Will Ending Tax Breaks for Big Oil Make a Difference?

Facing public resentment, Big Oil tax breaks may soon end.

The controversial bill proposed by the Democrats to end the substantial tax breaks extended to the major oil companies known as 'Big Oil' did not make it. Big Oil commonly refers to the five industry giants - Exxon, Shell, BP America, Chevron, and ConocoPhilips. It is estimated that these companies have garnered profits of about $900 billion in the past decade alone! The rise in prices of gas and crude oil has fetched them over $30 billion in the first quarter of this year. Despite this, over the years, the federal government has been providing them with various types of subsidies through tax codes.

Since direct grants would put the focus on the government's preferential treatment of Big Oil, they extend benefits in the form of deductions, credits or exemptions; in short, tax breaks. Now, the Democrats have come up with a proposal which suggests doing away with some of these tax loopholes for the oil companies. Known as the 'Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act', Democrats claim that this will help rake in up to $21 billion over a period of ten years and thus, help bring down the budget deficit.

There are suggestions that the savings will be better utilized if diverted to promotion of clean energy programs. Solar and wind are the energy options of the future and developing these is likely to be high on the priority list of the federal government for quite some time to come. Though stopping these tax benefits has been on President Obama's agenda for long, it has taken him three years to propose any action on the matter. His detractors see this as a ploy to curry favor ahead of an election year.

With gas prices touching $4 per gallon this summer, the move to eliminate tax breaks is being seen more as political rhetoric than anything else by analysts. In reality this move will not impact much on the federal deficit or even the prices at the pump. At best this move may somehwat appease consumers (as well as earn votes) and only serve as a kind of vengeful retribution and will not actually translate into any benefits for the government or public. It will also have a negligible adverse impact on profits for the oil companies.

The public views Big Oil with resentment mainly because of the clout they wield and the money that they rake in. The common man sees the price of gasoline at the pump and an increase of even 10 cents produces outrage against these oil conglomerates. Hence, any kind of action that hints at reduction of benefits to Big Oil is welcomed and appeals to the emotions of the layman.

Though the figures and analysts say otherwise, the honchos of Big Oil did not hesitate to term the proposal detrimental to the American economy, when they appeared at the Senate hearing. They claimed that doing away with the tax breaks will lead to job cuts and investors' exit from oil. This is in contradiction to earlier claims by Big Oil saying that they do not need incentives or subsidiaries from the government for oil exploration purposes. Also, Big Oil executives claimed that it was unfair to target them alone while many other industries are also sharing these tax breaks. They also urged the administration to encourage drilling if it really wanted to keep gas prices in the country down.

The PR departments of Big Oil have also been successful in propagating the myth that ending subsidies for them will lead to significant increase in taxes for the rest of the population.

Republicans are protesting against the move and claim that the measures will have no impact on existing gas prices. The matter will be voted on later this week and it seems highly unlikely that the Democrats will win the vote in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

At least two earlier attempts to scale down on tax breaks for oil companies have failed in the Senate. Even if they don't win, Republicans sure will have gained sufficient political mileage from it which will stand them in good stead in the elections next year. In an attempt to garner support for their proposal, the Democrats have embarked on an online campaign. They are planning to use grassroots-level activists to target Republican senators on their support for Big Oil.

The Republicans have also come up with a bill 'Offshore Production and Safety Act of 2011' which favors American exploration and offshore drilling ventures. This addresses matters such as lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and in Virginia as well as setting of a timeline for reviewing pending offshore applications.

Big Oil executives have been found to be using the profits to boost their personal wealth and enriching their shareholders. Reports say that the profits have been used by executives to increase their stock holdings and to pay out generous dividends over the past five years.

Opponents of Big Oil and supporters of energy independence claim that even if the tax breaks are stopped, this will not resolve the bigger issue of price manipulation. They suggest that Wall Street oil speculators be controlled and prevented from raising the prices of oil artificially. It has also been recommended that OPEC members be stopped from manipulating prices, and tax incentives for foreign oil be stopped.

View the original article here

Will Oil Prices Decide the US Elections?

Oil prices are linked closely to presidential disapproval and so will decide the presidential elections' outcome

Before jumping into the question, a recap:
In a previous article titled "Is Oil Fueling the Rise in Political Partisanship", Oil-price.net went on a search to see if rising oil prices had any influence on the behavior of American voters in the period between December 1999 and July 2010. We asked: could discontent sparked by an uptick in volatility in oil prices be one reason why American politics of late seems to have gotten so much nastier? We delved into three polls: Presidential approval ratings, the Congressional approval ratings and direct questions to the voters on whether the country was in the "right track" or the "wrong track". What we found, to state the obvious, wasn't very surprising. What was surprising, in fact, was the degree of shifts in the approval rating of the President vis-a-vis oil prices-inversely proportional. As for the question of "Congressional approval" and "Direction of the country", they showed even more impact to the volatile oil prices.

