Analys
Will OPEC drop the ball in 2018?
OECD inventories rose 18.6 mb in April marginally up y/y. OPEC has not been able to draw OECD inventories down yet which is a disappointment to the market. Weekly data have shown a substantial draw since mid-March. Some of that draw has been in floating storage and have thus not shown up in the OECD inventories yet.
The IEA estimated that the need for OPEC’s oil was 32.1 mb/d in H1-17. This is more or less exactly what Bloomberg statistics tells us that OPEC produced on average year to May 2017. Thus no inventory draws or gains of any magnitude in H1-17.
For the second half of 2017 the IEA calculates that the market will need 33.4 mb/d of oil from OPEC, a full 1.3 mb/d higher than in H1-17 due to seasonal demand effects and refining maintenance seasonality. Maintenance of refineries has been unusually high so far this year. But these are now coming back in operation.
If we assume that OPEC keeps production at current production of 32.2 mb/d through H2-17 (baring potentially further production revival in Libya and Nigeria) then this will drive inventories some 200 mb lower in H2-17. OECD inventories currently have a surplus of some 300 mb above normal. Thus a drawdown of some 200 mb (if taken out of the OECD inventories) would drive inventories a good way towards normality and lead to a flatter crude oil price curve.
As we have argued many times it is the medium term WTI forward curve which tells the US shale oil players what kind of cash flow they can lock in with a forward hedge if they decide to drill an additional well. The medium term WTI forward curve (proxy 18 mth contract) is the real incentive lever.
Except for a brief flash sell-off in August 2016, the 18 mth forward WTI price has not touched down to $47/b since April 2016. It was when this forward contract broke enduringly above $47/b for more than 6 weeks last spring that the US oil rig count started to rise and has been rising continuously since then.
While the IEA implicitly predicts a substantial inventory draw in H2-17 they see a different picture for 2018 where they estimate that the need for OPEC’s oil is no more than 32.6 mb/d. OPEC now produces 32.2 mb/d while it holds back 1.2 mb/d and thus has a natural production of 33.4 mb/d. Thus OPEC will need to hold back at least 0.8 mb/d all through 2018 in order to prevent inventories from rising again. And if Iraq’s production capacity rises to 5 mb/d by the end of 2017 versus current production of 4.45 mb/d or if Libya’s and Nigeria’s production revives even further then OPEC will have to hold back more.
The IEA basically says that inventories will draw substantially in H2-17 due to OPEC cuts. Then however in 2018 OPEC will have to maintain more or less the same size of cuts just in order to prevent inventories from rising again.
Drawdown in inventories is likely to flatten the forward curve in H2-17. Currently there is a $3/b discount for the 1mth contract versus the 18 mth contract WTI crude. By the end of the year the 1mth contract is likely to trade much closer to the 18 mth contract or even above depending of the magnitude of drawdown.
The level of the WTI 18 mth contract which now currently trades at $47.5/b is however the big question. Will it shift higher as well? Usually the whole forward curve shifts higher when inventories draw down and the spot market firms up.
However, IEA is prediction that OPEC needs to cut production all through 2018 as well in order to prevent growing OECD inventories. Thus for every additional shale oil rig being activated through the next 6-12 months means that OPEC will have to hold back even more of its production in 2018.
In our view, while we have a more positive view of the supply/demand balance in 2018 than the IEA, we do not see the need for a single additional shale oil rig to be activated in the US over the next 12 months. In order for this to happen the WTI 18 mth contract needs to stay put at around $47/b over the next 6-12 months. Thus fundamentally, the WTI 18mth contract should not rise above the $47/b level over the next 12 months.
Every additional rig in the US over the next 12 mths is increasing the production-cut burden for OPEC in 2018. It is also increasing the need for the market to believe that OPEC will cut production all through 2018.
The market fear is that the production-cut burden will in the end become too large for OPEC and that it will drop the ball in 2018. Not prolonging the cuts beyond March 2018 and instead opt for volume over price again just as it did in 2014. That is an open question which is itching in the back head of the market.
Ch1: Deeper contango for crude curves
But front end likely to firm in H2-17 as inventories draw down
Ch2: OECD inventories increased in April – big dissapointment
Will decline substantially in H2-17
Ch3: Iraq crude production
It says that its production capacity will reach 5 mb/d end of 2017
Ch4: Nigeria and Libya crude production reviving
Libya NOC says more to come
Ch5: WTI 18 mth forward crude price heads for the US shale oil “price floor” (or rig versus price inflection point) from one year ago.
Is the inflection point still there or is it higher or lower?
The market is asking US shale oil players to stop adding more rigs.
How low will the price need to move in order to make them listen?
Ch6: Deeper rebate for 1mth to 18 mth Brent lately.
Likely to firm in H2-17
Kind regards
Bjarne Schieldrop
Chief analyst, Commodities
SEB Markets
Merchant Banking
Analys
Brent gains on positive China data and new attacks on Russian oil processing
Positive China data and further attacks on Russian oil processing facilities lifts Brent yet higher. Brent crude gained 4.1% last week with a close on Friday 15 March at USD 85.3/b. Continued declines in US inventories, a bullish oil market outlook from the IEA and damages on Russia’s Rosneft Ryazan oil processing plant by Ukrainian drones helped Brent crude to break above the USD 85/b level. This morning Brent is adding another 0.4% to USD 85.7/b driven by a range of additional attacks on Russian refineries over the weekend and positive Chinese macro data also showing Chinese apparent oil demand up 6.1% YoY for Jan+Feb.
Brent crude is getting a steady tailwind from declining US oil inventories. Steady and continued declines in US inventories since the start of the year has been nudging the oil price steadily higher but there has clearly been some resistance around the USD 85/bl level. US inventories continued that decline in data also last week with commercial crude and product stocks down 4.7 m b. Total US stocks including SPR declined 4.1 m b to 1580 m b which is now only 2 m b above the low point on 30 December 2022 at 1578 m b. These persistent declines in US oil inventories is a clear reflection of the global market in deficit where demand is sufficiently strong, cuts by OPEC+ are sufficiently deep while US shale oil production is close to muted with hardly any growth projected from Q4-23 to Q4-24.
Bullish report from IEA last week indicates that further inventory declines is to be expected. The monthly report from IEA last week gave an additional boost to this picture as it lifted projected oil demand for 2024 by 0.2 m b/d, reduced non-OPEC production by 0.2 m b/d and thus increased its estimated call-on-OPEC by 0.4 m b/d for 2024. The world will need steadily more oil from OPEC every quarter to Q3-24 and by Q4-24 the world will need 0.8 m b/d more from the group than it did in Q4-23. That is great news for OPEC+. There is no way that they’ll move away from current strategy of ”Price over volume” with this backdrop. The report from IEA last week is indicating that the gradual declines in US inventories we have seen so far this year will likely continue. And such a trend will give continued support for oil prices in the coming quarters. Oil price projections are lifted in response to this and last out is Morgan Stanley which raises its Q3-24 Brent forecast by US 10/b to USD 90/b.
SEB’s Brent crude forecast for 2024 is USD 85/b (average year) which implies that we’ll likely see both USD 70/b as well as USD 100/b some times during the year.
Attacks on Russian oil processing will mostly impact refining margins and crude grade premiums as crude supply is unlikely to be disrupted. The Ukrainian drone attacks on Russian oil infrastructure has surprised the market as many of them are deep within Russia. Facilities in Russia’s Samara region which is more than 1,000 km away from the Ukrainian border were attacked on Saturday. Oil processing plants and oil refineries are highly complex structures. If damaged by drones they can potentially be out of operation for extended periods. Plain oil transportation systems are much simpler and easier and faster to repair. The essence here is that we’ll likely not lose any oil supply while we might lose oil refining capacity due to these attacks. Most of the impact from these attacks should thus be on refining margins and not so much on crude oil prices. But when diesel cracks, gasoil cracks and gasoline cracks goes up then typically also light sweet crude prices goes up. As such there is a spillover effect from damages to Russian oil refineries to Brent crude oil prices even if we don’t lose a single drop of Russian crude oil production and supply.
Total US crude and product stocks incl. SPR has been ticking lower and lower so far this year and are now only 2 m b/d above the low-point in late December 2022. This is a solid indication that the global oil market is running a deficit.
