HashFlare

Thursday, 22 May 2014

China's Global search for Energy

Whether by diplomacy, investment or in extreme cases, force, China is going to great lengths to satisfy its growing hunger for energy to fuel its expanding car fleet and electrify its swelling cities.

The Chinese government showed that desire on Wednesday when it reached a 30-year natural gas deal with Russia, even as China was locked in a tense standoff with Vietnam over a Chinese oil rig drilling in the contested South China Sea.

The two events involve different political dynamics. The agreement with Russia reflects closer economic ties between the two nations, while the other underscores the growing tension of two on-again, off-again Cold War allies.

But both developments demonstrate China’s expansive approach to energy, a political and economic strategy with significant implications for the rest of the world. As its economy has rapidly expanded over the last decade, China’s energy efforts have come to dominate the global markets. Its mushrooming consumption helped prompt the spike in global oil prices in the mid-2000's.

China’s demand has also provided life support to coal producers suffering from declining use in the United States and other industrialized countries. Among the fastest-growing importers of natural gas, China has had to cement its ties to Russia to diversify its supplies, as well as to invest in exploration in the United States and liquefied natural gas terminals in Australia. China now has operations, investments or projects across the globe in Africa, the Middle East, South America and North America.

“The dynamic growth of China’s economy and energy growth is reshaping global energy markets, and both the economic and strategic implications are still being developed,” said Mark J. Finley, BP’s general manager for global energy markets and United States economics.

The shift has been swift. China used only half as much energy as the United States in 2000. Nine years later, it surpassed the United States as the world’s biggest energy user and last year it leapfrogged the United States as the No. 1 oil importer.

China now burns as much coal as the rest of the world combined. The country’s emissions of greenhouse gases, linked by scientists to global warming, surged past the United States’ emissions a decade ago and have risen ever higher since then.


China has little choice but to look beyond its borders for its energy needs. While it consumed 10.1 million barrels of oil a day last year — one-ninth of the world’s total — the country produced only 4.2 million barrels a day, according to a recent OPEC report. China has had mixed results drilling offshore, and it has been slow to develop what many energy experts believe to be vast shale gas resources on land, though Chinese energy executives express optimism.

“The China market feels that the revolution in shale gas will be coming very soon,” Zhang Mi, chairman and president of Honghua Group, an exporter of drilling rigs, said in an interview while at a Houston energy technology conference this month. He added that 100 shale gas land rigs would be put in operation by the end of the year.

Most energy experts think it will take another five to 10 years, though, before substantial amounts of gas can be produced — and even then the quantities may be small compared to China’s enormous needs. The two main shale gas areas are in the west, far from major energy users in the east, and pipelines are few.

More important, shale gas in China mainly lies significantly deeper underground than in the United States and is in poorly understood, geologically complex formations. The domestic oil industry is already struggling with safety and environmental concerns, and faces a challenge in drilling extremely deep wells in western Chinese terrain with pockets of compressed natural gas and toxic gases.


China’s hunt for natural gas reserves at home has taken it into some of the poorest, most remote mountain valleys of western China, where terraced fields of mustard greens and corn cascade down hillsides from mud-brick farmhouses. While some of the country’s energy giants, like Sinopec, are using modern drilling rigs, smaller Chinese companies are also trying to jump into the industry, although many have minimal experience or technical expertise.

China’s reliance on imports poses the same kind of foreign policy challenges that the United States has faced in recent decades. That is, the country must look to unstable areas of the world to meet its needs.

China imports much of its oil from the Persian Gulf region and through the Strait of Hormuz, where security is dependent on the United States Navy. China relies on roughly a half-million barrels a day from Iran.

But American sanctions on Iran have made that country a less reliable source of oil. At the same time, China has been receiving fewer crude shipments from Libya, Sudan and South Sudan. The Energy Department recently reported that China has nimbly replaced those declining sources with imports from Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Angola, Venezuela, Russia and Iraq.


China’s relations with energy-rich countries differs widely. The situation in Vietnam seems extreme, with ships from both countries ramming each other, and the Chinese naval forces using water cannons against the Vietnamese. China’s moves to exert claims to contested Asian waters have drawn protests from its neighbors as well as from the Obama administration.

But in Iraq, where China is the biggest oil customer and Chinese oil companies are major investors in some of the biggest oil fields, the Chinese have been scrupulous about staying out of Iraq’s strained sectarian affairs. And they do not seem eager to challenge the United States’ influence in the region.

China has also become a major player in an area traditionally dominated by the United States, Latin America. But China is largely forging ties with oil-financed governments that promote a socialist ideology and seek to distance themselves from the United States, namely Ecuador and Venezuela.

