Lloyd’s Register drops ships of top Indian carrier of Russian oil

Lloyd's Register has told India's Gatik Ship Management, a major carrier of Russian oil since the Ukraine war that it will withdraw certification of 21 of its vessels by June 03, 2023.

It is the latest setback for Gatik, which was also been forced to find new flags for 36 of its ships after they were deflagged by the St. Kitts & Nevis International Ship Registry.

"Lloyd's Register is committed to facilitating compliance with sanctions regulations on the trading of Russian oil," it said in an email to Reuters. "Where supported by evidence, we withdraw class and services from any vessels found by the relevant authorities to be breaching international sanctions."

Classification societies such as Lloyd's Register in London provide services including seaworthiness checks, certification that is vital for securing insurance and entry to ports.

Lloyd's Register said, 11 of the Gatik vessels it was declassifying were also certified by the Indian Register of Shipping (IRClass).

Gatik, which is based in the Indian city of Mumbai according to shipping databases, did not respond to emailed requests for comment.

A major US insurer, the American Club, also told Reuters it was no longer providing cover for Gatik ships, while Russian insurer Ingosstrakh said it would not work with Gatik in future.

Neither the insurers, Lloyd's Register nor the flag registry spelled out exactly why they have dropped business with Gatik.

 

Russia: Lost oil revenue bonanza for shippers and refiners

Western sanctions on Russia have significantly reduced state oil revenues and diverted tens of billions of dollars towards shipping and refining firms, some with Russian connections.

Most of the winners from the sanctions are based in China, India, Greece and the United Arab Emirates, a handful are partly owned by Russian companies.

None of the firms is breaching sanctions, but they have benefited from measures designed by the European Union and the United States to reduce the revenues of what they call Russian President Vladimir Putin's war machine.

As the Ukraine conflict heads into a second year, the calculations show that Russia's income has dropped but the volume of exports has remained relatively stable despite sanctions.

Putin told the West that sanctions would trigger an energy price rally. Instead, international benchmark Brent oil prices have fallen to US$80 per barrel from a near-all-time high of US$139 in March 2022, weeks after the start of the war. Before Moscow's invasion of Ukraine began on February 24 last year, Brent traded at around US$65 to US$85 per barrel.

After the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations imposed a price cap on Russian oil in December 2022, Moscow's oil export revenues fell by 40%YoY in January this year, Russia's finance ministry said.

"Low official oil price meant that the Russian state budget has suffered in recent weeks," Sergey Vakulenko, non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said.

Vakulenko was a former head of strategy at Russian energy major Gazprom Neft. He left the firm and Russia days after the start of the war.

"Judging by the customs statistics, some of the benefit was captured by refiners in India and China, but the main beneficiaries must be oil shippers, intermediaries and the Russian oil companies," he added.

Sanctions on Russia - probably the harshest imposed on an individual state - include outright bans on purchases of Russian energy by the United States and the EU, as well as bans on the shipping of Russian crude anywhere in the world unless it is sold at or below US$60 per barrel.

Russia has diverted most crude and refined products to Asia by offering steep discounts to buyers in China and India versus competing grades from the Middle East, for instance.

The ban on shipping and the price cap have made buyers wary and forced Russia to pay for transportation of crude as it does not have enough tankers to carry all of its exports.

As of late January, Russian oil firms were offering discounts of up to US$20 per barrel for crude to buyers in India and China.

In addition, Russian sellers have also paid up to US$20 per barrel to shipping companies to take crude from Russia to China or India.

As a result, Russian companies received only less than US50 per barrel of Urals at Russian ports in January, down 42%YoY and just 60% of the European Brent benchmark price, according to the Russian Finance Ministry.

By comparison, a US exporter of Mars crude - a grade similar to Urals - would pay about US$5 to US$7 per barrel for shipping a cargo to India. Given a discount of US$1.6 per barrel versus the US benchmark WTI, a US exporter would collect some US$66 per barrel at a US port, or 90% of the benchmark price.

With output of 10.7 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2022 and exports of crude and refined products of 7.0 million bpd, the discount and additional costs would see Russian producers' revenues falling by tens of billions of dollars in 2023.

The head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, said on Sunday the price cap reduced Moscow's revenue by $8 billion in January alone.

However, because some lost revenues are captured by Russian firms, the exact hit to earnings of producers and the state is difficult to quantify.

As a further complication, some Russian oil grades, including Pacific grade ESPO, are also worth more than Urals.

 

India: Refiners pay traders in dirhams for Russian oil

Indian refiners have begun paying for most of their Russian oil purchased via Dubai-based traders in United Arab Emirates dirhams instead of US. Dollars, reports Reuters.

While Western sanctions against Moscow are not recognized by India, and purchases of Russian oil may in any case not violate them, banks and financial institutions are cautious about clearing payments so as not to unwittingly fall foul of the many measures imposed against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine.

Indian refiners and traders are concerned they may not be able to continue to settle trades in dollars, especially if the price of Russian crude rises above a cap imposed by the Group of Seven nations and Australia in December.

