SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Gold/Mining/Energy | Big Dog's Boom Boom Room


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: russet who wrote (166751)4/4/2012 6:34:49 AM
From: Bearcatbob   of 179016
 
russet, Don Coxe often speaks of country risk - especially as the value of oil or other minerals increase. No country appears to be immune from the issue.

IMO eventually, as I have said before, the commodity itself may be the best way to profit (nostarch has referenced a leveraged oil ETF for instance).

How many guys here are playing the oil ETF?


Bob

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

From: CommanderCricket4/4/2012 8:09:44 AM
   of 179016
 

Cabinet to debate on InterOil Elk and Antelope LNG project

By PATRICK TALU (POST COURIER)

THE National Executive Council will be deliberating on the InterOil led Elk/Antelope LNG project in the Gulf Province.

Prime Minister Peter O’Neill said InterOil and the government have an agreement for the project but the project has been delayed promoting the NEC to decide and take action on the project.

“Cabinet will debate on that. InterOil has an agreement with the State on the project,” the Prime Minister told reporters yesterday while asked to comment on his Governments position on the Elk/Antelope project undertaken by InterOil and its proposed partners in Mitsui and Enegry Wold Corporation.

Last year, InterOil announced that it will complete its Final Investment Decision by November, however it has been deferred to this month after the Minister for Petroleum and Energy William Duma went loggerheads with Interoil over proposed change of its intial plan to develop the project.

We sent several text messages and emails to Mr Duma to comment on his position as the minister responsiblebut he did not respond.

However, Gulf Governor Havila Kavo yesterday alleged that certain ministers in the current government have vested interest in the project and strongly opposed InterOil.

“Certain ministers have vested interest in the project and are trying to lobby for another developer,” he told this reporter at the Parliament corridors yesterday. He said he will present a report on the project at the Parliament today.

InterOil this week announced it has entered into agreements to extend the dates by which certain conditions are to be met and FID made in LNG project agreements with Mitsui until June 30, 2012, and Energy World Corp Ltd (EWC) until December. The Joint Venture Operating Agreement (JVOA) for the Company's proposed Condensate Stripping Plant (CSP) with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (Mitsui), and associated agreements, have been amended so that the time allowed for FID has been extended until June.

The company said the parties contemplate additional amendments to further extend the JVOA and associated agreements to allow for FID to December 31, 2012, if such extension proves necessary.

The JVOA sets out the rights and obligations of the participants of the joint venture to develop a CSP at InterOil's Elk and Antelope field sites.

The terms of the conditional Project Funding and Construction Agreement (PFCA) and Shareholder Agreement entered into in February 2011 with EWC governing the parameters in respect of the development, construction, financing and operation of a planned three million tonne per annum (mtpa) land-based liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the Gulf have been amended so that the date by which conditions are to be met and FID reached has been extended until December 2012.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (166754)4/4/2012 8:27:55 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa   of 179016
 
"However, Gulf Governor Havila Kavo yesterday alleged that certain ministers in the current government have vested interest in the project and strongly opposed InterOil."

How can Havila Kavo say this in good conscience?
The entire country of PNG has a vested interest in the project. If he opposes the project, then is he not guilty of treason in that he is deliberately trying to hurt PNG?
I note that the wording says he only opposes InterOil, not the project. I wonder how much money Shell has paid Mr. Kavo?

S&P

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Ed Ajootian4/4/2012 8:31:50 AM
2 Recommendations   of 179016
 
Increased Fracking Creates a Burgeoning Water Services Industry By G Joel Chury

Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is the process whereby hydrocarbons are freed from within shale rock deposits by pressurized water and additives. Such is the hunger for energy that 80% of all new North American oil and gas drilling now utilizes this technique, which, in its current form, is barely a decade old. Fracking requires enormous amounts of water, which has midwifed the birth of a highly lucrative water services industry.

For every horizontal well that is drilled, the fracking involved uses two to six million gallons of groundwater. This year, in the United States alone, the industry is projected to use anywhere from 70 billion to 140 billion gallons. Water services can amount to up to 30% of the initial costs of a new well.



These services include supply, transportation, disposal and treatment. Currently, about 60% of fracking water is recycled, 30% directly and another 30% over the life of the well. The big money is in continuous water reuse, especially when a water services company forms a relationship with a major producer with extensive drilling activities. For example, the relationship between Ridgeline Energy Services TSXV:RLE and EOG Resources NYSE:EOG.

“[A young EOG manager] identified four years ago that there were some problems coming down the pipe here,” recalls Tyler Heathcote, President of Ridgeline Energy Services and Ridgeline Water. “So he wanted us to start researching different technologies for him, and that’s how it all got started.”

Heathcote continues, “The big focus for our business is to provide a service where we can take the client’s contaminated water and recycle it so that they can reuse it over and over again, while not putting a strain on the surface water. Of course we’d like to charge on a per-gallon, per-litre or per-cubic-foot basis—[basically] to just charge on per-volume rate for treated water.”

Oil and gas newsletter writer Keith Schaefer has dubbed the idea of per-volume billing the “ Holy Grail” model. This model has yet to be monetized, but best guesses suggest $3 to $7 per barrel (42 gallons) of water.

Ridgeline began its work primarily in the natural-gas heavy Horn River Basin in northeast BC, only to concentrate later on oil plays after the gas-price collapse. Today, the company operates across North America, including such highly-productive regions as Texas’s Eagleford Shale and Pennsylvania’s Utica Shale. Each region has its differences, but all are faced with the need to reduce water consumption.


The potential is huge. I’ve never seen anything like it over my entire 20-year career in the industry —Tyler Heathcote


Water requirements for the fracking industry have increased almost exponentially over the last five years. So the challenge is obvious. “The potential is huge,” Heathcote declares. “I’ve never seen anything like it over my entire 20-year career in the industry. Companies need to continue developing these resources, but water remains a primary concern. This is coming as a result of the governing bodies finally implementing some very strong water-usage regulations, which were non-existent 10 years ago. It has all led clients to looking for ways to manage their water properly so that they can maintain their economic viability.”

Ridgeline helps maintain that viability in two ways. First, by recycling the water that has come out of the well for future use, reducing dumping costs and providing a supply for future drilling activities. And second, by separating oil and gas from the water during treatment, thereby providing greater production and efficiency.

Heathcote concludes, “The oil markets are extremely busy, and we’re in a situation right now where we’ve got more demand than supply for our services. We’re looking to rectify that scenario by ramping up and getting to a steady-state manufacturing situation where we can build a lot more of our systems and get them out in a shorter time frame. That would enable us to meet a lot of our budget projection.” In short, “Things are looking very good.”

***************************************

Above from "Resource Clips" with a web page showing today's date,

resourceclips.com 

Great to see RLE finally start to leak their ties to EOG to the media.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Salt'n'Peppa who wrote (166755)4/4/2012 8:37:33 AM
From: CommanderCricket   of 179016
 
S&P,

Kavo is on IOC's side and actively lobbied the government for them to approve the project ASAP.

He's the guy who stated "Duma screwed up XOM highlands LNG project and shouldn't have the opportunity to screw up Interoil's Gulf LNG project.

Michael

I sent you a PM

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: CommanderCricket4/4/2012 8:43:59 AM
1 Recommendation   of 179016
 
Solyndra’s loan guarantee ‘was rushed,’ Treasury audit says
Posted on April 4, 2012 at 6:40 am

President Barack Obama, with Solyndra Chief Executive Officer Chris Gronet, looks at a solar panel, during a tour of Solyndra, Inc., a solar panel manufacturing facility, in Fremont, Calif. Solyndra received a $535 million loan from the U.S. government has announced layoffs of 1,100 workers and plans to file for bankruptcy. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

The U.S. Treasury Department was given one day to complete its review of the government’s $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra LLC, the bankrupt solar-panel manufacturer, to accommodate an Energy Department press release, according to a Treasury audit.

While Treasury staff say they had enough time to review the loan, internal e-mails cast doubt on whether staff suggestions to provide a partial instead of a full guarantee were addressed by the Energy Department, the Treasury’s Inspector General’s Office said today in the report.

“Treasury’s consultative role was not sufficiently defined, the consultation that did occur was rushed and no documentation was retained as to how Treasury’s serious concerns with the loan were addressed,” the audit said.

Solyndra, heralded by President Barack Obama as proof that “the promise of clean energy isn’t just an article of faith,” filed for bankruptcy in September, days before the FBI raided its headquarters in Fremont, California. The company received a $535 million loan guarantee under the Energy Department’s Loan Guarantee Program in September 2009 that was funded by the Treasury’s Federal Financing Bank, a government corporation created by Congress in 1973.

An Energy Department spokesperson wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Draft Press Release

The Energy Department didn’t consult the Treasury on the terms and conditions of the loan transaction before or during Energy’s review. The Treasury’s review happened after its staff was told by the Office of Management and Budget that the Energy Department was ready to make a conditional commitment to Solyndra, the report said.

The Energy Department sent a draft press release to the Treasury on March 18, 2009, “announcing Solyndra’s conditional commitment planned for issuance later that afternoon,” the report said. The Treasury requested more time for review and later agreed with the Energy Department’s request to expedite the review by March 19, 2009, “so that the press release could be issued on the morning of March 20, 2009,” the report said.

Treasury staff offered feedback in a March 19, 2009, conference call, noting concerns that included the amount of equity in the project, a preference for a partial guarantee and the Energy Department’s claims on Solyndra’s intellectual property in the event of default.

Comments Raised

While “Treasury officials told us that all comments raised were addressed by” the Energy Department, internal Treasury e- mails from that time “leave questions” as to whether concerns were fully addressed, the audit said.

“We pressed on certain issues such as why we aren’t providing only a partial guarantee and covering a smaller percentage of the eligible project costs, but the train really has left the station on this deal,” an internal Treasury e-mail said, according to the report.

The Treasury conducted the audit because of “heightened media attention” and congressional inquiries into the loan, the report said.

Congressional Republicans investigating Solyndra have criticized the Energy Department for not including Treasury officials in a decision to restructure the terms of the loan guarantee that was approved in February 2011.

The last-ditch effort to save Solyndra from bankruptcy put taxpayers behind $75 million in private investment in case of liquidation. Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee panel investigating Solyndra’s loan, said Treasury was “not sufficiently consulted” on the new terms at a hearing in October.

Treasury officials told auditors that it was “unclear if Solyndra’s restructure was considered a deviation” of the terms, which would have required consultation. The report says the departments should develop a “common understanding” of what qualifies as a deviation of the loan terms.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: CommanderCricket who wrote (166757)4/4/2012 8:45:04 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa   of 179016
 
Thanks for the clarification, CC. The article is badly worded then, or perhaps my grasp of English has gone down the tubes.

"However, Gulf Governor Havila Kavo yesterday alleged that certain ministers in the current government have vested interest in the project and strongly opposed InterOil."

I read this sentence over and over and it does suggest that Kavo is the one opposing InterOil.
Poorly worded IMO.
Reporters these days...*tsk*

S&P

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: kidl4/4/2012 8:46:53 AM
   of 179016
 
Clock ticking on U.S. SPR release to avert summer gasoline spike


By Matthew Robinson

NEW YORK | Wed Apr 4, 2012 12:14am EDT


(Reuters) - President Barack Obama faces an unforgiving foe in his bid to marshal global support for releasing strategic oil reserves: time.

For maximum effect, the Obama administration needs to tap into U.S. government reserves no later than the end of this month to avert a spike in gasoline prices to $5 a gallon this summer, which could roil his re-election bid, analysts say.

The urgency to get physical barrels on the market has been increased by growing expectations that Obama will do what no other president has done before -- tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) twice.

As diplomatic efforts intensified, French officials said last week that a move may come soon, and Britain has signaled its willingness to join too, sources say. Most traders now say a release of reserves is a question of when, not if.

Having lost the element of surprise that would have delivered a quick blow to prices, Obama will be forced to wait and watch while physical barrels of crude slowly work their way through the global oil system. There are also potential new logistical hurdles from last year when the government tapped the strategic reserve to make up for the loss of Libyan crude.

To build up gasoline stocks ahead of the Memorial Day kickoff to the U.S. driving season in late May, the government would need to hold a bidding round within weeks for the emergency reserves. It would also have to work with companies to schedule deliveries of crude to refineries for processing.

"From the time of the release to the time the oil gets to a refinery and the products to the market is generally about 40 to 45 days," said Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, who has served as an energy policy advisor to over 50 governments.

"If you think it is going to have any downward pressure on gasoline prices, you'd want to do it about now so that the gasoline would be in the market at the peak of the driving season."

The White House has said all options, including a strategic petroleum reserve drawdown, are on the table to bring down prices, but has been mute on the timing of any action.

But pressure is mounting to tap reserves soon, with global crude production down more than a million barrels per day (bpd) due to a string of small disruptions worldwide. The price of Brent crude is up 15 percent this year at around $125.

Last year's release announcement in June caught the market by surprise -- sending oil prices plummeting $10 in one day. This time, a possible move has been discussed publicly.

The immediate impact may also be blunted by last year's 60-million-barrel International Energy Agency action, which many traders and analysts said set a precedent for a more liberal use of government-held reserves.

HOW SOON IS NOW?

A year ago, it took nearly a month after the release was announced on June 23 before the first delivery was made; final shipments were not completed until the end of August. Oil prices rebounded over that time to where they were before the release was announced.

"When we did the Libyan release, we had trouble getting the barrels scheduled -- if you know in advance that you want to schedule the barrels into the pipeline system, then you can do it," said Amy Jaffe, an energy policy expert at Rice University's Baker Institute in Houston.

"If after you lose the supply you have to spend a month doing the bidding and then you have to wait another six weeks before it gets through the refinery gates, then by the time the gasoline gets to the market -- you are talking about September and October and it's already too late."

