Sunday, December 20, 2015

The U.S. Oil Export Ban Has Been lifted

 
Finally the cat is out of the bag and USA has lifted the forty odd years exports ban at a time when oil prices are in mid 30s/bbl and national average gasoline prices are around $1.85/gallon. It is always good to allow free movements of goods & services (oil and gas) based on competitive advantage. The question though is what benefits US oil producers/exporters that will derive the regime of already glutted global market and lower oil prices? The lifting of US oil exports may have reduced the domestic inventories but given the weak global oil demand, reduction in US inventories will add inventories somewhere else around the world. Why? Given the weak global oil demand and OPEC is quite adamant cutting down their production in favor of maintaining market share. While other major non-OPEC producers like Russia is also reluctant to cut down its production for its own economic reasons. On top of that, producers are also allowing lavish discount to sell their produce. That is, at the end of the day global inventories may further increase or at the most more or less remain the same just shifting from one region to another. Does lowering of US domestic inventories encourage shale oil producers or remain constraint with their respective break-even prices? Are we expecting a war of market share – all major producers are reluctant to cut down production. Will lower oil prices extended over a period of time discourage exploration activities as well as scale back booming renewable industry, and compromising our set climate change goals? As far as renewable energy is concern, it smartly address the issues by extending and then phasing down wind and solar-tax credits; reauthorizing for three years a conservation fund. A win-win situation for both Republican and Democrats. 
The bill also includes a provision aimed at addressing politicians’ concerns about high gasoline prices. It enables the president to restrict oil exports in certain scenarios for up to one year, including in the case of a supply shortage or if oil prices are significantly higher than global levels. That is US exports is tied up with two strings: 1) he or she declares a national emergency, or 2) declares that the crude exports are raising US oil prices or causing a domestic oil shortage. With the given conditions, it means that the US policy makers are quite aware of the possible future scenarios and does not allow open ended exports policy. That is, current lower oil prices and US higher oil production may not be sustainable over an extended period of time and therefore, a situation may arise where policy needs to automatically address these issues to avoid hardship to domestic consumers. The question is yet to see how the American public opinion changes when oil prices once again increased to over $100/bbl – increasing national average of gasoline to over $3.50/gallon (for example)? How and who will determine what percentage increase in domestic prices is due to exports of crude and what percentage due to market fundamentals?  Or what would be the minimum threshold oil prices when the President of the United States will declare and stop exports of crude oil, especially when oil prices are so volatile. It cannot switch off/on with the changes in situation on day to day basis. I am pretty sure these issues must have been debated before and devised some predetermined mechanism.

Sunday, November 29, 2015

The Rise of Renewables – A Threat to the Oil & Gas Industry?



 
Dr. Salman Ghouri[1] and Dr. Yumna Ghouri[2]

Fossil fuels have been the dominant source of energy for global economic prosperity for over 150 years and today still accounts for over 86% in global energy mix. The question is what would be its role during the next 2 to 4 decades? There is an on-going debate among various agencies, researchers and academia whether the role of fossil fuels will significantly diminish. It is quite possible that things might change drastically during the next 2 to 3 decades owing to technology, severe climate change and transformation of our mind-set. In today’s world the speed of technological innovation is in seconds  compared to decades in the past (comparatively terms). The innovation in fuel cells, electric cars, NGVs, significant decline in cost of solar and wind power during the last decade turn out to be great challenges for oil and gas industry. The question is how big a share of fossil fuels will be taken up by renewable sources by 2040? Is this share substantial enough to undermine the role of oil and gas industry?