Total commercial crude and product stocks (excl. SPR) has been ticking lower and lower so far this year. This has helped to nudge oil prices steadily higher.
Brent crude looks very fairly priced at around USD 85/b versus current US commercial oil inventories
Call-on-OPEC by IEA: World will need more and more oil from OPEC through the year. In Q4-24 the world will need 0.8 m b/d more oil from OPEC in Q4-24 than in Q4-23.
ARA refining margins have moved up so far this year => Refineries want to process more crude oil and thus they want to buy more crude oil.
Analys
When affordable gas and expensive carbon puts coal in the corner
Coal and nat gas prices are increasingly quite normal versus real average prices from 2010 to 2019 during which TTF nat gas averaged EUR 27/MWh and ARA coal prices averaged USD 108/ton in real-terms. In the current environment of ”normal” coal and nat gas prices we now see a darkening picture for coal fired power generation where coal is becoming less and less competitive over the coming 2-3 years with cost of coal fired generation is trading more and more out-of-the money versus both forward power prices and the cost of nat gas + CO2. Coal fired power generation will however still be needed many places where there is no local substitution and limited grid access to other locations with other types of power supply. These coal fired power-hubs will then become high-power-cost-hubs. And that may become a challenge for the local power consumers in these locations.
When affordable gas and expensive carbon puts coal in the corner. The power sector accounts for some 50% of emissions in the EU ETS system in a mix of coal and nat gas burn for power. The sector is also highly dynamic, adaptive and actively trading. This sector has been and still is the primary battleground in the EU ETS where a fight between high CO2 intensity coal versus lower CO2 intensity nat gas is playing out.
Coal fired power is dominant over nat gas power when the carbon market is loose and the EUA price is low. The years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 were typical example-years of this. Coal fired power was then in-the-money for around 7000 hours (one year = 8760 hours) in Germany. Nat gas fired power was however only in the money for about 2500 hours per year and was predominantly functioning as peak-load supply.
Then the carbon market was tightened by politicians with ”back-loading” and the MSR mechanism which drove the EUA price up to EUR 20/ton in 2019 and to EUR 60/ton in 2021. Nat gas fired power and coal fired power were then both in-the-money for almost 5000 hours per year from 2016 to 2023. The EUA price was in the middle-ground in the fight between the two. In 2023 however, nat gas was in-the-money for 4000 hours while coal was only in-the-money for 3000 hours. For coal that is a dramatic change from the 2012-2015 period when it was in the money for 7000 hours per year.
And it is getting worse and worse for coal fired generation when we look forward. That is of course the political/environmental plan as well. It is still painful of course for coal power.
On a forward basis the cost of Coal+EUA is increasingly way, way above the forward German power prices. Coal is basically out-of-the money for more and more hours every year going forward. It may be temporary, but it fits the overall political/environmental plan and also the increasing penetration of renewable energy which will push aside more and more fossil power as we move forward.
But coal power cannot easily and quickly be shut down all over the place in preference to cheaper nat gas based power. Coal fired power will be the primary source of power in many places with no local alternative and limited grid capacity to other sources of power elsewhere.
The consequence is that those places where coal fired power generation cannot be easily substituted and closed down will be ”high power price hubs”. If we imagine physical power prices as a topological map, geographically across Germany then the locations where coal fired power is needed will rise up like power price hill-tops amid a sea of lower power prices set by cheaper nat gas + CO2 or power prices depressed by high penetration of renewable energy.
Coal fired power generation used to be a cheap and safe power bet. Those forced to rely on coal fired power will however in the coming years face higher and higher, local power costs both in absolute terms and in relative terms to other non-coal-based power locations.
Coal fired power in Germany is increasingly very expensive both versus the cost of nat gas + CO2 and versus forward German power prices. Auch, it will hurt more and more for coal fired power producers and more and more for consumers needing to buy it.
And if we graph in the most efficient nat gas power plants, CCGTs, then nat gas + CO2 is today mostly at the money for the nearest three years while coal + CO2 is way above both forward power prices and forward nat gas + CO2 costs.
