The Most Important Geopolitical Trend of the Next Decade…Here’s How to Profit

By Nick Giambruno

The bloodbath was merciless. In 1842, 16,500 British soldiers and civilians withdrew from Kabul, Afghanistan. Only one would survive. It was the most humiliating military disaster in British history. The death toll sealed Afghanistan’s reputation as “the graveyard of empires.”

It was the desire for control of Central Asia that sucked the British Army into its Afghan disaster. For most of the 1800s, the UK and Russia pushed for power and influence in Central Asia in a competition known as “the Great Game.”

It wasn’t just to score points. The thought of losing India terrified the Brits more than anything else. India had huge economic resources, a plentiful supply of military-aged males, and strategic geography. London treasured India as “the jewel in the crown of the British Empire.”

To the Brits, the expansion of the Russian Empire into Central Asia was a threat to their control of India. Neighboring Afghanistan was their red line. If the Russians could draw Afghanistan into their sphere of influence, they would become an intolerable threat to British India.

So, in 1839, the British Army invaded. They installed a puppet regime in Kabul that would stand as a buffer to Russian influence. Every previous attempt to bring Afghanistan under foreign rule had ended badly. The Afghans are some of the toughest and most stubborn fighters in the world. The British knew that executing their plan wouldn’t be a cakewalk.

After a few years of trying and then failing to impose their will, the Brits threw in the towel. Early in 1842, 16,500 British soldiers and civilians packed up and left Kabul. As they fled through the mountainous trails, Afghan tribal fighters attacked repeatedly.

It added up to an epic massacre…..If the Afghan fighters didn’t kill you, disease and winter weather would.

After just seven days, only one man was still alive. William Brydon was bloody, torn, and exhausted. He was the only one to make it to the nearest British military outpost. That outpost was in Jalalabad, 90 miles away from Kabul. The Afghans let him live so there would be someone to tell the grisly story.

The garrison in Jalalabad lit signal fires to guide other British survivors to safety. After several days, they realized no one was left to see the light. Painter Elizabeth Butler captured the pain and desperation of the moment in her Remnants of an Army, below.

The debacle was a brutal lesson in geopolitics: geography constrains the destiny of nations and empires. Ignore that constraint at your peril. Despite their folly in Afghanistan, the British were generally shrewd players in geopolitics. It was a skill developed from a centuries-long career as an imperial power.

The godfather of geopolitical theory was British strategist Sir Halford Mackinder. Mackinder developed a general theory that connected geography with global power. To this day, planners in the US, Russia, and China study his teachings.

Mackinder argued that dominating the Eurasian landmass - Asia and Europe together - was the key to being the leading global power.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the renowned American geopolitical strategist, echoes Mackinder on the importance of Eurasia in his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power.

A power that dominates “Eurasia” would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions…rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75% of the world’s people live in “Eurasia,” and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. “Eurasia” accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.

A single power that controls the resources of Eurasia would be an unstoppable global superpower. If one couldn’t control all of Eurasia, the next best thing would be to dominate the world’s oceans. Control of the sea lanes means control of international trade and the flow of strategic commodities.

In 1900, the British Empire was near the peak of its strength. It was the world’s undisputed naval power. Its naval bases ringed Eurasia from the North Atlantic to the Mediterranean, from the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean, all the way to Hong Kong. This enabled the Brits to project event shaping military power into Eurasia.

Today, the US is far and away the world’s leading naval power. Like the British before them, the Americans have followed the geopolitical strategy of ringing Eurasia with military bases and exploiting its divisions. The aircraft carrier, with its 5,000-person crew, is the central instrument of US naval power. Putting just one of these enormous vessels into operation costs more than $25 billion.

The US Navy has 11 carriers, more than the rest of the world combined. And it’s not just ahead in quantity. The power and technological sophistication of US aircraft carriers are far beyond the capabilities of any competitor. There is simply no military force now or in the foreseeable future that could dispute US control of the high seas.....Soon, though, it may not matter.

That’s because China, Russia, and others are working on an ambitious plan. They seek to make US dominance of the seas unimportant. They’re tying Eurasia together with a web of land-based transport facilities. A constellation of supporting organizations for financial, political, and security cooperation is also in the works. If they’re successful, they’ll wipe away hundreds of years of geopolitical strategic thinking. They’ll make the current US planning paradigm obsolete. They’ll undermine the strategy that the US - and the UK before it - has relied on to dominate geopolitics. It would be the biggest shift in the global power balance since WWII.

It’s a game for the highest stakes…a real-life battle of Risk. The effort and countereffort to integrate Eurasia is the new Great Game. It’s the most important process to watch for the next 10 years. The central project to integrate Eurasia is the New Silk Road.

The World’s Most Ambitious Infrastructure Project

For over a thousand years, the Silk Road, named for the lucrative trade it carried, was the world’s most important land route. At 4,000 miles long, it passed through a chain of empires and civilizations and connected China to Europe. It was the path along which merchant Marco Polo traveled to the Orient. When he returned, he gave Europeans their first contemporary glimpse of China.

Today, China is planning to revive the Silk Road with modern transit corridors. This includes high speed rail lines, modern highways, fiber-optic cables, energy pipelines, seaports, and airports. They will link the Atlantic shores of Europe with the Pacific shores of Asia. It’s an almost unbelievable goal.

If all goes according to plan, it will be a reality by 2025. A train from Beijing would reach London in only two days.

New Silk Road Routes

The New Silk Road is history’s biggest infrastructure project. It aims to completely redraw the world economic map. And, if completed, it has the potential to be the biggest geopolitical game-changer in hundreds of years.

Tying Eurasia together with land routes frees it from dependence on maritime transport. That ends the importance of controlling the high seas. That reshapes the fundamentals of global power…and it’s exactly what the Chinese and Russians want.