In Ecuador, China has become effectively the government’s banker, providing roughly 60 percent of Ecuadorean borrowing needs in return for oil shipments. Chinese companies sell the Ecuadorean oil around the world, including to the United States. Venezuela’s state-owned oil company is repaying China for $40 billion in loans procured over the last six years with a large share of its 600,000 barrels a day in oil shipments.

Africa has proved a more difficult place to invest, showing the limits of Chinese influence. Chad last year indefinitely suspended the activities of the state-owned China National Petroleum because of oil spills south of the capital, N’Djamena. Chadian officials claimed that the Chinese forced local workers to clean up the mess without adequate protection.

A subsidiary of another Chinese oil company, Sinopec, was forced to pay Gabon $400 million in January to settle what the government said was a breach of contract at an onshore oil field. Premier Li Keqiang this month highlighted China’s enduring interest in Africa by visiting four countries, including oil-rich Angola and Nigeria.

The new gas deal with Moscow should strengthen Russia and China, both economically and politically. It will help China ease some of its dependence on insecure transit routes and unstable countries. It will also guarantee an energy market for Russia if Europe seeks to replace Russian energy with imports from other countries.

Russia could supply 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually — or more than 15 percent of current demand — to China beginning in 2018. Perhaps most important, the deal should enable China to replace some of its dependence on coal for electricity generation with natural gas.

“The Chinese public will appreciate being able to industrialize without billows of toxic smog,” said Jim Krane, an energy expert at Rice University. “And the world will appreciate the reduced carbon emissions if cleaner gas can thwart some of the coal consumption in China’s power grid.”

Source:The 
New York Times

25 foreign, local investors jostle for Mainstreet Bank

Twenty five foreign and local banks are jostling to buy Mainstreet Bank Limited barely two weeks after the nationalised bank was officially put up for sale by the Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria.

AMCON, the bad debt manager created after the banking sector crisis of 2009, on Wednesday disclosed that 25 financial institutions and investment groups had submitted Expression of Interest to buy the bank.

Mainstreet and Enterprise banks, two of the three bridge banks owned by AMCON, would be sold on or before September 15 this year, the Managing Director, AMCON, Mr. Mustafa Chike-Obi, had stated last week.

He added that Keystone Bank Limited, the third bridge bank, would be sold some time next year.

Afribank Plc, Bank PHB Plc and Spring Bank Plc were taken over by AMCON after the banking crisis and renamed Mainstreet Bank, Keystone Bank and Enterprise Bank, respectively.

AMCON had said the Federal Government’s plan was to sell the banks to private investors.

A statement on Wednesday by the Head, Corporate Communications, AMCON, Mr. Kayode Lambo, said that the 25 banks, which had submitted EOIs to buy Mainstreet Bank, would be required to submit some documents after which they would be allowed to examine the bank.

The statement read in part, “The Asset Management Corporation of Nigeria hereby announces the successful completion of the submission of Expressions of Interest phase of the divestment of its shareholding in Mainstreet Bank.

“In confirmation of the earlier comment made by the corporation that the time frame given was adequate for serious interested parties to submit all requested documents, a total of 25 EOIs were received.

“These spanned a diverse group of interest, which included local and foreign banks, and local and foreign investment groups. It is worthy of note that the number of requests received for this advertisement exceeded expectations and the corporation is impressed with the profiles of the entities.”

However, Lambo noted that the bidding process for the bank had yet to begin, adding that bidding would start after the prospective investors had performed due diligence on Mainstreet.

He said, “Please note that the bidding process has not yet begun. All successful EOI applicants will now be required to submit further information in order to enable the advisers to perform a due diligence on them.

“At the completion of that exercise, the successful applicants will proceed to the next stage, which will be the due diligence phase. That phase is expected to take four to six weeks after which they will be required to submit their bids.

“This process has included a thorough search for reputable advisers who have been engaged. AMCON remains committed to fairness and transparency in the entire process as it looks forward to the next steps in the divestment of its shareholding in Mainstreet Bank.”

Some industry stakeholders had on Tuesday threatened to place a caveat on the bridge banks if AMCON failed to extend the nine-day timeline given to prospective investors to submit their EOIs, arguing that they needed more time to submit their bids.

AMCON, however, stressed that the bidding process had yet to start, noting that prospective investors were only being asked to identify themselves.

The Central Bank of Nigeria had on August 5, 2011, revoked the operating licences of Afribank, Spring Bank, and Bank PHB, which it said did not show enough capacity and ability for recapitalisation.

In their place, the CBN, through the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation, established bridge banks and transferred the assets and liabilities of the three affected banks to the bridge banks.

Under the arrangement, MainStreet Bank took over the assets and liabilities of Afribank; Keystone Bank assumed the assets and liabilities of Bank PHB, while Enterprise Bank took over those of Spring Bank.

Consequently, AMCON acquired from the NDIC the three bridge banks and injected N679bn into them to meet the minimum capital base of N25bn and the minimum capital adequacy ratio of 15 per cent.

