Episode Archive - Page 9 of 39

Renewables Are Pushing US Electricity Prices Up

March 20, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Renewables Are Pushing US Electricity Prices Up

00:00 / 00:05:42

The Artificial Intelligence boom means the need for vastly more computing power. This is leading to a sharp jump in data centers, with a consequent increase in projected electricity demand (see AI Boosts US Energy). Elon Musk noted the pressure this is putting on the supply of electric infrastructure. Electricity is stepped up to very high voltage for transmission before being transformed back down to the familiar 110V we use. For example, generator transformers now have a two-year waiting list.

Most regions of the US are planning for increased power demand. The PJM region attributes it all to data centers. Virginia has added 75 since 2019. Microsoft plans to use dedicated nuclear fusion plants to power its growing AI business.

Shifting to increased use of electricity is a key pillar of the energy transition, since in theory an EV run on solar or windpower generates no CO2 emissions (although its manufacture does). Utilities are at the forefront of delivering more electricity from renewables. This is part of decarbonizing our economy.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) published their 2023 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) almost exactly a year ago. In it they projected a 0.7% annual increase in power consumption. By July they had concluded that their models needed an overhaul to better model hydrogen, carbon capture and other emerging technologies. So they’re skipping this year’s AEO while they do that and will return next year with the 2025 AEO.

In January last year PJM forecast 1.4% annual demand growth for electricity over the next decade. Two months ago, they raised this to 2.4% over their ten-year planning horizon. It’s safe to assume that next year’s long term outlook from the EIA will assume faster demand growth.

NextEra Energy (NEE) says it “has a plan to lead the decarbonization of America.” On their most recent earnings call, management’s enthusiasm about growth opportunities in renewables reminded me of pipeline companies 7-10 years ago during the dash for growth that was the shale revolution. There’s an unfailing confidence that growth is good. For investors that requires that projects will earn a risk-adjusted return above the company’s weighted average cost of capital.

Alot of shale revolution capital was poorly allocated. Too many projects, both upstream and midstream, failed to generate a return above their cost of capital.

The energy transition and build-out of renewables originally came with much excitement and enthusiasm. Democrat political leaders were partly to blame. Joe Biden promised cheap reliable electricity along with well-paid union jobs. Climate extremists have long misrepresented the actual cost of intermittent solar and wind power.

US electricity prices are climbing. Over the past five years they’ve increased at a 4.9% annual rate, 0.7% faster than the CPI. Renewables’ share of US power generation has been climbing for two decades and is now around 22%. It’s not a coincidence.

The S&P Global Clean Energy index peaked in late 2020. NEE peaked a year later. US electricity prices had long fluctuated between 13.0 and 14.5 cents per Kilowatt Hour (KwH), but around the time that inflated renewables expectation began to sag, power prices rose.

Fortunately we’re nowhere close to Germany, proud leader of the energy transition, where wholesale electricity is around US0.55 per KwH.

This blog is in favor of reducing CO2 emissions. As we tirelessly point out, replacing coal with natural gas remains America’s biggest success on this score. But few consumers want to pay more for energy – and who can blame them when climate extremists have long asserted with no evidence that renewables are cheaper as well as better for the planet. As a result, few expect to pay more for the energy transition.

Climate extremists have overpromised on the solution.

This puts utilities in an unenviable position. They’re at the forefront of what many believe is a vital mission to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but investors are souring on them. NEE management conceded on their recent earnings call to be disappointed with their stock performance, which is 2.2% pa over the past five years.

The sudden growth in data centers will likely put further upward pressure on electricity prices, since for most utilities at the margin adding new capacity is likely to cost more than their current average cost. Socializing the cost of added data center demand across all their customers will be unpopular, and it will also require more traditional energy. Natural gas infrastructure will benefit, and planned coal plant retirements might be delayed. JPMorgan expects Williams Companies (WMB) could see 0.75 billion cubic feet per day of incremental throughput on their natural gas pipeline network, and projects, “the total national opportunity potentially multiples of this figure.”

Where the pipeline sector differs from utilities is that they’ll often meet incremental demand with small additions to existing capacity, usually funded organically. They don’t have the same pressure to deliver the energy transition at a cheap price.

Utility investors are learning to be less enthusiastic about capex-funded growth.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

AI Boosts US Energy

March 17, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

AI Boosts US Energy

00:00 / 00:05:23

In recent years the International Energy Agency (IEA) has moved from providing objective forecasts to championing the world’s shift away from fossil fuels. In embracing a liberal political stance they’ve lost relevance to companies and governments making investment decisions to meet future demand. For example, the IEA projects peak oil demand within the next few years, whereas OPEC sees no visible peak. The IEA’s base case for energy consumption sees annual demand growth of less than 1% even though the past decade was 1.4% pa.

One result is that the IEA often revises its near tern forecasts higher. They now see 2024 global crude oil demand at 103.2 Million Barrels per Day (MMB/D), up 1.3 MMB/D from last year. Although the IEA has raised its growth forecast by half since it was first released last year, they’re still behind others such as OPEC which expects 2.2 MMB/D of growth.

Analysts have long warned that underinvestment in new oil production would push prices higher. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago briefly took prices near $110 per barrel, but a porous sanctions regime has allowed Russian oil to find its way onto the market. However, over the past month oil futures have edged higher as traders digested the upward revisions to demand forecasts.

It’s part of a growing pattern whereby traditional energy consumption is proving more resilient than many forecasts project.

An example is Shell, which has moderated its carbon intensity targets to incorporate the sale of its retail renewable power business. Investors are rewarding companies that prioritize returns, which for companies like Shell come more reliably from oil and gas. In explaining their changed goals Shell cited, “uncertainty in the pace of change in the energy transition.”

Another area of surprising demand growth is in US power. For over a decade, electricity consumption has hovered just below 4 Trillion Kilowatt Hours. But utilities across the country are preparing for a surge over the next five years. Electric Vehicles (EVs) are only a small part of this. Indeed, Tesla is losing its stature as a growth stock with sales volumes being revised down weekly.

The increased need for US electricity is driven by data centers. Since last year, five year growth in power demand has been revised up by 80%. Virginia has added at least 75 new data centers since 2019. Most regional grids expect increased demand from data centers. California is the exception – the home of computing is a hostile place to build anything.

The Boston Consulting Group expects power demand from data centers to triple by 2030.

In a recent interview, Elon Musk said that AI computing power was increasing at a staggering 10X every six months. Obviously, this isn’t sustainable, but he described it as the fastest growth in a new technology he’s ever seen. Musk has long been optimistic about autonomous driving. He believes Tesla is very close to delivering, although he has said that often over the past several years. He expects self-driving cars using AI to allow much greater utilization of automobiles in the future. While the average car is used for ten hours per week, he expects autonomous cars to move people 50-60 hours a week as they operate like taxis.

Manufacturing is also benefiting from cheap, reliable US energy. New plants to build automobiles and batteries are adding to demand. In the past three years $481BN in new commitments for industrial and manufacturing facilities have been announced. Some of this is the beneficiary of Germany’s slow de-industrialization, caused by years of their disastrous energy policies (see Germany Pays Dearly For Failed Energy Policy).

California, where EVs are popular, expects charging them to consume up to 10% of peak power demand by 2035.

The increased capex among utilities should give investors in that sector pause. But the consequent demand for additional natural gas will further boost utilization of pipelines.

Reducing emissions relies on electrification of activities where it results in a switch to low emission energy. However, renewables are in many cases inadequate to meet this new demand. Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are planning to add dozens of new natural gas power plants over the next fifteen years.

A challenge to adding renewable power capacity lies in transmission lines. Because solar and wind power require large open spaces, their power must be transmitted often over long distances to population centers. Adding grid capacity is proving difficult. The legal system has been turned into a weapon by climate extremists opposed to traditional energy, but interminable lawsuits are also delaying new power infrastructure.

GridStrategies reports that the U.S. installed 1,700 miles of new high-voltage transmission per year on average in the first half of the 2010s but dropped to only 645 miles per year on average in the second half of the 2010s.

Oil and gas demand remain strong, with many companies finding them the most reliable source of investment returns in the energy sector.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Who Do Energy Investors Want In November?

March 13, 2024/2 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Who Do Energy Investors Want In November?

00:00 / 00:05:15

Last week I saw some investors in Florida before joining my partner Henry in Puerto Rico at the national sales conference for Catalyst Funds, our mutual fund partner. The warm, sunny weather and ocean breeze stimulated much useful interaction with clients and salespeople about midstream energy infrastructure. It’s always helpful to hear firsthand the questions and concerns investors voice about what we believe is the most attractive sector in the equity markets today.

The Catalyst crowd is one that, as CEO Jerry Szilagyi said, plays hard and works hard. Like at my golf club, the average age keeps getting younger. Following each day of intensive meetings, the local nightlife was fully experienced, albeit not by your blogger whose postprandial preferences exclude casinos and value sleep over shots.

During several roundtables with groups of salespeople we were often asked how the election will impact the sector.

During his 1984 re-election campaign, then 73 year-old President Reagan quipped that he wasn’t going to make an issue out of 56-year-old Walter Mondale’s youth and inexperience. Similarly, we’re not too worried that a Trump presidency will once again decimate energy investors.

Huh?

Democrats don’t like traditional energy, and left-wing progressives would return us all to living standards from the 19^th century if their energy policies were followed. Therefore, it’s to their great dismay that pipelines have returned a sparkling 32.1% pa since Joe Biden won the 2020 election. Trump’s time in office was –6.2% pa.

Energy executives cheered when Trump surprised many by beating Hilary Clinton in 2016. They expected a lighter, pro-business regulatory touch. Capital flowed into the ground and hydrocarbons gushed out. The shale revolution was good for consumers but not investors as prices sagged under increased supply. Too often, capital was allocated on optimistic assumptions. And then came covid, with its short but dramatic collapse in economic activity and briefly negative oil prices.

A newly elected President Biden adopted the hostile posture he promised during the campaign, immediately canceling the Keystone XL pipeline. The post-pandemic economic recovery was by then well underway, and a superficial interpretation of the pipeline sector’s performance might conclude that the Democrats have provided benign policy support allowing energy investors to profit.

