Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Commodities. Afficher tous les articles
Affichage des articles dont le libellé est Commodities. Afficher tous les articles

samedi 18 mai 2013

Opportunity knocks @ MarketWatch




Opportunity knocks

The International Energy Agency said this week that a "supply shock" will essentially change the way the oil market works — and with change come opportunities. How to invest in the U.S. oil ‘supply shock'. 



Myra P. Saefong
May 17, 2013, 11:00 a.m. EDT

How to invest in the U.S. oil ‘supply shock’

Oil drillers and pipeline operators are among those than can benefit







SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) —The International Energy Agency said this week that a “supply shock” will essentially change the way the oil market works — and with change come opportunities, analysts said.
The supply shock the IEA referred to in its Medium-Term Oil Market Report comes from a surge in North American oil production, which the Paris-based agency said will “be as transformative to the market over the next five years as was the rise of Chinese demand over the last 15.”

Beware gushing oil-supply forecasters

The oil boom sweeping North America is driving a bull market in predictions. But no matter how bullish the estimates, the gusher isn’t going to bring $20 oil back. Heard on the Street’s Liam Denning joins MoneyBeat. Photo: Getty Images.
That sounds pretty impressive — and it is. It just wasn’t that much of a surprise for many.
“Is it spectacular? Yes, but not a surprise,” said James Williams, energy economist at WTRG Economics. “It’s like the 4th of July. You know the fireworks are coming but the display is still spectacular.”
“With North American consumption essentially flat, every barrel of additional oil produced here means less imported from the traditional sources of Latin America, North Africa and the Middle East,” he said.
That can lead to many opportunities here at home — from the exploration and production companies contributing to the shale oil boom to builders and operators of pipelines and oil-storage facilities, analysts said.
After all, the North American oil supply boom is a big step toward the energy independence the U.S. has been striving for.
The IEA report offered more “insights that America is closer to oil and energy independence than ever before,” said John Person, president of NationalFutures.com.
“If we come close to these estimates in the next six to eight months,” that would be “extremely bullish for both consumers as well as the economy and might translate to an even better rate of return for the U.S. equity markets,” he said.
Non-OPEC supplies — supplies from producers who are not part of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries — are expected to grow by 6 million barrels per day to 59.3 million barrels per day in 2018 from 2012, the IEA’s report said. And about 65% of the growth comes from North American light, tight oil and Canadian oil sands production.
And that might even be an understatement.
“The IEA report focuses primarily on U.S. on-shore shale-oil production,” said Kirk McDonald, senior research analyst at St. Louis-based Argent Capital Management. “What they are missing is the simultaneous revolution in off-shore technology that is enabling the discovery and development of huge fields in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Those technologies include “improved seismic imaging, the computational power to process the images and the still-limited application of stimulation in off-shore fields,” he said.
“The U.S. led the on-shore revolution and now we are leading a second one off-shore,” he said, adding that this has the potential to grow non-OPEC supply.

Profit potential

Given all that, analysts had several suggestions for which companies have potential to profit.
“Investments to gain exposure to these higher production levels include [exploration and production] companies with higher exposure to the U.S.,” said Justin McNichols, chief investment officer at Osborne Partners Capital Management in San Francisco.
Examples of those, he said, include Hess Corp. HES +0.82%   and ConocoPhillipsCOP +1.41%
Among the drillers, Williams lists Schlumberger Ltd. SLB +0.62% , Halliburton Co.HAL +3.19% , Willbros Group Inc. WG -2.65%  and National Oilwell Varco Inc. NOV +2.74% .
“The unique characteristics of the U.S. and Canada with private ownership of mineral rights and low country risk will … serve to lower investment in drilling in riskier countries,” Williams said. “Companies that drill in the U.S. or Canada are not worried that the state will confiscate their wells as we have seen recently in Venezuela.”
Companies that build and operate pipelines and storage facilities are also likely to benefit from what the IEA referred to as the “supply shock.”

Hess Energy
Hess has made significant investments to develop the Bakken shale.
“We do not have the pipeline infrastructure to handle all of the oil from North Dakota and that means more pipelines and storage facilities,” Williams said. North Dakota, home to the Bakken shale formation, is amongAmerica’s top five oil-producing states.
Pipeline operators include TransCanada Corp. CA:TRP +1.38%   TRP +0.45%   and Kinder Morgan Inc. KMI +1.40% .
Companies that build refineries and manufacture parts should also benefit from the rise in North American shale oil production, said Williams.
The shale formations are producing a higher quality crude, he said, but some thought that higher quality crude would be in short supply so refiners in many cases re-configured their operations to handle lower quality, high sulfur heavy oil.
“Now instead of a shortage there is a surplus and over the next few years, we will like to see some of them reconfigure their facilities to handle the lighter oil,” he said.
As for oil CLM3 +0.87% , Argent’s McDonald simply said that “in short, the outlook for oil prices is bearish.”
But, as Osborne Partners’ McNichols pointed out, if crude input prices fall, refiners like Marathon Petroleum Corp. MPC +5.30%  will “eventually benefit.” 
Myra Saefong is a MarketWatch reporter based in San Francisco. Follow her on Twitter @MktwSaefong.





