Oil prices are poised for a pullback after OPEC announces its output cut decision

From CNBC / Tom DiChristopher / 28 de noviembre de 2017

 

Market watchers see few opportunities for oil prices to rally — but plenty of room for them to fall — after a critical meeting of energy ministers later this week.

About two dozen oil exporters, including top producers Saudi Arabiaand Russia, meet on Thursday in Vienna to discuss extending a deal to keep 1.8 million barrels a day off the market. The historic agreement has helped to reverse a three-year oil price downturn that wiped out hundreds of thousands of energy jobs and piled financial pressure on both free market American drillers and countries dependent on oil revenue.

The market largely expects the 14-member OPEC cartel and a group of other producers led by Russia to extend the deal, which began in January and expires in March, through the end of 2018.

But just days before meeting, Russia has not committed to the nine-month extension, raising concerns that OPEC could settle for a shorter extension or push off a decision altogether. Either of those scenarios would spark a sell-off, analysts say, but oil prices will probably struggle to grind higher from recent 2½-year highs even if OPEC lives up to expectations.

Here’s how analysts expect markets to move under three scenarios.
OPEC extends by nine months
Andy Lipow, president of Lipow Oil Associates, expects OPEC to lock down the nine-month extension. But he also expects a pullback on the news.

The reason: Hedge funds have recently increased their long positions in oil futures, or bets that prices will keep rising. That makes prices vulnerable to a slide because traders often book profits by selling high. At the same time, the number of oil rigs operating in U.S. oil fields crept up in November, a trend that tends to weigh on prices.

“The market has gotten very, very long and as a result you can have some profit-taking triggered by the increase in the rig count on Friday,” Lipow said.

Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at Oil Price Information Service, also thinks a nine-month extension has been baked into prices, making it hard for U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude to rally beyond Friday’s 2017 intraday high of $59.05.

“We may look back at Black Friday as the as-good-as-it-gets number for U.S. producers,” he said.

U.S. crude could take another run at the $59 per barrel level, but OPEC would have to get the messaging just right, said John Kilduff, founding partner at energy hedge fund Again Capital. That includes a show of unity among regional geopolitical rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran and a clear signal that OPEC will force member countries Libya and Nigeria to cap their output after giving them a pass this year.
OPEC settles for six months
However, Kilduff thinks OPEC will only be able to commit Russia to a six-month extension.

He said the country’s energy companies have pushed back on Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak and President Vladimir Putin as U.S. producers pick up market share in Asia, an important oil growth market. Russian energy giants are concerned that extending the cuts prematurely could leave the market undersupplied, causing a spike in prices that leads to another crash.

“If they do go six months I would expect them to spin it and say they’re going to review it next year,” Kilduff said. “That’s going to be seen as a disappointment.”

In that scenario, Kilduff sees oil prices falling back to the mid-$50 range.
Barclays expects either a six- or nine-month extension but says the market is asking the wrong question. Michael Cohen, the investment bank’s head of energy markets research, says traders should be asking whether exporters will be held to the same production caps they agreed to last year.

“It would be a misguided assumption in our view to expect the group’s production quotas to remain set in stone in 2018,” Cohen said in a research note Monday. “The sustainability of the deal depends on how much longer Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran and Kuwait are willing to sacrifice market share in the pursuit of revenue and market stability.”

 

From CNBC / Tom DiChristopher / 28 de noviembre de 2017

Renaissance Oil initiates multi-well drilling program at Amatitlán

From Renaissance Oil Corp. / Craig Steinke / 27 de Noviembre de 2017

 

VANCOUVER, Nov. 27, 2017 /CNW/ – Renaissance Oil Corp. (“Renaissance” or the “Company”) (TSX-V: ROE) is pleased to announce the Comisión Nacional de Hidrocarburos (the “CNH”) has approved drilling permits for the Chicontepec multi well drilling program on the Amatitlán block in Veracruz, Mexico.  In conjunction with its partner Lukoil, Renaissance will conduct the following operations:

During the week of December 4th, 2017, mobilize Simmons Edeco Rig 836 to a multi-well drilling location and spud the first well, Amatitlán 1649, of the 10 well drilling campaign which will occur over the course of several months;

Each well will be directionally drilled, targeting multiple Chicontepec intervals, to a total depth of 1,975 meters; and

The second well in the program, Amatitlán 1708, will be drilled subsequently from the same multi-well location.

“As the first Canadian operated oil well drilled in Mexico, in almost a century, the Amatitlán 1649 is a historical milestone”, stated Craig Steinke, Chief Executive Officer of Renaissance.  He added, “Rig 836, owned by Canadian based Simmons Edeco, will also be used to drill the planned 4,200 meter measured depth horizontal Upper Jurassic shale well.”

