Wednesday, July 25, 2018

Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man, on his ‘crazy’ $12bn project

Aliko Dangote

On his yacht in Lagos, he talks about his ambitious oil refinery — and his dream of buying Arsenal

Words: David Pilling

As a rule, I don’t get worked up over oil refineries. But the one gradually taking form on 2,500 hectares of swampland outside Lagos, Nigeria’s Mad Max commercial capital, is so big, so audacious and so potentially transformative that it is like Africa’s Moon landing and its Panama Canal — a Pyramids of Giza for the industrial age.

If Aliko Dangote, the billionaire businessman behind what even he calls his “crazy” $12bn project, can pull it off, he will go down as the continent’s John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Mellon combined. And once he’s built it, he intends to treat himself to a small indulgence: he’ll buy Arsenal, his favourite football club.

“When we finish this project, for the first time in history Nigeria will be the largest exporter of petroleum products in Africa,” he tells me, summoning the drabbest of platitudes for a project of pharaonic ambition. I am sitting with Africa’s richest man discussing his life of superlatives over Thai food on his 108-foot yacht, moored in Lagos Lagoon. Yet the image he projects is more like a modestly successful encyclopedia salesman.
When I arrive at the dock, Dangote, a Muslim, is praying in his quarters. He soon comes out to greet me and turns out to be the most solicitous of hosts. “Feel at home,” he says. “We can hang that for you,” he adds, when I place my crumpled jacket on the yacht’s white leather couch. “Can we offer you something to drink?”

Dangote goes through the options arranged before us: “There’s vegetable spring rolls, chicken wings in a barbecue sauce, green Thai curry, some kind of seafood salad, noodles,” he says. “You are my guest, so what do you want? You want rice? Plain jasmine or with egg?”

I plump for the jasmine.

“You don’t eat egg?” he asks.

You asked me to pick one, I protest.

“That looks like satay,” I say, pointing to one of the plates.

“It is satay, actually.”

He spoons me out several of the dishes — it’s always fun to be served by a billionaire — and we dig in. It’s tasty, and there’s a plate of green chilli sauce to liven up proceedings. Dangote crunches into a spring roll and ignores the gently buzzing phone on the table.

A few numbers on the refinery will help illuminate the scale of his “craziness”. When it is up and running — if it gets up and running — it will process 650,000 barrels of oil a day, a third of every drop Nigeria produces and approaching 1 per cent of planetary production. That will make it the biggest oil refinery of its type in the world. As a sort of side concern, it will pump out all the plastic Nigeria’s 190m people need (or imagine they need), plus 3m tonnes of fertiliser a year, more than all its farmers currently sprinkle on their fields.

To make things more interesting, Dangote is building the whole thing on a swamp. (It’s a tax-friendly swamp, at least.) That requires sinking 120,000 piles, on average 25 metres in length. No port in Nigeria is big enough to take delivery of the massive equipment, which includes a distillation tower the height of a 30-storey building, and no road is strong enough to bear its weight. Dangote has had to build both, including a jetty for which he has dredged the seabed for 65m cubic metres of sand.

There is not enough industrial gas in the whole country to weld everything together, so Dangote will build his own industrial gas plant. There aren’t enough trucks, so he’s producing those in a joint venture with a Chinese company. The plant will need 480 megawatts of power, about one-tenth of the total that electricity-starved Nigeria can muster. You guessed it. Dangote is building his own power plant too.

For years — and absurdly — Nigeria has exported all its oil as crude and then reimported refined petroleum, such as petrol and benzene. That has been a lucrative racket for the middlemen who scheme over import contracts and who concoct ways to scam a system distorted by subsidies. “I’m sure you know about this game,” Dangote says.

Because of its reputation for skulduggery, he says, he has shunned the oil trade. “It is very simple to destroy a name,” he adds, referring to a family business that stretches back to his great-grandfather on his mother’s side, Alhassan Dantata, a prodigiously wealthy merchant who imported kola nuts from Ghana and exported groundnuts from Nigeria. “But it’s very difficult to build it.”

He tries to fast at least once a week, he says, looking guiltily at our feast. “It helps to clean your system. More peanut sauce?”

