Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hohoho: The Race for Global Energy Resources Gets Hotter
#1
Less and less doubt that the Bigs will do most anything to secure energy resources. IOC is sitting pretty:
"
The Race for Energy Resources Gets Hotter
Marin Katusa, Contributor
+ Comment now
0
 
0
 
 
4
 
1
 
0
 

English: Progress Energy Resources Corp Basic Black Logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Malaysia’s state-owned oil and gas company made a multibillion-dollar bet two weeks ago that Canada will choose to export its shale gas riches. Even though the odds of securing permission to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the Canadian west coast are still pretty poor, the costs of such an endeavor immense, and the timeline in question very long, Petronas is putting $4.6 billion on the table – far more than it has ever spent on an acquisition before – to secure a large foothold in the British Columbia shale gas scene.

It’s yet another sign that things are getting serious in the global race for resources.

The race for resources drives much of our thinking within the Casey Research energy group. It’s more than a common theme – we believe that it is one of the strongest forces at work in our world today, and that it plays a role in determining the tone of many international relationships and domestic policies. Countries that have resources, from Russia to Australia, are altering fiscal structures and ownership rules so as to glean as much benefit as possible from their riches, while still reserving sufficient supplies to fuel their futures. Countries that lack natural-resource wealth, such as Japan and South Korea, are racing to lock up projects and partnerships abroad that can supply their future resource needs.

And a race it is, because they are not alone. There are few countries in this world with natural supplies of all the energy commodities they need – Australia, Russia, and Canada are among the few that do – and everyone else has to constantly wheel and deal to secure imports. Now the easy deposits of many energy resources are disappearing, but global demand continues to rise. The result: stiffer competition.

Petronas’ deal is a perfect example. Petronas is buying Calgary-based Progress Energy Resources (T.PRQ) for $4.6 billion in cash. Including convertible debt the deal is valued at about $5.4 billion. In announcing the deal, Petronas also said it has chosen Prince Rupert, BC, as the home of its planned LNG export terminal.

So the company is spending billions of dollars to acquire 1.9 trillion cubic feet of proven and probable gas reserves … but there is no guarantee that they will be able to export any of that gas in the foreseeable future.

Pipelines have become a highly contentious issue in North America – just as U.S. citizens are embroiled in a debate over the Keystone XL pipeline which would transport oil sands crude south, Canadians are arguing the merits and liabilities of the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would move oil sands crude to the west coast for transport to Asia. One of the big arguments against Northern Gateway is the danger of sending tanker traffic through the coastal waters of northern BC, where an oil spill would be near impossible to clean up and would irreparably damage a pristine ecosystem.

The same arguments will surface with natural gas. The LNG terminal that Petronas envisions in Prince Rupert would send loaded tankers through those same sensitive waters, an idea that is far from accepted in the region at this point. The pipelines ferrying natural gas to that terminal would cross mountainous terrain burdened with heavy winter snowpack and dramatic summer melts that regularly cause hillsides to slide and rivers to swell their banks and take out bridges – all points that opponents will use to argue that the potential risks outweigh the benefits.

In short: Petronas and its peers face a steep, uphill battle in their quest to permit pipelines and LNG terminals on the west coast. But as we wrote last week, the potential for big profits will also play a role.

Remember, natural gas in its gaseous state is a landlocked commodity. Its low energy-to-volume ratio renders it uneconomic to ship, which means pipelines are the only option. To move natural gas over oceans it has to be condensed into LNG, increasing the energy-to-volume ratio dramatically and making it economic to load onto tankers and send around the world.

Many major global economies rely on LNG to meet their natural gas needs; and demand is on the rise. In 2011, global LNG trade grew by 9.4% compared to 2010, with Asia generating most of the demand increase. Japan is the world’s top LNG importer, having bought 79.1 million tonnes in 2011; South Korea is in second place with imports near 36 million tonnes. India, China, and Taiwan are all also major LNG buyers, helping to lift Asia into top spot as a regional LNG import market: Asian LNG buyers accounted for 63.6% of the global market in 2011.

