The Energetic Outlook For Energy

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
The Energetic Outlook For Energy
Loading
/

Goldman Sachs released a report last week forecasting that Brent crude will slip into “the low $50s” by late next year. It currently trades at around $66 per barrel, down $8 from its year-end level end and $11 over the past year.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA), in their most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) goes even further. They expect Brent to average $51 next year, $16 below their forecast for this year’s average. This suggests that it will spend some time in the $40s.

The reason is that supply is growing faster than demand. The EIA expects global inventories to swell by 2 Million Barrels per day (MMB/D) by the end of this year, up by 0.8 MMB/D from their previous forecast a month earlier. They do expect an impact on US production, which they see peaking at 13.4 MMB/D this year before slipping to 13.3 MMB/D next year. In good news for drivers, they see gasoline prices down 20 cents per gallon in 2026.

Over the near term, OPEC+ supply of liquids is forecast to be +1 MMB/D compared with 1H25, with non-OPEC supply led by the US, Brazil, Norway, Canada, and Guyana up by a similar amount.

Global demand is growing, just not by as much. The EIA expects consumption of petroleum and other liquids to reach almost 105 MMB/D next year. Growth is all in non-OECD countries. Interestingly, Indian consumption is expected to grow more than China’s, even though the latter uses 3X as much.

The EIA’s crude oil forecast is aggressive. If crude trades into the $40s next year, I would think US shale production will fall more sharply than the EIA suggests. Crude futures are priced around $15 above the EIA’s forecast for next year. If E&P companies think the EIA is correct, it should already be affecting today’s planned production. Upstream capex is falling but doesn’t reflect that type of price plunge.

It also seems likely that oil that cheap will stimulate demand. Consumption in China and India will probably grow faster. And surely OPEC+ would reinstitute their supply cuts in the face of such a glut.

Although the EIA forecast incorporates some supply response from producers, it’s mild and seems incongruent with their price forecast.

The White House wants more output and lower prices. They should be pleased with the EIA’s STEO. A conspiracy theorist might wonder if the analysts producing such work are at least subliminally aware that projecting high prices might draw the administration’s ire.

Perhaps that’s also the case at Goldman Sachs. President Trump recently called on CEO David Solomon to fire the bank’s top economist over his bearish and so far, wrong call related to tariffs. I doubt the EIA would project crude prices $15 above the futures curve. Who wants to be part of the news cycle and pilloried on Truth Social?

The EIA is supposed to be immune to political influence. In my experience they’ve made plenty of wrong forecasts, including for years being overly pessimistic about US crude output. But they always looked independent. Today, I’m willing to bet that their oil forecast is wrong, but less sure that it’s issued oblivious to any potential presidential feedback.

We’ll never know. Independent thinking is important.

The EIA’s natural gas outlook is more constructive. They expect production of around 117 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) next year including natural gas liquids, flat with 2025 but +3% on last year. Wells in the Permian basin in west Texas tend to become gassier over time, so falling crude production there is expected to trim associated gas output. However, growth in both the Haynesville in Texas and the Appalachia region in the north east will offset.

The EIA expects the natural gas price benchmark to move above $5 per Million BTUs (MMBTUs) by the end of next year, compared with under $3 per MMBTU at present. Gas demand for data centers and for growing LNG exports are the twin drivers.

Capex on data centers by companies such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta is around $340BN this year. An interesting comparison is with US corporate tax revenue, which was $530BN last year and around 11% of total Federal revenue. It’s hard to overstate the size, and they’ll need natural gas power plants for electricity.

US electricity consumption is at the start of steady annual increases following decades of almost no growth. The EIA expects +2.2% this year and +2.3% next year. We expect natural gas to be the most important source of supply for this additional power generation.

We think the EIA is getting it right with its gas and power forecasts, but on the price of oil looks overly influenced by the White House. But in almost any scenario, energy consumption is going up.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Midstream Is Better Under Trump 2.0

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Midstream Is Better Under Trump 2.0
Loading
/

Now that we’re more than six months into Trump 2.0, comparisons with Trump 1.0 are spreading. For energy investors, Trump’s first term was a huge disappointment compared with the high expectations held by many when he took office. A year ago, as investors pondered the impact of a Kamala Harris presidency, we were often asked if we worried about a progressive in the White House.

In fact, Joe Biden’s presidency was far better for energy investors. His antipathy towards hydrocarbons fostered cautious capex among energy executives, a sharp contrast with the exuberant spending plans that accompanied Trump’s 2016 victory. Trump 1.0 led to overinvestment and weak prices, compounded by the demand destruction of pandemic lockdowns. Financial discipline returned during Biden.

The result was a –6.2% annual return under Trump 1.0 and a +33.8% annual return under Biden. Left wing policies inadvertently enriched traditional energy investors. However, following Biden’s debate disaster on June 27, 2024 the midstream sector continued its strong performance when polls shifted towards Trump.

Trump 2.0 has been better for energy investors than before but more volatile. A regulatory environment that once again is supportive of hydrocarbons has helped, and companies have been more cautious about spending. Oil and gas prices have fallen this year as the new administration has made clear its desire for increased production. The president’s love for hydrocarbons favors volumes over profits.

Energy executives are being more cautious than eight years ago, and the top US shale producers have mostly been cutting capex as both oil and gas prices have remained under pressure. OPEC+ is abandoning their production cuts and Trump’s efforts to negotiate peace in Ukraine are regarded as likely to bring more Russian energy exports onto the market.

By contrast, midstream companies have been increasing their planned spending, with the biggest c-corps in the sector raising 2026 capex by 44% compared with plans a year ago.

The difference is oil versus gas. Growth in electricity demand for new data centers and additional feedstock for new LNG export capacity are the twin drivers of natural gas growth. Today’s data centers will tolerate only 3 seconds of downtime a year (i.e. 99.99999% uptime) which makes intermittent renewables a poor choice. Natural gas power plants are usually the best choice, which will drive the share of our electricity derived from gas above its current 43%.

Much of the new activity is centered in Texas. Gas pipelines are being built to connect with new data centers and to feed into the growing LNG export capacity. The map from RBNEnergy shows how much energy infrastructure is being added in Texas and the Gulf coast.

Takeaway capacity for gas is being added in the Permian in west Texas. Oil wells in that region also produce “associated gas”, which means it’s not what they’re drilling for but comes out of the ground anyway. Even though E&P companies have been trimming their budgets, mature wells become gassier as they mature, so gas production won’t be as affected by reduced capex.

LNG export capacity continues to grow – most recently Venture Global announced Final Investment Decision for Phase 1 of CP2 LNG, a $15BN project that is expected to become operational in 2027.

There’s also increased activity in the northeast centered around gas production in the Marcellus shale.

Some may identify parallels with 2016 when the energy sector geared up for more production and throughput, pulling back as investors soured on growth that wasn’t accretive. The big difference today is that long term commitments are underpinning both the new LNG terminals and the additional gas pipeline capacity.

Leverage of 3-3.5X Debt:EBITDA is lower than the 4-5X that was more common eight years ago. Kinder Morgan’s credit rating was recently upgraded by Fitch based on their expectation that leverage would remain below 4.0X.

2Q25 earnings across the sector generally came in as expected with no great surprises.

Many years ago pipelines were organized as Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), free from corporate taxes in exchange for complicated tax reporting for those wealthy US investors so inclined. As most of them converted to a conventional corporate structure (“c-corps”), they accepted a corporate tax liability in exchange for accessing a broader investor base.

Helped by depreciation rules that understate the true useful life of their assets, taxes have remained low. For the selected US c-corps in the chart, their average estimated tax rate this year is only 5%. It’s not expected to increase meaningfully until 2028 and compares favorably with the average tax rate paid by S&P500 companies of 25%.

The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBA) cut rates by an average of 4% for E&P companies and likely had a similar effect on midstream as well. Weak energy prices may have weighed on the sector this year, but at least tax policy is allowing investors to retain more of the profits.

It’s another reason we think midstream energy infrastructure offers attractive prospects.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

The Legal Boost For Pipelines

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
The Legal Boost For Pipelines
Loading
/

Most LNG export terminals are built when three quarters or more of their liquefaction capacity has been pre-sold to customers. This ensures that the project will generate cash needed to repay its financiers, since there’s not much else you can do with it other than export natural gas. Buyers have to pay the agreed liquefaction fee for years, even if they don’t need the gas. It’s similar to the “take-or-pay” agreements that predominate in the pipeline business. This is how industry leader Cheniere operates.

Charif Souki founded Cheniere before he was pushed out and went on to found Tellurian. Souki was bullish on global natural gas prices, and sought financing for an LNG terminal that, once complete, would sell opportunistically on the spot market rather than rely as heavily on long term commitments.

Done successfully, this business model generates much bigger profits but is more risky because if the spread between US and foreign gas markets narrows to the cost of liquefaction plus transport, buyers will disappear.

Tellurian struggled to raise financing. The few long term contracts they had negotiated lapsed as construction was delayed. Souki’s weekly Youtube updates included a memorable mea culpa as he conceded the strategic errors in not relying more fully on long term agreements with buyers. The company was rescued from bankruptcy when Australian Woodside Energy acquired it last year (see Tellurian Drifts Into Stronger Hands).

Venture Global (VG) has cleverly combined the stability of Cheniere’s model with the opportunism of Tellurian. They secured long term contracts with companies including Shell and BP, which helped finance construction of their Calcasieu Pass terminal in Louisiana.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, global LNG prices soared and VG took advantage of their ability to sell into the spot market, reaping huge profits on the spread between US and European prices. The contract flexibility VG interpreted surprised Shell and BP, who believed they should have been profiting from the sudden price spike by selling the LNG from Calcasieu Pass themselves.

