Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Shorting Oil, Hedging Tesla

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think this calculation/narrative assumes total number of vehicles (ICE + EV) will remain constant in the next two years; am I reading this right?
I'm not making any explicit assumptions about total vehicle sales here. This year sales are down. They may well bounce back up in 2018, or not. There is a bit of a used car surplus to work off. The long term growth rate is near 3%, but when considering short term prospects there is a lot of variability.

In any case, my focus here is not the peak, the time when displacement starts to overwhelm underlying demand growth. Rather, it is simply on how EV displacement is scaling. Oil analysts are largely overlooking commercial EVs, which may be 4 or 5 times the displacement of passenger EVs. So if oil analysts are blind here, how much does that bias estimates of net demand? When does this get big enough that it causes difficulty in balancing the oil market? I think we may have already crossed that line. If you miss some 100 to 150 kb/d in dislocated demand, that is fairly significant. Now this year is shaping up to be a 300 kb/d deficit. So OPEC seems to be doing enough cutting for now. But how much cutting will they need to do next year. Will OPEC need to cut another 200 kb/d next year just to maintain a mild deficit? Of course, they will adjust to whatever plays out in the market, but it is not clear to me that oil analysts have the right view on EVs to anticipate the challenge that EVs will pose on balancing the market. If the industry underestimates this, then they are at increased risk of returning unexpectedly to surplus. Moreover, does OPEC plan to keep cutting production by whatever is necessary to accommodate EVs? So if OPEC is underestimating EVs, their current strategy may unravel unexpectedly when they realize that this burden is too much for them.

So the next couple of years could be touch and go. OPEC tries to balance a dynamic and volatile market as it always has. But I think that by 2020 this approach breaks down. OPEC may find itself unable to cope with a 600 kb/d cut in 2020, 840 in 2021 and 1200 in 2022. OPEC will come to see that it is losing far too much production volume, while non-OPEC does very little to slow their pace of production growth. Ultimately, OPEC cannot compel non-OPEC to slow growth. So I think we could see OPEC refuse continued production cuts. Once OPEC does an about face on accommodating EV dislocation, the price of oil is allowed to fall. It could fall hard and bring prices below $20/b.

So I don't know when OPEC will do this strategic pivot. I doubt that we will see it before 2019, but I also don't see how OPEC alone can simply accommodate a 1.2 mb/b EV dislocation sometime about 2022. The problem right now is that oil analysts are not measuring the current impact and they do not see this scale of displacement approaching as quickly as it is. This, there is already a strategic miscalibration at play. If OPEC saw clearly that their current strategy is headed to accommodate upwards of 1mb/d of dislocation by 2022, I think they would be plotting a different course already. Oddly enough the non-OPEC oil majors seem to have a much clearer view on the disruption that EVs pose. I think they know that they cannot count on OPEC to pull up the slack indefinitely. That may be because oil majors have a higher breakeven price than key players in OPEC. So OPEC may be relatively over confident in its position. At some point, OPEC may crack.
 
The “Amazon Effect” Is Coming To Oil Markets | OilPrice.com

This is also a thought-provoking article. More and more technology is flowing into the oil fields. This may crack open new efficiencies, but it also lowers the gap between independent oil producers and the oil majors. Thus, technology can induce more smaller players to compete at increasingly lower prices. This disrupts the game of OPEC and oil majors where market power was key to preserving premium oil prices. Oil could become a truly competitive market rather than an oligopolistic market.

So oil is faced with tech driven competition from within and without. This reinforces in my mind that OPEC's strategy will collapse in a few years. It can't just keep cutting oil production to shore up prices. It's massive oil reserves are looking more like huge stranded assets the world will never need. It's got to liquidate at a lower price to capture whatever residual value there may be in these reserves.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Intl Professor
GM's Volt Proves Tesla Right - General Motors Company (NYSE:GM) | Seeking Alpha

Hey, it's interesting that Daimler, VW and other automakers seem to be locking into this expectation that EVs will comprise about 25% of the market in 2025. Of course if Tesla hits 500k in 2018 and continues at 50% annual growth, it could reach 8.5M of th 25M EVs in 2025. So if they don't up their game, Tesla could walk away with a third of the EV market at a time when EVs are gobbling up massive market share. So they really do need to keep pace with Tesla. If they aggressively pursue EVs, perhaps Tesla could be contained to just 5M out of the 25M EVs in 2025.

But VA raises a very good point: are hybrid models worth developing. McKinsey analysis years ago saw that hybrids would be the most economical option in an option where both fuel and batteries are expensive. As the price of fuel comes down, conventional ICE is more economical, and when the price of batteries come down BEVs are more economical. So we are in a transition where both fuel and batteries are becoming cheaper, and this is the least favorable environment for hybrids. So I'm inclined to think that developing new hybrids, even plugins, at this time is a waste of R&D. They just won't compete well in a market where BEV is leading edge tech rapidly becoming affordable while conventional ICE is cheap, older technology. Additionally, plug-in hybrids are largely an accommodation for a small battery and limited charging infrastructure. So as both charging infrastructure and battery size advance, PHEVs lose their key selling points.