In order to explore the possible answer this paper forecasts the total primary energy consumption in North America by 2040 (such forecast can be carried out for other regions at a later stage). In order to estimate consumption behavior we have to develop econometric models for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro and renewable energy using respective prices, GDP, population, trend variable with and without constant in order to find the best estimated relationship for each of the energy resources. Different models are required to explain the behavior of each of the energy resources as one model cannot explain the consumption pattern for all forms of energy resources, because of the importance in consumer’s budget and its usage. The consumers are generally constrained by habit, technological and other factors, such as a regulatory barriers; therefore response to a price change, or change in technology e.g. availability of electric cars, NGVs, fuel cells, is weak in the short-term. However it will strengthen over time. To capture this lag structure we have used a polynomial distributed lag model (Almon model) to estimate the respective energy demand. We have also run autoregressive and moving average wherever necessary in order to correct the autocorrelation problem. The best-fitted model has been used to forecast respective energy demand by 2040 under alternative scenarios.

 Historical data have been drawn from various sources. For instance, regional historical energy consumption is drawn from BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015. GDP (current prices) and population data is extracted from IMF reports and energy prices from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports. In order to forecast energy demand we used the GDP and population growth assumptions (shown in Appendix -A). Future forecast of energy prices - oil, natural gas, coal and electricity (though electricity prices vary from consumer to consumer; residential, industrial, commercial, transport, we have used total electricity prices) are derived from the EIA. For low and high case scenarios we have assumed GDP and population will grow at an annualized rate as highlighted in Appendix-A.   

North America TPEC - 2014

In order to comprehend the market it is useful to briefly review the current energy situation in North America. Out of global total primary energy consumption (TPEC) of 12928 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE) in 2014, North America accounted for 2822 MTOE or 21.83%.  The share of the USA was 18%, oil and gas dominate with 67% (oil 36.3%, natural gas 30.7%), coal 17.3%, nuclear 7.65%, hydro electric 5.4% and renewables 2.6% (Figure -1). Despite consuming oil and natural gas fuels in bulk, its indigenous resource base is quite thin. For example, it holds 232 billion barrels of oil reserves, a global share of 13.7% and a life expectancy of 34 years. Natural gas reserves are at 429 TCF, 6.5% of the global reserves with a life expectancy of 12.8 years[3]. Coal stands at 245 billion tonnes with a global share of 27.5% and a life expectancy of 248 years.

Figure-1: North America Total Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel – 2014 (BP Statistical Energy Review – 2014)
North America Resources
North America also holds enormous unconventional shale oil and shale gas resources (Figures -2 & 3). Technological advancement in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing allowed US to significantly increase shale oil and shale gas production. As a result, US net oil import dependency declined from 60% in 2007 to about 27% in 2014. Shale gas and renewable fuel (ethanol) is expected to continue to penetrate the transport sector and industrial uses which  would help North America to reduce its crude oil consumption in favor of natural gas and renewable fuel.
Figure-2: US Shale oil basins
Figure-3: US Shale gas plays
Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA)
 