The dispute wound up going to arbitration. The operator of a liquefaction terminal ultimately has to decide when it’s complete. VG says they were resolving some construction issues and that the contract only required them to deliver LNG to contracted buyers when the facility was fully operational. This didn’t prevent them from using the available capacity to net roughly $7BN in profit 2022-23.

Last week a tribunal ruled in VG’s favor in a case brought by Shell. Presumably the other similar disputes will be decided the same way. LNG contracts are already being negotiated to avoid the profitable ambiguity exploited by VG.

In a press release, VG said their “unique ability to incrementally export commissioning cargoes during the construction of our facilities has brought LNG to the market years faster than ever before and strengthened global energy security.”

Shell and other buyers see it differently.

There were other courtroom developments that favored midstream companies.  The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a ruling that was favorable to Oneok. Environmental extremists have for years sought and often obtained legal judgements requiring broad reviews of projects even where the government agency responsible felt they were unnecessary.

This is how the Sierra Club and others have weaponized the judiciary to insert cost and uncertainty, with the dystopian objective of leaving us solely dependent on renewables.

The US Supreme Court ruled earlier this year in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County that lower courts must substantially defer to agencies’ environmental analysis. This means for example the CO2 emissions of burning natural gas when it’s consumed aren’t relevant to the pipeline that will help deliver it.

The Court of Appeals applied this precedent in considering objections to a 157-mile pipeline Oneok is building (the Saguaro Connector Pipeline), limiting the environmental review to a 1,000 foot section near the US-Mexico border. This wasn’t front page news, but was a positive development for US consumers in areas that could access natural gas if not for the climate crowd.

Another test involves Williams Companies (WMB) plans to add Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) to Transco, bringing gas from Pennsylvania through New Jersey to New York City. WMB gave up last year following persistent difficulties in obtaining water-crossing permits from both NY and NJ.

Anticipating a more co-operative process, they have reapplied for FERC approval, which was received and relied on the prior environmental assessment. The Sierra Club and others have sued, saying a new assessment is required, a move that’s just tossing sand in the gears.

If NESE proceeds it will confirm that important changes in the regulatory environment and the scope of judicial reviews are improving the visibility around completing infrastructure projects. The scope is beyond pipelines – it should apply to many other types of construction, perhaps including nuclear power and even solar and wind. The push-back against nihilistic environmentalists is under way.

Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) is the most egregious case of activist-driven cost over-runs. Completing MVP required an act of Congress (see Why Pipeline Construction Is Hard). Recent progress looks like the Mountain Valley effect.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

AI, Trump And The Yield Curve

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
AI, Trump And The Yield Curve
Loading
/

The other day I listened to an interview with the CEO of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, on an Economist magazine podcast. Anthropic is in AI safety and research. They write large language models for sectors including healthcare and financial services. Many people think AI will create such fundamental change that it will eliminate jobs across large swathes of the economy.

Anthropic takes their role in this type of creative disruption seriously. They even have a Philosopher-in-residence, Amanda Askell, whose job it is to think about such things. Preparing for this new world, she says that employment should not be the only way we measure our worth.

Worrying publicly about the mass unemployment the success of your company will cause may be a smart way to excite investors about your business prospects. It may also be the height of hubris at a market peak, depending on your perspective.

That AI offers enormous promise is undeniable. Healthcare stands ready for a revolution in diagnostics as AI models assimilate hundreds of millions of case histories, test results, x-rays and outcomes to encompass the medical sector’s collective experience. There can be no greater benefit to humanity than enabling longer, healthier lives.

Will such revolutionary change slash healthcare employment? Many think it will. I’m not convinced. I doubt patients will accept a diagnosis from a computer, other than perhaps for conditions that can be treated today at an urgent care center. I see AI as increasing the tools available to health care professionals. Your doctor will interpret results from a model, or perhaps multiple models. The returns to education will increase.

I don’t think AI will replace financial advisors. People are not going to trust their health or their money to an algorithm, even while the management of both will increasingly rely on professionals using these tools.

Would an AI financial advisor have overweighted AI stocks? Or LNG exposure? Any credible portfolio construction must be designed for at least one business cycle of 5-10 years. With 100-150 years of historical market data, there just aren’t enough non-overlapping time segments to train a model.

Legal risk seems a prosaic impediment to the AI revolution. Humans make mistakes all the time. When doctors or financial advisors deliver unacceptable outcomes, they get sued, but the consequences are limited to the individuals involved. These are idiosyncratic risks. If an AI model replaced a whole class of professionals, it would introduce systemic risk.

Flawed diagnostics or improper portfolio construction could impact thousands of people simultaneously. Class action lawsuits would follow, targeting the deep pockets of the software companies who built the model. Plaintiffs might even use AI to identify patterns of damaging medical care or investing.

If this seems implausible, note that Tesla just suffered a Florida jury award of $243 million for an accident in 2019 involving their autonomous driving software. Last year over 39,000 Americans died in auto accidents, overwhelmingly due to human error. People drive recklessly and make mistakes all the time.

Autonomous vehicles could cut this dramatically. Society accepts 39,000 deaths because each was caused by the idiosyncratic risk of different individuals. If Tesla’s AutoPilot cut this by 99%, lawsuits from families of the 390 remaining fatalities would bankrupt the company, even though thousands of lives had been saved. Without legal reform, the move from idiosyncratic to systemic risk will create exposures to corporations that in America’s litigious society will be ruinously expensive.

The standard of competence of an AI model needs to approach flawlessness, exceeding the average human professional by orders of magnitude.

I love how Google search results using AI are so improved and relevant. In the 1980s and 90s when I was trading interest rates, I often put on a yield curve trade in the late summer to exploit a seasonal tendency for it to flatten in the fall. I asked Google if this pattern still exists and learned it does. Old Google would have hunted for relevant websites that didn’t properly address the question. Or I would have downloaded years of historic data and spent hours building a spreadsheet to answer the question myself.

December ‘26 SOFR futures yield less than December ‘27 SOFR futures, suggesting rates will come down next year and then move up the year before the election. I think it’s more likely that rates in two years will be lower than next year.

Trump’s continued bashing of the Fed is counterproductive in the near term. Any rate reduction needs to be unambiguously supported by the data to avoid the appearance of lost independence. They’ll move slowly.

But over time Trump will probably bully the FOMC into partial submission. Tariffs and immigration policy may by then be hurting growth. Complaints that tight monetary policy is keeping US interest expense intolerably high, because we owe so much, will be more widespread.

I think the short Dec ‘26/long Dec ‘27 spread trade is worth doing.

If you’re concerned about monetary policy taking more risk with inflation, as President Trump would like, you should own real assets. We think midstream energy infrastructure, with price hikes often linked by regulation to PPI, offers good protection in such a scenario.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Energy Transfer Helps Kinder Morgan Investors

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Energy Transfer Helps Kinder Morgan Investors
Loading
/

On Wednesday Energy Transfer (ET) announced plans to extend its Transwestern Pipeline from Waha in the Permian Basin in west Texas to Phoenix. The Desert Southwest expansion project will improve the egress of natural gas from a region where it’s often produced along with crude oil, which is generally more desirable. The pipeline will support the growing need for gas-generated electricity.

ET expects it to cost $5.3 BN to cover 516 miles, which at $10 million per mile is quite expensive. For example, Kinder Morgan’s Gulf Coast Express announced in 2017 and built in partnership with DCP Midstream cost around $4 million per mile.

The Rockies Express Pipeline built by Tallgrass is one of the longest gas pipelines built in the last 15 years and came in at $3.5 Million per mile.

The Rio Bravo Gas Pipeline will feed NextDecade’s LNG export terminal. That will cost almost $16 million per mile, but it has greater capacity than most at 4.5 Billion Cubic Feet per Day.

Mountain Valley Pipeline was subject to interminable legal challenges which slowed construction and caused the cost to soar. It finally cost around $26 million per mile and required an act of Congress to complete.

Pipelines are getting more expensive, but ET has sufficient long-term commitments from investment grade customers to proceed. Kinder Morgan (KMI) has expressed interest in a greenfield project to supply gas to the southwest. Those plans are now in doubt because of Desert Southwest.

KMI’s stock closed 4.5% lower on the day of ET’s announcement, as the market adjusted down the odds of KMI embarking on a competing project. To anyone familiar with KMI’s track record at allocating capital, this was a perverse reaction. The company is the worst in the industry at deploying shareholder capital profitably (see Not All Growth Projects Are Good).

The possibility that KMI will abandon plans to build a gas pipeline should have been cheered by astute investors aware of the history. Less KMI capex means less chance to invest at a return on invested capital below the company’s cost of capital. ET has helped KMI from building on their poor track record. KMI investors should be happy.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Every Issue Is Linked To Trade

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Every Issue Is Linked To Trade
Loading
/

July was action-packed for LNG names. On July 11 Morgan Stanley raised their price target on NextDecade (NEXT) to $15, having last moved it to $10 in October 2022. The stock rose 18% to $10.77 on the news and added further gains during the month. Morgan Stanley’s upgrade was the only news of note, but their more bullish view on the company led the market to reprice.

Venture Global (VG) traded up in sympathy with NEXT, but since it wasn’t mentioned in the Morgan Stanley report, its gains slipped away.

Cheniere’s price target was left unchanged at $255. But following the International Court of Arbitration’s July 18th ruling that Chevron’s acquisition of Hess could proceed, Cheniere rose as traders bet it would finally be added to the S&P500 by replacing Hess. It fell when Block was chosen instead.

The US-EU trade agreement boosted LNG stocks because of the commitment by Europeans to buy $750BN of US oil and gas over three years. This was quickly derided by analysts. Criticisms included (1) the EU doesn’t buy oil and gas, private companies do, so it’s unclear what mechanism they would use to meet this commitment (2) no written agreement was released, so there are no visible consequences for failure, and (3)  US oil and gas exports in total are currently around $150BN.

