Tag Archives: WCS

No Error Of Margin In $25 Million UBS Lawsuit

By Bill Singer, Contributor

Ah yes, the perennial margin dispute finds its way onto yet another court docket. Once again we are confronted with the clash between what a customer thinks and expects, on the one side of the legal caption, and what a brokerage firm discloses and disclaims, on the other side of the “versus.” Cast Of Characters WC Capital Management, LLC (“Willow Creek”) is the general partner and manager of Willow Creek Capital Partners, L.P. (“WCCP”) and Willow Creek Short Biased 30/130 Fund, LP. (“WCSB”). WCCP and WCSB are two “long/short” investment partnerships that generally invested in securities of companies with a sub-$1 billion market capitalization. In early 2007, UBS agreed to act as Willow Creek’s prime broker, and as a result of that capacity, UBS provided to WCCP and WCS: margin loans and prime brokerage services; maintained custody of the two partnerships’ securities and cash collateral; and provided them with loans on margin. Account agreements between UBS and Willow Creek provided that UBS could demand additional collateral from Willow Creek: [i]f at any time any of the UBS Entities has reasonable grounds for insecurity with respect to [Willow Creek’s] performance of any of the Contracts or its Obligations, any of the UBS Entities may demand . . . adequate assurance of due performance by [Willow Creek] within 24 hours . . . . The adequate assurance of performance may include . . . the delivery by [Willow Creek] to [UBS] of additional property as Collateral. The Client Account Agreements also required that Willow Creek “maintain in and furnish to the  Accounts such margin . . . as is required by Applicable Law and such greater amounts as the UBS Entities may in their sole discretion require.”  Upon opening its accounts, Willow Creek received a UBS Disclosure Statement, which, in part, asserted that: It is [UBS]’s policy to review periodically any account as to which it has credit concerns in light of the value of the assets in the account . . . . Each account with a debit balance is reviewed on an individual basis with consideration given to factors such as market conditions generally at the time, marketability of the securities in the account, frequency of the activity in the account, duration of the account and concentration of particular securities in the account. Different weight may be given these factors by [UBS], and on the basis of its review, [UBS], in its sole discretion, may require additional collateral, above the amount required by the rules of the self regulatory agencies, as security for your obligations to [UBS]. . . …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest

Exxon's Not So Minor Oil Spill

By Arjun Sreekumar, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

In the energy industry, oil spills are more common than one might think. Though media attention tends to focus primarily on the most devastating ones, smaller ones do happen from time to time, despite the industry’s renewed focus on safety measures since the infamous BP Deepwater Horizon incident – the worst accidental oil spill in history.

Just ask ExxonMobil .

ExxonMobil pipeline ruptures
On March 29, ExxonMobil’s 940-mile Pegasus crude oil pipeline ruptured near Mayflower, Ark. – a town some 25 miles northwest of Little Rock. According to the Mayflower Incident Unified Command Joint Information Center, the spill has been classified as a major one by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The pipeline, which starts in Patoka, Ill., transports some 95,000 barrels per day of mainly heavy Canadian crude oil to a terminal in Nederland, Texas, that is operated by Sunoco Logistics, now part of Energy Transfer Partners . Exxon reversed the line’s flow in 2006 in order to transport crude to the Gulf Coast refining hub.  

Pegasus, which is 20 inches in diameter, serves refineries in the Port Arthur and Beaumont regions. According to Bloomberg, there are four major plants near Nederland – operated by Exxon, Valero , Total, and Motiva Enterprises – that are capable of processing some 1.4 million barrels of crude a day.

At the time it ruptured, the line was transporting Wabasca Heavy Crude from western Canada. Wabasca Heavy is a blend of heavy crude oil produced in Alberta’s oil sands by Cenovus Energy, Canadian Natural Resources , and Suncor Energy. Due to its physical qualities, it is in high demand by U.S. Gulf Coast refiners.

Effect on benchmark crude prices
The line’s temporary closure, which will reduce the supply of crude from western Canada and the U.S. Midwest, is likely to worsen the glut of oil in those regions. Due to limited transportation options, crude oil in those two regions has been trading at a substantial discount to the global crude oil benchmark, Brent.

In fact, Western Canada Select (WCS) – the benchmark for western Canadian crude – had been trading at a discount more than $30 even to West Texas Intermediate (WTI) – the primarily U.S. crude oil benchmark – until very recently, due to severe limitations in outbound pipeline capacity from Alberta.

WTI‘s discount to Brent, which narrowed to its lowest level since July on March 28, increased to $14.01 on Monday, as WTI fell $1.22. Meanwhile, WCS slipped by $0.65 a barrel on Monday and was trading at a roughly $15 discount to WTI toward the end of the day.  

Exxon’s response
Exxon is currently under way with an excavation and removal plan for the damaged portion of the pipeline. In an announcement yesterday, the company said it gathered roughly 12,000 barrels of oil and water from the spill.  

It also reportedly deployed fifteen vacuum trucks and 33 storage tanks to the area where the spill occurred. According to a statement by …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance