U.S. LNG In Central and Eastern Europe – Taking Diversification Seriously

Last week President Trump met in Warsaw with Polish officials and Central and Eastern European (CEE) leaders at the Three Seas Initiative Summit. The event brought together countries from the Adriatic, Black and Baltic seas to discuss development of regional infrastructure necessary to reduce their energy dependence on Russia and ensure energy security. This happened shortly after the first cargo of U.S. LNG, carried by the 162,000 cbm-capacity “Clean Ocean, entered the Polish port of Swinoujscie. Both the U.S. and Polish governments lauded the cargo and, following the meeting with Donald Trump in Warsaw, Polish President, Andrzej Duda declared a possibility of signing a long-term agreement (LTA) for the supply of U.S. LNG into Poland.

Much of Duda’s statement is political rhetoric given that LTAs are not signed between governments. Instead these contracts are commercial decisions made by individual companies. But the strong rhetoric coming from both governments in support for U.S. LNG exports to CEE is an indicator that beyond economic aspect, this trade has strong geopolitical dimension.

Given competitiveness of Russian gas and willingness of Gazprom to defend its market, it is highly unlikely that U.S. LNG imports would grant CEE (or Europe as a whole) full and unconditional natural gas independence from Russia. However, standing ability to deliver U.S. (or other non-Russian) gas to Europe provides “credible threat” and changes the bargaining positions of all parties involved. In such scenario Russia stands to lose not as much market share as geopolitical influence that it has derived from CEE’s dependence on its gas. And while LNG exports will not give the U.S. more geopolitical power in Europe per se (given the increasingly competitive global LNG market), Russia’s loss in this regard is a strategic gain for the U.S.

But can the U.S. and CEE governments truly affect the outcome of essentially commercial transactions? Can they effectively facilitate the ‘credible threat’ of U.S. LNG exports? And if so, how?

This ability depends on several factors. These include the usual: pricing and, given competitiveness of Russian gas, the willingness of the CEE governments to support a security premium on natural gas from a non-Russian supplier. Also, policy makers should pay close attention to current policy decisions within the EU that relate to infrastructure and antitrust law, as these decisions may not only impact profitability but also feasibility of LNG imports well into the future.

Forces that Influence Europe’s Natural Gas Market

The European market, while not expected to be as robust as Asia over the coming years, will remain an important source of demand for natural gas suppliers. As reported by Eurogas, going forward Europe will need to import much more natural gas than suggested by demand growth alone (Figure 1). In addition, the region is attractive given dependability of the market and reliability of European governments and customers.

Figure 1. EU Natural Gas Demand through 2030.
Source: Eurogas, “Natural Gas Demand and Supply: Long term Outlook to 2030.”

Much of the future makeup of European natural gas supply might be determined not only by market forces but also by geopolitical considerations and European Union legal and antitrust decisions.

The two main decisions currently on the agenda that will have broad and direct consequences for LNG trade in Europe are: 1) permitting of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to carry Russian gas under the Baltic Sea directly to Germany, and 2) antitrust decisions by the European Commission related to Gazprom abusing its monopoly position in the CEE.

European Diversification and What It Means to Different Parties

Natural gas market diversification has become a hot topic in Europe following several breaks in Russian gas deliveries between 2005 and 2009. The 2014 crisis in Ukraine and complete shut off of natural gas supply flowing from Russia added urgency to the matter. In principle, all EU members agree that diversification is needed. But there is a visible rift between how diversification efforts are envisaged by the West versus the CEE countries.

Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics in particular are pushing for diversification away from Russia. Their efforts include a buildup of LNG infrastructure, with the already functioning LNG terminal in Lithuania and the aforementioned LNG terminal in Swinoujscie. Plans are drawn already to expand the existing terminals, and new LNG terminals are planned in Estonia. Small-scale LNG projects are also in the works in the Baltics. In addition, the region is considering facilities for regasification, storage, rebunkering, and reloading, as well as investment in rail transport to support future LNG imports.

It goes without saying that such imports will never be realized unless the price of LNG is competitive. But it is worth noting that although the price of LNG brought to Swinoujscie by U.S.-based Cheniere Energy has not been disclosed, it was lower than Russian and German EEX natural gas prices, according to the Polish trader, PGNIG.