Reaction to the trade deal across the EU has been negative. Europe’s Summer of Humiliation in the Financial Times Op-Ed section reflected widely-held sentiments.

The deal exposed Europe’s negotiating weakness. With no one in charge, their decision-making process is necessarily slow and defensive, which dilutes the heft their economy might otherwise wield. They’re scrambling to develop a military capability to confront their aggressive eastern neighbor.

These issues clearly played a role, which is why the Euro sank 3% in the days following the deal. The White House linked trade and national security to exploit these weaknesses to America’s advantage.  It’s hard to think of a previous Administration that took such a stance.

How investors think about the prospects for increased US energy exports to Europe has been a hotly debated topic among your blogger’s investment team. It’s easy to conclude the numbers are implausible.

The EU commitments on oil and gas purchases can be dismissed as aspirational given the figures outlined above. But the trade deal showed who holds the cards. Trump is likely to abruptly rescind any agreement with little warning.

When Cheniere or VG are negotiating a long-term LNG supply contract with a big European buyer, they’re likely to complain to the White House if unable to reach a conclusion. If EU rules rather than commercial terms are the sticking point, “temporary punitive tariffs” may be needed to induce a more co-operative EU regulatory structure. If European buyers don’t sign some additional long-term LNG contracts in the months ahead, there are likely to be consequences.

The US has already introduced tariffs into relations with Brazil to halt the prosecution of right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro. The 35% tariff on Canadian goods announced Friday is in part because PM Mark Carney showed he is “tone deaf” by recognizing Palestinian statehood, according to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Trade issues are being linked like never before to promote US interests.

So far, tariffs have been less disruptive than many expected. One might even say that those who understand economics forecast a dire outcome, while those who don’t just went ahead and implemented them. The net result looks like a Federal sales tax applied to imports. It’s running close to $30BN per month. Even for the US-sized budget deficit this is real money – equal to more than a third of our defense spending.

State-level sales taxes are uncontroversial, and most states have one. We now have a Federal sales tax applied selectively on foreign goods. Implementation has been capricious, inducing equity market volatility. Some industries such as autos with their cross-border supply chains have absorbed big losses. There may yet be an uptick in prices, although few would worry that a sales tax is inflationary.

The world hates the re-ordered trade system. Swiss lawmakers were left “in shock” at the abrupt imposition of a 39% tariff on Friday.

America, objectively, seems to be doing fine. The outlook for growth in US LNG exports continues to improve.

We’re modifying the current Sunday/Wednesday twice-weekly blog schedule to be weekly, on Sundays, with opportunistic updates during the week as market events dictate. We think this will improve the quality and relevance of this blog’s output.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Trade Deals Boost LNG Stocks

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Trade Deals Boost LNG Stocks
Loading
/

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen described the US-EU trade agreement as “huge”, demonstrating a helpful grasp of President’s Trump’s lexicon. The imposition of tariffs and the threat of punitive ones has gone remarkably smoothly. That may not always be so, but for now markets are buoyant and inflation only modestly higher.

The White House is linking trade with defense, at least implicitly. Reports suggested that von der Leyen had to consider the continued security umbrella via NATO that the US provides as well as ongoing support of Ukraine. With a trade surplus of almost €200BN in goods last year, she conceded that, “We have to rebalance it.”

Weakness in the Euro FX rate, down 2% in the subsequent two days, confirmed the view of many observers that the EU got the worse end of the deal.

Analysts were quick to point out that the EU will struggle to buy $750BN of US energy exports (mostly oil and gas) over the next three years, even though that is part of the agreement. US total exports of oil and LNG are around $150BN, with about half of that going to the EU, so we will also find it challenging to provide that much. But we can expect US-EU trade to expand in that direction. This will pressure Europeans to source less gas from Russia, which is surely in their best interests as well as ours.

LNG stocks initially reacted strongly to the trade news but then slipped as traders contemplated that the path to increased gas exports is pretty much set for the next few years based on projects already under construction. Price differentials are already sufficient to induce flows from the US to Asia and Europe.

Venture Global (VG) announced Final Investment Decision (FID) on Phase 1 of CP2 LNG. They estimate the project will cost $15.1BN to complete and will make them the #1 LNG exporter in the US. VG has developed a reputation for relatively fast construction of LNG terminals, aided by their modular design. Along with Cheniere they dominate LNG exports, with each leapfrogging the other to be the biggest as they announce new projects.

The prospects for export volumes to double within five years are good, and it’s possible they could increase further still. Export terminals take several years to build, so we have good visibility over that time frame.

The continued promotion of oil and gas exports as a way for foreign countries to reduce their trade surpluses with us is consistent. It means we should expect ongoing regulatory support for increasing our LNG export capacity.

