Spanish in Cotizalia.com)

Today I am writing from Rio de Janeiro, and while reviewing some news of the week, I am struck by the following: Jim Cramer recommends buying a bank, Santander, for their exposure to Brazil. Without questioning the merits of the financial institution as a stock, the first thing that comes to mind is: if you want to buy something, do not do it with hybrids. And I agree. It seems obvious to say but if you want to buy Brazil, buy Brazil directly. And there are many reasons to invest in the country: an expected increase of 5% of GDP, energy demand increase of 6% per annum, … And oil, a lot of oil. 14 Billion barrels in proven reserves and in the Santos basin, almost 7 billion barrels of resources, some of the largest discoveries of the decade.

On one side we have Petrobras, with increases of 6% p.a. in production. Petrobras also offers very competitive costs (average cost $ 13/bbl total F&D). However, it suffers from the forthcoming $55bn capital increase and, as Shell or Conoco, also suffers from the discount of large business conglomerates. It is cheap, but its huge investment needs in diversified businesses weigh on their return on capital employed.
Therefore, if you are interested in the almost 7 billion barrel discoveries in Brazil I would encourage you to analyze the two companies that offer absolute exposure in this area: Lupatech and OGX.

The first, Lupatech, as priority local oil services firm for Petrobras, is the great beneficiary of the investment needed to develop the discovered fields. It has an attractive balance sheet, expected growth of 12-15% and higher margins than their European competitors. And remember that Brazil needs to monetize quickly these discoveries, since the government sold in the last ten years oil concessions for a price of $1bn that today are worth approximately $50bn.

The second company, OGX, specialized in exploration, bought at 20 cents per barrel fields that seemed unproductive and nobody wanted and that have proven to contain at least 2.5 billion barrels recoverable, an amount that could be expanded to 7 bn as shown by the 3D seismic exploratory studies, which so far have been successful. OGX has $ 1.5 billion of cash to fund the exploration program of its five fields. And instead of gearing up to develop these reserves, with estimated costs of $ 14/barrel given that they are all shallow water finds, OGX is likely going to sell minority stakes to other investors. From a conservative standpoint, these 2.5 billion barrels could be worth between $10 and $ 12/barrel.
Brazil also offers opportunities in the electricity sector, which expects to increase its installed capacity from 102 GW to 153 in 8 years. 85% of generation is hydro while domestically produced natural gas will play a key role in the future. The sector delivers low-cost production and margin expansion as prices for electricity are higher than the Europeans (by more than 15%), also offering dividend yields above 6 -7%. There are more opportunities for low risk, high yield than the market would normally expect from an emerging country.

The Olympics and oil will be two factors to contribute to a dramatic growth in infrastructure investments. And energy companies are the major beneficiaries of this momentum. It is worth looking at Brazil in detail.

Iraq, the last hope for Big Oil

IRAK (1)

(This article was originally published in Spanish in Cotizalia.com)

We’ve talked on other occasions of the difficulties that big oil companies find to grow. The reserve replacement ratio is still more than disappointing, below 100% since 2004. But in 2010 the industry could change course. In my opinion, the true hope of the sector is Iraq, the third country in the world in proven reserves, 115 billion barrels of oil, behind Saudi Arabia, with 264 and Iran with 138.

The country has generated much controversy in the press for the war but, since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, Iraq has achieved a production increase that was unthinkable under the previous regime, generating tax revenues for the domestic economy of almost $20 billion more that in the period 1980-2005.

Currently the geopolitical environment has improved substantially. Service firms are established, but the risks are not negligible, with nearby local elections, conflicts with the Kurdish minority and the gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops. For example, it remains unclear if the city of Kirkuk, home to a giant oil field, belongs to the Arabs or the Kurds, which prevents investment there.

The local government has advanced rapidly, licensing more than ten fields in the last year. After a false start in which the license auction was declared void (except the Rumaila field, BP -CNPC) because the conditions imposed by the government were too expensive, between the second half of 2009 and 2010 the government has auctioned licenses to operate up to 60 billion barrels in estimated reserves, with a national strategy to increase production from 2.5 million barrels per day today to a very ambitious target of 12 million. From BP, Shell, Statoil and ENI, to Russia’s Lukoil, China’s CNPC or Exxon, most big oil companies have participated in the process.