Pipeline executives understand the reality is more nuanced. Democrat politicians planning to stay in office offer progressives enough to keep alive their dystopian vision of nothing but renewables while ensuring reliable energy remains fully available. Capital expenditures have remained at half the levels of five years ago partly because companies are more focused on returns versus growth. But they’re also wary about making long-term capital commitments that future policy changes may render unprofitable.

Climate extremists have helped create the present cautious attitude towards capital allocation. Hug one and drive them to their next protest.

Trump wasn’t bad for energy any more than Biden has been good. Presidents have less influence over the sector than is sometimes believed. We think midstream energy infrastructure is attractive regardless of who wins in November.

We were asked about the pause on approving new LNG export terminals. US export capacity is set to double over the next four years. The permit pause only affects projects beyond that, where construction hasn’t yet begun. See Struggling To Justify The Pause and LNG Pause Will Boost Asian Coal Consumption. The pause is poor policy and will likely be lifted after the election regardless of who wins. It does remind that Democrat energy policies are always at risk of pandering to left-wing extremists.

Sales of Electric Vehicles (EVs) have been flattening. I regularly hear from happy Tesla owners, all of whom own a second car for long journeys. I also have frequent conversations with investors and others who can’t see the point in dealing with the inconvenience of charging. This view seems to be ascendant. Some states are increasing fees on EV owners to compensate for foregone taxes on gasoline. US crude oil demand looks stable, and globally it’s still rising.

Below are some of the slides we use to highlight the attractive positioning of pipelines today. Dividend yields of around 6% are growing, with buybacks further augmenting the total return of cash to shareholders. While midstream capex is constrained, among utilities it’s being boosted. The energy transition must be paid for, and delivering increased electricity from renewables is their job. It’s not easy to reconcile political promises that solar and wind are cheap with the immutable reality of miserable returns on clean energy.

Energy returns have been the best of all eleven S&P sectors since 2021. Yet the sector still looks cheap, midstream especially so. Many investors already agree.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Book Review — Not the End of the World

March 10, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Book Review -- Not the End of the World

00:00 / 00:05:04

There’s no shortage of books, essays and documentaries warning that climate change will make Planet Earth uninhabitable. Therefore, Hannah Ritchie’s Not the End of the World provides a refreshing reminder of how much is going right and likely ways we’ll adapt to a warmer planet.

Ritchie is no climate denier. She studied environmental science at the University of Edinburgh. Like many young people, she initially believed everything was getting worse. Two thirds of Americans aged 16-25 and 72% of Brits responding to a survey agreed that, “The future is frightening.”

Hannah Ritchie eschewed the mindless anti-fossil fuel protests of many contemporaries. Instead, she studied the issues and then wrote a book sharing her generally positive conclusions about our environment while highlighting how much more needs to be done.

Human activity has never been environmentally sustainable. The problems didn’t begin with burning coal for the industrial revolution in the middle of the 19^th century. Over thousands of years our ancestors hunted many large animals to extinction, polluted the air by burning wood and cut down huge amounts of forest.

Frustratingly for the 36% of Americans 16-25 (and 38% of Britons) who are hesitant to have children, there has objectively never been a better time to be alive. Globally, child mortality, maternal mortality and life expectancy are all the best they’ve ever been. Hunger and extreme poverty are lower than ever, while access to clean water and education are higher than ever. Just because it’s a great time to be a human doesn’t mean we can’t improve on all these metrics and others.

Negativity is all too common. A recent FT-Michigan Ross poll found that three quarters of respondents described US economic conditions as “negative”. More people describe their own financial situation as “surviving” versus “thriving”. This is with US GDP growing at 3.3% and unemployment at 3.7%.

Social scientists can ponder why surveys seem increasingly detached from the data. Hannah Ritchie is here to drag us out of the gloom.

Many of us are breathing the cleanest air in centuries. 1950s London surrounded by coal-burning power plants and factories had dirtier air than today’s New Delhi. Ritchie makes the obvious point, that ‘Once life is comfortable, our concerns turn to the environment around us.” Reducing CO2 emissions sits near the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for most people, which is why emerging Asia still burns so much coal.

London responded to the Great Smog of 1952 with pollution controls. By 2008 living standards were high enough in Beijing that they responded similarly – albeit in a typically Chinese way. Many households had their coal boilers removed before gas replacements were available, enduring a cold winter without heat.

Palm oil cultivation is often criticized as environmentally unsustainable. But one hectare produces 2.8 metric tonnes of oil, compared with 0.3 tonnes of olive oil or 0.26 tonnes of coconut oil. If we used less palm oil, we’d need much more farmland to produce other types of oil.

Ritchie walks through her changing appreciation for the impact of natural disasters. Like almost half of survey respondents, she once thought deaths had more than doubled over the past century. They’ve fallen by 97%, adjusted for population. This is like the point Alex Epstein makes, crediting fossil fuels for providing us with more robust infrastructure and the technology to receive earlier warnings. Fossil fuels have made life immeasurably better. But Ritchie remains firmly convinced we need to reduce emissions. By contrast, Epstein thinks a richer world a couple of generations from now will be better equipped and more motivated to tackle the issue.

