Is Energy Becoming Less Cyclical?

/2 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Is Energy Becoming Less Cyclical?
Loading
/

It’s a question posed at every mid-cycle. Observers of commodity markets will often advise that the cure for low prices is low prices. Meagre profits reduce production, eventually curbing supply and driving prices higher.

2014 was the last cycle peak for energy. The shale revolution brought new US supplies of oil and gas onto the market, which upset the prior equilibrium. The downturn that followed had run its course by 2019 when the pandemic caused another leg down. But the industry embraced financial discipline, reducing capex and improving returns.

An essay by Veriten’s Arjun Murti makes the case that the current cycle of positive returns has many years left.

Murti’s favored metric is Return On Capital Employed (ROCE), and he notes that high ROCE generally corresponds with a high weight in the S&P500. Today energy remains at an historically low 4% market weighting, while returns are the best in over three decades. Murti believes that we’re a couple of years into a 10-15 year bullish cycle.

This theory will please energy investors. But another possible explanation is that energy companies are eschewing the normal boom/bust capex spending cycle that has long pervaded their industry. High ROCE would normally draw additional capital, but continued capital parsimony generally prevails.

Adjusted for inflation, energy capex is still less than half of the 2014 peak.

Uncertainty about the path of the energy transition has added to the caution practiced by many CFOs. Climate extremists stand ready to criticize the big publicly traded energy companies and file lawsuits to impede their activities.

The other day I was in a discussion sponsored by the Naples Council on World Affairs. One participant bitterly criticized Exxon Mobil for withholding internal research decades ago that showed the potential for fossil fuel combustion to lead to global warming. I reminded him that climate extremists have been at least as disingenuous. Many have preached that the world can run entirely on solar and wind, in willful disregard of science and the facts.

If energy companies have presented facts to suit them, the Sierra Club and wretched little Greta have routinely offered policy prescriptions grounded in fantasy. Alex Haraus and his anti-LNG TikTok crowd belong in the same gang of socialists trying to impose poverty and starvation on billions of people (see White House Adopts An Energy Policy Where Everyone Loses).

The coincidence of a high industry ROCE with low market weight could have another possible explanation – that we’re in a profitable equilibrium where high returns aren’t drawing dilutive capex because the reasons for financial caution are likely to persist.

This is illustrated in the “Quadrilateral of Death” which shows low returns leading to higher oil followed by higher returns, then lower returns caused by inferior capex and finally lower prices, returning to the starting point. But today we’re sitting in the middle of the quadrilateral, with decent returns and moderate prices. Perhaps it’s the sector’s Goldilocks moment – neither too hot nor too cold. The market has found a balancing point where excess returns aren’t self-destroying because of the continued uncertainty about the energy transition.

Oil and gas projects often require a decade or more to generate adequate returns. Forecasting demand and prices over such a long period is harder than in the past. Perhaps we are at the point of Happy Equilibrium.

If you read Murti’s research paper you’ll find it informative, and perhaps like me be mildly amused at the pretentious use of plural first person pronouns. For example, at SL Advisors we are bullish on energy infrastructure. But we can’t emulate Murti when he says “we … moved to Goldman Sachs in 1999” (emphasis added) or refers to “our career.” Smile and look beyond the misused pronouns.

In other news, the White House’s moratorium on new LNG approvals has drawn criticism from moderate Democrats in Texas, Alaska and California. They’re worried that there aren’t enough progressives in their districts to offset those employed in the energy sector or perhaps don’t see this as an effective way to lower emissions.

Germany’s extreme climate policies are part of the political discourse. Siegfried Russwurm, head of Germany’s main industry association BDI, criticized the government’s approach as “dogmatic” and “absolutely toxic.” The country is facing a recession driven by high energy prices. There’s no place for nuclear power and they want to derive 80% of their electricity from solar and wind by 2030, up from 41% in 2021.

Germany’s recent progress on reduced emissions has largely come from lower industrial output. China and other developing countries will easily make up for it.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

 

Why Is Oil Still Cheap?

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Why Is Oil Still Cheap?
Loading
/

Investors often ask us why crude oil prices aren’t higher. The industry has maintained capex on new production too low to sustain current production for years, without any apparent impact on prices. More recently, the Middle East has generated a plethora of  incidents which might be expected to cause consternation about the reliability of supplies from the region. Oil tankers are avoiding the Red Sea, taking the long route around southern Africa. One of Iran’s terrorist proxies just killed three US servicemen. And yet, there’s little discernible risk premium.

One reason is US supply has surprised to the upside, reaching 13.4 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D) at the end of last year. US E&P firms have remained cautious about spending on production growth but have still managed to raise productivity with longer laterals in their horizontal drilling.

Another is that China’s recovery has been slow. Although they imported record volumes of oil last year, the rebound from the pandemic has been slow. The prevailing trend to 2019 would put them probably 3 MMB/D higher if not for Covid.

Sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and EU have been ineffective. Virtually all of their crude exports have been redirected to China and India, who are happy to buy oil at a discount to global prices. This has enabled Russia to maintain its earnings from the energy sector.