Many of today’s billionaires spin their fortunes from intangibles: the internet, the media, banking or hedge funds. Dangote has made his money from more prosaic things: salt, sugar, flour and, above all, cement. An awful lot of cement.

He was born in Kano, an ancient trading town in northern Nigeria, where he was brought up by his grandparents after his father died when Dangote was eight. After studying business at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, he moved to Lagos to strike out on his own. He too became a trader, but unlike the other businessmen whose fortunes were built on import licences available to the friends of politicians, Dangote had a hankering to make things.
Now 61, building his refinery is the culmination of that ambition. It will produce every litre of refined petroleum Nigeria needs, which could end the import business at a stroke, saving the country billions of dollars in foreign exchange. Won’t he make enemies of those he is depriving of easy money? “You can’t just come and remove food from their table and think they’re just going to watch you doing it,” he says. “They will try all sorts of tricks. This is a very, very tough society. Only the toughest of the tough survive here.”

Most Nigerians assume that Dangote is tougher than the next guy. While to many he is a hero who builds factories, employs thousands and reinvests his money at home, to others he is a villain: a ruthless monopolist who squeezes favours from the government of the day and crushes competition like limestone in a cement mixer. Some accuse him of avoiding taxes by invoking an investment incentive known as “pioneer status”. Others say he is more of a rentier than an entrepreneur, gouging the country with high prices and raking in ludicrous profits. “People throw a lot of mud at you and you have to see how you can clean it up,” he says of his detractors.

In person, he is charm itself, a soft-spoken man with a pleasantly round face, close-cropped hair and a greying moustache so delicately trimmed that it is almost not there. He projects integrity and humility, even piety. I’ve met mere millionaires with more swagger than him. Yet Dangote is a billionaire 14 times over and the 100th richest person in the world, according to Forbes.

He is a networker extraordinaire. To watch him work a room is to witness a kind of genius. He irradiates a Dickensian bonhomie as he glides from table to table, picking up goodwill — and intelligence — with each pressing of the flesh. If there are competing obligations — the wedding reception of the daughter of a Big Man, a dinner for the vice-president, a foreign investors’ post-conference gala — he manages to be at all three events at once, an apparition moving unhurriedly through the room as though he has all the time in the world. Like Bill Clinton, he remembers your name; like Al Capone, he’s got your number.

Even Dangote’s yacht — named Mariya, after his mother — manages to be understated, if such a thing is possible in a 108-foot vessel with a price tag, according to Lagos’s gossipy tabloids, of $43m. It was styled after a boat owned by fellow Nigerian billionaire, Femi Otedola, though intriguingly Dangote had his built a few feet shorter.

He makes no secret of how he got his big break, one that transformed him from a wealthy man — and by all accounts a bit of a dilettante — into a business colossus whose interests straddle the continent. It happened one day not long after the election in 1999 of Olusegun Obasanjo, the former military leader who had embraced the country’s lurch to democracy by running for the presidency. Dangote contributed both to that campaign and to his subsequent re-election in 2003.

“Obasanjo called me very early in the morning and said, ‘Can we meet today?’ ” says Dangote, recalling the presidential summons. He wanted to know why Nigeria couldn’t produce cement, instead importing it by the boatload. Dangote told him it was more profitable to trade than to produce. Only if imports were restricted would it be worthwhile. Obasanjo agreed. Dangote has never looked back.

Now Africa’s undisputed King of Cement, he produces in 14 countries. I hear that the business makes 60 per cent margins, I say. He waves the number away. “We have a margin of 47 per cent,” he says, as if that were a mere bagatelle. No one else can compete on efficiency, he says.

Critics say Nigeria pays more for cement than it ought to, slowing investment in construction and housing. When I put that to him, he immediately reaches for his phone, checking out today’s prices in Ghana, Benin and Ivory Coast. His own price is competitive, he says, adding that people often forget the high transport costs of importation.

Muhammadu Buhari, the current president, despairs of a manufacturing base that has shrivelled as a consequence of oil addiction, bemoaning that Nigeria even imports toothpicks.

“What Nigeria needs is to produce locally what we can produce locally,” Dangote says, nibbling at a skewered satay, and defending the thinking that has made him rich. “Nigeria still imports vegetable oil, which makes no sense. Nigeria still imports 4.9m tonnes of wheat, which does not make sense. Nigeria still imports 97 or 98 per cent of the milk that we consume.” Of the latter (astonishing, considering the country’s roughly 20m cows), he says, “The government needs to bring out a draconian policy to stop people importing milk, just like they did with cement.”