That has led traders to seek alternative methods of payment, which could also aid Russia's efforts to de-dollarize its economy in response to the Western sanctions.

Previous attempts by Indian refiners to pay traders for Russian crude in dirhams through Dubai banks failed, forcing them to switch back to the US currency.

But India's top bank, the State Bank of India (SBI), is now clearing these dirham payments, the sources told Reuters, providing details of transactions that have not previously been reported.

The G7 price cap prohibits any Western company, such as the insurance and shipping service providers that underpin much of global trade, from involvement in trading Russian crude if the purchase price is above $60 a barrel at the loading point in Russia. That remains the case even if the oil is bound for countries such as China and India which do not recognize the cap.

The shift to dirham payments was also triggered by the SBI asking refiners looking to make dollar payments for Russian crude to provide a breakdown of the costs of the oil, freight and insurance, allowing it to vet trade and avoid violating the cap.

"The SBI is very conservative in its approach," one of the sources said, even though India does not follow the price cap mechanism and Western insurance and shipping are not used for delivery.

Indian refiners typically buy Russian crude from traders at a price that includes delivery to India.

An invoice for such a deal seen by Reuters showed traders asking for an average crude price including freight for Urals crude. The document calculated the price of the cargo in dollars and dirhams.

The four sources said Indian refiners are buying Russian oil on a delivered basis to mitigate any risks arising during shipping, and so far the calculated cost at the point of loading has been below the price cap.

Indian refiners mostly buy Russian crude from Dubai-based traders including Everest Energy and Litasco, a unit of Russian oil major Lukoil.

India's oil secretary Pankaj Jain last month said Indian companies were not facing any problems in paying for Russian oil as the latest actions by the West do not impact the trade settlement mechanism.

 

More Europeans will perish from energy crisis than Ukraine war

The most vulnerable people in Europe, the elderly and those living alone or on low pay to medium paychecks will pay the highest price: Death.

More people will perish in Europe this winter because of unaffordable household energy costs than those who have died on the battlefield in the Ukraine war, according to research by the British weekly newspaper The Economist.

Last week, the United Nations said the official civilian death toll from the Ukraine war has risen to nearly 6,900, with civilian injuries topping 10,000. Whilst the death of military forces in Ukraine has been difficult to verify, the number of soldiers thought to have died in Ukraine is estimated at 25,000-30,000 for each side.

The Economist modeled the effect of the unprecedented hike in gas and electricity bills this winter and concluded that the current cost of energy will likely lead to an extra 147,000 deaths if it is a typical winter.

Should Europe experience a particularly harsh winter, which is something likely when considering the growing effects of climate change, that number could rise to 185,000. That is a rise of 6.0%. It also reports that a harsh winter could cost a total of 335,000 extra lives.

Even in the rare case of a mild winter, that figure would still be high with tens of thousands of extra deaths than in previous years. If it is a mild winter, research by The Economic indicates the death toll would be 79,000.

The Economist's statistical model included all 27 European Union member countries along with the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Norway.

It is anticipated that Governments across Western Europe would be alarmed and concerned by these shocking figures published by the study.

But it remains to be seen what measures these governments will take to prevent so many extra fatalities in their own countries because of the energy shortage.

The energy crisis itself began when Europe, which was heavily reliant on Russian gas, imposed heavy sanctions on Russian energy exports following Moscow’s war in Ukraine. Before the war, Russia supplied 40-50% of the EU’s natural-gas imports. One of Europe’s strongest economies, Germany for example, had become dependent on Moscow’s gas flows and had no Plan B.

The move clearly backfired on Western economies, with inflation reaching record levels not seen in decades, mainly as a result of the soaring energy prices. That has left pensioners and other poorer as well as middle-class income households facing a choice of putting food on the table this winter or heating their homes.

The study by The Economist says that despite European attempts to stockpile as much gas as possible to fill their storage facilities, many consumers are still being hurt by the rise in wholesale energy costs.

Even as market prices for fuel have slightly declined from their peaks, the real average residential European gas and electricity costs are 144% and 78% above the figures for 2000-19.

As it is being hurt the most, Europe could take serious and concrete efforts to push both Kyiv and Moscow to the negotiating table and hold peace talks that would bring an end to the war.

That would ease a lot of problems facing the continent – and the world – from energy shortages to the global food supply chain disrupted by the war. However, critics argue, this would backfire on many Western arms manufacturers who are making lucrative profits from their weapons shipments to the warzone.

There are many officials and other influential figures in the West, especially the U.S. congress (despite America not being included in a study by The Economist), who have links to arms manufacturers; which makes the possibility of peace somewhat unlikely.

While the United States has sent weapons to the tune of US$40 billion dollars, European countries show no sign of opting for peace with the new British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, the latest to announce plans of maintaining or increasing military aid to Ukraine next year

The other course of action is for Western governments to ease the cost-of-living crisis by spending more on social welfare and hiking the tax rates for the rich.

This would save lives by allowing families to heat their homes but many Western governments are taking the opposite route, by claiming they need to cut spending in order to strengthen economic growth in the long run. 