In late 2013, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road. The Chinese government rules by consensus. They’re careful long-term planners. When they make a strategic decision of this magnitude, you know they are totally committed. They have the political will to pull it off. They also have the financial, technological, and physical resources to do it.

The plan is still in the early stages, but important pieces are already falling into place. On November 18 of last year, a train carrying containerized goods left Yiwu, China. It arrived in Madrid, Spain, 21 days later. It was the first shipment across Eurasia on the Yiwu-Madrid route, which is now the longest train route in the world. It’s one of the first components of the New Silk Road.

As ambitious as the New Silk Road is, it’s just one aspect of the integration of Eurasia. In just the past year, a set of interlocking international organizations has emerged. These new linkages are the institutional support for a new political-economic-financial order in Eurasia.

Here are the most prominent organizations…

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)
China launched the AIIB in 2014 with financing for New Silk Road projects in mind. Its initial capital base is more than $100 billion.

The AIIB would be a Eurasian alternative to the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Those institutions have been standing atop the international financial system. China, Russia, and India are the main shareholders and decision makers at the AIIB.

Nearly 60 countries, mostly in Eurasia, have signed up to join the bank. Japan and the US declined to join. Then, the US government embarrassed itself by trying (and failing) to pressure allies the UK, France, and Germany into snubbing the organization.

BRICS and the New Development Bank (NDB)
The BRICS countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa - are all onboard for Eurasian integration. The NDB, like the AIIB, is an international financial institution headquartered in China (but headed by an Indian banker), with $100 billion in capital. Also like the AIIB, the NDB is an alternative to the IMF and World Bank. The BRICS countries established the NDB in July 2015.

The NDB and AIIB will complement, not compete with, each other in financing the integration of Eurasia. The NDB will also finance infrastructure projects in Africa and South America. The NDB will use members’ national currencies, bypassing the US dollar. It won’t depend on US controlled institutions for anything. That reduces the NDB’s exposure to US pressure. The BRICS countries are also exploring building an alternative to SWIFT, an international payments network.

SWIFT is truly integral to the current international financial system. Without it, it’s nearly impossible to transfer money from a bank in country A to a bank in country B. In 2012, the US was able to kick Iran out of SWIFT. That crippled Iran’s ability to trade internationally. It also demonstrated that SWIFT had become a US political weapon. Neutralizing that kind of power is precisely why the BRICS countries want their own international payments system.

Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)
The EEU is a Russian-led trading bloc. It opened for business in January 2015. The EEU provides free movement of goods, services, money, and people through Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia. Other countries may join. Trade discussions have started with India, Vietnam, and Iran. The EEU is gradually expanding as countries along the New Silk Road remove barriers to trade. Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela are also in trade talks with the EEU.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
In the military and security realm, there’s the SCO. Current members include China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. India and Pakistan will join by 2016. Iran is also likely to join in the future.

Putting the Pieces Together

Eurasian integration, and the US attempt to block it, will be the most important story for the next 10 years. This is the new Great Game. Oddly, the US media has barely made a peep about it. Maybe the story of Eurasian integration is just too big and complex to fit into sound bites.

The New Silk Road…the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank…the BRICS New Development Bank…an alternative SWIFT system…the Eurasian Economic Union…the Shanghai Cooperation Organization…these are the building blocks for a new world. There could be huge profits for investors who position themselves correctly ahead of this monumental trend.

There is an easy way for US investors to tap into this trend. Click here to get the latest issue of Crisis Speculator for all the details.

The article was originally published at internationalman.com.

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Keystone XL Veto is Partisan Political Disaster for America

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

The controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline is proof positive that American politics have gone from debate to pure partisan propaganda – at the expense of business and even common sense.  With over half a million miles of pipeline already, failing to replace that aging infrastructure only means more oil flowing via crumbling pipelines – some 50 years old – and dangerous rail cars, like the one that killed dozens in Quebec in 2013. 

NY Times Best-selling author of The Colder War, Marin Katusa, explains why President Obama’s veto of the Keystone legislation is far riskier than the pipeline itself in this riveting, short video:

For a better understanding of just how much political spin, and outright lies, now come along with news on global energy, read USA Today and Amazon.com best seller: The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped from America's Grasp. Get a free sample chapter at www.colder war.com.

The article Keystone XL Veto Is Partisan Political Disaster for America was originally published at casey research

Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Master Limited Partnerships Generate Safe Income for Seniors and Savers

By Dennis Miller

It's time to answer the "who, what, when, where, and why" of investing in master limited partnerships (MLPs)…....


Andrey Dashkov, senior research analyst at Miller’s Money Forever, is the rare person who, when you asked for a hammer comes back with a hammer, nails, staples, and glue. In short, he often comes up with better solutions to tricky problems than I ever thought possible.

Being the Architect of your next "Big Trade"....This weeks FREE webinar!

Since Andrey and I are on a nonstop mission to unearth the best opportunities for generating safe income, we have looked to MLPs more than once. Many Business Development Companies (BDCs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) also fit the bill. Today, however, we are focusing exclusively on how MLPs can produce a healthy and steady income without exposing your nest egg to unwelcome risks.

The Nuts and Bolts of MLPs

 

By Andrey Dashkov
An MLP is an entity structured as a limited partnership instead of the traditional C-corporation. This allows the company to avoid corporate-level taxes. The limited partners pay most of the taxes, which means that MLPs are essentially pass-through entities.

In the United States, the net effective rate of corporate income tax is 40%. That means a corporation calculates its profit, pays the appropriate income tax to the government, and then pays dividends from what remains. With an MLP all the profits are passed through to the unit holders.

While a traditional corporation can choose to pay a dividend, an MLP does not have that option. In order to maintain their status, MLPs are required to generate at least 90% of their income from qualifying sources and distribute the major portion of that income. In most cases these sources include activities related to the production, processing, and distribution of energy commodities, including gas, oil, and coal.