Renaissance continues to make progress on its journey to become a major Mexican energy producer.

From Renaissance Oil Corp. / Craig Steinke / 27 de Noviembre de 2017

Los peores accidentes con hidrocarburos en México: Primera Parte

En México, la actividad petrolera es una de las más importantes por su contribución al desarrollo económico, sin embargo también está considerada una industria altamente riesgosa, por su potencial para causar daños a personas, bienes y al medio ambiente. En ocasiones, a pesar de contar con diversas medidas de seguridad, los accidentes ocurren y pueden llegar a tener consecuencias catastróficas.

A continuación, se presentan dos de los peores accidentes con hidrocarburos y/o petrolíferos sucedidos en México:

19 de noviembre de 1984. Se registraron diversas explosiones en las plantas de almacenamiento y distribución de Gas de Pemex en San Juan Ixhuatepec, Tlalnepantla, Estado de México. La planta de almacenamiento contaba con 4 tanques con un volumen de 1600 m3 y 2 con un volumen de 2400 m3, equivalente a 11,000,000 de litros aproximadamente[1].

El accidente provocó la muerte de entre 500 y 600 personas y un aproximado de 4,500 heridos, 200 mil damnificados.

El 22 de abril de 1992.  Una fuga de gasolina de un ducto de Pemex en Guadalajara vertió al subsuelo y al sistema de drenaje de la ciudad, lo que causó una gran explosión que dejó unos 210 muertos además de cuantiosos daños.

Estos dos siniestros significaron un importante precedente para la regulación de actividades altamente riesgosas, consideradas todas aquellas que manejan alguna de las sustancias contenidas en el Primer Listado (Manejo de Sustancias Tóxicas), de fecha 28 de marzo de 1990 y el Segundo Listado (Sustancias Inflamables y Explosivas) de fecha 04 de mayo de 1992.

Los listados fueron publicados posteriormente a cada uno de los siniestros antes mencionados, como una forma de incrementar las medidas de seguridad y evitar que volvieran a suceder.

En esos listados, se encuentran los hidrocarburos y petrolíferos, por lo que todos aquellos manejan estas sustancias están obligados a cumplir con la regulación aplicable a las actividades altamente riesgosas.

Una de esas obligaciones es contar con seguros de responsabilidad civil y responsabilidad ambiental para responder por los daños que puedan causar a terceros.

En NRGI Broker somos expertos en seguros para el Sector Hidrocarburos. Acércate a nosotros, con gusto te atenderemos.

 

 

[1] Ver “The tragedy of San Juanico- the most severe LPG disaster in history”, disponible en:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/358094

The Economic Yield Curve Is the One to Watch

From: Bloomberg / Joseph Carson / 21 de noviembre

 

The difference between the federal funds rate and economic growth is unusually wide, consistent with a positive outlook. The rapid flattening of the U.S. Treasury yield curve is raising concern about the economy’s prospects. That’s to be expected, since the slope of the curve has gained in importance as a forecasting tool due to its consistent and reliable track record. In short, a narrow curve is associated with a slowdown in growth.

The economic signal is even stronger when there is an outright curve inversion, which is when short-term yields exceed those on longer-dated Treasuries. We’re not there yet, but what has everyone up in arms is that at 63 basis points, the difference between two- and 10-year Treasury yields has collapsed from 128 basis points in January and is now the narrowest since 2007, just before the start of the last recession.

For some, changes in the Treasury yield curve are sufficient to warrant a change in the view on the future path of the economy. Right now, though, it’s not. It is important to balance the changes taking place in the financial market’s yield curve with the economy’s yield curve.
The economy’s yield curve is the spread between the federal funds rate and nominal gross domestic product. This relationship is most important since it’s the ability of the consumer and businesses to carry or afford the higher borrowing costs that could eventually impact economic growth.

Based on third-quarter data, the economy’s yield curve is close to 300 basis points, which is calculated by taking the 4.1 percent annualized rate of growth in nominal GDP less the quarterly average for the federal funds rate of 1.15 percent. The gap has expanded by 65 basis points from a year earlier. Even if the Federal Reserve, as expected, raises rates by 25 basis points at its December meeting the spread should widen based on estimates of 4.5 percent to 5 percent growth in nominal GDP.

In a historical perspective, the economy’s yield curve is unusually wide, consistent with a positive growth outlook. To be sure, the average spread during the 1990s growth cycle was 100 basis points and in the 2000s it was 200 basis points. Moreover, history also shows that a flat or an inverted spread between the federal funds rate and the growth in nominal GDP always precede an economic slowdown or recession.

In contrast, the traditional financial market yield curve, or the spread between the federal funds rate and the 10-year Treasury, stood at 110 basis points in the third quarter. It will likely end 2017 with the narrowest quarterly spread since the start of the last recession, sending the same signal as the two- to 10-year part of the curve.

