Brent plunged nearly 6% from its 42-month high settle of $79.80 at the beginning of the week after the energy ministers of Saudi Arabia and Russia, de facto leaders of the OPEC and non-OPEC producers cutting output, said on May 25 that they had agreed on the need to raise supply by 1 million b/d. The market had been overly squeezed due to unintended output reductions in recent months and crude prices were overheated, was the shared view from their meeting in St. Petersburg.
However, by mid-week, doubts set in that all the OPEC and non-OPEC ministers were on board with the idea and would agree to ease the cuts when they meet in Vienna on June 22. The combined curbs by OPEC and its 10 non-OPEC collaborators, aimed at suppressing about 1.72 million b/d of supply, are currently valid until the end of December 2018.
The doubt not only arrested crude’s sell-off, but also prompted a nervous market to quickly rebuild some length — albeit in Brent, not WTI.
By Thursday’s market close, front-month ICE Brent futures had clawed back more than half of their $4.50/barrel drop from the 42-month peak but not WTI, which clung to its losses. The WTI/Brent spread blew out to more than minus $10/barrel, the widest since the US lifted its crude export restrictions in December 2015. There are forces at work on both ends — WTI is being weighed down by surging US supply running against pipeline capacity constraints, especially in the Permian region, while Brent is being propped up by an over-tightened OPEC production and an anticipated crimping of Iranian supply under US sanctions.
The OPEC/non-OPEC meeting later this month will likely be a contentious one, unless a consensus is forged in advance during closed-door negotiations, in which case those would be tough as well. The oil ministers of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait were reportedly due to meet in Kuwait City this weekend to discuss production policy.
We expect the cuts to be relaxed, likely starting from July 1. With several producers in both camps unable to sustainably increase production, it could end up being an unconventional arrangement, involving bigger contributions by Russia and Saudi Arabia. The proposed 1 million b/d increment is conservative, in our view, as close to 1.5 million b/d has been removed from the market due to unavoidable declines in Venezuela, Mexico, Angola, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan as well as outages in Nigeria and Libya in recent months.
However, OPEC now probably has more price hawks than ever before, keen to preserve crude’s price gains and to prevent the market from tipping into oversupply again. These members could negotiate down the quantum of increase or push for phased hikes.
As the anxiety levels in Tehran continue to rise, it has been pushing the Europeans and even OPEC for support against US sanctions, while furiously lobbying its crude buyers to stay put. But China and India, the biggest buyers of Iranian crude, are prepared to cut back, anticipating major shipping insurance and payment problems.
Something interesting to share?
Join NrgEdge and create your own NrgBuzz today
On 10 December 2021, if all goes to plan Royal Dutch Shell will become just Shell. The energy supermajor will move its headquarters from The Hague in The Netherlands to London, UK. At least three-quarters of the company’s shareholders must vote in favour of the change at the upcoming general meeting, which has been sold by Shell as a means of simplifying its corporate structure and better return value to shareholders, as well as be ‘better positioned to seize opportunities and play a leading role in the energy transition’. In doing so, it will no longer meet Dutch conditions for ‘royal’ designation, dropping a moniker that has defined the company through decades of evolution since 1907.
But why this and why now?
There is a complex web of reasons why, some internal and some external but the ultimate reason boils down to improving growth sustainability. Royal Dutch Shell was born through the merger of Shell Transport and Trading Company (based in the UK) and Royal Dutch (based in The Netherlands) in 1907, with both companies engaging in exploration activities ranging from seashells to crude oil. Unified across international borders, Royal Dutch Shell emerged as Europe’s answer to John D Rockefeller’s Standard Oil empire, as the race to exploit oil (and later natural gas) reserves spilled out over the world. Along the way, Royal Dutch Shell chalked up a number of achievements including establishing the iconic Brent field in the North Sea to striking the first commercial oil in Nigeria. Unlike Standard Oil which was dissolved into 34 smaller companies in 1911, Royal Dutch Shell remained intact, operating as two entities until 2005, when they were finally combined in a dual-nationality structure: incorporated in the UK, but residing in the Netherlands. This managed to satisfy the national claims both countries make on the supermajor, second only to ExxonMobil in revenue and profits but proved to be costly to maintain. In 2020, fellow Anglo-Dutch conglomerate Unilever also ditched its dual structure, opting to be based fully out of the City of London. In that sense, Shell is following the direction of the wind, as forces in its (soon to be former) home country turn sour.
There is a specific grievance that Royal Dutch Shell has with the Dutch government, the 15% dividend tax collected for Dutch-domiciled companies. It is the reason why Unilever abandoned Rotterdam and is now the reason why Shell is abandoning The Hague. And this point is particularly existentialist for Shell, since its share prices has been battered in recent years following the industry downturn since 2015, the global pandemic and being in the crosshairs of climate change activists as an emblem of why the world’s average temperatures are going haywire. The latter has already caused the largest Dutch state pension fund ABP to stop investing in fossil fuels, thereby divesting itself of Royal Dutch Shell. This was largely a symbolic move, but as religious figures will know, symbols themselves carry much power. To combat this, Shell has done two things. First, it has positioned itself to be at the forefront of energy transition, announcing ambitious emissions reductions plans in line with its European counterparts to become carbon neutral by 2050. Second, it is looking to bump up its dividend payouts after slashing them through the depths of the Covid-19 pandemic and accelerating share buybacks to remain the bluest of blue-chip stocks. But then, earlier this year, a Dutch court ruled that Shell’s emissions targets were ‘not ambitious enough’, ordering a stricter aim within a tighter timeframe. And the 15% dividend tax remains – even though Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s coalition government has been attempting to scrap it, with (it is presumed) some lobbying from Royal Dutch Shell and Unilever.
As simplistic it is to think that Shell is leaving for London believes the citizens of the Netherlands has turned its back on the company, the ultimate reason was the dividend tax. Reportedly, CEO Ben van Buerden called up Mark Rutte on Sunday informing him of the planned move. Rutte’s reaction, it is said was of dismay. And he embarked on a last-ditch effort to persuade Royal Dutch Shell to change its mind, by immediately lobbying his government’s coalition partners to back an abolition of the dividend tax. The reaction was perhaps not what he expected, with left-wing and green parties calling Shell’s threat ‘blackmail’. With democracy drawing a line, Shell decided to walk; or at least present an exit plan endorsed by its Board to be voted by shareholders. Many in the Netherlands see Shell’s exit and the loss of the moniker Royal Dutch – as a blow to national pride, especially since the country has been basking in the glow of expanded reputation as a result of post-Brexit migration of financial activities to Amsterdam from London. The UK, on the other hand, sees Shell’s decision and Unilever’s – as an endorsement of the country’s post-Brexit potential.
The move, if passed and in its initial stages, will be mainly structural, transferring the tax residence of Shell to London. Just ten top executives including van Buerden and CFO Jessica Uhl will be making the move to London. Three major arms – Projects and Technology, Global Upstream and Integrated Gas and Renewable Energies – will remain in The Hague. As will Shell’s massive physical reach on Dutch soil: the huge integrated refinery in Pernis, the biofuels hub in Rotterdam, the country’s first offshore wind farm and the mammoth Porthos carbon capture project that will funnel emissions from Rotterdam to be stored in empty North Sea gas fields. And Shell’s troubles with activists will still continue. British climate change activists are as, if not more aggressive as their Dutch counterpart, this being the country where Extinction Rebellion was born. Perhaps more of a threat is activist investor Third Point, which recently acquired a chunk of Shell shares and has been advocating splitting the company into two – a legacy business for fossil fuels and a futures-focused business for renewables.
So Shell’s business remains, even though its address has changed. In the grand scheme of things, never mind the small matter of Dutch national pride – Royal Dutch Shell’s roadmap to remain an investment icon and a major driver of energy transition will continue in its current form. This is a quibble about money or rather, tax – that will have little to no impact on Shell’s operations or on its ambitions. Royal Dutch Shell is poised to become just Shell. Different name and a different house, but the same contents. Unless, of course, Queen Elizabeth II decides to provide royal assent, in which case, Shell might one day become Royal British Shell.
End of Article
high efficiency oil boiler - Boyle Energy Provide best Oil Furnace Repair & Installation experts. We also provide free installation estimates for new High Efficiency oil furnaces. Oil furnaces & boilers with high efficiency save your energy & money over time