The government gives a special treatment to these activities to encourage investment into the United States' energy infrastructure.

Limited partners (LPs) own the company together with a general partner (GP). The GP takes care of the day-to-day operations, typically holds a 2% stake, and can usually receive incentive distribution rights (IDRs). LPs, called unit holders, (which we can become by buying shares of publicly traded MLPs) receive dividend-like cash distributions. LPs, unlike traditional shareholders, do not have voting rights.
There are many advantages to MLPs, including:

• Attractive yields;
• Inflation protection;
• Portfolio diversification;
• Tax advantages; and
• Resilient business model.

 

Attractive Yields

 

MLPs pay various yields that average 5-10%. Data for the Alerian Index, which tracks the top 50 MLPs, show that in Q2 2013 MLP yields varied from 3-12%, with an average of 6.5%.Besides the actual yield, MLP investors can count on distribution growth. Dividends per share of Alerian Index constituents grew at a compounded rate of 4.1% over the past five years.

Inflation Protection

 

Several factors hedge against inflation:

• Inflation-adjusted contracts renewed periodically;
• Distribution growth has historically outpaced the growth in CPI; and
• MLP unit (share) prices are weakly correlated with movements in inflation and interest rates.

 

Portfolio Diversification

 

MLPs have a low correlation to other asset classes, including equity, debt, and commodities. However, for a short time they may correlate with any asset class or the market in general.

MLPs are less volatile than the broad market. Currently at 0.5, the average beta of Alerian Index, is quite conservative. This suggests that if the broad market goes down by 10%, we should expect the Alerian Index to drop by 5%. An individual company's volatility may stray from the average, but in general MLPs should be much less volatile than the market as a whole.

Generally, the vast majority of MLPs operate in the energy sector, but usually do not own the underlying commodities; this is part of the reason for the decreased volatility. Their income generally consists of transportation fees. However, some MLPs can be exposed to commodity risk (coal, propane, and oil exploration and production MLPs, among others). Economy-wide consequences of a severe recession may impact the demand for energy commodities and, in turn, the profitability of transportation companies.

Tax Advantages

 

An MLP investor typically receives a tax shield of 80-90% of one's annual cash distributions, which is a very nice feature. This defers tax payments until the unit (your share) is sold.

The tax payment schedule for an MLP is illustrated below. Assume you bought one unit of an MLP for $20 and sold it after five years for $22, having received $2 annually in years 1-5. Assuming your ordinary income tax is 35%, and the long-term (LT) capital gains are taxed at 15%, you can see the breakdown.

	Year 0	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5
Purchase price	$20.00
Distribution per unit		$2.00	$2.00	$2.00	$2.00	$2.00
Income per unit		$2.00	$2.00	$2.00	$2.00	$2.00
Depeciation expense		$1.60	$1.60	$1.60	$1.60	$1.60
Cost basis	$20.00	$18.40	$16.80	$15.20	$13.60	$12.00
Sale price						$22.00
Taxes:
Earnings per unit		$0.40	$0.40	$0.40	$0.40	$0.40
Depreciation recapture						$8.00
Amount subject to ordinary tax rates		$0.40	$0.40	$0.40	$0.40	$8.40
Ordinary tax rates		35%	35%	35%	35%	35%
Taxes owed at ordinary rates		0.14	0.14	0.14	0.14	2.94
Amount subject to LT capital gains						$2.00
LT capital gains rate						15%
Taxes owed at ordinary rates						$0.30
Total taxes owed		$0.14	$0.14	$0.14	$0.14	$3.24
Source: Credit Suisse

Resilient Business Model

During periods of economic uncertainty, MLPs remain a solid source of income. In 2008-2009, 78% of all energy MLPs either maintained or increased their distributions. In comparison, 85% of real estate investment trusts (REITs) either cut or suspended dividend payments.

Now, a note of caution is in order. Despite the excellent income track record, MLP share prices stumbled as they became more correlated to the general market. However, the investors who held them through the difficult times saw the share price rise again. MLPs returned to January 2008 levels in early 2010; the S&P 500 did not do the same until 2013.

The same plunge could happen again if a severe economic crisis hits. As we said, MLPs may move with a falling market. The fact that more investors are aware of MLPs now than a decade or two ago adds to this risk. As investors have searched for yield, MLPs have become more mainstream; however, they are by no means your average S&P 500 stock.

Also, there are two immediately positive outcomes to the higher investor awareness of MLPs: higher liquidity and access to more capital. In the Money Forever portfolio we look for the best and safest available and then protect our downside with protective stop losses.

Principal Risk Areas

 

With any investment offering a reward, there is a corresponding risk. Here are the key risks of MLPs.
Risk #1: Economic downturns. If the US economy is hit by a severe economic crisis that drives the demand for energy products down, MLPs will take a blow. Like a trucking business that transports products for which the demand is going down, if less product is shipped through a pipeline owned by an MLP, their revenue may decrease.

This, however, is where some investors may get confused. If a pipeline MLP has a contract with an energy company, the price of the transported product may increase or decrease, but at the same time, the MLP may have a fixed-fee arrangement with the energy company. So, if the volume flowing through the pipeline remains steady, its revenue should not fluctuate.

Risk #2: Access to capital and interest rates. As a general rule, MLPs return 100% of their distributable cash flow (DCF), less a reserve determined by the general partner, to the unit holders. Unlike real estate investment trusts that must give away a certain share of their cash flow every quarter, MLP distributions are governed by individual partnership agreements, so the terms vary.

However, the majority of cash an MLP earns will be distributed, so it's only natural that they turn to issuing debt or equity to finance growth projects. When their interest costs rise MLPs that need capital right away will be at a disadvantage. We prefer companies with enough internally generated capital to finance growth, and no major ongoing projects that require billion dollar loans and thereby run the risk of being underfunded or funded at an unfavorable interest rate. We also prefer companies with fixed rate debt to floating rate.