The IMF recently upgraded its 2024 GDP forecast for Russia, to 2.6%. This follows 3% last year and is double the IMF’s prior 2024 forecast. War expenditures are part of the reason, along with robust oil exports.

Russia has found other new buyers. Brazilian imports of diesel from Russia last year soared 4,600 per cent while purchases of fuel oil rose by almost 400 per cent.

Even NATO member Turkey is helping. Their Dörtyol terminal on the southern coast has seen a huge jump in shipments of Russian refined products which are then rerouted to Europe, in spite of EU sanctions. Some Russian fuel is reported to be in US warships operating in the region.

This has led some to argue that oil prices will never exceed $100 again. The FT notes that adjusted for inflation crude prices are roughly in the middle of the range that’s prevailed for over two decades.

The Biden Administration has pursued an ambiguous policy on crude prices. High oil enhances the competitiveness of EVs and should be welcomed by climate extremists. However, the White House also knows that millions of voters have more prosaic concerns such as the cost of their daily commute in a traditional car. Few dislike cheap gasoline.

One consequence is that Saudi Arabia directed Aramco to shelve plans to add 1 MMB/D to capacity, opting instead to keep output at 12 MMB/D. Almost a decade ago, when growing US shale production ate into Saudi market share, they responded by flooding the market in a desire to bankrupt the US E&P firms that were fracking. The Saudis were a year or two late, and although the US energy sector turned down, a renewed focus on innovation and capital discipline turned things around.

Today much of that US production is from bigger, well capitalized US majors following years of M&A. The Saudis don’t have the same option to harm them with lower prices. Their government deficit ballooned to $9.5BN in the most recent quarter. They need higher prices to balance the books.

Last week the CFA Society Naples held its annual forecast dinner. SL Advisors was a sponsor, and we invited some guests. The highlight of the evening was a panel discussion involving Tom Lee, Managing Partner of Fundstrat Global Advisors and Meghan Shue, Head of Investment Strategy at Wilmington Trust. It was ably moderated by CFA Naples board member Tyler Hardt.

An interesting discussion followed, with some useful points of disagreement. Tom Lee spent many years at JPMorgan and chatting with him afterwards we know some of the same people (I left in 2009).

During the Q&A, I asked how the panelists thought about climate change. Climate extremists rarely consider this issue, but equity markets don’t seem as worried as the more extreme progressives think they should be. Lee and Shue both felt that the impacts are too far away and uncertain to be a consideration in constructing portfolios. More relevant are government policies on taxes and spending related to the energy transition.

Another attendee asked where the panelists thought AI would have its biggest impact. Tom Lee offered health care as a sector likely to be significantly impacted. It’s occurred to me and no doubt many others that a doctor’s diagnosis, itself the result of a professional lifetime’s experience, can be supplemented by AI’s ability to analyze all the relevant data for an individual patient’s condition. Insurance companies may in time favor the AI diagnosis over the human professional. Lee suggested that over ten years or more, the AI impact on reducing healthcare spending may turn out to be an important factor in resolving our dire fiscal outlook, given the growing portion of government spending dedicated to Medicare.

I thought this was an intriguing perspective.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

White House Adopts An Energy Policy Where Everyone Loses

/2 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
White House Adopts An Energy Policy Where Everyone Loses
Loading
/

With his moratorium on new LNG export terminals, aging President Joe Biden and his advisers have stumbled on a way to upset both ends of the political spectrum. Domestic energy businesses want to export more, cheap US natural gas to foreign buyers. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago the US pledged to replace the natural gas no longer flowing through Nordstream to western Europe.

Many new LNG export terminals are at various stages of development. Planning and construction take several years. Now that the Department of Energy has been directed to examine the climate impact of each new facility awaiting approval, that will impose additional delays even assuming they’re approved. Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass 2, or CP2, is the immediate casualty. This $10BN project is slated to export over 2.5 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D), raising exports by 20%.

But enough projects have already been approved and begun construction that we’re still on track for a doubling of US LNG exports to around 24 BCF/D by 2027.

The White House has turned to Alex Haraus, a 25-year-old Colorado social media influencer, in an effort to excite young people enough to re-elect a doddering octogenarian. Like too many climate extremists, Haraus combines well-intentioned enthusiasm with poor recommendations.

His social media profile caught the attention of White House adviser John Podesta, and a Zoom meeting followed, which evidently impacted the new policy. Haraus and his TikTok followers believe that building LNG terminals assures long term trade in natural gas. Haraus presumably believes the world needs to run on solar and wind.

It’s a shame that youthful enthusiasm to curb Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) isn’t directed towards practical solutions. LNG buyers are largely Asian. The International Energy Agency reports that China, India and other south-east Asian countries consume 75% of the world’s coal. They noted that last year’s 5% demand growth in China was driven by increased electricity consumption. This is partly because of the growth in EVs, often lauded by policymakers as evidence of China’s commitment to reduce GHGs. Yes, China’s EVs run on coal.