His phone is still vibrating. This time he takes it. He’s flying to India the following morning on his private jet and is making final arrangements. While he’s talking, I take a second helping of the seafood salad, a ceviche-like dish of calamari and succulent prawns marinated in a wincing sauce.

“It has been very, very, very hectic,” he says of his recent schedule. Only that morning, his doctor warned him to slow down and get more sleep. He reckons he rarely gets five hours a night. “The heart, it keeps pushing and pushing and pushing, but there must be a limit.”
‘I love Arsenal and I will definitely go for it,’ he says matter-of-factly, as though discussing the latest model of iPhone. He reckons the club is worth about $2bn
Often he’s firefighting. Problems erupt in one country or another and he is constantly criss-crossing the continent by jet. In Tanzania, where he’s built a $650m cement plant, he’s battled with the president over a threat to seize assets. Not long after I met Dangote, his country manager in Ethiopia was murdered.

When he’s not dealing with crises, he’s fending off friends and relatives, who are often seeking help of a pecuniary nature. “People call me in the middle of the night to tell me about their problems,” he smiles wryly.

Tony Blair, the former British prime minister and a friend of Dangote’s, told him he needed to screen his calls. “Tony said he only makes three phone calls a day,” Dangote says incredulously, helping himself to noodles. Each day scores of emails come rat-tat-tatting in. “You try to be polite and reply but they come back to you with a longer email, not minding that here is a very, very busy person,” he says mournfully. He reckons that he takes more than 100 calls a day. “ ‘Look Aliko’,” he says Blair told him, “ ‘the world is not going to fall apart if you don’t answer your phone.’ ”

Dangote’s schedule is also inhibiting romance. Twice divorced and with three grown-up daughters, he’s on the lookout for a new bride. “I’m not getting younger. Sixty years is no joke,” he says, “but it doesn’t make sense to go out and get somebody if you don’t have the time. Right now, things are really, really very busy, because we have the refinery, we have the petrochemicals, we have the fertiliser, we have the gas pipeline.” With sweet talk like that, I think to myself, it can’t be long before he wins some lucky woman’s heart. “I need to calm down a bit.”

His ambitions are changing. He is talking about pulling back from the business, concentrating on strategy and letting others run things day-to-day. “I’m trying to step back from some of the boards.” He will float the cement business in London, perhaps by the end of this year, and has already appointed independent directors — including Blair’s wife Cherie — to help satisfy London’s pesky governance requirements.

He remains Nigeria’s strongest advocate, though he consistently denies political ambition. If he ran for president, you wouldn’t bet against him. “Nigeria has always had a lack of visionary leadership,” is the closest he’ll come to declaring political intent. “There’s no country in Africa that has the energy of here. Nowhere, I’m telling you.”

He is less coy about another ambition: his designs on Arsenal, a Premier League football team he has long supported. “I love Arsenal and I will definitely go for it,” he says matter-of-factly, as though discussing the latest model of iPhone. He reckons it’s worth about $2bn. Long frustrated with the club’s decline under Arsène Wenger, the recently replaced manager, he says that as owner, he would involve himself in rebuilding the team — “chipping in my own advice”, as he puts it. “When I buy it, I have to bring it up to the expectations of our supporters.”

But first he has a refinery to build. “When you visit, you’ll see what a headache I am talking about,” he says of a project into which he has sunk more than $6bn of his own money. “Once I have finished with that headache, I will take on football.”

Aliko Dangote mobilises $4.5 billion to build world's largest oil refinery



Aliko Dangote has mobilised more than $4.5 billion in debt financing, adding that he needs up to $14 billion for his Nigerian oil refinery project and aims to start production in early 2020.

Africa’s richest man, who built his fortune in cement, is building the world’s largest single oil refinery with capacity of 650,000 barrels per day (bpd) to help to reduce Nigeria’s dependence on imported petroleum.

Despite being a crude oil exporter, Nigeria imports the bulk of its petroleum because of a lack of domestic refining capacity.

