The Receding Energy Crisis

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
The Receding Energy Crisis
Loading
/

Suppose for a moment that the Sierra Club was a political party, with candidates running and elected officials in government. They might look like Germany’s Green Party, which has drawn support from idealistic German voters since the 1980s. They are politically left, view everything through the narrow prism of environmentalism and have a history of pacifism although in recent years have become less so.

In other words, they promote wholly impractical solutions to the big problems of today. For Germans worried about economic growth, cheaper energy and national security, the Greens have little useful to say.

In 2011 the Greens’ fervent desire to shut down all nuclear power became a reality when Chancellor Angela Merkel led the Bundestag to do just that, forming the cornerstone of the world’s dumbest set of energy policies.

In this weekend’s election their share of the vote slipped by 3.1% to 11.6% compared with 2021. Few other countries are so burdened (see Germany’s Costly Climate Leadership).

European energy companies have adopted more aggressive renewables targets than their US counterparts, which has hurt operating performance and caused their stock prices to lag. BP recently abandoned their target to increase renewables generation 20X by 2030. Despite the claims by many environmental extremists that solar and wind are cheap, profits are elusive in this area and electricity prices where renewables dominate are high.

The only energy transition of any consequence in the US is the one from coal to gas (see The Natural Gas Energy Transition). One of my favorite charts shows the increase in energy output from natural gas consistently running 8X higher than renewables over the past couple of decades.

Many commentators are distracted by % growth rates which always appear impressive from a low starting point, creating the impression of dramatic change. They mistakenly think the country is rapidly shifting to solar and wind, which wasn’t happening even before the election.

Wood Mackenzie offers an interesting perspective on the drivers of natural gas demand in different regions of the world. In the US its reliability in power generation is seen as key to developing the most sophisticated AI models. Data centers are wholly avoiding weather-dependent power, which is useless to them and prohibitively expensive with or without costly back-up for when it’s dunkelflaute (German for calm and cloudy).

In Europe, Wood Mackenzie finds gas-fired power is gaining support to compensate for renewables’ intermittency and seasonal needs. This is where the world’s most expensive power is found. In this blog post, Robert Bryce listens to a London cab driver complaining that his energy bill has more than tripled in four years. The UK is “hurtling toward net-zero oblivion.”

Wood Mackenzie adds that in SE Asia gas is a vital source of baseload power to reduce their reliance on coal, which pollutes and generates as much as 2X the greenhouse gas emissions as natural gas. The US can help lower emissions with LNG exports that displace coal, allowing the region to emulate our success in cutting CO2.

Chris Wright, our new energy secretary and former CEO of Liberty Energy, has a view that’s shared by vast numbers of voters. Human-induced rising CO2 levels are real. But it’s just one of several major global challenges including energy poverty, malnutrition and endemic diseases. In spite of billions of words spilled in the media, our lives haven’t been much affected. It’s hard to maintain a permanent crisis that lasts for generations.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has morphed into a cheerleader for renewables in recent years. Their annual forecasts omit the most plausible scenarios in favor of absurdly unrealistic ones. Perhaps in response to criticism, the IEA is contemplating restoring the Current Policies Scenario in their next publication. This is the only one remotely worth consideration and restoring it may bring back an element of credibility.

EVs are undergoing a reality check. German automaker Porsche is spending over $800 million this year on traditional engines and hybrids as their EV sales continue to plummet. The most successful EV market is China where a new EV costs under $10K. This seems the right approach. At that price in the US range anxiety wouldn’t matter because households could make 95% of their trips on an overnight charge and still keep a regular car for longer journeys.

The rollout of US charging stations under the Inflation Reduction Act NEVI program has been painfully slow. Politico Energy reports that only 56 new stations were added last year, and now the Administration has ordered states to pause any such spending. With the outlook for EVs uncertain, I can’t see the point in buying much more than the road-worthy golf carts that glide around places like Naples, FL.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Is Capex Back?

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Is Capex Back?
Loading
/

It seems a lifetime ago, but in the latter stages of the capital bust that was the shale revolution, capex plans were often poorly received. In late 2018 Targa Resources (TRGP) drew the ire of investors when then-CEO Joe Bob Perkins dismissed criticism by calling their spending plans “capital blessings” (see 4Q18 Energy Infrastructure Earnings Wrap Up).

It was around this time that Energy Transfer CEO Kelcy Warren said, “A monkey could make money in this business right now.” following a strong quarter earlier in the year.

Nonetheless, capex plans often failed to draw enthusiasm, and the pandemic was yet to come. On March 20, 2020 when MLP closed end funds were self-immolating (see MLP Closed End Funds – Masters Of Value Destruction), TRGP traded as low at $3.66. Last Wednesday it traded at $211. Your blogger doesn’t regret missing that buying opportunity – I’m happy enough not to have had to sell at the time.

Since then, capital discipline has provided a tailwind for sector performance. Investors cheered reduced spending plans. That wretched little girl Greta and her miserable cohort helped by protesting against reliable energy, which motivated companies to trim spending. Leverage fell, dividends grew and companies began buying back stock.

Hug a climate protester and offer to drive them to their next protest

The sector is moving into a new phase. Climate protesters with their dystopian world view have been discredited. Traditional energy is back in fashion. Trump promotes US oil and gas exports at every opportunity. Data centers are spurring growth in gas-generated power.

Reflective of this emerging trend, Energy Transfer (ET) surprised with an increase in growth capex to $5BN for 2025 along with $1.1BN in maintenance capex. Prior expectations had been for around $4BN in total capex. Among their projects was the first of eight gas power plants that are supporting their own operations. They’ve received requests from 62 power plants and 70 data centers to date.

Williams Companies (WMB) announced two small acquisitions totaling $632MM. Although they have yet to announce a specific data center related deal, the company expects to meet significant new natural gas demand from data centers.

Given the almost 58X recovery in TRGP since the 2020 low, Joe Bob Perkins can probably claim that he was right and his critics, including your blogger, were wrong. Targa became fully integrated from the Permian basin to the Gulf of America in 2019 with the completion of its Grand Prix Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) pipeline.

Subsequent investments including the Daytona NGL Pipeline to expand the Grand Prix system further improved vertical integration. This allowed them to provide services to E&P companies all along the value chain from gathering and processing to fractionation, storage, transportation, and across their export docks. Midstream companies call this multiple opportunities to “touch the molecule.”  TRGP’s Grand Prix network moved 872K barrels per day of NGLs during 4Q, with capacity estimated at 1.1 million.

TRGP’s 2025 capex was increased above the $2.3BN expected figure to $2.6-2.8BN. JPMorgan reported this as bringing forward later years’ spending in response to increased producer activity, which sounds like a good thing. They recently announced Delaware Express a 30-inch, 100mile pipeline expansion of Grand Prix into the Delaware Basin in Texas.

Wells Fargo calculates that over the past five years TRGP has invested $13BN to earn a 20% return on invested capital. Only WMB and Cheniere can boast higher returns.

To quote my partner Henry Hoffman, “TRGP is just a wonderful example of how this franchise model works with full integration.”

In spite of these examples, capex is not growing across the sector. Wells Fargo sees little if any increase over the next several years. The opportunities are limited to companies in the natural gas business and others like TRGP that have created a uniquely integrated value chain that is drawing additional demand. Growth spending remains tied to clearly identified projects, which should assure attractive returns.

In other news, President Trump is using every opportunity to promote exports of US oil and gas. At a recent lunch with his Japan counterpart they discussed sending LNG from Alaska. This would require completion of an 800-mile pipeline across Alaska’s north slope, a difficult project that has been contemplated many times over decades but not yet attempted because of difficult terrain.

High level discussions have also taken place with India. Currently there are no US LNG export terminals on the Pacific, although Sempra’s Costa Azul project in Mexico, fed by U.S. gas, is expected to start commercial operations next year.

Given the attention Trump is lavishing on LNG exports, it still seems to us that any indication Europe is planning to increase gas imports from Russia will be poorly received in the White House.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

 

Will Europe Feed The Crocodile?

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Will Europe Feed The Crocodile?
Loading
/

Among Winston Churchill’s many memorable quotes is, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

This applies to some European countries’ posture towards Russia. The Economist recently asked, Will Europe return to Putin’s gas? Could they return to their reliance on Russian energy? The question has been buffeting LNG stocks in recent days. It would appear inconceivable that the continent should go back down that road, after Russia weaponized its gas supply following the invasion of Ukraine.

Volumes through Nord Stream gradually fell throughout 2022 until an explosion ruptured three of the four pipes that make up Nord Stream 1 and 2 in September. Germany scrambled to lease Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs). Europe’s LNG benchmark TTF soared by over 10X.

Even today, the TTF benchmark trades at over $15 per Million BTUs (MMBTUs) versus $3.60 in the US.

High energy prices are a headwind to GDP growth. Euro-area growth of 0.7% last year and this compares unfavorably with the US which is chugging along at 2.8%. Europe has lagged the US for many years and their green energy policies are partly to blame for persistent underperformance.

Germany has the worst energy policies of any country (see Germany’s Costly Climate Leadership). Their energy transition, or “Energiewende” has seen a huge focus on solar and wind even while they’ve shut down nuclear. Dependence on Russian gas was another strategic blunder. They’ve even coined “dunkelflaute”, the name for cloudy, calm days when renewables are just expensive junk. Germany has endured periods of dunkelflaute in recent years, forcing them to use more coal and gas (see Lemming Leadership).

Gas prices have remained high since the invasion. This has caused many companies to complain that they can no longer manufacture profitably in Germany (see Germany Pays Dearly For Failed Energy Policy).

Russian gas imports have fallen but not disappeared. Europe’s stance towards Ukraine’s efforts to repel its invader is one of qualified support. They’re providing money and certain weapons in a calibrated manner intended to avoid causing too great offense. They’d like to constrain Russian energy exports but still need some natural gas so prices don’t go too high.

US direct negotiations with Russia over Ukraine therefore open the question of what Russian gas exports will look like following the end of hostilities. Much of the gas Russia used to send through Nord Stream has remained in place in Siberia, although they have been able to increase LNG exports.

Negotiations with China on building the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline have dragged on for years. This would more than double the pipeline’s current capacity, but China has shown little urgency to reach an agreement.