Coal-to-gas switching is how GHGs have fallen in the US and is our best chance to achieve similar success in emerging Asia. Haraus and his band of idealistic young supporters are pushing policies whose results won’t match their aspirations.

To cite just one example, Pakistan last year decided to quadruple coal-based power generation because of high LNG prices. Perhaps shocking to the Haraus TikTok crowd, Pakistan did not immediately turn to solar and wind.

Coal is cheap and easy to use. Its consumption keeps hitting new records as emerging economies consume more energy.

China and Russia are planning the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline to redirect supplies no longer going to Europe. Slow negotiations over the final terms have delayed construction, but it will eventually be built. This will reduce China’s need for coal, and thereby its GHGs.

Emerging economies would like to use more natural gas. We should encourage them.

So far the White House has upset energy companies around the world who are planning for more US LNG exports. Foreign business groups have expressed concern over America’s inconsistent posture on providing energy security. Japan’s government said they’re worried about the possibility of delays at facilities that haven’t yet gained approval.  The White House has implemented a policy that will set back climate ambitions in the hopes of gaining youthful, idealistic votes in November.

Wall Street analysts regard it as a temporary delay that will be reversed after the election. That’s why there’s been little impact on stocks that might otherwise be affected. Cash flows from Energy Transfer’s proposed Lake Charles terminal were not reflected in the stock price. JPMorgan thinks further delays would reduce near term capex, a positive.

Similarly, delays to Cheniere’s planned addition of Trains 8 and 9 at their Corpus Christi Midscale facility could also boost near term free cash flow. Both Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley expect the moratorium on new approvals to be lifted after the election regardless of who wins. Trump has already said he’d do so immediately.

This means that Alex Haraus and his idealistic TikTok followers are being played. Investors are betting that Biden will reverse himself if he wins the election. So by December the moratorium on LNG approvals will have upset just about everyone possible, from the energy sector and its customers to the climate extremists whose election support was rented. And it won’t have helped reduce GHGs, because of the widespread reliance on coal among Asian LNG importing countries.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

The Case For Real Assets

/2 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
The Case For Real Assets
Loading
/

I began investing in midstream energy infrastructure almost two decades ago. When SL Advisors was founded in 2009 it was one of our core strategies. Over the years it’s become our principal focus. Infrastructure possesses enduring qualities for the long-term investor, and energy is just one segment of what’s often referred to as real assets.

Although we focus on energy infrastructure, real assets are much broader than that. They can be structured as REITs. They can be involved in transportation, mining, aerospace and defense. They can be involved in water management and distribution, logistics and the petrochemical industry. Utilities operate infrastructure dedicated to power generation, storage and distribution.

Key attributes of infrastructure include long-lived assets that: provide inflation protection; possess barriers to entry either for regulatory reasons or because of synergies/economies of scale with other assets; generate attractive yields with visible long-term cash flow; and have a low correlation with the equity market.

Maintaining the purchasing power of savings is the goal of all long-term investors other than the foreign central banks and other institutions who hold trillions in US government bonds. Real assets that can raise prices either on commercial terms or because their regulatory framework ensures a minimum return on invested capital can be an effective way to achieve that goal. Oil and gas pipelines often operate under a system of tariffs managed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Utilities typically have their rates approved by a local regulator. Marine ports and airports often have a scarcity value, in that the alternatives available to shippers and airlines are less convenient or more expensive.

The US fiscal path is well known to be dire and unsustainable. The higher inflation of recent years looks to have dissipated quickly, but the Fed’s sharp increase in short term rates nonetheless raised the cost of financing our debt. Between May 2022 and February 2023, the point at which the Congressional Budget Office forecasts Federal interest expense will exceed $1TN was brought forward by two years, from 2030 to 2028. Higher inflation may turn out to have been transitory this time around, even if Fed chair Jay Powell conceded it wasn’t during its early ascent. But tight monetary policy does hurt our fiscal outlook more than in the past.

This makes it more likely that monetary policy will eventually accommodate our spiraling Debt:GDP by allowing higher inflation and negative real interest rates, increasingly common until the last couple of years. For centuries, monetary debasement has been the refuge of fiscal profligacy.

Infrastructure assets often have barriers to entry. Transco, the natural gas pipeline network owned by Williams Companies that runs through America’s eastern states from Texas to New York is an example. Since its origination in the 1950s, towns and highways have developed that make the construction of a competitor pipeline economically unfeasible. Railroads possess similar features. Where real assets are regulated, it means their stable profits are visible but not excessive, reducing the potential benefits for a competitor.

Established pipelines, railroads and other logistics assets create synergistic connections to other infrastructure, making their replication harder. And scale usually works to the advantage of the incumbent.

Predictable, recurring cashflows allow companies holding real assets to pay a substantial portion of their profits in dividends, which often results in attractive yields. This can be true for REITs, pipelines and many other assets. Just be cautious of utilities with their growing obligation to fund energy transition assets, since this is pressuring their cashflows (see To Lose On The Energy Transition Buy Utilities).

