Analys

Extremely tight platinum and palladium markets

Publicerat

10 år sedan

den

3 april, 2014

The South African platinum mining industry has been affected by strikes for more than ten weeks now. Because stocks are dwindling, the mining companies concerned are finding it increasingly difficult to fulfil their contractual delivery obligations. The situation as regards palladium is dominated by concerns about how Russia might react if the West were to impose further-reaching sanctions on the country. At the same time, demand on both markets is robust, driven by the automotive industry. The situation appears to be tightening noticeably, which in our opinion suggests that platinum and palladium prices will rise.

Platinum came under pressure from the weak gold price in March and declined noticeably as a result. For a time it dropped below the $1,400 per troy ounce mark to a six-week low. Palladium fared somewhat better and trended sideways while fluctuating significantly. For the first time since August 2011, it actually exceeded the $800 per troy ounce mark for a while, though it was unable to maintain this level (Chart 1). We believe that both precious metal prices are too low from a fundamental viewpoint given the risks to supply. In this Commodity Spotlight we will be assessing the supply situation in South Africa, the world’s biggest platinum producer and the world’s number two palladium producer, as well as taking a look at Russia, the biggest supplier of palladium.

Platinum price

According to figures from Johnson Matthey, South Africa produced 4.12 million ounces of platinum and 2.35 million ounces of palladium last year, thus accounting for 72% of global platinum mining production and 37% of global palladium mining production (Chart 2). Palladium is generally mined together with platinum. However, a strike has been underway in the South African platinum mining industry since 23 January. The radical AMCU (Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union) called its members out on strike to lend emphasis to its calls for wage hikes. The union, which was established in 1998 and formally registered in 2001, represents the majority of workers in the platinum mining industry and has meanwhile overtaken the more moderate union NUM (National Union of Mineworkers) in terms of membership. The world’s three biggest platinum producers are affected: Anglo American Platinum, Impala Platinum and Lonmin, 87% of whose workers are union members. Accounting for 66% of these, the AMCU predominates (Chart 3). Over 70,000 workers went out on strike when called upon to do so. The strike is the biggest to hit the South African mining sector since the Apartheid regime ended in 1994. 350,000 workers took to the streets in 1987 to protest for better working conditions, though this strike was brought to an end after around three weeks and cost the mining companies around ZAR 250 million at the time, according to the NUM.

AMCU and platinum

Union and companies still far apart

The AMCU is calling for producers to increase wages significantly, its core demand being that entry-level salaries be doubled to ZAR 12,500 per month. Originally, the AMCU urged the mining companies to meet its demands immediately, though it has meanwhile shown itself willing to “make some concessions”. AMCU has “eased” its core demand in two stages, with the result that it now wishes to see wages doubled within four years. For their part, the companies have offered staggered wage increases over the course of three years – 9% in the first year, 8% in the second and 7.5% in the third. In February, the rate of inflation in South Africa was 5.9%. In other words, the two parties still maintain positions that are very far apart. To date, the state mediator engaged to help (CCMA – Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration) has failed to bring the two parties any closer together. In fact, talks were actually suspended for a time because the mediator saw no possibility of agreement.

Politicians exercise restraint ahead of elections

So far, politicians have chosen not to intervene in the strike, clearly because of the upcoming elections in South Africa. Parliamentary elections will be held on 7 May, with presidential elections to follow in the second half of the year. The mine workers make up a major group of voters which neither the governing party ANC (African National Congress) nor the opposition parties wish to alienate. Polls indicate that the ANC is likely to win the elections, though it remains to be seen whether this will subsequently result in the necessary reforms being implemented which would also steer the mining industry into calmer waters. Recently, the South African finance minister played down the strike’s negative impact on the local economy, claiming that the current strike is causing less damage than the industrial actions taken two years ago. In 2012, a series of strikes cost gold and platinum producers more than ZAR 16 billion.