Risk #3: Management and execution. Management should have a track record of successful investment in new assets and cash generation to finance distributions.

We also look for companies that have 5 to 10 year capital plans as part of the write up, and a history of following those plans. They tend to fare better when it comes to keeping capital costs under control.

Risk #4: Sustainability of cash distributions. The above three risks boil down to whether or not an MLP will be able to churn out cash for its unit holders. The distributions should be sustainable, and should grow year after year. The primary reason for buying an MLP is income. We need to make sure the cash keeps coming in.

A company's track record of cash payments is a good, but not perfect, indicator of how it will perform in the future. Variable-rate distributions tend to, well, vary more significantly than those of traditional MLPs.

Distributions in the midstream sector tend to be more predictable; natural gas pipelines and storage generate the most stable cash flows while refining/upstream MLPs do so to a lesser extent. We carefully consider these factors when evaluating our investment options.

The "Taper" Factor

 

When Ben Bernanke uttered the word "taper" on June 19, the markets jittered. Even the traditionally defensive sectors such as utilities took a hit.

MLPs were not immune to the potential implications of the Fed easing up on its bond-purchase program which many believe is helping the US economy. The market panicked, and MLPs dropped in price. Readers will note the index dropped in the middle of 2013. The drop was less steep than those in either the broad market or the utilities sector and MLPs rebounded—in less than a week, while it took approximately three weeks for both the S&P 500 and XLU to get back to their June 18 levels.

When evaluating a potential candidate, a prudent investor will see how they have performed during times of market volatility. Sometimes trading a bit of yield for much less volatility is a smart move.

The IRA Caveat

 

We do not recommend putting MLPs in an IRA account. By placing an MLP in a tax-deferred account, you may lose part of the tax advantage the MLP structure provides. In an IRA account, unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) of over $1,000 is subject to federal income tax. If you earn more than $1,000 annually from an MLP's cash distributions and other sources of UBTI, the excess will be taxable. This becomes more likely over time, since most MLPs increase their cash distributions.

A Peek Behind the Curtain

 

In summary, an MLP gives us a couple of advantages from a tax perspective. There is more money to pay out in dividends. Unlike a traditional corporate dividend, which is paid after a corporation pays income taxes, MLPs do not pay corporate income taxes. An MLP's income is taxed only once, when the dividends are received.

Initially, when you buy an MLP, only 10 to 20 percent of the MLP distribution is considered taxable income. The rest of the distribution is considered return of capital and isn't subject to tax when you receive the dividend. Basically you put off paying some taxes for the short term. When you eventually sell your MLP, the tax is adjusted so the net amount of taxes is the same. The formula is technical, but the information you receive from your broker can be given to a competent CPA and you should be fine.

You can see why MLPs have become so popular in a yield-starved environment. While they have attracted a lot of investors, there are still some great opportunities for those willing to do their homework.

Dennis and I added our favorite MLP to the Money Forever portfolio in October, and we are chomping at the bit to share it with you… But, because of the special relationship we share with our paid subscribers, you'll need to sign up to for a premium subscription at no-risk to your pocketbook to find out what it is. Subscribe to our regular monthly newsletter and take a peek at the MLP we recommended, along with our entire portfolio.

If, after 90 days, you decide it's not right for you, we'll return 100% of your money without a fuss. Click here to get started.

The article Master Limited Partnerships Generate Safe Income for Seniors and Savers was originally published at Millers Money

Being the Architect of your next "Big Trade"....This weeks FREE webinar!

Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (NYSE: KMP) today increased its quarterly cash distribution per common unit to $1.32 ($5.28 annualized) payable on Aug. 14, 2013, to unitholders of record as of July 31, 2013. This represents a 7 percent increase over the second quarter 2012 cash distribution per unit of $1.23 ($4.92 annualized) and is up from $1.30 per unit ($5.20 annualized) for the first quarter of 2013. KMP has increased the distribution 48 times since current management took over in February 1997.

Chairman and CEO Richard D. Kinder said, “KMP had a strong second quarter as our stable and diversified assets continued to grow and produce incremental cash flow. Our five business segments produced approximately $1.337 billion in segment earnings before DD&A and certain items, up 39 percent from the second quarter of 2012. Growth was spearheaded by the drop downs from Kinder Morgan, Inc. associated with its acquisition of El Paso Corporation last year, contributions from the midstream assets we recently acquired in the Copano Energy transaction, strong oil production in our CO2 segment and good results at our Products Pipelines business.

Looking forward, we see exceptional growth opportunities across all of our business segments, as there is a need to build additional midstream infrastructure to move or store oil, gas and liquids from the prolific shale plays in the United States and the oilsands in Alberta, along with increasing demand for CO2, which is used for enhanced oil recovery. We currently have identified approximately $13 billion in expansion and joint venture investments at KMP and we are pursuing customer commitments for additional projects.”

Read the entire KMP earnings report.



Get our latest free educational trading webinars
 

OPEC Becoming a "Non Player" as North America Brings Energy Profits Home

Things have changed quite a bit in the last couple of years. Gone are the days of being glued to the TV waiting for news coming out of OPEC and it's effect on U.S. oil and gas prices. Now our days are filled with thoughts of "how do we profit on the oil and natural gas plays in North America". And we don't have to look no further than shale plays, energy service companies and offshore oil drilling opportunities in the U.S. or so says Byron King of Agora Financial LLC.

In this interview with The Energy Report, King discusses how dwindling exports to the U.S. from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East are shifting the supply and demand equation across the world. King also names companies in the service space with solid prospects for investors.