The S&P500 was dominated by the “Magnificent Seven*” last year. JPMorgan calculates that since early 2022 free cash flow growth of the S&P493 (ie excluding the seven) has been flat. Profit margins for the seven high flyers are 2X the other 493.

Owning the Magnificent Seven in 2023 was a great call. But they have caused the market to be less correlated with real assets, and when the inevitable reversal happens that low correlation will be welcomed by those who have retained some portfolio diversification.

The dominance of the Seven has led to the market being more “tech-centric”. Because real assets provide good earnings visibility, their valuations tend to be more grounded. They’re less likely to soar on hyped up expectations or plunge on deep pessimism.

Inflation protection, barriers to entry, attractive yields and a low market correlation are all reasons for investors to consider an allocation to real assets.

*Alphabet (GOOG), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL) Meta Platforms (META), Microsoft (MSFT), Nvidia (NVDA) and Tesla (TSLA)

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

 

 

To Lose On The Energy Transition Buy Utilities

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
To Lose On The Energy Transition Buy Utilities
Loading
/

Income-seeking investors often compare midstream energy infrastructure with utilities. Both own long-lived infrastructure assets dedicated to delivering energy to customers. Both tend to be regarded as yield-generating investments and are subject to considerable regulatory oversight on rate-setting.

But the energy transition is impacting each sector very differently.

Midstream growth capex peaked during the shale revolution when new pipelines were being built to help exploit new sources of oil and gas released through fracking and horizontal drilling. The subsequent abundance was good for consumers but not investors. Financial discipline returned. The pandemic and the brief but sharp collapse in prices further cemented the energy sector’s focus on financing only those projects that would clearly be profitable.

Now utilities are experiencing their own boost in growth capex. They are the sector most responsible for delivering on the promise of electrification using more renewables. This means investing in shorter-lived solar and wind farms along with the high voltage transmission lines to move power to population centers. It means adding more back-up power, either batteries or natural gas, to compensate for the grid unreliability that the increasing share of intermittent power imposes. And sometimes it means phasing out coal-burning power plants before they’ve reached the end of their useful lives.

Democrat politicians have promised voters that renewables are cheaper than conventional power sources. It’s not uncommon to read that per Kilowatt Hour solar now beats natural gas. This superficial analysis usually omits the cost of back-up power, which ironically is often natural gas.

Caught between the higher cost of renewables and political promises of lower costs, grids across the US are gradually reducing their capacity buffer to deal with extreme weather events and substantial loss of power. The MISO system which runs from Minnesota to Louisiana is assessed by the North American Electricity Reliability Association as having the greatest risk of power outages.

Every grid region will experience steadily declining ability to support demand peaks. Power losses because of increased grid reliance on renewables will not sit well with consumers. At times when electricity falls short of the 100% availability that the public expects, the responsibility for explaining why will sit with utilities.

In recent years the market has been reaching the conclusion that investing in the energy transition via utilities isn’t a great bet. They face an increased need to spend to meet unrealistic expectations fueled by Democrat politicians.

There is much that can go wrong with that unappealing risk/return profile. It’s why the S&P Utilities index has returned only 3.5% pa over the past three years versus the American Energy Independence Index at 24.6% pa.

Whether it’s the S&P Global Clean Energy Index or the losses suffered by offshore wind manufacturers such as Denmark’s Orsted (see Windpower Faces A Tempest), holding equity in companies dedicated to the energy transition has left investors worse off.

Adding insult to injury, the miserable performance of utility stocks hasn’t made them cheap. Wells Fargo notes the lower EV/EBITDA and leverage of midstream versus utilities along with the higher dividend yield and growth outlook.

Midstream companies have plenty of energy transition opportunities. These include increasing global demand for US LNG along with domestic natural gas back-up for growth in renewables. Then there are substantial tax incentives to develop carbon capture and hydrogen.

But pipeline companies can make decisions to invest in such projects largely based on IRR. They don’t face any political pressure to do so.

By contrast, utilities do face political pressure to deliver the energy transition. Goldman Sachs expects their capex over the next five years to be 38% higher than the past five. Nobody is going to build a new coal-burning power plant (thank goodness) regardless of IRR. But they’ll be dependent on regulators to allow rates that justify prior investment in solar and wind. This is what’s led to the collapse of several offshore wind projects in recent months.

Several years ago, investors feared that oil and gas pipelines would be retired early as the world moved to widespread electrification and renewables. A more realistic outlook has prevailed in recent years that acknowledges the risks facing companies at the forefront of the energy transition.

Shifting the world’s economy to low or no emission energy will be costly. It may be worth it but until politicians are honest about the costs, utilities look to be in a Catch 22.

