Följ oss

Analys

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

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

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

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

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:

Annons

Gratis uppdateringar om råvarumarknaden

*

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.

Correlation of daily changes in front month EUA prices and front-year TTF nat gas prices
Source: SEB graph and calculations, Blbrg data

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

EUA price vs front-year TTF nat gas price since March 2023
Source: SEB graph, Blbrg data

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

Front-month EUA price vs regression function of EUA price vs. nat gas derived from data from Apr to Nov last year.
Source: SEB graph and calculation

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

The EUA price vs the UKA price. Correlations previously, but not much any more.
Source: SEB graph, Blbrg data

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 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.
Source: SEB calculations and graph, Blbrg data

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 price of EUAs versus technical level
Source: SEB calculations and graph, Blbrg data

Forward EAU price vs. BNEF base model run (look for new update will come in late April), SEB’s EUA price forecast.

Forward EAU price vs. BNEF base model run
Source: SEB graph and calculations, Blbrg data

Analys

Quadruple whammy! Brent crude down $13 in four days

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

Brent Crude prices continued their decline heading into the weekend. On Friday, the price fell another USD 4 per barrel, followed by a further USD 3 per barrel drop this morning. This means Brent crude oil prices have crashed by a whopping USD 13 per barrel (-21%) since last Wednesday high, marking a significant decline in just four trading days. As of now, Brent crude is trading at USD 62.8 per barrel, its lowest point since February 2021.

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

The market has faced a ”quadruple whammy”:

#1: U.S. Tariffs: On Wednesday, the U.S. unveiled its new package of individual tariffs. The market reacted swiftly, as Trump followed through on his promise to rebalance the U.S. trade position with the world. His primary objective is a more balanced trade environment, which, naturally, weakened Brent crude prices. The widespread imposition of strict tariffs is likely to fuel concerns about an economic slowdown, which would weaken global oil demand. This macroeconomic uncertainty, especially regarding tariffs, calls for caution about the pace of demand growth.

#2: OPEC+ hike: Shortly after, OPEC+ announced plans to raise production in May by 41,000 bpd, exceeding earlier expectations with a three-monthly increment. OPEC emphasized that strong market fundamentals and a positive outlook were behind the decision. However, the decision likely stemmed from frustration within the cartel, particularly after months of excess production from Kazakhstan and Iraq. Saudi Arabia’s Energy Minister seemed to have reached his limit, emphasizing that the larger-than-expected May output hike would only be a “prelude” if those countries didn’t improve their performance. From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, this signals: ”All comply, or we will drag down the price.”

#3: China’s retaliation: Last Friday, even though the Chinese market was closed, firm indications came from China on how it plans to handle the U.S. tariffs. China is clearly meeting force with force, imposing 34% tariffs on all U.S. goods. This move raises fears of an economic slowdown due to reduced global trade, which would consequently weaken global oil demand going forward.

#4: Saudi price cuts: At the start of this week, oil prices continued to drop after Saudi Arabia slashed its flagship crude price by the most in over two years. Saudi Arabia reduced the Arab Light OSP by USD 2.3 per barrel for Asia in May, while prices to Europe and the U.S. were also cut.

These four key factors have driven the massive price drop over the last four trading days. The overarching theme is the fear of weaker demand and stronger supply. The escalating trade war has raised concerns about a potential global recession, leading to weaker demand, compounded by the surprisingly large output hike from OPEC+.

That said, it’s worth questioning whether the market is underestimating the risk of a U.S.-Iran conflict this year.

U.S. military mobilization and Iran’s resistance to diplomacy have raised the risk of conflict. Efforts to neutralize the Houthis suggest a buildup toward potential strikes on Iran. The recent Liberation Day episode further underscores that economic fallout is not a constraint for Trump, and markets may be underestimating the threat of war in the Middle East.

With this backdrop, we continue to forecast USD 70 per barrel for this year (2025). For reference, Brent crude averaged USD 75 per barrel in Q1-2025.

Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Lowest since Dec 2021. Kazakhstan likely reason for OPEC+ surprise hike in May

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

Collapsing after Trump tariffs and large surprise production hike by OPEC+ in May. Brent crude collapsed yesterday following the shock of the Trump tariffs on April 2 and even more so due to the unexpected announcement from OPEC+ that they will lift production by 411 kb/d in May which is three times as much as expected. Brent fell 6.4% yesterday with a close of USD 70.14/b and traded to a low of USD 69.48/b within the day. This morning it is down another 2.7% to USD 68.2/b. That is below the recent low point in early March of USD 68.33/b. Thus, a new ”lowest since December 2021” today.

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

Kazakhstan seems to be the problem and the reason for the unexpected large hike by OPEC+ in May. Kazakhstan has consistently breached its production cap. In February it produced 1.83 mb/d crude and 2.12 mb/d including condensates. In March its production reached a new record of 2.17 mb/d. Its crude production cap however is 1.468 mb/d. In February it thus exceeded its production cap by 362 kb/d.

Those who comply are getting frustrated with those who don’t. Internal compliance is an important and difficult issue when OPEC+ is holding back production. The problem naturally grows the bigger the cuts are and the longer they last as impatience grows over time. The cuts have been large, and they have lasted for a long time. And now some cracks are appearing. But that does not mean they cannot be mended. And it does not imply either that the group is totally shifting strategy from Price to Volume. It is still a measured approach. Also, by lifting all caps across the voluntary cutters, Kazakhstan becomes less out of compliance. Thus, less cuts by Kazakhstan are needed in order to become compliant.

While not a shift from Price to Volume, the surprise hike in May is clearly a sign of weakness. The struggle over internal compliance has now led to a rupture in strategy and more production in May than what was previously planned and signaled to the market. It is thus natural to assign a higher production path from the group for 2025 than previously assumed. Do however remember how quickly the price war between Russia and Saudi Arabia ended in the spring of 2020.

Higher production by OPEC+ will be partially countered by lower production from Venezuela and Iran. The new sanctions towards Iran and Venezuela can to a large degree counter the production increase from OPEC+. But to what extent is still unclear.

Buy some oil calls. Bullish risks are never far away. Rising risks for US/Israeli attack on Iran? The US has increased its indirect attacks on Iran by fresh attacks on Syria and Yemen lately. The US has also escalated sanctions towards the country in an effort to force Iran into a new nuclear deal. The UK newspaper TheSun yesterday ran the following story: ON THE BRINK US & Iran war is ‘INEVITABLE’, France warns as Trump masses huge strike force with THIRD of America’s stealth bombers”. This is indeed a clear risk which would lead to significant losses of supply of oil in the Middle East and probably not just from Iran. So, buying some oil calls amid the current selloff is probably a prudent thing to do for oil consumers.

Brent crude is rejoining the US equity selloff by its recent collapse though for partially different reasons. New painful tariffs from Trump in combination with more oil from OPEC+ is not a great combination.

Brent crude is rejoining the US equity selloff by its recent collapse though for partially different reasons.
Source: SEB selection and highlights, Bloomberg graph and data
Fortsätt läsa

Analys

Tariffs deepen economic concerns – significantly weighing on crude oil prices

Publicerat

den

SEB - analysbrev på råvaror

Brent crude prices initially maintained the gains from late March and traded sideways during the first two trading days in April. Yesterday evening, the price even reached its highest point since mid-February, touching USD 75.5 per barrel.

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

However, after the U.S. president addressed the public and unveiled his new package of individual tariffs, the market reacted accordingly. Overnight, Brent crude dropped by close to USD 4 per barrel, now trading at USD 71.6 per barrel.

Key takeaways from the speech include a baseline tariff rate of 10% for all countries. Additionally, individual reciprocal tariffs will be imposed on countries with which the U.S. has the largest trade deficits. Many Asian economies end up at the higher end of the scale, with China facing a significant 54% tariff. In contrast, many North and South American countries are at the lower end, with a 10% tariff rate. The EU stands at 20%, which, while not unexpected given earlier signals, is still disappointing, especially after Trump’s previous suggestion that there might be some easing.

Once again, Trump has followed through on his promise, making it clear that he is serious about rebalancing the U.S. trade position with the world. While some negotiation may still occur, the primary objective is to achieve a more balanced trade environment. A weaker U.S. dollar is likely to be an integral part of this solution.

Yet, as the flow of physical goods to the U.S. declines, the natural question arises: where will these goods go? The EU may be forced to raise tariffs on China, mirroring U.S. actions to protect its industries from an influx of discounted Chinese goods.

Initially, we will observe the effects in soft economic data, such as sentiment indices reflecting investor, industry, and consumer confidence, followed by drops in equity markets and, very likely, declining oil prices. This will eventually be followed by more tangible data showing reductions in employment, spending, investments, and overall economic activity.

Ref oil prices moving forward, we have recently adjusted our Brent crude price forecast. The widespread imposition of strict tariffs is expected to foster fears of an economic slowdown, potentially reducing oil demand. Macroeconomic uncertainty, particularly regarding tariffs, warrants caution regarding the pace of demand growth. Our updated forecast of USD 70 per barrel for 2025 and 2026, and USD 75 per barrel for 2027, reflects a more conservative outlook, influenced by stronger-than-expected U.S. supply, a more politically influenced OPEC+, and an increased focus on fragile demand.

___

US DOE data:

Last week, U.S. crude oil refinery inputs averaged 15.6 million barrels per day, a decrease of 192 thousand barrels per day from the previous week. Refineries operated at 86.0% of their total operable capacity during this period. Gasoline production increased slightly, averaging 9.3 million barrels per day, while distillate (diesel) production also rose, averaging 4.7 million barrels per day.

U.S. crude oil imports averaged 6.5 million barrels per day, up by 271 thousand barrels per day from the prior week. Over the past four weeks, imports averaged 5.9 million barrels per day, reflecting a 6.3% year-on-year decline compared to the same period last year.

The focus remains on U.S. crude and product inventories, which continue to impact short-term price dynamics in both WTI and Brent crude. Total commercial petroleum inventories (excl. SPR) increased by 5.4 million barrels, a modest build, yet insufficient to trigger significant price movements.

Commercial crude oil inventories (excl. SPR) rose by 6.2 million barrels, in line with the 6-million-barrel build forecasted by the API. With this latest increase, U.S. crude oil inventories now stand at 439.8 million barrels, which is 4% below the five-year average for this time of year.

Gasoline inventories decreased by 1.6 million barrels, exactly matching the API’s reported decline of 1.6 million barrels. Diesel inventories rose by 0.3 million barrels, which is close to the API’s forecast of an 11-thousand-barrel decrease. Diesel inventories are currently 6% below the five-year average.

Annons

Gratis uppdateringar om råvarumarknaden

*

Over the past four weeks, total products supplied, a proxy for U.S. demand, averaged 20.1 million barrels per day, a 1.2% decrease compared to the same period last year. Gasoline supplied averaged 8.8 million barrels per day, down 1.9% year-on-year. Diesel supplied averaged 3.8 million barrels per day, marking a 3.7% increase from the same period last year. Jet fuel demand also showed strength, rising 4.2% over the same four-week period.

USD DOE invetories
US crude inventories
Fortsätt läsa

Centaur

Guldcentralen

Fokus

Annons

Gratis uppdateringar om råvarumarknaden

*

Populära