Since Europe never completely stopped buying Russian gas, they’d presumably be open to buying more. This has caused some to consider whether the sabotaged Nord Stream pipeline could be repaired and re-opened.

There’s no precedent for such a project. The pipeline runs from northern Russia across the Baltic to Germany. It’s made of steel 1.6 inches thick, with another 4.3 inches of concrete wrapped around them. There are around 100,000 sections of pipeline each weighing 24 metric tonnes.

Following the explosion in 2022 three of the four pipelines flooded with seawater. It’s not clear this could ever be restored to service. The pipelines have been suffering corrosion for the past two and a half years. Repairs would mean either replacing the damaged sections  or patching them up in place.

This would require specialized ships with cranes strong enough to lift the components. The pipeline would then need to be laboriously inspected along its entire length. Scores of divers would be required. Much of the pipeline lies at depths of 250-300 feet.

The seawater would need to be pumped out, not a trivial task since the pumps and compression stations were designed to move natural gas, not much heavier water.

Two years ago the owners (majority owner Gazprom along with Wintershall, Engie, Gasunie and E.ON) met to discuss how to preserve the pipeline for possible re-use in the future. E.ON has already written its stake to zero. It’s currently mothballed. Many observers think it’s beyond repair.

Assuming technical solutions could be implemented to restore gas supplies on Nord Stream, would this mean a political agreement? In his first term President Trump railed against Germany’s planned construction of Nord Stream, rightly asking why US troops were stationed in Germany offering a defense again their gas supplier.

It’s hard to imagine Europe increasing gas imports from Russia without Trump raising the same issue. US LNG exports to Europe surged following the loss of Russian supply. It’s no exaggeration to say that America kept the lights on in Europe over the past couple of years. Nonetheless, so far this year Europe’s LNG imports from Russia are running at record levels.

Trump has been a vocal proponent of growing US oil and gas exports. He’s suggested to the EU that LNG exports could be linked to tariff negotiations.

Markets have been interpreting a Ukraine cease fire as causing Russian gas exports to Europe to displace those from the US. We don’t think that’s likely.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

Gas Projections Keep Going Up

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Gas Projections Keep Going Up
Loading
/

On Thursday morning Williams Companies released their earnings without the rumored announcement of a Behind The Meter (BTM) deal. The stock briefly dipped as algos reacted to the news release but was soon rallying because the broad outlook for natural gas demand remains strong.

It’s turning into a global high tech arms race. Proliferation of data centers is driven by two factors: (1) every country wants to control the physical location of the AI that’s increasingly viewed as crucial to growth (2) keeping the physical distance between data centers and users short enough to eliminate any noticeable latency.

Last week French President Macron announced that 1 Gigawatt of nuclear power would be dedicated to support $BNs in investments in AI projects. Along with other initiatives from Brookfield Asset Management and Middle Eastern investors, these will be part of $113BN in commitments that Macron will unveil next week.

The reliance on nuclear power, which provides over 60% of France’s electricity, is the European way of building data centers while maintaining fealty to their green ambitions. Macron even offered his own version of drill baby, drill: “Plug baby, plug.”

Vice President JD Vance was at a French AI summit warning  against Europe’s desire to impose regulations that would affect US technology companies.

The proliferation of new data centers is making it hard to estimate the growth in global power demand. The Energy Transfer deal with Cloudburst announced on Monday promised 450 Billion BTUs of natural gas every day to run a gas turbine. This is almost 0.5% of daily US gas production, a huge amount (see AI Demand Ramps Up).

However, there was some confusion because reports estimated this would produce 1.2 Gigawatts (GW) of power daily, whereas most observers would expect the amount of natural gas contemplated to produce three times as much power.

ET’s earnings call includes the term “data center” 27 times, reflective of the mix of questions the management team fielded from analysts. They’ve received requests from 70 prospective data centers across 12 states. If each one was the same size as the Cloudburst BTM agreement (ie 0.45 Billion Cubic Feet per Day, BCF/D) that would add up to 31 BCF/D of gas demand.

It shows the uncertainty around forecasts related to data centers. Wells Fargo revised their ten year growth forecast for US natural gas consumption from 12 BCF/D to 11 BCF/D in the wake of the DeepSeek news a couple of weeks ago (see Pipelines And The Jevons Paradox).

The 1 BCF/D reduction by Wells Fargo suggests a precision that doesn’t exist for 2035 gas consumption. They’re simply registering their view that DeepSeek is a net negative to earlier projections.

Data centers need 24X7 power which is why they’re not planning to rely on solar and wind. Even combined cycle natural gas plants have downtime for maintenance – typically around 5%. Diesel generators and batteries are typically planned for back-up. Using batteries 5% of the time seems much more sensible than the 60-70% that they’re needed for weather-dependent solar and wind.

ET’s CEO Marshall “Mackie” McCrea couldn’t resist commenting: “How wonderful is life after this election when we have a President and an administration that loves this country that fully recognizes how blessed we are with…fossil fuel resources.”

The International Energy Agency (IEA) published a report forecasting global electricity demand will grow at 4% per annum to 2027. 85% of this growth is expected to be in emerging economies. The additional 3,500 Terrawatt Hours of power needed is equivalent to adding a new Japan every year.