Last week the Wall Street Journal published an article (see You’ve Formed Your Opinion on EVs. Now Let Me Change It) which concluded with the incorrect statement from Bloomberg NEF that globally, “…EV adoption cut demand for oil by 1.8 million barrels in 2023… thereby avoiding 122 megatons of carbon-dioxide emissions”

This overlooks that China, the world’s biggest EV market, overwhelmingly relies on coal to produce electricity. This is sloppy analysis that’s all too common in the debate about climate change.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

 

 

 

Environmentalists Mistakenly Choose Perfect Over Good

/1 Comment/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Environmentalists Mistakenly Choose Perfect Over Good
Loading
/

All three TV networks recently carried stories of northern state Electric Vehicle (EV) owners stranded. Chicago’s very cold weather reminded EV owners that not only do their batteries hold less charge when temperatures drop, but they are slower to charge as well. Public charging stations saw vehicles lined up – some EVs ran out of power before they could even pull up to the charging station. Not all charging stations were working.

The cold weather caused some drivers to sit in their EVs with the heat on, further slowing recharging. One driver reported seeing ten flatbed trucks taking away dead EVs. Because you can’t just get a gallon of gasoline and bring it to your car. The flat EV must be taken to a source of electricity.

A 2019 study by AAA found that temperatures below 20 degrees can reduce EV range by up to 41%.

This was an extreme weather event. Every Tesla driver I know loves their car. But they all own another gas-powered car and would have used it at a time like that. The drivers on the network news didn’t look as if their EV was a second car. They looked as if it was their car, and as such it needed to do better than work most of the time in most conditions.

Given the negative press around slowing EV sales, the industry didn’t need this.  Hertz is selling a third of its EV fleet because of low demand. They found repairs were more costly than expected. And who seriously wants to rent an EV in an unfamiliar region and worry about finding somewhere to charge it? Hertz’s embrace of EVs always looked like a dumb move. They expect to take a $245MM charge in 4Q23 for EV depreciation.

It increasingly looks as if hybrids would have been a more sensible intermediate step while EV technology improves beyond its current standard.

Over 60% of car trips are less than five miles. Over 90% are under 25 miles. Most of these can be supported by a hybrid’s battery, recharged when the owner is at home. The gasoline assures that a long journey or a cold one won’t end with a flatbed truck. The average hybrid gets over fifty miles per gallon.

Policymakers have chosen the perfect over the good. The White House has a goal that half of US auto sales be EVs by 2030. Hybrids are included in this, which is just as well because anyone who relies on a single EV to get around is taking more risk of getting stranded than the owner of a conventional car.

Progressive liberals, many of whom live in urban environments with adequate public transport, naturally believe we should transition straight to fully electric EVs. Americans (1) drive long distances, (2) like bigger cars, and (3) benefit from cheaper gasoline compared with other OECD (ie rich) countries. We are less likely than others to embrace EVs absent even more substantial tax breaks until the reliability improves.

Another example of progressive liberals increasing greenhouse gas emissions by pursuing perfection is the recent news that the White House is considering tougher rules before approving new Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) export terminals. Environmental extremists calculate the emissions the additional LNG exports will generate when consumed by foreign buyers. They naively think that limiting LNG availability will support more solar and wind power in Asia.

Meanwhile, power generation from coal hit a new global record last year. 82% of all coal-fired power generation was in Asia, up from 75% in 2019. Reductions in Japan and South Korea were almost completely offset by growth in Vietnam alone. Along with China, India and the Philippines they all saw strong import growth last year.

Coal is cheap and reliable. It also generates on average 2X the emissions of natural gas.

The most effective way for the US to help developing countries in Asia reduce their coal consumption is to send them more LNG. The correct analysis of LNG’s impact on emissions would consider what energy source it’s displacing. In the US, coal to gas switching is our biggest success on emissions. We should be helping other countries do the same.

The White House appears to be adopting the superficial analysis described above as a soundbite to the progressives rather than trying to solve the problem. If you want to invest in lower emissions, natural gas infrastructure is a more certain bet than renewable energy.

Progressive liberals are often the biggest hurdle to sensible energy policies that recognize the reality of developing countries’ prioritization of growth over climate. Outgoing climate czar John Kerry will be remembered as a booster of what he perceived as China’s commitments to reduce emissions even while they have grown by burning half the world’s coal production. That’s the dominant source of the power than runs through China’s EVs.

Pragmatic climate policies will have better success than the idealism too prevalent on the left.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

Windpower Stumbles On Unique American Mineral Rights

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Windpower Stumbles On Unique American Mineral Rights
Loading
/

The US is unique in that sub-surface mineral rights typically belong to the landowner. In every other country we’ve looked at, ultimately the government is the owner of what’s beneath you. This was a crippling feature of the failed effort by driller Cuadrilla to produce natural gas using US fracking technology in Yorkshire, north England (see British Shale Revolution Crushed: America’s Unique Ownership of Oil and Gas).

Because the local community didn’t have any ownership and therefore no royalties on output,  the disruption and noise that accompany fracking became a political issue. It was perceived as the government exploiting regular people, even though Britain could use more natural gas of its own.

Caudrilla gave up.

The Osage Nation recently won a famous court victory over Italian “green energy” company Enel when a judge found that 84 wind turbines had been illegally installed on Osage land and ordered their removal.

Litigation had been going on for a decade, but ultimately the case turned on whether Enel had been mining when they dug up and crushed rock to create the foundations for their wind turbines. The Osage Allotment Act of 1906 awarded subsurface mineral rights to the Osage Nation.