In addition, many CEE countries may be willing to pay a certain security premium for LNG to sustain diversification efforts away from Russian natural gas. Regardless their willingness to pay such a premium rate, these countries also actively seek non-LNG market opportunities to diversify supply, including onshore projects like the Baltic pipe. This means that the ability to pay excessive prices by those countries may be moderated in the future, as the CEE gas market becomes more competitive.

The strong push toward diversification within CEE is related to two main factors. First, dependency rates on Russian natural gas have been historically very high, with some CEE countries previously entirely dependent on Russian imports (Figure 2 below). This led to uncertainty in terms of reliable gas supplies and higher prices. If non-Russian supplies of natural gas are readily available, Gazprom loses ability to charge monopoly prices. Second, there is a strong sentiment that Russia is ready and willing to use energy dependence to achieve political goals regarding its relations with CEE countries. Much of this feeling is informed by the Soviet past, but some of the uneasiness stems from more current events, including Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and annexation of Crimea. Particularly, Poland and the Baltics see LNG imports as a way to dilute the Putin Regime’s economic influence over their countries and to parry Russian attempts at undermining the democratic process and social unity.

Figure 2. Europe’s Dependency on Russian Gas, 2014.
Data Source: Eurogas, Statistical Report 2015.

 

On the other hand, Western European countries are generally content with diversifying natural gas supply routes away from Ukraine that they see as a high-risk transit territory. They are less interested in diversifying supplies away from Russia and are focused rather on lowering cost than on geopolitical implications of dependence on Russian natural gas. This is related to lower dependency rates in that region (Figure 2) and to long-standing collaboration between Western Europe’s utilities and Gazprom that is seen as reliable partner and supplier. There is much less concern about possible monopolization of the European gas market by Russia and its geopolitical implications.

Nord Stream 2, EU Antitrust Decisions & “Credible Threat” of U.S. LNG Imports

Whether CEE countries will be able to achieve their goal of natural gas market diversification and whether U.S. and other LNG producers will have access to the European market will depend as much on price as on other factors. When it comes to price Russia has significant and undisputed advantage. But EU’s policy framework, infrastructure buildup and willingness of countries to support non-Russian supplies will define boundaries within which market forces operate. As such, these factors will determine whether Russian gas dominance in Europe (particularly in CEE) will be strictly commercial or whether it will continue to yield geopolitical power. Construction of Nord Stream 2 and EU antitrust decisions are currently the two decisions that will have a bearing in this regard and where government’s, and not companies, can influence the outcomes.

Nord Stream 2 (NS2) is planned to cross directly from Russia to Germany. The new pipeline is supposed to accompany the already existing Nord Stream 1, reducing the need for the Ukrainian transit route. The plan is constituent with Western Europe’s efforts to diversify natural gas routes away from the risky transit territory. CEE countries argue against the pipeline, which in their view would damage their efforts geared toward diversity of supply and reducing dependence on Russian gas. If recent research is correct, these fears may be well substantiated. The research shows that NS2 would allow Gazprom to pre-empt diversification measures by using the entire capacity of current pipeline infrastructure. With pipelines committed to Russian gas, Gazprom could deter other potential sources of supply from entering the market and keep prices in CEE countries high.

Gazprom current commitments in the Directorate-General for Competition (DG COMP) antitrust investigation may have similar consequences. Considered soft, regarding the time and scale of alleged anticompetitive practices that affected trade in the CEE, they would possibly result in eliminating competition from other sources of natural gas supply (though, as opposed to NS2 they do not seem to increase prices of natural gas in the CEE or elsewhere in Europe). And while these commitments may be changed in the course of further proceedings, a soft response from the EU indicates general tendency and provides a precedent for future decisions.

EU decisions on NS2 and antitrust will have a profound impact on creating favorable conditions for U.S. LNG in European markets and whether it will be able to provide the ‘credible threat’ to Russian natural gas dominance. Poland and the Baltics are pushing hard against NS2 in an effort to advance their diversification efforts. The U.S. government is also acutely aware of the problem and has engaged in anti-NS2 sanctions and anti-NS2 diplomacy in the region. But there is a noticeable lack of involvement from other CEE countries. Thanks to recent infrastructure and regional cooperation agreements these countries feel more secure when it comes to natural gas deliveries not realizing the potential negative effects NS2 may have, once completed.

