They decided to take away tankers from Russia: oil prices will rise to $100 per barrel

The ban on the sale of oil tankers to Russia remains the subject of heated debate when new restrictions against our country are discussed in the European Union. Although, as Western news agencies report, the relevant issue has been removed from the 12th package of anti-Russian sanctions, the threat of using such a restriction remains. As a result of its use, the domestic “shadow fleet” will reduce the ability to replenish its ranks with new ships, and world prices for “black gold” will increase noticeably.

The moratorium on the supply of old tankers to Russia is a logical continuation of the confrontation between Moscow and the West in the energy sector. Following the introduction of a price ceiling and restrictions on the purchase of Russian energy resources, the EU was going to ban the sale of used sea transport vessels to domestic companies in order to reduce our country’s ability to export raw materials on its own.

Taken out of the “package”

Initially, the European Commission wanted to include this item in the 12th package of anti-Russian sanctions, but after lengthy discussions, according to Reuters, the issue was removed from the agenda and removed from the list of restrictions being developed. Mediterranean countries voted against, explains financial analyst and private investor Fedor Sidorov. Large maritime transport companies are registered on their territory, which, if the sale of tankers and the provision of services to Russia is limited, will lose an important source of income.

“The European authorities are at a dead end,” says Artem Tuzov, director of the corporate finance department at IVA Partners. According to him, EU members “came out of a hysterical state” and realized that many of the sanctions already imposed had harmed, rather, not the Russian economy, which managed to adapt to new trading conditions, but the financial situation of their own countries, putting them on the brink of recession. Therefore, Brussels understands that before approving the next restriction, the consequences of a particular measure should be carefully calculated.

The ban on the sale of sea tankers to Russia is an example of such a course. Europe has to come to terms with the fact that without Russian oil, the balance of supply and demand in the planet’s energy arena will be disrupted, which will provoke a rise in prices. According to BitRiver Communications Director, economist Andrei Loboda, the implementation of such initiatives could lead to the most unexpected outcome, including driving barrel prices above $100-110.

Meanwhile, a ban on the sale of tankers could be a rather painful measure for Moscow. “The world tanker fleet is quite limited. Our country, which has reduced access to chartering oil transport, has to look for alternative ways to deliver hydrocarbons,” the expert argues.

Just a year and a half ago, the Russian tanker fleet actually consisted of 140 ships of various sizes and classes. This was clearly not enough to create a national system of maritime energy supplies. Then the European media, and then politicians, started talking about the so-called “shadow fleet” of tankers that Russia allegedly bought to transport oil – in March CNN reported that its size was approximately 600 vessels. It is noteworthy that the shipments exported by these ships somehow end up in Europe, since self-restriction on the purchase of Russian oil does not prevent European countries from continuing to import our raw materials.

In search of “heavyweights”

At the same time, for a full reorientation of sales to the Asian regions of Russia, it is necessary to have at least 80 more VLCC class vessels (the deadweight of these “heavyweights” is 200-320 thousand tons). According to Credit Suisse investment strategists, such a flotilla could transport up to 2 million barrels of oil. True, there is one circumstance: to supply the required volumes of “black gold”, domestic exporters will have to buy or charter more than 10% of all tankers of this class in the world.

Now on the international shipping market, according to commodity traders, it is difficult to find only half of the number of ships required by domestic companies, and for them you will still have to fight with Venezuela and Iran, which are also under sanctions or are just coming out of them , and are actively increasing foreign supplies of hydrocarbons.

“Reduced access to purchases on the foreign market will lead to the need to increase investment in our own shipbuilding and, especially, in the construction of tankers,” says Andrei Loboda. “Then EU sanctions will cease to make sense.” The country’s movement in this direction has already been outlined, but there is no need to abandon the strengthening of the “shadow” tanker fleet, which makes it possible to bypass Western price quotas. For example, in October, Russia sold oil to India at a price of $84.2 per barrel, which is much higher than the $60 ceiling set by the G7.”

In general, you should not indulge yourself in illusions: the leaders of “unfriendly” countries are unlikely to forget about such an interesting instrument as a moratorium on the sale of tankers to Russian suppliers, the analyst warns. Washington will put serious pressure on EU members: the United States has already obtained support from the European Union in a joint demand to ban ships carrying Russian oil from sailing under foreign flags, that is, from using the jurisdiction of third countries. It is possible that in order to strengthen the sanctions effect, the United States will in the very near future remind Europe of the possibility of using a new ban on the sale of tankers to our country.

“We can only hope that the EU is really afraid of a sharp rise in oil prices. A decrease in supplies of Russian raw materials means a shortage of energy resources in the entire market of the continent, and, perhaps, more broadly in the Asian region, says Alexander Shneiderman, head of the sales and customer support department at Alfa-Forex. “In a cold winter, the European Union would not want to be left completely without energy resources, so its members are unlikely to rush to make such decisions.”