We know much more about Osage thanks to David Grann’s 2017 book Killers of the Flower Moon, now also a movie. The story of how their rights to crude oil were violated almost a century ago through numerous murders perhaps makes them a more energetic legal adversary.

Enel argued that digging up and crushing rock did not constitute interfering with the “minerals estate”. They argued that they had temporarily trespassed, and offered to pay damages of $69K.

This argument suffered a setback when the court was shown a video of dynamite being used to dislodge the rock.

Enel estimates that removing the turbines will cost $300 million. There will also be another trial to determine Enel’s liability for damages over the past decade.

A good summary of the story can be found here.

The Osage Nation ultimately won their case because Enel violated their ownership of the mineral rights that came with the land. In another country they would be separated, but in America you own what’s beneath you “to the center of the earth” as Enel’s lawyer conceded in court.

This is the third time a Federal judge has ordered the removal of wind turbines.

In 2018 a judge ordered three turbines to be removed in Iowa. In 2022 Falmouth, Massachusetts was ordered to remove two turbines.

People who live close to these structures tend to complain about the noise. They’ve been compared to helicopters, and one Vietnam vet said it triggered traumatic memories of combat.

Homeowners on the New Jersey shore won a big victory when Danish wind turbine maker Orsted gave up on plans to build dozens of turbines (see Environmentalists Opposed To Windpower).

Other countries have seen similar legal battles. Two years ago an Australian court ordered 52 wind turbines to shut down at night in response to a lawsuit from neighbors complaining about noise. In 2016 a French court ordered seven turbines be removed because of the threat they posed to golden eagles.

Meanwhile that wretched little girl Greta has shown that a singular focus on climate change is complicated. She recently protested in Norway against wind turbines that were located on reindeer pastures, which she said “violated the human rights” of the indigenous Sami people who farm there.

Perversely, liberals are often accused of trampling over the environment in their pursuit of renewables, while conservatives are the ones fighting to preserve nature as it is. This was most clear in the opposition lined up against Orsted by residents of the Jersey shore, which is solidly the red part of a very blue state. Critics of the proposed windfarm cited danger to sealife. The construction of renewables infrastructure is often in underpopulated areas because solar and wind have a much bigger footprint than conventional power plants. This is turning the traditional environmentalism normally associated with Democrats on its head.

For years energy infrastructure projects have struggled with legal delays. Climate extremists have discovered how to weaponize the court system very effectively. These techniques are increasingly being used against renewables projects. The same principles apply, and pipeline companies are spending much less on new projects than they did five or more years ago.

In spite of these setbacks, onshore windpower has enjoyed many successes in the US (see Offshore Wind vs Onshore). Iowa relies on it for half its electricity. Texas is easily the leading generator of US windpower at around a quarter of the US total.

However, Offshore windpower faces problems with cost inflation as well as growing local opposition. China has also tightened up the permitting process for onshore. Wood Mackenzie cited these factors in recently downgrading its forecast for global windpower capacity in 2030. Windpower will continue growing, but the obstacles are growing too.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

 

 

Emerging Markets Never Do

/1 Comment/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Emerging Markets Never Do
Loading
/

Allocating to emerging markets is a Wall Street construct designed to confuse investors and justify periodic reallocations to higher fee products that obscure measures of relative performance. Some financial advisors will be outraged at this statement. So let me quickly move to the evidence.

Start with the Vanguard Emerging Markets Stock Index Fund, the biggest ETF in the sector. Over the past decade it has returned 3% pa versus the S&P500’s 12%. Emerging Markets (EM) hasn’t just had a poor couple of years. It’s had a lousy decade.

This shouldn’t be surprising. Nobody ever emerges from an EM index. For my entire 44 year career in finance, the EM composition has barely changed. “Emerging” is a marketing gimmick that suggests upward progress. But in reality, these countries are all destined to have living standards below the OECD (ie developed countries) indefinitely.

Nobody ever emerges.

EM proponents will argue that their higher GDP growth means better equity returns. But GDP and corporate profits are different. An uncompleted apartment building generates GDP but is clearly not generating any profits to equity owners if its units can’t be rented. China’s many zombie cities are an example. Building out infrastructure creates immediate GDP, but only helps equity investors if it improves an economy’s productivity.

Many countries exhibit a poor transmission mechanism from GDP growth to equity returns.

Then there’s disclosure standards and property rights. EM countries typically don’t meet western standards on these two issues. The EM investor adopting the tenuous argument that GDP growth = corporate profits next has to consider that the companies she’s invested in are less than transparent in their accounting. Or that local government officials may misappropriate parts of the businesses she owns through dubious legal maneuvers. Outside of western liberal democracies, it’s rare to find countries with a history of respect for individual rights, for the impartial application of contract law and with strong investor protections in place.

Returning to China – can you really trust the government to protect the interests of foreign investors?