The US is expected to continue the 2% growth of last year following a couple of decades of flat consumption. GDP and the population grow, but energy efficiencies offset the increase in power demand that would otherwise result.

In 2023 EU power demand slumped to the levels of two decades ago and only managed 1.4% growth last year. European industry still pays around 2X the US price for electricity and 50% more than China.

The IEA is forecasting 1% annual growth in global natural gas power generation through 2027. This is probably too low. Last year was +2.6%. The IEA retains their cheerleading role for renewables.

We’ve been bulls on natural gas demand for years. We think even we underestimated the potential.

Finally, we were very saddened to lose long-time friend Austin Sayre who died peacefully at the age of 94. Austin asked me to manage his portfolio back in 2009 when I wasn’t giving any thought to managing other people’s money. He was our first client.

Austin was witness to my early efforts at golf, having generously offered to sponsor me at our local club in New Jersey. When I once took seven strokes on a par 3, he memorably commented, “You sure got your moneysworth on that hole!”

Austin was an unfailingly charming and upbeat man. I feel privileged to have known him. Austin will be sorely missed by many people. A life well lived.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

AI Demand Ramps Up

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
AI Demand Ramps Up
Loading
/

On Monday Energy Transfer announced the first Behind The Meter (BTM) agreement of the AI era. They’ll provide up to 450 Million Cubic Feet per Day of natural gas to a data center being built by CloudBurst Data Centers in central Texas.

This represents 0.45 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D), almost 0.5% of US gas production and a staggeringly large amount for a single location.

As we noted recently (see Hyperscalers Plow Ahead), BTM arrangements don’t spread the cost of new power infrastructure across existing users. This avoids triggering a political backlash since data centers generate few jobs.

A couple of weeks ago DeepSeek cast doubt on the forecast increases in power demand that have helped boost natural gas infrastructure stocks (see Pipelines And The Jevons Paradox). Since then, companies such as Meta and Amazon have reaffirmed their capex budgets on data centers.

Morgan Stanley estimates that the first data centers to support the $500BN Stargate project that President Trump recently announced with require 0.66 BCF/D if fully supported with natural gas driven electricity.

Most observers have concluded that ten-year energy forecasts are uncertain and therefore not much different. Just the Cloudburst and Stargate deals could consume 1% of US gas output and suggest that natural demand forecasts could be revised higher.

The climate extremists’ view of the energy transition is undergoing a reassessment. The Army Corp of Engineers has temporarily paused 168 permits for renewables projects. Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne stopped investment in offshore US wind following the election, although allowed that it could resume after four years.

Shell recently wrote off their investment in the Atlantic Shores wind project that was planned off the coast of New Jersey. Even though New Jersey is unfortunately a very blue state, offshore wind turbines are wildly unpopular with Republican residents of the Jersey shore. Their complaints include the spoiled view and the construction required for high voltage cables to bring the power through beachfront communities.

Atlantic Shores now looks unlikely to progress, cheering the red part of the garden state where we have a summer home. Newark Airport’s Terminal A still sports ads promoting the project. I expect they’ll soon be removed.

We don’t make a living forecasting EV sales, but if pressed would suggest they’re going to be soft. The rollout of charging stations funded under the Inflation Reduction Act has been slow, with only 176,000 in place by October, just 22% more than a year earlier.

The White House wants to stop building new charging stations. Withholding funding may ultimately be over-ruled by the courts, but the uncertainty about charging availability is likely to dissuade many potential EV buyers since range anxiety is one of their biggest concerns.

Volkswagen is slashing capacity at its EV factory in Zwichau, Germany only five years after it was hailed by former Chancellor Angela Merkel for being an EV-only facility. Meanwhile BMW plans to continue investing in internal combustion engines, hedging its bets.

Last year Ford lost $5.1BN on EVs and expects this year to be worse. Western auto companies are switching to EVs faster than consumers, with deleterious financial results.

Many Republican voters were drawn to Trump’s promise to “drill baby, drill” during the election. Energy investors are less enthusiastic. They remember the poor returns under Trump 1.0 that were reversed under Biden, even though in 2019 he pledged to end fossil fuels.

So it was mildly surprising to see Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) cancel their plans to build the Sea Port Oil Terminal (SPOT) off the coast of Texas. This would have accommodated some of the largest crude tankers, but EPD found insufficient customer interest to proceed.

Energy infrastructure usually gets built only when firm commitments to use it are in hand. This shows that in spite of Trump’s pledge to boost oil output, financial returns need to be there. E&P companies are less enthusiastic. Financial discipline continues, which should appeal to energy investors.

Finally, a follow-up to our recent video (watch Why Not Nuclear?). The International Energy Agency found that nuclear plants delivered since 2000 in the US and Europe were on average eight years late and cost two-and-a-half times their original budget.

The nuclear industry desperately needs to settle on standard designs that will allow economies of scale in components and simplify the regulatory process. Britain’s Sizewell C plant is designed to match as closely as possible the Hinckley Point C reactor where construction began in 2016.

US nuclear manufacturer Westinghouse was forced into bankruptcy in 2017 because of cost overruns at its Vogtle plant in Georgia, where completing units 3 and 4 took twice as long at double the projected cost.