Like most who think hard about climate change, Ritchie is a big fan of nuclear power. She believes we need to phase out all fossil fuels eventually but wants to start with coal. She doesn’t think we’ll hit the UN’s target of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 but is optimistic that we’re on a good path. In acknowledging the many improvements in quality of life, she wouldn’t regress by limiting energy consumption.

Not the End of the World offers an engaging and optimistic worldview. Bill Gates found it, “A surprising (and surprisingly optimistic) book on climate change.” He called it, “an essential antidote to environmental doomsday-ism.”

This is true. Too many climate extremists are among those hesitant to have children or unable to see the positives in today’s strong US economy. The world is doing fine, can do better in many ways and will get through climate change.

Hannah Ritchie explains why.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Russian Gas Exports Face An Uncertain Recovery

March 6, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Russian Gas Exports Face An Uncertain Recovery

00:00 / 00:05:12

European imports of LNG rose sharply following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine two years ago. The US was well positioned to step in and provided virtually all the additional LNG Europe bought. The current pause on new LNG export terminals runs counter to these trade flows, but it’s increasingly clear this policy has few supporters other than some climate extremists.

Russia has had to pivot towards Asia and FSU (Former Soviet Union) buyers for its natural gas exports. In 2021 Russian exports via both pipeline and as LNG were 244 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM), around 23.6 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D). For reference, last year the US became the world’s largest LNG exporter, averaging 11.9 BCF/D.

Last year Russian exports were 142 BCM, down 42% over two years.

Returning gas exports to their previous level will take years if it occurs at all. Negotiations over the Power of Siberia 2 pipeline project with China are moving slowly, and there’s even a suggestion that Russia may begin construction of the pipeline before they have a signed agreement in hand. China clearly feels they have a strong hand to play – and yet China’s own energy strategy is to lessen its dependence on western supplies. Their booming EV market is one way to reduce the need for crude imports. Another is to align more closely with Russia, since on several levels they need one another.

Russia is also expanding its LNG export capability. The Novatek Arctic LNG 2 terminal with annual capacity of 27 BCM (2.6 BCF/D) may start operations as soon as this month. The US has threatened anyone providing “material support” with penalties or criminal prosecution. This apparently hasn’t dissuaded Philip Adkins, CEO of Red Box Energy Services, as described in this FT article.

Other projects that are less far along are vulnerable to sanctions as well as denied access to western liquefaction technology. Russian LNG projects have suffered timing delays. See Russia’s Gas Export Strategy: Adapting to the New Reality for more detail.

Last week the International Energy Agency (IEA) published CO2 Emissions in 2023. In recent years the IEA has moved from providing objective analysis of energy markets to promoting anodyne versions of the energy transition. Few of their projections on energy use are remotely plausible. As a result, some think if Trump wins the election he’ll stop funding the IEA, which seems to have outlived its purpose with its new approach.

The IEA reported that global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.1% last year. Executive director Fatih Birol claimed that increased EV deployment over the past five years had constrained global oil demand, thereby reducing emissions. He overlooked that in the world’s biggest EV market Chinese electricity is 62% derived from coal. At the IEA, cheerleading sometimes beats analysis.

Canada announced that the TransMountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline that they purchased from Kinder Morgan (KMI) in 2018 (see Canada’s Failing Energy Strategy) will finally start operating. It connects oil-rich Alberta with Pacific export terminals in British Columbia.

TMX is planning 2.1 million barrels of linefill next month and another 2.1 in May. Construction has been a financial disaster for taxpayers, with the ultimate cost likely to exceed by 4X estimates when KMI deftly unloaded the project. Alberta has always struggled to get its oil to market. British Columbia’s left-leaning government has long been hostile to TMX, which prompted KMI’s sale. Keystone XL was intended to add southern takeaway capacity until Biden canceled it. Alberta’s oilmen will be relieved.

Canada also intends to expedite approval of new nuclear projects, a pragmatic step that acknowledges the limitations of solar and wind. The Sierra Club Canada is, like its US namesake, opposed to nuclear power. Climate extremists aren’t good for the rest of us.

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is often dismissed by those who want the world to rely on intermittent energy. Occidental is building the world’s biggest CCS facility in Texas and is optimistic about licensing the technology. They gave up on one project, named Century, after concluding the economics weren’t attractive enough. However, they drew a $550 million investment from Blackrock in Stratos, which is expected to be commercially operational by the middle of next year.

In Singapore, Exxon and Shell have formed a JV to work with the government on a CCS project. Opponents dislike CCS because it allows fossil fuels to be used without emitting CO2. This is why the rest of us should hope CCS becomes a vital part of the energy chain, since it will preserve our use of reliable energy rather than the intermittent, weather-dependent type.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Coal Trade Is Growing

March 3, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Coal Trade Is Growing

00:00 / 00:05:36

American coal exports are booming. Exports of thermal coal rose 26% last year, to 44 Million Metric Tonnes (MMTs). This is mostly burned to produce electricity. We also exported 46.5 MMTs of metallurgical coal, typically used in industrial processes such as steel manufacture.

Shipments of thermal coal to India doubled, to 14.1 MMTs, close to a third of such exports.

Coal is widely understood to generate roughly twice the Greenhouse Gas emissions (GHGs) as natural gas. In addition, local pollution causes respiratory problems for people living nearby.