We will end up spending between $12 billion to $14 billion. The funding is going to come through equity, commercial bank loans, export credit agencies and developmental banks.

Dangote’s partners

Lenders would commit about $3.15 billion, with the World Bank’s private sector arm providing $150 million, Dangote said, adding that he was investing more than 60 percent from his own cash flow.
Dangote Group has said that Standard Chartered Bank was arranging funds for the project.
“We will end up spending between $12 billion to $14 billion. The funding is going to come through equity, commercial bank loans, export credit agencies and developmental banks,” Dangote said in an interview in Lagos on Tuesday.

“Hopefully, we will finish mechanical (construction) by next year and products will start coming out in the first quarter of 2020.”

Nigeria’s central bank would provide guarantees for about 575 billion naira in local currency for 10 years, with African Development Bank providing a $300 million loan. Trade banks from China, India and some European countries are also in the mix, Dangote said.

The planned refinery and petrochemical complex is expected to account for half of Dangote’s sprawling assets when it is finished next year.

Last week Dangote signed a loan of $650 millionwith the African Export-Import Bank (Afreximbank) for the project.

Dangote said he was looking to acquire more oilfields as his focus shift towards the oil sector to feed the refinery.

Tuesday, July 24, 2018

The Real Threat to America: Iran May Close the Strait of Hormuz

PACIFIC OCEAN (July 17, 2018) Aviation Boatswain's Mate (Handling) 2nd Class James Spencer signals the pilot of an F-35B Lightning II aircraft


Edward Chang
Security, Middle East

The risk of miscalculation is now significantly higher.

The Real Threat to America: Iran May Close the Strait of Hormuz 
 
President of Iran Hassan Rouhani threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to potential sanctions that could be levied upon Iranian oil exports, threats which were echoed by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). President Donald Trump has given countries until November 4, 2018, to stop importing petroleum from Iran. This wide-scale ban is part of a new campaign of confrontation and pressure against the Islamic Republic. This demand comes on the heels of the U.S. departure from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, which was signed in 2015.

During negotiations, the JCPOA was marketed as the only option for curtailing Iran’s nuclear program short of war. Supporters of the deal routinely cited an increased risk of war in their arguments against exiting the deal and Rouhani’s statement, on the surface, appears to confirm such concerns. But how seriously should these threats be taken?

We’ve Been Here Before

Iran threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz is nothing new. In fact, as recently as 2012, the Obama administration had its own confrontation with Iran over the latter’s nuclear program. Iran threatened to close the Strait and carried out military exercises in the area, drawing a major United States, British, and French deployment in response. But a year later, both sides resorted to negotiations that led to the JCPOA.

In 2008, citing fears of a U.S. or Israeli attack, the commander of the IRGC, Mohammad Ali Jafari, threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation. During the 1980–88 Iran-Iraq War, both sides targeted one another’s shipping as part of a total war effort, raising fears that Iran might attempt to make the Strait of Hormuz unpassable. Iran used mines as part of its strategy, eliciting an operation to safeguard Kuwaiti shipping, codenamed Operation Earnest Will. Beginning in summer 1987, it lasted over a year-and-a-half and involved increasingly direct combat between the United States and Iran, culminating in Operation Praying Mantis in spring 1988. In the one-day air/naval battle, the United States scored a decisive victory, with Iran losing several warships during the exchange, while inflicting no losses in return.

Apart from the events that took place from 1987–88, none of these incidents resulted in open warfare. This is nothing short of remarkable, given the unrelenting level of hostility exhibited on both sides since the November 4, 1979, seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. While the lack of actual fighting can be attributed to restraint and professional crisis management skills on the part of the United States, it can also be attributed to the fact that Iranian behavior and rhetoric regarding the Strait primarily serves as a means of crisis-management (albeit a dangerous one) and a political purpose.

Threatening Closure Is More Useful than Executing One

Closing the Strait of Hormuz has a regressive impact on Iran’s interests. As John Allen Gay and Geoffrey Kemp explain in War With Iran: Political, Military, and Economic Consequences:

Eighty-five percent of Iran’s imports come through the strait, and the oil exports so crucial to the Iranian government’s solvency mostly flow out of it. Iran would be cutting off its own lifeline if it closed the strait, and it would have to live on its already dwindling currency reserves. Iran would also be inviting attacks on its own oil facilities by vengeful neighbors, and it would isolate itself internationally.