The Energy Report: Byron, welcome. You recently attended the Platts Conference in London, which addressed shifting energy trade patterns in light of growing U.S. export prospects and dwindling exports from South America and Africa. Has OPEC's role diminished?

Byron King: The short answer is yes. OPEC is struggling right now. The Middle East, the West African producers and Venezuela are struggling. The West African players and Venezuela have seen exports to the U.S. decline dramatically. In countries like Algeria, oil exports to the U.S. are essentially zero, while Nigeria's exports to the U.S. are way down. The oil these countries export tends to be the lighter, sweeter crude, which happens to be the product that is increasing in production in the U.S. through fracking.

The east-to-west trade pattern for oil imports to the U.S. has essentially gone away. This does not mean that the oil goes away. It means these countries have to find new markets for their oil which they are doing, in India and the Far East. But that disrupts trade patterns as well. Imports from the Middle East to the U.S. are falling as well. These barrels tend to be the heavier, sourer crude that U.S. refineries are geared to process.

As the U.S. imports less oil, our balance of trade gets better. The recent strengthening of the dollar has a lot to do with importing less oil. Strengthening the dollar decreases gold and silver prices, so there is some monetary blowback from the good news out of the oil patch. Strengthening the dollar increases the broad stock market for the non resource, non commodity and non-energy plays. There's an astonishing dynamic at work.

TER: When it comes to countries like Venezuela, part of the reason for the decrease in exports is because it has not invested its profits in infrastructure.

BK: Good point. In Venezuela, the government has taken so much money out of the oil industry to use for social spending, military spending and government overhead that the sustaining capital is not there. Even with Hugo Chavez's death and new leadership in Venezuela, it will require years of sustained and increased investment to get Venezuela's output up. After 10 years of dramatically bad underinvestment, the infrastructure is worn out. It will take a lot of time, money and some seriously hard political decisions to redeploy capital inside a country like Venezuela.

TER: If OPEC can no longer control the price of oil through supply because it does not have as much control of supply, what is keeping it from flooding the market with oil to get more revenue?

BK: That would work both ways. If OPEC floods the market with more oil, it will drive the price of oil down. Then OPEC nations would get fewer dollars for each barrel. All of that extra output, if sold at a lower price, might still yield less money, which is not a good thing if you are an oil exporter and need the funds.

"The east-to-west trade pattern for oil imports to the U.S. has essentially gone away."

The big swing producer is still Saudi Arabia. Saudi has spare capacity, but I suspect not as much as it wants people to believe. It gets back to that idea of peak oil. We've discussed it before, and yes, I know fracking is changing the game to some extent. But you still need to keep all the books about peak oil on your shelf. Fracking is what happens on the back side of the peak oil curve, when you need barrels, are willing to pay high prices and throw lots of capital and labor at the problem.

A country like Saudi Arabia could increase its output, but not for long and not in a heavily sustainable way. It would damage its oil fields. Beyond that, the trick for OPEC is going to be getting several countries to agree to cut output to make up for the extra output from North America, in the hope of keeping prices where they are right now.

Brent crude which is what the posting is for much of the OPEC contracts is about $103/barrel ($103/bbl). If OPEC wants to keep that number or not let it fall too much further it has to cut output, not increase output. That is a very difficult and politically charged issue within OPEC. The Middle Eastern countries can afford a minor amount of financial turmoil right now. The other OPEC countries absolutely cannot afford financial problems stemming from low oil prices.

TER: Is there informal price control going on in the shale oil fields? As the price of natural gas has dropped, the oil rig count has dropped and once the price goes up, those oil rigs could start up again. Could there be an OPEC of North America?

BK: I do not see an organized North American OPEC because there are too many companies in the mix. Too many people have a bite at the apple for anybody to control things. It is more like a tangle of accidental circumstances driving production levels. We are seeing a slight drop in the oil rig count in the U.S. right now. Part of that has to do with the natural gas cutback, but part also has to do with the efficiency of the fracking model. Fracking can be energy inefficient, but also can be industrially efficient.

Five years ago and earlier, the idea of drilling wells was to look for oil fields. You were drilling into specific regions enriched with hydrocarbons that could flow into a well under reservoir energy or with just modest amounts of pumping or pressurization.

Today, with fracking, you are not really looking at oil fields. You are drilling into an entire formation. You are drilling into a large-scale resource and introducing energy into a formation to break up the rock and get the oil or natural gas out. To do that successfully is much more a manufacturing model than the traditional oil drilling model. This is why you see drilling pads that have room for 10 or 12 wells. You drill the wells directionally outward.

In western Pennsylvania I have seen some of the drilling maps for companies like Range Resources Corp. (RRC:NYSE). These companies have very efficient ways of corkscrewing pipe into the sweet spots of the formations with multistage fracks. They are draining the formations very efficiently. You see fewer rigs because each rig is being used in a manufacturing type of process, as opposed to the olden days when drilling was similar to craftwork.

Modern drilling and fracking, at least in North America, is much more of an assembly line process. Companies are using the same drill pits over and over again. They are using the same drilling mud and the same fracking water. Much of the same equipment gets used multiple times on several different wells. In the olden days, each well was its own special unique construction. Of course, every oil or gas well is different, and the results depend on how you drill it.

TER: Which companies are doing this the best and are they actually making money?

BK: Five years ago, people would talk about how this well made money or how that well does not make money anymore. That's harder to do today. The economics of the current fracking world are still up in the air.

The jury is out on many of these fracking plays. Companies are drilling a lot of wells and they are expensive. They are fracking the wells and that is very expensive. At a recent conference, a gentleman from Halliburton Co. (HAL:NYSE) said up to 50% of the different fracking stages on wells do not work. They either fail at the beginning or soon after they go into production due to many reasons geotechnical failure; equipment failure; blockages in the holes, in the pipe, in the perforations; things like that. Once a company has put the steel in the ground, done its fracking and inserted its equipment, it is very difficult to get down there and fix what is broken.