US GHGs have fallen over the past 15 years primarily because we’ve been reducing coal-sourced power in favor of natural gas. Increased use of renewables has also contributed, but not as much.

A coherent White House climate policy would encourage developing countries, the main source of demand growth for energy, to follow the US example. This would mean increasing natural gas availability through LNG exports and reducing coal availability.

Instead, we’re doing the opposite. With coal exports reaching a record, the White House injected uncertainty into long term US LNG supply by pausing the approval of new export terminals.

Pakistan announced last year a quadrupling of coal-fired power generation in response to high global LNG prices. Japan recently broke off negotiations with Energy Transfer about buying LNG from their planned Lake Charles facility because of uncertainty over whether it will be built.

India is the second biggest consumer of coal, albeit way behind China who is 4X as big. A new round of Ukraine-related sanctions on Russia is intended to impede their exports of coal to India, which will presumably further boost their appetite for US shipments.

India plans to increase LNG imports so as to increase fertilizer production. This is needed to feed their growing population whose diets will include more protein as living standards rise (see LNG Pause Will Boost Asian Coal Consumption). Urea is a nitrogen-based fertilizer derived from natural gas via the Haber-Bosch process. It provides plants with nitrogen which promotes growth. Solar and wind power cannot produce fertilizers, other than providing heat energy to enable the chemical processes.

To put the export statistics in perspective, the 44 MMTs of thermal coal we exported, which will mostly be burned to generate power, have the same energy equivalent as 9.4 Billion Cubic Feet per Day (BCF/D) of LNG exports. We currently export 12-13 BCF/D of LNG, mostly to Asian buyers who use less coal as a result. This figure will double over the next four years or so as export terminals at various stages of construction reach completion. But the DOE pause on new approvals has cast uncertainty.

Nobody wants to sign a 20 year commitment to purchase LNG without knowing that the proposed facility will actually be built. According to the Energy Institute’s 2023 Statistical Review of World Energy, global coal trade grew at 0.6% pa over the past decade.

It’s fair to say that US climate policy is not closely aligned with trade policy as it relates to energy exports. We are encouraging purchases of the fossil fuel that generates the most GHGs while impeding its replacement with cleaner-burning LNG.

US climate extremists including TikTok boy Alex Haraus (see White House Adopts An Energy Policy Where Everyone Loses) have promulgated a flawed policy that will increase emissions by encouraging coal use.

When people disagree with you it’s tempting to question their intelligence. This is quicker than considering whether their alternate view holds some insight. It’s also intellectually lazy.

However, in the case of climate extremists I have concluded that factual analysis informs their views to an inconsequential degree. They exhibit a Pavlovian opposition to any form of reliable energy. They know little of how the world works. They think everything can run on solar and wind even though 80% of the world’s energy today comes from fossil fuels. Many of them even oppose nuclear power, so beholden by the purist belief in intermittent energy.

In short, climate extremists are not the smartest people you’ll meet.

Electoral enthusiasm is the lowest I can recall in over four decades living in the US. It’s why Biden grasped at the LNG permit pause as an opportunity to energize progressives. But it’s poor policy, and after the election if the current octogenarian occupant of the Oval Office wins, a more effective policy prescription will likely follow. This should include more gas and less coal.

Trump has already said he’ll lift the pause.

So the investor’s perspective should be to look past the current short term thinking and consider what a thoughtful policy will look like. Those who think hard about how the world can reduce GHGs expect climate extremists to be drowned out by pragmatic solutions.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

4Q Earnings Wrap

February 28, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

4Q Earnings Wrap

00:00 / 00:05:16

Earnings for 4Q23 are almost complete. Most companies came in at or a few per cent ahead of market expectations. Cheniere (CEI) beat sell-side estimates by 11%, continuing a remarkable run. They are targeting a 1:1 ratio between buybacks and debt reductions and based on their long run desired share count should be retiring 12-13% of outstanding shares over the next few years.

CEI’s FY2023 EBITDA came in at $8.77BN. The stock dipped last week as 2024 EBITDA guidance came in a little below expectations at $5.5-6.0BN. Last year they benefitted from large regional price differences in natural gas on the portion of their LNG capacity not committed under long-term agreements. They have not assumed the same opportunity this year. Despite CEI’s flat stock performance over the past year, JPMorgan and Wells Fargo continue to rate them Overweight. It’s one of our bigger holdings.

Plains All American (PAGP) came in 10% ahead of expectations as their crude oil and Natural Gas Liquids segments both reported strong results. They increased their distribution by 19%.

PAGP stock has performed strongly in the past year, +31% versus the American Energy Independence Index (AEITR) at +17%. We tend to underweight crude oil businesses in favor of natural gas where we believe the long-term growth prospects are more assured. Nonetheless, the softening of US demand for electric vehicles will encourage the view that US crude oil demand is not going to fade away.

Energy Transfer’s (ET) 4Q EBITDA came in close to consensus at $3.6BN. However, 2024 EBITDA guidance was slightly below expectations while capex was somewhat higher. The stock remains attractively priced in our view, and any disappointment over the guidance was short-lived. It’s up 26% over the past year, including that high dividend which currently yields 8.4% and is covered 2X by Distributable Cash Flow (DCF). ET is rated Overweight at JPMorgan and Wells Fargo.