That level of demand from a part of the world fairly short on supply means high prices. LNG in Asia is currently worth between $17 and $18 per million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) – six to seven times the price of natural gas in North America.

That price difference is precisely why Petronas is maneuvering to buy reserves in North America. The gamble is simply worth its while – if Petronas is able to build pipelines and an LNG terminal on the west coast, the company will be able to take a commodity worth a few dollars here and sell it for many times more in Asia.

The lure of that payout has drawn many players to this expensive, drawn out, and highly uncertain game. With this deal, Petronas joins a growing list of international energy companies including PetroChina, Mitsubishi, and CNOOC that are spending billions on remote natural gas plays in Alberta and BC, all of which share the same dream of selling the gas in Asian markets.

While these Asian energy giants take on the risk, Canadian gas explorers pretty much get to just enjoy the benefits. Depressed North American gas prices have brought most gas explorers to a standstill – investors and banks alike are not interested in funding projects where the cost of production is almost the same as the value of the product. But being bought out or finding a partner with deep pockets is a perfect solution. As Progress’ CEO said, “Our asset base requires extensive capital to develop its large potential and ultimately access international LNG markets. Petronas offers the size and scale that will enable our company to continue to grow and not be limited by the same cash flow challenges faced by many producers in the North American natural gas market today.”

Since Canada’s gas explorers are stuck in neutral, you might think that Asian energy firms would be making minimal offers, trying to acquire these resources on the cheap. Instead, Petronas offered C$22.45 a share for Progress, 77% more than Progress’ closing price the previous day. Are they trying to earn goodwill with Canadians? Perhaps, but there’s a more likely explanation for their generosity: pressure from behind. If they made a stink bid and Progress voiced displeasure, the dispute could draw attention from Petronas’ peers, which are also on the lookout for good natural gas deals. One of these peers might then swoop in and make a better offer, leaving Petronas empty-handed.

This is the impact of the race for resources. These Asian energy giants are racing with each other to secure resources for the future. The constant pressure to stay ahead in the race means companies will offer whatever it takes to secure a deal quickly, before anyone else trips up their efforts.

Shale gas riches have positioned North Americans as beneficiaries in the global race to secure natural gas supplies. However, complacency is a dangerous thing. Just because North America has gas doesn’t mean it has all of the energy resources it needs for the future. President Obama’s recent executive order on Russian uranium was a reminder that the U.S. relies on imports to feed its nuclear reactors, and with the Megatons deal coming to an end, the United States is being thrust into the global race for uranium just as that race is heating up.

Scarcity is a powerful force and it leaves those in control of limited resources wielding great power. We think a scarcity of uranium will increase Russia’s power; control over some of the last big, easy oil deposits has earned Saudi Arabia great global influence. Petronas’ deal with Progress is a sign that shale gas could generate similar prowess for North America, and is a strong reminder that the global race for resources will provide some with money and power while leaving others in the dust."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource...ts-hotter/

Just the fact that Petronas is spending $5.2 billion for 1.9 Ts of shale gas in Canada says a whole lot. Yes it's proven and provable, but we are very close to that and we have lots of liquids. Put the pedal to the metal boys, the race is on!
Reply

#2
Quote:The race for resources drives much of our thinking within the Casey Research energy group. It’s more than a common theme – we believe that it is one of the strongest forces at work in our world today, and that it plays a role in determining the tone of many international relationships and domestic policies.

Nice find, Palm

Anyone who has read The Prize by Daniel Yergin knows how it has shaped much geo-politics in the past century. With accessible resources ever scarcer because of resource nationalization ("political peak oil"), the importance of it can only increase..
Reply