Growing even faster than LNG export capacity is that for Floating LNG (FLNG). Shell’s Prelude FLNG vessel off the coast of NW Australia gave the sector a bad name because of construction delays and downtime which led to enormous cost overruns.

But technology has improved, with former LNG tankers in some cases being converted into liquefaction vessels. The large spherical storage tanks they come with make the conversion relatively straightforward.

Rystad Energy estimates that global FLNG capacity will triple over the next five years.

Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) reported earnings that came in as expected. They spent $170MM repurchasing stock in 1H25 compared with a full year range of $200-300MM. They raised their dividend by 4% year-on-year. At $0.545 per quarter it yields 7%.

A couple of weeks ago I asked my accountant to estimate my tax bill if I was to sell any EPD. As an MLP, the portion of my past EPD distributions that were defined as Return Of Capital (ROC) would be “recaptured” or taxed upon sale. This large tax bill is often a painful experience for the investor.

Oneok’s (OKE) 2023 acquisition of Magellan Midstream (MMP) was treated as if MMP unitholders (which included me) had sold their units. This was one of the reasons we were unhappy about the transaction (see Oneok Does A Deal Nobody Needs). I did get a big tax bill, but OKE’s deft integration of their target has more than compensated.

The taxes owed and tax benefits of MLPs are impenetrable to all but a very few highly skilled tax experts. My friend Elliot Miller is one and he may add a comment to this post when he reads it.

I have owned EPD for close to twenty years and it’s almost tripled since my first purchase. My cost basis has gone negative due to years of the ROC portion of distributions. Nonetheless, I was surprised to learn that for each $100 of EPD I might sell, I’d owe the Federal government $16 which was less than I expected. New Jersey was more than I expected, at $10, so a 26% total tax hit.

The Garden State’s tax code is ruinously high, illogical in ways that always favor the state and doesn’t allow tax-loss carryforwards which is why you should never come to NJ to start a business.

EPD’s yield of 7% is high because of the MLP discount – most investors don’t want a K-1. Even though those distributions are now taxed as ordinary income, it still looks like an attractive yield to me so why sell it?

I’m currently reading Jon Meacham’s American Lion, a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of President Andrew Jackson. His absence of links to the establishment, rejection of constitutional norms and desire for political fights which he invariably won are all reasons he’s compared with Trump, not least by the President himself.

For those who fear the country can’t survive a second four years of Trump (and among this blog readership you are few), draw some comfort from the fact that America survived Andrew Jackson’s two terms (1829-37).

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Another Power Auction Hikes Electricity Prices

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Another Power Auction Hikes Electricity Prices
Loading
/

PJM Interconnection announced the results of their capacity auction last week. This is where suppliers of electricity quote prices to provide surge capacity for periods of high demand (typically hot summer days). It used to be uneventful until last year, when the clearing price was 9X higher than before. This led to the price hikes now rolling across PJM’s region, which saw your blogger’s bill rise 35% (see Power Auctions Are Getting Interesting).

The clearing price of $329.17 per MegaWatt Day was +22% from last year, and would have been higher except for the price cap imposed by FERC. Without the cap, PJM indicated the cleared price would have been $388.57, +44%. PJM expects this to translate into 1.5-5% price increase for consumers.

PJM also noted that this only covers about half the new power demand they expect to see, because of growing data centers.

JPMorgan wrote a cheery research note on the auction (“PJM Paranoia proves perilous”). I was initially confused by this, wondering why higher electricity prices could be good. It soon became clear that power providers such as Talen Energy and Constellation Energy were the auction beneficiaries. Talen reported that this would add $805 million to capacity revenues. Its stock rose 8% on the news.

This is capitalism at work, ensuring that electricity will be available when needed by discovering the price necessary for that to happen. The mix of this guaranteed surge capacity is: 45% natural gas, 21% nuclear, 22% coal, 4% hydro, 3% wind and 1% solar.

Over three quarters of this power is from dispatchable sources (gas and coal) that can be ramped up when needed. 4% is weather-dependent. Demand from data centers is rising.  Supply isn’t keeping up and state policies are increasing the share of intermittent power that’s available.

The usual crowd of apologists for renewables complains that much more solar and wind could be connected to the grid if only PJM would move faster. The impact of each new source needs to be evaluated in terms of the impact of intermittent supply, since conventional power is available when needed rather than weather permitting.

PJM also noted that many projects applying to be connected have yet to be built and have run into problems outside PJM’s scope, such as with, “permitting, supply chain constraints and evolving project economics.”

Grid operators need to consider factors such as the Effective Load Carrying Capacity (ELCC). This contrasts with Unforced Capacity (UCAP). ELCC is typically lower than UCAP, especially for renewables. Moreover, as more intermittent power supplies are added to a grid, their low ELCC drags down the system’s overall ELCC. It means that ever more excess capacity is required as intermittent power gains market share.

This is why it’s so disingenuous for renewables advocates to claim that their solution is the cheapest. As the results of this auction and last year’s show, adding renewables to a grid increases the cost of spare capacity that must be available for when it’s not sunny or windy.

Ironically, offshore wind has been found to have a high ELCC, sometimes even as good as gas combined cycle power plants. But the US has very little offshore wind, and numerous projects have been canceled due to rising costs, supply chain issues and the new Administration’s general hostility to wind.

Surveys show that consumers value reliability and price. Climate change has been receding as a concern, as was apparent in November’s election.  But left-wing climate policies continue to have a deleterious impact.

Solar and wind can work in certain situations though. Enbridge is building a 600MW solar farm near San Antonio, TX which will be fully dedicated to supporting Meta data centers.

Puerto Rico is laboring under an impractical zero carbon mandate. The electricity supply is notoriously unreliable, and many homes have generators to compensate for regular power cuts. Consequently, a law requiring 40% of the island’s electricity to come from renewables this year is (a) not addressing their most important problem, and (b) hopelessly out of reach. Last year 62% of its power came from petroleum products, meaning diesel, 24% natural gas and 7% renewables.

New Fortress Energy (NFE) has been negotiating with Puerto Rico over a $20BN LNG contract, although those discussions have recently been broken off by the PR government. They have few good alternatives and have begun negotiations for 30-day emergency LNG supply contracts. NFE’s stock rose on the news, perhaps reflecting the market’s view that PR will ultimately have to return to negotiations.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

 

 

 

Energy Is Wall Street’s Favorite Sector

/0 Comments/in /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Energy Is Wall Street’s Favorite Sector
Loading
/

The revenue and earnings outlook for the energy sector has deteriorated this year. Alone among the S&P 500’s eleven sectors, FactSet shows declining revenues of –9.6% when companies report for the second quarter based on bottom-up analyst forecasts.

2025 opened with high expectations following Trump’s election victory. And while the White House has followed through on pro-energy policies, these are generally targeted at boosting output, not profits.

Tariffs have also acted as a headwind to growth. The Economist recently published a podcast titled Teflon Don: can the economy withstand a Trump shock, which expressed surprise at the resilience of the global economy to the evolving regime of import taxes.

Nonetheless, crude oil is down over 10% this year. Bombing Iran did not lead to the feared yet unlikely blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. For energy investors, Trump’s second term has continued the pattern of his first one – his love for oil and gas doesn’t boost the industry’s profits.

Energy was notably weak on Monday. The only meaningful news was that S&P once again declined to add Cheniere to their flagship index when presented with the opportunity by Chevron’s acquisition of Hess.

Had they done so, energy would have become a slightly bigger component of the S&P500, potentially benefiting many more energy names not currently in the index. Betting on a corresponding lift to the energy sector was evidently a popular idea, because unwinding it caused some startling drops. Cheniere was –7.3%, reinforcing the old adage about the market being a voting machine in the short run and a weighing machine over the long run.

Cheniere’s business prospects didn’t change at all, just their stock price.

Factset expects 2025 energy profits to be down 13.3% this year, the worst of the eleven S&P500 sectors.

At the sub-sector level, four are projected to drop: Integrated Oil & Gas (-34%), Refining and Marketing (-33%), E&P (-20%) and Equipment and Services (-14%). By contrast, Oil and Gas Storage and Transportation, otherwise known as the midstream energy infrastructure sector so lovingly followed by this blog, is expected to report 2Q25 profits +14% compared with a year ago.

Next year energy sector profits are forecast to rebound, +20.5%. In spite of recent weakness, 74% of stocks carry a “Buy” rating from Wall Street analysts, the most of any sector.

Midstream businesses will perform with less drama, demonstrating the low correlation with commodity prices that is once again proving valuable to pipeline investors.

LNG exports continue to take an increasing share of total US gas production. RBN Energy reports that feedgas demand to lower 48 LNG export terminals is running at 15.6 Billion Cubic Feet per day (BCF/D), with Sempra’s Cameron LNG facility and consortium owned Freeport both back up after brief disruptions earlier in the month.

The Philippines saw its first decline in coal use for 17 years due to increased LNG imports.

Spain, which suffered a nationwide blackout three months ago because of its over-reliance on renewables, is now using more natural gas to stabilize its grid.

Later this week the White House is expected to release their AI Action Plan, which should support the rapid construction of data centers and their need for reliable power. As New Jersey residents have found, demand from data centers can drive up residential electricity prices.

The Garden State’s mandate that 100% of electricity be zero-carbon by 2035 hasn’t helped (watch Progressive Energy Policies Are Costing New Jersey). The independent watchdog for the region’s grid operator PJM says there’s no capacity available for any more data centers.

Some expect that the opening of public lands for more gas extraction will be part of the solution. Around 90% of oil and gas production takes place on private land, usually regulated by states. Trump is for energy dominance, but the Federal government doesn’t have many ways to influence output. Allowing more drilling on Federal land is one of the few.