Targa Resources (TRGP) is another strongly performing stock, +33% over the past year including its low dividend which currently yields 2%. TRGP is well positioned to transport NGLs from the Permian to export terminals on the Gulf coast, providing an integrated service to customers with multiple opportunities to add value.

JPMorgan expects 9%+ EBITDA growth this year and next. With management committed to returning 40-50% of cash from operations to shareholders via dividends and buybacks, there is plenty of room for TRGP to increase its quarterly payout.

The Canadians have been lagging the sector because of market concerns about their capex. Enbridge’s (ENB) C$19BN acquisition of three utilities from Dominion last year wasn’t well received. They’ve raised 85% of the funds needed through debt, equity and asset sales. ENB stock is -4% over the past year, meaningfully underperforming the sector. Their 7.8% yield is 1.4X covered by DCF. Analyst opinion is mixed – JPMorgan is Overweight while Wells Fargo is Underweight.

TC Energy (TRP) has also lagged the sector, +4% over the past year. Their capex has been higher than investors would like over the past couple of years, but projects are nearing completion and spending is coming down. Coastal GasLink was completed late last year and will provide natural gas to LNG Canada’s export terminal in Kitimat, BC for export to Asian customers. The Southeast Gateway project will connect customers in Mexico with domestic supply. It is scheduled to be completed next year. This year capex is forecast to be C$8-8.5 and closer to C$6BN next year. Their 7% dividend yield is 1.5X covered by DCF.

Overall earnings confirmed the predictability of cashflows in the midstream sector. It is often described as a “toll-like” business model. The pandemic-induced collapse in 2020 challenged this description, but performance since then has shown that the description remains apt. Attractive dividends with ample coverage from DCF is common across the sector.

I was struck by a chart the other day showing a sharp drop in the price of used Teslas. A couple of years ago wait times of as much as a year were common for buyers to take delivery of their new vehicle. Nowadays it’s a few weeks, and sales have slowed so that Electric Vehicles (EVs) are taking dealers longer to shift than conventional cars.

The halving of resale values for EVs reflects consumer realization that they’re nice to drive but charging is inconvenient. Cold weather reduces their battery range, as does age. As suggested in this video (see Stop Paying For Overpriced EVs), these are the reasons they ought to be cheaper than an equivalent gas-powered car. Reduced resale value boosts annual depreciation, increasing the cost of ownership.

EVs are gradually finding a more appropriate price point.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

What Investors Ask Your Blogger

February 25, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

What Investors Ask Your Blogger

00:00 / 00:06:25

Recently I’ve given presentations to a couple of investment clubs in Naples, FL. Usually I speak about midstream energy infrastructure, but I was also asked to expand on Our Darkening Fiscal Outlook, recently published on our blog,

The Q&A is always enjoyable at such events. Below are some common themes that came up.

Don’t weak natural gas prices show that Biden’s pause on approving new LNG export terminals is hurting US producers?

The White House directed the Department of Energy (DOE) to consider the overall climate impact of approving further LNG exports. They didn’t cancel existing approvals, so North American LNG export volumes are still on track to roughly double over the next four years. This includes new terminals in Canada and Mexico.

As noted previously, the pause is unlikely to reduce emissions since Asia will simply burn more coal. Pakistan announced last year a quadrupling of coal-generated power because of high LNG prices. But it is causing uncertainty. For example, Japan’s Kyushu Electric is postponing negotiations with Energy Transfer about buying LNG from their planned Lake Charles terminal until it’s clear it will be built.

Today’s weak US natural gas prices aren’t related to the DOE pause, since it only affects the construction of new terminals which are several years out. Prices are weak because of a relatively mild winter (although I can report Naples has been unusually cold). Chesapeake recently announced they’ll be reducing natural gas production because of low prices. With natural gas well below $2 per Million BTUs, it’s clear that domestic producers and foreign buyers would both benefit from increased trade.

Will there be more mergers in the midstream sector?

Investment bankers have been busy in the energy sector over the past six months or so. The number of MLPs keeps shrinking although we expect Enterprise Products and Energy Transfer to retain their pass-through status given high insider ownership. Western Midstream Partners (WES) might be sold at some point, and that would further reduce the number of MLPs. It would also create a deferred income tax recapture event for holders if bought by a c-corp. Magellan Midstream agreed to Oneok’s acquisition last year despite the tax bill it created for long-time investors. Presumably WES holders might similarly accept a merger-induced tax bill if they felt the terms were right.

When will our dire fiscal outlook provoke a crisis?

A chart showing the stratospheric path of US indebtedness is sufficient to make the case that a debt crisis is inevitable. So why hasn’t it already happened? Thirty year bond yields of 4.5% do not reveal reluctant buyers. But then Argentina has defaulted nine times since independence in 1816 and is always able to come back for more. It’s unclear why any return-oriented investor would ever buy Argentine debt, but there are sufficient undiscerning bond buyers that in 2017 they issued 100 year bonds.

Bond underwriters know how to have fun at others’ expense. Let’s hope there were no CFA charterholders making such purchases.

Since at least as far back as the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09, a surplus of return-insensitive capital (central banks, sovereign wealth funds) along with inflexible mandates at others such as pension funds has kept yields low.