So, in contemplating any Strait of Hormuz closure scenario, it should immediately be noted such a move by Iran amounts to one of desperation, employed only in a situation in which Tehran sees no other way out of its predicament. Therefore, a Strait closure is unlikely, the United States is well-aware of this, and the Iranian leadership probably realizes Washington can call its bluff any time. So why does Tehran continue to make such threats?

By threatening to close the vital waterway linking the oil-rich Persian Gulf with the world, through which approximately a third of the world’s petroleum is ferried, Iran stokes fears of war and economic crisis. This not only raises gas prices in anticipation of supply disruptions, but it also influences world opinion towards the direction of de-escalation, which would pressure the United States to back away from its own red lines. Given the number of countries that rely on Middle Eastern oil, including that of Iran, Tehran can craft a damning narrative that shows that the United States is generating a crisis to the world’s detriment.

These narratives work well at home, too. Like most autocracies, the Islamic regime regularly employs crises to establish political dominance and domestic order. The sights and sounds of Iranian naval forces challenging and harassing U.S. warships serves powerfully as propaganda, encouraging unity against the “Great Satan” that is America.

And while the United States has the capability to prevent a closure or re-open the Strait, the physical and political costs of such an undertaking are considerable. Assuming Iran would attempt a closure only when it feels it has no other recourse, it would then have little to lose from doing so, while the United States and the world would bear costs not easily recouped nor as readily borne in comparison.
What If Iran Were to Attempt a Strait Closure?

Iran’s closure of the Strait would not involve employing its naval forces to physically occupy the waterways in a conventional sense. Rather, it would make the Strait impassable utilizing an Anti-Access/Area-Denial strategy (A2/AD) strategy. For Iran, mines would form the centerpiece of this strategy to turn the choke point into a no-go zone. Afterwards, it can use land-based anti-ship missiles (ASMs) to prevent clearance operations or to directly target enemy warships and civilian shipping. Should Iranian leadership deem it necessary to deploy naval forces, the IRGC possesses a large fleet of small fast-attack craft. Though lightly armed, the craft can prove a menace to conventional warships, via the use of “swarming” tactics to overwhelm adversaries and employ “hit-and-run” attacks that are notoriously difficult to counter. On a higher level, Iran could target United States and allied military facilities in the region or even civilian population centers with ballistic missiles as a means of deterrence.

The ability of the United States and its allies to re-open the Strait of Hormuz comes down to preparation. Should advance warning be received of an impending closure attempt, the forces of Central Command (CENTCOM) would mobilize and naval forces, particularly one or more aircraft carrier strike groups would be rushed to region to force Iran to alter its calculations or to intervene before it makes much progress in making the waterways impassible. Should the United States and its allies be caught off-guard, then the costs of re-opening the Strait could be exorbitant.

For example, Gay and Kemp estimated the cost of a Hormuz mine-clearance operation to be $230.1 million. Even something as routine as maintaining two carrier strike groups (CSGs) on-station for a week was estimated to be $106 million. In the event of a more serious military confrontation, a 2017 RAND report calls for the deployment of, among other things, twenty-one Air Force fighter squadrons and four CSGs. It is more difficult to estimate human casualties, but these numbers make clear there are prohibitive up-front costs to a crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, whether a full-blown shooting war erupts or not.

However, for reasons outlined earlier, the likelihood of a surprise closure is remarkably low. The United States and its allies are well-aware of such a possibility and have been, for decades, well-prepared for the scenario. The military superiority of the United States and its allies all but ensures an overwhelming defeat for the Ayatollah’s warriors. Most importantly, a surprise closure of the Strait acts to Iran’s detriment, unless the strategic environment is such that Tehran feels its back is against the wall and has little to lose from such desperation. Threatening closure is more useful than attempting one, thus, absent exigent circumstances, Iran’s leadership will always telegraph its intentions, if only to avoid a situation where they must choose between backing down and losing face or following through and hazard overwhelming defeat.