It is quite possible that the narrowing of the traditional yield curve reflects technical factors more so than fundamental ones. The quantitative bond buying programs by the Fed and other central banks have no doubt produced an anchoring effect at the long-end of the bond market that was not present in prior cycles.

Also, changes in monetary policy often influence investor expectations on the outlook for growth and inflation. Given the current low-inflation environment, it could well be investors are betting that current path of monetary policy will dampen future inflation risks and possibly to lead to a reversal in short rates at some point down the road.

In all likelihood, the signaling effect from changes in the yield curve to the economy may not be as robust today and limited to the financial markets. The economy, meanwhile, will be supported by the wide and positive spread between the federal funds rate and nominal GDP growth, helping to support corporate profits and equities. The outlook for the fixed-income market is less sanguine because the positive growth environment will compel the Fed to continue to normalize monetary policy by boosting rates further.

 

From: Bloomberg / Joseph Carson / 21 de noviembre

 

Riesgos y Complicaciones durante el Descontrol de Pozos

De acuerdo con el National Alliance for Insurace Education and Research, el riesgo se define como la “Incertidumbre concerniente a una pérdida que se presenta debido a un conjunto de circunstancias dadas”. Entre sus principios básicos se encuentran los siguientes:

No retenga más de lo que pueda soportar en pérdida.
No arriesgue mucho por poco.
Considere la probabilidad de los eventos y su impacto potencial.

En el sector hidrocarburos, uno de los riesgos más comunes que enfrentan las empresas que se dedican a la extracción de petróleo es el descontrol de los pozos, lo cual puede implicar altos costos debido a la reparación de los daños y/o perjuicios que se hayan generado a personas, instalaciones o al medio ambiente.

Un descontrol de pozos se genera por un brote, el cual no se puede manejar a voluntad, y se clasifica en:

Descontrol diferencial.- Sucede cuando la presión de formación es mayor que la presión hidrostática, invadiendo los fluidos de la formación el fondo del pozo, levantando la columna de fluidos de manera que la expulsa a superficie y el equipo de control superficial no está cerrado.

Descontrol inducido.- Es ocasionado por el movimiento de la tubería, la cual puede sondear o aligerar la columna hidrostática o fracturar la formación al introducirla complicándose el problema al tener tuberías rotas.

Ante el descontrol se procede a aplicar un método específico de control según sea el problema que lo genera, sin embargo la realidad es que son pocas las acciones en el Control de Pozos que ocurren como son planeadas, por lo que es importante estar familiarizado con las complicaciones que pueden ocurrir durante la ejecución del control.

A continuación presentamos una lista de las complicaciones más comunes:

Tapado / colapsado del anular
Sarta tapada
Falla de la BOP
Falla o daño del revestidor
Tapón de cemento
Errores conceptuales
Complicaciones durante la circulación de un Kick
Presión excesiva de revestidor
Presión reducida no confiable o no disponible
Perforación en caliente
Consideraciones de Control de Pozos horizontales
Hueco o lavadura en el Tubing
Congelamiento
Detección del punto libre
Válvula flotadora de Contra presión en la sarta
Pesca
Pérdidas de circulación
Pérdidas parciales y severas de circulación
Problemas mecánicos del Pozo
Fresado
Tubería fuera del fondo y fuera del Pozo
Tubería muy débil o muy corroída
Cambios en los Tanques
Bit o embudo tapado
Presión entre las sartas de revestidores
Falla en los manómetros de presión
Problemas más allá del estrangulador
Falla o cambio de la bomba
Reciprocrado de la tubería durante el Control de Pozo
Consideraciones de las presiones de cierre
Snubbing en la sarta o Tumbing
Pega de tubería
Sarta de telescopía

Por lo anterior, es de vital importancia estar siempre alerta ante los indicadores de presión, flujo y equipo involucrado para reconocer el surgimiento de brotes a la brevedad y tomar las medidas necesarias para evitar que se produzcan incidentes, y en caso de que sea imposible evitarlos, contar con un Seguro de Control de Pozos, que dé certeza de la obtención de los recursos necesarios para reparar los daños y que la operación de la empresa no se vea comprometida.