Having learned from this experience, newly capitalized Westinghouse is negotiating to build plants in Ukraine, Poland and Bulgaria based on its AP1000 design. No modifications are allowed. Determined to control costs by sticking with what they know works, CEO Patrick Fragman says, “Basically, you can choose the color.”

The nuclear industry needs more of that.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

Hyperscalers Plow Ahead

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Hyperscalers Plow Ahead
Loading
/

On Friday both the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times ran stories about planned capex on data centers by the big US tech companies. The DeepSeek news of two weeks ago hasn’t resulted in any discernible change. The case for increased power generation remains intact.

On Wednesday Williams Companies will report their quarterly earnings. They have hinted that they may announce a “behind the meter” (BTM) deal to provide natural gas for a dedicated power station co-located with a new data center. They have in the past said there are numerous discussions under way. BTM arrangements bypass the existing grid, which speeds up approvals and installation.

Electricity grids operate with high fixed costs that are broadly shared across customers, commensurate with their usage. Adding significant new infrastructure to accommodate growth in demand spreads that new expense across the user base, in effect subsidizing the new users at the expense of the existing ones. Regulators will look carefully at this to ensure rates don’t go up unreasonably.

Talen Energy and the PJM grid plan to provide nuclear power to a new data center being built by Amazon Web Services. FERC rejected the agreement, finding it was potentially adverse to utility customers because it would require additions to the existing grid infrastructure and possibly increase rates for everyone. BTM is a way to avoid that.

However, it means the data center is exposed to downtime on its co-located power source. Natural gas combined cycle power plants typically run 95% of the time, far better than the 20-35% common with solar and wind, which is why renewables aren’t much use to data centers. Nonetheless, even 5% downtime for maintenance leaves a coverage gap that a grid connection could otherwise alleviate. As further announcements are made we’ll see how the industry is addressing the challenge.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) stocks slipped last week on reports that the White House is negotiating directly with Russia to end the war in Ukraine. There’s some speculation that the conclusion of hostilities could prompt a resumption of EU imports of natural gas from Russia, reducing the need for US LNG.

The Nord Stream gas pipelines that sent Russian gas to Germany rank up there among the dumbest energy policies in history. Trump railed against this dependency during his first term in office, rightly asking why US troops were stationed in Germany to protect against an attack from their gas supplier. Since the invasion Russia’s natural gas exports have fallen by more than half. It has struggled to find buyers and to get its gas to market.

We think any natural gas agreement as part of a Ukraine ceasefire is more likely to embed EU imports from the US not Russia. Thoughtful European policymakers won’t want to repeat the misplaced trust in Russia of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who should be spending her retirement giving speeches apologizing for her strategic blunders.

Venture Global (VG) has traded off sharply since its IPO. The market is applying a management discount based on how they’re perceived by customers. Last week Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné said they decided not to become a long term buyer of LNG from VG because they didn’t trust the company. This was in spite of the attractive terms being offered.

Once an LNG “train” or export facility is fully commissioned it is generally expected to begin shipping LNG under the terms of its long term contracts. VG’s interpretation of commissioning for its Calcasieu Pass terminal has resulted in a dispute over $BNs in profits that Shell, BP, Galp and Repsol believe they should have earned. VG said the terminal wasn’t complete, allowing them to reap huge profits following the spike in gas prices after Russia invaded Ukraine (see Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained).

The dispute is in arbitration. Even if VG prevails, their reputation is in shatters. Some of the biggest buyers of LNG won’t do business with them. Even if they do, it’s likely that they’ll negotiate from the perspective that good faith isn’t in the VG lexicon.

Add to this VG’s initial IPO price target which would have valued the company at over $100BN, more than double Cheniere who handles half of America’s LNG exports. Even at its greatly reduced IPO price it was still, briefly, the most valuable publicly listed LNG company. Since then it’s slumped, to the chagrin of IPO buyers who are down by a third.

It seems that if VG shows you an attractive LNG export proposal, you’re supposed to be wary. And if the founders want you to buy some of their stock, the profitable move is to go short.

Founders Michael Sabel and Robert Pender have become billionaires while alienating a lot of key industry figures. VG’s management discount to its valuation is going to be around for a long time.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Bond Buyers And Tariffs

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Bond Buyers And Tariffs
Loading
/

Although the US is energy independent and a net exporter of petroleum products, we still import certain blends of crude. Canadian tar sands oil is the heavy type for which American refineries are configured as is Mexican oil. Shale oil is lighter. So we buy what we are set up to handle and sell what we’re not. This is just one example of the complex set of trade ties that bind the North American continent together.

There’s unlikely to be any economic benefit from tariffs, which can also correctly be termed import taxes. They can further non-economic goals, such as Mexico’s agreement to station 10,000 troops on our border to prevent illegal immigration. Opinions vary as to whether they’re inflationary, although most analysts agree that they’re a net negative on GDP growth. Much depends on whether retaliation leads to a ratcheting up and extended period of trade friction.

Based on the rhetoric leading up to Saturday’s announcement, they’ll be more impactful on Canada and Mexico than the US. Both countries’ currencies initially weakened vs the US$. Theoretically our trading partners could fully absorb the cost of the tariffs. In practice, as with sales taxes, it will be split between producers and consumers.

Goldman Sachs estimates that the 10% import tax (ie tariff) on Canadian crude will be 2/3rds absorbed by Canadian producers and 1/3rd by US refineries which will presumably pass this on to consumers via price hikes for gasoline and other refined products. Last year we imported 3.8 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D) of crude and 0.3 MMB/D of refined products from our northern neighbor. Mexico provides just under 0.5 MMB/D of oil.

Canada has long struggled to get its crude oil from Alberta to export markets. They don’t have any good alternatives to shipping to the US for now. The Keystone Pipeline which runs south to the Gulf of America (Chevron recently adopted this new name) runs at close to 100% capacity. It’s why TC Energy tried for years to build the Keystone XL, which Biden ultimately quashed when he took office in 2021.

The Transmountain pipeline runs west to British Columbia. Its expansion project was completed in 2024 at substantial increased expense and after long delays by the Canadian federal government who bought it from Kinder Morgan in 2018 (see A Closer Look At Canada’s Newest Pipeline). This also operates at close to full capacity. Crude oil can move by rail, but that’s substantially more expensive and not as safe. In 2013 a train carrying crude exploded in Quebec, killing 47 people (see Canada’s Failing Energy Strategy).

Canada’s crude oil options are limited.

The Administration’s goals with tariffs aren’t completely clear. Canada’s not a big source of illegal immigration or fentanyl, and there’s zero chance Canadians want to be the 51st state. Trump has claimed that we subsidize Canada in the form of our deficit with them, but that’s not the right way to think about the purchase of goods in a free market.

If the US is pursuing a narrower trade deficit, a consequence not so far considered publicly is its impact on our fiscal deficit. Over the past twelve months our trade deficit is $879BN. Those US$ that foreigners accumulate have to be invested back in the US, and a significant portion wind up in treasury securities. Canada owns $374BN. Japan owns $1.1TN and China $769BN. If our trade deficit shrinks, foreign countries will have fewer US$ to invest back in the US.

Absent a lower fiscal deficit, US savers will need to provide more of the financing which will require higher bond yields. Today’s interest rates are inadequate to induce sufficient domestic saving. Coupled with this is that an extended period of trade conflict intended to reduce our trade deficit will probably cause some countries to deem US bonds less attractive anyway for political reasons. China has been lowering its US holdings in recent years as trade tensions have risen.

There’s little reason to expect any improvement in the fiscal outlook. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency will hopefully uncover some savings, but nothing is likely to change about the trajectory without policy changes. Strong GDP growth is our best near term option.

A weaker economy due to trade friction might lower bond yields. Tariffs might be inflationary. But we’ll need people to buy our bonds, and if there are fewer foreign buyers we’ll need to own more here, which will require lower consumption and more saving by US households.

In an unintended consequence, it may turn out that running a trade deficit keeps interest rates lower than they would be otherwise. We may be on track to find out.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

Cheaper AI Probably Means More

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Cheaper AI Probably Means More
Loading
/

Following Monday’s “sputnik moment” for AI the market has had a few days to consider the ramifications of DeepSeek’s apparent breakthrough. Mark Zuckerberg reaffirmed Meta’s plans to spend $60-65BN on data centers. They have embraced an open-source approach to AI, believing that sharing code freely will drive penetration. Since DeepSeek also published their code any insights will spread to other platforms.

On Tuesday Chevron announced plans to partner with GE, Vernova and investor Engine No 1 to build gas-powered data centers. So far there’s little sign that capex plans are being trimmed, although as Zuckerberg noted it’s still too early to judge the full impact of DeepSeek.

Meanwhile Microsoft (MFST) is probing whether DeepSeek improperly used OpanAI’s proprietary model to improve its own. Energy investors are educating themselves on the power needs of AI.

Wells Fargo trimmed their forecast of the long term boost to US natural gas consumption from 12 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) to 11 BCF/D in 2035. Although directionally it’s not what energy investors would like, an 8% revision a decade out comes with substantial uncertainty.

In 1865 British economist William Jevons observed that improved efficiency in coal use led to greater consumption. Appropriately I asked ChatGPT to explain: … as technology improves the efficiency with which a resource is used, the overall consumption of that resource may increase rather than decrease.

Jevons Paradox simply means if demand elasticity exceeds supply elasticity consumption will rise, something taught in every beginner’s Economics class. This prompted MSFT CEO Satya Nadella’s tweet that the same effect might add a further boost to AI use.

We’ll just have to monitor developments in the months ahead.

Meanwhile the LNG export story continues to unfold positively. Morgan Stanley has buy recommendations on Cheniere and NextDecade (NEXT). They have a $10 price target on NEXT assuming Train 4 is completed, but they go on to add that they also expect Train 5 and that would push their price target to $15.

FERC is expected to issue their preliminary supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the end of March with the final one in July. Current expectations are for the issue to be resolved by the end of the summer.

Last year environmental extremists persuaded a judge to issue a stay on the original EIS that NEXT had relied on to move ahead with the project (see Sierra Club Shoots Itself In The Foot). It’s hard to see how the world gains from being denied cheap US natural gas. It makes energy more available to those without in emerging countries and provides a cleaner alternative to coal.

For example, India is boosting its use of domestic coal for power generation while it reduces imports, hitting another record high for coal-derived electricity last year. Renewables boosters continue to assert that solar and wind are the cheapest form of power generation, while developments relentlessly show the opposite. High renewables penetration comes with higher prices.

The Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) is losing another constituent as the remaining outstanding shares of Enlink are absorbed into Oneok (OKE). This follows a well-established trend of publicly traded partnerships going away and the pipeline sector increasingly being made up of conventional c-corps, a trend we’ve noted since 2018 (see Are MLPs Going Away?).

For investors in MLP-dedicated funds it exacerbates the problem of concentration (see AMLP Is Running Out Of Names). This is compounded by their costly non RIC-compliant structure (see AMLP Has Yet More Tax Problems). Add to these shortcomings that MLPs are generally more involved in crude oil than natural gas, which left many of them bystanders to last year’s big story (see There’s No AI in AMLP).

We are having more conversations with investors about ways to avoid these three problems.

Lastly, at the time of writing the White House is preparing to impose tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. US refineries are configured to process Canadian heavy crude more readily than the light crude that comes from shale formations. Concern about tariffs is more prevalent outside the country than here, which suggests who’s more vulnerable.

Canada’s Energy Minister Jonathan Wilkinson reminded listeners on a recent Politico Energy podcast that tariffs on Canadian crude will increase US gasoline prices, especially in the mid-west where refineries import Canadian crude. He also suggested that Canada might slow exports of hydro-based electricity from Quebec to northeastern states and natural gas to the Pacific northwest. This is ironic, since both regions have robust political commitments to renewables and are generally blue states.

Trump has suggested that oil imports may be exempted from the tariffs. There’s little apparent concern among US energy companies about the potential for economic disruption. We’ll see how it plays out, but the US looks to be in a strong position.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

Pipelines And The Jevons Paradox

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Pipelines And The Jevons Paradox
Loading
/

Venture capitalist Marc Andreessen called it, ”AI’s sputnik moment.” The news that Chinese start-up Deepseek may have leapt ahead of the US in AI caused an unpleasant start to the week. In 1957 Sputnik’s orbit led to the creation of NASA and fears that Russian satellites could attack the US from space. While Americans have not yet been moved to gaze skyward for Chinese AI-powered threats, its impact was felt by AI-linked sectors of the stock market.

Natural gas pipeline stocks that have enjoyed a tailwind from anticipated data center power demand dropped sharply. At such times it’s worth reviewing valuation and the underlying fundamentals.

The yield on the American Energy Independence Index (AEITR) recently fell below 5% as pipeline stocks continued to appreciate. Last year’s 45% total return was well in excess of cash flow growth but yields at the start of last year were unreasonably high.

Distributable Cash Flow (DCF) yields on the largest pipeline stocks are above 11%, providing ample payout coverage. Some of the lowest-yielding stocks have the highest coverage. For example, Williams Companies yielded 3.6% after its stock dropped almost 10% on Monday. But its DCF yield rose to 7.8%, more than 2X its payout and expected to grow at 7-8% into 2026. They raised their dividend on Tuesday by 5.6%. Kinder Morgan’s (KMI) yield rose to 4.2%, also more than 2X covered by its 8.6% DCF yield.

The data center story boosted both stocks over the past year. Even so, last week’s KMI earnings call was not dominated by AI expectations, with only a couple of questions on the topic which CEO Kim Dang referred to as, “singles and doubles, connecting to power plants, that types of things.”

Energy Transfer’s yield rose to 7%, higher than the sector since it trades at an MLP discount. Its DCF is almost 2X its payout yield at 13.9%. On Monday they announced a 1.6% increase.

Investors will want to assess how much data center power demand is reflected in current valuations. The capex numbers being floated for construction have been startling. Just last week Mark Zuckerberg said Meta could spend up to $65BN this year to achieve its AI goals.

Microsoft (MSFT) expects to spend $80BN this year on data centers. Meta’s stock even rose on the news, as investors contemplated that less compute-intensive AI development could boost free cash flow.

MSFT CEO Satya Nadella tweeted that the Jevons’ paradox could apply, in which efficiency improvements raise overall demand. Perhaps a breakthrough in training AI models will boost their penetration, which could drive power demand even higher than recent projections. DeepSeek’s insights will spread across the industry since it’s open source. It seems incongruous to conclude that better AI will reduce its use or its demand for reliable power.

Wells Fargo expects that the computational improvements demonstrated by DeepSeek will slow near term power demand but still sees 11 Billion Cubic feet per Day (BCF/D) of additional natural gas consumption by 2035, down modestly from their previous forecast of 12 BCF/D. Still, it’s not often that a single news development results in an altered ten year outlook.

It’s worth remembering that data centers only caught investors’ attention last year. The outlook for natural gas demand was already strong based on rising living standards in developing countries. LNG offers both sellers and buyers flexibility versus pipelines, and the US is increasing its lead as the #1 exporter.

The world is preparing to buy more. Regassification capacity, which enables importers to turn LNG back into a usable gaseous form, is growing faster than supply. For every Billion Cubic Feet (BCF) the US exports, there will be 2 BCF of regassification available. These projects were not predicated on data centers. The fundamentals for traditional energy remain sound.

Enduring such market corrections is never pleasant. They’re rarely over in a day, but history shows that eventually judgment on valuations prevails and prices respond. One good development is that forced selling from MLP closed end funds isn’t likely to depress prices much. These hapless managers including Tortoise, Kayne Anderson and Goldman Sachs destroyed enough capital during the pandemic-induced collapse that they’re now of inconsequential size (see MLP Closed End Funds – Masters Of Value Destruction).

Recent market action reminds why adding leverage to an undiversified portfolio of stocks simply betrays the hubris of the portfolio manager at the expense of the investors.

The worst performance came from Venture Global which began trading on Friday after pricing its IPO at $25, which we felt was too high (see Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained). On Tuesday it traded below $18, down 28% over two days and far worse than AI darling Nvidia.

Regardless of the outlook for domestic power demand, growing US gas exports will require a doubling of the natural gas pipelines supply to liquefaction terminals over the next four years. The regulatory environment will be more conducive to growing the production and movement of hydrocarbons. Energy is the president’s favorite sector.

AI is far from the whole story.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained

SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained
Loading
/

One source of recent volatility in midstream has come from a stock that wasn’t even listed – Venture Global (VG), the LNG exporter whose IPO priced on Thursday. The fundamentals could not be more positive. Trump has reversed the LNG export pause, wants US energy dominance and asked our trading partners to buy more American oil and gas. It’s hard to conceive of a better environment to launch an LNG IPO.

VG rather overplayed their hand though, originally seeking a valuation of over $100BN, double Cheniere’s (symbol: LNG) who handles half of all US LNG exports.

As investors contemplated VG’s proposed valuation, the effect was to highlight how cheap Cheniere is. Its stock duly rose, along with NextDecade (NEXT), a company we like that is building its first LNG export terminal.

Underwriters found quite a pushback from potential buyers on VG’s lofty pricing, and repeatedly lowered the target range. On Friday it priced at $25 – far below the mid 40s valuation underwriters had been suggesting a week earlier. Gains in other LNG stocks quickly evaporated. LNG and NEXT have gyrated without any actual trading in VG.

We still think the IPO price for VG is high – or more accurately, we think it highlights how cheap Cheniere is, at around 11X EBITDA vs 14X for VG. IPO buyers should still prefer these two stocks in our opinion.

VG also has a mixed reputation with its customers. While they have the same type of long-term sale-purchase agreements common to the industry, the spike in global natural gas prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enabled them to delay commissioning of their Calcasieu Pass terminal. Although the facility was exporting LNG, VG said it wasn’t yet fully operational, and they were therefore not bound to supply gas under the long term contracts. Instead they sold supplies on the spot market, reaping $BNs of additional profit.

Shell, BP, Galp and Repsol initiated arbitration proceedings claiming that this gas should have been supplied to them. The plaintiffs claim VG improperly gained $3.5BN. This dispute is a risk factor in VG’s S1 filing with the SEC.

It seems that Shell and the other buyers are guilty of not negotiating a tight enough contract. VG offered attractive liquefaction pricing, and perhaps the buyers accepted more delivery risk as a result. VG also took an aggressive interpretation of their obligations, evidently surprising their customers. It looks like VG’s CEO Michael Sabel is cut from the same cloth as Energy Transfer’s chairman and former CEO Kelcy Warren. It’s great to be in business with him as long as you’re sure your interests are aligned (see from 2018: Energy Transfer: Cutting Your Payout, Not Mine).

Last week in Naples, FL was miserably cold, a condition that drew little sympathy from family and friends enduring single digit morning temperatures in the northeast. The freezing weather once again showed the importance of reliable, dispatchable energy. The PJM grid, which extends from NJ to Illinois and Tennessee used record amounts of natural gas to generate the electricity customers needed to stay warm.

The claims of climate extremists that solar and wind are cheaper than traditional energy have been thoroughly discredited. Opportunistic power that’s only available when the weather co-operates requires natural gas back-up. This surplus capacity raises costs, as the chart from Bjorn Lomborg illustrates.

It’s fortunate that in the US progressives haven’t done any lasting damage with their policies, other than in a few liberal states such as California, Massachusetts and New York. Our friends on the Jersey shore are certainly happy that plans for offshore windpower appear to have stalled.

Some solar and wind can work as long as a grid doesn’t become too reliant on them. At low levels they can drift in and out of the supply mix. Dependence is costly.

It’s one of the reasons the FT wrote Davos hits ‘peak pessimism’ on Europe as US exuberance rises. Former climate czar John Kerry made time to fly there in his private jet to talk about climate change. The European energy policies that he no doubt admires prompted Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, to say it was “not pessimistic” to say that Europe was facing an “existential crisis”.

Lastly, the FT wrote something we’ve long noted – US stocks at most expensive relative to bonds since dotcom era. Valuation isn’t a good timing tool, and stocks have been relatively expensive for at least a year. But it’s worth noting, because midstream energy looks like the exception to us (see Pipelines Are Cheap; Stocks Are Not).

Last week’s post, The Energy Story’s Trifecta, makes the case and has generated a lot of positive feedback.

We have two have funds that seek to profit from this environment:

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

image_pdfimage_print