This lack of engagement, together with Western Europe’s limited view of diversification may well be responsible for Russia regaining its position as Europe’s dominant natural gas supplier, a position that has been seemingly slipping away from Russia in recent years as LNG technology took off (Figure 3). This is critical especially now as the European Commission (EC) seeks member-state approval to negotiate with Russia on NS2 with an intent to extent at least main provisions of the EU natural gas legal framework (Third Party Access, unbundling) onto NS2.

Figure 3. Origin of Primary Energy Imports to the EU (% Non-EU Imports).
Source: Eurostat

 

Is There a Hope for U.S. LNG Exports to Europe?

The first U.S. LNG cargo to Poland is a result of a one-off transaction between Chenier and a newly established Polish trading office in London. Although it is probable that future LNG deals will be concluded later this year, the problem of the long-term profitability of U.S. exports of this commodity to the EU is still open. Governments have little say as to what contracts are signed but they have the power to affect market conditions within which companies operate. Currently, NS2 and to a smaller extent, EU antitrust decisions are factors, which governments should consider if they want to affect future access to Europe’s natural gas market.

When it comes to the U.S., its government has been active in supporting European energy diversity in many ways, including active opposition to the NS2 pipeline via unilateral U.S. sanctions against Russia and diplomatic assurances in the Baltics and Poland. But this may not be enough. There also may be a value in the U.S. focusing on issue diplomacy in those European (CEE and non-CEE) countries that are currently quiet or in support of NS2 but would ultimately lose if NS2 comes to be.

That being said any success of CEE and U.S. efforts does not guarantee unobstructed flow of U.S. (or any other) LNG to the European market. However, ability to access that market by any non-Russian supplier will provide an effective check on both, Russia’s pricing policy and the influence that country has historically derived from its monopoly over the CEE market.

This article was originally published on Forbes.com and can be viewed here.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Limits of Chinese Friendship: China’s Development Loans to Venezuela

In 2004, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez agreed to form a “strategic partnership for common development.” The benefits from that partnership looked as if they would ensure an enduring relationship between their two governments. China would gain greater access to Venezuela’s oil reserves, which are not only among the world’s biggest, but are also considered by China to be more strategically secure than others, because they reside in a country outside of American influence. In return, Venezuela would gain a benefactor who could enable Chávez to transform his country into a modern socialist state and export his “Bolivarian Alternative*,” an anti-American coalition, across Latin America.

China's Development Loans to Venezuela
Source: Inter-American Dialogue

Hence, it was no surprise when the China Development Bank (CDB) and Venezuela agreed to a multi-year loan agreement in 2007. It allowed Venezuela to borrow up to $5 billion each year from the CDB, providing Chávez with the immediate financing that he needed to pursue his ambitions. In exchange, Venezuela would service its debts by shipping oil to China.

But times change. Not only has the price of oil dropped, so too has China’s voracious appetite for it. Plus, Russia has been aggressively pitching its large and strategically secure oil and natural gas reserves to China. Meanwhile, Chávez’s socialist policies floundered. Rather than modernize Venezuela’s economy, they amplified its dependence on oil. From 1999 to 2014, oil’s share of Venezuela’s export revenues rose from 69 percent to 96 percent. Rather than improve Venezuela’s food security, they reduced its agricultural output. Today Venezuela imports more of its foodstuffs than it did before chavista land reform began. The failure of Chávism has put Venezuela in a precarious economic position.

Nonetheless, both the CDB and China Export-Import Bank have continued to make new loans to Venezuela. Nearly every year since 2007, China has ploughed money into the country (see the chart above). Although signs of trouble were already evident, Chinese President Xi Jinping decided to double down on Venezuela in 2014. He elevated China’s relationship with Venezuela to the status of a “comprehensive strategic partnership.” But as a condition for China’s continued investment, Venezuela would have to give Chinese companies more preferential treatment in its infrastructure contracts.