Thus, between 1999 and 2010, oil and politics moved from being indifferent partners to having a burly relationship. Oh, yes, Obama was elected on the back of all-time high oil price volatility from the late Bush era (oil went up to $160 then back down). Even otherwise, you don't need loads of grey cells to make a correlation between high oil prices and slide in the approval ratings of the decision maker. Oil and politics-think of the wars and bloodshed-is welded marriage.

So back to the present scenario. How exactly are we faring? After all, we are bang in the middle of the Presidential campaign. There is no denying the fact that oil prices are higher. As a result, it is nearly impossible to defend against it for a politician, and Republicans are milking it. As it turns out, they are already at it.

Take the captious Romney for instance. He has taken Obama to task for the increase in oil prices, calling for the resignation of, what he has drubbed as, 'gas hike trio'. The trio, Energy secretary Steven Chu, Interior secretary Ken Salazar and Environmental Protection agency Administrator Lisa Jackson are directly responsible for the increase in oil prices, he alleges. Mitt Romney has also accused the President of slowing the domestic energy production. Indeed, Romey wants more land allotted for drilling and less stringent regulation for hydraulic fracturing.

For his part, Newt Gingrich has promised gas for $2.5 a gallon. Both the candidates want more drilling in search of oil-even on pristine forest floors, while the President maintains that rising oil prices have more to do with global market indicators. And, Rick Santorum, rather unsurprisingly, has also blamed Obama for blocking energy production in the US. He also feels high oil prices led to the economic downturn in 2008.

Of course, all Americans, differing only in degrees, feel indignant about the spiralling gas prices. One only has to browse the online forums to see the palpable anger. From accusation of "Obama's wars" to 'Big oil' and 'Big money', Americans have different ideas on the root cause of the price increase. Yes, oil under Obama has had rough days: First the BP disaster which tarnished not just BP, remember? Then subsidies going to solar, away from big oil's pockets; controversy about fracking and water pollution; opposition to ANWR oil drilling. Questions have also been raised on the Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada's tar sands. Promoted by TransCanada, the pipeline would carry oil from Canada's tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. This pipeline needs Presidential approval as it passes the international border. Earlier this year, the President rejected the bill, though TransCanada is looking at alternate routes that do not require the state's approval. Romney has questioned promoting alternative energy- like giving a loan of $500 million to Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer-calling the keystone decision 'bad policy'- Fact: The loan to the solar panel manufacturer was in 2009, while the key stone permit is of recent times. According to the Gallup's annual Environmental survey, 57% are in favour of the pipeline, as opposed to 29% who have other views, while the other 14% was undecided. So, there it goes.

Meanwhile the President says: "Do you think the President of the United States, going into re-election, wants higher gas prices?". Spruced by almost 17% increase in the price, so far, as reported by the AAA, gas prices are an easy way to target the incumbent President.

What's the ground situation, anyway? According to the Gallup's Annual Environmental survey, 56% of Americans believe that the President is doing a good job with regards the environment. However, only 42% had the same optimism about his handling the national energy policy. (In 2004, George W. Bush's were much lower- 41% believed that he was doing a good job of 'making America prosperous as well as protecting the environment', while for his energy policy he clocked a mere 34% support).
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, "if increasing drilling were the answer in the United States to lowering prices at the pump, we would be seeing lower prices at the pump, because under President Obama we have increased significantly domestic oil and gas production. That is a fact."

Yes, there is speculation in commodity markets that nudge oil prices higher for no apparent reason. Speculations are so. But Wall Street sharks are only a small reason for the increase in the price of oil.
Increasing demand- according to the latest report from the International Energy Agency, global oil demand is forecast to climb to 89.9 mb/d in 2012, a gain of 0.8 mb/d (or 0.9%) on 2011. Demand is increasing in Asia, in particular in China. Volatile situation in oil producing countries could also lead to increased oil prices- Sudan, Iran, Libya, anyone? This February, global oil supply fell by 200,000 barrels a day, as reported by IEA. And, it's basic Economics, if supply doesn't match demand, even on the basis of imaginary fears, oil prices will move on. Blame the oil driven economy, as well.
And, to be honest here, the oil companies do make more profit than they ought to. Then again, they do need the money to invest in exploration. Wait. If not, one day, oil is going to dry up. And, whoever wants that to happen, please step forward? Further, let's not forget that these companies employ a whole lot of people with generous salaries.

