Long-time and long-term bulls on
natural gas (as we are) need to look carefully at storage and
production levels and the prices in the futures and spot markets.
These signs suggest the potential for lower prices in the very
near-term.
In the weeks leading up to the first cold snap of the year
(mid-November), NYMEX Henry Hub futures for December were roughly
$3/mmBtu higher than spot prices ($11-12/mmBtu vs. $8-9/mmBtu).
This unusually wide difference between front-month futures and
spot for the principal pricing point in the United States
reflected (and continues to reflect) fears of very cold weather
very early in the season. As the front-month futures wind toward
expiration, this price gap for the same date at the same location
obviously has to narrow to near zero. As of November 23, the gap
was less than fifty cents. This narrowing, however, doesn’t
provide any information about the overall direction of gas prices.
We believe it is more likely that gas prices will decline in the
short-term, potentially by 20-30% relative to oil prices. There
are several factors behind this belief.
First, until the mid-November cold snap, spot prices throughout
North America were a minimum of $1-2/mmBtu below the Henry Hub
price, and as much as $4-5 lower in the Rockies and points further
north and west. While large discounts to spot are common in the
Rockies and Western Canada (because of limited take-away and
storage capacity), the existence of any discount, let alone a
large discount at points like the New York Citygate or the Chicago
Citygate is highly unusual. Midwestern and Northeastern discounts
to Henry Hub literally mean that if transportation were costless
and instantaneous it would be profitable to ship natural gas from
the major load centers to Southwest Louisiana. As of this writing
(November 23), well into the first cold snap of the winter, spot
prices across most of North America (now notably excluding New
York) are still $2/mmBtu below the Henry Hub spot price. Such a
situation can only arise from some combination of packed
pipelines, very full storage, and mild weather at the load centers
plus supply problems in Louisiana. Reports of shut-ins due to
pipeline and storage constraints in places like South Texas and
Georgia (far away from the hurricane impacts) support this
conclusion.
Only cold weather, and plenty of it, can change this situation.
The National Weather Service’s long-range forecasts call for
above-average temperatures in many of the key Midwestern markets
and throughout the West and average temperatures in the East. Accu-Weather
is forecasting colder than normal weather in the Eastern third of
the country but warmer than normal in the Western half. By no
means do these forecasts imply substantially greater than average
weather loads for the country or the gas-dependent markets.
Second, even with hurricane-related shut-ins exceeding 450 Bcf
from offshore Gulf of Mexico facilities and probably another 100
Bcf from onshore Gulf Coast facilities, storage levels as of
mid-November are almost 3.3 Tcf. The notion that storage could be
near 3.3 Tcf in mid-November despite 550 Bcf of shut-in production
is mind-boggling. Since the weather during September through
mid-November was fairly mild, a small amount of this unexpectedly
high storage level could be attributed to reduced
weather-sensitive loads. The vast majority, however, must relate
either to physical limitations on loads because of hurricane
damage (e.g., refineries under water) or price-sensitive demand
destruction in otherwise available facilities (e.g., shut-in
ammonia manufacturing). Overall, our back-of-the-envelope estimate
of the weather-adjusted demand reduction since the beginning of
September is in the 3-4 Bcf/d range. This is consistent with other
analysts’ reports, e.g., 3.7 Bcf/d estimated by Raymond James.
These weather-adjusted demand reductions are now greater than the
continuing offshore shut-in production (3.2 Bcf/d as of November
23). Excluding weather impacts, as offshore production continues
to come back on-line either the loads previously off due to
physical limits (e.g., submerged refineries) have to come back
on-line or prices have to fall to induce the price-sensitive loads
to come back.
Third, natural gas prices during the winter depend enormously
on the market perception of the adequacy of storage at the end of
the winter. Over the period from the summer of 2000 through the
summer of 2001, prices went from $4/mmBtu to $9/mmBtu in
mid-winter and back down to less than $3/mmBtu. Oil prices during
the same period varied by less than half this amount. During the
period from the summer of 2002 through the summer of 2003, gas
prices went from about $3/mmBtu to $8/mmBtu in mid-winter and back
down to less than $5/mmBtu. Again, oil prices during the same
period varied by less than half this amount.
In the current run-up, the same roughly 2:1 dynamic is in
place. Since the summer, spot natural gas prices roughly doubled
from the $6-7/mmBtu range to the peak a few weeks ago while oil
prices went up a maximum of roughly 40%. Should the same pattern
hold through the end of the current heating season and should oil
prices remain in the mid to upper $50/bbl range, spot Henry Hub
prices would drop into the $8-9 range, or about 20-30% below
current levels. If oil were to retrace its rise and stabilize in
the mid $40s, gas would drop to the $6-7 range. The reason for the
much greater volatility in natural gas prices is well-known and
will not be repeated here. The point is that unless the weather
loads are substantial enough to maintain the market perception of
potential end-of-season shortages, gas prices are vulnerable to a
20-30% drop even with no change in oil prices.
None of this is inconsistent with the recent comments of FERC
Chairman Kelliher. Kelliher focused on the weather, the rate of
production recovery in the Gulf, and conservation by individual
users, industrial users, and electric generators. He also noted,
correctly, that LNG would not be coming to the rescue for several
years, at the earliest. The point of this article, however, is
different. The point here is that there is considerable downside
risk to natural gas prices right now (20-30% assuming no change in
oil prices) simply due to the potentially unsustainable situation
outlined above and the much greater volatility of natural gas
prices. While 20-30% isn’t going to make a huge difference to
residential customers, since it would still leave gas prices
roughly 1/3 higher than last winter, it would make a big
difference to traders in the futures, physical, and equity
markets.
In the bigger picture, nothing that took place this summer in
gas production and demand and nothing relating to the storage or
pipeline situation changes the bleak long-term outlook for North
American gas supply against the relentless increases in demand.
The Energy Information Administration recently reported that the
industry’s reserve additions in 2004 were 118% of consumption
versus 111% in 2003 and 118% in 2002 but that additions from new
fields (as opposed to field extensions and new reservoirs in old
fields) were by far the smallest they’ve been for at least the
past 10 years. Despite all the drilling (and rapidly rising
finding costs) roughly 90% of the reserve replacement is now
coming from field extensions and barely 4% from new fields. The
oil ratios are similar. From a short-term economic perspective,
this increased intensity of operations at existing fields is a
positive factor, indicating economic efficiency. From a long-term
resource perspective, however, the implications are extremely
adverse. The truly new resources simply do not exist at the
quantities and the costs to which the country has become
accustomed. None of this should surprise most industry observers.
It is simply that, weather permitting, the crisis is likely to be
deferred beyond the current heating season.
To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit
this site go to: http://www.energypulse.net
Copyright 2005 CyberTech, Inc.
|