Nick Butler

China’s long march into the Middle East

Nick Butler — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:04:55 +0000

Success always brings its own burdens. The Chinese economy has grown in real terms by around 8 or 9 per cent a year since 1980. Some 800 million people have been lifted out of subsistence. Dozens of new cities have been built. The country is now one of the world’s great economic powers even if it is still not allowed to join the G8. And growth continues. China is the world’s biggest building site.

One of the burdens which has come with economic success is the need to import oil. China has found very little oil, despite extensive exploration efforts – especially in the South China sea. Net imports have therefore risen steadily from zero twenty years ago to 5.6m barrels a day last month.

Galileo and the shale gas revolution

Nick Butler — Sun, 12 May 2013 10:37:39 +0000

The news that Exxon is to build a $10 bn LNG export facility in Texas marks another significant step forward in the story of shale gas and its disruptive impact on the world energy market. Those who want a parallel for the painful process through which so many of the established forces of the industry on one side and the lobby groups on another have struggled to come to terms with the reality of shale gas over the last three years should read John Heilbron’s fascinating book on Galileo.

Is electricity market reform doomed?

Nick Butler — Thu, 09 May 2013 14:32:29 +0000

The problems facing the Government’s plan to reform the UK’s electricity market go well beyond the departure of two of the limited number of civil servants who actually understand the proposals. The reality is that the Government is losing its appetite for a scheme which is liable to disintegrate under the weight of its own complexity.

The challenge for Shell

Nick Butler — Thu, 02 May 2013 17:08:53 +0000

The departure of Peter Voser from Shell may be entirely voluntary and personal but the consequential change of leadership raises some very big issues for Shell’s board and the company’s investors.

Those who don’t know the big energy companies from the inside can all too easily imagine that life at the top is soft and easy. Corporate jets, lavish offices, great salaries and even greater bonuses. All true. But corporate life at that level is still a 24:7 existence made up of endless travel, hard negotiations with unpleasant people and unrelenting pressure from investors who are never satisfied. Within the company there are barons to be managed.

Externally there are always, even in the best of companies, running sores, often dating back decades and inherently insoluble. In Shell’s case the running sore is Nigeria. Then there are the mistakes, also inevitable in any company which takes risks. Shell’s mistake in recent years has been its ill fated adventure in Canada and the Arctic. Some put the total cost at $10bn and the ability to write off that amount without blinking is further evidence of just how strong the majors still are. The reality was that Shell was not Arctic-ready. Local managers were allowed too much freedom. The mistakes will make it difficult for the Shell board to appoint Marvin Odum – the man directly responsible for the US operations – as the next chief executive.

None of these problems was caused by Peter Voser. But as CEO you are responsible for everything. I can understand why even at the early age of 54 he is ready for a change of lifestyle, and I wish him well. The issue for Shell is whether it should now change its strategy as well as its leader. There is a very good case for doing so.

India will be changed by its thirst for energy

Nick Butler — Thu, 02 May 2013 05:00:59 +0000

Access to energy is now crucial for India’s continued development. But the scale of the challenge and the changes required could alter the whole structure of governance and the way in which the Indian economy works over the next few years.

A seminar held at Kings College London earlier this week looked at the issues – investment, trade, energy security and the impact of energy on the balance between the urban and the rural communities. We produced more questions than answers but even the questions are instructive.

A question for the Quod: Who will fund new nuclear?

Nick Butler — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:27:06 +0000

Behind the continuing negotiations on new nuclear in the UK one big question remains unanswered. Who is going to pay? Senior officials are concerned that the pressure to close a deal is undermining a sensible negotiating strategy by separating the terms – including the strike price and the issues of risk allocation – from the question of funding.

To grasp what is happening you have to understand the degree of desperation which now exists in Government to deliver growth. Growth is the justification of the whole economic strategy and of course the solution to the challenge of rising borrowing. Growth is seen as the only platform from which either coalition party can go back to the electorate. But growth is elusive and time is running out.

The value of energy assets

Nick Butler — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:00:41 +0000

A report from the Grantham Institute and the Carbon Tracker initiative, titled “Unburnable Carbon”, has produced a studied silence from the energy industry. The study, published last week, is privately being dismissed as the predictable conclusions of people who don’t understand business. But investors should take it more seriously because it opens up some very interesting questions about what energy companies are doing with their money.

In summary, the report says the investment of more capital to find hydrocarbons is a waste of money. More than enough has been already identified to fulfill the world’s needs if we are to meet the carbon limits implied by international agreements on climate change. Under those agreements, carbon use will be reduced over the next four decades, leaving substantial supplies stranded. On this basis, some companies – and therefore the funds which hold them – are carrying dangerous levels of risk, based on the false assumption that the international agreement will never be implemented. The companies are overvalued because some of their assets will never be used.

I have two points of doubt about this thesis.

The international case for developing shale gas in China

Nick Butler — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 05:26:40 +0000

Those who keep talking down shale gas should read the views of Elizabeth Muller. Ms Muller does not run a shale gas company. She is co founder and executive Director of Berkeley Earth, an impeccably green non profit research group in California.

In her opinion, environmentalists in the US and elsewhere should be encouraging China to develop its shale gas resources. Those resources are huge – perhaps 50 per cent greater than those of the US, and have yet to be explored in detail. That process is just beginning and includes a number of international companies including Shell.

Ms Muller’s argument, which is unanswerable, is that any development of shale gas will offset the use of some coal. Shale gas is not carbon free but it is cleaner than coal which is China’s basic fuel now. And unless things can be changed radically, will be the dominant source of energy for the next several decades. If shale gas could back out some amount of China’s coal consumption, emissions could be materially reduced.

The response to climate change – time to learn from America

Nick Butler — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:43:30 +0000

Those who think that the best responses to the risks of climate change are ever stronger regulation, complex international agreements and higher energy prices should take a look at what is happening in America.

In the US, carbon emissions have fallen by 13 per cent in the last five years and are at their lowest level since 1994. Energy demand is flat even though the economy is growing. The key statistics to watch are oil demand, which is at a 15 year low, and coal demand in the power sector, which is down by more than 20 per cent since 2008.

Furthermore, energy prices are also falling thanks to shale gas. They have yet to stabilise and there will have to be a shakeout within the gas sector. But prices will settle in the range of $4.50 to $5 – sustaining development but also providing a sharp reduction in input costs for consumers including manufacturing industry. Shale gas, however, is not the whole story. Next will come tight oil, which is oil from shale rocks. Then and potentially most important of all will come advances in energy storage. Bill Gates has just made his third major investment in an energy storage technology business.

Implications of falling oil prices

Nick Butler — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:56:05 +0000

The Brent oil price has fallen by more than $10 – which means 10 per cent – in less than two weeks and now stands below $ 100. The precise number matters less than the trend. Now the question is how much further prices will fall.

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world with the ability to cut production and to keep prices up. Some feel the Saudis are using the fall to discourage investment in high-cost projects including tight oil and some deep water ventures. I am not convinced. The Saudi oil minister, Dr Al Naimi looks tired and unsuited to such a high-stakes game. I expect the Saudis to pursue the tactic of making small incremental cuts in output in the hope that the market will stabilise. I doubt if this will work. Only a cut of 1.5m to 2m b/d will suffice to maintain prices and that would squeeze Saudi revenues too much. With growing domestic demand Saudi Arabia has little room for manoeuvre. As noted last week, the Saudis seem to be in process of losing control of the oil price.