The case for an EM allocation isn’t supported by historic returns. But the financial advisor who recommends EM exposure for a client benefits from the complexity this introduces into performance evaluation. Only the most financially sophisticated will have the tools to establish whether EM added any value. And because EM is rarely a buy and hold strategy, a second timing decision on when to exit also looms. EM is the refuge of the financial advisor obfuscating results with complexity.

All but a handful of the S&P500 does business in EM. Their presence can be used to justify an investment – if Coke is making money in Brazil, why aren’t you? But Coke is so much better equipped to navigate local laws, ownership rights and taxes while still complying with US GAAP standards. And Coke is better situated to calibrate their EM exposure among the countries where they perceive the best opportunities.

If you apply the same logic to another 475 or so members of the S&P500, an investment in the biggest US companies comes with an EM exposure through the filter of US standards and sized according to the collective capital allocation wisdom of hundreds of executive teams and boards of directors.

There’s no reason for the retail investor to make an EM allocation. If your financial advisor recommends it, share the dismal decade displayed above, reject the complexity that benefits him not you and tell him you’re happy with the EM exposure your S&P500 investment provides.

On a different topic, China’s National Energy Administration recently reported, “Based on the overall promotion of oil and gas supply security and green development, oil and gas development enterprises have accelerated the pace of integration and development with new energy on the basis of effectively stabilizing oil and gas and improving the ability to independently guarantee oil and gas resources,” (translated from Chinese by Google).

Don’t be confused by China and renewables. Energy security explains the dual focus on clean energy and coal, because they help reduce China’s reliance on imported oil and gas.  Coal provides over 60% of China’s power and is 70% of its emissions. They’re adding new coal plants at more than one a month. Security, not climate change, drives their policies. Why else would a country boost electric vehicle sales powered with the worst of fossil fuels if not for energy security?

Chinese consumers are being connected to natural gas supply across the country. Many provinces have tripled or more the local population able to use natural gas. In 2022, 15 million new customers were added. This contrasts with New York state which is impeding the ability of new customers to access natural gas.

Do New Yorkers know that China is extending natural gas access while their government does the opposite? Have they bought in to the liberal proposition that we’ll reduce emissions while others grow them? Or are they simply unaware, accepting constrained access to reliable energy in the naive belief that all the world’s emitters are aligned in their efforts to achieve a common goal?

Next time you encounter a New York Democrat voter (and there are many), ask them.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

Chesapeake and Southwestern Are Betting On Higher US NatGas

/1 Comment/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Chesapeake and Southwestern Are Betting On Higher US NatGas
Loading
/

Chesapeake (CHK) and Southwestern (SWN) are the latest energy companies to be contemplating a merger. Chesapeake was founded by Aubrey McLendon, whose belief in higher natural gas prices combined with his ample risk appetite led the company into financial difficulties during a period of low prices. In 2016 he was indicted by a federal grand jury on charges of conspiring “to rig bids on oil and natural gas leases”. The following day McLendon died alone in a fiery car crash. Chesapeake ultimately filed for bankruptcy in 2020 and emerged with reduced debt the following year.

The US natural gas story is about growing LNG exports. By combining, CHK and SWN would be America’s biggest natgas producer.

The opportunity can be seen in the futures curves for three regional benchmarks. Because natural gas is difficult and expensive to transport across the ocean, huge price discrepancies can persist for years until liquefaction and regassification infrastructure can be built in the appropriate places to allow for increased trade.

US natgas is very cheap, at under $3 per Million BTUs (MMBTUs). 13 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) is our export capacity, because that’s how much can be chilled and loaded onto specialized LNG tankers. But the discrepancy is so wide that it’s driving the construction of additional capacity.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects North American LNG export capacity to double by 2027. Given the several years construction takes, this is more than simply an economic forecast. Many projects have already reached Final Investment Decision (FID), meaning financing is lined up and they will be built. By adding in probable projects to those that have already reached FID, Wells Fargo sees 17 BCF/D of new US capacity by 2027 and 24 BCF/D by 2030, for 38 BCF/D of total US export capacity.

Perhaps the most tangible and certainly the most spectacular ESG disaster is Germany’s now shredded belief that they could rely on Russian gas while they transitioned to windpower. The WSJ quoted Bill Ackman thus: “Well-intentioned movements like ESG can have catastrophic consequences for the world. Europe’s loss of energy independence was a contributing factor in Putin having the confidence to invade Ukraine.”

The bet that a CHK/SWN tie-up is making is that the price differential between US natgas and other regional benchmarks will narrow. Asia has represented around 70% of global LNG trade in recent years. But Europe is becoming a bigger player, thanks to a misguided reliance on Russian gas and overly optimistic assumptions on renewables. European and Asian prices are $10-15 per MMBTUs higher than US, It costs around $2 per MMBTU to ship LNG from the US to Asia. Add in a $3 fee charged for liquefaction, and that still leaves a substantial price difference to support increased global trade.

The long term price curves for natgas futures suggest that increasing US LNG exports won’t be that impactful. This seems wrong. If US exports reach 25% or more of domestic production by 2030, as seems likely, domestic prices will rise. The market is not pricing in any narrowing of the differentials between the Asian/European benchmarks which are where the buyers are, and the US which is bringing more availability online.

