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 Tesla could scale up to be on par with Toyota & VW (and, to a lesser extent, Hyundai & GM). It would require acquiring some of the lesser legacy automakers— the ones I currently think of as walking dead. They are walking dead if they remain independent, but they may have a chance under new leadership.
Tesla won't. Why? Because what you describe *is Geely's strategy*, and they'll buy them up first.

Tesla's strategy is the strategy of Henry Ford. Ford made very few acquisitions of other brands (Lincoln is the only one I can think of). Tesla has no particular incentive to buy other brands.

Geely is following the original GM strategy of owneing All The Brands. This is one reason Geely might be one of the surviving auto companies.
 
The idea before Tesla is that you can convince people to buy electric cars to save money, its good for the environment, and if you are from an oil importing country it is the patriotic thing to do.

If Tesla did not exist, China would be bumping up against OEM intransigence and consumer reluctance.

Without Tesla, short of using the full powers of a totalitarian State, China would not get it done.
I meant moving forward Tesla is not needed for EV market growth in China. They are a totalitarian state and they do use the full power of that state to get everything done.

Obviously Elon as a mission-based libertarian fits perfectly into their plans so TSLA will have a massive footprint in China, but they don't NEED to let him build tens of millions of cars there and may decide not to allow it. We shall see.

I'm just saying....people in this thread are talking about China as if it's an open market where brand demand rules marketshare.
 
OPEC: Oil Demand Growth To Slow In 2019 | OilPrice.com

Here's an interesting development: OPEC's forecast for oil demand in 2019, 1.45 mb/d, is down 200 kb/d from 2018 which was 1.65 mb/d. In the headlines they point to demand concerns, but in the details we see where the weakness really is:
Europe is expected to continue see an expansion, albeit at a slower pace, as economic growth projections ease slightly, while Asia-Pacific oil demand is seen weakening in light of planned substitution programs.

“Slightly lower Chinese oil demand growth, compared with 2018, is expected to be offset by higher oil requirements, mainly in Latin America and the Middle East,” according to OPEC.

So Europe, like most of OECD countries, will return to demand decline that began over a decade ago. This is a simple response to higher oil prices and the availability to switch to more efficient vehicles. They make this out to be about slowing economic growth, but I think it is just price response.

Now what is this new euphemism, "planned substitution programs"? It sure sounds like EVs, EVs, and yet more EVs. We also see that the focus really is more about China, than the whole Asia-Pacific region. The ready-made spin here is to immediately divert to Latin America or the Middle East as the hot spots for oil demand growth. Apparently India does not get a special mention any more because China will suck so much demand growth, that India is lost to the demand growth void known as the Asia-Pacific market. Ok, so if OPEC is pinning demand growth hopes on Latin America and self-consumption in the Middle East, EVs in China, Europe and the North America must be starting to cause posterior pain for OPEC.

Net demand for OPEC oil is expected to FALL 800 kb/d in 2019 according to OPEC. So let's break this down EVs and oil price response erodes 200 kb/d, while non-OPEC producers pick up another 600 kb/d. Collectively this reduces demand for OPEC oil by 800 kb/d.

IS THIS PEAK OPEC?

According to its own analysis, OPEC production needs to fall 800 kb/d or the market becomes oversupplied. Now certain members may well take this hit so that other members still have a chance at growth. But on balance this is not a healthy situation for the cartel.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden and ggies07
Monthly Oil Market Report - PDF download
Screenshot_20180712-193118_Drive.jpg


This is from OPEC July 2018 Monthly Report. You can download it for yourself if this is hard to read.

What's new this month is that OPEC is now showing its 2019 forecast. There is a troubling trend here. So let's walk through it.

OPEC expects global demand to continue to grow. From 2015 through 2019, the trend is 94.1, 95.5, 97.2, 98.9, and 100.3 mb/d respectively. So this is the headline growth that we spend most of our time talking about. The idea of peak demand is that this maxes out sometime and falls after that.

Looking elsewhere at BP data, there is a substantial gap between consumption and crude production. That gap includes renewable fuels, and fuels derived from coal and natural gas, also inventory builds and draws contribute. In 2017 consumption grew 1.7 mb/d while actual crude production only rose 0.6 mb/d. Clearly not all oil demand growth is satisfied by growth in crude production. So we really ought to be thinking about peak crude production which may come much sooner than peak oil demand.