To sum up, the next President will be decided on the basis of oil prices. During his term he will have to contend with increasing oil prices and worsening geopolitical volatility. His 4-year term will be too short to implement any long-term policy likely to affect either. He will also be blamed by the opposition for high oil prices like the current President and the one before him.

View the original article here

Oil and Refineries

Lack of US refining capacity is partly to blame when gasoline prices spike.

The debate is raging in full swing: the dearth of new refineries in the US. Many are surprised to see the continued increase in oil prices despite the surge in domestic oil production. Could refineries be the missing element in the equation, they wonder. 'Why not just build new refineries and scale down the price of oil,' our readers continue to ask us. Yes, it's a fact- no new refinery has been built in the US in the past three decades. The last refinery constructed in the US at Garyville, Louisiana was way back in 1976. So, the question is reiterated as the point is so obvious: new refineries. But then, there aren't any easy three reasons, nor is the dimension only four.

First though, let's take a look at the prevailing price of oil. According to a AAA fuel gauge report, the national average for a gallon of gasoline is $3.62 - more than 13 cents from the previous week and 24 cents more than a month ago. After the fall in May and June, gasoline prices have increased gradually for the last seven weeks, adding pain to the already pained consumer. Is this because of dwindling oil reserves? Well, of late domestic oil production has increased by fourteen percent in the last 12 months. According to government sources, the oil production in the country hit the highest 'quarterly level' in almost a decade (for the first three months of this year). And, US produces 55 percent of the oil consumed in the country, mainly due to production spikes in Texas and North Dakota.

Clearly there is oil, so shouldn't the oil price decrease? After all, the more the commodity, often, lesser is the prices. Put it that way, the present oil prices do sound ominous. It's not as if higher demand has hiked the oil prices. On the contrary, demand for oil has been decreasing with fuel efficient cars and ethanol blended gasoline. This July, crude oil demand in the U.S. dipped to its lowest in four years on the back of average economic growth in the country, according to the American Petroleum Institute. The demand for gasoline fell 3.8 percent this July with consumption down 1.1 percent. After the peak in 2007, demand for gasoline has been sluggish. That is, despite increase in the price of crude, demand for gasoline is at record low. So, the speculation does gain force - are lack of refineries hampering the fall in the price of oil? North Dakota produces more than 600,000 barrel/month but has only one refinery in Mandan. An element of bafflement does linger to see the country producing substantial oil and yet importing refined products.

There is colossal gap in the realm of production and refining capacity in the country. The refineries are churning at full capacity which makes them profitable, but on the downside there is no room for mistake. They have to deal with variable demand on one hand and higher costs of inputs on the other. Recently, Sunoco Inc. announced closure of its largest refinery leading to fears of fuel shortage and higher oil prices in the US. Fortunately, a deal with the Carlyle Group saved the day for Sunoco Inc. and the oil industry. But, the problems in the refining sector are far from over. Two refineries owned by Sunoco Inc. did close in the last eight months, which means a loss of nearly half the gasoline and other refined products in the East coast.

True, new technologies have increased the domestic oil production. For once, though, the infrastructure in the US has failed to catch up with the surging domestic oil production. Barges, rails and trucks, believe it or not, still transport crude. Naturally, the oil barely reaches the refineries and this mode of transport also makes oil more expensive for the consumer. How about pipelines? We know that imported oil is expensive. Still, the Marcus Hook refinery continued to import oil at $114 a barrel in 2011, even when the West Texas Intermediate crude traded lower. Why? Lack of pipelines, again. And with this paucity in pipelines, crude produced in the country isn't reaching the refineries. Of course, the much hyped Keystone XL pipeline would connect Canada's oil with refineries in the Gulf of Mexico and Houston, but that may take years.

Staying with refineries, the need for pipelines is more pronounced in the Gulf coast. The refineries in the Gulf coast contribute about 45 percent of the refining capacity, and 30 percent total crude oil production in the US. Of late, the imports have declined in the Gulf coast, thanks to drilling in the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas and Bakken shale in ND. Unsurprisingly, import of the more expensive light sweet Nigerian crude stood at 150,000 b/d in January, the lowest since 1996. (For the corresponding period, there's decline in the import of Nigerian crude to the East coast too.) Yet, imagine the figure with more pipelines in the region. Yes, the crude from Eagle Ford from Texas has started to arrive in the Gulf coast. However, the crude is sweet light. Most of the refineries in the Gulf Coast are more sophisticated, designed to process heavy and more sour crude. As investment to refine the lighter sweet crude is expensive, the only option for the refineries is to blend the different crudes. The irony.