Some may doubt Europe’s long term appetite for natural gas. It is the region most committed to reducing CO2 emissions, although much of their recent success on this has come from ruinously high energy prices forcing industrial output lower. German companies are relocating manufacturing out of Europe, including to the US.

But European energy companies aren’t behaving as if global LNG gas demand will disappear. Shell recently signed a twenty year contract to buy Canadian-sourced LNG from a new export facility in British Columbia. The Ksi Lisims project isn’t expected to be operational until 2030. And while Asia is geographically the obvious destination for these exports, if the European premium sustains it won’t be hard for Shell to redirect their purchased LNG to other buyers.

CHK and SWN are motivated by the likely upward pressure on US natgas prices growing LNG exports will cause. They’re probably also aware that as relatively high-cost producers, they are vulnerable to some more efficiently run competitors.

The bet on higher natgas prices looks like a sound one. If completed, the CHK/SWN merger will represent a pureplay bet on growing US LNG exports, something that’s also good for the midstream energy infrastructure companies that make it possible.

Join  us for a webinar today, Wednesday January 10 at 4pm eastern. Click here to register.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

US Sets Multiple Energy Records

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
US Sets Multiple Energy Records
Loading
/

President Biden probably won’t brag about US energy production, but when the final figures for 2023 are in the US will have set numerous records.

Crude oil production reached a record 13.2 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D) in October, surpassing the prior record set four years earlier before the pandemic. Few analysts were projecting this at the beginning of last year. Upstream capital discipline was expected to moderate output growth. But drillers squeezed efficiencies out of their operations, producing more with fewer rigs and drilling longer laterals.

Biden complained bitterly two years ago that US oil production wasn’t increasing in response to higher prices. As he was reminded back then, it takes time to raise production and the Administration doesn’t exactly behave like a friend of reliable energy. But the market works, and most bullish price forecasts for crude oil last year were wrong because they didn’t expect increasing US supply.

Our crude exports averaged a record high of 3.99 MMB/D in 1H23.

Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs, which include ethane, propane and butane) continue to set new records with volumes more than doubling over the past decade. Ethane is increasingly used in the petrochemical industry to manufacture various forms of plastics. Propane is used domestically for cooking where natural gas is unavailable, and by farmers for drying crops. But export growth is behind the steady increase in US propane production.

Natural gas production continues to set new records. As with crude oil, this has been done more efficiently, with the gas rig count falling 24% during the first ten months of last year. Some of the increased gas production has come from oil wells as associated gas, largely in the Permian basin in west Texas and New Mexico. The three major oil plays in the Permian are now producing almost 14 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) of gas, over a tenth of US output.

Natural gas production growth helped reduce our use of coal for power generation and is increasingly offering the same opportunity to our trade partners. LNG exports set another record last year, and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects export capacity to more than double by 2027.

This is all a big success story for America.

This abundance has weighed on prices for crude oil and domestic natural gas. Exxon Mobil warned that 4Q operating results could drop to $8.9BN, down 30% on a year ago. They also expect to write down California-based assets by $2.5BN in response to the Golden state’s hostile policies towards reliable energy.

Chevron expects to take $3.5-4.0BN impairment on its California assets due to “continuing regulatory challenges.”

Both stocks are down over the past year. Most of the energy sector had a poor year.

But the increasing volumes were good for midstream, with the American Energy Independence Index beating eight of the 11 S&P 500 sectors (see Higher Despite Retail Selling). The link between oil prices and pipeline stocks is weakening in response to lower leverage.

Record-setting US production of oil, NGLs and natural gas under a Democrat administration shows that the party in the White House has less influence than some think over the sector. Even though Biden famously promised to end fossil fuels four years ago when he was campaigning, that goal soon became aspirational and before long he was pleading for more oil.

VP Kamala Harris is from California, and assuming Biden keeps her on the ticket the presidential election will carry a real possibility that a second Biden term might be completed by a President Harris. There’s little about California’s energy policies that should endear investors to such a prospect.

But when you’re looking for energy policies to avoid, Germany usually offers a better example. The WSJ recently estimated that pursuing zero emissions will cost Germans €1.9TN by 2030. This is around half their GDP.

German voters have generally supported policies that are domestically ruinous and mostly serve to accommodate growth in emissions by emerging economies led by China and India. You’d think a willingness to spend so much would assure results – and emissions from Germany fell to 673 Million Metric Tonnes (MMTs), down by 73 MMTs and well below the government’s annual target of 722 MMTs. However, only 15% of this reduction was credited to improved efficiencies and renewables.

Half came from production cuts.

German policies have made energy so expensive, both because of the focus on renewables but also because of the reliance on Russian natural gas, that they are shrinking their way towards their climate goals.

Some of those German companies cutting back production are investing in new facilities in America.

Let’s hope the sharp contrast between American and German policies persists, unless German voters become more pragmatic – and more American.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

 

 

 

 

image_pdfimage_print