Best of the Week
Most Popular
1. 2019 From A Fourth Turning Perspective - James_Quinn
2.Beware the Young Stocks Bear Market! - Zeal_LLC
3.Safe Havens are Surging. What this Means for Stocks 2019 - Troy_Bombardia
4.Most Popular Financial Markets Analysis of 2018 - Trump and BrExit Chaos Dominate - Nadeem_Walayat
5.January 2019 Financial Markets Analysis and Forecasts - Nadeem_Walayat
6.Silver Price Trend Analysis 2019 - Nadeem_Walayat
7.Why 90% of Traders Lose - Nadeem_Walayat
8.What to do With Your Money in a Stocks Bear Market - Stephen_McBride
9.Stock Market What to Expect in the First 3~5 Months of 2019 - Chris_Vermeulen
10.China, Global Economy has Tipped over: The Surging Dollar and the Rallying Yen - FXCOT
Last 7 days
Stock Market DOW Seasonal Trend Analysis - 23rd Mar 19
US Dollar Breakdown on Fed Was Much Worse Than It Looks - 23rd Mar 19
Gold Mid-Tier GDXJ Stocks Fundamentals - 23rd Mar 19
Which Currency Pairs Stand to Benefit from Prevailing Risk Aversion? - 23rd Mar 19
If You Get These 3 Things Right, You’ll Never Have to Worry About Money - 22nd Mar 19
March 2019 Cryptocurrency Technical Analysis - 22nd Mar 19
Turkey Tourist Fakes Market Bargains Haggling Top Tips - 22nd Mar 19
Next Recession: Finding A 48% Yield Amid The Ruins - 22nd Mar 19
Your Future Stock Returns Might Unpleasantly Surprise You - 22nd Mar 19
Fed Acknowledges “Recession Risks”. Run for the Hills! - 22nd Mar 19
Will Bridging Loans Grow in Demand and Usage in 2019? - 22nd Mar 19
Does Fed Know Something Gold Investors Do Not Know? - 21st Mar 19
Gold …Some Confirmations to Watch For - 21st Mar 19
UKIP No Longer About BrExit, Becomes BNP 2.0, Muslim Hate Party - 21st Mar 19
A Message to the Gold Bulls: Relying on the CoT Gives You A False Sense of Security - 20th Mar 19
The Secret to Funding a Green New Deal - 20th Mar 19
Vietnam, Part I: Colonialism and National Liberation - 20th Mar 19
Will the Fed Cut its Interest Rate Forecast, Pushing Gold Higher? - 20th Mar 19
Dow Jones Stock Market Topping Pattern - 20th Mar 19
Gold Stocks Outperform Gold but Not Stocks - 20th Mar 19
Here’s What You’re Not Hearing About the US - China Trade War - 20th Mar 19
US Overdosing on Debt - 19th Mar 19
Looking at the Economic Winter Season Ahead - 19th Mar 19
Will the Stock Market Crash Like 1937? - 19th Mar 19
Stock Market VIX Volaility Analysis - 19th Mar 19
FREE Access to Stock and Finanacial Markets Trading Analysis Worth $1229! - 19th Mar 19
US Stock Markets Price Anomaly Setup Continues - 19th Mar 19
Gold Price Confirmation of the Warning - 18th Mar 19
Split Stock Market Warning - 18th Mar 19
Stock Market Trend Analysis 2019 - Video - 18th Mar 19
Best Precious Metals Investment and Trades for 2019 - 18th Mar 19
Hurdles for Gold Stocks - 18th Mar 19
Pento: Coming QE & Low Rates Will Be ‘Rocket Fuel for Gold’ - 18th Mar 19
"This is for Tommy Robinson" Shouts Knife Wielding White Supremacist Terrorist in London - 18th Mar 19
This Is How You Create the Biggest Credit Bubble in History - 17th Mar 19
Crude Oil Bulls - For Whom the Bell Tolls - 17th Mar 19
Gold Mining Stocks Fundamentals - 17th Mar 19
Why Buy a Land Rover - Range Rover vs Huge Tree Branch Falling on its Roof - 17th Mar 19
UKIP Urged to Change Name to BNP 2.0 So BrExit Party Can Fight a 2nd EU Referendum - 17th Mar 19
Tommy Robinson Looks Set to Become New UKIP Leader - 16th Mar 19
Gold Final Warning: Here Are the Stunning Implications of Plunging Gold Price - 16th Mar 19
Towards the End of a Stocks Bull Market, Short term Timing Becomes Difficult - 16th Mar 19
UKIP Brexit Facebook Groups Reveling in the New Zealand Terror Attacks Blaming Muslim Victims - 16th Mar 19
Gold – US Dollar vs US Dollar Index - 16th Mar 19
Islamophobic Hate Preachers Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins have Killed UKIP and Brexit - 16th Mar 19
Countdown to The Precious Metals Gold and Silver Breakout Rally - 15th Mar 19
Shale Oil Splutters: Brent on Track for $70 Target $100 in 2020 - 15th Mar 19
Setting up a Business Just Got Easier - 15th Mar 19
Stock Market Elliott Wave Analysis Trend Forercast - Video - 15th Mar 19
Gold Warning - Here Are the Stunning Implications of Plunging Gold Price - Part 1 - 15th Mar 19
UK Weather SHOCK - Trees Dropping Branches onto Cars in Stormy Winds - Sheffield - 15th Mar 19
Best Time to Trade Forex - 15th Mar 19
Why the Green New Deal Will Send Uranium Price Through the Roof - 14th Mar 19
S&P 500's New Medium-Term High, but Will Stock Market Uptrend Continue? - 14th Mar 19
US Conservatism - 14th Mar 19
Gold in the Age of High-speed Electronic Trading - 14th Mar 19
Britain's Demographic Time Bomb Has Gone Off! - 14th Mar 19
Why Walmart Will Crush Amazon - 14th Mar 19
2019 Economic Predictions - 14th Mar 19
Tax Avoidance Bills Sent to Thousands of Workers - 14th Mar 19