vendredi 1 mars 2013

Oil & schiste



Gérard Mestrallet croit au gaz de schiste pour l'Europe

Le PDG de GDF Suez, était l'invité de BFM Business, jeudi 28 février. Pour lui, l'exploitation du gaz de schiste en Europe pourrait être un vrai facteur de compétitivité.



Y.D. 
Le 28/02/2013 à 20:27 
Mis à jour le 01/03/2013 à 7:32


Gérard Mestrallet, le patron de GDF Suez, était l'invité de BFM Business, jeudi 28 février. (BFM Business)

GDF Suez ne compte pas abandonner l’Europe. Gérard Mestrallet, son PDG, l’a répété au micro de BFM Business, jeudi 28 février. Il a d’ailleurs précisé que le groupe allait embaucher "16.000 personnes dans les trois années qui viennent", sur le vieux continent.
Néanmoins, celui-ci souffre, en plus d’une faible croissance et d’économies faites sur la consommation d’énergie, d’un déficit de compétitivité.
Pour le combler, le gaz de schiste, "un élément de transformation profonde du système gazier mondial" pourrait être une piste.
"Nous étions le premier importateur mondial de gaz liquéfié aux Etats-Unis", a expliqué Gérard Mestrallet, dans le Grand journal. "Depuis que le gaz de schiste a explosé, il n’y a plus d’importation de gaz naturel" outre-Atlantique. "Les Etats-Unis sont maintenant autosuffisants. Ils sont même devenus le premier producteur mondial de gaz naturel, passant devant les Russes."

"Il y a des créations d'emploi à la clé"

Il a ensuite développé sa réflexion: "Il y a tellement de gaz, que son prix est tombé très bas. C’est une vraie révolution, car dès lors que le gaz n’est pas cher, l’électricité qui est produite à base de gaz n’est pas chère, et les Etats-Unis sont en train de retrouver une vraie compétitivité énergétique."
Et d’avertir : "Je pense qu’en Europe, nous devrions prendre très sérieusement ce message. L’Europe cherche à être compétitive, or elle a un déficit au niveau salarial par rapport à l’Asie, et elle est en train d’avoir un handicap de compétitivité énergétique vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis. Je pense qu’au moment où on parle de transition énergétique, il faudrait parler, au sein de ce débat, de compétitivité."
D’autant que, selon le PDG, les conséquences économiques pourraient ne pas être négligeables: "On voit maintenant des industries lourdes, consommatrices d’énergie , revenir aux Etats-Unis. Donc il y a des créations d’emplois à la clé."











about mines & oil




DJ PLUS EUROPE: LE MARCHÉ PRÉFÈRE LES MINIÈRES AUX MAJORS DU PÉTROLE - WSJ

 
Andrew Peaple,
The Wall Street Journal
 
LONDRES (Dow Jones)--Les investisseurs préfèrent manifestement les mines aux puits.
Les principales entreprises minières cotées d'Europe affichent actuellement une prime de 67% par rapport à leurs concurrentes du secteur gazier et pétrolier en termes de multiple des bénéfices attendus pour 2013. Voilà un taux bien supérieur à celui de 19% enregistré en moyenne par BHP Billiton (BLT.LN), Rio Tinto (RIO.LN), Anglo American (AAL.LN), Xstrata (XTA.LN) et Glencore (GLEN.LN) au cours des cinq dernières années par rapport à Royal Dutch Shell (RDBS.LN), BP (BP.LN), Total (FP.FR), Eni (ENI.MI) et Statoil (STL.OS), selon les données de FactSet.
 