Though risk of miscalculation remains, Iran has considerably dialed back on its hostile behavior in the Strait, while increasing its aggressive activities elsewhere. But if Tehran wants its threats to at least be taken seriously, it may need to again resort to maritime provocations against commercial shipping and the U.S. military. Iran’s de-emphasizing of the Gulf in its strategy does not appear to be something that will last much longer.

The Israeli Wild-Card

Some observers are predicting a cataclysmic war between the Jewish state and Hezbollah in the near future. Given Hezbollah serves as Iran’s most prominent proxy, there are concerns such a conflict will draw Tehran in as well, risking a major regional conflagration. Israel has, in fact, already clashed numerous times with Iran-backed militias in Syria in recent weeks and months, raising the likelihood of direct warfare between Jerusalem and Tehran.

Although Washington does not possess a mutual-defense treaty with Jerusalem, the former would still support the latter’s war effort through the provision of armaments, logistics, intelligence support, among other products. Furthermore, the United States currently has troops deployed in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and elsewhere throughout the region, along with the ongoing air war against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In the event of a war between Israel and Hezbollah, potentially including Iran, it would take incredible diplomatic and military maneuvering to keep the United States directly out of the conflict.

The true course of any conflict is difficult to predict, but Washington should consider the possibility Iran may attempt to distract American support for Israel by threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. By creating it crisis on the opposite end of the Middle East, Iran is not so much banking on forcing the United States to reduce support for Israel, but to overstretch its commitments, and create political and strategic costs the American people may not be willing to bear, given the generally controversial nature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Once more, the importance of narratives emerges—threatening Strait closure mounts pressure on the White House to find a diplomatic solution to the conflict, due to the dread and uncertainty portending a U.S.-Iran clash would conjure.

Once again, however, blockading Hormuz proves an ineffective move if the United States is willing to counter Iran’s provocations. This means Iran is more likely to respond with low-intensity, deniable warfare by utilizing cyberwarfare its deep roster of militias and terrorist groups. Be it Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Gaza’s Hamas, or Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces, the Ayatollah is likely to call upon these players long before seriously considering closing the Strait of Hormuz. Hezbollah, in particular, is among the most well-connected of terrorist groups in the world, possessing links with Central and South American drug cartels. A worst-case scenario would involve Hezbollah exploiting these connections to carry out terrorism on American soil. At the very least, it can be expected that Iranian-backed militias like the PMU can be used to attack U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Syria as the anti-ISIL campaign continues. This would force the United States/coalition to contemplate escalating their involvement in the multiple civil wars in the region, or, to their obvious detriment, refrain from retaliation.

Conclusion

Barring further developments, this latest threat from Tehran to close the Strait of Hormuz will likely pass without incident. It will, however, create the potential for close encounters between U.S. and Iranian naval forces in the region, leaving open a window of heightened risk of miscalculation. Furthermore, the likelihood of a war between Hezbollah and possibly Iran continues to grow by the day. If or when that war happens, the United States and the coalition will find it difficult to stay out of the line of fire.

Edward Chang is a freelance defense, military, and foreign-policy writer. His writing has appeared in the National Interest and War Is Boring.

Monday, July 23, 2018

PRESIDENT TRUMP: 'NEVER, EVER THREATEN' The U.S. Again

 
 President Trump issued a strongly worded all-caps late-night tweet after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (right) said that war with Iran would be "the mother of all wars and peace with Iran is the mother of all peace."


President Trump threatened Iran in a late-night tweet on Sunday, responding angrily after Iranian President Hassan Rouhani criticized Trump and warned the American president not to "play with the lion's tail" and that "war with Iran is the mother of all wars."

Trump's tweet, posted in all-capital letters: "NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE."
He declared, "WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!"

At a gathering of Iranian diplomats in Tehran on Sunday, according to Iran's state news agency, Rouhani said, "America should know that peace with Iran is the mother of all peace, and war with Iran is the mother of all wars."

Iran can defend itself, Rouhani added, hinting that his country could also affect oil shipping through the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf if it were to come under attack.

As for how Trump's response has been received, Iran's state news agency said the tweet was typical of the American president's "bullying words."

NPR's Peter Kenyon reports some people have pointed out that "you can't really do all-caps in Persian, that doesn't quite translate. But no mistaking the threatening nature of the message."