Market Oracle FREE Newsletter

Stock Market Trend Forecast March to September 2019

Shale Oil Splutters: Brent on Track for $70 Target $100 in 2020

Commodities / Crude Oil Mar 15, 2019 - 04:14 PM GMT

By: Andrew_Butter

Commodities

  • There is a sense of triumphalism in the tag-line, “U.S.A. is now a net oil exporter”. Reminiscent of “Mission Accomplished”; first it’s not true, second; what’s hiding in the wings is sinister.
  • In February, in the Permian,  Initial Production net Legacy-Loss (IPnL), which measures change in production capacity, was down 42% on the peak in May 2018
  • 98.5% of changes in IPnL can be explained by changes in trailing average oil price. That sounds blindingly obvious; but there’s a catch.
  • Shale oil output-growth affects oil prices; so there’s negative feedback-loop. What happened was legacy-loss in shale caught up, shale is still a “swing producer”; but soon they will need $70 WTI.
  • Ten years ago the Saudi’s  said $70-to-$80 Brent was “fair”, that’s what the world could afford, and what producers needed to bring in new oil, they said. They may get that, and more, soon.

Someone who was there told someone I know; that the day-before Deepwater Horizon blew, the HSE fascists had a party; no booze, no smoking, no trans-fats, no lap-dancers, lots of sugar; quite a party. It was to celebrate what a great job they had all done. Near-miss incident-reports on not holding handrails going down stairs; had halved, and the numbers of injuries from actually falling down stairs was 25% of two years before. It’s one thing to write and document a fifty-page risk-analysis, it’s another thing to get the big things right. Not many corporate risk-analyses in 2014 had a line on “What-if oil prices halve, or more?” The question that should be asked now, is “What if they double, or more”, as shale output growth increasingly fails to fill the gap, and more than likely conventional E&P won’t be able to bring on capacity to play catch-up; fast enough.

In late 2018, oil prices got hammered because President Trump played a trick on OPEC, by issuing waivers on Iranian sanctions. OPEC had ramped up to fill that gap, so then there was a temporary glut; that’s been sorted; now Brent is firmly on track to the level achieved in October 2018 ($84).

It could go more this time, because un-noticed by the flag-wavers, shale is spluttering.  The number to watch is initial production (IP) by month as a function of trailing average price. IP is not reported directly by EIA in their monthly Drilling Productivity Report, but you can work it out from the numbers they do report. Theoretically IP minus Legacy loss ought to equal the monthly change in total production, long-term it does, see chart:

Short term the change in total production (how much was reported this month minus how much was reported, last month – even roustabouts can do the math on that one), bounces around.

If I was an economist I would say that proves the existence of Black Swans and means that the Federal Reserve should drop interest rates, another plausible explanation could be that as production went up, the logistics for getting the oil to market got stretched.

Notice that legacy-loss is climbing in a pretty straight line; total production growth has stalled; whenever; (if-ever); those two lines come together, that will be “Peak-Shale”.  By the way I smoothed legacy-loss line because in Eagle Ford for a few months the reported numbers went haywire, I’m assuming that was a reporting error, so I treated it as an outlier (i.e. I ignored that data).

Currently 77% of IP is used to replace legacy loss; which is the root of the problem with shale oil. IP depends on the oil price, when that’s high operators drill and complete, when it’s low they polish their cowboy-boots, which is about the only other thing to do in Permian.

Shale operators say they can make money at $28 WTI (about $38 Brent). Just one small point, whenever WTI dips below $50 ($60 Brent), they start to pull back, which suggests that these days they don’t make money at that price.