The Federal Reserve owns almost a fifth of our Federal debt, a portion the Congressional Budget Office expects to remain unchanged. Research suggests that quantitative easing reduced bond yields by as much as 1%. This contributes to the present conundrum whereby monetary policy is generally regarded as restrictive whereas the inverted yield curve leaves ten year treasuries at 4.3%, or 2% above expected inflation over their lifetimes.

3.3% GDP growth, 3.7% unemployment and a stock market at new highs all suggest that rates are not much of an economic headwind.

Can I trust the inflation numbers?

It’s always fun to demonstrate why inflation statistics are deceptive. See Why It’s No Longer Enough To Beat Inflation. In brief, there is no government conspiracy to understate inflation. It’s just that the economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics measure what they can, not what you think.

“A basket of goods and services of constant utility” is what they measure. Statisticians strip out quality improvements, because they provide more utility. So consumer electronics such as iphones show up as falling in price because more features for the same cost equals a price cut in BLS-land.

What most investors want to know is the rate at which their spending capacity needs to grow so that they don’t feel any poorer. Since living standards grow, simply keeping up with CPI will leave you worse off relative to the median.

Whenever you read “in today’s dollars” the writer isn’t giving a true picture of what it felt like to buy, say, a color TV in 1953 which cost $1,500.

That’s around $15,000 “in today’s dollars” because using CPI you need $10 today to buy what $1 did back then.

2022 median household income was $92,750, so that TV looks as if it cost about two months pay for the typical family. But in 1953 median household income was $4,242, so it really took over four months of pay to buy the TV.

The correct comparison would keep the portion of household income needed to buy the item the same as in 1953. Multiplying the $1,500 1953 TV by $92,750/$4,242, or 21.86, gives almost $33K. That’s the more meaningful representation of what a 1953 TV cost. It keeps the portion of household income needed to buy the TV the same in 2022 as in 1953.

There’s no need to mistrust the BLS. But if your purchasing power doesn’t keep up with median household income, you’ll gradually become poorer by comparison with the rest of the country.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Our Darkening Fiscal Outlook

February 21, 2024/0 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

Our Darkening Fiscal Outlook

00:00 / 00:05:16

There are two ways in which our looming fiscal catastrophe draws closer. One is through the passage of time, as entitlements grow with more aging Medicare recipients. The other is through worsening projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Both are happening.

Start with interest expense. In the CBO’s May 2022 ten year Budget and Economic Outlook, this line item was forecast to hit $1TN in 2030, eight years hence. Last May, the CBO brought this date closer by two years, to 2028. And in the February outlook just released it’s now 2026. Since 2022 the $1TN date has gone from eight years out to just two.

Inflation ran higher than projected in 2022, which also pushed up nominal GDP. But even as a % of GDP, the interest expense figures have worsened. This year we’ll spend 3.1% of GDP on interest, rising to 3.7% in 2032.

Projections for the Fed’s balance sheet are moving higher as well. Ever since Ben Bernanke unleased Quantitative Easing (QE) during the 2008 Great Financial Crisis (GFC), the Fed has struggled to bring its bond holdings back down to the level that’s needed to operate monetary policy. Fearful of causing a spike in bond yields, they rely on maturing bonds rolling off to shrink their holdings.

The Fed’s balance sheet is currently $7.7TN, of which $4.7TN is US treasury securities. Most of the balance is Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS). Two years ago, the CBO expected the Fed’s holdings of US treasuries to drop to $3.3TN by 2025. Now they’re projecting $4.4TN and expect it to be back at $4.7TN by 2026. An excessive balance sheet has become an enduring feature of our monetary policy.

When such holdings become permanent it represents a partial monetization of our debt. Moreover, the Fed’s % of outstanding government debt is now projected to be 19% by 2032, 4% higher than the CBO was forecasting a couple of years ago.

The CBO doesn’t forecast MBS holdings, but virtually all these securities have an average life greater than ten years. Prepayments will knock this down, but MBS has also become a permanent item on the Fed’s balance sheet.

The CBO assumes real GDP growth of 2.0% pa. Recessions are usually unexpected and forecasting them is hard. But when the next one occurs, ample fiscal stimulus will be part of the solution and inevitably the Fed will feel compelled to start QE again.

The only good thing about our deteriorating fiscal outlook is that the perennially forecast day of reckoning hasn’t come. We’re still muddling along. We’re about to head up the steep path into unknown territory as shown in the last chart.

Federal debt held by the public will reach 99% this year and is headed higher. However, when adjusted by Federal financial assets and debt held by the Federal Reserve it’s 75%. Japan’s equivalent figure is 119%.

Japan’s defining economic challenge over the past couple of decades has been deflation. GDP growth averaged less than 0.5% pa over the past decade. Many economists blame this partly on their high levels of government debt.

It’s unlikely an extended period of anemic growth would be politically acceptable in the US. The depression of the 1930s defines American economic policy, in that every president is expected to preside over economic growth. Germany’s equivalent is avoiding a repeat of the inflation of the 1930s under the Weimar Republic that led to Hitler’s ascent.