The OEMs are going to have lots of problems with model obsolescence. I'm not sure developing new hybrids is worth the risk of early obsolescence.
 
Exclusive: China offers to buy 5 percent of Saudi Aramco directly - sources

Well, this could be an alternative to an IPO, a direct sale of 5% of Aramco to China.

Remember that whole 1 Bb stockpile? Nice little oil company you got there, MbS. How about you sell us a slice for some undisclosed amount?

Dead industry walking!

From the reuters article, it seems many of the royal advisers still have their heads in the sand:
"Internal disagreements between what some advisers recommend and what the crown prince wants have delayed several key decisions about the IPO, industry sources said.

The sources also point to disagreements between senior government officials, with some pushing only to list Aramco locally or to delay the IPO beyond 2018 when they hope oil prices will have stabilized at $55 to $60 a barrel.
"

@ValueAnalyst, even if what you predict comes to pass (oil spiking one last time before collapsing), Aramco's IPO is dependent on oil prices stablized high right? Which wouldn't happen in neither your scenario nor jhm's.
 
Dead industry walking!

From the reuters article, it seems many of the royal advisers still have their heads in the sand:
"Internal disagreements between what some advisers recommend and what the crown prince wants have delayed several key decisions about the IPO, industry sources said.

The sources also point to disagreements between senior government officials, with some pushing only to list Aramco locally or to delay the IPO beyond 2018 when they hope oil prices will have stabilized at $55 to $60 a barrel.
"

@ValueAnalyst, even if what you predict comes to pass (oil spiking one last time before collapsing), Aramco's IPO is dependent on oil prices stablized high right? Which wouldn't happen in neither your scenario nor jhm's.

I actually haven't followed the Aramco IPO, not even 1% of what's out there on it. I try to avoid conspiracy theory stuff like the plague.

I simply don't subscribe to the idea that Saudi Arabia is trying to boost oil prices so that it can IPO Aramco. My analysis leads me to believe that oil prices would have increased throughout the remainder of the decade, regardless of whether November 2016 production cuts happened or not.

I think production cuts (and OPEC) serve to prevent extreme drops in oil prices (for example, sub-$40 oil throughout 2016/17), which if not prevented, would lead to extreme spikes just a few years later. Some say, and I agree, that substantial underinvestment in long-cycle oil production throughout the late 90's is what led to the large price spikes of 2007/08.

The damage sub-$50 oil prices did to long-cycle oil investments over the last three years is already historic (just look at the insanely depressed valuation multiples of offshore drillers), and I'm worried about where oil prices will be in 2019/20 and through 2025.

Wall Street plowed money to U.S. shale solely based on wellhead costs, only to find out that shale is in fact unprofitable when full-cycle costs (i.e. land lease, G&A, etc) are considered. The tide, however, is now turning as investors face the reality of very high decline rates of shale plays.

Upcoming increase in oil prices is the primary reason why I think even Tesla is underestimating the future demand for its products, and why I believe today's Manga news are positive: Tesla Might Team With Magna For Model 3 Production In Europe
 
Last edited:
Exclusive: China offers to buy 5 percent of Saudi Aramco directly - sources

Well, this could be an alternative to an IPO, a direct sale of 5% of Aramco to China.

Remember that whole 1 Bb stockpile? Nice little oil company you got there, MbS. How about you sell us a slice for some undisclosed amount?
Interesting. A 1Bb stockpile, a chunk of Aramco, and most of the renewables production capacity of the world. Everything seems to be going according to plan. Speaking of plans......the new 5 year for China is out this week, no?

Good thing we're organized, efficient and ready to compete in the US.
 
Interesting. A 1Bb stockpile, a chunk of Aramco, and most of the renewables production capacity of the world. Everything seems to be going according to plan. Speaking of plans......the new 5 year for China is out this week, no?

Good thing we're organized, efficient and ready to compete in the US.
Must give this a Funny, since there is no Crying Eyes Out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oil4AsphaultOnly
Interesting. A 1Bb stockpile, a chunk of Aramco, and most of the renewables production capacity of the world. Everything seems to be going according to plan. Speaking of plans......the new 5 year for China is out this week, no?

Good thing we're organized, efficient and ready to compete in the US.
Interesting indeed. Old fashioned soft power and influence to push cheap china solar.
 
I am starting to think that oil is likely to stay in the 52-57 range for WTI and 60+ for Brent for the next year. Rising interest rates in the USA directly impact shale costs. Near zero cost borrowing has made short term shale loans at 5-7% very interesting for yield hunters. With rates going up 50-75 basis points, shale cost of capital rises 10-20%. If they sell their expected production up front on the futures market, maybe they don’t need loans, but the cost of buying futures has also risen.
Internationally I think Venezuela will continue declining 10% year over year. They appear on track to be funded by China (recent satellite launch) and Russia. Support should keep them from complete failure. Next up supporting oil are the Kurds. A hearty minority, land bound and surrounded by civilizations accustomed to dominating them. Iraq invaded Iraq’s Kurdish border today. Syria’s Kurds are also pushing for independence and are opposed by Turkey and Russia’s Syria. I hope there is something we can do for them, but am skeptical. Regarding oil, the Kurds are responsible for about 650,000 to 1 million barrels a day.
All in the Kurds could cut the market supply by 500,000 to 1mm barrels a day and Venezuela another 200,000 and the federal reserve another 200 to 500,000 barrels a day.
I’ve been strong on 40-50 a barrel containment, but think 2018 might be 50-60. Could be good for Tesla, especially on the commercial side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jhm
@jhm - I think you'll find this interesting.