But let's get back to the OPEC report. Non-OPEC and NGL Supply is also growing from 2015 to 2019, 63.6, 62.9, 63.8, 65.9, and 68.3 mb/d respectively. We observe here that non-OPEC pulled back substantially in 2016. OPEC contributed the following from 2015 to 2017, 31.9, 32.9, 32.6. So OPEC only pulled back in 2017.

So is 2016 the (local) peak production year. This could prove to be the case. OPEC also tracks residual demand for OPC crude. This is global demand minus non-OPEC supply and OPEC NGL supply. This represents the amount of crude that OPEC would need to produce to balance the market. From 2015 to 2019, OPEC estimates this as 30.5, 32.7, 33.4, 32.9, and 32.2 mb/d respectively. So notice that OPEC demand peaked at 33.4 in 2017, while OPEC production came in at 32.6. The deficit of 0.8 mb/d was used to tighten up the market and reduce global stock. So it looks like OPEC may have hit a crude supply peak in 2016 and a demand peak in 2017. Will this stick? In 2018 OPEC needs to keep production at 32.9 to balance the market and then drop to 32.2 in 2019 to remain in balance. If OPEC were to over produce this year, the whole market could be punished in 2019 and beyond. This, at least, seems to be the quantitative outlook of OPEC.

The problem here is that as demand growth slows down non-OPEC supply is not slowing down fast enough. Thus the net demand for OPEC crude looks like it could be entering post-peak decline. US shale producers look like they are not interested in slowing their stride unless low oil prices force them to apply the breaks. Thus, OPEC must simply produce within net demand for their oil, if they want to retain a balanced market and favorable price of oil. So the decline in net demand for OPEC crude marks a downward trajectory for OPEC production. In effect, OPEC crude is the first victim to succumb to peak oil demand, which technically won't occur until next decade.
 
Thus, OPEC must simply produce within net demand for their oil, if they want to retain a balanced market and favorable price of oil. So the decline in net demand for OPEC crude marks a downward trajectory for OPEC production.
They only HAVE to do that within their current OPEC-centric policy. 9-18 months from now your scenario above has OPEC completely neutered, so the tight supply control we see today becomes impossible. Even if they do somehow manage to maintain the allegiance of Russia and all of OPEC.

As you always say....the logical(optimal) move for SA is to pump like mad til the end. Eventually they have to go that route. What's the alternative?
 
I'm still waiting for the shale bubble to blow up. It looks like it might take until actual peak demand, because those guys are *crazy*.
The kicker here is that as the peak for OPEC comes earlier than the global peak, the peak for non-OPEC must come later. So US shale could get a fairly long stay of execution, which is a real gift if they never were profitable in the first place.

Of course, all this is dependent on OPEC continuing to bend to balance the market. What will bring them to the breaking point to begin to defend market share.
 
I meant moving forward Tesla is not needed for EV market growth in China. They are a totalitarian state and they do use the full power of that state to get everything done.

Obviously Elon as a mission-based libertarian fits perfectly into their plans so TSLA will have a massive footprint in China, but they don't NEED to let him build tens of millions of cars there and may decide not to allow it. We shall see.

I'm just saying....people in this thread are talking about China as if it's an open market where brand demand rules marketshare.

You obviously don't know the definition of Totalitarian State.

There are no private companies in a Totalitarian.

There are no personal choices in a Totalitarian State.

That is obviously not true of China.

China is an Authoritarian State. They stopped being in fact Communist long ago. That is in name only now.

Our Federal Democratic Republic does not have a libertarian open market that determines marketshare. We have CARB, CAFE, EPA,NHSTSA that determines who may enter the market, determines many of the features vehicles must have, and determines minimum market share for certain vehicles.

Our democratically elected government may not allow a Chinese company to build millions of EVs in the US. Or maybe even a German one. It may start banning imports from the EU soon.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: neroden and skitown
\
Subscribe to read | Financial Times

Aliko Dangote, Africa’s richest man, on his ‘crazy’ $12bn project


David Pilling

JULY 10, 2018

As a rule, I don’t get worked up over oil refineries. But the one gradually taking form on 2,500 hectares of swampland outside Lagos, Nigeria’s Mad Max commercial capital, is so big, so audacious and so potentially transformative that it is like Africa’s Moon landing and its Panama Canal — a Pyramids of Giza for the industrial age.

If Aliko Dangote, the billionaire businessman behind what even he calls his “crazy” $12bn project, can pull it off, he will go down as the continent’s John D Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Andrew Mellon combined. And once he’s built it, he intends to treat himself to a small indulgence: he’ll buy Arsenal, his favourite football club.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

To make things more interesting, Dangote is building the whole thing on a swamp. (It’s a tax-friendly swamp, at least.) That requires sinking 120,000 piles, on average 25 metres in length. No port in Nigeria is big enough to take delivery of the massive equipment, which includes a distillation tower the height of a 30-storey building, and no road is strong enough to bear its weight. Dangote has had to build both, including a jetty for which he has dredged the seabed for 65m cubic metres of sand.

There is not enough industrial gas in the whole country to weld everything together, so Dangote will build his own industrial gas plant. There aren’t enough trucks, so he’s producing those in a joint venture with a Chinese company. The plant will need 480 megawatts of power, about one-tenth of the total that electricity-starved Nigeria can muster. You guessed it. Dangote is building his own power plant too.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: neroden
You obviously don't know the definition of Totalitarian State.

There are no private companies in a Totalitarian.

There are no personal choices in a Totalitarian State.

That is obviously not true of China.

China is an Authoritarian State. They stopped being in fact Communist long ago. That is in name only now.

Our Federal Democratic Republic does not have a libertarian open market that determines marketshare. We have CARB, CAFE, EPA,NHSTSA that determines who may enter the market, determines many of the features vehicles must have, and determines minimum market share for certain vehicles.

Our democratically elected government may not allow a Chinese company to build millions of EVs in the US. Or maybe even a German one. It may start banning imports from the EU soon.
What's your point? I said China doesn't need Tesla in order to continue their rapid transition to EVs. That's true. The party dictates the transition.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
The kicker here is that as the peak for OPEC comes earlier than the global peak, the peak for non-OPEC must come later. So US shale could get a fairly long stay of execution, which is a real gift if they never were profitable in the first place.

Of course, all this is dependent on OPEC continuing to bend to balance the market. What will bring them to the breaking point to begin to defend market share.


I thought there was consensus here on a rise in oil prices driven by supply shortages, regardless of provenance. This seems to be going back on it. In anycase, I found the Twitter thread below arguing for a rise in oil thru 2019 pretty convincing.


Artha Vidya on Twitter
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
I thought there was consensus here on a rise in oil prices driven by supply shortages, regardless of provenance. This seems to be going back on it. In anycase, I found the Twitter thread below arguing for a rise in oil thru 2019 pretty convincing.


Artha Vidya on Twitter
Well I'm just reflecting on what OPEC sees. They see demand rising 1.45 mb/d, while non-OPEC and NGL supply rise 2.2 mb/d. They had to drop the demand estimate by 200 kb/d to adjust for EVs and other alternatives. So that comes straight off of net demand for OPEC. My guess is that they are still underestimating EVs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
What's your point? I said China doesn't need Tesla in order to continue their rapid transition to EVs. That's true. The party dictates the transition.

The Party doesn't have complete control of the economy. That is the point.

They have allowed people to have a choice in the cars they buy.

There is also the choice to keep refurbishing old cars and not buy new cars.

If the Party tries to reassert complete control they will kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden
I think that @neroden would agree that Shale is not financially sustainable. This guy argues the same:
Is The Oil Industry Repeating A Critical Error | OilPrice.com

I'm not sure I fully agree with the rest of his post. And I do think that the situation with regards to oil demand substitution is very different today from 2008. So I would argue whatever oil demand is lost today is unlikely to recover once oil prices are cheaper again. I had not previously reflected on the fact, that Canadian oil sands and fracking were both not financially viable, yet fracking kept getting money from their investors while oil sands didn't...
 
  • Like
Reactions: neroden