North America Energy Demand Outlook - 2040
North American energy demand is mainly driven by respective energy prices, GDP and trend variables. Trend variables have been used to capture technological advancements. The population though is an important driver of energy demand and should be positively correlated, however for North America it failed to explain energy behaviour and when included distorted the other important explanatory variables like GDP is therefore dropped. A number of models have been tested including static, Koyack and polynomial distributed lag (Almon) model with varying degree of weights and lags to capture the lag structure. The best estimated models for each of the energy sources are selected and later re-run to forecast respective energy demand to 2040 under alternative scenarios.   
Oil Demand Outlook - 2040
North American oil demand is projected to decline over time due to penetration of NGVs, electric and fuel cell cars in the transport sector as well as due to efficiency gains. At the end of 2040, under the reference case North America is expected to consume 894 MTOE (20.41 MMBD)[1] as compared to 1024 MTOE (23.34 MMBD) in 2014 see Figure -4. The reference case is bounded by low and high case of 822 (18.76 MMBD) and 979 MTOE (22.34 MMBD). The way the technology is developing transport sector, electric and fuel cells cars in particular, it is quite possible that the share of oil in the North American energy mix will decline from the current 36% to 20% at the end of 2040.
Figure-4: North America Oil Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Based on author’s econometric models & IEA world Energy Outlook 2014
Natural Gas Demand Outlook - 2040
Unlike oil, natural gas demand is projected to increase in North America. The reason being the region’s enormous unconventional gas resources and the expected continuance of the shale gas boom. Both the USA and Canada have aggressive plans to export natural gas in the form of LNG to the global market.  In addition, consumption of natural gas in power generation increased, particularly in the USA. Natural gas share in power generation went up from 17% in 2001 to 27.4% again due to significant increase in US shale gas production.  North American natural gas demand under the reference case is projected to increase from 866 MTOE in 2014 (949 BCM) in 2014 to 1083 MTOE (1192 BCM) at the end of 2040 Figure -5. The reference case is bounded by low and high case of 994 (1093 BCM) and 1162 MTOE (1278 BCM) in 2040. We anticipate a greater role for natural gas because it will capture a share in power generation from coal and because of its growing importance in the transport sector.
Figure-5: North America Natural Gas Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Author’s econometric models and IEA World energy Outlook 2014
Coal Demand Outlook - 2040
The contribution of coal is mostly associated with power generation. However, the recent shale gas boom has reduced its role particularly in the power generation. The contribution of coal in US power generation for instance went down from 51% in 2001 to about 39% in 2014. While the share of natural gas in power generation went up from 17% in 2001 to 27.4% again due to significant increase in US shale gas production. During 1980 to 2014, coal consumption increased from 413 MTOE in 1980 to 489 MTOE in 2014. However, due to strict environmental regulations and availability of natural gas and energy renewable sources its role is expected to shrink during next 2.5 decades. The model predicts that coal consumption is projected to decline from 489 MTOE in 2014 to 332 MTOE in 2040 under the reference case (Figure -6). The reference case is bounded by a low (298 MTOE) and a high of (365 MTOE) in 2040. We have added another scenario which assumes  if the very rigid environmental regulations are imposed and technological advancement allow for the speedy penetration of renewable sources. In this case we have used trend  variable (T2). In this scenario coal demand is projected to decline significantly to 120 MTOE.
Figure-6: North America Coal Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Based on author’s econometric models and IEA world energy Outlook 2014
Nuclear Demand Outlook - 2040
Electricity demand is dependent on various factors – GDP, prices, weather, however it is positively correlated with the economic growth measured by GDP. During 1980 to 2014, the demand for nuclear energy increased from 68 MTOE in 1980 to 216 MTOE in 2014 – an increase of 217% (Figure -7). More than 94% of the variation in nuclear demand is explained by GDP and electricity prices. GDP remains the main driver of electricity demand as one percent increase in GDP will lead to 0.68 percent increase in nuclear demand. Under the reference case nuclear demand is projected to decline from 216 MTOE in 2014 to 211 MTOE in 2040 due to efficiency losses and closure of some of old nuclear plants. Reference case is bounded by low of 205 MTOE and high of 224 MTOE in 2040.
 
Figure-7: North America Nuclear Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Based on author’s econometric models and IEA world Energy Outlook 2014
Hydro Electricity Demand Outlook - 2040
Canada is the major producer and consumer of hydro electricity in North America accounting for 56% of the regional hydro electricity in 2014. The hydro electricity consumption increased from 118 MTOE in 1980 to 154 MTOE in 2014 – an increase of 30%. Based on the model, hydro electricity demand is surprisingly projected to decline during the 2014/2040 in period probably due to decrease in the availability of hydro electricity or model failed to explained the correct behaviour. Under the reference case it is projected to decline from 154 MTOE in 2014 to 111 MTOE in 2040, in the low case it further declines to 104 MTOE and for high economic growth it declines to 117 MTOE (Figure -8). The demand for hydro or electricity should be increasing unless it is constrained by its availability or massive increase in renewables – solar, fusion and wind. 