Valorisations: le grand écart
 
L'écart s'est sensiblement creusé au cours des six derniers mois. Le ratio cours/bénéfices des valeurs minières a augmenté de 32% en moyenne, à 13,5 fois les bénéfices, contre une baisse de 2% pour les grandes valeurs pétrolières, qui affichent actuellement un multiple moyen de 8,1.
Pourquoi un tel écart? D'une part, il reflète une atténuation des perspectives de bénéfices pour le secteur minier. Les prévisions ont été abaissées de 13% en moyenne au cours des six derniers mois, dans un contexte de recul des prix des métaux, alors que les prévisions pour les majors pétrolières ont diminué de seulement 2%, les cours de l'or noir restant dans leur fourchette.
D'autre part, les entreprises minières sont plus réceptives que les pétrolières aux exigences des actionnaires, qui réclament une meilleure distribution des bénéfices.
Le groupe anglo-australien Rio Tinto et son concurrent anglo-sud-africain Anglo American ont chacun annoncé la semaine dernière une augmentation de 15% de leur dividende annuel, malgré des pertes dues à d'importantes dépréciations d'actifs. Rio Tinto ramènera ses dépenses annuelles d'investissement à 13 milliards de dollars, contre 17 milliards l'an dernier, et BHP réduira également les siennes.
 
Des majors soumises à de lourds investissements
 
Les majors pétrolières sont quant à elles privées de cette possibilité.
Confrontées à un problème typique du secteur, à savoir une diminution de la production sur les champs existants, les compagnies pétrolières doivent engager des dépenses de maintenance massives, ne serait-ce que pour rester à flot.
Les dépenses d'investissement des principales majors pétrolières européennes représenteront probablement entre 80% et 100% de leur flux de trésorerie opérationnelle sur la période 2012-2015, selon les prévisions de Citigroup. En comparaison, ce ratio ne sera plus que de 50% pour les minières d'ici à 2015, prévoit la banque.
Voilà qui devrait permettre aux entreprises du secteur minier de rémunérer davantage leurs actionnaires et de remédier à l'un de leurs points faibles: un rendement moyen du dividende de 2,7%, soit environ la moitié seulement de celui proposé par les pétrolières.
La valorisation des actions minières pourrait bien entendu diminuer lorsque les nouvelles prévisions de résultats, plus faibles, auront été intégrées par le marché. Mais pour l'heure, elles ont toujours la faveur des investisseurs.
 
-Andrew Peaple, The Wall Street Journal
(Version française Emilie Palvadeau)
 
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
February 18, 2013 07:40 ET (12:40 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.


Source:Dow Jones News  18.02.2013 13:40






























dimanche 30 septembre 2012

about CFTC




4:44 p.m. Sept. 28, 2012 - By Ronald D. Orol
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - A new rule set up by the post-crisis Dodd-Frank Act to limit speculativetrading in the commodities market was vacated Friday afternoon by a district court. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sent the regulation back to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, arguing that the agency "fundamentally misunderstood" the ambiguities in the statute.





Commodity Futures Trading Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is an independent agency of the United States government that regulates futures and option markets.
The Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 7 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., prohibits fraudulent conduct in the trading of futures contracts. In 1974, Congress amended the Act to create a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the trading of futures contracts and created the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, replacing the Commodity Exchange Authority. The stated mission of the CFTC is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices related to the sale of commodity and financial futures and options, and to foster open, competitive, and financially sound futures and option markets.[3]



History

Futures contracts for agricultural commodities have been traded in the U.S. for more than 150 years and have been under Federal regulation since the 1920s.[4]In recent years, trading in futures contracts has expanded rapidly beyond traditional physical and agricultural commodities into a vast array of financial instruments, including foreign currencies, U.S. and foreign government securities, and U.S. and foreign stock indices.

[edit]Evolving mission and responsibilities

Congress created the CFTC in 1974 as an independent agency with the mandate to regulate commodity futures and option markets in the United States. The agency's mandate has been renewed and expanded several times since then, most recently in December 2000 when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which instructed the Securities & Exchange Commission and the CFTC to develop a joint regulatory regime for single-stock futures, and the products subsequently began trading in November 2002. Today, the CFTC assures the economic utility of the futures markets by encouraging their competitiveness and efficiency, ensuring their integrity, protecting market participants against manipulation, abusive trading practices, and fraud, and ensuring the financial integrity of the clearing process. Through effective oversight, the CFTC enables the futures markets to serve the important function of providing a means for price discovery and offsetting price risk.

