Tag Archives: Energy

Who Killed The Electric Car?

electric-car-station

(This article was published in Spanish in Cotizalia in June 2011)

There are few examples in the industrial history of a bigger disaster of planning than that of the electric car. Armed with all the potential to be a success, the greed of some, seeking crazy subsidies and the lack of innovation of others have made ​​the project derail into almost an anecdotal episode in business and technology.

In 2009 I wrote here that the expectations of the EU and US governments of electric vehicle sales were simply impossible. The electric vehicle was not killed by the oil companies.

Here is the list of the murder suspects:

a) The Car Renewal Plans and the automotive sector bail-outs/subsidies. In this society of overcapacity-filled industries addicted to subsidies, governments rushed to defend the electrification of transport while rescuing the conventional car industry with billions in public funds. The aids given by the EU and US to buy a new car, and reduce the brutal inventory of unsold combustion engine vehicles, exceeded by 6 to 1 the amount devoted for electric car developments. Furthermore, the auto industry, a sector doomed because a model that does not work if the consumer doesn’t change his or her car every three years.

This has forced the absorption of inventory and accelerated fleet renewal, reducing any potential for electric cars in the next five years. Today some EU countries have announced with fanfare an aid to electric car purchases which is less than 10% of what consumers received to renew their car, and that helped the auto industry sell unsold inventory of SUVs. As an annecdote, 2010 was the year of highest sales of SUVs since 2006.

b) Scandalous Pricing. An electric car, which seeks to replace part of the combustion engine vehicles, cannot succeed if it sells at an average of 50% higher than the alternative. This concept of promoting expensive alternatives is pretty bull market, not for a realistic economy. Alternatives will only exist if they are more attractive, cheaper and efficient.

c) Designed by the enemy. “God, how awful,” was the comment of my female coworkers when we brought several models to test to our offices. If the design of a car is not attractive for 50% of its potential market, and the most important segment at that, forget it.

d) The tax effect. The Spanish state collects €17.5 billion in taxes from petrol and diesel, where the tax rate is 55-60%. At the EU level that figure exceeds the €250bn mark, with taxes on petrol that range between 40% and 65%. No one escapes from taxation, and this has been discussed in several forums: If the electric vehicle takes a significant percentage of market share, the states will transfer the gasoline-diesel tax to power, and the current calculations of savings that electric vehicle defenders claim, would be slashed to be virtually non-existent.

e) A wrong model. With the electric car, where the most important is upfront cost and battery life, the industry has made the mistake of replicating exactly the model of the traditional car, where the buyer takes all the technology, battery and maintenance risk for no discernible cost benefit. The only company that has innovated is Better Place, which offers a service that is similar to mobile phones, giving a full package of battery maintenance, service and charge. However, it is debatable if that model would be easily transferred from the current countries where it is implemented, Israel and Denmark, to bigger countries with more population density and scattered cities, in the rest of the world.

f) Although battery prices have dropped up to 38%, manufacturing costs have remained almost stable, which suggests that the supposed benefits in cost of batteries from technology developments will fade away, to be prohibitively expensive again, once the current overcapacity in battery production systems is reduced.

g) Subsidies to power, including renewables, but also coal and gas, have made ​​the average cost of electricity rise for consumers all over the EU. If we add that the autonomy of electric cars is very limited, the consumer does not have a clear benchmark for cost-effectiveness compared with its current alternative. Furthermore, in a combustion engine car if the driver sees that the price of gasoline is expensive, the choice to reduce consumption is immediate and personal. But in an electric vehicle, if the battery remains discharged for a long time its performance worsens, and the choice of “not charging” if power prices soar is not available.

h) It is assumed that the electric car is charged at night when electricity demand is in the “valley” (minimum consumption) level and is cheaper … Until, oh surprise, you have 1 or 2 million cars charging at the same time… and then night charging is neither cheap nor demand is in valley.

Finally … As for being green, electric vehicles are not truly green, because of the contamination of thousands of tons of water that the production of rare earths entails (although we seem to care little, as its contamination in China, not at home). Furthermore, now that the EU is anti-nuclear, power generation with coal and gas has soared, neither of which is “green” or cheap.

We mentioned Better Place before, a company led by Shai Agassi, an Israeli entrepreneur who understood perfectly that the model for success with the electric car could not be the one of the traditional car industry, because consumers would be exposed to the same risks of maintenance and cost inflation, if not more.

Thus in Denmark and Israel Better Place offers an innovative system in which the company runs all costs (charging, battery change, service and network connections) and the consumer leases the vehicle based on their needs, without having to take the replacement risk and cost of the battery.

This reduces the enormous costs to the consumer both in the acquisition of batteries, and prevents them from enduring the hassle of maintenance and replacement. More importantly, Better Place does this without subsidies. A good initiative.

Further read:

http://energyandmoney.blogspot.com/2009/12/observations-on-arrival-of-electric-car.html

Impact of Chinese slowdown on Oil and Coal Imports

The big concern, added to Europe, is China slowing down. Global GDP growth figures are being revised (although moderately) at large banks. But the sensitivity analysis on supply and demand is still not there.Here are a few figures worth considering that are obviously considering all other factors unchanged.

At the current estimates (+9.2% GDP growth), China is set to import 5.5mbpd of oil and 178m tons of coal.

If GDP growth falls to +7%, estimates call for a 5.1mbpd of oil and 168m tons of coal.

A fall of 500kbpd of oil demand brings oil demand down from 84.2mbpd to 83.5mbpd. This means that we would still be net consumers of inventory unless Iraqi volumes offset the Lybian barrels lost. This is quite unlikely.