Yes of course, history is an unreliable guide to the future, but if you couldn’t do something in the past (i.e. make money at $50 WTI), it’s unreasonable to tell your investors that you can. Here are some models of the past showing that U.S. Shale oil Initial Production, is driven ONLY by the price four and six months in the past:

The model for the past 44-months has only one variable, so there cannot be any question about auto-correlation skewing the answer.

Above 400,000 the direction changed, I thought “I’m not interested in what happened more than two years ago, I’m interested in what’s happening now,” so I just ran the numbers for the past 25 months.

In the 25-month model both the price explanatory variables are positive (i.e. no chance of auto correlation), the model says that roughly 30% of changes of IP can be explained by changes in WTI-L6 and 70% can be explained by changes in WTI-L4.

A few months ago, I also noticed that over the past 12-months, the slope of the line of IP as a function of price has been dropping, so I modeled for just 12-Months (Model-2). I don’t like to make projections (which is obviously where I’m going), from such a short history, but that’s the problem projecting shale output, there’s not much history.

So IP is predictable from WTI. To arrive at a model of the theoretical change in Total Production, you need to take away legacy-loss this month. Legacy loss averages about 6.4% of last month’s Total Production. Why last month? Well legacy loss this month also correlates with Total Production this month, but I can’t use that because that’s the number I’m trying to find.

Obviously for the first line of the model I use actual for TP last month, got to start somewhere. Seeing as some commentators on my previous post were interested in the detail, line by line, I’m showing how the arithmetic to get to a model of total monthly production was worked out; enjoy!

That model was solved for the future, for different scenarios of WTI going forwards from today, i.e. the $90 scenario, was for “What-if WTI goes to $90 next month and stays there?” This is how that turned out:

Comments:

  • Although there is a very good correlation between the model of TP and actual, the model consistently over-estimates compared to actual. A plausible explanation for that is because the model is derived from a model of IP-net-legacy, which represents a theoretical capacity, in reality there are logistical issues (lack of pipeline capacity in Permian, for example), which means operators can’t ship everything they could have.
  • First rule of crystal-ball gazing is that you never project outside the range of the data. The models were based on the past when WTI ranged from $45 to $74, so it’s reasonable to use the model to project for the scenario of $55 and $70.
  • I’m saying now that the price that will give “Peak-Shale” (i.e. output growth goes to zero), is about $55 WTI. That’s a little higher than the number I figured three-month-ago by eye-balling.
  • My opinion, the most likely scenario going forwards is that WTI will settle around $70, which (according to the model), would give an increase in total production of 1.5 million bpd over two years (2019 and 2020), i.e. 750,000 bpd per year; compared to 1.5 million bpd per year in 2018.
  • Notice the curve flattens-off, that’s Peak Shale looming in 2021, due to the inexorable erosion of production by legacy-loss.
  • $90 WTI didn’t happen for a long time, certainly not anytime in the data that formed the basis of the model; so projecting that scenario into the future, is entirely speculative.
  • Solving Model-1 (25 months), gives a big number, but I don’t believe that.
  • Model-2 is a more plausible projection, because that’s the most recent past, also the number of data-points, more than $70, is a higher percentage.
  • That says two-million bpd over the next two years, one-million a year. The point to be made; is that OPEC & Co can handle that, if they are inclined. $70 WTI ($80 Brent), is about the price they have been saying was “fair” for more than ten years.
  •  What they mean by “fair” is regardless of what the venerable President of the United States of America, might tweet, the world can afford to pay $80 Brent, and that price is sufficient for conventional E&P operators to stop polishing their cowboy boots and go back to work. Another word for that, according to International Valuation Standards, is Other Than Market Value.
  • Solving that model for “What-if-Shale output went up by 1.5 million bpd per year,” says WTI will need to be $150.
  • Could that be a scenario worthy of a line in the annual corporate risk-analysis?
  • If that’s on the cards, better pull on your safety boots, and go sign up some five-year charters with Transocean, before they double their day-rates.

Of course correlation does not prove causation, but like the correlation between “holding hand-rails” and “not falling down stairs”, correlation that explains the past, is not a bad starting point.

$100 and $150 ought to be scenarios for Brent in 2020 in any coherent risk analysis, another word for that is a global recession, whilst conventional E&P catches up, because the evidence of the recent past is that U.S. Shale oil won’t.

By Andrew Butter

Twenty years doing market analysis and valuations for investors in the Middle East, USA, and Europe. Ex-Toxic-Asset assembly-line worker; lives in Dubai.

© 2019 Copyright Andrew Butter- All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.

Andrew Butter Archive

© 2005-2019 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.


Post Comment

Only logged in users are allowed to post comments. Register/ Log in

6 Critical Money Making Rules