MainStreet Bank received N285bn; Keystone Bank, N283bn; and Enterprise Bank, N111bn.

Source: Punch Newspaper.

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Stagnant EU growth, alongside weak German ZEW Survey, lead to additional calls for further ECB stimulus

The fallout from ECB President, Mario Draghi’s explicit threat that the European Central Bank may add further stimulus in June was very much apparent in the currency markets, with the EURUSD continuing to be sold. Despite Draghi inspiring the EURUSD to depreciate by over 200 pips last week, after stating that if inflation levels continue to disappoint, the ECB would be “comfortable” acting in June, it was other economic data which raised eyebrows.

Last Tuesday, Germany’s ZEW Economic Sentiment recorded its lowest reading since January 2013. The ZEW Survey scored a 33.1, far below the 40.0 expectation. Bearing in mind Germany’s own GDP correlates to nearly 30% of the EU economy, this alone woke up the bears. Further dismay was caused when a preliminary EU GDP report suggested that EU growth in the past quarter remained unchanged, at 0.2%. It was hoped that the EU economy would display 0.4% expansion. Together with the disappointing German ZEW Survey, this led to further calls for extra ECB stimulus in June. EU CPI (inflation) remained unchanged, at 0.7%. All in all, the EURUSD is currently situated at a three-month low, just below 1.37.

Elsewhere, a dovish Mark Carney inspired traders to sell the GBPUSD. Last Wednesday, during the BoE’s inflation report, Carney emphatically stated that despite UK economic data continually surpassing expectations, the BoE were in “no hurry” to increase their benchmark interest rates.

In previous weeks, a collection of impressive UK economic data had the bulls in full swing, with optimists hoping that the BoE would increase rates in late 2014. Carney made further dovish remarks regarding the UK economy over the weekend, stating that the UK housing sector represents one of the biggest risks to the UK economy, moving forward. It appears that Carney is attempting to talk down the GBP, after it touched a five-year high against the USD the week before. Currently, the GBPUSD is starting to move upwards, after reaching its lowest valuation in two months.  

In regards to the Asian markets, during the previous week, the JPY surprisingly strengthened. Japan’s latest GDP release showed that during the previous quarter, Japan’s economy expanded at is fastest pace in nearly three years. Overall, Japan’s economy expanded by 1.5%, far beyond the 1% expectation. Consumer expenditure showed a noticeable improvement, with consumers being enticed to make purchases, before the Japanese government imposed a new sales tax in April.

The week ahead sees a variation of Japanese economic data released between the 19th - 21st May. The majority of attention is likely to be directed towards BoJ’s Governor, Kuroda’s live press conference, this upcoming Wednesday. It is hoped that Kuroda will offer some sort of indication on when the BoJ will look to increase their Quantitative Easing program. If Kuroda indicates that further easing could come as soon as next month, then JPY weakness is possible. However, if Kuroda states that the timeframe for further QE has not yet been determined (like in previous months), then additional JPY strength could be forthcoming.

In reference to the USD, confidence remains low in the Greenback, despite US economic data continuing to exemplify improvements. For starters, last week’s Initial Jobless Claims showed the fewest number of American citizens filling applications for unemployment benefits, since 2007.

Last week, only 297,000 Initial Jobless Claims were made, compared to the 325,000 expectation. Additionally, there were signs that the US housing sector is starting to make progress. Compared to last month, Housing Starts improved by 13% and Building Permits by 8%. Recently, the Federal Reserve had expressed that a noticeable slowdown in the housing market, was hampering progress to the US economic recovery.  Perhaps more importantly to the Federal Reserve, US CPI (inflation) climbed by 0.3% in April, their fastest CPI improvement in over one year.

Although the majority of US economic data was positive last week, there was some disappointment in regards to consumer expenditure. Advance Retail Sales came in at only 0.1%, quite some distance from the 0.4% expectation. It is widely reported that consumer expenditure represents around 70% of the US economy and this led to some suspicions that US consumer confidence, remains low. Federal Reserve leader, Janet Yellen is expected to give a speech at New York University, this coming Wednesday. Although is not yet known whether Yellen is scheduled to address the US economy, any references made, may provide financial market volatility.

What to Watch this Week:
Over the last week, there was a high quantity of economic data released to the general public. This results in the week ahead, being slightly less heavy on economic releases. However, market eyes will be paying close attention to the release of the Federal Reserve’s FOMC minutes this coming Wednesday. Elsewhere, on Tuesday, the UK’s latest CPI figures are released. Right now, it is expected that below target inflation levels will validate Mark Carney’s assertion last week, that the BoE are in no need to increase interest rates anytime soon.

Written by Jameel Ahmad, Chief Market Analyst at FXTM.