From my point of view, the goal of exceeding Saudi Arabia’s production is very ambitious. No one has managed to multiply by 5, as intended, the production of a country in 10 years. I think it’s much more logical to assume that production will rise to 3.5 million barrels per day in 2015, in line with the history of typical production recovery in this region (including Iran).

And the problem now is the costs, estimated at $ 19/barrel (F&D), plus an additional fee of nearly $ 2/barrel. The contracts allow the oil companies to cover costs up to a minimum production level. Until there is a contract typical of the industry,within what is called a PSC(production sharingcontract).

But if minimum production targets are not met, oil companies will suffer from profits lower than the average cost of capital, or even losses. The Zubair field, won by ENI and their partners, for example, will likely generate an internal rate of return of less than 20% below $55/barrel, while requiring investments in excess of $20 billion over 20 years.

If you have enjoyed Avatar (great movie, by the way) and the not-so-subtle allegory about the oil companies, you probably think that this whole process is abominable, but the increase in gross domestic product, infrastructure and wealth for the country that these projects, neglected or poorly managed so far, will generate, will be a giant leap for the country’s ailing economy. The investments to be carried out are astronomical, nearly $ 100,000 million between 2009 and 2029, including infrastructure, water, schools, hospitals , almost the construction of entire cities. Consider that some of these fields require about 500 workers. And the fact that contracts are aggressive and costly conditions for oil is a minor problem, because for them it is probably the last opportunity to improve their low reserve replacement for once.

The Revolution of Shale Gas

As I expected in my predictions for 2010, the process of mergers and acquisitions in the energy sector is not waiting. Total surprised us last week following on the footsteps of Exxon and embarking on the adventure of shale gas, through a joint venture with Chesapeake. The benefits of shale gas for oil companies are many and varied. Let me try to explain the environment as concisely as possible.

The technologies that allow the extraction of gas have proven to be much more competitive than it was initially estimated. We will not expand in technical terms, but basically through a process of fracturing the rock with water injection or horizontal extraction companies can stimulate the production of a gas that otherwise would not be economically produced. In fact, large companies are extracting gas at costs of $1.8 to $3/MMBTU compared with previous estimates of $ 5.5-$ 7. This cost levels allow very attractive returns, over 30% ROCE, even at current gas prices in the U.S., despite how much these have fallen from levels near $12 to $6/MMBTU today.

Moreover, the geological differences between areas of the United States that have shale gas (Haynesville, Marcellus, Barnett, and others) have proved to be lower than estimated, which allows a more comfortable environment for investment, as the potential economies of scale are very important. This is why the companies are buying large areas of land, as the shale gas production grows very fast but declines quickly once reached plateu. After this abrupt decline, production can be sustained for a long time at economical levels.

Furthermore, for companies like BP, Exxon, or Total it is an excellent opportunity to access abundant reserves of gas in a country with almost no risk (United States). Not to mention that it is a platform to learn and explore opportunities in shale gas in Europe, mainly in the North Sea and some Eastern European countries.

Matt Simmons and his team expect that by mid 2020 half of the US gas production will comes from U.S. shale gas, and the estimated reserves of unconventional gas in the most conservative scenario would cover 65 years of production, c1.35 billion cubic feet.

Total has paid the equivalent of $30,000 per acre of land in its joint venture with Chesapeake in Haynesville. In 2008, BP paid an average of $19,400 in Woodford. 2007 saw how Shell paid for Duvernay $13,100 per acre. Meanwhile, Statoil paid for their participation in the Marcellus area c$7,000 per acre. The price has jumped fourfold in just over two years. Not surprisingly, therefore, that US independent exploration and production stocks with shale gas exposure have soared, even though gas prices continue to be low.

