Putin Faces ‘Buyers’ Strike’ For Russian Energy

Anyone looking to OPEC+ for help with surging crude prices was disappointed this week.

The group once again stuck to the script, agreeing to proceed as planned with a 400,000 b/d output increase next month. Apparently, the proceedings lasted just 13 minutes. An attempt by Mexico’s energy minister to discuss Russia was given short shrift.

Brent on Thursday neared $120 (figure below), before erasing gains on news that a new nuclear deal with Iran might be imminent. The IEA said this week it’ll release 60 million barrels from its emergency stockpiles, while the Biden administration continues to lean on promises to tap the SPR. Some OPEC producers are simply constrained in their capacity to help by a hodgepodge of factors, some idiosyncratic, others shared or endemic.

The world is now backing away from Russian crude (“avoiding it like the plague” might be a more apt description), and that’s making the problem worse.

Traders and analysts this week described “scary” volatility and backwardation. This is another dynamic I attempted (with little success) to communicate to readers weeks ago. Nobody wants to get caught up with OFAC sanctions. That’s among the riskiest things you can do as a market participant — any kind of market participant. Rather than chance it, you just find alternatives wherever possible.

Serene Cheong and Sharon Cho did a good job of explaining, succinctly, what that currently entails. “The invasion of Ukraine has rapidly made Russia a commercial outcast, resulting in most buyers and shippers avoiding cargoes of its crude, diesel, heavy naphtha and vacuum gasoil,” they wrote, for a Bloomberg piece published Wednesday. “That’s causing abrupt changes in market structures, price dislocations and violent swings in freight rates [resulting in] a physical market for crude too chaotic even for veteran oil traders.”

Obviously that affects shipping rates because who wants to get caught at sea hauling Russian crude when word comes down that Janet Yellen has just made your cargo illegal?

Some of this is so obvious (and has been for a month now) that it’s hard for me to fathom why so many people seem surprised. PVM’s Tamas Varga called it “self-sanctioning” and noted that the West’s financial penalties are making it virtually “impossible” to finance trade with Moscow. Ironically, depending on the details of any new Iran nuclear agreement, Tehran’s oil could soon be less risky than Russia’s.

Commenting on OPEC+’s reluctance to provide relief for surging crude prices, RBC’s Helima Croft said the contention that “geopolitics, not changing market fundamentals” is what’s driving up prices “will increasingly strain credulity as Russian export volumes collapse due to a buyers strike and a divestiture movement that is gathering speed like a runaway train.”

She went further, noting that although there are no explicit energy sanctions yet, market participants are averse to dealing with a country subject to SWIFT bans and whose central bank is the subject of international sanctions. “Moreover, there is also a growing view that these energy carve outs will soon prove untenable as the Russian war strategy grows more gruesome and civilian casualties climb,” Croft added, before suggesting that when it comes to a hypothetical return of Iranian barrels, RBC “caution[s] that the deal is still not done and the sums entailed would simply be too small to backfill a major Russian disruption.”


Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

3 thoughts on “Putin Faces ‘Buyers’ Strike’ For Russian Energy

  1. I’ve been surprised that we haven’t heard more from leaders of European countries dependent on Russian gas exhorting their citizenry to turn down the thermostat.

  2. Winter is ending, making this an opportune time to reduce Europe’s dependence on Russian NG.

    In addition to the steps already announced, I’d look for crash construction of more transmission lines and pipelines (to connect Germany and other European countries to more diverse energy sources, e.g. Middle East and LNG), more renewable with storage, more coal (temporarily), takeover of NG storage (sold to Gazprom who has conveniently failed to fill it).

    After the war, Europe should finance development of Ukraine’s NG reserves (about 1 TR cu meter). https://hir.harvard.edu/ukraine-energy-reserves/

    Ukraine will need a lot of reconstruction and defense spending, they can get some/most of it by replacing Russian gas. Europe could impose an increasing tax on Russia gas, to incentivize and fund switching. Russian OG sector is high-polluting, Ukr can be cleaner for a net green win.

    This is a solvable problem. Gas provides about 20% of Europe’s electricity. Europe has the money and, you’d think, the motivation.

  3. If Russia completes its takeover of Ukraine there’s no way Europe would finance the Ukraine NG reserves as Russia would be the benefactor. If Ukrainian boundaries are somehow returned to prewar status and Russia retreats there will be massive aid required to get Ukraine back on it’s feet again.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints