Our latest Sunday Thematic research report titled, "Reshoring Should Remain Supportive of Chemicals in ’22" studied the investment in US enterprise zones, near and medium-term, and the broad-based benefits for domestic supply chains.
The decline in US and global chemical pricing this week (as discussed in today's daily) is a function of oversupply in the US and lower costs in the rest of the world. The US has had an incentive to produce everything for most of the year and has had essentially full capacity to do so since the beginning of the 4th quarter. This will have collided with seasonally weaker incremental demand in December and the recent abrupt drop in oil and gas prices to swing momentum very much in favor of buyers. Polymer prices have to date been more stubborn in the US, but we expect continued weakness here also through the end of the year.
The recent Dow guidance is worth some further comment as it is being heralded in the stock market as an earnings miss, or at least that is what is implied in the stock performance, even though the signals around margin squeezes in 4Q have been in place for weeks and have been covered extensively in our work. Some elements of modeling chemical company earnings are complex, but rising energy (and therefore feedstock) prices is not one of them. We have commented several times over the last couple of years about the lack of almost any effort being made by the sell-side to rethink estimates mid-quarter, choosing instead to take or interpret company guidance (generally in the first month of a quarter) and then wait until earnings are reported. This does a disservice to both the institutional investors and the chemical companies, as the investors quickly conclude that estimates are likely too high – simply looking broadly at what sectors get hurt by rising energy – but generally do not have a good measure of by how much earnings will be impacted, so they sit on the sidelines, expecting the surprise. That said, there are so many algorithms working today that the alternative of gradual negative revisions to a more reasonable target for the quarter is also likely to hurt stock performance.
The Navigator Gas announcement should not be a surprise as the ethylene export arbitrage reopened in the US in September (Exhibit below) and since the terminal opened there has been a demand for ethylene exports each time the numbers have made sense. There are ethylene consumers in Asia that are net short and will buy incremental volumes from the US when the price is right relative to local suppliers and there is incremental demand in countries and regions that appear to be in surplus, including Europe, where a buyer can leverage an import to try to push local prices lower. In China, some of the facilities that require either propane or ethane imports might be better off buying ethylene versus making it today, and this is certainly the case for naphtha importers, as we highlighted in our Weekly Catalyst report on Monday. Today a US exporter can buy spot ethylene in the US and deliver it to China for less than the cost of manufacture in China, before the cost of getting the local ethylene to any consumer that is not on site.
The drop in US benzene pricing is likely a function of lower crude oil pricing and the overall impact this is having on oil product values. As the US has moved to much lighter ethylene feedstocks, the proportion of benzene that is coming from refining is overwhelming and alternative values for benzene or reformate in the gasoline pool are a strong driver of US and international pricing. Lower naphtha pricing for ethylene units outside the US will also hurt benzene values. By contrast, the stronger natural gas market – through the end of last week - supported ethane pricing in the US and we saw a step up in propane pricing – which have provided support for ethylene and propylene – also note that the analysis we published yesterday in the weekly catalyst suggests that the US can export ethylene to Asia at current prices – delivering ethylene into the region below current local costs. This should keep a floor under US ethylene pricing although any further decline in crude oil prices relative to US natural gas and NGLs will close this arbitrage.
We should probably link the message in the exhibit below with the write-ups in both today's daily report and today's ESG and Climate report. The drop in E&P spending relative to cash flows and the shortage signals that are evident from the current oil and natural gas prices is likely to bump into rising hydrocarbon demand for the next several years, while the rate of renewable investment tires to catch up with energy growth before it can focus on energy substitution as meaningfully as the climate agenda would like. We also cannot look at the chart below and say that it does not matter because oil is less important in energy transition than natural gas. The oil-based investments in the Permian and Eagleford plays, in particular, have significant volumes of associated gas, and much of the natural gas supply growth in the US has come from these oil-centric investments. As they slow down, natural gas supply and NGL supply will be impacted, and while we are seeing increased rig counts in the natural gas biased regions, such as the Marcellus, the potential declines from the other fields will be hard to make up for.
We remain concerned that natural gas E&P investment in the US remains too low to meet expected demand increases, especially for natural gas-fired power stations and LNG, but also possibly for NGLs, especially ethane, given new ethylene capacity and a fresh export market in Mexico. Near-term, natural gas prices are showing some easing relative to crude, albeit a very volatile trend – Exhibit below – but we see medium and longer-term shortages unless E&P spending increases. The new power facilities shown in the bottom Exhibit will all need incremental natural gas, and the international LNG market is so tight that as new capacity comes online in the US we would expect it to run as hard as is possible. This sets up for a market where the clearing price of natural gas in the US is at risk of being set by the marginal exporter. The price jump for domestic consumers would be dramatic and it would cause all sorts of headaches in Washington and probably intervention. We showed the incremental natural gas price in the Netherlands in our Daily Report on November 18th, and if the US price were to reflect the netback from this level, they would rise close to $30 per MMBTU. The natural gas industry needs some sort of global blessing to continue to operate as what will likely be the core transition fuel. It will be necessary to clean up the emissions footprint of natural gas, but the industry should be encouraged to invest on this basis. For those who doubt whether the US natural gas price can rise to $30/MMBTU – note that the Europeans did not think $30 was possible either.
US rail data for chemicals remain at the 5-year highs and have been there for almost 2 months. This is working its way into the supply chain and we are seeing weakness in US polymer prices across the board, except for PVC. US spot polymer prices are in a bit of a “no man's land” right now as they would need to drop significantly to find incremental demand offshore, given US premiums to the rest of the world. We believe that most of the volume leaving the US is doing so within company-specific businesses – ExxonMobil supplying ExxonMobil customers, Dow supplying Dow customers, etc, and consequently, these shipments do not show up in the spot market.
Focusing on a theme from our daily report today and our ESG report yesterday, the cost pressures in Europe are very real, and the more the power or natural gas component to your costs the more the pain and the more important it will be to raise prices. The industry and consumers, in general, have not had to deal with significant inflation for decades and it is very easy for customers to push back with a “this is transitory” argument, especially when many governments are telling that story. The supply chain is to blame to a degree, but it is largely a symptom of the underlying cause, which is that demand has outstripped supply. It is easy and more palatable to try and brush it off as temporary, but if the energy price issues persist in Europe and China and companies are not successful in passing on prices they will, at some point, choose not to operate. Alternatively, if power shortages are enough to cause interruptions, industrial users may have no choice but to close down. All this will impact product availability and buyers pushing back on price increases could find themselves without supply which is generally worse than paying more. The European packaging industry is right to raise the flag around higher prices, but their customers will pay the increases needed to ensure that they can keep operating, even if the discussions are more challenging than they have needed to be for the last 30 years.
The linked article looks at the chemical inflationary cycle of the 70s, which has some relevant indicators for what we are seeing today, but there were also some stark differences. Rising raw material prices is a common theme and while it is convenient to blame OPEC+ this time, the group is not nearly as much to blame today as it was in the 70s. Consumers were facing not just higher oil prices, but also genuine shortages because of the OPEC cutbacks and the multi-year lead times that it took non-OPEC producers to ramp up E&P and ultimately production. This time the oil is there and relatively easy to get to, especially in the US, but the capital spending decisions of the US oil producers – mostly because of ESG related pressure – are holding back the production.