Analys
Nat gas to EUA correlation will likely switch to negative in 2026/27 onward
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.
Forward EAU price vs. BNEF base model run (look for new update will come in late April), SEB’s EUA price forecast.
Analys
Brent prices slip on USD surge despite tight inventory conditions
Brent crude prices dropped by USD 1.4 per barrel yesterday evening, sliding from USD 74.2 to USD 72.8 per barrel overnight. However, prices have ticked slightly higher in early trading this morning and are currently hovering around USD 73.3 per barrel.
Yesterday’s decline was primarily driven by a significant strengthening of the U.S. dollar, fueled by expectations of fewer interest rate cuts by the Fed in the coming year. While the Fed lowered borrowing costs as anticipated, it signaled a more cautious approach to rate reductions in 2025. This pushed the U.S. dollar to its strongest level in over two years, raising the cost of commodities priced in dollars.
Earlier in the day (yesterday), crude prices briefly rose following reports of continued declines in U.S. commercial crude oil inventories (excl. SPR), which fell by 0.9 million barrels last week to 421.0 million barrels. This level is approximately 6% below the five-year average for this time of year, highlighting persistently tight market conditions.
In contrast, total motor gasoline inventories saw a significant build of 2.3 million barrels but remain 3% below the five-year average. A closer look reveals that finished gasoline inventories declined, while blending components inventories increased.
Distillate (diesel) fuel inventories experienced a substantial draw of 3.2 million barrels and are now approximately 7% below the five-year average. Overall, total commercial petroleum inventories recorded a net decline of 3.2 million barrels last week, underscoring tightening market conditions across key product categories.
Despite the ongoing drawdowns in U.S. crude and product inventories, global oil prices have remained range-bound since mid-October. Market participants are balancing a muted outlook for Chinese demand and rising production from non-OPEC+ sources against elevated geopolitical risks. The potential for stricter sanctions on Iranian oil supply, particularly as Donald Trump prepares to re-enter the White House, has introduced an additional layer of uncertainty.
We remain cautiously optimistic about the oil market balance in 2025 and are maintaining our Brent price forecast of an average USD 75 per barrel for the year. We believe the market has both fundamental and technical support at these levels.
Analys
Oil falling only marginally on weak China data as Iran oil exports starts to struggle
Up 4.7% last week on US Iran hawkishness and China stimulus optimism. Brent crude gained 4.7% last week and closed on a high note at USD 74.49/b. Through the week it traded in a USD 70.92 – 74.59/b range. Increased optimism over China stimulus together with Iran hawkishness from the incoming Donald Trump administration were the main drivers. Technically Brent crude broke above the 50dma on Friday. On the upside it has the USD 75/b 100dma and on the downside it now has the 50dma at USD 73.84. It is likely to test both of these in the near term. With respect to the Relative Strength Index (RSI) it is neither cold nor warm.
Lower this morning as China November statistics still disappointing (stimulus isn’t here in size yet). This morning it is trading down 0.4% to USD 74.2/b following bearish statistics from China. Retail sales only rose 3% y/y and well short of Industrial production which rose 5.4% y/y, painting a lackluster picture of the demand side of the Chinese economy. This morning the Chinese 30-year bond rate fell below the 2% mark for the first time ever. Very weak demand for credit and investments is essentially what it is saying. Implied demand for oil down 2.1% in November and ytd y/y it was down 3.3%. Oil refining slipped to 5-month low (Bloomberg). This sets a bearish tone for oil at the start of the week. But it isn’t really killing off the oil price either except pushing it down a little this morning.
China will likely choose the US over Iranian oil as long as the oil market is plentiful. It is becoming increasingly apparent that exports of crude oil from Iran is being disrupted by broadening US sanctions on tankers according to Vortexa (Bloomberg). Some Iranian November oil cargoes still remain undelivered. Chinese buyers are increasingly saying no to sanctioned vessels. China import around 90% of Iranian crude oil. Looking forward to the Trump administration the choice for China will likely be easy when it comes to Iranian oil. China needs the US much more than it needs Iranian oil. At leas as long as there is plenty of oil in the market. OPEC+ is currently holds plenty of oil on the side-line waiting for room to re-enter. So if Iran goes out, then other oil from OPEC+ will come back in. So there won’t be any squeeze in the oil market and price shouldn’t move all that much up.
Analys
Brent crude inches higher as ”Maximum pressure on Iran” could remove all talk of surplus in 2025
Brent crude inch higher despite bearish Chinese equity backdrop. Brent crude traded between 72.42 and 74.0 USD/b yesterday before closing down 0.15% on the day at USD 73.41/b. Since last Friday Brent crude has gained 3.2%. This morning it is trading in marginal positive territory (+0.3%) at USD 73.65/b. Chinese equities are down 2% following disappointing signals from the Central Economic Work Conference. The dollar is also 0.2% stronger. None of this has been able to pull oil lower this morning.
”Maximum pressure on Iran” are the signals from the incoming US administration. Last time Donald Trump was president he drove down Iranian oil exports to close to zero as he exited the JCPOA Iranian nuclear deal and implemented maximum sanctions. A repeat of that would remove all talk about a surplus oil market next year leaving room for the rest of OPEC+ as well as the US to lift production a little. It would however probably require some kind of cooperation with China in some kind of overall US – China trade deal. Because it is hard to prevent oil flowing from Iran to China as long as China wants to buy large amounts.
Mildly bullish adjustment from the IEA but still with an overall bearish message for 2025. The IEA came out with a mildly bullish adjustment in its monthly Oil Market Report yesterday. For 2025 it adjusted global demand up by 0.1 mb/d to 103.9 mb/d (+1.1 mb/d y/y growth) while it also adjusted non-OPEC production down by 0.1 mb/d to 71.9 mb/d (+1.7 mb/d y/y). As a result its calculated call-on-OPEC rose by 0.2 mb/d y/y to 26.3 mb/d.
Overall the IEA still sees a market in 2025 where non-OPEC production grows considerably faster (+1.7 mb/d y/y) than demand (+1.1 mb/d y/y) which requires OPEC to cut its production by close to 700 kb/d in 2025 to keep the market balanced.
The IEA treats OPEC+ as it if doesn’t exist even if it is 8 years since it was established. The weird thing is that the IEA after 8 full years with the constellation of OPEC+ still calculates and argues as if the wider organisation which was established in December 2016 doesn’t exist. In its oil market balance it projects an increase from FSU of +0.3 mb/d in 2025. But FSU is predominantly part of OPEC+ and thus bound by production targets. Thus call on OPEC+ is only falling by 0.4 mb/d in 2025. In IEA’s calculations the OPEC+ group thus needs to cut production by 0.4 mb/d in 2024 or 0.4% of global demand. That is still a bearish outlook. But error of margin on such calculations are quite large so this prediction needs to be treated with a pinch of salt.
-
Analys3 veckor sedan
Crude oil comment: OPEC+ meeting postponement adds new uncertainties
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Oklart om drill baby drill-politik ökar USAs oljeproduktion
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedan
Vad den stora uppgången i guldpriset säger om Kina
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedan
Meta vill vara med och bygga 1-4 GW kärnkraft, begär in förslag från kärnkraftsutvecklare
-
Nyheter3 veckor sedan
Kina gör stor satsning på billig kol i Xinjiang
-
Analys2 veckor sedan
Brent crude rises 0.8% on Syria but with no immediate risk to supply
-
Analys2 veckor sedan
OPEC takes center stage, but China’s recovery remains key
-
Nyheter1 vecka sedan
Christian Kopfer ger sin syn på den stora affären mellan Boliden och Lundin Mining