"North American shale oil plays have had an extensive ripple effect through the U.S. economy."

Right now natural gas prices are so low that if a company is drilling for dry gas, it is almost a given that it is not making any money. If the company is drilling for wet gas and is producing, the gas helps pay for the investment. When you get into some of the oil plays in the Bakken formation in North Dakota, or the Eagle Ford down in Texas, you are starting to get a mid continent price or even better for the gas plus associated oil or liquids. When I say mid-continent, I mean West Texas Intermediate; the WTI price as opposed to the Brent price.

Regarding the pricing structure within North America, the oil sands coming out of Alberta are selling at the low end of the market scale. If West Texas Intermediate is about $90/bbl, the Canadian sand oil might be $60/bbl. That is a one third differential. Is that because the quality is so different? Not necessarily. The oil sand product quality is slightly lower than the WTI, but it is not a one-third difference in terms of molecules or energy content or refinability. The difference is in stranded infrastructure. The cheaper oil is geographically stranded up in the frozen north of Canada, and you have to get it out through pipelines and railcars. You cannot get it over the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Coast. There are only a few places for that oil to go, so it comes south. In its first stop across the U.S. border, in North Dakota, it competes with the Bakken plays.

The great mover of mid-continent oil today is the North American rail system the tanker cars. Back in the days of John D. Rockefeller, he could control oil markets with access to rails, rail shipping and tankers cars. Now you have to look at the cost of moving oil from mid-continent to another destination. If you are in North Dakota, you can move oil west to Washington or California, where there are refineries. Or you could move it to Chicago or farther east, to the refineries there. Or you could move it south, where you compete with imported oil at the Houston refineries. It is a very complex arrangement. And you must deal with the usual suspects BNSF Railway Company and Union Pacific the two biggies of hauling oil.

"The jury is out on many of these fracking plays."

We're seeing some truly astonishing developments here. Look at Delta Air Lines Inc. (DAL:NYSE), which spent $300 million buying the old Trainer refinery in Philadelphia. Actually, less than that when you take in the subsidy from the state of Pennsylvania. So now, Delta is importing oil from the Bakken to Trainer on railroad cars. Delta feeds its East Coast operations with jet fuel coming out of the Trainer refinery, including planes flying out of John F. Kennedy International Airport, which gives it a price advantage in the North Atlantic market. The price differential of just a few pennies a gallon on jet fuel is the difference between making or losing money on the North Atlantic routes.

Then, Delta can go to other airports where it operates, and beat up on the fuel supplier by threatening to bring in its own fuel. So Delta is extracting price concessions from vendors. It's sort of an old-fashioned "gas war," like when service stations used to see who could sell fuel the cheapest.

Mid-continent oil, mid-continent economics and transport by rail have completely altered the economics of other industries, including the rail and airline industries. North American shale oil plays have had an extensive ripple effect through the U.S. economy.

TER: Could building more pipelines to export facilities in the U.S. shrink those differentials?

BK: More pipelines will shrink the differential, but pipelines take time. In the environmentalist political world we live in today, it takes years to do all the permitting, and pretty much nobody wants to have a pipeline running through the backyard. Existing pipelines are golden because they are already there. Maybe they can be expanded, the pumps improved; we can tweak them or put additives in the fluid to make the product move faster. There are all sorts of possibilities with existing pipelines.

For the pipelines that are not built yet, you have the whole NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) issue. The railroad lobby and the lobbies of companies that build railroad cars also do not want to see new pipelines because these companies are more than happy to ship oil on railcars, even though in terms of energy efficiency safety and spillage, rail is less efficient overall.

TER: Based on this reality, how are you investing in shale space or are you?

BK: Right now, I am investing in the shale space at the very fundamentals. It is a pick-and-shovel approach to investing. I focus on what I call the big three of the services companies Halliburton, Schlumberger Ltd. (SLB:NYSE) and Baker Hughes Inc. (BHI:NYSE)because these companies have people are out there in the fields with the trucks and equipment, doing the work and getting paid for it. Another company that I really like is Tenaris (TS:NYSE), one of the best makers of steel drill pipe. You could buy U.S. Steel Corp. (X:NYSE), for example, which is doing very well in tubular goods, but it is a big, integrated steel company with iron mines and coal mines. It owns railroads, and sells steel to the auto industry, the appliance industry and the construction industry. Tubular and oilfield goods are just a part of U.S. Steel. With a company like Tenaris, it is more of a pure play on the oilfield development.

TER: Are you are a fan of oil services companies at this point in time?

BK: Yes. In terms of a company that is actually out there doing the work, I have great admiration for Range Resources. Its share price seems bid up pretty high. In terms of the large caps, I am looking at global integrated players: BP Plc (BP:NYSE), Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDS.A:NYSE), Statoil ASA (STO:NYSE) and Total S.A. (TOT:NYSE), the French company. They are big, global and pay nice dividends. Even BP, for all of its troubles, is still paying a respectable dividend.

TER: Those are companies that also have exposure to the offshore oil area. Is that a growth area?

BK: Offshore is booming. Some companies are very good at what they do, and when you look at the pick-and-shovel plays, that would be companies like Halliburton, Schlumberger and Baker Hughes, among others. Transocean Ltd. (RIG:NYSE), the big offshore drilling company, is making a nice comeback, as is Cameron International Corp. (CAM:NYSE), which is in wellhead machinery, blowout preventers and things like that. FMC Technologies (FTI:NYSE) is a fabulous subsea equipment builder, and Oceaneering International (OII:NYSE), which makes remote operating vehicles (ROVs), has done great the last couple of years and is still growing.

"Fracking is changing the game to some extent. But you still need to keep all of the books about peak oil on your shelf."