[edit]Over-the-counter derivatives

Brooksley Born and her chairmanship of the Commission from August 26, 1996, to June 1, 1999, was the focus of an October 2009 Frontline documentary titled "The Warning" and was also chronicled in the documentary Inside Job. The two films recount her attempts to investigate and possibly regulate the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market.[5] Two actions by the CFTC in 1998 led some market participants to express concerns that the CFTC might modify the "Swap Exemption" and attempt to impose new regulations on the swap market.[6] First, in a comment letter addressing the SEC's "broker-dealer lite" proposal, the CFTC stated that the SEC's proposal would create the potential for conflict with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to the extent that certain OTC derivative instruments fall within the ambit of the CEA and are subject to the exclusive statutory authority of the CFTC.[7]
Subsequently, the CFTC issued a concept release requesting comment on whether regulation of OTC derivatives markets is appropriate and, if so, what form such regulation should take.[8] Legislation enacted at the request of Treasury, the Federal Reserve Board, and the SEC in 1998 limited the CFTC's rulemaking authority with respect to swaps and hybrid instruments until March 30, 1999, and froze the pre-existing legal status of swap agreements and hybrid instruments entered into in reliance on the Swap Exemption, the Hybrid Instrument Rule, the Swap Policy Statement, or the Hybrid Interpretation.[9] The text of that act read: "...the Commission may not propose or issue any rule or regulation, or issue any interpretation or policy statement, that restricts or regulates activity in a qualifying hybrid instrument or swap agreement". Brooksley Born resigned on June 1, 1999, and later commented the failure of Long-Term Capital Management and the subsequent bailout as being indicative what she had been trying to prevent.[5]

[edit]Criticism

Since 1991 the CFTC has given secret exemptions from hedging regulations to 19 major banks and market participants, allowing them to accumulate essentially unlimited positions. [10] These exemptions were originally given in secret, coming to light only as the 2008 financial crisis unfolded and Congress requested information on market participants. A trader or bank granted an exemption as a bona-fide hedger can affect the price of a commodity without being either its producer or consumer. [11] Barack Obama has argued that current loopholes in CFTC regulations have contributed to skyrocketing prices and lack of transparency of oil on markets.[12]
On June 25, 2008 Speaker Pelosi sent a letter to President Bush calling on him to direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to use its emergency powers to take immediate action to curb excessive speculation in energy markets, and to investigate all energy contracts. Despite growing reports of excessive speculation in energy markets, the CFTC has refused to take actions they have taken in the past.[13] The Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008 was a failed bill that would have attempted to curb excessive speculation in the energy futures markets.

dimanche 26 août 2012

Corns or Oil ?


Aug. 22, 2012, 4:16 p.m. EDT

Drought revives fuel-versus-food fight

Ranchers, governors want more corn for livestock, less for ethanol




By Steve Gelsi, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — A spike in corn prices following the worst drought in decades may force Americans to choose between feeding themselves and filling their gas tanks.
At least that’s the argument taking shape as meat companies lock horns with ethanol producers over how best to use this year’s shrinking corn crop.

Reuters
Corn plants struggle to survive on the drought-stricken land of farmer Scott Keach who owns 2,500-acre Keach Farm in Henderson, Ky.
The so-called food versus fuel debate last popped up in 2008, when a commodities boom and surging food prices raised questions about the economics and ethics of using diverting corn to the production of ethanol, whose proponents tout it as a viable, homegrown and environmentally friendly alternative to imported oil.
The debate resumed this summer when arid conditions in the Midwest prompted the Department of Agriculture to cut its corn-harvest forecast 17%, sending corn prices to an intraday record of $8.49 a bushel on Aug. 10. On Tuesday, corn futures notched a record closing level of $8.31 a bushel. See full story about USDA yield estimates.
Corn, an ever-present ingredient in food and a major source of feed for cattle and chicken, also makes up a sizable and growing share of U.S. transportation fuels.
Under the 2005 U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard, a certain volume of the nation’s transportation fuel must be blended with such nonfossil fuels as ethanol, which is distilled primarily from corn. This year’s ethanol requirement is 13.2 billion gallons, up from 12.6 billion gallons in 2011. That figure is set to grow to 13.8 billion gallons in 2013.
Overall, the law aims to increase total use of renewable fuels in the U.S. to 36 billion gallons in 2022 from 9 billion gallons in 2008, according to the Renewable Fuels Association.
Meanwhile, this year’s poor corn crop and rising prices are partly blamed for the high price of gasoline.
At last check, the average retail price for a gallon of gasoline had ticked up to $3.72, a 7% jump from the $3.47 nationwide average just a month ago, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge Report.

Fight brews in Washington

The corn fight in Washington now centers on whether the EPA should waive some or all of its renewable fuels requirement.