Meanwhile, woes of the refineries in the East coast continue. Two have already closed, and the rest of them are barely managing to scrap through. These refineries are dependent on imported crude as they don't have easier access to cheaper West Texas Intermediate crude. Hence, they continue to import the expensive Brent crude. There are plans to transport oil from North Dakota to the East coast by rail, but when?

Although a continuation of the import story, the scene is slightly different in the Midwest. The refineries here are enjoying higher profits, credit to generous supplies from Canada and domestic oil. Imports from Canada reached 1.76 million barrels a day in the first quarter of 2012, an increase of almost 22 percent from last year (Source: EIA). Unsurprisingly, Canada is the largest supplier of crude to the US followed by Saudi Arabia.

Recently the Port Arthur refinery underwent expansion to almost double its daily capacity. So, why do refineries expand rather than build new ones? It's easier because of the environmental regulations. The apparent lack of logic in not having refineries does get answered when you take the environment under consideration. Refineries gobble up water, not to mention vast tracts of land, and contribute loads of CO2 to the air, as well. So, environmental regulation tends to be hard for anyone interested in refineries. The EPA regulations are also strict on the sulfur content Light crude is easier to process, has lower sulfur content so it's easier to get the environmental nod. Heavy sour crude, on the other side, has more sulfur and is more difficult to process. Sunoco Inc. is said to have lost $ 1 billion in the last three years, attempting to upgrade in accordance with the stricter EPA regulation.

Will the picture change? Everyone wants refineries, just is someone else's backyard. The new EPA regulation for new refineries scheduled to be released this November has been deferred because of the Presidential elections. How is it going to pan out? Mitt Romney is all for more drilling. He wants to drill "virtually every part of U.S. lands and waters" but is silent on his take on refineries. For his part, Obama is for 'energy independence' but with his strict environmental laws, no refinery is going to come up anytime soon. The situation is precarious. The demand isn't expected to rise anytime soon. EIA has lowered the forecast of oil consumption in 2012 and 2013.

Any destruction due to accidents (like the recent fires), weather conditions, and maintenance would affect the supply with immediate effect. For instance, the recent fire in the Chevron refinery at Richmond, California disrupted almost 16% of the supply in the region. Abundant reserves, yet prone to import fluctuations- which country would want to continue in this position?

If the refineries aren't taken care of, the dream of cheaper crude would continue to be a dream. That would be sad with the present domestic resources.

View the original article here

Niger, Nigeria and the oil price rise

 While gunfire errupted in Niger's capital, traders who mistook the country for oil-rich Nigeria sent oil prices soaring

What's in a name? Niger or Nigeria will be in a better position to answer this question. If not anything the confusion in the name pushed oil prices to $80 a barrel last week. How? There was a coup in Niger and traders hustled to buy oil, mistaking Niger for oil rich Nigeria.

On February 18, a coup took place in the West African country, Niger. Armed soldiers stormed the presidential palace in Niamey, the capital of the country and kidnapped the President of the country Mamadou Tandja. The coup was orchestrated by a soldier named Colonel Adamou Haroun. He was aided by another Colonel Djibril Hamidou. This is the third coup in the country since the 90's.

In dramatic style, the soldiers declared on TV, the suspension of the constitution and all the institutes associated with it. Colonel Goukoye Abdul Karimou, read a statement on behalf of a group called Supreme Council for the Restoration of Democracy (CSRD). In the statement he appealed to everyone to have faith in the group's ideas which "could turn Niger into an example of democracy and of good governance".

The coup wasn't entirely unexpected. President Tandja came to power after the election in 1999. He was supposed to step down on Dec 22. However, he chose instead to change the country's constitution last year to stay on. The move enabled him to stand for a third time in office, and with more powers without election.

The fifteen nation West African regional bloc, ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States) reacted by suspending Niger. The US terminated non-humanitarian aids and cut off trade benefits. The US state department spokesman Philip Crowley said "President Tandja has been trying to extend his mandate in office. And obviously, that may well have been, you know, an act on his behalf that precipitated this act today". African Union chief Jean Ping condemned the military coup in Niger and said he was following developments "with concern".

The reaction from Nigeria, coincidence or not, does take pains to differentiate between the countries. According to a statement by Senior Special Assistant to the Acting President on Media and Publicity, Mr Ima Niboro, the acting President of Nigeria Dr. Goodluck Ebele Jonathan has expressed deep concern over reports of shooting in Niger's capital.

Meanwhile, Colonel Djibrilla Hima one of the leaders of the coup said that their group would hold election too. The plan, he said, is to hold elections once the situation has stabilized.

Niger has in recent years attracted billions of dollars as investment in oil. Exploration in Niger began in the 1950s. Drilling was done in the 60's by Petropar in Tamesna-Talak and Djado blocks. But the two main blocks that emerged were Djado Basin and the Agadem BasinIn the year 1992, the Djado permit was given to Hunt oil. In 1997 the Tenere permit was given to TG World Energy Inc.In 2004 the Niger government approved the joint venture arrangement between CNPC International Tenere Limited (CNPCIT) and TG World Petroleum Limited (subsidiary of TG World).In 2005, Petronas Carigali Niger Exploration & Production Ltd. (PCNEPL), announced that it had found hydrocarbons in the Agadem BlockEsso and Petronas had sole rights to the Agadem block. But in 2008, the rights were transferred to CNPC for USD$5 Billion investment. The oil reserves in the block are estimated at 325 million barrels. The company is also building a 20,000-barrel-per-day refinery in Zinder.Other oil companies in the region are Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron

Thus, though Niger isn't a major player in the oil business, the markets reached on hearing news of the coup. Tom Bentz, analyst at BNP Paribas Commodities said, "Markets took off at around the same time a Reuters story came out about gunfire erupting in the Niger capital in an apparent coup bid, mistaken by many as being Nigeria".

To be fair, other factors too contributed for the increase in oil prices-tension of Iran's nuclear program, weaker dollar and the report of EIA on heating oil supply falling by 1.4 million barrels. However, among the factors, the name confusion was the most important reason for the immediate oil price rise.

Yet, the fact remains that Niger is yet to produce oil for the world market.

Nigeria, Benin, Burkino Faso,
Mali, Algeria, Libya and ChadFrench. The country
got independence from France in 1960more than 8 percent of world's Uranium.

View the original article here

US shale oil deposits: Two trillion barrels of crude oil

This may sound like a fiction story but it is true! While total world resources of oil shale are conservatively estimated at 2.6 trillion barrels, US sits on close to two trillion barrels of crude. Possibly more than all the crude than was ever produced worldwide since petroleum age began.

The Green River Shale Formation encompassing the States of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming was first discovered in 1924. This famous shale formation covers tens of thousands of square miles. It is found in three different ancient lake basins. The layers of sediment in this formation stretch undisturbed for many miles.

This shale is a soft sedimentary rock that readily fractures into layers, composed of minute particles of clay, which may easily be removed. It was formed from multi layers through erosion. There are 40 million layers in one part of this formation. Deposits within these layers are fossilized plant, animal life and algae, which has turned over millions of years into kerogen. Some claims have been made that this was formed from the Great Flood of Biblical times. Geologists say that this formation was formed through countless floods perhaps through 500 to 700 millions of years.

There are two conventional approaches to oil shale processing. In one, the shale is fractured and heated to obtain gases and liquids by wells. The second is by mining, transporting, and heating the shale to about 450oC, adding hydrogen to the resulting product, and disposing of and stabilizing the waste. Both processes use considerable water. The total energy and water requirements together with environmental and monetary costs have so far made production uneconomic. During the oil crisis of the 1970's, major oil companies spent several billion dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil.

After initial attempts proved to be too expensive and were shelved some ten years ago, a host of energy companies are revisiting technologies to successfully extract kerogen from shale and economically turn it into crude oil. Participating giant Shell Oil representative, Terry O'Cannon states, "We try to keep them from speculating too much and keep expectations low because we don't know if this technology will be successful and viable in the long term."

View the original article here

WTI edging on Brent Crude Oil?

With the new Seaway pipeline, WTI crude oil will flow more freely from Cushing to the cost refineries.

WTI vs Brent- which is the better benchmark? Or, perhaps what is WTI and what is Brent? Primarily, there are two types of crude oil traded in the international markets (three really, but two majors): WTI (West Texas Intermediate) and Brent.