That bought Venezuela some time, but not much. In 2015, the revenues of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, plummeted over 40 percent from the year before. To help out, the CDB appears to have been willing to take less oil than what some of its loans required. In other cases, it was willing to accept payments in the form of devalued Venezuelan bolívars, instead of U.S. dollars. In July, the CDB opened an office in Caracas to nominally boost its relationship with Venezuela. But more likely, it did so to keep a closer watch on its investments there.

Certainly, China needs to do so. Increasingly desperate to raise money, Venezuela’s central bank sold over 30 percent of its gold reserves in the last year—12 percent in just the first quarter of 2016. In June, Reuters reported that Venezuela asked the CDB to further relax the terms of its loans. Caracas was said to have requested a one-year grace period in which it could escape principal payments if the price of Venezuelan oil dropped below $50 per barrel (which it already is). At this writing, it is unclear whether the CDB agreed to the request.[1]

China is learning that “yuan diplomacy” can be riskier than it once thought. Already, the CDB has had to forgive some $4 billion of its loans, mostly to African countries. One might expect China to do the same for at least some of Venezuela’s $65 billion worth of Chinese loans, given its friendship with Caracas’ chavista government. But China has not done so. Instead, China has distanced itself from Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro. According to the Financial Times, China reached out to Venezuela’s political opposition, which controls the country’s legislature. Beijing likely sought assurances that should Maduro leave office Venezuela would still honor its debts to China.[2]

Perhaps China is concerned about triggering a wave of requests for loan forgiveness. After all, China has lavishly provided loans to many other energy-rich countries, all of which have felt the pinch from declining oil and natural gas prices and a slowing global economy. In the end, however, China may have to accept some sort of restructuring of its loans to Venezuela in order to avoid an outright default.

True friends are tested in adversity. Clearly, the Maduro government’s growing inability to repay its loans to China has put their relationship in a difficult spot. Equally clear is that Beijing’s desire to recoup as much as possible from its development loans to Venezuela has trumped its friendship with the country’s chavista government. By turning to his political foes, China must have upset Maduro. But it also made plain what China’s real priorities are.

* Now called the “Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our Americas”

[1] Corina Pons, Alexandra Ulmer and Marianna Parraga, “Exclusive: Venezuela in talks with China for grace period in oil-for-loans deal – sources,” Reuters, Jun. 15, 2016.

[2] Lucy Hornby and Andres Schipani, “China seeks to renegotiate Venezuela loans,” Financial Times, Jun. 19, 2016.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

The Bigger Picture: China’s Energy Exploration in the East China Sea and Japan’s Security Debate

Last week Japan released its annual defense review.  For the first time, it revealed photographs of Chinese offshore drilling rigs operating in the East China Sea.  The images reminded many of the international controversy that China stirred up in May 2014 when it sent the Hai Yang Shi You 981 offshore drilling rig (pictured below) into waters claimed by Vietnam.  The photographs reinforce the narrative that China is intent on pursuing its own interests, regardless of the consequences for its neighbors.  That, along with its island-building activities in the South China Sea, has made it increasingly difficult for Asian countries, like Indonesia and Malaysia, to set aside their concerns over Chinese actions in the region.

China offshore energy exploration

China’s foreign ministry quickly denounced the Japanese disclosure of the photographs.  It decried them as inflammatory and declared that Japan’s use of the photographs “provokes confrontation between the two countries, and is not constructive at all to the management of the East China Sea situation and the improvement of bilateral relations.”[1]

China maintains that the offshore drilling rigs that it has erected in the East China Sea are on its side of the median line through the two countries’ claims.  Thus, China has every right to develop the energy resources there.  Unfortunately, man-made demarcations cannot so neatly divide the East China Sea’s oil and natural gas deposits.  Rather, they tend to migrate towards areas of lower pressure.  Those occur whenever wells are drilled nearby.  Hence, Japan fears that Chinese wells will siphon off the oil and natural gas deposits under its claim from across the median line.

That prospect was thought to have been put to rest in 2008, when China and Japan agreed to jointly develop energy resources in the disputed waters of the East China Sea.  Neither side would unilaterally drill for oil or natural gas there.  But those were different times.  Since then, China has become not only more powerful, but also more willing to openly assert its power in the region.  Japan (whether consciously or not) antagonized China when Japan’s central government bought the disputed Senkaku Islands (or Diaoyu in China) from private Japanese owners in 2012.  That prompted a sharp rise in the number of clashes between Chinese fishing boats and the Japanese coast guard around the islands, and China to establish an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) over the disputed waters in November 2013.  At the same time, China did begin to unilaterally explore for oil and natural gas in those waters, as Japan’s photographs attest.