Recordemos que no existe “una pérdida sin asegurar”, lo que no se asegura implica una retención, la cual afecta directamente el patrimonio de la empresa.
En NRGI Broker contamos con un equipo experto en Seguros de Control de Pozos, Seguro de Responsabilidad Ambiental y Seguro de Responsabilidad Civil, así como con especialistas en administración de riesgos que le brindarán soluciones integrales, con productos comprobados, que se adaptan a la medida de sus necesidades.
Comuníquese con nosotros, estamos para ayudarle:
info@nrgibroker.com
(55) 9177.2100

 

China’s promised energy revolution

From: Financial Times / Nick Butler / 19 de noviembre

 

Can China transform its energy economy? For the last 30 years rapid economic growth – based on heavy industry, manufacturing and construction – has been sustained by hydrocarbons. Coal remains dominant; what has changed is the volumes involved. In 1990, China used some 446m tonnes of coal. This year the figure will be around 2.8bn tonnes. In parallel, oil demand has grown with the dramatic expansion of car numbers. Oil consumption was 2m barrels a day in 1980. Now it is almost 12m b/d, making China the largest oil importer. But growth has come at a cost. China, as last week’s announcement from the Global Carbon Project reminded us, is the largest single source of emissions and suffering badly from the low level pollution that covers many cities in smog. President Xi Jinping has promised dramatic change – an energy revolution “to make the skies blue again”.

The rhetoric is great but are the promises deliverable? A comprehensive study of the Chinese energy market published last week as part of the International Energy Agency’s new World Energy Outlook is a great place to start for anyone wanting to understand what is happening and what might happen next. The facts are remarkable: China consumes 25 per cent of energy used globally each day. Coal continues to dominate Chinese energy use – in industry, power generation and heating – providing almost two-thirds of total demand. The country produces and uses over 50 per cent of all the coal burnt globally. Power generation has grown dramatically to meet electricity demand that has quadrupled since 2000. Gas use is relatively small but growing – mostly relying, for now, on imported LNG. China is the leading producer of wind and solar power. Advances in technology and production efficiency have cut costs and made the country the dominant supplier of solar panels to the rest of the world. China is building dozens of new nuclear plants – more than a third of the global total. Its nuclear industry is developing its own reactor technology, aiming to create a world-class export industry. The country leads the global electric vehicle industry. Of the estimated 2m electric vehicles on the world’s roads by the end of this year, at least 40 per cent will be in China. Remarkable advances in energy efficiency have been made, and the amount of energy used for each unit of China’s gross domestic product has fallen 30 per cent since 2000 but emissions remain a challenge. After three years when reported emissions were flat, renewed industrial growth has pushed them up again.

Each of these facts reflects a dramatic change in the last 10 to 15 years. But they do not represent an end point. The party Congress in Beijing endorsed the latest plan – a sweeping statement of intent entitled “Energy Production and Consumption Revolution Strategy”. The plan describes a transformation of the whole energy sector over the next decade and a half. The share of non-fossil fuels will rise to 15 per cent by 2020, and to 20 per cent by 2030, meeting most if not all incremental demand. By 2030, 80 per cent of all remaining coal-fired power stations will have ultra low emissions as old capacity is retired. GDP energy intensity will fall by 15 per cent and the amount of carbon required will fall by 15 per cent. Further improvements will come over the following decade to 2030 The target is to ensure that emissions peak by 2030. The long-term goal for 2050 is to reduce the share of fossil fuels to less than half the total, to rebase the whole system on leading-edge energy technologies and equipment and make China an important player in global energy governance. History suggests it is unwise to underestimate China’s ability to deliver on its plans but in this case there are good reasons for doubt. Infrastructure and market structures are needed to support the changing energy mix.

As the IEA analysis makes clear, the absence of infrastructure and a supportive regulatory regime already limit the potential of natural gas. The same problems could constrain wind and solar. Electric vehicle numbers are growing but the odds are still that the bulk of the electricity they use will be produced from coal for a long time to come. An excellent post by Simon Goess for the Energy Collective website spells out the reality. In addition, industrial changes have to be managed. In coal and the major manufacturing sectors many workers and whole communities remain dependent on activity that is likely to be transformed or eliminated by technology. The Chinese coal industry, for instance, employs 4m. Trade dependence also poses risks. The target of 80 per cent net self-sufficiency is probably achievable with the combination of coal, new nuclear and renewables, including hydro. But the remaining 20 per cent involves the critical supply of oil where import dependence has doubled in the last five years. On the IEA’s estimate, China will need to invest $6.1tn – $250bn a year on energy supply between now and 2040, two-thirds of which will go into the power sector. Another $2.1tn ($90bn a year) will be needed to deliver the required gains in energy efficiency. China is a dominant force in the global energy market. Next week I will look at the international implications of what is happening. But energy also matters for the survival of the regime in Beijing. The political process has not been ended by Mr Xi’s triumphant re-election. A sustained improvement in living standards over the last three decades has helped to keep the Communist party in power. That would not have been possible if the energy system had not been adapted to meet growing demand in what is now a consumer society. The “iron rice bowl” now extends beyond employment and food to mobility and increasingly to the demand for a cleaner environment. As ever, energy and power are inseparable.

 

 

From: Financial Times / Nick Butler / 19 de noviembre