Figure-8: North America Hydro Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Based on author’s econometric models and IEA world Energy Outlook 2014
Renewable Demand Outlook - 2040
The contribution of renewables in the North American energy mix in 1980 was barely anything, however, its contribution increased quite rapidly during the last decade. Despite its significant growth, the contribution of renewables remained thin and stood at less than 3% at the end of 2014.  The contribution of renewables is expected to grow rapidly during 2014 to 2040 due to: expected significant decline in cost of wind, solar and other renewables due to technological advancements: utility scale solar power generation capacity delivering a price below that of coal/natural gas power plants; extensive use of solar panel in powering the residential and office buildings; increase in the usage of ethanol in transport sector and change of mind set of future generations to go green. However, it is difficult to quantify these variables in our econometric models. We have to continue to rely on GDP and electricity prices to model consumer’s behaviour, though various other factors are important to explain the demand for renewable sources of energy. We have assumed that the trend variable is expected to capture the increasing availability of renewable sources at competitive prices and we assume the trend variable to grow exponentially during the forecasting period due to rapid technological advancements. The other important variables are GDP and electricity prices. Based on our assumptions and model the demand for renewable sources of energy under reference case is projected to increase from 74 MTOE in 2014 to 362 MTOE in 2040– an increase of over 389%. The reference case is bounded by a low of 264 MTOE and 653 MTOE a high case scenarios (Figure -9). Figure -10 highlights some of the sources of renewables that are expected to increase significantly during now and 2040.
Figure-9: North America Renewables Demand Outlook -2040
Source: Based on author’s econometric models and IEA world Energy Outlook 2014
Figure-10: Some Sources of renewables expected to increase significantly
North America TPEC Outlook – 2040 (MTOE)
Table-1 provides a quick summary and comparison of North America TPEC outlook 2040 by energy sources.  The Authors forecast is based on regional GDP growth, respective energy prices and trend variables. What message can we draw from this analysis? The news and academic papers reports about the important role of renewable sources in TPEC mix. However, based on the forecast, the message is quite clear that the role of fossil fuels most likely will remain the dominant sources of energies in North America despite significant growth in renewable sources.  Based on authors forecast the share of fossil fuels remains between 71% and 78%. It is quite possible that the share of fossil fuels particularly that of oil may decline from current 36% to 20% by 2040. This lost share will be captured by renewable. Therefore, it is quite possible that the contribution of renewables may further increase, nearing our high case scenario. Especially considering various car companies are in the process of bringing fuel cell and electric cars to market. In fact, Toyota already started selling the world’s first mass market fuel-cell car in Japan in 2014 -  the four-door Mirai[1]. The auto giant is hoping to build on the success of its popular gasoline-electric hybrid Prius to sell tens of thousands of the eco-friendly Mirai over the next decade, as it looks to stop producing fossil-fuel based cars altogether by 2050. Honda’s rival Clarity Fuel-Cell vehicle features a cruising range of more than 700 kilometers (430 miles), which it claims is the longest on the market, and can store enough power to supply an average household’s energy needs for a week. As far as solar energy is concerned its cost has reduced significantly. According to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who conducted the report, installed project costs have fallen by more than 50% since 2009, from about $6.3/W in 2009 to $3.1/W for projects completed in 2014.
We believe that the contribution of renewables most likely to remain between 9% and 12% for low and reference case scenarios, however in the extreme high its contribution may increase to about 19% based on model predictions. In our opinion the high contribution of renewables in the energy mix is highly dependent on timing and availability of fusion electricity which is still in its research stages, and efforts are being made to produce electricity on commercial scales. If fusion electricity is available during the projection period then it is quite possible that the role renewables will increase to 19% or even more otherwise its contribution will most likely remain under 12%.
Good news for oil and gas industry
Our long-term North American energy demand forecast highlights that the contribution of fossil fuels under alternative scenarios, particularly that of oil and gas are likely to remain the major driver of North American economy. However, oil and gas companies should also prepare and develop alternative strategies in case rapid penetration of renewable in transport and power generation takes place earlier than 2030.
Table-1: North American TPEC outlook 2040 - comparison
 

Appendix-A: GDP and population growth assumptions (%)

[1] Gulf Times Oct 29, 2015.
 