High revenue losses for companies and lost earnings for workers

By their own account, the mining companies concerned are losing 9,900 ounces of platinum production every day – 4,000 ounces at Anglo American Platinum, 2,800 ounces at Impala Platinum and 3,100 ounces at Lonmin. Assuming that work generally continues in the mines seven days a week, the producers have thus lost nearly 700,000 ounces of production since the beginning of the strike. The companies claim that they have lost revenues totalling over ZAR 11 billion as a result. So far, workers who are not being paid while they are out on strike have lost earnings of around ZAR 5 billion.

Company stocks dwindling

Although production has been at a standstill since the beginning of the strike, the companies have been able at least partly to fulfil their delivery obligations by drawing on stocks. By their own account, the producers had piled up considerable stocks in the run-up to the strike, which industrial sources estimated would last two months. The situation is not the same in all the companies, however. Anglo American Platinum had for example announced at the end of March that it had used up half of its 430,000 ounces of stocks up to that point, saying that material would be bought on the market if stocks ran out. By contrast, Impala Platinum had already declared “force majeure” in early March and has no longer been able to guarantee deliveries since the beginning of April. Impala is likewise considering buying in material on the market in order to meet its contractual obligations. Lonmin had also downwardly revised its sales forecasts for this year at an early stage.

Negative long-term impact cannot be excluded

Even if the strike can be brought to an end, it will take weeks if not months before platinum production achieves its pre-strike levels again. After all, the damage in shafts and galleries resulting from the lack of use first has to be identified and, most importantly of all, safety has to be restored. In some cases the companies are already talking about irreparable damage and are considering shutting down individual shafts entirely. There are also likely to be some redundancies because the companies claim that they will otherwise no longer be able to operate at a profit. This could spark renewed protests and set in motion a vicious circle which would harm the entire country.

Concers about supply outages in Russia

As far as palladium is concerned, we need to take a look at Russia. According to data from Johnson Matthey, Russia accounted for 42% of worldwide palladium supply in 2013 (primary production and reserve sales together totalling 2.7 million ounces) and for 14% of global platinum production (780,000 ounces), making the country the largest producer of palladium and the second-largest producer of platinum. The situation here is dominated by concerns about the extent to which possible sanctions imposed by the West on Russia could hit this sector and how Russia might react to further-reaching sanctions against its economy. That said, there are no signs so far that deliveries from Russia are at risk. According to the UK’s Financial Times, however, Norilsk Nickel, the world’s largest palladium producer, is currently negotiating longterm palladium and platinum supply contracts with Chinese and Japanese buyers. Although this might not mean anything, it could perhaps be viewed as a not particularly subtle hint to the West.

Robust demand from the automotive industry

Driven by the automotive industry, demand for both platinum and palladium is robust. March saw the seasonally adjusted annualized vehicle sales rate in the US rise to 16.33 million units, the highest figure since May 2007. At 3.16 million units, car sales in China in January and February combined were a good 11% up on the same period last year. It would therefore seem that the 2014 target of an increase in sales of up to 10%, set by the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers, is achievable. The European auto industry may also have bottomed out, for car sales in February increased year-on-year for the sixth consecutive month (Chart 4).

New palladium ETF on the market

When it comes to investment demand, market participants evidently switched their allegiance from palladium to platinum in the first quarter. While the palladium ETFs tracked by Bloomberg recorded outflows of 51,900 ounces, the platinum ETFs saw inflows of 53,600 ounces. That said, the trend could soon be reversed in the case of palladium (Chart 5), for South African investment bank Absa Capital launched its long-awaited palladium ETF at the end of March. The ETF is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange and solely sourced with palladium from South Africa. If the palladium ETF follows the same course as Absa Capital’s platinum ETF, which was launched at the end of April 2013, a great deal of supply could be stripped from the market. Within just four months of its launch, the platinum ETF became the world’s biggest platinum ETF and at the end of March had a market share of 37% with over 952,000 ounces. Holdings in all platinum ETFs combined are equivalent to more than five months of global mining production, while holdings in palladium ETFs equate to nearly four months of global production.

