Asia's oil industry wants Trump to leave the Gulf, but expects he won't

Asia's crude oil industry has a good idea of how to end the current crisis created by the Iran conflict. But they also know their wish is unlikely to be granted and they are hunkering down for an extended disruption to supplies from the Middle East.

Across thousands of conversations at this week's APPEC conference in Singapore, the big issue was how to safely and sustainably reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The answer was remarkably consistent.

US President Donald Trump needs to back down and leave the Gulf region to allow the countries in the region to clean up the mess created when the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February.

But there was also widespread recognition that such an outcome is unlikely, and that the conflict shows no sign of nearing a political resolution.

Prior to the aerial bombing campaign's start, nearly 20% of global crude oil and refined products, and a similar percentage of global liquefied natural gas, moved through the narrow waterway linking the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman.

Volumes slipped to near zero in the weeks following the start of the conflict as Tehran threatened to attack vessels attempting transit, and while they have recovered somewhat, they are still well short of pre-war levels.

It is a matter of dispute as to exactly how much oil is getting through the Strait of Hormuz and what additional volumes have been re-routed to other ports in the Middle East outside the Gulf.

But even the most optimistic figures are around only 75% of pre-war levels, meaning the global market is down about 5 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude and refined fuels.

What is harder to dispute is figures showing Asia's imports of light and middle distillates are nearly 30%, or about 2 million bpd, below pre-conflict levels, showing that the real crisis is in the supply of refined products.

The oil and gas sector initially was confident the conflict with Iran would be resolved within a matter of weeks, or a few months at worst.

That optimism has evaporated and APPEC delegates, who include Middle East oil producers, trading houses, shippers and refiners, now talk of how to navigate a prolonged disruption.

The view is that the conflict will be resolved with a political agreement, but this is unlikely as it has morphed into a war of egos.

Trump is viewed as being unable to accept anything less than something he can claim as a victory, and much the same applies to the hardline leaders in Tehran, who want to continue to exert influence over the Strait of Hormuz and get billions of dollars to rebuild damage from the bombings.

As one delegate put it in conversation: "We need a political settlement, but that will take regime change in Washington or Tehran." Asked the follow-up question of where this change is more likely to occur, and the answer was Washington, a commonly held view at APPEC.

This could take two-and-a-half more years until Trump's term ends, although pressure on him could be increased if the Democrats are successful in taking back one or both houses of Congress in the November midterm elections.

Least-worst is now best hope

In the meantime, the best the oil industry is hoping for is what could be described as the least-worst situation.

This involves still constrained and risky flows of crude and products through the strait, with disruptions caused by occasional flare-ups in missile and drone attacks.

In this scenario, Asia's refiners can likely get enough crude, although the loss of refining capacity from the Middle East and from Russia, due to Ukrainian attacks, keeps product premiums at extremely high levels.

The market also focuses less on the price of oil as reflected by Brent futures, and more on how big are the discounts for barrels inside the Strait of Hormuz and how high are the premiums for barrels outside that can move freely.

It is possible to entice a trader to try and load crude inside the Strait of Hormuz, but the discount has to be big enough to cover the jump in insurance from around 5 US cents a barrel pre-conflict to around $2.50 currently, and the freight cost of around $30 a barrel, up from around $6, to move cargoes from the Gulf to North Asia.

However, the sharp rise in insurance and freight costs means that the headline crude price, as reflected by Brent, is well below the actual cost of securing cargoes.

What the industry didn't want to talk about at APPEC were worst-case scenarios such as the widespread destruction of energy and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf.

In that sense they were optimistic as they still don't believe this will happen. But then again, six months ago they all thought the war would be over soon.

Clyde Russell is an Asia Commodities and Energy Columnist at Reuters

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Business Standard.