Also on Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched a blistering attack on Iran in remarks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

Pompeo accused Iran of corruption and mismanagement at the highest levels and said the country had backed terrorist attacks in Europe even as it tried to reassure EU members that Iran will follow restrictions in their nuclear agreement.

In pointed remarks, Pompeo said Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls a hedge fund valued at $95 billion — a fund called the Setad (and on which Reuters did a special report in 2013).
"That wealth is untaxed, it is ill-gotten, and it is used as a 'slush fund' for the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps]," Pompeo said. "The level of corruption and wealth among Iranian leaders shows that Iran is run by something that resembles the mafia more than a government."

Pompeo also tweeted a succession of messages in Farsi, trying to bring his message directly to any Iranians able to skirt their country's censors. In them, he said Iran's 1979 revolution had borne "bitter fruit."

Pompeo said, "After 40 years of tyranny, the proud Iranian people are not staying silent about their government's abuses. We will not stay silent either."

In Tehran, Rouhani questioned whether the U.S. can embrace Iran's people while fighting its government, saying, "There were no times in the past like today that we are witnessing the White House acting against the international law, Islamic World and Palestinian people."

Trump's tweet prompted questions about what the president meant by "consequences" for Iran, aside from the economic sanctions the U.S. is already set to reimpose after leaving the Iran nuclear deal.

On Monday morning, the White House released this statement from national security adviser John Bolton: "I spoke to the president over the last several days, and President Trump told me that if Iran does anything at all to the negative, they will pay a price like few countries have ever paid before."

The timing of Trump's heated remarks also raised the question of why he decided to issue his tweet late Sunday — after a week of negative attention for his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Monday, and the revelation that his former attorney Michael Cohen recorded him in 2016 discussing payments to a woman who claimed she had an affair with Trump.

"Donald Trump likes to direct the media narrative, to control it," NPR's Mara Liasson said on Morning Edition. "And he's gotten us all talking about Iran this morning, instead of talking about Putin, or the investigation into Russian interference."

Mara noted that Trump also directed violent language toward North Korea — before meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore. "Sometimes he likes to create a crisis, and then become the hero of his own story and declare the crisis over," Liasson said.

In the case of North Korea, she pointed out, the crisis was declared over despite any nuclear weapons being dismantled.

Friday, July 20, 2018

Do changes in trade flows impact the tanker market?

http://www.divergingmarkets.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/2013.04.16.Global-Shipping-Routes.png

Poten & Partner’s weekly opinion piece recently looked at nearly five years of crude oil trade data (2014 –2018) to see if any interesting trends or developments could be seen. 
 
Are certain segments growing faster than others? How about shifts in export or import regions. Was anything noticed that was not expected?
 
First, the overall crude oil and dirty product trade for 2014-2018 was examined. To make the earlier years comparable with 2018, Poten looked at only the first six months of the year.
 
The data showed that the dirty tanker trade steadily grew during 2014-2017, increasing almost 5% in the first six months of 2015 and still growing 2.2% and 3.3% in 2016 and 2017, respectively.
 
However, in 2018 to date, the total dirty tanker trade (measured in tonnes) was down  1.3% compared to the same period one year ago (tonne/miles:-1.6%).
 
In Asia, modest increases in China and India could not compensate for declines in Japan and Asean countries, so overall tonne/mile demand from Asia was down 1%.
 
The biggest decline in import demand, however, came from the US (-15%). On the other hand, US exports were one of the few bright spots this year to date, with tonne/mile demand more than double that of the same period last year. The long-haul trade to China was responsible for almost 60% of that increase.
 
A review of the largest trade routes confirmed the changes in crude flows. The largest VLCC route was from the Arabian Gulf to the China Sea (China, Taiwan, South Korea) and this has not changed since 2014. This route, which is more than twice the size of the next route (AG –Japan), represents some 30% of the total VLCC trade.
 
However, the AG –US Gulf trade, which ranked No 4 in 2014 declined both in absolute and relative terms. Its volume fell by 33% and it now only ranked sixth.
 
In contrast, the US Gulf –China Sea VLCC trade currently ranks nineth. This trade did not exist prior to 2017. This increase in USG VLCC exports coincided with a decline in Venezuelan exports.
 
Another VLCC trade that has been in decline recently (and quite volatile overall) is that from AG to Europe. After a 55% increase from 2016 to 2017, this trade has fallen by 42% so far this year.
 