Japanese voters have accepted mediocre GDP growth far longer than would be the case in the US. If excessive US debt led to Japanese-style deflation here, fiscal stimulus and QE would quickly follow.

How this issue resolves itself is of great importance to the long term investor. QE depresses long term yields and impedes the Fed in its ability to constrain growth when inflation is above target. Barry Knapp of Ironsides Macroeconomics regularly warns about the harm to profitability of all but the biggest US banks caused by the persistent inversion of the 3 Month/10 Year portion of the yield curve. Loans priced off the long end of the treasury curve don’t yield enough to generate acceptable profits for banks whose marginal cost of wholesale funding is close to the Fed Funds rate.

And yet US economic growth remains strong with unemployment low. An unintended consequence of QE is the pressure the Fed’s bond holdings put on regional bank profitability by keeping yields low. It also probably means they need tighter monetary policy than would otherwise be the case at the short end, since long-term yields aren’t that restrictive.

Inflation expectations are the likely casualty rather than GDP growth. Eventually our excessive debt along with increasing debt monetization will cause slow but steady currency debasement, the time-honored refuge of profligate governments. We believe owning infrastructure and other real assets is how investors should position themselves.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

LNG Pause Will Boost Asian Coal Consumption

February 18, 2024/2 Comments/in Midstream Energy Infrastructure SL Advisors Talks Markets/by Simon Lack

SL Advisors Talks Markets

LNG Pause Will Boost Asian Coal Consumption

00:00 / 00:04:55

Criticism of the White house pause on LNG approvals continues. Williams Companies’ CEO Alan Armstrong said it would cause some countries contemplating the construction of new LNG import facilities to hesitate. The clearest result will be increased coal consumption since it’s cheap and widely available across Asia.

Shell expects LNG demand to increase by 50% through 2040. The biggest driver will be switching away from coal by China and other Asian countries. Even though Shell thinks overall natural gas demand could peak around then, they still expect LNG to continue growing.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) provided one reason. They expect Indian consumption of natural gas to more than triple by 2050, with much of this increase coming from LNG imports.

Around half the gas consumed by India’s industrial sector is used to produce ammonia, which is then converted into urea, a fertilizer. Government policy is to produce more ammonia and therefore produce more urea domestically, thereby decreasing fertilizer imports.

Few climate extremists have given this much thought, but not every use of natural gas can be replaced with solar panels or windmills. Urea is produced from a series of chemical reactions at high temperatures. India’s population and per capita calorie consumption are growing. As living standards rise people eat higher quality food with more protein. If you’ve ever visited India, it’s unlikely you saw much obesity.

The EIA expects India’s primary consumption of energy to grow at a 3.9% annual rate through 2050, which means it’ll triple. They expect India’s economy to grow at 5% pa, more than 2X the global rate (China is 3.0% and the US 1.9%).

Even with annual growth in gas 2X China’s (4.4% vs 2.0% pa), by 2050 India will still be only around a third of China’s consumption and a quarter of the US. In other words, the EIA’s outlook for India doesn’t look excessively high.

It’s implausible that an emerging country like India will moderate its need for fertilizer just because US climate extremists think the world should phase out natural gas. If they’re unable to source enough gas elsewhere, they’re more likely to increase coal consumption in the power sector, freeing up more gas for urea production.

RBNEnergy published an interesting blog post reviewing the winners and losers from the Department of Energy pause on permits.

In other news, last week three of the G7 economies are now in recession. Japan reported -0.4% GDP for 4Q23 following a revised 3.3% decline in the previous three months. Their economy slipped to 4^th biggest, replaced at third by Germany, even as they similarly reported two consecutive declines in GDP. The UK just did the same.

Japan has struggled with anemic growth for years hampered by the demographics of an aging population. But the other two are self-inflicted.

Germany has pursued economically ruinous energy policies even though at 2% of the world’s GreenHouse Gas (GHGs) emissions this effort is more about showing leadership than making a material change. Energy prices have become damagingly high for industry, prompting companies to cut back domestic production and relocate facilities elsewhere.

Last year Germany closed their last three remaining nuclear plants under a plan introduced by former chancellor Angela Merkel. The loss of Russian natural gas caused them to scramble for LNG imports as well as restart coal-burning power plants.

Germany’s emissions fell to their lowest since the 1950s last year, although this was driven in part by slower economic growth. The government wants to achieve a 65% reduction compared to 1990 within six years.

Few countries will find voters enthused about following Germany’s example, which is nonetheless rated “Insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker.

UK growth is being held back by Brexit, which has made it harder to trade with the rest of the EU. This won’t surprise the minority who voted against Brexit. Polls show most Britons now think Brexit was a mistake. The Conservative Party is struggling to show it was a good decision.

Both Germany and the UK are suffering the consequences of policy choices that were poorly advised, albeit ones that reflected the popular will. Democracies don’t always make good decisions.

What a contrast with the US, where economic growth is barreling along at 3.3% and the 3.7% unemployment rate shows there are jobs for anyone who seriously wants one. And we’re reducing our GHG emissions, just without creating a recession.

US energy policy has been broadly right, albeit the White House’s recent pause on LNG export permits is wrongheaded. A few European countries would benefit from following the US example.

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

Energy Mutual Fund Energy ETF Real Assets Fund

Archives