Higher prices expected during the course of the year

In our opinion, risks to supply in conjunction with robust demand point to higher platinum and palladium prices. According to data from Johnson Matthey, the supply-demand situation was already tight on both markets last year, the global platinum market showing a supply deficit of 605,000 ounces in 2013 and demand outstripping supply on the global palladium market by 740,000 ounces. Assuming the supply problems are not resolved in the near future and demand remains robust, the situation on both markets will doubtless tighten further. By year’s end we continue to envisage a platinum price of $1,600 per troy ounce, while palladium is likely to be trading at $825 per troy ounce.

Relaterade ämnen:commerzbank research palladium platinum

Nästa

SHB Råvarubrevet 4 april 2014

Missa inte

Orange juice: Will Brazil make up for the decline in US supply?

Fortsätt läsa

Annons

Klicka för att kommentera

Skriv ett svar
Avbryt svar

Analys

’wait and see’ mode

Publicerat

17 timmar sedan

den

25 april, 2024

Redaktionen

So far this week, Brent Crude prices have strengthened by USD 1.3 per barrel since Monday’s opening. While macroeconomic concerns persist, they have somewhat abated, resulting in muted price reactions. Fundamentals predominantly influence global oil price developments at present. This week, we’ve observed highs of USD 89 per barrel yesterday morning and lows of USD 85.7 per barrel on Monday morning. Currently, Brent Crude is trading at a stable USD 88.3 per barrel, maintaining this level for the past 24 hours.

Ole R. Hvalbye, Analyst Commodities, SEB

Additionally, there has been no significant price reaction to Crude following yesterday’s US inventory report (see page 11 attached):

US commercial crude inventories (excluding SPR) decreased by 6.4 million barrels from the previous week, standing at 453.6 million barrels, roughly 3% below the five-year average for this time of year.
Total motor gasoline inventories decreased by 0.6 million barrels, approximately 4% below the five-year average.
Distillate (diesel) inventories increased by 1.6 million barrels but remain weak historically, about 7% below the five-year average.
Total commercial petroleum inventories (crude + products) decreased by 3.8 million barrels last week.

Regarding petroleum products, the overall build/withdrawal aligns with seasonal patterns, theoretically exerting limited effect on prices. However, the significant draw in commercial crude inventories counters the seasonality, surpassing market expectations and API figures released on Tuesday, indicating a draw of 3.2 million barrels (compared to Bloomberg consensus of +1.3 million). API numbers for products were more in line with the US DOE.

Against this backdrop, yesterday’s inventory report is bullish, theoretically exerting upward pressure on crude prices.

Yet, the current stability in prices may be attributed to reduced geopolitical risks, balanced against demand concerns. Markets are adopting a wait-and-see approach ahead of Q1 US GDP (today at 14:30) and the Fed’s preferred inflation measure, “core PCE prices” (tomorrow at 14:30). A stronger print could potentially dampen crude prices as market participants worry over the demand outlook.

Geopolitical “risk premiums” have decreased from last week, although concerns persist, highlighted by Ukraine’s strikes on two Russian oil depots in western Russia and Houthis’ claims of targeting shipping off the Yemeni coast yesterday.

With a relatively calmer geopolitical landscape, the market carefully evaluates data and fundamentals. While the supply picture appears clear, demand remains the predominant uncertainty that the market attempts to decode.

Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Also OPEC+ wants to get compensation for inflation

Publicerat

3 dagar sedan

den

23 april, 2024

Redaktionen

Brent crude has fallen USD 3/b since the peak of Iran-Israel concerns last week. Still lots of talk about significant Mid-East risk premium in the current oil price. But OPEC+ is in no way anywhere close to loosing control of the oil market. Thus what will really matter is what OPEC+ decides to do in June with respect to production in Q3-24 and the market knows this very well. Saudi Arabia’s social cost-break-even is estimated at USD 100/b today. Also Saudi Arabia’s purse is hurt by 21% US inflation since Jan 2020. Saudi needs more money to make ends meet. Why shouldn’t they get a higher nominal pay as everyone else. Saudi will ask for it

Bjarne Schieldrop, Chief analyst commodities, SEB

Brent is down USD 3/b vs. last week as the immediate risk for Iran-Israel has faded. But risk is far from over says experts. The Brent crude oil price has fallen 3% to now USD 87.3/b since it became clear that Israel was willing to restrain itself with only a muted counter attack versus Israel while Iran at the same time totally played down the counterattack by Israel. The hope now is of course that that was the end of it. The real fear has now receded for the scenario where Israeli and Iranian exchanges of rockets and drones would escalate to a point where also the US is dragged into it with Mid East oil supply being hurt in the end. Not everyone are as optimistic. Professor Meir Javedanfar who teaches Iranian-Israeli studies in Israel instead judges that ”this is just the beginning” and that they sooner or later will confront each other again according to NYT. While the the tension between Iran and Israel has faded significantly, the pain and anger spiraling out of destruction of Gaza will however close to guarantee that bombs and military strifes will take place left, right and center in the Middle East going forward.

Also OPEC+ wants to get paid. At the start of 2020 the 20 year inflation adjusted average Brent crude price stood at USD 76.6/b. If we keep the averaging period fixed and move forward till today that inflation adjusted average has risen to USD 92.5/b. So when OPEC looks in its purse and income stream it today needs a 21% higher oil price than in January 2020 in order to make ends meet and OPEC(+) is working hard to get it.

Much talk about Mid-East risk premium of USD 5-10-25/b. But OPEC+ is in control so why does it matter. There is much talk these days that there is a significant risk premium in Brent crude these days and that it could evaporate if the erratic state of the Middle East as well as Ukraine/Russia settles down. With the latest gains in US oil inventories one could maybe argue that there is a USD 5/b risk premium versus total US commercial crude and product inventories in the Brent crude oil price today. But what really matters for the oil price is what OPEC+ decides to do in June with respect to Q3-24 production. We are in no doubt that the group will steer this market to where they want it also in Q3-24. If there is a little bit too much oil in the market versus demand then they will trim supply accordingly.

Also OPEC+ wants to make ends meet. The 20-year real average Brent price from 2000 to 2019 stood at USD 76.6/b in Jan 2020. That same averaging period is today at USD 92.5/b in today’s money value. OPEC+ needs a higher nominal price to make ends meet and they will work hard to get it.

Price of brent crude — Source: SEB calculations and graph, Blbrg data

Inflation adjusted Brent crude price versus total US commercial crude and product stocks. A bit above the regression line. Maybe USD 5/b risk premium. But type of inventories matter. Latest big gains were in Propane and Other oils and not so much in crude and products

Total US commercial crude and product stocks usually rise by 4-5 m b per week this time of year. Gains have been very strong lately, but mostly in Propane and Other oils

Last week’s US inventory data. Big rise of 10 m b in commercial inventories. What really stands out is the big gains in Propane and Other oils

Take actual changes minus normal seasonal changes we find that US commercial crude and regular products like diesel, gasoline, jet and bunker oil actually fell 3 m b versus normal change.

Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Nat gas to EUA correlation will likely switch to negative in 2026/27 onward

Publicerat

5 dagar sedan

den

20 april, 2024

Redaktionen

Historically positive Nat gas to EUA correlation will likely switch to negative in 2026/27 onward

Historically there has been a strong, positive correlation between EUAs and nat gas prices. That correlation is still fully intact and possibly even stronger than ever as traders increasingly takes this correlation as a given with possible amplification through trading action.

The correlation broke down in 2022 as nat gas prices went ballistic but overall the relationship has been very strong for quite a few years.

