Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oil. Show all posts

Tuesday, 20 December 2016

Millions and Billions

Two interesting articles in The Edge.

Shell Malaysia gets MTO at RM1.92 per share


The offer was triggered after MHIL's conditional sale and purchase agreement for 51% of Shell Refining, signed in February 2016 with Shell Overseas Holdings Ltd, turned unconditional today, Shell Refining said in a filing on Bursa Malaysia today.


I wrote before about this matter. The acquirer wants to retain the listing status, which means this is a "friendly" offer, minority shareholders can simply accept or reject the offer, there is no pressure.

The second article:

Konsortium PetroHub to raise US$180 bil over next 5 yrs for refineries in Kedah

Konsortium Asia PetroHub (KPHUB) expects to raise US$180 billion in funds over the next five years for its oil refinery facility construction project in Kedah known as Sultan Abdul Halim Refinery Complex.

The consortium was formed by a group of companies, namely IMC London, a group of bankers and funders based in Britain who have a 50% share, as well as VR4U Technologies Sdn Bhd with a 30% share and another local based company with a 20% share.

The amount raised will be used to fund four additional refineries over the next five years. There are six refineries to be developed in total and the first two will be developed starting January 2017.


Both articles about refineries, but there is something rather "strange" going on if we compare the two articles:

  • Regarding Shell, at the current share price the whole company is valued around USD 150 Million (that starts with the letter "M")
  • Regarding KPHUB, it expects to raise USD 180 Billion (that starts with the letter "B")

The refinery of Shell will be quite old, and probably smaller in size, but does this explain a thousand fold valuation difference? It seems rather puzzling to me.

The article continues: "The second agreement was with QMIS World Trade International, which has close collaborations with various Chinese conglomerates and will act as a listing agent in Nasdaq US and Hong Kong Stock Exchange to raise funds for the project."

I tried to Google on "QMIS World Trade International", expected to find a company with lots of experience in this matter, having done dozens of multibillion dollar deals on many international exchanges. But I could not find anything relevant, it even looks like they have no website, a fate they seem to share with VR4U Technologies Sdn Bhd .

Lots of questions remain .......

Tuesday, 25 February 2014

Good warning on perils in the oil and gas industry

Article in The Star: "Beware of risks in investing in sizzling oil and gas".

"... making money from the O&G business isn’t easy. Our market has seen its fair share of O&G companies that had stumbled in the past.

As examples, consider the stories of Ramunia Holdings Bhd, KNM Group Bhd Malaysia Marine, Heavy Engineering Holdings Bhd (MMHE) and the Scomi group. These stocks were at one point the darling of investors.

But at some point, they struggled to execute their businesses well. O&G fabricator Ramunia had slipped into PN17 status in June 2010. To quote from a Maybank research report dated April 2010: “Ramunia is in bad shape operationally and financially. It faces declining order book, earnings and shareholders funds due to poor project execution and negative cash flows.”

KNM Group Bhd was another high-flying oil and gas player. But it too did stumble, suffering a quarterly loss in 2009 and a full year loss at group level in 2011. Among the reasons for its losses was its high fixed cost and debt levels. It’s aggressive overseas expansion also saw it having to provide for foreseeable losses in Brazil, Canada and Indonesia.

The Scomi group had encountered similar problems with its overseas assets while giant fabricator MMHE had suffered from higher-than-expected expenses incurred from some of its projects and from the share of losses from jointly controlled entities’ performance.

One problem is that the O&G business, like many other sectors, is cyclical. You may invest during peak times but then get saddled with high fixed costs and low utilisation rates when the cycle hits a downturn.

Getting the right expertise to executive projects profitably is another challenge."


Ze Moola has written many articles about three of the above mentioned companies:

- Ramunia
- KNM
- Scomi

Sunday, 18 November 2012

Economy grew 5.2%, some critical comments

Malaysia's GDP grew 5.2% yoy in Q3

Malaysia's economy grew at an annualised pace of 5.2 per cent in the third quarter, the central bank said on Friday, as strong domestic demand compensated for a weak export sector.

The third-quarter growth beat economists' expectations of a 4.8 percent expansion.

"Both private and public sector investment was strongly robust during the quarter. We would envisage that this will continue," Bank Negara Governor Zeti Akhtar Aziz told a news conference.

With exports faltering, much of Malaysia's growth has been driven by strong domestic demand and government spending on infrastructure projects, such as a new mass transit system for the capital Kuala Lumpur, and Iskandar, a big industrial zone near Singapore.

Prime Minister Najib Razak must call an election by April next year and is expected to stress Malaysia's robust growth as a key part of his campaign.



Above news is from Reuters on TodayOnline's website. It can't get much better, especially with the elections around the corner, or not?

However, I would like to make some critical comments:
  • GDP is corrected for inflation, if inflation is understated (which, I think, is indeed the case like most countries in the world), then GDP is overstated.
  • The GDP number is for the whole country, since Malaysia's population is growing fast, per capita the effect is much less.
  • Malaysia has a bad GINI score, meaning that the income is very unevenly spread. It is therefore likely that lots of people do not benefit from the growth of the economy to the same degree.
  • Malaysia recently went from being an oil exporter to an oil importer, this will have a clear effect in the future since oil production will further slowdown and consumption will rise.
  • Huge acreage of jungle has been logged and converted to plantation land. This will give a boost to the economy, but can only be done one-time, after that the economic output of the land fluctuates with the prices of the commodity.
  • And finally the country has piled up about RM 500 billion in debt (RM 100,000 for each family of 6) in an attempt to break the world record of budget deficits in a row. Surely that must have benefitted the economy, but again, this is highly unsustainable in the future. 
It would be interesting to know how much the last three factors have contributed to the GDP growth in the last 10 and what the negative effect will be in the coming 10 years.