A couple of points about offshore. In the U.S. offshore space, in March and April 2010, right after the BP blowout, the U.S. government basically shut it down. The offshore space was utter road kill. By the second half of 2010, it was dead. It went from being a $20 billion ($20B)/year industry to about a $3B/year industry. Here we are, three years later, and the offshore industry in the U.S. is recovering. There is still growth.

If you look at the rest of the world's coastlines, you see an increasing amount of concessions, leasing and acreage whether it is in the Russian Arctic or the North Sea or off the coast of Africa. There are booming areas offshore of West Africa and East African plays, with companies like Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC:NYSE) and its huge natural gas discovery off of Mozambique. In the Far East, off of Australia, there is a whole liquefied natural gas (LNG) boom. Much of the Australia hydrocarbon story is in offshore LNG. These are huge plays involving great big companies, a lot of money, steel in the ground and lots of equipment that either floats on the water or sits on the seafloor. It is all good for the offshore space.

TER: Are there any particular projects that a BP or Shell is doing right now that you are excited about?

BK: Shell has a big play onshore in the U.S., part of the whole shale gale. Shell is a big global integrated explorer, but is backing away from the offshore East African plays because they are a little too expensive for the company's taste. Shell has made investments in West Africa, off of Gabon, and also in South Africa, in the Orange Basin. I think Shell envisions itself as a future key player in South Africa, which is good because South Africa is a big, industrially developed country with a large population and big markets. South Africa has ongoing social problems, but it needs energy. So if Shell is successful in offshore South Africa, there's a built-in market. Shell doesn't have to tanker oil in or pipe it in or somehow move it halfway across the world.

TER: In light of what happened with BP, are these offshore oil plays riskier, since one accident can shut everything down. Or are large companies like Shell diversified enough that it doesn't matter?

BK: I will never say that accidents do not matter. As we learned from the Gulf of Mexico, an offshore accident can be a company killer. BP literally went through a near-death experience. In the minds of some people, BP is still not out of the woods. The company has made settlement after settlement and it is still not done paying. It has divested itself of many attractive assets over the past couple of years to raise enough cash to pay settlements, fees and fines.

The good news about the aftermath of the accident is that, globally, there is a heightened sense of safety awareness in the oil industry. Companies have watched the BP issues very closely and learned every lesson they possibly can. All of the solid operators are hypersensitive and hypercautious toward offshore operations.

It all comes back to benefit some of the service players I mentioned earlier. The fact that many offshore drilling platforms had to upgrade blowout preventers to a much higher specification benefited the likes of Cameron and FMC Technologies. In the new environment, your subsea equipment must be built to a higher specification. So say thank you to FMC Technologies which will gladly build it to that higher spec and charge you a higher price.

The numbers of inspections that companies must do when they work at the surface of the ocean are enormous. If a company has to inspect every 48 hours, it needs more ROVs. Who makes ROVs? That would be Oceaneering. There are other opportunities in other spaces, such as dealing with existing offshore platforms, existing offshore pipelines and existing offshore rig populations. One company that has done very well in our portfolio in the last couple of years is Helix Energy Solutions Group Inc. (HLX:NYSE). It deals with offshore repairs and servicing issues, and offers decommissioning services.

Individuals who go into these kinds of investments want to become educated about them. We are in these investments with a long term, multiyear horizon because that is the investment cycle. From prospect to producing platform, these kinds of investments can take 1015 years to play out. It's like an oil company annuity for the well run oil service guys.

The good news is that there is long-term reward, because large volumes of oil come from offshore. When looking at the shale gale, on the best day of the year in the Eagle Ford or the Bakken onshore, a really good well can produce 1,000 barrels per day (1 Mbbl/d). Six months from now that well could produce 400 (400 bbl/d), and a year from now it might produce 200 bbl/d. The decline rates are really steep. On some of the offshore wells, we are talking 1520 Mbbl/d, which can be sustained for several years. The economics of a good well and a good play offshore are for the long term.

TER: It sounds like your advice is for people to do their homework and be in it for the long term.

BK: Yes. My newsletter, Outstanding Investments, talks about oil and oil investments all the time; subscribers receive my views over the long term. As an investor, you want to educate yourself about different companies in the space, what equipment is used in the space and what the processes are. You do not have to be a geologist or an engineer to invest, but you need to be willing to learn. There is an entire offshore vocabulary that you need to understand to appreciate the investment opportunities. You also need to be able to keep your sanity during times of tumult, when the rest of the market might be losing its grip. And you need to understand why you went into a certain investment in the first place and when it is time to get out.

TER: That is great advice. Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me today.

BK: You are very welcome.

Byron King writes for Agora Financial's Daily Resource Hunter and also edits two newsletters: Energy Scarcity Investor and Outstanding Investments. He studied geology and graduated with honors from Harvard University, and holds advanced degrees from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and the U.S. Naval War College. He has advised the U.S. Department of Defense on national energy policy.

Want to read more Energy Report interviews like this?

Sign up for his free e-newsletter, and you'll learn when new articles have been published.



The Bible for Commodity Traders....Get our free eBook now!

How to Take Advantage of Low Natural Gas Prices

Profitable Options Strategies Report

Kurt Rozman, President of Rozman Wealth Management says low natural gas prices will drive infrastructure build out.



Free Weekly Low Risk Stock Picks

EIA: Key Factors Affecting the Outlook for Restoring Libya's Oil Production

As the fighting in Libya begins to wind down and the Transitional National Council (TNC) establishes itself as the internationally recognized government, it is timely to review the many factors that will affect the pace and timing of the restart of the Libyan oil industry.

The TNC leadership, which views oil revenues as a means to rebuilding the country, and participants in world oil markets, who continue to grapple with tightness in the global supply of high quality crude, share a common interest in restoring Libya's oil production and exports. When this will happen is uncertain and depends to a significant extent on the political, military, and security situation that will determine when companies can return to oil fields to repair and/or restart production. It is also worth noting that at the time of writing, only the European Union and United Nations had lifted sanctions on Libya; U.S. sanctions remain in place.