[1] We have used BP Statistical Energy Review historical data. The conversion factors vary from regions to region. Normally a conversion factor of 7.33 is used. To get an average conversion factor we have used 1980 to 2014 oil consumption barrels per day multiplied  by 365 and divided by respective year MTOE. The average conversion factor of 8.32 is used.
 


[1] Dr. Ghouri is Oil & Gas Advisor (Geopolitics | Economics | Development)
[2] Dr. Yumna is in the medical profession with strong background in research, statistics and editing
[3] Conventional oil and gas resources.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

Defending Market Share: A Dilemma for OPEC or for Shale Oil?


 
Dr. Salman Ghouri[1] & Umama Ghouri[2]

The sustained higher oil prices provided an excellent breeding place for a technology that has been around for many decades – hydraulic fracturing to nurture and prosper. As a result, US shale oil production increased from 1.24 million barrels daily (MMBD) in 2007 to over 4.72 MMBD at the end of 2014. The sustained higher oil prices provided wind falls to major oil producers but at the same time severely affected the global economies, particularly oil importing countries. For oil producing countries more revenues means more resources for the development of their economies and therefore generally ignore its implications for the global supply and demand. The sustained higher oil prices not only destructed the demand side but it also created a glut in oil market – eventually collapsing oil prices.  

Economic development – more reliance on cash cows!

Most of the OPEC members require continuous massive cash flows because they are in the process of economic development. When oil prices are high there are no issues however when oil prices are suddenly in free fall this poses a real challenge. Challenges for OPEC members in 2015 are even more difficult then they were in the past as they are fighting three conflicting fronts: meeting ever increasing cash flow requirements; defending their market share in a low oil price environment; and dealing with the competition of the US booming shale oil industry. In the past, OPEC has been pursuing a policy of stabilizing the market by increasing/decreasing production quota but at the same time defending its market share. For example, strategy in 2015 is different than during 1980s when OPEC increased its production to regain its lost market share due to significant increase in Norway and UK oil production, resulting in collapsing oil prices in 1986. Whilst in 2008, OPEC twice cut its production in an effort to arrest the free fall of oil prices. During recent meetings OPEC has been maintaining a production quota of 30 MMBD as oil prices remained above $100/BBL and even when oil prices plunged below $60/BBL. For example, during the 166th meeting held on Nov 27, 2014 and the 167th on June 5, 2015, OPEC members unanimously agreed that the global oil market is well supplied, inventories are higher than the previous five years average and therefore they would stick with 30 MMBD production quotas. The next meeting will be held on Dec 4, 2015. With this announcement the element of uncertainty is reduced and one can see the determination and commitment of OPEC members to defend their market share even at the cost of lower oil prices. OPEC probably would not be interested in further increasing its production like in 1980s or cutting its production for a revival of oil prices (2008). The problem is that OPEC is now in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand OPEC members need more revenues to meet their ever increasing government budgetary requirements but lower oil prices prevent that from happening. On the other hand if OPEC cuts its production in an effort to revive oil prices it is threatened by loosing market share to US shale oil. At oil prices of, for example, $65/BBL (Brent May 2015) OPEC members would be needing substantial higher oil prices to balance their budget (see Table-1). Only Kuwait and Qatar would be in a position to meet their cash flow requirements.  The other members would have to produce more or withdraw from sovereign funds in order to balance budget.

Table-1: OPEC production based on quota and oil prices to balance budget*

 

Countries
Production Quota (%)
Oil Price $/BBL to balance budget
Algeria
3.6
111
Angola
5.3
98
Ecuador
1.7
117
Iran
8.8
93
Iraq
12
71
Kuwait
9
47
Libya
1.7
215
Nigeria
6.3
119
Qatar
2.2
59
Saudi Arabia
33
103
UAE
9.2
73
Venezuela
7.9
121

*The respective shares of the group’s supply are based on April levels. The estimates for the price per barrel each member needs to balance its budget are from the International Monetary Fund unless stated otherwise.