For those people who have a problem visualizing 1 Trillion (1,000 Billion) in RM 100 notes:


 

The national debt is not yet there, but Malaysia is about half way through and if nothing changes surely 1 Trillion will be reached in the not so far future.

Sunday, 5 August 2012

Malaysian oil statistics are puzzling

Claire Barnes wrote in the second quarter report of the Apollo Asia Fund about the puzzling revision in Malaysian oil statistics: The imprecision of vital statistics.

I recommend the reader to read the full article, here are some parts of it:

There has been much recent discussion of Chinese statistics, but I have seen none at all on an interesting revision to BP's data on Malaysian oil production and consumption. BP's annual 'Statistical Review of World Energy' has become a principal source of information on primary energy trends: the latest version may be found at www.bp.com. The Energy Export Databrowser provides helpful charts based on this data.

Compare the chart on the left, based on data in BP's 2010 review, with that on the right, based on its latest review:



These charts, and many others, can be found on this website: Energy Export Databrowser

The earlier chart shows Malaysia's oil production on a plateau since 1995, consumption levelling out since 2002, and a gradual reduction in net exports. The chart from the latest data shows a much more alarming picture: falling production, a continued rise in consumption, and a rapid collapse of net exports.

2011 was a poor year for Malaysian oil production, due partly to temporary factors. Bank Negara reported a 10.7% decline (v BP's 10.9%) and attributed it to 'shutdowns of several production facilities for maintenance purposes, declining production from mature fields, and lower-than-expected production from new fields'. The trends in recent years are comparable in the two sets of statistics. Unexplained are the major revisions to BP's historic data series. Over the last two years, BP has revised downward the production figures back to 1984, but particularly since 1995; and revised upwards the consumption figures since 1994, but by escalating amounts since 2000, particularly since 2006. Unfortunately, 'BP regrets it is unable to deal with enquiries about the data', and we cannot find current consumption figures in any Malaysian source.

Malaysia's decades of prosperity have coincided with a great energy windfall. When oil production ceased to grow, gas production continued to soar - but that has now ceased. The chart on the left suggests the magnitude of the changes which may now be under way. It is based on the latest BP review, and includes figures for hydropower (small) and biofuels (insignificant). According to BP, Malaysia's primary energy production, in million tonnes oil equivalent, peaked in 2008: three years later, it was down 9%. Malaysia's primary energy consumption continued to rise until 2010 - but in 2011, gas shortages began to bite in the Peninsula; BP shows domestic gas consumption down 10.5% for the year. Net primary energy exports peaked in 1999; they are since down 54%.

(for primary energy charts see original article)

Without BP's recent data revisions, the decline in net exports would be less steep, but still significant. The issue is surely of huge importance to the economy, the government budget, and the patronage machine. One would expect such issues to feature prominently in public debate, but there is little awareness or discussion. To some extent, growing demand reflects an attempt to add value locally rather than exporting raw commodities - but is this always a wise use of a dwindling resource? There are some moves to phase out energy subsidies by gradual increases in gas prices to industrial users, but no apparent Plan B for what happens if the market price continues to outpace the planned increases. Fuel and electricity prices are politically sensitive, so no rational discussion occurs, and profligacy continues. Meanwhile, moves to encourage development of Malaysia's marginal fields seem sensible, but are they likely to stem the decline?

Indonesia became a net importer of oil several years ago, and its oil-and-gas production peaked in 1997, but the remarkable growth in coal output has led to a continued rise in primary energy output and net exports (right hand chart above). While the coal mining sector has received plenty of attention from investors, it is interesting that the decline in primary energy exports from 1996 to 2003 coincided with a period of very poor performance for the Indonesian stock market, and the subsequent surge in primary energy exports has coincided with the prolonged boom.

Energy policy in Indonesia is certainly no more coherent than in Malaysia, but the musings of ministers do at least range more broadly, which may perhaps allow hope for change. Indonesia, Malaysia and India suffer from the distortions and misallocations caused by energy subsidies: reforming these would be a good place to start.

Postscript 18 July:
The spreadsheet has been expanded with data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA, www.eia.gov) and from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI), which broadly agree with the current BP picture of a rapid decline in Malaysia's oil production. JODI and Bank Negara both give monthly statistics, and JODI's show a much steeper decline




BP's consumption figures are for a broader range of products than its production figures. Its world oil consumption figures exceed its production figures by a growing margin, as shown in this blog post. Nevertheless, the revisions to production and consumption for Malaysia are unusually large, and remain unexplained. One guess is that a shift from net exports to net imports is more visible to the market than a mere change in net export level, and that the statisticians then have to reconcile their historic figures with the new facts while avoiding the assumption of too drastic a change in one year. While statistical details remain unclear, this affects only timing. The long view already provides cause for concern, but this may be playing out faster than expected.


The fat years for Malaysia were between 1983 and 2005, when production (grey) clearly outpaced consumption (black line), resulting in a large net export (green) of about 10 million tonnes per year. The price of oil was about USD 20 per barrel during those years.




Between 2005 and 2010 the net exports dwindled to about 5 million tonnes per year. But this was more than offset by the rising oil price which hovered around USD 70 per barrel.



The fat years are over, and Malaysia has turned into a net oil importer. With global oil consumption on the rise, I expect the price in the long run only to rise further. In other words, Malaysia has been exporting oil for decades at a price around USD 20 per barrel, and might have to import oil in the future at a price that is five or ten times that price. Instead of growing a piggybank for the more lean times (like Norway has done), Malaysia's government did choose to run budget deficits for years in a row.

Luckily for Malaysia, it is still a net exporter in gas, although production seems to have slowed down a bit in recent years: