Följ oss

Analys

Brent and WTI – A tale of two benchmarks

Publicerat

den

WisdomTree
WisdomTree

Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) are two globally recognised oil benchmarks. When market participants refer to the price of oil, they typically refer to one or the other or both. But despite having quite similar chemical properties, there are important distinguishing features between the two. Financial markets recognise these differences and, as a result, price the two differently. The two benchmarks have contrasting features in terms of where the oil is produced, how it is stored and transported and the way it is traded in international markets. These differences not only explain the historical price discrepancy between the two, but also help us understand why the two have behaved differently during the coronavirus pandemic and the ensuing market volatility. This article will contrast the distinguishing features between the two and, after developing a new lens to view the two benchmarks, replay the recent episode when WTI prices crashed into negative territory. The article will conclude by outlining the forces which will shape the fluid commodity going forward.

Same, same, but different

In ‘A tale of Two Cities’ by Charles Dickens, Sydney Carton sacrifices his life to save Charles Darnay, who is married to the woman Carton loves, by taking his place in prison moments before he is taken to the guillotine during the French revolution. He is able to pull off this selfless act of bravery thanks to the uncanny resemblance between him and Darnay. Similarly, most people would not be able to tell the difference if a barrel of WTI was replaced with one for Brent given the likeness between the two. Both Brent and WTI are referred to as light and sweet. They are ‘light’ in terms of the American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity. Having an API gravity greater than 10 makes them light and allows them to float on water, while an API gravity of less than 10 would have caused them to sink. Similarly, both have low sulphur content making them ‘sweet’ and easy to refine (See Figure 01).

Brent and WTI
Source: Energy Information, McKinsey & Company, WisdomTree.

But while Carton and Darnay looked alike, they were distinctly different individuals. Brent and WTI too, despite their resemblance, have their disparities. Brent Crude is extracted from the North Sea. Oil production from Europe, Africa and the Middle East tends to use Brent as its main benchmark. This accounts for around two-thirds of internationally traded crude oil. The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting countries (OPEC), an intergovernmental organisation comprising 13 key oil producing countries as well as their 10 partner countries (collectively referred to as OPEC+), also typically use Brent as their oil price benchmark. In contrast, WTI is sourced primarily from Texas and most oil production in the US uses WTI as its main benchmark.

WTI to Brent discount
Source: WisdomTree, Bloomberg. Data as at 29 April 2020. Spread calculated as the difference between the prices of the generic first futures contracts of Brent and WTI.

Brent and WTI have always traded at different prices giving rise to the Brent – WTI spread (Figure 02). Purely in terms of quality, WTI has a slight edge over Brent on account of its lower sulphur content making it moderately ‘sweeter’ and thus easier to refine. For this reason, WTI ought to theoretically trade at a premium over Brent. For a large part of the first decade of this century, WTI did indeed trade at a premium, i.e. the Brent – WTI spread was negative. Over the last decade however, the shale revolution in the US has brought large volumes of oil into the market making the US one of the largest oil producers in the world. The shale revolution refers to a combination of technological improvements and financial infrastructure enabling the US to produce oil from low-permeable shale, sandstone and carbonate rock formations in larger quantities than ever before. The shale oil industry has grown rapidly since 2011 and accounted for 63% of total US crude oil production in 2019 (according to the US Energy Information Administration). In line with economic principles of demand and supply, as the total volume of oil production increased in the US, this put downward pressure on WTI. The Brent – WTI spread has generally been positive in the last decade.

Another reason for the Brent – WTI spread is the logistical challenge for the US to transport oil from landlocked production hubs through a network of pipelines and to ship it overseas. This impinges on the overseas demand for oil from the US (WTI). In contrast, Brent is produced at or closer to sea making it easier for it to reach its overseas destinations. The US is however investing heavily in its pipeline infrastructure to enable it to send large vessels of oil from its shores to international buyers. Several such infrastructure projects are expected to be completed by 2021-2022 when we might see an increase in demand for WTI and thus a narrowing of its spread with Brent.

The historic WTI crash

The explanation above of the spread between the two benchmarks omits any discussion about the unprecedented spike on 20 April 2020. This section will unravel the story behind the anomalous occurrence.

On Monday 20 April 2020, markets witnessed a historic crash in WTI prices (Figure 03). The crash occurred a day before the active Nymex WTI futures contract was due to expire. This contract, meant to deliver oil between 01 May and 31 May, crashed into negative territory as oil storage in the US became very tight. With the coronavirus pandemic causing considerable oil demand destruction putting entire countries in lockdown and bringing economic activity to a grinding halt, the reduction in oil production was not enough to balance the market creating a supply glut. The main delivery and settlement point in Cushing, Oklahoma was approaching its storage limit with any additional capacity likely already leased out or earmarked for other purposes. This acute pressure, so close to contract expiry at the point where contracts settle, contributed to the negative price. Those taking physical delivery from the expiring futures contract were being paid to take the oil and find a place to store it. The May contract expired the following day in slightly positive territory. When the June contract became the active contract upon the May contract’s expiry, prices recovered further as the issue of June deliveries creating the same problem was less worrying, at least at that point.

WTI price
Source: WisdomTree, Bloomberg. Data as at 29 April 2020.

But Brent did not endure a similar crash. The main reason for this is that WTI, traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), is a deliverable futures contract. Thus, upon expiry, the holder of the futures contract takes delivery of the underlying, i.e. barrels of oil. Brent however, traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), has a cash settlement procedure whereby the holder of the futures contract need not take delivery of the underlying upon expiry. Therefore, storage issues create a more direct risk to investors in WTI futures.

Outside of this idiosyncrasy pertaining to futures trading, the two benchmarks generally move with a high degree of correlation (Figure 04). At the peak of the coronavirus pandemic’s acceleration in April, a third of global oil demand was wiped out. Soon thereafter, major oil producers Saudi Arabia and Russia engaged in a price war. This created a double shock for oil as the suppliers opened the floodgates at a time when demand had just crashed. Both benchmarks experienced severe price weakness. But as policy decisions from OPEC+ can be expected to impact Brent prices more than WTI, the deal reached by the group at the start of April to cut suppliesprovided slightly more cushioning to Brent.

Brent och WTI chart
Source: WisdomTree, Bloomberg. Data as at 29 April 2020.

What happens next?

With a deeper understanding of the drivers of the two benchmarks, historic and recent price behaviour makes more sense. But the all-important question is, “what happens next?”. The fate of oil prices rests heavily on how quickly the world can overcome the pandemic and get the economic engines firing again. Volatility in oil prices may persist in the coming weeks, or even months, until uncertainty with regards to the pandemic and lockdowns diminishes. The relative price behaviour of WTI and Brent during this period will depend on the degree to which producers in the US and OPEC+ cut supplies to balance the market.

We however hope to paint a more optimistic picture of the world in the second half of this year. Oil prices may not recover quickly to where they were in February this year due to an overhang of excess supply, a fractured OPEC+ and a dented global economic engine. Nonetheless, after all the pain, the world will eventually return to some semblance of normalcy. Manufacturers will switch their machines on again, cars will return to the roads and aeroplanes will return to the skies. Once again, oil is expected to be in demand. And while one protagonist had to sacrifice himself to save the other in the tale told by Dickens, we expect both mainstays from the tale of two benchmarks to rise again when the crisis is over.

Mobeen Tahir, Associate Director, Research, WisdomTree


DISCLAIMER

This material is prepared by WisdomTree and its affiliates and is not intended to be relied upon as a forecast, research or investment advice, and is not a recommendation, offer or solicitation to buy or sell any securities or to adopt any investment strategy. The opinions expressed are as of the date of production and may change as subsequent conditions vary. The information and opinions contained in this material are derived from proprietary and non-proprietary sources. As such, no warranty of accuracy or reliability is given and no responsibility arising in any other way for errors and omissions (including responsibility to any person by reason of negligence) is accepted by WisdomTree, nor any affiliate, nor any of their officers, employees or agents. Reliance upon information in this material is at the sole discretion of the reader. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

Fortsätt läsa
Annons
Klicka för att kommentera

Skriv ett svar

Din e-postadress kommer inte publiceras. Obligatoriska fält är märkta *

Analys

Fear that retaliations will escalate but hopes that they are fading in magnitude

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

Brent crude spikes to USD 90.75/b before falling back as Iran plays it down. Brent crude fell sharply on Wednesday following fairly bearish US oil inventory data and yesterday it fell all the way to USD 86.09/b before a close of USD 87.11/b. Quite close to where Brent traded before the 1 April attack. This morning Brent spiked back up to USD 90.75/b (+4%) on news of Israeli retaliatory attack on Iran. Since then it has quickly fallen back to USD 88.2/b, up only 1.3% vs. ydy close.

Bjarne Schieldrop, Chief analyst commodities, SEB
Bjarne Schieldrop, Chief analyst commodities, SEB

The fear is that we are on an escalating tit-for-tat retaliatory path. Following explosions in Iran this morning the immediate fear was that we now are on a tit-for-tat escalating retaliatory path which in the could end up in an uncontrollable war where the US unwillingly is pulled into an armed conflict with Iran. Iran has however largely diffused this fear as it has played down the whole thing thus signalling that the risk for yet another leg higher in retaliatory strikes from Iran towards Israel appears low.

The hope is that the retaliatory strikes will be fading in magnitude and then fizzle out. What we can hope for is that the current tit-for-tat retaliatory strikes are fading in magnitude rather than rising in magnitude. Yes, Iran may retaliate to what Israel did this morning, but the hope if it does is that it is of fading magnitude rather than escalating magnitude.

Israel is playing with ”US house money”. What is very clear is that neither the US nor Iran want to end up in an armed conflict with each other. The US concern is that it involuntary is dragged backwards into such a conflict if Israel cannot control itself. As one US official put it: ”Israel is playing with (US) house money”. One can only imagine how US diplomatic phone lines currently are running red-hot with frenetic diplomatic efforts to try to defuse the situation.

It will likely go well as neither the US nor Iran wants to end up in a military conflict with each other. The underlying position is that both the US and Iran seems to detest the though of getting involved in a direct military conflict with each other and that the US is doing its utmost to hold back Israel. This is probably going a long way to convince the market that this situation is not going to fully blow up.

The oil market is nonetheless concerned as there is too much oil supply at stake. The oil market is however still naturally concerned and uncomfortable about the whole situation as there is so much oil supply at stake if the situation actually did blow up. Reports of traders buying far out of the money call options is a witness of that.

Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Fundamentals trump geopolitical tensions

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

Throughout this week, the Brent Crude price has experienced a decline of USD 3 per barrel, despite ongoing turmoil in the Middle East. Price fluctuations have ranged from highs of USD 91 per barrel at the beginning of the week to lows of USD 87 per barrel as of yesterday evening.

Ole R. Hvalbye, Analyst Commodities, SEB
Ole R. Hvalbye, Analyst Commodities, SEB

Following the release of yesterday’s US inventory report, Brent Crude once again demonstrated resilience against broader macroeconomic concerns, instead focusing on underlying market fundamentals.

Nevertheless, the recent drop in prices may come as somewhat surprising given the array of conflicting signals observed. Despite an increase in US inventories—a typically bearish indicator—we’ve also witnessed escalating tensions in the Middle East, coupled with the reinstatement of US sanctions on Venezuela. Furthermore, there are indications of impending sanctions on Iran in response to the recent attack on Israel.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has indicated that new sanctions targeting Iran, particularly aimed at restricting its oil exports, could be announced as early as this week. As previously highlighted, we maintain the view that Iran’s oil exports remain vulnerable even without further escalation of the conflict. It appears that Israel is exerting pressure on its ally, the US, to impose stricter sanctions on Iran, an action that is unfolding before our eyes.

Iran’s current oil production stands at close to 3.2 million barrels per day. Considering additional condensate production of about 0.8 million barrels per day and subtracting domestic demand of roughly 1.8 million barrels per day, the net export of Iranian crude and condensate is approximately 2.2 million barrels per day.

However, the uncertainty surrounding the enforcement of such sanctions casts doubt on the likelihood of a complete ending of Iranian exports. Approximately 80% of Iran’s exports are directed to independent refineries in China, suggesting that US sanctions may have limited efficacy unless China complies. The prospect of China resisting US pressure on its oil imports from Iran poses a significant challenge to US sanctions enforcement efforts.

Furthermore, any shortfall resulting from sanctions could potentially be offset by other OPEC nations with spare capacity. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for instance, can collectively produce an additional almost 3 million barrels of oil per day, although this remains a contingency measure.

In addition to developments related to Iran, the Biden administration has re-imposed restrictions on Venezuelan oil, marking the end of a six-month reprieve. This move is expected to impact flows from the South American nation.

Meanwhile, US crude inventories (excluding SPR holdings) surged by 2.7 million barrels last week (page 11 attached), reaching their highest level since June of last year. This increase coincided with a decline in measures of fuel demand (page 14 attached), underscoring a slightly weaker US market.

In summary, while geopolitical tensions persist and new rounds of sanctions are imposed, our market outlook remains intact. We maintain our forecast of an average Brent Crude price of USD 85 per barrel for the year 2024. In the short term, however, prices are expected to hover around the USD 90 per barrel mark as they navigate through geopolitical uncertainties and fundamental factors.

Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Brace for Covert Conflict

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

In the past two trading days, Brent Crude prices have fluctuated between highs of USD 92.2 per barrel and lows of USD 88.7 per barrel. Despite escalation tensions in the Middle East, oil prices have remained relatively stable over the past 24 hours. The recent barrage of rockets and drones in the region hasn’t significantly affected market sentiment regarding potential disruptions to oil supply. The key concern now is how Israel will respond: will it choose a strong retaliation to assert deterrence, risking wider regional instability, or will it revert to targeted strikes on Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq? While it’s too early to predict, one thing is clear: brace for increased volatility, uncertainty, and speculation.

Ole R. Hvalbye, Analyst Commodities, SEB
Ole R. Hvalbye, Analyst Commodities, SEB

Amidst these developments, the market continues to focus on current fundamentals rather than unfolding geopolitical risks. Despite Iran’s recent attack on Israel, oil prices have slid, reflecting a sideways or slightly bearish sentiment. This morning, oil prices stand at USD 90 per barrel, down 2.5% from Friday’s highs.

The attack

Iran’s launch of over 300 rockets and drones toward Israel marks the first direct assault from Iranian territory since 1991. However, the attack, announced well in advance, resulted in minimal damage as Israeli and allied forces intercepted nearly all projectiles. Hence, the damage inflicted was limited. The incident has prompted US President Joe Biden to urge Israel to exercise restraint, as part of broader efforts to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East.

Israel’s response remains uncertain as its war cabinet deliberates on potential courses of action. While the necessity of a response is acknowledged, the timing and magnitude remain undecided.

The attack was allegedly in retaliation for an Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, resulting in significant casualties, including a senior leader in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force. It’s notable that this marks the first direct targeting of Israel from Iranian territory, setting the stage for heightened tensions between the two nations.

Despite the scale of the attack, the vast majority of Iranian projectiles were intercepted before reaching Israeli territory. However, a small number did land, causing minor damage to a military base in the southern region.

President Biden swiftly condemned Iran’s actions and pledged to coordinate a diplomatic response with leaders from the G7 nations. The US military’s rapid repositioning of assets in the region underscores the seriousness of the situation.

Iran’s willingness to escalate tensions further depends on Israel’s response, as indicated by General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces. Meanwhile, speculation about a retaliatory attack from Israel persists.

Looking ahead, key questions remain unanswered. Will Iran launch additional attacks? How will Israel respond, and what implications will it have for the region? Moreover, how will Iran’s allies react to the escalating tensions?

Given the potential for a full-scale war between Iran and Israel, concerns about its impact on global energy markets are growing. Both the United States and China have strong incentives to reduce tensions in the region, given the destabilizing effects of a regional conflict.

Our view in conclusion

The recent escalation between Iran and Israel underscores the delicate balance of power in the volatile Middle East. With tensions reaching unprecedented levels and the specter of further escalation looming, the potential for a full-blown conflict cannot be understated. The ramifications of such a scenario would be far-reaching and could have significant implications for regional stability and global security.

Turning to the oil market, there has been much speculation about the possibility of a full-scale blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in the event of further escalation. However, at present, such a scenario remains highly speculative. Nonetheless, it is crucial to note that Iran’s oil production and exports remain at risk even without further escalation. Currently producing close to 3.2 million barrels per day, Iran has significantly increased its production from mid-2020 levels of 1.9 million barrels per day.

In response to the recent attack, Israel may exert pressure on its ally, the US, to impose stricter sanctions on Iran. The enforcement of such sanctions, particularly on Iranian oil exports, could result in a loss of anywhere between 0.5 million to 1 million barrels per day of oil supply. This would likely keep the oil market in deficit for the remainder of the year, contradicting the Biden administration’s wish to maintain oil and gasoline prices at sustainable levels ahead of the election. While other OPEC nations have spare capacity, utilizing it would tighten the global oil market even further. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, for example, could collectively produce an additional almost 3 million barrels of oil per day if necessary.

Furthermore, both Iran and the US have expressed a desire to prevent further escalation. However, much depends on Israel’s response to the recent barrage of rockets. While Israel has historically refrained from responding violently to attacks (1991), the situation remains fluid. If Israel chooses not to respond forcefully, the US may be compelled to promise stronger enforcement of sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Consequently, Iranian oil exports are at risk, regardless of whether a wider confrontation ensues in the Middle East.

Analyzing the potential impact, approximately 2.2 million barrels per day of net Iranian crude and condensate exports could be at risk, factoring in Iranian domestic demand and condensate production. The effectiveness of US sanctions enforcement, however, remains uncertain, especially considering China’s stance on Iranian oil imports.

Despite these uncertainties, the market outlook remains cautiously optimistic for now, with Brent Crude expected to hover around the USD 90 per barrel mark in the near term. Navigating through geopolitical tensions and fundamental factors, the oil market continues to adapt to evolving conflicts in the Middle East and beyond.

Fortsätt läsa

Populära