The dynamics of the U.S. market have also shifted dramatically since last year, creating additional logistical hurdles that could delay or complicate deliveries from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Crude can be drawn from the reserve at a rate of 4.25 million barrels per day currently, according to an official with the Department of Energy, slightly below design capacity. But some analysts have questioned whether the slower distribution of oil from the 2011 release indicates rates would actually be lower. The U.S. currently imports around 9 million bpd.

The surge in crude production from Canada and North Dakota has prompted the reversal of the Seaway pipeline, which carried crude from Texas to Oklahoma. That has lowered the capacity to draw down crude from the SPR's largest storage cavern.

The reserve was created in the 1970s to move crude from the Gulf Coast to refiners north of the region, which is now flush with rising supplies. Moving crude on ships has been complicated by the potential shutdown of three refineries on the U.S. East Coast, which left the region in need of fuel -- not crude -- to avoid a price spike.

"If we're just releasing U.S. barrels into the U.S. Gulf then that has a questionable impact," said Katherine Spector, commodity strategist for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce in New York.

While Gulf Coast refiners could make up for much of that fuel demand, it would have to be shipped on U.S.-flagged vessels under the requirements of the Jones Act. The government must use that fleet as much as possible in an SPR release, however, which could tax the availability of ships to haul fuel to the East Coast and necessitate the use of waivers to allow foreign-flagged vessels.

In addition, the United States has struggled to gather support from other IEA members that gave extra strength to last year's efforts. Britain has expressed potential willingness to tap its own government stockpiles, as has France, which also faces pressure from elections in May, have .

But the head of the IEA, Maria van der Hoeven, has said on several occasions that a coordinated IEA release is not warranted because there is no significant supply disruption on world oil markets. Germany and Italy say they are opposed.

Opponents insist the reserve, which can cover roughly 80 days of petroleum imports, should only be used in the case of a major supply disruption.

Obama's use of the reserve last year appears to have created a perception among traders that consumer countries can intervene in markets in the same way producers can withhold oil exports to bolster prices or central banks can adjust policies to affect the flow of credit through the monetary system.

Congress recently modified the law governing the reserve so it could also be used if a disruption caused a major rise in petroleum prices that threatened the U.S. economy. Experts say using the SPR frequently to bring down prices sets up an expectation in markets, however, that could dull the ability of a release from the reserve to bring down prices.

"Every time you use it the effect is potentially dampened in the future," said Spector. Supporters of an SPR release say when the full weight of U.S. and EU sanctions against Iran, aimed at ending Tehran's nuclear ambitions, take effect in July, the market could face even greater supply shortfalls and price spikes due to the lack of oil from OPEC's No. 2 exporter.

Traders are also nervously watching for signs of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations, which the West fears could be aimed at making a bomb but that Tehran insists are for peaceful purposes. A release of extra barrels into the market could help limit any price jump from a strike.

Some traders had been concerned that Saudi Arabia, the only country with significant spare capacity to raise production, could trim output levels if consumers draw down emergency stocks. Those worries eased on Tuesday on news the kingdom would likely maintain production at current high levels.

NO SURPRISE NEEDED?

Supply problems from Syria, Yemen, the North Sea and South Sudan have already trimmed global oil supplies by more than 1 million barrels per day (bpd) this year, and there are growing signs that sanctions against Iran are hitting its exports.

Obama on Friday vowed to forge ahead with tough sanctions on Iran, saying there was enough oil in the world market -- including emergency stockpiles -- to allow countries to cut Iranian imports.

While the element of surprise release may be gone, analysts say it still has considerable power in the market.

Oil economist Phil Verleger said the sale of oil from strategic reserves would limit the power of large producers -- those that pump more than 1 million bpd -- to move prices higher by limiting supplies when markets are tight.

"If they take one cargo off the market, they raise prices enough to mean they earn more money -- that applies to Exxon, Shell, that applies to countries like Nigeria," Verleger said.

"If they announce an oil sale, even if the surprise is gone, they have removed the ability of the large oil companies and any oil exporting country to manipulate prices -- this is $10-15 a barrel. That's a big deal."



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: kidl who wrote (166760)4/4/2012 8:53:55 AM
From: Zincman   of 179016
 
Thought is was a production issue and not supply... Hmm, guess anything is game in an election year.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Bearcatbob who wrote (166753)4/4/2012 9:51:11 AM
From: teevee   of 179016
 
I doubt Don Coxe speaks of the risk of production from the oil sands becoming stranded oil, and reflected in the price of oil sands stocks accordingly. Yesterday, the oil price differential set a new record high.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.