#3
Amazing to see the "gamble" these huge Asian O&G companies are taking assuming that Canada and the US will allow LNG plants to be built near sensitive waterways and LNG shipments risking accidents. Now if we want to see money buy power and influence, let's watch all of this develop. They must have some assurances that bribes, I mean money, spent the "right" ways can get things done even in the non-corrupt west. Hohoho, now we'll show PNG a thing or two. A couple of billion/T plus liquids fetches us a pretty nice price me thinks. And I really like this paragraph:
"Since Canada’s gas explorers are stuck in neutral, you might think that Asian energy firms would be making minimal offers, trying to acquire these resources on the cheap. Instead, Petronas offered C$22.45 a share for Progress, 77% more than Progress’ closing price the previous day. Are they trying to earn goodwill with Canadians? Perhaps, but there’s a more likely explanation for their generosity: pressure from behind. If they made a stink bid and Progress voiced displeasure, the dispute could draw attention from Petronas’ peers, which are also on the lookout for good natural gas deals. One of these peers might then swoop in and make a better offer, leaving Petronas empty-handed."

And it makes it interesting to think that someone posted on Yazoo tonight that "GB" is on his way to Singapore right now. "Mr pilot, please put this thing into hyper-space mode. I have bidness to tend to on the other side of the planet."
Reply

#4
"$5.2 billion for 1.9 Ts"

ummm......is it just me, or is that number astronomical? Dodgy

*gets out notepad*
ennerole has 5.x Ts Exclamation
*scratches forehead* Huh
carry the 1 Idea
*jaw hits the floor* Tongue

Thanx Ducks!

H&H,
hemi
Reply

#5
HemiHefi Big Grin

Don't know about astronomical as that's what would describe what IOC's prizes are worth including liquids and the fact that they don't have to drill all of the wells shale and CSG developers have to drill (see HefiSTP's post regarding the sudden realization by the developers of the Aussie LNG upstream projects that they have to drill a lot of very expensive wells to get what they need). So this $5.2 billion for 1.9Ts is peanuts compared to what IOC's extremely rich and prolific reservoirs are worth.

What we have is astronomical in PNG; in your backyard it is velly nice, but me thinks you'd rather own IOC right now than have your portfolio disproportionately slanted to shale or completely dry CSG. HohohoHemiHefi
Reply

#6
(07-13-2012, 05:18 AM)Palm Wrote: HemiHefi Big Grin

Don't know about astronomical as that's what would describe what IOC's prizes are worth including liquids and the fact that they don't have to drill all of the wells shale and CSG developers have to drill (see HefiSTP's post regarding the sudden realization by the developers of the Aussie LNG upstream projects that they have to drill a lot of very expensive wells to get what they need). So this $5.2 billion for 1.9Ts is peanuts compared to what IOC's extremely rich and prolific reservoirs are worth.

What we have is astronomical in PNG; in your backyard it is velly nice, but me thinks you'd rather own IOC right now than have your portfolio disproportionately slanted to shale or completely dry CSG. HohohoHemiHefi

But, at $2.74/mcfe, it is right in the zone of the PRE sell-down.

Let's not get too carried away with our visions, here.

VS
Reply

#7
Let's also not forget we are talking about buyout situations, not SDs. Not expecting a buyout necessarily, but a 77% premium for shale gas assets and the recent Cove deal show the possibilities are very real. Whoever gets left out of the SD can make any move they want once the deal details are disclosed. We have heard several times that some expect IOC not to survive as IOC. If Petronas is willing to pay this kind of a premium for Canadian shale................

(07-13-2012, 06:18 AM)ValueSleuth Wrote:
(07-13-2012, 05:18 AM)Palm Wrote: HemiHefi Big Grin

Don't know about astronomical as that's what would describe what IOC's prizes are worth including liquids and the fact that they don't have to drill all of the wells shale and CSG developers have to drill (see HefiSTP's post regarding the sudden realization by the developers of the Aussie LNG upstream projects that they have to drill a lot of very expensive wells to get what they need). So this $5.2 billion for 1.9Ts is peanuts compared to what IOC's extremely rich and prolific reservoirs are worth.

What we have is astronomical in PNG; in your backyard it is velly nice, but me thinks you'd rather own IOC right now than have your portfolio disproportionately slanted to shale or completely dry CSG. HohohoHemiHefi

But, at $2.74/mcfe, it is right in the zone of the PRE sell-down.

Let's not get too carried away with our visions, here.

VS
Reply

#8
R2Duck2,
Is it really possible that some think Malaysia's Petronas is paying too much? From a sellers standpoint, there is no such thing.

**********

TWO recent deals have raised questions as to whether Malaysian companies are over paying in acquiring assets abroad.

The SP Setia-Sime Darby-Employees Provident Fund consortium is forking out 400mil pounds for the Battersea project on the banks of the Thames in London.

The Malaysian team outbid the Chelsea Football Club and its Russian billionaire owner Roman Abramovich.

Going by market talk, the Malaysian consortium is paying a whopping 100mil pounds more than what Chelsea and Abramovich, a seasoned London property investor, were willing to pay.

Then there's Petroliam Nasional Bhd's (Petronas) proposed acquisition of Canada's Progress Energy Resources Corp.

Petronas is planning to offer C$20.45-a-share for Progress Energy. That price works out to a massive 77% premium over the latter's share price before the deal.

While both deals look expensive for the Malaysian buyers, there are also reasons why the prices may be justified.

In the Battersea project, there is a big difference in the financial modelling applied to the project by the Malaysian consortium versus how Chelsea and Abramovich would be looking at it.

The Malaysians, made up of two seasoned property developers, are strictly looking at how to maximise returns from the project, solely from sales and leasing of units there, not too dissimilar in concept, to how these companies have raked in handsome profits from their property development projects in Malaysia.

Chelsea Football Club, however, would have been looking primarily at housing a new stadium at the site. While ticket sales and advertising revenues do provide attractive cash flows, these returns may not be as high as what a pure property developer may be looking at.

Development value

The Malaysian consortium has revealed that the projected gross development value from the Battersea project was around £8bil (RM39.4bil) comprising a mix of residential and commercial properties.

That's more than 90% more than the expected investment cost, made up of RM2bil for the acquisition and RM1bil more for development costs. Add to that the prime location of the project and chances are that beyond the initial hiccups if any, this one is going to pay off in the long run.

In Petronas' case, a few facts ought to be considered when examining this deal:

First up, buying Progress Energy gives Petronas ownership of the largest holder in the Montney shale-gas area of British Columbia and full control of the three Progress Energy fields it bought a stake in last year.

Stemming from that, insiders say that the premium Petronas is paying for the company, is to be linked to its belief that the gas reserves that Progress Energy has rights to, may amount to more than what has been disclosed thus far.

Long-term resources

Progress Energy is fairly familiar to Petronas. The proposed acquisition follows a joint venture established by the two companies last year to develop a portion of Progress Energy's shale assets in the Foothills of northeast British Columbia as well as on the intention to pursue the development of an integrated liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility in Western Canada.

“This acquisition will provide Petronas with significant long-term strategic gas resources in a geopolitically stable region. It will also strengthen our conventional strategy whilst cementing Petronas' position as a major global LNG player,” Petronas president and chief executive Tan Sri Shamsul Azhar Abbas had said in a statement last week when announcing the deal.

A subsequent Bloomberg article said: “Petronas joins Asian peers including PetroChina Co, Mitsubishi Corp and Cnooc Ltd in seeking production in North America... The companies said they've selected a site at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, for a potential LNG export terminal and will conduct feasibility studies. Petronas joins groups led by Houston-based Apache Corp, Royal Dutch Shell Plc and the UK's BG Group Plc in the race to export gas from Canada's West Coast.”

Finally, it is very likely that another reason why Pertonas, which was advised by by Bank of America Corp's Merrill Lynch unit, has offered such a price is simply because it wanted to make the offer at a price decent enough to entice shareholders to sell.
Reply

#9
Makes sense MoneyTree. Call Phil and tell him to sell for $250/share and not screw the deal up. Otherwise we'll get a petition going to have him removed!!
Reply

#10
(07-13-2012, 11:20 AM)Palm Wrote: Makes sense MoneyTree. Call Phil and tell him to sell for $250/share and not screw the deal up. Otherwise we'll get a petition going to have him removed!!

For the uninitiated Palm is just kidding.
Remember, where do you think money grows?
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)