On coal, imports are less sensitive because the decision to import is price driven (ie the arbitrage between domestic coal and international) and at the same timeimport decisions are also based on freight dayrates (and these have been falling quickly in the past two weeks).

I believe it is worth keeping in mind these figures. Obviously, if Chinese GDP growth corrects agressively it will also mean that German exports, and EU growth will slow down. But ven if we move to recession territory in EU, it is difficult to see coal and oil supply-demand balance move to oversupply.

 

Pakistan’s Oil and Gas Opportunity

(This article was published in Cotizalia on May 5th 2011)Today we will talk of Pakistan, a very rich country in natural resources, which contrast with its extremely poor current state. A report to which I had access estimated that with a maximum of $20 billion in investments the country would increase its oil production by nearly 2.5 times and natural gas could be exported for the first time, including a new pipeline and liquefaction plant near Karachi.

Today Pakistan is a disaster. Despite having a U.S. aid of $7.500 billion over a period of five years, and important natural resources, it still sees its potential unfulfilled due to its poor security and geopolitical contradictions.

Starting with geopolitics, part of the problem in Pakistan can be explained by the mixture between modernity, tradition and support for radicalism embodied in Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, almost a national hero, responsible for a nuclear proliferation program in the country, named by Time Magazine as the “Merchant of Menace”, creator of a black market accused of selling nuclear technology secrets to Iran, North Korea and Libya. If we add that several provinces, including the largest, Baluchistan, and the border with Afghanistan, rich in oil and gas, are controlled by radical armed groups completely independent and separate from Islamabad, the capital, we have the perfect recipe for geopolitical unrest.

As for its natural resources, Pakistan has 436 million barrels of oil and 840BCM of gas in proven reserves, yet more than a third of its 827,000 square kilometers of sedimentary areas are under-exploited. Thus, the country imports more oil than it produces, doesn’t export any gas and has been unable to attract sufficient investment to reduce the decline of oil production, which will likely fall 46% in 2020 according to internal estimates. Despite being the 49th country in proven reserves, it is well below number 60 in production. Less than 60,000 barrels per day, which could easily be doubled if the legislative and regulatory environment was safer, and as such currently the country only extends about 40 exploration licenses annually.

Taking a brief look at the oil companies present in Pakistan proves the caution of the large oil companies to invest in the country. The first thing that surprises is the minimal presence of the largest players of the sector. The country boasts that there are 17 international companies operating, but the most relevant, Petronas (Malaysia), OMV (Austria) or MOL (Hungary) are not exactly the top groups in operational efficiency, and the two Europeans mentioned can not even presume of having a robust financial position. On the other hand, in 2010 BP sold almost all its exploration and production assets in Pakistan to United Energy Group, a Chinese holding company, for $775 million.

China seems very well positioned to gain a strong foothold in the country, with good ties to the government, and a historical track-record of managing quietly the most difficult geopolitical environments (Sudan, Nigeria, Iraq).

For Pakistan to regain a strong position in the oil and gas market I believe we would need to see three fundamental conditions

a) The end of the conflict in Afghanistan , which would close the geopolitical axis Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan, isolating the influence of Iran and make attractive a large-scale presence of big oil investments. This is especially important to implement the infrastructure (a pipeline of more than $2 billion investment) to carry gas from Afghanistan to Pakistan and connect to a liquefaction plant to allow liquefied gas exports from Afghanistan and Pakistan to either China or the U.S.

b) The establishment of a strong government that recovers the lost provinces, particularly Balochistan, and to adopt a sustainable and predictable legal framework.

c) The involvement of China and U.S. in Pakistan to develop the fields (onshore and offshore) is essential to bring oil export production to 120,000 barrels per day and gas production from 37BCM year, primarily for domestic consumption, to export up to 67 BCM.

Who would win? The main beneficiary if Pakistan would rise would be Schlumberger, the U.S. oil services company, with expertise and resources to develop the fields and local staff. But Pakistan, at least in the short term, is much more a risk than an opportunity.

Improving the economic situation of Pakistan with a current estimated GDP growth (+2% 2011) ridiculous for the area, is really complicated and depends on the future access to natural resources development, which is intrinsically linked to political normalization in a country with the nuclear bomb and that remains a hotbed of support for radicalism. An unequivocal commitment to eradicate the terrorist support may be the key that opens the door to growth. Being “Merchant of Menace” only brings poverty.

Oil Sector down on the year, while oil +29%YTD

sxepMassive de-risking and fears of an economic recession are driving the sector down. Additionally the ETF impact causing a widespread sale of large caps, which are traditionally deemed as defensive for their large cash flow, low debt and high yield-buybacks.

The large cap oils have shown a very poor leverage to the commodity since 2001 and this last quarter results have proven it even more. Most companies have beat consensus in downstream (refining and chemicals) and eroded returns on E&P despite oil at high prices. This is because costs are rising, production growth has been poor and gas-heavy and share of economics of the fields from national companies (PSCs) increases with higher commodity prices.

The interesting thing is that services and E&Ps are benefitting from that environment but the market is pricing no earnings or margin recovery in services and no M&A-asset value upside.

E&P’s are discounting less than $85 crude (despite $110-$120 spot), suggests an economic crisis and market correction is expected. So E&Ps are selling off given higher capex spending, while services are not benefitting because of expected higher costs, and rotation out of Energy seems to be in full force.

Like in May-June 2010, we are likely to get a great entry point into attractive stocks. In the meantime, integrated megacaps have entered into negative EPS momentum, and with most dividend payments behind us, the yield protection is (mostly) gone.