The correlation between nat gas and EUAs should be positive as long as there is a dynamical mix of coal and gas in EU power sector and the EUA market is neither too tight nor too weak:

Nat gas price UP => ”you go black” by using more coal => higher emissions => EUA price UP

But in the future we’ll go beyond the dynamically capacity to flex between nat gas and coal. As the EUA price moves yet higher along with a tightening carbon market the dynamical coal to gas flex will max out. The EUA price will then trade significantly above where this flex technically will occur. There will still be quite a few coal fired power plants running since they are needed for grid stability and supply amid constrained local grids.

As it looks now we still have such overall coal to gas flex in 2024 and partially in 2025, but come 2026 it could be all maxed out. At least if we look at implied pricing on the forward curves where the forward EUA price for 2026 and 2027 are trading way above technical coal to gas differentials. The current forward pricing implications matches well with what we theoretically expect to see as the EUA market gets tighter and marginal abatement moves from the power sector to the industrial sector. The EUA price should then trade up and way above the technical coal to gas differentials. That is also what we see in current forward prices for 2026 and 2027.

The correlation between nat gas and EUAs should then (2026/27 onward) switch from positive to negative. What is left of coal in the power mix will then no longer be dynamically involved versus nat gas and EUAs. The overall power price will then be ruled by EUA prices, nat gas prices and renewable penetration. There will be pockets with high cost power in the geographical points where there are no other alternatives than coal.

The EUA price is an added cost of energy as long as we consume fossil energy. Thus both today and in future years we’ll have the following as long as we consume fossil energy:

EUA price UP => Pain for consumers of energy => lower energy consumption, faster implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy => lower emissions

The whole idea with the EUA price is after all that emissions goes down when the EUA price goes up. Either due to reduced energy consumption directly, accelerated energy efficiency measures or faster switch to renewable energy etc.

Let’s say that the coal to gas flex is maxed out with an EUA price way above the technical coal to gas differentials in 2026/27 and later. If the nat gas price then goes up it will no longer be an option to ”go black” and use more coal as the distance to that is too far away price vise due to a tight carbon market and a high EUA price. We’ll then instead have that:

Nat gas higher => higher energy costs with pain for consumers => weaker nat gas / energy demand & stronger drive for energy efficiency implementation & stronger drive for more non-fossil energy => lower emissions => EUA price lower

And if nat gas prices goes down it will give an incentive to consume more nat gas and thus emit more CO2:

Cheaper nat gas => Cheaper energy costs altogether, higher energy and nat gas consumption, less energy efficiency implementations in the broader economy => emissions either goes up or falls slower than before => EUA price UP

Historical and current positive correlation between nat gas and EUA prices should thus not at all be taken for granted for ever and we do expect this correlation to switch to negative some time in 2026/27.

In the UK there is hardly any coal left at all in the power mix. There is thus no option to ”go black” and burn more coal if the nat gas price goes up. A higher nat gas price will instead inflict pain on consumers of energy and lead to lower energy consumption, lower nat gas consumption and lower emissions on the margin. There is still some positive correlation left between nat gas and UKAs but it is very weak and it could relate to correlations between power prices in the UK and the continent as well as some correlations between UKAs and EUAs.

Correlation of daily changes in front month EUA prices and front-year TTF nat gas prices, 250dma correlation.

EUA price vs front-year TTF nat gas price since March 2023

Front-month EUA price vs regression function of EUA price vs. nat gas derived from data from Apr to Nov last year.

The EUA price vs the UKA price. Correlations previously, but not much any more.

Forward German power prices versus clean cost of coal and clean cost of gas power. Coal is totally priced out vs power and nat gas on a forward 2026/27 basis.

Forward price of EUAs versus technical level where dynamical coal to gas flex typically takes place. EUA price for 2026/27 is at a level where there is no longer any price dynamical interaction or flex between coal and nat gas. The EUA price should/could then start to be negatively correlated to nat gas.