Moving onto the Suezmax segment, this trade has developed differently from VLCCs.
 
Suezmax employment has increased steadily since 2014, with a healthy 5% increase thus far this year.
 
A lot of Suezmaxes are employed in shuttle trades offshore Brazil (No 1 in the ranking) and in moving Alaskan crude to the US West Coast (No 3), but these trades are not growing and generate relatively little tonne/mile demand, due to the short distances involved.
 
The same applies to the second largest trade - AG to India.
 
A growing Suezmax trade is the AG –Southern Europe, but this is to a large extent driven by rising exports from Iran, which could be in jeopardy in the second half of this year, due to US sanctions.
 
West Africa exports have been relatively stable in recent years after significant volatility in 2014 –2016.
 
Thus far this year, Suezmax trades from the AG, West Africa, the Black Sea, the US Gulf and from the UK/Cont were growing, while trades originating in the Far East, the Eastern Med and Venezuela were struggling.
 
In the Aframax segment, the intra-Asean Far East (including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, etc) has overtaken the Caribbean market as the largest Aframax trading area.
 
Another Asian Aframax trade that is growing in importance is the exports out of Kozmino to China, South Korea and Taiwan.
 
Thus far in 2018, this is the third largest Aframax route (in tonnes), recently overtaking certain trades in the North Sea and the Mediterranean.
 
Overall, Aframax employment is down thus far this year versus 2017 in terms of number of voyages, and barrels moved, but tonne/miles are slightly up, as average distances increased.
 
In total, crude oil tanker demand has been relatively flat and rates are down as a result of increases in fleet size. However, there are a lot of developments hidden under the surface that belie the relative stability of aggregate tanker demand, Poten concluded. 

Thursday, July 19, 2018

US Revokes Citgo CEO’s Visa

 
 CEO of Citgo Petroleum Corp. Asdrubal Chavez

https://www.petroleumafrica.com/us-revokes-citgo-ceos-visa/

The president and CEO of Citgo Petroleum Corp. Asdrubal Chavez, had his US visa revoked. Citgo is the US subsidiary of Venezuela’s state-run PDVSA.

Chavez is the cousin of Venezuela’s late president Hugo Chavez.

US State Department spokesman Noel Clay said the US has broad authority to revoke visas, but does not discuss individual cases because they are confidential under the law.

In a statement on the issue, a Citgo spokeswoman only said that the “day-to-day operations of CITGO remain uninterrupted and senior leadership remains unchanged.”

Wednesday, July 18, 2018

EIA: Seven Major US Shale Regions To Hit New Production Records

File:United States Shale gas plays, May 2011.pdf


Oil production in the seven most prolific US shale regions will hit new highs next month, according to the Energy Information Administration’s monthly Drilling Productivity Report released on Monday afternoon.

Production in the seven regions is expected to increase by 143,000 bpd in August over July’s 7.327 million bpd, according to the EIA.

The news came not even 24 hours after Wood Mackenzie called peak oil demand in 2036 as electric vehicle sales grow , sending oil prices sharply downward on the news.

At 4:15pm EDT, the WTI benchmark was trading down a staggering 4.10% (-$2.91) at $68.10. Brent crude was trading down even more, at 4.50% (-$3.39) at $71.94.

Of the seven more prolific US regions for oil, the Permian is expected to see the biggest increase, at 73,000 bpd, to reach 3.406 million bpd. If this level of production is realized in August, it would represent about a 400,000 bpd climb since January in the Permian alone.
Increases in unconventional oil in the Eagle Ford is thought to come in a distant second, according to the industry body, at an 35,000-bpd increase to reach 1.436 million bpd.

The EIA’s Drilling Productivity Report also tracks drilled but uncompleted wells, which are seen increasing in number for August by 193 across the seven major regions—164 of which are in the Permian. This figure represents one of the largest monthly increases in recent months. The DUC count is of particular concern in the Permian, which is facing takeaway constraints. Some analysts are concerned, according to S&P Global Platts, that if oil and gas cannot be moved out of the Permian due to these constraints in the Permian, the number of wells in the Permian will need to be “banked” until such capacity is brought online.

By Julianne Geiger for Oilprice.com