Varför naturgaspriset stiger

UNG ETF Varför naturgaspriset stigerPrata om en divergens. Precis som råolja har gjort rubriker för sina ögonblickliga dragningar på nackdelen, har en annan energiprodukt varit i nyheten för dess lika förvånande drag mot uppsidan. Varför naturgaspriset stiger.

ETFer knutna till naturgas har stigit i tandem, uppvaknande från en femårig slummer som orsakat bara smärta och frustration för investerare. Den 19 november var den United States Natural Gas (NYSEArca: UNG) med ett förvaltat kapital om 693 miljoner dollar, som spårar naturgasterminer, 64,1% året innan, efter att ha varit i rött för året så sent som i september.

UGAZ rusar, DGAZ gör det inte

Hävstångsprodukten VelocityShares 3X Long Natural Gas ETN (UGAZ), som är nästan lika populär som sin konkurrent, med 604 miljoner dollar i tillgångar, är nu upp 157% till år. UGAZ var nere 25% den 14 september innan rallyet började.

Samtidigt är det någon som är olycklig att satsa på fallande naturgaspriser via $ 520 miljoner VelocityShares 3X Inverse Natural Gas ETN (DGAZ) i en värld av skada. ETN är nere 91% år-till-datum. Dessa levererade och omvända produkter är handelsverktyg och är inte avsedda att vara buy-and-hold-investeringar.

År-till-datum-avkastning

Högst sedan 2014

Naturgaspriserna som flyttas till bara strax över 5 USD/mmbtu befinner sig i ett territorium som inte setts sedan 2014, då rekordlåga temperaturer omslöste USA som ett sydligt skift i den ”polära vortexen”, som släpptes ut frigjort arktisk luft i landet. Under den vintern fördubblades också naturgaspriserna, som toppade på 6,50 dollar och varulagret på bränslet tumblade till en 11-årig bottennivå.

I år spelar en liknande situation ut, eftersom kölden pressar in i mycket av landet, vilket ger upphov till oro över lagringsnivåernas tillräcklighet.

Att lägga till jitters, uppskattar naturgasinventarierna sin lägsta punkt på 15 år och går in i vintersättningsperioden. Tillbaka i vintern 2013/2014 nådde lagringsnivåerna 3 384 miljarder kubikfot, nära det femåriga genomsnittet. Den här gången toppar de på 3 247 bcf, 15,3% under dessa nivåer.

Varulager på låga nivåer …

Om en kall vinter leder till uttag från lager som motsvarar dem under 2013/2014 säsongen, skulle lagernivåerna sjunka 3 010 bcf i april, till en kritiskt låg 237 bcf.

Det kommer förmodligen inte att hända. Vinter måste vara brutalt kall (en möjlighet), men i det fallet kommer priserna troligen att öka tillräckligt högt för att påverka efterfrågan negativt. Det är det hausse scenario som naturgashandlare är envisioning och försöker komma framåt.

Ökning av LNG-exporten

Tillsammans med kallt väder och lagernivåer kan andra faktorer också driva upp naturgaspriserna. Som analytiker på Barclays påpekade uppnådde amerikanska exporten av flytande naturgas (LNG) 4,7 bcf / d i månaden när nya exportterminaler kom online.

Medan förväntat ökade av exporten upp mot bränsle till en redan nervös marknad. Tekniska nivåer bröts och tvingade blankare att täcka fritt, vilket ledde till att priserna för naturgasfutures avvek från fundamenta, säger analytikerna.

Även traders verkar vara överens om att nuvarande priser inte nödvändigtvis återspeglar de långsiktiga utsikterna för varan. Priserna för naturgaskontrakt daterad maj 2019-en månad när vintern solidt kommer att ligga i backspegeln – nådde endast 2,80 dollar samtidigt som priserna på frontmånaden var nära $ 5.

Aktiekurserna i naturgasproducenter visar en liknande bild. De minskade faktiskt som naturgaspriserna steg. Den 122 miljoner dollar First Trust Natural Gas ETF (FCG) är nere 15,6% år-till-datum.

Ökad Produktion

Det beror på att produktionen av naturgas i USA fortsätter att öka kraftigt. År 2018 är torr naturgasproduktion på väg att öka över 11% till en rekord 83,2 bcf / d, enligt Energy Information Administration. Tillväxten kan vara liknande eller högre nästa år, särskilt om priserna ökar.

”Trots låga lagringsnivåer på grund av stark tillväxt kan USA: s naturgasproduktion att sänka prispressen under 2019”, säger EIB.

Analytiker på Barclays håller med om att ”en nedåtgående korrigering [i priser] är sannolikt, om inte Mother Nature fortsätter att spela in i tjurarnas händer.”

Investerare i naturgasfonder kommer att behöva väga den starka produktionen av naturgasproduktion mot potentialen för en närmande vinterrelaterad prisökning.

Naturgaspriset

Erosion of Qatar’s dominance in LNG could drive demand responsiveness

Erosion of Qatar’s dominance in LNG could drive demand responsiveness

The recent Saudi Arabia-led confrontation with Qatar could drive an increase in the use of flexible liquefied natural gas contracts and thus allow demand to be more responsive to price. Erosion of Qatar’s dominance in LNG could drive demand responsiveness.

As we noted in “US natural gas – international demand unlikely to absorb domestic glut”, the liquefied natural gas (LNG) market is in the midst of change. Qatar is the world’s largest producer of LNG with most LNG transacting in long-term contracts at fixed price. However, the emergence of Australia and the US as large players in the market will lead to growth in flexible contracts. Based on EIA projections, the US is likely rise from being a negligible player (less than 1% of global supply) to the world’s third largest (after Qatar and Australia), with the US LNG market growing six-fold by 2020.

(Click to enlarge)

This development could resemble the evolution we saw in the oil market in the 1970s and 1980s

This development could resemble the evolution we saw in the oil market in the 1970s and 1980s. Until the late 1970s, almost 90% of the world’s crude oil was sold under long-term contracts at prices set by the major oil companies. OPEC produced 67% of the free world’s crude oil, allowing it to dominate the price and quantity of oil sold. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, market-based spot and futures trading gained in importance as production from the non-OPEC countries surpassed OPEC oil production and as non-OPEC producers went to the spot markets to build market share. By the end of 1982, almost half of all internationally-traded oil was traded on exchanges using flexible futures contracts.

Prices driven by local fundamentals

Unlike crude oil, the global natural gas market is fragmented with prices driven by local fundamentals. LNG, which is gas turned into liquid and then shipped before re-gasification at destination, represents a small proportion of the local natural gas market. For example, the price of natural gas in the US is less than half the price of natural gas in Europe or Asia. While the US natural gas futures (Henry Hub) is the most liquid market and is used as main benchmark, prices move in response to domestic fundamentals leaving it a poor hedge for natural gas prices in other countries. In addition, the size of the LNG market is currently too small for LNG to truly impact on natural gas futures prices.

Considering this, the recent Saudi-led confrontation with Qatar can pose a risk to global supplies of LNG. Although shipments from the country have not been affected as yet, we cannot rule out an impact if the impasse intensifies. We believe that it could be a catalyst to quicken the migration away from long-term fixed contracts with Qatar to flexible contracts in countries like US and Australia. With importing countries eager to maintain energy security, they may demand Qatar also alter contracts to be more flexible (especially for new contracts).

Nitesh Shah, Research Analyst at ETF Securities

Nitesh is a Commodities Strategist at ETF Securities. Nitesh has 13 years of experience as an economist and strategist, covering a wide range of markets and asset classes. Prior to joining ETF Securities, Nitesh was an economist covering the European structured finance markets at Moody’s Investors Service and was a member of Moody’s global macroeconomics team. Before that he was an economist at the Pension Protection Fund and an equity strategist at Decision Economics. He started his career at HSBC Investment Bank. Nitesh holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the London School of Economics and a Master of Arts in International Economics and Finance from Brandeis University (USA).

US natural gas international demand unlikely to absorb domestic glut

US natural gas international demand unlikely to absorb domestic glut

Commodity Research US natural gas international demand unlikely to absorb domestic glut

Highlights

  • Expansion of natural gas production in the US at a time when output of other fuels is also expected to increase will mean that the US will become more reliant on exports.
  • The US is reliant on NAFTA members for export demand. The risk of disappointment at a time of trade frictions seem high. An increase in inventory over the next six months seems a likely outcome.
  • The US’s role in the global liquefied natural trade is likely to rise. The US could prove to be a positive disruptive force, improving global natural gas security and pricing infrastructure. But it is unlikely make a material difference this year and thus exports are unlikely alleviate the US’s production glut.

End of gas as a transition fuel?

In 2014 President Obama labelled natural gas a “bridge fuel” to help the US meet a lower carbon emission target, before further deployment of renewables. The promise of less red tape to allow businesses to utilise this fuel was supposed to have lifted demand. However, a pledge from the new Trump administration to bring back coal jobs (and presumably increase coal supply) threatens to make gas’s competitor cheaper and will likely weaken demand for natural gas.

(Click to enlarge)

Production expansion

US production of natural gas is set to expand strongly this year and next on the back of legacy investment when prices were higher. This reverses the decline in production in 2016. Meanwhile US consumption is expected to decline this year (before potentially recovering next year).

(Click to enlarge)

Net exporter of gas for the first time

With domestic production outstripping consumption, the US’s reliance on imports will fall significantly. In fact, the US is likely to become a net exporter of natural gas for the first time in calendar year 2018 (and as early as Q3 2017 on a quarterly basis).

(Click to enlarge)

Risk to inventory increase…

If foreign demand for US gas remains weak, we could see inventory rise above seasonal trends, possibly by more than a standard deviation above average, as we saw in 2016.

(Click to enlarge)

…especially if foreign demand weakens

The risk of foreign demand being weak is material. Most of US’s exports is via pipeline and truck (90%). In terms of pipeline and truck exports Mexico accounts for approximately 70% of demand, while the remaining 30% goes to Canada. Both of these countries are being antagonised by the US’s stance on trade. The US’s provocation to withdraw from NAFTA is at the centre of the discord. The US’s threats to ban lumber and dairy imports from Canada and build a wall at its border with Mexico could be met with tit-for-tat retaliation. Canada is already threatening reciprocate with a ban on US coal. As Canada is an important transit point for US coal exports to Asia, that risks bloating US’s domestic coal supplies further (and thus presents a further downside risk to gas).

Moreover, it is difficult to believe that either Canada or Mexico will seek to expand their demand for US gas in an era of cheap oil (both countries are net oil exporters).

US as a disruptive force in the global LNG market

(Click to enlarge)

About 10% of US production is exported in liquefied natural gas (LNG) via vessels. The US is a relatively small producer of LNG, accounting for only 1% of global exports, but is growing rapidly. The US’https://www.etfsverige.se/etfbloggen/?s=Australias LNG growth trajectory, based on liquefaction capacity currently being built, will drive the US from being a negligible player to become the third largest after Qatar and Australia by 2022.

(Click to enlarge)

LNG relies on liquefaction infrastructure in exporting countries and regasification infrastructure in importing countries. There is little volume flexibility in global liquefaction infrastructure: apart from a significant portion (15%) that is offline due to operational issues, liquefaction operates at close to full capacity. Traditionally, global liquefaction facilities enter into long-term contracts – 80% of which are signed before the final investment decision to build a plant – and thus offer little flexibility to respond to spot prices. The US is a notable exception, preferring flexible destination and short-term contracts. The US’s rapid growth will offer spare capacity.

In terms of regasification, infrastructure lead times are much shorter. Today, global LNG import capacity is roughly three times the level of global export capacity. In theory, there is plenty of regasification capacity to absorb an expansion in liquefied exports.

The market is not accustomed to be responsive to prices because of supply inflexibly resulting from long-term contacts. However, the rapid growth of US LNG – that is generally not tied to long-term contracts – could disrupt the status quo and allow importers to opportunistically buy gas when prices are cheap. The US could become a swing producer in the natural gas market, buffering supply disruptions elsewhere and allowing importers to flexibly increase/decrease gas in their power generation mix in accordance with price. We view this a positive development from a global gas security perspective as well as its impact on smoothing the supply that could be subject to boom-bust cycles.

However, we don’t think that the long-term growth in foreign demand for US gas supplies will have a material impact on US gas prices this year, not least because demand in Asia and Europe (the largest import markets) is currently very weak.

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value. This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States. This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents. ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction.  No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.  

Recovery Fuels Natural Gas Demand

Recovery Fuels Natural Gas Demand

ETF Securities – Recovery Fuels Natural Gas Demand

Highlights

US natural gas prices are likely to stay under pressure in Q1 2015 if mild weather conditions persist and underground stocks approach five year average levels.
From March, we should see historically low prices and strong U.S. consumption encourage utilisation of natural gas by industrial producers.
Firms within the electricity generation sector, compelled by environmental legislation and abundant domestic supply, should continue to substitute coal for natural gas.

The aforementioned factors should ensure healthy demand for US gas in the year to come prompting a gradual climb in the natural gas price to US$3.6/MMBtu by the start of H2 2015.

Beyond 2015 important themes for natural gas are the development of the newly liberalised Mexican energy markets, construction of US LNG export terminals and the use of natural gas in transportation.

Download the complete report (.pdf)

For more information contact:

ETF Securities Research team
ETF Securities (UK) Limited
T +44 (0) 207 448 4336
E info@etfsecurities.com

Important Information

This communication has been provided by ETF Securities (UK) Limited (”ETFS UK”) which is authorised and regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (the ”FCA”).

When being made within Switzerland, this communication is for the exclusive use by ”Qualified Investors” (within the meaning of Article 10 of Section 3 of the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act (”CISA”)) and its circulation among the public is prohibited.

The information contained in this communication is for your general information only and is neither an offer for sale nor a solicitation of an offer to buy securities. This communication should not be used as the basis for any investment decision. Historical performance is not an indication of future performance and any investments may go down in value.

This document is not, and under no circumstances is to be construed as, an advertisement or any other step in furtherance of a public offering of shares or securities in the United States or any province or territory thereof. Neither this document nor any copy hereof should be taken, transmitted or distributed (directly or indirectly) into the United States.

This communication may contain independent market commentary prepared by ETFS UK based on publicly available information. Although ETFS UK endeavours to ensure the accuracy of the content in this communication, ETFS UK does not warrant or guarantee its accuracy or correctness. Any third party data providers used to source the information in this communication make no warranties or representation of any kind relating to such data. Where ETFS UK has expressed its own opinions related to product or market activity, these views may change. Neither ETFS UK, nor any affiliate, nor any of their respective, officers, directors, partners, or employees accepts any liability whatsoever for any direct or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication or its contents.

ETFS UK is required by the FCA to clarify that it is not acting for you in any way in relation to the investment or investment activity to which this communication relates. In particular, ETFS UK will not provide any investment services to you and or advise you on the merits of, or make any recommendation to you in relation to, the terms of any transaction.  No representative of ETFS UK is authorised to behave in any way which would lead you to believe otherwise. ETFS UK is not, therefore, responsible for providing you with the protections afforded to its clients and you should seek your own independent legal, investment and tax or other advice as you see fit.