For more information please visit: Forex Time

Monday, 19 May 2014

AstraZeneca rejects Pfizer's final takeover bid

AstraZeneca has rejected Pfizer's £69bn takeover approach, saying the bid undervalues the UK company and poses too many risks.

AstraZeneca's shares tumbled 13% to £42.04 on the news, wiping about £8bn off the company's market value as investors concluded that the chance of a deal was now remote. Some of the company's biggest shareholders, including the fund manager Jupiter, criticised the AstraZeneca board for not engaging with Pfizer.

Leif Johansson, AstraZeneca's chairman, said Pfizer's £55-a-share valuation fell short of the price that the US company was told was necessary.

Pfizer said it was prepared to pay £53.50 on Friday, but AstraZeneca said at the weekend that the price needed to be at least 10% higher, valuing the company at about £74bn.

Pfizer announced on Sunday night that it would make a final approach at £55 a share and that it would not raise its offer further. It also increased the cash portion of the bid from 33% to 45% with the rest payable in Pfizer shares.

Johansson said Pfizer had already said its £53.50 approach was its final offer and that the US company did not alert AstraZeneca to Sunday night's increased proposal.

Advertisement

Pfizer said it would not make a hostile offer by going straight to AstraZeneca's shareholders, but it called on them to urge the board to enter talks. Pfizer has until 26 May to make a firm offer unless AstraZeneca's board asks the takeover panel for an extension.

Johansson said Pfizer's approach, which falls short of a formal bid, undervalued the Anglo-Swedish company's prospects for producing new drugs as an independent business.

He added that Pfizer's plans to move to the UK for tax purposes and its record for slashing research spending endangered the future of a combined company.

"Pfizer's approach throughout its pursuit of AstraZeneca appears to have been fundamentally driven by the corporate financial benefits to its shareholders of cost savings and tax minimisation," he said.

"From our first meeting in January to our latest discussion yesterday, and in the numerous phone calls in between, Pfizer has failed to make a compelling strategic, business or value case. The board is firm in its conviction as to the appropriate terms to recommend to shareholders.

"We have rejected Pfizer's final proposal because it is inadequate and would present significant risks for shareholders, while also having serious consequences for the company, our employees and the life-sciences sector in the UK, Sweden and the US."

Advertisement

The rejection appeared to end a battle between the two companies unless AstraZeneca shareholders push the board to talk to Pfizer without a higher offer.

Pfizer said it was considering its options.

Johansson told the BBC's Today programme he did not know if the deal was dead.

"I have no idea. This has been going on for quite some time, and in very deep engagement over the whole of the weekend. Pfizer now says this is the final offer. I have to believe what they say."

Savvas Neophytou, an analyst at the brokers Panmure Gordon, said he thought shareholders could yet force AstraZeneca to talk to Pfizer.

"There is a lot going on and I suspect there are more developments to come," he said. Under Britain's takeover rules, if Pfizer made a firm offer for AstraZeneca, the board would have to recommend it to shareholders and it could not be for more than £55 a share.

Pfizer's pursuit of AstraZeneca has divided opinion among shareholders, with some calling for the firm to negotiate with Pfizer while others have supported the board in resisting the bid.

A top 10 investor said the board had failed to represent shareholders' interests, but that a deal now looked unlikely.

"This is the single biggest case of value destruction on behalf of shareholders of all time," the fund manager said. "I think it is closed. Personality clashes have triumphed over shareholder value creation."

By mid-morning on Monday, AstraZeneca's market value was £53bn, £16bn less than the price Pfizer had indicated it would pay.

Alistair Gunn, a fund manager at Jupiter, which is one of AstraZeneca's top 30 shareholders, said: "We are disappointed the board of AstraZeneca has rejected Pfizer's latest offer so categorically. They should have at least engaged in a constructive conversation with Pfizer on the details of the offer to assess the opportunities that a combined entity could bring.

"There now seems little room left to manoeuvre with Pfizer having ruled out a hostile bid. We will be expressing our dissatisfaction to the AstraZeneca board over the way the bid process has been handled up to now."

The Viagra maker's offer also stoked a political row because of the potential impact on jobs and Britain's science base.

On Monday David Cameron said he would remain neutral about AstraZeneca's rejection of the bid from Pfizer, although officials are still involved in talks with both companies.

Despite Pfizer's decision not to raise its offer any further or launch a hostile takeover, the prime minister's spokesman said "official-level engagement" was continuing, in a sign the government does not believe prospects of a deal are dead.

Asked for his reaction to the latest twist, Cameron said it was a "matter for the companies to resolve themselves" but he would continue to follow events closely.

"The government, quite rightly, should be neutral in this. What we should do, though, is always be engaged with both companies – as we have been – to try and make sure that, whatever the outcome, British science, British jobs, British manufacturing, that they get proper and deserved attention," he told the BBC.

Source:TheGuardian(UK.)