Slowing Demand Growth to Push Big Oil From Cars to Chemicals

I can get behind the timeline presented in this article.
Thanks. Their gasoline demand forecasts peaks in 2025, which is good. But I think the fall off in gasoline demand will be much steeper past 2030. So they still think passenger EV penetration will be low.

But where they are fundamentally off is that they still see diesel demand growing. They are obviously are not looking at EVs impacting heavy vehicles.

This blind spot is necessary for them to imagine that demand growth in other parts of the barrel can make up for losses in gasoline demand. Moreover, if both gasoline and diesel are serious decline, the economics of crude may shift such that it does not compete well with natural gas as a petrochem feedstock. So I'm very skeptical that petrochem demand will pay a high enough amount per barrel to keep growing the crude supply. I think this is why many of the oil majors are shifting strategy to natural gas. It's not just that natgas is a lower carbon bridge fuel, but it has long-term petrochem prospects as well.
 
Subscribe to read

What Do 2020 IMO Sulfur Regulations Mean for Shipping?

We ought to have a discussion how IMO low sulphur rule will impact the oil market. Some see a shift of 3mb/d from high sulphur bunker fuel to diesel and other middle distillates. I see this as a one time shift, but it can impact prices of diesel and gasoline for quite some time. It could add $0.25 to $0.50 per gallon for diesel and gasoline. This, of course, would be perfect timing for EVs.

Others think that such speculation is overblown. Sulphur content can be reduced through blending. Rather than shifting completely to a higher grade of fuel. Thus, the shift of 3 mb/d could simply be blended down to a much smaller shift. The net impact on refiners and fuel prices could be much less dramatic. Naturally, the oil industry wants to fight against the IMO standard, and so there is a lot of motivation to exaggerate the impact.

I'm inclined to think that this will not be a big deal. It will offer a temporary shift in demand toward higher grade distillate, and this will raise fuel prices. But overall I think it will be a mild impact to volume and price. Even if I'm underestimating this, I'm not so worried. Higher transport fuel prices can only hasten the decline of demand.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: GoTslaGo
Subscribe to read

What Do 2020 IMO Sulfur Regulations Mean for Shipping?

We ought to have a discussion how IMO low sulphur rule will impact the oil market. Some see a shift of 3mb/d from high sulphur bunker fuel to diesel and other middle distillates. I see this as a one time shift, but it can impact prices of diesel and gasoline for quite some time. It could add $0.25 to $0.50 per gallon for diesel and gasoline. This, of course, would be perfect timing for EVs.

Others think that such speculation is overblown. Sulphur content can be reduced through blending. Rather than shifting completely to a higher grade of fuel. Thus, the shift of 3 mb/d could simply be blended down to a much smaller shift. The net impact on refiners and fuel prices could be much less dramatic. Naturally, the oil industry wants to fight against the IMO standard, and so there is a lot of motivation to exaggerate the impact.

I'm inclined to think that this will not be a big deal. It will offer a temporary shift in demand toward higher grade distillate, and this will raise fuel prices. But overall I think it will be a mild impact to volume and price. Even if I'm underestimating this, I'm not so worried. Higher transport fuel prices can only hasten the decline of demand.

Isn't shipping the only industry left that uses bunker fuel? If so, wouldn't blending do nothing but increase the demand for diesel?
 
I
Isn't shipping the only industry left that uses bunker fuel? If so, wouldn't blending do nothing but increase the demand for diesel?
Yes, this is the point. Come 2020 some 3 mb/d of fuel oil demand could shift into demand for middle distillates including diesel. This would be a one time shift. After 2020 I am expecting diesel demand to go into structural decline.

In the past five years, diesel consumption has been growing 262 kb/d avg per year while fuel oil has been falling 122 kb/d. So to set baseline growth expectations (excluding impact from EVs), we can combine these growth rates. But note that fuel oil is about 9.6% more energy dense per volume than diesel, and about 3 of 8 mb/d fuel oil demand is expected to switch. So these two adjustments works like this:

262 - 122×1.096×3/8 = 212 kb/d

So the basic question is whether diesel displacement from EV will exceed 212 kb/d after 2020. I believe it will. Just counting commercial EVs in China in 2016, we start at 116 kb/d in diesel displacement. We could easily see two doublings by 2020, but just one doubling would suffice.

Thus, diesel demand could surge by as much as 3mb/d in 2020 due to ISO low sulphur rule, but that will be the peak of diesel. Each year after 2020, demand for diesel declines. So this will be quite a striking peak. It will likely generate a lot of attention.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lessmog