Electrical grids are struggling to adapt to a surge in demand for electricity. Business models that spread the cost of new infrastructure across all customers are designed for annual growth of 0.1-0.3% or so. When demand grows 10X as much as in the past, spreading the costs of growth widely is more noticeable and unfair. Data centers create few jobs – indeed, some think AI may eliminate vast swathes of employment across the country.

Placing them in lightly populated regions with their own dedicated supply of energy (known as “Behind The Meter” or BTM) may be a necessary political expedient to avoid an upswell of popular opposition.

Natural gas demand will keep rising.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

Not All Growth Projects Are Good

/0 Comments/in , /by
SL Advisors Talks Markets
SL Advisors Talks Markets
Not All Growth Projects Are Good
Loading
/

Kinder Morgan (KMI) kicked off pipeline earnings season last week, as they do every quarter. Their adjusted EBITDA came in a little ahead of expectations at $1.97BN vs $1.95BN. Management guidance was positive.  

LNG exports and data center power needs are the two growth drivers for natural gas pipelines. KMI’s Trident Intrastate Pipeline secured another customer for 0.5BN Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D). Trident serves the Golden Pass LNG terminal on the Texas side of Sabine Pass, opposite Cheniere’s Louisiana-based terminal.  

KMI also registered some growth from data centers.   

The company’s backlog of projects grew by $0.5BN to $9.3BN.  

Growth projects are intended to excite investors, because they’re supposed to boost earnings. Reinvesting retained earnings into the business to earn a Return On Invested Capital (ROIC) above their Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) is how companies grow their profits.  

Every year or so Wells Fargo publishes Show Me The Money in which they compare ROICs for midstream companies. Its release is probably not greeted with boundless enthusiasm by senior executives at KMI, because they have ranked poorly for years. In the most recent edition (October 2024), they were dead last, with a 25-year average ROIC of just 5.4%.  

For the 2018-23 period Wells Fargo calculates KMI’s ROIC at 3.4%, worse than all their peers except Plains All American. With a 6.3% WACC, they’re earning a –2.9% spread. This suggests that on average, KMI investors would be better served if the company hadn’t made those investments.  

It’s not a perfect scorecard. Wells Fargo notes that KMI had some natural gas pipeline contracts that matured and were renegotiated at lower rates. Maybe those projects were done twenty years ago and so shouldn’t reflect on more recent capex. Nonetheless, KMI’s returns have been consistently poor. It means that the enthusiasm with which management describes their $9.3BN backlog should not be shared by KMI investors.  

By contrast Williams Companies (WMB) has done a much better job at reinvesting earnings. Their 25-year ROIC is 12%, and 2018-23 is 22.9%. With an assumed WACC identical to KMI, that’s a 16.7% net return. The median company in the sector has an ROIC of 11.9% and a WACC of 7.2% for a net return of 4.7%.  

We’ve thought for years that KMI doesn’t earn enough on its capex. We engaged with the company in early 2020 (see Kinder Morgan Responds to our Recent Criticism). When Kim Dang became CEO in 2023 she said, “A large part of my job is going to be about continuity.” As she was previously president and CFO, Dang can’t escape responsibility for the capex decisions that led to those poor returns, and continuity might not be what’s needed to improve results. 

Since 2018, the most recent five-year period covered in Show Me The Money KMI’s stock price return of 11.9% pa has lagged both the sector’s 13.4% pa as defined by the American Energy Independence Index (AEITR) and peer WMB’s 15.2% pa.  

Over the past decade, KMI stock has returned 2.2% vs 9.4% for the sector. 

Consequently, KMI is cheaper than WMB. On an EV/EBITDA basis KMI is 11.5X and WMB 13.0X. KMI’s Distributable Cash Flow (DCF) yield is 8.7% and WMB’s is 7.1%. The market has long imposed a valuation discount on KMI because of its poor ROIC. The question investors must ponder is whether the discount is sufficient. A company that consistently earns less than its cost of capital is destroying value on new money invested.  

Investment decisions don’t have to be binary. There’s a range of possible outcomes and overconfidence is a common error. You don’t have to love a stock or not own it. Positions can be sized with precision based on your confidence and the risk/reward. We’re invested in both names but have more exposure to WMB. KMI may improve its capital allocation and it is cheaper. But WMB has a better track record. KMI is likely to trade at a valuation discount until they can improve their performance.  

In other news, Italy’s Eni signed a 20 year Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) with Venture Global, demonstrating continued strong demand for US LNG. It was ENI’s first long term agreement with a US LNG exporter.  

Asian buyers continue to pursue increased purchases of US LNG to reduce trade tensions. 

And NextDecade’s (NEXT) stock continued to appreciate as Morgan Stanley’s bullish report of July 11th has drawn more buyers. It shows the impact some analysts can have, because there haven’t been any news developments to affect NEXT recently, beyond Morgan Stanley’s upgrade. Nonetheless, the impact has been as powerful as any recent positive development.  

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF

 

image_pdfimage_print