Interestingly, amid all this, the financial market assumes that the oil majors are kind of large NGOs, which will exploit the reserves purchased in an indiscriminate manner, flooding the market and accepting gas prices well below the current ones. I can not believe that companies which operate under a strict target of return on capital employed will accumulate reserves to lose money monetizing the production at suboptimal prices. Meanwhile, the six big oil companies control more than 25% of the reserves of U.S. shale gas. What do you think are going to do? The consolidation process will continue and we will see that the profits will be very substantial in the medium term.

Energy Predictions for 2010

(Published in Cotizalia on Dec 24 2009)

First, I do not agree at all with those who see the dollar appreciated in 2010. We are living in the greatest appropriation of wealth in recent history, and if the dollar has fallen so much so far, wait to see the effect of the 1.3 trillion dollars that the U.S. has to refinance and the $700 billion in pending stimulus plans. The weak dollar is part of the reason why I am more positive than other investors in oil and gas prices.

Second, everyone expects interest rate hikes. I do not think so. With the UK and US together needing to refinance $2 trillion, debt to GDP of 300% and 10% unemployment, interest rate hikes are more a dream than a reality.

In the world of oil, we face a year of anemic demand and abundant supply. The supply problems and decline rates that are so appealing for the market are not an issue for 2010. Demand is likely to be above 85.4 million barrels a day, but this means that we will have a capacity surplus of around 4 million barrels a day. Therefore, the production cuts from OPEC and its adherence to the quotas in place (at very low levels today, 58%) will be decisive.

But what we are likely to see are aggressive moves in Asian demand due to lower nuclear production and the already mentioned infrastructure projects. Thus, it is not surprising that we might see a period of high volatility. Certainly in 2010 oil will likely continue to be a hedge against the dollar. I also expect demand from emerging countries to grow by around 6%, so it would be reasonable to see oil reach $85/barrel as inventories are reduced to normal levels, which I do not expect to happen until 2011.

On the supply side, with a 5-6% decline from existing fields, non-OPEC production is likely to fall to around 50.8 mbpd instead of the estimated 51.3. And forget refining. With nearly 7 mbpd of excess capacity and anemic demand, refining margins will not be a riot.

The gas market in 2010 will likely see a drastic drop before the recovery, which will be even more drastic. Demand continues to be the problem because it depends on electricity consumption and we will see coal to gas switches, but no real demand increases in a year in which producers will increase LNG supply capacity by 10%.

But beware, because the market is exaggerating the gas overcapacity in at least 20BCM. I am convinced that we will see lower exports to Russia (145BCM instead of 162 expected), Norway and Qatar reducing exports, leaving the market “only” with 10BCM of overcapacity, more than enough to justify spot price of $ 5.5 -6/MMBTU and 35p per therm … but before the recovery we will see gas prices to record lows, until the recovery in demand in winter.

The electricity market in Europe will probably live a delayed pickup in demand, where we still need an industrial demand still heavily damaged by the crisis. A drop in electricity demand of 0.5% in Europe could be feasible. Reserve margins (excess capacity) in Europe are at levels of 25% considering the additional 15GW of wind capacity, and we probably will not see an environment of demand-supply balance until 2012. In such an environment is difficult to see higher electricity prices. And in oil, gas and electricity, high volatility leads to reductions in investment, which explains in part my positive view of future prices.

2010 will, in my opinion, be a year of divestments and capital increases, and energy companies can take advantage of the market opening to preserve the strength of their balance sheets in the bottom of the cycle. I estimate around $35 billion in the oil and electricity sectors. Pay attention to balance sheets, it seems that everyone has forgotten debt in 2009. It will also be an exercise in which well-capitalized companies will continue to aggressively buy assets, particularly in exploration and production and “shale gas. The war for natural resources is not going to stop, and I reckon a figure of about $30 billion in mergers and acquisitions.

I believe that 2010 will not be a bad year for investments by taking advantage of occasional corrections. Everyone is negative or cautious, money remains cheap, the cost of capital of companies continues to fall, bonds are overpriced … This generates expansion of multiples even with stagnant profits. Remember Buffett, the market is never wrong. Use it as a tool, not as a guide.