Even so, China may be correct to discern a political rationale for Japan’s photographic disclosure, though perhaps not the one that its foreign ministry seemed to intimate.  The main reason behind Japan’s disclosure may not have been to embarrass China, but rather to support Prime Minister Shinzō Abe’s effort to pass security legislation that will enable Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to participate in collective self-defense—or in other words, to fight alongside an ally when either it or Japan is threatened.  Indeed, the photographic disclosure was made only a week before the upper house of the Japanese Diet starts debate on Abe’s new security bills.

The photographs surely boost the argument of Abe’s party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), that there is a clear and present danger to Japan’s national interests and more must be done to protect them.  But a chorus of Japanese politicians of different political stripes has joined in opposition to Abe’s effort to push through the security legislation without a thorough debate.  Many, including some within the LDP, are concerned about passing the security bills without a clear understanding of the circumstances in which Japanese military forces could be used.  The ultimate vote could be a close one, given that the LDP holds a slim majority in the upper house.  Pictures may be worth a thousand words, but Abe may hope that they are worth a few votes too.

[1] “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang’s Remarks on Japan’s Disclosure of China’s Oil and Gas Exploration in the East China Sea,” China Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release, July 23, 2015, .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Decline in Oil Prices, Currency Pairs, and National Power

Last autumn, headlines began to declare national “winners and losers” from the precipitous drop in oil prices over the second half of the year.[1]  They contended that the United States and its friends would benefit from the fall in oil prices; and that its most strident adversaries would not.  While largely true, the headlines did not capture the whole story.

Since international prices for oil are quoted in U.S. dollars, the exchange rate between the U.S. dollar and another country’s currency (a currency pair) also matters when calculating the real impact of a change in oil prices on that country.  Take Russia for example.  Much has been made of the fact that half of Russia’s government budget is based on revenues from oil.  One might suppose, because oil prices have fallen about 50 percent over the last six months, that Russia’s government budget would be pinched by about 25 percent (reflecting the 50 percent fall in oil revenues on half its budget).  Such a contraction would be catastrophic for the Russian government and Russia’s economy, given its high dependence on government spending.  That might lead Western policymakers to believe they can easily wait out Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggressive designs.

But one must remember that the Russian government does not pay for domestic goods and services in U.S. dollars, but rather in Russian rubles.  Any drop in the value of the Russian ruble against the U.S. dollar allows Russia to reap more rubles for its dollar-based oil revenues.  (Even so, a sudden devaluation in a country’s currency can still wreak havoc on that country’s wider economy, because it fails to let people adjust to the benefits of devaluation, before they feel its negative impacts.)  Given the devaluation in the Russian ruble (which has fallen in tandem with oil prices), the real impact of the fall in oil prices is closer to only 8 percent, rather than 25 percent. While that is still a big challenge for the Russian government’s budget, it is a lower hurdle for Putin to surmount.

Similarly, one might expect that Japan, a key American ally in Asia, to unreservedly benefit from the decline in oil prices.  As a country completely dependent on oil imports, any decline in oil prices should boost its economy.  Given that oil prices have fallen about 50 percent over the last six months and that Japan imported about 1.6 billion barrels of oil in 2014, one may naturally assume that Japan is now saving a vast sum that would act as a fiscal stimulus to its economy, making it a stronger country and one better prepared to cope with a rising China.

That has happened, but not to the degree that the halving of oil prices would suggest.  That is because the value of the Japanese yen against the U.S. dollar has fallen too.  During the second half of 2014, the yen devalued about 15 percent, as a result of the Japanese central bank’s quantitative easing policy.   That shaved one-fifth off the benefit from the decrease in oil prices to 40 percent in yen terms.  Ironically, the lower energy input prices had made it more difficult for the Japanese government to achieve its 2 percent inflation target, which Tokyo believes will help lift the country out of its decades-long deflationary economic stagnation. 

As the cases of Russia and Japan have shown, changes in currency exchange rates can make a real difference on the impact that changes in oil prices have on a national economy, whether they are net oil importers (those shaded in blue in the chart below) or net oil exporters (those shaded in red).

