THE recent announcement by Kuwait Petrochemical Industries Company (KPIC), a subsidiary of Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (KPC), for its acquisition of a 25 percent stake in China’s Wanhua Chemical Group has sparked both interest and questions regarding the benefits for KPC, and the rationale behind such an investment. Is the purpose of the venture merely to secure a market for selling naphtha? If so, does this imply that KPC’s marketing capabilities are no longer capable of selling naphtha on the international market, despite having done so since 1966 from its Shuaiba Refinery?
harami
In fact, KPC was the first national oil company in the world to export naphtha. Another miscalculation by KPC is the decision to rent and store Kuwaiti crude oil in South Korea, without clear rationale, advantages, or tangible benefits. This comes at a time when the global oil market is already oversupplied, with OPEC+ itself increasing output and pushing prices downward. Can anyone at KPC clearly explain the strategic or financial justification for storing Kuwaiti crude in Korea? Beyond the added costs of shipping and storage, there is also the missed opportunity of selling the crude promptly on the open market, unless the crude is being sold directly to domestic Korean refineries, likely at discounted prices.
Furthermore, investing over $640 million in a venture in China, which is KPC’s first direct investment in that market, solely to market one product, naphtha, raises several concerns. Naphtha is not a competitive feedstock compared to natural gas, which is widely recognized as cheaper, cleaner, and more economical for petrochemical production. This casts doubt on the main purpose of the investment. If the purpose is not limited to using or selling naphtha, then the investment appears to be more financial in nature than operational. However, KPC is not lacking in experience or capability when it comes to marketing millions of tons of naphtha globally.
This brings us to another notable development in the oil industry: Shell Oil International has decided against fully acquiring another major oil company, BP. Despite BP’s underperformance compared to its industry peers and its urgent need for restructuring to regain its position among the “Seven Sisters,” Shell chose to walk away from the idea. Such an acquisition would have taken more than two years to properly integrate into Shell’s overall system, requiring a complete reorganization, significant time and effort, and a strong focus on manpower reduction and costcutting in all areas. Instead, Shell chose to focus inward by streamlining its own operations to be more closely in line with the structure and efficiency of its American oil industry peers. Investing in petrochemicals is, in principle, a good strategy. However, what are the overall benefits and strategic advantages for KPC? We hope that selling a few hundred thousand tons of naphtha is not the main purpose behind such an acquisition, especially at such a high cost.
TWO of the biggest American oil companies, ExxonMobil and Chevron, are locked in a legal battle over an oilfield in Guyana. Both companies are industry giants and pioneers with a presence in oil fields worldwide. They have their hands in every oil field, regardless of location. Oil is their bread and butter. They are the biggest in the field with unmatched expertise. Today, however, they find themselves in a legal battle in a London court over the ownership of a massive oil project, estimated to hold over$1 trillion in reserves. The outcome of this case carries huge implications for the global oil industry. The two U.S. oil supermajors are battling over a 30 percent stake in a major oil field in Guyana, which is currently owned by Hess Corporation, a U.S. energy company that agreed to a $54 billion takeover by Chevron in 2023.
ExxonMobil, which already owns approximately 45 percent of the same field, claims it holds a “first right of refusal” under its existing agreement. This is likely to be a long legal battle over a valuable oil reserve, which is what every oil company wants. The fight between the world’s two biggest oil firms could shape the future of the industry. Whoever wins will strengthen their position in the global market. For ExxonMobil, the most valuable American oil company, winning could help it stay on top. The two oil companies are no match for national oil companies in terms of oil reserves, nor do they possess as much oil as those state-owned companies.
However, they do have the know-how, the experience, and the technology to operate in almost any oil field in the world. They are always in desperate need of more oil reserves and will go anywhere, to any place, in search of a few barrels of black gold. It is their bread and butter. For Guyana, with its small population and clean environment, there is no real need for the polluting effects of black oil to disrupt its natural surroundings. However, the financial rewards are too great to ignore, offering the country a chance to place itself on the global energy map. With oil reserves exceeding 12 billion barrels, and more expansion on the horizon, Guyana stands to gain immensely. The current legal battle between the two oil giants is over a prize worth more than $1 trillion. In the end, Chevron has more at stake and a greater need to win, as it aims to boost its oil reserves to better compete with the world’s leading oil company, ExxonMobil. It is a matter of competition and narrowing the gap with its top rival. Without a doubt, this is a case well worth fighting for.
KUWAIT CITY, June 1: The Central Bank of Kuwait (CBK) announced on Saturday that it has completed the distribution of new Kuwaiti banknotes in various denominations to all local banks, ensuring sufficient supply to meet public demand ahead of Eid Al-Adha.
In a press statement, the CBK invited customers wishing to obtain new banknotes to visit their respective bank branches during official working hours.
The statement added that Kuwaiti banks will announce the locations of designated branches offering the “Ayadi” cashing service, as well as other available methods for customers to receive new banknotes.
Russian President Vladimir Putin holds a meeting with members of Russia’s business community at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia on May 26. (AP)
WASHINGTON, May 31, (AP): Hundreds of foreign companies left Russia after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, including major US firms like Coca-Cola, Nike, Starbucks, ExxonMobil and Ford Motor Co. But after more than three years of war, President Donald Trump has held out the prospect of restoring U.S.-Russia trade if there’s ever a peace settlement.
And Russian President Vladimir Putin has said foreign companies could come back under some circumstances. “Russia wants to do largescale TRADE with the United States when this catastrophic ‘bloodbath’ is over, and I agree,” Trump said in a statement after a phone call with Putin. “There is a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is UNLIMITED.”
The president then shifted his tone toward Putin after heavy drone and missile attacks on Kyiv, saying Putin “has gone absolutely crazy” and threatening new sanctions. That and recent comments from Putin warning Western companies against reclaiming their former stakes seemed to reflect reality more accurately – that it’s not going to be a smooth process for businesses going back into Russia.
That’s because Russia’s business environment has massively changed since 2022. And not in ways that favor foreign companies. And with Putin escalating attacks and holding on to territory demands Ukraine likely isn’t going to accept, a peace deal seems distant indeed. Here are factors that could deter US companies from ever going back: Russian law classifies Ukraine’s allies as “unfriendly states” and imposes severe restrictions on businesses from more than 50 countries.
Those include limits on withdrawing money and equipment as well as allowing the Russian government to take control of companies deemed important. Foreign owners’ votes on boards of directors can be legally disregarded. Companies that left were required to sell their businesses for 50% or less of their assessed worth, or simply wrote them off while Kremlin-friendly business groups snapped up their assets on the cheap.