 

More challenges for OPEC

So far so good. OPEC is successfully maintaining its production quota of 30 MMBD (though there is news that they are producing more) that allows it to maintain its market share, and also deter the rising US shale oil production threat. The real challenge however, for OPEC, is how to deal with Russian increasing oil supplies. Russia hit hard by sanctions, requires more revenues to aid its crippling economy – by increasing its oil production.  According to Bloomberg in May 2015, it extracted 10.7 MMBD, compared with Saudi Arabia’s 10.2 MMBD. It was the first time Russia took the global lead since 2010. In addition to Russian oil supplies, another challenge for OPEC is how to deal within its own group. That is, what will happen when economic sanctions on Iran are lifted? A number of countries/companies are already lining up in Iran to seize this investment opportunity. Experts estimate it will take a year or so before Iranian oil production of over one MMBD will hit the market (there are divergent views about quantity and timing).  And what would happen if the situation in Libya and Iraq would also simultaneously improve? What would be the implications for global oil supplies and the other OPEC members? Iran and other war torn countries would require huge cash flows for the redevelopment of their economies. How will they finance that? By selling more oil than the allocated quota in a regime of lower oil prices.

More oil supplies from OPEC and Russia are likely to further depress oil prices and this probably temporarily reduce some of   US high cost shale oil production. As a consequence OPEC members face the difficult question how to provide the desired cash flows to their respective governments. In the absence of resilient global oil demand OPEC members will have to dip into their sovereign funds. If OPEC members adhere to production quotas and keep oil prices below the magic number of $60/BBL it will probably discourage US shale oil production at least in some of the basins as well as discourage shale oil development in rich resource countries like China (Table-2). Just like technological advancement in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing turned out to be a nightmare for OPEC, OPEC's strategy of maintaining its production at 30 MMBD over an extended period of time will definitely have a knockout affect on some of the US shale basins. The US oil and gas industry is already slashing jobs as a result of the slow down in drilling/fracturing activities. A lower oil price will discourage shale oil production but it will be stiff call for OPEC to meet the government budgetary requirements.

In this market share cold war, who will be the winners and losers? The ultimate winner would be producers, however, in the short term consumers will enjoy a period of lower oil prices. This will helping in the revival of global economies.  US oil demand is generally stronger during summer driving season and lower gasoline prices this year will further encourage travelers on the road. China is also taking advantage of lower oil prices in building its stocks. What we have learned from history is that neither higher or nor the lower oil prices are sustainable for extended period of time. A lower oil price environment over extended period of time will discourage the exploration activities affecting the supply side of the equation while higher oil prices hinder oil demand. With the technological advancement and shale oil revolution one could expect that breakeven cost would keep reducing over time and therefore other conventional oil producers must adjust and learn to live in a new environment of moderate oil prices. We strongly believe that over the longer term market fundamentals prevail and it is neither nightmare for OPEC or nor for shale oil.


Sale Gas Trillion Cubic Feet (TCF)
Country
Shale Oil Billion Barrels
China
1115
Russia
78
Argentina
802
USA*
58 (48)
Algeria
707
China
32
USA*
665 (1161)
Argentina
27
Canada
573
Libya
26
Mexico
545
Australia
18
Australia
437
Venezuela
13
South Africa
390
Mexico
13
Russia
285
Pakistan
9
Brazil
245
Canada
9
Total
 (7795)
Total
345 (335)

*EIA estimates and for ranking estimates. ARI estimates in parenthesis.

Source: Energy Information Administration (EIA)


[1]                      Advisor oil & gas industry.
 
[2]                      Umama Ghouri is an MBA student at the University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, USA
 
[3]                      These shale oil and shale gas resource estimates are highly uncertain and will remain so until they are extensively tested with production wells. This report's methodology for estimating the shale resources outside the United States is based on the geology and resource recovery rates of similar shale formations in the United States (referred to as analogs) that have produced shale oil and shale gas from thousands of producing wells.