As things stand, the new research by the Economist will add to the fears already facing families in Europe ahead of the winter season. The lower the temperatures will be in Western Europe, the more likely it will be that higher-than-usual death tolls are going to hit the continent. 

As The Economist notes, although heatwaves get more press coverage, cold temperatures are usually deadlier than hot ones. Between December and February, 21% more Europeans die per week than from June to August.

The report says that in the past, changes in energy prices had a minor effect on mortality rates in Europe. But this year’s hikes to household bills are remarkably large.

The Ukraine conflict has exposed other massive costs that have accompanied the violence. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that the world economy in 2023 will be US$2.8 trillion smaller than was estimated in December 2021, before the fighting erupted in February.

The British weekly newspaper, which built a statistical model to assess the effects of the sharp rise in energy prices, forecasts deaths based on weather, demography, influenza, energy efficiency, incomes, government spending, and electricity costs, which are closely correlated to prices for a wide variety of heating fuels.

It used data from 2000-19, (excluding 2020 and 2021 because of covid-19) and says the model was highly accurate, accounting for 90% of the variation in death rates.

High fuel prices can exacerbate the effect of low temperatures on deaths, by deterring people from using heat and raising their exposure to cold.

It says that with average weather, the study found a 10% rise in electricity prices is associated with a 0.6% increase in deaths, though this number is greater in cold weeks and smaller in mild ones.

In recent decades’ consumer energy prices have had only a modest impact on winter mortality, because energy prices have moved or swung back and forth in a regular rhythm.

In a typical European country, increasing fuel prices from their lowest level in 2000-19 reduce the temperature from the highest level in that period to the lowest which means colder weather increases the death rate by 12%.

The study cites the case of Italy, where electricity bills have surged to nearly 200% since 2020, extending the situation, which it said was a linear relationship that yields extremely high death estimates. It has been reported that the country will suffer the most extra deaths. The results show that Italy, which has an older population along with soaring higher electricity prices makes it the most vulnerable. 

Other countries such as Estonia and Finland are also expected to suffer from higher fatalities on a per-person basis. People in Britain and France will also be affected. The model for the effects of fatalities from high energy costs did not include Ukraine.

However, damage to the energy infrastructure in Ukraine as a result of the war, will also certainly have a dire humanitarian effect on Ukrainians as well.

Over the past weeks, many reports have emerged citing Europeans as saying they will be forced to switch the heating off because of the high fuel prices, essentially exacerbating the effect of cold temperatures on deaths by raising people’s exposure to low temperatures.

The most vulnerable people in Europe, the elderly and those living alone or on low pay to medium paychecks will pay the highest price: Death.

 

US shale producers just can’t beat OPEC Plus

Shale oil drillers turned from scrappy wildcatters into multi-millionaires over the past two decades, propelling the United States to become the world's largest producer, but now they are running out of runway. Oil output gains are slowing and executives from some of the largest firms are warning of future declines from overworked oilfields and less productive wells.

On Sunday, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) meets to decide whether to hold the line or cut its output, no longer afraid that their policy decisions might provoke a surge in shale production in the way they did in the years before the pandemic.

The sidelining of US shale means consumers around the world may face a winter of higher fuel prices. Russia has threatened to block oil sales to countries supporting a European Union price cap, and the United States is winding down releases from emergency oil stockpiles that helped cool energy inflation.

US shale production costs are soaring and there is no sign that tight-fisted investors will change their demands for returns rather than investment in expanding drilling.

During a decade of stunning growth, shale consistently defied production forecasts, and opposition from environmentalists, as technology broke open more and more shale plays and revolutionized the global energy industry.

But there appears to be no new industry-transforming technologies in the works or cost-savings that could change the picture this time around. Inflation has pushed up costs by up to 20%, and less productive wells are crimping the industry's ability to produce more.

Industry spending on new oil projects, said analysts last week at Morgan Stanley is modest at best and the absolute level of investment is still historically low.

Shale has proven naysayers wrong in the past. After the 2014-2016 OPEC price war put hundreds of oil companies into bankruptcy, shale innovated with less expensive ways of operating. Their subsequent gains gave the United States by 2018 the title of world's largest crude producer, a distinction it still holds.

Shale can't come back to become a swing producer, because of the investors' unwillingness to finance growth. The demand for payouts and repeated price busts has forced oil producers and service companies to cut back on science projects that fed past production breakthroughs.

The industry also has less time to regain its former leadership, said Hess Corp CEO John Hess. He estimates rivals have about a decade of running room before they fizzle out. Shale is no longer in the driver's seat with OPEC regaining control over the market, said Hess.

Shale's waning influence is clear in North Dakota. Once the vanguard of the US shale oil industry, poor well productivity in the state's Bakken region and labor shortages have left it far from its boom days.

As the number of prime drilling locations decline across all shale fields, the outlook is grim. Shale production declines rapidly after peaking compared to conventional oil wells, falling about 50% after the first year.

The Permian Basin of west Texas and New Mexico, the largest and most important US oilfield, is the only US shale region to exceed its pre-COVID-19 pandemic oil production levels, according to US Energy Information Administration data. Even that field is showing signs of stress.