Number of hours in the year (normal year = 8760 hrs) when the cost of coal + CO2 and nat gas + CO2 in the German spot power market (hour by hour) historically has been in the money. Coal power used to run 7000 hours per year in 2012-2016, Baseload. Coal in Germany was only in-th-money for 3000 hours in 2023. That is versus the average, hourly system prices in Germany. But local, physical prices will likely have been higher where coal is concentrated and where there is no local substitution for coal in the short to medium term. Coal power will run more hours in those areas and local, physical prices need to be higher there to support the higher cost of coal + CO2.
Analys
War-premium back on the agenda?
During yesterday’s trading session, Brent Crude made significant gains, marking the largest increase in global oil prices in approximately five weeks. The front-month contract is presently trading at USD 84.3 per barrel, reflecting a robust increase of USD 2.55 per barrel (above 3%) compared to Monday morning’s opening price.
Furthermore, US crude inventories, excluding those held in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), experienced a notable decline for the first time in seven weeks. This decline suggests a heightened global demand for crude oil, which has played a pivotal role in driving up prices (further details below).
Additionally, of considerable significance is Ukraine’s unexpected success in executing precise drone strikes targeting key Russian oil infrastructure. Yesterday, Ukrainian drone strikes triggered a fire at Rosneft’s Ryazan plant, which has a daily production capacity of 340,000 barrels near Moscow. This facility is a significant provider of motor fuels for the capital region and stands as one of Russia’s largest crude-processing facilities. Notably, this incident marks the third Ukrainian drone attack on Russian refineries this week, following similar incidents at the Novoshakhtinsk and Norsi refineries.
Ukrainian strikes in Russian territories ”appear to aim at disrupting, if not influencing, the Russian elections,” Putin stated in an interview with the RIA Novosti news service released Wednesday. He added, ”Another objective seems to be securing leverage for potential negotiation purposes.”
i.e., we believe the statements suggest that Ukrainian strikes in Russian regions are perceived by Putin as strategic moves with dual purposes. Firstly, they are seen as attempts to disrupt or influence the upcoming elections in Russia, potentially destabilizing the political landscape or casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process. Secondly, they are interpreted as efforts to gain leverage in possible negotiation scenarios, implying that Ukraine seeks to strengthen its bargaining position by demonstrating its capability to inflict economic and strategic damage on Russia.
From a market perspective, it’s crucial to highlight the escalating conflict between Ukraine and Russia, which poses a significant threat to global energy markets. Russia’s role as a major oil and gas supplier is paramount, and any disruptions in its energy infrastructure could lead to widespread supply shortages and price volatility worldwide. The recent drone strikes are a clear reminder that geopolitical tensions continue to impact global oil markets. The fading ”war-premium” should now be factored in more significantly, indicating a need to brace for increased volatility ahead.
An overall significant drawdown of US inventories. In the U.S., commercial crude oil inventories, excluding those in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, dropped by 1.5 million barrels from the prior week to 447.0 million barrels, about 3% below the five-year average. Total motor gasoline inventories fell by 5.7 million barrels, also about 3% below the five-year average. Distillate fuel inventories rose by 0.9 million barrels, approximately 7% below the five-year average. Propane/propylene inventories increased by 0.7 million barrels, marking an 8% rise compared to the five-year average.
Overall commercial petroleum inventories decreased by 4.7 million barrels. Over the past four weeks, total products supplied averaged 19.9 million barrels per day, up by 1.0% from the same period last year. Motor gasoline product supplied averaged 8.7 million barrels per day, down by 1.3% from the same period last year. Distillate fuel product supplied averaged 3.7 million barrels per day over the past four weeks, up by 0.5% from the same period last year. Jet fuel product supplied increased by 2.0% compared to the same four-week period last year.
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Saharas solparker kan påverka klimat och energiproduktion globalt
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Efterfrågan på silver väntas nå sin näst högsta nivå någonsin i år
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Kakao spränger 6000 USD-nivån med bred marginal
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Neutralt råd till Lucara Diamond-aktien
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Ryssland tillför mer vete till en marknad som redan ser ett överutbud
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Storskalig produktion av fossilfri mineralgödsel baserad på vätgas etableras i Luleå
-
Nyheter4 veckor sedan
Christian Kopfer om skog, olja och metaller
-
Nyheter2 veckor sedan
Den eviga korrelationen mellan guldpriset och ETF-fonder är bruten