Effect of Exchange Rate Movements on the Decline in Oil Prices in Local Currencies

 

As a region, Asia has benefited from the drop in oil prices.  Almost every country in the region is a net oil importer.  Chief among them is China, whose slightly appreciating yuan against the U.S. dollar, has allowed it to fully benefit from the lower oil prices.  In fact, Beijing has taken advantage of them to less expensively fill its strategic petroleum reserve.[2]  But not far behind have been India and Indonesia.  The currencies of neither country have devalued by more than 6 percent, allowing them to realize almost all of the benefit from the decline in oil prices.  That, in turn, has allowed their central banks to cut their interest rates to spur their economies without having to worry as much about inflation.  Lower oil prices have also enabled Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indonesian President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to slash fuel subsidies, which had been draining government coffers in the past, without a public outcry.  That has freed up resources that they can devote to infrastructure and defense, as both national leaders have promised.

However, the fall in oil prices has also pinched some American allies.  One such country is Australia.  Though it is a net importer of oil, Australia has ambitions to become among the world’s leading exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG).  But LNG prices, which are often linked to those of oil, have followed oil’s prices downward.  That has put into jeopardy Australia’s new round of offshore LNG development.  According to the Australian government, it will likely miss out on about AUS$750 million in petroleum resource rent tax over the next four years—about the cost for one of the new diesel-electric submarines that its navy wants.  The situation would have been even worse had the Australian dollar not devalued by 13 percent against the U.S. dollar.[3]

Finally, some countries, like Venezuela, whose currencies are effectively pegged to the U.S. dollar, have felt the full impact of the decline in oil prices.  Unfortunately for Venezuela, it imports most of its consumer and industrial goods—including food, clothing, machinery, vehicles, etc.—and it holds debts mainly denominated in U.S. dollars.  Thus, any devaluation of the Venezuelan bolívar to temper the impact of lower oil prices would also cause the costs of goods to soar and make its U.S.-dollar debts crushing.  To avoid a financial crisis, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has travelled to China this week.  In the past China has agreed to oil-for-loan agreements, in which China provides immediate financing to Venezuela in exchange for future deliveries of Venezuelan oil.  Already existing deals with China have begun to squeeze out Venezuela’s ability to use its oil to bring Latin American countries into its orbit.  Rather, new deals are more likely to move Venezuela close to China’s orbit.[4]

By the first week of January 2015, the benchmark prices for Brent and West Texas Intermediate crude oil had fallen to $51 and $48 per barrel, respectively.  As long as these conditions persist, oil-exporting countries will suffer and oil-importing ones will benefit.  But to really understand whether these countries are weakening or strengthening to the extent that the decline in oil prices suggest, one would be wise to also consider the trajectories of their national currencies.

[1] “Winners and Losers,” Economist, Oct. 25, 2014.

[2] Abheek Bhattacharya, “China’s Petroleum Reserve Builds Shaky Floor for Oil,” Wall Street Journal, Sep. 3, 2014.

[3] Australia is considering a Japanese submarine design for its next-generation submarine fleet.  The most recently launched Japanese Sōryū-class submarine cost $540 million and AUS$750 million converts to $615 million at today’s exchange rate.  John Hofilena, “Japan launches newest submarine Kokuryu amid party atmosphere,” Japan Daily Press, Nov. 04, 2013, Eric Yep, “Falling Oil Spells Boon for Most of Asia’s Economies,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 4, 2015; Max Mason, “Oil price plunge sends petrol to four-year lows as Australia feels it at the pumps,” Sydney Morning Herald, Dec. 22, 2014; James Paton, “Plunging Oil Threatens to Spoil Australia’s Next Gas Boon,” Bloomberg News, Nov 27, 2014.

[4] Eyanir Chinea and Brian Ellsworth, “Venezuela’s Maduro to visit China, OPEC nations amid cash crunch,” Reuters, Jan. 5, 2015; Nicole Hong and Kejal Vyas, “Oil Shakes Venezuelan Debt to Its Foundations,” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 22, 2014; “Inside U.S. Oil,” Thomson Reuters, Aug. 22, 2014, pp. 7-8.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,