Opinions vary across analysts. Some predict a slow and protracted recovery, while others are more optimistic, pointing to TNC statements on its commitment to restarting oil production. Most international oil companies (IOCs) have been cautious regarding their public statements on resuming production.

Political and military outcomes will each play an important role in creating conditions that speed or retard production activity. Politically, there must be sufficient legitimacy and legal clarity to allow for financing activity and exchanges of funds. A recognized government with the institutions in place to uphold contracts and manage revenues will be necessary for the IOCs to return. While the TNC has stated that it will respect existing contracts, IOCs seeking to purchase oil from Libya or invest in the country's oil sector must be able to identify their institutional and financial counterparts within the new regime.

One question to be addressed is whether oil revenues should be paid to the national oil company, to the oil ministry, or to other parties. Another option might be to allocate funds to an escrow account pending clarification of future arrangements so that operations can resume. IOCs also need to consider that the government and its institutions are likely to continue to evolve over time.

Militarily, remnants of the conflict may also continue to present challenges. As of this writing, Gaddafi loyalists are still in control of a few areas of the country and some analysts believe that pockets of resistance will remain even after the fighting has come to an end. Beyond the military conflict, security concerns could delay the return of oil workers and the resumption of production. While the oil industry is not very labor-intensive, a large part of the labor employed in the sector is highly specialized, and, in many cases, comprises expatriates who are likely to have found employment elsewhere. The conflict also scattered the Libyan workforce. It will take time to reassemble the staff, and even then there is a risk that the aftermath of the conflict could affect workforce morale and cohesion as employees face up to their differing roles and loyalties before and during the fighting.

Some of the security concerns are directly tied to the oil infrastructure (Figure 1). For instance, Gulf of Sirte, an area that accounts for about two thirds of Libyan oil production, saw the heaviest fighting and the most damage and is likely to face continuing security concerns. In terms of security, press reports suggest that the oil terminals and surrounding infrastructure of Ras Lanuf and Brega have been booby trapped with explosive devices.

Figure 1

The Financial Times cited land mine experts as saying it could take 18 months to clear some of the explosives, an issue that will need to be addressed before the known damage can be fully repaired. Resuming production will bring with it its own security concerns as the infrastructure is a relatively easy target. During the conflict, oil production out of the east was sporadic at times because when production resumed, it became a target for loyalist forces.

Read the entire article at www.eia.gov

National Oil Well Varco and Ameron Announce Merger Agreement

National Oilwell Varco, Inc. (NYSE:NOV) and Ameron International Corporation, (NYSE:AMN) have entered into an agreement under which NOV will acquire Ameron in an all cash transaction that values Ameron at approximately $772 million. Under the agreement, Ameron's stockholders would receive $85.00 per share in cash in return for each of the approximately 9.1 million shares outstanding. The boards of directors of NOV and Ameron have unanimously approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions, including the approval of holders of at least a majority of Ameron's outstanding shares. Closing could occur as early as the 4th quarter of 2011.

Ameron is a multinational manufacturer of highly engineered products and materials for the chemical, industrial, energy, transportation and infrastructure markets. Ameron is a leading producer of fiberglass composite pipe for transporting oil, chemicals and corrosive fluids, and specialized materials and products used in infrastructure projects, such as poles and construction materials in Hawaii. Ameron is also a leading provider of water transmission lines and fabricated steel products, such as wind towers.

Ameron operates businesses in North America, South America, Europe and Asia, has a presence through affiliated companies in the Middle East, and has approximately 2,900 employees and 25 manufacturing locations on a worldwide basis.

NOV is a worldwide leader in the design, manufacture and sale of equipment and components used in oil and gas drilling and production operations, the provision of oilfield services, and supply chain integration services to the upstream oil and gas industry.....Read the entire article.

The Market Oracle: Betting on Commodities, Especially Crude Oil

In 2008, prices of oil, natural gas, gold, silver, copper, corn, wheat, and most other commodities reached multi-year, and in some cases multi-decade, highs. They’ve fallen sharply since then, but commodities aren’t going out of business. Another peak is coming, and it will be far higher, especially for oil. The price run up to 2008 came as a debt induced economic acceleration in the developed countries sucked in imports from the emerging economies of Asia. Virtually all the world was gobbling up commodities, but supplies were still choked by the preceding decades of underinvestment in mine development, processing plants, pipelines, railroads, and other elements of the industrial infrastructure needed for producing and transporting raw materials.

Faster consumption and static production capacity had an unsurprising effect prices rose. Then they rose some more and kept on rising. And in the later stages of the commodity price boom, investors, especially hedge funds, joined the bidding as a way to bet on a growing world economy. More bidders, more price push. But not forever. When the credit bubble that had been overstimulating just about every industry became unsustainable and financial markets everywhere collapsed, commodity prices collapsed along with them in anticipation.....read the entire article

Petrobras to Hire Up to 28 New Rigs for Ultra-Deepwater Exploration

Petrobras' Executive Board has approved the strategy to hire up to 28 new drilling rigs to be built in Brazil, with increasing national content, and to be used for ultra deepwater exploration, including the fields located in the pre-salt layer. The rigs are slated to be delivered between 2013 and 2018. A first phase foresees the hiring of a minimum lot of 9 rigs. Of this first lot, seven vessel type units will be built, based on consolidated technologies widely used in the global market, and constructed in a single shipyard. Contracting these seven rigs from a same shipyard will allow the winning bidder to make the investments that are required in order for it to construct the needed infrastructure and to achieve the necessary economies of scale. The two other units, which may be either vessel.....Read the entire story