Reuters
Dairy cows feed in Chino, Calif.
Meat producers argue a waiver would make more corn available to livestock, easing rising feed costs. Their calls have been heeded by several governors and a growing contingent of Capitol Hill lawmakers.
Gov. Nathan Deal of Georgia, citing a study by the University of Georgia, complained Tuesday that rising corn prices are costing chicken farmers in his state an extra $1.4 million a day.
“This translates to $516 million per year if these market conditions continue,” Deal said in a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson. “These additional input costs are not sustainable.”
Maureen Cannon.
Maureen Cannon, an investment banker with the Valence Group and a specialist in biofuels, said fuel blenders would probably continue adding ethanol to gasoline even without the EPA mandate partly because it’s relatively cheap. In the futures market, for example, ethanol currently costs about $2.67 a gallon, compared with $3.07 for a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol also helps boost the octane level of gasoline.
“There’s a lot of moving parts in studying the production of ethanol, but it amounts to gasoline blenders competing for corn with livestock producers,” Cannon said. “Ethanol production and price have evolved independently of government mandates.”
The fuel industry also has plenty of corn in storage, while blenders have built up renewable-fuel credits over the past few years. These two measures will reduce ethanol producers’ corn demand until next year’s harvest, she said.
“Gasoline blenders have accumulated ... blending credits of more than two billion gallons,” Cannon said. “This flexibility within the current regulations should rein in prices if corn harvests turn out to be worse than currently forecast.”

EPA agrees to study the issue

As the debate picks up, Wall Street has started weighing in.
“Pressure for the EPA to evaluate a partial waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard is mounting,” Deutsche Bank analyst Christina McGlone said in a note to clients on late last week.
On Monday, at the request of Arkansas’s and North Carolina’s governors, industry players and members of Congress, the EPA opened a 30-day public comment period on whether to waive the Renewable Fuel Standard. The agency is required to make a decision in 90 days.
“Congress has ... given EPA the authority to ... grant a full or partial waiver if implementation would severely harm the economy or environment of a state, region, or the entire country, or if EPA determines that there is inadequate domestic supply of renewable fuel,” the EPA said in a statement. “EPA and its federal partners continue to closely monitor the drought’s impacts on crop supplies.”
In a sign of the drought’s recent impact on the industry, ethanol production fell to 809,000 barrels a day for the week ended July 27 from 920,000 barrels per week in the week ended June 8, according to the Energy Information Administration’s Aug. 7 short-term energy outlook.
The EIA said it expects ethanol production to regain its footing, rising to an average output of 880,000 barrels a day in the second half of 2013.

Ethanol and meat producers weigh in

The biggest ethanol producers in the U.S. include Archer Daniels Midland ADM +0.65% , independent oil refiner Valero Energy Corp. VLO +0.10%  and the privately held Poet LLC.
A spokesman for Valero said the company has not issued any statements on the EPA waiver issue.
Poet takes issue with rivals’ allegation that ethanol uses 40% of the corn crop. The figure amounts to only 16% of U.S. corn supply, when factoring in the use of protein-rich animal feed that remains after ethanol is made, according to Poet.
Poet CEO Jeff Lautt said a waiver on renewable fuels would “create longer-term uncertainty in federal energy policy and agriculture markets, affecting farmers and progress in renewable fuel production, raising gas prices and increasing reliance on foreign oil.”
Chickens feed outside their coop at Seven Stars Farm in Kimberton, Pa.
North Carolina Gov. Beverly Perdue, who supports a waiver, argued in a letter to the EPA that the use of corn in renewable fuel “has imposed severe economic harm to my state’s swine, poultry, dairy, and cattle [regions].”
The North American Meat Association said at least 156 of the House of Representatives’s 435 members supported a request to waive the mandate for corn-based ethanol.
“We’re seeking a waiver to ensure an adequate supply of corn for America’s livestock producers and others who put food on the tables of American consumers,” said Barry Carpenter, chief executive of the industry group.
Adding more data to the debate, a preliminary draft of an Iowa State University study concludes that a waiver of the corn-ethanol mandate could lower corn prices, on average, by about $1.13 a bushel.

‘[A]s long as it is more profitable to produce a gallon of ethanol versus selling for animal feed, not much will change.’
Maureen Cannon, Valence Group
While that would represent a 14% reduction in the price corn currently fetches in the futures market, it’s not enough savings to make a significant difference to livestock farmers, according to investment banker Cannon.
Cannon said the EPA probably won’t grant a waiver in the near future because of the Obama administration’s support for corn-based ethanol as a means of reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil and because of the fuel’s role in cutting emissions.
“Even with a relaxation of the standard, given that ethanol plants represent sunk costs, as long as it is more profitable to produce a gallon of ethanol versus selling for animal feed, not much will change,” Cannon said.
Jefferies analyst Laurence Alexander took a similar tone in a Wednesday note to clients: “While popular sentiment could spur congressional action, time is running out to enact legislation before the November election, and, absent a worse-than-expected harvest and higher prices, the political will may not exist.”
That, he said, suggests that the ethanol mandate is “safe for now.” 
Steve Gelsi is a reporter for MarketWatch in New York.