WTI used as a benchmark in determining oil prices, is crude oil of high quality. The spot price is fixed at Cushing, Oklahoma. WTI is lighter than Brent crude, has lower sulfur content- comparatively-and produces more oil during the refining process. With lesser sulfur, easier is the refining, and lesser the environmental effects on the planet (WTI has .24 % sulfur, while the sulfur content of heavy crude oil, like the one from Venezuela's Orinoco Belt, is as high as 4.5 %. A reason why many people love this benchmark.) To be noted, though: WTI is more important in- and is-limited to the US, probably because WTI is produced and refined within the US.

Brent is the real international benchmark. Two-third of the oil consumed in the US is Brent, and two-third of international crude is priced to it. (Brent crude is sourced from fifteen oil fields in the North Sea.) Still the media and market persist in quoting WTI, rather. This is a US singularity, like the non-adoption of the metric system.

First, to a bit of history: In April 2007, with the shutdown of Valero Energy Corp.'s McKee refinery, Sunray, Texas, the oil inventories surged to 27 million barrels. The huge stock pile brought down the price of WTI crude-an artificial scenario, as it was more of a technical glitch. Consequently, a report released by Lehman Brothers Inc. (now defunct) stated that the WTI could no longer be used to gauge the international oil market. Though useful for future oil pricing, the benchmark had 'lost its utility' for near-term pricing, the report said. By 2009 Saudi Arabia, the second largest oil exporter in the world, had stopped using WTI as a price benchmark for their oil.

Back to the present, and to answer the question: Yes, the oil price of Brent and WTI exist in parallel universe, with WTI lagging behind Brent. Why? Oversupply of crude in the Midwest. With Canadian imports, and increased oil production in North Dakota, the Midwest gets more oil, which stagnates. In other words, there is a huge bottleneck in moving oil of Cushing. The physical delivery point for New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) futures contracts, Cushing has the largest storage capacity in the US. In 2009 Cushing had shell capacity of 16.3 mmb and working capacity of 37 mmb. According to the US Department of Energy, the shell crude storage by the end of March 2011 was put at 57.9 mmb, while the working storage capacity stood at 48.0 mmb. So, fewer pipelines out of Cushing mean more storage, which in turn, translates to lower oil prices, with excess oil (when compared to Brent).

Lately, though, WTI has been catching up on Brent, here's why: a new Seaway pipeline, moving oil from Cushing to the Gulf coast. Come April 2012, more of WTI crude oil would arrive in the Gulf coast. Initial estimate indicate 150,000 barrels of crude arriving in the Gulf coast every day (after regulatory approval), increasing to over 400,000 barrels per day by 2013. With the given evidence, looks like WTI is closing in on Brent

With Enbridge Holdings, LLC, the subsidiary of the Canadian company Enbridge, Inc., buying fifty percent of ConocoPhillips' interest in the Seaway Crude Pipeline Company (SCPC), things are moving fast. According to Patrick Daniel, President and CEO of Enbridge, Inc., "A Seaway reversal will provide capacity to move secure, reliable supply to Texas Gulf Coast refineries, offsetting supplies of imported crude."

With the Seaway pipeline reversal, there's renewed interest among investors. Already, JP Morgan has increased the WTI forecast to $110/bbl in 2012 from $97.50 forecast in October, and to $118 in 2013 from the initial forecast of $114.25. At oil-price.net, our 2013 forecast stands at $117. Further, the Brent-WTI spread is expected to narrow to $5 per barrel in 2012 and $3 per barrel in 2013. (On September 22, the WTI-Brent spread had reached $29.50). (Earlier this year, Bernstein and Barclays' estimated the Brent-WTI spread at $5 in advantage of Brent). Meanwhile RBC Capital revised its WTI outlook, from $90 per barrel to $100 in 2012 to and $160 in 2013 (from $100 per barrel )- while keeping the forecast for Brent prices the same. Also even if more oil arrives from Canada and North Dakota, the excess oil can be shipped through trucks and rails or with added pipelines.

These pipelines, though, may not be enough if the Keystone XL pipeline is brought into the equation. Shale oil production is increasing in Canada, and the Keystone XL pipeline would give the Canadian oil more access to the refineries in the gulf coast. But considering the opposition from environmental groups, and delay in government approval for the pipeline itself, the excess crude is still far away in the future.

For now: If huge speculation has kept Brent prices artificially higher, the focus has shifted. Indeed, the logistics seems clear, but then oil prices depend on other ground factors and market fundamentals as well. Yet, looks like WTI is closing in, and it would be interesting to observe the WTI-Brent spread in the coming days.

View