Some tectonic shifts in the back of the LNG curve. 5yr+ contracts used to backwardate to US$6/Mcf; (we also spent some time at that price in the front back in 2019).
Some thoughts. 🧵
$6 long term LNG made sense if gas is abundant world. $6 LNG implies a ~$2.50 shale dispatch, or $3 Conv. If it was higher you could hedge it, drill your shale field, lock up your cargo and your return. Tokyo Gas Haynesville! Aka marginal cost of supply = $2.50 shale $6 floating
In 2021 we came to understand LNG demand is both stronger than expected, and holds far more upside risk than was previously priced in the forward strip. It's like the Brent "geopolitical risk premium" but instead its "don't freeze the Germans" premium.
This shocked near term S&D and has been written about at length... But the long term S&D is also strengthening which is very interesting because supply can actually respond to long term prices, while short term supply is pretty locked it (just can be reallocated)
I'm guessing on the S&D shifts but I think most would agree it's "D" leading the charge here on the change in long term view.
The new paradigm is asking for LNG 5+ yrs away at $9. This is a mix of risk premium, but also a potential change of opinion on the global marginal cost of supply. If producers need bigger returns to drill, they just got them. A US producer with a LNG contract can lock in >$5 gas.
This should give some pause... The market is offering 2027 LNG prices of $9 (HHUB ~$5.50). Liquidity in the market is thin but firm contracts are signed daily.
What growth do get in each jurisdiction? What returns do NAM shale producers generate (esp if they can't /don't grow!)
But... there is a disconnect. HHUB 2027 doesn't trade at the liquefaction + shipping discount of ~$3.50 to JKM. It trades at just over $3... The spread is wide and in this time frame is a capturable arbitrage.
The $9 price should incentivize a ton of FID's for LNG. That capacity should link the US and international markets. The marginal supply is 7 Bcfpd, a small % of the global market by then (10-15%?)
Result if you believe the current JKM mark and the implied global natural gas demand story.
2025-2030 NYMEX prices should jump from $3 to $5+
Gas NAV's and equity values effectively explode (2-3x)
Asymmetric bet of the decade in energy (in my view)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Power Thought
GS dropped 3 AI / Power reports this morning (my cup overfloweth!) and over the past 3 weeks we've seen over a dozen estimates from research houses and industry participants alike.
If you want to take a law of large numbers approach the median expectation is for ~5 Bcfpd of additional natural gas power burn by 2030, which squares to effectively just the market share capture of the anticipated load growth.
If gas can continue to increase market share (as it has in both coal switching regions but also greening regions as a key source of grid hardening) then we can cast our eyes upward towards the 10 Bcfpd+ trajectories.
One thing that these reports never seem to overtly capture is (a) the global picture (GS did a bit today and sees 34-48% power growth [all sources and fuels] in Europe by 2032) and (b) where price will play a role.
On the gas side if price floats from $2 to $4 over the next 1-2 years as is expected (CAL26 strip trades $4 for the first time since November today) there will be some elasticity in demand, some coal/oil will come back. $4 is still low enough for a lot of capacity build out to make sense, but it is interesting to see in this whole theme which analysts seem to be the most nervous - the Utilities analysts.
They see a sector that sized debt obligations in a 1% interest rate world, about to see 3-5% interest rates for longer than they were expecting, higher feedstock costs (nat gas prices), and an increasingly cost conscious customer base in which to try and place growth capital into a rate-base increase. Tricky!
It might be that the real infrastructure demand play is all independent power producers (IPPs) who step up to install behind-fence power solutions for the industrial (data center) players who need it. Much like crypto, this will stumble upon the market without the regular fanfare of publicized capacity timelines and que filings.
The decentralization of power could be a pretty big disruptor for the utility sector, regulatory capture, and climate goals. It also could be a really large accelerator for the power sources that can step up for the 24hr load demands facing the market. Perhaps 10 Bcfpd by 2030 is not just possible but probable.
The simple load growth and market share assumptions that each scenario imply
The EPA making room for higher utilization on the existing fleet and new peaker instalation
Most common thematic natural gas question today is what will data center energy consumption mean for domestic natural gas power burn consumption.
Some thoughts 🧵👇
First. What could this look like. Estimates vary. Also data centers aren't the only thing going on in power. Heat pumps, air conditioning, industrial revamp are all vending into power demand forecasts. Lets broaden the net to total US power demand and acknowledge data centers will play a large role.
Through specific ISO forcast reports and the national load report you can get a bit of a sample. It's a bit messy and not standardized. Some forecasts are of peak load, winter or summer, some of average. Directionally its pointing to ~1% per year load growth or 11% over 10 years (5 GW)
A generalist investment memo in Energy. My take. 🧵
Opener - which energy source holds the best forward return outlook?
Selecting from renewable (wind / solar / hydro), oil, gas, nuclear & coal
Which subset has the best S&D set up to provide for outsized investment returns?⬇️
- Renewables? Subsidy gamed infrastructure in a high interest rate enviro with scaling cost pressures into a constrained raw material market... No thank you.
- Oil? bullish S&D but long term demand grind... Not great. Not terrible. Can we do better?
- Coal? the cigar butt of the energy stack. Value to be had, but equities will always trade like options.
- Utes? Interesting from a build out rate base thesis but energy input costs + transmission bottlenecks + high interest rates present enough headwinds to park for now.
"Levelized cost" math gets in the way of good public policy.
A quick example.
Exhibit A) these make renewable costs look very compelling; and I think they are factually accurate. Just incomplete.
Based on this slide you wouldn't invest in gas or gas gen. But "hold up"
🧵
~1/2 as cheap? How can gas / Nuke / Coal / Hydro compete?
Cost looks compelling. Profit must follow the same ranking? Not quite.
Pricing is wildly different through the day.
Solar generates during the day (duh), peaking gen comes in at night.
Each day's power price is going to look very different depending on the environmental (weather) stresses present and any supply outages or interuptions (cloud cover, low wind, pipeline issues ect).
When stress is in the system, rewards fall at night.